ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2025
The evolution of division of labour: preconditions and evolutionary feedback.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Task allocation in a cooperative breeder reflects current needs, not early-life experience.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Group size and labour demands determine division of labour as a consequence of demographic stochasticity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Division of labour as key driver of social evolution.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Mutualism and division of labour: a mutual expansion of concepts.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Helping niches may trigger the development of task specialization and division of labour.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Division of Labour (DoL) among group members reflects the pinnacle of social complexity. The synergistic effects created by task specialization and the sharing of duties benefitting the group raise the efficiency of the acquisition, use, management and defence of resources by a fundamental step above the potential of individual agents. At the same time, it may stabilize societies because of the involved interdependence among collaborators. Here, I review the conditions associated with the emergence of DoL, which include the existence of (i) sizeable groups with enduring membership; (ii) individual specialization improving the efficiency of task performance; and (iii) low conflict of interest among group members owing to correlated payoffs. This results in (iv) a combination of intra-individual consistency with inter-individual variance in carrying out different tasks, which creates (v) some degree of mutual interdependence among group members. DoL typically evolves 'bottom-up' without external regulatory forces, but the latter may gain importance at a later stage of the evolution of social complexity. Owing to the involved feedback processes, cause and effect are often difficult to disentangle in the evolutionary trajectory towards structured societies with well-developed DoL among their members. Nevertheless, the emergence of task specialization and DoL may entail a one-way street towards social complexity, with retrogression getting increasingly difficult the more individual agents depend on each other at progressing stages of social evolution.This article is part of the theme issue 'Division of labour as key driver of social evolution'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.