Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T16:16:27.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The proximate-ultimate confusion in teaching and cooperation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2015

Alex Thornton  and
Nichola J. Raihani
Alex Thornton
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn TR10 9FE, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.wildcognitionresearch.com
Nichola J. Raihani
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom. [email protected]://raihanilab.weebly.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kline does an admirable job of extending the functionalist framework developed by comparative researchers to help understand the function and form of human teaching. Functionalist approaches consider the adaptive value and underlying mechanisms of behaviour as separate but complementary questions, avoiding the conflation of ultimate and proximate explanations that has long hindered research on teaching and other forms of cooperation.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 38 , 2015 , e69
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ben-Ami Bartal, I., Decety, J. & Mason, P. (2011) Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science 334:1427–30.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2004) The evolution of strong reciprocity: Cooperation in heterogeneous populations. Theoretical Population Biology 65:17–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caro, T. M. & Hauser, M. D. (1992) Is there teaching in nonhuman animals? The Quarterly Review of Biology 67(2):151–74. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2831436 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, E. & Fischbacher, U. (2003) The nature of human altruism. Nature 425:785–91.Google Scholar
Hardy, C. L. & Van Vugt, M. (2006) Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32:1402–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoppitt, W. J. E., Brown, G. R., Kendal, R., Rendell, L., Thornton, A., Webster, M. M. & Laland, K. N. (2008) Lessons from animal teaching. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23(9):486–93. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.05.008.Google Scholar
Raihani, N. & Ridley, A. R. (2008) Experimental evidence for teaching in wild pied babblers. Animal Behaviour 75(1):3–11.Google Scholar
Scott-Phillips, T. C., Dickins, T. E. & West, S. A. (2011) Evolutionary theory and the ultimate-proximate distinction in the human behavioral sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6:38–47.Google Scholar
Silberberg, A., Allouch, C., Sandfort, S., Kearns, D., Karpel, H. & Slotnick, B. (2014) Desire for social contact, not empathy, may explain “rescue” behavior in rats. Animal Cognition 17:609–18.Google Scholar
Sylwester, K. & Roberts, G. (2013) Reputation-based partner choice is an effective alternative to indirect reciprocity in solving social dilemmas. Evolution and Human Behavior 34:201–206.Google Scholar
Thornton, A. & McAuliffe, K. (2006) Teaching in wild meerkats. Science 313(5784):227–29.Google Scholar
Thornton, A. & McAuliffe, K. (2012) Teaching can teach us a lot. Animal Behaviour 83(4):e6–e9. doi:10.1126/science.1128727.Google Scholar
Thornton, A. & Raihani, N. (2008) The evolution of teaching. Animal Behaviour 75(6):1823–36. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.12.014 Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. (1963) On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20(4):410–33.Google Scholar
Van Vugt, M. & Iredale, W. (2012) Men behaving nicely: Public goods as peacock tails. British Journal of Psychology 104:3–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vasconcelos, M., Hollis, K., Nowbahari, E. & Kacelnik, A. (2012) Pro-sociality without empathy. Biology Letters 8:910–12.Google Scholar