| Literature DB >> 26478534 |
Jia-Jia Wu1, Ting Ji2, Qiao-Qiao He2, Juan Du1, Ruth Mace1,2.
Abstract
There is growing recognition in both evolutionary biology and anthropology that dispersal is key to establishing patterns of cooperation. However, some models predict that cooperation is more likely to evolve in low dispersal (viscous) populations, while others predict that local competition for resources inhibits cooperation. Sex-biased dispersal and extra-pair mating may also have an effect. Using economic games in Sino-Tibetan populations with strikingly different dispersal patterns, we measure cooperation in 36 villages in southwestern China; we test whether social structure is associated with cooperative behaviour toward those in the neighbourhood. We find that social organization is associated with levels of cooperation in public goods and dictator games and a resource dilemma; people are less cooperative towards other villagers in communities where dispersal by both sexes is low. This supports the view that dispersal for marriage played an important role in the evolution of large-scale cooperation in human society.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26478534 PMCID: PMC4667691 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9693
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Figure 1Proportion of women and men born in the village they are living in for communities of different dispersal norms.
A total 9% of women in low FD (female dispersal) villages were born outside of the village, whereas 57% of women in high FD villages moved to another. The proportion of males dispersing is low in all communities. The sample size was, for low FD communities, N=280, 53% male; for high FD communities N=300, 51% male; and for medium FD communities, N=140, 57% male.
Estimates of control and full multilevel models for dictator game (DG) and public goods game (PGG, linear) and resource dilemma game (RDG, Poisson).
| Estimate | Dictator game ( | Public goods game ( | Resource dilemma game ( | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Full | Control | Full | Control | Full | |||||||
| Est | Se | Est | Se | Est | Se | Est | Se | Est | Se | Est | Se | |
| Intercept | 5.04 | 0.25 | 0.56 | 5.63 | 0.21 | 0.41 | 0.62 | 0.08 | − | 0.29 | ||
| Fixed effect | ||||||||||||
| Age | −0.07 | 0.12 | −0.11 | 0.12 | −0.14 | 0.11 | −0.12 | 0.11 | −0.01 | 0.03 | −0.02 | 0.03 |
| Sex | 0.58 | 0.3 | − | − | ||||||||
| TeaFS | ||||||||||||
| Occupation | −0.09 | 0.34 | −0.11 | 0.09 | ||||||||
| Birth place | −0.04 | 0.35 | 0.01 | 0.09 | ||||||||
| Close kin in game | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.03 | 0.04 | ||||||||
| Partner in game | 0.25 | 0.37 | 0.18 | 0.31 | 0.02 | 0.08 | ||||||
| Low FD | − | − | 0.16 | 0.1 | ||||||||
| medium FD | −0.87 | 0.54 | −0.43 | 0.39 | −0.23 | 0.12 | ||||||
| Sex ratio | 0.04 | 0.89 | − | |||||||||
| Random effect | ||||||||||||
| Village | 1.061 | 1.03 | 0.802 | 0.895 | 0.622 | 0.789 | 0.281 | 0.530 | 0.064 | 0.253 | 0.031 | 0.176 |
| Individual | 5.426 | 2.329 | 5.317 | 2.306 | 8.138 | 2.853 | 8.054 | 2.838 | ||||
| VPC | 16.4% | 13.1% | 7.1% | 3.37% | ||||||||
Linear multilevel models were used in the DG and PGG and generalized linear multilevel models (Poisson) were used in the RDG, with response variables dictator giving in the DG, public goods contribution in the PGG and tea taken in the RDG. The fixed effect predictors used in the models are sex (male=1, female=0), age (standardized age), birth place (in village=1, outside=0), close kin in the game (number of r=0.5 kin attending the same game), partner in the game (partner in=1, not=0), occupation (having job other than farmer/ herder=1, not =0), and fair share of tea (for RDG game) as individual level variables, sex ratio (proportion of men playing in the game) and dispersal norm (High FD as reference) as village level variables. Estimates in bold are significant at P<0.05, with P value calculated by using Satterthwaite approximations to estimate degrees of freedom (merModLmerTest package).
*For Dictator game and public goods game, the variable Tea fair share was not included in the analysis, so the cells for the variable are empty, because only in the RDG does the fair share change as previous players deplete the common pool resource.
Figure 2Relative average individual donations in the DG and the PGG and tea taken in the RDG for different ethnic groups.
Using linear regression for DG (N=360) (a) and PGG (N=720) (b) and Poisson regression for RDG (N=561) (c) controlled for age and sex, with patrilocal-Pumi (PumiP) as reference. Each bar represents the value relative to the patrilocal-Pumi with age and sex controlled for. Green bars, high FD; blue bars filled with dots, medium FD; red bars filled with backslash, low FD. Error bars indicate the standard error from the mean. Note that high values in the RDG game denote selfishness (taking more tea from the public pot), whereas low values indicate selfishness (less dictator giving and public goods contribution) in the PGG and DG.