Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, July 7, 2007 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Rats influenced by the kindness of strangers

by NewScientist.com

Thanks to Ian for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526115.100-rats-influenced-by-the-kindness-of-strangers.html

If rats benefit from the kindness of strangers they are more likely to assist an unfamiliar rat in future. In doing so, they provide the first evidence of an unusual form of altruism that appears to violate evolutionary theory.

Claudia Rutte and Michael Taborsky of the University of Berne, Switzerland, trained rats to pull a lever that released food for their partner in the next cage. If the rats subsequently received snacks released by lever-pulling strangers in neighbouring cages, they were more likely to lever-pull and so feed another unfamiliar rat in the future. In other words, the rats became altruistic in response to a general level of cooperation in the population.

Theoretically, such "generalised reciprocity" shouldn't exist. In large groups, dirty rats will take advantage of helpful strangers and offer nothing in return.

It persists, says Taborsky, because exploited animals move away. "An animal is more likely to leave the group if it didn't receive cooperation in the past," he says. "This leads to cooperative and uncooperative groups in a population." If cooperative groups are better at exploiting the environment, generalised reciprocity remains in the population (PLoS Biology, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050196).

Comments 1 - 10 of 10 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #54497 by gordon on July 7, 2007 at 1:20 pm

 avatarI'm not sure about this. Surely the rats sussed that by releasing something for the neighbour they would get something in return? Maybe the reporting isn't up to scratch.

Other Comments by gordon

2. Comment #54498 by Spinoza on July 7, 2007 at 1:29 pm

 avatarIt clearly isn't...

Just because rats do it doesn't mean it's perfectly suited to their environment..

Evolution is always in flux...

And anyway, if they got BURNED right after by a dirty rat... I bet they would stop being so quick to be altruistic...

Just like humans.

(i.e. the whole Prisoner's Dilemma thing... something I had studied heavily in political philosophy before reading Dawkins' use of it in The Selfish Gene...)

Other Comments by Spinoza

3. Comment #54506 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 2:44 pm

 avatargordon:
Maybe the reporting isn't up to scratch.
Reporters generally are a disappointment. They're often don't know what they don't know. And they're prone to over-emphasize controversy.

I'd be surprised if the scientists themselves made this claim:
In doing so, they provide the first evidence of an unusual form of altruism that appears to violate evolutionary theory.


Other Comments by Dr Benway

4. Comment #54530 by anshul on July 7, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Doesn't Tit for tat [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat ] improve your survival? This is only different in the sense that the first move in an iterated prisoner's dilemma is being made on the basis of average response from the population, which does sound like an improvement over the usual always-positive-first, if some assumptions can be made about the general population.

Other Comments by anshul

5. Comment #54607 by CJ on July 8, 2007 at 6:05 am

 avatar
In doing so, they provide the first evidence of an unusual form of altruism that appears to violate evolutionary theory.

Ok it's a tiny few paragraphs to work on but genes produce structures and behaviours, the environment does the selection bit. If the environment favours altruistic behaviour, purely in the sense of gene survival, then altruistic behaviour will strengthen over the generations. What this does imply is behavioural flexibility is built into the rat's instinctive repertoire. This implies that at some point altruistic behaviour did improve gene survival chances sufficiently to be retained as a possible behaviour.

So altruism does not violate evolutionary theory because if circumstances dictate that gene survival is improved by altruistic behaviour then altruistic behaviour will become the order of the day.

Other Comments by CJ

6. Comment #54853 by Squiddity on July 9, 2007 at 6:29 am

I would advise people who are interested in this report to read the full paper (http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050196) and also to read in more depth about generalised reciprocity and what effect this has on evoutionary behaviour and psychology. Robert Wright's 'The Moral Animal' is a very accessible book which covers this quite well.

Other Comments by Squiddity

7. Comment #54854 by Squiddity on July 9, 2007 at 6:30 am

gordon: No, because the rats who are passing on the benefit have not received theirs in response to their own actions. This is what makes it 'generalised' reciprocity, rather than 'specialised', which is a much more accepted survival trait.

Other Comments by Squiddity

8. Comment #55814 by Thrall on July 12, 2007 at 1:05 pm

I agree, the reporting on this is tosh, and the study doesn't do much other than show that rats are altruistic.
The only way this would "violate evolutionary theory." is if atruism never existed in rats before the study was started, which, from other studies that i've read, is not true.

Other Comments by Thrall

9. Comment #56319 by s.k.graham on July 15, 2007 at 2:05 am

I would note that the pulling the lever sounds like and rather easy task once learned. The paper itself gives no indication of the difficulty of this task for the rats involved, but the general impression I am left with is not very difficult. The so-called "altruistic" rat is risking very little. "Be nice to strangers" seems a sensible strategy, especially when your experience has been that strangers are nice to you. Why make an enemy? Surely rats are fairly good at remembering one-another as individuals.

One other thing: why is this sort of behavior so badly misnamed as "altruism"? Putting "reciprocal" in front of it just makes the phrase an oxymoron. How about "indirect cooperation" or "indirect exchange"?

Other Comments by s.k.graham

10. Comment #56803 by Susac on July 17, 2007 at 10:11 am

I think that this conversation is missing the obvious. This is not a study about rats engaging in altruistic behavior as a product of their genes.

This is a study about rats LEARNING altruistic behavior. The capacity of rats to learn this behaviour is a product of their genes, but the behaviour itself is influenced by environment. In this case, the second rat is being modeled behaviour by the trained (first) rat. What this shows is that the operant conditioning provided to the first rat was trasmitted (virus-like) as social modeling to the second rat.

This indicates a few things:

1) rats are social creatures (no suprise there), and are capable of learning from each other.
2) rats can model behaviour off of each other, and will do so even if the behaviour is not directly rewarded.
3) rats may experience something like empathy (a very mamalian trait). This is only inferred, however, since one cannot know the motivation of the lever-puling behaviour. Feeding the neighboring rat may have been incidental to it's motives.

This shows a CAPACITY for behaviour that is supported by genetic make-up, but the behaviour itself is learned. I bet you can also teach rats to be selfish.

Other Comments by Susac
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: