Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Mar;13(3):20160793.
doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0793.

Inter-group cooperation in humans and other animals

Affiliations
Review

Inter-group cooperation in humans and other animals

Elva J H Robinson et al. Biol Lett. 2017 Mar.

Abstract

Social interactions are often characterized by cooperation within groups and conflict or competition between groups. In certain circumstances, however, cooperation can arise between social groups. Here, we examine the circumstances under which inter-group cooperation is expected to emerge and present examples with particular focus on groups in two well-studied but dissimilar taxa: humans and ants. Drivers for the evolution of inter-group cooperation include overarching threats from predators, competitors or adverse conditions, and group-level resource asymmetries. Resources can differ between groups in both quantity and type. Where the difference is in type, inequalities can lead to specialization and division of labour between groups, a phenomenon characteristic of human societies, but rarely seen in other animals. The ability to identify members of one's own group is essential for social coherence; we consider the proximate roles of identity effects in shaping inter-group cooperation and allowing membership of multiple groups. Finally, we identify numerous valuable avenues for future research that will improve our understanding of the processes shaping inter-group cooperation.

Keywords: conflict; cooperation; humans; social insects; social organization; tolerance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Summary of inter-group interactions assuming only two groups are involved, Group A and Group B. Outcomes (net cost/net benefit) at the group level are taken to include both direct and indirect fitness benefits across all group members. Above the dotted line, Group B gains a higher benefit or pays a lower cost than does Group A.

References

    1. Pisor AC, Gurven M. 2016. Risk buffering and resource access shape valuation of out-group strangers. Sci. Rep. 6, 30435 (10.1038/srep30435) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reeve HK. 1989. The evolution of conspecific acceptance thresholds. Am. Nat. 133, 407–435. (10.1086/284926) - DOI
    1. Tajfel H, Billig MG, Bundy RP, Flament C. 1971. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1, 149–178. (10.1002/ejsp.2420010202) - DOI
    1. Brewer MB, Pierce KP. 2005. Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personal Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31, 428–437. (10.1177/0146167204271710) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Krause J, Ruxton GD. 2002. Living in groups. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources