Abstract
The group augmentation hypothesis states that individuals gain benefits by increasing group size and is rarely studied because it often overlaps with other evolutionary mechanisms like reciprocity. When rescuing a fellow prey from death, the mere presence of that member in the group can yield different benefits that can be passive like risk dilution or active like delayed reciprocity. We were able to separate the effects of passive and active group augmentation benefits by experimentally manipulating the behaviour of prey (altruist vs. non-altruist) in a video game where the costs and benefits of altruism were easily measured. The game pits four players-prey that must acquire resources to survive, while avoiding getting captured by a fifth player-predator. We instructed half of the prey players to avoid rescuing other prey, and the other half to rescue when possible. Our data showed that increasing the frequency of altruistic prey in a group increased survival of all group members. Maintaining group size yielded passive benefits like improving resource acquisition and facilitating future rescues. These passive benefits had a higher impact on survival than the active benefits (e.g., being rescued in return through reciprocity). Thus, we were able to support the importance of passive benefits from anti-predator altruistic behaviour using a biologically relevant online video game.
Significance statement
Altruism can generate different benefits at once. Moreover, these benefits, like reciprocity or group augmentation, are often intertwined so distinguishing them in empirical data is complex. We were able to measure different benefits related to altruism and its effect on group size, using data from a multiplayer video game where players could rescue each other from predation and elimination. Rescuing others was risky but was beneficial to the survival of all the other group members. Benefits from belonging in a larger group, facilitated resource acquisition and rescues, were the most important benefits of altruism in our system, whereas reciprocity, a largely studied mechanism, was very rare. Our study adds important evidence of a mechanism, group augmentation, that is often overlooked or ignored when studying the selection of anti-predatory cooperative behaviours.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during the experiment and analyzed during the current study are available in an OSF repository under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International license.
References
Artiss T, Martin K (1995) Male vigilance in white-tailed ptarmigan, Lagopus leucurus: mate guarding or predator detection? Anim Behav 49:1249–1258. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1995.0157
Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211:1390–1396
Barker JL, Bronstein JL, Friesen ML, Jones EI, Reeve HK, Zink AG, Frederickson ME (2017) Synthesizing perspectives on the evolution of cooperation within and between species. Evolution 5:325–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.13174
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–18. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bergmüller R, Johnstone RA, Russell AF, Bshary R (2007) Integrating cooperative breeding into theoretical concepts of cooperation. Behav Process 76:61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2007.07.001
Blumstein DT, Evans CS, Daniel JC (1999) An experimental study of behavioural group size effects in tammar wallabies, Macropus eugenii. Anim Behav 58:351–360. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1156
Brosnan SF, Salwiczek L, Bshary R (2010) The interplay of cognition and cooperation. Phil Trans R Soc B 365:2699–2710. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0154
Brown JS (1999) Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol Ecol Res 1:49–71
Céré J, Montiglio P-O, Kelly CD (2021) Indirect effect of familiarity on survival: a path analysis on video game data. Anim Behav 181:105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.06.010
Chadwick HC (1929) Feeding habits of the angler-fish, Lophius piscatorius. Nature 124:337–337. https://doi.org/10.1038/124337a0
Clutton-Brock T (2009) Cooperation between non-kin in animal societies. Nature 461:51–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08366
Clutton-Brock TH, Gaynor D, McIlrath GM, MacColl ADC (1999) Predation group size and mortality in a cooperative mongoose Suricata suricatta. J Anim Ecol 68:672–683
Connor RC (1986) Pseudo-reciprocity: investing in mutualism. Anim Behav 34:1562–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80225-1
Connor RC (1995) Altruism among non-relatives: alternatives to the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’. Trends Ecol Evol 10:84–86
R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/
Dehn MM (1990) Vigilance for predators: detection and dilution effects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:337–342
Elgar MA (1986) House sparrows establish foraging flocks by giving chirrup calls if the resources are divisible. Anim Behav 34:169–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(86)90020-5
Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2003) The nature of human altruism. Nature 425:785–791. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02043
Fernández-Juricic E, Beauchamp G, Bastain B (2007) Group-size and distance-to-neighbour effects on feeding and vigilance in brown-headed cowbirds. Anim Behav 73:771–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.09.014
Fraser Franco M, Santostefano F, Kelly CD, Montiglio P-O (2022) Studying predator foraging mode and hunting success at the individual level with an online videogame. Behav Ecol 33:967–978. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arac063
Garay J (2009) Cooperation in defence against a predator. J Theor Biol 257:45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.11.010
García-Ruiz I, Taborsky M (2022) Group augmentation on trial: helpers in small groups enhance antipredator defence of eggs. Biol Lett 18:20220170. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2022.0170
Gfrerer N, Taborsky M (2017) Working dogs cooperate among one another by generalised reciprocity. Sci Rep 7:43867. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43867
Goodnight CJ, Schartz JM, Stevens L (1992) Contextual analysis of models of group selection, soft selection, hard selection, and the evolution of altruism. Am Nat 140:743–761
Graw B, Manser MB (2007) The function of mobbing in cooperative meerkats. Anim Behav 74:507–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.11.021
Heg D, Brouwer L, Taborsky M, Bachar Z (2005) Large group size yields group stability in the cooperatively breeding cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher. Behaviour 142:1615–1641. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853905774831891
Heiling AM, Herberstein ME (2004) Floral quality signals lure pollinators and their predators. Ann Zool Fenn 41:421–428
Heisler IL, Damuth J (1987) A method for analyzing selection in hierarchically structured populations. Am Nat 130:582–602. https://doi.org/10.1086/284732
Jungwirth A, Taborsky M (2015) First- and second-order sociality determine survival and reproduction in cooperative cichlids. Proc R Soc B 282:20151971. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1971
Kingma SA, Hall ML, Peters A (2011) Multiple benefits drive helping Behavior in a cooperatively breeding bird: an Integrated Analysis. Am Nat. https://doi.org/10.1086/658989
Kingma SA, Santema P, Taborsky M, Komdeur J (2014) Group augmentation and the evolution of cooperation. Trends Ecol Evol 29:476–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.05.013
Kokko H, Johnstone RA, T. H. C-B (2001) The evolution of cooperative breeding through group augmentation. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:187–196. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1349
Kramer J, Meunier J (2016) Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy? https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8018.1. F1000Research 5:776
Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K, Mänd R (2008) Experimental evidence of reciprocal altruism in the pied flycatcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:599–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0484-1
Krause J, Godin J-GJ (1995) Predator preferences for attacking particular prey group sizes: consequences for predator hunting success and prey predation risk. Anim Behav 50:465–473. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1995.0260
Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Krebs DL, Hesteren FV (1994) The development of altruism: toward an integrative model. Dev Rev 14:103–158. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1994.1006
Lai C-W, Zhang S, Piorkowski D, Liao C-P, Tso I-M (2017) A trap and a lure: dual function of a nocturnal animal construction. Anim Behav 130:159–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.06.016
Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640. https://doi.org/10.1139/z90-092
MacColl ADC, Hatchwell BJ (2004) Determinants of lifetime fitness in a cooperative breeder, the long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus. J Anim Ecol 73:1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00887.x
Maynard Smith (1976) Group selection. Q Rev Biol 51:277–283
Milinski M, Lüthi JH, Eggler R, Parker GA (1997) Cooperation under predation risk: experiments on costs and benefits. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:831–837. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1997.0116
Nowak MA (2006) Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314:1560–1563. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133755
Nowak MA, Sigmund K (2005) Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 437:1291–1298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04131
Okasha S (2004) Multi-level selection, covariance and contextual analysis. Br J Philos Sci 55:481–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/55.3.481
Roberts G (2005) Cooperation through interdependence. Anim Behav 70:901–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.02.006
Rodríguez-Muñoz R, Bretman A, Tregenza T (2011) Guarding males protect females from predation in a wild insect. Curr Biol 21:1716–1719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.053
Tobler M (2005) Feigning death in the central American cichlid Parachromis friedrichsthalii. J Fish Biol 66:877–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1112.2005.00648.x
Traulsen A, Nowak MA (2006) Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection. P Natl Acad Sci USA 103:10952–10955
Trivers RL (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46:35–57
van Doorn GS, Taborsky M (2012) The evolution of generalized reciprocity on social interaction networks. Evolution 66:651–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01479.x
Wade MJ (1977) An experimental study of group selection. Evolution 31:134–153
Wade MJ, Goodnight CJ (1991) Wright’s shifting balance theory: an experimental study. Science 253:1015–1018. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1887214
West SA, Griffin AS, Gardner A (2007) Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection. J Evol Biol 20:415–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01258.x
West SA, Cooper GA, Ghoul MB, Griffin AS (2021) Ten recent insights for our understanding of cooperation. Nat Ecol Evol 5:419–430. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01384-x
Wizen G, Gasith A (2011) An unprecedented role reversal: ground beetle larvae (Coleoptera: Carabidae) lure amphibians and prey upon them. PLoS ONE 6:e25161. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025161
Wong M, Balshine S (2011) The evolution of cooperative breeding in the African cichlid fish, Neolamprologus pulcher. Biol Rev 86:511–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00158.x
Woolfenden GE (1975) Florida scrub jay helpers at the nest. 92:1–15. https://doi.org/10.2307/4084414
Wright J (2007) Cooperation theory meets cooperative breeding: exposing some ugly truths about social prestige, reciprocity and group augmentation. Behav Process 76:142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2007.01.017
Wright J, McDonald PG, te Marvelde L, Kazem AJN, Bishop CM (2010) Helping effort increases with relatedness in bell miners, but ‘unrelated’ helpers of both sexes still provide substantial care. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:437–445. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1360
Acknowledgements
We thank Behaviour Interactive for their collaborative partnership in which they generously provide data and logistical support. We also thank the Player Insight team at Behaviour Interactive and the participants of our study. Finally, we are thankful to the members of GREEIB at UQAM and multiple anonymous reviewers for their feedback.
Funding
This research was possible due to an internship at Behaviour Interactive that was supported by grants from Mitacs (ref. IT06306) and Behaviour Interactive. Funding was also provided by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant to CDK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Informed consent
All participants agreed that their data could be used in a research study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests. The principal author is submitting this paper as a PhD student but was employed by Behaviour Interactive as the lead of data scientists during the redaction of this paper.
Additional information
Communicated by M. Raymond.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Céré, J., Kelly, C.D. & Montiglio, PO. Untangling the contribution of active and passive group augmentation benefits to the multilevel selection of altruism using a video game. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 78, 66 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-024-03463-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-024-03463-6
