4.5 Article

Why help? Relationship quality, not strategic grooming predicts infant-care in group-living marmosets

Journal

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 193, Issue -, Pages 108-116

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.02.050

Keywords

Common marmoset; Infant-care; Prosociality; Relationship quality; Pay-for-infant-access; Pay-for-help

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [31003_130383]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cooperatively breeding common marmosets raise their infants with the help of other adult group members, but individual care-taking contribution can vary considerably. We tested four hypotheses that may explain this variation within marmoset family groups. The pay-for-help hypothesis argues that allogrooming is used strategically by parents to pay helpers for helping. The pay-for-infant-access hypothesis claims that helpers use allogrooming as payment for infant-access. The intrinsic predisposition hypothesis suggests that more affiliative individuals are also more motivated for infant-care, and the relationship quality hypothesis that individuals involved in highly affiliative relationships with main caregivers contribute more to infant-care. To test these hypotheses, we followed five marmoset family groups over a total of eight reproductive cycles, and quantified affiliative behavior, infant-carrying, and food sharing over six to 12 weeks around infant-birth. We found no evidence for either the pay-for-help or pay-for-infant-access hypotheses nor did intrinsic prosocial predisposition determine individual infant-care. Mutual dyadic affiliation, however, was positively linked to infant-carrying and food sharing in female and male breeders and in male helpers. This suggests that cooperation during infant care is mediated by relationship quality rather than strategic grooming in marmosets. Overall, these results may also contribute to a better understanding of cooperation in humans.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available