For far too long, the researchers believed that people are alone in their ability to engage in a sociological concept known as common commitment.
The common commitment is to understand that by working together as a collective, we can accomplish more than we can as individuals acting alone.
In essence, the common commitment is the glue that holds human civilization together.
But a new study published in Scientific advances shows that we are not alone in our commitment to cooperation. Bonobos also engages in a common commitment and in a surprisingly human-like way.
Sociology 101— Common commitment is just one aspect of “Common intent” among people, which essentially means common behaviors in activities, including cooperative communication, understanding each other’s perspective, understanding roles in social interactions, and providing mutual help.
Researchers previously assumed that these higher-level cognitive skills were human reserve. They based this assumption on past tests on large monkeys, chimpanzees and bonobos, which involved artificial games to test their level of common commitment.
These tests found inconsistent results. The artificial nature of these experiments may have affected the result.
“Some are experimenting[s] indeed, it has been shown that joint engagement tests in bonobos are more successful than in chimpanzees, but these experiments have always involved human experimenters who interacted with the subjects, “says Raphaela Heesen, lead author of the study and postdoctoral research associate. at Durham University. Inverse.
This time, the researchers chose to interrupt the pairs of bonobos while they were engaged in a more natural social activity: care.
Bonobes are special among nonhuman primates – past research suggests that these monkeys develop human-like interactions and deep bonds.
“The bonobos are documented to be more socially tolerant and egalitarian than chimpanzees and other large monkeys, which is why we assumed they would be the best candidate species to study common commitment beyond humans,” says Heesen.
If there is a common commitment between bonobos, then bonobos could understand that there is a implicit social contract when you undertake joint activities with another bonobo.
Not only that, but they can also understand that there are consequences for violating this commitment – so they should communicate accordingly to mitigate potential disputes.
The researchers theorized that bonobos, like humans, understand the concept of “face threats” – a concept similar to the need to save face – which involves the risk of partners feeling disrespected if they are kept waiting too long or otherwise injustices.
In other words: Bonobos should respect the theory of politeness, which is common among people.
“Human policy theory states that our actions will be calibrated to the key dimensions of the social relationship through acts of politeness,” Heesen explains.
These acts of politeness tend to take place when there is a difference in social status between the two interacting partners or if the partners are not familiar with each other.
“For example, you’re more polite to your boss than your brother,” says Heesen. “So, the two dimensions that increase acts of politeness in people are social distance and the difference in power.”
The theory of politeness predicts that bonobos will behave the same way – if they understand the common commitment.
The experiment – The researchers tested their hypothesis by interrupting pairs of bonobos while caring for each other. In the first part of the experiment, the researchers observed how bonobo pairs reacted to a target interruption of care activity – such as opening a door to the bonobos support cell or making a loud noise.
In the second arm of the experiment, the researchers directed their interruptions to specific bonobos. In this case, a gardener shouted the name of a certain bonobo and gave them a food reward, temporarily distracting them from the task of caring – or being cared for, if they are the recipient.
Did the researchers follow what the bonobos did after they were interrupted – did they resume their care activities or did they report when the care was stopped (or resumed)?
The researchers also looked at how the outages solitary activityalso – bonobos who take care of themselves or play alone – and compared the monkeys’ reactions to interruption joint activity of a bonobo taking care of another.
If the bonobos resumed activities more often in the common than in the solitary one, it may indicate a level of common commitment – a social contract between the two monkeys.
The researchers recorded their observations on camera and also entered their results into statistical models to test their hypothesis.
Results – Between May and August 2018, researchers observed 88 unintended and targeted interruptions of 17 bonobos operating in a zoo in France.
The results were largely in line with their predictions, says Heesen.
“Our study is the first to show that bonobos seem to engage in a common commitment when they interact with other bonobos naturally during social care,” says Heesen.
The researchers relied on several different observations to support their hypothesis.
The bonobos “were less likely to resume a solitary activity than a social activity, suggesting that their motivation to resume social interactions goes beyond the mere desire to complete an unfinished task, but involves a sense of commitment to the partner or the joint action itself “, writes Heesen and her colleagues in the newspaper.
This behavior is similar to studies in human children. When children play with another child is more likely to tell them if they need to leave or communicate differently on return than if they are just playing beside another child.
Fascinatingly, the targeted bonobos were more prone communicate to resume activities with their partner after an interruption than the unwitting bonobos, suggesting that the targeted bonobos feel a sense of personal responsibility towards their peers.
Bonobos was also “more likely to communicate at the time of suspension, when they were socially distant and subordinate to rank,” says Heesen. This is further proof that their behavior follows the terms of politeness theory.
“These results suggest that bonobos have a certain awareness of the social consequences related to the breach of joint commitments and the adjustment of their communication efforts according to the identity of their partner “, says Heesen.
The findings provide clues to the evolution of this social behavior, suggesting that it may be more common among nonhuman primates than we think, say researchers.
Next steps – The study is a tempting indication that bonobos and humans might be more alike than I first thought. But more data is needed to fully understand the true extent of the common commitment to bonobos.
A remarkable question arises from the fact that humans appear to demonstrate a greater degree of common commitment than bonobos, according to the study. For example, a past study found that 3-year-olds resisted the temptation to break a common commitment to personal rewards about 70-80 percent of the time. This does not seem to be true for bonobos, who showed this behavior only 3% of the time, according to the data.
Also, researchers do not fully understand the nuances of bonobo communication. For example, people use specific signals and language when they temporarily stop an activity – “I’m sorry, I’ll be right back” – compared to resuming an activity – “I’m sorry I was waiting for you”.
Bonobos might similarly have specific signals for the suspension and resumption of the joint engagement, but there is not enough data to say what they might be, says Heesen. But we may find out the answer soon.
“We would like to look at the types of signal used to suspend and restore bonobos activities in a larger sample and whether they are significantly different,” says Heesen.
“This would then indicate a more complex understanding of the common commitment in this species.”
Abstract: Joint action is essential for human nature, enabling collectives to achieve goals that cannot be achieved by individuals. It is enabled by people’s ability to understand and engage in common commitments. Joint commitments are highlighted when partners in interrupted joint actions engage each other. To date, there is no clear evidence that non-human animals understand the common commitment, suggesting that only humans experience it. Here, we review this statement by interrupting the bonobos involved in social activities. Bonobos reliably resumed activity, and the probability of resumption was higher for social activities compared to solitary activities. Moreover, the communicative efforts made to suspend and resume social activities varied depending on the social relations of the partners and the interactive roles. Our results suggest that bonobos, like humans, engage in a common commitment and have some awareness of the social consequences of breaking it.