The Evolution of Human Social Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a solid, albeit not original, overview of major themes found in evolutionary behavior literature. The author does a better than a good job of summarizing findings that demonstrate underlying universality.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written and interesting article on the role of feelings in social behaviour, and their evolutionary rationale. But I think that some of the sweeping claims the author makes would not be accepted by social scientists and philosophers alike, who focus on cognitive aspects. I'll mention two:

- The first one occurs in paragraph 2 and involves the claim that the aim of society is to enhance happiness. This cannot possibly be the role of society, since what constitutes happiness for one person is another person's misery. Since the Greeks it has been accepted that the role of the state is to ensure the well-being of all its citizens (education, health, opportunities), their safety and maintaining the rule of law. Happiness is not part of the duty of care of the state.

- The second point involves the author's claim that feelings, although soft-wired, are a key strategy used to motivate behaviour. But he also accepts that cognitive capacities play a part. For instance, he states that 'recently, we have evolved a cognitive capacity that can be used to overrule suggestions based on feelings, but they still have a considerable impact' (p. 2). He also says, 'that feelings are just one of several mechanisms to prompt behaviour' (p. 8). But this awareness gets quickly forgotten when he reiterates that 'feelings act as the invisible threads that weave the fabric of our social interactions' (p. 3). On the same page he holds that ‘feelings permeate human cognition’, which reads like a Freudian claim.

It is simply a vast exaggeration to reduce the motivations of behaviour to feelings. There is a large amount of literature which deals with rational behaviour. The author should clarify how these two types of motivation are related.

The author is free to emphasize the role of feelings in specific social relationships. I think that he should either restrict his analysis to the role of feelings in the four types of relationships he discusses, without, however, claiming that it constitutes the core of all 'our social interactions.' Or he should explain the role of cognitive capacities in relation to feelings and as motivators of social behaviour.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive advice.

I have rewritten the text related to the two points referred to in the review. As to the first, I do not wish to claim that happiness is the only way to formulate an aim for society, I only suggest that it can be a useful concept. I also point out that for society, the aim should be the greater good for all, which is the intention behind the World Happiness Report and Happy Planet Index. Regarding the second, I agree that feelings should not be considered the only force promoting behavior. I have tried to make both points more clear in the revised version.

The term motivation in psychological literature I believe often overlaps with what feelings stand for in the present text. Terminology is a tricky subject. The use of terms such as feelings and motivators tend to differ between natural and social sciences and are not necessarily used consistently within either of these fields.  I have tried to make it clear that there are other drivers of behavior, and that feelings may overlap with what others refer to as motivators.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review for The Evolution of Human Social Behavior

According to the introduction, the author’s goal is to discuss the evolution of human affiliations, which can take three forms: parent-child relationships, parental bonding, and social associations with others. The social relationships include and extend beyond distant kin and the family unit. From here, the author discusses the role of feelings that are central to these human affiliations, focusing especially on the social associations uniquely typical of humans.

Section 2 discussed the role of “feeling” and its relationships with aspects of pleasure or pain. Feelings take many forms, but two components of feelings form rewards/enjoyment: seeking (which corresponds to motivation) and liking (which corresponds to consuming or completing). Seeking causes us to pursue resources, experiences, and so forth that are at least potentially beneficial (e.g., the smell of good food causes me to search for good food). Liking causes one to engage in specific experiences, activities, and so forth (e.g., the pleasure from the good taste causes me to eat the food I smelled). One of the components of feelings reflects pain. Happiness, according to the author, can be construed as the two positive components (seeking + liking = pleasure) minus the pain. The author then notes that feelings are central to human cognition and tied to human neurobiology. He suggests the feelings evolved to encourage behaviors that benefit evolutionary fitness and are the fabric of social interactions.

Next the author ties feelings to affiliations (Section 3). Parent-child affiliations are central to all mammals but take the form of “love” among humans (and potentially other animals) (Section 3.1). Pair-bonding includes positive feelings of various sorts but is not as intense or long lasting as is parent-child affiliation (Section 3.2). Yet the strength of this pair-bonding is reflected by the near universality of marriage and culturally recognized pair-bonding mechanisms. Pair-bonding includes the early state of “falling in love” and later stage of “romantic love,” which each correspond to neurobiological characteristics.  These are all tied to the positive emotional components and pain.

Next is a discussion of kinship (Section 3.3). This section does not tie in “feelings” as the previous sections have, and simply descriptively notes the presence of and variation in kin structure. It also mentioned the aversion to sexual/romantic relationships with sibling-like relationships, even in cases where genetic relatedness is not present.

Section 3.4 shifts the focus to social life, which is the key component of social associations. Humans (and chimps) have strong social commitments, which are different from the general socialness and collaboration present in pack animals such as wolves and in other primates. This likely ties into empathy (feelings). Violence and hostility are also tied to neurobiological (emotional) rewards, indicating that they had selective benefits during human evolution. Of course, all emotion-based responses can be mediated by culture, according to the author.

Having laid out a view of the relationship between feelings/emotions and affiliations of various sorts, the author then turns to modern humans. The author suggests that the underlying cognition of social human behavior has remained unchanged since at least the Upper Paleolithic around 50,000 years ago (Section 4.1). In Section 4.2, the author notes that “mismatches” between the past (selective) environments and current environments can cause “discord.” Possible mismatches present now and in the recent past can include social hierarchies, excessive interaction with strangers, and an increased level of reliance on non-related kin. This discord can produce physical and mental issues.

In the final section of the manuscript (Section 5) the author deals with two issues: promoting social behavior (Section 5.1) and aiming for happiness (Section 5.2). In Section 5.1, the author encourages “us” (presumably society at large) to pursue strategies to reduce discord and improve mental health. Education and religion are identified as possible ways to promote integration and cooperation. Pursuing happiness, which is based on emotional responses especially associated with prosocial behavior, is another beneficial goal, according to the author. The author notes that “the act of giving offers stronger rewards than receiving a similar value or service.” This is obviously linked to the preceding section in that pursuing actions that “make me happy” will correspond to a person behaving in a more prosocial manner, according to the author.

Overall, the manuscript is interesting. I think it can be improved a bit, but it is worth publishing. Following are areas where I think it can be strengthened:

·        I don’t think the title and stated goal quite fit. The author isn’t really talking about the evolution of human social behavior as much as discussing the interplay between human neurobiology, feelings/emotions, and social behavior (if I understand correctly). I think the author might want to highlight this by changing the paper’s name to: “Feelings and the Formation of Human Social Behavior.” While the author does mention evolution, his argument is not fundamentally an evolutionary argument and could even be framed without the mention of evolution at all with minimal effort. I encourage the author to keep the discussion of evolution in the manuscript, but this discussion is not really the core of the manuscript. As a result, I suggest the author shift the title and stated goal to really focus on his argument about the links between feelings and social relationships.

·        Section 3.3 does not follow the form of the other sections in Section 3, in that it does not tie the topic of kinship into feelings in a meaningful way. As part of this, I think the author can stress the pain of loss as a key component to broader kinship. In this case, the pain would be the ancestors’/parents’ pain tied to losing descendants (children, grandchildren, and so on). The idea would be that ancestors would encourage prosocial behavior among descendants to prevent loss (e.g., older children being expected to ensure the safety of younger children). This becomes a part of cultural traditions (e.g., kin takes care of kin). A related form of this argument is presented by Palmer and Steadman.  The author might think about this.

Palmer, Craig T., and Lyle B. Steadman. "Human kinship as a descendant-leaving strategy: a solution to an evolutionary puzzle." Journal of social and evolutionary systems 20.1 (1997): 39-51.  

·        The first paragraph can be eliminated completely. It doesn’t have any significant information and does not frame the discussion in a meaningful way.

Author Response

Thank you for an excellent summary of the text and constructive advice.

I agree with what you say about the title not corresponding exactly to the content. I have considered your alternative. The title could very well reflect a focus on feelings, but the text is also about evolution (including the evolution of feelings as a key factor). The Encylopedia specifically asks for roughly five-word titles, which has led me to retain the old title. I added a reference to feelings in the summary.

I have rewritten part of Section 3.3 and tried to relate the content more clearly to feelings. The topics of kin selection and feelings responsible for kin behavior have been added. The Palmer & Steadman reference has been included.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for making the recommended corrections. Your article reads well.

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript looks great! This is an interesting discussion that raises important insights into the role of feelings in human social relationships and evolution.