How does the reciprocity hypothesis provide an evolutionary explanation for human altruistic behavior and overcome the limitations of the kin selection hypothesis?

In this article, we will focus on the reciprocal reciprocity hypothesis, one of several hypotheses that explain the evolutionary origins of altruistic behavior, and how it overcomes the limitations of the kin selection hypothesis. We will also provide concrete examples of how the reciprocal reciprocity hypothesis is actually applied in animal societies, such as vampire bats, and discuss its limitations and strengths.

 

Look around you and you’ll see people engaging in altruistic behaviors that benefit others at their own expense, such as donating blood, volunteering, or donating to charity. These altruistic acts touch many people and make society more welcoming, but they are contradictory because evolutionary theory explains that traits that favor human survival survive, and altruistic behaviors often don’t help one’s own survival. This has led many scientists to propose hypotheses and experiments on how altruistic behavior emerged evolutionarily, including the kin selection hypothesis. This hypothesis explains altruistic behavior toward people who are related to you, but it doesn’t explain altruistic behavior toward people who are not related to you, such as donating blood. The reciprocal reciprocity hypothesis is a hypothesis that scientists have proposed to fill this gap. Let’s see how it overcomes the limitations of the kin selection hypothesis and resolves the contradiction between evolutionary theory and altruism.
There are many hypotheses to explain the emergence of altruistic humans, including kin selection, speciation, costly signaling, and communication. Among these, the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis explains altruistic behavior through the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” strategy. This strategy states that you will only help someone if they have helped you before, otherwise you will not help them. According to the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis, people act altruistically because they know that if they act cooperatively, the other person will act altruistically in return, and if they don’t act altruistically, the other person will retaliate by not acting altruistically in return. In other words, when people adopt an “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” strategy, they perform altruistic acts for others because it is in their best interest to do so.
An easy example to understand altruism through the reciprocity hypothesis is blood sharing in vampire bats. As their name implies, vampire bats feed on the blood of mammals, and they are very often unsuccessful in their hunts. When they are successful, they vomit up their blood to give it to the bats that didn’t get it. This is so that when they fail, the bats that helped them before can get blood as they did. Bats that don’t share their blood don’t have a blood supply when they are unsuccessful and are naturally culled. The altruistic bats that give blood to others survive! The repetition-reciprocity hypothesis is not limited to vampire bats; we can find examples of it in animal societies, such as the scouting behavior of pronghorns and the grooming of chimpanzees, and it is also true in human societies.
As mentioned earlier, the kin selection hypothesis only explains altruistic behavior for people who are related to them. However, the recurrence-reciprocity hypothesis can explain how altruistic behavior has evolutionarily survived regardless of the target. However, the iteration-reciprocity hypothesis has its limitations. The repetition-reciprocity hypothesis assumes that actors repeat the exchange of behaviors, which is why it is difficult to explain behaviors such as willingly helping socially disadvantaged people like the disabled or elderly, or tipping at a restaurant in a foreign country, because they are altruistic but one-off. In this sense, the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis is like an archer without a bow. In other words, the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis is an ideal model to explain altruistic behavior when there is repetition, but it has obvious limitations in the opposite case.
So far, we’ve discussed the iteration-reciprocity hypothesis for the emergence of altruistic humans. Because altruism is difficult to explain in evolutionary terms, scholars have proposed a number of different hypotheses. The repetition-reciprocity hypothesis explains that people act altruistically because they expect others to do the same for them. It’s an “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” strategy. An example of altruistic behavior using the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis is vampire bats sharing their kills with each other. However, this hypothesis is limited in that it only holds if the behavior is reciprocal. Several theories have been proposed to address this limitation, including eusociality, costly signaling, communication, and spatial organization. Each of these hypotheses attempts to explain altruistic behavior from its own perspective, but they are incomplete, so it is necessary to consider multiple theories together to understand the complexity of altruistic behavior. Although the reciprocity hypothesis is not a perfect hypothesis, it is still convincing in explaining altruistic behavior.
In conclusion, human altruistic behavior can be explained by a variety of hypotheses. From an evolutionary perspective, these altruistic behaviors may contribute directly or indirectly to the survival and prosperity of the individual. Several theories, including the iteration-reciprocity hypothesis, provide important insights into understanding why we help others and form social bonds. Altruistic behavior is not just moral, but can also be viewed as an evolutionary strategy for our survival and thriving. This understanding can provide important guidance on how we should act to create a better society.