Know your mind before writing to Santa

You might want to pause before asking Santa for that exciting new gadget this Christmas as you probably won’t use it as much as you think, according to a team of American researchers.

Exciting now, but will you actually use them? Image: Hypothesisnow

It seems that a stranger asked to guess how often you’ll use an item will give a much better indicator of how often you will use the gift, particularly if they know how often you think you might use it.

The study asked a group of people to estimate how much they would use a gift before Christmas, and checked with them a few months later to see how much it was actually used. According to one of the researchers “Fifty-nine percent of gifts were used less frequently than the recipients had expected to use them.” In many cases, the researchers found that people thought they’d use gifts twice as often as they actually did!

The researchers think this happens because people are rather optimistic about their own choices, while a stranger won’t show the same optimistic bias. If the stranger knows a person’s own estimate it allows them to guess more accurately: strangers who didn’t know the estimates of the participants came up with estimates almost as inaccurate as those made by the original participants.

So if storage space is at a premium this Christmas, or you’re unsure whether you actually want the latest shiny thing, you might want to seek a second opinion.

Paper reference: Vietri, J.T.,   Chapman, G.B., & Schwartz, J., (2009). Actor–observer differences in frequency-of-use estimates: Sometimes strangers know us better than ourselves
Social Influence, 4(4), p298 – 311. DOI: 10.1080/15534510902857862

The social life of plants

Plants aren’t the first thing most people think of when talking about social interactions. They don’t have the complex social lives of many animals, and have few opportunities to meet new people, yet plants do interact socially. A study by Canadian researchers has shown that plants become much more competitive when they’re growing next to unrelated plants, putting out extra leaves and trying to out-compete their rivals.

Impatiens pallida: recognising the importance of family. Image: Wikimedia/SB Johnny

Researchers have known for a while that plants can recognise other related plants growing nearby. The new study shows that one species of plant, known as Impatiens pallida, actually responds to the presence of ‘family’ by producing fewer leaves and more branches and longer stems. Fewer leaves means less competition for light – suggesting the two plants are cooperating.

In contrast, when I. pallida was grown with an unrelated neighbour of the same species it put much more effort into growing leaves, competing with its neighbour for the available light. The effect was only seen when the two plants were grown in the same pot; without root contact between the plants there was no change in growth. Researchers still don’t know, however, exactly how plants recognise kin.

I. pallida’s response to competition is perfectly adapted to its natural surroundings. It prefers dark, shady spots where light is the only thing limiting the speed at which it can grow. In this case, competition means a battle for the scant available light. The related species I. edentula grows in the open, often on beaches, where there are very few nutrients in the sandy soil. When faced with competition, I. edentula sprouts extra roots, to extract as much as possible from the soil to give itself a boost.

In animals, a lot of cooperative behaviour is seen between close relatives (think of prides of male lions, who are usually brothers, or massive ant colonies – which contain mostly sisters and mothers). Relatives share many similar genes, so by helping brothers and sisters reproduce, an individual can ensure at least some of their own genes are passed on to future generations. Unrelated individuals share fewer genes, so there’s no reason to cooperate. This is known as kin selection, and is a powerful driving force for altruistic behaviour – in both plants and animals!

Paper reference: Murphy, G., and Dudley, S., (2009) Kin Recognition: competiton and cooperation in Impatiens (Balsaminaceae). American Journal of Botany, 96(11).  1990–1996. DOI:10.3732/ajb.0900006

Monkey see, monkey do – why mimicry matters

Some things are easier to mimic than others...

Here’s a simple trick to expose the power of mimicry: next time you’re sat with a small group of people, start stroking your chin. After a while, you’ll notice others start doing the same. This sort of unconscious mimicry is something we all do in social situations, but is this a uniquely human trick, or did we learn it from others?

A new study by an American and Italian team of researchers has shown capuchin monkeys also rely on mimicry to form social bonds. Their work, published in the journal Science, is the first study to suggest mimicry is an important social tool for primates other than people.

To test how the capuchins responded to mimicry, the researchers introduced two people, each of whom was holding a small ball identical to one possessed by the monkey. One of the people copied everything the monkey did with their ball: the other played around with the ball without reference to the capuchin. The researchers found that the capuchins spent more time sitting near the imitator than they did near the other person: they also interacted more with the imitator when given the chance to exchange tokens for marshmallow treats.

Their close proximity and more frequent interactions suggest the capuchins were more comfortable with the imitators, leading to a stronger social bond. Mimicry would benefit wild capuchins by cementing the social bonds between members of the large groups in which they live. As capuchins face many natural predators, living in large groups has its advantages as each individual monkey is at much lower risk of being caught. It also means more pairs of eyes on the lookout for danger. Any behaviour, such as mimicry, that reduced the number of conflicts between individuals and increasing cooperation would keep the group together.

Mimicry may also have led to the formation of human society as it helped us to cooperate with our neighbours, turning strangers into allies and friends.

Image: Wikimedia commons/Michelle Reback

No such thing as society?

Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was once quoted as saying “There is no such thing as society”; a view supported by the theory of evolutionary biology. Both suggest humans (and animals, plants and every other living thing) are fundamentally selfish, looking out for themselves at the expense of others.

But is that really the case? Researchers in Portugal and Belgium have shown that cooperation, which is the basis of society, can be the best way to survive.

Using computer models, the researchers found that cooperation could come to dominate a population if people were free to choose how they interact with one another. Democratic societies allow this, but societies controlled by dictators or religious indoctrination allow less personal freedom. The researchers think people in these societies will actually be less willing to work together.

So, if cooperation is the best way to survive and thrive in a group, was Margaret Thatcher wrong?

Not necessarily. The research shows people only cooperate when it’s in our selfish interests to do so. By cooperating, we ensure the best outcome for ourselves and, along the way, we just happen to work together to create what we recognise as a society. Essentially, a cooperative society could be an illusion arising as a side-effect of our selfish choices!

Perhaps there is such a thing as society, perhaps it is an illusion. Either way, does it really matter as long as we manage to get along?