Direct reciprocity in animals: The roles of bonding and affective processes

The presence of direct reciprocity in animals is a debated topic, because, despite its evolutionary plausibility, it is believed to be uncommon. Some authors claim that stable reciprocal exchanges require sophisticated cognition which has acted as a constraint on its evolution across species. In contrast, a more recent trend of research has focused on the possibility that direct reciprocity occurs within long‐term bonds and relies on simple as well as more complex affective mechanisms such as emotional book‐keeping, rudimentary and higher forms of empathy, and inequity aversion, among others. First, we present evidence supporting the occurrence of long‐term reciprocity in the context of existing bonds in social birds and mammals. Second, we discuss the evidence for affective responses which, modulated by bonding, may underlie altruistic behaviours in different species. We conclude that the mechanisms that may underlie reciprocal exchanges are diverse, and that some act in interaction with bonding processes. From simple associative learning in social contexts, through emotional contagion and behavioural mimicry, to empathy and a sense of fairness, widespread and diverse social affective mechanisms may explain why direct reciprocity may not be a rare phenomenon among social vertebrates.     

James’s theory of emotion and affective turn in psychology / La teoría de las emociones de James y el giro afectivo en psicología

Using William James’s classical theory of the emotions, this article discusses the way the relationship between cognition and emotion are predominantly explained and operationalized in contemporary psychology and neuroscience research. Specific aspects of James’s theory are reconstructed, connecting his more general philosophical framework with arguments about the relationship between subjective experience and the process of corporal change. A review published in the journal Cognition & Emotion (C&E) (2001–11) concludes that almost all its literature is based on the idea of interaction between two different processes, while James suggests that the process of experience is one and the same. Dialogue between these two scenarios facilitates the identification of current research potentialities in terms of mixed-method studies and with emphasis on the temporality of action, overall physiological change, and uniqueness of experience.