Economics in Nature: Biological markets: partner choice as the driving force behind the evolution of mutualisms
By Ronald Noë. 2001
149 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4e56694bd398238c10c4b203e1533b2b5249972e
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Citations in the corpus
- Variation in Individual Investment Strategies among Social Animals (2006, background): “This is expected in a biological market scenario, which predicts that animals will play off potential partners against each other if they have the opportunity to do so, and by doing so they influence their net gains from cooperation (Noë & Hammerstein 1994, 1995; Noë 2001).”
- Extended safe havens and between-group dispersal of helpers in a cooperatively breeding cichlid (2005, background): “Under such conditions biological market theory (Noë & Hammerstein, 1995; Noë, 2001) predicts that helpers may trade their helping contributions for being accepted in a territory that provides improved conditions.”
- The Evolution of Mutualistic Dependence (2020, background): “This is because the efficiency of partner choice and sanctions should decrease with a decrease in the number of alternative partners since this reduces outside options and choice (Noë & Hammerstein 1994, Noë 2001,Wyatt et al. 2014, Akçay 2015).”
- Biological Markets : The Ubiquitous Influence of Partner Choice on the Dynamics of Cleaner Fish - Client Reef Fish Interactions (2003, unknown): “Noë and Hammerstein (1994, 1995, see also Noë 2001) set a few first steps towards solving the first problem, but barely touched the second issue, apart from the obvious prediction that exchange rates should shift in favour of a trader class whose commodity becomes in short supply.”
- Do chimpanzees reciprocate received favours (2008, background): “…was not the differential propensity of the subjects to cooperate or reciprocate across conditions, but instead, which partner subjects choose to cooperate with, which more closely resembles the type of decisions individuals must make in their daily interactions with others (Noë 2001, 2006).”
- Chapter 2 Reciprocal Altruism in Primates (2009, background): “The selective role of partner choice has also been emphasized by Noë (2001) in the context of biological market theory.”
- Experimental evidence that partner choice is a driving force in the payoff distribution among cooperators or mutualists: the cleaner fish case (2002, unknown): “Market theory with its emphasis on partner choice options (NoeÈ & Hammerstein 1995; NoeÈ 2001) thus provides a major framework to predict shifts in payoff distributions and partner control mechanisms in the cleaner ®sh mutualism.”
- Grooming and Infant Handling Interchange in Macaca fascicularis: The Relationship Between Infant Supply and Grooming Payment (2007, background): “Market theory predicts when social acts are traded, economic forces, such as supply, demand, and advertisement, will influence social exchange by altering the value of the commodities traded (Noë 2001).”
- Time-matched grooming in female primates?: New analyses from two species (2004, background): “…predicted aspects of interspecific mutualisms, such as the exchange of protection for nectar between ants and lycaenid butterflies (Axén et al. 1996; Axén & Pierce 1998; Weith 1998, cited in Noë 2001), and the exchange of cleaning for food between cleaner fish and their clients (Bshary 2001).”
- Payment for sex in a macaque mating market (2007, background): “Biological market theory explains the dynamics of cooperative relationships based on a market of potential partners and competitors (Noë 2001).”
- Rank-related partner choice in the fission–fusion society of the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) (2007, unknown): “Through these exchanges, market theory predicts that individuals should make decisions to gain immediate benefits from social interactions in the short term, net benefits at the end of a series of social interactions in the long term, or both (Noë and Hammerstein 1994; Noë 2001, 2006).”