Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-v2cwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-29T05:30:38.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

What holds groups together? How interdependence shapes group-living

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2025

Angelica Kaufmann*
Affiliation:
Cognition in Action (CIA) Unit, PHILAB, Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono, Milano 20122, Italy angelica.kaufmann@unimi.it jamesgerardbrooks@gmail.com
James Brooks
Affiliation:
Cooperative Evolution Lab, Deutsches Primatenzentrum GmbH - Leibniz-Institut für Primatenforschung, Göttingen 37077, Germany LSamuni@dpz.eu john.michael@unimi.it https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Q4WRXWEAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
Liran Samuni
Affiliation:
Cooperative Evolution Lab, Deutsches Primatenzentrum GmbH - Leibniz-Institut für Primatenforschung, Göttingen 37077, Germany LSamuni@dpz.eu john.michael@unimi.it https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Q4WRXWEAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
John Michael
Affiliation:
Cognition in Action (CIA) Unit, PHILAB, Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono, Milano 20122, Italy angelica.kaufmann@unimi.it jamesgerardbrooks@gmail.com
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

Dunbar’s emphasis on dyadic relationships in group formation overlooks the roles of interdependence and joint commitment in social cohesion. We challenge his premise by highlighting the importance of group-level processes, particularly where top-down group pressures like cooperative breeding and out-group threat can induce joint commitment as an alternate means to sustain group cohesion.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brooks, J., & Yamamoto, S. (2022). The evolution of group-mindedness: Comparative research on top-down and bottom-up group cooperation in bonobos and chimpanzees. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 47, 101205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2024). Structural and cognitive mechanisms of group cohesion in primates. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fimbel, C., Vedder, A., Dierenfeld, E. & Mulindahabi, F. (2001). An ecological basis for large group size in Colobus angolensis in the Nyungwe forest, Rwanda. African Journal of Ecology, 39, 8392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, J. (2022). The philosophy and psychology of commitment. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Michael, J., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2016). The sense of commitment: A minimal approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 162497. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hongo, S. (2023). Females move in tight crowds, males roam: Socioecology and movement ecology of mandrills. In Reyna-Hurtado, R., Chapman, C.A., & Melletti, M. (Eds.), Movement ecology of afrotropical forest mammals (pp. 171185). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silk, J. B. (2002). Grunts, girneys, and good intentions: The origins of strategic commitment in nonhuman primates. In Nesse, R. (Ed.), Evolution and the capacity for commitment (pp. 138157). Russell Sage Press.Google Scholar
Silk, J. B., Kaldor, E., & Boyd, R. (2000). Cheap talk when interests conflict. Animal behaviour, 59(2), 423432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed