Resource transfers can confer many adaptive benefits such as specialization, helping genetically related individuals, future compensation, and risk-pooling. Need-based transfers are a risk-pooling mechanism in which partners mitigate unpredictable losses by transferring resources based on need. Need-based transfers are likely to be most useful for resources that are necessary and unpredictable because being unable to reliably obtain essential resources would be devastating. However, need-based transfers make people vulnerable to two types of exploitation: a person can be greedy by asking when not in need and a person with a surplus of resources can be stingy by not giving to someone in need. Previous research suggests that people might have cognitive mechanisms for detecting greediness and stinginess, which would serve to protect against exploitation by cheaters. This study investigated whether resources that are necessary and unpredictable are most likely to trigger greediness and stinginess detection mechanisms. Participants saw four types of rules. One rule could be violated through greedy behavior, another through stingy behavior, another by not paying a debt, and another was a descriptive rule that could be violated by not finding one type of resource near another type of resource. Then, participants saw information about events relating to one of the rules and indicated whether the rule in question could have been violated. Consistent with past research, participants were better at detecting greediness, stinginess, and debts not paid than at detecting violations of a descriptive rule. However, contrary to my predictions, the necessity and unpredictability of resources did not impact people’s ability to detect greediness and stinginess. The lack of support for my hypothesis might be because the benefits of detecting greediness and stinginess might outweigh the costs even for situations in which need-based transfer rules are unlikely to apply, because people might be able to consciously activate their greediness and stinginess mechanisms even for resources that would not naturally trigger them, or because of methodological limitations.

There is a long, ongoing search for the best way to measure and promote creativity. In this study, participant’s self-reported interdependence with elicited members of their social life (Same-Sex Best Friend, Same-Sex Acquaintance, Sibling (or Relative), and Enemy) were collected alongside their performance on several iterations of J.P. Guilford’s Alternative Uses Task. It was predicted that higher scores obtained on the fitness interdependence scale would predict higher scores on the creativity tasks, and lower scores on the former would also predict lower scores on the latter. Ultimately, the results did not support our hypothesis that creative efficiency is predicted by an individual’s self-reported interdependence with members of their social circle. Although higher scores on the Same-Sex Best Friend Interdependence, Sibling (Relative) Interdependence, Acquaintance Interdependence, and Enemy Interdependence categories were found to significantly predict a higher number of alternative uses submitted in a creativity task, the fact that these four subcategories predicted the Total Volume score and not the Total Originality score shows that a better design, and more robust methods, must be used to investigate the relationship between interdependence and creative outcomes.