Do capuchin monkeys (
            <i>Cebus apella</i>
            ) use tokens as symbols?

Addessi, Elsa; Crescimbene, Lara; Visalberghi, Elisabetta

doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0726

Cited by 66 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In generalization phase 1, they performed successfully with the token pair 1 : 3, which they had encountered in a previous study on numerical competence [9] where, in order to maximize their reward, they had to obey the rule 'choose 3 over 1', opposite to that employed in the present study ('choose 1 over 3'). Sandokan performed correctly beginning with the first trial, and Robinia quickly transferred the reverse-reward rule to the novel token combination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…After training, we assessed whether the high-value token was indeed preferred to the low-value token by placing 20 tokens, 10 of each type, on the compartment floor, and allowing each subject to exchange 10 tokens with the experimenter until a criterion of 90 per cent exchanges of the highvalue token for two consecutive sessions was reached. All subjects were already familiar with the tokens worth one and three food items [9].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tokens improve capuchin performance in the reverse–reward contingency task

Addessi

Rossi

2010

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In humans and apes, one of the most adaptive functions of symbols is to inhibit strong behavioural predispositions. However, to our knowledge, no study has yet investigated whether using symbols provides some advantage to non-ape primates. We aimed to trace the evolutionary roots of symbolic competence by examining whether tokens improve performance in the reverse-reward contingency task in capuchin monkeys, which diverged from the human lineage approximately 35 Ma. Eight capuchins chose between: (i) two food quantities, (ii) two quantities of 'low-symbolic distance tokens' (each corresponding to one unit of food), and (iii) two 'high-symbolic distance tokens' (each corresponding to a different amount of food). In all conditions, subjects had to select the smaller quantity to obtain the larger reward. No procedural modifications were employed. Tokens did improve performance: five subjects succeeded with high-symbolic distance tokens, though only one succeeded with food, and none succeeded with low-symbolic distance tokens. Moreover, two of the five subjects transferred the rule to novel token combinations. Learning effects or preference reversals could not account for the successful performance with high-symbolic distance tokens. This is, to our knowledge, the first demonstration that tokens do allow monkeys to inhibit strong behavioural predispositions, as occurs in chimpanzees and children.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tokens improve capuchin performance in the reverse–reward contingency task

Addessi

Rossi

2010

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, an abstract representation of food (e.g., tokens) could replace actual food rewards to determine the influence of visible and tangible food rewards on the response to inequity. Primates are certainly capable of using tokens to represent foods for these sorts of tasks (Addessi et al, 2007;Addessi & Rossi, 2011;Brosnan & de Waal, 2004a;Brosnan & de Waal, 2004b;Sousa & Matsuzawa, 2001). We predict diminished negative responses with tokens as compared to tasks with tangible foods, but also that individuals that have had greater experience with token tasks should show stronger responses to inequity, due to their increased experience (e.g., Brosnan et al, 2011b).…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

To Each According to his Need? Variability in the Responses to Inequity in Non-Human Primates

Price

Brosnan

2012

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it is well established that humans respond to inequity, it remains unclear the extent to which this behavior occurs in our nonhuman primate relatives. By comparing a variety of species, spanning from New World and Old World monkeys to great apes, scientists can begin to answer questions about how the response to inequity evolved, what the function of this response is, and why and how different contexts shape it. In particular, research across nonhuman primate species suggests that the response is quite variable across species, contexts and individuals. In this paper, we aim to review these differences in an attempt to identify and better understand the patterns that emerge from the existing data with the goal of developing directions for future research. To begin, we address the importance of considering socio-ecological factors in nonhuman primates in order to better understand and predict expected patterns of cooperation and aversion to inequity in different species, following which we provide a detailed analysis of the patterns uncovered by these comparisons. Ultimately, we use this synthesis to propose new ideas for research to better understand this response and, hence, the evolution of our own responses to inequity. what the function of this response is, and why and how different contexts shape it. Specifically, it can help clarify whether the response represents a homology, meaning it shares a common evolutionary origin, or whether it converged in several species due to similar selective pressures, absent shared descent.Several theories have been put forth to help explain negative reactions to inequity. For instance, it may be that a negative response to inequity evolved within a social context in order to recognize and avoid future inequity. This process may have occurred through steps that each increased fitness for individuals (Brosnan, 2006). First, individuals may recognize that another individual obtains rewards that are different from one's own, and then feel strongly enough to react to this discrepancy, which, if it caused the individual to sample the environment and explore other potential partners, could lead to increased fitness. Ultimately, this may lead to responses such as sacrificing a positive (but lower value) reward in order to restore equity or to punish the other individual, something humans are known to do (see Raihani & McAuliffe, 2012, this issue). Alternately, inequity may have evolved from non-social, more generalized reward mechanisms that exist in multiple contexts, such as loss aversion (Chen & Santos, 2006; Raihani & McAuliffe, 2012, this issue). In this case, individuals form expectations about rewards within different contexts, and compare these rewards to the initial expectation rather than a social reference point. Consequently, a negative response occurs when these expectations are violated in a way that does not benefit the individual.But whether or not the origins are social, what is the benefit of this response? One hypothesis is that this negative resp...

show abstract

“…In fact, both of these species also seem to understand the tokens as symbols, and can work with them flexibly (Addessi, Crescimbene, & Visalberghi, 2007;Addessi, Mancini, Crescimbene, PadoaSchioppa, & Visalberghi, 2008;Savage-Rumbaugh, Rumbaugh, & Boysen, 1978).…”

Section: Bartermentioning

confidence: 99%

Property in nonhuman primates

Brosnan

2011

New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do capuchin monkeys ( Cebus apella ) use tokens as symbols?

Cited by 66 publications

References 25 publications

Tokens improve capuchin performance in the reverse–reward contingency task

Tokens improve capuchin performance in the reverse–reward contingency task

To Each According to his Need? Variability in the Responses to Inequity in Non-Human Primates

Property in nonhuman primates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About