"Altruistic" Behavior in Rhesus Monkeys

Masserman, Jules H.; Wechkin, Stanley; Terris, William

doi:10.1176/ajp.121.6.584

Cited by 168 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An aversion to the suffering of others is a powerful motivator for humans (6) and for our close primate relatives (7). Indeed, observing others in pain engages brain networks similar to those that respond to one's own pain (8).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making

Crockett

Kurth‐Nelson

Siegel

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

267

330

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Significance Concern for the welfare of others is a key component of moral decision making and is disturbed in antisocial and criminal behavior. However, little is known about how people evaluate the costs of others’ suffering. Past studies have examined people’s judgments in hypothetical scenarios, but there is evidence that hypothetical judgments cannot accurately predict actual behavior. Here we addressed this issue by measuring how much money people will sacrifice to reduce the number of painful electric shocks delivered to either themselves or an anonymous stranger. Surprisingly, most people sacrifice more money to reduce a stranger’s pain than their own pain. This finding may help us better understand how people resolve moral dilemmas that commonly arise in medical, legal, and political decision making.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making

Crockett

Kurth‐Nelson

Siegel

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

267

330

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2), with a significant and consistent prosocial bias in more than half of cases. Prior experiments that have used appetitive (32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38) or aversive outcomes (13) to study prosocial behavior in nonhuman primates raise the question of the underlying mechanisms: why do animals make generous choices or refrain from causing harm to others? The observation that monkeys chose to grant juice (or food) to a partner is offered as evidence of motivation for object giving or sharing, but an alternative explanation is that social stimuli preferentially attract the monkeys' attention, such that the differential salience of the two outcomes is sufficient to positively reinforce prosocial choices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The observation that monkeys chose to grant juice (or food) to a partner is offered as evidence of motivation for object giving or sharing, but an alternative explanation is that social stimuli preferentially attract the monkeys' attention, such that the differential salience of the two outcomes is sufficient to positively reinforce prosocial choices. Monkeys might enjoy watching a partner eating or drinking more than waiting passively for the next trial or than seeing a drop of juice falling into a container However, social decisions involving aversive stimuli, such as older studies that challenged monkeys to forego a food reward to save a partner from electrical shock (13), are more difficult to reconcile with a purely attentional interpretation. The present results clearly refute it, as the monkeys did not consistently choose the outcomes that include the social stimulus across appetitive and aversive social decisions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In nonhuman primates, the ubiquitous social play, grooming behavior, and their hormonal correlates suggest an ability to conceive what is pleasant or unpleasant for others (10)(11)(12). Pioneering experimental studies have shown that macaques can perceive and seek to alleviate their peers' distress (13,14) and more recent studies have attributed even to rodents the possibility of empathy and its promotion of helping behavior (2)(3)(4). Empathy is understood to refer to vicarious experiences of the affective states of others and is believed to improve adaptive social behaviors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rudimentary empathy in macaques’ social decision-making

Ballesta

Duhamel

2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primates live in highly social environments, where prosocial behaviors promote social bonds and cohesion and contribute to group members' fitness. Despite a growing interest in the biological basis of nonhuman primates' social interactions, their underlying motivations remain a matter of debate. We report that macaque monkeys take into account the welfare of their peers when making behavioral choices bringing about pleasant or unpleasant outcomes to a monkey partner. Two macaques took turns in making decisions that could impact their own welfare or their partner's. Most monkeys were inclined to refrain from delivering a mildly aversive airpuff and to grant juice rewards to their partner. Choice consistency between these two types of outcome suggests that monkeys display coherent motivations in different social interactions. Furthermore, spontaneous affilitative group interactions in the home environment were mostly consistent with the measured social decisions, thus emphasizing the impact of preexisting social bonds on decision-making. Interestingly, unique behavioral markers predicted these decisions: benevolence was associated with enhanced mutual gaze and empathic eye blinking, whereas indifference or malevolence was associated with lower or suppressed such responses. Together our results suggest that prosocial decision-making is sustained by an intrinsic motivation for social affiliation and controlled through positive and negative vicarious reinforcements.social neuroscience | emotions | social gaze | eye blink | prosocial

show abstract

“…In this group Os that had been shocked prior to the experiment showed altruistic behavior. Two existing hypotheses to account for altruistic behavior are: (a) that it is innate or "instinctive" (Masserman et al, 1964;Rice & Gainer, 1962); (b) that it serves merely to reduce the intensity of physical noxious stimuli (Lavery & Foley, 1963).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Altruistic behavior in the albino rat

Greene

1969

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Altruistic behavior in lower animals has been investigated by controlled experiment (Lavery & Foley, 1963; Massennan, Wechkin, & Terris, 1964;Rice & Gainer, 1962), but there are mixed conc1usions about the existence of such behavior and about its detenninants. The research described here was designed to establish more conclusively the presence or absence of altrilistic behavior in the white rat. Rice & Gainer's (1962) operational definition of altruism was used, Le., "behavior of one animal that relieves another animal's distress." A distress state (manifested by squealing, urination, defecation, and a "mincing dance") was induced in a rat (Victim or V) by administration of electric foot shock. Another rat (Operator or 0) could introduce or terminate this distress state by appropriate manipulation of two levers. SUBJECTS The Ss were 70 male albino rats (56 Os and 14 Vs) of a commercial Sprague-Oawley strain, 90 to ISO days of age. APPARATUS Apparatus was an enclosed box divided ihto two adjacent compartments by a glass wall; spaces around the edges of the glass wall allowed passage of visual, auditory, and olfactory stimuli. The compartment for the V had three bare walls, and a grid floor through wh ich electric shock could be delivered to the feet of the V. Constant shock delivery of .05 mA to the grid was assured by use of a commercial electro-mechanical scrambling device which changed the polarity of each grid-bar four times/sec. In the compartment for the 0 were two combination operant lever-food tray devices, each mounted on a wall adjacent to the glass separating wall. Each lever-tray device had a food-pellet dispenser which was set to deliver one pellet of food per lever press throughout the experiment. Circuitry was such that either lever could be set to actuate or terminate the grid shock in addition to and concurrent with the delivery of a food pellet. Thus, it could be arranged that a press of lever X by the 0 would deliver one pellet of food to the 0 and either introduce or terminate shock to the V, while a press of lever Y would yield only food reward, or vice versa. An automatie timer and reset system was used so that, for each lever press, shock was either introduced or tenninated for 3 sec. Ouring all experimental trials the entire apparatus was operated automatically, PROCEOURE Each 0 underwent 12 to 16 30-min trials (training and experimental), conducted on consecutive days. Os were deprived of food for 23 h prior to each trial.Each 0 was first trained to feed itself by operating either lever, and then was allowed to develop a preference for one lever. A lever preference was considered to exist when the 0 procured more than 90% of his food pellets by use of the same lever for two consecutive 30-min trials. To speed up the development of a preference, one lever was adjusted so that it Psychon. Sei., 1969, Vol. 14(1) required twice as much force to activate as did the other. By the end of 8 to 10 training trials over 80% of the Os showed a preference for the "easier" lever; remaining Os preferre...

show abstract

"Altruistic" Behavior in Rhesus Monkeys

Cited by 168 publications

References 3 publications

Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making

Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making

Rudimentary empathy in macaques’ social decision-making

Altruistic behavior in the albino rat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About