Capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella, show no evidence for inequity aversion in a costly choice task

McAuliffe, Katherine; Chang, Linda W.; Leimgruber, Kristin L.; Spaulding, Rebecca; Blake, Peter; Santos, Laurie R.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.02.014

Cited by 30 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, capuchins show sensitivity to the magnitude of the inequity, where prosociality decreases as the discrepancies in the rewards increases (Brosnan, Houser, et al, 2010). However when it comes to the cost and effort to obtain rewards, responses to inequity vary considerably across New World monkeys both in high and low cost/effort situations (Freeman et al, 2013; Katherine McAuliffe et al, 2015; Katherine McAuliffe, Shelton, & Stone, 2014b; Neiworth et al, 2009; Sheskin, Ashayeri, Skerry, & Santos, 2014). Importantly, these prosocial responses inherently generate and lead to inequity as well (such as the case represented in our quantitative inequity comparison).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequity aversion strategies between marmosets are influenced by partner familiarity and sex but not by oxytocin

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperation among individuals depends, in large part, on a sense of fairness. Many cooperating non-human primates (NHPs) show inequity aversion, (i.e., negative responses to unequal outcomes), and these responses toward inequity likely evolved as a means to preserve the advantages of cooperative relationships. However, marmosets (Callithrix spp.) tend to show little or no inequity aversion, despite the high occurrence of prosociality and cooperative-breeding in callitrichid monkeys. Oxytocin [OXT] has been implicated in a wide variety of social processes, but little is known about whether OXT modulates inequity aversion toward others. We used a tray pulling task to evaluate whether marmosets would donate superior rewards to their long-term pairmate or an opposite-sex stranger following OXT, OXT antagonist, and saline treatments. We found that marmosets show inequity aversion, and this inequity aversion is socially- and sex-specific. Male marmosets show inequity aversion toward their pairmates but not strangers, and female marmosets do not show inequity aversion. OXT treatments did not significantly influence inequity aversion in marmosets. While OXT may modulate prosocial preferences, the motivations underlying cooperative relationships, such as inequity aversion, are multifaceted. More research is needed to evaluate the evolutionary origins, biological processes, and social contexts that influence complex phenotypes like inequity aversion. Inequity aversion can differ within species in important and distinct ways including between individuals who do and do not share a cooperative relationship. Overall, these findings support the view that inequity aversion is an important behavioural strategy for the maintenance of cooperative relationships.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequity aversion strategies between marmosets are influenced by partner familiarity and sex but not by oxytocin

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Community acceptance of this phenomenon has been burdened by questions of its definition (Henrich 2004), and possible procedural confounds (Roma, Silberberg, Ruggiero & Suomi 2006); however, its greatest burden may well be the difficulty some investigators have had in reproducing its effects (e.g., male capuchins in Brosnan & de Waal 2003; McAuliffe, Chang, Leimgruber, Spaulding, Blake, & Santos 2015; Sheskin, Ashayeri, Skerry, & Santos 2014; Silberberg, Crescimbene, Addessi, Anderson, & Visalberghi 2009). …”

Section: An Illustration Of the Utility Of A Behavioral-economic Apprmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaling reward value with demand curves versus preference tests

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, six capuchins lifted a weight during a 10-minute session to receive a food piece. Across conditions, the weight was increased across six different amounts for three different food types. The number of food pieces obtained as a function of the weight lifted was fitted by a demand equation that is hypothesized to quantify food value. For most subjects, this analysis showed that the three food types differed little in value. In Experiment 2, these monkeys were given pairwise choices among these food types. In 13 of 18 comparisons, preferences at least equaled a 3-to-1 ratio; in seven comparisons, preference was absolute. There was no relation between values based on degree of preference versus values based on the demand equation. When choices in the present report were compared to similar data with these subjects from another study, between-study lability in preference emerged. This outcome contrasts with the finding in demand analysis that test-retest reliability is high. We attribute the unreliability and extreme assignment of value based on preference tests to high substitutability between foods. We suggest use of demand analysis instead of preference tests for studies that compare the values of different foods. A better strategy might be to avoid manipulating value by using different foods. Where possible, value should be manipulated by varying amounts of a single food type because, over an appropriate range, more food is consistently more valuable than less. Such an approach would be immune to problems in between-food substitutability.

show abstract

“…In the case of advantageous distributions, Blake and McAuliffe (2011;see also Blake, McAuliffe, & Warneken, 2014;Blake et al, 2015;McAuliffe et al, 2013) used an apparatus in which children could either accept an allocation between themselves and a peer or else reject it so that no one got anything. They found that children did not reject advantageous inequities until 8 or 9 years of age.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Young children, but not chimpanzees, are averse to disadvantageous and advantageous inequities

Ulber

Hamann

Tomasello

2017

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe age at which young children show an aversion to inequitable resource distributions, especially those favoring themselves, is unclear. It is also unclear whether great apes, as humans' nearest evolutionary relatives, have an aversion to inequitable resource distributions at all. Using a common methodology across species and child ages, the current two studies found that 3-and 4-yearold children (N = 64) not only objected when they received less than a collaborative partner but also sacrificed to equalize when they received more. They did neither of these things in a nonsocial situation, demonstrating the fundamental role of social comparison. In contrast, chimpanzees (N = 9) showed no aversion to inequitable distributions, only a concern for maximizing their own resources, with no differences between social and nonsocial conditions. These results underscore the unique importance for humans, even early in ontogeny, for treating others fairly, presumably as a way of becoming a cooperative member of one's cultural group.

show abstract

Capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella, show no evidence for inequity aversion in a costly choice task

Cited by 30 publications

References 50 publications

Inequity aversion strategies between marmosets are influenced by partner familiarity and sex but not by oxytocin

Inequity aversion strategies between marmosets are influenced by partner familiarity and sex but not by oxytocin

Scaling reward value with demand curves versus preference tests

Young children, but not chimpanzees, are averse to disadvantageous and advantageous inequities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About