Is a sense of inequity an ancestral primate trait? Testing social inequity in cotton top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus).

Neiworth, Julie J.; Johnson, Elizabeth Tinsley; Whillock, Katherine; Greenberg, Julia; Brown, Vanessa M.

doi:10.1037/a0012662

Cited by 60 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This seems unlikely for two reasons, however. First, previous tests of inequity aversion in cotton-top tamarins did not show an effect of inequitable payoffs to partners (Neiworth et al 2009). Second, if the tamarins wanted to avoid giving the larger amount to their partner, they should have preferentially withheld food from the partner.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Donor payoffs and other-regarding preferences in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus)

Stevens

2010

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Helping others at no cost to oneself is a simple way to demonstrate other-regarding preferences. Yet, primates exhibit mixed results for other-regarding preferences: chimpanzees and tamarins do not show these effects, whereas capuchin monkeys and marmosets preferentially give food to others. One factor of relevance to this no-cost food donation is the payoff to the donor. Though donors always receive the same payoffs regardless of their choice, previous work varies in whether they receive either a food reward or no food reward. Here, I tested cotton-top tamarins in a preferential giving task. Subjects could choose from two tools, one of which delivered food to a partner in an adjacent cage and the other of which delivered food to an empty cage. Thus, subjects could preferentially give or withhold food from a partner. I varied whether subjects received food payoffs, whether a partner was present or absent, and whether the partner was a non-cagemate or the subject's mate. Results showed that the subjects' overall motivation to pull either tool declined when they did not receive any food. Additionally, they did not preferentially donate or withhold food, regardless of their own payoff or their relationship with the partner. Thus, cotton-top tamarins do not take advantage of costfree food giving, either when they might gain in the future (mates) or when they have no opportunity for future interactions (non-cagemates).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Donor payoffs and other-regarding preferences in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus)

Stevens

2010

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the non-systematic distribution of inequity aversion in primates [21] and marmosets' poor performance in nonsocial tasks, third-party social evaluation seems to have evolved independently within Callitrichidae. Although the exact conditions required for this remain unclear, future studies should investigate whether a primate species that does not show inequity aversion can discriminate between reciprocal and non-reciprocal behaviour between third parties.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marmoset monkeys evaluate third-party reciprocity

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many non-human primates have been observed to reciprocate and to understand reciprocity in one-to-one social exchanges. A recent study demonstrated that capuchin monkeys are sensitive to both third-party reciprocity and violation of reciprocity; however, whether this sensitivity is a function of general intelligence, evidenced by their larger brain size relative to other primates, remains unclear. We hypothesized that highly pro-social primates, even with a relatively smaller brain, would be sensitive to others' reciprocity. Here, we show that common marmosets discriminated between human actors who reciprocated in social exchanges with others and those who did not. Monkeys accepted rewards less frequently from non-reciprocators than they did from reciprocators when the non-reciprocators had retained all food items, but they accepted rewards from both actors equally when they had observed reciprocal exchange between the actors. These results suggest that mechanisms to detect unfair reciprocity in third-party social exchanges do not require domain-general higher cognitive ability based on proportionally larger brains, but rather emerge from the cooperative and pro-social tendencies of species, and thereby suggest this ability evolved in multiple primate lineages.

show abstract

“…Because humans refuse more frequently in situations in which they do not like the outcome (e.g., in the UG game), this similar behavior in other species has been interpreted as responding negatively to inequitable outcomes. The response is also sensitive to context, with refusals occurring only after subjects have completed a task but not when rewards are simply handed out for "free" (26,(32)(33)(34)(35). Despite this, subjects do not change their rate of refusal when they have to work harder than a partner to achieve their reward (ref.…”

Section: Justice-and Fairness-related Behavior In Other Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justice- and fairness-related behaviors in nonhuman primates

Brosnan

2013

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A distinctive feature across human societies is our interest in justice and fairness. People will sometimes invest in extremely costly behavior to achieve fair outcomes for themselves and others. Why do people care so much about justice? One way to address this is comparatively, exploring behaviors related to justice and fairness in other species. In this paper, I review work exploring responses to inequity, prosocial behavior, and other relevant behaviors in nonhuman primates in an effort to understand both the potential evolutionary function of these behaviors and the social and ecological reasons for the individual differences in behavior. I also consider how these behaviors relate to human behavior, particularly in the case of experimental studies using games derived from experimental economics to compare nonhuman primates' responses to those of humans in similar experimental conditions. These results emphasize the importance of a comparative approach to better understand the function and diversity of human behavior.comparative economics | decision-making | game theory | behavioral phylogeny | cooperation A feature of humans that apparently sets us apart as a species is our focus on others' well-being, as well as our own (1, 2). We will, sometimes at great personal cost, protest outcomes that we consider unfair, whether they personally affect us or have no direct impact on our lives. What is it that causes people to behave in this way? One possibility is that it is attributable to culture. In fact, only English has a word for the concept of "fairness"; other languages have adopted the English word, indicating a culturally broad interest in the concept but potentially implying that the concept is not ubiquitous (3). Another possibility is that we have evolved to be interested in the well-being of others. Although there are clear fitness benefits to considering one's own wellbeing, there are also (more delayed) benefits to considering others' well-being. There may be costs to helping others in the short term, but if there are long-term benefits, either because of continued interactions based on reciprocity or, more indirectly, because of gaining a reputation as a "fair" person, then the behavior can be selected (4). If this behavior has evolved, we may find similar behaviors, or precursor behaviors, in other species. Other species will not show these behaviors in the same way that humans do. Among other reasons for this, many behaviors related to fairness and justice, such as the ability to share information about a third party's previous behavior, require language. Nonetheless, an important question is the degree to which fairness and justice have evolved from similar sorts of behaviors in other species. This evolutionary approach provides insight into understanding our own behavior.In humans, the concept of fairness is closely related to that of justice. Distinguishing the two, fairness involves voluntary interactions with other individuals, whereas justice is meted out by an impartial third party (3). Based...

show abstract

Is a sense of inequity an ancestral primate trait? Testing social inequity in cotton top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus).

Cited by 60 publications

References 29 publications

Donor payoffs and other-regarding preferences in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus)

Donor payoffs and other-regarding preferences in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus)

Marmoset monkeys evaluate third-party reciprocity

Justice- and fairness-related behaviors in nonhuman primates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About