2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2018.02.033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social modulation of risky decision-making in rats (Rattus norvegicus) and tufted capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, both chimpanzees and bonobos are more riskseeking following a competitive interaction, compared with a neutral or a playful one [62]. Conversely, capuchins become more risk-averse in the presence of a conspecific than when alone [108]. Finally, chimpanzees were more averse to uncertainty stemming from another individual who can choose to reciprocate, versus a non-social probabilistic device [109].…”
Section: (G) Context-dependent Variationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, both chimpanzees and bonobos are more riskseeking following a competitive interaction, compared with a neutral or a playful one [62]. Conversely, capuchins become more risk-averse in the presence of a conspecific than when alone [108]. Finally, chimpanzees were more averse to uncertainty stemming from another individual who can choose to reciprocate, versus a non-social probabilistic device [109].…”
Section: (G) Context-dependent Variationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…the size or quantity of rewards [1][2][3]), outcome delays [4][5][6], choice framing (i.e. whether outcomes are presented as potential gains or losses), the probability of winning or losing a gamble [7][8][9], social context (for example, playful versus competitive scenarios [10] or bystander versus alone scenarios [11]) and how information is obtained (i.e. via learning-by-description versus learning-by-experience [3,12]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experimental data were acquired and analyzed through dedicated software (SOF‐815). The test was carried out as previously described 21,31 . Briefly, mice were individually placed in the startle chamber and left undisturbed for 5 minutes for habituation.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The test was carried out as previously described. 21,31 Briefly, mice were individually placed in the startle chamber and left undisturbed for 5 minutes for habituation. On the following day, mice were positioned inside the startle chamber and exposed to a continuous white noise (62 dB) for 5 minutes; following this acclimation, mice were exposed to 10 pulses of 120 dB interspaced by an average inter-trial interval (ITI) of 15 seconds.…”
Section: Pre-pulse Inhibitionmentioning
confidence: 99%