Successive negative contrast in a bird: starlings' behaviour after unpredictable negative changes in food quality

Freidin, Esteban; Cuello, Marina Inés; Kacelnik, Alex

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.12.010

Cited by 49 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…the world is temporally positively autocorrelated) [49]. This is a contrast effect [50], a seemingly irrational behavioural phenomenon seen in many animals [51–53], including humans [54] which can arise due to uncertainty about the long-term state of the world [55], and could underlie several other psychological phenomena [29]. Current conditions in the developed world are constant glut [10], but any uncertainty could make people gain further weight because learning about food availability from dieting attempts alters expectations about food availability in the future.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An adaptive response to uncertainty can lead to weight gain during dieting attempts

Higginson

McNamara

2016

EMPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An adaptive response to uncertainty can lead to weight gain during dieting attempts

Higginson

McNamara

2016

EMPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It could represent a widespread homology, as it appears that individual comparison is widespread among animals (e.g. successive negative contrast) [Friedan et al, 2009]. However, given the data, it is also a reasonable hypothesis that it is due to convergence, based on characteristics such as cognitive ability, group living, or cooperative tendency [Fehr and Schmidt, 1999;Brosnan, 2006b].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) Do Not Form Expectations Based on Their Partner’s Outcomes

Brosnan¹,

Flemming²,

Talbot³

et al. 2011

IJFP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several primate species form expectations based on others’ outcomes, responding negatively when their outcomes differ from their partners’. The function and evolutionary pathway of this behavior are unknown, in part because all of the species which have been tested thus far share traits related to a gregarious lifestyle, intelligence, and cooperativeness. Our goal was to test whether inequity is a homology among primates or a convergence by comparing one species known to show social comparisons, the chimpanzee, to another great ape which differs on several of these life history characteristics. Using a protocol identical to one used previously with chimpanzees, we tested whether orangutans, an intelligent but predominantly solitary species with few opportunities to cooperate, responded similarly. To allow for a strong comparison with chimpanzees (and other species), we used socially housed adults of both sexes, tested with members of their social group. Orangutans did not respond negatively to inequity, supporting previous findings and indicating that inequity responses in apes are likely a convergence based on either sociality or cooperative tendency. These results in such closely related species highlight the need for additional comparative studies to understand better the function and evolution of social behaviors.

show abstract

“…Frustration responses to individual contrast are shown by both humans and nonhuman animals (Reynolds, 1961; Friedan, Cuello & Kacelnik, 2009; Talbot et al, 2011). The key difference between a response to individual contrast and a response to inequity is the form of the comparison; the latter requires social comparison while the former does not require individuals to recognize others’ outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When given the opportunity, chimpanzees maximize personal gain rather than “level the playing field”

Hopper

Lambeth

Schapiro

et al. 2013

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We provided chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) with the ability to improve the quality of food rewards they received in a dyadic test of inequity. We were interested to see if this provision influenced their responses and, if so, whether it was mediated by a social partner’s outcomes. We tested eight dyads using an exchange paradigm in which, depending on the condition, the chimpanzees were rewarded with either high-value (a grape) or low-value (a piece of celery) food rewards for each completed exchange. We included four conditions. In the first, “Different” condition, the subject received different, less-preferred, rewards than their partner for each exchange made (a test of inequity). In the “Unavailable” condition, high-value rewards were shown, but not given, to both chimpanzees prior to each exchange and the chimpanzees were rewarded equally with low-value rewards (a test of individual contrast). The final two conditions created equity. In these High-value and Low-value “Same” conditions both chimpanzees received the same food rewards for each exchange. Within each condition, the chimpanzees first completed ten trials in the Baseline Phase, in which the experimenter determined the rewards they received, and then ten trials in the Test Phase. In the Test Phase, the chimpanzees could exchange tokens through the aperture of a small wooden picture frame hung on their cage mesh in order to receive the high-value reward. Thus, in the Test Phase, the chimpanzees were provided with an opportunity to improve the quality of the rewards they received, either absolutely or relative to what their partner received. The chimpanzees responded in a targeted manner; in the Test Phase they attempted to maximize their returns in all conditions in which they had received low-value rewards during the Baseline Phase. Thus, the chimpanzees were apparently motivated to increase their reward regardless of their partners’, but they only used the mechanism provided when it afforded the opportunity for them to increase their rewards. We also found evidence that the chimpanzees’ responses were enhanced by social facilitation. Specifically, the chimpanzees were more likely to exchange their tokens through the frame when their test partner also did so, even in circumstances in which their reward value could not be improved. Our paradigm provided the chimpanzees with the possibility to improve the quality of rewards they received in the Test Phase. We found that refusals – to exchange tokens or to eat rewards – decreased significantly in the Test Phase compared to the Baseline Phase, where no such opportunity for improvement of outcomes existed. Thus, the chimpanzees participated more when they could improve the rewards they received.

show abstract

Successive negative contrast in a bird: starlings' behaviour after unpredictable negative changes in food quality

Cited by 49 publications

References 35 publications

An adaptive response to uncertainty can lead to weight gain during dieting attempts

An adaptive response to uncertainty can lead to weight gain during dieting attempts

Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) Do Not Form Expectations Based on Their Partner’s Outcomes

When given the opportunity, chimpanzees maximize personal gain rather than “level the playing field”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About