Tokens improve capuchin performance in the reverse–reward contingency task

Addessi, Elsa; Rossi, Sabrina

doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1602

Cited by 41 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(62 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ineYcacy of tokens in the accumulation task suggests that the prepotent response requiring inhibition is triggered by quantity rather than by the immediate presence of food rewards. This is consistent with the lack of eVect of lowsymbolic tokens in facilitating performance in the reversereward contingency task (Addessi and Rossi 2011;Boysen 2006), and constitutes an important Wnding on the mechanisms responsible for failures of delay maintenance. Unless the quantitative dimension of the tempting stimulus is abstracted away, symbolic tokens do not facilitate self-control.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…For instance, Vlamings et al (2006) tested all four great ape species with sets of food items hidden beneath diVerent colored opaque containers and found that this concealment of the food items at choice time resulted in greater selection of the smaller option. Addessi and Rossi (2011) tested capuchin monkeys in the reverse-reward task with diVerent types of tokens representing sets of food items. In one task variation, individual food items were each replaced by "low-symbolic" token objects so that the choice options consisted of two diVerent quantities of token objects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Delaying gratification for food and tokens in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): when quantity is salient, symbolic stimuli do not improve performance

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Capuchin monkeys have been tested for the capacity to delay gratification for accumulating rewards in recent studies and have exhibited variable results. Meanwhile, chimpanzees have consistently excelled at this task. However, neither species have ever been tested at accumulating symbolic tokens instead of food items, even though previous reports indicate that tokens sometimes facilitate performance in other self-control tasks. Thus, in the present study, we tested capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees for their capacity to delay gratification in a delay maintenance task, in which an experimenter presented items, one at a time, to within reach of an animal for as long as the animal refrained from taking them. In Experiment 1, we assessed how long capuchin monkeys could accumulate items in the delay maintenance task when items were food rewards or tokens exchangeable for food rewards. Monkeys accumulated more food rewards than they did tokens. In Experiment 2, we tested capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees in a similar accumulation test. Whereas capuchins again accumulated more food than tokens, all chimpanzees but one showed no difference in performance in the two conditions. These findings provide additional evidence that chimpanzees exhibit greater self-control capacity in this task than do capuchin monkeys and indicate that symbolic stimuli fail to facilitate delay maintenance when they do not abstract away from the quantitative dimension of the task. This is consistent with previous findings on the effects of symbols on self-control and illuminates what makes accumulation a particularly challenging task.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delaying gratification for food and tokens in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): when quantity is salient, symbolic stimuli do not improve performance

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, an abstract representation of food (e.g., tokens) could replace actual food rewards to determine the influence of visible and tangible food rewards on the response to inequity. Primates are certainly capable of using tokens to represent foods for these sorts of tasks (Addessi et al, 2007;Addessi & Rossi, 2011;Brosnan & de Waal, 2004a;Brosnan & de Waal, 2004b;Sousa & Matsuzawa, 2001). We predict diminished negative responses with tokens as compared to tasks with tangible foods, but also that individuals that have had greater experience with token tasks should show stronger responses to inequity, due to their increased experience (e.g., Brosnan et al, 2011b).…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 78%

To Each According to his Need? Variability in the Responses to Inequity in Non-Human Primates

Price

Brosnan

2012

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it is well established that humans respond to inequity, it remains unclear the extent to which this behavior occurs in our nonhuman primate relatives. By comparing a variety of species, spanning from New World and Old World monkeys to great apes, scientists can begin to answer questions about how the response to inequity evolved, what the function of this response is, and why and how different contexts shape it. In particular, research across nonhuman primate species suggests that the response is quite variable across species, contexts and individuals. In this paper, we aim to review these differences in an attempt to identify and better understand the patterns that emerge from the existing data with the goal of developing directions for future research. To begin, we address the importance of considering socio-ecological factors in nonhuman primates in order to better understand and predict expected patterns of cooperation and aversion to inequity in different species, following which we provide a detailed analysis of the patterns uncovered by these comparisons. Ultimately, we use this synthesis to propose new ideas for research to better understand this response and, hence, the evolution of our own responses to inequity. what the function of this response is, and why and how different contexts shape it. Specifically, it can help clarify whether the response represents a homology, meaning it shares a common evolutionary origin, or whether it converged in several species due to similar selective pressures, absent shared descent.Several theories have been put forth to help explain negative reactions to inequity. For instance, it may be that a negative response to inequity evolved within a social context in order to recognize and avoid future inequity. This process may have occurred through steps that each increased fitness for individuals (Brosnan, 2006). First, individuals may recognize that another individual obtains rewards that are different from one's own, and then feel strongly enough to react to this discrepancy, which, if it caused the individual to sample the environment and explore other potential partners, could lead to increased fitness. Ultimately, this may lead to responses such as sacrificing a positive (but lower value) reward in order to restore equity or to punish the other individual, something humans are known to do (see Raihani & McAuliffe, 2012, this issue). Alternately, inequity may have evolved from non-social, more generalized reward mechanisms that exist in multiple contexts, such as loss aversion (Chen & Santos, 2006; Raihani & McAuliffe, 2012, this issue). In this case, individuals form expectations about rewards within different contexts, and compare these rewards to the initial expectation rather than a social reference point. Consequently, a negative response occurs when these expectations are violated in a way that does not benefit the individual.But whether or not the origins are social, what is the benefit of this response? One hypothesis is that this negative resp...

show abstract

“…If they are sensitive to partner effects, their choices in the UG should resemble those of humans. Proposers were presented with a choice of two tokens [a method that requires no apparatus and appears to be intuitive to the subjects (16,21,22,(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)], one of which represented an equal reward distribution and the other an unequal distribution favoring the proposer. The tokens acted essentially like money that could be exchanged for food.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Chimpanzees play the ultimatum game

Proctor

Williamson²,

Waal

et al. 2013

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

135

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is the sense of fairness uniquely human? Human reactions to reward division are often studied by means of the ultimatum game, in which both partners need to agree on a distribution for both to receive rewards. Humans typically offer generous portions of the reward to their partner, a tendency our close primate relatives have thus far failed to show in experiments. Here we tested chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and human children on a modified ultimatum game. One individual chose between two tokens that, with their partner's cooperation, could be exchanged for rewards. One token offered equal rewards to both players, whereas the other token favored the chooser. Both apes and children responded like humans typically do. If their partner's cooperation was required, they split the rewards equally. However, with passive partners-a situation akin to the so-called dictator game-they preferred the selfish option. Thus, humans and chimpanzees show similar preferences regarding reward division, suggesting a long evolutionary history to the human sense of fairness.inequity aversion | equality | reciprocity | sharing | behavioral economics

show abstract

Tokens improve capuchin performance in the reverse–reward contingency task

Cited by 41 publications

References 28 publications

Delaying gratification for food and tokens in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): when quantity is salient, symbolic stimuli do not improve performance

Delaying gratification for food and tokens in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): when quantity is salient, symbolic stimuli do not improve performance

To Each According to his Need? Variability in the Responses to Inequity in Non-Human Primates

Chimpanzees play the ultimatum game

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About