Capuchin monkeys are sensitive to others' welfare

Lakshminarayanan, Venkat; Santos, Laurie R.

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.057

Cited by 145 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The marmosets in Burkart et al (2007), for instance, only pulled for the partners in around 55-60% of the trials, and the capuchins pulled in 62 and 62-66% of the trials, respectively, in Lakshminarayanan andSantos (2008) andde Waal et al (2008). The Jensen et al (2006) results demonstrate the highest departure from chance performance of 50% (Table 1), but, critically, there is no difference between partner present and absent conditions in that experiment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Though common marmosets show generous behavior, it does not generalize to other cooperatively breeding callitrichid species. This combined with the data on the non-cooperatively breeding capuchins (de Waal et al 2008;Lakshminarayanan and Santos 2008) suggests that cooperative breeding is neither necessary nor sufficient as an explanation of other-regarding preferences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Unfortunately, Burkhart et al (2007) and de Waal et al (2008) do not present individual data. Stud- ies that do present individual data (Cronin et al 2009;Lakshminarayanan and Santos 2008;Vonk et al 2008) demonstrate high variability across subjects, with most subjects showing no differences between partner present and absent conditions (see also Table 2). In the absence of high donation rates and inter-individual consistency, perhaps these effects are more aptly labeled "other-regarding biases".…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Humans, marmosets, and capuchins demonstrate other-regarding preferences, (Burkart et al 2007;de Waal et al 2008;Fehr et al 2008;Lakshminarayanan and Santos 2008), but tamarins do not. To further complicate the situation, chimpanzees show preferences in some situations (Warneken et al 2007;Warneken and Tomasello 2006) What underlies this variation?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors proposed that cooperative breeding has provided a strong evolutionary force shaping other-regarding preferences, and this explains why marmosets and humans (Burkart and van Schaik 2009;Hrdy 2005) show these preferences but chimpanzees do not. This interpretation is, however, weakened based on the evidence that capuchin monkeys also show other-regarding preferences in similar tasks (de Waal et al 2008;Lakshminarayanan and Santos 2008). Thus, cooperative breeding is not necessary for the evolution of other-regarding preferences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Prosocial Primates

Waal

2018

Diversity in Harmony – Insights From Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urinary oxytocin in capuchin monkeys: Validation and the influence of social behavior

Benítez

Sosnowski

Tomeo

et al. 2018

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In highly social species, like primates, oxytocin plays an important role in cooperation, and in the formation and maintenance of social relationships. Despite recent interest in the relationship between oxytocin and social behavior in nonhuman primates, relatively little is known about endogenous oxytocin in social New World Monkeys. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between oxytocin and affiliative behaviors in socially-housed captive capuchin monkeys (Sapajus [Cebus] apella) by first validating methods of analysis of urinary oxytocin in this species and, second, examining the effects of grooming and fur-rubbing behavior on oxytocin concentrations and further affiliative behavior. In the validation, we found that intranasal exogenous oxytocin significantly increased urinary oxytocin 15-60 min post-administration. Oxytocin was also implicated in both grooming and fur-rubbing behaviors. We found that oxytocin concentrations increased after subjects engaged in grooming or fur-rubbing. In addition, we found that fur-rubbing influenced affiliative behaviors, both during and after a social fur-rubbing bout. While individuals spent more time in contact and proximity while fur-rubbing, immediately following the fur-rubbing event (15-30 min afterwards) all affiliative behaviors decreased. This supports previous research that oxytocin may, in fact, initially be related to increased social distance in this species. Yet, an increase in all affiliative behaviors 30-45 min after the onset of fur-rubbing suggests that fur-rubbing, like grooming, may ultimately function to strengthen social relationships. Overall, these results support a critical role for oxytocin in affiliative behaviors that maintain and strengthen social relationships in capuchin monkeys, and highlight the complexity of the interactions among oxytocin, affiliative behaviors, and social bonding.

show abstract

Capuchin monkeys are sensitive to others' welfare

Cited by 145 publications

References 9 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)

Prosocial Primates

Urinary oxytocin in capuchin monkeys: Validation and the influence of social behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About