Comparative Economics: Using Experimental Economic Paradigms to Understand Primate Social Decision-Making

Watzek, Julia; Smith, Mackenzie F.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93776-2_9

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This simplicity allows us to study complex decisions using very simple, often dichotomous choices, which makes them particularly amenable to comparative work. There are recent review papers that cover their use in other species in depth [18][19][20][21], so I will only summarize these games and the findings here as they are relevant to understanding the evolution of economic systems. One of the challenges of studying these games in other species is that the lack of language means that we cannot use the typical human procedure of explaining the payoffs nor give pre-tests to ensure that subjects understand.…”

Section: The Evolution Of Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What behaviour in economic games tells us about the evolution of non-human species' economic decision-making behaviour

Brosnan

2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past decade, there has been a surge of interest in using games derived from experimental economics to test decision-making behaviour across species. In most cases, researchers are using the games as a tool, for instance, to understand what factors influence decision-making, how decision-making differs across species or contexts, or to ask broader questions about species’ propensities to cooperate or compete. These games have been quite successful in this regard. To what degree, however, do these games tap into species' economic decision-making? For the purpose of understanding the evolution of economic systems in humans, this is the key question. To study this, we can break economic decision-making down into smaller components, each of which is a potential step in the evolution of human economic behaviour. We can then use data from economic games, which are simplified, highly structured models of decision-making and therefore ideal for the comparative approach, to directly compare these components across species and contexts, as well as in relation to more naturalistic behaviours, to better understand the evolution of economic behaviour and the social and ecological contexts that influenced it. The comparative approach has successfully informed us about the evolution of other complex traits, such as language and morality, and should help us more deeply understand why and how human economic systems evolved. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Existence and prevalence of economic behaviours among non-human primates’.

show abstract

Section: The Evolution Of Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What behaviour in economic games tells us about the evolution of non-human species' economic decision-making behaviour

Brosnan

2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Otherwise, it is impossible to tell whether differences found are due to differences in the species (or contexts) or differences in the procedures. Likewise, similarities may be due to unintentionally creating situations that are more favorable to one condition or species than another (Watzek, Smith, & Brosnan, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These methods, developed to study decision‐making in humans (Camerer, ; V. L. Smith, , ), reduce complex scenarios to simple choice paradigms easily adaptable for nonverbal species (Brosnan et al, ; Brosnan, Wilson, & Beran, ; Bullinger, Wyman, Melis, & Tomasello, ; Haroush & Williams, ; Parrish, Brosnan, Wilson, & Beran, ). Such studies have already begun to reveal significant similarities and differences in social decision‐making behavior across a variety of primate species (including humans) that help us to better understand the evolution of social decision‐making (Watzek et al, ). Importantly, the multitude of economic games used in game theory research allows for an analysis of decision‐making behavior across a wide range of scenarios, so that we can explore, for example, both cooperative and competitive interactions using comparable methodology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capuchin monkeys (Sapajus[Cebus]apella) play Nash equilibria in dynamic games, but their decisions are likely not influenced by oxytocin

Smith

Leverett

Wilson

et al. 2019

American J Primatol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative approaches to experimental economics have shed light on the evolution of social decision-making across a range of primate species, including humans. Here we replicate our previous work looking at six pairs of capuchin monkeys' (Sapajus [Cebus] apella) responses to scenarios requiring both coordination (Assurance Game) and anticoordination (Hawk-Dove Game). This then provides a foundation for assessing their responses to two additional games, one with a scenario of beneficial cooperation with a temptation to defect (Prisoner's Dilemma) and one with an environment requiring changing strategies within short temporal proximity (Alternating Economic Game). We additionally explored the effects of exogenous oxytocin on decision-making. Oxytocin did not affect decisions in any of our games. Results from the first two games largely replicated our previous findings. Responses to the Prisoner's Dilemma were more varied than was seen in previous games, with pairs respectively cooperating, defecting, and failing to establish stable strategies. Such variability indicates that this game may be a good assay for individual differences in social decision-making. Finally, capuchins were able to flexibly switch between their previously established strategies within each of the different games, even when the games were presented within the same session, requiring strategy adjustments within short temporal proximity. These results build on earlier findings showing that capuchins can alter decision-making strategies as the context demands, which is likely essential for decision-making in naturally occurring contexts.

show abstract

“…That is, the free rider bene ts the most from the interaction. For instance, computerized tasks have presented primate species including chimpanzees, capuchin monkeys and rhesus macaques with different economic games borrowed from the game theory literature [12][13][14] . These studies have found that, in general, primates can converge to a Nash Equilibrium (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of game theory models to explore how different primate species coordinate actions for mutual goals, as well as how they overcome con icts of interest, is a growing eld in comparative psychology 14 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do gibbons solve social dilemmas?

Sánchez-Amaro¹,

Ball²,

Rossano³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social primates face conflicts of interest with other partners when their individual and collective interests collide. Despite living in small, primarily dyadic, groups compared to other social primates, gibbons are not exempt from these conflicts in their everyday lives. In the current task, we asked whether pairs of gibbons would solve a conflict of interest over food rewards. We presented pairs of gibbons with a situation in which one pair member, the actor, could release food rewards at a distance, giving the passive partner a chance to take an advantageous position to obtain the rewards. Gibbons participated in three conditions: A No Food control, an Altruistic situation in which the actor could not obtain a direct reward from the cooperative act and a Test condition in which the actor could secure a small fraction of the total rewards. We found that gibbons acted more often in the two conditions involving food rewards, and waited longer when no direct rewards were available for the actor, thus suggesting that they understood the mechanism and that they faced a social trade-off between making the rewards available and waiting for each other to act. However, we found that in a majority of pairs, acting individuals benefitted more than the passive partners in both altruistic and test conditions. Furthermore, in some occasions actors actively refused to approach the location where the food was released. These results suggest that while gibbons strategize to solve the social dilemmas, they often allowed their partners to obtain better rewards. Our results highlight the importance of social tolerance and motivation as drivers promoting cooperation in these pair-living species.

show abstract

Comparative Economics: Using Experimental Economic Paradigms to Understand Primate Social Decision-Making

Cited by 8 publications

References 46 publications

What behaviour in economic games tells us about the evolution of non-human species' economic decision-making behaviour

What behaviour in economic games tells us about the evolution of non-human species' economic decision-making behaviour

Capuchin monkeys (Sapajus[Cebus]apella) play Nash equilibria in dynamic games, but their decisions are likely not influenced by oxytocin

How do gibbons solve social dilemmas?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About