How chimpanzees decide in the face of social and nonsocial uncertainty

Haux, Lou M.; Engelmann, Jan M.; Herrmann, Eva; Hertwig, Ralph

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.01.015

Cited by 6 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was only weakly correlated with the other risk domains (general risk: r = .10, 95% CI = [−.11, .31]) and negatively correlated with risk rank order ( r = –.25, 95% CI = [−.44, –.04]). These divergent findings mirror past results indicating that social risk taking involves an element of trust and thus is rooted in or codetermined by social preferences (Engelmann et al, 2015; Engelmann & Herrmann, 2016; Fehr, 2009; Haux et al, 2021). Next, we investigated the relationship between the observer report and the behavioral risk measure (Table S3 in the Supplemental Material).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…In the commonly used setup, subjects make foraging decisions between a safe option (reliable outcome; e.g., one piece of food) and a risky option (variable option with outcome variance; e.g., 50% chance of getting two pieces of food or nothing). Depending on the methodology and the rewards involved, some studies have found that chimpanzees prove to be—like humans—risk averse, consistently preferring the safe over the risky option (Haux et al, 2021; Keupp et al, 2021); other studies suggest, however, that chimpanzees are risk seeking (Haun et al, 2011; Heilbronner et al, 2008; Rosati & Hare, 2011, 2012, 2013). Furthermore, there is some evidence of an increased sensitivity to social risks (see Calcutt et al, 2019; Haux et al, 2021; Rosati & Hare, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Depending on the methodology and the rewards involved, some studies have found that chimpanzees prove to be—like humans—risk averse, consistently preferring the safe over the risky option (Haux et al, 2021; Keupp et al, 2021); other studies suggest, however, that chimpanzees are risk seeking (Haun et al, 2011; Heilbronner et al, 2008; Rosati & Hare, 2011, 2012, 2013). Furthermore, there is some evidence of an increased sensitivity to social risks (see Calcutt et al, 2019; Haux et al, 2021; Rosati & Hare, 2012). Notwithstanding these mixed findings, many questions about chimpanzees’ psychology of risk are unanswered.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other studies have investigated what has been or what could be interpreted as aspects of risk-taking behaviors beyond choice in economic paradigms. These studies involve, for instance, research on inhibitory control (e.g., MacLean et al, 2014; delay of gratification: Beran et al, 1999; expectancy: Stevens et al, 2011; patience: Rosati et al, 2007), temperament and personality (e.g., Herrmann et al, 2011, 2015; King & Figueredo, 1997; boldness: Massen et al, 2013; curiosity: Damerius et al, 2017; anxiety: Coleman & Pierre, 2014), cooperation and competition (e.g., Hare et al, 2000; trust: Engelmann et al, 2015; Engelmann & Herrmann, 2016; Haux et al, 2021), and new environments (e.g., unsafe areas: Hockings et al, 2006; responses to novelty: Forss et al, 2015; Kalan et al, 2019; xenophobia: de Waal, 2012; xenophilia: Tan & Hare, 2017). As it is not yet clear how these constructs and measures relate to each other as well as to risk preference as gauged here—for instance, Carter et al (2012) showed that current boldness measures may not be interchangeable—we will not further interpret these findings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Chimpanzee and Human Risk Preferences Show Key Similarities

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk preference impacts how people make key life decisions related to health, wealth, and well-being. Systematic variations in risk-taking behavior can be the result of differences in fitness expectations, as predicted by life-history theory. Yet the evolutionary roots of human risk-taking behavior remain poorly understood. Here, we studied risk preferences of chimpanzees (86 Pan troglodytes; 47 females; age = 2–40 years) using a multimethod approach that combined observer ratings with behavioral choice experiments. We found that chimpanzees’ willingness to take risks shared structural similarities with that of humans. First, chimpanzees’ risk preference manifested as a traitlike preference that was consistent across domains and measurements. Second, chimpanzees were ambiguity averse. Third, males were more risk prone than females. Fourth, the appetite for risk showed an inverted-U-shaped relation to age and peaked in young adulthood. Our findings suggest that key dimensions of risk preference appear to emerge independently of the influence of human cultural evolution.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Chimpanzee and Human Risk Preferences Show Key Similarities

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, consistent experimental findings show that human economic behaviours often appear irrational, i.e., not aimed at maximising utility [3]. Investigating the factors that lead to seemingly or real irrational choices shows that the way utility is assessed can highly modulate to generalise in primates, due to inter-species variability (for instance, bonobos appear more risk-averse than chimpanzees [24][25][26]) and between-study variance within a given primate species: Rhesus macaques appear risk-prone in [27][28][29] and risk-averse in [30], chimpanzees appear risk-prone in [31][32][33] and risk-averse in [34][35][36], and bonobos appear risk-prone in [19,32] and risk-averse in [24,25,31]. One major issue in this line of research is the diversity of the experimental designs that are used to test primates (see [37] for a review).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rationality and cognitive bias in captive gorillas’ and orang-utans’ economic decision-making

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human economic decision-making sometimes appears to be irrational. Partly, this is due to cognitive biases that can lead to suboptimal economic choices and context-dependent risk-preferences. A pertinent question is whether such biases are part of our evolutionary heritage or whether they are culturally acquired. To address this, we tested gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and orang-utans (Pongo abelii) with two risk-assessment experiments that differed in how risk was presented. For both experiments, we found that subjects increased their preferences for the risky options as their expected gains increased, showing basic understanding of reward contingencies and rational decision-making. However, we also found consistent differences in risk proneness between the two experiments, as subjects were risk-neutral in one experiment and risk-prone in the other. We concluded that gorillas and orang-utans are economically rational but that their decisions can interact with pre-existing cognitive biases which modulates their risk-preference in context-dependent ways, explaining the variability of their risk-preference in previous literature.

show abstract

When uncertainty in social contexts increases exploration and decreases obtained rewards.

Plate¹,

Ham²,

Jenkins³

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Similar decision-making situations often arise repeatedly, presenting tradeoffs between (i) acquiring new information to facilitate future-related decisions (exploration) and (ii) using existing information to secure expected outcomes (exploitation). Exploration choices have been well characterized in nonsocial contexts, however, choices to explore (or not) in social environments are less well understood. Social environments are of particular interest because a key factor that increases exploration in nonsocial contexts is environmental uncertainty, and the social world is generally appreciated to be highly uncertain. Although uncertainty sometimes must be reduced behaviorally (e.g., by trying something and seeing what happens), other times it may be reduced cognitively (e.g., by imagining possible outcomes). Across four experiments, participants searched for rewards in a series of grids that were either described as comprising real people distributing previously earned points (social context) or as the result of a computer algorithm or natural phenomenon (nonsocial context). In Experiments 1 and 2, participants explored more, and earned fewer rewards, in the social versus nonsocial context, suggesting that social uncertainty prompted behavioral exploration at the cost of task-relevant goals. In Experiments 3 and 4, we provided additional information about the people in the search space that could support social-cognitive approaches to uncertainty reduction, including relationships of the social agents distributing points (Experiment 3) and information relevant to social group membership (Experiment 4); exploration decreased in both instances. Taken together, these experiments highlight the approaches to, and tradeoffs of, uncertainty reduction in social contexts. Public Significance StatementWhen interacting with other people, we often face a high degree of uncertainty: we may not know how other people are feeling, their past experiences, or their future behaviors. We show that people resolve this uncertainty through behavioral exploration-that is, they seek out interactions with other people in order to learn about them. However, this exploration can come at the cost of other goals (in this case, earning rewards). People can sidestep the need for this costly exploration by employing other tools, such as their expectations about how people are similar to each other or themselves. Together, we demonstrate approaches that individuals use to guide social knowledge acquisition.

show abstract

How chimpanzees decide in the face of social and nonsocial uncertainty

Cited by 6 publications

References 67 publications

Chimpanzee and Human Risk Preferences Show Key Similarities

Chimpanzee and Human Risk Preferences Show Key Similarities

Rationality and cognitive bias in captive gorillas’ and orang-utans’ economic decision-making

When uncertainty in social contexts increases exploration and decreases obtained rewards.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About