IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/3s4km.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Capuchin monkeys (Sapajus [Cebus] apella) are more susceptible to contrast than to decoy and social context effects

Author

Listed:
  • Watzek, Julia
  • Brosnan, Sarah

    (Georgia State University)

Abstract

Theories of optimal decision-making typically assume that animals have consistent preferences among options. In reality, economic behaviour in humans and foraging behaviour in some animals is often susceptible to choice-irrelevant factors such as inferior options or conspecifics’ outcomes, but the evidence for primate decision-making is mixed. Unlike previous experiments, we assessed the relative magnitude of three context effects. Using a food preference paradigm, we varied the number of cereal pieces to determine how much a piece of food A was “worth” (50% choice) to each of 13 capuchins. We predicted that monkeys would devalue A in the contrast condition (when a higher-quality but unattainable food was present) and overvalue it in the decoy condition (when a smaller version of A was a third option) and social condition (when A, if unchosen, was given to a partner). Capuchins were 4 times less likely to choose A in the contrast condition, but 2 to 3 times more likely to choose it in the decoy and social conditions. When carefully accounting for initial preferences, we found that these primates, like humans, are sensitive to context effects. This suggests that these biases are evolved and impacts how we think about them in humans.

Suggested Citation

  • Watzek, Julia & Brosnan, Sarah, 2020. "Capuchin monkeys (Sapajus [Cebus] apella) are more susceptible to contrast than to decoy and social context effects," OSF Preprints 3s4km, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:3s4km
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/3s4km
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5e8df735f1353501c9d55aa2/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/3s4km?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarah F. Brosnan & Frans B. M. de Waal, 2003. "Monkeys reject unequal pay," Nature, Nature, vol. 425(6955), pages 297-299, September.
    2. Colin Camerer, 1998. "Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Making," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 163-183, September.
    3. M. Keith Chen & Venkat Lakshminarayanan & Laurie R. Santos, 2006. "How Basic Are Behavioral Biases? Evidence from Capuchin Monkey Trading Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(3), pages 517-537, June.
    4. Sarah F. Brosnan & Frans B. M. de Waal, 2004. "Fair refusal by capuchin monkeys," Nature, Nature, vol. 428(6979), pages 140-140, March.
    5. Clive D. L. Wynne, 2004. "Fair refusal by capuchin monkeys," Nature, Nature, vol. 428(6979), pages 140-140, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brosnan, Sarah F., 2011. "An evolutionary perspective on morality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 23-30, January.
    2. Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn & Joan Maya Mazelis, 2017. "More Unequal in Income, More Unequal in Wellbeing," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 953-975, July.
    3. John Hartwick, 2010. "Encephalization and division of labor by early humans," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 77-100, July.
    4. Avi Waksberg & Andrew Smith & Martin Burd, 2012. "A model of decision making in an ecologically realistic environment: Relative comparison and the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 197-215, October.
    5. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    6. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    7. Schmidt, Ulrich & Friedl, Andreas & Lima de Miranda, Katharina, 2015. "Social comparison and gender differences in risk taking," Kiel Working Papers 2011, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    8. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Mary C. Daly & Daniel J. Wilson & Norman J. Johnson, 2013. "Relative Status and Well-Being: Evidence from U.S. Suicide Deaths," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(5), pages 1480-1500, December.
    10. Arthur J. H. C. Schram, 2008. "Experimental Public Choice," Springer Books, in: Readings in Public Choice and Constitutional Political Economy, chapter 32, pages 579-591, Springer.
    11. Bhatia, Ankita & Chandani, Arti & Chhateja, Jagriti, 2020. "Robo advisory and its potential in addressing the behavioral biases of investors — A qualitative study in Indian context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    12. Antonio Cabrales, 2010. "The causes and economic consequences of envy," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 1(4), pages 371-386, September.
    13. Declerck, Carolyn H. & Kiyonari, Toko & Boone, Christophe, 2009. "Why do responders reject unequal offers in the Ultimatum Game? An experimental study on the role of perceiving interdependence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 335-343, June.
    14. Chen, Daniel L., 2016. "Tastes for Desert and Placation: A Reference Point-Dependent Model of Social Preferences," IAST Working Papers 16-60, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    15. Kimmo Eriksson & Brent Simpson, 2012. "What do Americans know about inequality? It depends on how you ask them," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(6), pages 741-745, November.
    16. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & Catherine Tallon-Baudry & Florent Meyniel, 2011. "Fast and Automatic Activation of an Abstract Representation of Money in the Human Ventral Visual Pathway," Post-Print ijn_00713469, HAL.
    17. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    18. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    19. Oded Galor & Viacheslav Savitskiy, 2018. "Climatic Roots of Loss Aversion," NBER Working Papers 25273, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Daniel, Kent & Hirshleifer, David & Teoh, Siew Hong, 2002. "Investor psychology in capital markets: evidence and policy implications," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 139-209, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:3s4km. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.