Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 983–995 | Cite as

Gambling primates: reactions to a modified Iowa Gambling Task in humans, chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys

  • Darby Proctor
  • Rebecca A. Williamson
  • Robert D. Latzman
  • Frans B. M. de Waal
  • Sarah F. Brosnan
Original Paper

Abstract

Humans will, at times, act against their own economic self-interest, for example, in gambling situations. To explore the evolutionary roots of this behavior, we modified a traditional human gambling task, the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), for use with chimpanzees, capuchin monkeys and humans. We expanded the traditional task to include two additional payoff structures to fully elucidate the ways in which these primate species respond to differing reward distributions versus overall quantities of rewards, a component often missing in the existing literature. We found that while all three species respond as typical humans do in the standard IGT payoff structure, species and individual differences emerge in our new payoff structures. Specifically, when variance avoidance and reward maximization conflicted, roughly equivalent numbers of apes maximized their rewards and avoided variance, indicating that the traditional payoff structure of the IGT is insufficient to disentangle these competing strategies. Capuchin monkeys showed little consistency in their choices. To determine whether this was a true species difference or an effect of task presentation, we replicated the experiment but increased the intertrial interval. In this case, several capuchin monkeys followed a reward maximization strategy, while chimpanzees retained the same strategy they had used previously. This suggests that individual differences in strategies for interacting with variance and reward maximization are present in apes, but not in capuchin monkeys. The primate gambling task presented here is a useful methodology for disentangling strategies of variance avoidance and reward maximization.

Keywords

Primate Gambling Risk Iowa Gambling Task Behavioral economics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the animal care and veterinary staff at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center and the Language Research Center for maintaining the health and well-being of the chimpanzees. DP was supported by an American Psychological Association Dissertation Research Award (2011), NIH/NIGMS IRACDA grant K12 GM000680 awarded to Emory University and NSF SES 0847351 awarded to SFB. SFB was funded by NSF CAREER Award SES 0847351, NSF HSD grant SES 0729244 and NSF SES 1123897. At Yerkes, this work was supported by the Living Links Center, Emory’s College of Arts and Sciences and the base grant of the National Center for Research Resources P51RR165 to the YNPRC, currently supported by the Office of Research Infrastructure Programs/OD P51OD11132. The YNPRC is fully accredited by the American Association for Accreditation for Laboratory Animal Care. This research complied with all laws of the United States of America.

Supplementary material

10071_2014_730_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (219 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 219 kb)

References

  1. American Psychological Association (2012) Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals. http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/guidelines.aspx
  2. Bakos DS, Denburg N, Fonseca RP, Parente MAdMP (2010) A cultural study on decision making: performance differences on the Iowa gambling task between selected groups of Brazilians and Americans. Psychol Neurosci 3:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechara A (2005) Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective. Nat Neurosci 8(11):1458–1463. doi:10.1038/nn1584 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechara A (2007) Iowa gambling task professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, LutzGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechara A, Damasio H (2002) Decision-making and addiction (Part I): impaired activation of somatic states in substance dependent individuals when pondering decisions with negative future consequences. Neuropsychologia 40(10):1675–1689. doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00015-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, Damasio AR (1997) Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science 275(5304):1293–1295. doi:10.1126/science.275 5304.1293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beran MJ, Ratliff CL, Evans TA (2009) Natural choice in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): perceptual and temporal effects on selective value. Learn Motiv 40(2):186–196PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowman CH, Turnbull OH (2003) Real versus facsimile reinforcers on the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain Cogn 53(2):207–210. doi:10.1016/s0278-2626(03)00111-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bromiley P, Curley S (1992) Individual differences in risk taking. In: Yates F (ed) Risk taking behaviour. Wiley, Chichester, pp 87–132Google Scholar
  10. Brosnan SF, de Waal FBM (2003) Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature 425(6955):297–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brosnan SF, Schiff HC, de Waal FBM (2005) Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 1560:253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brosnan SF, Parrish A, Beran MJ, Flemming T, Heimbauer L, Talbot CF, Lambeth SP, Schapiro SJ, Wilson BJ (2011) Responses to the assurance game in monkeys, apes, and humans using equivalent procedures. Proc Natl Academy Sci 108(8):3442–3447. doi:10.1073/pnas.1016269108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brosnan SF, Wilson BJ, Beran MJ (2012) Old World monkeys are more similar to humans than New World monkeys when playing a coordination game. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences. doi:10.1098/rspb2011.1781 Google Scholar
  14. Bunch KM, Andrews G, Halford GS (2007) Complexity effects on the children’s gambling task. Cogn Dev 22(3):376–383. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cauffman E, Shulman EP, Steinberg L, Claus E, Banich MT, Graham S, Woolard J (2010) Age differences in affective decision making as indexed by performance on the Iowa Gambling Task. Dev Psychol 46(1):193–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiu Y-C, Lin C-H, Huang J-T, Lin S, Lee P-L, Hsieh J-C (2008) Immediate gain is long-term loss: are there foresighted decision makers in the Iowa Gambling Task. Behav Brain Funct 4(1):13PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD (1979) The roaring of red deer and the evolution of honest advertisement. Behaviour: 145-170. doi:10.1163/156853979X00449
  18. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon S, Gibson R, Guinness FE (1979) The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus). Anim Behav 27:211–225. doi:10.1016/0003-3472(79)90141-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cosmides L, Tooby J (1996) Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition 58(1):1–73. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00664-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis C, Patte K, Tweed S, Curtis C (2007) Personality traits associated with decision-making deficits. Pers Individ Differ 42(2):279–290. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans CEY, Kemish K, Turnbull OH (2004) Paradoxical effects of education on the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain Cogn 54(3):240–244. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.02.022 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans T, Beran M, Chan B, Klein E, Menzel C (2008) An efficient computerized testing method for the capuchin monkey (Cebus apella): adaptation of the LRC-CTS to a socially housed nonhuman primate species. Behav Res Methods 40(2):590–596. doi:10.3758/brm.40.2.590 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freeman HD, Brosnan SF, Hopper LM, Lambeth SP, Schapiro SJ, Gosling SD (2013) Developing a comprehensive and comparative questionnaire for measuring personality in chimpanzees using a simultaneous top-down/bottom-up design. Am J Primatol. doi:10.1002/ajp.22168 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Glicksohn J, Zilberman N (2010) Gambling on individual differences in decision making. Pers Individ Differ 48(5):557–562. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glicksohn J, Naor-Ziv R, Leshem R (2007) Impulsive decision-making: learning to gamble wisely? Cognition 105(1):195–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanus D, Call J (2007) Discrete quantity judgments in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus): the effect of presenting whole sets versus item-by-item. J Comp Psychol 121(3):241–249. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.121.3.241 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haun DBM, Nawroth C, Call J (2011) Great apes’ risk-taking strategies in a decision making task. PLoS ONE 6(12):e28801. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028801 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayden BY, Platt ML (2007) Temporal discounting predicts risk sensitivity in rhesus macaques. Curr Biol 17(1):49–53. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.10.055 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayden BY, Heilbronner SR, Nair AC, Platt ML (2008) Cognitive influences on risk-seeking by rhesus macaques. Judgm Decis Mak 3(5):389–395PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Heilbronner SR, Rosati AG, Stevens JR, Hare B, Hauser MD (2008) A fruit in the hand or two in the bush? Divergent risk preferences in chimpanzees and bonobos. Biol Lett 4(3):246–249. doi:10.1098/rsbl 2008.0081PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hooper CJ, Luciana M, Wahlstrom D, Conklin HM, Yarger RS (2008) Personality correlates of Iowa Gambling Task performance in healthy adolescents. Pers Individ Differ 44(3):598–609. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Horvath P, Zuckerman M (1993) Sensation seeking, risk appraisal, and risky behavior. Pers Individ Differ 14(1):41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kacelnik A, Bateson M (1996) Risky theories—the effects of variance on foraging decisions. Am Zool 36(4):402–434. doi:10.1093/icb/36.4.402 Google Scholar
  34. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291. doi:10.2307/1914185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kerr A, Zelazo PD (2004) Development of “hot” executive function: the children’s gambling task. Brain Cogn 55(1):148–157. doi:10.1016/s0278-2626(03)00275-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ladouceur R, Bouchard C, Rhéaume N, Jacques C, Ferland F, Leblond J, Walker M (2000) Is the SOGS an accurate measure of pathological gambling among children, adolescents and adults? J Gambl Stud 16(1):1–24. doi:10.1023/a:1009443516329 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morton FB, Lee PC, Buchanan-Smith HM, Brosnan SF, Thierry B, Paukner A, de Waal FBM, Widness J, Essler JL, Weiss A (2013) Personality structure in brown capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella): Comparisons with chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), orangutans (Pongo spp.), and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). J Comp Psychol: No Pagination Specified. doi:10.1037/a0031723
  38. O’Keeffe K (2012) Philippines makes play as a gambling mecca. The Wall Street Journal, April 18, 2012. Retrieved from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303624004577341330278436226.html
  39. Roche JP, Timberlake W, McCloud C (1997) Sensitivity to variability in food amount: risk aversion is seen in discrete-choice, but not in free-choice trials. Behaviour 134(15/16):1259–1272. doi:10.1163/156853997X00142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rogers P (1998) The cognitive psychology of lottery gambling: a theoretical review. J Gambl Stud 14(2):111–134. doi:10.1023/a:1023042708217 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosati AG, Hare B (2012) Decision making across social contexts: competition increases preferences for risk in chimpanzees and bonobos. Anim Behav 84(4):869–879. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salwiczek LH, Prétôt L, Demarta L, Proctor D, Essler J, Pinto AI, Wismer S, Stoinski T, Brosnan SF, Bshary R (2012) Adult cleaner wrasse outperform capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees and orangutans in a complex foraging task derived from cleaner–client reef fish cooperation. PLoS ONE 7(11):e49068PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sevy S, Burdick KE, Visweswaraiah H, Abdelmessih S, Lukin M, Yechiam E, Bechara A (2007) Iowa Gambling Task in schizophrenia: a review and new data in patients with schizophrenia and co-occurring cannabis use disorders. Schizophr Res 92(1–3):74–84. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2007.01.005 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shafir S (2000) Risk-sensitive foraging: the effect of relative variability. Oikos 88(3):663–669. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.880323.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Steelandt S, Broihanne M, Thierry B (2011) Are monkeys sensitive to the regularity of pay-off? Int J Comp Psychol 24:272–283Google Scholar
  46. Sutton RS, Barto AG (1998) Reinforcement learning: an introduction, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Trimpop R (1994) The psychology of risk taking behavior. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  48. Turnbull OH, Evans CEY, Bunce A, Carzolio B, O’Connor J (2005) Emotion-based learning and central executive resources: an investigation of intuition and the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain Cogn 57(3):244–247. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.053 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weber EU, Shafir S, Blais A-R (2004) Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychol Rev 111(2):430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wong A, Carducci BJ (1991) Sensation seeking and financial risk taking in everyday money matters. J Bus Psychol 5(4):525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wood S, Busemeyer J, Koling A, Cox CR, Davis H (2005) Older adults as adaptive decision makers: evidence from the Iowa Gambling Task. Psychol Aging 20(2):220–225. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.20.2.220 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wright AA (1999) Visual list memory in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 113(1):74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yen N-S, Chou IC, Chung H-K, Chen K-H (2012) The interaction between expected values and risk levels in a modified Iowa gambling task. Biol Psychol 91(2):232–237. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.06.008 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zaleskiewicz T (2001) Beyond risk seeking and risk aversion: personality and the dual nature of economic risk taking. Euro J Personal 15(S1):S105–S122. doi:10.1002/per.426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zuckerman M (1994) Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darby Proctor
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Rebecca A. Williamson
    • 1
  • Robert D. Latzman
    • 1
  • Frans B. M. de Waal
    • 3
  • Sarah F. Brosnan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Language Research CenterGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Yerkes National Primate Research CenterEmory UniversityLawrencevilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Philosophy and Neuroscience InstituteGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations