Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 227–234 | Cite as

Irrational choice behavior in human and nonhuman primates

  • Bonnie M. PerdueEmail author
  • Ella R. Brown
Original Paper

Abstract

Choice behavior in humans has motivated a large body of research with a focus on whether decisions can be considered to be rational. In general, humans prefer having choice, as do a number of other species that have been tested, even though having increased choice does not necessarily yield a positive outcome. Humans have been found to choose an option more often only because the opportunity to select it was diminishing, an example of a deviation from economic rationality. Here we extend this paradigm to nonhuman primates in an effort to understand the mechanisms underlying this finding. In this study, we presented two groups of laboratory monkeys, capuchins (Cebus apella) and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta), as well as human subjects, with a computerized task in which subjects were presented with two differently colored icons. When the subject selected an icon, differing numbers of food pellets were dispensed (or points were assigned), making each icon correspond to a certain level of risk (one icon yielded 1 or 4 pellets/points and the other yielded 2 or 3). Initially, both options remained constantly available and we established choice preference scores for each subject. Then, we assessed preference patterns once the options were not continuously available. Specifically, choosing one icon would cause the other to shrink in size on the screen and eventually disappear if never selected. Selecting it would restore it to its full size. As predicted, humans shifted their risk preferences in the diminishing options phase, choosing to click on both icons more equally in order to keep both options available. At the group level, capuchin monkeys showed this pattern as well, but there was a great deal of individual variability in both capuchins and macaques. The present work suggests that there is some degree of continuity between human and nonhuman primates in the desire to have choice simply for the sake of having choice.

Keywords

Capuchin monkeys Rhesus macaques Choice Risk Irrationality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the researchers at the Language Research Center of Georgia State University for their assistance and support of this project. Portions were funded by the Professional Development Committee at Agnes Scott College, and research was approved by the Georgia State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and Agnes Scott College Institutional Review Board. We also thank Tluang Cer and Martha Vorder Bruegge for assistance in data entry.

References

  1. Addessi E, Mancini A, Crescimbene L, Ariely D, Visalberghi E (2010) How to spend a token? Trade-offs between food variety and food preference in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Behav Process 83(3):267–275.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beran MJ, Klein ED, Evans TA, Antworth R, Chan B (2007) Perceived control, motivation, and task performance in capuchin monkeys. In: Zelick PR (ed) Issues in the psychology of motivation. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, pp 171–185Google Scholar
  3. Beran MJ, Perdue BM, Smith JD (2014) What are my chances? Closing the gap in uncertainty monitoring between rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn 40(3):303–316.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000020 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Catania AC (1975) Freedom and knowledge: An experimental analysis of preference in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 24(1):89–106CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Catania AC, Sagvolden T (1980) Preference for free choice over forced choice in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 34:77–86CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Cerutti D, Catania AC (1997) Pigeons’ preference for free choice: number of keys versus key area. J Exp Anal Behav 68(3):349–356.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.68-349 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Deci EL, Ryan RM (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq 11(4):227–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans TA, Beran MJ, Chan B, Klein ED, Menzel CR (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.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.2.590 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (1999) Rethinking the value of choice: a cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. J Personal Soc Psychol 76(3):349–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Personal Soc Psychol 79(6):995–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maple TL, Perdue BM (2013) Zoo animal welfare. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ono K (2004) Effects of experience on preference between forced and free choice. J Exp Anal Behav 81(1):27–37CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Perdue BM, Evans TA, Washburn DA, Rumbaugh DM, Beran MJ (2014) Do monkeys choose to choose? Learn Behav 42(2):164–175.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-014-0135-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Pintrich PR (2003) A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. J Educ Psychol 95(4):667–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reed DD, Kaplan BA, Brewer AT (2012) Discounting the freedom to choose: implications for the paradox of choice. Behav Process 90(3):424–427.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2012.03.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Richardson WK, Washburn DA, Hopkins WD, Savage-Rumbaugh ES, Rumbaugh DM (1990) The NASA/LRC computerized test system. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 22(2):127–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwartz B (2004) The paradox of choice: why less is more. Ecco, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Schwartz B, Ward A, Monterosso J, Lyubomirsky S, White K, Lehman DR (2002) Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. J Personal Soc Psychol 83(5):1178–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Setogawa T, Mizuhiki T, Matsumoto N, Akizawa F, Shidara M (2014) Self-choice enhances value in reward-seeking in primates. Neurosci Res 80:45–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2014.01.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Shafir S, Wait TA, Smith H (2002) Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51(2):180–187.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-001-0420-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shin J, Ariely D (2004) Keeping doors open: the effect of unavailability on incentives to keep options viable. Manag Sci 50(5):575–586.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1030.0148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Suzuki S (1999) Selection of forced-and free-choice by monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Percept Mot Skills 88(1):242–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Voss SC, Homzie MJ (1970) Choice as a value. Psychol Rep 26:912–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Washburn DA, Hopkins WD, Rumbaugh DM (1991) Perceived control in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta): enhanced video-task performance. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav 17(2):123–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Whitehouse J, Micheletta J, Powell LE, Bordier C, Waller BM (2013) The impact of cognitive testing on the welfare of group housed primates. PLoS ONE 8(11):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agnes Scott CollegeDecaturUSA
  2. 2.Zoo AtlantaAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations