Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 1289–1301 | Cite as

Does effort influence inequity aversion in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus)?

  • Katherine McAuliffe
  • Natalie Shelton
  • Lauren Stone
Original Paper

Abstract

The human sense of fairness entails sensitivity not just to equality, the equal division of resources, but also to merit, the relationship between an individual’s share of resources and how hard they worked for their share. Recent evidence suggests that our sensitivity to equality has deep phylogenetic roots: several nonhuman animal species show an aversion to unequal reward distributions. However, the extent to which nonhuman animals share sensitivity to merit remains poorly understood, largely because previous studies have failed to properly manipulate work effort in inequity aversion tasks. Here, we tested whether cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) would exhibit a differential response to inequity when acquiring rewards was either (1) effortful or (2) effortless. Subjects engaged in a pulling task in which they had an opportunity to deliver a disadvantageously unequal distribution of food to themselves and a partner (one piece for self, four pieces for partner). We made delivery effortful by adding a weight to the pulling handle. Critically, effort was calibrated to each individual. Results show that individuals varied markedly in their response to effort, highlighting the importance of manipulating work effort at the individual level. Overall, subjects showed little aversion to inequity. However, subjects were slightly less likely to accept inequity when doing so was effortful, although this effect was pronounced in only one individual. Our findings suggest a new method for capturing individual variation in effort and for studying the roots of the concept of merit in nonhuman animals.

Keywords

Inequity aversion Fairness Merit Cooperation Individual differences 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Kyle Foreman for building the testing apparatus. We thank Jessie Baker, Sarah Bayefsky, Alexandra Kass, Nick López, Clarissa Scholes, Sargent Shriver, Zachary Sulkowski and Courtney Taylor for their help with this study. Thanks also to Marc Hauser for his help designing this experiment. We are grateful to Richard Wrangham, Laurie Santos, Alex Thornton, Kristin Leimgruber and two anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

10071_2014_764_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (320 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 319 kb)

References

  1. Adams JS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 2. Academic Press, New York, pp 267–299Google Scholar
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2012) Package ‘lme4’. http://cran.stat.sfu.ca/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf
  3. Baumard N, Mascaro O, Chevallier C (2012) Preschoolers are able to take merit into account when distributing goods. Dev Psychol 48:492–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benenson J, Pascoe J, Radmore N (2007) Children’s altruistic behavior in the dictator game. Evol Hum Behav 28:168–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blake PR, McAuliffe K (2011) “I had so much it didn’t seem fair”: eight-year-olds reject two forms of inequity. Cognition 120:215–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH et al (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Are apes really inequity averse? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:3123–3128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2009) Are apes inequity averse? New data on the token-exchange paradigm. Am J Primatol 71:175–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brosnan SF (2006) Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness. Soc Justice Res 19:153–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brosnan SF (2011) A hypothesis of the co-evolution of cooperation and responses to inequity. Front Neurosci 5:43PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Brosnan SF, de Waal FBM (2003) Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature 425:297–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brosnan SF, Schiff HC, de Waal FBM (2005) Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 272:253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brosnan SF, Talbot C, Ahlgren M, Lambeth SP, Schapiro SJ (2010) Mechanisms underlying responses to inequitable outcomes in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Anim Behav 79:1229–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brosnan SF, Flemming T, Talbot CF, Mayo L, Stoinski T (2011) Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) do not form expectations based on their partner’s outcomes. Folia Primatol 82:56–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burkart JM, van Schaik CP (2010) Cognitive consequences of cooperative breeding in primates? Anim Cogn 13:1–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burkart JM, Fehr E, Efferson C, van Schaik CP (2007) Other-regarding preferences in a non-human primate: common marmosets provision food altruistically. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:19762–19766PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Burkart JM, Hrdy SB, Van Schaik CP (2009) Cooperative breeding and human cognitive evolution. Evol Anthropol 18:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Camerer C (2003) Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  19. Cronin KA, Snowdon CT (2008) The effects of unequal reward distributions on cooperative problem solving by cottontop tamarins, Saguinus oedipus. Anim Behav 75:245–257PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Cronin KA, Schroeder KKE, Rothwell ES, Silk JB, Snowdon CT (2009) Cooperatively breeding cottontop tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) do not donate rewards to their long-term mates. J Comp Psychol 123:231–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Damon W (1977) The social world of the child. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  22. Dawes CT, Fowler JH, Johnson T, McElreath R, Smirnov O (2007) Egalitarian motives in humans. Nature 446:794–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. de Waal FBM, Berger ML (2000) Payment for labour in monkeys. Nature 404:563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dindo M, de Waal FBM (2007) Partner effects on food consumption in brown capuchin monkeys. Am J Primatol 69:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q J Econ 114:817–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fehr E, Bernhard H, Rockenbach B (2008) Egalitarianism in young children. Nature 454:1079–1083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fletcher GE (2008) Attending to the outcome of others: disadvantageous inequity aversion in male capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Am J Primatol 70:901–905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeman HD, Sullivan J, Hopper LM, Talbot CF, Holmes AN, Schultz-Darken N, Williams LE, Brosnan SF (2013) Different responses to reward comparisons by three primate species. PLoS ONE 8:e76297PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Güth W, Schmittberger R, Schwartze B (1982) An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J Econ Behav Organ 3:367–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hauser MD, Chen MK, Chen F, Chuang E (2003) Give unto others: genetically unrelated cotton-top tamarins monkeys preferentially give food to those who altruistically give food back. Proc Roy Soc B Biol Sci 270:2363–2370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henrich J (2004) Inequity aversion in capuchins? Nature 428:139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Henrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer C, Fehr E, Gintis H, et al. (2005) “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behav Brain Sci 28:795–815; discussion 815–755Google Scholar
  33. Hook JG, Cook TD (1979) Equity theory and the cognitive-ability of children. Psychol Bull 86:429–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hopper LM, Lambeth SP, Schapiro SJ, Bernacky BJ, Brosnan SF (2013) The ontogeny of social comparisons in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). J Primatol 2:109Google Scholar
  35. Horowitz A (2012) Fair is fine, but more is better: limits to inequity aversion in the domestic dog. Soc Justice Res 25:195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jensen K, Call J, Tomasello M (2007) Chimpanzees are rational maximizers in an ultimatum game. Science 318:107–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kanngiesser P, Warneken F (2012) Young children consider merit when sharing resources with others. Plos One 7(8):e43979PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Lakshminarayanan V, Santos LR (2008) Capuchin monkeys are sensitive to others’ welfare. Curr Biol 18:R999–R1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loewenstein GF, Thompson L, Bazerman MH (1989) Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:426–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Massen JJM, van den Berg LM, Spruijt BM, Sterck EHM (2012) Inequity aversion in relation to effort and relationship quality in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Am J Primatol 74:145–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mendres KA, de Waal FBM (2000) Capuchins do cooperate: the advantage of an intuitive task. Anim Behav 60:523–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Neiworth JJ, Johnson ET, Whillock K, Greenberg J, Brown V (2009) Is a sense of inequity an ancestral primate trait? Testing social inequity in cotton top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). J Comp Psychol 123:10–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Piovesan M, Wengstrom E (2009) Fast or fair? A study of response times. Econ Lett 105:193–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Proctor D, Williamson RA, de Waal FBM, Brosnan SF (2013) Chimpanzees play the ultimatum game. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:2070–2075PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Raihani NJ, McAuliffe K (2012) Human punishment is motivated by inequity aversion, not a desire for reciprocity. Biol Lett 8:802–804PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Raihani NJ, McAuliffe K, Brosnan SF, Bshary R (2012) Are cleaner fish, Labroides dimidiatus, inequity averse? Anim Behav 84:665–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rand DG, Greene JD, Nowak MA (2012) Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature 489:427–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Range F, Horn L, Viranyi Z, Huber L (2009) The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs. P Natl Acad Sci USA 106:340–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Range F, Leitner K, Viranyi Z (2012) The influence of the relationship and motivation on inequity aversion in dogs. Soc J Res 25:170–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roberts G (2005) Cooperation through interdependence. Anim Behav 70:901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roma PG, Silberberg A, Ruggiero AM, Suomi SJ (2006) Capuchin monkeys, inequity aversion, and the frustration effect. J Comp Psychol 120:67–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sanfey AG, Rilling JK, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD (2003) The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Science 300:1755–1758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Silberberg A, Roma PG, Ruggiero AM, Suomi SJ (2006) On inequity aversion in nonhuman primates. J Comp Psychol 120:76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Silberberg A, Crescimbene L, Addessi E, Anderson JR, Visalberghi E (2009) Does inequity aversion depend on a frustration effect? A test with capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Anim Cogn 12:505–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sloane S, Baillargeon R, Premack D (2012) Do infants have a sense of fairness? Psychol Sci 23:196–204PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith P, Silberberg A (2010) Rational maximizing by humans (Homo sapiens) in an ultimatum game. Anim Cogn 13:671–677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Snowdon CT (1996) Parental care in cooperatively breeding species. In: Rosenblatt JS, Snowdon CT (eds) Parental care: evolution, mechanisms and adaptations. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 643–689Google Scholar
  59. Stevens JR (2010) Donor payoffs and other-regarding preferences in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Anim Cogn 13:663–670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stevens JR, Hallinan EV, Hauser MD (2005a) The ecology and evolution of patience in two New World monkeys. Biol Lett 1:223–226PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Stevens J, Rosati A, Ross K, Hauser MD (2005b) Will travel for food: spatial discounting in two new world monkeys. Curr Biol 15:1855–1860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stevens J, Wood J, Hauser M (2007) When quantity trumps number: discrimination experiments in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) and common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Anim Cogn 10:429–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Takimoto A, Fujita K (2011) I acknowledge your help: capuchin monkeys’ sensitivity to others’ labor. Anim Cogn 14:715–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Takimoto A, Kuroshima H, Fujita K (2010) Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) are sensitive to others’ reward: an experimental analysis of food-choice for conspecifics. Anim Cogn 13:249–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Talbot CF, Freeman HD, Williams LE, Brosnan SF (2011) Squirrel monkeys’ response to inequitable outcomes indicates a behavioural convergence within the primates. Biol Lett 7:680–682PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. R Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org
  67. Thornton A, Lukas D (2012) Individual variation in cognitive performance: developmental and evolutionary perspectives. Phil Trans R Soc B 367:2773–2783PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. van Wolkenten M, Brosnan SF, de Waal FBM (2007) Inequity responses of monkeys modified by effort. P Natl Acad Sci USA 104:18854–18859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wascher CAF, Bugnyar T (2013) Behavioral responses to inequity in reward distribution and working effort in crows and ravens. PLoS ONE 8:e56885PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Wynne CDL (2004) Fair refusal by capuchin monkeys. Nature 428:140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine McAuliffe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Natalie Shelton
    • 3
  • Lauren Stone
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Human Evolutionary BiologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Harvard CollegeHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations