Do tufted capuchin monkeys play the odds? Flexible risk preferences in Sapajus spp.
- 373 Downloads
As humans, several non-human animal species avoid risk, defined as “variability in rate of gain”. However, non-human primate studies revealed a more complicated picture, with different species ranging from risk aversion to risk proneness. Within an ecological rationality framework, a species’ feeding ecology should influence its risk preferences, as it has been shown in bonobos and chimpanzees. Although the feeding ecology hypothesis is promising, it has not been yet verified in species other than apes. Here, we aimed to assess whether this hypothesis holds true in tufted capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.). Ten capuchins were presented with choices between a “safe” option and a “risky” option in three conditions differing for the probability of receiving the larger reward when selecting the risky option. Similarly to chimpanzees, capuchins were risk prone. However, capuchins’ behaviour was not the result of a bias towards the choice of the risky option, since—when facing options with different probabilities of obtaining the larger outcome—they were able to flexibly modify their preferences. Capuchins’ decision-making under risk mirrors their risk-prone behaviour in the wild, where they often rely on unpredictable and/or hazardous food sources, thus satisfying the feeding ecology hypothesis.
KeywordsDecision-making Risk Capuchin monkeys Non-human primates
We thank Maria Bobbio and Luca Marino for help with data collection. We especially thank Fabio Paglieri, Gabriele Schino, and Elisabetta Visalberghi for constructive discussions and valuable comments and Dan Ariely for his fundamental support. We also thank Roma Capitale-Museo Civico di Zoologia and the Fondazione Bioparco for hosting the ISTC-CNR Unit of Cognitive Primatology and Primate Centre, and Massimiliano Bianchi and Simone Catarinacci for assistance with capuchins. This study was funded by the PNR-CNR Aging Program 2012–2014.
Supplementary material Movie 1. Experiment 1, Neutral condition. Robin hood, a male capuchin, is presented with the choice between a “safe” option (four food items covered by the white bowl, on the experimenter’s left) and a “risky” option (in this case, one food item covered by the red bowl, on the experimenter’s right). He chooses the “safe” option by inserting his finger in the hole of the corresponding transparent box and the experimenter provides him with the food. (MPG 56796 kb)
- Addessi E, Bellagamba F, Delfino A, De Petrillo F, Focaroli V, Macchitella L, Maggiorelli V, Pace B, Pecora G, Rossi S, Sbaffi A, Tasselli MI, Paglieri F (2014) Waiting by mistake: symbolic representation of rewards modulate intertemporal choice in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella), preschool children and adult humans. Cognition 130:428–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ASAB/ABS (2014) Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Anim Behav 87:I–IXGoogle Scholar
- Fragaszy DM, Visalberghi E, Fedigan LM (2004) The complete capuchin: the biology of genus Cebus. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Gigerenzer G, Todd PM (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Green L, Myerson J (2009) Experimental and correlational analyses of delay and probability discounting. In: Madden GJ, Bickel WK (eds) Impulsivity: the behavioral and neurological science of discounting. APA Press, Washington, pp 67–92Google Scholar
- Kacelnik A, Bateson M (1996) Risky theories: the effects of variance on foraging decisions. Am Zool 36:402–434Google Scholar
- MacLean EL, Hare B, Nunn CL, Addessi E, Amici F, Anderson RC, Aureli F, Baker JM, Bania AE, Barnard AM, Boogert NJ, Brannon EM, Bray EE, Bray J, Brent LJN, Burkart JM, Call J, Cantlon JF, Cheke LG, Clayton NS, Delgado MM, DiVincenti LJ, Fujita K, Herrmann E, Hiramatsu C, Jacobs LF, Jordan KE, Laude JR, Leimgruber KL, Messer EJE, Moura ACA, Ostojić L, Picard A, Platt ML, Plotnik JM, Range F, Reader SM, Reddy RB, Sandel AA, Santos LR, Schumann K, Seed AM, Sewall KB, Shaw RC, Slocombe KE, Su Y, Takimoto A, Tan J, Tao R, van Schaik CP, Virányi Z, Visalberghi E, Wade JC, Watanabe A, Widness J, Young J, Zentall TR, Zhao Y (2014) The evolution of self-control. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:E2140–E2148PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Piaget J, Inhelder B (1974) The child’s construction of quantities: conservation and atomism. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Proctor D, Williamson RA, Latzman RD, de Waal FBM, Brosnan SF (2014) Gambling primates: reactions to a modified Iowa Gambling Task in humans, chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys. Anim Cogn 17:983–995Google Scholar
- von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Wrangham RW, Peterson D (1996) Demonic males: apes and the origins of human violence. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar