Non-human Primate Studies Inform the Foundations of Fair and Just Human Institutions


Experiments with human participants have inspired new theories to capture human social, economic, and justice preferences, and shed new light on the foundation of institutions that promote and support large-scale exchange. Another source of valuable data for informing this agenda derives from studies with non-human primates. Here, we argue that primate studies of social preferences provide behavioral evidence supporting the role of the brain as an evolved social record-keeping device. Our argument follows Dickhaut et al. (Accounting Horizons 24:221–255, 2010), who pointed to record-keeping as critical in enabling large-scale trade. Here, we note that record-keeping also underlies justice judgments in both personal exchange and large-scale trade. The reason is that evaluating whether an allocation is just requires tracking not only benefits that accrue locally, but also benefits for distant others. Further, if record-keeping is an evolved trait (as Dickhaut et al. in Accounting Horizons 24:221–255, 2010 suggest), then it seems reasonable to expect it to be evidenced not only in humans, but also in non-human primates. Indeed, we argue that evidence from non-human primate research supports the Dickhaut hypothesis, thus supporting the role of justice in the emergence of fair and efficient economic exchange.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Rubinstein (2006, p. 251), writes, “Why is animal behavior relevant? I have no idea. If the behavioral economists are trying to say that the behavior of human beings is rooted in their physical nature, I imagine they are right. Indeed, we are just flesh, blood and neurons. Even if we consider these experimental results relevant, a skeptical approach is recommended here as well.”

  2. 2.

    “Studying behaviors in other species can inform us about the evolutionary trajectory of morality, helping us to understand how the behaviors evolved and which environmental characteristics were critical for their emergence (Brosnan, 2011, p. 23).”

  3. 3.

    The connection to non-human primate studies was made by Dickhaut et al. (2010), which draws attention to two related studies: Shadlen and Newsome (2001), Fiorillo et al., (2003). In this article, we substantially expand on this point, and also draw new connections between record keeping and justice judgments.

  4. 4.

    Those features include, for example, the revenue realization, expense-matching and cost management and conservatism, among others.

  5. 5.

    Dickhaut et al. (2010, p. 221).

  6. 6.

    Cultural adaptation refers to the evolved ability of humans to learn from each other. This paves the way for more rapid adaptation to the local environment, without the need for genetic evolution.

  7. 7.

    It is interesting to note that this process might also be connected to “the evolution of other-regarding motives as empathy and social emotions like shame” (Boyd & Richerson, 2009). These emotions plausibly underlie reciprocal behaviors and aversion to inequity, and thus may provide an ultimate foundation for the human sense of justice.

  8. 8.

    We are not aware of evidence of intentional non-reciprocation. However, as noted by a referee, it would be interesting to find evidence that primates create artifacts to remember where they stored food as a mechanism to avoid reciprocity by hiding resources to avoid detection.

  9. 9.

    Not everyone agrees that food sharing is a demonstration of pro-social preferences. For example, Stevens (2004) argue that food sharing is predicated on avoiding harassment.

  10. 10.

    While we focus largely on positive reciprocity, negative reciprocity is found in both human and non-human primate studies.

  11. 11.

    To our knowledge, it is unclear whether the monkeys remember the actual exchange or that they are responding to a general sense of greater happiness with their partner.

  12. 12.

    Indeed, reciprocity has been observed in many other experimental environments and species of non-human primates.

  13. 13.

    Natural selection will increase behaviors that benefit the individual, though this need not imply that the ultimate motive selected by evolution is selfish. Indeed, some have argued that it could be quite pro-social.

  14. 14.

    With information from a “reputation record”, one can avoid exchanging with disreputable partners and strengthen the relationship with reputable partners. Also, with the expectation that reputation matters for future economic exchanges, one has more incentives to be reciprocal.

  15. 15.

    For human studies, see (Camerer, 2003), and non-human primates studies, see the works done by Brosnan and de Waal (2003), Brosnan et al. (2005), Brosnan et al. (2010), Fletcher (2008), van Wolkenten et al. (2007), Massen et al. (2010, 2011), Price and Brosnan (2012), previous issue, Bräuer and Hanus (2012), this issue. For work on other species, see Horowitz (2012), previous issue, Range et al. (2012), previous issue, Pierce and Bekoff (2012), previous issue, and Raihani and McAuliffe (2012), previous issue.

  16. 16.

    A regular finding is that responses to inequity aversion often involve “punishment” (Fehr & Schmidt, 1999; Fehr & Gächter, 2002). In both human and non-human environments, such punishment can act to enforce pro-social norms (Fehr & Gächter, 2002; Brosnan & de Waal, 2002; Boyd, Gintis, Bowles., & Richerson, 2003; Fowler, Johnson, & Smirnov, 2005; Brosnan, 2011), however, active punishment may be rare in non-human primate studies. de Waal find increased aggressive resistance from the possessor of food towards food beggars who failed to groom them. Also there is some evidence of punishment from cleaner fish).

  17. 17.

    It is interesting to speculate on the source of an aversion to advantageous inequality. It may be the case that this preference is due to non-human primates awareness of and consideration for future interactions with their partner. Alternatively, it might reflect an adaptive impulsive response determined sub-consciously.

  18. 18.

    Some studies find no effect at all. Brosnan et al. (2010) finds male chimpanzees are more responsive to inequity, while Brosnan and de Waal (2003) report only female capuchin monkeys respond negatively to inequity.

  19. 19.

    Note that this refers to the “reward” in non-human primates studies but the “endowment” in human studies.

  20. 20.

    Responsiveness to social reference points underlies a number of disparate literatures in economics, including peer effects, responsiveness to competitive environments and a variety of findings regarding how to promote conformity to norms.

  21. 21.

    i.e., Capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees.

  22. 22.

    It should be emphasized that toleration is itself a complex decision process that arises even in relatively simple contexts, such as those faced by the participants in these experiments.


  1. Amin, A. (1999). An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(2), 365–378. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.00201.

  2. Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293–312. doi:10.1162/003355301556419.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390.;211/4489/1390.

  4. Basu, S., Dickhaut, J., Hecht, G., Towry, K., & Waymire, G. (2009). Recordkeeping alters economic history by promoting reciprocity. PNAS, 106(4), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Basu, S., Kirk, M., & Waymire, G. (2009). Memory, transaction records, and The Wealth of Nations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(8), 895–917. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2009.07.002.

  6. Basu, S., & Waymire, G. B. (2006). Recordkeeping and human evolution. Accounting Horizons, 20(3), 201–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65–122).,+1987&ots=MU-mIxf08l&sig=odmUoAw2x_BhjhQReCHH7JZk9xI.

  8. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142. doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027.

  9. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society—the nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bicchieri, C., & Xiao, E. (2009). Do the right thing: but only if others do so. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(2), 191–208. doi:10.1002/bdm.621.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Blinder, A. S., & Choi, D. H. (1990). A shred of evidence on theories of wage stickiness. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(4), 1003–1015. doi:10.2307/2937882.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Boesch, C. (1992). New elements about a theory of mind in wild chimpanzees. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(1), 149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Boesch, C. (1994). Cooperative hunting in wild chimpanzees. Animal Behaviour, 48(3), 653–667.

  14. Bonnie, K. E., Frans, B.M., & de Waal. (2004). Primate social reciprocity and the origin of gratitude. In The psychology of gratitude, ed. R. A. Emmons and M. E. McCullough, 213-229. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  15. Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles. S., & Richerson. P. J. (2003). The evolution of altruistic punishment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 100(6), 3531–3535.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2009). Culture and the evolution of human cooperation.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of LondonSeries B: Biological Sciences, 364(1533), 3281–3288.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bräuer, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Are apes really inequity averse? Proceedings Biological Sciences/The Royal Society, 273(1605), 3123–3128. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3693.

  18. Bräuer, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Are apes inequity averse? New data on the token-exchange paradigm. American Journal of Primatology, 71(2), 175–181. doi:10.1002/ajp.20639.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bräuer, J., & Hanus, D. (2012). Fairness in non-human primates? Social Justice Research, 25(3).

  20. Brosnan, S. F. (2011). An evolutionary perspective on morality. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 77(1), 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2010.04.008.

  21. Brosnan, S. F. (2012). Introduction to ‘Justice in Animals’. Journal of Social Justice Research (next issue).

  22. Brosnan, S. F, & Beran, M. J. (2009). Trading behavior between conspecifics in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 123(2), 181–94. doi:10.1037/a0015092.

  23. Brosnan, S.F., & de Waal. F. B. M. (2002). A proximate perspective on reciprocal altruism. Human Nature, 13(1), 129–152.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brosnan, S. F., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay.” Nature, 425(6955), 297–299. doi:10.1038/nature01987.1.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Brosnan, S. F, & de Waal, F. B. M. (2009). Cebus apella tolerate intermittent unreliability in human experimenters. International Journal of Primatology, 30(5), 663–674. doi:10.1007/s10764-009-9366-x.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Brosnan, S. F, Schiff, H. C., de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proceedings Biological Sciences/The Royal Society, 272(1560), 253–258. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2947.

  27. Brosnan, S. F., Talbot, C. Ahlgren, M., Lambeth, S. P., & Schapiro, S. J. (2010). Mechanisms underlying responses to inequitable outcomes in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytesAnimal Behaviour, 79(6), 1229–1237. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.02.019.

  28. Burnham, T. C. (2007). High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 274(1623), 2327–2330.

  29. Burrows, P., & Loomes, G. (1994). The impact of fairness on bargaining behaviour. Behaviour, 19, 201–221.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Dictator, ultimatum, and trust games. Behavioral Game Theory, 544, 43–117.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Camerer, C. F., & Fehr, E. (2004). Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies, 97, 55–95.

  32. Chattopadhyay, R., & Duflo, E. (2004). Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica, 72(5), 1409–1443.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Chen, M. K., Lakshminarayanan, V., & Santos, L. R. (2006). How basic are behavioral biases? Evidence from capuchin monkey trading behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 114(3), 517–537.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chen, Y, & Li, S. X. (2009). Group identity and social preferences. American Economic Review, 99(1), 431–457. doi:10.1257/aer.99.1.431.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the Dictator. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1218–1221. doi:10.1257/00028280260344740.

  36. Cherry, T. L, Kroll, S., & Shogren, J. F. (2005). The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: evidence from the lab. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 57(3), 357–365. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2003.11.010.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Christen, M. & Glock, H.-J. (2012). The (limited) space for justice in social animals. Social Justice Research, 25(3).

  38. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2):448–474. doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.448.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(2), 111–116. doi:10.1080/002075900399402.

  40. De Waal, F. B. (1997a). Food transfers through mesh in brown capuchins. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 111(4), 370–378.

    Google Scholar 

  41. de Waal, F. B. (2000). Attitudinal reciprocity in food sharing among brown capuchin monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 60(2), 253–261. doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1471.

  42. De Waal, F. B. M. (1997b). The Chimpanzee’s service economy: Food for grooming. Evolution and Human Behavior, 386, 375–386.

  43. De Waal, F. B. M., & Aureli, F. (1996). Consolation, reconciliation, and a possible cognitive difference between macaques and chimpanzees. In A. E. Russon, K. A. Bard, & S. T. Parker (Eds.), Reaching into thought the minds of the great apes (pp. 80–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. de Waal, F. B., & Berger, M. L. (2000). Payment for labour in monkeys. Nature, 404(6778), 563. doi:10.1038/35007138.

  45. De Waal, F. B. M., & Brosnan, S. F. (2002). Simple and complex reciprocity in primates. In D. L. Chivers & W. Lane-Petter (Eds.), Cooperation in primates and humans: Mechanisms and evolution (pp. 85–105). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  46. de Waal, F. B. M, Leimgruber, K., & Greenberg, A. R. (2008). Giving is self-rewarding for monkeys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(36), 13685–13689. doi:10.1073/pnas.0807060105.

  47. De Waal, F. B. M, & Roosmalen, A. (1979). Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 5(1), 55–66. doi:10.1007/BF00302695.

  48. de Waal, F. B. M., & Suchak, M. (2010). Prosocial primates: Selfish and unselfish motivations. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 365(1553), 2711–2722. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0119.

  49. Dickhaut, J., Basu, S. McCabe, K. & Waymire, G. (2010). Neuroaccounting: Consilience between the biologically evolved brain and culturally evolved accounting principles. Accounting Horizons, 24(2), 221–255. doi:10.2308/acch.2010.24.2.221.

  50. Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition (Vol. 16). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  51. Dufour, V., Pelé, M., Neumann, M. Thierry, B., & Call, J. (2009). Calculated reciprocity after all: computation behind token transfers in orangutans. Biology Letters, 5(2), 172–175. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2008.0644.

  52. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal, 108(448), 726–735. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00311.

  53. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2001). Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Economic Inquiry, 39(2), 171–188. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2001.tb00059.x.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2002). Why social preferences matter—the impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation and incentives. The Economic Journal, 112(478), C1–C33.

  55. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(6960), 785–791. doi:10.1038/nature02043.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000a). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980–994. doi:10.1126/science.151.3712.867-a.

  57. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000b). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159–181. doi:10.1257/jep.14.3.159.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868), 137–140. doi:10.1038/415137a.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Fehr, E., Gächter, S., & Kirchsteiger, G. (1997). Reciprocity as a contract enforcement device: Experimental Evidence. Econometrica, 65(4), 833–860. doi:10.2307/2171941.

  60. Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G., & Riedl, A. (1993). Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(2), 437–459. doi:10.2307/2118338.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Fehr, E., & Schmidt. K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868. doi:10.1162/003355399556151.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Feistner, A. T., & McGrew, W. C. (1989). Food-sharing in primates: A critical review. In P. K. Seth & S. Seth (Eds.), Perspectives in primate biology (Vol. 3, pp. 21–36). New Delhi: Today and Tomorrow’s Printers.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Fiorillo, C. D., Tobler, P. N., & Schultz, W. (2003). Discrete coding of reward probability and uncertainty by dopamine neurons. Science, 299(5614), 1898–1902.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Fletcher, G. E. (2008). Attending to the outcome of others: Disadvantageous inequity aversion in male capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). American Journal of Primatology, 70(9), 901–905. doi:10.1002/ajp.20576.

  65. Fontenot, M. B., Watson, S.L., Roberts, K. A., & Miller, R. W. (2007). Effects of food preferences on token exchange and behavioural responses to inequality in tufted capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella. Animal Behaviour, 74(3), 487–496. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.01.015.

  66. Fraser, O. N, Stahl, D., & Aureli, F. (2008). Stress reduction through consolation in chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(25), 8557–8562.

  67. Gächter, S., & Thöni, C. (2010). Social comparison and performance: Experimental evidence on the fair wage–effort hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(3), 531–543. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2010.08.008.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Gomes, C. M, & Boesch, C. (2009). Wild chimpanzees exchange meat for sex on a long-term basis. PLoS One, 4(4), 6.

  69. Gomes, C. M., Mundry, R., & Boesch, C. (2009). Long-term reciprocation of grooming in wild West African chimpanzees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1657), 699–706.

  70. Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367–388. doi:10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Harrison, G. W. (2007). House money effects in public good experiments: Comment. Experimental Economics, 10(4), 429–437. doi:10.1007/s10683-006-9145-x.

  72. Henrich, J. (2000). Does culture matter in economic behavior? Ultimatum game bargaining among the machiguenga of the Peruvian amazon. American Economic Review, 90(4), 973–979. doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.973.

  73. Henrich, J. (2004). Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53(1), 3–35. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00094-5.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2001). In search of homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review, 91 (2), 73–78. doi:10.1257/aer.91.2.73.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., McElreath, R. et al. (2005). ‘Economic man’ in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795–815; discussion 815–855. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05000142.

  76. Horowitz, A. (2012). Fair is fine, but more is better: Limits to inequity aversion in the domestic dog. Social Justice Research, 25(2), 195–212. doi:10.1007/s11211-012-0158-7.

  77. Jaeggi, A. V, Burkart, J. M., & Van Schaik, C. P. (2010). On the psychology of cooperation in humans and other primates: Combining the natural history and experimental evidence of prosociality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 365, 2723–2735. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0118.

  78. Jensen, K., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Chimpanzees are vengeful but not spiteful. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(32), 13046–13050.

  79. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(4), 728-741. doi:10.2307/1806070.

  80. Karlan, D. S., & Zinman, J. (2008). Credit elasticities in less-developed economies: Implications for Microfinance. The American Economic Review, 98(3), 1040–1068.

  81. Koski, S. E, & Sterck, E. H. M. (2009). Post-conflict third-party affiliation in chimpanzees: What’s in it for the third party? American Journal of Primatology, 71(5), 409–418.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Kroll, S., Cherry, T. L., & Shogren, J. F. (2007). The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on contributions in best-shot public good games. Experimental Economics, 10(4), 411–428. doi:10.1007/s10683-006-9144-y.

  83. Lakshminarayanan, V. R, & Santos, L. R. (2008). Capuchin monkeys are sensitive to others’ welfare. Current Biology, 18(21), R999–R1000. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.057.

  84. Littleton, A. C. (1933). Accounting evolution to 1900. New York: American Institute Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Littleton, A. C. (1953). The structure of accounting theory. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Mankiw, N. G. (1985). Small menu costs and large business cycles: A macroeconomic model of monopoly. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 100(2), 529–537.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Massen, J. J. M, van den Berg, L. M., Spruijt, B. M., & Sterck. E. H. M. (2011). Inequity aversion in relation to effort and relationship quality in long-tailed Macaques (Macaca fascicularis). American Journal of Primatology, 156, 145–156. doi:10.1002/ajp.21014.

  88. Massen, J. J. M, van den Berg, L. M., & Spruijt, B M. & Sterck, E. H. M. (2010). Generous leaders and selfish underdogs: pro-sociality in despotic macaques. PloS One, 5(3), e9734. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009734.

  89. Meier, S. (2006). A survey of economic theories and field evidence on pro-social behavior.

  90. Melis, A. P, Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Chimpanzees recruit the best collaborators. Science (New York, N.Y.), 311(5765), 1297–300. doi:10.1126/science.1123007.

  91. Melis, A. P., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Do chimpanzees reciprocate received favours? Animal Behaviour, 76(3), 951–962. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.05.014.

    Google Scholar 

  92. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112.

  93. Pierce, J., & Bekoff, M. (2012). Wild justice redux: What we know about social justice in animals and why it matters. Social Justice Research, 25(2), 122–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Price, S. A., & Brosnan, S. F. (2012). To each according to his need? Variability in the responses to inequity in non-human primates. Social Justice Research, 25(2), 140–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Raihani, N. J., & McAuliffe, K. (2012). Does inequity aversion motivate punishment? Cleaner fish as a model system. Social Justice Research, 25(2), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Range, F., Leitner, K., & Viranyi, Z. (2012). The influence of the relationship and motivation on inequity aversion in dogs. Social Justice Research, 25(2), 170–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Roma, P. G, Silberberg, A., Ruggiero, A. M., & Suomi, S. J. (2006). Capuchin monkeys, inequity aversion, and the frustration effect. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120(1), 67–73. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.120.1.67.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Rose, L. M. (1997). Vertebrate predation and food-sharing in Cebus and Pan. International Journal of Primatology, 18(5), 727–765.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Roth, A. E, Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 81(5), 1068–1095. doi:10.2307/2006907.

  100. Rubinstein, A. (2006). Discusion of “Behavior Economics”. In R. Blundell, W. K. Newey, & T. Persson (Eds.), Advances in economics and econometrics: Theory and applications (pp. 246–255). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Russell, Y. I, Call, J., Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Image scoring in great apes. Behavioural Processes, 78(1), 108–111.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Saletta, S., Houser, D., McCabe, K., & Xiao, E. (2012). Working for self or others: An fMRI study of altruism.

  103. Shadlen, M. N., & Newsome, W. T. (2001). Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 86 (4), 1916–1936.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Solnick, S. J. (2001). Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry, 39(2), 189–200. doi:10.1093/ei/39.2.189.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Stevens, J. R. (2004). The selfish nature of generosity: Harassment and food sharing in primates. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 271(1538), 451–456.

  106. Subiaul, F., Vonk, J., Okamoto-Barth, S., & Barth, J. (2008). Do chimpanzees learn reputation by observation? Evidence from direct and indirect experience with generous and selfish strangers. Animal Cognition, 11(4), 611–623.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Takimoto, A., Kuroshima, H., & Fujita, K. (2010). Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) are sensitive to others’ reward: An experimental analysis of food-choice for conspecifics. Animal cognition, 13(2), 249–261. doi:10.1007/s10071-009-0262-8.

  108. Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57. doi:10.1086/406755.

  109. van Wolkenten, M., Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2007). Inequity responses of monkeys modified by effort. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(47), 18854–18859. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707182104.

  110. Wilson, B. (2008). Language games of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(2), 365–377. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2008.06.001.

  111. Yamamoto, S., & Takimoto, A. (2012). Empathy and fairness: Psychological mechanisms for eliciting and maintaining prosociality in primates. Social Justice Research, 25(3).

  112. Yamamoto, S., & Tanaka, M. (2009). How did altruism and reciprocity evolve in humans? Perspectives from experiments on chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Interaction Studies, 10(2), 150–182.

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Houser.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, J., Houser, D. Non-human Primate Studies Inform the Foundations of Fair and Just Human Institutions. Soc Just Res 25, 277–297 (2012).

Download citation

  • keywords
  • Non-human primate studies
  • Social preferences
  • Record keeping
  • Experimental economics