Darby Proctor

Prestige Affects Cultural Learning in Chimpanzees

Humans follow the example of prestigious, high-status individuals much more readily than that of others, such as when we copy the behavior of village elders, community leaders, or celebrities. This tendency has been declared uniquely human, yet remains untested in other species. Experimental studies of animal learning have typically focused on the learning mechanism rather than on social issues, such as who learns from whom. The latter, however, is essential to understanding how habits spread. Here we report that when given opportunities to watch alternative solutions to a foraging problem performed by two different models of their own species, chimpanzees preferentially copy the method shown by the older, higher-ranking individual with a prior track-record of success. Since both solutions were equally difficult, shown an equal number of times by each model and resulted in equal rewards, we interpret this outcome as evidence that the preferred model in each of the two groups tested enjoyed a significant degree of prestige in terms of whose example other chimpanzees chose to follow. Such prestige-based cultural transmission is a phenomenon shared with our own species. If similar biases operate in wild animal populations, the adoption of culturally transmitted innovations may be significantly shaped by the characteristics of performers.

Chimpanzees play the ultimatum game

Is the sense of fairness uniquely human? Human reactions to reward division are often studied by means of the ultimatum game, in which both partners need to agree on a distribution for both to receive rewards. Humans typically offer generous portions of the reward to their partner, a tendency our close primate relatives have thus far failed to show in experiments. Here we tested chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and human children on a modified ultimatum game. One individual chose between two tokens that, with their partner’s cooperation, could be exchanged for rewards. One token offered equal rewards to both players, whereas the other token favored the chooser. Both apes and children responded like humans typically do. If their partner’s cooperation was required, they split the rewards equally. However, with passive partners—a situation akin to the so-called dictator game—they preferred the selfish option. Thus, humans and chimpanzees show similar preferences regarding reward division, suggesting a long evolutionary history to the human sense of fairness.

Computer animations stimulate contagious yawning in chimpanzees

People empathize with fictional displays of behaviour, including those of cartoons and computer animations, even though the stimuli are obviously artificial. However, the extent to which other animals also may respond empathetically to animations has yet to be determined. Animations provide a potentially useful tool for exploring non-human behaviour, cognition and empathy because computer-generated stimuli offer complete control over variables and the ability to program stimuli that could not be captured on video. Establishing computer animations as a viable tool requires that non-human subjects identify with and respond to animations in a way similar to the way they do to images of actual conspecifics. Contagious yawning has been linked to empathy and poses a good test of involuntary identification and motor mimicry. We presented 24 chimpanzees with three-dimensional computer-animated chimpanzees yawning or displaying control mouth movements. The apes yawned significantly more in response to the yawn animations than to the controls, implying identification with the animations. These results support the phenomenon of contagious yawning in chimpanzees and suggest an empathic response to animations. Understanding how chimpanzees connect with animations, to both empathize and imitate, may help us to understand how humans do the same.

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

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.

Reply to Jensen et al.: Equitable offers are not rationally maximizing

When playing the ultimatum game, chimpanzees and children shifted their behavior from selfish offers in the preference test to more equitable ones in the ultimatum game (1). Why did they do so? All that we can measure is behavior, not motivations. Nonetheless, in human studies equitable outcomes are interpreted as reflecting a sense of fairness, thus this explanation must be considered for the apes as well. Given the genetic similarity between both species, shared explanations are the most parsimonious from an evolutionary perspective. Indeed, Jensen et al. (2) offer no alternative and ignored the similar responses of the children in our study.

How fairly do chimpanzees play the ultimatum game

Humans can behave fairly, but can other species? Recently we tested chimpanzees on a classic human test for fairness, the Ultimatum Game, and found that they behaved similarly to humans. In humans, Ultimatum Game behavior is cited as evidence for a human sense of fairness. By that same logic, we concluded that chimpanzees behaved fairly in our recent study. However, we make a distinction between behavior and motivation. Both humans and chimpanzees behaved fairly, but determining why they did so is more challenging.

Reply to Henrich and Silk: Toward a unified explanation for apes and humans

We appreciate the methodological concerns of Henrich and Silk (1), which resemble those of Jensen et al. (2). Both critiques focus on the lack of refusals by the responders in our ultimatum game (UG) (3), an option on which the subjects were never trained. As discussed previously (4, 5), we fail to see how this lack of refusals would invalidate the behavioral change measured in the …