Anything for a cheerio: Brown capuchins ( Sapajus [Cebus] apella ) consistently coordinate in an Assurance Game for unequal payoffs
Anything for a cheerio: Brown capuchins ( Sapajus [Cebus] apella ) consistently coordinate in an Assurance Game for unequal payoffs
复制标题
一切为了欢呼：棕色卷尾猴（Sapajus [Cebus] apella）在保证游戏中始终协调以获得不平等的回报
DOI：
10.1002/ajp.23321
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Brosnan, Sarah F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Robinson, Lauren M.;Martínez, Mayte;Leverett, Kelly L.;Rossettie, Mattea S.;Wilson, Bart J.;Brosnan, Sarah F.
在某些情况下，不平等的结果会破坏合作，但这一点尚未在经济博弈的协调背景下得到检验。为了探索这一点，我们测试了棕色卷尾猴（Sapajus [Cebus] apella）的手动版本的猎鹿（或保证）游戏，其中个人顺序选择两个选项，StagorHare，并根据他们的选择和他们的伴侣获得奖励。通常情况下，协调上阶段的结果在一个平等的最高支付，而协调上野兔的结果在一个保证平等，但较低的回报和不协调的发挥结果在最低的回报时，发挥雄鹿。我们改变了这种结构，使得一只卷尾猴获得了协调阶段结果的两倍奖励;因此，它仍然是两只动物的最佳选择，但不再是同等奖励。尽管存在这种不平等，卷尾猴在78%的试验中进行了协调，而且收益结构和伴侣的选择都不会影响它们的决定。此外，卷尾猴的自我抓挠（一种衡量压力的方法）与选择之间没有关系。在完成这项研究后，我们发现我们的奖励，cheerios，是足够有价值的，在另一项研究中，卷尾猴从来没有拒绝过它，所以事后我们使用价值较低的奖励，香蕉味的颗粒重复了这项研究。卷尾猴只完成了26%的颗粒试验（相比之下，98%的cheerios），限制了我们解释结果的能力，但尽管如此，猴子对雄鹿的偏好有所下降，特别是当它们因协调的Stag结果而获得较少奖励时。这些结果加强了卷尾猴在猎鹿游戏中找到协调结果的能力，但还需要更多的工作来确定猴子是否不介意这种不平等，或者不愿意牺牲高度偏好的食物来纠正它。无论哪种情况，研究人员都应该仔细考虑它们选择的奖励对受试者选择的影响。
Unequal outcomes disrupt cooperation in some situations, but this has not been tested in the context of coordination in economic games. To explore this, we tested brown capuchins (Sapajus [Cebus] apella) on a manual version of the Stag Hunt (or Assurance) Game, in which individuals sequentially chose between two options,StagorHare, and were rewarded according to their choices and that of their partner. Typically, coordination onStagresults in an equal highest payout, whereas coordinating onHareresults in a guaranteed equal but lower payoff and uncoordinated play results in the lowest payoff when playingStag. We varied this structure such that one capuchin received double the rewards for the coordinatedStagoutcome; thus, it was still both animals' best option, but no longer equally rewarding. Despite the inequality, capuchins coordinated onStagin 78% of trials, and neither payoff structure nor their partner's choice impacted their decision. Additionally, there was no relationship between self‐scratching, a measure of stress in capuchins, and choices. After completing the study, we discovered our reward, cheerios, was sufficiently valuable that in another study, capuchins never refused it, so post hoc we repeated the study using a lower value reward, banana flavored pellets. Capuchins completed only 26% of the pellet trials (compared to 98% with cheerios), constraining our ability to interpret the results, but nonetheless the monkeys showed a decrease in preference forStag, particularly when they received fewer rewards for the coordinatedStagoutcome. These results reinforce capuchins' ability to find coordinated outcomes in the Stag Hunt game, but more work is needed to determine whether the monkeys did not mind the inequality or were unwilling to sacrifice a highly preferred food to rectify it. In either case, researchers should carefully consider the impact of their chosen rewards on subjects' choices.