Non-human primates use combined rules when deciding under ambiguity.
apes
conditional probability
decision-making
gambling
monkeys
risk
Journal
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences
ISSN: 1471-2970
Titre abrégé: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7503623
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
entrez:
11
1
2021
pubmed:
12
1
2021
medline:
13
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Decision outcomes in unpredictable environments may not have exact known probabilities. Yet the predictability level of outcomes matters in decisions, and animals, including humans, generally avoid ambiguous options. Managing ambiguity may be more challenging and requires stronger cognitive skills than decision-making under risk, where decisions involve known probabilities. Here we compare decision-making in capuchins, macaques, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos in risky and ambiguous contexts. Subjects were shown lotteries (a tray of potential rewards, some large, some small) and could gamble a medium-sized food item to obtain one of the displayed rewards. The odds of winning and losing varied and were accessible in the risky context (all rewards were visible) or partially available in the ambiguous context (some rewards were covered). In the latter case, the level of information varied from fully ambiguous (individuals could not guess what was under the covers) to predictable (individuals could guess). None of the species avoided gambling in ambiguous lotteries and gambling rates were high if at least two large rewards were visible. Capuchins and bonobos ignored the covered items and gorillas and macaques took the presence of potential rewards into account, but only chimpanzees and orangutans could consistently build correct expectations about the size of the covered rewards. Chimpanzees and orangutans combined decision rules according to the number of large visible rewards and the level of predictability, a process resembling conditional probabilities assessment in humans. Despite a low sample size, this is the first evidence in non-human primates that a combination of several rules can underlie choices made in an unpredictable environment. Our finding that non-human primates can deal with the uncertainty of an outcome when exchanging one food item for another is a key element to the understanding of the evolutionary origins of economic behaviour. This article is part of the theme issue 'Existence and prevalence of economic behaviours among non-human primates'.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33423632
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0672
pmc: PMC7815423
doi:
Banques de données
figshare
['0.6084/m9.figshare.c.5230734']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20190672Références
Biol Lett. 2011 Feb 23;7(1):15-8
pubmed: 21106573
J Comp Psychol. 2004 Jun;118(2):232-41
pubmed: 15250810
Front Neurosci. 2010 Sep 17;4:
pubmed: 20922060
Front Behav Neurosci. 2014 Feb 11;8:33
pubmed: 24574984
Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Jan 22;276(1655):309-14
pubmed: 18796395
Sci Rep. 2019 Oct 21;9(1):15091
pubmed: 31636348
Nat Neurosci. 2008 Apr;11(4):398-403
pubmed: 18368046
Front Neurosci. 2012 Jul 12;6:105
pubmed: 22807893
Am J Primatol. 2017 Oct;79(10):
pubmed: 28877364
Anim Cogn. 2015 Jul;18(4):821-30
pubmed: 25697970
J Comp Psychol. 2001 Jun;115(2):159-71
pubmed: 11459163
Anim Cogn. 2014 Mar;17(2):427-34
pubmed: 23949698
J Comp Psychol. 2007 Aug;121(3):241-9
pubmed: 17696650
Cognition. 2014 Apr;131(1):60-8
pubmed: 24440657
Anim Cogn. 2015 Jan;18(1):119-30
pubmed: 24993065
Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Nov;3(11):1215-1224
pubmed: 31501543
Nat Neurosci. 2013 Jun;16(6):756-62
pubmed: 23666181
Evol Hum Behav. 2019 Sep;40(5):436-446
pubmed: 31511761
Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 18;7:40962
pubmed: 28098227
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Jan 27;365(1538):249-57
pubmed: 20026463
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020 Feb;109:1-15
pubmed: 31874185
Psychol Rev. 2006 Apr;113(2):409-32
pubmed: 16637767
PLoS One. 2013 May 29;8(5):e63058
pubmed: 23734175
Anim Cogn. 2017 Mar;20(2):243-256
pubmed: 27744528
Judgm Decis Mak. 2008 Jun 1;3(5):389-395
pubmed: 19844596
Biol Lett. 2008 Jun 23;4(3):246-9
pubmed: 18364305
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Sep 24;110(39):15788-93
pubmed: 24019461
Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31
pubmed: 17835457
Neuron. 2010 Nov 18;68(4):789-800
pubmed: 21092866
PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28801
pubmed: 22216113
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2006 Jul;32(3):239-52
pubmed: 16834492
J Comp Psychol. 2019 Aug;133(3):301-312
pubmed: 30589294
Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:321-47
pubmed: 25559115
J Comp Psychol. 2008 May;122(2):156-66
pubmed: 18489231
Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Jun;11(6):258-65
pubmed: 17475537
Cognition. 1994 Apr-Jun;50(1-3):347-62
pubmed: 8039368
J Comp Psychol. 1998 Jun;112(2):137-52
pubmed: 9642783