Differential Responding by Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and Humans (Homo sapiens) to Variable Outcomes in the Assurance Game

Behavioral flexibility in how one responds to variable partner play can be examined using economic coordination games in which subjects play against a variety of partners and therefore may need to alter their behavior to produce the highest payoff. But how do we study this behavioral flexibility once players have settled on a response? Here, we investigated how responding by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and humans (Homo sapiens) playing a computerized single-player version of a coordination game, the Assurance game, changed as a function of the variable responses (Stag/Hare) generated by multiple simulations (SIMs). We were interested in whether individuals could track and differentially respond to changing frequencies of Stag and Hare play by the SIMs, especially with regard to the payoff dominant (Stag-Stag) outcome, something that could not be done with real partners as they quickly settled on the Stag response. For both monkeys and humans, there was a linear relationship between proportion of Stag play by the subject and the likelihood of the Stag choice by the SIM such that both species increased their use of Stag as the SIM increased its use of the Stag response. However, humans more closely matched their proportion of Stag responses to that of the SIM, whereas monkeys adopted a different, but equally effective, strategy of exploiting the higher-paying Stag alternative. These results suggest that monkeys and humans demonstrate sensitivity to a dynamic game environment in which they encounter variable contingencies for the same response options, although they may employ different strategies to maximize reward.

[1]  Nir Vulkan An Economist's Perspective on Probability Matching , 2000 .

[2]  F. Bercovitch Primate Societies, B. Smuts, D. Cheney, R. Seyfarth, R. Wrangham, T. Struhsaker (Eds.). The Univesity of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987), xii , 1988 .

[3]  W. Baum,et al.  Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  Lisa A Heimbauer,et al.  Comparative Economics: Responses to the Assurance Game in Monkeys, Apes, and Humans Using Equivalent Procedures , 2011 .

[5]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The evolution of cooperation. , 1984, Science.

[6]  F. D. Waal The Chimpanzee's service economy: Food for grooming , 1997 .

[7]  Julia E. Schroeder,et al.  Are birds smarter than mathematicians? Pigeons (Columba livia) perform optimally on a version of the Monty Hall Dilemma. , 2010, Journal of comparative psychology.

[8]  J. E. Mazur Distributed versus exclusive preference in discrete-trial choice. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[9]  Emily D. Klein,et al.  Learning how to "make a deal": human (Homo sapiens) and monkey (Macaca mulatta) performance when repeatedly faced with the Monty Hall Dilemma. , 2013, Journal of comparative psychology.

[10]  John R. Krebs,et al.  Foraging in a changing environment: An experiment with starlings ("sturnus vulgaris"). , 1987 .

[11]  D A Washburn,et al.  Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), video tasks, and implications for stimulus-response spatial contiguity. , 1989, Journal of comparative psychology.

[12]  Peter K. Schott,et al.  How Basic Are Behavioral Biases? Evidence from Capuchin Monkey Trading Behavior , 2006, Journal of Political Economy.

[13]  Peter M. Kappeler,et al.  Cooperation in Primates and Humans , 2006 .

[14]  J. E. Mazur,et al.  Choice behavior of pigeons (Columba livia), college students, and preschool children (Homo sapiens) in the Monty Hall dilemma. , 2012, Journal of comparative psychology.

[15]  Edmund Fantino,et al.  Learning to commit or avoid the base-rate error , 1996, Nature.

[16]  F. D. de Waal,et al.  Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  F. D. Waal,et al.  Capuchin cognitive ecology: cooperation based on projected returns , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[18]  D. Shanks,et al.  A Re-examination of Probability Matching and Rational Choice , 2002 .

[19]  S. Brosnan,et al.  Monkeys reject unequal pay , 2003, Nature.

[20]  E. Fantino,et al.  Choice As A Function Of Reinforcement Ratios In Delayed Matching-to-sample. , 1996, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[21]  Edmund Fantino,et al.  What does and does not alleviate base-rate neglect under direct experience , 1999 .

[22]  M E BITTERMAN,et al.  Probability-matching in the pigeon. , 1962, The American journal of psychology.

[23]  Mary Catherine Mareno,et al.  Endowment Effects in Chimpanzees , 2007, Current Biology.

[24]  Laurie R Santos,et al.  Endowment effect in capuchin monkeys , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  T. Kalenscher,et al.  Why We Should Use Animals to Study Economic Decision Making – A Perspective , 2011, Front. Neurosci..

[26]  M. E. Bitterman,et al.  Probability-Matching in the Fish , 1961 .

[27]  M. Bitterman,et al.  Probability-learning in the Monkey , 1964 .

[28]  M. Davison,et al.  Choice in a variable environment: every reinforcer counts. , 2000, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[29]  C. Gallistel,et al.  The rat approximates an ideal detector of changes in rates of reward: implications for the law of effect. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[30]  A. Wechsler Cooperation Among Animals An Evolutionary Perspective , 2016 .

[31]  P. Marler,et al.  Rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) screams: Representational signalling in the recruitment of agonistic aid , 1984, Animal Behaviour.

[32]  T. A. Mark,et al.  Kinetics of matching. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[33]  Edmund Fantino,et al.  Probability matching: encouraging optimal responding in humans. , 2002, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[34]  F. D. Waal,et al.  Payment for labour in monkeys , 2000, Nature.

[35]  Robert van Rooij,et al.  The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure , 2007, Stud Logica.

[36]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Engineering cooperation in chimpanzees: tolerance constraints on cooperation , 2006, Animal Behaviour.

[37]  D A Washburn,et al.  Testing primates with joystick-based automated apparatus: Lessons from the Language Research Center’s Computerized Test System , 1992, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[38]  Edmund Fantino,et al.  An Experientially Derived Base-Rate Error in Humans , 1995 .

[39]  W. Temple,et al.  Concurrent schedule assessment of food preference in cows. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[40]  W. Edwards,et al.  Probability learning in 1000 trials. , 1961, Journal of experimental psychology.

[41]  R. Herrnstein SECTION OF PSYCHOLOGY: SOME FACTORS INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR IN A TWO‐RESPONSE SITUATION* , 1958 .

[42]  R J HERRNSTEIN,et al.  Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. , 1961, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[43]  Richard J. Herrnstein,et al.  MAXIMIZING AND MATCHING ON CONCURRENT RATIO SCHEDULES1 , 1975 .

[44]  P. Glimcher,et al.  JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR 2005, 84, 555–579 NUMBER 3(NOVEMBER) DYNAMIC RESPONSE-BY-RESPONSE MODELS OF MATCHING BEHAVIOR IN RHESUS MONKEYS , 2022 .

[45]  F. D. de Waal,et al.  Partner's behavior, not reward distribution, determines success in an unequal cooperative task in capuchin monkeys , 2006, American journal of primatology.

[46]  Bart J. Wilson,et al.  Old World monkeys are more similar to humans than New World monkeys when playing a coordination game , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[47]  D. Barraclough,et al.  Reinforcement learning and decision making in monkeys during a competitive game. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.