Modeling reciprocation and cooperation in primates: evidence for a punishing strategy.

Experiments in which animals strategically interact with one another or search over some controlled domain are becoming common. While these experiments often promise to illuminate sophisticated animal behavior, the analyses brought to bear on these data are often quite coarse. For example, many papers simply tally the number of observations consistent with a behavioral theory. This analysis is simple, but ignores a potentially rich source of information by failing to take into account patterns and systematic variation among observations inconsistent with the theory. Using a new data set generated by cotton-top tamarin monkeys playing a repeated food-exchange game, we apply a maximum-likelihood estimation technique (more commonly used to study human economic behavior) which utilizes much more of the information in these data, and which uncovers unexpectedly sophisticated cooperative behavior from our subjects. Tamarin cooperation remains stable as long as both actors consistently cooperate, but requires at least two consecutive unexpected acts of cooperation to restart cooperation after it has collapsed, a strategy that resembles two-tits for a tat. We conclude by enumerating the benefits of a maximum-likelihood approach in experimental settings such as ours, and suggest other areas in which these techniques may be fruitful.

[1]  M. Keane,et al.  Behavior in a dynamic decision problem: An analysis of experimental evidence using a bayesian type classification algorithm , 2004 .

[2]  M. Hauser,et al.  Why be nice? Psychological constraints on the evolution of cooperation , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Peter Hammerstein,et al.  Game Theory in the Ecological Context , 1983 .

[4]  E. Thompson,et al.  Dung fly struggles: A test of the war of attrition , 1980, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[5]  R. Axelrod,et al.  The Further Evolution of Cooperation , 1988, Science.

[6]  O. Leimar,et al.  A TEST OF THE SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT GAME: FIGHTING IN THE BOWL AND DOILY SPIDER FRONTINELLA PYRAMITELA , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[7]  David M. Kreps,et al.  Learning Mixed Equilibria , 1993 .

[8]  M. Milinski,et al.  Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’ , 2002, Nature.

[9]  Steven N. Austad,et al.  A game theoretical interpretation of male combat in the bowl and doily spider (Frontinella pyramitela) , 1983, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  Peter Hammerstein,et al.  Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation , 2003 .

[11]  M. Hauser,et al.  Give unto others: genetically unrelated cotton-top tamarin monkeys preferentially give food to those who altruistically give food back , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  J. Kagel,et al.  Handbook of Experimental Economics , 1997 .

[13]  L. Dugatkin Cooperation Among Animals: An Evolutionary Perspective , 1997 .

[14]  Stephen J. Brown,et al.  Model Selection When There Is "Minimal" Prior Information , 1984 .

[15]  Peter Hammerstein,et al.  Why is reciprocity so rare in social animals? A protestant appeal. , 2003 .

[16]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Experience‐weighted Attraction Learning in Normal Form Games , 1999 .

[17]  Teck-Hua Ho,et al.  Finite automata play repeated prisoner's dilemma with information processing costs , 1996 .

[18]  David W Harless,et al.  The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories , 1994 .

[19]  M. El-Gamal,et al.  Are People Bayesian? Uncovering Behavioral Strategies , 1995 .