Preference or paradigm? Bonobos show no evidence of other-regard in the standard prosocial choice task

in Behaviour
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Bonobos are the only ape species, other than humans, that have demonstrated prosocial behaviors toward groupmates and strangers. However, bonobos have not been tested in the most frequently used test of prosociality in animals. The current study tested the other-regarding preferences of bonobos in two experiments using the prosocial choice task. In the first experiment subjects preferred a food option that would benefit both themselves and another bonobo. This preference was likely the result of a location bias developed in the pretest since they showed the same preference in the non-social control condition within test sessions. A second experiment was designed to help subjects overcome this bias that might interfere with their social choices. Bonobos again did not prefer to choose the prosocial option. However, results suggest constraints of this paradigm in revealing social preferences. In discussing our results we consider why bonobos show robust prosocial preferences in other paradigms but not here. While others have suggested that such contradictory results might suggest interesting motivational or cognitive differences between humans and non-humans, we propose that the current ‘standard’ paradigm has failed validation due to three methodological constraints. Across the dozens of studies completed few have demonstrated that non-human subjects understand the causal properties of the apparatus, non-social biases quickly develop in inadequately counterbalanced pretests that typically explain subjects’ choices in the test, and even human children found this choice task too cognitively demanding to consistently show prosocial preferences. We suggest it is time to consider switching to a variety of more powerful and valid measures.

Sections

References

BrosnanS.F.SilkJ.B.HenrichJ.MarenoM.C.LambethS.P.SchapiroS.J. (2009). Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) do not develop contingent reciprocity in an experimental task. — Anim. Cogn. 12: 587-597.

BrownellC.SvetlovaM.NicholsS. (2009). To share or not to share: when do toddlers respond to another’s needs?Infancy 14: 117-130.

BurkartJ.M.RuethK. (2013). Preschool children fail primate prosocial game because of attentional task demands. — PLoS One 8: e68440.

BurkartJ.M.FehrE.EffersonC.van SchaikC.P. (2007). Other-regarding preferences in a non-human primate: common marmosets provision food altruistically. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 19762-19766.

ClayZ.de WaalF.B.M. (2013a). Bonobos respond to distress in others: consolation across the age spectrum. — PLoS One 8: e55206.

ClayZ.de WaalF.B.M. (2013b). Development of socio-emotional competence in bonobos. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110: 18121-18126.

CroninK. (2012). Prosocial behaviour in animals: the influence of social relationships, communication and rewards. — Anim. Behav. 84: 1085-1093.

CroninK.SchroederK.K.E.RothwellE.S.SilkJ.B.SnowdonC.T. (2009). Cooperatively breeding cottontop tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) do not donate rewards to their long-term mates. — J. Comp. Psychol. 123: 231-241.

CroninK.SchroederK.K.E.SnowdonC.T. (2010). Prosocial behaviour emerges independent of reciprocity in cottontop tamarins. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 277: 3845-3851.

de WaalF.B.M.LeimgruberK.GreenbergA.R. (2008). Giving is self-rewarding for monkeys. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 13685-13689.

Di LascioF.NyffelerF.BsharyR.BugnyarT. (2013). Ravens (Corvus corax) are indifferent to the gains of conspecific recipients or human partners in experimental tasks. — Anim. Cogn. 16: 35-43.

FletcherG.E. (2008). Attending to the outcome of others: disadvantageous inequity aversion in male capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). — Am. J. Primatol. 70: 901-905.

FuruichiT. (2011). Female contributions to the peaceful nature of bonobo society. — Evol. Anthropol. 20: 131-142.

GoldK. (2001). Group formation in captive bonobos: sex as a bonding strategy. — In: Proceedings of The Apes: Challenges for the 21st Century, Brookfield Zoo, Brookfield, IL. Chicago Zoological Society, Chicago, IL, p. 90-93.

GreenbergJ.R.HamannK.WarnekenF.TomaselloM. (2010). Chimpanzee helping in collaborative and noncollaborative contexts. — Anim. Behav. 80: 873-880.

HareB.KwetuendaS. (2010). Bonobos voluntarily share their own food with others. — Curr. Biol. 20: R230-R231.

HareB.TanJ. (2011). How much of our cooperative behavior is human? — In: The primate mind: built to connect with other minds ( de WaalF.B.M.FerrariP.F., eds). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p.  175-193.

HareB.TomaselloM. (2004). Chimpanzees are more skillful in competitive than in cooperative cognitive tasks. — Anim. Behav. 68: 571-581.

HareB.MelisA.P.WoodsV.HastingsS.WranghamR.W. (2007). Tolerance allows bonobos to outperform chimpanzees on a cooperative task. — Curr. Biol. 17: 619-623.

HareB.WobberV.WranghamR.W. (2012). The self-domestication hypothesis: evolution of bonobo psychology is due to selection against aggression. — Anim. Behav. 83: 573-585.

HornerV.CarterJ.D.SuchakM.de WaalF.B.M. (2011). Spontaneous prosocial choice by chimpanzees. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: 13847-13851.

HouseB.HenrichJ.BrosnanS.F.SilkJ.B. (2012). The ontogeny of human prosociality: behavioral experiments with children aged 3 to 8. — Evol. Hum. Behav. 33: 291-308.

IdaniG. (1991). Social relationships between immigrant and resident bonobo (Pan paniscus) females at Wamba. — Folia Primatol. 57: 83-95.

JaeggiA.V.StevensJ.M.G.van SchaikC.P. (2010a). Tolerant food sharing and reciprocity is precluded by despotism among bonobos but not chimpanzees. — Am. J. Primatol. 143: 41-51.

JaeggiA.V.BurkartJ.M.van SchaikC.P. (2010b). On the psychology of cooperation in humans and other primates: combining the natural history and experimental evidence of prosociality. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B 365: 2723-2735.

JensenK. (2012). Social regard: evolving a psychology of cooperation. — In: The evolution of primate societies ( MitaniJ.C.CallJ.KappelerP.M.PalombitR.A.SilkJ.B., eds). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, p.  565-584.

JensenK.HareB.CallJ.TomaselloM. (2006). What’s in it for me? Self-regard precludes altruism and spite in chimpanzees. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 273: 1013-1021.

LakshminarayananV.R.SantosL.R. (2008). Capuchin monkeys are sensitive to others’ welfare. — Curr. Biol. 18: R999-R1000.

LiebalK.VaishA.HaunD.TomaselloM. (2014). Does sympathy motivate prosocial behaviour in great apes?PLoS One 9: e84299.

MassenJ.J.M.van den BergL.M.SpruijtB.M.SterckE.H.M. (2010). Generous leaders and selfish underdogs: pro-sociality in despotic macaques. — PLoS One 5: e9734.

MassenJ.J.M.LuytenI.J.A.F.SpruijtB.M.SterckE.H.M. (2011). Benefiting friends or dominants: prosocial choices mainly depend on rank position in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). — Primates 52: 237-247.

MelisA.P.HareB.TomaselloM. (2009). Chimpanzees coordinate in a negotiation game. — Evol. Hum. Behav. 30: 381-392.

MelisA.P.WarnekenF.HareB. (2010). Collaboration and helping in chimpanzees. — In: The mind of the chimpanzee ( LonsdorfE.V.RossS.MatsuzawaT., eds). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, p.  265-281.

MelisA.P.WarnekenF.JensenK.SchneiderA.C.CallJ.TomaselloM. (2011). Chimpanzees help conspecifics obtain food and non-food items. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 278: 1405-1413.

PalagiE.NorsciaI. (2013). Bonobos protect and console friends and kin. — PLoS One 8: e79290.

PfalzerS.EhretG. (1995). Social integration of a bonobo mother and her dependent daughter into an unfamiliar group. — Primates 36: 349-360.

SilkJ.B.HouseB.R. (2011). Evolutionary foundations of human prosocial sentiments. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: 10910-10917.

SilkJ.B.HouseB.R. (2012). The phylogeny and ontogeny of prosocial behavior. — In: The Oxford handbook of comparative evolutionary psychology ( VonkJ.ShackelfordT.K., eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford, p.  381-398.

SilkJ.B.BrosnanS.F.VonkJ.HenrichJ.PovinelliD.J.RichardsonA.S.ShapiroS.J. (2005). Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members. — Nature 437: 1357-1359.

SkerryA.E.SheskinM.SantosL.R. (2011). Capuchin monkeys are not prosocial in an instrumental helping task. — Anim. Cogn. 14: 647-654.

StevensJ.R. (2010). Donor payoffs and other-regarding preferences in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). — Anim. Cogn. 13: 663-670.

SuchakM.de WaalF.B.M. (2012). Monkeys benefit from reciprocity without the cognitive burden. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109: 15191-15196.

TakimotoA.KuroshimaH.FujitaK. (2010). Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) are sensitive to others’ reward: an experimental analysis of food-choice for conspecifics. — Anim. Cogn. 13: 249-261.

TanJ.HareB. (2013). Bonobos share with strangers. — PLoS One 8: e51922.

TanJ.HareB. (2014). Bonobos are xenophilic. — Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 153: 251.

VonkJ.BrosnanS.F.SilkJ.B.HenrichJ.RichardsonA.S.LambethS.P.SchapiroS.J.PovinelliD.J. (2008). Chimpanzees do not take advantage of very low cost opportunities to deliver food to unrelated group members. — Anim. Behav. 75: 1757-1770.

WarnekenF.TomaselloM. (2009). Varieties of altruism in children and chimpanzees. — Trends Cogn. Sci. 13: 397-402.

WarnekenF.HareB.MelisA.P.HanusD.TomaselloM. (2007). Spontaneous altruism by chimpanzees and young children. — PLoS Biol. 5: e184.

WobberV.HareB. (2009). Testing the social dog hypothesis: are dogs also more skilled than chimpanzees in non-communicative social tasks?Behav. Proc. 81: 423-428.

WobberV.HareB. (2011). Psychological health of orphan bonobos and chimpanzees in African sanctuaries. — PLoS One 6: e17147.

WobberV.WranghamR.W.HareB. (2010a). Bonobos exhibit delayed development of social behavior and cognition relative to chimpanzees. — Curr. Biol. 20: 226-230.

WobberV.HareB.MabotoJ.LipsonS.WranghamR.W.EllisonP.T. (2010b). Differential changes in steroid hormones before competition in bonobos and chimpanzees. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107: 12457-12462.

WobberV.HerrmannE.HareB.WranghamR.W.TomaselloM. (2014). Differences in the early cognitive development of children and great apes. — Dev. Psychobiol. 56: 547-573.

YamamotoS.TanakaM. (2010). The influence of kin relationship and reciprocal context on chimpanzees’ other-regarding preferences. — Anim. Behav. 79: 595-602.

YamamotoS.HumleT.TanakaM. (2012). Chimpanzees’ flexible targeted helping based on an understanding of conspecifics’ goals. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109: 3588-3592.

Figures

  • (a) The setup of the experimental condition of experiment 1; (b) the results of experiment 1; (c) the setup of the experimental condition of experiment 2; (d) the results of experiment 2. Three subjects in this experiment (Kinshasa, Kikongo and Noiki) demonstrated an individual preference (p<0.05, binomial test).

    View in gallery

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 22 22 19
Full Text Views 7 7 7
PDF Downloads 3 3 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0