Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33423632›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2021

Non-human primates use combined rules when deciding under ambiguity.

A Romain, M-H Broihanne, A De Marco, B Ngoubangoye, J Call, N Rebout, V Dufour

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Economic behaviours among non-human primates.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

A RomainUniversité de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
M-H BroihanneLaboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie, EM Strasbourg Business School, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
A De MarcoFondazione Ethoikos, Radicondoli, Italy.
B NgoubangoyeCentre de Primatologie, CIRMF, Franceville, Gabon.
J CallSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
N ReboutPRC, UMR 7247, Cognitive and social ethology team, INRAE-CNRS-IFCE, University of Tours, Tours, France.
V DufourPRC, UMR 7247, Cognitive and social ethology team, INRAE-CNRS-IFCE, University of Tours, Tours, France.
Université de Tours · FRCentre International de Recherches Médicales de Franceville · GAEM Strasbourg Business School · FRPiaggio (Italy) · ITUniversité de Strasbourg · FRUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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'.

Indexed as

Decision MakingRewardUncertaintyAnimalsCebusHominidaeMacacaSpecies Specificityapesconditional probabilitydecision-makinggamblingmonkeysrisk

Identifiers

PMID33423632
PMCPMC7815423
OpenAlexW3096804035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.