Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39103396›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Dynamic inconsistency in great apes.

Laura Salas-Morellón, Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, Josep Call

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Laura Salas-MorellónDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. laurasalasmo@gmail.com.
Ignacio Palacios-HuertaDepartment of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Josep CallDepartment of Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When presented with the option of either an immediate benefit or a larger, later reward, we may behave impatiently by choosing instant gratification. Nonetheless, when we can make the same decision ahead of time and plan for the future, we tend to make more patient choices. Here, we explored whether great apes share this core feature of human decision-making, often referred to as dynamic inconsistency. We found that orangutans, bonobos, and gorillas tended to act impatiently and with considerable variability between individuals when choosing between an immediate reward and a larger-later reward, which is a commonly employed testing method in the field. However, with the inclusion of a front-end delay for both alternatives, their decisions became more patient and homogeneous. These results show that great apes are dynamically inconsistent. They also suggest that, when choosing between future outcomes, they are more patient than previously reported. We advocate for the inclusion of diverse time ranges in comparative research, especially considering the intertwinement of intertemporal choices and future-oriented behavior.

Indexed as

Gorilla gorillaHominidaePan paniscusAnimalsBehavior, AnimalChoice BehaviorDecision MakingFemaleHumansMalePongoRewardBonobosDelay of gratificationDynamic inconsistencyGorillasOrangutansTime preference

Identifiers

PMID39103396
PMCPMC11300655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.