Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39591994›Full record

SynthesisProceedings. Biological sciences2024

No evidence for inequity aversion in non-human animals: a meta-analysis of accept/reject paradigms.

Oded Ritov, Christoph J Völter, Nichola J Raihani, Jan M Engelmann

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Oded RitovDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4211-3375
Christoph J VölterMesserli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8368-7201
Nichola J Raihani *Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2339-9889
Jan M Engelmann *Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-2807-8626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disadvantageous inequity aversion (IA), a negative response to receiving less than others, is a key building block of the human sense of fairness. While some theorize that IA is shared by species across the animal kingdom, others argue that it is an exclusively human evolutionary adaptation to the selective pressures of cooperation among non-kin. Essential to this debate is the empirical question of whether non-human animals are averse towards unequal resource distributions. Over the past two decades, researchers have reported that individuals from a wide range of taxa exhibit IA; tasks where participants can reject or accept a given distribution of rewards delivered the bulk of this evidence. Yet these results have been questioned on both conceptual and empirical grounds. In the largest empirical investigation of non-human IA to date, we synthesize the primary data from 23 studies using accept/reject tasks, covering 60 430 observations of 18 species. We find no evidence for IA in non-human animals in these tasks. This finding held across all species in the dataset and pre-registered subsets (all species reported to exhibit IA, primates reported to exhibit IA, chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys). Alternative interpretations of the data and implications for the evolution of fairness are discussed.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalAnimalsSocial Behaviorcooperationfairnessinequity aversionmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID39591994
PMCPMC11597404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.