Brosnan Sarah F, Beran Michael J, Parrish Audrey E, Price Sara A, Wilson Bart J
Department of Psychology, Language Research Center and Neuroscience Institute, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Evol Psychol. 2013 Jul 18;11(3):606-27. doi: 10.1177/147470491301100309.
How do primates, humans included, deal with novel problems that arise in interactions with other group members? Despite much research regarding how animals and humans solve social problems, few studies have utilized comparable procedures, outcomes, or measures across different species. Thus, it is difficult to piece together the evolution of decision making, including the roots from which human economic decision making emerged. Recently, a comparative body of decision making research has emerged, relying largely on the methodology of experimental economics in order to address these questions in a cross-species fashion. Experimental economics is an ideal method of inquiry for this approach. It is a well-developed method for distilling complex decision making involving multiple conspecifics whose decisions are contingent upon one another into a series of simple decision choices. This allows these decisions to be compared across species and contexts. In particular, our group has used this approach to investigate coordination in New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, and great apes (including humans), using identical methods. We find that in some cases there are remarkable continuities of outcome, as when some pairs in all species solved a coordination game, the Assurance game. On the other hand, we also find that these similarities in outcomes are likely driven by differences in underlying cognitive mechanisms. New World monkeys required exogenous information about their partners' choices in order to solve the task, indicating that they were using a matching strategy. Old World monkeys, on the other hand, solved the task without exogenous cues, leading to investigations into what mechanisms may be underpinning their responses (e.g., reward maximization, strategy formation, etc.). Great apes showed a strong experience effect, with cognitively enriched apes following what appears to be a strategy. Finally, humans were able to solve the task with or without exogenous cues. However, when given the chance to do so, they incorporated an additional mechanism unavailable to the other primates - language - to coordinate outcomes with their partner. We discuss how these results inform not only comparative psychology, but also evolutionary psychology, as they provide an understanding of the evolution of human economic behavior, and the evolution of decision making more broadly.
包括人类在内的灵长类动物如何应对在与其他群体成员互动时出现的新问题？尽管针对动物和人类如何解决社会问题已有大量研究，但很少有研究在不同物种间采用可比的程序、结果或测量方法。因此，很难拼凑出决策的演变过程，包括人类经济决策产生的根源。最近，出现了一批比较决策研究，主要依靠实验经济学的方法，以便以跨物种的方式解决这些问题。实验经济学是这种方法的理想探究方式。它是一种成熟的方法，可将涉及多个同种个体且其决策相互依存的复杂决策简化为一系列简单的决策选择。这使得这些决策能够在不同物种和情境下进行比较。特别是，我们团队采用这种方法，运用相同的方法研究了新大陆猴、旧大陆猴和大型猿类（包括人类）的协调能力。我们发现，在某些情况下，结果存在显著的连续性，比如所有物种中的一些配对都解决了协调博弈，即确信博弈。另一方面，我们也发现这些结果的相似性可能是由潜在认知机制的差异驱动的。新大陆猴需要关于其伙伴选择的外部信息才能解决任务，这表明它们采用的是匹配策略。另一方面，旧大陆猴无需外部提示就能解决任务，这引发了对其反应背后可能存在的机制（如奖励最大化、策略形成等）的研究。大型猿类表现出强烈的经验效应，认知丰富的猿类似乎遵循一种策略。最后，人类无论有无外部提示都能解决任务。然而，当有机会时，他们会纳入一种其他灵长类动物所没有的额外机制——语言——来与伙伴协调结果。我们讨论了这些结果如何不仅为比较心理学提供信息，也为进化心理学提供信息，因为它们有助于理解人类经济行为的演变以及更广泛的决策演变。
