Bueno-Guerra Nereida, Völter Christoph J, de Las Heras África, Colell Montserrat, Call Josep
Institute of Neurosciences.
Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology.
J Comp Psychol. 2019 Nov;133(4):542-550. doi: 10.1037/com0000189. Epub 2019 Jun 27.
Humans routinely incur costs when allocating resources and reject distributions judged to be below/over an expected threshold. The dictator/ultimatum games (DG/UG) are two-player games that quantify prosociality and inequity aversion by measuring allocated distributions and rejection thresholds. Although the UG has been administered to chimpanzees and bonobos, no study has used both games to pinpoint their motivational substrate. We administered a DG/UG using preassigned distributions to four chimpanzee dyads controlling for factors that could explain why proposers' behavior varied substantially across previous studies: game order, cost for proposers, and amount for recipients. Moreover, players exchanged their roles (proposer/recipient) to test reciprocity. Our results show that proposers offered more in the DG than in the nonsocial baseline, particularly when they incurred no cost. In UG, recipients accepted all above-zero offers, suggesting absence of inequity aversion. Proposers preferentially chose options that gave larger amounts to the partner. However, they also decreased their offers across sessions, probably being inclined to punish their partner's rejections. Therefore, chimpanzees were not strategically motivated toward offering more generously to achieve ulterior acceptance from their partner. We found no evidence of reciprocity. We conclude that chimpanzees are generous rational maximizers that may not engage in strategic behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
人类在分配资源时通常会付出代价,并拒绝被认为低于/高于预期阈值的分配。独裁者/最后通牒博弈(DG/UG)是一种两人博弈,通过测量分配的资源和拒绝阈值来量化亲社会行为和不平等厌恶。尽管最后通牒博弈已应用于黑猩猩和倭黑猩猩,但尚无研究同时使用这两种博弈来确定其动机基础。我们对四对黑猩猩进行了独裁者/最后通牒博弈,采用预先设定的分配方式,并控制了可能解释为什么提议者的行为在以往研究中差异很大的因素:博弈顺序、提议者的成本以及接受者的所得。此外,参与者交换了角色(提议者/接受者)以测试互惠性。我们的结果表明,在独裁者博弈中,提议者提供的资源比在非社会基线情况下更多,尤其是当他们无需付出成本时。在最后通牒博弈中,接受者接受了所有高于零的提议,这表明不存在不平等厌恶。提议者优先选择给对方更多资源的选项。然而,他们在各轮中也减少了自己的提议,可能倾向于惩罚对方的拒绝行为。因此,黑猩猩并非出于策略动机而更慷慨地提供资源以换取对方的最终接受。我们没有发现互惠性的证据。我们得出结论,黑猩猩是慷慨的理性最大化者,可能不会参与策略性行为。(PsycINFO数据库记录(c)2019美国心理学会,保留所有权利)