Cited by 87Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesPrimate Behavior and EcologyDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Attending to the outcome of others: disadvantageous inequity aversion in male capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella)

Fletcher, Grace E.·2008·American Journal of Primatology

Abstract

Brosnan and de Waal [Nature 425:297-299, 2003] reported that capuchin monkeys responded negatively to unequal reward distributions between themselves and another individual when comparing their own rewards with that of their partner. It was suggested that social emotions provided the underlying motivation for such behavior and that this inequity aversion is specific to the social domain. However, alternative hypotheses such as the "frustration effect" or the "food expectation hypothesis" may provide more parsimonious explanations for Brosnan and de Waal's [Nature 425:297-299] results, while others have argued that these findings are not congruent with the Fehr-Schmidt inequity aversion model cited by the authors. The claim that inequity aversion behavior is specific to the social domain has also been questioned, as primates also develop expectations about rewards in the absence of partners, and react negatively when those expectations are violated. In this study, a modified Dictator game was used to investigate whether capuchins would exhibit either disadvantageous inequity aversion behavior or reference-dependent expectancy violation in social and nonsocial conditions, respectively. When given the choice between an equitable and an inequitable outcome, the subjects showed disadvantageous inequity aversion behavior, choosing the equitable outcome significantly more in the social condition. In the nonsocial condition, however, subjects did not show negative expectancy violation resulting from the formation of reference-dependent expectations, choosing the equitable outcome at chance levels. These results suggest that capuchins attend to differential payoffs and that they are averse to inequity, which is disadvantageous to themselves.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajp.20576

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Capuchins were inequity averse based on a social comparison and not a 'frustration' effect of not being able to receive the better reward.

    “this preference occurred only when a partner was present, thus showing these capuchins were inequity averse based on a social comparison and not a ‘frustration’ effect of not being able to receive the better reward (i.e., individual contrast).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fletcher, G. E.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Fletcher, Grace E.
Venue
American Journal of Primatology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-06-02
Volume
70
Issue
9
Pages
901-905
ISSN
  • 0275-2565 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2345
OpenAlex
W2090561525
Cited by
87
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 13
FWCI
17.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Primatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
inequity aversion, capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella, dictator game, expectancy violation, social emotions, frustration effect, Fehr-Schmidt model
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Cebus, Choice Behavior, Male, Social Behavior, Social Facilitation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review