CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees

Brosnan, Sarah F., Schiff, Hillary C., de Waal, Frans B. M.·2005·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2004.2947
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Economic decision–making depends on our social environment. Humans tend to respond differently to inequity in close relationships, yet we know little about the potential for such variation in other species. We examine responses to inequity in several groups of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in a paradigm similar to that used previously in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). We demonstrate that, like capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees show a response to inequity of rewards that is based upon the partner receiving the reward rather than the presence of the reward alone. However, we also found a great amount of variation between groups tested, indicating that chimpanzees, like people, respond to inequity in a variable manner, which we speculate could be caused by such variables as group size, the social closeness of the group (as reflected in length of time that the group has been together) and group–specific traditions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2004.2947

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2345(1997)41:3<213::AID-AJP4>3.0.CO;2-# · DOI
  2. 10.1002/1098-2345(200007)51:3<161::AID-AJP1>3.0.CO;2-5 · DOI
  3. Boehm C. 1999 Hierarchy in the forest: the evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1038/nature01963 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1075/eoc.4.2.05bro · DOI
  6. 10.1038/428140b · DOI
  7. 10.1159/000080209 · DOI
  8. Clark M. S. & Grote N. K. 2003 Close relationships. In Handbook of psychology: personality and social psychology (ed. T. Millon & M. J. Lerner) pp. 447-461. New York: Wiley. · DOI
  9. Dana J. D. Weber R. A. & Kuang J. 2003 Exploiting moral wriggle room: behavior inconsistent with a preference for fair outcomes. Carnegie Mellon Behavioral Decision Research working paper no. 349. See http://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼ 400900 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/0047-2484(89)90074-2 · DOI
  11. de Waal F. B. M. 1996 Good natured: the origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
  12. 10.1016/S1090-5138(97)00085-8 · DOI
  13. de Waal F. B. M. & Brosnan S. F. 2004 Simple and complex reciprocity in primates. In Cooperation in primates and humans: evolution and mechanisms (ed. P. Kapeller & C. P. van Schaik). Berlin: Springer.
  14. Dugatkin L. A. 1997 Cooperation among animals: an evolutionary perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. · DOI
  15. 10.1162/003355399556151 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1006/anbe.1999.1377 · DOI
  17. 10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.426 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1002/zoo.10003 · DOI
  19. Tomasello M. 1999 The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1038/21415 · DOI
  21. Wolfinger R. & Chang M. 1995 Comparing the SAS. 1 GLM and MIXED procedures for repeated measures. In Proc. 20th Ann. SAS Users Group Conf. pp. 1-11.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Brosnan, S. F., Schiff, H. C., & de Waal, F. B. M.
Affiliations
Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University954 North Gatewood Drive, Atlanta, GA 30329USA
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
2005-02-04
Volume
272
Issue
1560
Pages
253-258
ISSN
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
DOI
10.1098/rspb.2004.2947
Cited by
263
References
3
Language
en
Licence
royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/ (tdm)

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