CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 51Primate Behavior and EcologyAnimal Behavior and ReproductionAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies

Different responses to reward comparisons by three primate species

Open access
Freeman, Hani D., Sullivan, Jennifer, Hopper, Lydia M., Talbot, Catherine F., Holmes, Andrea N., Schultz-Darken, Nancy, Williams, Lawrence E., Brosnan, Sarah F.·2013·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0076297PMC PMC3794049
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recently, much attention has been paid to the role of cooperative breeding in the evolution of behavior. In many measures, cooperative breeders are more prosocial than non-cooperatively breeding species, including being more likely to actively share food. This is hypothesized to be due to selective pressures specific to the interdependency characteristic of cooperatively breeding species. Given the high costs of finding a new mate, it has been proposed that cooperative breeders, unlike primates that cooperate in other contexts, should not respond negatively to unequal outcomes between themselves and their partner. However, in this context such pressures may extend beyond cooperative breeders to other species with pair-bonding and bi-parental care. METHODS: Here we test the response of two New World primate species with different parental strategies to unequal outcomes in both individual and social contrast conditions. One species tested was a cooperative breeder (Callithrix spp.) and the second practiced bi-parental care (Aotus spp.). Additionally, to verify our procedure, we tested a third confamilial species that shows no such interdependence but does respond to individual (but not social) contrast (Saimiri spp.). We tested all three genera using an established inequity paradigm in which individuals in a pair took turns to gain rewards that sometimes differed from those of their partners. CONCLUSIONS: None of the three species tested responded negatively to inequitable outcomes in this experimental context. Importantly, the Saimiri spp responded to individual contrast, as in earlier studies, validating our procedure. When these data are considered in relation to previous studies investigating responses to inequity in primates, they indicate that one aspect of cooperative breeding, pair-bonding or bi-parental care, may influence the evolution of these behaviors. These results emphasize the need to study a variety of species to gain insight in to how decision-making may vary across social structures.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0076297

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Callitrichids (marmosets and tamarins) and owl monkeys are not as sensitive to inequity as one might expect given the prevalence of inequity aversion in species with cooperative relationships.

    “Interestingly, callitrichids (marmosets and tamarins) and owl monkeys, species that exhibit biparental cooperation and form long-term pair bonds, are not as sensitive to inequity as one might expect given the prevalence of inequity aversion in species with cooperative relationships (Freeman et al., 2013; Katherine McAuliffe, Shelton, & Stone, 2014a; Neiworth, Johnson, Whillock, Greenberg, & Brown,”

    From Inequity aversion strategies between marmosets are influenced by partner familiarity and sex but not by oxytocin (2016) · cites this paper as Freeman et al., 2013

  • Responses to inequity vary considerably across New World monkeys both in high and low cost/effort situations.

    “responses to inequity vary considerably across New World monkeys both in high and low cost/effort situations (Freeman et al., 2013; Katherine McAuliffe et al., 2015; Katherine McAuliffe, Shelton, & Stone, 2014b; Neiworth et al., 2009; Sheskin, Ashayeri, Skerry, & Santos, 2014).”

    From Inequity aversion strategies between marmosets are influenced by partner familiarity and sex but not by oxytocin (2016) · cites this paper as Freeman et al., 2013

  • Primate species that engage in biparental and alloparental cooperation develop specific biological and social mechanisms that lead to prosocial phenotypes.

    “Taken together, these studies show that primate species that engage in biparental and alloparental cooperation develop specific biological and social mechanisms that lead to prosocial phenotypes.”

    From Inequity aversion strategies between marmosets are influenced by partner familiarity and sex but not by oxytocin (2016) · cites this paper as Freeman et al., 2013

  • The key social distinction that may account for the differences in prosociality and inequity aversion strategies in marmosets in the current study and Mustoe et al., 2015, compared to others, is that our marmosets lived in exclusive male-female pairs with no offspring while other studies have investigated marmosets that live in larger family groups.

    “Overall, the key social distinction that may account for the differences in prosociality and inequity aversion strategies in marmosets in the current study and Mustoe et al., 2015, compared to others (Burkart et al., 2007; Freeman et al., 2013), is that our marmosets lived in exclusive male-female pairs with no offspring while other studies have investigated marmosets that live in larger family”

    From Inequity aversion strategies between marmosets are influenced by partner familiarity and sex but not by oxytocin (2016) · cites this paper as Freeman et al., 2013

  • Marmosets, owl monkeys, and squirrel monkeys were found to be inequity tolerant, yet there were subtle species and sex differences that support the view that social structures based on pair-bonding and biparental care lead to inequity tolerance in primates.

    “in another study that examined the importance of cooperative-breeding and biparental cooperation on inequity aversion, marmosets, owl monkeys, and squirrel monkeys were found to be inequity tolerant, yet there were subtle species and sex differences that support the view that social structures based on pair-bonding and biparental care lead to inequity tolerance in primates (Freeman et al., 2013).”

    From Inequity aversion strategies between marmosets are influenced by partner familiarity and sex but not by oxytocin (2016) · cites this paper as Freeman et al., 2013

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [19]Brosnan SF, Flemming TE, Talbot C, Mayo L, Stoinski TS (2011) Responses to inequity in orangutans. Folia Primatol 82: 56– 70. 21625145

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Freeman, H. D., Sullivan, J., Hopper, L. M., Talbot, C. F., Holmes, A. N., Schultz-Darken, N., Williams, L. E., & Brosnan, S. F.
Affiliations
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Freeman, Hani D.
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2013-10-09
Volume
8
Issue
10
Pages
e76297
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0076297
PMC
PMC3794049
OpenAlex
W1978646316
Cited by
51
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2
FWCI
4.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Archive @ GSU (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0847351, 0729244, CAREER)
  • National Institutes of Health (P51OD011106, P40OD010938)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P51RR000167/P51OD011106, P40 RR001542, P40RR001254, P51RR000167)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Keywords
inequity aversion, cooperative breeding, pair bonding, biparental care, Callithrix, Aotus, squirrel monkey, prosocial behavior, social decision-making, primate social structure, evolutionary psychology
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Animals, Breeding, Cooperative Behavior, Female, Male, Primates, Reward, Species Specificity, Evolution, Molecular

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