Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To bet or not to bet? Decision-making under risk in non-human primates

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Animals deal with predictable and unpredictable events on a daily basis. Yet our knowledge of the cognitive processes involved in decisions remains limited. We tested capuchins, macaques and orang-utans in a food-gambling task to investigate whether or not individuals estimate the chances of different outcomes. Results highlighted that gambling decisions were negatively induced by the probability of losing and the frequency of previous losses, and positively induced by the probability of gaining. Actual decisions were consistent with first order stochastic dominance. The study of second order stochastic dominance revealed that macaques were risk-prone whereas capuchins and orang-utans were risk-adverse. We detected responses comparable to the hot-hand effect, a bias found in humans. Capuchins and orang-utans exhibited probability distortion and loss aversion, which were not systematically found in macaques. Given the heterogeneity among individuals, we implemented mixture models and showed that attitudes towards risk and probabilities play complementary and different roles in the three species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The first combinations, i.e. those involving a high probability of getting a large cookie, were tested at the rate of one series of 12 trials per day.

  2. There are also two-parameter weighting functions (see for example, Lattimore et al. 1992, and Prelec 1998) that separately control the inflexion point and curvature. Gonzalez and Wu (1999) suggest that one-parameter weighting functions and one-parameter value functions provide an excellent and parsimonious fit of data at an aggregate level.

  3. Formally, we keep the notation of the difference ΔCPT between the prospective utility of each individual choice and the prospective utility of the certain outcome. This last value is 0.

  4. The hot hand effect is observed when a series of gains increases the willingness to take future risks; it is related to the illusion of control (Langer 1975). The positive impact of the average quantitative outcome received previously could also be attributed to the house money effect; however, as subjects cannot bet their cumulated outcomes like humans, we can only retain the hot hand effect explanation here.

  5. We tested many specifications and present only our best ones here. Other results are obtainable upon request.

  6. We thank K. Chen for this valuable insight on our regression results.

  7. In our estimation we consider the residuals from the same subject to be potentially correlated and correct for this fact when calculating standard errors of estimates.

  8. As CPT is over-identified with the estimation of 4 parameters in choices where only outcome probabilities vary, here we assume that values are roughly linear in the range of gains and losses (i.e. α = β = 1).

  9. A recent survey of mixture models since their early development in Pearson (1894) can be found in MacLachlan and Peel (2000).

References

  • Amici, F., Aureli, F., & Call, J. (2008). Fission-fusion dynamics, behavioral flexibility and inhibitory control in primates. Current Biology, 18(18), 1415–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, M., & Kacelnik, A. (1997). Starlings’ preferences for predictable and unpredictable delays to food. Animal Behavior, 53(6), 1129–1142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F., & Ho, T. (1994). Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8(2), 167–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartar, R. V., & Smallwood, P. D. (1996). Risk-sensitive behavior: where do we go from here? American Zoologist, 36(4), 530–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain, G. (1980). Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. Review of Economic Studies, 47, 225–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chateauneuf, A., & Cohen, M. (1994). Risk seeking with diminishing marginal utility in a non-expected utility model. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K. M., Lakshminarayanan, V., & Santos, L. R. (2006). How basic are behavioral biases? Evidence from capuchin monkey trading behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 114(3), 517–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. T., & Cook, P. J. (1993). The “gambler’s fallacy” in lottery play. Management Science, 39, 1521–1525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conte, A., Hey, J. D., & Moffatt, P. G. (2011). Mixture models of choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics, 162(1), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croson, R., & Sundali, J. (2005). The gambler’s fallacy and the hot hand: empirical data from casinos. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30(3), 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Waal, F. B. M. (1997). Food transfers through mesh in brown capuchins. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 111(4), 370–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drapier, M., Chauvin, C., Dufour, V., Uhlrich, P., & Thierry, B. (2005). Food exchange with humans in brown capuchin monkeys. Primates, 46(4), 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufour, V., Pelé, M., Sterck, E. H. M., & Thierry, B. (2007). Chimpanzee anticipation of food return: coping with waiting time in an exchange task. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(2), 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufour, V., Pelé, M., Neumann, M., Thierry, B., & Call, J. (2009). Calculated reciprocity after all: computation behind token transfers in orang-utans. Biology Letters, 5(2), 172–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fooden, J. (1995). Systematic review of Southeast Asian longtail macaques, Macaca fascicularis (Raffles [1821]). Fieldiana Zoology, 81, 1–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fragaszy, D. M., Visalberghi, E., & Fedigan, L. M. (2004). The complete capuchin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, C. P. (1993). Order primates. In D. E. Wilson & D. M. Reader (Eds.), Mammalian species of the world: A taxonomic and geographic reference (pp. 243–277). Washington: Smithonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanus, D., & Call, J. (2007). Discrete quantity judgments in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus): the effect of presenting whole sets versus item-by-item. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(3), 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics, 12, 133–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haun, D. B. M., Nawroth, C., & Call, J. (2011). Great apes’ risk-taking strategies in a decision making task. PloS One, 6(12), e28801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, B. Y., & Platt, M. L. (2007). Temporal discounting predicts risk sensitivity in rhesus macaques. Current Biology, 17(1), 49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbronner, S. R., Rosati, A. G., Stevens, J. R., Hare, B., & Hauser, M. D. (2008). A fruit in the hand or two in the bush? Divergent risk preferences in chimpanzees and bonobos. Biology Letters, 4, 246–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacelnik, A., & Bateson, M. (1996). Risky theories – The effects of variance on foraging decisions. American Zoologist, 36, 402–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, E. H., Ford, C. M., & Bailey, J. R. (1996). Object valence as a moderator of the framing effect on risk preference. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 30, 241–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakshminarayanan, V., Chen, K. M., & Santos, L. R. (2008). Endowment effect in capuchin monkeys. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 363, 3837–3844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, E. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattimore, P. K., Baker, J. R., & Witte, A. D. (1992). The influence of probability on risky choice: a parametric examination. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 17(3), 377–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D., McGreevy, B. P., & Barraclough, D. J. (2005). Learning and decision making in monkeys during a rock-paper-scissors game. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(2), 416–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lévy-Garboua, L., Maafi, H., Masclet, D., & Terracol, A. (2012). Risk aversion and framing effects. Experimental Economics, 15(1), 128–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linveille, P. W., & Fischer, G. W. (1991). Preferences for separating or combining events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel, C. R. (1991). Cognitive aspects of foraging in Japanese monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 41(3), 397–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy, N. J., & Call, J. (2006). Apes save tools for future use. Science, 312, 1038–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, K. (1894). Contribution to the mathematical theory of evolution. Philosophical Transactions A, 185, 71–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelé, M., Dufour, V., Thierry, B., & Call, J. (2009). Token transfers among great apes: species differences, gestural requests and reciprocal exchange. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 123(4), 375–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelé, M., Thierry, B., Call, J., & Dufour, V. (2010a). Monkeys fail to reciprocate in an exchange task. Animal Cognition, 13, 745–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelé, M., Dufour, V., Micheletta, J., & Thierry, B. (2010b). Long-tailed macaques display unexpected waiting abilities in exchange tasks. Animal Cognition, 13, 263–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelé, M., Micheletta, J., Uhlrich, P., Thierry, B., & Dufour, V. (2011). Delay maintenance in Tonkean macaques and brown capuchin monkeys. International Journal of Primatology, 32(1), 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66(3), 497–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3(4), 323–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, J. (1993). Generalized expected utility theory. The rank-dependent model. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ramseyer, A., Pelé, M., Dufour, V., Chauvin, C., & Thierry, B. (2006). Accepting loss: temporal limits in brown capuchin monkeys. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 273, 179–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36(6), 646–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (1997). Primate cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, G., & Gonzalez, R. (1996). Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science, 42, 1676–1690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Département Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie, Strasbourg, France

    M. Pelé, B. Thierry & V. Dufour

  2. Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    M. Pelé, B. Thierry & V. Dufour

  3. Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Économie, EM Strasbourg Business School, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    M. H. Broihanne

  4. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany

    J. Call

Authors
  1. M. Pelé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. H. Broihanne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Thierry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Call
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. V. Dufour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Dufour.

Additional information

We are grateful to C. Arnaud, M. Arnaud, A. Coulon, P.Y. Hell, C. Morin, A. Leroy and A. Ouvrard for their participation in experiments with monkeys, and to M. Lohse, N. Romanowsky and S. Schorr for their assistance with the orang-utans. We are also grateful to C. Sueur and N. Poulin for statistical advice. We thank M. Bowler and J. Lignot for proofreading and K. Chen and P. Roger for their helpful comments on the manuscript. The research was supported by a grant from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-08-BLAN-0042-01).

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pelé, M., Broihanne, M.H., Thierry, B. et al. To bet or not to bet? Decision-making under risk in non-human primates. J Risk Uncertain 49, 141–166 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-014-9202-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-014-9202-3

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation