1 / 25

Samantha Croffut & Mary Alice Davis

What’s in it for me? Self-regard precludes altruism and spite in chimpanzees (Jensen, Hare, Call & Tomasello 2006). Samantha Croffut & Mary Alice Davis. Introduction. 4 ways to interact Altruism Mutualism Selfishness Spite. Introduction. Humans unique – altruism & spite

tab
Télécharger la présentation

Samantha Croffut & Mary Alice Davis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What’s in it for me? Self-regard precludes altruism and spite in chimpanzees (Jensen, Hare, Call & Tomasello 2006) Samantha Croffut & Mary Alice Davis

  2. Introduction • 4 ways to interact • Altruism • Mutualism • Selfishness • Spite

  3. Introduction • Humans unique – altruism & spite • Concern for others & fairness as motivators • Correct inequitable gains • Maybe chimps? • Brosnanet al (2005) - averse to disadvantageous inequity • confounds

  4. Introduction • Silk et al. (2005) • Mutualism (1/1 payoff) or selfishness (1/0 payoff) • Not averse to inequity; no difference in choice • May not have understood their choices

  5. Introduction • Experiment 1 • Mutualism or selfishness • Experiment 2 • Altruism or weak spite • Experiment 3 • Altruism and true spite

  6. Apparatus and Setup Control Room – here, not shown in this figure

  7. Pre-Test Procedures • Preference probe (figure a) • Do subjects prefer particular cup? • Knowledge probe (figure b) • Do Ss understand consequences? • Control (figure c) • Choose 1 (of 4) banana cups • Expect random selection.

  8. Experimental Conditions

  9. Subjects (Actors & Recipients)

  10. Experiment 1: Mutualism and Selfishness Do chimpanzees prefer selfish or mutualist feeding strategies?

  11. Experiment 1: Subjects • Actors: 4 female, 1 male chimpanzees • Recipients: Alpha male & 5 yr male (lowest ranking) • Actors tested with each recipient

  12. Experiment 1: Test • Actor can reach only inner cup of either table • Recipient can reach outer cup of accessible table if actor chooses this table

  13. Experiment 1: Results Data collapsed – no session, recipient, or testing order effects Recipient’s presence or absence did not influence actors’ choices. Pull choices Grey = accessible table Black = inaccessible table

  14. Discussion - Experiment 1 • Knowledge probe - knew how apparatus worked • No difference between control and test conditions • Side bias or mutualistic? • Not selfish • Not adverse to disadvantageous inequity

  15. Experiment 2: Altruism and Weak Spite Will chimpanzees choose altruism (no reward) or withholding (no bananas to either)?

  16. Experiment 2: Methods • Actors: 9 female, 2 male chimpanzees • Bananas only in outer cups  no bananas for actor/recipient or recipient only gets banana

  17. Experiment 2: Results Data collapsed (no order or recipient effects) Kin made fewer choices. Altruistic and spiteful choices not affected. Pull choices Grey = accessible table Black = inaccessible table White = no choice

  18. Discussion - Experiment 2 • No difference between test and control conditions • Neither altruistic nor spiteful • Not other-regarding or averse to disadvantageous inequity? • Knowledge probe trials significant • Kinship had no effect

  19. Experiment 3: Altruism and Spite Will chimpanzees actively prevent recipients from getting banana treats?

  20. Experiment 3: Test • Actors: 5 female, 1 male chimpanzees • If actor does nothing* (15-25s)  recipient gets banana • If actor pulls inaccessible table  no bananas for either • *If actor does not pullinaccessible table rope,person moves (10 s)accessible table torecipient. • During move,actor able to pullinaccessible table,preventing recipient’s banana acquisition.

  21. Experiment 3: Results Data again collapsed Kinship (with alpha male) does not affect “doing nothing” or pulling away from or towards recipient. Pull choices Grey = accessible table Black = inaccessible table White = no choice

  22. Discussion - Experiment 3 • No difference between control and test conditions • Lack of other-regard or tolerance of disadvantageous inequity aversion? • 2 subjects appeared altruistic • Most likely selfish motivation

  23. Chimps indifferent to payoffs for conspecifics No difference mutualism & selfishness No difference altruism & weak spite No difference altruism & spite Pull choices Grey = accessible table Black = inaccessible table White = no choice

  24. Discussion - Overall • Chimps not other-regarding • Indifferent to inequity in food-acquisition context • Contrasts with Brosnan et al. (2005) • 14/20 refused food < 2% of time • Market-like exchange • No evidence of anger (as occurs in humans)

  25. Discussion - Overall • Chimps focus on self • Differs from humans • Features of cooperation arose within last 6 million years of human evolution

More Related