|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). How animals do business. Sci Am, 292(4), 54–61.
|
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B., & Berger, M. L. (2000). Payment for labour in monkeys. Nature, 404(6778), 563.
|
|
|
|
Pennisi, E. (1999). Are out primate cousins 'conscious'? (Vol. 284).
|
|
|
|
Marchal, P., & Anderson, J. R. (1993). Mirror-image responses in capuchin monkeys (Cebus capucinus): social responses and use of reflected environmental information. Folia Primatol (Basel), 61(3), 165–173.
|
|
|
|
Visalberghi E, & Trinca L. (1989). Tool use in capuchin monkeys: distinguishing between performing and understanding. Primates, 30, 511.
Abstract: A horizontal plexiglas tube containing a food-reward was presented to four naive tufted capuchins and suitable sticks were provided to push the reward out. Three monkeys out of four spontaneously used the tools and showed very different styles of solving the task. In more complex conditions, in which the sticks needed to be combined or actively modified in order to become effective, the monkeys were always successful; however, their performance was loaded with errors which did not disappear throughout the trials. Evidence of a difference between success in solving the problem and its understanding was found. This suggests that although capuchins can discover new means through active experimentation, they do not mentally represent the characteristics necessary for a tool to be effective, nor do they modify the tool appropriately beforehand. At this level, a major difference with chimpanzees emerges.
|
|
|
|
Fujita, K., Kuroshima, H., & Masuda, T. (2002). Do tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) spontaneously deceive opponents? A preliminary analysis of an experimental food-competition contest between monkeys. Anim. Cogn., 5(1), 19–25.
Abstract: A new laboratory procedure which allows the study of deceptive behavior in nonhuman primates is described. Pairs of tufted capuchin monkeys faced each other in a food-competition contest. Two feeder boxes were placed between the monkeys. A piece of food was placed in one of the boxes. The subordinate individual was able to see the food and to open the box to obtain the bait. A dominant male was unable to see the food or to open the box but was able to take the food once the box was opened by the subordinate. In experiment 1, two of four subordinate monkeys spontaneously started to open the unbaited box first with increasing frequency. Experiment 2 confirmed that this “deceptive” act was not due to a drop in the rate of reinforcement caused by the usurping dominant male, under the situation in which food sometimes automatically dropped from the opened box. In experiment 3, two subordinate monkeys were rerun in the same situation as experiment 1. One of them showed some recovery of the “deceptive” act but the other did not; instead the latter tended to position himself on the side where there was no food before he started to open the box. Although the results do not clearly indicate spontaneous deception, we suggest that operationally defined spontaneous deceptive behaviors in monkeys can be analyzed with experimental procedures such as those used here.
|
|
|
|
Leighty, K. A., & Fragaszy, D. M. (2003). Joystick acquisition in tufted capuchins (Cebus apella). Anim. Cogn., 6(3), 141–148.
Abstract: A number of nonhuman primate species have demonstrated the ability to use a joystick to control a cursor on a computer screen, yet the acquisition of this skill has not been the focus of systematic inquiry. Here, we examined joystick acquisition in four tufted capuchins under two directional relationships of joystick movement and resultant cursor displacement, isomorphic and inverted. To document the natural history of the acquisition of this skill, we recorded the development of visual tracking of the cursor and body tilting. Rates of acquisition were comparable between the two conditions. After mastering the task in one condition, subjects remastered the task at an accelerated rate in the opposing condition. All subjects significantly increased or maintained high proportions of cursor tracking throughout acquisition. All subjects demonstrated a postural tilt while moving the cursor from the mid-phase of acquisition through task mastery. In the isomorphic condition, all subjects tilted significantly more often in the direction of goal location than in the opposite direction. In three of the four series of tilting that were scored for subjects in the inverted condition, tilting occurred significantly more often toward the direction of goal location than the direction of required hand movement. Together these findings suggest that body tilting participates in the organization of directional movement of the cursor rather than reflecting merely the motoric requirements of the task (to manipulate a joystick).
|
|
|
|
Evans, T. A., & Westergaard, G. C. (2004). Discrimination of functionally appropriate and inappropriate throwing tools by captive tufted capuchins (Cebus apella). Anim. Cogn., 7(4), 255–262.
Abstract: A tool-throwing task was used to test whether capuchin monkeys understand the difference between functionally appropriate and functionally inappropriate tools. A group of monkeys was trained to obtain a sticky treat from a container outside their enclosure using a projectile attached to one end of an anchored line. Subsequently, these monkeys were given choice tests between functional and nonfunctional versions of tools used in training. A different feature of the tool was varied between alternatives in each choice test. The monkeys chose to use functional tools significantly more often than nonfunctional tools in early exposures to each choice test. A second experiment tested whether these subjects, as well as a second group of minimally trained participants, could distinguish between functional and nonfunctional tools that appeared different from those used in training. A new set of design features was varied between tools in these choice tests. All participants continued to choose functional tools significantly more often than nonfunctional tools, regardless of their tool-throwing experience or the novel appearance of the tools. These results suggest that capuchin monkeys, like chimpanzees studied in similar experiments, are sensitive to a variety of functionally relevant tool features.
|
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B. (1997). Food transfers through mesh in brown capuchins. J Comp Psychol, 111(4), 370–378.
Abstract: Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) share food even if their partner is behind a mesh restraint. Pairs of adult capuchins were moved into a test chamber in which 1 monkey received cucumber pieces for 20 min and the other received apple slices during the following 20 min. Tolerant transfers of food occurred reciprocally among females: The rate of transfer from Female B to A in the second test phase varied with the rate from Female A to B in the first test phase. Several social mechanisms may explain this reciprocity. Whereas this study does not contradict cognitively complex explanations (e.g., mental record keeping of given and received food), the results are consistent with a rather simple explanation: that food sharing reflects a combination of affiliative tendency and high tolerance. The study suggests that sharing mechanisms may be different for adult male capuchins, with males sharing food more readily and less discriminatingly than females.
|
|
|
|
Brosnan, S. F., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425(6955), 297–299.
Abstract: During the evolution of cooperation it may have become critical for individuals to compare their own efforts and pay-offs with those of others. Negative reactions may occur when expectations are violated. One theory proposes that aversion to inequity can explain human cooperation within the bounds of the rational choice model, and may in fact be more inclusive than previous explanations. Although there exists substantial cultural variation in its particulars, this 'sense of fairness' is probably a human universal that has been shown to prevail in a wide variety of circumstances. However, we are not the only cooperative animals, hence inequity aversion may not be uniquely human. Many highly cooperative nonhuman species seem guided by a set of expectations about the outcome of cooperation and the division of resources. Here we demonstrate that a nonhuman primate, the brown capuchin monkey (Cebus apella), responds negatively to unequal reward distribution in exchanges with a human experimenter. Monkeys refused to participate if they witnessed a conspecific obtain a more attractive reward for equal effort, an effect amplified if the partner received such a reward without any effort at all. These reactions support an early evolutionary origin of inequity aversion.
|
|
