As humans, several non-human animal species avoid risk, defined as ‘‘variability in rate of gain’’. However, non-human primate studies revealed a more complicated picture, with different species ranging from risk aversion to risk proneness. Within an ecological rationality framework, a species’ feeding ecology should influence its risk preferences, as it has been shown in bonobos and chimpanzees. Although the feeding ecology hypothesis is promising, it has not been yet verified in species other than apes. Here, we aimed to assess whether this hypothesis holds true in tufted capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.). Ten capuchins were presented with choices between a ‘‘safe’’ option and a ‘‘risky’’ option in three conditions differing for the probability of receiving the larger reward when selecting the risky option. Similarly to chimpanzees, capuchins were risk prone. However, capuchins’ behaviour was not the result of a bias towards the choice of the risky option, since - when facing options with different probabilities of obtaining the larger outcome - they were able to flexibly modify their preferences. Capuchins’ decision-making under risk mirrors their risk-prone behaviour in the wild, where they often rely on unpredictable and/or hazardous food sources, thus satisfying the feeding ecology hypothesis.

Do tufted capuchin monkeys play the odds? Flexible risk preferences in Sapajus spp / De Petrillo, Francesca; Ventricelli, Marialba; Ponsi, Giorgia; Addessi, Elsa. - In: ANIMAL COGNITION. - ISSN 1435-9448. - 18:(2015), pp. 119-130. [10.1007/s10071-014-0783-7]

Do tufted capuchin monkeys play the odds? Flexible risk preferences in Sapajus spp

De Petrillo, Francesca;Ventricelli, Marialba;Ponsi, Giorgia;
2015

Abstract

As humans, several non-human animal species avoid risk, defined as ‘‘variability in rate of gain’’. However, non-human primate studies revealed a more complicated picture, with different species ranging from risk aversion to risk proneness. Within an ecological rationality framework, a species’ feeding ecology should influence its risk preferences, as it has been shown in bonobos and chimpanzees. Although the feeding ecology hypothesis is promising, it has not been yet verified in species other than apes. Here, we aimed to assess whether this hypothesis holds true in tufted capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.). Ten capuchins were presented with choices between a ‘‘safe’’ option and a ‘‘risky’’ option in three conditions differing for the probability of receiving the larger reward when selecting the risky option. Similarly to chimpanzees, capuchins were risk prone. However, capuchins’ behaviour was not the result of a bias towards the choice of the risky option, since - when facing options with different probabilities of obtaining the larger outcome - they were able to flexibly modify their preferences. Capuchins’ decision-making under risk mirrors their risk-prone behaviour in the wild, where they often rely on unpredictable and/or hazardous food sources, thus satisfying the feeding ecology hypothesis.
2015
decision making; risk; options simultaneously
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Do tufted capuchin monkeys play the odds? Flexible risk preferences in Sapajus spp / De Petrillo, Francesca; Ventricelli, Marialba; Ponsi, Giorgia; Addessi, Elsa. - In: ANIMAL COGNITION. - ISSN 1435-9448. - 18:(2015), pp. 119-130. [10.1007/s10071-014-0783-7]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
DePetrillo_Do-tufted-capuchin_2015.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Note: Articolo rivista
Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 680.76 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
680.76 kB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/581980
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 15
  • Scopus 45
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 42
social impact