使用改良气球模拟风险任务评估卷尾猴(Sapajus apella)和人类(Homo sapiens)在不确定性下的决策行为。

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Journal of Comparative Psychology Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-14 DOI:10.1037/com0000368
Olivia T Reilly, Sarah F Brosnan
{"title":"使用改良气球模拟风险任务评估卷尾猴(Sapajus apella)和人类(Homo sapiens)在不确定性下的决策行为。","authors":"Olivia T Reilly, Sarah F Brosnan","doi":"10.1037/com0000368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many animals, including humans, must make decisions when outcomes involve risk and/or ambiguity. To explore the evolutionary roots of decision making when outcomes are unknown, we modified the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) for use with tufted capuchin monkeys (<i>Sapajus [Cebus] apella</i>), creating the Primate Analogue Risk Task (PART). Using both the BART and the PART, we first compared human performance across the two tasks using analogous parameters. Humans' performance on the two tasks was positively correlated. Next, we tested capuchin monkeys' performance on the PART to assess their decision-making strategies in the context of ambiguity. Secondarily, although it was not the main goal of the study, this allowed us to look at species differences between capuchins' and humans' performance. Finally, we investigated the influence of prior experience on human and capuchin decision-making behavior. Neither capuchins nor humans behaved differently following an unsuccessful trial compared to a successful trial. We found individual differences in capuchin monkeys' choice behavior, though as a whole they demonstrated a pattern of reward maximization over time. Finally, as a species, capuchins had lower PART risk scores than humans. This paradigm presents a useful way to assess behavior in a context with uncertain outcomes using a comparative approach. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":54861,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of decision-making behavior under uncertainty in capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella) and humans (Homo sapiens) using a modified Balloon Analogue Risk Task.\",\"authors\":\"Olivia T Reilly, Sarah F Brosnan\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/com0000368\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Many animals, including humans, must make decisions when outcomes involve risk and/or ambiguity. To explore the evolutionary roots of decision making when outcomes are unknown, we modified the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) for use with tufted capuchin monkeys (<i>Sapajus [Cebus] apella</i>), creating the Primate Analogue Risk Task (PART). Using both the BART and the PART, we first compared human performance across the two tasks using analogous parameters. Humans' performance on the two tasks was positively correlated. Next, we tested capuchin monkeys' performance on the PART to assess their decision-making strategies in the context of ambiguity. Secondarily, although it was not the main goal of the study, this allowed us to look at species differences between capuchins' and humans' performance. Finally, we investigated the influence of prior experience on human and capuchin decision-making behavior. Neither capuchins nor humans behaved differently following an unsuccessful trial compared to a successful trial. We found individual differences in capuchin monkeys' choice behavior, though as a whole they demonstrated a pattern of reward maximization over time. Finally, as a species, capuchins had lower PART risk scores than humans. This paradigm presents a useful way to assess behavior in a context with uncertain outcomes using a comparative approach. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Comparative Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Comparative Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000368\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000368","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

包括人类在内的许多动物都必须在结果具有风险和/或模糊性的情况下做出决策。为了探索未知结果下决策制定的进化根源,我们对气球模拟风险任务(BART)进行了修改,将其用于簇毛卷尾猴(Sapajus [Cebus] apella),创建了灵长类模拟风险任务(PART)。利用 BART 和 PART,我们首先使用类比参数比较了人类在这两项任务中的表现。人类在这两项任务中的表现呈正相关。接下来,我们测试了卷尾猴在 PART 任务中的表现,以评估它们在模棱两可情况下的决策策略。其次,虽然这并不是研究的主要目的,但这让我们得以观察卷尾猴和人类在表现上的物种差异。最后,我们研究了先前经验对人类和卷尾猴决策行为的影响。与成功的试验相比,卷尾猴和人类在试验失败后的行为都没有什么不同。我们发现卷尾猴的选择行为存在个体差异,但整体而言,它们表现出一种随时间推移奖励最大化的模式。最后,作为一个物种,卷尾猴的 PART 风险得分低于人类。这种范例提供了一种有用的方法,可以在结果不确定的情况下使用比较法来评估行为。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of decision-making behavior under uncertainty in capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella) and humans (Homo sapiens) using a modified Balloon Analogue Risk Task.

Many animals, including humans, must make decisions when outcomes involve risk and/or ambiguity. To explore the evolutionary roots of decision making when outcomes are unknown, we modified the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) for use with tufted capuchin monkeys (Sapajus [Cebus] apella), creating the Primate Analogue Risk Task (PART). Using both the BART and the PART, we first compared human performance across the two tasks using analogous parameters. Humans' performance on the two tasks was positively correlated. Next, we tested capuchin monkeys' performance on the PART to assess their decision-making strategies in the context of ambiguity. Secondarily, although it was not the main goal of the study, this allowed us to look at species differences between capuchins' and humans' performance. Finally, we investigated the influence of prior experience on human and capuchin decision-making behavior. Neither capuchins nor humans behaved differently following an unsuccessful trial compared to a successful trial. We found individual differences in capuchin monkeys' choice behavior, though as a whole they demonstrated a pattern of reward maximization over time. Finally, as a species, capuchins had lower PART risk scores than humans. This paradigm presents a useful way to assess behavior in a context with uncertain outcomes using a comparative approach. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Comparative Psychology publishes original research from a comparative perspective on the behavior, cognition, perception, and social relationships of diverse species.
期刊最新文献
Beyond the information (not) given: Associative mechanisms versus representations of uncertainty in extinction in laboratory rats (Rattus norvegicus). Hearing "number"?: Relative quantity judgments through the echolocation by bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). The impact of training method on odor learning and generalization in dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). Cross-modal perception of puppies and adult conspecifics in dogs (Canis familiaris). Putting the best foot forward: Limb lateralization in the Goffin's cockatoo (Cacatua goffiniana).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1