Chimpanzees coordinate in a negotiation game

A crucially important aspect of human cooperation is the ability to negotiate to cooperative outcomes when interests over resources conflict. Although chimpanzees and other social species may negotiate conflicting interests regarding travel direction or activity timing, very little is known about their ability to negotiate conflicting preferences over food. In the current study, we presented pairs of chimpanzees with a choice between two cooperative tasks—one with equal payoffs (e.g., 5-5) and one with unequal payoffs (higher and lower than in the equal option, e.g., 10-1). This created a conflict of interests between partners with failure to work together on the same cooperative task resulting in no payoff for either partner. The chimpanzee pairs cooperated successfully in as many as 78–94% of the trials across experiments. Even though dominant chimpanzees preferred the unequal option (as they would obtain the largest payoff), subordinate chimpanzees were able to get their way (the equal option) in 22–56% of trials across conditions. Various analyses showed that subjects were both strategic and also cognizant of the strategies used by their partners. These results demonstrate that one of our two closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee, can settle conflicts of interest over resources in mutually satisfying ways—even without the social norms of equity, planned strategies of reciprocity, and the complex communication characteristic of human negotiation.     

Responses to a simple barter task in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) frequently participate in social exchange involving multiple goods and services of variable value, yet they have not been tested in a formalized situation to see whether they can barter using multiple tokens and rewards. We set up a simple barter economy with two tokens and two associated rewards and tested chimpanzees on their ability to obtain rewards by returning the matching token in situations in which their access to tokens was unlimited or limited. Chimpanzees easily learned to associate value with the tokens, as expected, and did barter, but followed a simple strategy of favoring the higher-value token, regardless of the reward proffered, instead of a more complex but more effective strategy of returning the token that matched the reward. This response is similar to that shown by capuchin monkeys in our previous study. We speculate that this response, while not ideal, may be sufficient to allow for stability of the social exchange system in these primates, and that the importance of social barter to both species may have led to this convergence of strategies.     

Chimpanzees (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Pan troglodytes</Emphasis>) learn to act with other individuals in a cooperative task

We presented two chimpanzees with a task in which they were required to pull each end of a rope simultaneously to drag blocks supporting food into reach. The chimpanzees did not succeed in initial tests. They did not immediately understand the necessity for cooperation, and they did not adjust their behavior to work with the partner. However, the frequency of success gradually increased as the number of sessions increased and the task was varied. They began to look at the partner frequently, wait if the partner was not holding the rope, and pull the rope in synchrony with the partner. However, they did not use interactive behaviors or eye contact to synchronize their behavior. One chimpanzee was then paired with a human partner in the same situation. After initial failures, the chimpanzee began to solicit the human partner for cooperation: looking up at his face, vocalizing, and taking the partner’s hand. When this chimpanzee was again paired with the chimpanzee partner, no soliciting behavior was observed. Thus, the chimpanzees could learn to coordinate their behavior through trial and error. Communicative behavior emerged during the task, but the communication differed according to the identity of the partner.     

The consequences of surrendering a degree of freedom to the participant in a contingency assessment task

Many studies of contingency judgments have used a task in which, on each trial, the participant is free either to respond or not to respond, and an outcome may, or may not, be presented. Typically, the experimenter specifies a nominal value for the contingency between responding and outcome, but the actual values of a variety of variables experienced by a particular participant depend on that participant's frequency of responding. The results of computer simulations of various strategies for implementing the contingency manipulation, and the results of an experiment, indicate that the same nominal contingency value will lead to considerable variability in the actual contingency experienced by participants. Moreover, nominal contingency manipulations are confounded with the probability that the subject experiences an outcome. While researchers might be aware of these issues, not enough attention has been paid to their potential impact.     

Sex differences in common Marmosets (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Callithrix jacchus</Emphasis>) in response to an unfamiliar food task

There is a growing body of information on sex differences in callitrichid behaviour that includes the animals performance in food tasks. For example, both reproductive and non-reproductive adult females have been found to be more successful than adult males in solving food tasks. In this study ten adult male and ten adult female common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus), housed individually, were tested with an unfamiliar task that involved the extraction of an embedded food. The task was to open a plastic canister that contained a raisin; the open end was covered with parchment paper. Each marmoset was given 15 trials in three blocks of 5 consecutive days. We measured the latency for each animal to open the lid and get the raisin—by one of five strategies that spontaneously emerged. The females learned the task faster and more efficiently than males; all the females opened the canister on day 1, for instance, in contrast to seven of the males on the same day. Females also progressively decreased the time that they took to open the tube. The final latency on day 15, for instance, was significantly shorter for the females. These results are consistent with relevant literature for callitrichids and cannot be accounted for in terms of differences in mental abilities, strength, hand morphology, or energy requirements. Further investigation is necessary to clarify the reasons for these differences.     

Clicker increases resistance to extinction but does not decrease training time of a simple operant task in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)

Despite its popularity among pet owners and professional trainers, we are not aware of any studies that have investigated the efficacy of clicker training in canines. To this end, we taught 35 basenjis to nose-touch an orange traffic cone. Upon meeting pre-determined criteria, dogs progressed through: (1) training trials, wherein correct responses were followed immediately with a click plus food (clicker group) or food alone (control group); (2) strengthening trials, wherein dogs received the same reinforcement protocol as in training trials, except nose-touching behaviour was variably reinforced; and (3) extinction trials, wherein food was withheld from both groups, but dogs in the clicker group received a click alone for nose-touches. We found that the clicker and control groups did not differ with regard to the number of trials or the time required to meet training or strengthening criteria (P > 0.05 for all). However, the clicker group required significantly more trials (log₁₀ transformed means ± S.E. = 1.6 ± 0.03 trials versus 1.4 ± 0.03 trials, P < 0.001) and more time (log₁₀ transformed means ± S.E. = 2.85 ± 0.03 s versus 2.73 ± 0.03 s, P = 0.008) to reach extinction criterion. Additionally, younger dogs required fewer training (, P = 0.001) and strengthening (, P = 0.029) trials and less training (, P = 0.005) and strengthening (, P = 0.013) time to meet criteria than did older dogs. However, no age effect was found on extinction for either the number or duration of trials (P > 0.05 for both), implying that persistence in previously reinforced behaviour did not influence the age sensitivity found in task acquisition. Overall, these results suggest that, whereas the clicker may prolong behaviour without primary reinforcement, it does not reduce the training time of a simple operant task in dogs when primary reinforcement is briefly delayed. We speculate that the clicker may be most useful in maintaining established behaviours when primary reinforcement is unavailable or when its delivery is impractical. Additionally, we found that basenji dogs may become progressively impaired with age in the acquisition of stimulus-reward contingencies.     

The Crossmodal Congruency Task as a Means to Obtain an Objective Behavioral Measure in the Rubber Hand Illusion Paradigm

The rubber hand illusion (RHI) is a popular experimental paradigm. Participants view touch on an artificial rubber hand while the participants'' own hidden hand is touched. If the viewed and felt touches are given at the same time then this is sufficient to induce the compelling experience that the rubber hand is one''s own hand. The RHI can be used to investigate exactly how the brain constructs distinct body representations for one''s own body. Such representations are crucial for successful interactions with the external world. To obtain a subjective measure of the RHI, researchers typically ask participants to rate statements such as "I felt as if the rubber hand were my hand". Here we demonstrate how the crossmodal congruency task can be used to obtain an objective behavioral measure within this paradigm.The variant of the crossmodal congruency task we employ involves the presentation of tactile targets and visual distractors. Targets and distractors are spatially congruent (i.e. same finger) on some trials and incongruent (i.e. different finger) on others. The difference in performance between incongruent and congruent trials - the crossmodal congruency effect (CCE) - indexes multisensory interactions. Importantly, the CCE is modulated both by viewing a hand as well as the synchrony of viewed and felt touch which are both crucial factors for the RHI.The use of the crossmodal congruency task within the RHI paradigm has several advantages. It is a simple behavioral measure which can be repeated many times and which can be obtained during the illusion while participants view the artificial hand. Furthermore, this measure is not susceptible to observer and experimenter biases. The combination of the RHI paradigm with the crossmodal congruency task allows in particular for the investigation of multisensory processes which are critical for modulations of body representations as in the RHI.