4.3 Article

Inequity aversion in relation to effort and relationship quality in long-tailed Macaques (Macaca fascicularis)

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY
卷 74, 期 2, 页码 145-156

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajp.21014

关键词

inequity aversion; relationship quality; dominance position; long-tailed macaques; cost-benefit ratio

类别

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)
  2. Lucie Burgers Foundation for Comparative Behaviour Research, Arnhem, The Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Social animals may employ evolved implicit rules to maintain a balance between cooperation and competition. Inequity aversion (IA), the aversive reaction to an unequal distribution of resources, is considered such a rule to avoid exploitation between cooperating individuals. Recent studies have revealed the presence of IA in several nonhuman species. In addition, it has been shown that an effort is crucial for this behavior to occur in animals. Moreover, IA may well depend on the partner's identity. Although dominant individuals typically monopolize food, subordinate individuals obtain less preferred food and usually do not protest. Furthermore, friends may pay less attention to equity than nonfriends. We tested whether long-tailed macaques show IA with different costbenefit ratios. In addition, we determined whether IA depends on relationship quality (RQ). Dominant subjects expressed IA only when a small effort was required. At a very large effort, however, long-tailed macaques did not show IA, possibly owing to bottom effects on the number of rewards they aim to receive. Moreover, and contrary to our predictions, an individual's inequity response was similar when tested with a friend or a nonfriend. Therefore, we conclude that long-tailed macaques show IA only in conditions of moderate effort, yet that IA seems independent of RQ. Furthermore, IA may not be domain specific. Altogether, IA may be a trait present in all species that habitually cooperate, independent of their social organization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据