Chimpanzees Rarely Settle on Consistent Patterns of Play in the Hawk Dove, Assurance, and Prisoner's Dilemma Games, in a Token Exchange Task

Levelling up the study of animal gameplay

Play in humans and other animals is widespread and intuitive to recognise. Creative, unstructured play is difficult to quantify, but games direct play towards a specific goal and have defined rules, mechanics and rewards. To date, games have been under-utilised in human and animal behavioural neuroscience. This review evaluates evidence that animals can play human games, including game-theory contests, tangible games, and video games. Animals can be trained to play various human games with cognitive capacities such as role adoption, rule-following and performance monitoring. Animals can make irrational gameplay decisions that jeopardise rewards and have salient emotional responses to winning and losing. Games can advance the field of behavioural neuroscience in several ways. Cognitive tasks can become more engaging and ecologically relevant by adding game elements, known as gamification. Games can be used to induce and measure more naturalistic emotional responses to the process of overcoming (progression/regression) and end state (winning/losing) of cognitive challenges. There is also scope to target specific cognitive skill deficiencies in captive animals using games. However, a recent rapid increase in computerised testing environments raises an important ethical question about the boundary between games and reality for animals.

Some dogs can find the payoff-dominant outcome in the Assurance game

Studies on coordination often present animals with the choice of either cooperating or remaining inactive; however, in nature, animals may also choose to act alone. This can be modeled with the Assurance game, an economic game that has recently been used to explore decision-making in primates. We investigated whether dyads of pet dogs coordinate in the Assurance game. Pairs were presented with two alternatives: they could individually solve an apparatus baited with a low-value reward (Hare) or they could coordinate to solve a cooperative apparatus baited with a high-value reward for each dog (Stag). All individuals matched their partner's choices, but after controlling for side bias, only four out of eleven dyads consistently coordinated on the payoff-dominant strategy (Stag-Stag). Thus, some dogs are capable of finding coordinated outcomes, as do primates, at least when their partner's actions are visible and coordination results in the biggest payoff for both individuals.

Competitive and cooperative games for probing the neural basis of social decision-making in animals

In a social environment, it is essential for animals to consider the behavior of others when making decisions. To quantitatively assess such social decisions, games offer unique advantages. Games may have competitive and cooperative components, modeling situations with antagonistic and shared objectives between players. Games can be analyzed by mathematical frameworks, including game theory and reinforcement learning, such that an animal's choice behavior can be compared against the optimal strategy. However, so far games have been underappreciated in neuroscience research, particularly for rodent studies. In this review, we survey the varieties of competitive and cooperative games that have been tested, contrasting strategies employed by non-human primates and birds with rodents. We provide examples of how games can be used to uncover neural mechanisms and explore species-specific behavioral differences. We assess critically the limitations of current paradigms and propose improvements. Together, the synthesis of current literature highlights the advantages of using games to probe the neural basis of social decisions for neuroscience studies.

Comparative economics: how studying other primates helps us better understand the evolution of our own economic decision making

The origins of evolutionary games are rooted in both economics and animal behaviour, but economics has, until recently, focused primarily on humans. Although historically, specific games were used in targeted circumstances with non-human species (i.e. the Prisoner's Dilemma), experimental economics has been increasingly recognized as a valuable method for directly comparing both the outcomes of economic decisions and their underlying mechanisms across species, particularly in comparison with humans, thanks to the structured procedures that allow for them to be instantiated across a variety of animals. So far, results in non-human primates suggest that even when outcomes are shared, underlying proximate mechanisms can vary substantially. Intriguingly, in some contexts non-human primates more easily find a Nash equilibrium than do humans, possibly owing to their greater willingness to explore the parameter space, but humans excel at more complex outcomes, such as alternating between two Nash equilibria, even when deprived of language or instruction, suggesting potential mechanisms that humans have evolved to allow us to solve complex social problems. We consider what these results suggest about the evolution of economic decision-making and suggest future directions, in particular the need to expand taxonomic diversity, to expand this promising approach. This article is part of the theme issue 'Half a century of evolutionary games: a synthesis of theory, application and future directions'.

Inter-individual coordination in walking chimpanzees

Humans, like many other animals, live in groups and coordinate actions with others in social settings.1 Such interpersonal coordination may emerge unconsciously and when the goal is not the coordination of movements, as when falling into the same rhythm when walking together.2 Although one of our closest living relatives, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), shows the ability to succeed in complex joint action tasks where coordination is the goal,3 little is known about simpler forms of joint action. Here, we examine whether chimpanzees spontaneously synchronize their actions with conspecifics while walking together. We collected data on individual walking behavior of two groups of chimpanzees under semi-natural conditions. In addition, we assessed social relationships to investigate potential effects on the strength of coordination. When walking with a conspecific, individuals walked faster than when alone. The relative phase was symmetrically distributed around 0° with the highest frequencies around 0, indicating a tendency to coordinate actions. Further, coordination was stronger when walking with a partner compared with two individuals walking independently. Although the inter-limb entrainment was more pronounced between individuals of similar age as a proxy for height, it was not affected by the kinship or bonding status of the walkers or the behaviors they engaged in immediately after the walk. We conclude that chimpanzees adapt their individual behavior to temporally coordinate actions with others, which might provide a basis for engaging in other more complex forms of joint action. This spontaneous form of inter-individual coordination, often called entrainment, is thus shared with humans.

Testing the effect of oxytocin on social grooming in bonobos

Oxytocin has attracted research attention due to its role in promoting social bonding. In bonobos and chimpanzees, the two species most closely related to humans, urinary oxytocin is known to correlate with key behaviours related to social bonding such as social grooming in chimpanzees and female-female sexual behaviour in bonobos. However, no study has demonstrated that the administration of oxytocin promotes real-life social interactions in Pan, leaving it unclear whether oxytocin is merely correlated with social behaviors or does affect them in these species. To test this, we administered nebulized oxytocin or saline placebo to a group of female bonobos and subsequently observed changes in their gross behavior during free interaction. We found an overall effect of more frequent grooming in the oxytocin condition. However, on the individual level this effect remained significant for only one participant in our follow-up models, suggesting future work should explore interindividual variation. Our results provide some experimental support for the biobehavioural feedback loop hypothesis, which posits that some functions of the oxytocin system support the formation and maintenance of social bonds through a positive feedback loop; however, further tests with a larger number of individuals are required. Our results, at a minimum, demonstrated that oxytocin affects spontaneous, naturalistic social interactions of at least some female bonobos, adding to accumulating evidence that oxytocin modulates complex social behaviors of Pan.

Primate cognition in zoos: Reviewing the impact of zoo-based research over 15 years

Primate cognition research is reliant on access to members of the study sp ecies and logistical infrastructures to conduct observations and experiments. Historically founded in research centers and private collections, and spreading to modern zoos, sanctuaries, and the field, primate cognition has been investigated in diverse settings, each with benefits and challenges. In our systematic review of 12 primatology, animal behavior, and animal cognition journals over the last 15 years, we turn a spotlight on zoos to quantify their current impact on the field and to highlight their potential as robust contributors to future work. To put zoo-based research in context, we compare zoos to three other site types: university-owned or independent research centers, sanctuaries, and field sites. We assess the contributions of zoos across several critical considerations in primate cognition research, including number of investigations, species diversity, sample size, research topic diversity, and methodology. We identified 1119 publications reporting studies of primate cognition, almost 25% of which report research conducted in zoos. Across publications, zoo-based research has greater species diversity than research centers and covers a diverse range of research topics. Although our review is merely a snapshot of primate cognition research, our findings suggest that zoos may present advantages to researchers regarding species diversity, and lack some of the methodological constraints of field sites, allowing greater ease of access to a diverse range of subjects for cognition investigations. We suggest that zoos have great potential as key contributors for future investigations in primate cognition. Finally, we shed light on the symbiotic relationship that can emerge between researchers and zoos, forming partnerships that bring unique advantages to both parties.

Oxytocin promotes species-relevant outgroup attention in bonobos and chimpanzees

Previous research has found that oxytocin (OT) is associated with intergroup behaviour in humans as well as wild chimpanzees, and that exogenous OT affects Pan social attention. The two Pan species, bonobos and chimpanzees, differ drastically from one another in their intensity of intergroup competition, with lethal intergroup aggression often led by males in chimpanzees and more tolerant associations often centered around females in bonobos. However, it remains unclear how exogenous OT changes the two species' responses to ingroup and outgroup individuals. In this study, after intranasal administration of nebulized OT or placebo control, chimpanzees and bonobos viewed image pairs of ingroup and outgroup conspecifics while their eye movements were tracked with an eye-tracker. Although the overall effect of OT was small, we found that OT shifted bonobos' and chimpanzees' attention to outgroup images of the sex primarily involved in intergroup encounters in each species. Specifically, OT selectively shifted attention towards outgroup photos of female conspecifics in bonobos, and those of outgroup male conspecifics in chimpanzees. This suggests that OT generally promotes outgroup attention in both bonobos and chimpanzees but this effect is restricted to the sex most relevant in intergroup relations. These results suggest that, although OT may have a generally conserved role in hominid intergroup behaviour, it may act in species-relevant ways under the influence of their socio-ecological backgrounds.

Anything for a cheerio: Brown capuchins (Sapajus [Cebus] apella) consistently coordinate in an Assurance Game for unequal payoffs

Unequal outcomes disrupt cooperation in some situations, but this has not been tested in the context of coordination in economic games. To explore this, we tested brown capuchins (Sapajus [Cebus] apella) on a manual version of the Stag Hunt (or Assurance) Game, in which individuals sequentially chose between two options, Stag or Hare, and were rewarded according to their choices and that of their partner. Typically, coordination on Stag results in an equal highest payout, whereas coordinating on Hare results in a guaranteed equal but lower payoff and uncoordinated play results in the lowest payoff when playing Stag. We varied this structure such that one capuchin received double the rewards for the coordinated Stag outcome; thus, it was still both animals' best option, but no longer equally rewarding. Despite the inequality, capuchins coordinated on Stag in 78% of trials, and neither payoff structure nor their partner's choice impacted their decision. Additionally, there was no relationship between self-scratching, a measure of stress in capuchins, and choices. After completing the study, we discovered our reward, cheerios, was sufficiently valuable that in another study, capuchins never refused it, so post hoc we repeated the study using a lower value reward, banana flavored pellets. Capuchins completed only 26% of the pellet trials (compared to 98% with cheerios), constraining our ability to interpret the results, but nonetheless the monkeys showed a decrease in preference for Stag, particularly when they received fewer rewards for the coordinated Stag outcome. These results reinforce capuchins' ability to find coordinated outcomes in the Stag Hunt game, but more work is needed to determine whether the monkeys did not mind the inequality or were unwilling to sacrifice a highly preferred food to rectify it. In either case, researchers should carefully consider the impact of their chosen rewards on subjects' choices.

Gibbon strategies in a food competition task

Social primates face conflicts of interest with other partners when their individual and collective interests collide. Despite living in small, primarily bonded, groups compared to other social primates, gibbons are not exempt from these conflicts in their everyday lives. In the current task, we asked whether dyads of gibbons would solve a conflict of interest over food rewards. We presented dyads of gibbons with a situation in which they could decide whether to take an active role and pull a handle to release food rewards at a distance or take a passive role and avoid action. In this situation, the passive partner could take an advantageous position to obtain the rewards over the active partner. Gibbons participated in three conditions: a control condition with no food rewards, a test condition with indirect food rewards and a test condition with direct food rewards. In both test conditions, five rewards were released at a distance from the handle. In addition, the active individual could obtain one extra food reward from the handle in the direct food condition. We found that gibbons acted more often in the two conditions involving food rewards, and waited longer in the indirect compared to the direct food condition, thus suggesting that they understood the task contingencies. Surprisingly, we found that in a majority of dyads, individuals in the active role obtained most of the payoff compared to individuals in the passive role in both food conditions. Furthermore, in some occasions individuals in the active role did not approach the location where the food was released. These results suggest that while gibbons may strategize to maximize benefits in a competitive food task, they often allowed their partners to obtain better rewards. Our results highlight the importance of social tolerance and motivation as drivers promoting cooperation in these species.

Divergent effects of oxytocin on eye contact in bonobos and chimpanzees

Oxytocin has drawn significant research attention for its role in modulating mammalian social behavior. Despite generally conserved roles, oxytocin can function differently even in closely related species. Previous studies have shown that bonobos and chimpanzees, humans' two closest relatives, demonstrate considerable behavioral differences, including that bonobos look more at others' eyes than chimpanzees. Oxytocin is known to increase attention to another's eyes in many mammalian species (e.g. dogs, monkeys, and humans), yet this effect has not been tested in any nonhuman great ape species. This study examined how intranasally-administered oxytocin affects eye contact in bonobos and chimpanzees using eye tracking. Following administration of either oxytocin or saline control with a nebulizer, chimpanzees (n = 6) and bonobos (n = 5) were shown images of conspecific faces while their eye movement was recorded. Oxytocin changed the eye-looking behavior of bonobos and chimpanzees differently. We found that oxytocin increased eye contact in bonobos but not chimpanzees; while one chimpanzee showed an increase, interestingly, 5 out of 6 chimpanzees showed decreased looking to the eyes compared to the mouth, suggesting moderate eye avoidance. Given the importance of eye contact in their social interactions, our results suggest that oxytocin may play modulatory roles in bonobos' and chimpanzees' species-specific social behavior and underscore the importance of oxytocin in hominid social evolution.

What behaviour in economic games tells us about the evolution of non-human species' economic decision-making behaviour

In the past decade, there has been a surge of interest in using games derived from experimental economics to test decision-making behaviour across species. In most cases, researchers are using the games as a tool, for instance, to understand what factors influence decision-making, how decision-making differs across species or contexts, or to ask broader questions about species' propensities to cooperate or compete. These games have been quite successful in this regard. To what degree, however, do these games tap into species' economic decision-making? For the purpose of understanding the evolution of economic systems in humans, this is the key question. To study this, we can break economic decision-making down into smaller components, each of which is a potential step in the evolution of human economic behaviour. We can then use data from economic games, which are simplified, highly structured models of decision-making and therefore ideal for the comparative approach, to directly compare these components across species and contexts, as well as in relation to more naturalistic behaviours, to better understand the evolution of economic behaviour and the social and ecological contexts that influenced it. The comparative approach has successfully informed us about the evolution of other complex traits, such as language and morality, and should help us more deeply understand why and how human economic systems evolved. This article is part of the theme issue 'Existence and prevalence of economic behaviours among non-human primates'.

Are the roots of human economic systems shared with non-human primates?

We review and analyze evidence for an evolutionary rooting of human economic behaviors and organization in non-human primates. Rather than focusing on the direct application of economic models that a priori account for animal decision behavior, we adopt an inductive definition of economic behavior in terms of the contribution of individual cognitive capacities to the provision of resources within an exchange structure. We spell out to what extent non-human primates' individual and strategic decision behaviors are shared with humans. We focus on the ability to trade, through barter or token-mediated exchanges, as a landmark of an economic system among members of the same species. It is an open question why only humans have reached a high level of economic sophistication. While primates have many of the necessary cognitive abilities (symbolic and computational) in isolation, one plausible issue we identify is the limits in exerting cognitive control to combine several sources of information. The difference between human and non-human primates' economies might well then be in degree rather than kind.