title: Old World monkeys are more similar to humans than New World monkeys when playing a coordination game.
abstract: There is much debate about how humans' decision-making compares with that of other primates. One way to explore this is to compare species' performance using identical methodologies in games with strategical interactions. We presented a computerized Assurance Game, which was either functionally simultaneous or sequential, to investigate how humans, rhesus monkeys and capuchin monkeys used information in decision-making. All species coordinated via sequential play on the payoff-dominant Nash equilibrium, indicating that information about the partner's choice improved decisions. Furthermore, some humans and rhesus monkeys found the payoff-dominant Nash equilibrium in the simultaneous game, even when it was the first condition presented. Thus, Old World primates solved the task without any external cues to their partner's choice. Finally, when not explicitly prohibited, humans spontaneously used language to coordinate on the payoff-dominant Nash equilibrium, indicating an alternative mechanism for converting a simultaneous move game into a sequential move game. This phylogenetic distribution implies that no single mechanism drives coordination decisions across the primates, while humans' ability to spontaneously use language to change the structure of the game emphasizes that multiple mechanisms may be used even within the same species. These results provide insight into the evolution of decision-making strategies across the primates.
authors.affiliation: Language Research Center, Georgia State University, PO Box 5010, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA. sbrosnan@gsu.edu
authors.forename: Sarah F
authors.initials: SF
authors.lastname: Brosnan
authors.forename: Bart J
authors.initials: BJ
authors.lastname: Wilson
authors.forename: Michael J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Beran
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002428:Cebus / Q000502:physiology*; D002755:Choice Behavior; D003142:Communication; D003657:Decision Making; D005716:Game Theory; D006801:Humans; D008253:Macaca mulatta / Q000502:physiology*; D012201:Reward; D013045:Species Specificity
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2011 Apr 08;2:61
references.pmid: 21716575
references.citation: J Comp Psychol. 2008 Feb;122(1):52-61
references.pmid: 18298281
references.citation: Science. 2007 Oct 5;318(5847):107-9
references.pmid: 17916736
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1959 Dec;58:485-9
references.pmid: 14425399
references.citation: J Comp Psychol. 1989 Mar;103(1):32-8
references.pmid: 2924530
references.citation: J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:281-4
references.pmid: 13718829
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Apr 24;98(9):5359-62
references.pmid: 11274360
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 Apr 29;362(1480):731-44
references.pmid: 17264056
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2000 Oct;60(4):523-529
references.pmid: 11032655
references.citation: Learn Motiv. 2007;38(4):342-357
references.pmid: 18701940
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Jul;120(1):90-105
references.pmid: 21459372
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 2010 Jul;13(4):671-7
references.pmid: 20130945
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2005 Mar 8;15(5):447-52
references.pmid: 15753039
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2009 Jul;35(3):371-81
references.pmid: 19594282
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2011 Jul;37(3):353-60
references.pmid: 21574737
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Feb 22;108(8):3442-7
references.pmid: 21300874
references.citation: J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1962 Oct;55:876-81
references.pmid: 13984364
references.citation: J Hum Evol. 1999 Aug;37(2):191-223
references.pmid: 10444351
references.citation: J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1954 Oct;47(5):391-4
references.pmid: 13221689
references.citation: Nature. 2000 Apr 6;404(6778):563
references.pmid: 10766228