What will you do for a million, for Five?
Given task, some monkeys 'strike'
Protests start as unfair reward system is initiated
B. Handwerk
In tests designed to assess monkeys' sense of fairness, a group of brown
capuchin monkeys went on strike and refused to perform routine tasks when
they saw others receiving greater rewards for the same activities.

In experiments, brown capuchin monkeys refused to work when
they thought others were receiving greater rewards for the same
activities. |
The more effort the primates used to
earn a reward, the more upset they appeared to be at the inequity, according to
scientists who conducted the research.
“In human terms, it doesn't matter how hard you have to work for a million
dollars,” said lead researcher Sarah Brosnan of Georgia State University in
Atlanta. “But there's a pretty low cutoff point on what you'll do for five.”
Building on previous research, Brosnan's team tested six pairs of monkeys on
a simple task: handing a token to a human examiner in return for a food reward.
When monkeys noticed that their partners received better rewards for the same
task – a cherished grape instead of a bit of cucumber – they became likely to
refuse participation, the study showed.
The behavior, called inequity aversion, might have its roots in activities
like food gathering, in which primates can suffer if they cooperate with others
who do not do their share of work, Brosnan said. Brosnan stressed that the
primates' response wasn't one of simple greed or wanting a bigger payoff just
because they knew one was available.
“What really mattered was if someone else got a better reward,” she said,
“not (just) that they wanted a better reward.”
Brosnan's team studied monkeys' sense of fairness in a similar test in 2003. In
it, capuchins exchanged a piece of rock with their human handlers in return for
a morsel of food. Monkeys that witnessed their partners getting grapes often
refused to conduct future exchanges, would not eat the cucumbers they received
and in some cases threw their rewards at the researchers.
In the new study, the scientists tried to rule out alternate explanations for
such behavior, including the possibility that the primates knew the grapes were
available and were simply holding out for a better reward. The monkeys were
sometimes shown a grape before completing their task, but at other times they
were unaware a grape was available. There was no discernible difference in the
monkeys' responses, Brosnan says.
Researchers also distributed rewards evenly among the monkeys, so no one
animal was consistently rewarded or shortchanged. The scientists found that the
capuchins didn't become frustrated by expecting a grape simply because they had
previously received one for doing the same task.
Laurie Santos, a Yale University psychologist, said, “The original study was
met with much controversy in the field, including a number of now published
claims that the original effect could not be replicated using slightly different
tasks.” She added, “Given this level of controversy, it's nice to see that their
findings hold up when other alternative explanations are controlled.”
Brosnan said her team's research scratches the surface of a philosophical
quandary: Is the human sense of fairness instilled by social institutions like
religion, or is it the product of a long genetic evolution? Even if the primates
are really displaying a sense of social justice in the experiment, it remains
primitive in important ways, Brosnan says. “We aren't seeing a whole lot of
response (when the monkeys) are the better rewarded ones. In humans we have
expanded (our sense of justice) to (include) situations where another is treated
badly.”
Like humans, many monkeys live and interact in groups much larger than the
study pairs. Exploring the complex dynamics of those social groups may be a next
step for Brosnan and her colleagues. “We would like to study those relationships and how they affect their
responses to inequity,” she said.