Journal of Comparative Psychology

Fins, feathers, fingers, and finding an explanation for the puzzle of ephemeral rewards.
This article discusses the ephemeral reward task and how it is not always a clear and concise choice. This is demonstrated through some animal studies involving birds and primates. This article also shows that when compared to human studies, that there are positive correlations between the BART and optimal choice in the ephemeral reward task, meaning that those who took more risks also were more inclined to be optimal. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
What makes the ephemeral reward task so difficult?
The ephemeral reward task involves providing subjects with a choice between two distinctive stimuli, A and B, each containing an identical reward. If A is chosen, the reward associated with A is obtained and the trial is over. If B is chosen, the reward associated with B is obtained but A remains, and the reward associated with A can be obtained as well. Thus, the reward-maximizing solution is to choose B first. Although cleaner fish (wrasse) and parrots easily acquire the optimal response by choosing B, paradoxically, several nonhuman primate species, as well as rats and pigeons, do not. It appears that some species do not associate their choice and reward with the second reward. Surprisingly, research in an operant context with pigeons and rats suggests that inserting a delay between the choice and reward facilitates optimal choice. It is suggested that impulsivity may be, in part, responsible for the difficulty of the task. In an attempt to better understand this task, we trained human subjects on an operant version of this task, with and without a brief delay between choice and reward and found that many subjects failed to learn to choose optimally, independent of the delay. Furthermore, performance on this task was not correlated with a task thought to measure impulsivity, the Balloon Analog Risk Task or with the Abbreviated Impulsivity Survey. We concluded that, for humans, the task is confusing because there is no incorrect response, only good and better, and better is not easily discriminated. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Still face in pet dogs (Canis familiaris).
Dogs are able to cooperate in reciprocal exchange with humans but little is known about the extent of these abilities (Range & Virányi, 2015). In the Still Face paradigm, infants reply to a sudden nonreciprocal facial expression with gaze aversion and an increase in re-engagement and distress behaviors (E. Tronick et al., 1978). We directly adapted this method; the dog’s owner talked to the dog, then abruptly switched to a still, neutral face, maintaining eye contact. In Study 1 (N = 20), we found that dogs showed a significant decrease in the amount of looking at the owner in the Still Face phase, paralleling the results found in gaze aversion in infants, and they performed fewer pawing and vocalizations toward the person in the Still Face phase. In Study 2 (N = 60), we included one condition of continuous physical contact, and one condition that was a direct replication of the initial study without physical contact. Similar to human infants, we found a significant decrease in looking from the Interaction phase to the Still Face phase. However, in contrast to human infants, re-engagement and stress behaviors were higher in the Interaction phase than the Still Face phase. Looking and re-engagement behaviors differed based on the condition, with a smaller difference between phases in the Petting condition. These results suggest that dogs are capable of perceiving these small changes in human affect. However, unlike human infants, dogs seem to have greater expectations about physical interactions than verbal interactions, as they reacted more strongly to an Interaction phase without physical contact than the Still Face. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Variation in neophilia in seven primate species.
Neophilia is a measure of individuals’ attraction to novelty and is thought to provide important fitness benefits related to the acquisition of information and the ability to solve novel problems. Although neophilia is thought to vary across individuals and species, few studies have made direct comparisons to assess the factors that predict this variation. Here we operationalized neophilia as the probability of interacting with novel objects and compared the response to familiar and novel objects in 53 captive individuals belonging to seven different primate species: chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), bonobos (Pan paniscus), Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis), tufted capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella), and Geoffroy’s spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). Our results showed that individuals were overall more likely to interact with novel than familiar objects. Moreover, we found no evidence that neophilia varied across individuals depending on their sex, age, and dominance rank. However, macaques were overall less likely to interact with objects (regardless of their novelty), as compared to bonobos, orangutans, gorillas, and capuchin monkeys. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Testing three primate species’ attentional biases toward preferred and unpreferred foods: Seeing red or high valued food?
Animals navigate complex environments that present both hazards and essential resources. The prioritization of perceptual information that is relevant to their next actions, such as accessing or avoiding different resources, poses a potential challenge to animals, one that can impact survival. While animals’ attentional biases toward negatively valanced and threatening stimuli have been explored, parallel biases toward differently valued resources remain understudied. Here, we assessed whether three primate species (chimpanzees [Pan troglodytes], gorillas [Gorilla gorilla gorilla], and Japanese macaques [Macaca fuscata]) prioritized their attention to positively valued resources—preferred foods compared to unpreferred foods. We employed a computerized dot probe attentional bias task in which we presented participants with paired images of their preferred and unpreferred foods in randomized locations (left or right). Latencies to touch the “probe” that replaced either image revealed that all three species responded faster to the probe when it replaced the preferred option (χ²(1) = 284.50, SE² = .03, p <.001). The uniformity of the primates’ responses hints that a propensity to prioritize highly preferred items is rooted in these primates’ evolutionary past, one that may serve as a mechanism to rapidly detect and locate resources such as highly valued foods. Future research will help disentangle the role that color plays in these biases. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
The roles of social information, asocial information, and initial bias in nest-building decisions.
Animals can use asocial (e.g., environmental cues) or social (e.g., conspecific behavior) information when making decisions. We investigated decisions made by zebra finches when asocial and social sources conveyed agreeing or conflicting information, and assessed the influence of initial bias on decision making. Finches completed an initial preference test ranking preference for three colors of nest-building material. Birds in the agree group (n = 14) then observed demonstrators build nests using nonpreferred color material (social information) that matched the environment color (asocial information). Birds in the conflict group (n = 15) observed demonstrators build nests with nonpreferred color material that did not match the cage environment (another nonpreferred color). A final preference test assessed any changes in color preference. The agree group reduced average preference for their initially preferred color, but did not significantly increase average preference for the asocial/social colors. The conflict group also reduced average preference for the initially preferred color and also increased preference for the socially demonstrated color. Observers with stronger initial bias were less likely to choose the socially demonstrated color than observers with weaker initial bias. This shows that social information informs nest-building decisions, even when in conflict with asocial information. However, bias influences social information use and adds nuance to how different individuals use information when making decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) with better task-based delay of gratification skills are rated as less impulsive, more agreeable, and smarter.
Delay of gratification and inhibitory control are generally considered measures of self-control. In humans, individual differences in measures of self-control are associated with a host of behavioral, neurological, cognitive, and health-related outcomes. Self-control is not unique to humans and has been demonstrated in a variety of nonhuman species using a variety of paradigms. In this study, the effect of sex and age on delay of gratification performance, as measured by the hybrid delay task, was tested in a sample of 88 chimpanzees. Additionally, whether individual differences in hybrid delay task performance were associated with different aspects of personality was examined in this study. Contrary to reports in human subjects, geriatric male chimpanzees were found to perform more efficiently than adult males, while no age differences were found between geriatric and adult females. Indeed, delay of gratification efficiency was positively associated with age in males and negatively associated with age in females. Chimpanzees that performed more efficiently on the hybrid delay task were also found to be rated as more intelligent, more extraverted, and less impulsive. These findings suggest that objective measures of efficiency in delay of gratification tasks are associated with different dimensions of personality, which have some overlapping construct validity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

Journal of Comparative Psychology - Vol 138, Iss 3