↓ Skip to main content

Capuchins (Cebus apella) fail to show an asymmetric dominance effect

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Capuchins (Cebus apella) fail to show an asymmetric dominance effect
Published in
Animal Cognition, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10071-016-1055-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul M. Cohen, Laurie R. Santos

Abstract

The asymmetric dominance effect (ADE) occurs when the introduction of a partially dominated decoy option increases the choice share of its dominating alternative. The ADE is a violation of regularity and the constant-ratio rule, which are two derivations of the independence of irrelevant alternatives axiom, a core tenant of rational choice. The ADE is one of the most widely reported human choice phenomena, leading researchers to probe its origins by studying a variety of non-human species. We examined the ADE in brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella), a species that displays many other decision biases. In Experiment 1, we used a touchscreen method to elicit choice-based preferences for food rewards in asymmetrically dominated choice sets. In Experiments 2 and 3, we distinguished between different types of judgments and used a free selection task to elicit consumption-based preferences for juice rewards. However, we found no evidence for the ADE through violations of regularity or the constant-ratio rule, despite the similarity of our stimuli to other human and non-human experiments. While these results appear to conflict with existing literature on the ADE in non-human species, we point out methodological differences-notably, the distinction between value-based and perception-based stimuli-that have led to a collection of phenomena that are difficult to understand under a unitary theoretical framework. In particular, we highlight key differences between the human and non-human research and provide a series of steps that researchers could take to better understand the ADE.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 33%
Researcher 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 36%
Neuroscience 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 5 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,482,034
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,341
of 1,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,910
of 270,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#25
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.