↓ Skip to main content

Capuchin monkeys do not show human-like pricing effects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
16 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
57 X users
facebook
10 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Capuchin monkeys do not show human-like pricing effects
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01330
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rhia Catapano, Nicholas Buttrick, Jane Widness, Robin Goldstein, Laurie R. Santos

Abstract

Recent work in judgment and decision-making has shown that a good's price can have irrational effects on people's preferences. People tend to prefer goods that cost more money and assume that such expensive goods will be more effective, even in cases where the price of the good is itself arbitrary. Although much work has documented the existence of these pricing effects, unfortunately little work has addressed where these price effects come from in the first place. Here we use a comparative approach to distinguish between different accounts of this bias and to explore the origins of these effects. Specifically, we test whether brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) are also susceptible to pricing effects within the context of an experimentally trained token economy. Using a capuchin population previously trained in a token market, we explored whether monkeys used price as an indicator of value across four experiments. Although monkeys demonstrated an understanding of which goods had which prices (consistently shifting preferences to cheaper goods when prices were increased), we observed no evidence that such price information affected their valuation of different kinds of goods. These results suggest that human pricing effects may involve more sophisticated human-unique cognitive capacities, such as an understanding of market forces and signaling.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Austria 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Luxembourg 1 3%
Unknown 30 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 37%
Neuroscience 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 208. 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 18 May 2018.
All research outputs
#189,139
of 25,515,042 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#398
of 34,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,993
of 369,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#8
of 363 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,515,042 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 369,491 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 363 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.