FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2741442362> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2741442362 abstract "Department of Biological SciencesVanderbilt UniversityNashville, Tennessee 37203SummaryHuman behavior is not always consistent with stan-dard rational choice predictions. Apparent deviationsfrom rational choice predictions provide a promisingarena for the merger of economics and biology [1–6].Although little is known about the extent to whichother species exhibit these seemingly irrational pat-terns [7–9], similarities across species would suggesta common evolutionary root to the phenomena. Thepresent study investigated whether chimpanzeesexhibit an endowment effect, a seemingly paradoxicalbehavior in which humans tend to value a good theyhave just come to possess more than they wouldhave only a moment before [10–13]. We show the firstevidence that chimpanzees do exhibit an endowmenteffect, by favoring items they just received more thantheir preferred items that could be acquired throughexchange. Moreover, the effect is stronger for foodthan for less evolutionarily salient objects, perhapsbecause of historically greater risks associated withkeeping a valuable item versus attempting to ex-change it for another [14, 15]. These findings suggestthat many seeming deviations from rational choicepredictions may be common to humans and chimpan-zees and that the evaluation of these through a lens ofevolutionary relevance may yield further insights inhumans and other species.Results and DiscussionThe endowment effect (sometimes called the ‘‘statusquo bias’’ [16]) describes the tendency to value a goodthat one has just come to possess significantly morethan the maximum price one would have paid to acquireit a moment ago [10–13]. The precise cause and extentof the effect are much debated [17–20]; however, manystudies suggest that ownership (endowment) aloneinstantaneously increases humans’ subjective value ofa good [10–13, 21–23]. This effect of ownership seemsillogical because the good has not changed and nonew information or experience can yet have beenacquired. The pricing skew that the endowment effectcreates has significance beyond paradox because itcan impede efficient allocation and exchange of goodsand tradable rights [15, 24]. From an evolutionary per-spective, however, some inclination to value goodsone possessed over goods one might obtain throughexchange may have been adaptive. Exchanges arefraught with the potential for defection, particularly inthe absence of reliable property rights and third-partyenforcement mechanisms (such as the legal rules andinstitutions of modern humans). In the present study,we investigate whether the endowment effect is presentin chimpanzees and how the evolutionary salience ofthe objects affects the response.This study was modified from Knetsch’s study [12],which suggested that humans often prefer to maintainan object they have just acquired over one they couldachievethroughexchange.Subjectsweregivenacoffeemug or chocolate bar for agreeing to complete a ques-tionnaire, then, after completion, were offered theopportunity to exchange their item for the other. Onegroup was initially endowed with a mug, the secondwith a chocolate bar, and the third was given a choicebetween the two (with no opportunity to exchange).Subjects from the former groups showed a strongertendency to maintain the object in their possessionthan would be expected on the basis of preferencesshown by the third group.For our study, we used two versions of the paradigm,one with food and one with nonfood items, to test thehypothesis that, in chimpanzees, evolutionarily relevantstimuli may elicit different responses. We used a within-subjects design in which chimpanzees encountered sixtrials, three for food and three for nonfood. The threetrials for each version consisted of (1) a choice betweenitems (between two foods or between two nonfoods)and (2) one trial each in which chimpanzees were givenone item (food or nonfood) and allowed to exchangefortheotherofthesamecategory.Anendowmenteffectcould be concluded if there was a stronger tendency tomaintain possession of an item than is expected on thebasis of their separately expressed preferences.This design has several advantages. First, it allows fora good comparison between humans [12] and chimpan-zees. Second, the exchange methodology has beenused successfully in the past for examining complexphenomena in chimpanzees [25, 26]. Finally, our within-subjects design allowed us to test for the endowmenteffect both at the population (as in Knetsch) and individ-uallevelsandthusenabledamoredetailedanalysis[27].Subjects were 33 chimpanzees housed at the MichaleE. Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine and Re-searchofTheUniversityofTexasM.D.AndersonCancerCenter. Food items were a frozen fruit-juice stick and" @default.
• W2741442362 created "2017-08-08" @default.
• W2741442362 creator A5003607523 @default.
• W2741442362 creator A5005479394 @default.
• W2741442362 creator A5017675714 @default.
• W2741442362 creator A5029319144 @default.
• W2741442362 creator A5075970199 @default.
• W2741442362 creator A5083248890 @default.
• W2741442362 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W2741442362 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2741442362 title "Report Endowment Effects in Chimpanzees" @default.
• W2741442362 cites W1490430266 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W1499332342 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W1528501399 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W158727920 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W1985067115 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W1987073782 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W1990969594 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W1997680043 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2008808558 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2030480672 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2036130884 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2037506918 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2045149628 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2055721458 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2087563596 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2096452841 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2104970912 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2106752002 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2113991325 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2116089676 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2135574561 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2142107967 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2153148122 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2162492275 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2165474269 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W2165893637 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W3123113172 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W3124417703 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W3125769323 @default.
• W2741442362 cites W3170989099 @default.
• W2741442362 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2741442362 type Work @default.
• W2741442362 sameAs 2741442362 @default.
• W2741442362 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2741442362 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2741442362 hasAuthorship W2741442362A5003607523 @default.
• W2741442362 hasAuthorship W2741442362A5005479394 @default.
• W2741442362 hasAuthorship W2741442362A5017675714 @default.
• W2741442362 hasAuthorship W2741442362A5029319144 @default.
• W2741442362 hasAuthorship W2741442362A5075970199 @default.
• W2741442362 hasAuthorship W2741442362A5083248890 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConcept C118084267 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConcept C119996468 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConcept C145197507 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConcept C94931360 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConceptScore W2741442362C105795698 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConceptScore W2741442362C111472728 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConceptScore W2741442362C118084267 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConceptScore W2741442362C119996468 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConceptScore W2741442362C138885662 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConceptScore W2741442362C145197507 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConceptScore W2741442362C162324750 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConceptScore W2741442362C175444787 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConceptScore W2741442362C2524010 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConceptScore W2741442362C2776291640 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConceptScore W2741442362C33923547 @default.
• W2741442362 hasConceptScore W2741442362C94931360 @default.
• W2741442362 hasLocation W27414423621 @default.
• W2741442362 hasOpenAccess W2741442362 @default.
• W2741442362 hasPrimaryLocation W27414423621 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W1541082080 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W1667519339 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W2004358829 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W2014884752 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W2022163993 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W2057503684 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W2085676516 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W2122918565 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W2136114378 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W2162831581 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W2250456436 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W2577643890 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W2766723817 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W2788621790 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W302470920 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W3036072516 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W3096804035 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W3121552068 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W3127940897 @default.
• W2741442362 hasRelatedWork W3130349162 @default.
• W2741442362 isParatext "false" @default.

• next