Hayvonlarda adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish - Inequity aversion in animals

Hayvonlarda adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish katta tenglik uchun moddiy to'lovlarni qurbon qilishga tayyorlik, nimadir odamlar buni qilishga moyil yoshligidan. Sovg'alar hayvonlar o'rtasida teng taqsimlanmaganida, u salbiy javoblar orqali o'zini namoyon qiladi. Boshqariladigan tajribalarda u har xil darajada, yilda kuzatilgan kapuchin maymunlari, shimpanze, makakalar, marmosets, itlar, bo'rilar, kalamushlar, qarg'alar va qarg'alar. Sinovlarda ta'sirning biron bir isboti topilmadi orangutanlar, boyqush maymunlari, sincap maymunlari, tamarinlar, kea va toza baliq. Ishonchsiz dalillar tufayli ba'zi birlari taxmin qilinmoqda bonobos, babunlar, gibbonlar va gorilla Tengsizlikka qarshi nafrat eng keng tarqalgan, ya'ni hayvon boshqa hayvonga qaraganda kamroq mukofot olganda norozilik bildiradi. Shimpanzalarda, babunlarda va kapuchinlarda ham adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish kuzatilgan: hayvon yaxshiroq mukofot olgandan keyin norozilik bildiradi. Olimlarning fikriga ko'ra, adolatsizlikka nisbatan sezgirlik hamkorlik qobiliyati bilan birgalikda rivojlangan, chunki bu hamkorlikdan foyda olishni davom ettiradi.

Hayvonlarda adolatsizlikdan nafratlanishni kashf etgan birinchi tadqiqotchilar Sara Brosnan va Frans de Vaal, 2003 yilda maqolada tasvirlangan beshta kapuchin bilan tajribada Tabiat. Maymunlar boshqa maymunga teng harakat uchun ko'proq kerakli ovqatni mukofotlashayotganini ko'rgandan so'ng, oziq-ovqat belgilarini almashtirish vazifasida qatnashishdan bosh tortishga moyil edilar. Ba'zi hollarda ular oziq-ovqat mahsulotlarini odam eksperimentatoriga qaytarib tashlashdi.

O'shandan beri o'nlab tadqiqotlar o'tkazildi. Tengsizlikdan nafratlanishni sinash uchun bir nechta eksperimental paradigmalar ishlatilgan. Almashish eng keng tarqalgan. Bu erda hayvonlar oziq-ovqat mukofoti evaziga odam eksperimentatoriga belgini topshirishlari kerak. Natijalar va topilmalar bir-biriga aralashmaydi. Rad etish koeffitsientlari tenglik sharoitida tenglik darajasidan yuqori bo'lganligi sababli, turlar bo'yicha, tadqiqotlar bo'yicha va hattoki bir xil tadqiqotlar doirasidagi shaxslar bo'yicha sezilarli o'zgarish mavjud. Ba'zi tadqiqotchilar eksperimental sozlamalardagi kichik farqlar effektni yo'q qilishga olib kelishi mumkinligini ta'kidladilar. Masalan, agar hayvonlar yonma-yon turmasa va sherigi va ularning harakatlari yaxshi ko'rinmasa yoki hech qanday vazifa bo'lmasa va hayvonlarga shunchaki ovqat berilsa. Ba'zi turlarda urg'ochilar kam mukofotlardan bosh tortishmaydi, lekin erkaklar buni qilishadi; ba'zi boshqa turlarda bu aksincha edi. Namuna miqdori pastligi sababli, barcha tadqiqotlar jinsiy aloqa va daraja uchun nazorat qilinmaydi.

Fon

Odamlarning qobiliyati hamkorlik qilish yaxshi hujjatlangan, ammo uning kelib chiqishi ochiq savol.[1] Hamkorlikning muhim jihatlaridan biri bu tuyg'u adolat: shaxsning hamkorlikdan olgan mukofoti boshqalar bilan taqqoslaganda adolatli bo'lishi kerak, aks holda kelajakdagi hamkorlik buzilishi mumkin.[2] Odamlar teng bo'lmagan natijalarga nisbatan tenglikni doimiy ravishda afzal ko'rishadi.[3] To'liq adolat tushunchasi odatda 6 yoshdagi bolalarda uchraydi, garchi 3 yoshli bolalar hamkorlikdan olinadigan mukofotni adolatsiz qilganga qaraganda ancha taqsimlaydigan sovg'a beruvchini afzal ko'rishadi.[4][5] Agar adolatsiz mukofotni qabul qilish tanlovi berilsa, bolalar uni tengdoshlarining mukofotidan kamroq qiymatga ega bo'lishgan taqdirda rad etishdi (noqulay adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish, shuningdek, birinchi darajali adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish),[6] tadqiqotchilar Bleyk va boshq. etti mamlakat bo'ylab o'tkazilgan tadqiqotda topilgan. Hatto bu tengdoshlarining mukofotidan qimmatroq bo'lsa ham, uchta mamlakatda katta yoshdagi bolalar buni o'rtacha hisobda rad etishdi (adolatli adolatli nafrat, shuningdek, ikkinchi darajali adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish).[A][8][6] Noqulay adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish inson xatti-harakatining universal xususiyati sifatida qaraladi, ammo foydasiz adolatsizlikka madaniy me'yorlar ta'sir qilishi mumkin.[9][10][11]

Odamlar faqat kooperativ hayvonlar emas.[12] Hayvonlarning ko'p turlari tabiatda hamkorlik qiladi.[13] Hamkorlikda ov qilish havoda kuzatilgan (masalan, orasida) Aplomado lochinlari ),[14] quruqlikda (masalan, orasida shimpanze ),[15] suvda (masalan, orasida qotil kitlar ),[16] va er ostida (masalan, orasida) haydovchi chumolilar ).[17] Hamkorlikning keyingi misollariga ota-onalar va boshqalar birgalikda yoshlarni voyaga etkazish uchun birgalikda harakat qilish kiradi[13] (masalan, orasida Afrikalik fillar ),[18] va o'rganilgan hududlarini himoya qiladigan guruhlar primatlar va boshqalar ijtimoiy turlar kabi shisha delfinlar, dog'lar va oddiy qarg'alar.[19] Boshqa turlardagi hamkorlikning aspektlarini o'rganish orqali evolyutsion psixologlar hamkorlik qachon va qanday sharoitda paydo bo'lishini aniqlashga qaratilgan.[2] Hamkorlik noyob inson bo'lmaganligi sababli, adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish ham o'ziga xos inson bo'lmasligi mumkin.[20] Yovvoyi tabiatda kooperativ hayvonlarning adolati, xususan, primatlarda ham kuzatilgan. Ma'lumki, shimpanzilar jamoaviy ov paytida olingan tana go'shtini qisman har bir kishining ovga qo'shgan hissasiga qarab ajratadilar.[21] Hayvonlar bilan o'tkaziladigan tajribalar orqali tadqiqotchilar ushbu xatti-harakatni izlaydilar va adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish va umuman kooperativ xatti-harakatlar qanday qilib va ​​nima uchun rivojlanganligi haqidagi savollarga javob berishga umid qilishadi.[2]

Birinchi tadqiqot

Hayvonlarda adolatsizlikdan nafratlanishni sinab ko'rgan birinchi tadqiqotchi Sara Brosnan. Kabi PhD talaba Emori universiteti yilda Atlanta, Jorjia, tajriba g'oyasi unga ovqatlanish seansi paytida paydo bo'ldi kapuchin maymunlari. U pastki pog'onali maymunlarga yerfıstığı tarqatayotganda, an alfa erkak ismli Ozzi unga yerfıstığı olish uchun unga apelsinni, qimmatroq ovqatni taklif qildi.[B] Uning professori rahbarligida Frans de Vaal, Brosnan kapuchinlarning xatti-harakatlariga boshqalarga berilgan mukofotlar ta'sir ko'rsatadimi-yo'qligini aniqlash uchun tajriba o'tkazdi. Ikki shartli dastlabki sinovda kapuchinlar yonma-yon sinovdan o'tkazildi va mukofot sifatida ikkalasiga bodring berildi, yoki biriga bodring, ikkinchisiga uzum berildi (yuqori qiymatga ega oziq-ovqat sifatida qabul qilinadi). Natijalar shuni ko'rsatdiki, ayol kapuchinlar mukofotlarning teng taqsimlanishiga sezgir bo'lishi mumkin. Erkak kapuchinlar ikki holat o'rtasida har xil xatti-harakatlarni namoyish etmadilar.[23]

Keyinchalik Brosnan beshta ayol kapuchinni turli sharoitlarda sinovdan o'tkazdi. Oldingi kabi, mukofotlar boshqa maymun olganiga teng yoki kam edi. Brosnan, shuningdek, boshqa maymun harakat uchun mukofot sifatida oziq-ovqat olganmi yoki umuman hech narsa qilmaganligi uchun muhimmi yoki yo'qligini sinovdan o'tkazdi. Kapuchinlar bajarishi kerak bo'lgan vazifa umumiy almashinuv vazifasi edi: eksperimentchi maymunga toshni uzatdi, uni qaytarib berish kerak edi. Agar shunday qilingan bo'lsa, eksperiment oziq-ovqat mukofotini beradi. Yonma-yon o'rnatishda kapuchinlar bir-birlarining harakatlarini va eng muhimi, bir-birlarining mukofotlarini ko'rishlari mumkin edi. Nazoratning yana bir sharti, xatti-harakatlar faqat yuqori qiymatdagi mukofot borligidan kelib chiqqanligini aniqlash edi, chunki primatlar uzoq vaqtdan beri kontrast effekti.[C]Bu holatda faqat bitta kapuchin bor edi va tajriba o'tkazuvchisi va boshqa bodring bo'lagi bilan almashinuv vazifasini boshlashdan oldin, boshqa maymun bo'lgan bo'sh joy oldiga uzum qo'ydi.[23]

Natijalar kapuchinlarning mukofotlarni qabul qilishiga ta'sir qiladigan boshqalarning mukofotlari aniq ta'sir ko'rsatdi. Kapital sharoitida bodring toshni qaytarib berish uchun mukofot sifatida quvonch bilan qabul qilingan bo'lsa, adolatsizlik sharoitida bodring har uchdan birida rad etildi. Rad etish ba'zida bodring parchasini eksperimentatorga qaytarish, ba'zan esa bo'linadigan ekranni zo'rlik bilan tortib olish shaklida bo'lgan. Olti martadan bittasi kapuchinlar adolatsizlik sharoitida toshni ham qaytarib bermadilar. Ayirboshlashning muvaffaqiyatsizlik darajasi harakatni nazorat qilishda yanada yuqori edi, u erda boshqa kapuchin umuman hech narsa qilmaganligi uchun uzum oldi: to'rt marta uch marta muvaffaqiyatli almashinish bo'lmadi. Oziq-ovqat mahsulotlarini nazorat qilishda, uzumlar ko'rinadigan, ammo boshqa maymunlar bo'lmagan joyda, maymunlar ham kapital sharoitiga qaraganda rad etishlari mumkin edi.[23]

Har bir test sinovlari bir xil holatda bo'lgan 25 ta yo'ldan iborat edi. Tadqiqotchilar birinchi 15 natijalarini oxirgi 10 bilan taqqosladilar, ular tengsizlik sharoitida va harakatlarni nazorat qilishda oxirgi 10 yilda muvaffaqiyatsizlik darajasi dastlabki 15 ga nisbatan yuqori ekanligini aniqladilar, bu esa bir necha maymunlar oldidagi sinovlar boshqasi qanday mukofot olganini payqadi. Shu bilan birga, oziq-ovqat mahsulotlarini nazorat qilishda oxirgi 10-dagi muvaffaqiyatsizlik darajasi dastlabki 15-ga qaraganda pastroq bo'lib, taxminlar shunchaki mukofotlarning mavjudligi emas, balki sherikning yuqori qiymatdagi mukofot olishiga asoslanadi.[26] Tadqiqotchilar ayol kapuchin maymunlari adolatsizlikka qarshi turishadi degan xulosaga kelishdi.[27]

Brosnan va de Vaal 2003 yilda o'tkazilgan tadqiqotlar natijalarini ilmiy jurnalda e'lon qilishdi Tabiat.[28] O'shandan beri tadqiqot mingdan ortiq marta keltirilgan.[29]

Keyingi tadqiqotlar

Dastlabki Brosnan va de Vaal tadqiqotlari eksperimental dizayndagi turli xil o'zgarishlarga ega va sub'ekt sifatida turli xil turlarni o'z ichiga olgan holda ko'p marta takrorlangan.[30]

Mavzular

Tadqiqotchilar turli xil turlarni adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish tajribalari mavzusi sifatida tanladilar.[30] Bilan chambarchas bog'liq bo'lgan turlar guruhi ichida odamlar, tadqiqotchilar ikkala ijtimoiy primatlarni tanladilar (shimpanze, bonobos, boyqush maymunlari, marmosets,[31] babunlar,[32] gorilla,[33] va tamarinlar ),[34] yolg'iz yoki faqat avlodlari bilan yashaydiganlar (orangutanlar, gibbonlar,[35] va sincap maymunlari ).[36] Tadqiqotchilar, shuningdek, har qanday hamkorlik qobiliyatini aks ettiruvchi primat bo'lmaganlarni sinab ko'rishdi: koridlar (qarg'alar, qarg'alar, kea ), itlar (itlar, bo'rilar ),[37][38][39] toza baliq[40] va kalamushlar.[41] Brosnan va de Vaal tajribalar o'tkazishga chaqirishdi fillar, delfinlar va uy mushuklari adolat evolyutsiyasini yanada chuqurroq tushunish uchun.[42]

Tadqiqotchilar o'z tajribalari davomida sub'ektlarning turli xil xususiyatlarini boshqarganlar, xuddi Brosnan va de Vaal singari faqat ayol kapuchinlardan foydalanganlar. Umumiy omil - bu munosabatlar: eksperimentdagi ikkita hayvonning genetik aloqasi bor-yo'qligi. Hukmronlik darajasi Ijtimoiy hayvonlarda ham kooperatsiya tajribalarida rol o'ynashi ma'lum bo'lgan va shu sababli ko'pincha nazorat qilinadi.[6] Sub'ektlarning soni ko'pincha cheklangan bo'lib, ishonchli statistik xulosalar qiyinlashadi.[43]

Shartlar

Tengsizlikning oldini olishga ta'sir qilishi mumkin bo'lgan yoki ta'sir qilmaydigan omillarni nazorat qilish uchun tadqiqotchilar o'z tajribalarida har xil sharoitlardan foydalanganlar. Oziq-ovqat kontrasti nazorati keng tarqalgan. Mukofotni rad etish eksperimentning ijtimoiy tomoni bilan bog'liqmi yoki hayvon ko'proq qimmatroq mukofot kutayotgani uchunmi? Kontrastli tadqiqotlar 20-asrning 20-yillariga to'g'ri keladi[25] va yuqori qiymatdagi bir qator mukofotlarni, so'ngra past qiymatli mukofotlarni o'z ichiga oladi. Mavzular yolg'iz sinovdan o'tkazilishi mumkin[44] yoki yonma-yon.[45] Ba'zi tadqiqotchilar Brosnan va De Vaalning oziq-ovqat mahsulotlarini nazorat qilishda so'nggi 10 ta sinovdan foydalanib, adolatsizlikdan qutulish xulosasiga kelishdi. Ushbu tadqiqotchilar oziq-ovqat kutishini nazorat qilishning turli usullarini ishlab chiqdilar, masalan, uni ko'rsatgandan keyin yashirish yoki boshqa qafasga qo'yish.[46]

Boshqa keng tarqalgan nazorat - harakatlarni boshqarish. Ovqat mehnat uchun mukofot sifatida yoki oddiygina sovg'a sifatida tarqatilishi muhimmi? Brosnan va De Vaalning tokenlarni almashtirish vazifasi eng ko'p ishlatiladigan harakatlardir. Ba'zan sub'ektlar belgilangan vaqt davomida nishonni ushlab turishlari kerak (bu vazifa "nishon" deb nomlanadi). Hech qanday kuch sarflamaslik uchun ikkita holat mavjud: na hayvon, na biron narsa qilish kerak emas, yoki sherik bepul sovg'a oladi, lekin mavzu topshiriqni bajarishi kerak.[30]

Ultimatum o'yini

Bir nechta tadqiqotlar token almashinuvi paradigmasidan chetga chiqdi va odamlar bilan tengsizlik tajribalarida ishlatilgan paradigmani ta'qib qildi, Ultimatum o'yini.[47][48] Ushbu o'yinda bitta shaxs, taklif qiluvchi ikkita tokenni tanlashi kerak, biri mukofotlarning adolatli taqsimotini, ikkinchisi adolatsiz bo'linishni anglatadi. Javob beruvchi boshqa shaxs, keyin tanlangan tokenni qabul qilishga qaror qilishi kerak, bu holda mukofotlar token qiymati bo'yicha beriladi yoki belgini rad etadi, bu holda ham taklif qiluvchi va ham javob beruvchi hech qanday mukofot olmaydi.[6][D]

Tanlash

Ba'zi tadkikotlar mavzuga turli xil mukofotlarga ega bo'lgan ikkita variantni tanlash imkoniyatini beradi, odatda ikkala hayvon ham mukofotlanadi va faqat tanlagan kishi mukofotlanadi. Bu toymasin platformalardagi oziq-ovqat plitalari o'rtasida to'g'ridan-to'g'ri tanlov bo'lishi mumkin,[40] yoki bilvosita, odatda ikki xil token o'rtasida tanlov,[49] masalan, turli xil mukofotlarga olib keladigan ikkita yo'l o'rtasida.[41]

Kooperativ tortish

Ichida kooperativ tortishish paradigmasi (eksperimental dizayn, unda ikki yoki undan ortiq hayvonlar o'zlari tomon mukofotni o'zlari tomonidan muvaffaqiyatli ishlashga qodir bo'lmagan apparat orqali tortib oladilar) tadqiqotchilar ishtirokchilar uchun turli xil mukofotlarga ega bo'lishdi. Ikkalasi birgalikda tortishish uchun bir xil mukofot olganidan keyin, ikkinchisidan ko'prog'ini oladiganga, hattoki birining hammasini oladigan va boshqasining ham mukofotiga sazovor bo'lgandan keyin, ular yana hayvonlarning hamkorlik qilish ehtimolini taqqoslashadi. Ushbu bo'linishni eksperimentator (har biri bittadan) yoki hayvonlar (bitta piyola) tomonidan amalga oshirishi mumkin.[37]

Topilmalar

Umumiy nuqtai

Natija va xulosalar har xil. Rad etish koeffitsientlari tenglik sharoitida tenglik darajasidan yuqori bo'lganligi sababli, bir xil tadqiqotlar davomida turlar, turlar ichida va hattoki individual shaxslar bo'yicha sezilarli o'zgarish mavjud. Tadqiqotchilar ushbu natijalardan kelib chiqadigan xulosalar ham aralashgan.[50] Tekshirish shartlariga qaraganda tengsizlik sharoitida nisbatan yuqori rad etish tezligini topgan tadqiqotlarda har doim umuman rad qilmaydigan ayrim shaxslar bo'lgan.[51] Tadqiqotchilar kapuchin maymunlarida noqulay tengsizlikning dalillarini topdilar, shimpanze, uzun dumli makakalar, rhesus macaques, marmosets, babunlar, gibbonlar, gorilla, itlar, bo'rilar, kalamushlar, qarg'alar va qarg'alar.[37][52][2][32] Bonoboslar adolatsizlikka qarshi turishi mumkin, chunki tadqiqotchilar topilmalarni turlicha talqin qilishgan.[53][30]

Orangutanlar,[35] sincap maymunlari,[36] boyqush maymunlari,[31] tamarinlar,[34] to'tiqushlar,[39][54][55] va toza baliq[40] har qanday tadqiqotda tengsizlikka sezgir ekanligi aniqlanmadi.[37] Uy hayvonlari itlari it va bo'rilardan farq qiladi. Uy hayvonlari itlari boshqasiga mukofot olishlariga qarshi, chunki ular o'zlari hech narsa ololmaydilar, ammo farq sifat jihatidan bo'lsa, ular bunga qarshi emas.[56]

Keyinchalik Brosnan va de Vaalning asl topilmalarini takrorlay olmagan birinchi keyingi tadqiqotlar eksperimental sozlashda juda muhim farqga ega ekanligi ko'rsatildi. Ular hayvonlarni hech qanday kuch sarflamay oziq-ovqat olishlarini o'z ichiga olgan. Keyinchalik olib borilgan tadqiqotlar shuni ko'rsatdiki, ta'sir shu nuqtai nazardan yo'qoladi.[57] Talbot, Parrish, Vatsek, Essler, Leverett, Paukner va Brosnan kichik protsessual tafovutlar tufayli natijalar bir-biriga aralashgan bo'lishi mumkin, deb ta'kidlaydilar.[58] Ular buni nazorat qilish qiyin ekanligini tan olishadi, ayniqsa, turlari bo'yicha, chunki protseduralar ko'pincha ushbu turga, masalan, ularning kattaligi va tabiiy xulq-atvoriga qarab tuzilishi kerak.[51] Natijaga ta'sir qilishi mumkin bo'lgan, ammo har doim ham nazorat qilinmagan boshqa omillar jins va martabadir. Ba'zi tadqiqotchilar adolatsizlik bir populyatsiyada mavjud bo'lishi mumkin, ammo boshqasida bo'lmaydi.[59] Ko'pgina tadqiqotlar ularning kichik namunalari ularning xulosalariga chek qo'yishini eslatib o'tishadi.[60][59][61][62]

Kontrastli effektlarni nazorat qilgan tadqiqotlar, rad etishning yuqoriligi yaxshiroq mukofotlarning ko'rinishi bilan bog'liqligini istisno qildi. Bu hayvonlar ozroq mukofotlar uchun topshiriqlarni ishonchli ravishda darhol ularning oldida turgan taqdirda ham bajaradi degan xulosaga mos keladi.[44] Faqat Engelmann va boshq. mukofot rad etilishini adolatsizlikdan qochish deb tushuntirmadi. Ammo ular rad etishni kontrast effekti bilan bog'lamadilar. Buning o'rniga, ular shimpanze bilan o'tkazgan tajribalaridan kelib chiqib, rad etish odam eksperimentatorining xatti-harakatlarida ko'ngli qolganligi bilan bog'liq degan xulosaga kelishdi.[63] Sheskin va boshq., Ammo kapuchinlar teng mukofot tarqatadigan yoki teng bo'lmagan mukofotlarni taqsimlaydigan eksperimentatorlar o'rtasida farqlanishiga dalil topmadilar.[64] Bir nechta turlar (masalan, sincap maymunlari) tengsizlikdan farqli o'laroq, kontrast ta'sirga ko'proq javob berishadi; ba'zilari ikkalasiga ham javob beradi (rhesus macaques), ba'zilari har qanday holatga befarq ko'rinadi (orangutanlar),[44] ba'zilari esa adolatsizlikka qattiqroq javob berishadi.[65]

Hamjihatlik vazifalarini bajarishda, mukofotni monopoliyalashtiruvchi shaxslarning qurboni bo'lgan shaxslar ushbu harakatni keyinchalik hamkorlik qilishdan bosh tortish bilan jazolaydilar.[37] Barlarni tortadigan apparatda teng bo'lmagan mukofotlar bilan kapuchinlar hali ham muvaffaqiyatga erishdilar. Qaysi maymundan yuqori qiymatga ega oziq-ovqat olganini almashtirishga moyil bo'lgan juftliklar, bitta maymun qimmatroq ovqatni egallagan juftliklarga qaraganda mukofot olishda ikki martadan ko'proq muvaffaqiyatga erishgan.[66] Shimpanzalar bilan o'tkazilgan tajribada, sinovlarning deyarli yarmida juftlik teng bo'linish uchun ishlash uchun kelishib oldi.[67]

Jismoniy yaqinlik adolatsizlikdan nafratlanishning qiyin vazifalarda paydo bo'lishi uchun muhim tarkibiy qism hisoblanadi. Turli xil hayvonlar harakatning to'liq ko'rinishi bilan yonma-yon bo'lmasa, ta'sir deyarli yo'qoladi.[44] Hukmronlik darajasi, jinsi, munosabatlarning sifati va mukofotlash xususiyatlari ham reaktsiyaning mavjudligiga yoki kuchiga ta'sir qiladi.[6] Masalan, chimpanzaklarning belgilangan guruhida tengsizlikka nisbatan nafratlanish yangi paydo bo'lgan guruhga qaraganda kamroq sezilgan.[68] Va kapuchinlar uchun mukofotning sifati bilan emas, balki miqdori bilan ham yuqori va pastki mukofot o'rtasidagi qiymat farqi muhim.[58] Kapuchinlar orasida to'siq bo'lishi yoki farq qilmasligi.[69]

Faqat uchta tadqiqot foydali tengsizlikdan qochish uchun dalillarni topdi, ikkitasi shimpanze va bittasi kapuchinlar bilan.[37] Shimpanzalar bilan o'tkazilgan avvalgi tadqiqotlarda u hech qachon kuzatilmagan bo'lsa-da, 2010 yilda asirga olingan 16 kattalar shimpanze, erkak va urg'ochi ayol bilan o'tkazilgan tadqiqotda, boshqa shimpanzening pastki savzi olganda, undan yuqori qiymatli uzum olgan shimpanzilar tez-tez qatnashishdan bosh tortganligi aniqlandi. boshqa shimpanze ham uzum olgan paytdagiga qaraganda.[70] Boshqa tomondan, imtiyozli primatlarning kambag'al sherigiga hamdardlik ko'rsatmayotganliklari, aksincha ularning rad etilgan pastroq qiymatli ovqatlarini ham iste'mol qilganliklari haqida bir nechta xabarlar mavjud.[71]

Ultimatum Game-ning o'zgartirilgan versiyasida tadqiqotchilar shimpanzelar va juda yosh odamlarga o'zlari uchun beshta banan va sherigi uchun bitta belgi va har birida uchta banan teng bo'linishini anglatuvchi belgi o'rtasida tanlov berishdi. Ular ushbu belgini o'zlarining sheriklariga topshirishlari kerak edi, ular uni qabul qilishlari va uni tegishli mukofot taqsimotiga o'tkazishlari yoki rad etishlari mumkin, natijada ikkalasi uchun hech narsa bo'lmaydi. To'rt shimpanzening ikkitasi kapital belgisini tasodifdan ko'ra ko'proq tanlagan. O'zlarining tanlovlarini nazorat qilish holatida bo'lganlar bilan taqqoslaganda, sherigida belgini rad etish imkoniyati yo'q edi, barcha to'rtta shimpanze kapital belgisini ancha tez-tez tanladilar.[72] Respondentlar hech qachon taklifni rad etishmagan, lekin ular ba'zida, masalan, xudbin taklif qiluvchiga suv tupurish orqali norozilik bildirishgan.[42]

Ba'zi tadqiqotchilar adolatsizlikdan qochish tajribalari, shu jumladan o'zlarining natijalari ekologik jihatdan to'g'riligini shubha ostiga qo'yishdi. Ko'pgina turlar uchun kooperatsiya odatda oziq-ovqat sohasidan tashqarida bo'ladi. Ammo adolatsizlikdan qochish uchun barcha tajribalar oziq-ovqat bilan bog'liq.[40]

Aralash natijalar hayvonlarning axloqiy xulq-atvoridagi tadqiqotlarda kam uchraydi. Shuningdek, hayvonlarda adolatni o'rganishga qaratilgan prosotsial tajribalarning natijalari ham aralashgan.[73]

Turlar bo'yicha tadqiqotlar ro'yxati
UsulDalillar
TurlarVazifaYonma-yonNoqulayAfzalTadqiqotchilar
BabunMaqsadHaBalkiBalkiFeller (2016)[32]
BonoboYo'qYo'qYo'q–Bräuer va boshq. (2006)[74]
BonoboBirjaYo'qBalki–Bräuer va boshq. (2009)[75][30]
BonoboUltimatum o'yiniYo'qYo'qYo'qKaiser va boshq. (2012)[76]
KapuchinBirjaHaHa–Brosnan va de Vaal (2003)[28]
KapuchinYo'qHaYo'q–Rim va boshq. (2006)[77]
KapuchinTanlashHaYo'q–Dubreil va boshq. (2006)[78]
KapuchinBirjaHaHa–van Volkenten va boshq. (2007)[79]
KapuchinBirjaYo'qYo'q–Fontenot va boshq. (2007)[80]
KapuchinYo'qHaYo'q–Dindo va de Vaal (2007)[81]
KapuchinTortishHaHa–Fletcher (2008)[82]
KapuchinBirjaHaYo'q–Silberberg va boshq. (2009)[83]
KapuchinTortishYo'qHaHaTakimoto va boshq. (2010)[84]
KapuchinTanlashHaYo'q–Sheskin va boshq. (2014)[64]
KapuchinTanlashHaYo'qYo'qMcAuliffe va boshq. (2015)[85]
KapuchinBirjaHaHa–Talbot va boshq. (2018)[86]
ShimpanzeBirjaHaHa–Brosnan va boshq. (2005)[68]
ShimpanzeYo'qYo'qYo'q–Bräuer va boshq. (2006)[74]
ShimpanzeUltimatum o'yiniYo'q–Yo'qJensen va boshq. (2007)[87]
ShimpanzeBirjaYo'qYo'q–Bräuer va boshq. (2009)[75]
ShimpanzeBirjaHaHaHaBrosnan va boshq. (2010)[88]
ShimpanzeUltimatum o'yiniYo'qYo'qYo'qKaiser va boshq. (2012)[76]
ShimpanzeUltimatum o'yiniHa–HaProktor va boshq. (2013)[47]
ShimpanzeBirjaHaHa–Hopper va boshq. (2014)[89]
ShimpanzeTortishYo'qYo'qYo'qUlber va boshq. (2017)[90]
ShimpanzeTanlashHaHa–Engelmann va boshq. (2017)[63]
ShimpanzeYo'qHaHa–Kim va boshq. (2018)[91]
ShimpanzeUltimatum o'yiniYo'qYo'qYo'qBueno-Gerra va boshq. (2019)[92]
Toza baliqTanlashHaYo'q–Rayhani va boshq. (2012)[40]
Qarg'aBirjaHaHa–Wascher & Bugnyar (2013)[52]
Qarg'aBirjaHaYo'q–Jelbert va boshq. (2015)[2]
ItAmalHaHa–Range va boshq. (2009)[93]
ItAmalHaHa–Range va boshq. (2012)[94]
ItTanlash[95]HaYo'qYo'qHorovits (2012)[95]
ItAmalHaHa–Kamyon va boshq. (2016)[96]
ItAmalHaYo'q–Kamyon va boshq. (2017)[97]
ItAmalHaHa–McGetrick va boshq. (2019)[98]
It (to'plam)AmalHaYo'q–Essler va boshq. (2017)[38]
GibbonMaqsadHaBalkiYo'qFeller (2016)[32]
GorillaYo'qYo'qYo'q–Bräuer va boshq. (2006)[74]
GorillaBirjaHaBalkiYo'qFeller (2016)[32]
MakakTortishHaHaYo'qMassen va boshq. (2012)[99]
MakakMaqsadHaHa–Hopper va boshq. (2013)[61]
MarmosetMaqsadHaYo'qYo'qFreeman va boshq. (2013)[31]
MarmosetTortishHaHa–Mustoe va boshq. (2016)[100]
MarmosetMaqsadHaHa–Yasue va boshq. (2018)[101]
OrangutanYo'qYo'qYo'q–Bräuer va boshq. (2006)[74]
OrangutanBirjaYo'qYo'q–Bräuer va boshq. (2009)[75]
OrangutanBirjaHaYo'qYo'qBrosnan va boshq. (2011)[35]
OrangutanBirjaHaYo'qYo'qFeller (2016)[32]
OrangutanYo'qHaYo'q–Kim va boshq. (2018)[91]
Boyqush maymunMaqsad[31]HaYo'qYo'qFreeman va boshq. (2013)[31]
To'tiqushBirjaYo'qYo'q–Xeni va boshq. (2017)[39]
To'tiqushBirjaHaYo'q–Krasheninnikova va boshqalar. (2019)[55]
To'tiqushBirjaHaYo'q–Laumer va boshq. (2019)[54]
KalamushTanlashHaHa–Ernandes-Lallement va boshq. (2015)[41]
KalamushTanlashHaHa–Oberliessen va boshq. (2016)[102]
RavenBirjaHaHa–Wascher & Bugnyar (2013)[52]
Sincap maymuniBirjaHaYo'qYo'qTalbot va boshq. (2011)[36]
Sincap maymuniMaqsadHaYo'qYo'qFreeman va boshq. (2013)[31]
TamarinBirjaHaYo'qYo'qNeiuort va boshq. (2009)[34]
TamarinTortishHaYo'qYo'qMcAuliffe va boshq. (2014)[103]
Bo'riAmalHaHaYo'qEssler va boshq. (2017)[38]

Primatlar

Babunlar

Babunlar 150 kishigacha bo'lgan murakkab jamiyatlarda yashaydilar.[104] Ular bardoshli va kooperativdirlar.[105]Feller 12 ta zaytun babunini sinovdan o'tkazdi (Papio anubis) ilgari bir-biriga duch kelmagan juftlikda. Ikkala maymun ham mukofotlash uchun maqsadni 1 soniya davomida ushlab turishi kerak edi.[106] Mukofotlar sifat jihatidan yoki miqdor jihatidan bir xil, kam yoki ustun bo'lgan.[107] O'rtacha babunlarning adolatsizlik sharoitida (sifat va miqdor bo'yicha) rad etish darajasi kapitalni boshqarish shartlaridan sezilarli darajada farq qilar edi, ammo bu kontrastni boshqarish shartlaridan sezilarli darajada farq qilmadi, shuning uchun ijtimoiy bo'lmagan sababni istisno qilish mumkin emas edi ularning xulq-atvori. Biroq, ajoyib individual farqlar mavjud edi. Besh babun sifatning tengsizligi sharoitida rad etish darajasi sifat kontrasti sharoitlariga qaraganda keskin yuqori bo'lgan.[108] Miqdor tengsizligi uchun bu raqam to'rtta edi.[109] Jins, martaba va tarbiya tarixi kabi demografik o'zgaruvchilar nima uchun ayrim shaxslar adolatsizlikni yoqtirganini, boshqalari esa buni tushuntira olmadi.[110] Tegishli adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish masalasiga kelsak, uchta babun sifatga, bittasi miqdorga ta'sir ko'rsatdi.[111]

Bonobos

Bonobos (Pan paniskus) shimpanzelar kabi ierarxik bo'lmasa ham, ierarxik tuzilmalarda yashovchi ijtimoiy hayvonlardir.[112] Tadqiqotchilar Bräuer, Call va Tomasello, boshqa buyuk maymunlar bilan birgalikda bonobolarni ikki va ikki marta adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish dalillarini topa olmadilar.[74][75] Birinchi tadqiqotda maymunlarga oddiygina ovqat berilgan.[33] Uch yil o'tgach, ular token almashinuvi paradigmasidan foydalangan holda tanqidiy ravishda bir nechta protsessual o'zgarishlarni amalga oshirdilar.[53] Ularning ta'kidlashlaricha, ularning usulida kapital sharoitida maymunlarga pastroq mukofot olishdan oldin yuqori qiymatli mukofot ko'rsatilgan, faqat ularning usuli adolatsizlik va tenglik shartlarini to'g'ri taqqoslashga imkon bergan.[113] Garchi beshta bonobo sherikni yaxshiroq mukofotga sazovor bo'lganini ko'rgandan so'ng, pastroq qiymatga ega bo'lgan oziq-ovqat mahsulotlaridan tez-tez voz kechishgan bo'lsa-da, tadqiqotchilar bonobolarni tengsizlikni rad etish uchun etarli dalil yo'q degan xulosaga kelishdi.[114] Brosnan va de Vaal Bräuer, Call va Tomasello tadqiqotlaridan turli xulosalar chiqarishdi va bonobolar tengsizlikka qarshi bo'lishi mumkin deb yozishdi.[30]Kaiser, Jensen, Call va Tomasello Ultimatum Game-ning variantini ishlab chiqdilar, unda taklif qiluvchi tomonidan javob beruvchining ulushining bir qismini o'g'irlash orqali adolatsizlik paydo bo'ldi. Ular biron bir ovqatdan bosh tortadigan bonobo topmadilar va taklif qiluvchilar doimiy ravishda javob beruvchilardan oziq-ovqatni o'g'irlashdi, go'yo o'g'irlik boshqalarga qanday ta'sir qilishini unutishdi. Bonobolar adolatsizlikka befarq degan xulosaga kelishdi.[115]

Kapuchinlar

Brosnan va de Vaalning asl qog'ozidan so'ng kapuchinlar bilan olib borilgan o'nga yaqin tadqiqot nashr qilindi, natijada ularning ba'zilari kapuchinlarning tengsizlikka qarshi ekanligi haqidagi xulosani tasdiqlashdi, ba'zilari esa bunday emas.[51] Masalan, McAuliffe, Chang, Leimgruber, Spulding, Bleyk va Santoslar odamlar bilan tez-tez ishlatiladigan tanlov eksperimentida noaniq yoki foydali tengsizlikni rad etishiga dalil topa olmadilar.[85]Talbot, Parrish, Vatsek, Essler, Leverett, Paukner va Brosnan natijalar bir-biriga aralashganligi sababli tajriba sozlamalari turlicha bo'lganligi va hatto mayda detallar ham kapuchinlarning xatti-harakatlariga ta'sir qilishi mumkin deb ta'kidladilar.[51] Buni sinab ko'rish uchun ular kapuchin tadqiqotlari bo'yicha farq qiluvchi ikkita omilni o'rganib chiqdilar, ular 13 kapuchinga belgi almashtirish vazifasini berishdi va oziq-ovqat sifatini turlicha o'zgartirishdi. Ular o'rtacha imtiyozli oziq-ovqat mukofotini joriy etdilar va oziq-ovqat mahsulotidagi afzallik o'rtacha (masalan, yuqori va o'rta) ga qaraganda katta (ya'ni yuqori va past) bo'lganida, bu ta'sir ancha kuchliroq ekanligini va agar past qiymatli oziq-ovqat bo'lsa, yo'q bo'lib ketishini aniqladilar. umuman yoqtirilmaydi.Bu natija oldingi tajribalarning ba'zi aralash natijalarini tushuntirishi mumkin.[116]Ular, shuningdek, ikkita maymun o'rtasida jismoniy to'siq bo'lishi yoki yo'qligini, shu paytgacha tajribalarda o'zgarib kelgan yana bir omil ta'sirini sinab ko'rishdi. Ularning mavjudligi yoki yo'qligi muhim emasligini aniqladilar.[69]Ular kelgusi tadqiqotlar eksperimental o'rnatishning har bir detalini nazorat qilishni taklif qilishdi, chunki bu aralash natijalarni salbiy deb hisoblashdan ko'ra samarani yaxshiroq tushunishga yordam beradi.[58]

Shimpanzilar

Shimpanzilar (Pan trogloditlari) aqlli, ijtimoiy hayvonlardir.[1] Tabiatda ular ov qilish, raqib guruhlarga ustunlik qilish va o'z hududlarini himoya qilish uchun hamkorlik qiladilar.[117] Ular oziq-ovqat bilan bo'lishishadi, lekin ehtimol bu qiyinchiliklardan qochish uchun qilishadi.[118] Tengsizlikni oldini olish bo'yicha tadqiqotlar natijalari har xil natijalarni berdi.[119] Masalan, Bräuer, Call va Tomasello oltita shimpanzeni ijtimoiy va oziq-ovqat mahsulotlarini taqqoslash omillarini nazorat qilib, token almashinuvi vazifasini taqdim etishdi. Ular adolatsizlik sharoitidagi xatti-harakatlarning tenglik holatiga nisbatan har qanday farqi maymunlarning adolatsizligi sababli emas, balki taklif qilinayotgan ovqatni taqqoslashi bilan bog'liq degan xulosaga kelishdi.[120] Boshqa tomondan, Brosnan, Talbot, Ahlgren, Lambet va Schapiro 16 ta shimpanzega o'xshash sinov o'tkazdilar va erkaklar tengsizlikka qarshi, ammo urg'ochilar bunday emasligini aniqladilar. Tengsizlik sharoitida yuqori darajadagi rad etish ijtimoiy taqqoslash bilan bog'liq edi.[121]Tadqiqotchilar, shuningdek, hayvonlarda adolatli nafratlanishning birinchi dalillarini topdilar. Bir necha marta shimpanzelar sherigiga faqat sabzi olishini kuzatgandan so'ng uzumdan bosh tortdilar.[122] Token almashinuvi o'rniga Ultimatum Game-dan foydalangan holda olib borilgan tadqiqotlar ham aralash natijalarga olib keldi.[87][47] Besh ishda shimpanzeler yonma-yon bo'lmagan tajriba o'rnatilishi ishtirok etdi. Ularning hech biri adolatsizlikdan nafratlanishning biron bir dalilini topa olmadi.[74][87][75][76][90] Brosnan, Talbot, Ahlgren, Lambet va Shapiro natijalardagi umumiy o'zgaruvchanlikni protseduralardagi farqlar va kichik namuna o'lchamlari daraja va jins kabi omillarni ishonchli nazorat qilishni qiyinlashtirganligi bilan izohladilar.[119]

Gibbonlar

Gibbonlar (Nomascus leucogenys) kichik guruhlarda, ikki ota-ona o'z avlodlari bilan yashaydi va qarindosh bo'lmaganlar bilan hamkorlik qilmaydi.[123] Feller ikkita oq yonoqli gibonni nishonga o'tkazish bo'yicha eksperimental paradigmada sinovdan o'tkazdi. U sheriklaridan ko'ra pastroq mukofot olishlariga salbiy munosabatda bo'lmasliklarini taxmin qildi.[124] Darhaqiqat, nazorat shartlari bilan sezilarli farq yo'q edi, garchi ikkala gibbondan biri mukofotlar sifat jihatidan farq qiladigan va miqdor jihatidan farq qiladigan holatlarda ham kapital sharoitlariga qaraganda ko'proq rad etdi.[125] Feller gibbonlar uchun hech qanday kontrast ta'sir topmadi.[126]

Gorillalar

Yana uchta ajoyib maymun turini o'z ichiga olgan eksperimentda Bräuer, Call va Tomasello oltitasini qo'yishdi gorilla (Gorilla spp.) tengsizlik testiga.[33] Yovvoyi gorillalarda o'rtacha to'qqiz kishidan iborat oilaviy guruhlar yashaydi.[127] Maymunlarga biron bir vazifani bajarmasdan ovqat berildi.[33]Tadqiqotchilar gorillalar uchun maxsus natijalar haqida xabar bermadilar, ammo umuman olganda, barcha to'rt turdagi maymunlar sherigi yaxshiroq ovqat olganda ovqatdan tez-tez voz kechishmadi.[128]O'zlarining boshqariladigan tajribalaridan kelib chiqib, har qanday oziq-ovqat mahsuloti rad etilishi adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish tufayli emas, balki, ehtimol, ularning umidlarini qondirmaslik bilan bog'liq degan xulosaga kelishdi. Ushbu oziq-ovqatni kutish gipotezasi shuni ko'rsatadiki, sub'ektlar ba'zi sharoitlarda afzal qilingan ovqatni olishlari kerak, ammo boshqalari emas. Faqatgina bo'sh qafasga joylashtirilmasdan, sherikga imtiyozli oziq-ovqat berishini ko'rgan eksperiment, ular imtiyozli oziq-ovqatning bir qismini olishlariga umid bog'lagan bo'lishi mumkin.[128]Ularning topilmalari nima uchun Brosnan va de Vaalnikidan farq qilishini taxmin qilishda, Bräuer, Call va Tomasello protsessual farqlarni, xususan, oziq-ovqat mahsulotlarini token almashinuviga berilishini ta'kidlaydilar.[129]Ikki erkak gorilla, aka-ukalar bilan token almashinuvi testida Feller adolatsizlikdan nafratlanishning ba'zi dalillarini topdi.[130] Maymunlardan biri, sherigi token almashish uchun nazorat holatiga qaraganda yaxshiroq qiymatli mukofot olganida, ovqatdan juda tez-tez voz kechgan.[130] Ammo ikkala aka-uka ham qarama-qarshi ta'sirga munosabat bildirganligi sababli, Feller gorillalarning tengsizlikka qarshi ekanligini istisno qilmadi va tasdiqlamadi.[131]

Makakalar

Makakalar (Macaca spp.) - iyerarxik guruhlarda yashovchi maymunlar. Ular odatdagidek asboblardan foydalanmaydilar, birgalikda ov qilmaydilar va oziq-ovqat bilan bo'lishmaydilar.[132] Makakalar bilan olib borilgan har ikki tadqiqotning ikkitasi adolatsizlikdan qochishga dalil topdi.[99][61] Massen, Van Den Berg, Spruijt va Sterk musofirlar va "do'stlar" bilan laganda tortish tajribasida 12 ta uzun dumli makakalarni sinab ko'rishdi .Tadqiqotchilar do'stlar tenglik uchun notanish odamlarga qaraganda kamroq e'tibor berishadi, shuning uchun ular yo'q yoki yo'qligini taxmin qilishgan. do'stlar sharoitida ta'siri. Makakular, ularning taxminlaridan farqli o'laroq, notanish odam bilan bo'lgani kabi, tengsizlikka ham xuddi shunday javob berishdi, maymunlar esa, ularning harakatlari o'rtacha bo'lganida, adolatsizlik sharoitida ovqatdan ancha ko'proq voz kechishdi. Hech qanday harakat yoki ko'p harakat (sub'ektlar o'zlari tomon tortishlari kerak bo'lgan laganda qo'shimcha og'irlik bilan qarshi olingan) rad etish ko'rsatkichlarining yuqori bo'lishiga olib kelmadi.[133] Tadqiqotchilar kontrastli ta'sir tufayli rad etish darajasi yuqoriroq bo'lishini istisno qildilar, chunki har bir maymun faqat bir marotaba mukofot olgan. To'g'ri adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish uchun dalillar topilmadi.[134]

Hopper, Lambet, Schapiro, Bernacky va Brosnan hayvonlardagi tengsizlik nafratining rivojlanishini o'rgangan birinchi tadqiqotchilar. Dastlab ular 20 ta rhesus macaques (o'rtacha 17 oylik) ni sinovdan o'tkazdilar va tengsizlik va tenglik shartlari o'rtasida rad etish nisbati farq qilmadi. Bir yil o'tgach, ular yana sakkiztasini sinovdan o'tkazdilar va endi ularni tengsizlik sharoitida mukofotlashdan bosh tortishlarini aniqladilar. Ular hayvonlar ko'ngli to'lganidan, ammo undan yuqori qiymatga ega bo'lgan ovqatni ololmayotganidan bosh tortishni rad etishdi.[61]

Marmosets

Marmosets (Callithrix spp.) uzoq muddatli ota-ona juftliklarini hosil qiluvchi maymunlar.[135]Marmosetslar bilan o'tkazilgan uchta tajribadan ikkitasida adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish isboti topildi.[31][101][100] Friman, Sallivan, Xopper, Talbot, Xolms, Shultz-Darken, Uilyams va Brosnan sinovdan o'tgan o'nta marmosetning birortasi uchta vazifa shartlari orasida rad javobi jihatidan sezilarli darajada farq qilmasligini aniqladilar.[136] Aksincha, Yasue, Nakagami, Nakagaki, Ichinohe va Kavaylar mukofot olish uchun qoshiqni ikki soniya ushlab turishi kerak bo'lgan oltita marmosetni sinashda farqni topdilar. Maymunlar sherikni bir xil mukofot olayotganini kuzatganlarida deyarli har doim topshiriqni muvaffaqiyatli bajardilar, ammo sherikning yanada jozibali mukofot olganiga guvoh bo'lganlarida, faqatgina 70% sinovlarda.[137] Ushbu yuqori rad etish darajasi boshqa beshta marmoset ta'sirlangan boshqa holatda mavjud emas edi valproik kislota, tadqiqotchilarni adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish zaif ijtimoiy motivatsiyadan kelib chiqadi degan xulosaga kelishiga olib keldi.[138]

Musto, Xarnisch, Xoxfelder, Kavano va frantsuzlar sakkizta marmosetni laganda tortish tajribasida sinab ko'rdilar, u erda sub'ektlar o'zlari va sheriklari tomon oziq-ovqat bilan laganda tortdilar. Ular to'rtta marmosetsda adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish uchun dalillar topdilar. Erkaklar begonalar bilan juftlik qilganda adolatsizlikni bartaraf etishmadi. Neyrogipofizik gormon oksitotsin Primatlardagi ijtimoiy xatti-harakatlarni modulyatsiya qilishi aniqlangan, adolatsizlikdan nafratlanishga ta'sir ko'rsatmadi.[139]

Orangutanlar

O'z ichiga olgan beshta adolatsizlikdan qochish bo'yicha tadqiqotlar orangutanlar (Pongo pygmaeus), yarim yolg'iz turmush tarziga ega va buyuk kooperator ekanligi ma'lum bo'lmagan maymun,[140] nashr etilgan. Brosnan, Flemming, Talbot, Mayo va Stoinski hech qanday izlanishda adolatsizlikdan nafratlanish dalillarini topa olmadilar, ilgari guruh shimpanzalarda ishlatganidek, eksperimental sozlash va uslubni qo'lladilar.[141][88]Beshta orangutan sakkiz xil sharoitda joylashtirildi, ulardan ettitasi token almashinuvini o'z ichiga oldi. Eng yuqori darajadagi rad etish darajasi, 10% adolatsizlik sharoitida bo'lgan, ammo u tenglik sharoitidagi rad etish stavkasidan sezilarli darajada farq qilmadi, na maymunlar ham past qiymatli mukofot oldilar, na yuqori qiymatga ega bo'lganlar. Orangutanlar ham individual kontrastli sharoitlarda tez-tez rad etishmadi.[142] Ko'pgina boshqa turlari singari, hech qanday kuch sarflamaydigan sharoitda rad etish darajasi juda past edi.[143] Feller turli xil sharoitlarga ega bo'lgan ikkita orangutani sinovdan o'tkazdi, shu jumladan miqdor tengsizligi sharti.[144] Maymun ham har qanday holatda ham ovqatdan bosh tortmagan.[145]

Boyqush maymunlari

Boyqush maymunlari (Aotus) odatda beshta kishidan iborat kichik guruhlarda yashaydilar, odatda erkak va ayol va ularning avlodlari.[146] Friman, Sallivan, Hopper, Talbot, Xolms, Shultz-Darken, Uilyams va Brosnan Brosnan va de Vaalning dastlabki eksperimentida uch xil maymun turlarini, shu jumladan boyo'g'li maymunlarini sinab ko'rdilar. ularning qafasidan bir nishonni tanlang va ushlang. Ko'rinadigan, ammo berilmagan qimmatbaho oziq-ovqat mahsuloti bilan ijtimoiy bo'lmagan holatdan tashqari, harakatni nazorat qilish sharti ham mavjud edi. The researchers found that owl monkeys did not differ in their rate of refusals among any of the four conditions.[136] They hypothesized that for species that provide bi-parental care the cost of having conflict with their reproductive partner may be too high to warrant a refusal reaction over a small amount of inequity.[147]

Sincap maymunlari

In the wild, squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) do not regularly cooperate.[147] Talbot, Freeman, Williams, and Brosnan tested squirrel monkeys in a token-for-food exchange experiment, with a free food and contrast conditions as controls. The monkeys did not refuse food more often in the inequity condition than in the equity condition. They refused food far less often in the free food condition than in the token-exchange conditions. The male squirrel monkeys refused food the most in the contrast condition, when given inferior food after initially having been shown better food. The females refused food less often in all conditions, the least in the free-food condition. The researchers concluded that squirrel monkeys are not averse to inequity.[148] Freeman, Sullivan, Hopper, Talbot, Holmes, Schultz-Darken, Williams, and Brosnan found no evidence of inequity aversion in their test with squirrel monkeys either. They too observed a strong contrast effect: when there was no partner but a better reward present than given the monkeys refused food the most by far.[136]

Tamarinlar

Cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus edipus) bor Yangi dunyo maymunlari that breed cooperatively, cooperative on tasks and tolerate food sharing.[149]Neiworth, Johnson, Whillock, and Greenberg tested 11 tamarins in six conditions.In one of the conditions, the effort+food inequity condition, the subjects were given the less preferred food as reward for a token exchange, whereas the partners were just handed the more preferred food for no effort.The highest rejection rates were in the food-control condition, with low-value food given while preferred food was present. The researchers did find some evidence of inequity aversion, but only by comparing results from the first set of trials to the last in the food inequity condition of the token-exchange task, similar to Brosnan and de Waal's original analysis. In the non-social conditions this significant rise in rejections was not found. The researchers attributed the rise to an increasing aversion to the perceived inequity. Curiously, in the effort+food inequity condition the rejection rates did not increase significantly. The researchers theorised that the animals judged the situation differently as the partner did not have to act, not triggering the equity comparison scheme.[150]

McAuliffe, Shelton, and Stone tested the reaction of 12 cotton-top tamarins to inequity in a personalised handle-pulling task. The researchers suspected that the amount of effort involved is a key factor in inequity aversion and therefore designed a tray-pulling task with weights, after having calibrated how much weight each subject was willing to pull for food. In the inequity conditions the subjects had to exert a lot of effort for little food while their partners received more food for no effort. The researchers found weak support for the influence of effort oninequity aversion, largely driven by one female.[103]

Other mammals

Itlar

Dogs (Canis familiares) are known to cooperate in hunting, breeding and defending territories. McGetrick and Range reviewed seven studies into inequity aversion in dogs.[151]Range, Horn, Virányi, and Huber found a negative reaction to an all-or-nothing distribution of rewards, in an experimental setup similar to Brosnan and de Waal's original work, with the task of giving a paw. However, there was no effect when the distribution was uneven in quality. The researchers concluded that dogs possess a primitive form of disadvantageous inequity aversion.[152][93] Brucks, Essler, Marshall-Pescini, and Range replicated this study with 32 pet dogs and came to the same conclusion.[152][96]

Three other studies came to the opposite conclusion. McGetrick and Range challenged the validity of one of them, a study by Horowitz involving dogs choosing between a fair and an unfair human, on the grounds of it was not asking the same question of the dogs: for instance, the task was not prosocial.[95][153] Nonetheless, the Horowitz study did study both advantageous and disadvantageous inequity, unlike the original Range, Horn, Virányi, and Huber design, so it was more able to speak about inequity aversion in both contexts. The findings of two other studies are also seemingly at odds with the notion that dogs are inequity averse. Brucks, Marshall-Pescini, Essler, McGetrick, Huber, and Range tested the willingness of 44 dogs to press a buzzer with their paw to get a food reward inferior to their partner's. Their experimental setup did include one set of conditions without any human being present. While the dogs did show signs of stress, they did not refuse to perform the task relatively more. They stopped pressing the buzzer once they saw that their partner was being rewarded and they did not, but this behaviour was not significantly different from the condition without a partner.[154][155] Essler, Marshall-Pescini, and Range obtained similar results with ten pack-living dogs.[38][154] McGetrick and Range concluded that with the current evidence it is likely that dogs possess a primitive form of disadvantageous inequity aversion.[154] McGetrick, Ausserwöger, Leidinger, Attar, and Range1 tested the hypothesis that a shared food source is necessary to elicit inequity aversion in dogs, but found that not to be the case. Even when rewards came from different sources they observed some inequity aversion.[98]

Sichqonlar

Rats (Rattus norvegicus) often develop in social groups, cooperate naturally, have been found to reciprocate, and generally display behavior that benefits others.[41]Hernandez-Lallement, van Wingerden, Marx, Srejic, and Kalenscher tested 68 male rats in a series of maze experiments where the animals could choose between a path that lead to rewards just for them or for a partner as well.[41]Most rats chose the option that rewarded both significantly more, albeit with a small margin (55% versus 45%).[156] In a control condition the researchers replaced the partner rat with a toy lookalike.In this condition, the rats chose the option to just reward themselves more.The researchers concluded that rats derive value from another rat's access to food.[156]They attributed the relatively small size of the effect to individual differences. About 60% of rats showed this pro-social behavior.[157]In a similar experiment with 23 rats, Oberliessen, Hernandez-Lallement, Schable, van Wingerden, Seinstra, and Kalenscher found supporting evidence of inequity aversion.[102]

Bo'rilar

Wolves (Canis lupus) are highly social animals that cooperate in hunting, breeding and defending their territories. Essler, Marshall-Pescini, and Range set up an experiment with nine wolves and ten pack-living dogs to investigate if domestication was the reason dogs show a primitive form of inequity aversion.The animals had to press a buzzer to receive a reward, which was either equal or inferior to the reward of a partner performing the same action in an adjacent enclosure.The wolves stopped pressing the buzzer once they observed their partner got a better reward for the same action.In the conditions without receiving a reward, wolves completed fewer tasks when there was a partner who did get rewarded than when there was no partner at all. Taking the social hierarchy into account, dominant wolves reacted strongly to a subordinate being rewarded when they were not. Given that the results for pack-living dogs were very similar, the researchers concluded that the common ancestor of wolves and dogs likely already was inequity averse, and that domestication is not a factor for this behavior in dogs.[38]

Qushlar

Qarg'alar

Carrion crows (Corvus corone corone) are smart, social birds from the corvids family. Wascher and Bugnyar tested six crows in a setup similar to the original Brosnan and de Waal study (they also tested ravens at the same time).[158] They made sure that the birds always saw the reward before the task, in order to control for a frustration effect.[159]The exchange rate was significantly higher in the equity condition than in the inequity condition, as the researchers had expected.[160]The biggest drop in task completion rate was when the partner received a reward for no effort but the crow had to work for it.[161] Wascher and Bugnyar concluded that crows reject unfair offers.[162] Because of their small sample size they were cautious to attribute this to disadvantageous inequity aversion, but strongly suspected so.[163] Brosnan and de Waal concluded from Wascher and Bugnyar's research that crows are inequity averse.[30]

Parrots

Parrots generally live in complex social structures and perform well on cognitive tasks. [55] Kea (Nestor notabilis) are parrots that live in groups. Although in lab settings they have displayed cooperative behaviour, in the wild they do not appear to cooperate.[164][165] Researchers Heaney, Gray, and Taylor presented four male kea with a series of token-exchange conditions, with the birds side by side, so they could see their partner's behaviour. They found that the success rate did not differ significantly between the four conditions involving rewards (inequity condition, equity condition, free gift condition, and food control condition, in which both kea were shown a high-value food but upon token exchange only received a low-value reward). A significant drop in success rate was observed in the condition where the subject received nothing while the partner did. The researchers concluded that this is not due to any social factor, as the drop in rate was similar to the one observed in the no partner + no reward condition. Based on these results the researchers concluded that kea are not sensitive to inequity.[39]Krasheninnikova, Brucks, Buffenoir, Blanco, Soulet, and von Bayern subjected 28 parrots, of four different species, great green macaws, blue-throated macaws, blue-headed macaws va African grey parrots, to token exchange experiments. All of these species form long-term monogamous relationships with a partner, while living in larger family groups. As the researchers expected, they found no evidence of inequity aversion. The great green macaws did stop exchange tokens, but this was deemed to be due to the mere presence of high-quality rewards rather than to the partner receiving it. All four parrots species seemed to be sensitive to differences in reward quality, strongly suggesting that they were paying attention to what their partners were getting.[55] Researchers Laumer, Massen, Wakonig, Lorck‐Tympner, Carminito, and Auersperg found tentative evidence for inequity aversion to unequal work‐effort but not to unequal reward distribution in cockatoos.[54]

Quzg'unlar

Ravens (Corvus corax) are large-brained corvids that in the wild form coalitions and cooperate.[158] Researchers Wascher and Bugnyar tested four ravens on their behavioral response to inequity in a token-exchange task (they also tested crows at the same time).[158] Two ravens never refused food in any condition. Overall, the ravens refused to accept the low-quality reward more often in the inequity condition than in the equity condition.[161] Most striking were the results in the condition were the partner simply was given food but the subject had to work for it. Here the ravens successfully completed the task the least.[159]The researchers made the caveat that their sample size was low and were thus reluctant to come to firm conclusions, but it seemed that ravens reject unfair offers even at a cost to themselves.[60] Brosnan and de Waal concluded from Wascher and Bugnyar's research that ravens are inequity averse.[30]

Baliq

Toza baliq

Bluestreakni tozalash vositasi (labroides dimidiatus) bor cleaner fish, topilgan marjon riflari, that engage in mutalizm with other aquatic animals, so-called clients, by feeding on their surface ektoparazitlar, mukus and dead skin.Clients prefer having their ectoparasites being removed; they do not like cleaners cheating by biting off surface mucus or dead skin. Sometimes a male and female cleaner wrasse jointly clean a client. Males punish females for cheating because it often results in the end of the feeding session. This suggests cleaner fish may be aware of the payoffs accrued by an interaction partner.[40]Researchers Raihani, McAuliffe, Brosnan, and Bshary tested two sets of cleaner fish (12 and 10 individuals) on their sensitivity to unequal outcomes. The fish had to perform a task to provide food rewards for themselves and a partner. They were equally likely to work when their partner received higher-value rewards or same-value rewards. There was no significant difference whether their partner was unfamiliar and of the opposite sex or familiar and of the same sex. The researchers provided two possible explanations for these results. It may be that the fish did not see or pay attention to the food distribution prior to performing their task. Alternatively, cleaner wrasses may not be inequity averse.[40]

Evolyutsiya

Almost all researchers explain the findings of animals refusing less-preferred food while others receive more-preferred food in terms of inequity aversion and a sense of fairness. The cost of foregoing a low-value food when the partner gets a high-value reward is low. It's worth to reject, protest and possibly get something better. The cost of foregoing a high-value food when the partner gets an even higher-value reward is high, not worth protesting about and risk being left empty-handed.[166] Comparing one's gains to those of others makes evolutionary sense. If individuals were satisfied with any absolute benefit, they might still face negative fitness consequences if they were doing less well than competing others.[71] But this applies only in the context of extensive cooperation outside of kinship relationships.[30]

One explanation of the findings so far is that inequity aversion evolves in order to foster long-term cooperation between unrelated individuals. In particular, Brosnan suggests that responding to inequity facilitates partner choice. This increases an individual's fitness by enabling them to reject partnerships which repeatedly lead to unequal outcomes. In support of this, inequity aversion is found in highly-cooperative capuchins, but not in the closely related, less cooperative squirrel monkey; and in cooperative shimpanze, but not in typically less cooperative orangutanlar.[167] (McAuliffe and Santos however warn that there may be a sampling bias, since far more cooperative species have been tested than less-cooperative ones.[168])A further refinement is that inequity aversion is only adaptive in species which cooperate with multiple partners and can switch cooperative partners without bigger costs, thus ruling out the long-term monogamous parrots.[55] But it fails to explain why no inequity aversion was found in the cooperative cleaner fish.[168]) This theory predicts that domestic cats are far less sensitive to inequity than dogs.[42]

Brosnan ruled out the possibility that cognitive differences are driving inequity aversion, as orangutans are equally skilful in cognitive and exchange tasks as other great apes but never display the effect.[169] Brosnan and de Waal summarized the findings as inequity aversion being most pronounced in animals that cooperate outside of the bonds of mating and kinship.[44] Chimpanzees, bonobos, capuchins, macaques, dogs and corvids are all highly cooperative in nature and show inequity aversion; orangutans, owl and squirrel monkeys are not cooperative outside kin and do not show inequity aversion.[170]

The main explanation for disadvantageous inequity aversion is anticipatory conflict resolution. The animal anticipates their partner reacting negatively to disadvantageous inequity and thus rejects the better reward, or in the case of the Ultimatum Game, favours the equity token over the favorable one. Researchers have speculated that the reason why it is limited to chimpanzees and capuchins is that it requires the cognitive capability of planning, anticipating their partner's disadvantageous inequity aversion. Few species have this capacity. Chimpanzees have shown their ability to plan ahead in other contexts, for instance in tool use. Advantageous inequity aversion may also directly benefit an individual by enhancing its reputation, which may increase that individual's long-term access to beneficial relationships.[42]

Including evidence from canines, Essler, Marshall-Pescini, and Range conclude that it is possible that sensitivity to inequity was already present in an earlier common ancestor with primates. Shu bilan bir qatorda, konvergent evolyutsiya may be at play: under similar conditions the same behavior has emerged multiple times in evolution.[171] For example, bluebirds, bats and butterflies all have wings but do not share an ancestor that could fly, and the way their wings are constructed are entirely different.[172] Basing their argument partly on the facts that female chimpanzees often range solitarily and avert inequity less than males, Brosnan, Flemming, Talbot, Mayo, and Stoinski state the most likely hypothesis is that natural selection favours those who care how their outcomes compare to others. The level and intensity of cooperation may be less relevant for female chimps than for males, which may reduce the need for the building of social expectations among females.[173] Kim, Choe, Jeong, and Kim state it is an open question whether orangutans have lost or chimpanzees have acquired a sense of fairness in the hominid lineage.[91]

McAuliffe and Santos conclude that there is weak evidence for the social hypothesis for how inequity aversion came about and indirect evidence for the non-social hypothesis. They suspect inequity aversion has non-social roots but has been coopted for social interaction.[174]

While the controlled experiments have advanced the understanding of inequity aversion, their context cannot include all possible outcomes that exist in natural social interactions. In the standard inequity task, refusals only hurt the actor, whereas in a natural social context, protest against inequity may lead to the actor either receiving a larger share or seeking out a better partner to work with.[6]

Debove, Baumard, and André ran computer simulations of individuals of different rank cooperating with equal and unequal reward distributions and concluded that when partner choice is a characteristic of the setup, fairness emerges.[175]

Izohlar

  1. ^ Advantageous inequity aversion was found in the US, Canada, and Uganda, but not in Senegal, Peru, Mexico, and India.[7]
  2. ^ Brosnan's proposed experiment to better understand this socio-economic behavior nearly was rejected by her PhD committee, because she had already planned six other experiments. But because the committee could not agree on the expected outcome of her proposed experiment, her advisor, professor Frans de Vaal, told her she obviously had to do it.[22]
  3. ^ Research into the contrast effect in animals dates back to 1928 when Tinklepaugh tested the effect of expectation in makakalar. He let the monkeys see he put treats under a bucket. The next day he would lift the bucket and hand out the treats. But when he secretly switched the treats for a lettuce leaf, the monkeys reacted poorly in the morning, refusing those rewards.[24][25]
  4. ^ The Impunity Game is a variant of the Ultimatum Game: if the responder rejects the proposal, the proposer gets to keep the reward and the responder gets nothing.[6] This game has not been tested with animals. The challenge is to ensure the animals understand that the proposer had a choice.[45]

Adabiyotlar

  1. ^ a b Rekers, Haun & Tomasello 2011, p. 1756.
  2. ^ a b v d e Jelbert et al. 2015 yil, p. 1.
  3. ^ Fehr & Schmidt 1999.
  4. ^ Tomasello & Vaish 2013, p. 244.
  5. ^ McAuliffe et al. 2017 yil.
  6. ^ a b v d e f g Brosnan & de Waal 2014, p. 1251776-2.
  7. ^ Bleyk va boshq. 2015 yil, p. 259.
  8. ^ Bleyk va boshq. 2015 yil, p. 258.
  9. ^ Heinrich et al. 2001 yil.
  10. ^ McAuliffe & Santos 2018, p. 394.
  11. ^ Bleyk va boshq. 2015 yil, p. 260.
  12. ^ Dugatkin 1997.
  13. ^ a b Péron et al. 2011 yil, p. 545.
  14. ^ Hector 1986, p. 247.
  15. ^ Boesch & Boesch 1989.
  16. ^ Pitman & Durban 2012, p. 16.
  17. ^ Brian 2012, p. 18.
  18. ^ Lee 1987, p. 278.
  19. ^ Massen, Ritter & Bugnyar 2015, p. 1.
  20. ^ Brosnan & de Waal 2003, p. 297.
  21. ^ Watts & Mitani 2002, p. 13.
  22. ^ Brosnan, Sarah (2014). That's Not Fair! What Cucumber-Throwing Capuchins Tell Us About the Evolution of Fairness. The Social Mind: A Festschrift Symposium Honoring the Career of Frans de Waal, September 19, 2014.
  23. ^ a b v Brosnan & de Waal 2003, p. 297-298.
  24. ^ Brosnan et al. 2011 yil, p. 57.
  25. ^ a b Tinklepaugh 1928.
  26. ^ Brosnan & de Waal 2003, p. 298-299.
  27. ^ Brosnan & de Waal 2003, p. 299.
  28. ^ a b Brosnan & de Waal 2003.
  29. ^ "Google Scholar natijalari". Olingan 24 may 2018.
  30. ^ a b v d e f g h men Brosnan & de Waal 2014, p. 1251776-3.
  31. ^ a b v d e f g Freeman et al. 2013 yil.
  32. ^ a b v d e f Feller 2016.
  33. ^ a b v d Bräuer, Call & Tomasello 2006, p. 3124.
  34. ^ a b v Neiworth et al. 2009 yil.
  35. ^ a b v Brosnan et al. 2011 yil.
  36. ^ a b v Talbot et al. 2011 yil.
  37. ^ a b v d e f Brosnan & de Waal 2014, p. 1251776-4.
  38. ^ a b v d e Essler, Marshall-Pescini & Range 2017.
  39. ^ a b v d Heaney, Gray & Taylor 2017.
  40. ^ a b v d e f g Raihani et al. 2012 yil.
  41. ^ a b v d e Hernandez-Lallement et al. 2015 yil, p. 1.
  42. ^ a b v d Brosnan & de Waal 2014, p. 1251776-5.
  43. ^ Talbot et al. 2018 yil, p. 79.
  44. ^ a b v d e Brosnan & de Waal 2014, p. 1251776-1.
  45. ^ a b Brosnan 2013, p. 10418.
  46. ^ Neiworth et al. 2009 yil, p. 10-11.
  47. ^ a b v Proktor va boshq. 2013 yil.
  48. ^ Yamagishi et al. 2009 yil.
  49. ^ Amici, Visalberghi & Call 2014, p. 1.
  50. ^ Talbot, Price & Brosnan 2016.
  51. ^ a b v d Talbot et al. 2018 yil, p. 76.
  52. ^ a b v Wascher & Bugnyar 2013.
  53. ^ a b Bräuer, Call & Tomasello 2009, p. 176.
  54. ^ a b v Laumer et al. 2019 yil.
  55. ^ a b v d e Krasheninnikova et al. 2019 yil.
  56. ^ Essler, Marshall-Pescini & Range 2017, p. 1861 yil.
  57. ^ Massen et al. 2012 yil, p. 146.
  58. ^ a b v Talbot et al. 2018 yil, p. 85.
  59. ^ a b Bräuer, Call & Tomasello 2009, p. 180.
  60. ^ a b Wascher & Bugnyar 2013, p. 7-8.
  61. ^ a b v d Hopper et al. 2013 yil.
  62. ^ Feller 2016, p. 77.
  63. ^ a b Engelmann va boshq. 2017 yil, p. 1.
  64. ^ a b Sheskin et al. 2014 yil.
  65. ^ Talbot et al. 2018 yil, p. 80.
  66. ^ Brosnan, Freeman & de Waal 2006, p. 713.
  67. ^ Melis, Hare & Tomasello 2009.
  68. ^ a b Brosnan, Schiff & de Waal 2005.
  69. ^ a b Talbot et al. 2018 yil, p. 84.
  70. ^ Brosnan et al. 2010 yil, p. 1235.
  71. ^ a b Brosnan 2006.
  72. ^ Proktor va boshq. 2013 yil, p. 2071 yil.
  73. ^ Debove 2015, p. 133.
  74. ^ a b v d e f Bräuer, Call & Tomasello 2006.
  75. ^ a b v d e Bräuer, Call & Tomasello 2009.
  76. ^ a b v Kaiser va boshq. 2012 yil.
  77. ^ Roma et al. 2006 yil.
  78. ^ Dubreuil, Gentile & Visalberghi 2006.
  79. ^ van Wolkenten, Brosnan & de Waal 2007.
  80. ^ Fontenot va boshq. 2007 yil.
  81. ^ Dindo & de Waal 2007.
  82. ^ Fletcher 2008 yil.
  83. ^ Silberberg et al. 2009 yil.
  84. ^ Takimoto, Kuroshima & Fujita 2010.
  85. ^ a b McAuliffe et al. 2015 yil.
  86. ^ Talbot et al. 2018 yil.
  87. ^ a b v Jensen, Call & Tomasello 2007.
  88. ^ a b Brosnan et al. 2010 yil.
  89. ^ Hopper et al. 2014 yil.
  90. ^ a b Ulber, Hamann & Tomasello 2017.
  91. ^ a b v Kim va boshq. 2018 yil.
  92. ^ Bueno-Guerra et al. 2019 yil.
  93. ^ a b Range et al. 2009 yil.
  94. ^ Range, Leitner & Virányi 2012.
  95. ^ a b v Horowitz 2012.
  96. ^ a b Brucks et al. 2016 yil.
  97. ^ Brucks et al. 2017 yil.
  98. ^ a b McGetrick et al. 2019 yil.
  99. ^ a b Massen et al. 2012 yil.
  100. ^ a b Mustoe et al. 2016 yil.
  101. ^ a b Yasue et al. 2018 yil.
  102. ^ a b Oberliessen et al. 2016 yil.
  103. ^ a b McAuliffe, Shelton & Stone 2014.
  104. ^ Feller 2016, p. 78.
  105. ^ Dumas et al. 2017 yil, p. 20170248-5.
  106. ^ Feller 2016, p. 36.
  107. ^ Feller 2016, p. 41.
  108. ^ Feller 2016, p. 86.
  109. ^ Feller 2016, p. 87.
  110. ^ Feller 2016, p. 66.
  111. ^ Feller 2016, p. 71.
  112. ^ Hare et al. 2007 yil, p. 619.
  113. ^ Bräuer, Call & Tomasello 2009, p. 179.
  114. ^ Bräuer, Call & Tomasello 2009, p. 178-179.
  115. ^ Kaiser va boshq. 2012 yil, p. 943.
  116. ^ Talbot et al. 2018 yil, p. 82.
  117. ^ Melis, Hare & Tomasello 2006, p. 275.
  118. ^ Ulber, Hamann & Tomasello 2017, p. 49.
  119. ^ a b Brosnan et al. 2010 yil, p. 14.
  120. ^ Bräuer, Call & Tomasello 2009, p. 175.
  121. ^ Brosnan et al. 2010 yil, p. 9.
  122. ^ Brosnan et al. 2010 yil, p. 13-14.
  123. ^ Feller 2016, p. 15,63.
  124. ^ Feller 2016, p. 22.
  125. ^ Feller 2016, p. 48-49.
  126. ^ Feller 2016, p. 54.
  127. ^ Feller 2016, p. 21.
  128. ^ a b Bräuer, Call & Tomasello 2006, p. 3126.
  129. ^ Bräuer, Call & Tomasello 2006, p. 3127.
  130. ^ a b Feller 2016, p. 73.
  131. ^ Feller 2016, p. 46,49.
  132. ^ Massen et al. 2012 yil, p. 154-155.
  133. ^ Massen et al. 2012 yil, p. 145;149.
  134. ^ Massen et al. 2012 yil, p. 151.
  135. ^ Mustoe et al. 2016 yil, p. 70.
  136. ^ a b v Freeman et al. 2013 yil, p. 4.
  137. ^ Yasue et al. 2018 yil, p. 38.
  138. ^ Yasue et al. 2018 yil, p. 36.
  139. ^ Mustoe et al. 2016 yil, p. 69.
  140. ^ Brosnan et al. 2011 yil, p. 58.
  141. ^ Brosnan et al. 2011 yil, p. 60.
  142. ^ Brosnan et al. 2011 yil, p. 64-65.
  143. ^ Brosnan et al. 2011 yil, p. 65.
  144. ^ Feller 2016, p. 1.
  145. ^ Feller 2016, p. 82.
  146. ^ Freeman et al. 2013 yil, p. 2018-04-02 121 2.
  147. ^ a b Freeman et al. 2013 yil, p. 6.
  148. ^ Talbot et al. 2011 yil, p. 681.
  149. ^ Neiworth et al. 2009 yil, p. 11.
  150. ^ Neiworth et al. 2009 yil, p. 15-16.
  151. ^ McGetrick & Range 2018, p. 1.
  152. ^ a b McGetrick & Range 2018, p. 4.
  153. ^ McGetrick & Range 2018, p. 5.
  154. ^ a b v McGetrick & Range 2018, p. 6.
  155. ^ Brucks et al. 2017 yil, p. 6.
  156. ^ a b Hernandez-Lallement et al. 2015 yil, p. 5.
  157. ^ Hernandez-Lallement et al. 2015 yil, p. 6.
  158. ^ a b v Wascher & Bugnyar 2013, p. 1.
  159. ^ a b Wascher & Bugnyar 2013, p. 6.
  160. ^ Wascher & Bugnyar 2013, p. 4.
  161. ^ a b Wascher & Bugnyar 2013, p. 5.
  162. ^ Wascher & Bugnyar 2013, p. 7.
  163. ^ Wascher & Bugnyar 2013, p. 8.
  164. ^ Heaney, Gray & Taylor 2017, p. 1.
  165. ^ Heaney, Gray & Taylor 2017b, p. 1.
  166. ^ Talbot et al. 2018 yil, p. 83.
  167. ^ Jelbert et al. 2015 yil, p. 2018-04-02 121 2.
  168. ^ a b McAuliffe & Santos 2018, p. 396.
  169. ^ Brosnan et al. 2011 yil, p. 66.
  170. ^ Brosnan & de Waal 2014, p. 1251776-4,5.
  171. ^ Essler, Marshall-Pescini & Range 2017, p. 1864 yil.
  172. ^ Brosnan 2019.
  173. ^ Brosnan et al. 2011 yil, p. 67.
  174. ^ McAuliffe & Santos 2018, p. 397.
  175. ^ Debove, Baumard & André 2015.

Bibliografiya

Tashqi havolalar