Comparison of independence axiom violations across primates: Humans and monkeys

• Testing independence axiom in humans and monkeys using same payoff structure. • Comparisons limited by different trial numbers and rewards between species. • Humans and monkeys exhibit similar independence axiom violations. • Individual violation patterns vary between participants and species. The Independence Axiom (IA) of Expected Utility Theory (EUT) is crucial for defining the value representation of risky choice options. With the IA, EUT presents the first of many crucial tests for utility maximization and thus serves as a benchmark for consistent choice under risk. However, the IA is frequently violated, most likely due to subjective weighting of reward probabilities. IA violations have been reported separately in humans and monkeys, but differences in payoff structure compromised comparisons. To overcome these limitations, we used matching payoff structures for the two primate species. Choices in both humans and monkeys violated the IA in a broad range of reward probabilities. In some human participants, the IA violations correlated with those of the monkeys, which indicates a common underlying decision mechanism. In other cases, the IA violations differed between the two species and reflected differences in utility functions: utility was mostly concave in humans but convex in monkeys. These inter-species comparisons provide a basis for future behavioral and neuronal studies addressing the origin of similarities and differences in primates’ decisions under risk.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Published
2025-11-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107332
Primary Topic
Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of independence axiom violations across primates: Humans and monkeys

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
article

Comparison of independence axiom violations across primates: Humans and monkeys

article en

Abstract

• Testing independence axiom in humans and monkeys using same payoff structure. • Comparisons limited by different trial numbers and rewards between species. • Humans and monkeys exhibit similar independence axiom violations. • Individual violation patterns vary between participants and species. The Independence Axiom (IA) of Expected Utility Theory (EUT) is crucial for defining the value representation of risky choice options. With the IA, EUT presents the first of many crucial tests for utility maximization and thus serves as a benchmark for consistent choice under risk. However, the IA is frequently violated, most likely due to subjective weighting of reward probabilities. IA violations have been reported separately in humans and monkeys, but differences in payoff structure compromised comparisons. To overcome these limitations, we used matching payoff structures for the two primate species. Choices in both humans and monkeys violated the IA in a broad range of reward probabilities. In some human participants, the IA violations correlated with those of the monkeys, which indicates a common underlying decision mechanism. In other cases, the IA violations differed between the two species and reflected differences in utility functions: utility was mostly concave in humans but convex in monkeys. These inter-species comparisons provide a basis for future behavioral and neuronal studies addressing the origin of similarities and differences in primates’ decisions under risk.

Journal of Economic Behavior & OrganizationVol. 240
California Institute of Technology (US), University of Liverpool (GB), University of Cambridge (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 41%
Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.