« Brad DeLong on popular economics | Main | How popular music reshaped high school status networks »

Do monkeys self-deceive?

In a fascinating column, John Tierney writes:

The Yale experiment was a variation of the classic one that first demonstrated cognitive dissonance, a term coined by the social psychologist Leon Festinger. In 1956 one of his students, Jack Brehm, carted some of his own wedding gifts into the lab (it was a low-budget experiment) and asked people to rate the desirability of things like an electric sandwich press, a desk lamp, a stopwatch and a transistor radio.

Then they were given a choice between two items they considered equally attractive, and told they could take one home. (At the end of the experiment Mr. Brehm had to confess he couldn’t really afford to give them anything, causing one woman to break down in tears.) After making a choice (but before having it snatched away), they were asked to rate all the items again.

Suddenly they had a new perspective. If they had chosen the electric sandwich press over the toaster, they raised its rating and downgraded the toaster. They convinced themselves they had made by far the right choice.

So, apparently, did the children and capuchin monkeys studied at Yale by Louisa C. Egan, Laurie R. Santos and Paul Bloom. The psychologists offered the children stickers and the monkeys M&M’s.

Once a monkey was observed to show an equal preference for three colors of M&M’s — say, red, blue and green — he was given a choice between two of them. If he chose red over blue, his preference changed and he downgraded blue. When he was subsequently given a choice between blue and green, it was no longer an even contest — he was now much more likely to reject the blue.

I would distinguish between self-deception and an endowment effect.  We value more what is ours, perhaps because of our biological programming -- to protect our children above those of others -- spills over into decisions more generally.  (Or perhaps because of a precommitment strategy to limit violent plunder of our resources.)  Self-deception is then layered on top, but in fact many mothers will argue that their kids are lazier or less obedient than the average.  The endowment effect holds nonetheless, as those mothers care more about their kids.  It is very hard to switch back babies once the hospital makes a mistake in allocation (how much time must elapse?), even if the parents know for sure they did not take home the genetically appropriate little bundle of joy.

I can see that the monkeys behave according to an endowment effect.  I am less sure that the monkeys self-deceive.  The key question, in my view, is whether the monkeys would throw out or downgrade information that some other bundle of food was in fact better than M&Ms.

Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 7, 2007 at 06:51 AM in Science | Permalink

Comments

Great post! Now relate this concept to people's committment to strongly held political or philosophical viewpoints, and you are really getting somewhere in explaining higher primate behaviour!

Posted by: A_Female_Brain at Nov 7, 2007 6:58:49 AM

Yet again cheap pschobabble profs use sophomoric studies. They're called "Sophomoric" because they recruit their sophmore students into the respondents, rather than go through the expense and difficulty of getting a reasonable set of respondents.

This "result" can only be generalized to students of hack Psych professors, and even then it will be highly biased.

By the way, did you notice how the teacher is actually resonsible for compensating the students? Though verbal, he said that they could keep one of the items, enticing them to disclose their preferences. That's a contract, and I suspect, though I am not a lawyer, it would be enforceable in court.

And should be.

Posted by: Paul McMahon at Nov 7, 2007 7:21:55 AM

I'm puzzled. What's silly or irrational about avoiding buyer's remorse?

And is it self-deception or a conscious decision to move on?

Once I've made a finely balanced decision, I consciously shut down my brain when it tries to second-guess itself. Who wants their brain spending the next 20 years obsessing over whether it should have chosen the sandwich press or the desklamp?

And if John Tierney thinks I'm silly or pathological, I think that says far more about John Tierney's faults than mine.

Posted by: Tracy W at Nov 7, 2007 7:37:54 AM

I don't see where an endowment effect comes into it. They don't have either the green or blue M&M, yet they pick the green over the blue.

Posted by: Daniel at Nov 7, 2007 7:47:45 AM

Did anyone do any pre-testing or debriefing to determine if the monkeys were confused by the experiment? Actually, I'm wondering how they got the monkeys to express an equal preference for the three colors. Given my curiousity I found a link to the actual paper, although you may need some access to the journal (my university apparently has access):

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02012.x

The 1956 study does provide a nice example for the case against deception in the lab. Number 1, you've reduced someone to tears which is a big no-no nowadays. Number 2, if this person came back to the lab for a different experiment after experiencing this "traumatic event" of being told she could have one of the items and then being told she couldn't, how could we ever expect this person to truly reveal preferences, beliefs, whatever in the future?

Posted by: AZ at Nov 7, 2007 8:16:45 AM

Actually, the experiment identifies something that all of us who own retail businesses know: You can poll people on a preference, but the poll results might no match the actual choice they would make when they have to actually purchase or vote.

I'm afraid that people don't know their actual final choices on things unless they actually have to make a choice. Maybe pre-election polls suffer from the same property.

Posted by: George at Nov 7, 2007 8:34:18 AM

Given that monkeys do not understand the Mars Co. commitment to making all colors taste the same, I would expect them to choose the color that most recently tasted good. Or did the experiment somehow make them choose without tasting? How do monkeys behave when you don't give them their choice but make them choose again?

This sounds like a very difficult experiment to design.

Posted by: odograph at Nov 7, 2007 9:46:49 AM

I suspect this phenomenon serves as a storage space optimizer. Once you have committed to a choice, there is value in not having to continually worry that you made the wrong decision.

Posted by: JasonL at Nov 7, 2007 9:49:44 AM

After the monkey chose red over blue, he subsequently chose green over blue as well. What would he have chosen as between green and red? Did the original choice of red over blue lead to an upgraded opinion of red to go with the downgraded opinion of blue?

Also, why is this surprising? As others have pointed out, once you've evaluated a situation and made a decision, it's perfectly sensible not to rethink the whole thing when that situation or one very similar to it comes up again.

Posted by: Jeff at Nov 7, 2007 10:28:08 AM

All the M&Ms may taste the same, but if you eat green ones you'll hit more homeruns.

Posted by: 8 at Nov 7, 2007 10:28:31 AM

I find the M&M experiment unconvincing. In this case, monkeys are choosing colors rather than flavors. Personally, I strictly prefer the M&Ms in red to them in any other color; and really hate them in dark brown. With a large bowl of M&Ms, I often eat the red ones first, and then the other colors except for the dark brown. When there are only those dark brown ones left, I eat them as chocolate beans.

Posted by: Yan Li at Nov 7, 2007 10:52:37 AM

Very interesting comments and experiment. So it seems like cognitive dissonance and endowment effects predict very similar outcomes - ex post rationalizations about a choice being correct. So how do you separately test for an endowment effect versus cognitive dissonance? Cognitive dissonance doesn't require receiving anything - you just ex post reframe the decision with this bias towards it being correct. But, endowment effects are always going to involve increased endowments, and so can you ever separate out the endowment effect from the cognitive dissonance? Is there anything endowment effects predict that cognitive dissonance theory does not?

Posted by: jason voorhees at Nov 7, 2007 11:02:25 AM

Also, how are we supposed to receive psychological studies in which individual participants have very small compensation incentives? I saw a paper a while back by an economist at Georgia State and another from UVA (Charles Holt maybe) that used much larger payouts than Kahnmen and Tversky had used in their original studies (which, if I'm not mistaken, did not actually involve monetary payouts, but hypothetical payouts). When very large lotteries were used (in terms of money won), these economists found more evidence for VNM utility than prospect theory. That said, I've been skeptical of psychology experiments with weak monetary payouts ever since.

Posted by: jason voorhees at Nov 7, 2007 11:08:04 AM

Wow, I'm pleased to see Tyler reach what seems to me to be the correct evolutionary explanation of endowment effect as pre-commitment, but fairly shocked by how many of the posters simply didn't understand (or didn't think carefully about) this experiment.

Posted by: michael vassar at Nov 7, 2007 12:04:29 PM

I recall the story of King Sol (or is it Solomon?). Anyway he concludeds who the "real" mother is by threatening destruction of the child. However, one of these women had possession of the child and would therefore over-value the child. The other did not have the same over-value. Is it possible that the women who had possession (and therefore over-value) would always give up that possession rather than see the child die regardless of who the real mother was?

Posted by: Charles Milligan Jr at Nov 7, 2007 1:28:41 PM

Charles Milligan - does she overvalue the child? The story only requires that the true mother will place a higher valuation on the child alive (and separated from her) than the child dead, and the other because of her grief and jealousy a higher valuation on the child with her than the child dead.

Posted by: jason voorhees at Nov 7, 2007 1:39:13 PM

(At the end of the experiment Mr. Brehm had to confess he couldn’t really afford to give them anything, causing one woman to break down in tears.)

Wait, were these psychiatry patients or normals?

Posted by: Yogi at Nov 7, 2007 2:44:20 PM

Any information purporting to suggest that some bundle of food is better than M&Ms can be a priori disregarded as false (and probably Red propaganda).

Posted by: Sigivald at Nov 7, 2007 4:43:34 PM

Here's a question for Tyler. How do the results of these two studies match with the somewhat frequent feeling at restaurants that someone else has ordered a better food choice than you when the food arrives? Is it simply a matter of having additional information that overcomes this bias? Or is there something else involved?

And is deciding that your dinner companion's food tastes better than yours a sign that you don't properly understand your own preferences, or is it a sign that the incomplete information in the menu did not provide the information necessary to act on your preferences?

I doubt there are many people better qualified to examine a restaurant-related question from an economics perspective than Prof. Cowen.

Posted by: Sisyphus at Nov 7, 2007 5:32:01 PM

The excerpt is misleading at best. I read the actual paper, and it goes like this:

* Have subject rate items until there are two equality "triads"
* For the "choice" triad, show A and B to the subject. Let them choose one to have. Then, show the "unchosen" and the "novel" (third of the triad). Allow them to have one.
* For the "no choice" triad, show A and B to the subject. Randomly gift one of them. Then, allow the subject to have the ungifted or the novel C.

The conclusion most emphasized by the researchers is that children were significantly more likely to switch to the novel on a choice triad, and preferring the novel item was *not* significant during a non-choice triad. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do (and so, evidence that even children have had time to build methods to deal with past preferences).

If you considered two 5.0 items and found one to be lacking, it might be simpler to reassign them to 4.5 and 5.5 than to 5.5 and 6.5. When offered a 5.0 again, one's reconsidering then makes the novel choice more likely. On the other hand, if one of two 5.0 items was forced upon you, you have no new information, so the other 5.0 and the novel 5.0 are still equivalent.

The monkey wrench in this logic is that the capuchins significantly chose the novel item in the choice triad, but significantly chose *against* in the non-choice triad. Before you throw yourself at that conundrum, the researchers noted that it could be an envy thing: perhaps the monkey intuited that the researchers were holding back the better item (of A and B) in the non-choice triad.

So... I don't see self-deception or endowment here, just preference updating. Move along.

Posted by: NE1 at Nov 7, 2007 6:23:54 PM

Relating the case of the monkeys to an economic perspective, I would have to comment that the monkeys are forced with making a choice. They face an opportunity cost when forgoing the opportunity of getting the next best thing (the blue M&M in this instance). As far as the distinguishment between self-deception and the endowment effect, I think the monkeys exhibit the endowment effect. They become reluctant to choose the color they once rejected. In essence, the color chosen does, in a way, belong to them. As with the comparison given, mothers care more about their own kids. In relation, the monkeys now value their own color of M&M's more. Conversely, I don't think that the monkeys show any sort of self-deception in their actions. Without the proof of the mental thinking of monkeys, though, this is hard to place as factual. In my opinion, though, when rejecting a previously rejected color of M&M the monkeys are not trying to convince themselves that they made the right choice. Most humans demonstrate a force of habit, and monkeys being our close counterpart, are more likely to do the same. Therefore, they continually reject the blue M&M.

I will raise one question, though. I am reluctant to believe that once the monkey rejected the blue M&M, and was given the option between it and another color (the green M&M), they would once again reject the blue one. If preference was given to three colors (red, blue, and green), and a choice made between the red and blue, I feel it would be necessary to give the monkeys a choice between the red and green M&M's next. This would determine their preference for the red. Then an option between the green and blue should be given. The monkeys may simply have a preference for the red instead of a dislike for the blue. Providing this sequence to the monkeys would answer this question. It is possible that when choosing between the green and blue M&M's, the monkeys rejected the blue simply because there was no red present to pick. The monkeys could have just as well rejected the green. I think this question would be one to experiment with before determining the endowment effect.

Posted by: M. Bowling at Nov 12, 2007 4:49:01 PM

I think that this monkey is smarter than we think. M&Ms are just chocolate candies with a thin color candy shell. Perhaps the monkey knows that the M&Ms are the same on the inside and really has no preference in color being as they are essentially the same thing. I love how a monkey picking one M&M over another sends people into a state of having to make things complicated and trying to figure out how people think and function. Maybe it is as simple as "the monkey was hungry so he picked and M&M" and then "he was still hungry so he picked another M&M." End of story. "Oh he didn't pick the blue one as much." So who cares. The monkey was probably having fun watching a bunch of hairless monkeys take notes and babble a bunch of psychology crap, and just picking random colors.

Posted by: Robert 1205 at Nov 13, 2007 11:00:23 AM

i hope徵信社|徵信社|燈光音響|徵信

Posted by: Alii at Apr 3, 2008 9:49:03 PM

dofus kama
dofus gold
dofus money

Posted by: aion kina at Mar 19, 2009 11:44:35 PM

Post a comment