Skip to main content

When Monkeys Learn Commerce


Keith Chen, associate professor of economics at Yale University, wanted to test Adam Smith’s confident and classical assertion that man is the only animal that engaged in commerce and monetary exchange.  “Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that,” Smith had written.

For his experiment, Chen chose a group of 7 capuchins.  The capuchin is a species of small monkeys with a very small brain.  They spend most of their active life engaged in two activities: food and sex.  Hence, thought Chen, they are quite similar to human beings.  In fact, the capuchins are so greedy for food that they can overeat, and then throw up what they had eaten in order to eat more.  What will happen if such creatures are taught to make use of money?

Chen and Venkat Lakshminarayanan worked with the 7 capuchins kept at a lab set up by Laurie Santos, a psychologist.  First of all, the capuchins were taught the value of money by giving them silver coins and teaching them to use the coins to procure choice food from the researchers.  The capuchins came to learn not only to use the money but also to choose the food they wanted to buy.

Then they were subjected to price shock.  They were given less of a particular food for the money they paid.  For example, if they were used to getting three slices of apple for one coin, now they got only two.  The capuchins bought less of that food now that its price had gone up.  When its price was reduced, the capuchins bought more of it.  In other words, they behaved exactly like rational human beings in this regard.

The researchers now brought in gambling.  There were two games.  In both a coin was tossed.  But in one game, the capuchins received either one grape or a bonus one, dependent on the coin flip.  In the other game, the capuchins received either two grapes or none, dependent again on the coin flip.  Though the number of grapes that the capuchins received would be the same on the average, the creatures showed a remarkable preference for the first game.  That is, they avoided “the potential loss.”  In other words, they revealed what economists refer to as ‘loss aversion’ in human beings.  

One day the researchers were shocked by an act of mischief (or crime?) perpetrated by one particular capuchin named Felix.  Felix collected his 12 coins and, instead of buying food for them as usual, flung the coins in the cage.  Then he made a dash for them.  But chaos ensued.  Not only Felix, but all other capuchins made a dash for the coins scattered in the cage.  Nothing would persuade the capuchins to part with the coins they got illegally.  Nothing, that is, but the bribe of food.  They exchanged their ill-gotten coins for the food provided by the researchers.  They learnt a new lesson: crime pays.

The researchers were in for more shock.  As they watched they saw one male capuchin approaching a female one with the coin he had captured.  The female one had not got anything in the scramble.  Ken and his companion initially thought that the capuchin was being altruistic.  They were fascinated – until they saw the two creatures engaged in sex a few seconds later.  They were watching “the first instance of monkey prostitution in the recorded history of science.”  [The quoted phrase is from Superfreakonomics by S D Levitt & S J Dubner.  I’ve adapted this whole article from the last chapter of this book.  I acknowledge my debt to the authors.]

Ken and his companion were not allowed to continue their experiments any further.  The psychologist who owned the capuchins thought that the two economists would cause irreparable damage to the social structure of the capuchins.  So much so that the offspring of the capuchins might want to ride BMWs or go to the outer space for honeymoon or...


Top post on IndiBlogger.in, the community of Indian Bloggers



Comments

  1. Money degenerates creatures so much! ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and if the capuchins were allowed to continue using money they would have evolved into another species of human beings :)

      Delete
  2. Good read with the dash of hilarious ending...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The whole experiment is hilarious in a way. But it also throws much light into how we, human beings, behave when money is the focus...

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Thanks, Bhavani. Look forward to seeing you here oftener.

      Delete
  4. Great experiment and learning. Thank you for sharing this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The book, Superfreakonomics, is a very interesting read, Shweta.

      Delete
  5. That is the world goes round....hilarious one was smiling and nodding my head that how money rules

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the world will keep revolving on the same axis, Datta. Comedy or tragedy, I don't know.

      Delete
  6. Ha ha ha ha :D.. Nice piece Matheikal :).. Money sure finds its inroads into the society. Money and sex, no wonder the capuchins are so similar to humans :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The capuchins are interested only in two things: food and sex. That's one reason why they were chosen for the experiment. They are so similar to human beings, said the experimenters. Ha ha ha.

      Delete
  7. As they watched they saw one male capuchin approaching a female one with the coin he had captured. The female one had not got anything in the scramble, all the things are similar to human being . great post

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can start an interesting story from here, you know. The capuchin who had got only one coin in the scramble was a kind of loser in the scramble and he was trying to prove that he wasn't a loser in the end>

      Delete
  8. Experiment reminds me of 'planet of the apes' :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Amazing experiment to show money changes minds

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Money is the most powerful tool today in our given world. Buy a BMW and see the world around you changing drastically.

      Delete
  10. Wow that was awesome post, really money ruins everything.......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Money can also construct instead of ruining. It's up to us.

      Delete
  11. Thank God they did not give Credit Cards to the Monkeys. We would have seen the first recorded Monkey Bankruptcy or the first recorded Monkey Suicide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No doubt. We, human beings, really evolved from them, nah?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Adventures of Toto as a comic strip

  'The Adventures of Toto' is an amusing story by Ruskin Bond. It is prescribed as a lesson in CBSE's English course for class 9. Maggie asked her students to do a project on some of the lessons and Femi George's work is what I would like to present here. Femi converted the story into a beautiful comic strip. Her work will speak for itself and let me present it below.  Femi George Student of Carmel Public School, Vazhakulam, Kerala Similar post: The Little Girl

The Real Enemies of India

People in general are inclined to pass the blame on to others whatever the fault.  For example, we Indians love to blame the British for their alleged ‘divide-and-rule’ policy.  Did the British really divide India into Hindus and Muslims or did the Indians do it themselves?  Was there any unified entity called India in the first place before the British unified it? Having raised those questions, I’m going to commit a further sacrilege of quoting a British journalist-cum-historian.  In his magnum opus, India: a History , John Keay says that the “stock accusations of a wider Machiavellian intent to ‘divide and rule’ and to ‘stir up Hindu-Muslim animosity’” levelled against the British Raj made little sense when the freedom struggle was going on in India because there really was no unified India until the British unified it politically.  Communal divisions existed in India despite the political unification.  In fact, they existed even before the Briti...

The Ugly Duckling

Source: Acting Company A. A. Milne’s one-act play, The Ugly Duckling , acquired a classical status because of the hearty humour used to present a profound theme. The King and the Queen are worried because their daughter Camilla is too ugly to get a suitor. In spite of all the devious strategies employed by the King and his Chancellor, the princess remained unmarried. Camilla was blessed with a unique beauty by her two godmothers but no one could see any beauty in her physical appearance. She has an exquisitely beautiful character. What use is character? The King asks. The play is an answer to that question. Character plays the most crucial role in our moral science books and traditional rhetoric, religious scriptures and homilies. When it comes to practical life, we look for other things such as wealth, social rank, physical looks, and so on. As the King says in this play, “If a girl is beautiful, it is easy to assume that she has, tucked away inside her, an equally beauti...

Taliban and India

Illustration by Copilot Designer Two things happened on 14 Oct 2025. One: India rolled out the red carpet for an Afghan delegation led by the Taliban Administration’s Foreign Minister. Two: a young man was forced to wash the feet of a Brahmin and drink that water. This happened in Madhya Pradesh, not too far from where the Taliban leaders were being given regal reception in tune with India’s philosophy of Atithi Devo Bhava (Guest is God). Afghanistan’s Taliban and India’s RSS (which shaped Modi’s thinking) have much in common. The former seeks to build a state based on its interpretation of Islamic law aiming for a society governed by strict religious codes. The RSS promotes Hindutva, the idea of India as primarily a Hindu nation, where Hindu values form the cultural and political foundation. Both fuse religious identity with national identity, marginalising those who don’t fit their vision of the nation. The man who was made to wash a Brahmin’s feet and drink that water in Madh...

Helpless Gods

Illustration by Gemini Six decades ago, Kerala’s beloved poet Vayalar Ramavarma sang about gods that don’t open their eyes, don’t know joy or sorrow, but are mere clay idols. The movie that carried the song was a hit in Kerala in the late 1960s. I was only seven when the movie was released. The impact of the song, like many others composed by the same poet, sank into me a little later as I grew up. Our gods are quite useless; they are little more than narcissists who demand fresh and fragrant flowers only to fling them when they wither. Six decades after Kerala’s poet questioned the potency of gods, the Chief Justice of India had a shoe flung at him by a lawyer for the same thing: questioning the worth of gods. The lawyer was demanding the replacement of a damaged idol of god Vishnu and the Chief Justice wondered why gods couldn’t take care of themselves since they are omnipotent. The lawyer flung his shoe at the Chief Justice to prove his devotion to a god. From Vayalar of 196...