Skip to main content

Yale-New Haven Hospital’s Monkeys

 


Are animals as stupid as human beings? Will they indulge in trading if trained? Will a dog exchange a bone with another dog for some favour like sex? Keith Chen, a professor of behavioural economics, wanted to know. So he conducted an experiment which came to be known as the Yale-New Haven Hospital’s monkey experiment. He was shocked by the results. And the hospital had to ask him to leave the monkeys alone.

Chen conducted his research on a group of monkeys. His choice was the capuchin, which is a cute, little, brown monkey with a small brain that is highly focused on food and sex. (Not very unlike many human beings, you are tempted to think.)

Chen, along with Venkat Lakshminarayanan, worked with seven capuchins at a lab set up by psychologist Laurie Santos at Yale-New Haven Hospital. The monkeys lived together in a large cage. At one end of the cage was a smaller cage which was the testing chamber, where one monkey at a time would enter to take part in experiments.

First, Chen and his colleagues taught the monkeys to use money. They gave them silver coins which they could use for buying food. Give the coin back to the researcher and the monkey gets the goodies. The monkeys learnt to buy the food of their choice by giving the coins to the particular researcher holding their choice food.

Then Chen experimented with price variation. How would the monkeys behave if he raised or lowered the prices of food items? To Chen’s surprise, the monkeys behaved quite like human beings. When the price of a particular food rose the monkeys bought less of it and when the price fell they bought more. The monkeys were rational enough.

What about their irrationality? To test that, Chen set up two gambling games. Coin toss was the gamble. Head or tail? A very common human gamble. The monkey was shown a grape first. Depending on the coin flip, the monkey would get that grape or a bonus one as well. In the second game, the capuchins were shown two grapes and if the coin flip went against him one grape would be taken away.

In the first game, a bonus is won. In the second, something is lost. Actually there is no difference in the final outcome. In the both the gambles, the final average number of grapes won by each monkey would be more or less the same. Yet we all have a natural aversion to loss and an equally natural preference for gain. What about the monkeys? Yes, they behaved just like us again. The monkeys abandoned the two-grape gamble and gathered around the one-grape researcher. The capuchins behaved as if the pain from losing a grape was greater than the pleasure from gaining one. That is quite irrational if you understand that there is no real gain or loss in the game. Yet ‘loss aversion’ is a strong economic behaviour of human beings. And of monkeys too!

Similar experiments were actually carried out with men before Chen came to the conclusion. He studied the behaviour of intra-day traders at stock markets and concluded that the data generated by the capuchin monkeys “make them statistically indistinguishable from most stock-market investors.”

The biggest surprise for Chen came soon enough. One morning the alpha male of the group did something unique. He scurried into the testing chamber as he had done many times, but on this day, instead of taking his 12 coins and going to buy food, he flung his coins into the main cage and ran after them. All the capuchins rushed to grab the coins. Each one, behaving just like normal humans, grabbed what he or she could. Chen and his colleagues were unsuccessful in their attempts to retrieve the coins from the monkeys. They had to give food in return for the coins the capuchins had grabbed illegally. The monkeys learnt that crime pays.

What shocked Chen, however, was not this. He watched one male capuchin going to a female with the coin he had grabbed. He offered the coin to her which she accepted and then immediately he had sex with her. What Chen originally construed as altruism was in fact “the first instance of monkey prostitution in the recorded history of science.” [The quote is from Super Freakonomics by Steven D Levitt & Stephen J Dubner which is the source of this entire post.]

As soon as the copulation was over, the female monkey which had received the illegal coin went to Chen to buy grapes with it.

The hospital to which the capuchins belonged called a halt to the experiments. They did not want to irreparably damage the social structure of the capuchins.

The social structures are artificial constructs and they inescapably affect our behaviour patterns. Just imagine, for the sake of momentary delight, a social system in which people supported one another with understanding and empathy. Wealth wouldn’t be a major value there. Greed wouldn’t be a dominating vice. Selfishness and jealousy would be suppressed since they would make you look like hideous gargoyles on a majestic edifice. Not practical, you would say. Why? Because we have already been thoroughly corrupted by our existing social constructs with their warped notions.

PS. This is powered by #BlogchatterA2Z

Previous post in this series: Xenophanes’s God

Tomorrow, the last: Zorba’s Secret

 

Comments

  1. A very interesting post discussing some very interesting experiments...

    ReplyDelete
  2. A very interesting experiment. Having a society with empathy and no wealth would as you say be unimaginable because yes we have been corrupted far too much.
    Deepika Sharma

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The social system alters people's behavior significantly. Memes, in Dawkins' sense, are as strong as genes.

      Delete
  3. The 'system' corrupts us morally and we let that happen. Nothing can be more sad than this. In the above experiment , the monkeys seem so intelligent but when we extrapolate the behavior to humans, have we really stopped evolving and lost sense of rationality ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are evolving only at the intellectual level,probably. The heart belongs to the ape still.

      Delete
  4. This post was entertaining and disheartening in equal measure.

    The more I read about the experiment, the more human-like the capuchins behaved.

    Maybe we are all capuchins in a giant lab--like the dragonflies you mentioned in a comment on my blog once.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I live with the hope (very faint and appearing like a delusion) that one day human beings will realise their folly and correct their systems.

      Delete
  5. It's true that we are manipulated by our societies, i remember my dad telling me " it would have been good if we didn't evolve." Your writing tells me why he had that different look on his face while saying it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The evolution gave us heaven in the next life at least 😅

      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 Little Girl

The Little Girl is a short story by Katherine Mansfield given in the class 9 English course of NCERT. Maggie gave an assignment to her students based on the story and one of her students, Athena Baby Sabu, presented a brilliant job. She converted the story into a delightful comic strip. Mansfield tells the story of Kezia who is the eponymous little girl. Kezia is scared of her father who wields a lot of control on the entire family. She is punished severely for an unwitting mistake which makes her even more scared of her father. Her grandmother is fond of her and is her emotional succour. The grandmother is away from home one day with Kezia's mother who is hospitalised. Kezia gets her usual nightmare and is terrified. There is no one at home to console her except her father from whom she does not expect any consolation. But the father rises to the occasion and lets the little girl sleep beside him that night. She rests her head on her father's chest and can feel his heart...

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...

Two Women and Their Frustrations

Illustration by Gemini AI Nora and Millie are two unforgettable women in literature. Both are frustrated with their married life, though Nora’s frustration is a late experience. How they deal with their personal situations is worth a deep study. One redeems herself while the other destroys herself as well as her husband. Nora is the protagonist of Henrik Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House , and Millie is her counterpart in Terence Rattigan’s play, The Browning Version . [The links take you to the respective text.] Personal frustration leads one to growth into an enlightened selfhood while it embitters the other. Nora’s story is emancipatory and Millie’s is destructive. Nora questions patriarchal oppression and liberates herself from it with equanimity, while Millie is trapped in a meaningless relationship. Since I have summarised these plays in earlier posts, now I’m moving on to a discussion on the enlightening contrasts between these two characters. If you’re interested in the plot ...

Hindutva’s Contradictions

The book I’m reading now is Whose Rama? [in Malayalam] by Sanskrit scholar and professor T S Syamkumar. I had mentioned this book in an earlier post . The basic premise of the book, as I understand from the initial pages, is that Hindutva is a Brahminical ideology that keeps the lower caste people outside its terrain. Non-Aryans are portrayed as monsters in ancient Hindu literature. The Shudras, the lowest caste, and the casteless others, are not even granted the status of humans.  Whose Rama? The August issue of The Caravan carries an article related to the inhuman treatment that the Brahmins of Etawah in Uttar Pradesh meted out to a Yadav “preacher” in the last week of June 2025. “Yadavs are traditionally ranked as a Shudra community,” says the article. They are not supposed to recite the holy texts. Mukut Mani Singh Yadav was reciting verses from the Bhagavad Gita. That was his crime. The Brahmins of the locality got the man’s head tonsured, forced him to rub his nose at t...