Although both human and non-human animals, in everyday life, deal with risky decisions in a social environment, few studies investigated how social dimension influences risk preferences (i.e., if consequences on… Click to show full abstract
Although both human and non-human animals, in everyday life, deal with risky decisions in a social environment, few studies investigated how social dimension influences risk preferences (i.e., if consequences on others feeds back over own choice). Here, we assessed whether the presence of a conspecific, acting as a potential competitor for the same food resource, influenced risky decision-making in male rats. Subjects received a series of choices between a safe option (always yielding a small yet optimal reward, solely to itself) and a risky option (yielding a larger but suboptimal reward, one third of times to itself and two third of times delivered to the other half cage); rats were tested twice, both "alone" and "paired" with a conspecific, recipient of own-lost food and hence acting as potential competitor. Results showed that focal subjects were more risk-prone when paired with a conspecific than when tested alone. However, rats exhibited also a higher motivational conflict with a competing bystander present than alone: data suggest that the primary drive was to increase "own" food rather than either a competitive or prosocial tendency. Overall, for rats tested in a risky-choice task, a competitive social context increased the salience and attractiveness of larger food outcomes, as observed in humans and great apes. This was leading to the economically irrational response of selecting the "binge-but-risky" option, notwithstanding uncertainty about the actual recipient of such food.
               
Click one of the above tabs to view related content.