oops! Failed to allow for culture and recent experience.

I suspect humans change their behavior fairly quickly as the environment changes. If chimps and bonos also 'adapt' to local conditions then this study only demonstrates the recent experience of the subjects.

Gee, they didn't even discuss the prior research experience of the subjects - yech!

They also make the fundamental assertion that humans are risk-averse. Has anyone else watched Deal or No Deal. I think there is a bit of generalization and assumption throughout this 'research'. The researcher's conclusion baffles me a bit. If a group is not able to get food on a regular basis, Heilbronner proposes that they are more likely to pass on a small meal. This is counterintuitive. It seems if someone/thing didn't get food very often, it would take what is first available (its hungry). Passing on a free meal when one doesn't know the next meal is coming seems... stupid.

If humans are risk adverse, then why is Las Vegas a popular destination? Why are lotteries so popular, despite the fact that the vast, vast majority of people who play lottos end up losing thousands of dollars over their lifetimes?

It seems to me that they had a particular conclusion in mind, then bent their perception of reality to fit that conclusion. Humans are in no way risk adverse. We aren't huge risk takers, but we aren't risk adverse. Most humans would occasionally take the "random" bowl of fruit if they were in the same situation as those chimps and baboons.