Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 937–944 | Cite as

Human–Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) reciprocity: a follow-up study

  • Franck Péron
  • Luke Thornberg
  • Brya Gross
  • Suzanne Gray
  • Irene M. Pepperberg
Original Paper

Abstract

In a previous study (Péron et al. in Anim Cogn, doi:10.1007/s10071-012.05640, 2012), Grey parrots, working in dyads, took turns choosing one of four differently coloured cups with differing outcomes: empty (null, non-rewarding), selfish (keeping reward for oneself), share (sharing a divisible reward), or giving (donating reward to other). When the dyads involved three humans with different specific intentions (selfish, giving, or copying the bird’s behaviour), birds’ responses only tended towards consistency with human behaviour. Our dominant bird was willing to share a reward with a human who was willing to give up her reward, was selfish with the selfish human, and tended towards sharing with the copycat human; our subordinate bird tended slightly towards increased sharing with the generous human and selfishness with the selfish human, but did not clearly mirror the behaviour of the copycat. We theorized that the birds’ inability to understand the copycat condition fully—that they could potentially maximize reward by choosing to share—was a consequence of their viewing the copycat’s behaviour as erratic compared with the consistently selfish or giving humans and thus not realizing that they were indeed being mirrored. We suggested that copycat trials subsequently be performed as a separate experiment, without being contrasted with trials in which humans acted consistently, in order to determine if results might have differed. We have now performed that experiment, and shown that at least one Grey parrot—our dominant—responded in a manner suggesting that he deduced the appropriate contingencies.

Keywords

Grey parrot cognition Reciprocity Non-human sharing Psittacus erithacus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thornburg was supported by the Harvard College Research Program. Pepperberg, Gross, and Gray were supported in part by donors to The Alex Foundation (particularly the Anders Sterner family, Marc Haas Foundation, Anita Keefe, Janice Boyd, Alex and Michael Shuman, Nancy Sondow, Nancy Chambers, the Howard Bayne Fund, Kathryn and Walter McAdams, Grey Parrot Studios, Katie Dolan, the Raleigh-Durham Caged Bird Society, Joseph Golden, Pat Hill, Elva and Bob Mathiesen, the Platinum Parrot, Jan and Jeff Strong, the Oklahoma Avicultural Society, Bill Broach, Nancy Clark, Deborah Rivel Goodale/Wildtones, The Robert D. Goodale Fund (via the Indian River Community Foundation), Patti DeMar Hauver, Roni Duke, Don and Grace Wheeler). We thank Maryam Vaziri Pashkam for advice with statistical analyses, Jonathan Richie for assistance with some trials, Harrison’s Bird Food and Fowl Play for foods and treats, Bird Paradise for Griffin’s cage, and Carol D’Arezzo for Griffin’s stand. The study procedures comply with the current laws of the USA, where they were performed.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 7183 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 26408 kb)

References

  1. Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211:1390–1396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boysen ST, Berntson GG, Hannan MB, Cacioppo JT (1996) Quantity-based interference and symbolic representations in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Expt’l Psych: Anim Behav Proc 22:76–86Google Scholar
  3. Burkhart JM, van Schaik C (2012) Group service in macaques (Maccaca fuscata), capuchins (Cebus paella) and marmosets (Callithrix jacchus): A comparative approach to identifying proactive prosocial motivations. J Comp Psychol. doi:10.1037/a0026392 Google Scholar
  4. Cronin KA, Snowdon CT (2008) The effects of unequal reward distributions on cooperative problem solving by cottontop tamarins, Saguinus oedipus. Anim Behav 75:245–257. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.04.032 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Di Lascio F, Neffleler F, Bshary R, Bugnyar T (2013) Ravens (Corvus corax) are indifferent to the gains of conspecific recipients or human partners in experimental tasks. Anim Cogn 16:35–43. doi:10.1007/s10071-012-0548-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Emery NJ (2004) Are corvids ‘feathered apes’? Cognitive evolution in crows, jays, rooks and jackdaws. In: Watanabe S (ed) Comparative analysis of minds. Keio University Press, Tokyo, pp 181–213Google Scholar
  7. Giret N, Miklósi A, Kreutzer M, Bovet D (2009) Use of experimenter-given cues by African gray parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Anim Cogn 12:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grant A, Dutton J (2012) Beneficiary or benefactor: are people more prosocial when they reflect on receiving or giving? Psych Sci 23:1033–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horner V, Carter JD, Suchak M, de Waal FBM (2011) Spontaneous prosocial choice by chimpanzees. PNAS 108:13847–13851PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krams I, Krama T, Igaune K, Mänd R (2008) Experimental evidence of reciprocal altruism in the pied flycatcher. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. May DL (2004) The vocal repertoire of Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) living in the Congo Basin. PhD Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZGoogle Scholar
  12. Melis AP, Hare B, Tomasello M (2006) Chimpanzees recruit the best collaborators. Science 311:1297–1300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pepperberg IM (1981) Functional vocalizations by an African Grey parrot. Z Tierpsychol 55:139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pepperberg IM (1990) Cognition in an African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): further evidence for comprehension of categories and labels. J Comp Psychol 104:42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pepperberg IM (1999) The Alex studies: cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey parrots. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Pepperberg IM (2004) “Insightful” string-pulling in Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) is affected by vocal competence. Anim Cogn 7:263–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pepperberg IM, Shive HA (2001) Simultaneous development of vocal and physical object combinations by a Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): bottle caps, lids, and labels. J Comp Psychol 115:376–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pepperberg IM, Wilcox SE (2000) Evidence for a form of mutual exclusivity during label acquisition by Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus)? J Comp Psychol 114:219–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pepperberg IM, Wilkes SR (2004) Lack of referential vocal learning from LCD video by Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Interact Stud 5:75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pepperberg IM, Willner MR, Gravitz LB (1997) Development of Piagetian object permanence in a Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). J Comp Psychol 111:63–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pepperberg IM, Naughton JR, Banta PA (1998) Allospecific vocal learning by Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus): a failure of videotaped instruction under certain conditions. Behav Process 42:139–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pepperberg IM, Gardiner LI, Luttrell LJ (1999) Limited contextual vocal learning in the Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): the effect of co-viewers on videotaped instruction. J Comp Psychol 113:158–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pepperberg IM, Sandefer RM, Noel D, Ellsworth CP (2000) Vocal learning in the Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): effect of species identity and number of trainers. J Comp Psychol 114:371–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pepperberg IM, Koepke A, Livingston P, Girard M, Hartsfield LA (2012) Reasoning by inference: further studies on exclusion in Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). J Comp Psychol. doi:10.1037/a0031641 Google Scholar
  25. Péron F, Johns M, Sapowicz S, Bovet D, Pepperberg IM (2012) A study of reciprocity in Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Anim Cogn. doi:10.1007/s10071-012.05640 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rivas J (2013) Cooperation, imitation and partial matching. Games Econ Behav 79:148–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rutte C, Taborsky M (2008) The influence of social experience on cooperative behaviour of rats (Rattus norvegicus): direct versus generalized reciprocity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:499–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scheid C, Schmidt J, Noë R (2008) Distinct patterns of food offering and co-feeding in rooks. Anim Behav 76:1701–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwab C, Swoboda R, Kotrschal K, Bugnyar T (2012) Recipients affect prosocial and altruistic choices in jackdaws, Corvus monedula. PLOS One 7(4):e34922. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034922 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seed AM, Clayton NS, Emery NJ (2008) Cooperative problem solving in rooks (Corvus frugilegus). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 275:1421–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Silk JB, House BR (2011) Evolutionary foundations of human prosocial sentiments. PNAS 108:10910–10917PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Snyder NF, Wiley JW, Kepler CB (1987) The parrots of Luquillo: natural history and conservation of the Puerto Rican parrot. Western Foundation for Vertebrate Zoology, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  33. Triana E, Pasnak R (1981) Object permanence in cats and dogs. Anim Learn Behav 9:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trivers RL (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quart Rev Biol 46:35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van den Bos W, van Dijk E, Westenberg M, Rombouts SARB, Crone EA (2011) Changing brains, changing perspectives: the neurocognitive development of reciprocity. Psych Sci 22:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. von Bayern AMP, de Kort SR, Clayton NS, Emery NJ (2007) The role of food- and object-sharing in the development of social bonds in juvenile jackdaws (Corvus monedula). Behaviour 144:711–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warneken F, Hare B, Melis AP, Hanus D, Tomasello M (2007) Spontaneous altruism by chimpanzees and young children. PLoS Biol 5:e184. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050184 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yamamoto S, Takimoto A (2012) Empathy and fairness: psychological mechanisms for eliciting and maintaining prosociality and cooperation in primates. Soc Just Res 25:233–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yamashita C (1987) Field observations and comments on the Indigo macaw (Anodorhynchus leari), a highly endangered species from northeastern Brazil. Wilson Bull 99:280–282Google Scholar
  40. Zahavi A (2004) The details of food-sharing interactions—their cost in social prestige. Behav Brain Sci 27:570–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franck Péron
    • 1
  • Luke Thornberg
    • 2
  • Brya Gross
    • 3
  • Suzanne Gray
    • 2
    • 3
  • Irene M. Pepperberg
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of LincolnLincolnUK
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychology, Brandeis UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations