Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 1227–1232 | Cite as

Testing problem-solving capacities: differences between individual testing and social group setting

Short Communication

Abstract

Testing animals individually in problem-solving tasks limits distractions of the subjects during the test, so that they can fully concentrate on the problem. However, such individual performance may not indicate the problem-solving capacity that is commonly employed in the wild when individuals are faced with a novel problem in their social groups, where the presence of a conspecific influences an individual’s behaviour. To assess the validity of data gathered from parrots when tested individually, we compared the performance on patterned-string tasks among parrots tested singly and parrots tested in social context. We tested two captive groups of orange-winged amazons (Amazona amazonica) with several patterned-string tasks. Despite the differences in the testing environment (singly vs. social context), parrots from both groups performed similarly. However, we found that the willingness to participate in the tasks was significantly higher for the individuals tested in social context. The study provides further evidence for the crucial influence of social context on individual’s response to a challenging situation such as a problem-solving test.

Keywords

Amazona amazonica Parrots Patterned-string task Problem-solving Testing conditions 

References

  1. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2012) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, 2011. URL http://CRANR-project.org/package=lme4Rpackageversion0999375-42
  2. Boere V (2001) Environmental enrichment for neotropical primates in captivity. Ciênc Rural 31:543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Drea CM, Wallen K (1999) Low-status monkeys “play dumb” when learning in mixed social groups. P Natl Acad Sci USA 96:12965–12969. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.22.12965 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ducker G, Rensch B (1977) Solution of patterned string problems by birds. Behaviour 62:164–173. doi:10.1163/156853977x00081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eysenck MW (1985) Anxiety and cognitive-task performance. Pers Indiv Differ 6:579–586. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(85)90007-8 Google Scholar
  6. Fagot J, Paleressompoulle D (2009) Automatic testing of cognitive performance in baboons maintained in social groups. Behav Res Meth 41:396–404. doi:10.3758/brm.41.2.396 Google Scholar
  7. Galhardo L, Vitorino A, Oliveira R (2012) Social familiarity modulates personality trait in a cichlid fish. Biol Lett 8:936–938PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gazes R, Brown E, Basile B, Hampton R (2012) Automated cognitive testing of monkeys in social groups yields results comparable to individual laboratory-based testing. Anim Cogn:1–14. doi:10.1007/s10071-012-0585-8
  9. Graft D, Lea S, Whitworth T (1977) The matching law in and within groups of rats. J Exp Anal Behav 27:183–194PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Grott R, Neuringer A (1974) Group behaviour of rats under schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 22:311–321. doi:10.1901/jeab.1974.22-311 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Halsey LG, Bezerra BM, Souto AS (2006) Can wild common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) solve the parallel strings task? Anim Cogn 9:229–233. doi:10.1007/s10071-006-0016-9 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Higley J, Suomi S (1989) Temperamental reactivity in non-human primates. In: Rothbart M (ed) Temperament in childhood. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester, pp 153–167Google Scholar
  13. Itoh K (2001) Assessment of individual differences in the preferred proximity to a human feeder by partitioned raisin test, with two species of macaque monkeys. Primates 42:47–56Google Scholar
  14. Krasheninnikova A, Bräger S, Wanker R (2013) Means–end comprehension in four parrot species: explained by social complexity. Anim Cogn 16:755–764PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Li J, Nilsson LG, Wu Z (2004) Effects of age and anxiety on episodic memory: selectivity and variability. Scand J Psychol 45:123–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Morgan MJ, Fitch MD, Holman JG, Lea SEG (1976) Pigeons learn the concept of an ‘A’. Perception 5:57–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ohl F, Roedel A, Storch C, Holsboer F, Landgraf R (2002) Cognitive performance in rats differing in their inborn anxiety. Behav Neurosci 116:464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ohl F, Roedel A, Binder E, Holsboer F (2003) Impact of high and low anxiety on cognitive performance in a modified hole board test in C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice. Eur J Neurosci 17:128–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pepperberg I (2004) “Insightful” string-pulling in Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) is affected by vocal competence. Anim Cogn 7:263–266. doi:10.1007/s10071-004-0218-y PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Schneider ML, Moore CF, Suomi SJ, Champoux M (2005) Laboratory assessment of temperament and environmental enrichment in rhesus monkey infants (Macaca mulatta). Am J Primatol 25:137–155Google Scholar
  21. Schuck-Paim C, Borsari A, Ottoni EB (2009) Means to an end: neotropical parrots manage to pull strings to meet their goals. Anim Cogn 12:287–301. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0190-z PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schuett W, Dall SR (2009) Sex differences, social context and personality in zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata. Anim Behav 77:1041–1050Google Scholar
  23. Sherry DF, Galef BG (1990) Social learning without imitation: more about milk bottle opening by birds. Anim Behav 40:987–989Google Scholar
  24. Stöwe M, Kotrschal K (2007) Behavioural phenotypes may determine whether social context facilitates or delays novel object exploration in ravens (Corvus corax). J Ornithol 148:179–184Google Scholar
  25. Team RD (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. Open access available at: http://cranr-project.org
  26. Toxopeus IB, Sterck EH, van Hooff JA, Spruijt BM, Heeren TJ (2005) Effects of trait anxiety on performance of socially housed monkeys in a learning test. Behaviour 142:9–10Google Scholar
  27. Ward AW (2012) Social facilitation of exploration in mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:223–230. doi:10.1007/s00265-011-1270-7 Google Scholar
  28. Webster MM, Ward AJW (2011) Personality and social context. Biol Rev 86:759–773. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00169.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Werdenich D, Huber L (2006) A case of quick problem solving in birds: string pulling in keas, Nestor notabilis. Anim Behav 71:855–863. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.06.018 Google Scholar
  30. Zajonc RB (1965) Social facilitation. Science 149:269–274. doi:10.1126/science.149.3681.269 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anastasia Krasheninnikova
    • 1
  • Jutta M. Schneider
    • 1
  1. 1.Biozentrum Grindel, Department of BiologyUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations