Abstract
Other-regarding preferences demonstrated through prosocial behaviors are widely demonstrated in humans but difficult to explain from an evolutionary perspective. Comparative studies have attempted to elucidate the selective pressures for prosocial preferences, with some proposing complex sociality as a mechanism. Macaws, although not cooperative breeders, form strong pair bonds and are socially tolerant within larger flocks, making them good candidates for prosocial behavior. Using a symbolic prosocial choice task, we trained seven macaws of five species to choose among targets that represented prosocial, spiteful, and selfish outcomes for themselves and each of six recipients. Two macaws met the criterion for testing and learned to choose a target that delivered a reward to themselves in a condition where the partner could not benefit. An analysis of their choices across conditions where they could benefit their partner suggests that apparent prosocial choices may instead reflect learning to avoid targets that represent no rewards for themselves. The macaws did not choose prosocially in the classic prosocial choice condition and did not alter preferences in conditions where no recipient was present. Rather than suggesting that macaws have not evolved prosocial preferences towards non-kin, we suggest the atypical social relationships between these birds of mixed-species factors into our findings. We encourage the analysis of responses across conditions and an attention to recipient identity in future studies of macaw prosociality.
Significance statement
Prosocial preferences are rare within the animal kingdom, making it of interest to investigate the evolutionary origins of such preferences, which are widespread in humans. Many social species have been investigated, but animals exhibiting strong pair bonds have not been given due attention. Macaws form lifelong bonds with partners and live in small, stable flocks, making them good candidates for the study of prosocial behavior, but, thus far, there are very few studies of prosocial behavior in macaws. There are no previous studies with mixed-species flocks. Here, we show that the pattern of prosocial choices across conditions in macaws of mixed-species pairings reflects an ability to learn symbols associated with differential outcomes for themselves but can neither confirm nor deny the existence of other-regarding preferences for members of other species.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data for this study may be accessed here: osf.io/gzqy6.
References
Amici F, Aureli F, Call J (2008) Fission-fusion dynamics, behavioral flexibility, and inhibitory control in primates. Curr Biol 18:1415–1419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.020
Amici F, Visalberghi E, Call J (2014) Lack of prosociality in great apes, capuchin monkeys, and spider monkeys: convergent evidence from two different food distribution tasks. Proc R Soc B 281:20141699. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1699
Auersperg AM, von Bayern AM (2019) Who’s a clever bird — now? A brief history of parrot cognition. Behaviour 156:391–407. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003550
Aureli F, Schaffner CM, Boesch C et al (2008) Fission-fusion dynamics: new research frameworks. Curr Anthropol 49:627–654. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/586708
Bräuer J (2015) I do not understand but I care: the prosocial dog. Interact Stud 16:341–360. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.3.01bra
Brosnan SF (2020) With a little help from my (Psittacidae) friends. Learn Behav 48(4):395–396. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-020-00439-0
Brucks D, von Bayern AM (2020) Parrots voluntarily help each other to obtain food rewards. Curr Biol 30:292–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.11.030
Burkart JM, Allon O, Amici F et al (2014) The evolutionary origin of human hyper-cooperation. Nat Commun 5:5747. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5747
Burkart JM, Fehr E, Efferson C, van Schaik CP (2007) Other-regarding preferences in a non-human primate: common marmosets provision food altruistically. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:19762–19766. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710310104
Burkart JM, van Schaik CP (2010) Cognitive consequences of cooperative breeding in primates? Anim Cogn 13:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-009-0263-7
Burkart JM, van Schaik C (2013) Group service in macaques (Macaca fuscata), capuchins (Cebus apella) and marmosets (Callithrix jacchus): a comparative approach to identifying proactive prosocial motivations. J Comp Psychol 127:212–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026392
Burkart JM, van Schaik CP (2016) Revisiting the consequences of cooperative breeding. J Zool 299:77–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12322
Chang SWC, Winecoff AA, Platt ML (2011) Vicarious reinforcement in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Front Neurosci 5:27. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2011.00027
Cronin KA (2012) Prosocial behaviour in animals: the influence of social relationships, communication and rewards. Anim Behav 84:1085–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.009
Cronin KA, Schroeder KKE, Rothwell ES, Silk JB, Snowdon CT (2009) Cooperatively breeding cottontop tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) do not donate rewards to their long-term mates. J Comp Psychol 123:231–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015094
Cronin KA, Schroeder KKE, Snowdon CT (2010) Prosocial behavior emerges independent of reciprocity in cottontop tamarins. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:3845–3851. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0879
Dale R, Palma-Jacinto S, Marshall-Pescini S, Range F, Addessi E (2019) Wolves, but not dogs, are prosocial in a touch screen task. PLOS ONE 14(5):e0215444. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215444
de Kort SR, Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2003) Food offering in jackdaws (Corvus monedula). Naturwissenschaften 90:238–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-003-0419-2
de Kort SR, Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2006) Food sharing in jackdaws, Corvus monedula: what, why and with whom? Anim Behav 72:297–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.10.016
de Waal FBM, Leimgruber K, Greenberg AR (2008) Giving is self-rewarding for monkeys. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:13685–13689. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0807060105
Di Lascio F, Nyffeler 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0548-0
Duque J, Leichner W, Ahmann H, Stevens J (2018) Mesotocin influences pinyon jay prosociality. Biol Lett 14:20180105. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0105
Duque JF, Stevens JR (2016) Voluntary food sharing in pinyon jays: the role of reciprocity and dominance. Anim Behav 122:135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.09.020
Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2004) Comparing the complex cognition of birds and primates. In: Rogers LJ, Kaplan G (eds) Comparative vertebrate cognition – are primates superior to non-primates? Springer, Boston, pp 3–55
Emigh H, Truax J, Highfill LE, Vonk J (2020) Not by the same token: an orangutan is selectively prosocial in a symbolic prosocial choice task. Primates 6:237–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-019-00780-7
Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2003) The nature of human altruism. Nature 425:785–791. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02043
Heaney M, Bastos APM, Gray RD, Taylor AH (2019) Are kea prosocial? Ethology 126:176–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12944
Hoffmaster E, Vonk J (2016) Dynamic duos? Jamaican fruit bats (Artibeus jamaicensis) do not show prosocial behavior in a release paradigm. Behav Sci 6:25. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs6040025
Horn L, Scheer C, Bugnyar T, Massen JJM (2016) Proactive prosociality in a cooperatively breeding corvid, the azure-winged magpie (Cyanopica cyana). Biol Lett 12:20160649. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0649
Horn L, Zewald JS, Bugnyar T, Massen JJ (2021) Carrion crows and azure-winged magpies show no prosocial tendencies when tested in a token transfer paradigm. Animals 11:1526
Horner V, Carter JD, Suchak M, de Waal FBM (2011) Spontaneous prosocial choice by chimpanzees. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:13847–13851. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111088108
House BR, Silk JB, Lambeth SP, Schapiro SJ (2014) Task design influences prosociality in captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). PLoS ONE 9:e103422. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103422
Iwaniuk AN, Dean KM, Nelson JE (2005) Interspecific allometry of the brain and brain regions in parrots (Psittaciformes): comparisons with other birds and primates. Brain Behav Evolut 65:40–59. https://doi.org/10.1159/000081110
Jarvis ED, Güntürkün O, Bruce L et al (2005) Avian brains and a new understanding of vertebrate brain evolution. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:151–159
Jensen K, Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) What’s in it for me? Self-regard precludes altruism and spite in chimpanzees. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1013–1021. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3417
Joly M, Micheletta J, De Marco A, Langermans JA, Sterck EHM, Waller BM (2017) Comparing physical and social cognitive skills in macaque species with different degrees of social tolerance. Proc R Soc B 284:20162738. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2738
Krasheninnikova A, Brucks D, Blanc S, von Bayern AMP (2019) Assessing African grey parrots’ prosocial tendencies in a token choice paradigm. R Soc Open Sci 6:190696. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190696
Kuijer P, Krasheninnikova A, Brucks D, Lamprecht A, von Bayern AM (2021) Assessing prosocial tendencies of parrots in food sharing situations. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 43 (abstract)
Lakshminarayana VR, Santos LR (2008) Capuchin monkeys are sensitive to others’ welfare. Curr Biol 18:R999–R1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.057
Lambert ML, Jacobs I, Osvath M, von Bayern AM (2019) Birds of a feather? Parrot and corvid cognition compared. Behaviour 156:505–594
Lambert ML, Massen JJM, Seed AM, Bugnyar T, Slocombe KE (2017) An ‘unkindness’ of ravens? Measuring prosocial preferences in Corvus corax. Anim Behav 123:383–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.11.018
Laumer IB, Massen JJM, Boehm PM, Boehm A, Geisler A, Auersperg AMI (2021) Individual Goffin’s cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana) show flexible targeted helping in a tool transfer task. PLoS ONE 16:e0253416
Liebal K, Vaish A, Haun D, Tomasello M (2014) Does sympathy motivate prosocial behaviour in great apes? PLoS ONE 9:e84299. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084299
Liévin-Bazin A, Pineaux M, Le Covec M, Gahr M, Bovet D, von Bayern AMP (2019) Food sharing and affiliation: an experimental and longitudinal study in cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus). Ethology 125:276–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12850
Massen JJ, Haley SM, Bugnyar T (2020) Azure-winged magpies’ decisions to share food are contingent on the presence or absence of food for the recipient. Sci Rep 10:16147
Massen JJM, Lambert M, Schiestl M, Bugnyar T (2015) Subadult ravens generally don’t transfer valuable tokens to conspecifics when there is nothing to gain for themselves. Front Psychol 6:885. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00885
Massen JJM, van den Berg LM, Spruijt BM, Sterck EHM (2010) Generous leaders and selfish underdogs: pro-sociality in despotic macaques. PLoS ONE 5:e9734. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009734
Mehlhorn J, Hunt GR, Gray RD, Rehkämper G, Güntürkün O (2010) Tool-making New Caledonian crows have large associative brain areas. Brain Behav Evolut 75:63–70
Mendonça RS, Dahl CD, Carvalho S, Matsuzawa T, Adachi I (2018) Touch-screen-guided task reveals a prosocial choice tendency by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). PeerJ 6:e5315. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5315
Mitani JC, Watts DP (2001) Why do chimpanzees hunt and share meat? Anim Behav 61:915–924. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1681
Morales Picard A, Mundry R, Auersperg AM et al (2020) Why preen others? Predictors of allopreening in parrots and corvids and comparisons to grooming in great apes. Ethology 126:207–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12999
Olkowicz S, Kocourek M, Lučan RK, Porteš M, Fitch WT, Herculano-Houzel S, Němec P (2016) Birds have primate-like numbers of neurons in the forebrain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:7255–7260. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517131113
Osvath M, Kabadayi C, Jacobs I (2014) Independent evolution of similar complex cognitive skills: the importance of embodied degrees of freedom. Anim Behav Cogn 1:249–264
Pelé M, Dufour V, Thierry B, Call J (2009) Token transfers among great apes (Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan paniscus, and Pan troglodytes): species differences, gestural requests, and reciprocal exchange. J Comp Psychol 123:375–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017253
Péron F, John M, Sapowicz S, Bovet D, Pepperberg IM (2013) A study of sharing and reciprocity in grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Anim Cogn 16:197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0564-0
Péron F, Thornberg L, Gross B, Gray S, Pepperberg IM (2014) Human-Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) reciprocity: a follow-up study. Anim Cogn 17:937–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0726-3
Schuck-Paim C, Alonso WJ, Ottoni EB (2008) Cognition in an ever-changing world: CLIMATIC variability is associated with brain size in neotropical parrots. Brain Behav Evol 71:200–215. https://doi.org/10.1159/000119710
Schwab C, Swoboda R, Kotrschal K, Bugnyar T (2012) Recipients affect prosocial and altruistic choices in jackdaws, Corvus Monedula. Plos ONE 7:e34922. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034922
Schwing R, Jocteur E, Wein A, Noë R, Massen JJM (2016) Kea cooperate better with sharing affiliates. Anim Cogn 19(6):1093–1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-1017-y
Silk JB, Brosnan SF, Vonk J et al (2005) Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members. Nature 437:1357–1359. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04243
Silk JB, House BR (2011) Evolutionary foundations of human prosocial sentiments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:10910–10917. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100305108
Suchak M, de Waal FBM (2012) Monkeys benefit from reciprocity without the cognitive burden. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:15191–15196. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213173109
Tan J, Hare B, Deschner T (2013) Bonobos Share with Strangers. PLoS ONE 8(1):e51922. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051922
Tan J, Kwetuenda S, Hare B (2015) Preference or paradigm? Bonobos show no evidence of other-regard in the standard prosocial task. Behaviour 152:521–544. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003230
Tassin de Montaigu C, Durdevic K, Brucks D, Krasheninnikova A, von Bayern A (2020) Blue-throated macaws (Ara glaucogularis) succeed in a cooperative task without coordinating their actions. Ethology 126:267–277
Vonk J, Brosnan SF, Silk JB, Henrich J, Richardson AS, Lambeth SP, Schapiro SJ, Povinelli DJ (2008) Chimpanzees do not take advantage of very low cost opportunities to deliver food to unrelated group members. Anim Behav 75:1757–1770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.09.036
Wascher CA, Feider B, Bugnyar T, Dufour V (2020) Crows and common ravens do not reciprocally exchange tokens with a conspecific to gain food rewards. Ethology 126:278–287
Watts DP (1998) Coalitionary mate guarding by male chimpanzees at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 44:43–55. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4601544
Yamamoto S, Tanaka M (2010) The influence of kin relationship and reciprocal context on chimpanzees’ other-regarding preferences. Anim Behav 79:595–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.11.034
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to The Creature Conservancy for supporting and facilitating this research. We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments and advice.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JAL designed and conducted the study and co-wrote the manuscript.
JV advised on study design, analyzed the data, and co-wrote the manuscript. The study was conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the MS degree of the first author.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Ethical approval was waived by the IACUC of Oakland University in view of the fact that the procedures being performed were carried out by a volunteer of the facility as part of the routine care of the birds. The use of animals adheres to the guidelines set forth by the Animal Behavior Society/Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by: N. Clayton
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leete, J.A., Vonk, J. In mixed company: two macaws are self-regarding in a symbolic prosocial choice task. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 76, 9 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-021-03123-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-021-03123-z