» Articles » PMID: 27455334

Reasoning About "Capability": Wild Robins Respond to Limb Visibility in Humans

Overview
Date 2016 Jul 26
PMID 27455334
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Little comparative work has focused on what nonhumans understand about what physical acts others are capable of performing, and none has yet done so in the wild, or within a competitive framework. This study shows that North Island robins visually attend to human limbs in the context of determining who to steal food from. We presented 24 wild North Island Robins (Petroica longipes) with two experimenters. Robins could choose to steal a mealworm from one of two experimenters: one whose limbs were exposed and one who underwent a range of visual obstructions in two experiments. In most conditions, robins preferred to steal food located near the experimenter whose limbs were obscured by a cloth or board rather than food located near the experimenter whose limbs were not obscured. The robins' responses indicate that human limb visibility is associated with reduced access to food. Current findings lay the groundwork for a closer look at the potential general use of causal reasoning in an inter-specific context of using limbs to perform physical acts, specifically within the context of pilfering. This study presents one of the first tests of the role of visual attendance of potential limb availability in a competitive context, and could provide an alternative hypothesis for how other species have passed tests designed to examine what individuals understand about the physical acts others are capable of performing.

Citing Articles

Animal cognition in an urbanised world.

Lee V, Thornton A Front Ecol Evol. 2021; 9.

PMID: 34409044 PMC: 7611524. DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2021.633947.


The Role of Animal Cognition in Human-Wildlife Interactions.

Goumas M, Lee V, Boogert N, Kelley L, Thornton A Front Psychol. 2020; 11:589978.

PMID: 33250826 PMC: 7672032. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.589978.


Advances in Animal Cognition.

Vonk J Behav Sci (Basel). 2016; 6(4).

PMID: 27916874 PMC: 5197940. DOI: 10.3390/bs6040027.

References
1.
Povinelli D, Perilloux H, Reaux J, Bierschwale D . Young and juvenile chimpanzees' (Pan troglodytes) reactions to intentional versus accidental and inadvertent actions. Behav Processes. 2014; 42(2-3):205-18. DOI: 10.1016/s0376-6357(97)00077-6. View

2.
Pika S, Bugnyar T . The use of referential gestures in ravens (Corvus corax) in the wild. Nat Commun. 2011; 2:560. PMC: 4377648. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1567. View

3.
Kaneko T, Tomonaga M . The perception of self-agency in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Proc Biol Sci. 2011; 278(1725):3694-702. PMC: 3203506. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0611. View

4.
Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M . Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know?. Anim Behav. 2001; 61(1):139-151. DOI: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1518. View

5.
Peron F, Chardard C, Nagle L, Bovet D . Do African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) know what a human experimenter does and does not see?. Behav Processes. 2011; 87(2):237-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.04.001. View