Cited by 38Primate Behavior and EcologyChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies

Ravens (Corvus corax) are indifferent to the gains of conspecific recipients or human partners in experimental tasks

Open access
Di Lascio, Felice, Nyffeler, François, Bshary, Redouan, Bugnyar, Thomas·2013·Animal Cognition

Abstract

Although cooperative behaviours are common in animals, the cognitive processes underpinning such behaviours are very likely to differ between species. In humans, other-regarding preferences have been proposed to sustain long-term cooperation between individuals. The extent to which such psychological capacities exist in other animals is still under investigation. Five hand-reared ravens were first tested in an experiment where they could provide food to a conspecific at no cost to themselves. We offered them two behavioural options that provided identical amounts of food to the actor and where one of the two options additionally delivered a reward to a recipient. Subsequently, we made the ravens play a no-cost cooperation game with an experimenter. The experimenter had the same options as the animals and matched the ravens' choices, making the prosocial choice the more profitable option. In both conditions, ravens were indifferent to the effects of their choices and hence failed to help conspecifics and to cooperate with the experimenter. While our negative results should be interpreted with care, overall, our findings suggest that the ravens had no understanding of the consequences of their actions for a potential recipient. This study adds to several others that have used a similar set-up and have reported negative results on other-regarding preferences in animals.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10071-012-0548-0

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Di Lascio, F., Nyffeler, F., Bshary, R., & Bugnyar, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Neuchâtel (CH)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
Venue
Animal Cognition
Published
2012-08-14
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
35-43
ISSN
  • 1435-9448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-9456
OpenAlex
W2077182671
Cited by
38
References
65
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Animal Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Social Fund
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Keywords
ravens, Corvus corax, social preferences, prosocial behavior, cooperation, conspecifics, human-animal interaction
MeSH terms
Animals, Choice Behavior, Cognition, Cooperative Behavior, Feeding Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Crows

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review