4.2 Article

Are kea prosocial?

期刊

ETHOLOGY
卷 126, 期 2, 页码 176-184

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eth.12944

关键词

giving assistance test; kea; parrot; prosociality; token exchange

资金

  1. University of Auckland Doctoral Scholarship
  2. Rutherford Discovery Fellowship
  3. Prime Minister's McDiarmid Emerging Scientist Prize

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prosocial behaviour is widespread in humans, but evidence for its occurrence in other species is mixed. We presented a parrot species, the kea (Nestor notabilis) with a series of experiments to test whether they exhibit prosocial tendencies. Across the first round of testing, in our first condition, two of the four kea acted prosocially, as they preferred to choose a prosocial token which rewarded both themselves and a partner, rather than a token that rewarded only themselves. Three of the four kea then showed a preference for the prosocial token in a second condition where they alternated taking turns with a partner. However, no kea showed a decrease in the third yoked control condition in which the experimenter replicated the token choice made by the partner in the previous alternating trials. This yoked condition was used to dissociate truly reciprocal behaviour, whereby the actor made choices based on their partner's choices, from a response to the amount of rewards conferred to the partner. Finally, three of the four kea continued to choose the prosocial token in the fourth asocial control condition where no partner was present. However, in round two of testing, one kea changed its token choices to a similar pattern to that expected if kea are prosocial, in that it preferred the prosocial token in the initial condition, showed a trend for the prosocial token when turns were alternated, but chose at chance in the yoked and asocial conditions. This study therefore found no evidence of spontaneous reciprocity in kea but further testing is required before we can conclude that kea are not capable of prosocial behaviour at all.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据