Does captivity alter problem-solving behavior in Goffin’s cockatoos?

Abstract

Researchers often argue for the existence of "captivity bias": a higher success rate that may be observed for nonhumans tested in captivity compared to those tested in nature, purportedly because the former have certain advantages that the latter lack. Rössler et al. (Scientific Reports 10, 8681, 2020) find that, at least for Goffin's cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana), differences exist in motivation, not in problem-solving ability. Keywords Goffin's cockatoo . Captivity bias . Innovation . Parrot cognition . Parrot motivation "Captivity bias" is a critical issue when studying nonhuman cognitionspecifically, what effects do living conditions and life history have on nonhumans' success in solving cognitive problems? Often, long-term captive subjects outperform their wild-living counterparts (e.g., hyenas, Crocuta crocuta, Benson-Amram, Weldele, & Holekamp, 2013; keas, Nestor notabilis, Gajdon, Fijn, & Huber, 2004). Several reasons for such differences have been proposed, the most obvious being enculturationi.e., familiarity with human activities on which the tasks being tested are based and/or previous experience with somewhat familiar tasks. Researchers also argue that captive subjects can perhaps re-direct resources (energetic or cognitive) no longer required for foraging or avoiding predation to perform the task (reviewed in Benson-Amram et al., 2013), or that in the field dominant subjects may prevent subordinates from accessing the apparatus for the amount of time necessary for devising a solution (Gajdon et al., 2004). Rössler et al. (2020) argue instead that the observed behavioral differences, at least for Goffin's cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana), are only in motivationthat captive subjects may, for example, simply interact more readily with the apparatus for reasons related to boredom, play, or from expectancies of rewards based on prior experience (see also Smith, Greene, Hartsfield, & Pepperberg, 2021). Rössler et al. (2020) show compelling evidence that for their subjects that