Cooperative problem solving in African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus)

Abstract

One of the main characteristics of human societies is the extensive degree of cooperation among individuals. Cooperation is an elaborate phenomenon, also found in non-human primates during laboratory studies and field observations of animal hunting behaviour, among other things. Some authors suggest that the pressures assumed to have favoured the emergence of social intelligence in primates are similar to those that may have permitted the emergence of complex cognitive abilities in some bird species such as corvids and psittacids. In the wild, parrots show cooperative behaviours such as bi-parental care and mobbing. In this study, we tested cooperative problem solving in African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Our birds were tested using several experimental setups to explore the different levels of behavioural organisation between participants, differing in temporal and spatial complexity. In our experiments, African grey parrots were able to act simultaneously but mostly failed during the delay task, maybe because of a lack of inhibitory motor response. Confronted with the possibility to adapt their behaviour to the presence or absence of a partner, they showed that they were able to coordinate their actions. They also collaborated, acting complementarily in order to solve tasks, but they were not able to place themselves in the partner's role.

Cooperation in wild Barbary macaques: factors affecting free partner choice

“…Similar results have been found, for example, in hyenas (Drea and Carter 2009) and African grey parrots (Péron et al 2011). Discriminating between situations that required the assistance of a partner and situations that do not may allow individuals to avoid risk of conflict when a resource can be obtained alone (e.g.…”

“…Barbary macaques seem thus able to act simultaneously to reach a common goal in an experimental setting, like observed in other non-human primates (e.g. Mendres and de Waal 2000;Melis et al 2006b;Hirata and Fuwa 2007), other mammals (Drea and Carter 2009;Plotnik et al 2011;Möslinger et al 2009) and birds (Seed et al 2008;Scheid and Noë 2010;Péron et al 2011).…”

“…Different versions of this experiment have demonstrated success in simultaneous pulling in a variety of primate species (e.g. Mendres and de Waal 2000;Chalmeau et al 1997;Cronin et al 2005;Hirata and Fuwa 2007;Hare et al 2007), but also, more recently, in non-primate species such as rooks (Corvus frugilegus; Seed et al 2008;Scheid and Noë 2010), African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus; Péron et al 2011), hyenas (Crocuta crocuta; Drea and Carter 2009), and Asian elephants (Elephas maximus; Plotnik et al 2011). Furthermore, in experiments where the arrival of the partner at the pulling apparatus was artificially delayed, some species (e.g.…”

“…chimpanzees and elephants; Melis et al 2006a;Plotnik et al 2011) were able to wait the arrival of their partner before pulling, which suggests that the animals understood the need of their partner to solve the task. Conversely, rooks and parrots were unable to inhibit their pulling before the arrival of their partner (Seed et al 2008;Péron et al 2011). The string pulling tasks have several advantages in terms of ecological validity and research questions that can be addressed.…”

“…Third, it is also possible that the monkeys were too impulsive when presented with a food reward, preventing them from totally refraining the inefficient pulling. There is evidence that many animals have difficulties to inhibit a learned response (here pulling a string) to get food (Stevens and Hauser 2004;Péron et al 2011). Indeed, pulling requires very low energy expenditure which might explain why extraneous pulling is not inhibited completely (Suchak et al 2014).…”