Behavioral responses to inequity in reward distribution and working effort in crows and ravens

Dimensions of corvid consciousness

Corvids have long been a target of public fascination and of scientific attention, particularly in the study of animal minds. Using Birch et al.'s (2020) 5-dimensional framework for animal consciousness we ask what it is like to be a corvid and propose a speculative but empirically informed answer. We go on to suggest future directions for research on corvid consciousness and how it can inform ethical treatment and animal welfare legislation.

Rearing in an envy-like environment increases anxiety-like behaviour in mice

Interest in the societal and psychological harm caused by widespread envy and social comparison is increasing. Envy is associated with anxiety and depression, though the mechanism by which envy affects neuropsychiatric disorders, such as depression, remains unclear. Clarifying the neurobiological basis of envy's effects on behaviour and emotion regulation in experimental mice is essential for developing disease-prevention and treatment strategies. As mice recognize other mice in neighbouring cages, this study investigated whether they recognize neighbouring cages housed in environmentally enriched cages and suffer psychological stress due to envy. After being raised in an envy-like environment for 3 weeks, we revealed changes in the behaviour of the mice through a series of behavioural experiments. Mice raised in an envious environment showed increased body weight and anxiety-like behaviour but decreased social behaviour and serum corticosterone levels compared to control mice. Thus, mice recognize their neighbouring cages and experience psychological stress due to envy. This study revealed a part of the scientific basis for why envy increased anxiety. Using this novel experimental breeding environment, it may be possible to create an experimental animal model of anxiety disorders.

No evidence for inequity aversion in non-human animals: a meta-analysis of accept/reject paradigms

Disadvantageous inequity aversion (IA), a negative response to receiving less than others, is a key building block of the human sense of fairness. While some theorize that IA is shared by species across the animal kingdom, others argue that it is an exclusively human evolutionary adaptation to the selective pressures of cooperation among non-kin. Essential to this debate is the empirical question of whether non-human animals are averse towards unequal resource distributions. Over the past two decades, researchers have reported that individuals from a wide range of taxa exhibit IA; tasks where participants can reject or accept a given distribution of rewards delivered the bulk of this evidence. Yet these results have been questioned on both conceptual and empirical grounds. In the largest empirical investigation of non-human IA to date, we synthesize the primary data from 23 studies using accept/reject tasks, covering 60 430 observations of 18 species. We find no evidence for IA in non-human animals in these tasks. This finding held across all species in the dataset and pre-registered subsets (all species reported to exhibit IA, primates reported to exhibit IA, chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys). Alternative interpretations of the data and implications for the evolution of fairness are discussed.

Mechanisms of equality and inequality in mammalian societies

The extent of (in)equality is highly diverse across species of social mammals, but we have a poor understanding of the factors that produce or inhibit equitable social organizations. Here, we adopt a comparative evolutionary perspective to test whether the evolution of social dominance hierarchies, a measure of social inequality in animals, exhibits phylogenetic conservatism and whether interspecific variation in these traits can be explained by sex, age or captivity. We find that hierarchy steepness and directional consistency evolve rapidly without any apparent constraint from evolutionary history. Given this extraordinary variability, we next consider multiple factors that have evolved to mitigate social inequality. Social networks, coalitionary support and knowledge transfer advantage to privilege some individuals over others. Nutritional access and prenatal stressors can impact the development of offspring, generating health disparities with intergenerational consequences. Intergenerational transfer of material resources (e.g. stone tools, food stashes, territories) advantage those who receive. Nonetheless, many of the same social species that experience unequal access to food (survival) and mates (reproduction) engage in levelling mechanisms such as food sharing, adoption, revolutionary coalitions, forgiveness and inequity aversion. Taken together, mammals rely upon a suite of mechanisms of (in)equality to balance the costs and benefits of group living. This article is part of the theme issue 'Evolutionary ecology of inequality'.

Novel 31-kHz calls emitted by female Lewis rats during social isolation and social inequality conditions

Whether commonly used experimental animals show aversion toward inequality of social rewards, as humans do remains unknown. We examined whether rats emitted the 22-kHz distress calls under social reward inequality. Rats showed affiliative behavior for a specific human who repeatedly stroked and tickled them. When experimenter stroked another rat in front of them and during social isolation, these rats emitted novel calls with acoustic characteristics different from those of calls emitted under physical stress, namely air-puff. Under inequality conditions, rats emitted calls with higher frequency (∼31 kHz) and shorter duration (<0.5 s) than those emitted when receiving air-puff. However, with an affiliative human in front of them, the number of novel calls was lower and rats emitted 50-kHz calls, indicative of the appetitive state. These results indicate that rats distinguish between conditions of social reward inequality and the presence of an experimenter, and emit novel 31-kHz calls.

Social disappointment and partner presence affect long-tailed macaque refusal behaviour in an 'inequity aversion' experiment

Protest in response to unequal reward distribution is thought to have played a central role in the evolution of human cooperation. Some animals refuse food and become demotivated when rewarded more poorly than a conspecific, and this has been taken as evidence that non-human animals, like humans, protest in the face of inequity. An alternative explanation-social disappointment-shifts the cause of this discontent away from the unequal reward, to the human experimenter who could-but elects not to-treat the subject well. This study investigates whether social disappointment could explain frustration behaviour in long-tailed macaques, Macaca fascicularis. We tested 12 monkeys in a novel 'inequity aversion' paradigm. Subjects had to pull a lever and were rewarded with low-value food; in half of the trials, a partner worked alongside the subjects receiving high-value food. Rewards were distributed either by a human or a machine. In line with the social disappointment hypothesis, monkeys rewarded by the human refused food more often than monkeys rewarded by the machine. Our study extends previous findings in chimpanzees and suggests that social disappointment plus social facilitation or food competition effects drive food refusal patterns.

Female squirrel monkeys' (Saimiri boliviensis) responses to inequity in a group context; testing a link between cooperation and inequity responses

Primates of several species respond negatively to receiving less preferred rewards than a partner for completing the same task (inequity responses), either rejecting rewards or refusing to participate in the task when disadvantaged. This has been linked to cooperation, with species that cooperate frequently refusing to participate in inequity tasks (the 'cooperation hypothesis'). However, inequity is a social response, and previous research has involved dyads, precluding studying the effects of additional social partners. While dyads allow for tighter control in experimental settings, dyadic interactions in nature do not take place in a social vacuum, so understanding the role of the social context is needed to verify that the pattern of results supports the cooperation hypothesis. Here we focus on Bolivian squirrel monkeys, Saimiri boliviensis, a highly social species that does not generally cooperate and has not responded to inequity in previous dyadic research, although they do respond to receiving a lower reward than they expected. In the current study, we provide a more nuanced test by studying female Bolivian squirrel monkeys, the demographic most likely to cooperate in both field and laboratory contexts, in a more socially relevant group setting. For some reward values, females responded in both the inequity condition, rejecting less preferred rewards when they were disadvantaged relative to their social group, and a contrast condition, wherein all animals received a lower reward than they expected, making it difficult to disentangle contrast from inequity. As in capuchin monkeys, refusals increased when monkeys were to receive low-value rewards compared to medium-value rewards. These results suggest that the relationship between cooperation and inequity responses may be more nuanced than previously suggested, with demographic, social context and reward value potentially influencing outcomes even within species.

The effects of social rank and payoff structure on the evolution of group hunting

Group hunting is common among social carnivores, and mechanisms that promote this behavior are a central topic in evolutionary biology. Increased prey capture success and decreased losses from competitors are often invoked as factors promoting group hunting. However, many animal societies have linear dominance hierarchies where access to critical resources is determined by social rank, and group-hunting rewards are shared unequally. Despite this inequality, animals in such societies cooperate to hunt and defend resources. Game theoretic models predict that rank and relative rewards from group hunting vs. solitary hunting affect which hunting strategies will evolve. These predictions are partially supported by empirical work, but data needed to test these predictions are difficult to obtain in natural systems. We use digital evolution to test how social rank and tolerance by dominants of subordinates feeding while sharing spoils from group hunting influence which hunting strategies evolve in digital organisms. We created a computer-simulated world to reflect social and hunting dynamics of spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta). We found that group hunting increased as tolerance increased and as the relative payoff from group hunting increased. Also, top-ranking agents were more likely to group hunt than lower-ranking agents under despotic sharing conditions. These results provide insights into mechanisms that may promote cooperation in animal societies structured by dominance hierarchies.

Learning and motor inhibitory control in crows and domestic chickens

Cognitive abilities allow animals to navigate through complex, fluctuating environments. In the present study, we tested the performance of a captive group of eight crows, Corvus corone and 10 domestic chickens, Gallus gallus domesticus, in the cylinder task, as a test of motor inhibitory control and reversal learning as a measure of learning ability and behavioural flexibility. Four crows and nine chickens completed the cylinder task, eight crows and six chickens completed the reversal learning experiment. Crows performed better in the cylinder task compared with chickens. In the reversal learning experiment, species did not significantly differ in the number of trials until the learning criterion was reached. The performance in the reversal learning experiment did not correlate with performance in the cylinder task in chickens. Our results suggest crows to possess better motor inhibitory control compared with chickens. By contrast, learning performance in a reversal learning task did not differ between the species, indicating similar levels of behavioural flexibility. Interestingly, we describe notable individual differences in performance. We stress the importance not only to compare cognitive performance between species but also between individuals of the same species when investigating the evolution of cognitive skills.

Anything for a cheerio: Brown capuchins (Sapajus [Cebus] apella) consistently coordinate in an Assurance Game for unequal payoffs

Unequal outcomes disrupt cooperation in some situations, but this has not been tested in the context of coordination in economic games. To explore this, we tested brown capuchins (Sapajus [Cebus] apella) on a manual version of the Stag Hunt (or Assurance) Game, in which individuals sequentially chose between two options, Stag or Hare, and were rewarded according to their choices and that of their partner. Typically, coordination on Stag results in an equal highest payout, whereas coordinating on Hare results in a guaranteed equal but lower payoff and uncoordinated play results in the lowest payoff when playing Stag. We varied this structure such that one capuchin received double the rewards for the coordinated Stag outcome; thus, it was still both animals' best option, but no longer equally rewarding. Despite the inequality, capuchins coordinated on Stag in 78% of trials, and neither payoff structure nor their partner's choice impacted their decision. Additionally, there was no relationship between self-scratching, a measure of stress in capuchins, and choices. After completing the study, we discovered our reward, cheerios, was sufficiently valuable that in another study, capuchins never refused it, so post hoc we repeated the study using a lower value reward, banana flavored pellets. Capuchins completed only 26% of the pellet trials (compared to 98% with cheerios), constraining our ability to interpret the results, but nonetheless the monkeys showed a decrease in preference for Stag, particularly when they received fewer rewards for the coordinated Stag outcome. These results reinforce capuchins' ability to find coordinated outcomes in the Stag Hunt game, but more work is needed to determine whether the monkeys did not mind the inequality or were unwilling to sacrifice a highly preferred food to rectify it. In either case, researchers should carefully consider the impact of their chosen rewards on subjects' choices.

Western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) do not show an aversion to inequity in a token exchange task

Although individuals in some species refuse foods they normally accept if their partner receives a more preferred one, this is not true across all species. The cooperation hypothesis proposes that this species-level variability evolved because inequity aversion is a mechanism to identify situations in which cooperation is not paying off, and that species regularly observed cooperating should be more likely to be averse to inequity. To rule out other potential explanations of inequity aversion, we need to test the converse as well: species rarely observed cooperating, especially those phylogenetically close to more cooperative species, should be less likely to be inequity averse. To this end, we tested eight zoo-housed Western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) on a token exchange task in which subjects received either the same food reward or a less-preferred reward for the same or more effort than their partner, recording both refusals to participate in the exchange and refusals to accept the reward. Supporting the cooperation hypothesis, even with procedural differences across sessions, gorillas were significantly more likely to refuse in all conditions in which they received a low-value food reward after completing an exchange, regardless of what their partner received, suggesting that gorillas were not inequity averse, but instead would not work for a low-value reward. Additionally, gorillas were more likely to refuse later in the session; while the pattern of refusals remained unchanged after accounting for this, this suggests that species should be tested on as many trials as is practical.

Exploring the Cognitive Capacities of Japanese Macaques in a Cooperation Game

Simple Summary

Experiments using animal models are often conducted to explore the cognitive capacities of different species and to shed light upon the evolution of behavior and the mind that shapes it. Investigating the cognitions and motivations involved in cooperation is one such area that has attracted attention in recent years. As experiments examining these abilities in natural settings are underrepresented in the literature, our study was conducted in a setting closely resembling the natural environment of the study species so as to retain the social factors that help shape these behaviors. In our experiments, Japanese macaques needed to work together to simultaneously pull two loops in order to release food rewards onto a central platform. Over the course of the experiment, the macaques in our study came to make fewer attempts at the cooperative task when no potential partner was present. Furthermore, following an unequal division of the rewards, macaques receiving lesser rewards were more likely to express stress-related and aggressive behavior. Together, these results suggest that the Japanese macaques in our study understood the importance of having a partner in the cooperative task, paid attention to the relative value of the reward they received from the task and became distressed if their reward was inferior to that of another.

Abstract

Cooperation occurs amongst individuals embedded in a social environment. Consequently, cooperative interactions involve a variety of persistent social influences such as the dynamics of partner choice and reward division. To test for the effects of such dynamics, we conducted cooperation experiments in a captive population of Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata, N = 164) using a modified version of the loose-string paradigm in an open-experiment design. We show that in addition to becoming more proficient cooperators over the course of the experiments, some of the macaques showed sensitivity to the presence of potential partners and adjusted their behavior accordingly. Furthermore, following an unequal reward division, individuals receiving a lesser reward were more likely to display aggressive and stress-related behaviors. Our experiments demonstrate that Japanese macaques have some understanding of the contingencies involved in cooperation as well as a sensitivity to the subsequent reward division suggestive of an aversion to inequity.

Me first: Neural representations of fairness during three-party interactions

One hallmark of human morality is a deep sense of fairness. People are motivated by both self-interest and a concern for the welfare of others. However, it remains unclear whether these motivations rely on similar neural computations, and the extent to which such computations influence social decision-making when self-fairness and other-fairness motivations compete. In this study, two groups of participants engaged in the role of responder in a three-party Ultimatum Game while being scanned with functional MRI (N = 32) or while undergoing high-density electroencephalography (N = 40). In both studies, participants accepted more OtherFair offers when they themselves received fair offers. Though SelfFairness was reliably decoded from scalp voltages by 170 ms, and from hemodynamic responses in right insula and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, there was no overlap between neural representations of fairness for self and for other. Distinct neural computations and mechanisms seem to be involved when making decisions about fairness in three-party contexts, which are anchored in an egocentric, self-serving bias.

Anthropomorphism in comparative affective science: Advocating a mindful approach

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human-like capacities and traits to non-human entities. Anthropomorphism is ubiquitous in everyday life and in scientific domains, operating both implicitly and explicitly as a function of the human lens through which we view the world. A rich history of work in psychology, animal behavior, cognitive science, and philosophy has highlighted the negative and, to a lesser degree, the positive implications of anthropomorphism. In this article, we aim to provide a nuanced perspective of how anthropomorphism impacts the work of comparative affective science. Specifically, we discuss three domains of empirical inquiry in which lessons can be drawn about the benefits and pitfalls of anthropomorphism: responses to death, inequity aversion, and prosocial behavior. On balance, we advocate a mindful approach to anthropomorphizing in comparative affective science, and comparative science more generally.

Individual and social factors affecting the ability of American crows to solve and master a string pulling task

Crows and other birds in the family Corvidae regularly share information to learn the identity and whereabouts of dangerous predators, but can they use social learning to solve a novel task for a food reward? Here we examined the factors affecting the ability of 27 wild-caught American crows to solve a common string-pulling task in a laboratory setting. We split crows into two groups; one group was given the task after repeatedly observing a conspecific model the solution, the other solved in the absence of conspecific models. We recorded the crows' estimated age, sex, size, body condition, level of nervousness, and brain volume using DICOM images from a CT scan. Although none of these variables were statistically significant, crows without a conspecific model and large brain volumes consistently mastered the task in the minimum number of days, whereas those with conspecific models and smaller brain volumes required varying and sometimes a substantial number of days to master the task. We found indirect evidence that body condition might also be important for motivating crows to solve the task. Crows with conspecific models were no more likely to initially solve the task than those working the puzzle without social information, but those that mastered the task usually copied the method most frequently demonstrated by their knowledgeable neighbors. These findings suggest that brain volume and possibly body condition may be factors in learning new tasks, and that crows can use social learning to refine their ability to obtain a novel food source, although they must initially learn to access it themselves.

Feeding Behavior of Mice under Different Food Allocation Regimens

Social interaction, a basic survival strategy for many animal species, helps maintain a social environment that has limited conflict. Social dominance has a dramatic effect on motivation. Recent evidence suggests that some primate and nonprimate species display aversive behavior toward food allocation regimens that differ from their peers. Thus, we examined the behaviors displayed by mice under different food allocation regimens. We analyzed changes in food intake using several parameters. In the same food condition, the mice received the same food; in the quality different condition, the mice received different foods; in the quantity different condition, one mouse did not receive food; and in the no food condition, none of the mice received food. To test differences based on food quality, one mouse received normal solid food as a less preferred reward, and the other received chocolate chips as a high-level reward. No behavioral change was observed in comparison to the same food condition. To test differences based on food quantity, one mouse received chocolate chips while the other received nothing. Mice who received nothing spent more time on the other side of the reward throughout the experiment. Interestingly, highly rewarded mice required more time to consume the chocolate chips. Thus, under different food allocation regimens, mice changed their behavior by being more hesitant. Moreover, mice alter food intake behavior according to the social environment. The findings help elucidate potential evolutionary aspects that help maintain social cohesion while providing insights into potential mechanisms underlying socially anxious behavior.

Parrots do not show inequity aversion

Inequity aversion, the negative reaction to unequal treatment, is considered a mechanism for stabilizing cooperative interactions between non-kin group members. However, this might only be adaptive for species that switch cooperative partners. Utilizing a comparative approach, inequity aversion has been assessed in many mammalian species and recently also in corvids and one parrot species, kea, revealing mixed results. To broaden our knowledge about the phylogenetic distribution of inequity aversion, we tested four parrot species in the token exchange paradigm. We varied the quality of rewards delivered to dyads of birds, as well as the effort required to obtain a reward. Blue-headed macaws and African grey parrots showed no reaction to being rewarded unequally. The bigger macaws were less willing to exchange tokens in the “unequal” condition compared to the “equal high” condition in which both birds obtained high quality rewards, but a closer examination of the results and the findings from the control conditions reveal that inequity aversion does not account for it. None of the species responded to inequity in terms of effort. Parrots may not exhibit inequity aversion due to interdependence on their life-long partner and the high costs associated with finding a new partner.

Neural architecture of the vertebrate brain: implications for the interaction between emotion and cognition

Cognition is considered a hallmark of the primate brain that requires a high degree of signal integration, such as achieved in the prefrontal cortex. Moreover, it is often assumed that cognitive capabilities imply "superior" computational mechanisms compared to those involved in emotion or motivation. In contrast to these ideas, we review data on the neural architecture across vertebrates that support the concept that association and integration are basic features of the vertebrate brain, which are needed to successfully adapt to a changing world. This property is not restricted to a few isolated brain centers, but rather resides in neuronal networks working collectively in a context-dependent manner. In different vertebrates, we identify shared large-scale connectional systems involving the midbrain, hypothalamus, thalamus, basal ganglia, and amygdala. The high degree of crosstalk and association between these systems at different levels supports the notion that cognition, emotion, and motivation cannot be separated - all of them involve a high degree of signal integration.

How does cognition shape social relationships?

The requirements of living in social groups, and forming and maintaining social relationships are hypothesized to be one of the major drivers behind the evolution of cognitive abilities. Most empirical studies investigating the relationships between sociality and cognition compare cognitive performance between species living in systems that differ in social complexity. In this review, we ask whether and how individuals benefit from cognitive skills in their social interactions. Cognitive abilities, such as perception, attention, learning, memory, and inhibitory control, aid in forming and maintaining social relationships. We investigate whether there is evidence that individual variation in these abilities influences individual variation in social relationships. We then consider the evolutionary consequences of the interaction between sociality and cognitive ability to address whether bi-directional relationships exist between the two, such that cognition can both shape and be shaped by social interactions and the social environment. In doing so, we suggest that social network analysis is emerging as a powerful tool that can be used to test for directional causal relationships between sociality and cognition. Overall, our review highlights the importance of investigating individual variation in cognition to understand how it shapes the patterns of social relationships.This article is part of the theme issue 'Causes and consequences of individual differences in cognitive abilities'.

Social and Non-social Mechanisms of Inequity Aversion in Non-human Animals

Research over the last decades has shown that humans and other animals reveal behavioral and emotional responses to unequal reward distributions between themselves and other conspecifics. However, cross-species findings about the mechanisms underlying such inequity aversion are heterogeneous, and there is an ongoing discussion if inequity aversion represents a truly social phenomenon or if it is driven by non-social aspects of the task. There is not even general consensus whether inequity aversion exists in non-human animals at all. In this review article, we discuss variables that were found to affect inequity averse behavior in animals and examine mechanistic and evolutionary theories of inequity aversion. We review a range of moderator variables and focus especially on the comparison of social vs. non-social explanations of inequity aversion. Particular emphasis is placed on the importance of considering the experimental design when interpreting behavior in inequity aversion tasks: the tasks used to probe inequity aversion are often based on impunity-game-like designs in which animals are faced with unfair reward distributions, and they can choose to accept the unfair offer, or reject it, leaving them with no reward. We compare inequity-averse behavior in such impunity-game-like designs with behavior in less common choice-based designs in which animals actively choose between fair and unfair rewards distributions. This review concludes with a discussion of the different mechanistic explanations of inequity aversion, especially in light of the particular features of the different task designs, and we give suggestions on experimental requirements to understand the “true nature” of inequity aversion.

The face of animal cognition

As an increasing number of researchers investigate the cognitive abilities of an ever-wider range of animals, animal cognition is currently among the most exciting fields within animal behavior. Tinbergen would be proud: all four of his approaches are being pursued and we are learning much about how animals collect information and how they use that information to make decisions for their current and future states as well as what animals do not perceive or choose to ignore. Here I provide an overview of this productivity, alighting only briefly on any single example, to showcase the diversity of species, of approaches and the sheer mass of research effort currently under way. We are getting closer to understanding the minds of other animals and the evolution of cognition at an increasingly rapid rate.

Competition is crucial for social comparison processes in long-tailed macaques

Humans modulate their self-evaluations and behaviour as a function of conspecific presence and performance. In this study, we tested for the presence of human-like social comparison effects in long-tailed macaques ( Macaca fascicularis). The monkeys' task was to extract food from an apparatus by pulling drawers within reach and we measured latency between drawer pulls. Subjects either worked on the task with a partner who could access the apparatus from an adjacent cage, worked in the absence of a conspecific but with food moving towards the partner's side or worked next to a partner who was denied apparatus access. We further manipulated partner performance and competitiveness of the set-up. We found no indication that long-tailed macaques compare their performance to the performance of conspecifics. They were not affected by the mere presence of the partner but they paid close attention to the partner's actions when they were consequential for food availability. If social comparison processes are present in long-tailed macaques, the present study suggests they may only manifest in situations involving direct competition and would thus be different from social comparisons in humans, which manifest also in the absence of direct competition, for example in evaluative contexts.

A Shared Food Source Is Not Necessary to Elicit Inequity Aversion in Dogs

Cooperative interactions frequently result in the acquisition of resources that have to be shared. Distribution of such resources should be equitable for cooperation to be beneficial. One mechanism thought to maintain cooperation through promotion of equitable reward distribution is inequity aversion, the resistance to inequitable outcomes. Inequity aversion has been demonstrated in many non-human animal species. It is not yet clear whether inequity aversion is limited to situations in which resources are shared; however, a recent study on inequity aversion in dogs, in which reward sources were separated, failed to elicit inequity aversion, hinting at the possible necessity of a shared resource for eliciting inequity aversion. Here, we employed a modified version of the previously used paw task to test the hypothesis that a shared food source is necessary to elicit inequity aversion in dogs. In our study, an experimenter asked pairs of dogs for their paw and rewarded them equally or unequally; however, unlike the standard paw task, the rewards for each dog came from separate food bowls. Dogs displayed the typical basic aversion to inequity despite the lack of a shared food source. These results suggest that a shared food source is not necessary to elicit inequity aversion and that separation of food sources does not explain the recent failure to elicit inequity aversion in dogs. Our findings may also be reflective of the variety of situations in which inequity aversion is potentially applied, the mechanisms underlying inequity aversion in dogs, and the behavioural contexts from which inequity aversion initially evolved.

What constitutes "social complexity" and "social intelligence" in birds? Lessons from ravens

In the last decades, the assumption that complex social life is cognitively challenging, and thus can drive mental evolution, has received much support from empirical studies in nonhuman primates. While extending the scope to other mammals and birds, different views have been adopted on what constitutes social complexity and which specific cognitive skills are selected for. Notably, many avian species form "open" groups as non-breeders (i.e., seasonally and before sexual maturity) that have been largely ignored as potential sources of social complexity. Reviewing 30 years of research on ravens, we illustrate the socio-ecological conditions faced by these birds as non-breeders and discuss how these relate to their socio-cognitive skills. We argue that the non-breeding period is key to understand raven social life and, to a larger extent, avian social life in general. We furthermore emphasize how the combination of the large-scale perspective (defining social system components: e.g., social organization, mating system) and the individual-scale perspective on social systems allows to better capture the complete set of social challenges experienced by individuals throughout their life, ultimately resulting on a more comprehensive understanding of species' social complexity.

Inequity aversion in dogs: a review

The study of inequity aversion in animals debuted with a report of the behaviour in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). This report generated many debates following a number of criticisms. Ultimately, however, the finding stimulated widespread interest, and multiple studies have since attempted to demonstrate inequity aversion in various other non-human animal species, with many positive results in addition to many studies in which no response to inequity was found. Domestic dogs represent an interesting case as, unlike many primates, they do not respond negatively to inequity in reward quality but do, however, respond negatively to being unrewarded in the presence of a rewarded partner. Numerous studies have been published on inequity aversion in dogs in recent years. Combining three tasks and seven peer-reviewed publications, over 140 individual dogs have been tested in inequity experiments. Consequently, dogs are one of the best studied species in this field and could offer insights into inequity aversion in other non-human animal species. In this review, we summarise and critically evaluate the current evidence for inequity aversion in dogs. Additionally, we provide a comprehensive discussion of two understudied aspects of inequity aversion, the underlying mechanisms and the ultimate function, drawing on the latest findings on these topics in dogs while also placing these developments in the context of what is known, or thought to be the case, in other non-human animal species. Finally, we highlight gaps in our understanding of inequity aversion in dogs and thereby identify potential avenues for future research in this area.

Social disappointment explains chimpanzees' behaviour in the inequity aversion task

Chimpanzees' refusal of less-preferred food when an experimenter has previously provided preferred food to a conspecific has been taken as evidence for a sense of fairness. Here, we present a novel hypothesis-the social disappointment hypothesis-according to which food refusals express chimpanzees' disappointment in the human experimenter for not rewarding them as well as they could have. We tested this hypothesis using a two-by-two design in which food was either distributed by an experimenter or a machine and with a partner present or absent. We found that chimpanzees were more likely to reject food when it was distributed by an experimenter rather than by a machine and that they were not more likely to do so when a partner was present. These results suggest that chimpanzees' refusal of less-preferred food stems from social disappointment in the experimenter and not from a sense of fairness.

Dogs' reaction to inequity is affected by inhibitory control

Inequity aversion is thought to act as a mechanism to ensure cooperation and has been studied in many different species, consistently revealing inter-individual variation. Inhibitory control has been proposed to act as one factor responsible for this variation since individuals need to inhibit performing the required action and/or refuse rewards in order to exhibit inequity aversion. Here, we investigated if dogs' sensitivity to inequity is affected by their capacity for inhibitory control, assessed in a test battery and questionnaire. Overall, dogs showing high compulsivity scores (i.e. repetitive behaviours independent of feedback) were more motivated to participate in the inequity task independent of the rewarding scheme. Dogs were more sensitive to inequity and individual contrast if they exhibited a slower decision speed in the inhibition tasks. Furthermore, less persistent and more impulsive dogs were more sensitive to reward inequity, potentially due to having a lower tolerance level for frustration. Results indicate that aspects of inhibitory control can explain the variation in dogs' inequity response, highlighting one of the mechanisms underlying responses to inequity. Emphasising the importance to design paradigms, which allow us to disentangle capacities to recognise inequity from the inability to react to it due to poor inhibitory control abilities.

It’s not fair: Folk intuitions about disadvantageous and advantageous inequity aversion

People often object to inequity; they react negatively to receiving less than others (disadvantageous inequity aversion), and more than others (advantageous inequity aversion). Here we study people’s folk intuitions about inequity aversion: what do people infer about others’ fairness concerns, when they observe their reactions to disadvantageous or advantageous inequity? We hypothesized that, people would not intuitively regard disadvantageous inequity aversion by itself as being rooted in fairness, but they would regard advantageous inequity aversion by itself as being rooted in fairness. In four studies, we used vignettes describing inequity aversion of a made up alien species to assess people’s folk intuitions about inequity aversion. The studies supported our main hypothesis that disadvantageous inequity aversion, without advantageous inequity aversion, does not fit people’s folk conception of fairness. Instead, participants reported it to be rooted in envy. According to these results, the claim that disadvantageous inequity aversion reveals a concern with fairness, does not readily accord with people’s intuitions. We connect these findings to other pieces of evidence in the literatures of behavioral economics, developmental psychology, and social psychology, indicating that lay people’s intuitions may be on the mark in this case. Specifically, unlike advantageous inequity aversion, disadvantageous inequity aversion need not be rooted in a sense of fairness.

Kea show no evidence of inequity aversion

It has been suggested that inequity aversion is a mechanism that evolved in humans to maximize the pay-offs from engaging in cooperative tasks and to foster long-term cooperative relationships between unrelated individuals. In support of this, evidence of inequity aversion in nonhuman animals has typically been found in species that, like humans, live in complex social groups and demonstrate cooperative behaviours. We examined inequity aversion in the kea (Nestor notabilis), which lives in social groups but does not appear to demonstrate wild cooperative behaviours, using a classic token exchange paradigm. We compared the number of successful exchanges and the number of abandoned trials in each condition and found no evidence of an aversion to inequitable outcomes when there was a difference between reward quality or working effort required between actor and partner. We also found no evidence of inequity aversion when the subject received no reward while their partner received a low-value reward.

What Are the Ingredients for an Inequity Paradigm? Manipulating the Experimenter's Involvement in an Inequity Task with Dogs

Cooperation is only beneficial if the outcome is equally shared between individuals involved in the cooperative interaction. A mechanism to limit the development of unequal cooperation is inequity aversion, the negative reaction to unequal treatment. While inequity aversion has been studied extensively across many animal species, it remains unclear whether inequity aversion elicited in experimental settings is directed to the cooperative partner animal or rather to the experimenter distributing the rewards unequally. In the current study we aimed to further investigate whether the presence of an experimenter distributing rewards is essential in order to elicit inequity aversion in dogs. We tested 22 dog dyads in an inequity task, requiring dyads to alternately press a buzzer in order to receive rewards of equal or unequal value. We manipulated the extent of the experimenter's involvement in the task: in the experimenter-present version an experimenter gave a command to the dogs to press the buzzer and delivered the rewards by pushing the bowls into the dogs' enclosure. In contrast, in the experimenter-absent version, no experimenter was visible and the buzzer and bowls were moved from behind a curtain. We found that dogs did not respond to the unequal treatment regardless of the experimenter's involvement in the task. Nonetheless, we found that dogs based their behavior on frustration and social facilitation in the experimenter-absent version of the task, suggesting that a social interaction with an experimenter may be one aspect necessary to elicit inequity aversion. One potential explanation for the absence of inequity aversion in the experimenter-present version of the task might be the reward delivery method. Using separate sets of reward bowls for each dog instead of a shared bowl could have removed a potentially important competitive aspect (i.e., shared resource) from the inequity paradigm. In addition, delivering the rewards via bowls, rather than directly handing the rewards to the dogs, might have caused dogs to perceive the task as less cooperative. These results suggest that both the presence of an experimenter causing inequity and the inclusion of a competitive or cooperative element in the task may be basic requirements for eliciting inequity aversion.

Inequity Aversion Negatively Affects Tolerance and Contact-Seeking Behaviours towards Partner and Experimenter

Inequity aversion has been proposed to act as a limiting factor for cooperation, thus preventing subjects from disadvantageous cooperative interactions. While a recent study revealed that also dogs show some sensitivity to inequity, the underlying mechanisms of this behaviour are still unclear. The aim of the current study was threefold: 1) to replicate the study by Range et al. (2009, PNAS, 106, 340–345); 2) to investigate the emotional mechanisms involved in the inequity response by measuring the heart rate and 3) to explore the link between inequity aversion and cooperation in terms of behaviours shown towards the partner dog and towards the experimenter who caused the inequity. Dog tested in dyads were alternately asked to give their paw and were either equally or unequally rewarded by the experimenter. After each social test condition, we conducted food tolerance tests and free interaction tests in which the subjects’ social behaviour towards the partner and the experimenter were observed. As in the previous study, subjects refused to continue giving their paw when only the partner was rewarded, but not when both dogs were rewarded with rewards of different quality. Although subjects did not react to this quality inequity during the test, we did find reduced durations of food sharing in the subsequent tolerance test, indicating that dogs perceived the inequity but were not able to react to it in the test context. Moreover, subjects avoided their partner and the experimenter more during the free interaction time following unequal compared to equal treatment. Despite the clear behavioural reactions to inequity, we could not detect any changes in heart rate. Results suggest that inequity aversion might in fact be mediated by simple emotional mechanisms: sharing a negative experience, like inequity, might reduce future cooperation by decreasing the likelihood of proximity being maintained between partners.

Inequity aversion strategies between marmosets are influenced by partner familiarity and sex but not oxytocin

Cooperation among individuals depends, in large part, on a sense of fairness. Many cooperating non-human primates (NHPs) show inequity aversion, (i.e., negative responses to unequal outcomes), and these responses toward inequity likely evolved as a means to preserve the advantages of cooperative relationships. However, marmosets (Callithrix spp.) tend to show little or no inequity aversion, despite the high occurrence of prosociality and cooperative-breeding in callitrichid monkeys. Oxytocin [OXT] has been implicated in a wide variety of social processes, but little is known about whether OXT modulates inequity aversion toward others. We used a tray pulling task to evaluate whether marmosets would donate superior rewards to their long-term pairmate or an opposite-sex stranger following OXT, OXT antagonist, and saline treatments. We found that marmosets show inequity aversion, and this inequity aversion is socially- and sex-specific. Male marmosets show inequity aversion toward their pairmates but not strangers, and female marmosets do not show inequity aversion. OXT treatments did not significantly influence inequity aversion in marmosets. While OXT may modulate prosocial preferences, the motivations underlying cooperative relationships, such as inequity aversion, are multifaceted. More research is needed to evaluate the evolutionary origins, biological processes, and social contexts that influence complex phenotypes like inequity aversion. Inequity aversion can differ within species in important and distinct ways including between individuals who do and do not share a cooperative relationship. Overall, these findings support the view that inequity aversion is an important behavioural strategy for the maintenance of cooperative relationships.

Do monkeys compare themselves to others?

Social comparisons are a fundamental characteristic of human behaviour, yet relatively little is known about their evolutionary foundations. Adapting the co-acting paradigm from human research (Seta in J Pers Soc Psychol 42:281–291, 1982. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.42.2.281), we examined how the performance of a partner influenced subjects’ performance in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Using parallel testing in touch screen setups in which subjects had to discriminate familiar and novel photographs of men and women, we investigated whether accuracy and reaction time were influenced by partner performance and relationship quality (affiliate vs. non-affiliate). Auditory feedback about the alleged performance of the co-actor was provided via playback; partner performance was either moderately or extremely better or worse than subject performance. We predicted that subjects would assimilate to moderately different comparison standards as well as to affiliates and contrast away from extreme standards and non-affiliates. Subjects instantly generalized to novel pictures. While accuracy was not affected by any of the factors, long reaction times occurred more frequently when subjects were tested with a non-affiliate who was performing worse, compared to one who was doing better than them (80 % quantile worse: 5.1, better: 4.3 s). For affiliate co-actors, there was no marked effect (worse: 4.4, better: 4.6 s). In a control condition with no auditory feedback, subjects performed somewhat better in the presence of affiliates (M = 77.8 % correct) compared to non-affiliates (M = 71.1 %), while reaction time was not affected. Apparently, subjects were sensitive to partner identity and performance, yet variation in motivation rather than assimilation and contrast effects may account for the observed effects.

New Caledonian crows rapidly solve a collaborative problem without cooperative cognition

There is growing comparative evidence that the cognitive bases of cooperation are not unique to humans. However, the selective pressures that lead to the evolution of these mechanisms remain unclear. Here we show that while tool-making New Caledonian crows can produce collaborative behavior, they do not understand the causality of cooperation nor show sensitivity to inequity. Instead, the collaborative behavior produced appears to have been underpinned by the transfer of prior experience. These results suggest that a number of possible selective pressures, including tool manufacture and mobbing behaviours, have not led to the evolution of cooperative cognition in this species. They show that causal cognition can evolve in a domain specific manner–understanding the properties and flexible uses of physical tools does not necessarily enable animals to grasp that a conspecific can be used as a social tool.

Subadult ravens generally don't transfer valuable tokens to conspecifics when there is nothing to gain for themselves

The extent to which humans help each other is extraordinary in itself, and difficult to explain from an evolutionary perspective. Therefore, there has been a recent surge in studies investigating the evolution of prosocial behavior using a comparative approach. Nevertheless, most of these studies have focused on primates only, and little is known about other animal orders. In a previous study, common ravens (Corvus corax) have been shown to be indifferent to the gains of conspecifics. However, this may have been due to the experimental set-up, as many studies that use different set-ups report conflicting results within the same species. We therefore tested ravens' prosocial tendencies in a different set-up; i.e., we tested whether sub-adult ravens would transfer a token to a partner and, thereby, provide the partner with the opportunity to exchange a token for a reward. To control and test for effects of partner identity, we tested eight individuals both in a dyadic and in a group setting. Our results show that in general the ravens in our experiment did not show other-regarding preferences. However, some acts of helping did occur spontaneously. We discuss what could be the causes for those sporadic instances, and why in general prosocial tendencies were found to be almost lacking among the ravens in this set-up.

Personality influences responses to inequity and contrast in chimpanzees

Several species besides humans respond negatively to inequity (i.e. receiving a less preferred outcome as compared to a social partner). Among primates, the taxon for which inequity responses have been most comprehensively studied, there are large individual differences in responses that have, thus far, not been well explained by demographic features such as sex, rank and age. Recent evidence shows that individuals' personalities are important in explaining differences in behavioural outcomes in other contexts. Thus, in the current study, we explored whether personality was associated with chimpanzees' responses to both inequity and contrast (i.e. receiving less than anticipated). Chimpanzees were paired with multiple members of their social groups. These pairs alternated trading a token to receive food rewards that either differed from what their partner received (inequity condition) or from what was initially offered (contrast condition) and we compared their responses to a control in which both subjects were offered and received the same reward for trading the token. We predicted that both personality and the quality and length of the pairs' relationship would influence subjects' reactions to unequal outcomes, as measured by their refusal to exchange tokens. The quality of subjects' relationships, based on a weighted average of grooming, contact and proximity, did not correlate with refusals to exchange, whereas pairs that had lived together longer were less likely to refuse in the contrast condition than were pairs that had lived together for less time. Considering personality, some of the dimensions influenced responses to both inequity and contrast similarly, but the more 'social' personality dimensions ('extraversion' and 'agreeableness') were more strongly correlated with sensitivity to inequity. These results highlight the importance of considering individual differences, including personality, when evaluating responses in cognitive and behavioural tests.

Evolution of responses to (un)fairness

The human sense of fairness is an evolutionary puzzle. To study this, we can look to other species, in which this can be translated empirically into responses to reward distribution. Passive and active protest against receiving less than a partner for the same task is widespread in species that cooperate outside kinship and mating bonds. There is less evidence that nonhuman species seek to equalize outcomes to their own detriment, yet the latter has been documented in our closest relatives, the apes. This reaction probably reflects an attempt to forestall partner dissatisfaction with obtained outcomes and its negative impact on future cooperation. We hypothesize that it is the evolution of this response that allowed the development of a complete sense of fairness in humans, which aims not at equality for its own sake but for the sake of continued cooperation.