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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10071-015-0943-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Allogrooming in primates serves not only a hygienic function, but also plays a crucial role in maintaining strong affiliative bonds between group members, which in turn, underpin the emergence of cooperative behavior. In contrast, although allopreening occurs in many avian species, we know little about its social functions. Our study addresses this issue by investigating allopreening in a broad comparative data set including six corvid and nine parrot species. We assessed whether rates of allopreening initiations, proportion of time spent allopreening, and the number of grooming partners in captive group-housed birds were comparable to patterns observed in captive chimpanzees and bonobos. While parrots and corvids were found to have similar rates of social grooming to bonobos and chimpanzees, Pan species dedicated significantly more time to social grooming. Animals in larger groups had more grooming partners, but when controlling for the number of potential partners, birds tended to have fewer grooming interaction partners than Pan species. We then investigated whether allopreening in parrots and corvids was predicted by behavioral markers of affiliative social bonds (close physical proximity, active feeding, and low levels of agonistic behavior). Results revealed that providing allopreening to a partner was significantly predicted by often being in close proximity, but not engagement in active feeding or agonistic behavior. We examined the region allopreened in a subset of species and found that preening a partner's head was predicted by both close physical proximity and active feeding, while body allopreening was only predicted by close physical proximity. Head preening may confer more hygienic benefits to recipients, and thus may be more selectively provided to valued partners.Results support the hypothesis that allopreening in corvids and parrots helps maintain social bonds with an individual's most important social partners, showing some similarities to allogrooming in primates.

Reasoning by exclusion, i.e. the ability to understand that if there are only two possibilities and if it is not A, it must be B, has been a topic of great interest in recent comparative cognition research. Many studies have investigated this ability, employing different methods, but rarely exploring concurrent decision processes underlying choice behaviour of non-human animals encountering inconsistent or incomplete information. Here, we employed a novel training and test method in order to perform an in-depth analysis of the underlying processes. Importantly, to discourage the explorative behaviour of the kea, a highly neophilic species, the training included a large amount of novel, unrewarded stimuli. The subsequent test consisted of 30 sessions with different sequences of four test trials. In these test trials, we confronted the kea with novel stimuli that were paired with either the rewarded or unrewarded training stimuli or with the novel stimuli of previous test trials. Once habituated to novelty, eight out of fourteen kea tested responded to novel stimuli by inferring their contingency via logical exclusion of the alternative. One individual inferred predominantly in this way, while other response strategies, such as one trial learning, stimulus preferences and avoiding the negative stimulus also guided the responses of the remaining individuals. Interestingly, the difficulty of the task had no influence on the test performance. We discuss the implications of these findings for the current hypotheses about the emergence of inferential reasoning in some avian species, considering causal links to brain size, feeding ecology and social complexity.

No abstract