Drawing showing experimental setup for the delayed partner arrival experiment.

<p>Subject is presented with the duo platform which can only be pulled in when the partner arrives at the apparatus.</p

Keas Perform Similarly to Chimpanzees and Elephants when Solving Collaborative Tasks

<div><p>Cooperation between individuals is one of the defining features of our species. While other animals, such as chimpanzees, elephants, coral trout and rooks also exhibit cooperative behaviours, it is not clear if they think about cooperation in the same way as humans do. In this study we presented the kea, a parrot endemic to New Zealand, with a series of tasks designed to assess cooperative cognition. We found that keas were capable of working together, even when they had to wait for their partner for up to 65 seconds. The keas also waited for a partner only when a partner was actually needed to gain food. This is the first demonstration that any non-human animal can wait for over a minute for a cooperative partner, and the first conclusive evidence that any bird species can successful track when a cooperative partner is required, and when not. The keas did not attend to whether their partner could actually access the apparatus themselves, which may have been due to issues with task demands, but one kea did show a clear preference for working together with other individuals, rather than alone. This preference has been shown to be present in humans but absent in chimpanzees. Together these results provide the first evidence that a bird species can perform at a similar level to chimpanzees and elephants across a range of collaborative tasks. This raises the possibility that aspects of the cooperative cognition seen in the primate lineage have evolved convergently in birds.</p></div

ESM Data on condition order, exchanges, abandoned trials and refusals from 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 (<i>Nestor notabilis</i>), 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

Performance of the keas across Experiments 2–5.

<p>Trials (errors) show the total number of trials needed and errors made to reach criterion on the training stage of the delay experiment (Experiment 2). Randomized delay 0–65 secs and 26–65 secs show the number of successful trials keas completed at test in Experiment 2, both for all trials, and for trials longer than keas had previously experienced during training. Solo-Duo indicates the number of successful trials in Experiment 3, No Rope shows the same for Experiment 4, Prosocial Motivation shows the same for (Experiment 5 p < 0.05). Neo completed 40 trials of Experiment 5 because he was tested with two different kea.</p

Drawing showing experimental setup for the simultaneous release experiment.

<p>Subject is presented with the duo platform which can only be pulled in with the help of a partner.</p

Supplementary Data from No evidence that a range of artificial monitoring cues influence online donations to charity in anMTurk sample

Monitoring cues, such as an image of a face or pair of eyes, have been found to increase prosocial behaviour in several studies. However, other studies have found little or no support for this effect. Here, we examined whether monitoring cues affect online donations to charity while manipulating the emotion displayed, the number of watchers and the cue type. We also include as statistical controls a range of likely covariates of prosocial behaviour. Using the crowdsourcing Internet marketplace, Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT), 1535 participants completed our survey and were given the opportunity to donate to charity while being shown an image prime. None of the monitoring primes we tested had a significant effect on charitable giving. By contrast, the control variables of culture, age, sex and previous charity giving frequency did predict donations. This work supports the importance of cultural differences and enduring individual differences in prosocial behaviour and shows that a range of artificial monitoring cues do not reliably boost online charity donation on MTurk

Supplementary Data from No evidence that a range of artificial monitoring cues influence online donations to charity in anMTurk sample

Monitoring cues, such as an image of a face or pair of eyes, have been found to increase prosocial behaviour in several studies. However, other studies have found little or no support for this effect. Here, we examined whether monitoring cues affect online donations to charity while manipulating the emotion displayed, the number of watchers and the cue type. We also include as statistical controls a range of likely covariates of prosocial behaviour. Using the crowdsourcing Internet marketplace, Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT), 1535 participants completed our survey and were given the opportunity to donate to charity while being shown an image prime. None of the monitoring primes we tested had a significant effect on charitable giving. By contrast, the control variables of culture, age, sex and previous charity giving frequency did predict donations. This work supports the importance of cultural differences and enduring individual differences in prosocial behaviour and shows that a range of artificial monitoring cues do not reliably boost online charity donation on MTurk

A sequence of photos showing New Caledonian crows mobbing a raptor.

<p>Photo credit Mick Sibley.</p

Mean number of stones passed in an inequity test by group 2 (Test 2c).

<p>Disadv. = Disadvantageous, Adv. = Advantageous, DF = dog-food, M = meat.</p

a & b. Mean number of stones passed on the cooperative apparatus in the social and asocial conditions.

<p>(a) total, 20 trials (b) first trial in each social or asocial block, 5 trials. Error bars ± S.E.</p