New Caledonian Crows and Hidden Causal Agents Revisited
A previous experiment suggested that New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides; henceforth NCCs) can reason about hidden causal agents (Taylor et al., 2012). In that study, subjects showed greater vigilance towards an area from which they had previously witnessed a threatening “stick attack” if a hi...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Animal Behavior and Cognition
2021-05-01
|
| Series: | Animal Behavior and Cognition |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://animalbehaviorandcognition.org/article.php?id=1261 |
| _version_ | 1818605907859210240 |
|---|---|
| author | Laurie O’Neill Garp Linder Magdalena van Buuren Auguste M. P. von Bayern |
| author_facet | Laurie O’Neill Garp Linder Magdalena van Buuren Auguste M. P. von Bayern |
| author_sort | Laurie O’Neill |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | A previous experiment suggested that New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides; henceforth NCCs) can reason about hidden causal agents (Taylor et al., 2012). In that study, subjects showed greater vigilance towards an area from which they had previously witnessed a threatening “stick attack” if a hidden causal agent (a human) could still be present in that area compared to when a human person had visibly left. Interpretations of these results were challenged in two commentaries (Boogert et al., 2013; Dymond et al., 2013). We aimed to replicate this experiment with a different group of NCCs (N = 14) whilst also adding three additional control groups that addressed the issues raised in the two commentaries. These four experimental groups included a direct replication (n = 4), a counter balance of the events of that replication (n = 4), a control group to see if alternative associative cues would create the same effect (n = 3) and finally, a counterbalanced group of these alternative associative cues (n = 3). The direct replication group did not replicate the effect of Taylor et al. (2012). The fact that we did not replicate the effect meant that further interpretation of our other control groups proved difficult. The low sample size of our replication group meant we could not be sure if we did not replicate the effect due to low power or due to actual differences. Our findings neither support nor refute whether NCCs reason about hidden causal agents. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-16T14:02:25Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-40e28b00fd7f4568b85c33f5bbbec6a3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2372-5052 2372-4323 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-16T14:02:25Z |
| publishDate | 2021-05-01 |
| publisher | Animal Behavior and Cognition |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Animal Behavior and Cognition |
| spelling | doaj.art-40e28b00fd7f4568b85c33f5bbbec6a32022-12-21T22:29:03ZengAnimal Behavior and CognitionAnimal Behavior and Cognition2372-50522372-43232021-05-018216618910.26451/abc.08.02.06.2021New Caledonian Crows and Hidden Causal Agents RevisitedLaurie O’NeillGarp LinderMagdalena van Buuren Auguste M. P. von BayernA previous experiment suggested that New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides; henceforth NCCs) can reason about hidden causal agents (Taylor et al., 2012). In that study, subjects showed greater vigilance towards an area from which they had previously witnessed a threatening “stick attack” if a hidden causal agent (a human) could still be present in that area compared to when a human person had visibly left. Interpretations of these results were challenged in two commentaries (Boogert et al., 2013; Dymond et al., 2013). We aimed to replicate this experiment with a different group of NCCs (N = 14) whilst also adding three additional control groups that addressed the issues raised in the two commentaries. These four experimental groups included a direct replication (n = 4), a counter balance of the events of that replication (n = 4), a control group to see if alternative associative cues would create the same effect (n = 3) and finally, a counterbalanced group of these alternative associative cues (n = 3). The direct replication group did not replicate the effect of Taylor et al. (2012). The fact that we did not replicate the effect meant that further interpretation of our other control groups proved difficult. The low sample size of our replication group meant we could not be sure if we did not replicate the effect due to low power or due to actual differences. Our findings neither support nor refute whether NCCs reason about hidden causal agents.http://animalbehaviorandcognition.org/article.php?id=1261causal agentscausal cognitionnew caledonian crowscorvids |
| spellingShingle | Laurie O’Neill Garp Linder Magdalena van Buuren Auguste M. P. von Bayern New Caledonian Crows and Hidden Causal Agents Revisited Animal Behavior and Cognition causal agents causal cognition new caledonian crows corvids |
| title | New Caledonian Crows and Hidden Causal Agents Revisited |
| title_full | New Caledonian Crows and Hidden Causal Agents Revisited |
| title_fullStr | New Caledonian Crows and Hidden Causal Agents Revisited |
| title_full_unstemmed | New Caledonian Crows and Hidden Causal Agents Revisited |
| title_short | New Caledonian Crows and Hidden Causal Agents Revisited |
| title_sort | new caledonian crows and hidden causal agents revisited |
| topic | causal agents causal cognition new caledonian crows corvids |
| url | http://animalbehaviorandcognition.org/article.php?id=1261 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT laurieoneill newcaledoniancrowsandhiddencausalagentsrevisited AT garplinder newcaledoniancrowsandhiddencausalagentsrevisited AT magdalenavanbuuren newcaledoniancrowsandhiddencausalagentsrevisited AT augustempvonbayern newcaledoniancrowsandhiddencausalagentsrevisited |