Péron Franck, Thornburg Luke, Gross Brya, Gray Suzanne, Pepperberg Irene M
School of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Park, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, LN2 2LG, UK.
Anim Cogn. 2014 Jul;17(4):937-44. doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0726-3. Epub 2014 Jan 29.
In a previous study (Péron et al. in Anim Cogn, doi: 10.1007/s10071-012.05640 , 2012), Grey parrots, working in dyads, took turns choosing one of four differently coloured cups with differing outcomes: empty (null, non-rewarding), selfish (keeping reward for oneself), share (sharing a divisible reward), or giving (donating reward to other). When the dyads involved three humans with different specific intentions (selfish, giving, or copying the bird's behaviour), birds' responses only tended towards consistency with human behaviour. Our dominant bird was willing to share a reward with a human who was willing to give up her reward, was selfish with the selfish human, and tended towards sharing with the copycat human; our subordinate bird tended slightly towards increased sharing with the generous human and selfishness with the selfish human, but did not clearly mirror the behaviour of the copycat. We theorized that the birds' inability to understand the copycat condition fully-that they could potentially maximize reward by choosing to share-was a consequence of their viewing the copycat's behaviour as erratic compared with the consistently selfish or giving humans and thus not realizing that they were indeed being mirrored. We suggested that copycat trials subsequently be performed as a separate experiment, without being contrasted with trials in which humans acted consistently, in order to determine if results might have differed. We have now performed that experiment, and shown that at least one Grey parrot--our dominant--responded in a manner suggesting that he deduced the appropriate contingencies.
在之前的一项研究中（佩龙等人，《动物认知》，doi: 10.1007/s10071 - 012.05640，2012年），成对工作的非洲灰鹦鹉轮流从四个颜色不同、结果各异的杯子中选择：空杯（无奖励）、自私杯（自己保留奖励）、分享杯（分享可分割的奖励）或给予杯（将奖励捐赠给其他鹦鹉）。当这对鹦鹉与三个有不同特定意图的人（自私、给予或模仿鹦鹉行为）互动时，鹦鹉的反应只是倾向于与人类行为保持一致。我们占主导地位的鹦鹉愿意与愿意放弃自己奖励的人类分享奖励，对自私的人类自私，对模仿者人类倾向于分享；我们处于从属地位的鹦鹉略微倾向于与慷慨的人类增加分享，对自私的人类表现出自私，但没有清晰地模仿模仿者的行为。我们推测，鹦鹉无法完全理解模仿者的情况——即它们本可以通过选择分享来潜在地最大化奖励——是因为它们认为模仿者的行为与始终自私或给予的人类相比不稳定，因此没有意识到自己确实被模仿了。我们建议随后将模仿者试验作为一个单独的实验进行，不与人类行为一致的试验进行对比，以确定结果是否可能不同。我们现在已经进行了那个实验，并表明至少有一只非洲灰鹦鹉——我们占主导地位的那只——的反应表明它推断出了适当的意外情况。
