Abstract: A new laboratory procedure which allows the study of deceptive behavior in nonhuman primates is described. Pairs of tufted capuchin monkeys faced each other in a food-competition contest. Two feeder boxes were placed between the monkeys. A piece of food was placed in one of the boxes. The subordinate individual was able to see the food and to open the box to obtain the bait. A dominant male was unable to see the food or to open the box but was able to take the food once the box was opened by the subordinate. In experiment 1, two of four subordinate monkeys spontaneously started to open the unbaited box first with increasing frequency. Experiment 2 confirmed that this “deceptive” act was not due to a drop in the rate of reinforcement caused by the usurping dominant male, under the situation in which food sometimes automatically dropped from the opened box. In experiment 3, two subordinate monkeys were rerun in the same situation as experiment 1. One of them showed some recovery of the “deceptive” act but the other did not; instead the latter tended to position himself on the side where there was no food before he started to open the box. Although the results do not clearly indicate spontaneous deception, we suggest that operationally defined spontaneous deceptive behaviors in monkeys can be analyzed with experimental procedures such as those used here.

Abstract: Keas, a species of parrots from New Zealand, are an interesting species for comparative studies of problem solving and cognition because they are known not only for efficient capacities for object manipulation but also for explorative and playful behaviors. To what extent are they efficient or explorative, and what cognitive abilities do they use? We examined how keas would solve several versions of artificial-fruit box problems having multiple locks. After training keas to remove a metal rod from over a Plexiglas lid that had to be opened, we exposed the birds to a variety of tasks having two or more locks. We also introduced a preview phase during which the keas had extended opportunity to look at the tasks before the experimenter allowed the birds to solve them, to examine whether the preview phase would facilitate the birds' performance on the tasks. In a large number of tests, the keas showed a strong trend to solve the tasks with no positive effect of previewing the tasks. When the tasks became complex, however, the keas corrected inappropriate responses more quickly when they had had chance to preview the problems than when they had not. The results suggest that the keas primarily used explorative strategies in solving the lock problems but might have obtained some information about the tasks before starting to solve them. This may reflect a good compromise of keas' trial-and-error tendency and their good cognitive ability that result from a selection pressure they have faced in their natural habitat.

Abstract: It is advantageous to identify individuals who are likely to behave fairly and those who are not. This ability to judge others’ fairness seems important for social species to interact or cooperate with their partners. Domestic horses (Equus caballus) have lived with humans for over five thousand years, hence they might have developed sensitivity to human personality. In the present study, we investigated whether horses would discriminate between a person who behaved fairly and a person who behaved unfairly. Specifically, we asked whether horses show a preference for the former. We tested 12 horses (11 thoroughbred and 1 Anglo-Arabian horses) at the horseback-riding club of Kyoto University. They were divided into 6 pairs which consisted of a participant and a partner. A participant was picketed between two polls next to a partner at the hoof washing place. Each horse put his/her mouth in an actor’s hand when the actor (an unfamiliar person) stood in front of them, and then received food from the actor. A fair actor always behaved fairly and gave a small quantity of hay (low-value food) to both of them in return for the task. An unfair actor always behaved unfairly, giving a small quantity of hay to the participant in return for the task, but always giving a piece of carrot (high-value food) to the partner in return for the task. Both actors always stood in front of the partner first, so the partner always did the task and received food from the actor before the participant. Finally, the participant was offered a piece of carrot by the two actors. The participant indicated which offer was accepted by stretching toward the chosen actor. The latter then moved the hand forward to allow the participant to take the food while the other actor’s hand withdrew. The orders (1st or 2nd) and the positions (left or right) of the two actors varied pseudo-randomly across trials. The color of the clothes of the two actors (white or black) was counterbalanced between sessions. We conducted 8 sessions, consisting of 8 experimental trials, across which the actors maintained their respective roles (fair or unfair) of the fair and unfair person. Furthermore, the two actors switched roles across sessions so that they played both roles the same number of times. One session was run per day. If horses can discriminate between fair and unfair people and show a preference for the former, they should choose the former significantly more often than the latter when both actors offered food. The participants showed no overall preference for accepting food from either actor. However, three of six participants showed a side preference. The result of the present study suggests that horses are insensitive to humans’ fairness. Horses may not have expectations about fair treatment.