Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Mar 5;110(10):4123-8.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1209926110. Epub 2013 Feb 4.

Evidence suggesting that desire-state attribution may govern food sharing in Eurasian jays

Affiliations

Evidence suggesting that desire-state attribution may govern food sharing in Eurasian jays

Ljerka Ostojić et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. .

Abstract

State-attribution is the ability to ascribe to others an internal life like one's own and to understand that internal, psychological states such as desire, hope, belief, and knowledge underlie others' actions. Despite extensive research, comparative studies struggle to adequately integrate key factors of state-attribution that have been identified by evolutionary and developmental psychology as well as research on empathy. Here, we develop a behavioral paradigm to address these issues and investigate whether male Eurasian jays respond to the changing desire-state of their female partners when sharing food. We demonstrate that males feed their mates flexibly according to the female's current food preference. Critically, we show that the males need to see what the female has previously eaten to know what food she will currently want. Consequently, the males' sharing pattern was not simply a response to their mate's behavior indicating her preference as to what he should share, nor was it a response to the males' own desire-state. Our results raise the possibility that these birds may be capable of ascribing desire to their mates.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Outline of the experimental procedures. Birds underwent each experiment—(A) specific satiety, (B) food sharing, and (C) observational specific satiety—in the order in which they are listed. Condition refers to whether the female was visible to the male during the prefeeding phase. In the (A) specific satiety and (C) observational specific satiety experiments as well as in (B, i) the seen condition of the food-sharing experiment, males could watch the females being prefed; while in (B, ii) the unseen condition of the food-sharing experiment, they had no visual access to the females during prefeeding. The prefeeding and test columns depict the type of food (MD = maintenance diet, W = wax moth larvae, M = mealworm larvae) and quantity (when applicable) given to each bird, with durations of the phases given in italics.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Average difference in the proportion of W eaten in the specific satiety experiment between the prefed W and the prefed MD trials (white box) and between the prefed M and the prefed MD trials (gray box). Boxes show the median and upper and lower quartiles (75% and 25%) of the data; whiskers show the maximum and minimum values. For individual data, see Tables 1 and 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Average difference in the proportion of W shared in the (B, i) seen and (B, ii) unseen conditions of the food-sharing experiment and eaten by the males in the (A) specific satiety and (C) observational specific satiety experiments between the prefed W and the prefed MD trials (white boxes) and between the prefed M and the prefed MD trials (gray boxes). Boxes show the median and upper and lower quartiles (75% and 25%) of the data; whiskers show the maximum and minimum values. For individual data, see Table 1.

Comment in

References

    1. Wellman HM, Bartsch K. Young children’s reasoning about beliefs. Cognition. 1988;30(3):239–277. - PubMed
    1. Bartsch K, Wellman HM. Young children’s attribution of action to beliefs and desires. Child Dev. 1989;60(4):946–964. - PubMed
    1. Perner J, Leekam SR, Wimmer H. Three-year-olds’ difficulty with false belief: The case for a conceptual deficit. Br J Dev Psychol. 1987;5:125–137.
    1. Wellman HM, Cross D, Watson J. Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: the truth about false belief. Child Dev. 2001;72(3):655–684. - PubMed
    1. Astington JW. The future of theory-of-mind research: Understanding motivational states, the role of language, and real-world consequences. Child Dev. 2001;72(3):685–687. - PubMed

Publication types