Aggressive interactions influence cognitive performance in Western Australian magpies

Abstract

Extensive research has investigated the relationship between the social environment and cognition, suggesting that social complexity may drive cognitive evolution and development. However, evidence for this relationship remains equivocal. Group size is often used as a measure of social complexity, but this may not capture intraspecific variation in social interactions. Social network analysis can provide insight into the cognitively demanding challenges associated with group living at the individual level. Here, we use social networks to investigate whether the cognitive performance of wild Western Australian magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen dorsalis) is related to group size and individual social connectedness. We quantified social connectedness using four interaction types: proximity, affiliative, agonistic and vocal. Consistent with previous research on this species, individuals in larger groups performed better on an associative learning task. However, social network position was also related to cognitive performance. Individuals receiving aggressive interactions performed better, while those involved in aggressive interactions with more group members performed worse. Overall, this suggests that cognitive performance is related to specific types of social interaction. The findings from this study highlight the value of considering fine-grained metrics of sociality that capture the challenges associated with social life when testing the relationship between the social environment and cognition.

Keywords: aggression; cognition; repeatability; social complexity; social intelligence; social network.

Figure 1.

Associative learning array with the colour combinations presented during the three testing periods from 2020 to 2021.

Figure 2.

Relationship between group size and the number of trials taken to complete the associative learning test (n = 58 cognitive tests on 33 individuals from 10 groups). A lower number of trials indicates better performance in the test. Points are raw data (jittered for visibility). The shaded area represents the 95% CIs.

Figure 3.

Relationship between (a) season and (b) agonistic degree and the number of trials taken to complete the associative learning test (n = 82 cognitive tests on 47 individuals from 9 groups). A lower number of trials indicates better performance in the test. (a) Points are raw data jittered for visibility. The box represents 50% of the variation and the whiskers represent the 5th and 95th percentiles. The horizontal line represents the median. (b) Points are raw data (jittered for visibility). The shaded area represents the 95% CIs.

Figure 4.

Relationship between agonistic in-strength and the number of trials taken to complete the associative learning test showing an interaction with season (n = 82 cognitive tests on 47 individuals from 9 groups). A lower number of trials indicates better performance in the test. Points are raw data (jittered for visibility), solid fitted line and orange points represent the breeding season and broken line and purple points represent the non-breeding season. The shaded area represents the 95% CIs (orange for breeding season and purple for non-breeding season).