Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Research Article

Negative emotional contagion and cognitive bias in common ravens (Corvus corax)

Jessie E. C. Adriaense, Jordan S. Martin, Martina Schiestl, Claus Lamm, and Thomas Bugnyar
PNAS June 4, 2019 116 (23) 11547-11552; first published May 20, 2019; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817066116
Jessie E. C. Adriaense
aDepartment of Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria;
bSocial, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Unit, Department of Basic Psychological Research and Research Methods, University of Vienna, 1010 Vienna, Austria;
cCognitive Science Research Platform, University of Vienna, 1010 Vienna, Austria;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jessie.adriaense@univie.ac.at
Jordan S. Martin
aDepartment of Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria;
dBehavioral Ecology Lab, Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322;
eHuman Ecology Group, Institute of Evolutionary Medicine, University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martina Schiestl
aDepartment of Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria;
fHaidlhof Research Station, University of Vienna and University of Veterinary Medicine, 2540 Bad Vöslau, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claus Lamm
bSocial, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Unit, Department of Basic Psychological Research and Research Methods, University of Vienna, 1010 Vienna, Austria;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Bugnyar
aDepartment of Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria;
fHaidlhof Research Station, University of Vienna and University of Veterinary Medicine, 2540 Bad Vöslau, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Frans B. M. de Waal, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, and approved April 19, 2019 (received for review October 3, 2018)

This article has a Letter. Please see:

  • Emotional contagion or sensitivity to behavior in ravens? - August 20, 2019

See related content:

  • Reply to Vonk: Disentangling emotional contagion from its underlying causes
    - Aug 20, 2019
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

To successfully and efficiently live in social groups, we need information about each other’s emotions. Emotional contagion has been suggested to facilitate such information transmission, yet it remains difficult to measure this in animals. Previous research has often focused on overt behavior but lacked additional methods for investigating emotional valence. This study provides a solution by integrating data on behavior and responses to a cognitive bias test, which is designed to infer a subject’s underlying emotional state. We demonstrate that after witnessing a conspecific in a negative state, ravens perform in a negatively biased manner on a judgment task. Our findings thus suggest negative emotional contagion in ravens, and in turn advance our understanding of the evolution of empathy.

Abstract

Emotional contagion is described as an emotional state matching between subjects, and has been suggested to facilitate communication and coordination in complex social groups. Empirical studies typically focus on the measurement of behavioral contagion and emotional arousal, yet, while highly important, such an approach often disregards an additional evaluation of the underlying emotional valence. Here, we studied emotional contagion in ravens by applying a judgment bias paradigm to assess emotional valence. We experimentally manipulated positive and negative affective states in demonstrator ravens, to which they responded with increased attention and interest in the positive condition, as well as increased redirected behavior and a left-eye lateralization in the negative condition. During this emotion manipulation, another raven observed the demonstrator’s behavior, and we used a bias paradigm to assess the emotional valence of the observer to determine whether emotional contagion had occurred. Observers showed a pessimism bias toward the presented ambiguous stimuli after perceiving demonstrators in a negative state, indicating emotional state matching based on the demonstrators’ behavioral cues and confirming our prediction of negative emotional contagion. We did not find any judgment bias in the positive condition. This result critically expands upon observational studies of contagious play in ravens, providing experimental evidence that emotional contagion is present not only in mammalian but also in avian species. Importantly, this finding also acts as a stepping stone toward understanding the evolution of empathy, as this essential social skill may have emerged across these taxa in response to similar socioecological challenges.

  • emotional contagion
  • avian empathy
  • animal emotion
  • cognitive bias paradigm

Emotions are functionally adaptive states consisting of coordinated sets of physiological, cognitive, and behavioral changes. These changes occur in response to fitness-relevant stimuli to facilitate decision making and resource allocation (1⇓–3). Although research in humans often focuses on subjective states, emotions are multicomponential phenomena that manifest through various observable aspects of the phenotype. This facilitates comparative research on the biology of emotions in nonhuman animals (4, 5). Emotional contagion in particular, which refers to emotional state matching between individuals (6), is a powerful mechanism for information sharing (7) and, as a consequence, an increased defense against predation (8) and the facilitation of group living (9). It has been proposed as one of the core elements of empathy (6, 10), and has been demonstrated in a variety of species (11⇓⇓–14). Noticeably, the majority of emotional contagion (and empathy) research focuses on distress and negative emotions (15), which is most likely due to a taxonomically widespread attention bias for negative information (16). Another limitation is that reports on emotional contagion are frequently linked to and inferred from behavioral mimicry (i.e., behavioral contagion) (17). Empirically, however, there is no conclusive support for this relationship or its directionality (18), as mimicry of a specific behavior does not necessarily imply contagion of a corresponding emotion (19). Likewise, while behavioral and physiological measures form meaningful indicators of an animal’s emotional state, and thus potential contagion, these components largely assess emotional arousal (20). However, an emotion is defined by both its arousal level and positive or negative valence (21). So, in contrast to measurements of arousal, the quantification of emotional valence often remains unexplored (4, 22, 23). For this reason, arousal changes, such as fluctuations in heart rate (24), may not necessarily be accompanied by a consistent change in valence, and thus may not be fully informative about the specific quality or even mere presence of an emotional response.

Changes in emotional states correlate with changes in behavioral, physiological, and cognitive components (2, 25). Human emotions often entail an additional subjective “feeling” component, which is currently considered challenging or even impossible to directly measure in nonhuman animals (26). Accordingly, the majority of animal research has focused on objectively measurable components to establish the presence and type of an emotional state (27). Locomotor activity, for instance, is one of the most direct, noninvasive behavioral measures for emotional expressions (25), that is, whether animals approach or avoid a stimulus may inform us on the rewarding or nonrewarding qualities of that stimulus, therefore assuming its positive or negative characteristics. However, animals tend to show consistent variation in how they respond to environmental manipulations (i.e., personality), such that individuals may differ in their vigilance toward threatening stimuli (28), motivation to explore novel contexts, or activity levels more generally (29). Hence, by measuring merely one (behavioral) component instead of a larger set, we narrow and potentially confound our interpretations of the particular emotional state (26). For this reason, it is valuable to expand efforts to investigate a collection of multiple components (30, 31), ranging from behaviors such as redirected behavior (32), visual orientation (33), activity level (34), or body posture (30), to vocalizations (35) and, if possible, measurements of physiological parameters (36).

Recent studies have also focused on the cognitive component of emotions through means of the cognitive bias paradigm (37). Human psychology research has shown that, for example, more anxious people make more pessimistic judgments when appraising ambiguous stimuli (26, 38), while humans in a positive mood make more optimistic judgments (39, 40). Correspondingly, the rationale of the cognitive bias paradigm is that biases found in an animal’s cognitive performance serve as an objective proxy to measure the positive or negative valence of its affective states (37). The most popular application of this paradigm is the judgment bias task (41, 42). Here, animals are first trained on a discrimination task with distinct positive and negative stimuli, followed by the introduction of a novel, ambiguous stimulus. The bias hypothesis predicts that animals in a negative affective state should judge the new ambiguous stimulus more similar to a negative stimulus (i.e., display a pessimism bias suggestive of expecting punishment or no reward), while animals in a positive state should judge the ambiguous stimulus as more similar to a positive one (i.e., display optimism bias suggesting the expectation of a reward) (37). This paradigm has been repeatedly confirmed as a promising and noninvasive solution to assess emotional valence in animals (26, 37). For example, rats living in unpredictable housing showed a pessimism bias (43), while pigs homed in enriched environments demonstrated an optimism bias (44), and the manipulation of both anxiety- and depression-like states in chicks resulted in an enhanced pessimism bias and reduced optimism bias, respectively (45). Moreover, the bias paradigm has been successfully employed in a variety of species (41), including invertebrates (31, 46, 47). Finally, this paradigm has the potential for identifying less overtly expressed states, and thus phenomena that are not easily detectable by means of behavioral measures. The latter might be of particular importance for animals using bystander information, for example in the form of emotional contagion. To our knowledge, the bias paradigm has so far been used for assessing the emotional state of animals that experience a particular treatment, but not for assessing the emotional state of bystanders that merely observe the others’ response to that treatment.

Here we apply a judgment bias paradigm together with behavioral measures to identify emotional contagion in common ravens. These birds are renowned for using social information (48⇓⇓–51) and displaying emotional sensitivity through behaviors such as consolation (52); furthermore, some of the best evidence for emotional contagion comes from birds (12, 20), including observations of physiological resonance in zebra finches (36) and play contagion in common ravens (53) and kea parrots (54). Experimentally disentangling the effects of behavioral contagion and arousal changes from the concept of emotional contagion is an important next step in our understanding of this phenomenon in birds, which will decisively extend our knowledge of the evolution of this core building block of empathy.

Results and Discussion

Emotional Expressions in Demonstrators.

Ravens participated in dyads, with one subject being a demonstrator and one an observer. We experimentally manipulated the affective state of demonstrator birds by presenting two food items of different quality (phase 1), then taking one item away (phase 2), followed by handling the remaining item (phase 3) (Methods and Fig. 1). In the positive condition, the unappealing food item was removed and the appealing item remained visible to the demonstrator, suggesting the induction of reward anticipation. In the negative condition, the appealing food item was taken away and the unappealing item remained visible, suggesting potential “frustration” in the demonstrator instead of reward anticipation. In the positive condition, we expected animals to look more toward the food item and locate themselves more in front of the food presentation, whereas in the negative condition, we expected the animals to lose interest in the stimulus presentation and show more redirected behavior toward the environment, such as digging in the sand. For exploratory purposes, we also coded for either left- or right-eye use when inspecting the food items (SI Appendix, Table S1).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Experimental procedure. The procedure consists chronologically of a discrimination training before the experiment (1), a premanipulation cognitive bias test (2), a positive or negative emotion manipulation of the demonstrator (3), and a postmanipulation bias test (4).

As predicted, the demonstrator’s behavioral expressions differed significantly between the two conditions (Fig. 2). Moreover, we were able to capture a change in the demonstrator’s behavior across two phases, namely between the first 30 s of presenting the two items (i.e., phase 1) and the final 30 s of handling the remaining preferred or unpreferred food item (i.e., phase 3) (Methods). Across phase 1 and phase 3 of the positive condition, ravens showed less locomotion (difference within condition: β = −1.31, z = −4.37, P = 0.01; difference in phase 3 between condition: β = −0.79, z = −2.48, P = 0.01), spent more time looking at and being in front of the preferable food item (within condition: β = 3.17, z = 5.16, P = 0.01; between condition: β = 2.27, z = 3.69, P = 0.01), while also displaying more arousal (i.e., increase in body and head movements in front of the food item) (within condition: β = 0.24, z = 2.26, P = 0.03; between condition: β = 0.66, z = 5.27, P = 0.01). This implies heightened attention, and suggests that the ravens indeed anticipated receiving this food item (34, 55). In the negative condition, ravens showed less locomotion around the experimental room (within condition: β = −0.50, z = −2.19, P = 0.03) but remained more active than in the positive condition, while displaying an increase in redirected behavior toward the environment (β = 1.76, z = 3.63, P = 0.01). Redirected behavior may occur in situations when an expected reward is omitted or is spatially restricted and reflects frustration about unrewarded outcomes (32, 56). However, when periodically returning to inspect the remaining unappealing food item, ravens showed less body and head movements when standing in front of the food item (β = −0.26, z = −2.04, P = 0.03), as well as a significant increase in left-eye use (β = 1.00, z = 2.50, P = 0.03), implying a negative emotional lateralization and providing support for the emotional valence hypothesis [which suggests that the right hemisphere is dominant for processing negative stimuli (57)]. We did not find a significant difference between left-eye use across the positive and negative conditions during phase 3, which is potentially a consequence of a higher baseline proportion of left-eye use in phase 1 of the positive condition (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, the significant increase in left-eye use from phase 1 to phase 3 within the negative condition suggests an important behavioral change according to that condition.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Demonstrator behavior. Predicted behavioral responses (mean ± SE) for an average demonstrator before and after the positive and negative conditions, including locomotion (A), time spent in front of the food items (B), head and body movements (C), redirected behavior (D), and left-eye use upon inspecting the food items (E). Note that A, C, and D are count frequencies, while B and E are duration proportions (s). Planned comparisons were conducted within conditions from phase 1 to phase 3 and between positive and negative conditions for phase 3 (see SI Appendix, Table S2 for further details). *P < 0.05; **P ≤ 0.01.

The combination of different behavioral variables in the positive condition indicated attention and interest for the manipulation. In addition, less attention and an increase in redirected behavior in only the negative condition suggested a meaningful difference in emotional expressions in demonstrators. For this distinction between conditions, the difference in saliency between the loss of preferred food and the dislike of unpreferred food was irrelevant and, moreover, none of the demonstrators’ behaviors were specifically indicative of food presence or loss, respectively (58, 59). Instead, the combination of certain behaviors and the frequency of their expression seemed to reflect the predicted differences in the demonstrators’ affective state. To further support this interpretation, we aimed to independently assess the valence of our manipulation by means of a judgment bias test in the demonstrator birds. However, due to unanticipated procedural constraints, the obtained data were unsuitable for interpretation (SI Appendix, Results).

Emotional Contagion.

The demonstrator’s behavioral expressions to the different manipulations were witnessed by an observer raven present in an adjacent room (Fig. 1). On average, observers were visually oriented toward the demonstrator for 74 to 77% (∼23 to 27 s/30 s) of the time during the positive and negative manipulations, respectively, suggesting that observers were attentive to the demonstrators’ behavioral expressions. Importantly, the observer was naïve about the food items presented to the demonstrator and the handling of these items by an experimenter. By means of a judgment bias paradigm, we investigated whether the observer’s affective state would change according to the demonstrator’s state. We first assessed the efficacy of the discrimination training (Methods), for which we found that, across box locations, observers showed significantly shorter peck latencies at the positive location (β = −0.67, z = −3.67, P = 0.01) and significantly longer latencies at the negative location (β = 1.23, z = 6.95, P = 0.01). This indicates that the ravens effectively learned to discriminate between positive and negative locations and their respective reward value, and that our training was successful. Additionally, during testing, nonsignificant differences were observed before and after emotion manipulation at the trained locations, suggesting that the effect of our training and the motivation to participate were sustained throughout the duration of the experiment (positive condition: positive location: β = 0.27, z = 1.17, P = 0.26; negative location: β = 0.03, z = 0.14, P = 0.90; negative condition: positive location: β = 0.18, z = 0.72, P = 0.50; negative location: β = 0.11, z = 0.44, P = 0.67).

Essential to our central hypothesis, we predicted that, compared with a bias test taken before the experimental manipulation, the observers’ responses after manipulation would become more pessimistic or optimistic depending on whether they had experienced the demonstrator in the negative or positive condition, respectively. Such pessimistic or optimistic tendencies were quantified by measuring latency to approach a box placed on an ambiguous location, in comparison with the latencies of approaching trained positive and negative locations. Our analysis shows that observers significantly increased their latency to peck the ambiguous location after witnessing the demonstrator in the negative condition (within-condition pre- and postmanipulation response: β = 0.84, z = 3.22, P = 0.02; between-condition postmanipulation response: β = 0.76, z = 2.91, P = 0.01), confirming the predicted pessimism bias (Fig. 3). In contrast, we did not observe the expected decrease in observer response latency after the positive manipulation (within condition: β = 0.40, z = 1.53, P = 0.16). Notably, in our study procedure, we opted to compare pre- and postmanipulation bias results, instead of using an additional control session or merely relying on postmanipulation results. The premanipulation results are considered as a baseline to which we compared the postmanipulation results within each condition, allowing us to exclude any general mood effect that perhaps already existed in our subjects beforehand. Both our within- and between-condition comparisons confirm our negative manipulation predictions, and demonstrated that the postmanipulation test was able to pick up the negative manipulation effect. Importantly, the finding of a nonsignificant, small difference in pecking latency across ambiguous trials (β = 0.01, SE = 0.01, z = 1.11, P = 0.30) suggested that the response to this location was not detectably extinguished due to lack of reinforcement (SI Appendix, Results). The observers’ distinct responses in the cognitive bias test after the negative manipulation, compared with the positive, indicate that the observer ravens were influenced by the demonstrators’ behaviors and affective states. Observers did not perform similar behaviors themselves but showed a pessimistic judgment of an ambiguous stimulus. Hence, we find support for negative emotional contagion, whereas our results remain inconclusive about positive emotional contagion.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Observer cognitive bias test. Predicted latencies to peck (mean ± SE) for an average observer raven in an average dyad at each location across the positive and negative conditions. We conducted planned comparisons of observer response latencies at each location before (full line) and after (dotted line) the emotion manipulations (see SI Appendix, Table S3 for further details). *P ≤ 0.05.

Our study experimentally disentangles effects of behavioral contagion and arousal changes from the concept of emotional contagion, by taking the valence element of an emotional state into account. Behavioral contagion and arousal are frequently used as evidence for emotional contagion. However, though they may mechanistically underpin emotional contagion, they are distinct phenomena (20). For instance, examples of behavioral contagion such as yawn or play contagion do not necessarily disclose information on the underlying affective state (19, 60). Similarly, different emotions may show similar physiological profiles (26), and thus variations in arousal levels such as a decrease in body temperature may be observed in both positively and negatively valenced contexts (61). Therefore, to exclude these alternative explanations and overcome the limitations of previous studies, researchers need to employ methodologies focusing on the measurement of different modalities instead of a single measure of emotion (25, 31). The cognitive bias test is a favorable approach to tap into the multicomponential nature of emotions, as it not only allows us to investigate an additional cognitive element but also provides the opportunity to differentiate between changes in valence. Here we used two different components to assess potential state matching and found an alignment between the expressions of these two components; in the negative condition, the avoidance behavior shown by the demonstrator was matched with a pessimistic judgment in the observer. These results are consistent with the interpretation that an underlying negative affective state was transferred to the observer, subsequently biasing their response in the judgment test. We consider this convergence to suggest emotional contagion between the demonstrator and the observer.

The observers’ pessimistic response to seeing others in a negative state indicates that the cognitive bias paradigm is a useful method to detect changes in the affective states of ravens. Our study design meets two imperative bias paradigm requirements, which are relevant in supporting our conclusions about the pessimism bias and excluding alternative explanations (42). First, we found the expected training effect, suggesting that the ravens successfully learned the positive and negative discrimination, and their performance before and after manipulations remained consistent. This finding is important to exclude potential effects of “boredom”: Observer ravens could have become disinterested in the demonstrator’s situation, which could carry over to the bias task, resulting in a drop in performance and, potentially, a “pessimism” bias because of boredom rather than emotional contagion. However, we see a consistent pattern of motivation for both conditions and both the negative and positive trials, which allows us to rule out this explanation. Second, our data show the absence of a clear learning effect across unreinforced ambiguous trials, indicating that the ravens’ responses did not decrease due to the lack of reward in these trials. This suggests that ravens treated these trials as truly ambiguous throughout the whole study, and that their responses were thus based on an evaluation of the anticipated reward value. When trials remain unreinforced, animals may become less motivated to perform, which could result in the observation of an apparent pessimism bias. The absence of a learning effect is thus relevant to our interpretation, as it provides evidence that such learning is not the underlying reason for the observed pessimism bias. The observers’ response to ambiguous stimuli in the negative condition, and the significant differences for both within- and between-condition comparisons, emphasizes that the negative manipulation effect on the demonstrator was in turn picked up by the bias test for the observer. This verifies that the cognitive bias paradigm is sensitive not only to long-term manipulations of affective states (i.e., moods), for example due to housing conditions (44), but also to short-term manipulations (e.g., 30 s in ref. 62). Furthermore, our study demonstrates that subjects do not have to be involved in a social interaction themselves but that merely witnessing a conspecific’s response to a mild negative manipulation is sufficient to elicit an effect. Notably, the demonstrators showed numerous behavioral expressions, but they did not give any food-specific signals such as food-associated calls or cues toward food caching. Although parts of the redirected behavior observed in the demonstrators consisted of digging in gravel substrate, these sweep-like beak motions clearly differ from caching (whereby an item is inserted in the substrate by means of vertical head movements). Hence, it seems unlikely that observers detected the cause of the demonstrators’ negative state, namely change in food availability, and more likely that they responded to the “negativity” of the situation experienced by the demonstrator. Our interpretation of negative emotional contagion is therefore supported by the found pessimism bias in the observer, which is confirmed by both between- and within-condition comparisons, the presence of a consistent discrimination training effect, and the absence of a learning effect for the unrewarded stimuli.

While our results confirm contagion of a relatively mild negative affective state, our unclear findings for potential positive contagion might be explained by the following factors. Negative emotions may be easier to experimentally induce than positive emotions, and they may be more salient in their expression than positive emotions (11, 15, 62). Moreover, animals (as well as humans) attend more to negative than positive information in their environment (16, 33). Accordingly, the demonstrators’ reduction in locomotion and shift in visual attention in the positive condition could have been less informative for observers than the demonstrators’ redirected behavior and increased locomotion displayed in the negative condition. Alternatively, the affective states of both birds may not have matched in the positive condition. Upon seeing demonstrators in a positive state, observers might have experienced negativity due to being unable to access the source of excitement themselves. Although we cannot exclude this possibility, we aimed to reduce such an effect by testing birds in highly affiliated dyads only, so that observers might have anticipated getting (bits of) the reward shared by their affiliate after the experiment. In the same vein, demonstrators may have initially experienced an anticipation of reward, but the positive effect was short and partially masked by our aforementioned procedural constraints. Note that demonstrators never received the presented food item for consumption before the postmanipulation bias test was performed (SI Appendix, Results). This procedure might have elicited additional frustration in the demonstrators for not receiving their preferred item and consequently eliminated any potentially present positive state. If observers picked up on this change in the demonstrators’ state, this would explain the observers’ “neutral” responses in the cognitive bias test following the positive condition. In the negative condition, the affective state of the demonstrators likely remained negative throughout the procedure, facilitating the detected effect in the observers.

Overall, by combining an emotional contagion setup with a cognitive bias paradigm, our study contributes to the investigation of different emotion components. So far, animal emotional contagion studies have depended solely on behavioral parameters (33, 53, 54) or a combination of behavioral and physiological measures (11, 12). Future research should therefore consider using a cognitive bias test as an additional tool to behavioral and physiological methods for measuring the valence underlying emotional contagion. This will allow us to construct a full picture of an animal’s emotional state in an empathy setting; moreover, it enables us to measure emotional contagion in situations that are characterized by low or no direct behavioral matching, such as when using bystander vocalizations (i.e., observing others or eavesdropping on others’ communicative interactions) (33, 63). Unfortunately, we were unable to interpret the cognitive bias results of demonstrators due to our design decisions. Future work should address these limitations to further explore the application of the bias paradigm in assessing emotional state matching and strengthening interpretations of behavioral findings. Current research on (avian) emotions is still in its early developmental stages, and thus, although we may classify the demonstrator’s situation as negative or frustrating, we do not have direct indicators of a specific emotional state. Some major contemporary discussions in comparative affective science concern what we label in animals as emotions, whether animals truly feel and experience such emotions, and what the best objective measures are to assess these questions (46, 64). This may be seen as a limitation when concluding emotional contagion of a specific emotion, in any species for that matter. However, the apparent disadvantage of having no verbal report, or direct measures of subjective feelings, prompts us to systematically and rigorously evaluate our observations in animals with the prevailing methods available. For this reason, given the current state of the art and theoretical consensus in animal emotion research, the componential approach proposed here offers the opportunity to accumulate information derived from various modalities. This accumulation may provide evidence of the convergence of congruent emotional components, such as the congruency found in our data between the demonstrators’ behavior and the observers’ pessimism bias, which supports our interpretation of converging emotional states. Future studies need to address whether the birds would react similarly to different negative situations (within and outside of a food context), and thus to valence in general compared with specific details of the context. Correspondingly, future studies should incorporate nonfood contexts for testing positive emotions. Note that early studies on social learning, for example observational conditioning in blackbirds, hint at an emotional transfer between individuals (65); yet such an explanation was nonexistent at the time, and it is unclear whether the observed learning implied an emotional response. Nonetheless, matching the other’s emotional state is indeed a plausible mechanism for facilitating adaptive responses to various social situations requiring rapid information sharing, such as predator mobbing (65), foraging under risk (66), or conflict management (67). We are convinced that these topics would be highly relevant for future emotional contagion research.

Taken together, our study shows differences in the behavioral expression of demonstrator ravens that have been informed about the quality of hidden food items and, critically, a pessimistic response of naïve ravens in a cognitive bias test after they witnessed the informed conspecific in the negative condition. This finding provides experimental support for emotional contagion in ravens, which is in line with previous observations on corvid and parrot play (53, 54) and the claim that this fundamental component of empathy is present not only in mammalian but also in avian taxa (6). Previous research demonstrates that similarities in cognitive complexity between distantly related taxonomic groups, such as primates and corvids, are typically the result of convergent evolution (68, 69). Similar socioecological challenges may have therefore led to independent selection for emotional contagion in ravens and various mammalian species. Alternatively, given that primary emotions are localized in phylogenetically ancient brain structures (70), the underlying neural mechanisms of emotional contagion might be homologous in both mammals and birds. While answering this question is beyond the scope of our study, the present findings may act as a crucial stepping stone toward a better comparative understanding of complex social skills, such as empathy, and their evolution.

Methods

Study Animals and Housing.

Eight common ravens (5 M, 3 F) participated in the study. All birds were individually marked and socially housed in a nonbreeder group at the Haidlhof Research Station (see SI Appendix, Methods for further details).

Ethical Note.

The study followed Austrian law and local government guidelines, and the design was approved by the ethical board of the Behavioral Research Group at the Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna (2018-004). After the study, the ravens remained at the Haidlhof Research Station for further research projects.

Pilot and Habituation.

Before the experiment, two pilot studies were conducted and a habituation period of 3 mo took place.

Cognitive Bias Paradigm: Discrimination Training.

A wooden box was presented consecutively either on the left or right side of the animal. Only one side contained a reward (positive location), while the other side remained unrewarded (negative location). The criterion to pass was a minimum of 95% correct pecking on the positive location and 70% correct no pecking on the negative location, calculated over 3 consecutive days with 12 trials per session per d (SI Appendix, Table S4).

Cognitive Bias Paradigm: Testing.

After successful training, the ravens were assessed on a bias test immediately before and after the emotion manipulation of the demonstrator. During this test, the box was consecutively presented on the trained positive and negative location, as well as on one new, ambiguous location. The maximum latency to peck was 3.5 s, and trial order presentation was semirandom.

Experimental Procedure.

The study had a within-subject design. On each testing day, a dyad was called into the experimental compartment and given a cognitive bias test. Afterward, the demonstrator went into another compartment for either the positive or negative manipulation. The manipulation included a baseline of 30 s followed by a presentation of two different food items. The food items were out of view of the observer. After this presentation (phase 1, duration 30 s), one food item was taken away and the other remained visible (phase 2, duration 30 s). This was followed by an experimenter handling the remaining item (phase 3, duration 30 s). The experimenter held and moved the food item in the palm of the hand, between two fingers, broke the food into pieces, and lifted the pieces in the direction of the demonstrator. After the food handling, the demonstrator went back into the initial compartment and both birds underwent a postmanipulation cognitive bias test. At the end of the test, both birds were free to join their social group and the demonstrator was given the food item according to the emotion condition.

Video Coding.

The experiment was recorded by four video cameras. All coding was done by the main author and a second, trained observer blind to the experimental hypotheses independently video-coded for 15% of the behavior and cognitive bias sessions. Interobserver reliability was found to be high across all parameters, intra-class correlation coefficient (3,1) range: 0.95–1.00.

Quantification and Statistical Analysis.

We utilized generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) for all analyses to account for repeated measurements within subjects and dyads, enhance statistical power, and avoid artificially reducing the variability in our dataset through aggregation (71). GLMMs were fit with the lme4 package (72) for the R 3.4.4 statistical environment (73). To ensure the robustness of the P values returned from these models, we implemented a parametric bootstrapping procedure.

Demonstrator Behavior Analysis.

To assess the validity of our demonstrator emotion manipulations, we estimated behavioral variation in demonstrators both between and within the positive and negative conditions. We analyzed a subset of behaviors hypothesized to reflect components of arousal and valence, which are further described in our ethogram (SI Appendix, Table S1). In particular, we analyzed differences across phases 1 and 3 of the manipulation, as the latter phase was expected to elicit the strongest emotional response in the demonstrators.

Cognitive Bias Test Analysis.

Considering that pecking occurred frequently across all conditions and latencies to peck exhibited more consistent differences, we utilized latencies to peck rather than peck/no peck responses for our primary analyses. To assess potential differences in subjects’ reaction times across experimental conditions, GLMMs were specified with Gamma error distributions and log link functions appropriate for modeling proportional change in response latencies (74). We first assessed whether latency to peck at the ambiguous location increased across sessions due to the absence of reinforcement (75), and we determined the efficacy of our discrimination training. We then compared before and after manipulation latencies across all locations in each condition to test our main hypothesis. A likelihood ratio testing comparing this full model to a reduced model without the interactions among location and condition fixed effects for observers supported further consideration of the specific pairwise comparisons of interest, χ2(6) = 22.84, P < 0.001.

Acknowledgments

We thank András Péter and Markus Fitzka for technical assistance, the animal keepers at the Haidlhof Research Station for their good animal care during the study, and Lisa-Anna Rosenberger for recoding videos. This work was supported by the Cognitive Science Research Platform of the University of Vienna and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Projects Y366-B17 and W1234-G15.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: jessie.adriaense{at}univie.ac.at.
  • Author contributions: J.E.C.A. and T.B. designed research; J.E.C.A. and M.S. performed research; J.S.M. analyzed data; and J.E.C.A., J.S.M., C.L., and T.B. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1817066116/-/DCSupplemental.

Published under the PNAS license.

View Abstract

References

  1. ↵
    1. Nesse RM
    (1990) Evolutionary explanations of emotions. Hum Nat 1:261–289.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Nettle D,
    2. Bateson M
    (2012) The evolutionary origins of mood and its disorders. Curr Biol 22:R712–R721.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. de Waal FBM
    (2011) What is an animal emotion? Ann N Y Acad Sci 1224:191–206.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Mendl M,
    2. Burman OHP,
    3. Paul ES
    (2010) An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proc Biol Sci 277:2895–2904.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Panksepp J
    (2012) What is an emotional feeling? Lessons about affective origins from cross-species neuroscience. Motiv Emotion 36:4–15.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. de Waal FBM
    (2008) Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annu Rev Psychol 59:279–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Preston SD,
    2. de Waal FBM
    (2002) Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav Brain Sci 25:1–20, discussion 20–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Plutchik R
    (1987) Evolutionary bases of empathy. Empathy and Its Development, Cambridge Studies in Social and Emotional Development, eds Eisenberger NI, Strayer J (Cambridge Univ Press, New York), pp 38–46.
  9. ↵
    1. Decety J,
    2. Bartal IB,
    3. Uzefovsky F,
    4. Knafo-Noam A
    (2015) Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: Highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 371:20150077.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Yamamoto S
    (2017) Primate empathy: Three factors and their combinations for empathy-related phenomena. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 8:1–11.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Reimert I,
    2. Bolhuis JE,
    3. Kemp B,
    4. Rodenburg TB
    (2013) Indicators of positive and negative emotions and emotional contagion in pigs. Physiol Behav 109:42–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Edgar JL,
    2. Lowe JC,
    3. Paul ES,
    4. Nicol CJ
    (2011) Avian maternal response to chick distress. Proc Biol Sci 278:3129–3134.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Knapska E,
    2. Mikosz M,
    3. Werka T,
    4. Maren S
    (2009) Social modulation of learning in rats. Learn Mem 17:35–42.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Parr LA
    (2001) Cognitive and physiological markers of emotional awareness in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Anim Cogn 4:223–229.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Boissy A, et al
    . (2007) Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiol Behav 92:375–397.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Rozin P,
    2. Royzman EB
    (2001) Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 5:296–320.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Palagi E,
    2. Leone A,
    3. Mancini G,
    4. Ferrari PF
    (2009) Contagious yawning in gelada baboons as a possible expression of empathy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:19262–19267.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Deng H,
    2. Hu P
    (2018) Matching your face or appraising the situation: Two paths to emotional contagion. Front Psychol 8:2278.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Massen JJM,
    2. Gallup AC
    (2017) Why contagious yawning does not (yet) equate to empathy. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 80:573–585.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Edgar JL,
    2. Nicol CJ
    (2018) Socially-mediated arousal and contagion within domestic chick broods. Sci Rep 8:10509.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Rolls ET
    (2014) Emotion and Decision Making Explained (Oxford Univ Press, New York).
  22. ↵
    1. Russell JA
    (1980) A circumplex model of affect. J Pers Soc Psychol 39:1161–1178.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Barrett LF
    (2006) Valence is a basic building block of emotional life. J Res Pers 40:35–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Wascher CAF,
    2. Scheiber IBR,
    3. Kotrschal K
    (2008) Heart rate modulation in bystanding geese watching social and non-social events. Proc Biol Sci 275:1653–1659.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Anderson DJ,
    2. Adolphs R
    (2014) A framework for studying emotions across species. Cell 157:187–200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Paul ES,
    2. Harding EJ,
    3. Mendl M
    (2005) Measuring emotional processes in animals: The utility of a cognitive approach. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29:469–491.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Perry CJ,
    2. Baciadonna L
    (2017) Studying emotion in invertebrates: What has been done, what can be measured and what they can provide. J Exp Biol 220:3856–3868.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Jones KA,
    2. Godin JJ
    (2010) Are fast explorers slow reactors ? Linking personality type and anti-predator behaviour. Proc Biol Sci 277:625–632.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Réale D,
    2. Reader SM,
    3. Sol D,
    4. McDougall PT,
    5. Dingemanse NJ
    (2007) Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 82:291–318.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Reefmann N,
    2. Wechsler B,
    3. Gygax L
    (2009) Behavioural and physiological assessment of positive and negative emotion in sheep. Anim Behav 78:651–659.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Perry CJ,
    2. Baciadonna L,
    3. Chittka L
    (2016) Unexpected rewards induce dopamine-dependent positive emotion-like state changes in bumblebees. Science 353:1529–1531.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Kuhne F,
    2. Adler S,
    3. Sauerbrey AFC
    (2011) Redirected behavior in learning tasks: The commercial laying hen (Gallus gallus domesticus) as model. Poult Sci 90:1859–1866.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Huber A,
    2. Barber ALA,
    3. Faragó T,
    4. Müller CA,
    5. Huber L
    (2017) Investigating emotional contagion in dogs (Canis familiaris) to emotional sounds of humans and conspecifics. Anim Cogn 20:703–715.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Zimmerman PH,
    2. Buijs SAF,
    3. Bolhuis JE,
    4. Keeling LJ
    (2011) Behaviour of domestic fowl in anticipation of positive and negative stimuli. Anim Behav 81:569–577.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    1. Briefer EF
    (2018) Vocal contagion of emotions in non-human animals. Proc Biol Sci 285:20172783.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Perez EC, et al
    . (2015) Physiological resonance between mates through calls as possible evidence of empathic processes in songbirds. Horm Behav 75:130–141.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    1. Mendl M,
    2. Burman OH,
    3. Parker RM,
    4. Paul ES
    (2009) Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: Emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms. Appl Anim Behav Sci 118:161–181.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Bateson M
    (2016) Optimistic and pessimistic biases: A primer for behavioural ecologists. Curr Opin Behav Sci 12:115–121.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Eysenck MW,
    2. Mogg K,
    3. May J,
    4. Richards A,
    5. Mathews A
    (1991) Bias in interpretation of ambiguous sentences related to threat in anxiety. J Abnorm Psychol 100:144–150.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. MacLeod AK,
    2. Byrne A
    (1996) Anxiety, depression, and the anticipation of future positive and negative experiences. J Abnorm Psychol 105:286–289.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Bethell EJ
    (2015) A “how-to” guide for designing judgment bias studies to assess captive animal welfare. J Appl Anim Welfare Sci 18(Suppl 1):S18–S42.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Roelofs S,
    2. Boleij H,
    3. Nordquist RE,
    4. van der Staay FJ
    (2016) Making decisions under ambiguity: Judgment bias tasks for assessing emotional state in animals. Front Behav Neurosci 10:119.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Harding EJ,
    2. Paul ES,
    3. Mendl M
    (2004) Animal behaviour: Cognitive bias and affective state. Nature 427:312.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Douglas C,
    2. Bateson M,
    3. Walsh C,
    4. Bédué A,
    5. Edwards SA
    (2012) Environmental enrichment induces optimistic cognitive biases in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 139:65–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. ↵
    1. Salmeto AL, et al
    . (2011) Cognitive bias in the chick anxiety-depression model. Brain Res 1373:124–130.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Bateson M,
    2. Desire S,
    3. Gartside SE,
    4. Wright GA
    (2011) Agitated honeybees exhibit pessimistic cognitive biases. Curr Biol 21:1070–1073.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Schlüns H,
    2. Welling H,
    3. Federici JR,
    4. Lewejohann L
    (2017) The glass is not yet half empty: Agitation but not Varroa treatment causes cognitive bias in honey bees. Anim Cogn 20:233–241.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. ↵
    1. Schwab C,
    2. Bugnyar T,
    3. Schloegl C,
    4. Kotrschal K
    (2008) Enhanced social learning between siblings in common ravens, Corvus corax. Anim Behav 75:501–508.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Kulahci IG, et al
    . (2016) Social networks predict selective observation and information spread in ravens. R Soc Open Sci 3:160256.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. ↵
    1. Massen JJM,
    2. Szipl G,
    3. Spreafico M,
    4. Bugnyar T
    (2014) Ravens intervene in others’ bonding attempts. Curr Biol 24:2733–2736.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Massen JJM,
    2. Pašukonis A,
    3. Schmidt J,
    4. Bugnyar T
    (2014) Ravens notice dominance reversals among conspecifics within and outside their social group. Nat Commun 5:3679.
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. Fraser ON,
    2. Bugnyar T
    (2010) Do ravens show consolation? Responses to distressed others. PLoS One 5:e10605.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Osvath M,
    2. Sima M
    (2014) Sub-adult ravens synchronize their play: A case of emotional contagion? Anim Behav Cogn 2:197.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Schwing R,
    2. Nelson XJ,
    3. Wein A,
    4. Parsons S
    (2017) Positive emotional contagion in a New Zealand parrot. Curr Biol 27:R213–R214.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Dawkins MS
    (2002) What are birds looking at? Head movements and eye use in chickens. Anim Behav 63:991–998.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. ↵
    1. Falk JL
    (1971) The nature and determinants of adjunctive behavior. Physiol Behav 6:577–588.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Leliveld LMC,
    2. Langbein J,
    3. Puppe B
    (2013) The emergence of emotional lateralization: Evidence in non-human vertebrates and implications for farm animals. Appl Anim Behav Sci 145:1–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. ↵
    1. Szipl G,
    2. Boeckle M,
    3. Wascher CAF,
    4. Spreafico M,
    5. Bugnyar T
    (2015) With whom to dine? Ravens’ responses to food-associated calls depend on individual characteristics of the caller. Anim Behav 99:33–42.
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. Bugnyar T,
    2. Kijne M,
    3. Kotrschal K
    (2001) Food calling in ravens: Are yells referential signals? Anim Behav 61:949–958.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. ↵
    1. Ahloy-Dallaire J,
    2. Espinosa J,
    3. Mason G
    (2018) Play and optimal welfare: Does play indicate the presence of positive affective states? Behav Processes 156:3–15.
    OpenUrl
  61. ↵
    1. Travain T, et al
    . (2016) How good is this food? A study on dogs’ emotional responses to a potentially pleasant event using infrared thermography. Physiol Behav 159:80–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Rygula R,
    2. Pluta H,
    3. Popik P
    (2012) Laughing rats are optimistic. PLoS One 7:e51959.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Saito Y,
    2. Yuki S,
    3. Seki Y,
    4. Kagawa H,
    5. Okanoya K
    (2016) Cognitive bias in rats evoked by ultrasonic vocalizations suggests emotional contagion. Behav Processes 132:5–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. ↵
    1. Mason GJ
    (2011) Invertebrate welfare: Where is the real evidence for conscious affective states? Trends Ecol Evol 26:212–213.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. ↵
    1. Curio E,
    2. Ernst U,
    3. Vieth W
    (1978) Cultural transmission of enemy recognition: One function of mobbing. Science 202:899–901.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Greggor AL,
    2. McIvor GE,
    3. Clayton NS,
    4. Thornton A
    (2016) Contagious risk taking: Social information and context influence wild jackdaws’ responses to novelty and risk. Sci Rep 6:27764.
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    1. Fraser ON,
    2. Bugnyar T
    (2012) Reciprocity of agonistic support in ravens. Anim Behav 83:171–177.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Emery NJ
    (2006) Cognitive ornithology: The evolution of avian intelligence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361:23–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Seed A,
    2. Emery N,
    3. Clayton N
    (2009) Intelligence in corvids and apes: A case of convergent evolution? Ethology 115:401–420.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. ↵
    1. Panksepp J,
    2. Panksepp JB
    (2013) Toward a cross-species understanding of empathy. Trends Neurosci 36:489–496.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Gygax L
    (2014) The A to Z of statistics for testing cognitive judgement bias. Anim Behav 95:59–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. ↵
    1. Bates D,
    2. Mächler M,
    3. Bolker B,
    4. Walker S
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. R Core Team
    (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
  74. ↵
    1. Lo S,
    2. Andrews S
    (2015) To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Front Psychol 6:1171.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. ↵
    1. Doyle RE, et al
    . (2010) The effect of repeated testing on judgement biases in sheep. Behav Processes 83:349–352.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Negative emotional contagion and cognitive bias in common ravens (Corvus corax)
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Negative emotional contagion and cognitive bias in common ravens (Corvus corax)
Jessie E. C. Adriaense, Jordan S. Martin, Martina Schiestl, Claus Lamm, Thomas Bugnyar
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2019, 116 (23) 11547-11552; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1817066116

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Negative emotional contagion and cognitive bias in common ravens (Corvus corax)
Jessie E. C. Adriaense, Jordan S. Martin, Martina Schiestl, Claus Lamm, Thomas Bugnyar
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2019, 116 (23) 11547-11552; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1817066116
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (23)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results and Discussion
    • Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Large piece of gold
News Feature: Tracing gold's cosmic origins
Astronomers thought they’d finally figured out where gold and other heavy elements in the universe came from. In light of recent results, they’re not so sure.
Image credit: Science Source/Tom McHugh.
Dancers in red dresses
Journal Club: Friends appear to share patterns of brain activity
Researchers are still trying to understand what causes this strong correlation between neural and social networks.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Yeongsik Im.
White and blue bird
Hazards of ozone pollution to birds
Amanda Rodewald, Ivan Rudik, and Catherine Kling talk about the hazards of ozone pollution to birds.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490