Little evidence that Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius) protect their caches by responding to cues about a conspecific’s desire and visual perspective

ABSTRACT Corvids appear to be capable of adjusting their behaviour according to another’s perspective, knowledge and desire. For example, Eurasian jays have been found to employ a variety of cache protection strategies to minimise cache loss by responding to cues about the visual perspective or current desire of an observing conspecific. However, it is not known whether these jays (or any other corvid) can integrate multiple cues about different mental states and perform the optimal response accordingly. Across five experiments, we found little evidence that our Eurasian jays responded to either the visual perspective or current desire of another agent. In Experiments 1 and 2 we investigated whether Eurasian jays can limit the risk of cache loss by responding simultaneously to cues about the desire and perspective of a potential conspecific pilferer. Building on established paradigms, we used opaque and clear barriers to manipulate the observer’s visual access to cache locations, and specific satiety to manipulate the observer’s desire towards different types of food. Across both experiments the jays’ caching pattern provided no evidence that they could integrate information about the observer’s desire and perspective. Moreover, the results were also inconsistent with the previously reported effects that jays protect their caches by responding to either the visual access or specific satiety of the observer independently. To gain further insight into these unexpected results, we conducted three more experiments. In Experiments 3 and 4, we attempted to replicate the previous finding that Eurasian jays prefer to cache behind an opaque barrier over a clear barrier when observed by a conspecific than when caching in private. In Experiment 5, we further investigated the previous finding that jays preferentially cache a type of food that had been eaten to satiety by a conspecific over a food that had not been eaten by the conspecific. Experiments 3, 4 and 5 found no significant effects in the direction of the previously reported effects, questioning their robustness. We conclude by discussing the implications of our study for the field of corvid cognition and highlight several key issues that affect the reliability of comparative cognition research.