Abstract
Nature is composed of self-propelled, animate agents and inanimate objects. Laboratory studies have shown that human infants and a few species discriminate between animate and inanimate objects. This ability is assumed to have evolved to support social cognition and filial imprinting, but its ecological role for wild animals has never been examined. An alternative, functional explanation is that discriminating stimuli based on their potential for animacy helps animals distinguish between harmless and threatening stimuli. Using remote-controlled experimental stimulus presentations, we tested if wild jackdaws (Corvus monedula) respond fearfully to stimuli that violate expectations for movement. Breeding pairs (N = 27) were presented at their nests with moving and non-moving models of ecologically relevant stimuli (birds, snakes and sticks) that differed in threat level and propensity for independent motion. Jackdaws were startled by movement regardless of stimulus type and produced more alarm calls when faced with animate objects. However, they delayed longest in entering their nest-box after encountering a stimulus that should not move independently, suggesting they recognized the movement as unexpected. How jackdaws develop expectations about object movement is not clear, but our results suggest that discriminating between animate and inanimate stimuli may trigger information gathering about potential threats.
Highlights
Objects in the natural world can be classified based on their potential for self-propelled motion; a fundamental divide noted by Aristotle over 2000 years ago [1]
To determine if corvids respond to violations of animacy norms, we presented breeding pairs of wild jackdaws (Corvus monedula) with a series of moving and non-moving models of ecologically relevant stimuli that differed in their propensity for independent motion and in their potential threat levels
We investigated an alternative possibility; that judgements of object animacy may play a role in assessing potential threats in the environment
Summary
Objects in the natural world can be classified based on their potential for self-propelled motion; a fundamental divide noted by Aristotle over 2000 years ago [1]. Animate objects—objects which can move of their own accord—can take a variety of forms, such as predators, social agents or moving. Inanimate objects make up the abiotic and biotic features of habitat and non-moving 2 food sources. The ability to anticipate an object’s potential animacy could help animals categorize environmental stimuli (i.e. differentiate them into classes), but for what adaptive purpose? The function of animate versus inanimate categories in guiding behaviour in other species has received less attention
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
