ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessing the limits of delay of gratification in bumble bees.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Relational similarity in wild bumblebees: the role of spatial alignment complexity.Animal cognition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to resist immediate temptation for a better, delayed outcome is thought to underpin advanced cognition. Traditionally, this ability has been studied in large-brained animals. However, to understand its evolutionary origins, it is necessary to expand the study to species with different life histories and ecological pressures, such as insects. Here, we investigated the ability to endure delayed gratification in the bumble bee Bombus terrestris using a delay maintenance task that assessed the capacity to sustain a delay for a large reward. Bees were first individually trained in a foraging arena to associate two differently coloured flowers either with an immediately accessible small reward (a 5 µl drop of 30% sucrose) or a delayed large reward (four 5 µl drops with a 15-s delay). Bumble bees were then tested over 10 delay choices between the two flowers/rewards. Finally, bees were tested in a delay maintenance test in which the 15-s delay was extended indefinitely. Overall, our findings suggest that bumble bees did not consistently choose the delayed reward over the immediate one across the ten trials, and their ability to sustain delay was highly variable across individuals. Although a small subset of bees (n = 5) exhibited prolonged waiting times comparable to those observed in mammals, birds, and fish (with one individual resisting for up to 364-s), the overall lack of consistency suggests that self-control in bumble bees may be limited and related to either ecological constraints or their foraging strategy. These results provide new insights into the evolutionary origins and drivers of self-control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.