ArticleAnimal cognition2025
Do Asian elephants plan for mutually-exclusive outcomes?
Article in Animal cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- When orcas hit the rudder: what Iberian orca-boat interactions reveal about action explanations in animal cognition.Animal cognition · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to prepare for mutually-exclusive outcomes is critical for future planning. Recently, the thought that this ability may be unique to humans has been questioned. Even if non-human animals cannot individually plan for mutually-exclusive outcomes, groups of individuals may be able to coordinate their behavior to do so collectively. Here, we tested 12 Asian elephants (Elephas maximus), both individually and in pairs, using a forked tube task-adapted from one used with children and non-human apes-where a food reward is dropped down a tube and exits from one of two openings. The consistent, simultaneous covering of both openings to obtain the reward is evidence of an understanding of mutually-exclusive outcomes. One elephant-Nammei-learned to manipulate her trunk in a scooping motion to autonomously cover both openings, and then performed this behavior relatively consistently to successfully obtain the food reward at a rate significantly greater than chance (61.5%). In addition, pairs of elephants obtained the food reward at a rate significantly greater than that at which individuals could do by chance (i.e., either elephant ate the food in 60.1% of pair trials). However, Nammei eventually reverted to covering only one opening, and pairs did not achieve complete coordination-in fact, both openings were covered in only 35.0% of pair trials. Therefore, our results fall short of providing compelling evidence for either individual or collective planning for mutually-exclusive outcomes in elephants. However, the interesting behaviors that we observed suggest that this is a promising area for future research.
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.