OPERANT CONDITIONING IN THE COMMON CROW

(CORVUS BRACHYRHYNCHOS)
ROBERT W. POWELL

CRowsare characterizedby their resourcefulness, adaptabilityto diverse

habitats,and extensivebehavioralrepertoire(Peterson,1963). They live
in well-organizedsocialgroupsand seemto possessa complexlanguage
(Lorenz, 1952; Fringsand Frings, 1959; Bannerman,1963; Chamberlain
and Cornwell,1971). Extraordinarylearningcapabilitiesare oftenattrib-
uted to the crow,but evidenceof this is primarily anecdotal.Surprisingly
few experimentalstudieshave been conductedwith crows. In the only
contemporaryreport of this type, two crows (incorrectly identified as
Corvusamericanus)showeda progressive decrease
in errorsto criterionon
multiple reversalsof a visual discriminationproblem (Stettner et al., 1966).
While their performanceseemedsuperiorto that of pigeonsstudiedunder
similar conditions,generalizationsare limited by the small number of
subjectsand the brief duration of the experimentoccasioned by the pre-
mature death of both birds.
The presentexperimentwas conductedto study the developmentand
maintenanceof operantrespondingin crows,underbasicschedules of food
reinforcement.Operantconditioningis concerned primarily with responses
that have immediateconsequences for the subject,suchas deliveryof food
(positive reinforcement),removalof noxiousstimuli (negative reinforce-
ment), or the deliveryof noxiousstimuli (punishment).
Schedulesof reinforcementinvolve various contingenciesbetween be-
havior and its consequences. Several examplesare: Reinforcementfor
every response(continuousschedule),reinforcementfor the first response
after 1 minute since the last reinforcement (fixed-interval schedule),
reinforcementfor the first responseafter sometime period which varies
unsystematically(variable-intervalschedule).

/[ETII ODS

Five adult Common Crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) were maintained at approxi-

mately 80 percent of their normal weight. Three of the crows (C1, C3o, C45) were
shaped to key-peck for food reinforcement (Skinner, 1951). Shaping involves rein-
forcement of successiveapproximationsof the desired response.For example, as key-
pecking was the desired responsethe bird was first reinforced (rewarded with food)
for facing toward the key, then for standing in front of the key, and finally for
pecking the key. The other birds (C2, C3) were trained through an auto-shaping
procedure (Brown and Jenkins, 1968) in which momentary illumination of the key
was followed by food presentation. This resulted in reliable aquisition of key-pecking
in pigeons. Gaines Prime (beef variety) was used for reinforcement, and this seemed
to be critical. Attempts to train the birds using either mixed grain or dried dog food

738 The Auk, 89: 738-742. October 1972

October 1972] Crow Operant Conditioning 739

TABLE 1
MEAN RESPONSE
RATES DURING TItE LAST FIVE SESSIONS]FOREAC CROW, IJNDER
THE FINAL TWO VALUES OF EACH SCHEDIJLETO VIIICH TI-IE BIRD VAs EXPOSED
1

Re- Re- Re-

Cumu- sponses Cumu- sponses Cumu- sponses
lative per lative per lative per
Sub- Sched- ses- min- Sched- ses- min- Sched- ses- min-
ject ule sions ute ule sions ute ule sions ute

C1 FR-75 69 51.6 VI-30 21 44.1

FR-100 82 49.2 VI-60 32 48.4
C2 VI-60 28 45.1 FR-66 65 36.2 FI-60 35 19.9
VI-120 39 43.6 FR-100 79 30.0 FR-120 51 16.2
C3 VI-60 29 37.6 VR-?5 36 57.4
VI-120 46 41.5 VR-100 57 38.4
C30 VR-50 46 89.4 FI-120 47 9.5
VR-75 70 91.2 FI-240 68 3.5
C45 FR-40 62 51.7 VR-?5 36 69.7 FI-60 33 6.8
FR-50 81 43.7 VR-100 52 62.5 FI-120 52 9.0
The sequenceof schedulesis indicatedfrom left to right, respectively. Cumulativesessions
indicates
the numberof experimentalsessions completedup to that time.

(Ken-L-Ration Biskit) for reinforcement were unsuccessful. Reinforcement times

ranged from 3.0 to 5.0 seconds. A standard pigeon test chamber (Lehigh Valley,
Model 1519C) was used. The hopperwas enlargedand modified so that food could
not be. obtained when the hopper was down. These modifications were necessitated
by the largebill of the crowcomparedto the pigeon's.
Each crow was studied as schedulerequirementswere gradually extended. A
differentkey light colorwas associatedwith eachschedule.The sequence of schedules
and mean responserates for each bird are presentedin Table 1. Mean responserates
were determinedby dividing the total number of responsesby the total time less the
reinforcementtime. Each schedulerequirement remained in effect until performance
stabilized. Stability was judged through inspectionof cumulative responserecords
and consistencyin response rates between sessions. The duration of experimental
sessionsranged from 30 minutes to 2 hours, with sessionlength increasing as the
schedulerequirementincreased.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1 showsrepresentativecumulativeresponsere.co.rds for the three

crowsstudiedunder each schedule.Under fixed ratio (FR) schedules,in
the presenceof a whitekey light, the nth key-peckresultedin.accessto food.
Each crowshowedconsistentpausingafter reinforcementand then a steady
rate of respondinguntil the next reinforcementwas obtained. This is char-
acterizedas a break and run pattern and is typical of behaviorunder FR
schedules (Fersterand Skinner,1957). A consistent directrelationshiphas
beenfoundbetweenpostreinforcement pausedurationand the ratio response
requirement(Felton and Lyon, 1966; Powell, 1968). Quantitativeanalysis
of the presentdata showeda similar direct relationshipfor the crow. The
meanpausedurationsin secondsat the last two schedulerequirementswere
740 ROBERTW. POW,L [Auk, Vol. 89

CROW 1 FR-100

CROW 2
]Vi.3ROW
Vl-6
Vl-60 CROW 2 V1-120

CROW 45
Vl-60 CROW 3 V1-120
FR-20 FR-50

VR-50 CROW 3 VR-100

CROW 2

FI-60
'' / 1-2o
CROW 30
VR-25 CROW
30 VR-50

FI-240
/ CROW 45

VR-50 CROW 45 VR-100

FI-60 F1-120

I 25MINUTES
I

Figure 1. Cumulative responserecordsshowing representativeperformance for each

crow studied under the four schedulesof reinforcement. Slash marks indicate the pre-
sentation of food reinforcement.
October 1972] Crow Operant Conditioning 741

a.sfollows: Crow 1, FR-75 (37.9), FR-100 (50.8); crow2, FR-66 (37.6),

FR-100 (78.7); crow 45, FR-40 (25.6), FR-50 (33.6).
The variable interval (VI) scheduleswere associatedwith a red key
light. Undertheseschedules, the first key-peckafter a specifiedintervalof
time elapsedproducesfood reinforcement.The duration of eachsuccessive
intervalvaries,with the overallschedulerequirementidentifiedby the mean
of the intervals,i.e. 30 seconds,60 seconds.The cumulativeresponserec-
ordsin Figure 1 showvery consistentrespondingunder the VI schedules.
Discerniblepausesrarelyoccurred.Mean response ratesunderthe VI and
FR schedules did differ substantially,and local response rateswere much
higher under the FR schedulesas shownby the slope of the response
records.
The variableratio (VR) schedules were signalledby a greenkey light.
Under theseschedules, the nth key-peck,on the average,was reinforced
with food. The resultsin Table 1 show that the VR schedulesgenerally
producedthe highestratesof responseof the schedules studiedhere. The
cumulativeresponserecordsin Figure 1 show fairly consistentresponding
with high local rates. Pausing,particularly after reinforcement,was not
uncommon.Inspectionof response recordssuggests that postreinforcement
pausesincreasedin frequencyand durationwith increases in the schedule
requirement.Thus in severalrespectsrespondingunder the VR schedules
was moreanalogousto.FR than VI behaviorin the crow.
The fixed interval (FI) schedules were signalledby a red key light, as
were the VI schedules.Only crow 2 was studiedunder both VI and FI
schedules,the first key-peckafter a fixed periodof time resultedin food
reinforcement.Response ratesunderthe FI schedules werethelowestby far
of any schedulestudied. The cumulativeresponserecordsin Figure 1 show
that FI behaviorwas characterizedby a break and run pattern of response.
The crow typically pausedfor long periodsfollowingreinforcement,and
then respondedsteadily until the next reinforcementwas obtained. Grad-
ually acceleratedrespondingoccurredmuchlessfrequentlythan the break
and run pattern.
The mostimportantresultof this experimentwasthe reliablecontrolof
responding in the crowthroughstandardoperantconditioningprocedures.
Responding waseffectivelymaintainedundereachof the basicschedules of
reinforcement and terminalpatternsof responsewerevery similarto other
speciesthat havebeenstudiedundertheseschedules.
Exceptfor minorapparatusmodifications, we usedthe sameexperimental
proceduresfor crowsas are gefaerallyemployedwith pigeons.
The systematicrelationshipsthat have been observedbetweenbehavior
and the scheduleof reinforcementare extendedby the present results.
Thesedata clearly showthat the CommonCrow can be usefullyemployed
742 l{oEar W. PowEzz [Auk, Vol. 89

as an experimentalsubject. Perhapsof greatestimportancein this respect,

variouscharacteristics
of the speciessuchas language,socialrelationships,
capacityfor learning,and sensorycapabilitiesbecameaccessible to study
throughobjectiveexperimentalprocedures.

SUMMARY

Five CommonCrowswere trained to key-peck for food reinforcement.

Three crows each were then studied under four intermittent schedules of
reinforcement:Fixed ratio, variableinterval, variable ratio, and fixed
interval. Consistentrespondingwas maintainedin all birds as schedule
requirementswere gradually extendedto substantialvalues. Similar re-
sponsepatterns developedfor each of the three crows under the same
scheduleof reinforcement.The behaviorof the crowswas comparableto
that of pigeons(Ferster and Skinner,1957), rats (Appel, 1964; Miller and
Ackley, 1970), and monkeys(Hake. et al., 1967; Hodosand Trumbule,
1967).

LITERATURE CITED

APPEn,J.B. 1964. The rat: an importantsubject.J. Exp. Anal. Behav.,7: 355-356.

BAnNERsrAN, D.A. 1953. The birds of the British Isles. Edinburgh,Oliver and Boyd.
BROWN,P. L., ANDH. 3I. JEnxns. 1968. Auto-shapingof the pigeon'skey peck.
J. Exp. Anal. Behav.,11: 1-8.
CAmEAIN, D. W., AND G. W. COtnWLL. 1971. Selectedvocalizationsof the
CommonCrow. Auk, 88: 613-634.
FEnTOn,M., ANDD. O. LYON. 1966. The post-reinforcementpause. J. Exp. Anal.
Behav., 9: 131-134.
FERSTER,C. B., An) B. F. SxrntR. 1957. Schedulesof reinforcement. New York,
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Fnvs, H., Am) M. Frs. 1959. The language of crows. Sci. Amer., 201: 119-131.
HAX, D. F., N.H. Azure, AnD R. Oxom). 1967. The effect of punishment intensity
on squirrel monkeys. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 10: 95-107.
Hoos, W., An) G. H. Tu:run. 1967. Strategies of schedule preference in chim-
panzees.J. Exp. Anal. Behar., 10: 503-514.
Lorenz, K. Z. 1952. King Solomon'sring: new light on animal ways. New York,
Crowell.
MinnR, L., Anp R. AcKn. 1970. Summation of responding maintained by fixed
interval schedules.J. Exp. Anal. Behar., 13: 199-203.
PEtErson, R.T. 1963. The birds. New York, Time, Inc.
PowEnn, R.W. 1968. The effect of small sequentialchangesin fixed-ratio size upon
the post-reinforcementpause. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 11: 589-593.
Sxn, B.F. 1951. How to teach animals. Sci. Amer., 185: 26-29.
SrETnE, L. J., K. MArYnx, AnDJ. 3I. BRAn). 1966. Habit reversalin the crow,
Corvus amer{canus.PsychonomicSci., 4: 331-332.

Department of BehavioralScience,University of South Florida, Tampa,

Florida SS620. Accepted10 August 1971.