New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Jays and Youngsters Solve Aesop Problem Similarly

Until kids are eight, they are only about equally good as European Jays at solving a problem outlined by Aesop. Sophie Bushwick reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In an Aesop fable, a thirsty crow wanting to drink from a pitcher must first raise the water level. So he drops pebbles in the container. In real life, the European Jay can perform the same task. But just how smart is it?

Researchers challenged jays and human children with puzzles like the one in the fable. And until kids reached the age of 8 their results were similar to the birds’. The study is in the journal Public Library of Science ONE. [Lucy G. Cheke, Elsa Loissel and Nicola S. Clayton, How Do Children Solve Aesop's Fable?]

For example, in one test, a prize was put in a tube of either water or sawdust. About half the birds took multiple trials to learn that dropping stones into the liquid, but not the dust, lifted the reward up to within reach.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


When children between four and seven were faced with the same test, they learned similarly, taking about five trials to realize that the token in the water tube could be retrieved—although they did pick up the task faster than the birds. Older children learned more quickly, and those eight or older solved it the first time they tried. Til then, the kids were, well, birdbrains.

—Sophie Bushwick

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe