New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Orangutan Picks Cocktail by Seeing Ingredients

An orangutan matched researchers' predictions about which mixed beverage he would choose based on his relative fondness for the separate ingredients.

 

DigitalStock (MARS)

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!

Imagine you had never tasted lemonade. You would still probably assume that lemon juice mixed with sugar tastes better than lemon juice alone. Because you know what lemons taste like, and you know what sugar tastes like.

You can recall those past experiences, and make a prediction about your response to something new. Researchers call the ability to predict our future emotional state "affective forecasting." And some have suggested that the skill is unique to humans. But is it?

"We combined different liquids and asked participants, the orangutan and the humans, to predict how such novel liquid combinations taste like, and whether they prefer one or the other." Lund University cognitive scientist Gabriela-Alina Sauciuc.


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.


She and her colleagues offered their cocktails to a 21-year-old male Sumatran orangutan named Naong, who lives in Sweden's Furuvik Zoo. They used four ingredients—cherry juice, rhubarb juice, lemon juice, and diluted apple cider vinegar—which they combined into six unfamiliar mixtures. Altogether, that made for 24 possible comparisons of one drink against another.

Naong watched the researchers mix his drinks. Then he got to choose from the two set before him. And in 21 of the 24 trials, Naong matched the researchers’ predictions: that his choice would be based on his relative fondness for the separate ingredients.  [Gabriela-Alina Sauciuc, et al., Affective forecasting in an orangutan: predicting the hedonic outcome of novel juice mixes, in Animal Cognition]

For example, since he liked rhubarb juice better than lemon juice, he also preferred rhubarb-cherry juice to lemon-cherry juice—despite having had no experience with either.

"We were impressed with Naong's ability to be so consistent in his choices."

From a statistical perspective, the orangutan data was indistinguishable from human data. Both species seemed to make consistent choices about future events even if they had no prior experience to guide their decision-making.

"An ability which was previously thought to be uniquely human presumably has evolved earlier, so that it's shared with orangutans and presumably with chimpanzees as well."

It’s a single study with a single orangutan. But it may be that we will soon mark yet another skill off the list of things that were once thought to be the sole domain of our species. Perhaps what's truly unique about us is our ongoing quest to find something unique about us.  

—Jason G. Goldman

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

Jason G. Goldman is a science journalist based in Los Angeles. He has written about animal behavior, wildlife biology, conservation, and ecology for Scientific American, Los Angeles magazine, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the BBC, Conservation magazine, and elsewhere. He contributes to Scientific American's "60-Second Science" podcast, and is co-editor of Science Blogging: The Essential Guide (Yale University Press). He enjoys sharing his wildlife knowledge on television and on the radio, and often speaks to the public about wildlife and science communication.

More by Jason G. Goldman

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