Letter | Published:

Fish can infer social rank by observation alone

Nature volume 445, pages 429432 (25 January 2007) | Download Citation


  • An Erratum to this article was published on 01 March 2007


Transitive inference (TI) involves using known relationships to deduce unknown ones (for example, using A > B and B > C to infer A > C), and is thus essential to logical reasoning. First described as a developmental milestone in children1, TI has since been reported in nonhuman primates2,3,4, rats5,6 and birds7,8,9,10. Still, how animals acquire and represent transitive relationships and why such abilities might have evolved remain open problems. Here we show that male fish (Astatotilapia burtoni) can successfully make inferences on a hierarchy implied by pairwise fights between rival males. These fish learned the implied hierarchy vicariously (as ‘bystanders’), by watching fights between rivals arranged around them in separate tank units. Our findings show that fish use TI when trained on socially relevant stimuli, and that they can make such inferences by using indirect information alone. Further, these bystanders seem to have both spatial and featural representations related to rival abilities, which they can use to make correct inferences depending on what kind of information is available to them. Beyond extending TI to fish and experimentally demonstrating indirect TI learning in animals, these results indicate that a universal mechanism underlying TI is unlikely. Rather, animals probably use multiple domain-specific representations adapted to different social and ecological pressures that they encounter during the course of their natural lives.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Judgement and Reasoning in the Child (Kegan, Paul, Trench & Trubner, London, 1928)

  2. 2.

    & Are monkeys logical? Nature 267, 694–696 (1977)

  3. 3.

    , & Learning and memory for hierarchical relationships in the monkey: Effects of aging. Behav. Neurosci. 110, 887–897 (1996)

  4. 4.

    Reasoning in the chimpanzee: II. Transitive inference. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 7, 87–108 (1981)

  5. 5.

    Transitive inference in rats (Rattus norvegicus). J. Comp. Psychol. 106, 342–349 (1992)

  6. 6.

    & Transitive inference in rats—a test of the spatial coding hypothesis. Psychol. Sci. 5, 368–374 (1994)

  7. 7.

    , , & Transitive inference formation in pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 17, 334–341 (1991)

  8. 8.

    , & Transitive inference in pigeons: Simplified procedures and a test of value transfer theory. Anim. Learn. Behav. 23, 76–82 (1995)

  9. 9.

    , & Social complexity and transitive inference in corvids. Anim. Behav. 65, 479–487 (2003)

  10. 10.

    et al. Transitive responding in hooded crows requires linearly ordered stimuli. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 82, 1–19 (2004)

  11. 11.

    & Field study of Haplochromis burtoni: Habitats and co-habitants. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2, 299–308 (1977)

  12. 12.

    & Field study of Haplochromis burtoni: Quantitative behavioral observations. Anim. Behav. 25, 964–975 (1977)

  13. 13.

    Quantitative behavioural observations of Haplochromis burtoni under semi-natural conditions. Anim. Behav. 25, 643–653 (1977)

  14. 14.

    , & Know thine enemy: fighting fish gather information from observing conspecific interactions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265, 1045–1049 (1998)

  15. 15.

    Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 5744–5749 (2002)

  16. 16.

    & Transitive inferences and memory in young children. Nature 232, 456–458 (1971)

  17. 17.

    , & Female affiliative preference depends on reproductive state in the African cichlid fish, A. burtoni. Behav. Ecol. 16, 83–88 (2005)

  18. 18.

    , , & Encoding of geometric and featural spatial information by goldfish (Carassius auratus). J. Comp. Psychol. 118, 206–216 (2004)

  19. 19.

    , & Transitive choices by a simple, fully connected, backpropagation neural network: implications for the comparative study of transitive inference. Anim. Cogn. 4, 61–68 (2001)

  20. 20.

    , , & Transitive inference formation in pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 17, 334–341 (1991)

  21. 21.

    in Models of Action: Mechanisms for Adaptive Behavior (eds Wynne, C. D. & Staddon J. E.) 269–307 (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1998)

  22. 22.

    & in Reasoning and Discourse Processes (eds Myers, T., Brown, K., & McGonigle, B. O.) 141–164 (Academic, London, 1986)

  23. 23.

    & Monkeys are rational! Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 45B, 198–228 (1992)

  24. 24.

    & The hippocampus and memory for orderly stimulus relations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 7109–7114 (1997)

  25. 25.

    The case for a cognitive approach to animal learning and behaviour. Behav. Processes 54, 65–78 (2001)

  26. 26.

    in Rational Animals? (eds Hurley, S. & Nudds, M.) 175–185 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2006)

  27. 27.

    , , & Pinyon jays use transitive inference to predict social dominance. Nature 430, 778–781 (2004)

  28. 28.

    , & Social status regulates growth rate: Consequences for life-history strategies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 14171–14176 (1999)

  29. 29.

    , & Social regulation of gene expression in male and females social status. J. Exp. Biol. 205, 2567–2581 (2002)

  30. 30.

    R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna) 〈〉 (2006)

Download references


We thank S. Le for rescoring data for the reliability analysis, and T. Zentall, L. Harbott and P. Suppes for their comments. Supported by National Institutes of Health awards (R.D.F. and T.S.C.).

Author Contributions T.S.C. and L.G. were responsible for experimental design. L.G. was responsible for data collection and analysis. L.G. wrote the manuscript. T.S.C., R.D.F. and L.G discussed the experiment and edited the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

    • Logan Grosenick
    •  & Tricia S. Clement

    Present addresses: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Ventura Hall, 200 Panama Street, Stanford, California 94305, USA (L.G.); eBay, Inc., 2145 Hamilton Avenue, San Jose, California 95125, USA (T.S.C.).


  1. Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 94305, USA

    • Logan Grosenick
    • , Tricia S. Clement
    •  & Russell D. Fernald
  2. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 94305, USA

    • Logan Grosenick


  1. Search for Logan Grosenick in:

  2. Search for Tricia S. Clement in:

  3. Search for Russell D. Fernald in:

Competing interests

Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Logan Grosenick.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Figure 1 including additional information about fish training, preference testing, additional controls, and statistical analyses.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.