Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse

Source study found

Story checked

Elephants Just Passed a Classic Psychology Test – With More Restraint Than Many Humans : ScienceAlert (opens in a new tab)

sciencealert.com · 2026-09-12

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mostly supported

Mostly supported.

One claim goes further than the study.

  • 4 supported
  • 1 overstated

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1
2

NewsLink checks it

Mostly supported

One claim overstates the study. Four of five check out.

  • 4 supported
  • 1 overstated
Open claim evidence
3
Source paper

Source layer

The 2 papers the story cites

Source study separated from background citations.

The research anchor for the report.

Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

5 claims in this story

Showing all 5 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 5OverstatedA team led by Sydney Hope and Joshua Plotnik used a classic psychology experiment to show that Asian elephants can resist their impulses to get food in a more effective way.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedfor the first time

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports that the researchers used a classic detour paradigm to test inhibitory control in Asian elephants, and the orientation-change trials provide evidence that elephants can inhibit a previously learned response. However, the story's lead frames the finding as an unhedged demonstration that elephants can resist impulses, while the paper profile is more cautious, especially for the transparent-box result. The stated novelty/magnitude of 'for the first time' is not verifiable from the supplied abstract-level profile. The lead therefore outruns the qualified evidence.

1

Study evidence

Elephants performed similarly when detouring around opaque and transparent boxes.

“We tested 16 (8M, 8F, 4-60 yrs) Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) at the National Elephant Institute in Thailand using a classic detour paradigm.”
2

Study evidence

Latency to detour significantly increased when the box orientation changed, indicating a prepotent tendency to use the previously learned detour direction.significant increase in detour latency (exact magnitude not reported in abstract)

“In addition, we conducted trials in which we changed the box orientation so that elephants needed to inhibit using a previously learned response (i.e., a direction in which they had previously detoured) in favor of detouring in the newly changed direction.”
Claim 2 of 5SupportedThe researchers tested 16 Asian elephants aged 4 to 60 years with the detour paradigm and a transparent box containing fruit.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated16 elephants aged 4 to 60 years

Why this verdict

The paper profile states that 16 Asian elephants, ages 4–60, were tested using a classic detour paradigm after opaque-box training and then with a transparent box containing visible food cues. The abstract-level profile says 'food' rather than specifically 'fruit,' but the central methodological claim is supported.

1

Study evidence

Elephants performed similarly when detouring around opaque and transparent boxes.

“We tested 16 (8M, 8F, 4-60 yrs) Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) at the National Elephant Institute in Thailand using a classic detour paradigm.”
Claim 3 of 5SupportedWhen faced with a transparent surface after training to detour around an opaque barrier, elephants quickly detoured around the barrier and showed no difference in latency to enter the opening, which the authors say may indicate very strong inhibitory control, although the transparent surface may not have elicited a strong prepotent response.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile reports that elephants first learned to detour around an opaque box, then were presented with a transparent box requiring continued detouring while inhibiting a direct reach toward visible food/odor cues, and that they performed similarly on opaque and transparent boxes. The story also includes the key paper caveat: this may indicate strong inhibitory control, but may alternatively mean the transparent surface did not elicit a strong prepotent response.

1

Study evidence

Elephants performed similarly when detouring around opaque and transparent boxes.

“We tested 16 (8M, 8F, 4-60 yrs) Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) at the National Elephant Institute in Thailand using a classic detour paradigm.”
Claim 4 of 5SupportedTurning the box so the opening was on a different face delayed the elephants' search for food, but they still figured it out.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile reports that changing box orientation significantly increased elephants' latency to detour, and that performance quickly improved across trials when orientation remained constant. This supports the story's claim that turning the box delayed the search/detour response but that elephants adapted.

1

Study evidence

Latency to detour significantly increased when the box orientation changed, indicating a prepotent tendency to use the previously learned detour direction.significant increase in detour latency (exact magnitude not reported in abstract)

“In addition, we conducted trials in which we changed the box orientation so that elephants needed to inhibit using a previously learned response (i.e., a direction in which they had previously detoured) in favor of detouring in the newly changed direction.”
Claim 5 of 5SupportedOlder elephants had a harder time adapting to the changes, which the article says could be a signal of waning cognitive function.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile reports that performance in orientation-change trials worsened with age and describes this cautiously as potential evidence for cognitive decline. The story similarly frames older elephants' poorer adaptation as a possible signal rather than a firm conclusion.

1

Study evidence

Performance in orientation-change detour trials worsened with increasing age in the sampled elephants, described by the authors as potential evidence for cognitive decline.

“Interestingly, performance in these trials worsened with age, revealing potential evidence for cognitive decline.”
2

Study evidence

Latency to detour significantly increased when the box orientation changed, indicating a prepotent tendency to use the previously learned detour direction.significant increase in detour latency (exact magnitude not reported in abstract)

“In addition, we conducted trials in which we changed the box orientation so that elephants needed to inhibit using a previously learned response (i.e., a direction in which they had previously detoured) in favor of detouring in the newly changed direction.”
Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story carried across

Nothing material from the study was dropped.

6 things the story did carry across
  • Study design and sample: 16 Asian elephants, ages 4–60, tested in an in vivo detour-reaching paradigm after opaque-box training and transparent-box testing.
  • Transparent-box result: elephants performed similarly on opaque and transparent boxes, potentially indicating inhibitory control.
  • Key transparent-box limitation: similar transparent-box performance may not prove strong inhibitory control because the transparent barrier may not have elicited a strong prepotent reaching response.
  • Orientation-change finding: when box orientation changed so the previously learned detour direction was wrong, elephants' latency increased significantly.
  • Orientation-change learning/adaptation: performance improved quickly across repeated constant-orientation trials, indicating effective inhibition/adjustment after the change.
  • Age-related analysis: older elephants performed worse in orientation-change trials, described as potential evidence for cognitive decline.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

3

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

in vivo animal

1Lead resultin vivo animalTest inhibitory control/flexibility when elephants must inhibit a previously learned detour direction after changing the box orientation (set-shifting / response inhibition).orientation-change detour within-subjectExpand

In plain English

Orientation-change detour trials: after elephants learned to detour around a box in one direction, the box orientation was changed so the previously learned detour direction became incorrect; elephants showed a significant increase in detour latency on orientation-change trials, performance improved across subsequent constant-orientation trials, and older elephants performed worse in these trials.

Key findings

  • Latency to detour significantly increased when the box orientation changed, indicating a prepotent tendency to use the previously learned detour direction.significant increase in detour latency (exact magnitude not reported in abstract)
  • Detour performance quickly improved across trials when the box orientation remained constant after the change, indicating elephants inhibited the previously learned response and learned the new detour direction.
“In addition, we conducted trials in which we changed the box orientation so that elephants needed to inhibit using a previously learned response (i.e., a direction in which they had previously detoured) in favor of detouring in the newly changed direction.”
What this piece can’t prove

3 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

2in vivo animalAssess whether Asian elephants demonstrate inhibitory control in a classic detour-reaching paradigm when prepotent responses are induced by transparent/visible food cues.detour-reaching paradigm (within-subject repeated-measures)Expand

In plain English

Within-subject detour-reaching test of inhibitory control in 16 Asian elephants (8M, 8F, ages 4–60) trained to detour an opaque box and then tested with a transparent box (front-facing holes/odor cues) and orientation-change trials; elephants performed similarly on opaque and transparent boxes, showed increased latency when required to abandon a previously learned detour direction after orientation changes, improved performance across repeated constant-orientation trials, and showed worsened performance with age.

Key findings

  • Elephants performed similarly when detouring around opaque and transparent boxes.
  • Changing the box orientation (requiring inhibition of a previously learned detour direction) significantly increased elephants' latency to detour.
“We tested 16 (8M, 8F, 4-60 yrs) Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) at the National Elephant Institute in Thailand using a classic detour paradigm.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Authors acknowledge the transparent box may not have produced cues strong enough to elicit a prepotent reaching response, complicating interpretation of similar opaque vs transparent performance.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

3in vivo animalExamine whether detour-task performance (especially under orientation-change demands) varies with age, consistent with potential cognitive decline.cross-sectional age-association analysisExpand

In plain English

Cross-sectional analysis within the 16 tested Asian elephants (ages 4–60 years) found that performance in trials requiring a change in detour orientation worsened with age, reported as potential evidence of cognitive decline. Details of the statistical model, effect size, and exact performance metric are not provided in the abstract.

Key findings

  • Performance in orientation-change detour trials worsened with increasing age in the sampled elephants, described by the authors as potential evidence for cognitive decline.
“Interestingly, performance in these trials worsened with age, revealing potential evidence for cognitive decline.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Analysis reported only in abstract; insufficient methodological detail to evaluate robustness.
  • Small sample size (N=16) limits statistical power and generalizability.
  • Cross-sectional design precludes strong causal claims about age-related cognitive decline.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

PubMed, Europe PMC, Crossref · 16 candidate papers

And 10 more candidates considered.