Ape ToM

Question 1

What are the 2 possibilities that ToM is present in Apes?

Answer 1

We need to find evidence of mentalising in apes

Question 2

Seminal paper

Premack and Woodruff (1978): Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?
What happened?

Answer 2

Chimp offered correct photo solutions to an actor’s problems
(eg. trying to get into a cupboard)

Suggesting she could infer the actor’s intentions on the basis of seeing what the actor was trying to do

However, it could have been more understanding between objects rather thatn intention of the human
Not generalisable to natural wild animals who are not laboratory raised (not developed mind)

Question 3

The debate do chimps have a ToM have 2 main arguments:

Answer 3

Povinelli camp:
Chimps do not reason about others’ beliefs, or any other mental states
Same behaviours, but not same underlying psychological mechanisms

Tomasello camp:
Chimps have ToM in some respects, but not in others
No evidence whether they understand false beliefs
BUT chimps understand:
goals/ intentions, and perception/ knowledge of others

Question 4

Do chimps have a ToM:
Behavioural Abstraction Hypothesis
-a behavioural rule without mental-state attribution.

Answer 4

Understand only surface-level of behaviour and form behavioural rules
(behaviourist approach thus not thinking about mental state)

‘BAH’ posits that chimpanzees:
make predictions about future behaviours that follow from past behaviours, adjust their own behaviour accordingly.

Question 5

Give an example of mental-state attribution:

Answer 5

mental-state attribution would be he read my intention that im going to sit down so he sits down, but behavoural would say that he has extracted that behavioural rule and followed me sitting down, with no reason behind my intention

Question 6

Do chimps have a ToM:
Beyond behavioural rules
-not just rely on previous rules but be able to cope in Novel situations

Answer 6

Chimps highly social animals
– need to anticipate what others do.
Observing previous behaviour and deriving set of behavioural rules enables behavioural prediction

BUT:
Inferring states not only in previously observed situations,
but also in novel situations
Need to anticipate actions based on goals and intentions

Question 7

What person is trying to do or achieve is called a?

Answer 7

Goal

Question 8

The action plan chosen for pursuing this goal is called?

Answer 8

An Intention

Question 9

Buttelmann et al. (2007)
Do apes respond to goal or intended action?

6 chimps imitated E’s novel action when he seemed to do it intentionally but NOT when this was due to a physical constraint.

Answer 9

They saw him tap the box with his foot, because his had was busy with items (intention)
They saw him tab the box with his foot when his hands were empty (no intention)

They imitated foot action when it was a strange action
So Chimps understand other’s goals and intentions.

Question 10

Altruistic helping:
What does altruistic Helping require?

Answer 10

Cognition = understanding of another’s goals
You need to be able to understand what someone’s goal is in order to help them

Altruistic motivation = no benefit/costly

Question 11

What were the 4 categories of the Altruistic helping study by Warneken & Tomasello (2006)?

Did it with babies and chimps

Answer 11

1- Out-of-reach
2- Access thwarted by physical object
3- Achieving wrong result
4- Using wrong means

3 ‘request’ phases: (10s focus only, 10s alternate gaze, 10s verbalise)

Question 12

What were the results of the infants and chimps of the Altruistic helping study by Warneken & Tomasello (2006)?

Answer 12

Infants:
Infants helped significantly more in 6 of the conditions

Chimps:
Chimps helped most in reaching tasks
(suggesting a salient cue)

Both:
Children and chimps both willing to help without
reward or praise
Differ inability to interpret others’ need for help?

However: Methodological note
cooperation vs competition
in the wild chimps are important for competition rather than cooperation

Question 13

Chimps show an understanding goals and intentions:

Answer 13

Chimpz will beg more when they view experimenter as being unwilling to give them food compared to unable.

These findings contradict Povinelli’s Behavioural Abstraction Hypothesis

Question 14

The eyes communicate vital information about an individual’s mental states:

The mentalistic significance of eye gaze can help experimenters figure out?

Answer 14

Focus of attention
object of reference, desire or aversion
intent to act
feelings, mental activities

Question 15

Name early foundations in humans that contributes to language aqusition and ToM:

Answer 15

Infants prefer:
Open rather than closed eyes
Direct rather than averted gaze
Infants begin gaze following at 6 months

Question 16

Can apes follow gaze?

Answer 16

Ape looks to spot behind her/ behind screen

Apes rely more on head direction than eye direction
in contrast to infants (which infants prioritise eye movement)

But what can we conclude from these findings?
might see something interesting in the environment

Question 17

Understanding perception:
Negative evidence for food discriminately from 2 different carers

carer 1 - could not see chimp (blindfolded)
carer 2- could see chimp

Findings?

Answer 17

Chimps showed indiscriminate begging from both

Concluded, they are experts at noticing eye movements and gaze directions
Learn rules about visual perception
Chimps cannot reason about seeing

BUT: these rules do not necessarily incorporate the notion that seeing is “about” something
oblivious to psychological distinction between begging from blindfolded carer vs non-blindfolded

However, cognitive demands were higher in comparison to positive results study, as there was 2 carers which may be the reason for the negative results

Question 18

Understanding perception:
Positive evidence for food discriminately from 2 different carers
Eyes opened/ closed condition
Back turned to them Face facing forwards/ backwards

Findings?

Answer 18

Chimps begged more when they were being watched.
Sensitive to both body and face orientation but not eyes.

Suggests they were paying attention to head orientation

But did not show difference between turned back or front facing

However, cognitive demands were lower in comparison to negative results study, as there was 1 carer which may be the reason for the positive results

Question 19

Co-operation vs. competition in apes/chimps

Answer 19

Negative results in the lab required
co-operative communication with humans

Compared to informal observations of ‘mentalising’ in the wild involved competition with conspecifics.

When testing in the context of coo-operation, you may underestimate their theory of mind because it is not representative of their everyday life competition

Question 20

Understanding knowledge & perception: Positive evidence
Competitive paradigm

(no training trials)
They assumed that subordinate chimps would not access the food if the dominant chimp was visible

When the sub chimp was given a head start to get the food, would their behaviour differ if they did or did not see the dom chimp?

Answer 20

Findings:
Only went to the food when they witnessed the Dom chimp not acknowledging that the food was given

Findings suggest:
chimpanzees CAN reason about others’ knowledge on the basis of what others have/have not seen.

Question 21

Name the 2 interpretations of the menstal state attribution:

(Only went to the food when they witnessed the Dom chimp not acknowledging that the food was given)

Answer 21

Behavioral Abstraction
He was present and facing the food when it was placed where it is now therefore he is likely to go after it.

He was not present when the food was placed where it is now therefore he is less likely to go after it.

Mental-state attribution
He was present and facing the food when it was placed where it is now so he saw the food placed and currently knows where it is therefore he is likely to go after it.

He was not present when the food was placed where it is now so he didn’t see it, therefore he doesn’t know + he is less likely to go after it.

Question 22

Understanding perception and knowledge:
Positive evidence

Chimps modify their behaviour based on where someone else is looking

What were the 2 perspective taking conditions?

Answer 22

visual and auditory perspective taking

transparent vs opaque window of seeing observer and best way to take food
overriding baseline preference

Question 23

Perceptions differ:
Need to distinguish between own and other’s vision (seeing = knowing)

Do Chimps show visual and auditory perspective taking?

Answer 23

Yes

Question 24

Understanding perception and knowledge:
Positive evidence

Chimps modify their behaviour based on where someone else is looking

Findings of Auditory perspective-taking:

Answer 24

In the presence of a human competitor:
chimps preferred to reach through a silent rather than noisy tunnel

Apes systematically opened silent door when observer was present
The view that the loud sound was an aversive stimuli to chimp themselves is false as they showed no preference for door when observer was not present

Suggests they are sensitive to what others can hear.
Are able to manipulate the auditory perception of a competitor.

Question 25

Apes ability to understand

Answer 25

Do this without past experience of these situations (so no rule learned)
contradict Povinelli’s behavioural abstraction hypothesis

Question 26

A test for FB understanding no. 1

Man watches as treat hidden under one of two cups; chimp can’t see which.
Man leaves.
Cups are swapped.
Man returns and points to one cup.
Ape given single chance to retrieve.
Ape scores if looks under cup man didn’t point to.

None of the apes passed.
What are some issues with this finding?

Answer 26

We don’t know if it is inhibitory control
eg. For multiple trials of the man pointing to the right cup, then he doesn’t point to the right one

Ape has to unassociate learning
Masking underlying competence
Due to high cognitive demand

Question 27

A test for FB understanding no. 2

Testing Rhesus monkeys in the wild.
Participants opportunistically sampled by searching the island.

Used a Violation of Expectancy method similar to Onishi & Baillargeon (2005) with rhesus monkeys.

What were the findings for the True and False belief task conditions?

Answer 27

Expt 1: True belief condition

unexpected if she moved to a different box because she saw it in the other box- monkeys looked for longer in the unexpected condition

Rhesus Monkeys represent others’ knowledge but not their beliefs as they look for longer when an actor fails to look for object in the correct location when she is informed

Expt 2: False belief condition
Found no systematic difference in expected or un expected location condition: data suggests moneys did not represent false belief

They can represent interpretations but not beliefs

Question 28

A test for FB understanding no. 3
Latest evidence using eye-tracking:

Task: to anticipate where the human is going to look for a desired object based on his false belief

Used anticipatory gaze paradigm
Findings?

Answer 28

Out of all the apes that made their look to the false belief location (false belief) was higher than those who looked at the distractor location

Authors’ claim:
Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs.

Competing explanation:
apes used knowledge of behavioural rules
- that people tend to look for objects in the place they last saw them – Link with critique of Onishi & Baillergeon (2005)