Yamamoto et al. Flashcards
Theory of Mind
The capacity to understand the needs and intentions of others and respond in an appropriate way
Altruism (psych investigated)
Helping others with no benefit to oneself
Empathy
the ability to share someone’s emotional state by imagining what it would be like in that situation
Theft transfer
when the chimp tried to take the tool that they required by force
Prosocial behaviour
Any action that has the intention of helping others
Instrumental/ Targeted helping (psych investigated)
Help and care based on cognitive appreciation of the need or situation of others
Give an example of a direct request
An outstretched arm directed at the potential helper
Behaviour flexibility
when a conspecific gives the correct tool based on the situation
Aims (2)
- To test the ability and flexibility to help another chimp based on their specific need
- Whether chimpanzees will help a conspecific without specifically being asked
IV
three conditions
(can see, cannot see, can see)
Offer of a tool is operationalised how (2)
- when a chimp help out a tool
- did not matter if the recipient received the tool
IV operationalised how
by how transparent the glass is
DV
frequency of helping
DV operationalised how
percentage of trials in which the conspecific offered the right tool
Name of similar study
Savage and Rambaugh
Differences between SR and Yamamoto
cues
usefulness
apparatus
Explain difference in cues SR and Y
SR used symbols to communicate while Y used direct communication using verbal cues
Explain difference in usefulness SR and Y
Y brought more insight into the helping behaviour mechanism
Explain difference in apparatus SR and Y
Y allowed natural communication while SR gave them a symbol dictionary
Sampling technique
Opportunity
Method
Lab experiment, controlled observation
Design
Repeated measures
Details of participants (3)
- Names were Ai Ayumu Pal Pan Cleo
Chloe was removed - Each paired with kin/ mother
- Had participated in previous similar research
Which participants were mothers
Ai, Pan
Ppts were housed where
Primate research institute
Ethics approved by (they also produced an ethical guide)
Animal Care committee of the Primate research institute of Kyoto University
Chimps didn’t help unless there was a
direct request
Apparatus (4)
- experimental booths
- with transparent/ opaque glass
- hole cut in the middle of the glass
- hole was for conspecifics to ask for tool
Tray of how many tools
7
Tools (2)
stick
straw
Non-tool (2)
hose
brush
Controls (3)
- same tool familiarisation procedure
- same training
- random allocation to IV conditions
How many trails in each condition
48
Stick task
one chimp needed a stick to reach for juice in another booth which was out of reach without it
Straw task
One chimp needed a straw to drink from a carton that was fixed to the wall
Describe task (2)
A chimp had to select and transfer an appropriate tool to another chimpanzee
so he/she could solve a task and obtain a juice reward
Summary of the procedures (5)
- subjects select appropriate tool
- from a random set of 7 objects
- to transfer to a conspecific partner
- confronted with differing tool-use situations
- indicating they understood what their partner needed
Upon request offer
the helper gave a tool to the chimp that requested it
Voluntary offer
The helper gave a tool to the chimp without any request
Result of first can see- offer of an object
90.8% of the time
If they ask for specific ppt result
say they offered the correct tool more frequently than other tools
In familiarisation phase, object offer
5% of the time
Result of first can see- upon request
90% of trials
Result of first can see- Pan (2)
offered brush 79.5% of the time
when brush removed, offered tool 88.6% of time
Result of cannot see- offer of an object
95.8% of the time
Result of cannot see- upon request
71.1% of the time
Who were tested in second can see
Ai Cleo Pal
Result of second can see- object offer
97.9% of the time
Result of second can see- upon request
79.4%
What influenced the results of the cannot see
Carryover effects where the tool was offered based on practice of previous tools
What did Ayumu do in cannot see (4)
- only individual
- stood up and assessed partner’s situation
- by peaking through hole 1m above ground
- selecting appropriate tool
Empirical evidence of targetted helping
All offered correct tool apart from Pan
Conclusions (3)
- chimps can understand the needs of other chimps by applying flexible targeted helping
- when the helper can see their partner’s needs, they are more likely to select the correct tool (visual assessment is necessary)
- Chimps will offer help to conspecifics but it it must be direct and not spontaneous
Ethics- numbers
the research team need to use the minimal amount of animals necessary
they used 5 chimp kin pairings
Ethics- replacement
the research team should consider using footage from the wild or computer simulations
Ethics- housing
the chimpanzees were socially housed at the Primate research institute at Kyoto University.
Ethics- Deprivation
the research team should not withhold basic needs to test social behaviour
Application for children (2)
- could be useful for teachers as they can teach them about altruism by creating a similar task for children to complete
- children can be taught about altruism. we can educate children to give help even when it is not asked for
Explain why the study is from the social approach (3)
- investigates interaction of two chimpanzees to solve a task and to see how their behaviour was influenced by the social context of being able to see each other
- involves chimps interacting to gain a juice reward so behaviour was influenced by individuals around them
- study is about chimps in a social context, that of providing targeted helping when requesting
Strength of using animals (2)
- can allow for greater controls to be used as the experimental booths/ tool box task cannot be performed on humans
- can allow for comparison between humans and animals
Weakness of using animals (1)
- can’t be generalised to humans due to differences in anatomy
Generalisable?
no, too small group and only came from Japanese research centre
Valid? Yes
- no individual differences because of repeated measures
- strict controls ensured that it was testing what it said it would test
