Dev L5 ToM in animals
0.0 / 5
- Created by: freya_bc
- Created on: 13-02-18 16:01
Premack and Woodruff (1978)
Sarah chimp Shown person on video with an intention and having a problem- Picture cards which contained solution- could consistently pick correct picture card to solve the problem could infer actions intentions
1 of 21
Woodruff and Premack, (1979)
Live interaction type of paradigm Coop or hostile person Chimp could see food but couldn’t reach, would point, coop pass to her No coop would get food but not share reason about intentions of helper- learned to withhold or mislead and vice versa...
2 of 21
...
when carried out with humans acc/inacc with where food is and whether they choose to ignore human or not- only capable after a lot of training though- evidence of capacity for intentional comm/deception
3 of 21
Povinelli
Chimps do not reason about others’ beliefs, or any other mental states same behaviours, but not same underlying psychological mechanisms
4 of 21
Tomasello
Chimps have ToM in some respects, but not in others No evidence whether they understand false beliefs but do understand goals/intent/percep/others knowl
5 of 21
Call and Tomasello, (2008)
Chimps show understanding of goals or intentions Imitation studies contradict Povinelli’s behavioural abstraction hyp some evidence of FB abilities too
6 of 21
Buttlemann et al., (2007)
tapped light box to make it light up, watched another person interact with it Kicked it (B) even though hands free goal to turn on light but intention with food Kicked it (A) but hands are busy so makes sense to touch with food rational imitation..
7 of 21
...
Imitated E’s novel action when he seemed to do it intentionally but NOT when this was due to a physical constraint chimps understand other’s goals and intentions
8 of 21
Warneken and Tomasello (2006) study 1
18mos infants (N=24) Procedure: 10 situations, 4 categories Out-of-reach Access thwarted by physical object Achieving wrong result Using wrong means 3 ‘request’ phases (10s focus only, 10s alternate gaze, 10s verbalise)
9 of 21
study 2
Study 2: 36-54mos chimps (N=3) 80% children responded in first 10s phase without being asked Dif in data btwen children and chimp better ability to interp need for help/more cues or more motivated to help children and chimps both willing to help...
10 of 21
...
out reward or praise. Chimps helped more in reaching tasks than other tasks (salient cue?) differ in ability to interpret others’ need for help? Methodological note: cooperation vs competition
11 of 21
Povinelli & Eddy (1996
monkeys and screen that exp can or cannot see behind
12 of 21
Povinelli & Preuss (1995), Povinelli & Eddy (1996
know who and who not to beg for e.g. not the one with a blindfold on Person without a bucket on her head The one looking the right way etc Chimps didn’t discrim here- Pov tf suggested chimps think both are equally knowledgable even though one canno
13 of 21
Kaminski et al. (2004)
Chimps begged more when they were being watched Sensitive to both body and face orientation but not eyes
14 of 21
Hare, Call & Tomasello (2001)
Subordinate – wont go for food if dom is going to go for that food Exp bought in food Sub could see at all times, dom sometimes their window closed- sub could see when this was ...
15 of 21
...
Suggests chimpanzees can reason about others’ knowledge on the basis of what others have / have not seen competition if dom didnt see they went for food had head start
16 of 21
Hare et al., (2006)
tended to approach food from side where exp couldnt see them, and when face one way and body the other avoided face- removes
17 of 21
Call and Tomasello, 1999
hidden under one of two cups; chimp can’t see man leaves cups are swapped man returns and points to one cup chimp single chance to retrieve none of apes passed lack inhib control- when ask to go and get food rather than where man thinks it is
18 of 21
Marticorena et al. (2011)
Used a Violation of Expectancy method similar to Onishi & Baillargeon (2005) with rhesus monkeys Looked for longer when actor fails to look for object in correct location when she is informed FB no dif in looking time
19 of 21
....
Findings suggest they can represent whether the actor is knowledgeable or ignorant However, they did not expect the actor to search in the wrong location in line with their (false) belief
20 of 21
Krupenye et al., (2016)
eye-tracking juice encourager used anticipatory gaze a la southgate et al., (2007) 20/30 looked more at false belief place than distractor box- anticip false belief
21 of 21
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Woodruff and Premack, (1979)
Back
Live interaction type of paradigm Coop or hostile person Chimp could see food but couldn’t reach, would point, coop pass to her No coop would get food but not share reason about intentions of helper- learned to withhold or mislead and vice versa...
Card 3
Front
...
Back
Card 4
Front
Povinelli
Back
Card 5
Front
Tomasello
Back
Related discussions on The Student Room
- Which Hanna-Barbera cartoon is better, Tom and Jerry or Scooby Doo? »
- Which is your favourite animated series? »
- What's the strangest animal to have as a pet? »
- Current dream holiday destination? »
- Marvel Fans? »
- What famous person would you like to meet? »
- Hurt or Heal (Actors edition) »
- opinions on animation universities? »
- By next year this is what Sky should do? »
- Kallisto's Old Cartoons Review »
Similar Psychology resources:
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
Comments
No comments have yet been made