103_23_full - PSYC 103 Winter 2012 Lecture 23 ...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: PSYC 103 Winter 2012 Lecture 23 Communica6on Review session –place - - - 6me - - - date Theory of mind The aBribu6on of mental states to others. Do animals possess a theory of mind? (Premack & Woodruff, 1978) Decep0on Woodruff & Premack (1979) -  Chimps observed a lab assistant hide food under 1 of 2 pots. Chimp could not reach food – had to direct a trainer to food: -  Trainer 1 - coopera6ve, gave food to chimp. Chimp would direct this trainer to correct pot -  Trainer 2 - compe66ve, eat food if directed to it. Chimp would direct this trainer to incorrect pot -  Consistent with the idea that chimps have a theory of mind But, can also be explained by conven6onal principles of discrimina6on learning (Mitchell & Anderson, 1997) 2 Theory of mind Decep0on – naturalis0c studies Byrne & Whiten (1985, 1987) -   Observed amongst a troop of baboons a strong adolescent, Melton, antagonize a youngster -   Youngster screamed – remainder of troop moved towards Melton -   Melton engaged in behavior typically shown when a predator approaches (there was no predator) -   Byrne & Whiten concluded that Melton was deceiving his troop to avoid punishment Difficult to evaluate the claim: (1) Perhaps Melton saw something that looked like a predator (2) Perhaps this behavior (by chance) has prevented punishment in the past (3) Do not know the prior experiences of the animals 3 Theory of mind Knowledge aJribu0on Povinelli, Nelson & Boysen (1990) -  Chimpanzees had to choose 1 of 4 cups -  Food was hidden under cup 1 -  Trainer 1: “The knower” was seen to be in room when food was hidden, pointed at cup 1 -  Trainer 2: “The guesser” was seen to be out of room when food was hidden, pointed at cup 2 -  Eventually, chimps came to chose cup 1. -  Did they know what the trainers knew? Not necessarily, the problem can be conceived as a simple discrimina6on 4 Theory of mind Knowledge attribution A sketch of the test environment in which a dominant and subordinate chimpanzee were able to watch a trainer place food on the subordinate’s side of one of the opaque barriers (adapted from Tomasello et al., 2003a). Self recogni6on Self- recogni0on How do animals interact with themselves via a mirror? -   Povinelli et al. (1997): Regions of chimpanzees’ faces marked with a dye Adapted from Povinelli et al., 1997. Chimps touched these regions more than control regions, but only when in front of a mirror Not necessarily self- recogni6on, perhaps informa6on about one’s own body Anderson & Gallup (1997), Povinelli (2000) – effect confined to great apes. 8 Self-recognition Chimps pass the “mirror” test The frequency with which subjects touched the marked and unmarked regions of their heads shown in Figure 12.14 during a 30-minute baseline period in the absence of a mirror (left-hand side), and during a 30-minute test period in the presence of a mirror (right-hand side) (adapted from Povinelli et al., 1997). (vii) Self- recogni0on -   Some evidence of: dolphins (Reiss & Marino, 2001) All directed responses towards elephants (Plotnik et al., 2006) their own body by using a mirror pigeons (Epstein et al., 1981) -  Why can some animals use mirrors to direct responses towards their bodies, while others cannot? -   Perhaps only some animals can use informa6on provided by mirrors. But parrots can use mirrors to find hidden objects, yet they do not use mirrors to direct responses towards themselves. - Gallup (1970, 1975, 1983): Animal needs to be self- aware – not universally accepted however! - Heyes (1994b, 1998): Depends upon body concept According to Povinelli (2000), this evolved as a consequence of chimps needing to swing through trees Difficult to apply to the results of Plotnik et al. (2006)! 11 Communication Communication Ethological model of communication: use of a ‘signal’ to influence the behavior of another individual. Honey-bee communication Von Frisch (1950) -  Upon returning to the hive, a worker bee will dance on the vertical surface of a comb if she has collected food -  If food is between 50 to 100 meters away = round dance -  If food is more than 100 meters away = waggle dance round waggle -  Waggle dance provides distance and direction information about the location of food: Number of waggles related to distance from hive Direction of waggle run = constant angle to vertical. This angle corresponds to the angle (at the hive) between (a) the direction of food and (b) the sun 15 Natural Communication Systems Honey bee “waggle” dance •  Performed by bees returning from food sources >200 m away •  Angle of the straight run to the vertical = angle of the food source from the sun’s azimuth •  Duration and length of the waggle correspond to food source distance Bee dances Von Frisch The relationship between the number of turns of the waggle dance, performed during a period of 15 seconds, and the distance of the feeding place. Bee dances Von Frisch Waggle Dance gives direction and distance Fan experiment Step experiment More bees show up at the food than at control locations Bee dances Gould • Painted ocelli of foragers • They give dance relative to vertical in lighted hive • Dance is interpreted relative to the light Attendant bees (with unpainted ocelli) arrive at the wrong feeder ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/24/2012 for the course PSYC 103 taught by Professor Pearlberg during the Spring '07 term at UCSD.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online