Guy Woodruff

Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind

An individual has a theory of mind if he imputes mental states to himself and others. A system of inferences of this kind is properly viewed as a theory because such states are not directly observable, and the system can be used to make predictions about the behavior of others. As to the mental states the chimpanzee may infer, consider those inferred by our own species, for example, purpose or intention, as well as knowledge, belief, thinking, doubt, guessing, pretending, liking, and so forth. To determine whether or not the chimpanzee infers states of this kind, we showed an adult chimpanzee a series of videotaped scenes of a human actor struggling with a variety of problems. Some problems were simple, involving inaccessible food – bananas vertically or horizontally out of reach, behind a box, and so forth – as in the original Kohler problems; others were more complex, involving an actor unable to extricate himself from a locked cage, shivering because of a malfunctioning heater, or unable to play a phonograph because it was unplugged. With each videotape the chimpanzee was given several photographs, one a solution to the problem, such as a stick for the inaccessible bananas, a key for the locked up actor, a lit wick for the malfunctioning heater. The chimpanzees consistent choice of the correct photographs can be understood by assuming that the animal recognized the videotape as representing a problem, understood the actors purpose, and chose alternatives compatible with that purpose.

Intentional communication in the chimpanzee: The development of deception

Abstract Communication about the location of a hidden incentive was studied in chimpanzee-human dyads, in which each member of a pair served alternately as “sender” and “recipient” of information. When the human cooperated with the chimpanzee in finding the goal, from the very beginning the chimpanzees were able to produce and comprehend behavioral cues which conveyed accurate locational information. When the human and chimpanzee competed for the goal, the chimpanzees learned both to withhold information or mislead the recipient, and to discount or controvert the senders own misleading cues. The chimpanzees ability to convey and utilize both accurate and misleading information, by taking into account the nature of the sender or recipient, provides evidence of a capacity for intentional communication in this nonhuman primate species.

Map Reading by Chimpanzees

Infant chimpanzees, after watching a small black-and-white closed-circuit television picture of a familiar caretaker walking out into an outdoor field and disappearing from sight, were more successful in finding the person than if they had been given no such cue; and their performance approximated that which obtained after they had seen the same scene normally, via direct perception.

Autoshaping of initial feeding and drinking reactions in newly hatched chicks

Newly hatched chicks were force-fed food and water throughout rearing, and food, water, or sand reinforcers during exposure to an omission-training procedure. The chicks were thus prevented from performing approach and contact responses to the reinforcer at any time in their lives. Nevertheless, the subjects displayed approach and species-specific feeding or drinking reactions directed toward an illuminated key paired with food or water, but not with sand. Illumination of a key either uncorrelated or negatively correlated with food or water did not engender appreciable responding. Feeding and drinking reactions were topographically distinct, determined by the type of reinforcer, but were not elicited by the reinforcer. These findings support a “learned release” view of autoshaping, according to which phylogenetically preorganized behavior patterns are triggered by distal stimuli paired with biologically significant proximal stimulation, and suggest a close relationship between autoshaping and primitive instances of visual object recognition.

Behavioral contrast and type of reward: Role of elicited response topography

Groups of pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-interval variable-interval and multiple variable-interval extinction schedules of either food or water reinforcement for keypecking. Discriminative stimuli associated with component schedules were located either on the operant key or on a second “signal” key. When the stimuli were projected on the operant key, positive contrast appeared during discrimination conditions with either food or water as the reinforcer. When the stimuli were projected on the signal key, overall responding to the operant and signal keys showed contrast with food, but negative induction with water as the reinforcer. In the latter condition, the signal for the variable-interval shcedule of water reinforcement elicited a variety of water-related behavior, only some of which was directed at the signal. Thus, the type of reward and location of discriminative stimuli interacted to determine the presence or absence of behavioral contrast effects. In large part, these results support and extend the autoshaping view of contrast.