The Experts below are selected from a list of 13673385 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Josep Call - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effects of indirect reputation and type of rearing on food choices in chimpanzees pan troglodytes
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2020Co-Authors: Nereida Buenoguerra, Montserrat Colell, Josep CallAbstract:Chimpanzees and humans establish preferences over individuals they may benefit more from through scoring indirect reputation. However, humans prefer prosocial individuals even at their own cost. Giving preference to prosocial reputation over material rewards might have permitted the establishment of cooperative human societies. We tested the evolutionary roots of this propensity: importantly, in our study, the reputation scored had no food involved. Eighteen chimpanzees watched a performance where an antisocial Experimenter hit a human victim and a prosocial Experimenter interrupted the fight and consoled the victim. Next, the chimpanzees begged food from one of them. In Phase 2, the Experimenters offered different food amounts (antisocial + 4 vs. prosocial + 1). Chimpanzees significantly prioritized rewards over reputation (i.e., chose antisocial). In Phase 3, both Experimenters offered two pieces of food. Most of the subjects showed indifference to reputation (i.e., chose randomly). Watching fights produced significantly more arousal than consolations. Emotional engagement could not account for chimpanzees’ choices since their choices varied between phases but their arousal did not. Ontogeny and rearing history might play a role in chimpanzees’ choices: the adolescent males (n = 3) consistently chose the antisocial individual whereas hand-reared subjects chose significantly different from mother-reared. We discuss whether the valence of the reputation is species-specific. From an evolutionary perspective, being able to learn indirect reputation is relevant for the individual’s fitness. Both chimpanzees and humans have previously proved to choose those who will presumably behave in the future in a way they could benefit from, suggesting similar underlying cognitive processes that would have emerged at an earlier common ancestor. However, both species approach differently to prosocial individuals. Humans live in societies where there is common agreement about certain universal rights which should always prevail, and thus they are more willing to approach prosocial individuals, even at their own cost. By contrast, in our study, chimpanzees, whose societies are based on unequitable distribution of power and resources, were not that willing to consistently and costly approach prosocial individuals. Moreover, other interpersonal factors, such as the type of upbringing or age-related changes in behavior (aggressiveness during adolescence), might have accounted for these differences.
-
Effects of indirect reputation and type of rearing on food choices in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2020Co-Authors: Nereida Bueno-guerra, Montserrat Colell, Josep CallAbstract:Chimpanzees and humans establish preferences over individuals they may benefit more from through scoring indirect reputation. However, humans prefer prosocial individuals even at their own cost. Giving preference to prosocial reputation over material rewards might have permitted the establishment of cooperative human societies. We tested the evolutionary roots of this propensity: importantly, in our study, the reputation scored had no food involved. Eighteen chimpanzees watched a performance where an antisocial Experimenter hit a human victim and a prosocial Experimenter interrupted the fight and consoled the victim. Next, the chimpanzees begged food from one of them. In Phase 2, the Experimenters offered different food amounts (antisocial + 4 vs. prosocial + 1). Chimpanzees significantly prioritized rewards over reputation (i.e., chose antisocial). In Phase 3, both Experimenters offered two pieces of food. Most of the subjects showed indifference to reputation (i.e., chose randomly). Watching fights produced significantly more arousal than consolations. Emotional engagement could not account for chimpanzees’ choices since their choices varied between phases but their arousal did not. Ontogeny and rearing history might play a role in chimpanzees’ choices: the adolescent males ( n = 3) consistently chose the antisocial individual whereas hand-reared subjects chose significantly different from mother-reared. We discuss whether the valence of the reputation is species-specific. Significance statement From an evolutionary perspective, being able to learn indirect reputation is relevant for the individual’s fitness. Both chimpanzees and humans have previously proved to choose those who will presumably behave in the future in a way they could benefit from, suggesting similar underlying cognitive processes that would have emerged at an earlier common ancestor. However, both species approach differently to prosocial individuals. Humans live in societies where there is common agreement about certain universal rights which should always prevail, and thus they are more willing to approach prosocial individuals, even at their own cost. By contrast, in our study, chimpanzees, whose societies are based on unequitable distribution of power and resources, were not that willing to consistently and costly approach prosocial individuals. Moreover, other interpersonal factors, such as the type of upbringing or age-related changes in behavior (aggressiveness during adolescence), might have accounted for these differences.
-
the goggles experiment can chimpanzees use self experience to infer what a competitor can see
Animal Behaviour, 2015Co-Authors: Katja Karg, Josep Call, Martin Schmelz, Michael TomaselloAbstract:In two experiments, we investigated whether chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, can use self-experience to infer what another sees. Subjects first gained self-experience with the visual properties of an object (either opaque or see-through). In a subsequent test phase, a human Experimenter interacted with the object and we tested whether chimpanzees understood that the Experimenter experienced the object as opaque or as see-through. Crucially, in the test phase, the object seemed opaque to the subject in all cases (while the Experimenter could see through the one that they had experienced as see-through before), such that she had to use her previous self-experience with the object to correctly infer whether the Experimenter could or could not see when looking at the object. Chimpanzees did not attribute their previous self-experience with the object to the Experimenter in a gaze-following task (experiment 1); however, they did so successfully in a competitive context (experiment 2). We conclude that chimpanzees successfully used their self-experience to infer what the competitor sees. We discuss our results in relation to the well-known ‘goggles experiment’ and address alternative explanations.
-
the use of Experimenter given cues by south african fur seals arctocephalus pusillus
Animal Cognition, 2004Co-Authors: Marina Scheumann, Josep CallAbstract:Dogs can use a variety of Experimenter-given cues such as pointing, head direction, and eye direction to locate food hidden under one of several containers. Some authors have proposed that this is a result of the domestication process. In this study we tested four captive fur seals in a two alternative object choice task in which subjects had to use one of the following Experimenter-given cues to locate the food: (1) the Experimenter pointed and gazed at one of the objects, (2) the Experimenter pointed at only one of the objects, (3) the Experimenter gazed at only one of the objects, (4) the Experimenter glanced at only one of the objects, (5) the Experimenter pointed and gazed at one of the objects but was sitting closer to one object than to the other, (6) the Experimenter pointed only with the index finger at one of the objects, (7) the Experimenter presented a replica of one of the objects. The fur seals were able to use cues which involved a fully exposed arm or a head direction, but failed to use glance only, the index finger pointing and the object replica cues. The results showed that a domestication process was not necessary to develop receptive skills to cues given by an Experimenter. Instead, we hypothesize that close interactions with humans prior to testing enabled fur seals to use some gestural cues without formal training. We also analyzed the behavior of the seals depending on the level of difficulty of the task. Behavioral signs of hesitation increased with task difficulty. This suggests that the fur seals were sensitive to task difficulty.
-
distinguishing intentional from accidental actions in orangutans pongo pygmaeus chimpanzees pan troglodytes and human children homo sapiens
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1998Co-Authors: Josep Call, Michael TomaselloAbstract:: This study investigates the understanding of others' intentions in 2- and 3-year-old children, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). During training, subjects learned to use a discriminative cue to select a baited box. During testing, the Experimenter placed a marker on top of the baited box to inform the subject of the reward's location. However, the Experimenter also accidentally dropped the marker on top of an unbaited box, so that during any given trial the Experimenter marked 2 boxes, 1 intentionally and 1 accidentally. All 3 species preferentially selected the box the Experimenter had marked intentionally (especially during the initial trials), with 3-year-old children presenting the most robust results. These findings suggest that subjects understood something about the Experimenter's intentions. The authors speculate that understanding of others' intentions may precede the understanding of others' beliefs both at the ontogenetic and phylogenetic levels.
Nereida Buenoguerra - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effects of indirect reputation and type of rearing on food choices in chimpanzees pan troglodytes
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2020Co-Authors: Nereida Buenoguerra, Montserrat Colell, Josep CallAbstract:Chimpanzees and humans establish preferences over individuals they may benefit more from through scoring indirect reputation. However, humans prefer prosocial individuals even at their own cost. Giving preference to prosocial reputation over material rewards might have permitted the establishment of cooperative human societies. We tested the evolutionary roots of this propensity: importantly, in our study, the reputation scored had no food involved. Eighteen chimpanzees watched a performance where an antisocial Experimenter hit a human victim and a prosocial Experimenter interrupted the fight and consoled the victim. Next, the chimpanzees begged food from one of them. In Phase 2, the Experimenters offered different food amounts (antisocial + 4 vs. prosocial + 1). Chimpanzees significantly prioritized rewards over reputation (i.e., chose antisocial). In Phase 3, both Experimenters offered two pieces of food. Most of the subjects showed indifference to reputation (i.e., chose randomly). Watching fights produced significantly more arousal than consolations. Emotional engagement could not account for chimpanzees’ choices since their choices varied between phases but their arousal did not. Ontogeny and rearing history might play a role in chimpanzees’ choices: the adolescent males (n = 3) consistently chose the antisocial individual whereas hand-reared subjects chose significantly different from mother-reared. We discuss whether the valence of the reputation is species-specific. From an evolutionary perspective, being able to learn indirect reputation is relevant for the individual’s fitness. Both chimpanzees and humans have previously proved to choose those who will presumably behave in the future in a way they could benefit from, suggesting similar underlying cognitive processes that would have emerged at an earlier common ancestor. However, both species approach differently to prosocial individuals. Humans live in societies where there is common agreement about certain universal rights which should always prevail, and thus they are more willing to approach prosocial individuals, even at their own cost. By contrast, in our study, chimpanzees, whose societies are based on unequitable distribution of power and resources, were not that willing to consistently and costly approach prosocial individuals. Moreover, other interpersonal factors, such as the type of upbringing or age-related changes in behavior (aggressiveness during adolescence), might have accounted for these differences.
Michael Tomasello - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the goggles experiment can chimpanzees use self experience to infer what a competitor can see
Animal Behaviour, 2015Co-Authors: Katja Karg, Josep Call, Martin Schmelz, Michael TomaselloAbstract:In two experiments, we investigated whether chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, can use self-experience to infer what another sees. Subjects first gained self-experience with the visual properties of an object (either opaque or see-through). In a subsequent test phase, a human Experimenter interacted with the object and we tested whether chimpanzees understood that the Experimenter experienced the object as opaque or as see-through. Crucially, in the test phase, the object seemed opaque to the subject in all cases (while the Experimenter could see through the one that they had experienced as see-through before), such that she had to use her previous self-experience with the object to correctly infer whether the Experimenter could or could not see when looking at the object. Chimpanzees did not attribute their previous self-experience with the object to the Experimenter in a gaze-following task (experiment 1); however, they did so successfully in a competitive context (experiment 2). We conclude that chimpanzees successfully used their self-experience to infer what the competitor sees. We discuss our results in relation to the well-known ‘goggles experiment’ and address alternative explanations.
-
direct and indirect reputation formation in nonhuman great apes pan paniscus pan troglodytes gorilla gorilla pongo pygmaeus and human children homo sapiens
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2013Co-Authors: Esther Herrmann, Stefanie Keupp, Brian Hare, Amrisha Vaish, Michael TomaselloAbstract:Humans make decisions about when and with whom to cooperate based on their reputations. People either learn about others by direct interaction or by observing third-party interactions or gossip. An important question is whether other animal species, especially our closest living relatives, the nonhuman great apes, also form reputations of others. In Study 1, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and 2.5-year-old human children experienced a nice Experimenter who tried to give food/toys to the subject and a mean Experimenter who interrupted the food/toy giving. In studies 2 and 3, nonhuman great apes and human children could only passively observe a similar interaction, in which a nice Experimenter and a mean Experimenter interacted with a third party. Orangutans and 2.5-year-old human children preferred to approach the nice Experimenter rather than the mean one after having directly experienced their respective behaviors. Orangutans, chimpanzees, and 2.5-year-old human children also took into account Experimenter actions toward third parties in forming reputations. These studies show that the human ability to form direct and indirect reputation judgment is already present in young children and shared with at least some of the other great apes.
-
distinguishing intentional from accidental actions in orangutans pongo pygmaeus chimpanzees pan troglodytes and human children homo sapiens
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1998Co-Authors: Josep Call, Michael TomaselloAbstract:: This study investigates the understanding of others' intentions in 2- and 3-year-old children, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). During training, subjects learned to use a discriminative cue to select a baited box. During testing, the Experimenter placed a marker on top of the baited box to inform the subject of the reward's location. However, the Experimenter also accidentally dropped the marker on top of an unbaited box, so that during any given trial the Experimenter marked 2 boxes, 1 intentionally and 1 accidentally. All 3 species preferentially selected the box the Experimenter had marked intentionally (especially during the initial trials), with 3-year-old children presenting the most robust results. These findings suggest that subjects understood something about the Experimenter's intentions. The authors speculate that understanding of others' intentions may precede the understanding of others' beliefs both at the ontogenetic and phylogenetic levels.
Erin A Heerey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the role of Experimenter belief in social priming
Psychological Science, 2018Co-Authors: Thandiwe S E Gilder, Erin A HeereyAbstract:Research suggests that stimuli that prime social concepts can fundamentally alter people’s behavior. However, most researchers who conduct priming studies fail to explicitly report double-blind procedures. Because Experimenter expectations may influence participant behavior, we asked whether a short pre-experiment interaction between participants and Experimenters would contribute to priming effects when Experimenters were not blind to participant condition. An initial double-blind experiment failed to demonstrate the expected effects of a social prime on executive cognition. To determine whether double-blind procedures caused this result, we independently manipulated participants’ exposure to a prime and Experimenters’ belief about which prime participants received. Across four experiments, we found that Experimenter belief, rather than prime condition, altered participant behavior. Experimenter belief also altered participants’ perceptions of their Experimenter, suggesting that differences in experiment...
J E Fischer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
seeing the Experimenter influences the response to pointing cues in long tailed macaques
PLOS ONE, 2014Co-Authors: Vanessa Schmitt, Christian Schloegl, J E FischerAbstract:Methodological variations in experimental conditions can strongly influence animals' performances in cognitive tests. Specifically, the procedure of the so-called object-choice task has been controversially discussed; here, a human Experimenter indicates the location of hidden food by pointing or gazing at one of two or more containers. Whereas dogs usually succeed, results for nonhuman primates are ambiguous. In the standard version of the task the majority of subjects do not respond appropriately to human pointing. However, modifying the task setup, such as placing the containers further apart, seems to improve subjects' performances, suggesting that cue salience may be an important variable. Here we investigated whether the visibility of the Experimenter inhibits long-tailed macaques' (Macaca fascicularis) usage of the pointing cue. In our baseline condition, with the Experimenter fully visible, the monkeys chose the correct container in 61% of the trials. The performance increased significantly, however, when the Experimenter was hidden behind a curtain and only the arm of the Experimenter, a doll's arm, or a stick was visible. Furthermore, the monkeys performed significantly better when the tip of the pointing finger or device was close to the target compared to the more distant condition. Intriguingly, after these experiments the monkeys' performance was also significantly improved in the baseline condition (70%). Apparently, the monkeys were first distracted by the presence of the Experimenter, but then learned to use the cue. These findings highlight the importance of the test conditions, and question some of the assumptions about species-specific differences in the object-choice task.
