|
|
Call, J., Brauer, J., Kaminski, J., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. J Comp Psychol, 117(3), 257–263.
Abstract: Twelve domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) were given a series of trials in which they were forbidden to take a piece of visible food. In some trials, the human continued to look at the dog throughout the trial (control condition), whereas in others, the human (a) left the room, (b) turned her back, (c) engaged in a distracting activity, or (d) closed her eyes. Dogs behaved in clearly different ways in most of the conditions in which the human did not watch them compared with the control condition, in which she did. In particular, when the human looked at them, dogs retrieved less food, approached it in a more indirect way, and sat (as opposed to laid down) more often than in the other conditions. Results are discussed in terms of domestic dogs' social-cognitive skills and their unique evolutionary and ontogenetic histories.
|
|
|
|
Horowitz, A. C. (2003). Do humans ape? Or do apes human? Imitation and intention in humans (Homo sapiens) and other animals. J Comp Psychol, 117(3), 325–336.
Abstract: A. Whiten, D. M. Custance, J.-C. Gomez, P. Teixidor, and K. A. Bard (1996) tested chimpanzees' (Pan troglodytes) and human children's (Homo sapiens) skills at imitation with a 2-action test on an “artificial fruit.” Chimpanzees imitated to a restricted degree; children were more thoroughly imitative. Such results prompted some to assert that the difference in imitation indicates a difference in the subjects' understanding of the intentions of the demonstrator (M. Tomasello, 1996). In this experiment, 37 adult human subjects were tested with the artificial fruit. Far from being perfect imitators, the adults were less imitative than the children. These results cast doubt on the inference from imitative performance to an ability to understand others' intentions. The results also demonstrate how any test of imitation requires a control group and attention to the level of behavioral analysis.
|
|
|
|
Biederman, G. B., Robertson, H. A., & Vanayan, M. (1986). Observational learning of two visual discriminations by pigeons: a within-subjects design. J Exp Anal Behav, 46(1), 45–49.
Abstract: Pigeon's observational learning of successive visual discrimination was studied using within-subject comparisons of data from three experimental conditions. Two pairs of discriminative stimuli were used; each bird was exposed to two of the three experimental conditions, with different pairs of stimuli used in a given bird's two conditions. In one condition, observers were exposed to visual discriminative stimuli only. In a second condition, subjects were exposed to a randomly alternating sequence of two stimuli where the one that would subsequently be used as S+ was paired with the operation of the grain magazine. In a third experimental condition, subjects were exposed to the performance of a conspecific in the operant discrimination procedure. After exposures to conspecific performances, there was facilitation of discriminative learning, relative to that which followed exposures to stimulus and reinforcement sequences or exposures to stimulus sequences alone. Exposure to stimulus and food-delivery sequences enhanced performance relative to exposure to stimulus sequences alone. The differential effects of these three types of exposure were not attributable to order effects or to task difficulty; rather, they clearly were due to the type of exposure.
|
|
