| Records |
| Author |
Horowitz, A.C. |
| Title |
Do humans ape? Or do apes human? Imitation and intention in humans (Homo sapiens) and other animals |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2003 |
Publication |
Journal of comparative psychology |
Abbreviated Journal |
J Comp Psychol |
| Volume |
117 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
325-336 |
Keywords  |
Adolescent; Adult; Animals; *Appetitive Behavior; Attention; Child, Preschool; Concept Formation; Female; Humans; *Imitative Behavior; Male; Motivation; Pan troglodytes/*psychology; *Problem Solving; *Psychomotor Performance; Reaction Time; Species Specificity |
| 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. |
| Address |
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. ahorowitz@crl.ucsd.edu |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
Washington, D.C. : 1983 |
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
0735-7036 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
PMID:14498809 |
Approved |
yes |
| Call Number |
refbase @ user @ |
Serial |
736 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Zentall, T.R. |
| Title |
Action imitation in birds |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2004 |
Publication |
Learning & behavior : a Psychonomic Society publication |
Abbreviated Journal |
Learn Behav |
| Volume |
32 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
15-23 |
| Keywords |
Adaptation, Psychological; Animals; *Birds; *Imitative Behavior; Imprinting (Psychology); *Learning; Motivation; Psychological Theory; *Social Environment; *Social Facilitation; Vocalization, Animal |
| Abstract |
Action imitation, once thought to be a behavior almost exclusively limited to humans and the great apes, surprisingly also has been found in a number of bird species. Because imitation has been viewed by some psychologists as a form of intelligent behavior, there has been interest in how it is distributed among animal species. Although the mechanisms responsible for action imitation are not clear, we are now at least beginning to understand the conditions under which it occurs. In this article, I try to identify and differentiate the various forms of socially influenced behavior (species-typical social reactions, social effects on motivation, social effects on perception, socially influenced learning, and action imitation) and explain why it is important to differentiate imitation from other forms of social influence. I also examine some of the variables that appear to be involved in the occurrence of imitation. Finally, I speculate about why a number of bird species, but few mammal species, appear to imitate. |
| Address |
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506, USA. zentall@uky.edu |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
1543-4494 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
PMID:15161137 |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
refbase @ user @ |
Serial |
230 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Zentall, T.R. |
| Title |
Imitation: definitions, evidence, and mechanisms |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2006 |
Publication |
Animal cognition |
Abbreviated Journal |
Anim. Cogn. |
| Volume |
9 |
Issue |
4 |
Pages |
335-353 |
| Keywords |
Adaptation, Psychological; Animals; *Behavior, Animal; *Imitative Behavior; *Learning; Motivation; *Social Environment; Transfer (Psychology) |
| Abstract |
Imitation can be defined as the copying of behavior. To a biologist, interest in imitation is focused on its adaptive value for the survival of the organism, but to a psychologist, the mechanisms responsible for imitation are the most interesting. For psychologists, the most important cases of imitation are those that involve demonstrated behavior that the imitator cannot see when it performs the behavior (e.g., scratching one's head). Such examples of imitation are sometimes referred to as opaque imitation because they are difficult to account for without positing cognitive mechanisms, such as perspective taking, that most animals have not been acknowledged to have. The present review first identifies various forms of social influence and social learning that do not qualify as opaque imitation, including species-typical mechanisms (e.g., mimicry and contagion), motivational mechanisms (e.g., social facilitation, incentive motivation, transfer of fear), attentional mechanisms (e.g., local enhancement, stimulus enhancement), imprinting, following, observational conditioning, and learning how the environment works (affordance learning). It then presents evidence for different forms of opaque imitation in animals, and identifies characteristics of human imitation that have been proposed to distinguish it from animal imitation. Finally, it examines the role played in opaque imitation by demonstrator reinforcement and observer motivation. Although accounts of imitation have been proposed that vary in their level of analysis from neural to cognitive, at present no theory of imitation appears to be adequate to account for the varied results that have been found. |
| Address |
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0044, USA. Zentall@uky.edu |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
1435-9448 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
PMID:17024510 |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
refbase @ user @ |
Serial |
217 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Tebbich, S.; Bshary, R.; Grutter, A.S. |
| Title |
Cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus recognise familiar clients |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2002 |
Publication |
Animal Cognition |
Abbreviated Journal |
Anim. Cogn. |
| Volume |
5 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
139-145 |
| Keywords |
Adaptation, Physiological; Animals; *Evolution; *Fishes; Motivation; *Recognition (Psychology); Social Behavior; Visual Perception |
| Abstract |
Individual recognition has been attributed a crucial role in the evolution of complex social systems such as helping behaviour and cooperation. A classical example for interspecific cooperation is the mutualism between the cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus and its client reef fish species. For stable cooperation to evolve, it is generally assumed that partners interact repeatedly and remember each other's past behaviour. Repeated interactions may be achieved by site fidelity or individual recognition. However, as some cleaner fish have more than 2,300 interactions per day with various individuals per species and various species of clients, basic assumptions of cooperation theory might be violated in this mutualism. We tested the cleaner L. dimidiatus and its herbivorous client, the surgeon fish Ctenochaetus striatus, for their ability to distinguish between a familiar and an unfamiliar partner in a choice experiment. Under natural conditions, cleaners and clients have to build up their relationship, which is probably costly for both. We therefore predicted that both clients and cleaners should prefer the familiar partner in our choice experiment. We found that cleaners spent significantly more time near the familiar than the unfamiliar clients in the first 2 minutes of the experiment. This indicates the ability for individual recognition in cleaners. In contrast, the client C. striatus showed no significant preference. This could be due to a sampling artefact, possibly due to a lack of sufficient motivation. Alternatively, clients may not need to recognise their cleaners but instead remember the defined territories of L. dimidiatus to achieve repeated interactions with the same individual. |
| Address |
Max Planck Institute for Behaviour and Physiology, 82319 Seewiesen, Germany. tebbich@ss20.mpi-seewiesen.mpg.de |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
1435-9448 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
PMID:12357286 |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
2599 |
| Permanent link to this record |
