| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Beck, B.B. |
|
| |
Title |
Chimpocentrism: Bias in cognitive ethology |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
1982 |
Publication |
Journal of Human Evolution |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume  |
11 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
3-17 |
|
| |
Keywords |
herring gull; chimpanzee; cognition; tool-use; shell-dropping; mollusk; predation |
|
| |
Abstract |
Herring gulls drop hard-shelled mollusks and hermit crab-inhabited molluskan prey in order to break the shells and gain access to the edible interior. A field study of predatory shell dropping on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, U.S.A. showed that the gulls usually drop the same shell repeatedly, orient directly to dropping sites that are invisible from the point at which the mollusks are captured, drop preferentially on hard surfaces, adjust dropping heights to suit the area and elasticity of the substrate, orient directly into the wind while dropping, sever the large defensive cheliped of hermit crabs before consumption, and rinse prey that is difficult to swallow. Proficiency in prey dropping is acquired through dropping objects in play, trial-and-error learning, and perhaps, observation learning.
Observable attributes of predatory shell-dropping support inferences that the gulls are capable of extended concentration, purposefulness, mental representation of spatially and temporally displaced environmental features, cognitive mapping, cognitive modeling, selectivity, and strategy formation. Identical cognitive processes have been inferred to underlie the most sophisticated forms of chimpanzee tool-use.
Advanced cognitive capacities are not restricted to chimpanzees and other pongids, and are not associated uniquely with tool use. The chimpocentric bias should be abandoned, and reconstructions of the evolution of intelligence should be modified accordingly. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
4414 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
de Waal, F.B.M.; Luttrell, L.M. |
|
| |
Title |
Mechanisms of social reciprocity in three primate species: Symmetrical relationship characteristics or cognition? |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
1988 |
Publication |
Ethology and Sociobiology |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
9 |
Issue |
2–4 |
Pages |
101-118 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Reciprocity; Agonistic intervention; Cognition; Chimpanzees; Macaques |
|
| |
Abstract |
Agonistic intervention behavior was observed in captive groups of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and stumptail monkeys (M. arctoides). Reciprocity correlations of interventions were determined while removing from the data the effects of several symmetrical relationship characteristics, that is, matrillineal kinship, proximity relations, and same-sex combination. It was considered likely that if significant reciprocity persisted after controlling for these characteristics, the reciprocity was based on cognitive mechanisms. Statistical significance was tested by means of recently developed matrix permutation procedures. All three species exhibited significant reciprocity with regard to beneficial interventions, even after controlling for symmetrical traits. Harmful interventions were, however, reciprocal among chimpanzees only. This species showed a “revenge system”, that is, if A often intervened against B, B did the same to A. In contrast, both macaque species showed significantly inversed reciprocity in their harmful interventions: if A often intervened against B, B rarely intervened against A. Further analysis indicates that the strict hierarchy of macaques prevents them from achieving complete reciprocity. Compared to chimpanzees, macaques rarely intervene against higher ranking group members. The observed contrast can be partially explained on the basis of differences in available space, as indicated by a comparison of indoor and outdoor living conditions for the chimpanzee colony. Yet, even when such spatial factors are taken into account, substantial behavior differences between chimpanzees and macaques remain. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0162-3095 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
5809 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Tomasello, M.; Davis-Dasilva, M.; Camak, L.; Bard, K. |
|
| |
Title |
Observational learning of tool-use by young chimpanzees |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
1987 |
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
Human Evolution |
|
| |
Volume |
2 |
Issue |
2 |
Pages |
175-183 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Chimpanzees; Observational Learning; Tool-Use |
|
| |
Abstract |
In the current study two groups of young chimpanzees (4–6 and 8–9 years old) were given a T-bar and a food item that could only be reached by using the T-bar. Experimental subjects were given the opportunity to observe an adult using the stick as a tool to obtain the food; control subjects were exposed to the adult but were given no demonstration. Subjects in the older group did not learn to use the tool. Subjects in the younger group who were exposed to the demonstrator learned to use the stick as a tool much more readily than those who were not. None of the subjects demonstrated an ability to imitatively copy the demonstrator's precise behavioral strategies. More than simple stimulus enhancement was involved, however, since both groups manipulated the T-bar, but only experimental subjects used it in its function as a tool. Our findings complement naturalistic observations in suggesting that chimpanzee tool-use is in some sense «culturally transmitted» — though perhaps not in the same sense as social-conventional behaviors for which precise copying of conspecifics is crucial. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
Kluwer Academic Publishers |
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0393-9375 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
5915 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Köhler, W. |
|
| |
Title |
Intelligenzprüfungen an Menschenaffen |
Type |
Book Whole |
| |
Year |
1921 |
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
|
| |
Keywords |
Animal intelligence , Chimpanzees , Primates , Psychology |
|
| |
Abstract |
|
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
Springer |
Place of Publication |
Berlin |
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
German |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
5752 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
