|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Call, J. (2003). Beyond learning fixed rules and social cues: abstraction in the social arena. Phil. Trans. Biol. Sci., 358(1435), 1189–1196.
Abstract: Abstraction is a central idea in many areas of physical comparative cognition such as categorization, numerical competence or problem solving. This idea, however, has rarely been applied to comparative social cognition. In this paper, I propose that the notion of abstraction can be applied to the social arena and become an important tool to investigate the social cognition and behaviour processes in animals. To make this point, I present recent evidence showing that chimpanzees know about what others can see and about what others intend. These data do not fit either low-level mechanisms based on stimulus-response associations or high-level explanations based on metarepresentational mechanisms such as false belief attribution. Instead, I argue that social abstraction, in particular the development of concepts such as seeing in others, is key to explaining the behaviour of our closest relative in a variety of situations.
|
|
|
|
Call, J., Aureli, F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Postconflict third-party affiliation in stumptailed macaques. Anim. Behav., 63(2), 209–216.
Abstract: Stumptailed macaques, Macaca arctoides, are characterized by high levels of postconflict affiliative contacts between opponents. We investigated the occurrence of postconflict affiliative contacts between opponents and third parties that were not involved in the original conflict. We collected 10-min focal observations during postconflict and control periods in which we recorded all aggressive and affiliative behaviours between opponents and third parties. We distinguished three types of third parties depending on the relationship with the focal animal: own kin, opponent's kin and individuals unrelated to both opponents. We analysed the interactions with third parties separately, while distinguishing two classes of affiliative behaviours: (1) allogrooming and contact sitting and (2) sociosexual behaviours (e.g. genital inspection). The macaques showed differences between postconflict and control periods in their affiliative contacts with third parties. Aggressors received more postconflict grooming and contact sitting from their opponents' kin, received more sociosexual behaviour from their own kin and unrelated individuals, and directed more sociosexual behaviour to unrelated individuals. Victims received and directed less postconflict grooming from and towards their own kin. They received more postconflict sociosexual behaviour from all partners except their own kin and directed more sociosexual behaviour to all partners except the opponent's kin. This study establishes the occurrence of multiple postconflict triadic affiliation in stumptailed macaques, and is the first to show that victims receive contacts from third parties in a cercopithecine species, a behaviour previously described only in chimpanzees. It also highlights the importance of analysing the different affiliative behaviours separately in postconflict situations. Otherwise, many of the patterns we report, especially those involving victims, would have been missed.
|
|
|
|
Call, J. (2002). A fish-eye lens for comparative studies: broadening the scope of animal cognition. Anim. Cogn., 5(1), 15–16.
Abstract: ? is the article no longer available?
|
|
|
|
Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2001). Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Anim. Behav., 61(1), 139–151.
Abstract: We conducted three experiments on social problem solving by chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. In each experiment a subordinate and a dominant individual competed for food, which was placed in various ways on the subordinate's side of two opaque barriers. In some conditions dominants had not seen the food hidden, or food they had seen hidden was moved elsewhere when they were not watching (whereas in control conditions they saw the food being hidden or moved). At the same time, subordinates always saw the entire baiting procedure and could monitor the visual access of their dominant competitor as well. If subordinates were sensitive to what dominants did or did not see during baiting, they should have preferentially approached and retrieved the food that dominants had not seen hidden or moved. This is what they did in experiment 1 when dominants were either uninformed or misinformed about the food's location. In experiment 2 subordinates recognized, and adjusted their behaviour accordingly, when the dominant individual who witnessed the hiding was replaced with another dominant individual who had not witnessed it, thus demonstrating their ability to keep track of precisely who has witnessed what. In experiment 3 subordinates did not choose consistently between two pieces of hidden food, one of which dominants had seen hidden and one of which they had not seen hidden. However, their failure in this experiment was likely to be due to the changed nature of the competition under these circumstances and not to a failure of social-cognitive skills. These findings suggest that at least in some situations (i.e. competition with conspecifics) chimpanzees know what conspecifics have and have not seen (do and do not know), and that they use this information to devise effective social-cognitive strategies. Copyright 2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Call, J., & Carpenter, M. (2001). Do apes and children know what they have seen? Anim. Cogn., 3(4), 207–220.
Abstract: Chimpanzees and young children understand much about what other individuals have and have not seen. This study investigates what they understand about their own visual perception. Chimpanzees, orangutans, and 2.5-year-old children were presented with a finding game in which food or stickers were hidden in one of two or three tubes. We varied whether subjects saw the baiting of the tubes, whether subjects could see through the tubes, and whether there was a delay between baiting and presentation of the tubes to subjects. We measured not only whether subjects chose the correct tube but also, more importantly, whether they spontaneously looked into one or more of the tubes before choosing one. Most apes and children appropriately looked into the tubes before choosing one more often when they had not seen the baiting than when they had seen the baiting. In general, they used efficient search strategies more often than insufficient or excessive ones. Implications of subjects' search patterns for their understanding of seeing and knowing in the self are discussed.
|
|
|
|
Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (2001). Books Received. Animal Behaviour, 61(1), 269–270.
Abstract: The Alex Studies: Cognitive and Communicative Abilities of Grey
Parrots. By I. M. PEPPERBERG. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press (1999).
|
|
|
|
Hare, B., Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Anim. Behav., 59(4), 771–785.
Abstract: We report a series of experiments on social problem solving in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. In each experiment a subordinate and a dominant individual were put into competition over two pieces of food. In all experiments dominants obtained virtually all of the foods to which they had good visual and physical access. However, subordinates were successful quite often in three situations in which they had better visual access to the food than the dominant, for example, when the food was positioned so that only the subordinate (and not the dominant) could see it. In some cases, the subordinate might have been monitoring the behaviour of the dominant directly and simply avoided the food that the dominant was moving towards (which just happened to be the one it could see). In other cases, however, we ruled out this possibility by giving subordinates a small headstart and forcing them to make their choice (to go to the food that both competitors could see, or the food that only they could see) before the dominant was released into the area. Together with other recent studies, the present investigation suggests that chimpanzees know what conspecifics can and cannot see, and, furthermore, that they use this knowledge to devise effective social-cognitive strategies in naturally occurring food competition situations.
|
|
|
|
Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Cues that chimpanzees do and do not use to find hidden objects. Anim. Cogn., 3(1), 23–34.
Abstract: Chimpanzees follow conspecific and human gaze direction reliably in some situations, but very few chimpanzees reliably use gaze direction or other communicative signals to locate hidden food in the object-choice task. Three studies aimed at exploring factors that affect chimpanzee performance in this task are reported. In the first study, vocalizations and other noises facilitated the performance of some chimpanzees (only a minority). In the second study, various behavioral cues were given in which a human experimenter either touched, approached, or actually lifted and looked under the container where the food was hidden. Each of these cues led to enhanced performance for only a very few individuals. In the third study – a replication with some methodological improvements of a previous experiment – chimpanzees were confronted with two experimenters giving conflicting cues about the location of the hidden food, with one of them (the knower) having witnessed the hiding process and the other (the guesser) not. In the crucial test in which a third experimenter did the hiding, no chimpanzee found the food at above chance levels. Overall, in all three studies, by far the best performers were two individuals who had been raised in infancy by humans. It thus seems that while chimpanzees are very good at “behavior reading” of various sorts, including gaze following, they do not understand the communicative intentions (informative intentions) behind the looking and gesturing of others – with the possible exception of enculturated chimpanzees, who still do not understand the differential significance of looking and gesturing done by people who have different knowledge about states of affairs in the world.
|
|
|
|
Call, J., Aureli, F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (1999). Reconciliation patterns among stumptailed macaques: a multivariate approach. Anim. Behav., 58(1), 165–172.
Abstract: This study focused on two aspects of the dynamics of reconciliation in stumptailed macaques, Macaca arctoides. First, we investigated the combined effects of multiple variables (i.e. sex, age, rank, conflict intensity, outcome, or number of participants, interopponent distance, kinship and friendship) on the occurrence of reconciliation. Second, we investigated whether opponents used different behaviour patterns in their postconflict reunions depending on the characteristics of their conflicts or their relationship with their opponents. We studied a multimale, multifemale group of 38 stumptailed macaques housed in a large outdoor compound. Three types of data were collected: (1) instantaneous scan sampling of contact sitting to infer 'friendship'; (2) ad libitum data on bared-teeth and teeth-chattering displays to infer dominance rank; (3) 10-min focal observations during postconflict (PC) and matched control (MC) periods in which we recorded interopponent distance at the beginning of the observation and all aggressive and affiliative behaviours between former opponents. Our study confirmed the high conciliatory tendency of stumptailed macaques previously reported for other groups. A stepwise logistic regression revealed that initial interopponent distance in PC, friendship and kinship were the only factors that independently contributed to explain the occurrence of reconciliation. Two main clusters of postconflict behavioural patterns emerged: allogrooming+contact sitting and sociosexual behaviours (e.g. hold-bottom). It is hypothesized that postconflict allogrooming and contact sitting may be used for the maintenance of valuable relationships, whereas sociosexual behaviours may be used more indiscriminately by any pair of opponents as a buffering mechanism to prevent immediate recurrence of aggression. Copyright 1999 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
|
|
