Chimpanzee gaze following in an object-choice task

Many primate species reliably track and follow the visual gaze of conspecifics and humans, even to locations above and behind the subject. However, it is not clear whether primates follow a human’s gaze to find hidden food under one of two containers in an object-choice task. In a series of experiments six adult female chimpanzees followed a human’s gaze (head and eye direction) to a distal location in space above and behind them, and checked back to the human’s face when they did not find anything interesting or unusual. This study also assessed whether these same subjects would also use the human’s gaze in an object-choice task with three types of occluders: barriers, tubes, and bowls. Barriers and tubes permitted the experimenter to see their contents (i.e., food) whereas bowls did not. Chimpanzees used the human’s gaze direction to choose the tube or barrier containing food but they did not use the human’s gaze to decide between bowls. Our findings allowed us to discard both simple orientation and understanding seeing-knowing in others as the explanations for gaze following in chimpanzees. However, they did not allow us to conclusively choose between orientation combined with foraging tendencies and understanding seeing in others. One interesting possibility raised by these results is that studies in which the human cannot see the reward at the time of subject choice may potentially be underestimating chimpanzees’ social knowledge. Received: 16 February 1998 / Accepted after revision: 5 July 1998     

Object permanence in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and children (Homo sapiens).

Juvenile and adult orangutans (n = 5; Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (n = 7; Pan troglodytes), and 19- and 26-month-old children (n = 24; Homo sapiens) received visible and invisible displacements. Three containers were presented forming a straight line, and a small box was used to displace a reward under them. Subjects received 3 types of displacement: single (the box visited 1 container), double adjacent (the box visited 2 contiguous containers), and double nonadjacent (the box visited 2 noncontiguous containers). All species performed at comparable levels, solving all problems except the invisible nonadjacent displacements. Visible displacements were easier than invisible, and single were easier than double displacements. In a 2nd experiment, subjects saw the baiting of either 2 adjacent or 2 nonadjacent containers with no displacements. All species selected the empty container more often when the baited containers were nonadjacent than when they were adjacent. It is hypothesized that a response bias and inhibition problem were responsible for the poor performance in nonadjacent displacements.     

Great apes’ capacities to recognize relational similarity

Recognizing relational similarity relies on the ability to understand that defining object properties might not lie in the objects individually, but in the relations of the properties of various object to each other. This aptitude is highly relevant for many important human skills such as language, reasoning, categorization and understanding analogy and metaphor. In the current study, we investigated the ability to recognize relational similarities by testing five species of great apes, including human children in a spatial task. We found that all species performed better if related elements are connected by logico-causal as opposed to non-causal relations. Further, we find that only children above 4 years of age, bonobos and chimpanzees, unlike younger children, gorillas and orangutans display some mastery of reasoning by non-causal relational similarity. We conclude that recognizing relational similarity is not in its entirety unique to the human species. The lack of a capability for language does not prohibit recognition of simple relational similarities. The data are discussed in the light of the phylogenetic tree of relatedness of the great apes.     

A competitive nonverbal false belief task for children and apes

A nonverbal false belief task was administered to children (mean age 5 years) and two great ape species: chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus). Because apes typically perform poorly in cooperative contexts, our task was competitive. Two versions were run: in both, a human competitor witnessed an experimenter hide a reward in one of two containers. When the competitor then left the room (version A) or turned around (version B), the experimenter switched the locations of the containers. The competitor returned and reached with effort, but unsuccessfully, towards the incorrect container. Children displayed an understanding of the competitor's false belief by correctly choosing the other container to find the reward. Apes did not. However, in version A (but not version B), apes looked more often at the unchosen container in false belief trials than in true belief control trials, possibly indicating some implicit or uncertain understanding that needs to be investigated further.     

Clinical Correlates of Dispositional Forgiveness

The present study examined relationships between the variables of depression, shame, guilt, psychological maltreatment, and dispositional forgiveness. The methodology included the completion of questionnaires by 280 university and community college participants. Results indicated that all factors of dispositional forgiveness were negatively related to depression, to shame, and to all factors of psychological maltreatment. Partial correlations further revealed positive associations between guilt and dispositional forgiveness. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses demonstrated the unique contribution of psychological maltreatment to dispositional forgiveness beyond that of depression, shame, and guilt. Implications of results for clinical practice and future research are discussed.     

Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later

On the 30th anniversary of Premack and Woodruff's seminal paper asking whether chimpanzees have a theory of mind, we review recent evidence that suggests in many respects they do, whereas in other respects they might not. Specifically, there is solid evidence from several different experimental paradigms that chimpanzees understand the goals and intentions of others, as well as the perception and knowledge of others. Nevertheless, despite several seemingly valid attempts, there is currently no evidence that chimpanzees understand false beliefs. Our conclusion for the moment is, thus, that chimpanzees understand others in terms of a perception-goal psychology, as opposed to a full-fledged, human-like belief-desire psychology.     

Effects of antecedent variables on disruptive behavior and accurate responding in young children in outpatient settings

The effects of manipulations of task variables on inaccurate responding and disruption were investigated with 3 children who engaged in noncompliance. With 2 children in an outpatient clinic, task directives were first manipulated to identify directives that guided accurate responding; then, additional dimensions of the task were manipulated to evaluate their influence on disruptive behavior. With a 3rd child, similar procedures were employed at school. Results showed one-step directives set the occasion for accurate responding and that other dimensions of the task (e.g., preference) functioned as motivating operations for negative reinforcement.     

Mangabeys (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Cercocebus torquatus lunulatus</Emphasis>) solve the reverse contingency task without a modified procedure

Problem solving often relies on generating new responses while inhibiting others, particularly prepotent ones. A paradigm to study inhibitory abilities is the reverse contingency task (Boysen and Berntson in J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 21:82–86, 1995), in which two different quantities of food are offered to an individual who receives the array he did not choose. Therefore, mastery of the task demands selecting the smaller quantity to obtain the larger one. Several non-human primates have been tested in the reverse contingency task. To date, only great apes and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) have succeeded in the original task, with no need of procedural modifications as the large-or-none contingency, correction trials or symbolic stimuli substituting for actual food quantities. Here, four mangabeys were presented with two stimulus arrays of one and four raisins in the context of the reverse contingency task. Three of them learned to perform the task well above chance without a modified procedure. They also reached above-chance performance when presented with two stimulus arrays of zero and four raisins, despite the initial difficulty of choosing a null quantity. After a period of 7–10 months, in which the animals were not tested on any task, all three subjects continued to perform well, even when presented with novel quantity pairs.     

Beyond Rasiowa's Algebraic Approach to Non-classical Logics

This paper reviews the impact of Rasiowa's well-known book on the evolution of algebraic logic during the last thirty or forty years. It starts with some comments on the importance and influence of this book, highlighting some of the reasons for this influence, and some of its key points, mathematically speaking, concerning the general theory of algebraic logic, a theory nowadays called Abstract Algebraic Logic. Then, a consideration of the diverse ways in which these key points can be generalized allows us to survey some issues in the development of the field in the last twenty to thirty years. The last part of the paper reviews some recent lines of research that in some way transcend Rasiowa's approach. I hope in this way to give the reader a general view of Rasiowa's key position in the evolution of Algebraic Logic during the twentieth century. This paper is an extended version of the invited talk given by the author at the conference Trends in Logic III, dedicated to the memory of A. MOSTOWSKI, H. RASIOWA and C. RAUSZER, and held in Warsaw and Ruciane-Nida from 23rd to 25th September 2005. Presented by Jacek Malinowski     

A retrospective analysis of the relation between resurgence and renewal of behavior targeted for reduction

Functional communication training (FCT) is an evidence-based treatment for behavior targeted for reduction that often combines extinction for target responses and arranges functionally equivalent reinforcement for alternative behavior. Long-term effectiveness of FCT can become compromised when transitioning from clinic to nonclinic contexts or thinning reinforcement schedules for appropriate behavior. Such increases in targeted behavior have been conceptualized as renewal and resurgence, respectively. The relation between resurgence and renewal has yet to be reported. Therefore, the present report retrospectively analyzed the relation between renewal and resurgence in data collected when implementing FCT with children diagnosed with developmental disabilities. We found no relation when evaluating all 34 individuals assessed for resurgence and renewal or a subset of individuals exhibiting both resurgence and renewal. These findings suggest that one form of relapse may not be predictive of another form of relapse.