Do chimpanzees know what others can and cannot do? Reasoning about ‘capability’

Much recent comparative work has been devoted to exploring what nonhuman primates understand about physical causality. However, few laboratory experiments have attempted to test what nonhumans understand about what physical acts others are capable of performing. We tested seven chimpanzees’ ability to predict which of two human experimenters could deliver a tray containing a food reward. In the ‘floor’ condition, legs were required to push the tray toward the subject. In the ‘lap’ condition, arms were required to hand the tray to the subject. In Exp. 1, chimpanzees begged (by gesturing) to either an experimenter whose legs were not visible (LNV) or whose arms were not visible (ANV). Rather than flexibly altering their preferences between conditions, the chimpanzees preferred the ANV experimenter regardless of the task. In subsequent experiments, we manipulated various factors that might have controlled the chimpanzees’ preferences, such as (a) distance between experimenter and subject (Experiment 2), (b) amount of occlusion of experimenters’ body (Experiments 2 and 3), (c) contact with the food tray (Experiments 3 and 4) and (d) positioning of barriers that either impeded the movement of the limbs or not (Experiment 5). The chimpanzees’ performance was best explained by attention to cues such as perceived proximity, contact, and maximal occlusion of body that although highly predictive in certain tasks, were irrelevant in others. When the discriminative role of such cues was eliminated, performance fell to chance levels, indicating that chimpanzees do not spontaneously (or after considerable training) use limb visibility as a cue to predict the ability of a human to perform particular physical tasks. Thus, the current findings suggest a possible failure of causal reasoning in the context of reasoning about the use of the limbs to perform physical acts.     

Multidimensional disadvantages and educational aspirations of marginalised migrant youth: insights from the Global South

ABSTRACT

This article provides a Global South perspective on marginalised migrant youth and higher educational aspirations, with a specific focus on South Africa. We use data from a case study in Johannesburg to illustrate how marginalised migrant youth experience particular forms of disadvantage in their endeavours to realise their educational aspirations. Yet, educational opportunities and the achievement of educational aspirations may enhance dimensions important for individual wellbeing. Through education, marginalised migrant youth become better positioned to pursue what they have reason to value, including escaping poverty in both their home and host countries. Using the human development and capability lens, the paper also presents what the disadvantages experienced by marginalised migrant youth may mean for human development. We argue that constrained educational aspirations can result in corrosive disadvantage and ultimately systemic poverty. We conclude the paper by highlighting how the capability approach (CA) could be used to inform social and educational policies in contexts of marginalisation.     

Brands as intentional agents: Our response to commentaries

We are grateful for the stimulating and hospitable welcome to us as guests in consumer psychology. As sojourners, we share a keen interest, but know that we come to visit without knowing the territory intimately. Granted, Chris Malone is an experienced, senior marketing practitioner who now owns a research-based consulting firm with a particular interest and specialization in this area. In addition, Nicolas Kervyn, trained as an experimental social psychologist, has worked and consulted in marketing. Susan Fiske, trained as an experimental social psychologist, had kibitzed in consumer psychology since she first served on the JCP board as an assistant professor. However, none of us has imperialist ambitions in consumer psychology. We are happy nonetheless to offer our framework as what seems to us a potentially useful complement to prior and ongoing related work. These exceptionally thoughtful commentaries broaden and inform our framework (Kervyn, Fiske, & Malone, 2012--this issue). In return, we offer some responses regarding our own view of the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework (BIAF), its parent, the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), and relationships with the commentators’ own contributions.