DOCSLIB.ORG

Chimpanzees Are Rational Maximizers in an Ultimatum Game Keith Jensen Et Al

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chimpanzees Are Rational Maximizers in an Ultimatum Game Keith Jensen Et Al REPORTS sensitive to unfairness and punish proposers who Chimpanzees Are Rational Maximizers make inequitable offers by rejecting those offers at a cost to themselves, and knowing this, pro- in an Ultimatum Game posers make strategic offers that are less likely to be refused. Keith Jensen,* Josep Call, Michael Tomasello The ultimatum game has been used in dozens, possibly hundreds of studies, including 11 12 Traditional models of economic decision-making assume that people are self-interested rational various human cultures ( ) and children ( ). maximizers. Empirical research has demonstrated, however, that people will take into account Testing the ultimatum game on other species the interests of others and are sensitive to norms of cooperation and fairness. In one of the most would be an important contribution to the de- robust tests of this finding, the ultimatum game, individuals will reject a proposed division of a bate on the evolution and possible uniqueness of 6 monetary windfall, at a cost to themselves, if they perceive it as unfair. Here we show that in an human cooperation ( ). Chimpanzees are our ultimatum game, humans’ closest living relatives, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), are rational closest extant relatives and engage in cooperative maximizers and are not sensitive to fairness. These results support the hypothesis that other- behavior such as group hunting, coalitionary 13 regarding preferences and aversion to inequitable outcomes, which play key roles in human social aggression, and territorial patrols ( ). Further- organization, distinguish us from our closest living relatives. more, in experiments they have been shown to coordinate their behavior (14) and to provide help (15, 16). However, there is ongoing debate umans are able to live in very large some degree, have concern for outcomes and about whether chimpanzees are sensitive to, and groups and to cooperate with unrelated behaviors affecting others (other-regarding pref- tolerant of, unfairness (17) or whether they Hindividuals whom they expect never to erences) (4) as well as a general concern for simply attend to their own expectations with no encounter again, conditions that make the stan- norms of fairness (7, 8). regard for what others receive (18). Additionally, dard mechanisms for cooperation unlikely (1), The benchmark test for examining sensitivity experiments have failed to reveal other-regarding namely kin selection (2) and reciprocal altruism to fairness and other-regarding preferences is the preferences when food was involved (19, 20) (3). Nevertheless, people help others, sometimes ultimatum game (9). In the standard version of other than to punish direct theft (21). Having at great personal cost. But people are not ob- the game, two anonymous individuals are as- chimpanzees play the ultimatum game would ligate altruists; they do not tolerate abuse of their signed the roles of proposer and responder. The address these conflicting findings on fairness and generosity. Not only will they punish or shun proposer is offered a sum of money and can negative reciprocity and allow direct compar- on November 17, 2015 individuals who free-ride or exploit them, they decide whether to divide this windfall with the isons to humans. will do so even if they themselves do not bene- responder. The crucial feature of the ultimatum In the current study, we tested chimpanzees fit from correcting the behavior of norm viola- game is that the responder can accept or reject in a mini-ultimatum game. The mini-ultimatum tors (4). The willingness both to cooperate and the proposer’s offer. If the responder accepts it, game is a reduced form of the ultimatum game to punish noncooperators has been termed strong both players receive the proposed division; if the in which proposers are given a choice between reciprocity (5) and has been claimed to be responder rejects it, both get nothing. The ca- making one of two pre-set offers which the uniquely human (6). To cooperate in these ways, nonical economic model of pure self-interest responder can then accept or reject (22). In one humans must be more than self-regarding ratio- predicts that the proposer will offer the smallest such study (23), there were four different games. nal decision-makers; they must also, at least to share possible and that the responder will accept In all games, the proposer had as one option an www.sciencemag.org any nonzero offer. This is not what happens. amount that would typically be rejected by a Although the specifics vary across culture and human responder as unfair, namely 80% for the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher setting, the basic finding is that proposers proposer and 20% for the responder (8/2 offer; Platz6,D-04103,Leipzig,Germany. typically make offers of 40 to 50% and the proposer received the amount to the left of *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: responders routinely reject offers under 20% the slash and the responder received the amount [email protected] (10). These findings suggest that responders are to the right). In the 5/5 (fair) game, the proposer Downloaded from ABC food dish divider tray rope ends Proposer rods Responder Fig. 1. Illustration of the testing environment. The proposer, who makes the the proposer draws one of the baited trays halfway toward the two subjects. first choice, sits to the responder’s left. The apparatus, which has two sliding (B) The responder can then pull the attached rod, now within reach, to bring trays connected by a single rope, is outside of the cages. (A) By first sliding a the proposed food tray to the cage mesh so that (C) both subjects can eat Plexiglas panel (not shown) to access one rope end and by then pulling it, from their respective food dishes (clearly separated by a translucent divider). www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 318 5 OCTOBER 2007 107 REPORTS was faced with the choice of 8/2 versus 5/5. The cage in an L-shaped arrangement. The test ap- low rates (from 5 to 14% of the time). There other games were 8/2 versus 2/8 (unfair versus paratus, which was outside of the cages, had was a trend toward different rejection rates of 2 hyperfair), 8/2 versus 8/2 (no choice), and 8/2 two sliding trays. On each tray were two dishes 8/2 offers across the four games (Friedman’s c 3 versus 10/0 (unfair versus hyperunfair). Human with raisins, separated by translucent dividers: test = 6.643, P = 0.069). However, all paired responders rejected the 8/2 offer most when the one for the proposer and the other for the comparisons were nonsignificant, indicating that, alternative was fair (5/5 game), less when the responder (Fig. 1). Proposers would first choose crucially, chimpanzees rejected 8/2 offers equally alternative was hyperfair (2/8 game), even less one of the two trays by pulling it halfway to the often regardless of the alternatives available to when there was no alternative (8/2 game), and cages (as far as it would go); responders could the proposers (27). Moreover, this trend toward hardly at all when the alternative was for the accept the offer by pulling the proposed tray the rejections was in the opposite direction of the proposer to be even more selfish (10/0 game) remaining distance (via the rod which came into finding for humans (23). When proposers offered (23). The differential rejection of unfair out- reach only as a result of the proposer’s pull) or non-8/2 alternatives (available in all but the 8/2 comes across the games suggests that people are could reject it by not pulling at all within 1 min. game), responders accepted them differentially 2 not sensitive solely to unfair distributions (7) nor The responder’s acceptance led to both subjects across the games (Friedman’s c 2 test = 10.00, solely to unfair intent (24) but to a combination being able to reach the food in their respective P = 0.012). In line with the principle of self- of both (8). If chimpanzees are sensitive to un- dishes. Rejection led to both getting nothing, interest to accept any nonzero offer, responders fairness and are negatively reciprocal, they would because the experimenter would remove all rejected 10/0 offers (in which the responder behave like Homo reciprocans (25), whereas if food dishes after the trial ended. There were receives nothing) more often than 5/5 offers they accept any nonzero offer regardless of four games (as in the study described above), all [Wilcoxon T+ test = 28.00, n = 8 (1 tie), P = alternatives for the proposer, they will be more played within a single session: 2/8, 5/5, 8/2, and 0.016] and marginally more often than 2/8 offers like the hypothetical Homo economicus (26). 10/0—each versus 8/2. The order of games was [Wilcoxon T+ test = 15.00, n = 7 (2 ties), P = Subjects were 11 chimpanzees from a group- counterbalanced across subjects. 0.063]. Indeed, the only offers rejected by re- housed colony at the Wolfgang Köhler Primate The most important finding is that respond- sponders more than 0% of the time were 10/0 Research Center (27). The proposer sat to the ers tended to accept any offer. As can be seen in offers (one-sample t test t9 = 4.735, P = 0.001). In left of the responder, who was in an adjacent Fig. 2, responders rejected 8/2 offers at overall short, responders did not reject unfair offers when the proposer had the option of making a fair offer; Fig. 2. Offers made by Proposer Payoffs Responder they accepted almost all nonzero offers; and they proposers and rejections Game Offers Proposer Responder Rejections reliably rejected only offers of zero.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Origins of Grammar in Self-Modelling I Am What I Am: the Origins of Grammar in Self-Modelling
    Martin Edwardes I Am What I Am: the origins of grammar in self-modelling I Am What I Am: The origins of grammar in self-modelling Language is often identified as a defining difference between humans and nonhumans; but is it a feature with its own evolutionary explanation, or is it an adjunct of some other trait, evolved for reasons only indirectly related to language? Despite Noam Chomsky‟s view that language evolved for thinking1, it is generally believed that language is a product of socialisation, the need for individuals to exchange social information. And, if we look at the social information exchanged, we see forms of modelling that are absent from signalling systems used by other animals. First, there is modelling of the relationships between others: the simple sentence Alf likes Beth requires the receiver not just to recognise a single referent or context, but to bring two conceptualised individuals together and establish a relationship between them. Second, there is modelling of events in the past and future: where other animal signalling is dominated by current events, these play only a small part in human discourse. Third, there is modelling of what-if: we can discuss not just future probabilities and past certainties, but events that are unlikely to, or did not, happen. Fourth, there is modelling of the intentions of others; and fifth, there is modelling of our own self. The question of selfhood has long been recognised as vital to understand what makes us human. Even before Darwin‟s theory of evolution by descent, Wilhelm von Humboldt stated that: … the customary demands of mankind are satisfactorily met by forces of nature and by the mechanical continuation of human activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Sharing Intentions: the Origins of Cultural Cognition
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2005) 28, 000–000 Printed in the United States of America Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition Michael Tomasello, Malinda Carpenter, Josep Call, Tanya Behne, and Henrike Moll Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: We propose that the crucial difference between human cognition and that of other species is the ability to participate with others in collaborative activities with shared goals and intentions: shared intentionality. Participation in such activities requires not only especially powerful forms of intention reading and cultural learning, but also a unique motivation to share psychological states with oth- ers and unique forms of cognitive representation for doing so. The result of participating in these activities is species-unique forms of cultural cognition and evolution, enabling everything from the creation and use of linguistic symbols to the construction of social norms and individual beliefs to the establishment of social institutions. In support of this proposal we argue and present evidence that great apes (and some children with autism) understand the basics of intentional action, but they still do not participate in activities involving joint intentions and attention (shared intentionality). Human children’s skills of shared intentionality develop gradually during the first 14 months of life as two ontogenetic pathways intertwine: (1) the general ape line of understanding others as animate, goal-directed, and intentional agents; and (2) a species-unique motivation to share emotions, experience, and activities with other persons.
    [Show full text]
  • Editor-In-Chief Professor Brian Charlesworth Handling Editors
    RSBL_9_2_Sample_cover_Mock-up.qxd 27/2/13 4:13 PM Page 2 Editor-in-Chief Professor Brian Charlesworth GUIDANCE FOR AUTHORS Handling Editors Selection criteria Categories Professor Nigel Bennett The criteria for selection are scientific excellence, originality and Papers published in Biology Letters will be categorised by subject, Dr Joan Herbers interest across disciplines within biology. Papers are assessed by the which include Editorial Board for suitability before full peer-review. Their • animal behaviour • marine biology Dr Paul Sniegowski recommendations are passed to the Editor. The Editor is responsible Publishing Editor for all editorial decisions and he makes these decisions based on the • biomechanics • molecular evolution Charlotte Wray reports received from the referees and the Editorial Board. • community ecology • neurobiology • conservation biology • palaeontology Editorial Board Publishing format • pathogen biology Biology Letters are published regularly online and in bimonthly print • evolutionary biology Brian Charlesworth, Editor-in-Chief Alex Kacelnik School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh Department of Zoology, Oxford University issues. Along with all Royal Society journals, we are committed to • phylogeny Nigel Bennett, Handling Editor Laurent Keller • evolutionary developmental Department of Zoology & Entomology, University of Pretoria Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne biology Joan Herbers, Handling Editor Tom Little archiving and providing perpetual access. Although the printed • physiology Department of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology, Ohio State University Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh Paul Sniegowski, Handling Editor Martine Maan version of Biology Letters is limited to 2500 words, there is the • genome biology Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania Behavioural Biology, University of Groningen • population ecology Daniel Mennill facility for Electronic Supplementary Material (ESM).
    [Show full text]
  • Behavioral Flexibility in Primates: Causes and Consequences DEVELOPMENTS in PRIMATOLOGY: PROGRESS and PROSPECTS
    Behavioral Flexibility in Primates: Causes and Consequences DEVELOPMENTS IN PRIMATOLOGY: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS Series Editor: Russell H. Tuttle University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois This peer-reviewed book series will meld the facts of organic diversity with the continuity of the evolutionary process. The volumes in this series will exemplify the diversity of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches currently employed by primatologists and physical anthropologists. Specific coverage includes: primate behavior in natural habitats and captive settings; primate ecology and conservation; functional morphology and developmental biology of primates; primate systematics; genetic and phenotypic differences among living primates; and paleoprimatology. ALL APES GREAT AND SMALL VOLUME I: AFRICAN APES Edited by Biruté M.F. Galdikas, Nancy Erickson Briggs, Lori K. Sheeran, Gary L. Shapiro and Jane Goodall THE GUENONS: DIVERSITY AND ADAPTATION IN AFRICAN MONKEYS Edited by Mary E. Glenn and Marina Cords ANIMAL MINDS, HUMAN BODIES By W.A. Hillix and Duane Rumbaugh COMPARATIVE VERTEBRATE COGNITION Edited by Lesley J. Rogers and Gisela Kaplan ANTHROPOID ORIGINS: NEW VISIONS Edited by Callum F. Ross and Richard F. Kay MODERN MORPHOMETRICS IN PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Edited by Dennis E. Slice BEHAVIORAL FLEXIBILITY IN PRIMATES: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES By Clara B. Jones Behavioral Flexibility in Primates: Causes and Consequences CLARA B. JONES Fayetteville State University Fayetteville, North Carolina Theoretical Primatology Project Fayetteville, North Carolina Community Conservation, Inc. Gays Mills, Wisconsin Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jones, Clara B. Behavioral flexibility in primates : causes and consequences / Clara B. Jones. p. cm.—(Developments in primatology) Includes bibliographical references (p. ). ISBN 0-387-23297-4 1. Primates—Behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Primate Societies
    The Evolution of Primate Societies The Evolution of Primate Societies Edited by John C. Mitani, Josep Call, Peter M. Kappeler, Ryne A. Palombit, and Joan B. Silk The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London John C. Mitani is the James N. Spuhler Collegiate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Michigan. Josep Call is a senior scientist and director of the Wolfgang Kohler Primate Research Centre at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Peter M. Kappeler is head of the Department of Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology/Anthropology at the University of Gottingen. Ryne A. Palombit is associate professor of anthropology at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Joan B. Silk is professor in the Department of Anthropology and the Institute for Society and Genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 2012 by The University of Chicago All rights reserved. Published 2012. Printed in the United States of America 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 1 2 3 4 5 ISBN- 13: 978-0-226-53171-7 (cloth) ISBN- 13: 978-0-226-53172-4 (paper) ISBN- 10: 0-226-53171-6 (cloth) ISBN- 10: 0-226-53172-4 (paper) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The evolution of primate societies / edited by John C. Mitani, Josep Call, Peter M. Kappeler, Ryne A. Palombit, and Joan B. Silk. pages ; cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-226-53171-7 (cloth : alkaline paper) ISBN-10: 0-226-53171-6 (cloth : alkaline paper) ISBN-13: 978-0-226-53172-4 (paperback : alkaline paper) ISBN-10: 0-226-53172-4 (paperback : alkaline paper) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • NICOLE THOMPSON GONZALEZ, Ph.D
    NICOLE THOMPSON GONZALEZ, Ph.D. Phone: +1 347 406 3283, Email: [email protected], Albuquerque, NM 87106 Twitter: @NicoleAlineSci, website: http://www.nicolethompsongonzalez.com/ Education & Training . Degree/Position University Field Year Post doctoral fellow University of New Anthropology 2018 – present Mexico Project: Oxidative stress and aging in wild chimpanzees Ph.D. Columbia University, Ecology and Evolution 2018 New York, NY Dissertation: Social ties over the life cycle in blue monkeys M.Res. University of Primate Behavior and Biology 2012 Roehampton, London, Thesis: Social integration and stress in juvenile olive UK baboons. B.A. Columbia University, Evolutionary Anthropology 2008 New York, NY Thesis: The co-evolution of human language and morality. Peer-reviewed publications Thompson Gonzalez, N.A., Thompson, M.E., Machanda, Z.P., Otali, E., Muller, M.N., Wrangham, R.W. (in review). Urinary markers of oxidative stress respond to infection and late-life in wild chimpanzees. Thompson, M.E., Machanda, Z.P., Fox, S.A., Sabbi, K.H., Otali, E., Thompson, N.A., Muller, M.N., Wrangham, R.W. (in press). "Evaluating the Impact of Physical Frailty During Aging in Wild Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii). Phil Trans B. Thompson, N.A., Higham, J.P., Heistermann, M., Vogel, E., Cords, M., 2020. Energy balance but not competitive environment corresponds with allostatic load during development in an Old World monkey. Horm. Behav. 119, 104664. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2019.104664 Thompson, N.A., Cords, M., 2019. Early life maternal sociality predicts juvenile sociality in blue monkeys. American Journal of Primatology, 0(0), e23039. doi: 10.1002/ajp.23039 Thompson, N.A., 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • There Is No Special Problem of Mindreading in Nonhuman Animals Author(S): Marta Halina Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol
    There Is No Special Problem of Mindreading in Nonhuman Animals Author(s): Marta Halina Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol. 82, No. 3 (July 2015), pp. 473-490 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/681627 . Accessed: 02/11/2015 12:12 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press and Philosophy of Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy of Science. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:12:29 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions There Is No Special Problem of Mindreading in Nonhuman Animals Marta Halina*y There is currently a consensus among comparative psychologists that nonhuman ani- mals are capable of some forms of mindreading. Several philosophers and psycholo- gists have criticized this consensus, however, arguing that there is a “logical problem” with the experimental approach used to test for mindreading in nonhuman animals. I argue that the logical problem is no more than a version of the general skeptical problem known as the theoretician’s dilemma.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Description
    Cultural Learning, Imitation, and Articraft Understanding: A Comparative Perspective CEU Summer University Nádor u. 9., Budapest, Hungary 1051 Tel.: (36 1) 327 3069, 327 3811 Fax: (36 1) 327 3124 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ceu.hu/sun Cognitive Neuroscience Cultural Learning, Imitation, and Articraft Understanding: A Comparative Perspective July 4 - 15, 2005 Course Directors: Josep Call, Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology György Gergely, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Developmental Research Institute for Psychological Research, Budapest Faculty: Paul Bloom, Yale University, Department of Psychology Malinda Carpenter, Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Gergely Csibra, Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development, School of Psychology, Birkbeck College Tim German, University of California, Department of Psychology Ádám Miklósi, ELTE, Department of Ethology Johannes Roessler, University of Warwick, Department of Philosophy József Topál, ELTE, Department of Ethology INTRODUCTION AND AIMS The summer course will provide a state-of-the-art cutting-edge scientific and research-oriented training for post-doctoral young researchers and highly promising pre-doctoral students on a currently central and heavily investigated interdisciplinary research topic that integrates several different, but partially overlapping fields of knowledge and scientific inquiry. These include human anthropology, social theories of culture, evolutionary and developmental psychology, the psychology of social cognition, cognitive development, and comparative and ethological studies of human and animal cultures. The course will be taught by a faculty consisting of internationally acknowledged leading experts of these fields from a variety of European countries (England, Germany, Hungary) as well as from the United States. Human culture versus population-specific behavioral traditions of non-human animal communities Is culture specific to humans? Well, yes and no, depending on one’s definition of what ‘culture’ is.
    [Show full text]
  • THE EVOLUTION of COMMUNICATIVE CREATIVITY from Fixed Signals to Contextual Flexibility 7-10 July 2005
    12th Altenberg Workshop in Theoretical Biology 2005 THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNICATIVE CREATIVITY From Fixed Signals to Contextual Flexibility 7-10 July 2005 organized by D. Kimbrough Oller and Ulrike Griebel Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research Altenberg, Austria The topic The study of flexibility in communication systems in a wide variety of animals is offering new perspectives on the special forces that may have favored the evolution of language, with its omnipresent and seemingly unlimited flexibility. A variety of birds, marine mammals, New World monkeys, and even certain invertebrates show notable capabilities to break free from the fixed signaling patterns that have been so much the focus of description in classical ethology. A useful summary of the selection forces that favor steps toward contextual flexibility can now be provided, a summary that places in perspective speculations about the forces that may have guided hominid evolution toward spoken language. Research in human infant vocal development also provides invaluable clues about the first steps of vocal communication that may have been taken by ancient hominids as they became differentiated from the primate background. In particular, human infants, during the first half-year of life, develop capabilities to produce vocalizations with a remarkable degree of contextual flexibility, apparently surpassing all the other primates and perhaps all other mammals. Since spoken language requires vocal contextual flexibility in all its aspects and functions, it appears that an extremely early step in hominid evolution, establishing a necessary foundation for later evolution of language, was the emergence of contextually flexible vocalization. Philosophical work on communication and its origins along with modeling and simulation have vastly increased our view of possible sources and routes in the emergence of language.
    [Show full text]
  • Another Look at the Universal Grammar Hypothesis: Commentary on Evans 2014 Adele E
    200 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 92, NUMBER 1 (2016) quickly becomes evident that this is not a genuine tour de force, à la Pinker 1994. No, TLM is not the antidote to the long cognitivist nightmare that is The language instinct . In fact, by the end of the book, I fear it not only misses the point, but if adopted to any degree within the field, will also mislead young researchers and students of language into thinking that the debate is between E’s brand of linguistics on the one hand, and a bunch of raving, delusional, irrational bullies on the other. Ultimately, then, TLM will do little to advance the debate on linguistic nativism, although it might very well energize those already in E’s camp. REFERENCES Bickerton, Derek . 1981. The roots of language . Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma. Bickerton, Derek . 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7.173–88. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00044149 . Crain, Stephen, and Mineharu Nakayama. 1987. Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language 63.522–43. DOI: 10.2307/415004 . Evans, Vyvyan. 2014 . The language myth: Why language is not an instinct . Cambridge: Cambridge Uni - versity Press. Pinker , Steven . 1994. The language instinct . New York: William Morrow & Company. Department of Linguistics University of Hawai‘i at Manoa [[email protected]] Another look at the universal grammar hypothesis: Commentary on Evans 2014 Adele E. Goldberg Princeton University * It is important to recognize that The language myth (TLM ) is not a research monograph, but is instead aimed at a popular audience, and therefore it should be judged in this light.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cambridge Handbook of Animal Cognition Edited by Allison B
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-42674-9 — The Cambridge Handbook of Animal Cognition Edited by Allison B. Kaufman, Josep Call, James C. Kaufman Index More Information Index aboutness. See intentionality angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) acoustic communication. See auditory/ numerosity judgments in, 561, 564 acoustic communication quantity discrimination in, 582–584 actor-receiver interactions. See cooperative animacy perception behaviours detection of, 295–310 adaptive responses dynamic cues for, 300–304 in animal communication, 6 face and eye-like patterns in, 296–300 in knowledge/ignorance situations, 238–239 fur as cue for, 299 to belief situations, 239–240 neural bases of detection, 304–310 to mental states, 232, 241–246 static cues, 295–300 to witnessed and unwittnessed events, 239 static cues for, 296–300 affiliative behaviours/interactions animal communication copying behaviour and, 539 definition, 38 dog-human tactile contact, 92 evolutionary causes in, 6–12 for captive animal welfare, 462 innovation in research, 640 for reconciliation, 259 linguistic model of, 100 in elephants, 366, 371 animal culture in Norway rats, 345 birdsong as example of, 516–517 updating relationship information by, 258 factors in, 544–547 affordance learning, 450, 537 in chimpanzees, 543–547 African forest elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis), animal motion detection, 300 362–364 animal personality traits, 713 African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus), animals in captivity, studies on, 701–702 693–702 Anna’s hummingbirds (Calypte anna), African savanna elephant
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Sharing Intentions: the Origins of Cultural Cognition
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2005) 28, 675–735 Printed in the United States of America Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition Michael Tomasello, Malinda Carpenter, Josep Call, Tanya Behne, and Henrike Moll Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] http://www.eva.mpg.de/psycho/ Abstract: We propose that the crucial difference between human cognition and that of other species is the ability to participate with others in collaborative activities with shared goals and intentions: shared intentionality. Participation in such activities requires not only especially powerful forms of intention reading and cultural learning, but also a unique motivation to share psychological states with oth- ers and unique forms of cognitive representation for doing so. The result of participating in these activities is species-unique forms of cultural cognition and evolution, enabling everything from the creation and use of linguistic symbols to the construction of social norms and individual beliefs to the establishment of social institutions. In support of this proposal we argue and present evidence that great apes (and some children with autism) understand the basics of intentional action, but they still do not participate in activities involving joint intentions and attention (shared intentionality). Human children’s skills of shared intentionality develop gradually during the first 14 months of life as two ontogenetic pathways intertwine: (1) the general ape line of understanding others as animate, goal-directed, and intentional agents; and (2) a species-unique motivation to share emotions, experience, and activities with other persons.
    [Show full text]