Galef suggested that this behaviour was due to social learning. Given the time period, of 5 years, it is possible that other monkeys had learned this potato washing behaviour by themselves instead of imitating Imo. The observers in this experiment provided the sweet potatoes, and would pay more attention to the monkeys that washed the potatoes. This attention would be a reinforcer of the behaviour causing other monkeys to copy it. Although there is not enough supportive evidence for imitation, some behaviours can be linked to association learning e.g. conditioning through reinforcement.
Self-recognition is the ability to realise that an image in the mirror is in fact a reflection of oneself. This gives a good basis to ToM as intelligence is required to recognise that the mirror image is not another individual. This behaviour has been reported in the higher primates.
Gallup’s study required chimpanzees to be placed in a cage with a mirror. At first they reacted like the image was another chimp, but later realised that it was actually themselves. Gallup anaesthetised the chimpanzees then placed a red mark on one eyebrow and ear. After recovering, the chimpanzees would often touch the red mark, when they looked in the mirror. This supports the idea that higher-primates are capable of self-recognition. This experiment was tried out on other animals e.g. cats, dogs, and elephants with unsuccessful results.
The fact that no other animals responded to this experiment means that it cannot be said for sure that all non-human animals are capable of self-recognition. Therefore some non-human animals do not show signs of ToM. Evolutionary science suggests that the higher primates are distant relatives of human beings, having similar physiology may mean that higher primates are more capable of intelligence.
Social relationships refer to an animal’s ability to form bonds with others of its species. This relationship formation may be affected by the animal’s status or role in the community. In Stammback’s study relationships were formed between monkeys because of the ability to gather food, from pressing levers. It can be agued that the relationships formed with the monkey responsible for the lever pulling were formed as a result of conditioning, because food acted as a reinforcer.
Prembuck and Woodruff reported the ability of a chimp to take on a role. Sarah (the chimp) watched videotapes which would be stopped just before an action was taken e.g. just before a shivering person walked towards a heater. Sarah then had to pick what would happen next from pictures. Most of the time Sarah would pick the correct response, suggesting that she was successfully taking on someone else’s role.
Sarah could have simply used cues from the pictures to successfully pick the correct answers. Also perhaps earlier personal experience could have led her to decide which answer was correct. Povinelli also showed the ability of primates to take on another’s role when co-operation I order to get food was needed. Both these studies show role taking in higher primates, meaning the findings cannot be generalised to other non-human animals.
Deception and perspective taking can be categorised together because they are both associated with understanding how another individual feels and thinks. If an animal has ToM they are capable of predicting another animal’s feelings and thoughts, by recognising they are unique. By understanding this concept it is possible therefore to deceive another animal.
Premack and Woodruff used a situation where a chimpanzee was placed in a room with either a trainer in a green lab coat (co-operative) or a white lab coat (competitive). To successfully get the food, hidden under one of two containers, the chimpanzee had to deceive the trainer in white and pay attention to instructions given by the trainer in green. The chimpanzee successfully got the food most of the time. This supports the idea that non-human animals are capable of deceit. The characteristics of this behaviour are very like a conditioned behaviour.
It is nearly impossible to say whether non-human animals are intelligent. Most studies, in this field of psychology, were carried out on primates, and it is thought that these animals are naturally superior. It seems most behaviour in the research discussed in this essay can be explained through association learning, therefore not actually a result of intelligence. It is difficult to falsify whether animals are intelligent or not because, although they are able to solve problems they only show some aspects to suggest ToM.
