Capuchin monkeys ( Cebus apella) do not match the actions of a ghost condition or live model. Público
Calcutt, Sarah Elizabeth (2012)
Abstract
Abstract
Capuchin monkeys ( Cebus apella) do not match the actions of
a ghost condition or live
model.
Although many species rely on social learning, the exact mechanisms
that animals
employ to gain knowledge from one another are still unknown. Some
researchers view
social learning as a hierarchy with imitation as the most
cognitively demanding form of
social learning followed by emulation and then stimulus
enhancement. This view, though,
is changing, due in part, to the discovery of mirror neuron
mechanisms that are thought to
regulate action understanding at a subconscious level. While
investigating social learning,
some researchers have confounded study results by using conspecific
models
interchangeably with human models without a systematic analysis of
how these different
conditions might influence the type of information that an animal
acquires. To further
explore means of social learning as well as account for
inconsistencies in choice of social
model, this study investigated social learning mechanisms in
capuchin monkeys by
comparing the degree to which a test subject copied a conspecific
model, a human model
and a ghost condition. We found that the test subjects' decision
making was not
influenced by a ghost condition and they did not match the actions
of a conspecific or
human model. Since there was no statistical difference in matching
between the model
conditions the results of this study indicate that our test
subjects did not use social means
to determine the affordances of the test apparatus.
Capuchin monkeys ( Cebus apella) do not match the actions
of a ghost condition or live
model.
Advisor: F.B.M. de Waal, Ph.D
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the James T. Laney School of
Graduate Studies of
Emory University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of
Arts in Psychology 2012
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction
........................................................................................................................1
Methods
...............................................................................................................................4
Results
.................................................................................................................................7
Figure 1
........................................................................................................................................9
Figure 2
......................................................................................................................................10
Discussion
.........................................................................................................................11
References
.........................................................................................................................15
Appendix I: Additional Methods
....................................................................................18
Model choice and training
.......................................................................................................18
Protocol for subjects that aborted trials
.................................................................................18
Video recording
.........................................................................................................................19
Table 1
.......................................................................................................................................20
Photograph 1
.............................................................................................................................20
Appendix II: Experiment II
............................................................................................21
Methods
.....................................................................................................................................21
Results and Interpretation
.......................................................................................................22
Appendix III: Experiment III
.........................................................................................23
Methods
.....................................................................................................................................23
Results and Interpretation
.......................................................................................................23
Appendix IV: Further Statistical Analysis
....................................................................24
Analysis by group
.....................................................................................................................24
Analysis by sex
..........................................................................................................................24
Matching across trials
..............................................................................................................25
Figure 1
..............................................................................................................................26
Figure 2
..............................................................................................................................27
Appendix references
.................................................................................................................28
About this Master's Thesis
| School | |
|---|---|
| Department | |
| Degree | |
| Submission | |
| Language |
|
| Research Field | |
| Palabra Clave | |
| Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor | |
| Committee Members |
Primary PDF
| Thumbnail | Title | Date Uploaded | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Capuchin monkeys ( Cebus apella) do not match the actions of a ghost condition or live model. () | 2018-08-28 16:27:30 -0400 |
|
Supplemental Files
| Thumbnail | Title | Date Uploaded | Actions |
|---|