Yamamoto Notecards

Conspecifics
Click the card to flip 👆
1 / 27
Terms in this set (27)
Conspecifics
belonging to the same species
Altruism
a motivational state that a person possesses with the goal of increasing the welfare of another person
Prosocial Behavior
behavior through which people benefit others
Empathy
the cognitive and emotional reactions of an individual to the observed experiences of another
Targeted Helping
help and care based on the cognitive appreciation of the need or situation of others
Explain how the Savage-Rumbaugh studies influenced the Yamamoto study
Chimps in this study chose and helped by giving tools through the use of symbols. The study lacked insight into their helping behavior and cognitive mechanisms, which Yamamoto wanted to figure out.
Explain how Yamamoto is different than the Savage-Rumbaugh study
The chimps communicated through symbols in the Savage-Rumbaugh study. On the other hand, in Yamamoto's study, chimps had to communicate through grunts and claps, and helping behavior was measured.
Aim of the Study
To learn more about helping behavior in chimps with a focus on whether chimps have the natural ability and flexibility to understand the needs of conspecifics and whether chimps can naturally respond to those needs with targeted helping
2 strengths of Repeated Measures design
-controls participant variables because every participant is exposed to all levels of the IV
-requires less Ps because each P serves as their own control group
2 weaknesses of Repeated Measures design
-some variables cannot be repeated
-may require replicated equipment or word lists which can lead to increased errors
IVs of the studyability of the chimp to give targeted help to a conspecific -"can see" condition: chimps can see tools available (tested twice) -"cannot see" condition: chimp cannot see tools availableDV of the studytargeted helping behavior (providing the correct tool)Names-Ai (mom) with Ayumu (child) -Pan (mom) with Pal (child) -Chloe (mom - not tested in experimental condition) with Cleo (child)Type of SampleOpportunity sampleOne feature of the sampleEach chimp had been part of previous perceptual and cognitive studies (including ones similar to the current study)Description of the boothA wall panel divided the two booths and had a pass-through opening; panel was opaque or transparent depending on experimental conditionItems in the traystick, straw, rope, hose, brush, chain, beltSummary of Procedure-Task involved helper chimp selecting and transferring the correct tool to the conspecific so they could solve the task and get the reward: juice box -2 experimental conditions "can see" and "cannot see" -Trials began when helper chimp received the tray of items and ended upon successful reward of juice box or after a 5-minute non-successful tool transfer"Can see" conditionone chimp placed in booth with the box of 7 objects. Another chimp was in an adjacent booth and could be seen. This recipient chimp needed to be given a stick first to reach the juice and then a straw to drink the juice."Cannot see" conditionsame setup but the wall between the booths was opaque. There was a hole about 1m off the ground so the helper chimp could stand up and look through to see what the other chimp required.Explain why 2nd "can see" condition was completed and why only 3 chimps participatedResearchers wanted to ensure the difference in proper tool offering was not due to the experimental order. The 3 chimps showed a significant difference in proper tool offering in the "can see" condition and non-significant difference in the "cannot see" condition.Conclusions1st "can see" condition: stick/straw chosen over 50% when needed "cannot see:" 50/50 split (up to chance) 2nd "can see:" 60-65% correct offering2 caveats of conclusions-When chimps are able to view the situation of a conspecific, they help at direct request rather than altruism -Even when chimps understand the needs of conspecifics, they rarely help unless requested to do so2 strengths of the study1. lab study - control of variables - same tray, booths, setups, video monitoring, etc. increased reliability, validity, standardization, ability to replicate, and IV impacts DV 2. repeated measures - allows for self-comparison of Ps and reduces participant variables2 weaknesses of the study1. low ecological validity - in nature, chimps are almost always able to see the situation 2. small sample housed in lab - decreases generalizability2 ethical considerations of the study1. approved by Animal Care Committee of Primate Research at Kyoto University 2. only mentions chimps were tested and in accordance to their guidelines - all ethical guidelines likely met2 ways in which the study can be useful1. Researchers can get a closer glimpse into the behavior of chimps, which can be compared and contrasted with human behavior and why we act the way we do. 2. Since the study likely met all ethical guidelines, it can be used as a guideline for other studies in how they should be followed when using animals.