| Title |
Great apes infer others’ goals based on context
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-012-0528-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Buttelmann, Sebastian Schütte, Malinda Carpenter, Josep Call, Michael Tomasello |
| Abstract |
In previous studies claiming to demonstrate that great apes understand the goals of others, the apes could potentially have been using subtle behavioral cues present during the test to succeed. In the current studies, we ruled out the use of such cues by making the behavior of the experimenter identical in the test phase of both the experimental and control conditions; the only difference was the preceding "context." In the first study, apes interpreted a human's ambiguous action as having the underlying goal of opening a box, or not, based on that human's previous actions with similar boxes. In the second study, chimpanzees learned that when a human stood up she was going to go get food for them, but when a novel, unexpected event happened, they changed their expectation-presumably based on their understanding that this new event led the human to change her goal. These studies suggest that great apes do not need concurrent behavioral cues to infer others' goals, but can do so from a variety of different types of cues-even cues displaced in time. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| Hungary | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 21 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 30% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2012.
All research outputs
#20,161,674
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,380
of 1,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,550
of 163,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#19
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,441 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 163,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.