Do non-human primates really represent others’ ignorance? A test of the awareness relations hypothesis

Non-human primates can often predict how another agent will behave based on that agent’s knowledge about the world. But how do non-human primates represent others’ knowledge states? Researchers have recently proposed that non-human primates form “awareness relations” to attribute objectively true in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cognition 2019-09, Vol.190, p.72-80
Hauptverfasser: Horschler, Daniel J., Santos, Laurie R., MacLean, Evan L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 80
container_issue
container_start_page 72
container_title Cognition
container_volume 190
creator Horschler, Daniel J.
Santos, Laurie R.
MacLean, Evan L.
description Non-human primates can often predict how another agent will behave based on that agent’s knowledge about the world. But how do non-human primates represent others’ knowledge states? Researchers have recently proposed that non-human primates form “awareness relations” to attribute objectively true information to other minds, as opposed to human-like representations that track others’ ignorance or false belief states. We present the first explicit test of the awareness relations hypothesis by examining when rhesus macaques’ understanding of other agents’ knowledge falters. In Experiment 1, monkeys watched an agent observe a piece of fruit (the target object) being hidden in one of two boxes. While the agent’s view was occluded, either the fruit moved out of its box and directly back into it, or the box containing the fruit opened and immediately closed. We found that monkeys looked significantly longer when the agent reached incorrectly rather than correctly after the box’s movement, but not after the fruit’s movement. This result suggests that monkeys did not expect the agent to know the fruit’s location when it briefly and arbitrarily moved while the agent could not see it, but did expect the agent to know the fruit’s location when only the box moved while the agent could not see it. In Experiment 2, we replicated and extended both findings with a larger sample, a different target object, and opposite directions of motion in the test trials. These findings suggest that monkeys reason about others’ knowledge of objects by forming awareness relations which are disrupted by arbitrary spatial manipulation of the target object while an agent has no perceptual access to it.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.012
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6570545</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0010027719300964</els_id><sourcerecordid>2262704587</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c617t-a27793823f65293022761f1dc2b2925b541c0d2eac7a7ba8f951f99dc5f9b7063</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc2O0zAUhS0EYkrhFcASGzYJ105sxxtQNcOfNBIbWFuO4zSuUrvYyYy64zXm9XgSHDpUwIbVXdxzrs_xh9ALAiUBwl_vShO23k0u-JICkSXUJRD6AK1II6pCNFXzEK0ACBRAhbhAT1LaAUBNRfMYXVQEKOeCrtBwFbAPvhjmvfb4EN1eTzbhaPU4HvM4RJusn3CYBhvTj-932G19iNob-xZvcNbmXY_zFutbHa23aXGPeomW8HA8LM7k0lP0qNdjss_u5xp9ff_uy-XH4vrzh0-Xm-vCcCKmQue0smpo1XNGZQWUCk560hnaUklZy2pioKNWG6FFq5teMtJL2RnWy1YAr9bozenuYW73tjM5fNSj-tUsHlXQTv298W5Q23CjOBPAapYPvLo_EMO3OfdTe5eMHUftbZiTopTwHKWRy1sv_5Huwhx9rpdVnAqoWaaxRuKkMjGkFG1_DkNALTTVTp1pqoWmglplmtn5_M8uZ99vfFmwOQls_tEbZ6NKxtnMpnPRmkl1wf33kZ-2tLff</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2262704587</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do non-human primates really represent others’ ignorance? A test of the awareness relations hypothesis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Horschler, Daniel J. ; Santos, Laurie R. ; MacLean, Evan L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Horschler, Daniel J. ; Santos, Laurie R. ; MacLean, Evan L.</creatorcontrib><description>Non-human primates can often predict how another agent will behave based on that agent’s knowledge about the world. But how do non-human primates represent others’ knowledge states? Researchers have recently proposed that non-human primates form “awareness relations” to attribute objectively true information to other minds, as opposed to human-like representations that track others’ ignorance or false belief states. We present the first explicit test of the awareness relations hypothesis by examining when rhesus macaques’ understanding of other agents’ knowledge falters. In Experiment 1, monkeys watched an agent observe a piece of fruit (the target object) being hidden in one of two boxes. While the agent’s view was occluded, either the fruit moved out of its box and directly back into it, or the box containing the fruit opened and immediately closed. We found that monkeys looked significantly longer when the agent reached incorrectly rather than correctly after the box’s movement, but not after the fruit’s movement. This result suggests that monkeys did not expect the agent to know the fruit’s location when it briefly and arbitrarily moved while the agent could not see it, but did expect the agent to know the fruit’s location when only the box moved while the agent could not see it. In Experiment 2, we replicated and extended both findings with a larger sample, a different target object, and opposite directions of motion in the test trials. These findings suggest that monkeys reason about others’ knowledge of objects by forming awareness relations which are disrupted by arbitrary spatial manipulation of the target object while an agent has no perceptual access to it.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-0277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7838</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.012</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31026672</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Agents ; Animals ; Cognition ; Comparative cognition ; Comprehension ; False belief ; Female ; Fruit ; Fruits ; Hypotheses ; Ignorance ; Knowledge representation ; Macaca mulatta ; Male ; Manipulation ; Monkeys &amp; apes ; Primates ; Social cognition ; Social Perception ; Theory of Mind</subject><ispartof>Cognition, 2019-09, Vol.190, p.72-80</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Sep 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c617t-a27793823f65293022761f1dc2b2925b541c0d2eac7a7ba8f951f99dc5f9b7063</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c617t-a27793823f65293022761f1dc2b2925b541c0d2eac7a7ba8f951f99dc5f9b7063</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027719300964$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31026672$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Horschler, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santos, Laurie R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacLean, Evan L.</creatorcontrib><title>Do non-human primates really represent others’ ignorance? A test of the awareness relations hypothesis</title><title>Cognition</title><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><description>Non-human primates can often predict how another agent will behave based on that agent’s knowledge about the world. But how do non-human primates represent others’ knowledge states? Researchers have recently proposed that non-human primates form “awareness relations” to attribute objectively true information to other minds, as opposed to human-like representations that track others’ ignorance or false belief states. We present the first explicit test of the awareness relations hypothesis by examining when rhesus macaques’ understanding of other agents’ knowledge falters. In Experiment 1, monkeys watched an agent observe a piece of fruit (the target object) being hidden in one of two boxes. While the agent’s view was occluded, either the fruit moved out of its box and directly back into it, or the box containing the fruit opened and immediately closed. We found that monkeys looked significantly longer when the agent reached incorrectly rather than correctly after the box’s movement, but not after the fruit’s movement. This result suggests that monkeys did not expect the agent to know the fruit’s location when it briefly and arbitrarily moved while the agent could not see it, but did expect the agent to know the fruit’s location when only the box moved while the agent could not see it. In Experiment 2, we replicated and extended both findings with a larger sample, a different target object, and opposite directions of motion in the test trials. These findings suggest that monkeys reason about others’ knowledge of objects by forming awareness relations which are disrupted by arbitrary spatial manipulation of the target object while an agent has no perceptual access to it.</description><subject>Agents</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Comparative cognition</subject><subject>Comprehension</subject><subject>False belief</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fruit</subject><subject>Fruits</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Ignorance</subject><subject>Knowledge representation</subject><subject>Macaca mulatta</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Manipulation</subject><subject>Monkeys &amp; apes</subject><subject>Primates</subject><subject>Social cognition</subject><subject>Social Perception</subject><subject>Theory of Mind</subject><issn>0010-0277</issn><issn>1873-7838</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc2O0zAUhS0EYkrhFcASGzYJ105sxxtQNcOfNBIbWFuO4zSuUrvYyYy64zXm9XgSHDpUwIbVXdxzrs_xh9ALAiUBwl_vShO23k0u-JICkSXUJRD6AK1II6pCNFXzEK0ACBRAhbhAT1LaAUBNRfMYXVQEKOeCrtBwFbAPvhjmvfb4EN1eTzbhaPU4HvM4RJusn3CYBhvTj-932G19iNob-xZvcNbmXY_zFutbHa23aXGPeomW8HA8LM7k0lP0qNdjss_u5xp9ff_uy-XH4vrzh0-Xm-vCcCKmQue0smpo1XNGZQWUCk560hnaUklZy2pioKNWG6FFq5teMtJL2RnWy1YAr9bozenuYW73tjM5fNSj-tUsHlXQTv298W5Q23CjOBPAapYPvLo_EMO3OfdTe5eMHUftbZiTopTwHKWRy1sv_5Huwhx9rpdVnAqoWaaxRuKkMjGkFG1_DkNALTTVTp1pqoWmglplmtn5_M8uZ99vfFmwOQls_tEbZ6NKxtnMpnPRmkl1wf33kZ-2tLff</recordid><startdate>20190901</startdate><enddate>20190901</enddate><creator>Horschler, Daniel J.</creator><creator>Santos, Laurie R.</creator><creator>MacLean, Evan L.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190901</creationdate><title>Do non-human primates really represent others’ ignorance? A test of the awareness relations hypothesis</title><author>Horschler, Daniel J. ; Santos, Laurie R. ; MacLean, Evan L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c617t-a27793823f65293022761f1dc2b2925b541c0d2eac7a7ba8f951f99dc5f9b7063</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Agents</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Comparative cognition</topic><topic>Comprehension</topic><topic>False belief</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fruit</topic><topic>Fruits</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Ignorance</topic><topic>Knowledge representation</topic><topic>Macaca mulatta</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Manipulation</topic><topic>Monkeys &amp; apes</topic><topic>Primates</topic><topic>Social cognition</topic><topic>Social Perception</topic><topic>Theory of Mind</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Horschler, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santos, Laurie R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacLean, Evan L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Horschler, Daniel J.</au><au>Santos, Laurie R.</au><au>MacLean, Evan L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do non-human primates really represent others’ ignorance? A test of the awareness relations hypothesis</atitle><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><date>2019-09-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>190</volume><spage>72</spage><epage>80</epage><pages>72-80</pages><issn>0010-0277</issn><eissn>1873-7838</eissn><abstract>Non-human primates can often predict how another agent will behave based on that agent’s knowledge about the world. But how do non-human primates represent others’ knowledge states? Researchers have recently proposed that non-human primates form “awareness relations” to attribute objectively true information to other minds, as opposed to human-like representations that track others’ ignorance or false belief states. We present the first explicit test of the awareness relations hypothesis by examining when rhesus macaques’ understanding of other agents’ knowledge falters. In Experiment 1, monkeys watched an agent observe a piece of fruit (the target object) being hidden in one of two boxes. While the agent’s view was occluded, either the fruit moved out of its box and directly back into it, or the box containing the fruit opened and immediately closed. We found that monkeys looked significantly longer when the agent reached incorrectly rather than correctly after the box’s movement, but not after the fruit’s movement. This result suggests that monkeys did not expect the agent to know the fruit’s location when it briefly and arbitrarily moved while the agent could not see it, but did expect the agent to know the fruit’s location when only the box moved while the agent could not see it. In Experiment 2, we replicated and extended both findings with a larger sample, a different target object, and opposite directions of motion in the test trials. These findings suggest that monkeys reason about others’ knowledge of objects by forming awareness relations which are disrupted by arbitrary spatial manipulation of the target object while an agent has no perceptual access to it.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>31026672</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.012</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0010-0277
ispartof Cognition, 2019-09, Vol.190, p.72-80
issn 0010-0277
1873-7838
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6570545
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Agents
Animals
Cognition
Comparative cognition
Comprehension
False belief
Female
Fruit
Fruits
Hypotheses
Ignorance
Knowledge representation
Macaca mulatta
Male
Manipulation
Monkeys & apes
Primates
Social cognition
Social Perception
Theory of Mind
title Do non-human primates really represent others’ ignorance? A test of the awareness relations hypothesis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T16%3A17%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20non-human%20primates%20really%20represent%20others%E2%80%99%20ignorance?%20A%20test%20of%20the%20awareness%20relations%20hypothesis&rft.jtitle=Cognition&rft.au=Horschler,%20Daniel%20J.&rft.date=2019-09-01&rft.volume=190&rft.spage=72&rft.epage=80&rft.pages=72-80&rft.issn=0010-0277&rft.eissn=1873-7838&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.012&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2262704587%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2262704587&rft_id=info:pmid/31026672&rft_els_id=S0010027719300964&rfr_iscdi=true