Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:26:25.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theroy of Mind in Non-Verbal Apes: conceptual issues and the critical experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Andrew Whiten
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is now over twenty years since Premack and Woodruff (1978) posed the question, ‘Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?’—‘by which we meant’, explained Premack (1988) in a later reappraisal, ‘does the ape do what humans do: attribute states of mind to the other one, and use these states to predict and explain the behaviour of the other one? For example, does the ape wonder, while looking quizzically at another individual, What does he really want? What does he believe? What are his intentions?'

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 49 , March 2001 , pp. 199 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Biliography

Baldwin, D. A. and Moses, L. J. 1994. ‘Early understanding of referential intent and attentional focus: Evidence from language and emotion’, in Lewis, C. and Mitchell, P. (eds) 1994a (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 133–56.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S.Leslie, A. M. and Frith, U. 1985. ‘Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”?’, Cognition 21, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baron-Cohen, S.Tager-Flusberg, H. and Cohen, D. J. (eds) 1993. Understanding Other Minds (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1976. Linguistic Behaviour (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1978. ‘Beliefs about beliefs’, in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 557–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. 1991. ‘How to read minds in behaviour: a suggestion from a philosopher’, in Whiten, A., (ed.) (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), pp. 97–108.Google Scholar
Boysen, S. T. 1998. ‘Attribution processes in chimpanzees: heresy, hearsay or heuristic?’, paper presented at The VIIth Congress of the International Primatological Society, Antananarivo.Google Scholar
Byrne, R. W. and Whiten, A. (eds) 1988. Machiavellian Intelligence: Social Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys' Apes and Humans, Byrne, R. W. and Whiten, A. (eds) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Byrne, R. W. and Whiten, A. 1990. ‘Tactical deception in primates: The 1990 database’, Primate Reports, 27, 1–101.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. and Smith, P. K. (eds) 1996. Theories of Theories of Mind. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Castles, D. L. and Whiten, A. 1998(a). ‘Post-conflict behaviour of wild olive baboons. I. Reconciliation, redirection and consolation’, Ethology, 104, 126–47.Google Scholar
Castles, D. L. and Whiten, A. 1998(b). ‘Post-conflict behaviour of wild olive baboons. II. Stress and self-directed behaviour.’ Ethology, 104, 148–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. and Stone, T. (eds) 1995. Folk Psychology: The Theory of Mind Debate (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
Davies, M. and Stone, T. (eds) 1996. Mental Simulation: Evaluation and Applications. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. and Krebs, J. R. 1978. ‘Animal signals: information or manipulation?’, in Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. (eds) (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 380–402.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. 1978. ‘Beliefs about beliefs’ in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 568–70.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. 1988. ‘The intentional stance in theory and practice’, in Byrne, W. R. and Whiten, A., (eds) (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 180–202.Google Scholar
de Waal, F. B. M. 1982. Chimpanzee Politics (London: Jonathan Cape),Google Scholar
de Waal, F. B. M. 1989. Peacemaking Among Primates (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup, G. G. 1982. ‘Self-awareness and the emergence of mind in primates’, American Journal of Primatology, 2, 237–48.Google Scholar
Gomez, J. C. 1991. ‘Visual behaviour as a window for reading the mind of others in primates’, in Whiten, A. (ed.) (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), pp. 195–207.Google Scholar
Gomez, J. C. 1996. ‘Nonhuman primate theories of (nonhuman primate) minds: some issues concerning the origins of mindreading’, in Carruthers, P. and Smith, P.K. (eds) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 330–43.Google Scholar
Gomez, J. C. and Teixidor, P. 1992. ‘Theory of mind in an orangutan: a nonverbal test of false-belief appreciation?’, XIV Congress of the International Primatological Society, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
Goodall, J. 1986. The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behaviour (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Gordon, R. M. 1986. ‘Folk psychology as simulation’, in Mind and Language, 1, 158–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, A. H. and de Waal, F. B. M. (eds) 1992. Coalitions and Alliances in Humans and Other Animals (Oxford: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1978. ‘Studying the chimpanzee's theory of mind’, in Behavioral and Brian Sciences, 1, 576–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyes, C. M. 1993. ‘Anecdotes, training, trapping and triangulating: do animals attribute mental states?’, Animal Behaviour, 46, 177–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyes, C. M. 1998. ‘Theory of mind in nonhuman primates’, in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 101–48.Google Scholar
Humphrey, N. K. 1980. ‘Nature's psychologists’, in Josephson, B. and Ramachandran, V. (eds), (Oxford: Pergamon), pp. 57–80.Google Scholar
Josephson, B. and Ramachandran, V. (eds) 1980. Consciousness and the Physical World (Oxford: Pergamon).Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. (eds) 1978/1984. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. and Dawkins, R. 1984. ‘Animal signals: Mind reading and manipulation’, in Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. (eds) (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 380–401.Google Scholar
Langer, J. and Killen, M. (eds) 1998. Piaget. Evolution and Development (Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, A. M. and Thaiss, L. 1992. ‘Domain specificity in conceptual development: Neuropsychological evidence from autism’, Cognition, 43, 225–51.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. and Mitchell, P. (eds) 1994a. Children's Early Understanding of Mind (Hillsdal, NJ: Erlbaum).Google Scholar
Lewis, C. and Mitchell, P. (eds) 1994b. Origins of an Understanding of Mind (Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum).Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1966. ‘An argument for the identity theory’, Journal of Philosophy, 63, 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, P. 1996. Acquiring a Conception of Mind (Hove: Psychology Press).Google Scholar
Plooij, F. X. 1993. ‘Record No. 22’, in Byrne, R. W., and Whiten, A. (1993).Google Scholar
Povinelli, D. J. 1996. ‘Chimpanzee theory of mind, the long road to strong inference’, in P., Carruthers and Smith, P. K. (eds) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Povinelli, D. J. and Eddy, T. J. 1996. ‘What young chimpanzees know about seeing’, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 247, Vol. 61, No 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Premack, D. 1988. ‘Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? revisited’, in Byrne, R. W. and Whiten, A. (eds) (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 160–79.Google Scholar
Premack, D. and Woodruff, G. 1978. ‘Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?’, in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515–26.Google Scholar
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. 1986. Ape Language: from Conditioned Response to Symbol (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1998. ‘Black box inference—when should intervening variables be postulated?’, in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 49, 469–98.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (ed.) 2000. Meta-representations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M. 1991. ‘From desires to beliefs: acquisition of a theory of mind’, in Whiten, A., (ed.) (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 19–38.Google Scholar
Whiten, A. (ed.) 1991: Natural Theories of Mind: Evolution, Development and Simulation of Everyday Mindreading (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
Whiten, A. 1993. ‘Evolving a theory of mind: The nature of non-verbal mentalism in other primates’l, in Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., and Cohen, D. J. (eds) (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 367–96.Google Scholar
Whiten, A. 1994. ‘Grades of mindreading’, in Lewis, C. and Mitchell, P. (eds.) 1994b (Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum), pp. 47–70.Google Scholar
Whiten, A. 1996. ‘When does smart behaviour reading become mindreading’, in Carruthers, P. and Smith, P. K. (eds), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 277–92.Google Scholar
Whiten, A. 1997. ‘The Machiavellian mindreader’, in Whiten, A. and Byrne, R. W. (eds), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 144–73.Google Scholar
Whiten, A. 1998a. ‘Evolutionary and developmental origins of the mindreading system’, in Langer, J. and Killen, M. (eds) (Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum), pp. 73–99.Google Scholar
Whiten, A. 1998b. ‘How imitators represent the imitated: the vital experiments’, Commentary on Byrne, R. W. and Russon, A. E. in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 707–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiten, A 2000. ‘Chimpanzee cognition and the question of mental rerepresentation’, in Sperber, D. (ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press), PP?Google Scholar
Whiten, A. and Byrne, R. W. 1988a. ‘Tactical deception in primates’, in Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 11, 233–73.Google Scholar
Whiten, A. and Byrne, R. W. 1988b. ‘The manipulation of attention in primate tactical deception’, in Byrne, R. W. and Whiten, A. (eds) (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 211–23.Google Scholar
Whiten, A and Byrne, R. W 1997. Machiavellian Intelligence II.: Evaluations and Extensions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, H. and Perner, J. 1983. ‘Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception’, in Cognition, 13, 103–28.Google Scholar