Picture by ellenm1
As a child, I remember reading Judy Blume’s series of Junie B. Jones books about a curious girl growing up in the world and learning the nature of life by the accidents she has and the mistakes she makes. In one particular book, Junie B. Jones and a Little Monkey Business, Junie acts out when she discovers that she is getting a baby brother, and her resulting antics are considered to be “monkeying around.” Though, in principle, this book is elementary, it provokes questioning: exactly how similar are monkeys to humans? It is the intent of science to attempt to make sense of concepts and occurrences that would seemingly supersede common knowledge. So through the concept of evolution, the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form, scientist have attempted to answer this perplexing question. However, contrary to the general misconception, humans did not derive from monkeys and other primates but do seem to share a common ancestor (cite lecture). Also, according to the study Comparing children’s Homo sapiens and chimpanzees’ Pan troglodytes quantity judgments of sequentially presented sets of items, involving the quantifying abilities of both chimpanzees and preschool and young children, parallels likewise exist between cognitive processing in humans and in chimpanzees.
In order to establish relevance and purpose for the experiment, the researchers disclosed their aim for implementing such a study. Aside from comparing the cognitional skills shared between chimpanzees and children, they hoped “to examine the relation between the counting skills of children at various ages and performance during this type of quantity comparison.” It is a misplaced idea that the ability to utilize a formal counting mechanism is mandatory in order to quantify objects. However, this ideology has been generally disproven because preschoolers and non-humans perform well before they have the ability to count, and this study seeks to confirm that disapproval as well as reaffirm studies that demonstrate the interconnectedness of the human and primate mind. The hypothesis for this experiment predicted that there would be a greater accuracy when counting smaller sets of materials and as the children increase in age.
In order to establish relevance and purpose for the experiment, the researchers disclosed their aim for implementing such a study. Aside from comparing the cognitional skills shared between chimpanzees and children, they hoped “to examine the relation between the counting skills of children at various ages and performance during this type of quantity comparison.” It is a misplaced idea that the ability to utilize a formal counting mechanism is mandatory in order to quantify objects. However, this ideology has been generally disproven because preschoolers and non-humans perform well before they have the ability to count, and this study seeks to confirm that disapproval as well as reaffirm studies that demonstrate the interconnectedness of the human and primate mind. The hypothesis for this experiment predicted that there would be a greater accuracy when counting smaller sets of materials and as the children increase in age.
After establishing a proposed hypothesis and possible outcome for the question/problem, the researchers proceeded with the conduction of the experiment. Foremost, they acquired a group of younger students, 4 of which were males and 5 females ranging in age from 41-47 months. Then there was a class of older students: 5 males and 6 females varying in age from 49-59 months and 3 chimps varying in age. During a trial, the participant and Experimenter 1 sat across from each other at a small table. Two opaque containers were placed on the table a sufficient distance away from the child to prevent the child from viewing of the containers’ contents. A clear plastic bag holding a quantity of identically colored beads was accessible to Experimenter 1. Experimenter 1 reached into the plastic bag and removed a quantity of beads while keeping them hidden in his or her hand. The quantity was more than the number of items to be deposited into cups, thereby eliminating any possible visual cues of the number of items in hand that might inadvertently occur.
Next, Experimenter 1 dropped the predetermined number of beads into the container on his or her right, one at a time, using a quasi-randomized pace of placement in order to avoid the rate of bead-dropping as a cue (i.e., the larger quantity did not always fall at a faster rate). Experimenter 1 looked down while dropping the beads so that the child could not see the experimenter’s face, thereby eliminating potential facial cues. The same procedure was followed to deposit items into the second container. Whether the larger quantity was deposited into the right or left container varied randomly from trial to trial (i.e., the larger quantity was not always presented in the right cup). Experimenter 1’s right hand was always held over the right container for a longer length of time to control for temporal cues (i.e., the experimenter’s hand did not always remain longest over the cup with the larger amount). These temporal controls meant that a child could not just use the length of time the hand was over a container or the consistency in the rate of object dropping to determine the larger set.
When finished, Experimenter 1 prompted the child and Experimenter 2 to proceed by stating, “Ready? Ok” while turning his or her gaze away from the test area. Experimenter 2, who was seated facing away from the child and Experimenter 1, did not know the number of beads in the containers. When hearing this oral signal, Experimenter 2 picked up the two containers, without viewing their contents, and presented them to the child while saying “Ok, you choose a cup.” The containers were held in front of the child, so that their contents were not visible. After the child selected a container by touching it, Experimenter 2 poured out its contents on the table and announced to the child, “Ok, you chose this container, and you get to keep these beads.” Next, Experimenter 2 poured out the contents of the container not chosen by the child. The participant was given the beads from the container he/she selected, while Experimenter 1 was given the beads from the remaining container. Although children did not receive any tangible reward until the end of the session, when their beads were returned in exchange for the chance to select a toy prize from among a number of alternatives, all children showed motivation to select containers. Resultantly, the experiment confirmed the proposed hypothesis and children, like chimpanzees, performed best when ratios between sets decreased, but performance was not affected by the total quantity of sets. Both subject groups were successful even when the absolute size of both sets combined was 20 items.
When finished, Experimenter 1 prompted the child and Experimenter 2 to proceed by stating, “Ready? Ok” while turning his or her gaze away from the test area. Experimenter 2, who was seated facing away from the child and Experimenter 1, did not know the number of beads in the containers. When hearing this oral signal, Experimenter 2 picked up the two containers, without viewing their contents, and presented them to the child while saying “Ok, you choose a cup.” The containers were held in front of the child, so that their contents were not visible. After the child selected a container by touching it, Experimenter 2 poured out its contents on the table and announced to the child, “Ok, you chose this container, and you get to keep these beads.” Next, Experimenter 2 poured out the contents of the container not chosen by the child. The participant was given the beads from the container he/she selected, while Experimenter 1 was given the beads from the remaining container. Although children did not receive any tangible reward until the end of the session, when their beads were returned in exchange for the chance to select a toy prize from among a number of alternatives, all children showed motivation to select containers. Resultantly, the experiment confirmed the proposed hypothesis and children, like chimpanzees, performed best when ratios between sets decreased, but performance was not affected by the total quantity of sets. Both subject groups were successful even when the absolute size of both sets combined was 20 items.
In conclusion, though primates are not necessarily our ancestors, there is a commonality that exists between humans and chimpanzees. The results of the featured experiment Comparing children’s Homo sapiens and chimpanzees’ Pan troglodytes quantity judgments of sequentially presented sets of items, demonstrate that both humans and chimps have similar instinctive thinking patterns. In a study known as the Lucy experiment in which a chimp was removed from her home at the age of two and raised as a human child. Eventually, through adaptation, she began to take on the characteristics of humans and could no longer interact with other chimpanzees (www.radiolab.org). In another instance on Youtube, if you type in “chimp beats human intelligence test,” there is also a video that showcases a chimp outsmarting a human in a memory test. So, though humans are generally considered to be superior, the top of the food chain and the most progressive intellectually, there are still certain traits and animalistic behaviors that connect us to other species, and chimpanzees in particular. There have been many studies conducted, reaffirming the findings in this experiment, especially the intellectual abilities of chimpanzees. Consequently, humans may not be as far removed from other species as we perceive ourselves to be.
Works Cited-
Beran, Michael J., Julie S. Johson-Pynn, and Christopher Ready. "Comparing Children's Homo
Beran, Michael J., Julie S. Johson-Pynn, and Christopher Ready. "Comparing Children's Homo
Sapiens and Chimpanzees' Pan Troglodytes Quantity Judgments of Sequentially Presented Sets
of Items." Current Zoology 57.4 (2011): 1-10. EBSCOhost. EBSCO Industries, 2011. Web. 21
Mar. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=20&sid=9678fabd-
841d-4932-8190-991ec74e848f%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbG12ZSZzY29
wZT1zaXRI#db=a9h&AN=65444634>.
Johnson, Corey. "Vertebrates." Wilson 107, Chapel Hill, NC. Jan. 2012. Lecture.
"Lucy - Radiolab." Radiolab. WNYC Radio. Web. 21 Mar. 2012.
"Lucy - Radiolab." Radiolab. WNYC Radio. Web. 21 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.radiolab.org/2010/feb/19/lucy/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment