PSYC 4130 Exam 3| 95 questions| with complete solutions

Discuss Nadia Kohts' work and the hardships she faced. What paradigm did she invent and how does that paradigm work? CORRECT ANSWERS: Kohts' work was inspired by Darwin, and she wrote comparing the emotional intelligence of Joni (a young chimpanzee) and her son Roody. These types of studies were extremely taboo at the time as it challenged the current belief that plants and animals pass on traits gained during their lifetime; opposition to the common belief could result in persecution. Kohts invented the matching-to-sample paradigm, which is a staple of modern cognitive neuroscience. It is used to determine what stimuli an organism can perceive. The participant is rewarded for selecting a comparison that matches the sample to which they were first exposed. Using this paradigm, Kohts would hold up an object for Joni. She would then hide it among other objects in a sack and let him feel around to find it. This test involves both vision and touch, as it demanded that Joni make a choice based on his memory of the previously seen model. What was the method used to teach Nim Chimpsky sign language? How is this different from the way we teach young children language? What barriers might you imagine keep us from teaching sign language to animals using the methods we use to teach children language? CORRECT ANSWERS: The method they used to teach Nim Chimpsky sign language was operant conditioning. They would reward him for performing certain hand signals. We do "reward" our children occasionally for saying certain phrases via responses like smiling. However, it often has more to do with observational learning. The main difference is that children are embedded in a culture in which language is everywhere. Children are exposed to the language constantly and learn through that exposure. Language is the primary way that we get our needs met. The meaning of certain objects and gestures can be interpreted differently by animals compared to humans. The different interpretations we have of the world can be a barrier in communicating through a common language. Animals might not make the same associations as we do between words and things in the world. The structures of our mouths and gestures when speaking a language are inherently biased towards humans. Do you agree with de Waal that talking to animals doesn't seem really appealing? Is there something you'd like to ask an animal that you couldn't find out any other way? CORRECT ANSWERS: I agree with de Waal that talking to animals doesn't really seem appealing in the sense that animals may not interpret the world in the same way as us, and therefore, talking to them may be nonsensical no matter what. Additionally, what animals could say may not reflect what they truly think; similarly to how humans can lie or don't say every passing thought in their mind, animals may not speak reflecting their candid thoughts. I would love to ask my dog what they think of me. I can assume through interacting with my dog that they respect me. However, I would like to know how they may be interpreting the world around me differently. On page 121, Marc Hauser has a quote about humaniqueness. Discuss de Waal's label of this stance as "neo-creationism". CORRECT ANSWERS: Mark Hauser stated that the gap between human and chimpanzee cognition is greater than the gap bet