Enrique Sarabia Sánchez - personal identifier: G6533073
TMA 01- Part 1 Word limit: 1000 words
Describe the methods that researchers have used to assess the mind-
reading abilities of non-human animals and explain what the research
has revealed about whether non-human animals have a theory of mind.
Theory of mind (TOM) is the ability to understand the mental states, beliefs, intentions
of oneself and others and how these can influence the behaviour of oneself and others.
This is a topic that has been addressed by many psychologists (Hewson, 2915, p 28).
TOM sometimes is referred to as a human capacity that allows us to relate to others and
which develops from birth to death through interactions with other people.
This has created a debate about whether this 'human' capacity would also be held by
animals. We will describe some of the studies that have been carried out and thus try to
understand whether these are only human capacities or whether animals also can have
a TOM. We will also present conclusions of these studies.
The brain is the central organ as it is for humans and the Neocortex has been related as
the part of the brain with a determining role in executive decisions. With this
reasoning, it can be interpreted that animals that possess Neocortex could make
decisions and achieve objectives through problem-solving. A larger Neocortex
theoretically gives a greater executive capacity of the brain and therefore they were the
object of studies.
On the other hand, animals without a Neocortex would be less likely to be able to make
executive decisions, as lizards or birds. It is important to point out that there is
evidence that some animals such as lizards, despite not having Neocortex but having
amygdala (Lanuza et al., 1998) could experience emotions to some degree.
Premack and Woodruff (1978), who are quoted in (Hewson et al, 2015, p. 86), carried
out a study on primates to see if they understand human intentions and if this proved
successful it would be proof that the animals would have TOM.
The experiment consisted of showing the primates some 30-second videos and they
were not shown the last seconds where the solution to the problem appeared, instead,
shown them two images, in which only one of them provided the solution. In these
videos, you could see a person trying to solve different problems to complete the task of
obtaining food. In some, the food was out of their reach and to get it they had to bring a
box on the floor next to them. In others more complex problems were shown, for
example a weight had been introduced in the box and it had to be emptied to bring it
closer and in this way to be able to get up and reach the food.
Chimps managed to find the solution to the problems on almost every occasion so the
animals had understood the human mind that they saw on the videos of the experiment
and this meant for Premack and Woodruff that animals had TOM.
Another important experiment was carried out with elephants by Plotnik and
colleagues (2011), who are quoted in (Hewson et al, 2015, p. 81).
This study attempted to test whether two elephants could work together to achieve a
goal. A tray of food was placed behind a fence and to get it both elephants had to pull on
ropes at the same time; if one pulled the tray of food it would move away. This
experiment aimed to see if they understood the problem, but also if they understood
TMA 01- Part 1 Word limit: 1000 words
Describe the methods that researchers have used to assess the mind-
reading abilities of non-human animals and explain what the research
has revealed about whether non-human animals have a theory of mind.
Theory of mind (TOM) is the ability to understand the mental states, beliefs, intentions
of oneself and others and how these can influence the behaviour of oneself and others.
This is a topic that has been addressed by many psychologists (Hewson, 2915, p 28).
TOM sometimes is referred to as a human capacity that allows us to relate to others and
which develops from birth to death through interactions with other people.
This has created a debate about whether this 'human' capacity would also be held by
animals. We will describe some of the studies that have been carried out and thus try to
understand whether these are only human capacities or whether animals also can have
a TOM. We will also present conclusions of these studies.
The brain is the central organ as it is for humans and the Neocortex has been related as
the part of the brain with a determining role in executive decisions. With this
reasoning, it can be interpreted that animals that possess Neocortex could make
decisions and achieve objectives through problem-solving. A larger Neocortex
theoretically gives a greater executive capacity of the brain and therefore they were the
object of studies.
On the other hand, animals without a Neocortex would be less likely to be able to make
executive decisions, as lizards or birds. It is important to point out that there is
evidence that some animals such as lizards, despite not having Neocortex but having
amygdala (Lanuza et al., 1998) could experience emotions to some degree.
Premack and Woodruff (1978), who are quoted in (Hewson et al, 2015, p. 86), carried
out a study on primates to see if they understand human intentions and if this proved
successful it would be proof that the animals would have TOM.
The experiment consisted of showing the primates some 30-second videos and they
were not shown the last seconds where the solution to the problem appeared, instead,
shown them two images, in which only one of them provided the solution. In these
videos, you could see a person trying to solve different problems to complete the task of
obtaining food. In some, the food was out of their reach and to get it they had to bring a
box on the floor next to them. In others more complex problems were shown, for
example a weight had been introduced in the box and it had to be emptied to bring it
closer and in this way to be able to get up and reach the food.
Chimps managed to find the solution to the problems on almost every occasion so the
animals had understood the human mind that they saw on the videos of the experiment
and this meant for Premack and Woodruff that animals had TOM.
Another important experiment was carried out with elephants by Plotnik and
colleagues (2011), who are quoted in (Hewson et al, 2015, p. 81).
This study attempted to test whether two elephants could work together to achieve a
goal. A tray of food was placed behind a fence and to get it both elephants had to pull on
ropes at the same time; if one pulled the tray of food it would move away. This
experiment aimed to see if they understood the problem, but also if they understood
