Human cognitive specializations for communication?
Select either of the two papers we analyzed in the workshops (either Povinelli et al., 1999, or Herrmann et al., 2007) and describe how you would improve on their research design to answer the research questions they posed (500 words—maximum).
Povinelli et al., in 1999, published an article to evaluate whether chimpanzees possess a theory of mind abilities by testing whether they can interpret seeing as an internal mental state of attention. It experimented through two frameworks, the high level which suggests the understanding of attention as a mental state and the low-level model, which does not. Several limitations appeared in this study which should be revised.
First of all, chimpanzees were six years old, compared with children that were three years old. A chimpanzee that is six years old is almost an adolescent while a 3-year-old child is an infant. The fact that they were in a different developmental stage might affect the outcomes of the study. To make it a fair test, I would include participants that are in the same developmental stage. Moreover, the sample size for both groups was relatively small and not matching (24 children vs seven chimpanzees). To improve the research design, I would have larger sample sizes that would be matching to ensure the validity and reliability of the study.
The training phases for chimpanzees was three while that of children was 1, with the training for the chimpanzees done in a laboratory without contacting the experimenter. The exercise of children being in a room and the trial, the children came into contact with the experimenter. To promote equity in the research, I would have given the same training environments to ensure the subjects familiarize with the trial in the same conditions.
The children had two testing sessions while the chimpanzees had 12 testing sessions; they should have given the same testing sessions. It is because training is different due to different abilities ut testing phases should remain the same so that the analysis can be consistent for all the subjects.
Sampling for chimpanzees was done for convenience, using the already captive chimpanzees, while for children it was done randomly from adverts. To make the data collected in the study reliable and valid, I would have sampled the chimpanzees from different zoos.
He chimpanzees were born and raised in captivity, while the human children were born in their homes with parents in their lives. The human children may disadvantage the chimpanzees since they have grown with their parents and learnt to exchange glances with their parents, and hence the study may not be equally subjective.
The chimpanzee’s tests were tested using a flat table measuring (60 × 120 cm) with two opaque cups placed upside down on the surface and food as their reward. The apparatus used was the same for the human children but stickers used as the reward. To stimulate the same excitement, I would have used the same reward system for both.
The author did not get the difference they had predicted to achieve at the start of the experiment. It is because of the methodology they used to collect the data; one is that the chimpanzees had participated before in more other tests as such, the second is the fact that the chimpanzees were to have human reasoning which was not logic, the third reason is that the trial sessions may have interfered with the thinking of the chimpanzees during the experiment.