4.4 Article

The role of socio-communicative rearing environments in the development of social and physical cognition in apes

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 1459-1470

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01090.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [HD-56232, HD-38105, P01 HD060563, R01 HD056232, P01 HD060563-01A1, R01 HD056232-05] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS042867, NS-42867, R01 NS042867-09] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cultural intelligence hypothesis (CIH) claims that humans advanced cognition is a direct result of human culture and that children are uniquely specialized to absorb and utilize this cultural experience (Tomasello, 2000). Comparative data demonstrating that 2.5-year-old human children outperform apes on measures of social cognition but not on measures of physical cognition support this claim (Herrmann et similar to al., 2007). However, the previous study failed to control for rearing when comparing these two species. Specifically, the human children were raised in a human culture whereas the apes were raised in standard sanctuary settings. To further explore the CIH, here we compared the performance on multiple measures of social and physical cognition in a group of standard reared apes raised in conditions typical of zoo and biomedical laboratory settings to that of apes reared in an enculturated socio-communicatively rich environment. Overall, the enculturated apes significantly outperformed their standard reared counterparts on the cognitive tasks and this was particularly true for measures of communication. Furthermore, the performance of the enculturated apes was very similar to previously reported data from 2.5-year-old children. We conclude that apes who are reared in a human-like socio-communicatively rich environment develop superior communicative abilities compared to apes reared in standard laboratory settings, which supports some assumptions of the cultural intelligence hypothesis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据