Horowitz Alexandra C
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
J Comp Psychol. 2003 Sep;117(3):325-36. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.117.3.325.
A. Whiten, D. M. Custance, J.-C. Gomez, P. Teixidor, and K. A. Bard (1996) tested chimpanzees' (Pan troglodytes) and human children's (Homo sapiens) skills at imitation with a 2-action test on an "artificial fruit." Chimpanzees imitated to a restricted degree; children were more thoroughly imitative. Such results prompted some to assert that the difference in imitation indicates a difference in the subjects' understanding of the intentions of the demonstrator (M. Tomasello, 1996). In this experiment, 37 adult human subjects were tested with the artificial fruit. Far from being perfect imitators, the adults were less imitative than the children. These results cast doubt on the inference from imitative performance to an ability to understand others' intentions. The results also demonstrate how any test of imitation requires a control group and attention to the level of behavioral analysis.
A. 怀特恩、D. M. 卡斯唐斯、J.-C. 戈麦斯、P. 特克西多以及K. A. 巴德（1996年）通过对“人造水果”进行双动作测试，检验了黑猩猩（黑猩猩属）和人类儿童（智人）的模仿能力。黑猩猩的模仿程度有限；儿童的模仿则更为彻底。这样的结果促使一些人断言，模仿能力的差异表明实验对象对示范者意图的理解存在差异（M. 托马塞洛，1996年）。在这项实验中，37名成年人类受试者接受了人造水果测试。这些成年人远非完美的模仿者，他们的模仿能力比儿童还要弱。这些结果对从模仿表现推断理解他人意图能力的观点提出了质疑。这些结果还表明，任何模仿测试都需要一个对照组，并关注行为分析的水平。
