Horowitz Alexandra
Department of Psychology, Barnard College, NY 10027, USA.
Learn Behav. 2011 Dec;39(4):314-7. doi: 10.3758/s13420-011-0041-7.
In line with other research, Udell, Dorey, and Wynne's (in press) finding that dogs and wolves pass on some trials of a putative theory-of-mind test and fail on others is as informative about the methods and concepts of the research as about the subjects. This commentary expands on these points. The intertrial differences in the target article demonstrate how critical the choice of cues is in experimental design; the intersubject-group differences demonstrate how life histories can interact with experimental design. Even the best-designed theory-of-mind tests have intractable logical problems. Finally, these and previous research results call for the introduction of an intermediate stage of ability, a rudimentary theory of mind, to describe subjects' performance.
与其他研究一致,乌代尔、多里和韦恩(即将发表)发现,狗和狼在一项假定的心理理论测试的某些试验中通过,而在其他试验中失败,这对于研究方法和概念以及研究对象同样具有参考价值。本评论将详细阐述这些观点。目标文章中试验间的差异表明了线索选择在实验设计中的关键作用;不同主体组间的差异表明了生活经历如何与实验设计相互作用。即使是设计最精良的心理理论测试也存在难以解决的逻辑问题。最后,这些以及之前的研究结果都要求引入一个能力的中间阶段,即初级心理理论,来描述主体的表现。