There are many things that make the human species unique. While there are many factors that all scientists can agree are uniquely innate to humans, there are still some categories that cause a lot of controversy in this field. For example, the Bischof-Köhler hypothesis is one hypothesis that scientists have debated if it is truly unique to humans or it applies to others in the animal kingdom. The Bischof-Köhler hypothesis states that only human can “dissociate themselves from their current motivation and take action for future needs.” It also states that other animals cannot do this themselves as they “cannot anticipate and act towards the satisfaction of a future need not currently experienced or cued by their present motivational state.” With knowledge of this hypothesis, Correia, Dickinson, and Clayton, the scientists behind this experiment, aimed to put it to the test. The hypothesis behind this experiment investigated whether Western scrub jays could plan for a future motivational need, as opposed to a current one. Correia, Dickinson, and Clayton, wanted to see if this special ability could be seen in other animals, and not just humans.
They created this experiment mainly to see if the Bischof-Köhler hypothesis held true against the motivational needs of Western scrub jays. They wanted to see if Western scrub-jays could make apt caching decisions that would suit and maximize their future motivational state even if it went completely against their current state. Summarize the experiment of the first article To test this hypothesis, Correia et al used Western scrub jays and their innate caching system. Correia et al had to be able to dissociate the western scrub jays’ current motivational needs from their future ones. To do this they used the fact that when the Western scrub jays are pre-fed a specific type of food, they become rapidly satiated on that type of food. Subsequently, when they are given the opportunity to cache and/or eat between two kinds of foods they will pick the food that they did not recently eat. By pre-feeding the Western scrub-jays on two different types of food, one before caching and the other prior to recovery, the scientists were able to distinguish between the jays’ current and future motivational needs.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The experiment consisted of 11 scrub jays that were presented with specific satiety feeding tests. The types of foods administered to the Western scrub-jays were pine seeds and kibble. In the first stage, the scrub jays were given the opportunity to eat either the kibble or the pine seeds for three hours until they were filled. In stage two, which occurred immediately afterward, the Western scrub jays were administered a ten-minute preference test in which the scientists recorded the amount of each type of food the birds consumed. The Western scrub jays were also administered two control conditions in which they were either pre-fed both food types or they were pre-fed neither. For both of these control conditions, the Western scrub jays were expected to equally prefer both food types during stage two.
The birds received four specific satiety tests in total: pre-fed pine seeds, pre-fed kibble, pre-fed both foods and pre-fed neither. In experiment 2, the birds were given the opportunity to cache and recover pine seeds and kibbles, having been pre-fed one of the two foods immediately prior to caching and recovery. The three trials had four stages. In stage one, the birds were given either pine seeds or kibble to eat for three hours. In stage two, which occurred immediately afterward, the jays received a ten minute preference test in which both types of food were available for both caching and eating. About thirty minutes later, the Western scrub jays received a second period of one of two food types for three hours, followed soon after the opportunity to recover the caches they had made for ten minutes. Again, the controls were the same as in experiment one. Birds in the “Same Group” were pre-fed the same type as they had been fed during the first stage.
Birds in the “Different Group” were pre-fed a different food type than they had received in stage one. Summarize the results of the first article The results of this experiment were as the scientists expected. Pre-exposing the Western scrub jays to a particular type of food- be it kibbles or pine seeds- reduced the incentive value of that food, and consequently the jays ate more of the non-pre-fed food type on the first experiment. On the other hand, the Western scrub jays consumed about equal amounts of the two foods in the two control conditions in experiment one. In experiment two the results different. Birds in the “Same group” continued to preferentially cache the non-pre-fed food in stage two. Meanwhile, birds in the “Different group” switched to caching the pre-fed food type. This showed that the Western scrub jays are not bound by the Bischof-Köhler hypothesis, nor to their present motivational stage.
The birds could anticipate and take the correct measures to satisfy a future need. 2222 Summarize the Criticisms While this experiment has substantial proof, there are those who disagree with the conclusion of Correia et al.’s experiment. Suddendorf and Corballis, are two scientist that criticize the experiment. They argue that although the birds cached a greater number proportion of the same pre-fed food type, the absolute number of food items stored did not change in ah meaningful way. They argue that the birds in the crucial “different group” didn’t cache many more pre-fed food types. They say the data shows that the mean went from .7 to 1.2 to .8 on the first, second and third trials respectively. This showed to them that the birds did not increasingly store the food that was more desirable for bird’s future. Suddendorf and Corballis also pointed out that there were several misleading factors. First, they pointed out that the sample size was small and uneven. Second, they stated that because the “Same Group” were pre-fed twice while the “different group” were pre-fed equally on both foods, there should have been extra feeding between trials to make up for the imbalance.
Overall, Suddendorf and Corballis don’t accept that the Bischof-Köhler was shown to be wrong. 3333 Summarize the rebuttal Clayton et al. rebut that the incentive learning led to a decrease in the value assigned to both foods. This produced, they explain, an overall decrease in caching on subsequent trials. In the case of the pre-fed food type for the same group, the decline in value was augmented by specific satiety, whereas for the different group, the experience with the foods led to a decline in the value of the pre-fed food at caching and a decline in the value of the non-pre-fed food at recovery. They argue that within context of this analysis of the Bischof-Köhler hypothesis this reduces to the notion of whether the birds give greater value to specific incentive learning at recovery than at caching.
In totality, they conclude that the Bischof-Köhler hypothesis is not true. Although the authors argue that the Western Scrub Jays were fed in the first stage and that this decreased the incentive values of both foods, it is difficult to mathematically or logically explain the value of this effect ow whether it’s the same for both groups of Western Scrub Jays. Therefore, it is not the absolute amount (07 to 1.2 to 0.8) that truly matters here. It is the measure of caching behavior that is relative to the proportion of food cached that truly depicts that the birds are using their previous experience with caching and recovery to anticipate those future motivational needs. 4444 Provide an analysis of the strength of the AND weaknesses about each research team Come to your own conclusion if scrub jays have episodic memories The strength of Correia research team has shown that.
Stuck on your essay?
