Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
‘Theory of mind’ in animals: ways to make progress
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Open Access
  • Published: 10 November 2012

‘Theory of mind’ in animals: ways to make progress

  • Elske van der Vaart1,2 &
  • Charlotte K. Hemelrijk1 

Synthese volume 191, pages 335–354 (2014)Cite this article

  • 6754 Accesses

  • 12 Citations

  • 1 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Abstract

Whether any non-human animal can attribute mental states to others remains the subject of extensive debate. This despite the fact that several species have behaved as if they have a ‘theory of mind’ in various behavioral tasks. In this paper, we review the reasons of skeptics for their doubts: That existing experimental setups cannot distinguish between ‘mind readers’ and ‘behavior readers’, that results that seem to indicate ‘theory of mind’ may come from studies that are insufficiently controlled, and that our own intuitive biases may lead us to interpret behavior more ‘cognitively’ than is necessary. The merits of each claim and suggested solution are weighed. The conclusion is that while it is true that existing setups cannot conclusively demonstrate ‘theory of mind’ in non-human animals, focusing on this fact is unlikely to be productive. Instead, the more interesting question is how sophisticated their social reasoning can be, whether it is about ‘unobservable inner experiences’ or not. Therefore, it is important to address concerns about the setup and interpretation of specific experiments. To alleviate the impact of intuitive biases, various strategies have been proposed in the literature. These include a deeper understanding of associative learning, a better knowledge of the limited ‘theory of mind’ humans actually use, and thinking of animal cognition in an embodied, embedded way; that is, being aware that constraints outside of the brain, and outside of the body, may naturally predispose individuals to produce behavior that looks smart without requiring complex cognition. To enable this kind of thinking, a powerful methodological tool is advocated: Computational modeling, namely agent-based modeling and, particularly, cognitive modeling. By explicitly simulating the rules and representations that underlie animal performance on specific tasks, it becomes much easier to look past one’s own biases and to see what cognitive processes might actually be occurring.

Download to read the full article text

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

References

  • Anderson J.R. (2007) How can the human mind occur in the physical universe?. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews K. (2005) Chimpanzee theory of mind: Looking in all the wrong places?. Mind and Language 20: 521–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews K. (2008) It’s in your nature: A pluralistic folk psychology. Synthese 165: 13–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apperly I.A., Butterfill S.A. (2009) Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states?. Psychological Review 116: 953–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balda R.P., Kamil A.C., Grim K. (1986) Revisits to emptied cache sites by Clark’s nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana). Animal Behaviour 34: 1289–1298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett L. (2010) Too much monkey business. In: Semin G., Echterhoff G. (Eds.) Grounding sociality. Psychology Press, London, pp 219–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett L., Henzi P., Rendall D. (2007) Social brains, simple minds: Does social complexity really require cognitive complexity?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 362: 561–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolhuis J.J., Wynne C.D.L. (2009) Can evolution explain how minds work?. Nature 458: 832–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bräuer J., Call J., Tomasello M. (2007) Chimpanzees really know what others can see in a competitive situation. Animal Cognition 10: 439–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson J.J., Leong J.C.S. (2007) Primate errors in transitive ’inference’: A two-tier learning model. Animal Cognition 10: 1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulloch M.J., Boysen S.T., Furlong E.E. (2008) Visual attention and its relation to knowledge states in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Animal Behaviour 76: 1147–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne R.W., Bates L.A. (2010) Primate social cognition: Uniquely primate, uniquely social, or just unique?. Neuron 65: 815–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Call J., Tomasello M. (2008) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12: 187–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J.-L., Franks, N. R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G., & Bonabeau, E. (2001). Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Clary D., Kelly D.M. (2011) Cache protection strategies of a non-social food-caching corvid, Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifrage columbiana). Animal Cognition 14: 735–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton N.S., Dally J.M., Emery N.J. (2007) Social cognition by food-caching corvids. The western scrub-jay as a natural psychologist. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 362: 505–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couzin I.D., Krause J. (2003) Self-organization and collective behavior in vertebrates. Advances in the Study of Behavior 32: 1–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dally J.M., Emery N.J., Clayton N.S. (2004) Cache protection strategies by western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica): Hiding food in the shade. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271: 5387–5390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dally J.M., Emery N.J., Clayton N.S. (2005) Cache protection strategies by western scrub-jays, Aphelocoma californica: Implications for social cognition. Animal Behaviour 70: 1251–1263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dally J.M., Emery N.J., Clayton N.S. (2006) Food-caching western scrub jays keep track of who was watching when. Science 312: 1662–1666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Kort S.R., Correia S.P.C., Alexis D.M., Dickinson A., Clayton N.S. (2007) The control of food-caching behavior by western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 33: 361–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A. (1980) Contemporary animal learning theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery N.J. (2005) The evolution of social cognition. In: Easton A., Emery N.J. (Eds.) Cognitive neuroscience of social behaviour. Psychology Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery N.J., Clayton N.S. (2001) Effects of experience and social context on prospective caching strategies by scrub jays. Nature 414: 443–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery N.J., Clayton N.S. (2004) The mentality of crows: Convergent evolution of intelligence in corvids and apes. Science 306: 1903–1907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery N.J., Clayton N.S. (2008) How to build a scrub jay that reads minds. In: Itakura S., Fujita K. (Eds.) Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary and developmental perspectives. Springer, Tokyo, pp 65–98

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Emery N.J., Clayton N.S. (2009) Comparative social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 60: 87–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery N.J., Dally J.M., Clayton N.S. (2004) Western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica) use cognitive strategies to protect their caches from thieving conspecifics. Animal Cognition 7: 37–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evers E., de Vries H., Spruijt B.M., Sterck E.H.M. (2011) Better safe than sorry - Socio-spatial group structure emerges from individual variation in fleeing, avoidance or velocity in an agent-based model. PLoS ONE 6: e26189. doi:26110.21371/journal.pone.0026189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flombaum J.I., Santos L.R. (2005) Rhesus monkeys attribute perceptions to others. Current Biology 15: 447–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare B. (2001) Can competitive paradigms increase the validity of experiments on primate social cognition?. Animal Cognition 4: 269–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare B., Call J., Agnetta B., Tomasello M. (2000) Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Animal Behaviour 59: 771–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare B., Call J., Tomasello M. (2001) Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know?. Animal Behaviour 61: 139–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A., & Trafton, J.G. (2009). Gaze-following and awareness of visual perspective in chimpanzees. In: Howes A., Peebles D., Cooper R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, (pp. 292–297), Manchester.

  • Hemelrijk C. K. (1996) Reciprocation in great apes: From complex cognition to self-structuring. In: W.C. McGrew, M. L.F., & T. Nishida (Eds.), Great Ape societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hemelrijk C.K. (2002) Understanding of social behaviour with the help of complexity science. Ethology 108: 655–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemelrijk C.K., Bolhuis J.J. (2011) A minimalist approach to comparative psychology. Trends in Cognitive Science 15: 185–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemelrijk C.K., Hildenbrandt H. (2011) Some causes of the variable shape of flocks of birds. PLoS ONE 6: e22479. doi:22410.21371/journal.pone.0022479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyes C.M. (1993) Anecdotes, training, trapping and triangulating: Do animals attribute mental states?. Animal Behaviour 46: 177–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyes C.M. (1998) Theory of mind in nonhuman primates. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21: 101–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyes C.M. (2012) A qualified defense of associative learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 367: 2695–2703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter A.B., Russell J.L., Freeman H., Hopkins W.D. (2007) Now you see me, now you don’t: Evidence that chimpanzees understand the role of the eyes in attention. Animal Cognition 10: 55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horner V., Carter J.D., Suchak M., de Waal F.B.M. (2011) Spontaneous prosocial choice by chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 13867–13851

  • Hurley S., Nudds M. (2006) The question of animal rationality. In: Hurley S., Nudds M. (Eds.) Rational animals?. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–83

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kamil A.C., Balda R.P. (1990) Differential memory for different cache sites by Clark’s nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 16: 162–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski J., Call J., Tomasello M. (2004) Body orientation and face orientation: Two factors controlling apes’ begging behavior from humans. Animal Cognition 7: 216–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski J., Call J., Tomasello M. (2008) Chimpanzees know what others know, but not what they believe. Cognition 109: 224–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karin-D’Arcy M.R., Povinelli D.J. (2002) Do chimpanzees know what each other see? A closer look. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 110: 21–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Keysar B., Barr D.J., Balin J.A., Brauner J.S. (2000) Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Pyschological Sciences 11: 32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King A.J., Sueur C., Huchard E., Cowlishaw G. (2011) A rule-of-thumb based on social affiliation explains collective movement in desert baboons. Animal Behaviour 82: 1337–1345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krachun C., Call J., Tomasello M. (2009) Can chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) discriminate appearance from reality?. Cognition 112: 435–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kummer H., Dasser V., Hoyningen-Huene P. (1990) Exploring primate social cognition: Some critical remarks. Behaviour 112: 84–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas J.R., Freeberg T.M., Egbert J., Schwabl H. (2006) Fecal corticosterone, body mass, and caching rates of Carolina chickadees (Poecili carolinensis) from disturbed and undisturbed sites. Hormones and Behavior 49: 634–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lurz R. (2009) If chimpanzees are mindreaders, could behavioral science tell? Towards a solution of the logical problem. Philosophical Psychology 22: 305–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lurz R. (2011) Belief attribution in animals: On how to move forward conceptually and empirically. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 22: 19–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lurz R., Krachun C. (2011) How could we know whether nonhuman primates understand other’s internal goals and intentions? Solving Povinelli’s problem. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2: 449–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons D.E., Santos L.R. (2006) Ecology, domain specificity, and the origins of theory of mind: Is competition the catalyst?. Philosophy Compass 1: 481–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onishi K.H., Baillargeon R. (2005) Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs?. Science 308: 255–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce J.M. (2008) Animal learning and cognition: An introduction. Psychology Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Penn D.C., Holyoak K.J., Povinelli D.J. (2008) Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31: 109–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Penn D.C., Povinelli D.J. (2007) On the lack of evidence that non-human animals possess anything remotely resembling a ’theory of mind’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 362: 731–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeifer R., Scheier C. (1999) Understanding intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Povinelli D.J., & Eddy T.J. (1996) What young chimpanzees know about seeing (Vol. 61, No. 3, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Povinelli D.J., Vonk J. (2003) Chimpanzee minds: Suspiciously human?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 157–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Povinelli D.J., Vonk J. (2004) We don’t need a microscope to explore the chimpanzee’s mind. Mind and Language 19: 1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pravosudov V.V. (2003) Long-term moderate elevation of corticosterone facilitates avian food-caching behaviour and enhances spatial memory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270: 2599–2604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premack D. (2007) Human and animal cognition: Continuity and discontinuity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104: 13861–13867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puga-Gonzalez I., Hildenbrandt H., Hemelrijk C.K. (2009) Emergent patterns of social affiliation in primates: A model. PLoS Computational Biology 5: e1000630. doi:1000610.1001371/journal.pcbi.1000630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reaux J.E., Theall L.A., Povinelli D.J. (1999) A longitudinal investigation of chimpanzees’ understanding of visual perception. Child Development 70: 275–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvucci D.D. (2006) Modeling driver behavior in a cognitive architecture. Human Factors 48: 362–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed A.M., Tomasello M. (2010) Primate cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 2: 407–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shettleworth S.J. (2010) Clever animals and killjoy explanations in comparative pyschology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14: 477–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shettleworth S.J. (2010) Cognition, evolution and behavior. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh D., Dixson B.J., Jessop T.S., Morgan B., Dixson A.F. (2010) Cross-cultural consensus for waist-hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior 31: 176–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sueur C., Deneubourg J.-L. (2011) Self-organization in primates: Understanding the rules underlying collective movements. International Journal of Primatology 32: 1413–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, R. (Ed.) (2008) The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Taatgen N.A., Anderson J.R. (2010) The past, present, and future of cognitive architectures. Topics in Cognitive Science 2: 693–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tempelmann S., Kaminski J., Liebal K. (2011) Focus on the essential: All great apes know when others are being attentive. Animal Cognition 14: 433–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello M., Call J. (2006) Do chimpanzees know what others see—or only what they are looking at?. In: Hurley S., Nudds M. (Eds.) Rational animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 371–384

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello M., Call J., Hare B. (2003) Chimpanzees understand psychological states—the question is which ones and to what extent. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 153–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello M., Call J., Hare B. (2003) Chimpanzees versus humans: It’s not that simple. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 239–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Vaart, Verbrugge R., Hemelrijk C.K. (2011) Corvid caching: Insights from a cognitive model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 37: 330–340

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Vaart E., Verbrugge R., Hemelrijk C.K. (2012) Corvid re-caching without ’theory of mind’. PLoS ONE 7: e32904. doi:32910.31371/journal.pone.0032904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Maanen L., van Rijn H., Taatgen N.A. (2012) RACE/A: An architectural account of the interactions between learning, task control, and retrieval dynamics. Cognitive Science 26: 62–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vonk J., Povinelli D.J. (2011) Preliminary investigations of cognitive plasticity: Social and physical causality in home-reared chimpanzees. In: Eilan N., Lerman H., Roessler J. (Eds.) Perception, causation and objectivity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 342–367

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vonk J., Shackelford T.K. (2012) Toward bridging gaps: Finding commonality between evolutionary and comparative psychology. In: Vonk J., Shackelford T.K. (Eds.) Oxford handbook of comparative evolutionary psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Wein J.M., Stephens D.W. (2011) Caching economics: Jays cache more when handling times are short and habitats are poor. Animal Behaviour 82: 579–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, through TopTalent grant 021.001.089, Open Access grant 036.002.118 and Vici grant 277-80-001.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Behavioural Ecology and Self-Organisation, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Elske van der Vaart & Charlotte K. Hemelrijk

  2. Institute of Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Elske van der Vaart

Authors
  1. Elske van der Vaart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlotte K. Hemelrijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elske van der Vaart.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van der Vaart, E., Hemelrijk, C.K. ‘Theory of mind’ in animals: ways to make progress. Synthese 191, 335–354 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0170-3

Download citation

  • Received: 06 March 2012

  • Accepted: 13 August 2012

  • Published: 10 November 2012

  • Issue Date: February 2014

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0170-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Theory of mind
  • Animal cognition
  • Computational modeling
Download PDF

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

Advertisement

Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips

Switch Edition
  • Academic Edition
  • Corporate Edition
  • Home
  • Impressum
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • California Privacy Statement
  • How we use cookies
  • Manage cookies/Do not sell my data
  • Accessibility
  • FAQ
  • Contact us
  • Affiliate program

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.