Pepperberg Parrot Study PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes on the Pepper Parrot Study...

Description

Pepperberg Parrot Study Analysis

Relevant Background

● Primates ○ Due to their understanding of language--researchers have been able to teach language to them via sign language or pointing to symbols. ■ Premack ○ It has been seen that they have been able to use and form meaningful sentences. ● Other animals have also been able to understand the idea of conceptual categorization. ● Symbolic representation ● Birds--benefits the birds survival.

Purpose/Aim

● Aim--to see whether a parrot can use vocal labels to demonstrate a symbolic understanding of the concepts “same” and “different”.

Hypothesis(es)

None

Type of Study (Methodology)

● Animal case study ○ 26 months ● Trained and tested over a couple of years. ● One subject ● Lab experiment

IV(s) & DV(s)

● Independent Variable--whether the object is familiar or novel. ● Dependent Variable--Whether the Parrot responds correctly to the question about what is same and different.

Participants/Sample

● African gray parrot ● Involved in prior research on communication and cognition for around 10 years. ● Free range during the day and caged at

night. ● Fed a suitable diet and given toys. Sampling Technique

Training materials: ● Shape- triangle or square ● Color- red, green, blue ● Material- rawhide or wood Training results: ● Color and shape labels- 4 months ● Matter- 9 months

Procedure Summary

● Alex could already name: ○ Colors ○ Shapes ○ Materials ● He could also answer: ○ “What color?” ● He could also combine responses to describe items. ○ Ex: “green wood”. ● They trained Alex so that he could categorize rather than describe. ○ Uses abstract thinking. ● Training sessions ○ Two to four times a week with each session lasting five minutes to an hour. ● Alex also took part in other studies during this time period. ● Sampling technique ○ Model/Rival--M/R approach. ○ Opportunity sample ● One human acts as the trainer of the second human by presenting the second with objects, then asking questions about the objects and offering reward or praise to desirable responses. ○ Second human/learner acts as a model for the parrot who is watching this interaction. ● The parrot is considered the rival for the trainers attention; if he offers the right vocalization when the question is asked, they receive the reward or praise rather than the human. ● During training ○ They were taught several possible schedules of reinforcement. ■ This was intended to create the closest possible association

between the object or category and label it to something they had already learned. ○ Same/Different ■ The trainer would ask: ● “What’s the same?” “What’s different?” ■ The model would either respond with the correct label and then be praised and rewarded by being given the object or they would give the wrong response and the object would be taken away and the model would be scolded. Data Type (Qual./Quan./Mixed)

● Mixed

Data Analysis

● Familiar objects results ○ 1st trial response- 70% correct ○ Overall correct response- 77% ● Novel objects results ○ 1st trial response- 82% correct ○ Overall correct response- 85% ○ 1 novel object in pair- 86% ○ Both novel- 83%

Main Findings

● Parrots have the potential to demonstrate comprehension of the symbolic concepts same and different.

Conclusions/Interpretations

● Parrots have the potential to demonstrate comprehension of the symbolic concepts same and different ● They may learn to respond to verbal questions to vocalize categorical labels ● Symbolic representation is not exclusive to primates

Strengths of the Study

● Measures were taken to ensure the

●

●

● ●

study was valid by limiting researcher bias. A student selected the question order and materials who had no connection to Alex. The trainer who trained Alex on the same/ different task, had never done so before This also means that demand characteristics were limited. Quantitative data was collected which allows us to objectively analyze whether Alex could think abstractly.

Weaknesses of the Study

● Alex was a lab parrot. This makes generalization difficult because he is not representative of the general population of parrots. ● Alex suffered from boredom (which is why they switched up his tasks). This species is prone to self-injurious behavior when bored. ● Is it okay to have these species in labs (in captivity)?

Ecological Validity

● Low ○ Lab study--not true to real life/natural environment.

Ethics of Study (Positive and/or Negative)

● Positive Ethics ○ Parrot was well-treated, unharmed, not underfed nor under-stimulated ○ Had adequate space to explore lab, given toys and interactions to prevent boredom. ● Negative Ethics ○ Kept in an artificial environment for extended period of time. ○ Participated in non-naturalistic behavior.

Usefulness/Applications

● Shows how non-primate animals can be taught to communicate using modelling and reinforcement.

Relation to Psych Approach

● Learning approach with cognitive elements.

Relation to Psych Issues

● Nature v. Nurture ○ Nurture based learning. human training shaped the parrot's behavior through rewards, he was able to demonstrate an important aspect of its cognition. ● Individual v. Situational ○ Situational factors (familiarity of objects) can affect an animal's ability to offer correct responses. ○ His abilities in familiar and novel testing show significant differences. higher rate of success on unfamiliar object pairs. ● Use of animals in psychological research ○ Animals are easier controls. ○ It allows for less bias on the fact that the experiment cannot be affected by gender or culture in which it was raised since it's not a child but a parrot. ■ Cannot test social influences....