harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (12/05/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 4 Dec 90 Volume 1 : Issue 16
Assistant Professor, Swarthmore College
Cognitive Psychologist, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Cognitive Psychology, Georgia Tech
Assistant Professor, Mercer University
Distinguished Professorship, Ball State University
Lecturer, University of British Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "NAME \"Jeanne Marecek\"" <MARECEK%campus.swarthmore.edu@pucc>
Subject: Assistant Professor, Swarthmore College
Swarthmore College anticipates a one-year appointment at the beginning
Assistant Professor level in 1991-92 in clinical/abnormal psychology.
Applications should include a vita, 3 recommendations, a statement of teaching
and research interests, and selected re- or preprints. Address correspondence
to Search Committee, Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College, 500
College Ave., Swarthmore, PA 19081-1397. Women and minority candidates are
especially encouraged to apply.
------------------------------
From: Jonathan Vaughan <jv10+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Cognitive Psychologist, Bureau of Labor Statistics
POSITION AVAILABLE FOR PSYCHOLOGIST WITH EXPERIENCE IN COGNITIVE
MODELLING, AI, AND/OR EXPERT SYSTEMS.
The Collection Procedures Research Lab (CPRL) of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Dept. of Labor is seeking a research psychologist with
experience in cognitive modelling, AI, and/or expert systems. The CPRL
is a center for multidisciplinary research on both theoretical and
applied issues concerning written and oral communications that relate to
survey data collection.
The position is career-conditional, with a starting salary in the range
of $48,592-$63,172 (GS-14) depending on experience. This person would
have considerable latitude in determining his/her own program of
research within the broad interests of the Bureau. Activities might
involve the modelling of various aspects of the question-answering
process including, for example, autobiographical retrieval and
differences between self and proxy respondent knowledge representations.
Opportunities also exist to design and program interactive interviewer
training systems.
If you are interested, please contact:
Marie van Mellis-Wright, Ph.d.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
GAO Building, Rm.2126
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20212
(202) 523-3605
Please do not respond by Email.
------------------------------
From: billman%pravda@gatech.edu (Dorrit Billman)
Subject: Cognitive Psychology, Georgia Tech
The School of Psychology at the Georgia Institute of Technology
is searching for faculty in cognitive psychology as part of our
interdisciplinary thrust in cognitive science. We seek candidates
with vigorous research programs in any area of cognitive psychology;
Special consideration will be given to candidates with interest in
interdisciplinary collaboration and with research in
learning, reasoning, problem solving, knowledge representation,
language, or vision. Level of appointment is open and the position(s)
would begin in the fall of 1991. Responsibilities include maintenance
of strong programmatic research, supervision of graduate student
research, and classroom instruction. Georgia Tech is an Equal
Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and a member institution
of the University System of Georgia.
To apply, send vita and references to: Dorrit Billman, School of
Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332.
------------------------------
From: Frank Dane <FDANE@uga.cc.uga.edu>
Subject: Assistant Professor, Mercer University
MERCER UNIVERSITY: Tenure-track Assistant Professor in
Cognitive/Developmental/Experimental Psychology beginning August
1991. Ph.D. required, prior teaching experience preferred.
Courses taught may include Introductory, Developmental,
Cognitive, Sensation & Perception, Research Methods, or other
courses in the individual's specialty area to make a total load
of 8 course equivalents over 3 quarters. Faculty in the
department are committed to excellence in teaching and
maintaining an active research program that engages
undergraduates. Applicants should submit a cover letter
describing their research and teaching interests, a copy of their
vita, preprints or reprints, and three letters of recommendation
to: Dr. Francis C. Dane, Chair, Psychology Department, Mercer
University, Macon, Georgia, 31207. Review of applications will
begin February 20 and continue until the position is filled.
Mercer University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action
Employer that encourages applications from women and minority
members.
------------------------------
From: 00MEKITE%BSUVAX1.BITNET@pucc
Subject: Distinguished Professorship, Ball State University
DISTINGUISHED PROFESSORSHIP
SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
The Department of Psychological Science and the Honors College
of Ball State University invite nominations or applications for the
Reed Voran Honors Distinguished Professor in Social and Behavioral
Sciences. We are seeking a person with a sincere interest in
undergraduate teaching, a willingness to participate in the programs
of the Honors College, and a distinguished program of research in
any area of psychology. The particular specialty area is open and
applications form persons with interdisciplinary interests are welcomed.
The successful applicant will be expected to participate in the
undergraduate teaching program of the Psychological Science department
and the Honors College, and may be involved in the graduate program if
desired. We expect that the Distinguished Professor will be a role
model for other faculty in both teaching and research. The appointment
carries salary, teaching load, and research support commensurate with
such a prestigious position.
Applications or nominations should be send to David Hines,
Chairperson, Department of Psychological Science, Ball State
University, Muncie, IN 47306. Inquires are also welcome
(317) 285-1690 or 00MEKITE@BSUVAX1.
Formal review of the applications will begin on December 15,1990
and continue until the position is filled.
------------------------------
From: Daniel_Perlman@mtsg.ubc.ca
Subject: Lecturer, University of British Columbia
The University of British Columbia
School of Family and Nutritional Sciences
1991-92 Sessional Lecturer
FAMILY SCIENCE
The School of Family and Nutritional Sciences at the
University of British Columbia requires a full-time,
sessional lecturer to teach in the area of Family Science.
The candidate will be expected to teach six 3.0 credit
courses (e.g., courses having three 50 minute lectures per
week for 13 weeks), especially likely to include the
Contemporary North American Family in Societal Context,
Family Resource Management, Marital and Family Interaction
in North America, and Family Research plus some of the
following: Families in the Canadian Economy, Introduction to
Family Science, Economic Roles of Women, the Development of
Relationships, and Housing for the Family. The Appointment
will be from September 1, 1991 until May 31, 1992. Salary:
$30,000. In accordance with Canadian Immigration
requirements, priority will be given to Canadian citizens
and permanent residents.
The University of British Columbia is committed to the
federal government's equity program and encourages
applications from all qualified individuals. Preference
will be given to candidates with the following
qualifications: a Ph.D. plus experience teaching Family
Science and Human Development courses. Please submit a
resume, including the names of three references who may be
contacted. Applications will be reviewed on or about MARCH
15TH, 1991, but applications will be accepted until the
position is filled.
Inquiries and resumes should be addressed to:
Dr. Daniel Perlman, Director
School of Family and Nutritional Sciences
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada
V6T 1W5
Phone: (604) 228-6518
Fax: (604) 228-5143
BitNet: USERHDP@UBCMTSG
------------------------------
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (12/05/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 4 Dec 90 Volume 1 : Issue 16
Paper: Optimal Utilities, Gordon Becker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Editor's Note: This paper has been refereed by a member of Psycoloquy's
Editorial Board and has been accepted for "skywriting" discussion.
All subsequent discussion elicited on this topic will appear under the heading:
"Optimal Utilities/Becker." Comments as well as discussion papers on
other topics are invited. All contributions will be refereed.]
From: "Gordon Becker" <becker@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: Paper: Optimal Utilities
The following paper argues that human suffering can be
eliminated, expected utility maximized, and the basic problems of
statistical decision theory avoided, by changing "tastes"
(values/preferences) rather than improving "beliefs"
(understanding). The paper questions the basic axioms of
economics and decision theory. The de-emphasis on intellectual
processes challenges the cognitive psychology paradigm, and the
emphasis on feelings challenges behaviorism. This change in
emphasis blinds many scientists to the logical and empirical
content of the paper and their reactions are then based more on
emotional and "religious" rather than scientific grounds. The
author would like to get a critical discussion of the paper by
social scientists who are not restricted by a narrow religious
paradigm.
OPTIMAL UTILITIES
Gordon Becker1
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Omaha Nebraska
becker@unoma1.BITNET
ABSTRACT
This paper considers a modification of expected utility
theory: Instead of considering only the decision maker's
long-range utilities over entire life histories, the decision
maker's current short range utilities over limited time-spans are
considered, and the action space of the decision maker is
expanded to include actions that allow the decision maker to
modify hir current short-range utility function. It is shown that
there exists an optimal utility function that maximizes expected
utility, minimizes decision costs and considerably simplifies the
decision making problem. Changing a current, non-optimal,
short-range utility function to the optimal may, however, incur
such high costs that other actions are preferable.
1. INTRODUCTION
The behaviorist position predominate among current day
economists and psychologists represents tastes by fixed numbers
or fixed distributions that do not vary with time or as a
function of the decision situation and are not under even the
partial control of the decision maker. Even the procedural
rationality advocated by Simon (1982) leaves the decision maker
predominately (if not completely) under the control of the
environment. The actions considered by the decision maker are
essentially actions on the environment which only indirectly
impact on the decision maker hirself. Similarly, the multiple
"selfs" of the decision models of Arrow and Raynaud (1986) and of
Keeney & Raiffa (1976) depend on the context or state of the
world as determined by the environment rather than by the
decision maker. The tastes in these models are "given" at the
start of the problem and the decision maker has no control of
what goes on "inside" hir skin.
There have been serious objections to these formulations both
as descriptions and prescriptions (Becker & McClintock, 1967;
Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981; Ellsberg, 1961; Kahneman & Tversky,
1979; Sen, 1982; Simon, 1982; Slovic, Fischoff & Lichenstein,
1977), and a "call" has been made to "open the preferences"
(Etzioni, 1985. see also Albanese 1982, 1985, 1987). This "call"
has been largely to repair the descriptive flaws in the theory.
Although the emphasis in this paper is on the prescriptive side,
it is, like Etzioni and Albanese, based on the belief that
preferences are modifiable and under at least the partial control
of the decision maker.
2. CHANGING PREFERENCES
Savage (1954) and von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) used
second-order meta-preferences as the basis for their models.
However, the utilities derived in most experimental tests are
based on observable, first-order preferences. Thus the term
"utility" is used in different senses by decision theorists and
experimenters.
Stigler and Becker (1977) showed that there was an underlying
set of meta-preferences that could account for the changes they
found in first-order preferences. They emphasized the stability
of the underlying long range utility function, but their results
clearly demonstrate that first-order preferences (short range
utilities) change.
It is well known that in real life, our tastes (utilities)
not only change but can be deliberately modified by us and by
others. Cigarettes, cigars, beer, wine, liquor and other foods
often taste horrible the first time(s) they are consumed ... but
with social pressure and the desire to appear "sophisticated"
many people continue to use these distasteful products until,
with repeated use they became enjoyable (even addictive).
Moreover, after acquiring a desire for such products, many people
retrain themselves to dislike them when they learn that the
product endangers their health. Such sequences of learning to
like and then dislike a particular object or experience clearly
show that utility can be changed.
Decision models that deny the decision maker the opportunity
to modify hir own short range utilities (first-order preferences)
are not only unrealistic but, as we shall see, eliminate the
"most rational" solutions to real-life decision problems.
3. OPTIMIZING TASTES
Given a specific decision maker with specific utility
function(s) and specific probabilities over outcomes, what
change(s) in utility (preference) would increase hir expected
utility?
If the utility of any possible outcome were increased, that
increase would raise the expected utility for the decision maker.
The more likely the outcome, the greater the increase in expected
utility. Thus if the rank order of the utilities of the outcomes
matched the probabilities of occurrence of the outcomes, that
ranking would maximize expected utility for that set of
probabilities.
This result suggests a new corollary to the old maxim that a
rational person does not modify hir probabilities (beliefs) to
match the desirability of the outcomes. We can now add a new
maxim: It is rational to modify one's tastes (preferences)
according to one's beliefs (expectancies); and in fact to rank
preferences for outcomes according to their likelihood of
occurrence.
Note that the larger the increase in the desirability of the
outcome, the greater the raise in the expected utility. The
maximum increase, for a given utility function anchored at the
high and low ends, occurs when the utility of an outcome is
raised to the same desirability level as the most preferred
outcome. This is true for every outcome regardless of its
likelihood of occurrence. Thus the maximum expected utility is
achieved when the utility of every outcome is raised to the
utility of the most desired outcome. No further improvement can
be made, given the original anchors. Therefore, for a given set
of utility anchors, the optimal utility function is the one in
which the utilities of all outcomes are equal to the utility of
the outcome that was originally most desired2.
When all outcomes have the same utility, another interesting
result occurs that is advantageous to the decision maker - There
is no need to choose among the available actions since all have
the same expected utility. Accordingly, there is no need to
compute expected utilities. Nor is there any need to revise
expectancies about the likelihood of events or outcomes. In fact
there is no need to set up a decision table, collect any
information about possible actions and outcomes nor perform any
of the information gathering or processing activities usually
associated with rational decision making. Thus with optimal
utilities, the decision maker avoids all the costs of decision
making that accompany rational decisions with non-optimal utility
functions.
Moreover, a person with optimal utilities creates no problems
for others since (s)he is always willing to take whatever action
the other(s) decide to be best. No changes in the social welfare
function need to be made when (s)he enters or leaves a group,
since hir flat function does not change the social welfare
function. People with non-optimal utility functions create
problems for themselves and for others by making it necessary to
engage in costly procedures to revise the social welfare function
for any group they join or leave. Thus the optimal utility
function not only maximizes utility for the holder, but reduces
decision costs for everyone else with whom (s)he interacts. It is
desirable both from an individual and societal perspective.
Changes in preferences (utilities) generally require time and
effort, and not all changes are feasible. The specific costs
incurred in changing from one set of preferences to another
depend on the individual's ability to modify hir tastes, as well
as the specific changes that are to be made. Hence, although the
optimal utility function is the best function a person or group
can have, changing from a non-optimal to an optimal function may
incur such high costs that it may not be the best course of
action. Consider an ordinary mortal with such strong likes and
dislikes that it would take thirty years of disciplined living,
with many frustrations to change hir utilities to the optimal no-
preference function, and who might die before completing the
change, or so soon after completing it that the thirty year costs
outweigh the gains. There is no guarantee to anyone that (s)he
will succeed in achieving the optimal function even after long
and strenuous effort. Given a limited lifespan and the costs of
changing tastes, some people will attain more satisfaction during
their life by not trying to change from non-optimal to optimal
preferences.
Whether one should even attempt to modify the utility
function in the direction of aligning utilities with outcome
probabilities or increasing appreciation for any outcome thus
depends not only on the increase in expected utility but also on
the cost of such effort.
4. OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF OPTIMAL UTILITIES
The flat utility function that characterizes optimal
utilities violates a basic axiom3 of decision theory that there
be at least some consequence(s) or act(s) that is (are)
preferred. This fifth axiom of Savage (1954) is appropriately
referred to as the "nontriviality assumption" (Fishburn, 1975,
p292) since without it, as we have seen, any decision is as good
as any other in terms of expected utility or risk. However,
maximum satisfaction is achieved when one "trivializes" the
problem, and hence the fifth axiom of Savage and the fixed
preference assumption should be rejected as "irrational" since
satisfying them forces the individual to lower hir own
satisfaction, increase the costs to others, unduly complicates
the decision problem, unnecessarily restricts the decision maker,
and generally results in the decision maker experiencing some
type of "regret" that could be avoided by a less rigid, more
accepting attitude than that required by these two "non-rational"
assumptions.
The average person's limited ability to maximize von
Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility has been interpreted as
evidence of man's bounded rationality (Simon 1982), but this
failure may be more an indication of our theorists' unbounded
ability to invent, employ, or apply needless complexities rather
than indications of limited rationality on the part of real-life
decision makers. If optimal solutions to decision problems do not
require the high powered computing skills dictated by those
models, the limitations found in our experiments are not
necessarily reflections of "bounded rationality", but rather only
bounded "information processing capacity". This type of
limitation is much less serious than limited rationality.
The fact that the optimal utility function is one in which
all outcomes have equal desirability raises ethical problems
regarding some of our current practices. For example, the
industrial consultant today does not question the value system of
hir client nor does (s)he try to get the client to "improve" hir
values even though the change in utility function could increase
the client's expected utility over that which would result from
maximizing hir current utilities. Changing other people's values
is considered poor taste in today's world and certainly requires
social skills not always associated with expertise in decision
theory. What should the industrial consultant do now when (s)he
knows that the client does not have optimal utilities?
Advertising presents an interesting paradox. On the one hand
it increases the desirability of an alternative and thus raises
expected utility. However, the increased "desire" for that
alternative, lowers the satisfaction associated with present
conditions and increases preferences for one brand over another,
both of which make the utility function less optimal. The
changes brought about by current advertizing practices may well
be "dangerous to the mental health" of the consumer, the nation,
and the world...today and for future generations. Should such
practices be made illegal? Should schools teach everyone to have
flat utility functions? Do people have a right to be non-optimal,
and to raise their children to have non-optimal tastes?
5. THE FEASIBILITY OF ATTAINING OPTIMAL UTILITIES
There is also a question about whether or not it is
possible for anyone to attain an optimal (no-preference) function
even after long and arduous effort. It so happens that one of the
first social scientists in India, Sakyamuni4, while studying
"suffering", claimed to have achieved this optimum (Walshe,
1987). He found that suffering is a psychological problem caused
by a rejection of realty, by desiring that which does not exist
at the moment, by wanting what you do not have, or wanting to get
rid of something you do have. He claimed that had ended his own
suffering by accepting and appreciating everything as it actually
is. Moreover he claimed that anyone could attain that ideal state
through a mental training program, "the noble eightfold path", in
which the individual learns to be aware and appreciative of
reality every changing moment.
In the more than 2500 years since Sakymuni's discovery,
millions of people in every country of the world have been
trained to follow his Eightfold Path, and many claim to have
attained optimal utilities. Not everyone who has begun the
training claims to have achieved the optimal. And many who claim
to have achieved the optimal, have not been recognized as having
done so by others. Many find the training difficult and most
people do not achieve complete success, but there are many that
have completely freed themselves from suffering and hence there
is some evidence that the optimal utility function is realizable.
It should be noted that Sakymuni Buddha did not establish a
religion nor claim that he was any kind of diety. In fact he
insisted that his findings be tested by each person and validated
by their own experience rather than accepted as revealed truths.
Modern texts on personality are devoting more and more space to
buddhism (Frager and Fadiman, 1984; Engler, 1990), but most
western psychologists continue to ignore eastern psychologies and
to equate them with religion, despite the strong praises for
their scientific merit by respected western psychologists such as
William James (1961), Gordon Allport (1961), and Garner Murphy
(1968).
In addition to those who have attained optimal utilities by
following the Buddhist program, others have been recognized as
having achieved such a state through religious and "transpersonal
psychology" practices (Mikulas, 1987).
Since many people have attained this ideal state, in every
culture, in every age, including the present, optimal utilities
appear to be a feasible as well as optimal human condition.
6. REFERENCES
Albanese, Paul J. (1982). Toward a methodology for
investigating the formation of preferences. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
__________________ (1985). Comments on Amitai Etzioni's
"Opening the preferences A socio-economic research agenda". The
Journal of Behavioral Economics. 14, 207-208.
____________________ (1987). The nature of preferences: An
exploration of the relationship between economics and psychology.
Journal of Economic Psychology 8, 3-18.
Allport, Gordon (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Arrow, Kenneth J. & Raynaud, Herve (1986). Social Choice and
Multicriterion Decision-Making, Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press.
Becker, Gordon M., Degroot, Morris H. & Marschak, Jacob
(1963). Stochastic models of choice behavior. Behavioral Science,
8:41-55.
Becker, Gordon M., & McClintock, Charles G. (1967). Value:
Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology,
18:239-86.
Einhorn, Hillel J. & Hogarth, Robin M. (1981). Behavioral
Decision Theory: Processes of Judgment and Choice. Annual Review
of Psychology, 32:53-88
Ellsberg, Daniel (1964). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage
axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 75:643-49.
Engler, B. (1990). Personality Theories. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co.
Etzioni, Amitai. (1985). Opening the preferences: A
socio-economic research agenda. The Journal of Behavioral
Economics. 14, 183-205.
Frager, R. & Fadiman, J. (1984). Personality and Personal
Growth. New York: Harper and Row.
Fishburn, Peter C. (1975). A theory of subjective expected
utility with vague preferences. Theory and Decision, 6:287-310.
James, W. (1961). The varieties of religious experience. New
York: Crowell-Collier.
Hahn, Frank, (1982). On some difficulties of the
utilitarian economist, pp 187-198. In Sen, Amartya & Williams,
Bernard, (1982). Utilitarianism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An
analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47:263-91.
Keeney, Ralph L. and Raiffa, Howard. (1976). Decisions with
multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Mikulas, William L. (1987). The Way Beyond: An overview of
spiritual practices. Wheaton IL: The Theosophical Publishing
House.
Murphy, G. and Murphy, L. (1968). Asian Psychology. New York:
Basic Books.
Ramsey, Frank, P. (1931). The Foundations of Mathematics and
Other Logical Essays, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
Savage, Leonard J. (1954). The Foundation of Statistics, New
York: John Wiley.
Sen, Amartya (1974). Some debates in capital theory.
Economica. 41:328-35.
___________ (1982). Choice, Welfare and Measurement, Oxford:
Basil Blackwell Publisher.
Simon, Herbert A, (1982). Models of Bounded Rationality.
Volume 2. Behavioral Economics and Business Organization,
Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press.
Slovic, Paul, Fischoff, Baruch & Lichtenstein, Sarah, (1977).
Behavioral Decision Theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 28:1-39.
Stigler, George J. and Gary S. Becker. (1977). De gustibus
non est disputandum. American Economic Review 67:76-90.
von Neumann, John, & Morgenstern, Oskar. (1944). Theory of
Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Walshe, Maurice (1987). Thus Have I Heard. Lom
Publication Society.
7. FOOTNOTES
1. I am grateful to Steve Evans for his constant
encouragement and critical, good natured help. This research was
supported in part by the University of Nebraska at Omaha. An
earlier version of the paper was presented July 1988 at the
Behavioral Economics Convention, San Diego CA.
2. The "satisfaction" for the individual would also increase
if the anchors were higher on an absolute scale but consideration
of such a change requires psychometric considerations beyound the
scope of this paper.
3. Frank Ramsey (1931), John von Neumann and Oskar
Morgenstern (1944), and Leonard J. Savage, 1954) assumed not only
that the decision maker had a fixed set of preferences, or
"utilities", that reflect the "tastes" of the individual, but
also that these fixed constants satisfied the strong transitivity
requirements dictated by the Weak Axiom of Revealed Preferences
(Hahn, 1982; Sen, 1982).
4. The conversation between Sakyamuni and Sabhuti (Sen, 1974)
is of questionable origin and should not be used to question
Buddha's credentials as a scientist (or economist). "Buddha's"
closing statement, as reported by Sen, "And do not think of the
fruit of action. Fare forward." has the flavour of the present
paper, and the hint of an Oxford-Bostonian accent.
------------------------------
PSYCOLOQUY
is sponsored by
the Science Directorate of
the American Psychological Association
(202) 955-7653
Co-Editors:
(scientific discussion) (professional/clinical discussion)
Stevan Harnad Perry London, Dean, Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.)
Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied Graduate School of Applied
Princeton University and Professional Psychology and Professional Psychology
Rutgers University Rutgers University
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (12/05/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 4 Dec 90 Volume 1 : Issue 16
Paper: Monkey Friendship, Dennis R. Rasmussen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Editor's Note: This paper has been refereed by a member of Psycoloquy's
Editorial Board and has been accepted for "skywriting" discussion. All
subsequent discussion elicited on this topic will appear under the header:
"Monkey Friendship/Rasmussen." Comments as well as discussion papers
on other topics are invited. All contributions will be refereed.]
From: "Dennis R. Rasmussen" <PIPIAPAN@vms.macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Paper: Monkey Friendship
This article bears on the following areas of research:
Cognition; Comparative Psychology; Deception;
Demography; Ethology; Primatology; Sociobiology.
I would like to solicit comments from readers who are interested in all
these fields. In particular, I would value the comments of my
colleagues who study cognition in nonhuman animals; I may not agree
with them but wish to try to understand their views more thoroughly.
Like Skinner, I think we only see the behavior of other individuals.
Hence the study of thoughts must always be studies of behavior; in
humans the behavior may be very complex verbal and written behavior but
it is still behavior. This is the most "cognitive" research article
I've ever produced; it deals with "meanings" of behavior. I hope
psychologists will be struck by the immense amount of potential
research on the relationships between various types of affiliation:
specific combinations of "affiliation" may each have a different
meaning.
Primatologists, myself included, have only scraped the surface of this
level of understanding of how one nonhuman and nonverbal primate
communicates with another. Not only do we need to study amounts and
contexts of behavior, such as grooming, but we need to study how these
amounts are associated with other patterns of behavior. It is not
difficult to imagine a coding scheme where combinations and intensities
of dozens of forms of affiliative behavior convey messages on the type
and degree of an overall affiliative relationship.
I would also value the comments of colleagues who work at the interface
between Psychology and Demography. Sadly this is a somewhat undeveloped
area. Some of the differences I have observed in human behavior in
contracepting and noncontracepting, low birth rate and high birth rate
populations seem parallel to those I've observed in the rhesus groups.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTEXTUAL VARIATION IN RECIPROCITY AND COMPLEMENTARITY OF RHESUS
FRIENDSHIP: COVARIATION IN MEASURES OF AFFILIATION IN A
REPRODUCTIVE AND A NONREPRODUCTIVE GROUP
Dennis R. Rasmussen
Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin,
and Animal Behavior Research Institute, Madison, Wisconsin 53715 U.S.A.
ABSTRACT
The subjects of this research were in two groups of 11 rhesus (_Macaca_
_mulatta_) matched by sex, age, and previous housing experience. Mature males
in one group were vasectomized so females did not conceive. In this group
there were higher rates of sexual behavior because of the females' repeated
nonpregnant estrous cycles and the conception and pregnancy of the mature
females in the reproductive group.
Seven measures of affiliation were found to assess similar aspects of
affiliation across social contexts represented by subcategories of individuals
within groups and the reproductive and nonreproductive groups. There was,
however, considerable variation across interaction categories in both the
concordance of variables within groups and interrelationships between
variables across groups. Intrasexual interactions were, for example, more
discordant in the nonreproductive group. Intrasexual competition in the
sexually active nonreproductive group was the apparent immediate cause of the
more discordant patterns of intrasexual affiliation.
In our interactions, overlap in means of conveying friendship is
important: If a person says they like you, nods their head when saying this,
and writes expressing friendship, the consistency of these sources of
information increase confidence in the friendship. Inconsistency in sources
of information may make us less confident of friendship and, perhaps, suspect
deception. Among rhesus there is also variation in consistency of affiliative
interactions, variation that may convey information on degree of affiliation,
relative status of individuals, and that may deceive.
INTRODUCTION
Affiliation is often defined by elaboration of the variables that are used
for its assessment in primatology (O'Keeffe et al., 1983; Baker & Estep, 1985;
Ehardt & Bernstein, 1987). The most universally used measures of affiliation
are proximity and grooming (Rasmussen, 1984; Byrne et al., 1989). Measures of
behavioral patterns associated with proximity (such as approaches, leaves and
follows) and grooming presents, presents, and mounts are sometimes used to
assess affiliation (Rasmussen, 1984; Chadwick-Jones, 1989). Vocalizations may
also been used to assess affiliation (Biben et al., 1986; Masataka & Biben,
1987).
Measures used to assess primate affiliation generally have three
characteristics: They are associated with either distance reduction or
proximity maintenance between individuals, they do not evoke escape responses,
and they are not agonistic behavioral patterns. Affiliation is an intervening
variable (MacCorquodale & Meehl, 1948; Miller, 1959; Hinde, 1985) since it is a
tendency that is measured by many variables fitting the above characteristics.
Few studies have focused on the degree of association between measures of
affiliation; such studies help determine the utility of an intervening
variable (Hinde & Datta, 1981). The ambiguous distinction between affiliative
and sexual behavior provides an additional reason for analyses of the
associations between measures of affiliation: sexual interactions may fit all
characteristics of affiliation. Sexual behavior is functionally defined as
behavior that has been associated with conception during the phylogenetic past
of an organism (Scott, 1956; Tinbergen, 1965; Rasmussen, 1984).
Presents and mounts have received the most theoretical and empirical
attention as measures of affiliation perhaps because they do not neatly fit
into any single behavioral category. This is particularly true for intrasexual
presents and mounts since they are not sexual within a functional definition of
sexual behavior. Intrasexual presents and mounts have been interpreted as
affiliative (Reinhardt et al., 1986). Presents and mounts have also been
interpreted as agonistic since they may be used during submission, appeasement,
tension reduction, or the enlistment of the aid of others in aggressive
interactions (Chadwick-Jones, 1989).
A few studies have reported on the influence of social context on
relationships between measures of affiliation. Heterosexual affiliation has,
for example, been found to increase among rhesus (_Macaca_ _mulatta_) during
breeding seasons (Hill, 1986). In comparisons between matched groups of rhesus
and bonnet (_M_. _radiata_) macaques, heterosexual affiliation has been found
more frequent in the groups with higher rates of sexual activity (Rasmussen,
1984, in prep.; Rasmussen & Goy, 1988).
The age and sex of interacting individuals provide a social context that
may influence their affiliative behavior. Male => male* or female => female
mounts could have a different degree of association with other affiliative
variables than male <=> female mounts. It is also possible that male => female
mounts differ in use from female => male mounts. The validity of measures for
assessment of affiliation as an intervening variable is therefore analyzed as a
function of the age and sex of the individuals involved in the interactions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* <=> symbolizes bidirectional behavior or a measure of the distance between
a dyad. When, for example, analyses are focused on grooming of males by
females and grooming of females by males this is symbolized as male <=> female
grooming. => symbolizes directional behavioral interactions. Male grooms of
females are therefore symbolized as male => female grooming. Interactions
directed by one individual to another are referred to as directional dyads.
Affiliative interactions directed by the oldest male to the oldest female
therefore constitute a directional dyad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The influence of social context is further evaluated by comparison of the
relationships between the affiliative measures in a reproductive and a
nonreproductive group. There were significantly higher rates of sexual
behavior in the nonreproductive group (Rasmussen, in prep.; Rasmussen & Goy,
1988). Mature females in that group had repeated nonpregnant estrous cycles
and engaged in sexual behavior during each of the cycles (Michael & Zumpe,
1988). Sexually mature females in the reproductive group conceived and were
pregnant throughout the duration of observations. They therefore engaged in
less sexual behavior (Wilson et al. 1982; Hill, 1986).
METHODS
Subjects and Housing
The nonreproductive group was composed of a 5 year old vasectomized male, a
4 year old vasectomized male, an intact 2 year old male, four 4 year old
females, one 3 year old female, and three 2 year old females. The reproductive
group was sex and age matched. Reproduction was prevented with vasectomy since
it has the minimum direct effects on the hormones and behavior of the
sterilized animal (Phoenix, 1973) and it could be used on the fewest subjects.
Subjects were the rhesus available who were most closely matched by age,
weight and housing history (the amount of time they were housed at the Vilas
Park Zoo in Madison, in group cages, as pairs, by themselves, and with their
mothers). All females were nulliparous and thus did not vary in parturitional,
lactational, or infant rearing experience.
The groups were housed in identical indoor pens measuring 6.7 m in length,
2.5 m in width and 2.6 m in height. The pens were separated by a minimum
distance of 1.2 m and in a room with two additional identical pens containing
breeding rhesus groups. Lights were automatically turned on at 06.00 hours and
turned off at 18.00 hours. Two frosted windows next to the pens let in ambient
light.
Behavioral Sampling
The data were collected from January 2, 1987 until the day before the birth
of the first infant in the reproductive group, June 1, 1987. I collected the
observations for 5 days each week from 15.00 to 18.00 hours. Individual group
members were the focus of 14 min sampling sessions. Focal subjects were
selected sequentially from a list of all individuals in both groups. Focal
sampling (J. Altmann, 1974) was used for the variables requiring constant
monitoring of the subject. Concurrent samples (Hausfater, 1974; Chapais, 1986)
were collected on all occurrences of variables (Martin & Bateson, 1986) that
could be simultaneously observed for all group members. Data were recorded on
a Tandy 102 computer. An auditory cue preceded 2 min intervals by 15 sec. to
start focus of attention on the variables sampled instantaneously. Data
reduction and analysis were conducted with SPSS/PC+ (Norusis, 1988a, 1988b) and
UNIX. The analyses are based on 2445 2 min interval samples collected during
14 min sampling sessions.
Behavioral Variables: Sampling Method
The unit of observation and the method used to sample each variable are
summarized in Table 1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Variables, Observation Method and Sampling System
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable: Unit of Observation Sampling Method
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Nearest Neighbor Distance individual-focal instantaneous
2. Close Distance to Nearest individual-focal instantaneous
Neighbor
3. Approaches, Leaves & individual-focal frequency
Follows (ALF)
4. Grooming all individuals 1/0
5. Grooming Presents individual-focal frequency
6. Presents individual-focal frequency
7. Mounts all individuals frequency
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analytic Strategy
Several methods are used to describe and analyze the relationships between
measures of affiliation and differences in these relationships between the two
groups. The methods are first applied to all group members to determine broad
patterns. Patterns in affiliative interactions between subpopulations of
individuals in each group are then conducted. For example, mature female =>
mature male interactions are analyzed as a subpopulation of interactions
between all group members. As in Fisher's protected t-test, tests of
significance were not conducted on subcategories unless the tests conducted on
all dyads, and on the immediately higher category of interaction, were
significant (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Rasmussen, 1984).
Statistical Control of Days Together before Group Formation
Some pairs of individuals spent more time together than others before group
formation. Differential amounts of time spent together before observation
could alter the relationships between the variables. For example, individuals
who spent more time together before observations might engage in less sexual
behavior but groom more often (Takahata, 1982a, 1982b).
Groups of nonhuman primates cannot yet be as closely matched as, say,
groups of inbred rodents. Previous studies in which matched groups are
compared have seldom used subjects as closely matched as those in this project,
matching made possible by the large population of rhesus maintained by the
Wisconsin Regional Primate Center. Previous studies (Boccia et al., 1982;
Rasmussen, 1984; Boccia, 1989) have also not attempted the statistical control
of differences possible with the methods developed for this purpose. Here
influences of days dyads spent together before group formation were
statistically controlled by the regression of the affiliative directional
dyadic interactions, as assessed by each variable, on this nuisance variable.
Transformations were used, when appropriate, to normalize residuals from
regression. Linear and quadratic fits to Days Together were tried for every
dependent variable. For all dependent variables, except Grooming, the
quadratic aspect of Days Together did not appreciably increase R; only linear
fits were therefore used. 1/0 Grooming Rate was regressed on both the linear
and quadratic aspects of Days Together. The regession of the variables on Days
Together were not tested for statistical significance since control of a
nuisance variable is not predicated on either the magnitude or significance of
the influence (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). All descriptive statistics and analyses
are based on the residualized variables.
SPEARMAN CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIABLES: Spearman rank order correlations
(Siegel & Castellan, 1988) were calculated between the variables in each group.
These correlations are used solely for description of the way directional dyads
are ranked by pairs of affiliative variables; they are not tested for
statistical significance. If, for example, monkey "A" Grooming Presents at a
high rate to monkey "B" does it also tend to Approach, Leave or Follow monkey
"B" at a high rate? Spearman correlations were used so that curvilinear
relationships between the variables would not influence the magnitude of their
association. There were 21 correlations between variables (the half matrix
minus the diagonal). Description of linear and curvilinear fits between
variables would be tedious and their complex interpretation would obscure the
focus of this paper.
The distance of monkey "A" to monkey "B" is necessarily the same as the
distance of "B" to "A". There were therefore 55 ([11 x 10]/2) unique
nondirectional dyads on which Nearest and Close Neighbor Distance could be
calculated in each group. Behavioral variables are directional: Monkey "A"
Mounting "B" may have a different social significance than monkey "B" Mounting
"A". The behavioral variables were therefore calculated for the 110 (11 x 10)
directional dyads in each group.
Duplicate values of neighbor distances were matched with directional
behavioral interactions so their association could be described. For example,
the rate of Grooming of the 4 year old male by the 5 year old male in the
nonreproductive group was paired with the same distance value used with the
rate of Grooming of the 5 year old male by the 4 year old male. Although
Nearest and Close Neighbor Distance are not unidirectional, correlations with
these variables are included in analyses of these interactions, such as those
directed by females towards males, so that the results are comparable to the
other analyses.
MATRIX CORRELATIONS: A Pearson correlation was calculated between the
Spearman correlation matrices from the groups. This correlation between paired
values of correlation coefficients is referred to here as a "matrix
correlation". The matrix correlation describes the similarity of the
variables' interrelationships in the two groups. Like all correlations (Cohen
& Cohen, 1983), matrix correlations are not influenced by linear
transformations of the coefficients in either matrix. They therefore assess
similarities in relative values of correlation coefficients. The significance
of the matrix correlations was determined with a Monte Carlo test based on
10000 permutations of the matrices (Dow et al., 1987).
The Association between Measures of Affiliation within each Group:
Distances to neighbors decrease with greater affiliation, and all the
behavioral measures increase with greater affiliation. If the measures assess
affiliation as a unitary intervening variable, then measures of distance to
neighbor should be positively correlated; the behavioral measures of
affiliation should be positively correlated, and the measures of distance to
neighbor and the behavioral measures should be negatively correlated. The
signs of the 21 correlations between the measures of affiliation within each
group are therefore used as an initial index of whether they tend to assess the
same underlying affiliative tendency.
The degree of similarity in the way directional dyads were ranked by the
affiliative variables is then assessed with the Kendall Coefficient of
Concordance, W (Siegel & Castellan, 1988). The coefficient of concordance
provides a measure of the consistency with which the variables rank directional
dyadic interactions. The coefficient of concordance was calculated by ranking
Nearest Neighbor Distance and Close Nearest Neighbor in descending order and
the other variables in ascending order.
The initial assumptions about the way variables evaluate affiliation are
based on their usual interpretation in many studies of nonhuman primates
(Rasmussen, 1984; Bernstein & Ehardt, 1986). Each pattern of affiliation is
therefore initially interpreted as reciprocal (Hinde, 1987): if, for example,
monkey "A" Grooming Presents more to monkey "B", "A" is assumed to more often
Groom "B". This might be thought of as a form of a monkey "golden rule".
Patterns of behavior in which monkey "A" is the actor and monkey "B" the
recipient are positively associated with patterns in which monkey "A" is the
recipient and monkey "B" the actor. If Monkey "A" Grooms monkey "B" more,
Monkey "A" also Grooming Presents to monkey "B" more. If Monkey "A" Mounts
monkey "B" more, Monkey "A" also Presents to monkey "B" more and so on. More
complex, and sometimes less nice, relationships are possible and probable
(Seyfarth, 1977). These initial interpretations are therefore null hypotheses
about possible relationships between measures of affiliation and are referred
to as the expected reciprocal direction.
MEAN SQUARED CORRELATIONS: The mean strength of agreement between each
measure of affiliation and all others is described with the mean of its squared
correlations. Correlations between variables opposite to that expected are
given a value of 0 when calculating the mean. The mean squared correlation may
therefore be interpreted as the mean proportion of affiliative variation shared
between dyads ranked by one variable and all others. Differences in mean
squared correlations between groups are used to pinpoint the measures of
affiliation that are most dissimilar in relationships with others and,
therefore most sensitive to the contextual differences between groups.
RESULTS
The positive and significant matrix correlations for every category of
interaction and significant coefficients of concordance for every category of
interaction in both groups were striking outcomes of the analyses (Table 2).
Since the coefficients of concordance were significant, the variables do tend
to measure similar aspects of behavior across the social contexts of the two
groups and across interaction categories. This suggests that affiliation is a
useful intervening variable and the variables used for its measure in previous
studies were correctly chosen. There were positive, strong, and significant
matrix correlations for every category of interaction. The ways in which the
variables assessed affiliation therefore tended to remain similar in the two
groups across categories of interactions.
There was, however, variation in the matrix correlations, the number of
correlations in the expected reciprocal direction, the coefficients of
concordance, and differences between groups. The utility of measures for the
assessment of affiliation is thus partially contingent on who is interacting
with whom and the group in which the interactions occur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2. Summary of the variables used to describe the interrelationships
between the affiliative variables for each analyzed dyadic composition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category of N Matrix Concordance r/N >1 "Golden Rule"
Interactions r RG NG RG NG
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all 110 +.95* +.55* +.50* .86 21 21
all sexually mature 42 +.92* +.55* +.45* .86 19 21
all male => male 6 +.65* +.84* +.51* .86 17 21
all female => female 56 +.90* +.49* +.48* .43 19 21
mature female => female 20 +.75* +.55* +.36* .86 16 21
male <=> female 48 +.97* +.55* +.53* .67 21 21
male => female 24 +.93* +.55* +.56* .29 21 21
mature male => female 10 +.78* +.49* +.71* .00 21 18
female => male 24 +.97* +.58* +.54* .57 20 21
mature female => male 10 +.93* +.60* +.67* .33 21 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 r/N > Proportion mean squared correlations greater in the Reproductive
Group
* Statistically significant, P<.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matrix Correlations: Interrelationships between Variables
The matrix correlations were less than +.90 (Table 2) for three interaction
categories; contextual differences in the two groups therefore had the greatest
influence on the relationships between the affiliative variables for these
categories. The smallest matrix correlation was for male => male interactions,
the next smallest correlation for mature female => female interactions, and the
third smallest correlation for mature male => female interactions. The
contextual differences between the two groups therefore had the greatest
influence on the variables' interrelationships for isosexual interactions and
on interactions directed by mature males to females.
Greater intrasexual competition in the more sexually active nonreproductive
group seem the likely cause of the decreased similarities between the
correlation matrices composed of male => male and mature female => mature
female interactions. The variables in the nonreproductive group appeared to be
used more frequently in agonistic contexts and to convey information on
agonisitc rank. Intrasexual Presents were, for example, more frequently used
for appeasement and less often for affiliation. The use of Presents for
appeasement resulted in a negative correlation between male => male Grooming
Presents and Presents in the nonreproductive group. Males of higher rank
"requested" Grooming with Grooming Presents and were Presented to by the males
from whom they "requested" Grooming. Information on relative status was
therefore conveyed by the complementary direction of affiliative interactions.
In contrast, Grooming Presents and Presents were strongly and positively
correlated in the reproductive group: Intrasexual affiliation was therefore
more reciprocal and less related to status. Reproductive males were, for
example, more likely to Groom a male to whom they Grooming Presented. A
similar difference, but of lower magnitude, existed between groups for mature
female => female interactions.
Mature male => female interactions had the third lowest matrix correlation.
This was the result of the stronger concordance of affiliative variables in the
nonreproductive group. The stronger concordance was paralleled with a stronger
mean squared correlation for every variable in the nonreproductive group. The
stronger concordance and mean squared correlations reflect the much greater
reciprocity of mature male => female interactions in the nonreproductive group.
Nonreproductive adult males had, for example, a strong tendency to Groom most
frequently the adult females to whom they most frequently Grooming Presented
whereas there was a faint tendency in the opposite direction in the
reproductive group. The greater reciprocity of mature male => female
interactions in the nonreproductive group may have been the result of the
greater synchronization of affiliative interactions occurring between sexually
interacting pairs and the more solicitous and tolerant behavior (Carpenter,
1942) of the males in those pairs.
Correlations with Grooming Presents differed most between groups in the
analyses conducted on the three interaction categories with the lowest matrix
correlations. The social use of Grooming Presents is therefore particularly
strongly influenced by contextual differences between groups. In the
nonreproductive group, intrasexual Grooming Presents were directed to those
with whom appeasement was not necessary, to those of lower agonistic rank.
Intrasexual grooming Presents were more reciprocal in the reproductive group.
Heterosexual Grooming between sexually active pairs was more reciprocal in the
nonreproductive group. Grooming Presents were therefore strongly correlated
with Grooming; these variables were not associated in the reproductive and less
sexually active group. Depending on social context, Grooming Presents may
therefore be used in either complementary or reciprocal affiliative
interactions.
Coefficients of Concordance
There was stronger concordance in the way the variables ranked directional
dyadic interactions in the reproductive group for 7 of the 10 interaction
categories. Male => male interactions had the greatest difference in
coefficients of concordance, mature male => female interactions had the second
greatest, and the third greatest difference was in mature female => female
interactions. The three interaction categories with the greatest difference in
concordance were also those with smallest matrix correlations.
Two of the three greatest differences in the coefficient of concordance
arose for intrasexual interactions. Intrasexual competition associated with
higher rates of sexual behavior is, again, the probable cause of the lower
concordance between affiliative variables in the nonreproductive group.
Decreased reciprocity of intrasexual interactions in the nonreproductive group
is sometimes a form of intrasexual competition: one individual in the dyad may
receive decreased social resources compared to the other. If, for example, a
nonreproductive male more frequently Presented for Grooming to another male he
was less likely to Groom that male. Greater discordance between measures of
affiliation suggests less consistent and more conflicting social signals, an
inconsistency that may grade into deception. In the nonreproductive group, for
example, a strong tendency for female "A" to Groom "B" had close to no
covariation with rate at which female "A" Grooming Presented to "B".
Analyses of other patterns of behavior, such as aggression, would permit
further detection of intrasexual deception in the nonreproductive group. For
example, ALF rate, Grooming, and agonistic behavior appeared to be more
positively associated in the nonreproductive group, a deceptive blend of
affiliative and agonistic interactions: Instead of "An I'll scratch your back
if you will scratch mine" pattern of interaction; those in the nonreproductive
group might more closely approximate a pattern summed up as "I'll let you
scratch my back and then bite yours". Sequential data analyses would help
differentiate this possibility from conciliation and reconciliation (de Waal &
Yoshihara, 1983). It is, of course, not impossible that conciliation and
reconciliation could deceptively mask agonistic behavioral patterns. The
severity of wounds could far exceed the positive benefits of conciliation and
reconciliation; the total valence of interactions might be overwhelmingly
negative.
The second greatest difference in the coefficients of concordance between
groups was for mature male => female interactions. Exactly opposite to the
intrasexual interactions, there was a much stronger coefficient of concordance
in the nonreproductive group. The greater concordance was paralleled by larger
mean squared correlations for every variable in the nonreproductive group. As
with the low matrix correlation, the greater reciprocity of mature male =>
female interactions appeared to cause the difference in the coefficients of
concordance between the two groups.
Number of Correlations in the Expected Reciprocal Direction
The number of correlations in the expected reciprocal direction differed
across groups and across interaction categories (Table 2). In the reproductive
group all but one interaction category had all 21 correlations in the expected
reciprocal direction. Only half of the interaction categories had all
correlations in this direction in the nonreproductive group. As a whole, the
monkey "Golden Rule" was followed in more interactions in the reproductive
group than in the nonreproductive group: if, for example, monkey "A" Groomed
"B" at a high rate, monkey "A" also tended to Grooming Present to "B" at a high
rate. This difference between groups was absolute for intrasexual
interactions. The only deviation from the trend was for mature male => female
interactions; for these, all correlations were in the expected reciprocal
direction in the nonreproductive group whereas 18 of 21 were in this direction
in the reproductive group.
Proportion of Mean Squared Correlations Greater in the Reproductive Group
The three interaction categories with the lowest proportion of mean squared
correlations greater in the reproductive group were all heterosexual: mature
male => female, male => female, and mature female => male. The greater
synchronization of affiliative interactions between sexually interacting pairs
appears to be responsible for these results.
One of these three interaction categories, mature male => female
interactions, was found most different from the others in matrix correlations,
number of correlations in the expected reciprocal direction and differences
between coefficients of concordance. By all measures of relationships between
the variables, mature male => female interactions were markedly influenced by
contextual differences between groups: these interactions were more reciprocal
in the nonreproductive and more sexually active group.
CONCLUSIONS
The differential concordance of the measures of affiliation suggest that
partially redundant sources of information are used by monkeys to signal their
affiliative tendencies towards each other and that discordance of affiliative
interactions might be used to deceive. In human exchange we tend to feel more
confident say, that another person means yes when they nod yes, say yes and
write yes. When a person nods yes, says yes and writes no or, vice versa, then
meaning becomes more difficult to interpret and we may feel deception of
ourselves, or others, is possible if not probable. Analogous concordance and
discordance of affiliative interactions occur in rhesus.
These analyses have only concentrated on the agreement between 7 measures
of affiliation. Further analyses are necessary to determine how these measures
are associated with unambiguously sexual and agonistic interactions. Analyses
of the variability in degree reciprocity between dyads for each variable would
provide further insight into the ways patterns of affiliation are used. Such
analyses will be necessary for a more thorough understanding of the subtleties
in use of affiliative interactions between rhesus macaques. Further analyses
are also necessary on the use of affiliative interactions, such as Grooming
Presents, in status interactions. When affiliative interactions are used in
status interactions they may simultaneously convey both agonistic and
affiliative information. Analogously, bowing between people, and the depth of
the bows, may simultaneously signal affiliation and differences in status.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Drs. R. Goy, F. De Waal and V. Reinhardt made useful
suggestions on aspects of the theory and analyses. Dr. V. Reinhardt performed
the vasectomizations and helped select the animals for the study. Dr. S. Sholl
wrote the communication program, COMX, used to transfer data between computers.
Paul DuBois programmed my data collection method for use on Tandy 102 lap top
computers. This research was supported by NIMH National Research Service Award
1 F32 MH09419-01 RERA, NIH Grant RR00167 and NSF Grant 880414.
REFERENCES
[available from author; deleted from email version -- ed.]
------------------------------
PSYCOLOQUY
is sponsored by
the Science Directorate of
the American Psychological Association
(202) 955-7653
Co-Editors:
(scientific discussion) (professional/clinical discussion)
Stevan Harnad Perry London, Dean, Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.)
Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied Graduate School of Applied
Princeton University and Professional Psychology and Professional Psychology
Rutgers University Rutgers University
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (12/05/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 4 Dec 90 Volume 1 : Issue 16
ML91 Call for papers: Eighth International Machine Learning Workshop
New Flier: Support for Database Activities
Psycoloquy: Call for Abstracts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stevan Harnad (harnad@clarity.princeton.edu)
Subject: Call for Abstracts for Psycoloquy (and sci.psychology.digest)
Readers of Psycoloquy are invited to post abstracts of preprints,
technical reports, forthcoming and recently published papers. Please
indicate how the paper can be retrieved, either electronically or by
Usmail (and where it will be or has been published, if known).
If you wish to elicit "skywriting" discussion of the paper in
Psycoloquy, accompany the abstract with a self-contained synopsis of
the paper, the points you wish to discuss, and what areas of expertise
would be relevant for potential commentators.
------------------------------------------
From: Lawrence Birnbaum <birnbaum@fido.ils.nwu.edu>
Subject: ML91 Call for papers: Eighth International Machine Learning Workshop
ML91 The Eighth International Workshop on Machine Learning
Call for Papers
The organizing committee is please to announce that ML91 will include the
following workshop topics:
Automated Knowledge Acquisition
Computational Models of Human Learning
Learning Relations
Machine Learning in Engineering Automation
Learning to React/in Complex Environments
Constructive Induction
Learning in Intelligent Information Retrieval
Learning from Theory and Data
Papers must be submitted to one of these workshops for consideration. The
provisional deadline for submission is February 1, 1991. Papers to appear
in the Proceedings must fit in 4 pages, double column format.
More details about the constituent workshops, including submission
procedures, contact points, and reviewing committees, will be forthcoming
shortly.
ML91 will be held at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA (just
north of Chicago), June 27-29, 1991.
On behalf of the organizing committee,
Larry Birnbaum and Gregg Collins
------------------------------
From: Fred Stollnitz <fstollni%NSF.GOV@pucc>
Subject: New Flier: Support for Database Activities
====================== A N N O U N C E M E N T =====================
The Division of Instrumentation and Resources at the National Science
Foundation has recently published a flier describing the possibilities
of support for "Database Activities in the Biological, Behavioral, and
Social Sciences." Copies of the flier (NSF 90-70) may be obtained by
sending a request (including your surface mail address) to the address
below. Email requests and telephone inquiries are welcome.
======================================================================
Robert J. Robbins
Program Director, Database Activities Phone: (202) 357-9880
Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences FAX: (202) 357-7745
National Science Foundation
1880 G Street, Room 312 InterNet: rrobbins@note.nsf.gov
Washington, DC 20550 BitNet: rrobbins@nsf
======================================================================
------------------------------
PSYCOLOQUY
is sponsored by
the Science Directorate of
the American Psychological Association
(202) 955-7653
Co-Editors:
(scientific discussion) (professional/clinical discussion)
Stevan Harnad Perry London, Dean, Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.)
Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied Graduate School of Applied
Princeton University and Professional Psychology and Professional Psychology
Rutgers University Rutgers University
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (12/05/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 4 Dec 90 Volume 1 : Issue 16
Access to the phonological lexicon (S. Cassidy)
Query: Research Organizations (A. Kendall)
Response to D.S. Stodolsky's "Consensus Journals" (G. Becker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: steve@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Steve Cassidy)
Subject: Access to the phonological lexicon
A question about access to the phonological lexicon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a preliminary to my question let me describe the context in
which I ask it. I am involved in building a computational
model of the development of word recognition. In outline, my
model is similar to that described by Seymour et al. (1989):
the child starts reading using a purely visual strategy
(Seymour calls this Logographic) and later develops a strategy
involving recoding words with letter to sounds rules and
recognising them via the phonological (speaking/listening)
lexicon.
My approach is to try and show how each process used within
the various strategies can develop from the child's existing
capabilities, within the environment in which the child
learns. Thus my model of visual recognition is such that I
can argue that it can develop from object recognition
processes and a growing knowledge of the shapes of letters. As
the model acquires more vocabulary items, it can learn more
about how best to structure its lexicon for reading. The
model as it stands is described in Cassidy (1990a, 1990b).
I am now thinking about how the reader starts to use
phonological information. The standard account says that the
written form is re-coded using some grapheme to phoneme
procedure (analogy or non-lexical rules are examples), the
resulting phonological form is then recognised using auditory
word recognition procedures. The use of non-lexical rules
begs the question as to where they came from. One possible
solution is that the child can using letter sounds or letter
names as proto-rules to do this re-coding. If this is the
case then the resulting phonological form will more than
likely be incorrect, but it may have about the right
consonants in the right places. Analogy might offer a better
candidate phonological form but is a very ill defined
procedure; I do have ideas as to how it could work but the
suffer similar problems of vowel ambiguity.
My question concerns access to the phonological lexicon; that
is, finding a candidate phonological lexical item given a
partial phonological form. How much information is needed and
how immune to variation is the access procedure? Which parts
of the phonological representation are important -- vowels,
consonants, onset, rime? Is there some particular structure,
such as onset+rime, which will facilitate access?
Is there any evidence that children (or adults) are able to
access the lexicon given incomplete descriptions of the target
word? If so, does this give any insight into the above
problem? Tasks such as rhyme production and alliteration might
be suggested but I can imagine another process which could
achieve these tasks in a 'generate and test' manner that
doesn't require access from partial descriptions.
Models of spoken word recognition such as the Cohort model and
the Logogen model have very little to say about the
information content and structure of the phonological lexicon.
In fact they see the lexicon as a collection of processing
units, one per word, which sum features of the stimulus until
the word is recognised. This could be seen to be equivalent
to a lexicon full of descriptions of words which are matched
by some process or set of processes against the stimulus.
These models don't tell us much about what is in the lexical
descriptions, rather they concentrate on how information is
collected and matched and how `recognition units' compete for
attention.
The cohort model might be viewed in this way: the lexicon is a
collection of word descriptions indexed under a number of
features. When a stimulus arrives the first features available
(be they phonetic features, phonemes syllables or whatever)
are used to select a subset of the lexicon (those words
indexed on that feature), as more features become available
they are used to further reduce the size of the subset until
there is only one candidate which can then be responded.
Under this view it would be possible to use this structure to
access lexical items from incomplete phonological
descriptions, such as those obtained from a crude letter to
sound translation.
Seymour, P.H.K. and Evans, H.M. and Kinnison, S.E.C. (1989)
Logographic, alphabetic and orthographic processes in early
reading development. In Press, Department of Psychology, The
University, Dundee, Scotland.
Cassidy, S. (1990a). Early Reading Development: A
computational view. Technical Report CS-TR-90/8, Dept.
Computer Science, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand
Cassidy, S. (1990b). Substitution Errors in a computer model
of early reading. Paper presented to the First Australasian
Cognitive Science Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Steve Cassidy
==========================================================
Computer Science, steve@comp.vuw.ac.nz
Victoria University of Wellington, ====================
Box 600, Voice: +64 4 715328
Wellington, New Zealand. Fax: +64 4 712070
----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Arthur Kendall" <AJK%NIHCU@pucc>
Subject: Query: Research Organizations
As part of an effort to consider total-quality management (TQM)
approaches in our agency,
I am trying to identify organizations whose work is
(research, policy studies, evaluation, "think tank", etc.)
where there is an explicit management approach that is
(humane, nonauthoritarian, professional, total-quality, democratic,
participative).
If you know of any such organizations, please contact me.
If you know people who might have information, please forward
this note to them.
_________________________________________________________
Arthur J. Kendall
National Security & International Affairs Division
United States General Accounting Office (GAO)
Washington, DC 20548 USA
Commercial phone: (202) 275-8455
FTS: 275-8455
BITNET: AJK@NIHCU
GAO is an oversight agency in the legislative branch.
It is not the same as GSA which is an executive branch agency.
*** DISCLAIMER ****
This is not an official communication. Only official
communications represent official findings, results, or opinions.
Any opinions expressed are solely those of the sender as
an individual.
------------------------------
From: "Gordon Becker" <becker@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Subject: Response to D.S. Stodolsky's "Consensus Journals"
The statistical procedure that Stodolsky proposes for evaluating
articles and for selecting new authors would make it even more
difficult than it is now to publish articles that deviate from
the dominant paradigm. Current peer-review practices have been
highly criticized for their rejection of new ideas. Consensus
assures conservatism and Stodolsky's procedure for selecting
authors and papers would give technologists conducting minor mop-
up experiments more power than scientists breaking new ground.
Some of us fear that we are already stifling science with the
present old-boy review. We need some way to break out of
conservatism, not perpetuate it, and certainly not strengthen it.
Stodolsky's method also perpetuates the use of anonymity with all
of its disadvantages. Not only does anonymity permit the reviewer
to make false and unsupported statements, to be unnecessarily
disparaging, personal and disrespectful, all with impunity; it
also prevents opening or continuing a fruitful exchange and
cooperative effort with helpful reviewers. The claim that reviews
would be less critical and candid without anonymity, have been
shown to be untrue in the many real life situations where open
review has been used.
The consensus journal also perpetuates the current practice of
considering publication itself as an index of one's "scientific
contribution" rather than considering the actual impact of the
publication on science. A much better index of one's contribution
is the citation index. Perhaps we should let articles remain in
the electronic media until they are cited in other electronic
articles sufficiently to justify publishing them in hard copy for
others not actively engaged in the particular specialty of the
article. Thus electronic journals would be for scientists
actively engaged in the specialized area of the article and
published journals would be for those in related or other areas.
A basic problem with any statistical procedure such as that
advocated by Stodolsky to evaluate new articles is the need for
his assumption of a steady state condition. Research is designed
to change the state of knowledge, to generate new ways of
organizing data. Significant break-throughs deviate from the past
and are generally rejected by the majority when first presented.
Any evaluation method that does not consider changes in state,
and that gives equal votes to all reviewers is likely to reject
the really significant paper.
Let's make it easier for anyone to publish a paper in the
electronic media, encourage open review, and give more weight to
the actual use of the article. The problem for reviewers then
becomes one of verifying that the citations are actually
justified and relevant rather than inflated by friends and
cohorts. It might be necessary to limit the number of citations
permitted in an article. The task of reviewers might then be to
verify the accuracy and relevancy of citations rather than the
worth of the article itself. The reviewers task would be easier
and more objective task than the present one, and well suited as
a task for graduate students and new professionals.
Gordon Becker UNO Omaha NE 68182 becker@unoma1.BITNET
------------------------------
PSYCOLOQUY
is sponsored by
the Science Directorate of
the American Psychological Association
(202) 955-7653
Co-Editors:
(scientific discussion) (professional/clinical discussion)
Stevan Harnad Perry London, Dean, Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.)
Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied Graduate School of Applied
Princeton University and Professional Psychology and Professional Psychology
Rutgers University Rutgers University
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************