Participants
Procedure
Ethic, Strength, Weakness
Findings
Miscellaneous
100
The university the study took place at was 
Kyoto University in Japan
100
How many conditions were there 
three, two see one cannot see
100
What type of design was it
Repeated measures
100
Which chimp was the only one to look through the hole in the cannot see trial
Ayumu
100
What was the sampling technique
Opportunity
200

How many Chimps, What were the pairings

(split for answers)


6 chimps, mother and child



200
Why was the second trial done?

To test whether the experimental order was having an effect on object choice

200
Because lab experiments are so regulated, it has high levels of (2 things)
Standardization and control
200
Object offer was categorized in two way:
upon request (asked for tool)

Voluntary (given tool without asking)

200
Pan offered a brush what percent per trial

can see 1 79.5%

cannot see 55.3%

300
Participants prior to the experiment were
taught to solve the problem present to them but no other training or shaping had been conducted
300
There were __, __ or __ trials a day
2, 3, or 4
300
What is a weakness of the experiment


(counter-argument can be given for 1pt)

lacks mundane realism as chimps belong in the wild


Chimps raised in lab and can therefore be argued that they do not belong in the wild

300
how often was something offered from the box in each trial

can see 1 90.8%

can see 2 97.4%

cannot see 95.8%


300
Can see 2 tested these three chimps
Ai, Cleo, and Pal
400
Who was not tested in the experimental condition
Chloe, the mother of Cleo
400
Name the objects offered to the chimps that were unsuccessful

(one point for two objects)

one point for saying which two were used (stick and straw)

stick and straw                                                      hose                                                              brush                                                              rope                                                              chain                                                                    belt

400
Is the study generalizable? Why

(2 pts per correct answer, none for saying yes or no)

no, only used five chimps and can then be argued it does not represent how chimps may help one another 

Chimps bred in captivity so findings are harder to generalize to wild chimp behavior in helping others


400
Which four chimps offered the straw or stick first more frequently 
Ai, Cleo, Pal, Ayumu
400
how can the study be generalized?
it can be generalized to children in terms of development and education about helping others. if children and chimps take the same development path we could educate children about how we can ask other people whether they want help even if they have not directly asked us to help them
500
Name the Participants

(One point for each, minus Chloe)

1. Ayumu                                                                2. Pal

3. Pan                                                                    4. Ai                                                                      5. Cleo

500

Which two were used to get the juice (stick and straw) (1pt)

Name the objects offered to the chimps that were unsuccessful

(one point for two objects) (4pts, stick and straw count as one)

one point for saying which two were used (stick and straw)

hose, brush, rope, chain, belt

stick, straw was successful

500
How were the chimps treated, explain
None were harmed, deprived of food or were taught using aversive stimuli
500
What chimp did best/ offered straw or stick first, what percentage?

was mother or child?

Pal, Juvenile (child)

can see 1- 93.5%

cannot see- 100%

can see 2- 100%

500
what were the IV and DV and data type
iv- can see and cannot see conditions

dv- proportion of trials where the stick or straw was given or not given; which tool was offered

data- quantitative: as above

M
e
n
u