ANIMAL LEARNING AND INTELLIGENCE
To read up on animal learning and intelligence, refer to pages 284–304 of Eysenck’s
A2 Level Psychology.
Ask yourself
 How do animals learn?
 What cognitive abilities do animals possess?
 Can animals recognise themselves when they look in a mirror?
What you need to know
CLASSICAL AND OPERANT
CONDITIONING


The role of classical and operant
conditioning in animal learning
The ecological perspective
EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENCE IN NONHUMAN ANIMALS



Self-recognition
Social learning
Machiavellian intelligence as
evidence of intelligence in nonhuman animals
Classical and operant conditioning
John Watson established behaviourism, a psychological approach that seeks to
study only that which is observable and measurable because it can be studied
scientifically. The key assumptions were that it is important to study behaviour
under controlled conditions and that learning can be accounted for by conditioning
principles. Two major types of conditioning were identified: classical conditioning
and operant conditioning. According to behaviourism, people are born as a tabula
rasa (blank slate) and so the individual is solely a product of learning from the
environment.
Research evidence on classical conditioning
 Classical conditioning is the association of two stimuli. It was discovered by
the Russian physiologist, Pavlov (1849–1936), who experimented with dogs.
He observed that dogs learnt to associate new stimuli with stimuli that
produced an automatic response, e.g. noise and the food bucket were
associated with food. Pavlov found he could train dogs to salivate to other
stimuli than the food they automatically salivated to. He presented the dogs
with a tone just before food was presented over a number of trials. The bell is
a neutral stimulus and it becomes the conditioned stimulus (CS) when it is
paired with the food, the automatic stimulus or unconditioned stimulus
(UCS), to produce the same response (salivation). The salivation in response
to the food is the unconditioned response (UCR), whereas in response to the
tone it is the conditioned response (CR). Thus, classical conditioning is
learning by the association of new stimuli with stimuli that cause innate
bodily reflexes.




Pavlov stressed the importance of timing in the learning process through the
law of temporal contiguity, which means the two stimuli must be presented
close together in time for the association to be learned. He also observed that
forward conditioning the presentation of the CS just before the UCS was
much stronger than backward conditioning, the presentation of the CS after
the UCS.
Pavlov also researched generalisation, which refers to the fact the
conditioned response can be generalised to similar stimuli and that the
strength of the conditioned response (e.g. salivation) depends on the
similarity between the test stimulus and the original conditioned stimulus.
Pavlov also identified the phenomenon of discrimination. This can occur once
a second tone has been introduced and generalisation has occurred. If the
first tone is paired with food several more times, but the second tone is never
paired with food, then salivation to the first tone increases, whereas
salivation to the second tone decreases. Thus, the dog has discriminated
between the two tones.
Another key feature of classical conditioning is experimental extinction. The
repeated presentation of the conditioned stimulus in the absence of the
unconditioned stimulus removes the conditioned response. Extinction does
not mean that the dog has completely lost the conditioned reflex. If brought
back into the experimental situation after extinction has occurred, the dog
will reproduce some salivation in response to the tone. This is spontaneous
recovery. It shows that the salivary response to the tone was inhibited
(rather than lost) during extinction.
Pavlov also identified higher order conditioning, in which a new CS can be
associated with the original CS until the new CS can produce the CR.
EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH ON CLASSICAL CONDITIONING
 Experimental extinction is contradicted by spontaneous recovery.
According to classical conditioning, experimental extinction occurs because
there is an unlearning of the association between the conditioned and
unconditioned stimuli. However, the existence of spontaneous recovery (reemergence of conditioned responses after extinction) indicates that the
association has not been unlearned.
 Reductionist. On the negative side, classical conditioning is surprisingly
complex, and the model fails to take account of some of these complexities.
Classical conditioning is also oversimplified in that it just considers learning
and ignores other factors that influence behaviour. In particular, cognitive
and innate factors are ignored and these are key influences on behaviour.
 Learning is not always observable. The key assumption that what has been
learned will always reveal itself in performance has been disproved.
Research has shown that learning can take place without being immediately
evident in behaviour.
Deterministic. Classical conditioning can be seen as deterministic as it
suggests that the environment determines behaviour that ignores the
individual’s free will to act upon their environment.
 Ignores nature. Classical conditioning only considers nurture and so ignores
nature, which, as the ecological theory and preparedness reveals, does play a
role in learning.
 Learning is limited. Classical conditioning (CC) requires an UCS to produce
an innate reflex response and consequently the generalisability of CC is
limited as animals have a limited number of reflexes. This means CC can only
account for a limited range of learned behaviours.
The Ecological Perspective
According to the ecological perspective, animals have inherited behavioural
tendencies, helping them to survive in their natural environment. Thus, certain
forms of learning are more useful than others, and so are acquired more easily
because the animal is innately prepared to do so. This approach is very different
from the conventional behaviourist one, which completely ignores the role of
nature.

An example of learned preparedness is food-aversion learning. The Garcia-effect
involved three conditioned stimuli at the same time: saccharin-flavoured water,
light, and sound (Garcia & Koelling, 1966, see A2 Level Psychology page 289). Rats
learned to avoid either the light and sound stimuli or the flavoured water, based on
them being paired with electric shocks and X-rays inducing nausea respectively.
Thus, the animals learned to associate being sick with taste, and they learned to
associate shock with light and sound stimuli.
These findings show that animals are “biologically prepared” to learn some
behaviours more readily than others. This has an evolutionary basis because there is
an obvious survival value in learning rapidly to develop a taste aversion to any food
followed by illness.
EVALUATION OF THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
 Less reductionist. Biological preparedness takes into account the influence
of nature and nurture and so is less reductionist.
 Not all learning is biologically prepared. Whilst biological preparedness
provides a good account of a range of behaviour, not all learned behaviour is
instinctive.
Operant Conditioning (OC)
Operant conditioning is based on the law of reinforcement, which means that
learning is based on the consequences of behaviour. The probability of a given
response occurring increases if followed by a reward or positive reinforcer, such as
food or praise. This is known as positive reinforcement. The behaviour is also more
likely if followed by negative reinforcement as this is the avoidance of an unpleasant
consequence and so it “stamps in” the behaviour. The probability of a given
response decreases if followed by punishment. The original behaviour is called the
operant, which is a voluntary behaviour that initially occurs at random.
Research evidence on operant conditioning
 Skinner’s well known research involved the Skinner box, in which a rat was
trapped without food. To receive food it had to press a lever and it would be
rewarded with a food pellet. The probability of a response decreases if it is
not followed by a positive reinforcer. This is experimental extinction. As with
classical conditioning, there is usually some spontaneous recovery after
extinction has occurred. There are two major types of positive reinforcers or
rewards: primary reinforcers and secondary reinforcers. Primary reinforcers
are stimuli needed for survival (e.g. food, water, sleep, air). Secondary
reinforcers are rewarding because the person or animal has learned to
associate them with primary reinforcers. Secondary reinforcers include
money, praise, and attention.
 Further research investigated shaping, in which the animal’s behaviour
moves slowly towards the desired response through reinforcement of
successive approximations. For example, if we wanted to teach pigeons to
play table tennis first they would be rewarded for making any contact with
the table-tennis ball. Over time, their actions would need to become more
and more like those involved in playing table tennis to be rewarded. Skinner
did teach pigeons to play table tennis using this method.
 Another feature of OC is chaining whereby a secondary reinforcer can
become associated with the primary one and so complex sequences of
responses develop. Thus, a rat could learn to climb a step to hear a tone that
would lead to lever pressing to receive the primary reinforcer of food. The
learned sequence of responses is known as chaining.
 Generalisation, discrimination, extinction, and the law of contiguity all apply
in the same way as with classical conditioning.
 Schedules of reinforcement have also been researched as these can affect
how resistant the behaviour is to extinction. For example, if continuous
reinforcement is provided, the behaviour will extinguish immediately the
reinforcement is withdrawn. Whereas if there is a partial reinforcement
schedule, so that reinforcement is provided only some of the time, then the
behaviour will be less vulnerable to extinction. A variable interval schedule is
when the reinforcement varies and so one cannot predict when the
behaviour will be reinforced. A real-life example of this is gambling as you
never know when the next win will happen and this schedule means the
behaviour is least likely to be extinguished.
Punishment: Positive and Negative
Operant conditioning in which a response is followed by an aversive stimulus is
known as positive punishment (often simply called punishment). If the aversive
stimulus occurs shortly after the response, it reduces the likelihood the response
will be produced in future. Responses are also avoided if they are followed by the
removal of a reward or something pleasant (negative punishment).
Skinner argued that punishment can suppress certain responses for a while, but it
doesn’t produce new learning. Punishment often has a more lasting effect when
animals can obtain positive reinforcement with an alternative response. Thus, if you
want to remove an undesirable behaviour, then it is better to reward an alternative
behaviour so that the undesirable one is less likely to occur.
Avoidance Learning
Avoidance learning is when a new behaviour is stamped in because it stops aversive
stimuli being presented. This is avoidance learning because the new behaviour is
learned in order to avoid the aversive stimulus and this avoiding of an unpleasant
consequence is called negative reinforcement. For example, a child who eats dinner
so that he/she can go out to play is an example of the desired behaviour (eating
dinner) being stamped in so that the unpleasant consequence of not being allowed
out to play is avoided.
The Ecological Perspective
Skinner’s view was that virtually any response can be conditioned in any stimulus
situation—this is known as equipotentiality. In fact, this is not true. Some behaviours
are harder to learn than others and even harder to maintain because of “instinctive
drift”, i.e. the preference for a behaviour that is instinctive may replace or modify
the conditioned behaviour. This is shown in research by Gaffan, Hansel, and Smith
(1983, see A2 Level Psychology page 295) in which rats in a T-shaped maze had to
decide whether to turn left or right. According to conditioning, if the rat was
rewarded for turning left it should turn left on the following trial. However, in the
natural environment the rat would not return to where it had just removed food.
Gaffan et al. found that early in training rats tended to avoid the arm of the maze in
which they had previously found food, as predicted from the ecological perspective.
This shows the influence of their instinctive behaviour.
EVALUATION OF OPERANT CONDITIONING
 Applications. The principles of operant conditioning (OC) have been used
effectively in the training of animals and this has generated many positive
applications. For example, OC has been used to teach language to chimps, and
the learning process involved has informed understanding of children who
have learning difficulties. Thus, OC has made significant contributions both
theoretically and in applied psychology.
 Equipotentiality lacks validity. Skinner’s concept of equipotentiality is
incorrect, as is his assumption that operant conditioning is uninfluenced by
instinctive behaviour, as instinctive drift shows animals have a preference
for instinctive behaviour.
 Circularity. We only know that a stimulus is a reinforcer because it
reinforces! It is not a scientific statement, because there is no way that it can
be tested. This means the concept of reinforcement is circular and lacks
scientific validity.







Individual differences. Food is a fairly universal source of reinforcement for
animals—all animals need food! However, other forms of reinforcement may
have a less consistent effect, as whether the reinforcement is rewarding or
punishing is open to interpretation.
Ignores other forms of learning. Other forms of learning are possible.
Humans often engage in observational learning—they learn simply by
observing someone else being rewarded for behaving in a certain way.
Operant conditioning does not account for the more sophisticated social
learning.
Ignores nature. Skinner exaggerated the importance of external or
environmental factors as influences on behaviour and minimised the role of
internal factors. For example, apes have innate personalities and instinctive
behaviours.
Difficult to distinguish between CC and OC. A key problem is that it can be
difficult to distinguish between CC and OC in the learning process. For
example, if we take Pavlov’s research, was the food the UCS or was it a source
of positive reinforcement?
Scientific validity. The research on OC is conducted in the controlled
conditions of the laboratory and so it can be replicated to check reliability
and has greater control of confounding variables and so higher internal
validity.
External validity. Research in the laboratory is artificial, e.g. rats pressing a
lever, dogs salivating to a bell, and so it is difficult to know how well the
theory generalises to real-life animal behaviour. The simple conditioning
researched in the laboratory is much more complex in real life.
Ignores cognitive factors. The rejection of the influence of cognition
(because this is not observable or measurable) is a key limitation of OC as
animals are capable of developing expectancies that a particular form of
reinforcement will follow a behaviour. This is a significant omission since
cognitive factors are an important part of the learning process.
Evidence for intelligence in non-human animals
Among many species, what we could call “social intelligence” is really important.
Individual apes or monkeys need to communicate effectively with other members of
the same species to ensure they have enough food to eat and that they mate and
reproduce. Such abilities are further evidence for intelligence in non-human
animals.
Self-recognition
The mirror test is used to assess self-recognition. This involves placing a red dot on
the face of the animal during play so that it does not realise the dot has been placed
there. The animal is then placed in front of a mirror and if it reaches to remove the
dot then it has self-recognition as such behaviour shows it recognises the image in
the mirror as its own.
Research evidence for self-recognition
 Gallup (1970, see A2 Level Psychology page 297) researched individuallyhoused chimpanzees that were presented with a full-length mirror outside
their cages for 10 days. Initially they responded as if the reflection were
another chimpanzee. After that, however, the chimpanzees engaged in selfdirected responses (e.g. self-grooming of parts of the body visible in the
mirror). It seemed the chimpanzees had learned to recognise themselves in
the mirror, which perhaps reflected their high intelligence.
 Gallup (1970, see A2 Level Psychology page 297) carried out further research
involving the “mirror test”. Each chimpanzee from the previous
observational study had a red mark applied to one eyebrow and the top half
of the opposite ear. Initially they were not presented with mirrors and the
chimpanzees rarely touched the marks. When presented with the mirrors the
chimpanzees touched the marks repeatedly. This suggests the chimpanzees
had true self-recognition and probably some degree of self-awareness.
 Gallup (1970, see A2 Level Psychology page 298) carried out the same
procedures on three species of monkey, none of which showed any signs of
self-recognition. It was concluded that self-recognition on the mark test is
limited to the great apes, including orang-utans and bonobos as well as
chimpanzees.
 Reiss and Marino (2001, see A2 Level Psychology page 298) found that two
marked bottlenose dolphins used a mirror to inspect the marked parts of
their body. They concluded this was because dolphins have a high degree of
encephalisation (development of cerebral cortex, especially the frontal lobes),
which is supported by the fact that gorillas don’t have self-recognition and
have much lower encephalisation compared to other apes.
 Plotnik, de Waal, and Reiss (2006, see A2 Level Psychology page 298) studied
three Asian elephants called Happy, Maxine, and Patty. They all showed selfrecognition, spontaneously using a mirror to touch the marks on their bodies.
Research evidence against self-recognition
 Not every ape in every study showed clear evidence of self-recognition, and
gorillas (an ape species) show little evidence of self-recognition.
 The association between success on the mirror test and possessing selfawareness may not be very close. First, members of a given species might
possess self-awareness but fail the mark or mirror test. Vervet monkeys,
baboons, and macaques all fail the mirror test but they do recognise other
group members as individuals and dominance rank orders. They also behave
as if they recognise their own special place within those rank orders, which
suggests they have some self-awareness.
 De Waal et al. (2005, see A2 Level Psychology page 298) argued that some
species occupy an intermediate position. They studied capuchin monkeys,
which do not pass the mirror test. However, they do spend longer making eye
contact with their mirror image than with a monkey of the same sex. This
suggests the capuchin monkeys recognise their mirror image as something of
interest and not simply another monkey, even though they fail to show selfrecognition on the mark or mirror test.
EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH ON SELF-RECOGNITION
 Concurrent validity. The fact that the species that succeed on the mirror
test also have high levels of encephalisation suggests it is a reasonably valid
measure of animal intelligence as there is concurrent validity between the
measures and the species’ cognitive abilities.
 Self-recognition is a pre-requisite of empathy. Species showing selfrecognition generally show signs of some understanding of the mental states
of others. For example, apes provide consolation to victims of aggression by
putting an arm around the victim’s shoulder; elephants show empathy by
trying to physically support or lift injured elephants. To see others as
separate to oneself, and so have empathy, one must first recognise oneself as
independent of others, and so the abilities are inter-linked.
 Anthropomorphism. There is a danger of attributing human characteristics
or thoughts to non-human animals; this is known as anthropomorphism. A
human looking in the mirror during the test may think something like, “How
did that mark get on my face?” But this may not be the same for animals as
we don’t know precisely what animals passing the mirror test are thinking
when they touch the mark on their own body. The lack of communication is
an issue when investigating animals, which limits the conclusions that can be
made. We should not exaggerate the significance of passing the test, this does
not mean animals have self-recognition in the same way that humans do.
 Validity of the mirror test. It is a simple yet valid method for assessing the
presence or absence of self-recognition in any species. However, selfrecognition is not an all-or-none phenomenon, as the research evidence by
de Waal et al. (2005) shows monkeys can fail the mirror test yet still appear
to have some self-awareness, and so the test is not a completely valid
discriminator of self-awareness.
Social Learning
Many animals, particularly primate species, spend much of their time in social
groups. Consequently, social intelligence (i.e. intelligence applied to the social
world) is especially important. This is acquired through social learning and can
involve various processes (e.g. observational learning; imitation). Such learning
would mainly relate to the location of food and avoidance of predators. Whiten and
van Schaik (2007, see A2 Level Psychology page 300) claimed that some species
(especially chimpanzees and other primates) can acquire traditions and even
culture, but only the human species has developed complex cultures. A culture
develops when a social group possesses numerous traditions and a tradition is the
shared behaviour patterns of a particular culture.
Research evidence on social learning
 Reader and Laland (2002, see A2 Level Psychology page 300) researched 116
primate species on frequencies of social learning, innovation, and tool use.



They also considered executive brain ratio, defined as the ratio of the
executive brain (neocortex + striatum) to the brainstem. There were
moderately high positive correlations across the 116 species between
executive brain ratio and each of social learning, innovation, and tool use,
with the highest correlation being between executive brain ratio and social
learning.
Bonnie et al. (2007, see A2 Level Psychology page 301) provide evidence of
observational learning in chimpanzees. One group of chimpanzees observed
another chimpanzee collect, transport, and deposit plastic tokens into a
bucket to gain a food reward, and another group observed the tokens being
placed in a pipe. After that, the chimpanzees were rewarded for placing
plastic tokens into the bucket or the pipe; however they tended to place the
tokens in the same place (i.e. bucket or pipe) as they had observed
previously. This shows observational learning may be an important form of
social learning in chimpanzees.
Van Schaik (2006, see A2 Level Psychology page 301) found evidence of social
learning when studying orang-utans on the Indonesian island of Sumatra in a
naturalistic observational study. The orang-utans used various tools for two
main reasons: hunting termites, ants, and honey, and extracting seeds from
trees. These behaviours were passed on to others within the group through
the process of social learning.
Herrmann, Melis, and Tomasello (2007, see A2 Level Psychology page 301)
assessed the ability of chimpanzees, orang-utans, and children aged 2½ to
solve problems involving their physical and social worlds. They found that
young children and chimpanzees had very similar cognitive skills for dealing
with the physical world, with orang-utans lagging somewhat behind.
However, the children performed much better than the chimpanzees and the
orang-utans when it came to problems involving the social world. This was
especially true of social learning. Herrmann et al. concluded that the findings
supported the cultural intelligence hypothesis, which is that children acquire
cognitive skills due to the demands of their social world.
EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH EVIDENCE ON SOCIAL LEARNING
 Strong evidence. There is plentiful evidence for social learning in many nonhuman species from both laboratory and naturalistic studies.
 Direction of effect. The evidence that species with a large executive brain
ratio (ratio of neocortex and striatum to brainstem size) tend to exhibit the
most social learning raises the issue of cause and effect because we do not
know whether a large executive brain ratio promotes social learning or
whether extensive social learning leads to an enhanced executive brain ratio.
 May account for differences between species. The research shows that
human social learning far exceeds that of other species. Humans are probably
the only species in which social learning is so great that complex cultures
have evolved. This suggests that social learning can partly account for the
wide variations between species.

Ignores nature. A key weakness of studying social learning is that the
influence of nature is not considered and the evidence that human social
learning far exceeds other species’ may be explained by evolutionary
differences, and so we need to consider nature (evolution) as well as nurture
(social learning) as considering social learning alone is too reductionist
(simplistic).
Machiavellian Intelligence
One of the most influential approaches focusing on social abilities is the
Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis (Byrne & Whiten, 1988, 1997, see A2 Level
Psychology page 302). According to this hypothesis, members of species living in
permanent social groups need to evolve an ability to out-wit others within the
group. This can be achieved by means of Machiavellian intelligence—the ability to
manipulate the social environment through cheating (tactical deception) and
detecting cheating in others. Machiavellian intelligence is fairly complex, because
you can only successfully deceive others when you have a reasonable understanding
of what they are thinking and/or feeling.
Research evidence for Machiavellian intelligence
 Subordinate chimpanzees avoid giving food calls that might attract dominant
chimpanzees to compete for the food, macaques hide themselves away from
potential competitors, and chimpanzees lead approaching dominant
chimpanzees away from hidden food (reviewed by Hare, Call, & Tomasello,
2006, see A2 Level Psychology page 302)
 Evidence that chimpanzees can engage in intentional deception is provided
by Hare et al (2006). In this study, chimpanzees were in competition with a
human experimenter for bananas. In one experiment, the approach to the
banana was visible to the experimenter, whereas in the second test it was
not. The chimpanzees preferred to be deceptive by using the route hidden
from the experimenter’s view.
 According to the Machiavellian hypothesis, non-human primates have much
larger brains than other mammals of the same size because they engage in so
much complex social behaviour, including deception, and so a species’
tendency to engage in deception should be positively associated with
neocortex size. Byrne and Corp (2004, see A2 Level Psychology page 303)
analysed data on brain measurements and deception from 18 non-human
primate species, finding a moderately strong correlation or association
between neocortex size and use of deceptive tactics.
Research evidence against Machiavellian intelligence
 The argument against the use of tactical deception by primates is that it is
not an intentional, deliberate attempt to manipulate others. Instead it may
simply involve learning that positive reinforcement (i.e. food) is more likely if
they behave in certain ways. Early research suggested that non-human
primates are not capable of intentional deception. Woodruff and Premack
(1979, see A2 Level Psychology page 302) trained four chimpanzees to
indicate to humans where hidden food was located. After that, they
introduced two experimenters. One experimenter shared any food that was
found with the chimpanzees but the other one (who wore a mask) did not.
Only two of the chimpanzees learned to avoid indicating the correct food
location to the masked experimenter, and it took them dozens of trials.
EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH ON MACHIAVELLIAN INTELLIGENCE
 Strong evidence. Tactical deception (which is sometimes intentional) is
found in several species of apes. Furthermore, there is a positive association
between a species’ tendency to engage in deception and the size of its
neocortex, which further supports the idea that tactical deception is related
to brain size.
 Generalisability. Machiavellian intelligence is only representative of some
real-life animal behaviour. In fact, members of social groups in most nonhuman primate species devote much time and effort to mutual co-operation
and so there is an over-emphasis on deception and not enough consideration
of the co-operative behaviour displayed. This over-emphasis may be due to
the fact that research is gathered in artificial conditions and so this may
distort the primates’ natural behaviour, meaning that the findings have
limited generalisability to their real-life behaviour.
 Subjectivity of the evidence. There are often problems of interpretation in
understanding why an animal has behaved in a misleading way. In particular,
it is generally difficult to know whether it was being intentionally deceptive.
 Cause and effect. The correlation or association between neocortex size and
use of deception, as predicted by the Machiavellian hypothesis, raises the
issue of cause and effect because the correlational evidence doesn’t tell us
what causes what. Primates may develop deceptive strategies because they
have a relatively large neocortex, or they may through evolution develop a
larger neocortex because deception is needed for survival and reproduction.
So what does this mean?
The processes of classical and operant conditioning do account for a wide range of
simple animal learning. Classical conditioning explains how animals learn through
the association of two stimuli and operant conditioning explains how animals learn
through the consequences of behaviour. The two forms of conditioning have a great
deal of empirical support and the scientific nature of the evidence is a strength of
the behavioural approach. However, the conditioning processes are too reductionist
(simplistic) because they ignore cognitive and innate factors, both of which are
important influences on behaviour.
This means there are other forms of learning that the conditioning theories do not
account for, such as social learning, which accounts for cognitive factors, and
learned preparedness, which accounts for innate factors. There is also a great deal of
evidence that animals do possess complex abilities, such as self-recognition, social
learning, and the ability to use tactical deception (Machiavellian intelligence). The
naturalistic observations of social learning provide some of the strongest research
because these best represent natural behaviour. The studies of Machiavellian
intelligence, whilst ingenious, do raise the issue of external validity because the
conditions of the study are so artificial.
OVER TO YOU
1. Outline and evaluate the role of classical and operant conditioning in animal
learning. (25 marks)
2. Critically consider the evidence for animal intelligence (e.g. self-recognition,
social learning, Machiavellian intelligence. (25 marks)