Psychology 485: Theory in Learning and Comparative Cognition
Winter 2010
Instructor: Emily Batty
TA: Greg Silasi
Course Website: www.ualberta.ca/~egray/teaching/P485.html
Prerequisite
Psychology 381
Course Overview
Do animals think? Can pigeons count, communicate, or deceive? How did morality evolve? Do monkeys
have a sense of fairness? What general principles about behaviour can we derive from the study of nonhuman animals? These are some of the questions that we will delve into in this course as we encounter
several advanced topics in animal learning and comparative cognition. The course aims to provide an
appreciation of the interplay between theory and empirical research. The written assignments and oral
discussion requirements will give students experience in reading and evaluating the first-hand literature
on a particular topic. These assignments will provide students with an opportunity to develop and
sharpen their critical thinking skills and to enhance their ability to communicate effectively, both orally
and in writing.
Learning Objectives
The content of the course is intended to: 1) Provide students with an understanding of historical and
contemporary issues in the study of learning and comparative cognition, and show how theory and
empirical research interact in addressing these issues. 2) Acquaint students with the variety of methods
and techniques that have been developed to address questions about cognitive processes in non-human
organisms. 3) Help students gain an appreciation for the remarkable complexity and sophistication of
cognitive and behavioral processes throughout the animal kingdom.
The format and assignments of the course are designed to help students develop skills and gain
experience in: 1) Critically evaluating findings from the primary literature on animal learning and
cognition; 2) summarizing and evaluating research in the literature on a particular topic, 3) generating
original ideas based on prior research 4) effectively communicating information and ideas in both oral
and written formats.
Contact Information
Instructor:
Phone:
Email:
Office Hours:
Emily Batty
(780)232-6894
emily.batty@ualberta.ca
(please use this email address
regardless of what address I
reply from)
by appointment only
TA:
Phone:
Email:
Office Hours:
Greg Silasi
silasi@ualberta.ca
1
Weekly Schedule and Readings (subject to change)
January 5:
Topic: Introduction, what makes a good theory?
History of Comparative Cognition
January 12:
Topic: Explaining Animal Intelligence: current comparative cognition
Evolutionary Theory
Readings:
1. Gould. S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian
paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceeding of the Royal Society of
London, Series B, 205, 581–98.
2. Wynne, C. D. L. (2007). What are animals? Why anthropomorphism is still not a
scientific approach to behavior. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 2, 125-135.
Discussion: Evolutionary Theory and Anthropomorphism
January 19:
Topic: Classical Conditioning
Readings:
1. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations
in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F.
Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New
York: Appleton Century-Crofts.
2. Hollis, K. L. (1997). Contemporary Research on Pavlovian Conditioning: A “New”
Functional Analysis. American Psychologist, 52, 956-965.
Discussion: How Rescorla Wagner model is applied, and how is classical conditioning
relevant to real life?
January 26:
Topic: Operant Conditioning
Readings:
1. Breland, K. and Breland, M. (1961) The misbehavior of organisms. American
Psychologist, 16, 681-684.
2. Sutherland, A. (2006). What Shamu taught me about a happy marriage. New York
Times, June 25, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/fashion/25love.html
Discussion: How far does operant conditioning go – nature vs nurture.
February 2:
Topic: Numerical Competence
Readings:
1. Beran, M.J. & Beran, M.M. (2004). Chimpanzees remember the results of one-by-one
addition of food items to sets over extended time periods. Psychological Science, 15,
94-99.
2. Cantlon JF, Brannon EM (2007) Basic math in monkeys and college students. PLoS
Bioloy 5, 2912–2919.
Discussion: class presentation #1
February 9:
Topic: Spatial Navigation and Cognitive Maps
Readings:
1. Tolman, E. (1948). Cognitive maps in mice and men. Psychological Review, 55, 189208.
2. Spetch, M.L. & Kelly, D.M. (2006). Comparative spatial cognition: Processes in
landmark and surface-based place finding. In E. Wasserman and T. Zentall (Eds)
2
Comparative Cognition: Experimental Explorations of Animal Intelligence, Oxford
University Press, pp. 210-228.
Discussion: class presentation #2
February 16:
February 23:
NO CLASS - READING WEEK
Midterm
March 2:
Topic: Language and Communication
Readings:
1.Dornhaus A., Chittka L. (2004) Why do honey bees dance? Behavioral Ecology &
Sociobiology, 55, 395-401.
2. Kaminski J., Call J., & Fischer J. (2004). Word learning in a domestic dog: Evidence for
"fast mapping". Science, 304, 1682-3.
Discussion: class presentation #3
March 9:
First draft of assignment due.
Topic: Tool Use and Causal Understanding
Readings:
1. Visalberghi, E. & Tomasello, M. (1998). Primate causal understanding in the physical
and psychological domains. Behavioural Processes, 42, 189-203.
Discussion: class presentation #4
March 16:
Topic: Self-awareness & Metacognition
Readings:
1. Hampton, R. R. (2009). Multiple demonstrations of metacognition in nonhumans:
Converging evidence or multiple mechanisms? Comparative Cognition & Behaviour
Reviews, 4, 17-28.
2. Foote, A. L., & Crystal, J. D. (2007). Metacognition in the rat. Current Biology, 17, 551555.
Discussion: class presentation #5
March 23:
Topic: Prospect Theory
Readings:
1. Marsh, B., & Kacelnik, A. (2002). Framing effects and risky decisions in starlings.
Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 99, 3352-3355.
Discussion: class presentation #6
March 30:
Topic: Comparative Morality
Readings:
1. Brosnan, S. F. & de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425,
297-9.
2. Range, F., Horn, L., Viranyi, Zs., Huber, L. (in press) Absence of reward induced
aversion to inequity in dogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Discussion: class presentation #7
April 6:
April 13:
Final Exam
Final Assignment Due
3
Assignments and Grading
Participation:
10%
Presentation:
15%
Written Assignment: 30%
Midterm:
20 %
Final:
25%
(5% first draft, 25% final assignment)
Participation:
The last half of each class is set aside as “seminar-style” time for discussion and presentations. I expect
the classroom to be interactive, with lots of discussion and questions. Participation during the seminar
time will be graded by the instructor and the TA and will be based on preparedness and the quality of
the ideas discussed.
Presentation:
Once during the semester, you will be expected to present the target reading(s) as a group of 1-2
students. A good presentation will present background material beyond what was included in the target
article to situate the research in addition to a clear exposition of what was done, what was found, and
why this is important to our understanding of animal or human cognition. The goal of this presentation
is to foster class discussion for the seminar section of the class. A typical presentation could include a 15
minute presentation describing the target articles, finishing with some provocative questions to engage
class discussion; however, how you manage the time is up to you. You may decide to present the
article(s) in ‘pieces’ with a discussion of each section.
Written Assignment:
The written assignment must be typewritten and double spaced, with 1 inch margins and font size of 12
or higher. It must include a title page and a reference page and each page must be numbered. Your
paper must follow APA formatting. Use of APA formatting for citations is particularly critical.
For this assignment you must find five empirical articles on comparative cognition research on one of
the topics included in this class. Although studies on humans may be included, the focus of your paper
should be on a topic that is central to comparative cognition and at least 3 of the articles must be on
non-humans. In addition, the articles must come from an approved peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Using these articles, you should generate a question that can be addressed in future research and design
an experiment to address this question. In your paper, very briefly summarize the past work as it
pertains to the question you will address, outline your question and the rationale for your experiment,
and then describe the general methods you will use to address the question. End your paper with a
brief discussion of the results you expect to obtain, how they will address the question, and how they
will add to the literature. The limit for this assignment is 8 double-spaced pages of text (excluding the
title page and references).
You must hand in an initial draft of your paper (5%) prior to the completed paper. Handing in a first
draft of the paper will allow us to provide feedback before your final grade. The first draft must include
(at least):
- Your opening paragraph describing the topic you have chosen, and why that topic is important
- Reference for at least 3 of the article you intend to use
- The specific research question you will be addressing
4
Since the draft is designed to help you by providing feedback, it can be as detailed as you see fit. The
more you hand in, the more feedback you will receive. Point form is okay for the draft (except for the
opening paragraph). The final draft may not be in point form.
Ten percentage points will be deducted for each day or part day the paper is late (first and final draft).
Exams:
Both the mid-term and final will be a mixture of multiple choice, short answers/fill-in-the-blank,
and a couple of longer, essay-like questions. The final exam will be cumulative, but emphasize
materials from the latter half of the course. See Calendar §23.5.6 for information on missed exams. For
excused absences, the weight of the missed midterm will be transferred to the final exam. Please note that a
doctor’s note is not required for medical absences, but is preferred.
Deferral of the midterm is a priviledge and not a right; there is no guarantee that a deferral will be granted.
Misrepresentation of Facts to gain a deferral is a serious breach of the Code of Student Behaviour.
A student who cannot write the final examination due to incapacitating illness, severe domestic
affliction or other compelling reasons can apply for a deferred final examination. Such an application
must be made to the student’s Faculty office within 48 hours of the missed examination and must be
supported by a Statutory Declaration (in lieu of a medical statement form) or other appropriate
documentation (Calendar section 23.5.6). Deferred examinations are a privilege and not a right; there is
no guarantee that a deferred examination will be granted. Misrepresentation of Facts to gain a deferred
examination is a serious breach of the Code of Student Behaviour.
Percent to Letter Grade Conversion Chart
A+
A
AB+
B
B95+
90-94 86-89 81-85 76-80 71-75
C+
67-70
C
64-66
C60-63
D+
55-59
D
50-54
F
<50
University Policies:
Policy about course outlines can be found in Section 23.4(2) of the University Calendar.
The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and honesty. Students
are expected to be familiar with these standards regarding academic honesty and to uphold the policies of
the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the provisions of
the Code of Student Behaviour (online at www.ualberta.ca/secretariat/appeals.htm) and avoid any
behaviour which could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of facts
and/or participation in an offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or
expulsion from the University.
5