Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMurray, Lindsay E.; orcid: 0000-0002-7810-9546; email: l.murray@chester.ac.uk
dc.contributor.authorAnderson, James R.
dc.contributor.authorGallup, Gordon G., Jr
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-29T15:00:50Z
dc.date.available2022-07-29T15:00:50Z
dc.date.issued2022-01-07
dc.date.submitted2021-08-03
dc.identifierhttps://chesterrep.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10034/627058/10071_2021_Article_1592_nlm.xml?sequence=2
dc.identifierhttps://chesterrep.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10034/627058/10071_2021_Article_1592.pdf?sequence=3
dc.identifier.citationAnimal Cognition, volume 25, issue 4, page 783-792
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10034/627058
dc.descriptionFrom Springer Nature via Jisc Publications Router
dc.descriptionHistory: received 2021-08-03, rev-recd 2021-11-17, accepted 2021-12-10, registration 2021-12-11, pub-electronic 2022-01-07, online 2022-01-07, pub-print 2022-08
dc.descriptionPublication status: Published
dc.description.abstractAbstract: Mirror self-recognition (MSR), widely regarded as an indicator of self-awareness, has not been demonstrated consistently in gorillas. We aimed to examine this issue by setting out a method to evaluate gorilla self-recognition studies that is objective, quantifiable, and easy to replicate. Using Suarez and Gallup’s (J Hum Evol 10:175–183, 1981) study as a reference point, we drew up a list of 15 methodological criteria and assigned scores to all published studies of gorilla MSR for both methodology and outcomes. Key features of studies finding both mark-directed and spontaneous self-directed responses included visually inaccessible marks, controls for tactile and olfactory cues, subjects who were at least 5 years old, and clearly distinguishing between responses in front of versus away from the mirror. Additional important criteria include videotaping the tests, having more than one subject, subjects with adequate social rearing, reporting post-marking observations with mirror absent, and giving mirror exposure in a social versus individual setting. Our prediction that MSR studies would obtain progressively higher scores as procedures and behavioural coding practices improved over time was supported for methods, but not for outcomes. These findings illustrate that methodological rigour does not guarantee stronger evidence of self-recognition in gorillas; methodological differences alone do not explain the inconsistent evidence for MSR in gorillas. By implication, it might be suggested that, in general, gorillas do not show compelling evidence of MSR. We advocate that future MSR studies incorporate the same criteria to optimize the quality of attempts to clarify the self-recognition abilities of gorillas as well as other species.
dc.languageen
dc.publisherSpringer Berlin Heidelberg
dc.rightsLicence for this article: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourcepissn: 1435-9448
dc.sourceeissn: 1435-9456
dc.subjectOriginal Paper
dc.subjectEvaluation
dc.subjectGorilla
dc.subjectMethod
dc.subjectMirror self-recognition
dc.subjectMSR
dc.subjectReplication
dc.titleMirror self-recognition in gorillas ( Gorilla gorilla gorilla ): a review and evaluation of mark test replications and variants
dc.typearticle
dc.date.updated2022-07-29T15:00:50Z
dc.date.accepted2021-12-10


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
10071_2021_Article_1592_nlm.xml
Size:
85.87Kb
Format:
XML
Thumbnail
Name:
10071_2021_Article_1592.pdf
Size:
672.3Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record