Práctica de valores morales

2.2 Bases teóricas

2.2.2 Práctica de valores morales

Similar to approach behaviour, I will describe the patterns of walking in the other’s

footsteps in the same manner for the entire dataset, for each of the three distinct phases, and then for the three controls. Footsteps was defined as “both subjects are in the same quadrant

and both are walking towards the same (any) quadrant, and one individual is walking towards the other and the other walking away from the first individual.”

1. Entire Competition dataset

While there was a strong pattern of each chimpanzee walking towards the other when they were in different quadrants (approach), I must also address whether the chimpanzees walked towards each other while in the same quadrant. It could be the case that when the two chimpanzees are in close proximity the dominant can better intimidate or exploit the

subordinate than when they are far apart; hence, when they are in the same quadrant together, the dominant may search on her own without closely following in the footsteps of the

subordinate, but when they are in different quadrants the dominant may make a greater effort to close the distance between her competitor. To address this question, I asked, “When both chimpanzees are in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, does the dominant walk towards the subordinate, and the subordinate walk away from the dominant?” The cross correlation shows that there is only a trend towards significance for either

FIGURE 5.23: Referent behaviour: chimpanzees are both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant. Target behaviour: dominant walking towards the subordinate and the subordinate walking away from the dominant. After the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the dominant did not walk towards the subordinate and the subordinate walk away from the dominant; this

relationship trends towards being less than expected from the within-trial shuffled control for a few seconds before and after time= 0 (peak at time= +2, r= -0.1924, n= 244; –log-

likelihood = 2.6905, ns), then trends towards being more than expected from the within-trial shuffled control (peak at time= +12, r= 0.0249, n= 101; –log-likelihood = 2.4140, ns). At either far end of the correlogram, the data becomes significantly different from the within- trial shuffled control, indicating that many seconds before the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the dominant was walking towards the subordinate and the subordinate away from the dominant (peak at time= -20, r= 0.1449, n= 94; –log-likelihood = 5.5432, p<0.05); and many seconds after the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the dominant did not walk towards the subordinate and the subordinate did not walk away from the dominant (peak at time= +20, r= -0.3600, n= 66; –log-likelihood = 5.7009, p<0.05).

FIGURE 5.24: Referent behaviour: chimpanzees are both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant. Target behaviour: subordinate walking towards the dominant and the dominant walking away from the subordinate. After the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the subordinate walked

towards the dominant and the dominant walked away from the subordinate; this relationship trends towards being more than expected from the within-trial shuffled control (peak at time= +9, r= 0.2483, n= 134; –log-likelihood = 2.2954, ns), then becomes significantly less than expected from the within-trial shuffled control (time= +18, -r= 0.0337, n= 76; –log-likelihood = 3.5399, p<0.05). Furthermore, before the chimpanzees were both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant, the subordinate walked towards the dominant and the dominant walked away from the subordinate significantly more than expected from the within-trial shuffled control (peak at time= -4, r= 0.2299, n= 237; –log-likelihood = 3.0262,

p<0.05).

2. Phase 1

Again, this behaviour is different between the three phases. This behaviour is less common than approaching and is not significant, overall or in any one phase. Despite this, it is useful to observe the pattern in the data: whether the correlation coefficients increase or decrease. During Phase 1 there are no data showing the dominant walking in the

subordinate’s footsteps (and therefore no figure), however the pattern in the data clearly shows that the subordinate did not walk in the dominant’s footsteps (Figure 5.25). During this phase, the subordinate walked directly to the bait and did not pay much attention to the dominant’s movements, and the dominant made no attempt to exploit the subordinate by

following her.

FIGURE 5.25: Referent behaviour: chimpanzees are both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant. Target behaviour: subordinate walking towards the dominant and the dominant walking away from the subordinate. After the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the subordinate did not walk towards the dominant and the dominant walk away from the subordinate; this relationship trends towards being less than expected from the within-trial shuffled control for a few seconds before and after time= 0 (peak at time= +2, r= -0.5628, n= 33; –log-likelihood = 1.6276, ns). Furthermore, before the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the subordinate walked towards the dominant and the dominant walked away from the subordinate; this relationship trends towards being more than expected from the within-trial shuffled control (peak at time= -5, r= 0.3855, n= 25; –log-likelihood = 2.5423, ns).

3. Phase 2

However, in Phase 2 the dominant had learned over successive trials that the

subordinate had found a valuable food reward, and the dominant began to follow her closely. Though it was not significant, the pattern in the correlogram clearly shows that the dominant followed in the footsteps of the subordinate (Figure 5.26).

FIGURE 5.26: Referent behaviour: chimpanzees are both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant. Target behaviour: dominant walking towards the subordinate and the subordinate walking away from the dominant. After the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the dominant walked towards the subordinate and the subordinate walked away from the dominant; this

relationship trends towards being more than expected from the within-trial shuffled control (peak at time= +10, r= 0.3105, n= 11; –log-likelihood = 1.7777, ns). Furthermore, before the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the

dominant did not walk towards the subordinate and the subordinate did not walk away from the dominant; this relationship trends towards being less than expected from the within-trial shuffled control (peak at time= =4, r= -0.3411, n= 41; –log-likelihood = 2.2669, ns).

In Phase 2 the subordinate maintained her behaviour, she did not follow in the

footsteps of the dominant (Figure 5.27).

FIGURE 5.27: Referent behaviour: chimpanzees are both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant. Target behaviour: subordinate walking towards the dominant and the dominant walking away from the subordinate. After the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, there is no significant

relationship of the subordinate walking towards the dominant and the dominant walking away from the subordinate, though the pattern of the data shows that the subordinate is not following in the dominant’s footsteps.

4. Phase 3

In Phase 3, several seconds after both chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking in the same direction together, the dominant’s footsteps behaviour trended towards significance (Figure 5.28).

FIGURE 5.28: Referent behaviour: chimpanzees are both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant. Target behaviour: dominant walking towards the subordinate and the subordinate walking away from the dominant. After the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the dominant did not walk towards the subordinate and the subordinate did not walk away from the dominant; this relationship trends towards being less than expected from the within-trial shuffled control for a few seconds after time= 0 (peak at time= +5, r= -0.2272, n= 142; –log-likelihood = 2.6529,

ns). Eight seconds later, the relationship trends towards being more than expected from the within-trial shuffled control (peak at time= +13, r= 0.0347, n= 87; –log-likelihood = 2.6741,

In contrast to the dominant, the subordinate’s footsteps behaviour became

significantly less than expected from the within-trial shuffled control: the subordinate did not follow the dominant (Figure 5.29).

FIGURE 5.29: Referent behaviour: chimpanzees are both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant. Target behaviour: subordinate walking towards the dominant and the dominant walking away from the subordinate. After the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the subordinate walked

towards the dominant and the dominant walked away from the subordinate; this relationship trends towards being more than expected from the within-trial shuffled control for a few seconds before and after time= 0 (peak at time= +5, r= 0.2962, n= 142; –log-likelihood = 2.6529, ns). Thirteen seconds after time= 0, the relationship becomes significantly less than expected from the within-trial shuffled control (peak at time= +18, r= -0.0279, n= 74; –log- likelihood = 4.0273, p<0.05).

By splitting the dataset into three phases based on changes in the subjects’ behaviour, the correlograms more accurately present footsteps behaviour: when the dominant was still naïve to the experimental condition in Phase 1, she did not follow in the dominant’s

footsteps, though as soon as she witnessed the subordinate pick up the banana from the hanging tire on trial 7 and became motivated to search, she followed in the subordinate’s

footsteps throughout Phase 2. By Phase 3, the subordinate stopped walking when the

dominant followed in her footsteps, so the pattern of the dominant’s movement also changed, and she used this movement type less.

5. No Knowledge controls

The exact opposite pattern is seen in the No Knowledge controls: the dominant did not follow in the footsteps of the subordinate (Figure 5.30), but the pattern in the correlogram of the subordinate indicates that she appeared to follow the dominant, though the relationship is not significant (Figure 5.31).

FIGURE 5.30: Referent behaviour: chimpanzees are both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant. Target behaviour: dominant walking towards the subordinate and the subordinate walking away from the dominant. After the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, dominant did not walk towards the subordinate and the subordinate did not walk away from the dominant, though this relationship is not significant. Furthermore, before the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the dominant walked towards the subordinate and the subordinate walked away from the dominant significantly more than expected from the within-trial shuffled control (peak at time= -5, r= 0.4251, n= 53; –log- likelihood = 3.0528, p<0.05).

FIGURE 5.31: Referent behaviour: chimpanzees are both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant. Target behaviour: subordinate walking towards the dominant and the dominant walking away from the subordinate. After the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the subordinate walked

6. Full Knowledge controls

Furthermore, in the Full Knowledge controls, because the dominant ran out so quickly into the enclosure in search of food there are no data showing footsteps behaviour (and therefore no figure). On the other hand, the subordinate did follow the dominant for the brief period that they were together in the same quadrant (Figure 5.32).

FIGURE 5.32: Referent behaviour: chimpanzees are both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant. Target behaviour: subordinate walking towards the dominant and the dominant walking away from the subordinate. After the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the subordinate walked

7. No Bait, No Knowledge controls

In the No Bait, No Knowledge controls, the dominant did not follow in the footsteps

of the subordinate (Figure 5.33), and the subordinate appeared to follow the dominant, though this relationship is not significant (Figure 5.34).

FIGURE 5.33: Referent behaviour: chimpanzees are both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant. Target behaviour: dominant walking towards the subordinate and the subordinate walking away from the dominant. After the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, there was no relationship of the dominant walking towards the subordinate and the subordinate walking away from the dominant.

FIGURE 5.34: Referent behaviour: chimpanzees are both in the same quadrant and both walking towards the same quadrant. Target behaviour: subordinate walking towards the dominant and the dominant walking away from the subordinate. After the chimpanzees were in the same quadrant and walking towards the same quadrant, the subordinate walked

8. Summary of Footsteps Behaviour

Where there were differences in knowledge between the two subjects, the dominant was more likely to follow the subordinate than the other way around. At the end of Phase 1, during which time the dominant had not paid much attention to the subordinate’s movement, the dominant seemed to realise that the subordinate had privileged information about hidden food, and then the during Phase 2 followed in her footsteps. This was an effective strategy to gain information from the subordinate about the food because the subordinate still walked directly to the food without delay, and the dominant was able to take the food on one occasion. However, during Phase 3, when the dominant followed in her footsteps, the subordinate changed her tactic by either delaying walking towards the food or walking in an indirect route, and so for Phase 3 overall, the dominant reduced following in the

subordinate’s footsteps as it was no longer an effective exploitative tactic. This pattern was reversed during the No Knowledge controls and the Full Knowledge controls: the dominant did not follow in the subordinate’s footsteps, but the subordinate did appear to follow the dominant as the dominant ran to pick up the reward. In the No Bait, No Knowledge controls,

the dominant did not follow the subordinate, and the subordinate did follow in the dominant’s footsteps.

In document Funcionamiento familiar y practica de valores morales en los estudiantes de la I E Buenos Aires, distrito de Panao, Pachitea, 2018 (página 48-57)