*equal contribution

2020

• Köster, M., Langeloh, M., Kliesch, C., Kanngiesser*, P., & Hoehl*, S.. (2020). Motor cortex activity during action observation predicts subsequent action imitation in human infants. NeuroImage, 116958. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116958
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  From early on, human infants acquire novel actions through observation and imitation. Yet, the neural mechanisms that underlie infants’ action learning are not well understood. Here, we combine the assessment of infants’ neural processes during the observation of novel actions on objects (i.e. transitive actions) and their subsequent imitation of those actions. Most importantly, we found that the 7 ‒ 10 Hz motor cortex activity increased during action observation and predicted action imitation in 20-month-olds (n = 36). 10-month-olds (n = 42), who did not yet reliably imitate others’ actions, showed a highly similar neural activity pattern during action observation. The presence or absence of communicative signals did neither affect infants’ neural processing nor their subsequent imitation behavior. These findings provide first evidence for neural processes in the motor cortex that allow infants to acquire transitive actions from others ‒ and pinpoint a key learning mechanism in the developing brain of human infants.

  @article{Koester.2020,
  abstract = {From early on, human infants acquire novel actions through observation and imitation. Yet, the neural mechanisms that underlie infants' action learning are not well understood. Here, we combine the assessment of infants' neural processes during the observation of novel actions on objects (i.e. transitive actions) and their subsequent imitation of those actions. Most importantly, we found that the 7 ‒ 10 Hz motor cortex activity increased during action observation and predicted action imitation in 20-month-olds (n = 36). 10-month-olds (n = 42), who did not yet reliably imitate others' actions, showed a highly similar neural activity pattern during action observation. The presence or absence of communicative signals did neither affect infants' neural processing nor their subsequent imitation behavior. These findings provide first evidence for neural processes in the motor cortex that allow infants to acquire transitive actions from others ‒ and pinpoint a key learning mechanism in the developing brain of human infants.},
  author = {K{\"o}ster, Moritz and Langeloh, Miriam and Kliesch, Christian and Kanngiesser*, Patricia and Hoehl*, Stefanie},
  year = {2020},
  title = {Motor Cortex Activity during Action Observation Predicts Subsequent Action Imitation in Human Infants},
  pages = {116958},
  issn = {1053-8119},
  journal = {{NeuroImage}},
  doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116958}
  }

• House, B. R., Kanngiesser, P., Barrett, C. H., Yilmaz, S., Smith, A. M., Sebastian-Enesco, C., Erut, A., & Silk, J. B.. (2020). Social norms and cultural diversity in the development of third-party punishment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 287(1925), 20192794. doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.2794
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Human cooperation is probably supported by our tendency to punish selfishness in others. Social norms play an important role in motivating third-party punishment (TPP), and also in explaining societal differences in prosocial behaviour. However, there has been little work directly linking social norms to the development of TPP across societies. In this study, we explored the impact of normative information on the development of TPP in 603 children aged 4-14, across six diverse societies. Children began to perform TPP during middle childhood, and the developmental trajectories of this behaviour were similar across societies. We also found that social norms began to influence the likelihood of performing TPP during middle childhood in some of these societies. Norms specifying the punishment of selfishness were generally more influential than norms specifying the punishment of prosocial behaviour. These findings support the view that TPP of selfishness is important in all societies, and its development is shaped by a shared psychology for responding to normative information. Yet, the results also highlight the important role that children’s prior knowledge of local norms may play in explaining societal variation in the development of both TPP and prosociality.

  @article{House.2020b,
  abstract = {Human cooperation is probably supported by our tendency to punish selfishness in others. Social norms play an important role in motivating third-party punishment (TPP), and also in explaining societal differences in prosocial behaviour. However, there has been little work directly linking social norms to the development of TPP across societies. In this study, we explored the impact of normative information on the development of TPP in 603 children aged 4-14, across six diverse societies. Children began to perform TPP during middle childhood, and the developmental trajectories of this behaviour were similar across societies. We also found that social norms began to influence the likelihood of performing TPP during middle childhood in some of these societies. Norms specifying the punishment of selfishness were generally more influential than norms specifying the punishment of prosocial behaviour. These findings support the view that TPP of selfishness is important in all societies, and its development is shaped by a shared psychology for responding to normative information. Yet, the results also highlight the important role that children's prior knowledge of local norms may play in explaining societal variation in the development of both TPP and prosociality.},
  author = {House, Bailey R. and Kanngiesser, Patricia and Barrett, H. Clark and Yilmaz, S{\"u}heyla and Smith, Andrew Marcus and Sebastian-Enesco, Carla and Erut, Alejandro and Silk, Joan B.},
  year = {2020},
  title = {Social norms and cultural diversity in the development of third-party punishment},
  pages = {20192794},
  volume = {287},
  number = {1925},
  journal = {{Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences}},
  doi = {10.1098/rspb.2019.2794}
  }

• House, B. R., Kanngiesser, P., Barrett, C. H., Broesch, T., Cebioglu, S., Crittenden, A. N., Erut, A., Lew-Levy, S., Sebastian-Enesco, C., Smith, A. M., Yilmaz, S., & Silk, J. B.. (2020). Universal norm psychology leads to societal diversity in prosocial behaviour and development. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(1), 36–44. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0734-z
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Recent studies have proposed that social norms play a key role in motivating human cooperation and in explaining the unique scale and cultural diversity of our prosociality. However, there have been few studies that directly link social norms to the form, development and variation in prosocial behaviour across societies. In a cross-cultural study of eight diverse societies, we provide evidence that (1) the prosocial behaviour of adults is predicted by what other members of their society judge to be the correct social norm, (2) the responsiveness of children to novel social norms develops similarly across societies and (3) societally variable prosocial behaviour develops concurrently with the responsiveness of children to norms in middle childhood. These data support the view that the development of prosocial behaviour is shaped by a psychology for responding to normative information, which itself develops universally across societies.

  @article{House.2020,
  abstract = {Recent studies have proposed that social norms play a key role in motivating human cooperation and in explaining the unique scale and cultural diversity of our prosociality. However, there have been few studies that directly link social norms to the form, development and variation in prosocial behaviour across societies. In a cross-cultural study of eight diverse societies, we provide evidence that (1) the prosocial behaviour of adults is predicted by what other members of their society judge to be the correct social norm, (2) the responsiveness of children to novel social norms develops similarly across societies and (3) societally variable prosocial behaviour develops concurrently with the responsiveness of children to norms in middle childhood. These data support the view that the development of prosocial behaviour is shaped by a psychology for responding to normative information, which itself develops universally across societies.},
  author = {House, Bailey R. and Kanngiesser, Patricia and Barrett, H. Clark and Broesch, Tanya and Cebioglu, Senay and Crittenden, Alyssa N. and Erut, Alejandro and Lew-Levy, Sheina and Sebastian-Enesco, Carla and Smith, Andrew Marcus and Yilmaz, S{\"u}heyla and Silk, Joan B.},
  year = {2020},
  title = {Universal norm psychology leads to societal diversity in prosocial behaviour and development},
  pages = {36--44},
  volume = {4},
  number = {1},
  journal = {{Nature Human Behaviour}},
  doi = {10.1038/s41562-019-0734-z}
  }

2019

• Weltzien, S., Marsh, L., Kanngiesser, P., Stuijfzand, B., & Hood, B.. (2019). Considering self or others across two cultural contexts: how children’s resource allocations are affected by self-construal manipulations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 184, 139–157. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2019.04.002
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Most humans share to some degree. Yet, from middle childhood, sharing behavior varies substantially across societies. Here, for the first time, we explored the effect of self-construal manipulation on sharing decisions in 7- and 8-year-old children from two distinct societies: urban India and urban United Kingdom. Children participated in one of three conditions that focused attention on independence, interdependence, or a control. Sharing was then assessed across three resource allocation games. A focus on independence resulted in reduced generosity in both societies. However, an intriguing societal difference emerged following a focus on interdependence, where only Indian children from traditional extended families displayed greater generosity in one of the resource allocation games. Thus, a focus on independence can move children from diverse societies toward selfishness with relative ease, but a focus on interdependence is very limited in its effectiveness to promote generosity.

  @article{Weltzien.2019,
  abstract = {Most humans share to some degree. Yet, from middle childhood, sharing behavior varies substantially across societies. Here, for the first time, we explored the effect of self-construal manipulation on sharing decisions in 7- and 8-year-old children from two distinct societies: urban India and urban United Kingdom. Children participated in one of three conditions that focused attention on independence, interdependence, or a control. Sharing was then assessed across three resource allocation games. A focus on independence resulted in reduced generosity in both societies. However, an intriguing societal difference emerged following a focus on interdependence, where only Indian children from traditional extended families displayed greater generosity in one of the resource allocation games. Thus, a focus on independence can move children from diverse societies toward selfishness with relative ease, but a focus on interdependence is very limited in its effectiveness to promote generosity.},
  author = {Weltzien, Sandra and Marsh, Lauren and Kanngiesser, Patricia and Stuijfzand, Bobby and Hood, Bruce},
  year = {2019},
  title = {Considering self or others across two cultural contexts: How children's resource allocations are affected by self-construal manipulations},
  pages = {139--157},
  volume = {184},
  journal = {{Journal of Experimental Child Psychology}},
  doi = {10.1016/j.jecp.2019.04.002}
  }

• Woike, J. K., & Kanngiesser, P.. (2019). Most people keep their word rather than their money. Open Mind, 3, 68–88. doi:10.1162/opmi_a_00027
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Promises are crucial for human cooperation because they allow people to enter into voluntary commitments about future behavior. Here we present a novel, fully incentivized paradigm to measure voluntary and costly promise-keeping in the absence of external sanctions. We found across three studies (N = 4,453) that the majority of participants (61%–98%) kept their promises to pay back a specified amount of a monetary endowment, and most justified their decisions by referring to obligations and norms. Varying promise elicitation methods (Study 1a) and manipulating stake sizes (Study 2a) had negligible effects. Simultaneously, when others estimated promise-keeping rates (using two different estimation methods), they systematically underestimated promise-keeping by up to 40% (Studies 1b and 2b). Additional robustness checks to reduce potential reputational concerns and possible demand effects revealed that the majority of people still kept their word (Study 3). Promises have a strong normative power and binding effect on behavior. Nevertheless, people appear to pessimistically underestimate the power of others’ promises. This behavior–estimation gap may prevent efficient coordination and cooperation.

  @article{Woike.2019,
  abstract = {Promises are crucial for human cooperation because they allow people to enter into voluntary commitments about future behavior. Here we present a novel, fully incentivized paradigm to measure voluntary and costly promise-keeping in the absence of external sanctions. We found across three studies (N = 4,453) that the majority of participants (61%–98%) kept their promises to pay back a specified amount of a monetary endowment, and most justified their decisions by referring to obligations and norms. Varying promise elicitation methods (Study 1a) and manipulating stake sizes (Study 2a) had negligible effects. Simultaneously, when others estimated promise-keeping rates (using two different estimation methods), they systematically underestimated promise-keeping by up to 40% (Studies 1b and 2b). Additional robustness checks to reduce potential reputational concerns and possible demand effects revealed that the majority of people still kept their word (Study 3). Promises have a strong normative power and binding effect on behavior. Nevertheless, people appear to pessimistically underestimate the power of others’ promises. This behavior–estimation gap may prevent efficient coordination and cooperation.},
  author = {Woike, Jan Kristian and Kanngiesser, Patricia},
  year = {2019},
  title = {Most people keep their word rather than their money},
  pages = {68--88},
  volume = {3},
  journal = {{Open Mind}},
  doi = {10.1162/opmi_a_00027}
  }

• Petrowski, M., Kanngiesser, P., & Friedman, O.. (2019). Two- and three-year-olds consider ownership when selecting and allocating resources. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 185, 214–223. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2019.04.011
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  In three experiments, we investigated whether 2- and 3-year-olds (N = 240) consider ownership when taking resources for themselves and allocating resources to another agent. When selecting resources for themselves, children generally avoided taking resources that belonged to another agent and instead favored their own resources (Experiments 1 and 2). However, they did not avoid taking the agent’s resources when the only other resources available were described as not belonging to the agent (Experiment 3). Children also selected fewer of the agent’s resources when taking for themselves than when giving to the agent (Experiments 2 and 3). In giving to the agent, children were more likely to select the agent’s resources than resources not belonging to the agent (Experiment 3). These findings show that ownership affects how 2- and 3-year-olds allocate resources. The findings also provide new evidence that 2-year-olds may respect others’ ownership rights, at least to a limited degree, although we also consider an alternative explanation for the findings.

  @article{Petrowski.2019,
  abstract = {In three experiments, we investigated whether 2- and 3-year-olds (N = 240) consider ownership when taking resources for themselves and allocating resources to another agent. When selecting resources for themselves, children generally avoided taking resources that belonged to another agent and instead favored their own resources (Experiments 1 and 2). However, they did not avoid taking the agent's resources when the only other resources available were described as not belonging to the agent (Experiment 3). Children also selected fewer of the agent's resources when taking for themselves than when giving to the agent (Experiments 2 and 3). In giving to the agent, children were more likely to select the agent's resources than resources not belonging to the agent (Experiment 3). These findings show that ownership affects how 2- and 3-year-olds allocate resources. The findings also provide new evidence that 2-year-olds may respect others' ownership rights, at least to a limited degree, although we also consider an alternative explanation for the findings.},
  author = {Petrowski, Madison and Kanngiesser, Patricia and Friedman, Ori},
  year = {2019},
  title = {Two- and three-year-olds consider ownership when selecting and allocating resources},
  pages = {214--223},
  volume = {185},
  journal = {{Journal of Experimental Child Psychology}},
  doi = {10.1016/j.jecp.2019.04.011}
  }

• Kanngiesser, P., Rossano, F., Zeidler, H., Haun, D., & Tomasello, M.. (2019). Children’s respect for ownership across diverse societies. Developmental Psychology, 55, 2286–2298. doi:10.1037/dev0000787
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Ownership is a cornerstone of many human societies and can be understood as a cooperative arrangement, where individuals refrain from taking each other’s property. Owners can thus trust others to respect their property even in their absence. We investigated this principle in 5- to 7-year-olds (N = 152) from 4 diverse societies. Children participated in a resource task with a peer-partner, where we established ownership by assigning children to one side or the other of an apparatus and by marking resources with colors to help children keep track of them. When retrieving resources in the partner’s presence, the majority of children took their own things and respected what belonged to their partner. A proportion of children in all societies also respected ownership in their partner’s absence, although the strength of respect varied considerably across societies. We discuss implications for the development of ownership concepts and possible explanations for societal differences.

  @article{Kanngiesser.2019b,
  abstract = {Ownership is a cornerstone of many human societies and can be understood as a cooperative arrangement, where individuals refrain from taking each other's property. Owners can thus trust others to respect their property even in their absence. We investigated this principle in 5- to 7-year-olds (N = 152) from 4 diverse societies. Children participated in a resource task with a peer-partner, where we established ownership by assigning children to one side or the other of an apparatus and by marking resources with colors to help children keep track of them. When retrieving resources in the partner's presence, the majority of children took their own things and respected what belonged to their partner. A proportion of children in all societies also respected ownership in their partner's absence, although the strength of respect varied considerably across societies. We discuss implications for the development of ownership concepts and possible explanations for societal differences.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Rossano, Federico and Zeidler, Henriette and Haun, Daniel and Tomasello, Michael},
  year = {2019},
  title = {Children's respect for ownership across diverse societies},
  pages = {2286--2298},
  volume = {55},
  journal = {{Developmental Psychology}},
  doi = {10.1037/dev0000787}
  }

• Kanngiesser, P., Rossano, F., Frickel, R., Tomm, A., & Tomasello, M.. (2019). Children, but not great apes, respect ownership. Developmental Science, e12842. doi:10.1111/desc.12842
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Access to and control of resources is a major source of costly conflicts. Animals, under some conditions, respect what others control and use (i.e. possession). Humans not only respect possession of resources, they also respect ownership. Ownership can be viewed as a cooperative arrangement, where individuals inhibit their tendency to take others’ property on the condition that those others will do the same. We investigated to what degree great apes follow this principle, as compared to human children. We conducted two experiments, in which dyads of individuals could access the same food resources. The main test of respect for ownership was whether individuals would refrain from taking their partner’s resources even when the partner could not immediately access and control them. Captive apes (N = 14 dyads) failed to respect their partner’s claim on food resources and frequently monopolized the resources when given the opportunity. Human children (N = 14 dyads), tested with a similar apparatus and procedure, respected their partner’s claim and made spontaneous verbal references to ownership. Such respect for the property of others highlights the uniquely cooperative nature of human ownership arrangements.

  @article{Kanngiesser.2019,
  abstract = {Access to and control of resources is a major source of costly conflicts. Animals, under some conditions, respect what others control and use (i.e. possession). Humans not only respect possession of resources, they also respect ownership. Ownership can be viewed as a cooperative arrangement, where individuals inhibit their tendency to take others’ property on the condition that those others will do the same. We investigated to what degree great apes follow this principle, as compared to human children. We conducted two experiments, in which dyads of individuals could access the same food resources. The main test of respect for ownership was whether individuals would refrain from taking their partner's resources even when the partner could not immediately access and control them. Captive apes (N = 14 dyads) failed to respect their partner's claim on food resources and frequently monopolized the resources when given the opportunity. Human children (N = 14 dyads), tested with a similar apparatus and procedure, respected their partner's claim and made spontaneous verbal references to ownership. Such respect for the property of others highlights the uniquely cooperative nature of human ownership arrangements.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Rossano, Federico and Frickel, Ramona and Tomm, Anne and Tomasello, Michael},
  year = {2019},
  title = {Children, but not great apes, respect ownership},
  volume = {e12842},
  journal = {{Developmental Science}},
  doi = {10.1111/desc.12842}
  }

• Isella*, M., Kanngiesser*, P., & Tomasello, M.. (2019). Children’s selective trust in promises. Child Development, 90, e868–e887. doi:10.1111/cdev.13105
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  There has been extensive research into the development of selective trust in testimony, but little is known about the development of selective trust in promises. The present research investigates children’s (N~=~264) selective trust in others’ promises to help. In Study 1, 6-year-olds selectively trusted speakers who had previously kept a promise. In Study 2, 5-year-olds displayed selective trust for speakers who had previously kept a prosocial promise (promise to help). In Study 3, 5-year-olds trusted a speaker, who kept a prosocial promise, over a helper. These data suggest that from the age of 5 children show selective trust in others’ promises using prosociality, promise keeping, or both to inform their judgments.

  @article{Isella.2019,
  abstract = {There has been extensive research into the development of selective trust in testimony, but little is known about the development of selective trust in promises. The present research investigates children's (N~=~264) selective trust in others' promises to help. In Study 1, 6-year-olds selectively trusted speakers who had previously kept a promise. In Study 2, 5-year-olds displayed selective trust for speakers who had previously kept a prosocial promise (promise to help). In Study 3, 5-year-olds trusted a speaker, who kept a prosocial promise, over a helper. These data suggest that from the age of 5 children show selective trust in others' promises using prosociality, promise keeping, or both to inform their judgments.},
  author = {Isella*, Margherita and Kanngiesser*, Patricia and Tomasello, Michael},
  year = {2019},
  title = {Children's Selective Trust in Promises},
  pages = {e868--e887},
  volume = {90},
  issn = {1467-8624},
  journal = {{Child Development}},
  doi = {10.1111/cdev.13105}
  }

2018

• Marsh, L. E., Kanngiesser, P., & Hood, B.. (2018). When and how does labour lead to love? the ontogeny and mechanisms of the ikea effect. Cognition, 170, 245–253. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.012
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  We elevate our constructions to a special status in our minds. This ‘IKEA’ effect leads us to believe that our creations are more valuable than items that are identical, but constructed by another. This series of studies utilises a developmental perspective to explore why this bias exists. Study 1 elucidates the ontogeny of the IKEA effect, demonstrating an emerging bias at age 5, corresponding with key developmental milestones in self-concept formation. Study 2 assesses the role of effort, revealing that the IKEA effect is not moderated by the amount of effort invested in the task in 5-to-6-year olds. Finally, Study 3 examines whether feelings of ownership moderate the IKEA effect, finding that ownership alone cannot explain why children value their creations more. Altogether, results from this study series are incompatible with existing theories of the IKEA bias. Instead, we propose a new framework to examine biases in decision making. Perhaps the IKEA effect reflects a link between our creations and our self-concept, emerging at age 5, leading us to value them more positively than others’ creations.

  @article{Marsh.2018,
  abstract = {We elevate our constructions to a special status in our minds. This 'IKEA' effect leads us to believe that our creations are more valuable than items that are identical, but constructed by another. This series of studies utilises a developmental perspective to explore why this bias exists. Study 1 elucidates the ontogeny of the IKEA effect, demonstrating an emerging bias at age 5, corresponding with key developmental milestones in self-concept formation. Study 2 assesses the role of effort, revealing that the IKEA effect is not moderated by the amount of effort invested in the task in 5-to-6-year olds. Finally, Study 3 examines whether feelings of ownership moderate the IKEA effect, finding that ownership alone cannot explain why children value their creations more. Altogether, results from this study series are incompatible with existing theories of the IKEA bias. Instead, we propose a new framework to examine biases in decision making. Perhaps the IKEA effect reflects a link between our creations and our self-concept, emerging at age 5, leading us to value them more positively than others' creations.},
  author = {Marsh, Lauren E. and Kanngiesser, Patricia and Hood, Bruce},
  year = {2018},
  title = {When and how does labour lead to love? The ontogeny and mechanisms of the IKEA effect},
  pages = {245--253},
  volume = {170},
  journal = {Cognition},
  doi = {10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.012}
  }

2017

• Kanngiesser, P., Köymen, B., & Tomasello, M.. (2017). Young children mostly keep, and expect others to keep, their promises. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 159, 140–158. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.02.004
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Promises are speech acts that create an obligation to do the promised action. In three studies, we investigated whether 3- and 5-year-olds (N=278) understand the normative implications of promising in prosocial interactions. In Study 1, children helped a partner who promised to share stickers. When the partner failed to uphold the promise, 3- and 5-year-olds protested and referred to promise norms. In Study 2, when children in this same age range were asked to promise to continue a cleaning task-and they agreed-they persisted longer on the task and mentioned their obligation more frequently than without such a promise. They also persisted longer after a promise than after a cleaning reminder (Study 3). In prosocial interactions, thus, young children feel a normative obligation to keep their promises and expect others to keep their promises as well.

  @article{Kanngiesser.2017,
  abstract = {Promises are speech acts that create an obligation to do the promised action. In three studies, we investigated whether 3- and 5-year-olds (N=278) understand the normative implications of promising in prosocial interactions. In Study 1, children helped a partner who promised to share stickers. When the partner failed to uphold the promise, 3- and 5-year-olds protested and referred to promise norms. In Study 2, when children in this same age range were asked to promise to continue a cleaning task-and they agreed-they persisted longer on the task and mentioned their obligation more frequently than without such a promise. They also persisted longer after a promise than after a cleaning reminder (Study 3). In prosocial interactions, thus, young children feel a normative obligation to keep their promises and expect others to keep their promises as well.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and K{\"o}ymen, Bahar and Tomasello, Michael},
  year = {2017},
  title = {Young children mostly keep, and expect others to keep, their promises},
  pages = {140--158},
  volume = {159},
  journal = {{Journal of Experimental Child Psychology}},
  doi = {10.1016/j.jecp.2017.02.004}
  }

2016

• Kanngiesser, P., & Woike, J. K.. (2016). Framing the debate on human-like framing effects in bonobos and chimpanzees: a comment on Krupenye et al. (2015). Biology Letters, 12, 20150718. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2015.0718
  [BibTeX]

  @article{Kanngiesser.2016b,
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Woike, Jan Kristian},
  year = {2016},
  title = {Framing the debate on human-like framing effects in bonobos and chimpanzees: a comment on {K}rupenye et al. (2015)},
  pages = {20150718},
  volume = {12},
  journal = {{Biology Letters}},
  doi = {10.1098/rsbl.2015.0718}
  }

• Kanngiesser, P., Schmidt, M. F. H., & Rossano, F.. (2016). Young children’s understanding of social norms and social institutions. In Kury, H., Redo, S., & Shea, E. (Eds.), In Women and children as victims and offenders: Background, prevention, reintegration. Vol. 1: Suggestions for succeeding generations .
  [BibTeX]

  @incollection{Kanngiesser.2016,
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Schmidt, Marco F. H. and Rossano, Federico},
  title = {Young children's understanding of social norms and social institutions},
  editor = {Kury, Helmut and Redo, S{\l}awomir and Shea, Evelyn},
  booktitle = {{Women and children as victims and offenders: Background, prevention, reintegration. Vol. 1: Suggestions for succeeding generations}},
  year = {2016}
  }

• Hood, B., Weltzien, S., Marsh, L., & Kanngiesser, P.. (2016). Picture yourself: self-focus and the endowment effect in preschool children. Cognition, 152, 70–77. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.019
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  When an object comes into possession, the owner will typically think that it is worth more than it did before they owned the item in a bias known as the endowment effect. This bias is particularly robust in Western societies with independent self-construals, but has not been observed in children below 5-6years of age. In three studies, we investigated whether endowment effect can be induced in younger children by focusing their attention on themselves. 120 children aged 3-4years evaluated toys before and after a task where they made pictures of themselves, a friend or a neutral farm scene. Over the three studies, children consistently evaluated their own possessions, relative to other identical toys, more positively following the self-priming manipulation. Together these studies support the notion that possessions can form part of an {\textquotedbl}extended self{\textquotedbl} from early on in development and that the endowment effect may be due to an attentional self-bias framing.

  @article{Hood.2016,
  abstract = {When an object comes into possession, the owner will typically think that it is worth more than it did before they owned the item in a bias known as the endowment effect. This bias is particularly robust in Western societies with independent self-construals, but has not been observed in children below 5-6years of age. In three studies, we investigated whether endowment effect can be induced in younger children by focusing their attention on themselves. 120 children aged 3-4years evaluated toys before and after a task where they made pictures of themselves, a friend or a neutral farm scene. Over the three studies, children consistently evaluated their own possessions, relative to other identical toys, more positively following the self-priming manipulation. Together these studies support the notion that possessions can form part of an {\textquotedbl}extended self{\textquotedbl} from early on in development and that the endowment effect may be due to an attentional self-bias framing.},
  author = {Hood, Bruce and Weltzien, Sandra and Marsh, Lauren and Kanngiesser, Patricia},
  year = {2016},
  title = {Picture yourself: Self-focus and the endowment effect in preschool children},
  pages = {70--77},
  volume = {152},
  journal = {Cognition},
  doi = {10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.019}
  }

2015

• Kanngiesser, P., Itakura, S., Zhou, Y., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hood, B.. (2015). The role of social eye-gaze in children’s and adults’ ownership attributions to robotic agents in three cultures. Interaction Studies, 16(1), 1–28. doi:10.1075/is.16.1.01kan
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Young children often treat robots as social agents after they have witnessed interactions that can be interpreted as social. We studied in three experiments whether four-year-olds from three cultures (China, Japan, UK) and adults from two cultures (Japan, UK) will attribute ownership of objects to a robot that engages in social gaze with a human. Participants watched videos of robot-human interactions, in which objects were possessed or new objects were created. Children and adults applied the same ownership rules to humans and robots – irrespective of whether the robot engaged in social gaze or not. However, there was cultural variation in the types of ownership rules used. In Experiment 3, we removed further social cues, finding that just showing a pair of self-propelled robot-arms elicited ownership attributions. The role of social gaze in social attributions to robots and cross-cultural differences in ownership understanding are discussed.

  @article{Kanngiesser.2015b,
  abstract = {Young children often treat robots as social agents after they have witnessed interactions that can be interpreted as social. We studied in three experiments whether four-year-olds from three cultures (China, Japan, UK) and adults from two cultures (Japan, UK) will attribute ownership of objects to a robot that engages in social gaze with a human. Participants watched videos of robot-human interactions, in which objects were possessed or new objects were created. Children and adults applied the same ownership rules to humans and robots – irrespective of whether the robot engaged in social gaze or not. However, there was cultural variation in the types of ownership rules used. In Experiment 3, we removed further social cues, finding that just showing a pair of self-propelled robot-arms elicited ownership attributions. The role of social gaze in social attributions to robots and cross-cultural differences in ownership understanding are discussed.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Itakura, Shoji and Zhou, Yue and Kanda, Takayuki and Ishiguro, Hiroshi and Hood, Bruce},
  year = {2015},
  title = {The role of social eye-gaze in children's and adults' ownership attributions to robotic agents in three cultures},
  pages = {1--28},
  volume = {16},
  number = {1},
  journal = {{Interaction Studies}},
  doi = {10.1075/is.16.1.01kan}
  }

• Kanngiesser, P., Rossano, F., & Tomasello, M.. (2015). Late emergence of the first possession heuristic: evidence from a small-scale culture. Child Development, 86(4), 1282–1289. doi:10.1111/cdev.12365
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Western preschool children often assign ownership based on first possession and some theorists have proposed that this judgment might be an early emerging, innate bias. Five- to 9-year-olds (n = 112) from a small-scale group in Kenya (Kikuyu) watched videotaped interactions of two women passing an object. The object’s starting position and the women’s gestures were varied. Use of the first possession heuristic increased with age, and 8- to 9-year-olds performed similarly to German 5-year-olds (n = 24). Starting position and gestures had no effect. A control study confirmed that 5-year-old Kikuyus (n = 20) understood the video material. The findings reveal that the first possession heuristic follows different developmental trajectories cross-culturally and stress the role of children’s sociocultural environment.

  @article{Kanngiesser.2015,
  abstract = {Western preschool children often assign ownership based on first possession and some theorists have proposed that this judgment might be an early emerging, innate bias. Five- to 9-year-olds (n = 112) from a small-scale group in Kenya (Kikuyu) watched videotaped interactions of two women passing an object. The object's starting position and the women's gestures were varied. Use of the first possession heuristic increased with age, and 8- to 9-year-olds performed similarly to German 5-year-olds (n = 24). Starting position and gestures had no effect. A control study confirmed that 5-year-old Kikuyus (n = 20) understood the video material. The findings reveal that the first possession heuristic follows different developmental trajectories cross-culturally and stress the role of children's sociocultural environment.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Rossano, Federico and Tomasello, Michael},
  year = {2015},
  title = {Late Emergence of the First Possession Heuristic: Evidence From a Small-Scale Culture},
  pages = {1282--1289},
  volume = {86},
  number = {4},
  issn = {1467-8624},
  journal = {{Child Development}},
  doi = {10.1111/cdev.12365}
  }

2014

• Kanngiesser, P., Itakura, S., & Hood, B. M.. (2014). The effect of labour on ownership decisions in two cultures: Developmental evidence from Japan and the United Kingdom. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 320–329. doi:10.1111/bjdp.12043
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Creative labour has an effect on children’s and adults’ ownership decisions in Western cultures. We investigated whether preschoolers and adults from an Eastern culture (Japan) would show a similar bias. In a first-party task (Experiment 1), in which participants created their own objects, Japanese preschoolers but not adults assigned ownership to creators. When participants watched videos of third-party conflicts between owners of materials and creators (Experiment 2), Japanese adults, but not preschoolers, transferred ownership to creators. In a British comparison group, both preschoolers and adults showed an effect of creative labour in the third-party task. A bias to attribute ownership on the basis of creative labour is thus not specific to Western culture.

  @article{Kanngiesser.2014c,
  abstract = {Creative labour has an effect on children's and adults' ownership decisions in Western cultures. We investigated whether preschoolers and adults from an Eastern culture (Japan) would show a similar bias. In a first-party task (Experiment 1), in which participants created their own objects, Japanese preschoolers but not adults assigned ownership to creators. When participants watched videos of third-party conflicts between owners of materials and creators (Experiment 2), Japanese adults, but not preschoolers, transferred ownership to creators. In a British comparison group, both preschoolers and adults showed an effect of creative labour in the third-party task. A bias to attribute ownership on the basis of creative labour is thus not specific to Western culture.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Itakura, Shoji and Hood, Bruce M.},
  year = {2014},
  title = {The effect of labour on ownership decisions in two cultures: {D}evelopmental evidence from {J}apan and the {U}nited {K}ingdom},
  pages = {320--329},
  volume = {32},
  number = {3},
  issn = {2044-835X},
  journal = {{British Journal of Developmental Psychology}},
  doi = {10.1111/bjdp.12043}
  }

• Kanngiesser, P., & Hood, B. M.. (2014). Young children’s understanding of ownership rights for newly made objects. Cognitive Development, 29, 30–40. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.09.003
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Young children often use simple rules of thumb to infer ownership of objects, but do they also understand ownership rights? We investigated whether 2- and 3-year-olds would react to violations of ownership rights in the context of newly made objects. In Experiment 1, children protested and made spontaneous reference to ownership when a puppet took away the child’s object, but protested little when a third party’s objects were at stake. Yet, 3-year-olds attributed ownership to the third party when asked ownership questions. Children’s ownership claims were due to the effort invested in making new things, as they rarely used ownership protest after having handled raw materials (Experiment 2). Two- and 3-year-olds thus showed an appreciation of ownership rights for their own newly made objects. While 3-year-olds understood third party ownership, they may have lacked the motivation to intervene in ownership rights violations involving a third party.

  @article{Kanngiesser.2014b,
  abstract = {Young children often use simple rules of thumb to infer ownership of objects, but do they also understand ownership rights? We investigated whether 2- and 3-year-olds would react to violations of ownership rights in the context of newly made objects. In Experiment 1, children protested and made spontaneous reference to ownership when a puppet took away the child's object, but protested little when a third party's objects were at stake. Yet, 3-year-olds attributed ownership to the third party when asked ownership questions. Children's ownership claims were due to the effort invested in making new things, as they rarely used ownership protest after having handled raw materials (Experiment 2). Two- and 3-year-olds thus showed an appreciation of ownership rights for their own newly made objects. While 3-year-olds understood third party ownership, they may have lacked the motivation to intervene in ownership rights violations involving a third party.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Hood, Bruce M.},
  year = {2014},
  title = {Young children's understanding of ownership rights for newly made objects},
  pages = {30--40},
  volume = {29},
  issn = {0885-2014},
  journal = {{Cognitive Development}},
  doi = {10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.09.003}
  }

• Kanngiesser, P., & Hood, B.. (2014). Not by labor alone: Considerations for value influence use of the labor rule in ownership transfers. Cognitive Science, 38(2), 353–366. doi:10.1111/cogs.12095
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  People often assign ownership to the person who has invested labor into making an object (labor rule). However, labor usually improves objects and increases their value, and it has not been investigated whether these considerations underlie people’s use of the labor rule. We presented participants with third‐party ownership conflicts between an owner of materials and an artist who used the materials for some artwork. Experiment 1 revealed that participants were more likely to transfer ownership to the artist for low‐value materials than for high‐value materials, and Experiment 2 showed that this effect was further moderated by the amount of effort the artist had invested. A third experiment confirmed that participants transferred ownership more often if the artist’s labor had increased the value of the materials than when it had added no value. These findings suggest that considerations for value underlie ownership transfers following the investment of labor.

  @article{Kanngiesser.2014,
  abstract = {People often assign ownership to the person who has invested labor into making an object (labor rule). However, labor usually improves objects and increases their value, and it has not been investigated whether these considerations underlie people's use of the labor rule. We presented participants with third‐party ownership conflicts between an owner of materials and an artist who used the materials for some artwork. Experiment 1 revealed that participants were more likely to transfer ownership to the artist for low‐value materials than for high‐value materials, and Experiment 2 showed that this effect was further moderated by the amount of effort the artist had invested. A third experiment confirmed that participants transferred ownership more often if the artist's labor had increased the value of the materials than when it had added no value. These findings suggest that considerations for value underlie ownership transfers following the investment of labor.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Hood, Bruce},
  year = {2014},
  title = {Not by labor alone: {C}onsiderations for value influence use of the labor rule in ownership transfers},
  pages = {353--366},
  volume = {38},
  number = {2},
  issn = {1551-6709},
  journal = {{Cognitive Science}},
  doi = {10.1111/cogs.12095}
  }

2012

• Kanngiesser, P., & Warneken, F.. (2012). Young children consider merit when sharing resources with others. PloS One, 7(8), e43979. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043979
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Merit is a key principle of fairness: rewards should be distributed according to how much someone contributed to a task. Previous research suggests that children have an early ability to take merit into account in third-party situations but that merit-based sharing in first-party contexts does not emerge until school-age. Here we provide evidence that three- and five-year-old children already use merit to share resources with others, even when sharing is costly for the child. In Study 1, a child and a puppet-partner collected coins that were later exchanged for rewards. We varied the work-contribution of both partners by manipulating how many coins each partner collected. Children kept fewer stickers in trials in which they had contributed less than in trials in which they had contributed more than the partner, showing that they took merit into account. Few children, however, gave away more than half of the stickers when the partner had worked more. Study 2 confirmed that children related their own work-contribution to their partner’s, rather than simply focusing on their own contribution. Taken together, these studies show that merit-based sharing is apparent in young children; however it remains constrained by a self-serving bias.

  @article{Kanngiesser.2012,
  abstract = {Merit is a key principle of fairness: rewards should be distributed according to how much someone contributed to a task. Previous research suggests that children have an early ability to take merit into account in third-party situations but that merit-based sharing in first-party contexts does not emerge until school-age. Here we provide evidence that three- and five-year-old children already use merit to share resources with others, even when sharing is costly for the child. In Study 1, a child and a puppet-partner collected coins that were later exchanged for rewards. We varied the work-contribution of both partners by manipulating how many coins each partner collected. Children kept fewer stickers in trials in which they had contributed less than in trials in which they had contributed more than the partner, showing that they took merit into account. Few children, however, gave away more than half of the stickers when the partner had worked more. Study 2 confirmed that children related their own work-contribution to their partner’s, rather than simply focusing on their own contribution. Taken together, these studies show that merit-based sharing is apparent in young children; however it remains constrained by a self-serving bias.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Warneken, Felix},
  year = {2012},
  title = {Young children consider merit when sharing resources with others},
  pages = {e43979},
  volume = {7},
  number = {8},
  issn = {1932-6203},
  journal = {{PloS One}},
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0043979}
  }

2011

• Kanngiesser, P., Sueur, C., Riedl, K., Grossmann, J., & Call, J.. (2011). Grooming network cohesion and the role of individuals in a captive chimpanzee group. American Journal of Primatology, 73(8), 758–767. doi:10.1002/ajp.20914
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Social network analysis offers new tools to study the social structure of primate groups. We used social network analysis to investigate the cohesiveness of a grooming network in a captive chimpanzee group (N = 17) and the role that individuals may play in it. Using data from a year-long observation, we constructed an unweighted social network of preferred grooming interactions by retaining only those dyads that groomed above the group mean. This choice of criterion was validated by the finding that the properties of the unweighted network correlated with the properties of a weighted network (i.e. a network representing the frequency of grooming interactions) constructed from the same data. To investigate group cohesion, we tested the resilience of the unweighted grooming network to the removal of central individuals (i.e. individuals with high betweenness centrality). The network fragmented more after the removal of individuals with high betweenness centrality than after the removal of random individuals. Central individuals played a pivotal role in maintaining the network’s cohesiveness, and we suggest that this may be a typical property of affiliative networks like grooming networks. We found that the grooming network correlated with kinship and age, and that individuals with higher social status occupied more central positions in the network. Overall, the grooming network showed a heterogeneous structure, yet did not exhibit scale-free properties similar to many other primate networks. We discuss our results in light of recent findings on animal social networks and chimpanzee grooming.

  @article{Kanngiesser.2011b,
  abstract = {Social network analysis offers new tools to study the social structure of primate groups. We used social network analysis to investigate the cohesiveness of a grooming network in a captive chimpanzee group (N = 17) and the role that individuals may play in it. Using data from a year-long observation, we constructed an unweighted social network of preferred grooming interactions by retaining only those dyads that groomed above the group mean. This choice of criterion was validated by the finding that the properties of the unweighted network correlated with the properties of a weighted network (i.e. a network representing the frequency of grooming interactions) constructed from the same data. To investigate group cohesion, we tested the resilience of the unweighted grooming network to the removal of central individuals (i.e. individuals with high betweenness centrality). The network fragmented more after the removal of individuals with high betweenness centrality than after the removal of random individuals. Central individuals played a pivotal role in maintaining the network's cohesiveness, and we suggest that this may be a typical property of affiliative networks like grooming networks. We found that the grooming network correlated with kinship and age, and that individuals with higher social status occupied more central positions in the network. Overall, the grooming network showed a heterogeneous structure, yet did not exhibit scale-free properties similar to many other primate networks. We discuss our results in light of recent findings on animal social networks and chimpanzee grooming.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Sueur, C{\'e}dric and Riedl, Katrin and Grossmann, Johannes and Call, Josep},
  year = {2011},
  title = {Grooming network cohesion and the role of individuals in a captive chimpanzee group},
  pages = {758--767},
  volume = {73},
  number = {8},
  issn = {1098-2345},
  journal = {{American Journal of Primatology}},
  doi = {10.1002/ajp.20914}
  }

• Kanngiesser, P., Santos, L. R., Hood, B. M., & Call, J.. (2011). The limits of endowment effects in great apes (pan paniscus, pan troglodytes, gorilla gorilla, pongo pygmaeus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 125(4), 436–445. doi:10.1037/a0024516
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  {The endowment effect describes the bias that people often value things that they possess more than things they do not possess. Thus, they are often reluctant to trade items in their possession for items of equivalent value. Some nonhuman primates appear to share this bias with humans, but it remains an open question whether they show endowment effects to the same extent as humans do. We investigated endowment effects in all four great ape species (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus) by varying whether apes were endowed with food items (Experiment 1

  @article{Kanngiesser.2011,
  abstract = {The endowment effect describes the bias that people often value things that they possess more than things they do not possess. Thus, they are often reluctant to trade items in their possession for items of equivalent value. Some nonhuman primates appear to share this bias with humans, but it remains an open question whether they show endowment effects to the same extent as humans do. We investigated endowment effects in all four great ape species (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus) by varying whether apes were endowed with food items (Experiment 1, N = 22) or tools that were instrumental in retrieving food (Experiment 2, N = 23). We first assessed apes' preferences for items of a pair and their willingness to trade items in their possession. We then endowed apes with one item of a pair and offered them to trade for the other item. Apes showed endowment effects for food, but not for tools. In Experiment 3, we endowed bonobos (N = 4) and orangutans (N = 5) with either one or 12 food items. Endowment effects did not differ between species and were not influenced by the number of endowed food items. Our findings suggest that endowment effects in great apes are restricted to immediate food gratification and remain unaffected by the quantity of food rewards. However, endowment effects do not seem to extend to other, nonconsumable possessions even when they are instrumental in retrieving food. In general, apes do not show endowment effects across a range of different commodities as humans typically do.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Santos, Laurie R. and Hood, Bruce M. and Call, Josep},
  year = {2011},
  title = {The limits of endowment effects in great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus)},
  pages = {436--445},
  volume = {125},
  number = {4},
  issn = {1939-2087},
  journal = {{Journal of Comparative Psychology}},
  doi = {10.1037/a0024516}
  }

2010

• Potì, P., Kanngiesser, P., Saporiti, M., Amiconi, A., Bläsing, B., & Call, J.. (2010). Searching in the middle–-capuchins’ (cebus apella) and bonobos’ (pan paniscus) behavior during a spatial search task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36(1), 92–109. doi:10.1037/a0015970
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  In this study we show that bonobos and capuchin monkeys can learn to search in the middle of a landmark configuration in a small-scale space. Five bonobos (Pan paniscus) and 2 capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) were tested in a series of experiments with the expansion test paradigm. The primates were trained to search in the middle of a 4- or 2-landmark configuration, and were then tested with the same configuration expanded. Neither species searched in the middle of the expanded 4-landmark configuration. When presented with a 2-landmark configuration and a constant or variable inter-landmark training distance, the subjects sometimes searched preferentially in the middle of the expanded configuration. We discuss 2 alternative explanations of the results: extracting a middle rule or averaging between different goal-landmark vectors. In any case, compared to adult humans, primates appear highly constrained in their abilities to search in the middle of a configuration of detached landmarks. We discuss some of the factors that may influence the primates’ behavior in this task.

  @article{Poti.2010,
  abstract = {In this study we show that bonobos and capuchin monkeys can learn to search in the middle of a landmark configuration in a small-scale space. Five bonobos (Pan paniscus) and 2 capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) were tested in a series of experiments with the expansion test paradigm. The primates were trained to search in the middle of a 4- or 2-landmark configuration, and were then tested with the same configuration expanded. Neither species searched in the middle of the expanded 4-landmark configuration. When presented with a 2-landmark configuration and a constant or variable inter-landmark training distance, the subjects sometimes searched preferentially in the middle of the expanded configuration. We discuss 2 alternative explanations of the results: extracting a middle rule or averaging between different goal-landmark vectors. In any case, compared to adult humans, primates appear highly constrained in their abilities to search in the middle of a configuration of detached landmarks. We discuss some of the factors that may influence the primates' behavior in this task.},
  author = {Pot{\`i}, Patrizia and Kanngiesser, Patricia and Saporiti, Martina and Amiconi, Alessandra and Bl{\"a}sing, Bettina and Call, Josep},
  year = {2010},
  title = {Searching in the middle---Capuchins' (Cebus apella) and bonobos' (Pan paniscus) behavior during a spatial search task},
  pages = {92--109},
  volume = {36},
  number = {1},
  issn = {1939-2184},
  journal = {{Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes}},
  doi = {10.1037/a0015970}
  }

• Kanngiesser, P., Gjersoe, N., & Hood, B. M.. (2010). The effect of creative labor on property-ownership transfer by preschool children and adults. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1236–1241. doi:10.1177/0956797610380701
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Recognizing property ownership is of critical importance in social interactions, but little is known about how and when this attribute emerges. We investigated whether preschool children and adults believe that ownership of one person’s property is transferred to a second person following the second person’s investment of creative labor in that property. In our study, an experimenter and a participant borrowed modeling-clay objects from each other to mold into new objects. Participants were more likely to transfer ownership to the second individual after he or she invested creative labor in the object than after any other manipulations (holding the object, making small changes to it). This effect was significantly stronger in preschool children than in adults. Duration of manipulation had no effect on property-ownership transfer. Changes in the object’s identity acted only as a secondary cue for children. We conclude that ownership is transferred after an investment of creative labor and that determining property ownership may be an intuitive process that emerges in early childhood.

  @article{Kanngiesser.2010b,
  abstract = {Recognizing property ownership is of critical importance in social interactions, but little is known about how and when this attribute emerges. We investigated whether preschool children and adults believe that ownership of one person's property is transferred to a second person following the second person's investment of creative labor in that property. In our study, an experimenter and a participant borrowed modeling-clay objects from each other to mold into new objects. Participants were more likely to transfer ownership to the second individual after he or she invested creative labor in the object than after any other manipulations (holding the object, making small changes to it). This effect was significantly stronger in preschool children than in adults. Duration of manipulation had no effect on property-ownership transfer. Changes in the object's identity acted only as a secondary cue for children. We conclude that ownership is transferred after an investment of creative labor and that determining property ownership may be an intuitive process that emerges in early childhood.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Gjersoe, Nathalia and Hood, Bruce M.},
  year = {2010},
  title = {The effect of creative labor on property-ownership transfer by preschool children and adults},
  pages = {1236--1241},
  volume = {21},
  number = {9},
  issn = {0956-7976},
  journal = {{Psychological Science}},
  doi = {10.1177/0956797610380701}
  }

• Kanngiesser, P., & Call, J.. (2010). Bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orang utans use feature and spatial cues in two spatial memory tasks. Animal Cognition, 13(3), 419–430. doi:10.1007/s10071-009-0291-3
  [BibTeX] [Abstract]
  

  Animals commonly use feature and spatial strategies when remembering places of interest such as food sources or hiding places. We conducted three experiments with great apes to investigate strategy preferences and factors that may shape them. In the first experiment, we trained 17 apes to remember 12 different food locations on the floor of their sleeping room. The 12 food locations were associated with one feature cue, so that feature and spatial cues were confounded. In a single test session, we brought the cues into conflict and found that apes, irrespective of species, showed a preference for a feature strategy. In the second experiment, we used a similar procedure and trained 25 apes to remember one food location on a platform in front of them. On average, apes preferred to use a feature strategy but some individuals relied on a spatial strategy. In the final experiment, we investigated whether training might influence strategy preferences. We tested 21 apes in the platform set-up and found that apes used both, feature and spatial strategies irrespective of training. We conclude that apes can use feature and spatial strategies to remember the location of hidden food items, but that task demands (e.g. different numbers of search locations) can influence strategy preferences. We found no evidence, however, for the role of training in shaping these preferences.

  @article{Kanngiesser.2010,
  abstract = {Animals commonly use feature and spatial strategies when remembering places of interest such as food sources or hiding places. We conducted three experiments with great apes to investigate strategy preferences and factors that may shape them. In the first experiment, we trained 17 apes to remember 12 different food locations on the floor of their sleeping room. The 12 food locations were associated with one feature cue, so that feature and spatial cues were confounded. In a single test session, we brought the cues into conflict and found that apes, irrespective of species, showed a preference for a feature strategy. In the second experiment, we used a similar procedure and trained 25 apes to remember one food location on a platform in front of them. On average, apes preferred to use a feature strategy but some individuals relied on a spatial strategy. In the final experiment, we investigated whether training might influence strategy preferences. We tested 21 apes in the platform set-up and found that apes used both, feature and spatial strategies irrespective of training. We conclude that apes can use feature and spatial strategies to remember the location of hidden food items, but that task demands (e.g. different numbers of search locations) can influence strategy preferences. We found no evidence, however, for the role of training in shaping these preferences.},
  author = {Kanngiesser, Patricia and Call, Josep},
  year = {2010},
  title = {Bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orang utans use feature and spatial cues in two spatial memory tasks},
  pages = {419--430},
  volume = {13},
  number = {3},
  issn = {1435-9448},
  journal = {{Animal Cognition}},
  doi = {10.1007/s10071-009-0291-3}
  }

Back to top.