Trauma in Sentient Beings [1 ed.] 1032510056, 9781032510057

Citation preview

TRAUMA IN SENTIENT BEINGS

This is a book about the bond between sentient beings. It explores the non-​ verbal space between two entities, and asks questions like: What is a healthy human being? Is it nature? Nurture? Nature via nurture? How are we born with personality traits, emotion, mood, language abilities, and intelligence? What do we know about attachment, family structure, and genetic inheritance? Dr Anna Scarnà and Robert Ingersoll use the life history of the chimpanzee, Nim Chimpsky and his family: parents Carolyn and Pan, companion Lilly, their daughter, Sheba, and an assortment of human carers, to explain the hallmarks of healthy human psychological development. What makes humans “human”, and chimpanzees, “chimpanzees”? Do chimpanzees have a personality, or should we consider them to have a “chimpanality?” Robert, close friend and carer of Nim, gives the facts about Nim’s upbringing and first-​degree relatives, and Anna reports with reference to theories of brain, personality, self, and language. Together they explain what can be drawn from psychological research and reanalyse the chimpanzee work from the 1960s and 1970s in order to honour and respect the memory of those animals. Antonina Anna Scarnà, BSc. Hons, DPhil, PGCTHE, PGCert, CPsychol, is a psychologist and neuroscientist with expertise in language, personality, and psychological disorders. Her work on the composition of the monolingual and bilingual lexicon explored the factors affecting object naming and reading. She conducted award-​ winning research into non-​ drug treatments for dopamine in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia at Oxford University, UK, where she runs courses in Brain and Behaviour, Personality, and Psychological Disorders. Together with Robert Ingersoll, Anna published Primatology, Ethics and Trauma, which evaluated the chimpanzee studies from the perspective of personality and trauma.

Robert Ingersoll, BSc, MS, is a tireless champion of captive chimpanzees. He entered the world of primates as an undergraduate student at the University of Oklahoma’s Institute for Primate Studies in the 1970s, where the research focus was on cognition, language, and inter-​species communication between chimpanzees and humans, using American Sign Language. He quickly came to see the chimpanzees as friends rather than as research subjects. After several productive years, funding was cut by the University, and the chimpanzee colony was sold to a medical research laboratory for invasive research. This led Robert to a crusade to free his chimpanzee friends that has lasted decades. Robert’s strong bond with Nim is explained in the 2011 award-​winning documentary, Project Nim.

TRAUMA IN SENTIENT BEINGS Nature, Nurture and Nim

Antonina Anna Scarnà and Robert Ingersoll

Cover image: Nim Chimpsky with Robert Ingersoll, photographed by Mike Scalon First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Antonina Anna Scarnà and Robert Ingersoll The right of Antonina Anna Scarnà and Robert Ingersoll to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 9781032510064 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032510057 (pbk) ISBN: 9781003400677 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/​9781003400677 Typeset in Times New Roman by Newgen Publishing UK

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements Introduction 1  Who Do You Think You Are? The Self in the Non-​Verbal Space  6 Do You Know Who You Are?  8 Who Do You Think You Are? Theories of Attachment  9 Who Do You Think You Are? Genes  13 Where Does Thinking Start?  14 Mind Models  17 Who Do You Think You Are? Personality  20 Who Do You Think You Are? Behaviours  21 The Role of Praise  27 Before Birth  33 Genetic Inheritance  35 Epigenetics  35 From Nurture Back to Nature  37 Towards a Unified Theory of Being: Time for a New Theory of Evolution  37 Using MEG to Measure Brain Activity Across Time  38 Adoption  43 Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)  43 Nature, Nurture, and Nim  45

viii 1 4

vi Contents

2  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self Personality and Individual Differences: No One Theory  50 Trait Theory and Factor Analysis  51 Reliability and Validity  52 Personality Trait Models and Questionnaire Construction  54 Do Chimpanzees Have These Personality Traits?  63 Interaction between Personality Traits and Learning  64 Measurement of Self in Personality  65 Male vs. Female, Sex vs. Gender  73 Alyse Moore  80 Lilly  81 Mary Jane  85 Rise to Power  87

49

3  We’re in Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity Can Animal Experiments Ever Be Ethical?  94 How Can Experiments on Animals Be More Ethical?  96 Babies and Trust  108 Finding Freedom  111 Why Have Chimpanzees Been Used?  115

91

4  Overfamiliar 118 We Are Family  120 Alex  131 Brought Up  136 Nim’s Family  137 Nim’s Parents (Or: Sheba’s Grandparents), Pan and Carolyn  138 Nim and Lilly’s Daughter: Sheba  140 Sheba’s Mother: Lilly  140 Sheba Later  141 The Academic Family  142 Familial Resilience  142 Genetics  145 5  Relationship Formation and Maintenance Defining Love  149 Proximity, Familiarity, and Similarity  149 Motivation  151 Evolutionary Theories of Partner Selection  152 Grooming  159

148

Contents  vii

Passion  161 Intimacy  162 Commitment  163 The Universal Validity of the Triangular Theory of Love  164 6  Inheritance of Knowledge and Connection with Dying Dying  166 Nim’s Death  166 Lilly’s Death  167 Alex’s Death  168

165

References Index

174 189

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Antonina Anna Scarnà Thank you to my friends for consistent kindness as this second book came together. I am fortunate to be a part of an extensive Italian family and am grateful for rediscovering my special roots when this book came together. I especially thank my children for the opportunity to extend those roots. I am grateful to those who talked to me about their special animals: Irene Pepperberg and the memory of her parrot colleague and friend, Alex; and Joyce Butler, Tom Martin, and Esteban Rivas. I am indebted to Alyse Moore for extensive and precious discussions about her chimpanzee daughter, Lilly. I would like to remember here all the babies she nurtured, who sadly perished in the tragic fire in the trailer, including the twins Zeb and Zeke, and Naomi. I also thank the special family of Carolyn and Pan: Ally, Onan, Lilly, and Sheba. We hope this book preserves the memory and spirit of those exceptional animals. Thank you to Bob’s wife, Belle Ball, for continued patience, support, and advice, and of course, to Bob. A remarkable colleague, and friend. Sometimes a single individual can change the way we view the world. Sometimes that individual is not a human. There is a special space in my heart for the chimpanzee whose starring role in a film caught my attention, and to whom this book is dedicated: Nim Chimpsky. Robert Ingersoll There are many people to thank for support and encouragement; most importantly Belle Ball, my wife. She believed in me before I believed in myself. Over the years, many long-​term friends have contributed in countless ways. When I was faced with what seemed like insurmountable obstacles, they were there to help me to continue my efforts on behalf of all the IPS chimpanzees.

newgenprepdf

Acknowledgements  ix

I thank Alyse Moore for long-​term friendship, encouragement, and for her personal contributions. Her experiences and knowledge were invaluable in capturing the facts of those days. Two people at IPS helped me with equipment and access to document those experiences: Dr William (Bill) Lemmon and Dwight Russell, a.k.a. Tiny. I would like to remember the work and courage of Dr James Mahoney, and for his friendship, which was life-​changing for me and for many of the IPS chimps. I thank my co-​author and friend, Dr Anna Scarnà, for her vision for this book, her perseverance, and for bringing this work to fruition. Finally, remembering Carolyn, Pan, Ally, Onan, Lilly, and Sheba, who are now part of the history of the chimpanzee language studies, and one special chimp who became known as my best friend of all the Oklahoma chimpanzees: Nim Chimpsky. I would like to honour and remember them all with the respect and dignity that they deserve.

FIGURE 0.1 Nim’s

Family Tree.

INTRODUCTION

Our first book, “Primatology, Ethics & Trauma”, presented facts about the trauma endured by the Oklahoma chimpanzees in the sign language studies. This book will consider how many of the attributes and behaviours in those chimpanzees were due to genetic and hardwired underpinnings, and how many were as a consequence of the nurturing that they received. Our first book lay open questions about identity, personality, rearing, and family. We will compare the chimpanzees reared and raised in captivity with those in their natural habitats in the wild, with application to human models of healthy development and also trauma. This book will concentrate on Nim Chimpsky and his family. Nim has received a lot of attention. Previous books such as Elizabeth Hess’s “Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human” (2008) which presented a detailed biography of his life and describes the individuals involved in that research, and Eugene Linden’s “Silent Partners” (1986) gave details of some of the behind-​the-​scenes facts. The film documentary of Nim’s life, “Project Nim” by James Marsh and Simon Chinn in 2011, in large part based on Hess’s book, is an excellent overview of Nim’s birth, upbringing, and rescue from the medical research laboratories at the Laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery in Primates (LEMSIP). However, these books and the film have left various questions unanswered over Nim. These are about Nim’s genetic heritage, his offspring, and how he died, as well as a broader picture about what those chimpanzee studies reveal about identity in humans. What makes humans “human”, and chimpanzees, “chimpanzees”? What are the hallmarks of a healthy human being? How much are we born with personality traits, emotional capacity, language abilities, and intelligence? What do we know about the roles within a family structure and inheritance? Do chimpanzees have DOI: 10.4324/9781003400677-1

2 Introduction

a personality, or should we consider them to have a “chimpanality?” Robert Ingersoll, close friend and carer of Nim, gives the facts about Nim’s nature and his upbringing with accuracy, relating to Nim’s first degree relatives, and I, Anna Scarnà, report these with reference to theories of personality, self, identity, trauma, and bereavement. Animals born in captivity are born into tragedy. Chimpanzees are hugely social animals who respond just as humans do, to being taken away from their kin and raised among strangers. Nim had been traumatised many times, having been bred for the purposes of research, removed from his mother at just a few days old, moved from home to home with a large number of different carers, forced to learn sign language, and then sold to the medical laboratory, LEMSIP, where he was tattooed with the number “37”. Despite these early and continuously adverse experiences, Nim was resilient and able to deal well with traumatic events. Here, we discuss the robustness of the personality of Nim and consider the genetic inheritance within his family. Nim also had an older brother, Ally, who had an equally tough upbringing, and another brother, Onan, who was less open in personality than Nim and his other brother, and who ended up in the same medical laboratory, both of whom were also bred for the purposes of research. Their mother, Carolyn, and father, Pan, were both born in the wild. This is the first full explanation of Nim’s family with consideration to the possible genetic underpinnings of Nim and his other relatives. Nim was later paired with companion Lilly, and together, they had a daughter Sheba, who has lived in zoos, homes, sanctuaries, and laboratories, and who has featured in TV shows for her intelligence. Sheba currently lives in a group in a sanctuary named Chimp Haven, in Louisiana, USA. Nim’s personality characteristics will be described with reference to current models and theories constructed from chimpanzee and human behaviours alike. Humans and chimpanzees are thought to share around 98% of their genes, so it is likely that many of the attributes which are measured in human models can also be applied to chimpanzees. This book will analyse the differences in behaviours between “home reared” chimpanzees, and those who were born in the wild and later captured. Both groups differ significantly from those born in the wild. Current research such as that of Hobaiter (Hobaiter & Byrne, 2011, 2014; Hobaiter, 2020) has focussed on results from non-​invasive, observational study of chimpanzees from field stations which have been set up with care and consideration in countries such as Uganda. This book answers the perennial questions of psychology: “Who are we?” and “Where did we come from?” We will relate these discussions back to issues around development, transgenerational trauma, ethics, posttraumatic growth, and self-​compassion. We ask, what did those studies of chimpanzee capture tell us about humanity? As Dr James Mahoney, the “Oskar Schindler” of the LEMSIP

Introduction  3

medical laboratory who rescued 109 chimpanzees, says, “We often have distorted impressions of the wild nature of primates because of the conditions under which we keep them in captivity”. Those studies were cited as psychological research on language, but this is a misrepresentation. Instead, we explain why language became a red herring in that work. That research was unlike any other academic work of any time. We would never be able or wish to experiment on primates in this way, and while there were many misdemeanours in the ethics of that research, we can look back at the methodology, and reconsider some of the findings from other perspectives. Finally, we consider the issue of what makes us human and different to other creatures. This helps us to consider how we came to be on this planet and how we perceive our rule on earth, and our notions of our own specialness related to consumer society. If it is intelligence, language, and consciousness that have given us our power, it is society that has provided the tools which we have used to exploit nature for our benefit. There is plenty of material on what it means to be human. This book will give consideration of what it means to be a good human. In the course of doing so, we will preserve the memories and identities of the chimpanzees in the original psychological studies with dignity, in order that their suffering did not occur in vain.

1 WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

When we wrote our first book, “Primatology, Ethics and Trauma” (Ingersoll & Scarnà, 2023) we uncovered some facts about the language studies that took place on chimpanzees in the 1960s and 1970s in the quest of psychological study. We revealed the facts about the trauma endured by both the chimpanzees and by their carers. Developing a pre-​linguistic bond with another sentient being is a bidirectional and unique relationship. A great deal of love, care, and emotional connecting is carried in the non-​verbal space. We wrote that book as a way of giving those chimpanzees a voice, and we ended in the hope that we had given those chimpanzees the last word. In the anticipation that that book would present a simple and parsimonious account of the story of Washoe and the other Oklahoma chimpanzees, we were not able to focus on exact details of what each of those case studies taught us. Specifically, there were question marks left over the being of Nim Chimpsky and his family. I (Anna) had come to the primatology work when I watched the film, “Project Nim”, in 2014. I used clips from it in my university lectures on language acquisition, having completed a PhD on the composition of the monolingual and bilingual lexicon (how we attach language tags to ideas) in the late 1990s. After that work, I undertook research on specific brain neurochemicals, on psychiatric patients in hospital wards, and then completed a qualification in psychodynamic therapy. All of these led me to consider the footage from Project Nim in a different way. Rather than considering those as studies of language acquisition, it became apparent that we could consider them cases of trauma. Do you know who you are? How did you arrive at this knowledge? How do we come to identify and understand ourselves? The name we are given at birth DOI: 10.4324/9781003400677-2

Who Do You Think You Are?  5

influences who we are, as do the things that we learn over a lifetime. Psychology presents theories and research about personality, self, traits, locus of control, individual differences, and motivation. We are now in the position where we can consider how these theories come together to explain the processes of the mind, and ultimately, what it means to be human. This chapter addresses the building blocks of learning, which include knowledge about self, abstract thinking, rationality, mathematics, and the ability to attach linguistic tags to concepts and learn language. Over time, we develop the ability to put together and apply these to learning mechanisms, and so the older we get, the more cognitively able we become, and the easier we find it to draw upon previous experiences. This chapter considers how much of what we know is there from the start (is innate), and how much develops over time. It will consider the roles of evolution and Darwin, whose work involved the observation of primates at London Zoo. There will also be explanation of the chimpanzees and procreation, with particular reference to Nim and his family. Nim Chimpsky was born into a lab in Oklahoma in November 1973. Nim’s mother, Carolyn, was born in the wild (“wild born”), also captive in Oklahoma, and showed an interesting pattern in her pregnancies. Nim was Carolyn’s seventh infant, when she was 18, and she was the ideal mother: experienced, warm, and bonding. We will consider the impact of being held captive on Carolyn’s ability to procreate and to nurture, and the character and qualities in Nim’s father, Pan, who was one of two of the first chimpanzees to be brought by Dr Bill Lemmon to Norman, Oklahoma. Pan was born in Ghana and brought to Oklahoma at one year old, where he was raised in Dr Lemmon’s home alongside his two children. Nim was bred “for purpose” at the Institute for Primate Studies. This heritage makes Nim a particular case. His parents had known life in the wild. Now that we know more about transgenerational factors in humans, we can apply those to this particular chimpanzee. How is it to know such a radically different upbringing than that of your parents? This chapter will explore Nim’s background and experience, and will also address questions regarding procreation and epigenetics. Epigenetics studies how the environment (“nurture”) interacts with genes (“nature”) to change how they are expressed. Epigenetic changes do not alter the sequence of a person’s genetic code, but they play an important role in psychological development. Researchers are now clearer about some of the mechanisms which affect the activity of genes. The study of Nim and his family is particularly interesting because it informs us of the role of enculturement in a non-​human species. The underlying message of this book is that sentient beings are defined by both nature AND nurture –​ in fact, nature via nurture. The evidence supporting this will be presented.

6  Who Do You Think You Are?

The Self in the Non-​Verbal Space

Who are you? What makes you, “you”? Much is carried in the non-​verbal, although you can also describe your name, your sex, your nationality, your family, your job, and your personality. Does language make you who you are, or does who you are inform your language? What is the role of memory in this? Amnesic patients like Clive Wearing in the United Kingdom demonstrate the separation between memory, intelligence, language, and music ability (Suddendorf, Addis, & Corballis, 2009). Clive lost his memory after a bout of the herpes encephalitis virus to his brain in 1985, but he is still alive and able to play the piano, having been a conductor and musical expert prior to his illness. Over time, Clive’s strong intellect has allowed him to adapt to his environment. His behaviours reflect his personality traits: he appears agreeable, fairly open to new experiences, reflective and on the introverted side, and perhaps somewhat neurotic. Trapped in a world of the here and now, Clive is verbal but has no way of anchoring himself in time. His memory is around 7 seconds in total; by the time the sentence has ended, he forgets how it started. However, as his wife, Deborah Wearing describes, “A sudden virus had caused holes in Clive’s brain; memories fell out. But nothing could touch what was in his heart” (Wearing, 2005). Despite not remembering a single thing that had happened to him, Clive remembered how to speak, and he remembered Deborah, that he had a strong attachment towards her, and that he loved her. This case is illuminating when we remember the chimpanzees from those psychology experiments and studies. If language, memory, emotional behaviour, and attachments, are separate, there we have reason to suppose that those animals were anchored in a pre-​linguistic space, having formed strong memories, emotions, bonds, and attachments, of their own. It does not matter whether those chimpanzees knew language or not. It is irrelevant whether they were taught signs for their expressions. The important and rich matter of interest is in their non-​linguistic attachment behaviours. A lot of behaviour and identity is carried in the pre-​and non-​linguistic bond with another sentient being. When you are ignored by someone whose attention means the most to you, brain scans show that the reaction is similar to physical pain (Kross, Berman, Mischel, Smith, & Wager, 2011). Rejection hurts, even when no words are used. Kross et al. (2011) found that social rejection and physical pain share somatosensory representations. The network of brain regions supporting affective but not sensory components of physical pain underlie both experiences. Social rejection and physical pain are overlapped in brain areas and processes. These researchers demonstrated that when rejection was powerfully elicited in fMRI, the brain areas supporting the sensory components of physical pain were activated. These included the secondary somatosensory cortex and the dorsal posterior insula. They asked individuals who had recently experienced

Who Do You Think You Are?  7

an unwanted break-​up to view a photograph of their ex-​partner as they thought about being rejected. The researchers then compared these activated locations to a database of over 500 published studies and found that activation in those brain regions was highly diagnostic of physical pain, with a predictive value of up to 88%, thus demonstrating that rejection and physical pain insofar as both being distressing, and also in that they share a common somatosensory representation. It does not matter whether you have a name or a tag for that person or for that pain. This was one of the most important points that was missed in the language analyses of those aspects of those initial “language” studies. Furthermore, the pre-​linguistic bond with another sentient being traverses species, and is bidirectional. While recent studies have explored this in the topic of compassion fatigue, few have analysed the bidirectionality of the bond. In considering Robert’s and the other researcher–​carers’ relationships with Nim, and with the other Oklahoma chimpanzees, indeed, in considering each of the relationships that we have with our pets and with each other, it is necessary to consider the nature of that bond. Thinking back to those chimpanzees used in research, we can consider the nature of that bond, and what it meant for the trauma which ensued in both chimpanzees and human carers. In order to understand the nature and impact of those studies from this perspective, it is helpful to consider the origins of primate research, first. One of the first observers of primates was the famous English explorer and biologist, Charles Darwin. In 1838, Darwin visited London Zoo. It was around two years after his return from his voyages on the Beagle, and he was still cataloguing the fossils and specimens he had collected. It would be around 20 years before he would present ideas on the theory of evolution. Darwin was attempting to explain how living things had come to be the way they are. His first encounter was with a young female orangutan named Jenny, whom he described in a letter to his sister as kicking and crying and being “precisely like a naughty child” before the zookeeper presented her with an apple. Darwin explained how Jenny understood every word, and behaved like a child in stopping her whining, which was rewarded with the apple, about which she was so delighted that “she jumped into an arm chair and began eating it, with the most contented countenance imaginable”. Darwin took further notes on the orangutan at the same zoo for “The Origin of the Species” (1859), which became foundational to contemporary biological science. Darwin’s theory of evolution, while discussed from a perspective of survival, was more about the human need to be social and engaged; in the original book, he mentions “survival of the fittest” 5 times but “love” 95 times (Eisler, 2019), and explained that those who learned to collaborate most effectively survived. Darwin’s studies continued with observations of the primate-​human connection by Robert Mearns Yerkes in the United States in the early 1900s. Yerkes, a psychologist from Pennsylvania, studied animal behaviour and

8  Who Do You Think You Are?

comparative psychology at Harvard and joined the faculty in 1902, after receiving his doctorate. Yerkes first observed chimpanzees in Cuba in a colony just outside Havana run by a Cuban woman named Madame Rosalia Abreu, whose enthusiasm for chimpanzees meant that she allowed them to take over her family’s summer estate. In 1915, the first chimpanzee born into captivity was born. Yerkes realised that chimpanzees and humans are close enough that chimpanzees could be used as models of human behaviour in research. Chimpanzees were considered blank slates without language, emotion, or culture. When Yerkes returned from his trip, he bought two chimpanzees, Chim and Panzee, from a zoo, and raised them for the purposes of research. Yerkes became President of the American Psychological Society in 1917, encouraging the society to implement intelligence tests for First World War army recruits, and leading to the development of the famous Yerkes-​Dodson law. This law matches levels of arousal in the environment to performance. Taboo times followed into the 1920s, when Yerkes promoted the eugenic movement which spread ideas of scientific racism, fortunately rejected by modern scientific consensus. Yerkes established the Anthropoid Experiment Station for primate research in Orange Park, Florida, where the weather was milder for his chimpanzees. This was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, who were the main funders of the eugenic movement in universities. The Station moved to Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia after Yerkes died in 1956, and it continues as the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, the oldest scientific institute dedicated to non-​human primate research. Yerkes’s ideas about using chimpanzees in research led to huge scientific advancement in human behaviour research. It could be said that Yerkes was a pioneer of primate studies; without his work there would have been no further primate research. All of this explains why chimpanzees were studied. This chapter will present an overview of why Nim came to be the main chimpanzee of this book. Do You Know Who You Are?

Alongside definitions and explanations of the building blocks like memory, language, and emotional processing, undergraduate psychology students are given lectures on personality, self, traits, locus of control, individual differences, and motivation. Over their degree courses, they learn to understand that what they are being taught within psychology, is the answer to “What does it mean to be human?” We get better at psychology as we grow older, because we spend the first years of our lives putting together the building blocks of learning and self-​identity. We then have to spend time applying those building blocks. These include abstract thinking, rationality, mathematics, and also the ability to put linguistic tags to concepts. We need time, as humans, to perfect this application and learning mechanism. The older we get, the more cognitively able we become,

Who Do You Think You Are?  9

as we can draw upon previous experiences. The average 18-​year-​old struggles with ideas around locus of control, synapses, cognitive bias, and being, simply because s/​he has not had time to “be” yet. That comes with time. If memory, language, and emotion, are the processing mechanisms of what it means to be human, the brain structures are the building blocks. People ask how brain studies help us to understand the body. It is simple. If “your mind is what your brain does”, studying the brain should translate into studying the mind. However, so many students over the years have pointed out that it is more accurate to say that: “the mind is what the brain does and more”, meaning that: 1 The brain does more than activate the mind 2 The mind is sometimes governed by processes not involving the brain 3 The brain may work in conjunction with other organs, in the formation of what we humans term the “mind” What does the brain do that is more than activate the mind? The brain a complex organ made of approximately 86 billion neurons, responsible for integrating sensory information and directing motor responses. What processes –​other than brain –​ influence mind? The gut, lungs, heart, ovaries, and other organs. These sometimes work in parallel with the brain, and sometimes independently of it. Who Do You Think You Are? Theories of Attachment

Our past experiences, especially those relating to the parenting we received, influence our lives through attachment theory. This was first described by English psychologist John Bowlby in 1968. According to attachment theory, people form models of how relationships work early on in life. These models are called attachment styles. The type of attachment style formed depends upon how our parents took care of us, and the way in which they tended to our needs. The results are four main types of attachment: 1 2 3 4

Secure Insecure avoidant Insecure ambivalent Disorganised

Altogether, they may be described as follows. Secure attachments are formed when our nutritional, protective, physical contact, and reassurance needs are generally satisfied in infancy. When these needs are met, the person grows up with the assumption that other people are good and trustworthy. Thanks to this trust, the individual feels comfortable exploring his/​her surroundings and

10  Who Do You Think You Are?

environment, and feels worthy of being loved. The parent is loving and nurturing towards the child, without being suffocating. When the child does not show the requirement for any needs to be fulfilled, s/​he is left free to create and to express his or her own identity and autonomy, without having his/​her space invaded. Insecure avoidant attachments are formed when parents do not respond in a sufficient manner to the child’s needs. The child is mistrustful, and learns to soothe him/​herself alone. Other individuals are viewed negatively as a consequence. The child also sees him/​herself in an extremely positive light, as they consider themselves as the only person that they can rely on, and trust. Insecure ambivalent attachments comprise a style that is formed when needs are not always satisfied. Needs are only partially met; sometimes they are satisfied, and at other times they are not. The parent is seen as unreliable. Sometimes parental love is available, but often the parent is frustratingly unavailable and detached. This alternation leads the child to attempting ways in which to keep receiving love from the parent. S/​he feels guilty when this does not happen. Disorganised attachment is formed when the child grows up in a chaotic and traumatising background. The parent provokes feelings of fear and anxiety in the child. The child cannot understand the parent. The parent–​child bond occurs in an ineffective manner. These four attachment styles affect adult life. In love relationships, individuals with secure attachments tend to have the most stable and happy relationships. They know how to give and receive love, and they trust their partners. People with a disorganised attachment style have difficulty in creating lasting relationships and tend to recreate dysfunctional relationships, similar to the ones they knew in childhood. It is human nature to find the familiar attractive even if it is unhealthy, because familiarity is reassuring. There is comfort in what we know. Conversely, individuals with avoidant styles have difficulty in creating intimacy with other people, given that they have not experienced close emotional bonds with their parents. Frequently, they choose to live with another person as a couple, but in which each person lives apart. These individuals consider living together in a marriage as an excessive form of intimacy and connection which they find difficult to sustain since it is in direct conflict with their emotional independence. A person with an insecure ambivalent attachment style, to whom love was sometimes given and sometimes denied, instead tries to find love and intimacy in a rather desperate fashion. Given that the parent was sometimes present and sometimes absent, they find themselves excessively searching for and trying to keep a partner, for fear that the partner will abandon them. They feel extremely insecure and are not able to trust their partners, becoming excessively jealous and controlling. In friendships, individuals with a secure attachment style tend to be more friendly, and for them, making new friends is reasonably easy. Those with

Who Do You Think You Are?  11

avoidant styles tend to spend more time by themselves and do not bond much with friends or family. In the same way as they do for love relationships, they tend to avoid intimate relationships and friendships. Instead, they choose distance, keeping friendships superficial. Individuals with an ambivalent attachment style are very sensitive with regard to others’ points of view, because they have a fear of becoming abandoned. Consequently, they force themselves and challenge themselves to make others happy. Even if we had negative relationships with our parents, we constantly search for love partners who are similar to them. Adult love is a hardwired, adaptive attachment response. Individuals with an avoidant attachment style end up with partners who are absent, detached, and who show little attention to their needs. Those with an ambivalent style choose partners who are not committed to relationships, and are usually the ones putting in effort to keep the relationship going, in the same way as they did as children when they forced themselves to act in excessive ways in order to receive parental love. Since adult love is an attachment response, disorganised attachment styles result in toxic love relationships. If we have experienced these dysfunctional styles, are we doomed in our love relationships? Fortunately, more recent research has made these links between childhood attachment styles and relationship formation and maintenance. The theoretical basis for understanding adult love is adult attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Some types of psychotherapy can be adapted to take into account the link between attachment and relationships. Indeed, these findings have formed the basis of a psychotherapy named Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT; Johnson & Greenman, 2006). Sue Johnson developed the therapy for use in couples and in a range of psychological disorders, since it focuses on these universal key emotions and attachment needs. This type of therapy when applied to couples counselling uses a combination of experiential and systemic techniques to restructure adult attachment. The therapy worked by expanding emotional responses and cycles of interaction. The theoretical basis for EFT as a treatment in therapy is both experiential and systemic (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981; Rogers, 1951), which means that as happens in other humanistic therapies, the therapist collaborates with clients in the ongoing process of identifying problems and considering why they have occurred. The therapist helps with reprocessing and reconstructing each partner’s experience in order to generate new meaning so that their experience can then facilitate growth. As it is a systemic therapy, problems are seen as occurring as the end result of constricted or rigid ways of responding to context cues and interacting with others. Emotion is the “leading” or defining element that organises the pattern of interactions that constitute a relational system. The therapist’s empathic response is to the client as “the translator is to the text” (Elliot, Watson, Goldman, & Greenberg, 2004), so that the filtering of new

12  Who Do You Think You Are?

meanings can offer new choices and can also uncover implicit, automatic, emotional responses for review. A number of psychological disorders including depression, chronic illness, anxiety, and eating disorders, have been treated using this technique of EFT. As would be expected by a process which works upon universal mechanisms of self-​development and learning, EFT also translates well across different cultures and classes (Johnson & Greenman, 2006). During a therapy session, the therapist’s focus is on the processing of emotions and key interactional patterns as they occur in the present, because emotional experiences are the primary instruments of change. The therapist is the relationship consultant who offers a safe platform whereby each partner can filter and expand their experiences, and to then transform their responses in order to find new ways to connect with the other. There are three stages in EFT: de-​escalation, restructuring interactions, and consolidation. The efficacy of this therapy in couples counselling reflects the way in which identification of childhood attachment and resulting emotional conflicts can inform love relationships in adulthood (Johnson & Greenman, 2006). Identifying these varied forms of childhood attachment can also explain and inform parenting style. Parenting experiences direct the individual to align themselves towards the form of attachment which they experienced towards their parents. For this, we talk about cross-​generational transmission of attachment. If you had a distant attachment, you will not know how to grow close to your child, and you will be a distant parent. You may end up teaching your child independence ahead of his/​her time, instructing them in ways which demonstrate that they cannot depend on others, and only on themselves. Those with ambivalent attachments tend to be intrusive and controlling in confrontation with their offspring, but on the other hand, are extremely disregarding. If one has mixed feelings about one’s parents, it can be hard to understand that the parent who does not offer a decent attachment to his/​her child does not do this out of malice, but because s/​he has not learned how to attach in a healthy way. Fortunately, there are ways to modify this, through therapy. Our world vision is also affected by attachment style. Through our parents, who are our first teachers and coaches, we learn how we deserve to be treated, and how we should expect to be treated by others. People with a secure attachment style feel worthy of love, see others as being generally kind-​hearted, and the world as a secure place for exploration. People with avoidant styles tend to doubt others and have a negative attitude towards relationships, and a positive self-​image. Those with ambivalent attachment style are convinced that they are themselves responsible for when things go wrong, tend to have low self-​esteem, and tend to look for constant reassurance. Therefore, the attachment style we internalise influences strongly the way in which we live. Having an insecure attachment style does not mean being destined to living a particular

Who Do You Think You Are?  13

life. Attachment is the fruit of learning, and with learning it may be modified. Every new type of learning influences the brain. It translates into new neural connections, and this also happens in adulthood. Learning a secure attachment style forms the neural connections which permit new pathways, leaving the old pathways unused. Learning a new attachment style can happen in two ways: by forming a bond with a partner with a secure attachment style, or by following a course of psychotherapy. To conclude, there are two important points about attachment. First, our attachment style is not just formed with our parents, but with whomever cares for us: aunts, uncles, grandparents, siblings, cousins, and more generally, our tutors. Second, we can develop different attachment styles with different people; for example, a secure style towards a father but an ambivalent attachment style towards a mother. One attachment style develops in preponderance compared with the other. It is interesting to know which attachment styles we have experienced, not in order to castigate those who care for us, but to better understand the nature of those bonds, to understand who we are, and how we behave. Now we know this about humans, we can consider that in the chimpanzee studies of the 1960s and 1970s, the human researcher–​carers would have brought their own attachment styles into their relationships with those chimpanzee beings. Their attachment styles would have affected their bonds with each chimpanzee, who, in turn, would have developed a unique attachment style through personal development. We are making the assumption that chimpanzees develop attachments in the same way as do humans. Given that these animals share such a high percentage of DNA with humans, it is hugely likely that the underlying mechanisms are similar, if not the same. Who Do You Think You Are? Genes

In genetics, a person’s genotype is their unique sequence of DNA. More specifically, it refers to the two alleles that a person has inherited for a particular gene. The phenotype is the detectable expression of this genotype –​ a person’s presentation. For example, you might have a mother and a father with large feet and be carrying the genotype for large foot size; but a famine means that your diet is restricted and your physical growth stunted, which leads to you demonstrating the phenotype for small feet. A polymorphism refers to the presence of two or more variant forms of a specific DNA sequence that can occur among different individuals or populations. The most common type involves variation at a single nucleotide, also called a SNP polymorphism. Other polymorphisms can be larger, involving larger stretches of DNA. In the simplest way, a polymorphism is a process where two or more possibilities of a trait are found on one gene.

14  Who Do You Think You Are?

Some examples of polymorphisms can be seen in the animal world. One example of polymorphism can be seen in jaguars. Jaguars have more than one trait in their skin colouring; they can have dark spots or light spots. This is because they have different morphs for their skin colour. As there is more than one possible variation in their gene, this is called the polymorphism. Another example can be seen in the difference in pigmentation in birds. Some birds have prominent colour morphs which make them stand out, due to variant alleles of pigmentation. Further inter-​morph differences can also exist because of the variants of these two alleles. There are also differences in feather structures. While inheritance is the passing down of genes from parents to offspring, polymorphism is the inheritance of different variants of the same gene. Epigenetics is the study of how behaviours and environment cause changes that affect the way in which genes work. Unlike genetic changes, epigenetic changes are reversible and do not change DNA sequence, but they can change how the body reads a DNA sequence. Where Does Thinking Start?

Do you remember how you learned to think? Can you be taught how to think? How much thinking is inbuilt and how much is taught over time? Does learning occur generally across functions, or does it occur on a more specific level with, say, social learning occurring separately to language learning? Although his work occurred over a century ago, developmental psychologists and neuroscientists still largely use the theories and ideas of developmental psychologist, Jean Piaget (Piaget, 1976) to inform experiments which measure development across human behaviour. The role of developmental psychologists has been to measure how children organise and develop their thought processes. Piaget’s work has been highly influential in both developmental psychology and also in education. His experimental research methods, techniques, and ideas are still used by contemporary developmental psychologists and child neuroscientists, even though his model was first introduced in 1926. Piaget considered that rather than thinking of children as passive beings, we should consider them little scientists: as learners who work their way through a set of discrete stages. According to Piaget, a child’s learning occurs through two mechanisms of the mind which help him/​her to organise knowledge. The two mechanisms are called assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation is where new information or a new experience is fitted into an already-​existing mode of information, which Piaget called schemas. For example, the first time a child tries solid food, it may be considered that there is already a schema in existence for sucking milk, perhaps through a teat on a bottle or from the breast or a beaker, and that now

Who Do You Think You Are?  15

the child has learned how to do that, s/​he takes those skills and adapts them to the new stimulus, which would be sucking some mushed-​up food from a spoon. This is the process of assimilating knowledge for new experiences to fit existing experience. The second mechanism is called accommodation. This is where the existing schemas are changed, or new ones are created in order to fit to new information. An example of this is a schema which might exist for the child for naming a dog, “doggy”. The child knows that something called “doggy” has four legs, is covered in fur, and has a tail. When the child then is learning about cats, or about guinea pigs or hamsters, s/​he might take this existing schema and fit the new information onto it. This is the process of accommodation. Piaget also talked about equilibration, which is a kind of balance –​ the internal urge to maintain knowledge in a kind of a balanced state. When we consider Piaget’s model, it is apparent that children are working their way through a set of discrete stages which occur in a fixed order, and that they have to fulfil learning for one stage before moving onto another. Despite the belief being the opposite in Piaget’s time, he demonstrated that children are actually rather active in their learning of knowledge. Piaget defined development in terms of stages, each a distinct process of development. The first, sensorimotor stage, starts at birth and goes on for about two years. The child begins to interact with his or her environment, and development progresses from reflex activity to better developed hand-​ eye coordination. There are primitive likes and dislikes, which emerged from learning. We now know that this learning would have occurred in utero. The second, “pre-​operational stage”, typically spans from 2 to 7 years, and involves learning that images and gestures are symbols for other things. The world is represented symbolically and is marked by language development and problem solving. Thought and language are both egocentric, which means that the child can only perceive the world from his or her point of view. The third, concrete operational stage, from 7 to 11 years, sees the development of logic, and improved mathematical deduction. Development proceeds from pre-​logical thought, to logical solutions, and then to concrete problems. There is the development of will, and the beginnings of autonomy. This leads to a better understanding of ego and the ability to start seeing things from others’ perspectives. The fourth, formal operations stage, from around 11 to 15 years, reflects development of local solving of all classes of problems. There is the emergence of idealistic feeling, and personality formation. There emerges a more rational understanding of identity and morality, producing a wider capacity for rationalising abstract and hypothetical events, greater deductive reasoning and the ability to make informed comparative judgements. Adaptation to the adult world begins.

16  Who Do You Think You Are?

Other psychologists disputed the existence of developmental stages. Vygotsky (Vygotsky, van der Veer, & Valsiner, 1994) and Bruner (1966) defined development as being a more continuous entity and other theories, such as behaviourism, are incompatible with Piaget’s theory because the concept of a schema cannot be directly measured or observed, given that schemas are part of an internal process. Vygotsky’s theory of learning emphasised social interaction. He introduced the notion of learning as a necessary and universal process in developing human psychological function. He stressed the role of social learning and believed it to come before cognitive development, bringing into consideration the role of the community as important in the child’s learning how to “make meaning”. As Vygotsky died young, at the age of 38 years, his theories were incomplete, but psychologists still give his writing consideration, since they explain child development in terms of social and cultural learning. The two main principles of Vygotsky’s work are the more knowledgeable other (MKO) and the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The MKO refers to someone who has a better understanding than the learner. This is not necessarily a teacher or parent. It could be a child’s peer or a sibling, or not even a person at all, such as a tutor through a computer program, or some sort of electronic guide. The key point is that the MKO has more knowledge about the material than the learner. The second principle, the ZPD, refers to the difference between what the child is capable of achieving independently, and what they can achieve with guidance from a skilled helper. One example is the child who cannot make a Lego figure by him/​herself, but who is able to become more skilled and able at constructing a figure with the help of a parent. This skill is then applied to future constructions and the child becomes capable by him/​herself. Vygotsky believed that sensitive guidance had to be given here in order for the child to develop the skills and to be able to use them independently later on. Interaction with other children is also seen as a method of developing skills. This might be exploited in the classroom, for example, by using skilled children with the ZPD as role models and as help for the less able ones. On the other hand, other psychologists had different ways of explaining cognitive development. Jerome Bruner, explained cognitive development in terms of a “constructivist theory”, and proposed three modes of representation (Bruner, 1966). These were enactive representation which involves encoding action-​based information and storing it in memory, like muscle memory remembering how to pick up a toy; iconic representation which involves storing information in the form of images, like a mental picture in the mind’s eye, such as when using a diagram to accompany verbal instructions, and symbolic representation, where information is stored as codes or symbols in the form of language.

Who Do You Think You Are?  17

Bruner’s theory suggests that when facing new material, it is useful to follow a track from enactive to symbolic representation, even in the case of adult learners. In a big contrast to Piaget and other stage theorists, Bruner suggested that even learners of a young age are capable of learning a considerable amount of material, as long as the instruction is organised in this manner. While a part of the social history now, these theories are still taught in Psychology courses, and are still of huge importance because they reflect a mode of learning which is not biological and they consider the important role of environment upon learning and also on identity. Mind Models

While these researchers explained development of learning in terms of these linear and staged organisations, modular theorists such as Chomsky and Fodor proposed that the mind develops in separate modules which are pre-​wired and inbuilt, with learning varying from module to module. Research in neuroscience agrees that brain and mind are distinct. Since brain and mind coexist and interact, to some extent this supports Descartes’ dualistic perspective, that the nature of the mind is different to that of the body, and that therefore it is possible for one to exist without the other. Fodor (1981) challenged dualism as an explanation for how the mind works, as it is not clear how two distinct substances could interact with each other. Fodor explained that materialism, which claims that mental states are a product of physical states, also struggles to explain the mechanism through which the mind-​brain link happens (Fodor, 1981). Instead, he proposed functionalism, a process by which mental states are defined by their causal relationships with other mental states and with the external environment. Unlike dualism and materialism, functionalism does not need any special substance for mental states. Fodor and Pylyshyn (1988) presented the “multiple realizability” argument, which explains that different physical states result in the same mental state across different organisms. They explained the incompatibility between the connectionist models and conventional theories of cognition (Fodor & Pylyshyn, 1988) since in connectionism, mental processes occur through distributed networks of interconnected units. Connectionist models became popular in the 1990s, as researchers extended neuroscientific knowledge of how brain networks communicate through neurons, synapses, and receptors through the developing brain scanning technology of the time, and applied it to computer science. Fodor explains that the main advantages offered by the connectionist approach, are that it can capture lower-​level cognitive elements but he suggests that functionalism is better suited to explaining higher thought processes. Functionalism is a sort of hybrid architecture of the mind. It is a representational theory where knowledge resides in the mind as structured representations filled

18  Who Do You Think You Are?

with semantic content. It combines connectionist networks with structured and symbolic representations. The representations interact through rule-​based processes to generate cognition. This approach preserves systematicity and semantic content, so cognition can be reduced to the rule-​based manipulation of symbols (Fodor, 2006). In functionalism, cognition is the result of the interactions among these structured mental representations. Fodor introduced the notion of an innate “language of thought” asserting that mental representations possess a syntactic structure akin to sentences in natural language. Fodor supported these claims by explaining that the systematicity of human thought (that is, the fact that understanding one concept facilitates the understanding of related concepts) depends on mental representations which have syntactic structures –​ in other words, who-​did-​what-​to-​whom (Fodor, 2006). We might ask if it helps to consider development of the mind as being classified in this manner, what the nature of these modules and representations is, and how many of each are in existence in any processing model. It is important to note here that these individuals who have asked these questions are not experimental psychologists or neuroscientists, but theorists. This makes a difference since those individuals making those claims are not doing so from a perspective of turning a hypothesis into a theory. Rather, these claims remained static and, in the main, unasserted (Chomsky, 1959). Other researchers, like Simon Baron-​ Cohen, have turned to psychological study to support the claim of a “social module”, citing as evidence a number of developmental disorders which appear to involve selective damage to one system. Baron-​Cohen is known for suggesting that impairment to the social module in the absence of other modules as explains the incidence of autism. Autism is a striking “disorder” or condition, because the main problems involve social insight, with autistic individuals showing problems with social language and in dealing with other humans. Baron-​Cohen (1990) referred to it as “mind blindness”, and suggested a damage to the social module in the absence of damage to other modules, so that mathematical or spatial skills are not impaired. The problem with thinking about development as a series of modules is that it remains unclear how many modules exist, and what they are. We have considered an object, a social and a language module. Is there also a module for music? One for mathematics? Where does mathematics end and music start? What happens at the crossroads where musical knowledge is required for rhythm? Do those modules overlap? If we consider the patient literature, we might also believe in a separate module for a number of different entities for storage of information, and in learning over time. One such module would be in the dealing with living and non-​living entities. Some patients after stroke or dementia show deficits in naming artefacts, like tables, chairs, houses, bricks, and books compared to naming body parts and animals, or vice versa, such as Funnell’s patient ELM

Who Do You Think You Are?  19

(Funnell, 2000) who has deficits in naming drawings of living things while still being able to name man-​made artefacts. Modular theory suggests the presence of cognitive modules representing different functions, and that each module has a different and separate generation, pace of progress, and degeneration. Modular theory is supported by clinical case studies demonstrating impairment in specific functions and not others. Bertolero (Bertolero, Yeo, & D’Esposito, 2015) used fMRI to identify different brain regions responsible for discrete cognitive function while not rejecting the presence of a connection between the modules’ networks to form what they call “macrolevel modules”. While modules describe cognitive processes, they do not explain the role of emotion and feeling. How does learning interact with consciousness? The neuroscientist, Damasio, explains how human experiences of pain and suffering often create extraordinary creativity, and can result in an obsessive energy for invention and for creating instruments to counter the negative feelings. Damasio describes us as “puppets of both pain and pleasure, occasionally made free by our creativity”. The sense of self is dependent upon this creativity, and feelings are an important aspect of the process, leading away from individuals who are in less developed stages of evolution. Damasio explains how feelings allow us to know that mind and body are connected, as a bridge between physical and mental phenomena. ”Self-​reference is not an optional feature of feeling but a defining, indispensable one …” Damasio explains that the question “I am conscious” means that the mind, at the simplest level and in that particular moment described as being “conscious”, is in possession of knowledge that spontaneously identifies the self as proprietor. Knowledge about the state of the body is recovered from memory about who the self is, who s/​he has been, who s/​he was, is, and may be, are all activated alongside a set of mental states’ sense of personal reference. In the consideration of each of the chimpanzees who were studied in language learning experiments, it is crucial to analyse the identity, history, and characteristics of each one. This needs to be done both in terms of where the chimpanzee came from. Were they taken from a forest environment (“wild-​caught”, like Washoe, Carolyn, and Pan)? Were they abandoned pets, like Maybelle? Had these been previously performing animals who had been abandoned, like Abigail? Or had they been chimpanzees who were bred for purpose, such as Nim? A few chimpanzees were born out of a natural, bonded relationship between two adults. One such chimpanzee is Sheba, and we will devote a section to her history and upbringing later in this book. The remainder of this chapter will consider the main psychological approaches and theories involved in helping us to understand ourselves: our personality characteristics, traits, and how experience forms both of those, as well as our learning.

20  Who Do You Think You Are?

Who Do You Think You Are? Personality

Personality is considered the combination of qualities that make an individual distinctive. It is not a random assembly of characteristics; instead, it is a structured collection of behavioural, cognitive, and emotional patterns which are influenced by biological underpinnings inherited from our parents, and by environmental factors, such as life experiences. These are correlated patterns which are relatively stable over time, but which can also change a little over a life span. As personality has these different foundations from behavioural, cognitive, brain, and emotional influences, psychologists study it from a range of approaches. Historically, personality trait theory has been seen as the main approach to the study of personality. Models of personality traits have been in existence for decades and rigorously tested using the scientific method, and the history and main models of trait theory are explained in more depth in Chapter 2. Personality traits are simply descriptions of personality, and are defined as habitual patterns of behaviour, thought, and emotion. Psychologists distinguish between states, which are short-​lived (transitory), and can change across time –​ and so characterise an entity in a moment, and traits, which are hardwired, permanent, and so do not change very much or at all, over time. Trait theorists give consideration to how we describe and group people. We classify on many dimensions, and this concern for classification occurs in most sciences, and also occurs in the field of personality. Traits are defined as “a generalized and focalized neuropsychic system (peculiar to the individual) with capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent and to initiate and guide consistent (equivalent) forms of adaptive and expressive behavior” (Allport, 1937). Traits are defined by McCrae and Costa (1990) as “… dimensions of individual differences in tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions”. Psychologists working on the trait approach seek to label, measure and classify people with the terms of everyday language. They are interested in the measurement of these traits, in considering how many are in existence, and in providing experimental proof for their existence. Behaviour is determined by stable, generalised qualities of a person that may be expressed in a number of contexts. These are generalised qualities of a person that may be expressed in a number of contexts. Trait approach examines the relationship between personality characteristics, thought and behaviour. The chief goal of trait psychology is to find a person’s position on the trait dimensions through comparison against others. The trait approach considers how many personality traits there are and what they are, and the extent to which they are heritable. Personality psychologists study the relative influence of situational influences against the personality

Who Do You Think You Are?  21

dispositions in real situations, and the personality dispositions change over time. Traits are subject to two key assumptions, both of which involve a consideration of time. First, is the issue of stability. This is the assumption that traits do not change over time and across different situations. The second assumption is that individual differences are based around the strength of traits, the amount of traits, and the number of traits. There are an almost unlimited number of potential traits that could be used to describe personality, and so a rigorous, objective, and scientific approach is of utmost importance in the psychological study of personality. In order to maintain this scientific rigour, the statistical technique of factor analysis is used. This is also discussed further in Chapter 2. Who Do You Think You Are? Behaviours

Behaviour is not just determined through personality traits, but also through the occurrence of reinforcers or punishers, and also through their strength. Reinforcement is the process through which responses are made more likely because of their positive consequences, and punishment is the process of determining a behaviour to be less likely to happen, as a result of penalising effects. The origins of behaviourism can be traced back to the philosophical idea of “associationism”. This is the idea that all concepts and other mental elements are associated together in the mind through experience, and was promoted by philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hume, and others. Certain psychologists used this idea of linking to explore how learning occurs. Behaviourists such as John Watson (Watson, 1924) explored whether the idea of “learning” could be used to explain “all” types of behaviour. His famous quote: Give me a dozen healthy infants, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I select –​ doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-​chief and, yes, even beggar-​man, thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. is often misquoted out of context (Watson, 1930). The last sentence from this statement is often omitted, which makes his position seem more radical. The “ancestors” line was explained later by: I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years. (Watson, 1913)

22  Who Do You Think You Are?

The statement was made in his defence for doing psychological science with a “starting point” for a science of behaviour, which was “the observable fact that organisms, man and animal alike, do adjust themselves to their environment by means of hereditary and habit equipments” (Watson, 1913) as a reaction against the eugenic movement of the time. Many of Watson’s beliefs and ideas stemmed from his position as a reactionary, and this last sentence in particular is provided within an argument against the eugenic movement. Behaviourism was also a reaction against psychoanalytic theories which were prevalent at the time, and Watson was adopted as a sort of father figure for behaviourism. He opposed structuralism and Freud’s psychoanalysis, and behaviourism grew out of a reaction to Wundt’s introspectionism which produced unobservable concepts such as mind and feeling. Watson did not hold a radical environmentalist position, as suggested in his earlier work, but made these statements in emphasis of the role of the environment and to promote the idea of adaptation to environment. Watson recognised the importance of nurture in the nature vs. nurture debate, which was being neglected, especially by researchers involved in eugenics. Watson’s advice was to treat children respectfully, but with relative emotional detachment, although this was not well received by other psychologists at the time, and was seen as radical. Watson believed that mental activity cannot be observed (Watson, 1924), and tried to define what language is, leading to definitions of what words are, by which he also explained memory. He believed that these are all manual devices used by humans, which lead to thinking and he supported his arguments with anecdotes about behaviours of mammals. Language, he argued, is “a manipulative habit”. Sounds originate in the throat which is a body instrument that we deploy every time we talk, and in order to hear our voice, making different sounds (Watson, 1924). According to Watson, when a baby first cries or utters “ma” or “da”, this is an instance of learning language. Watson and his wife conducted an experiment on an infant conditioned to say “da-​da” when he wanted his bottle. The experiment was a success for a short time, but the conditioning was then lost as the child got older. Watson explained that this was because the child was imitating Watson as a result of Watson imitating him, and so once the child had developed his vocabulary, there was no need to use this “word” since he was learning from and copying others. For Watson, language was imitative. Watson described the ideal of a “happy child”, who would only cry when in physical pain, would occupy him/​herself through problem-​solving abilities, and would not need to ask questions. As a science, behaviourism involved rigorous application of scientific method to operationally defined concepts. The belief was that measurement could occur with the outward expression of the self only; and so these outwardly expressed variables were the only ones worth exploring. Watson was highly influenced by Pavlov’s work on the conditioning of reflexes. Pavlov had demonstrated how complex behaviours could be reduced

Who Do You Think You Are?  23

to simple mechanisms involving an unconditioned stimulus, a reflex action, and a conditioning stimulus. A dog salivates when s/​he sees food, and Pavlov discovered the dog also salivated at other times, such as when s/​he saw or heard things associated with the food, like the laboratory assistant, or footsteps. Pavlov studied how these associations are formed, in great detail over the following years. He was interested in digestion and whether the process begins in the mouth, with salivary processes, or in the stomach. Other later demonstrations of the conditioning process revealed the power of conditioning. Menzies (1937) asked participants to put their hands into buckets of ice-​cold water each time they heard a buzzer sound. The cold temperature caused a physiological change in the participants’ bodies, which was constriction of the blood vessels. Eventually this constriction occurred in response to the buzzer alone, i.e., constriction became the conditioned reflex to the buzzer, the conditioning stimulus. Classical conditioning was considered a form of character building. It can be used to explain all learning that involves the reflexes, for example, in the case of heart rate and perspiration. As the reflexes are associated with arousal they are relevant to unusual or undesirable behaviours, as seen in phobias, addictions, and in sexual deviation. As a result, classical conditioning became a foundation of “behaviour therapy”, which involved re-​learning and re-​associating: gradual exposure, desensitisation, flooding. The psychiatrist, Joseph Wolpe (1958) developed systematic desensitisation as a form of successful therapy for treatment of phobias. It is used when phobia and anxiety disorders are maintained by classical conditioning, and shares similar elements to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and applied behaviour analysis. The latter is based on radical behaviourism and incorporates counterconditioning, including meditation (called “covert conditioning”) and breathing (“overt conditioning”). In cognitive psychology, cognitions and feelings occur before behaviours, so there is an initial form of cognitive restructuring. The goal of systematic desensitisation is for the individual to learn to overcome their fear in hierarchies. The process occurs in steps, in graded exposure, starting with an identification of the hierarchy of fears, where the fear stimuli are imagined. Patients describe what frightens them, and rank mental images in order of eliciting fear (e.g., toy snake –​real small snake –​real anaconda). The patient then learns coping techniques, such as relaxation (this becomes a pleasurable unconditioned stimulus), and uses these techniques to manage fear during a situation from the hierarchy, starting with the least fearful, relaxing completely, then proceeding to next level. The patient works through their hierarchy list, repeating the behaviours for each level of the hierarchy, starting from the least fear-​inducing situation. Flooding, as a form of cognitive restructuring, is an extreme form of desensitisation. The individual is forced to encounter the conditioned stimulus in an extreme situation; s/​he is then kept in this condition until the maladaptive association becomes extinct. One example

24  Who Do You Think You Are?

is a child who has a fear of balloons and who may be forced into a room full of balloons and not allowed out until s/​he has burst them all. Conditioning can also be used in aversion therapy. Here, one toxic stimulus-​ response association is replaced with another, but instead of countering a negative response. Aversion therapy can be used to counter positive responses to negative stimuli. For example, it can be possible to pair an emetic and the “smoking–​ pleasure” association to break addictions. Aversion therapy has been used with a range of behaviours, ranging from hamburger addiction to paedophilia. These theories are presented here to help us to understand how fears, anxieties, and distress are resolved in clinical samples, and how humans may put in place some of these skills implicitly so that they avoid developing these psychological disorders. In the field of abnormal psychology, the interesting research questions are not just “who gets these psychological illnesses?” or “how do they treat them?” but “who doesn’t get these psychological illnesses?” and what it is that individuals do implicitly, in order to avoid needing diagnosis. Herein lie a number of clues as to the coping strategies utilised by captured chimpanzees (and other animals), by those experimental/​laboratory chimpanzees, and by a number of chimpanzees who are currently in sanctuary. Much of coping is in behavioural strategies which are learned. In classical psychology, we know this because of the work of B.F. Skinner. Indeed, it was his theories that started some of the more famous chimpanzee experimental studies, since he was the PhD supervisor of Herb Terrace, who was the lead investigator on the early experiments performed on Nim. While Pavlov and these other behavioural psychologists studied the classical conditioning of reflexes, B.F. Skinner explored non-​reflexive or voluntary, willed behaviour. Skinner’s belief was that … “the human organism is a machine and, like any other machine, a human being behaves in lawful and predictable ways in response to the external forces that impinge on it” (Skinner, 1953). Skinner’s emphasis was to demonstrate psychology as a science of behaviour, not the mind. In doing so, he adapted a series of experiments using an apparatus which was subsequently knows as the Skinner box. This created an experimental environment within which to measure animal behaviours closely and accurately. The typical Skinnerian experiment involved a hungry rat that was placed into the Skinner box. Sooner or later, by chance, the rat would press a lever. At first, pressing the lever would have no effect. These were the baseline data. Later, a food dispenser would be turned on. If the rat presses the lever, the rat receives a food pellet. The result would be that the rate of lever pressing would increase significantly (lever pressing would become the conditioned response). For Skinner’s rats, the act of pressing the lever would become positively reinforced or encouraged through use of a reward, and the rat would be “operantly conditioned”. It was observed that even if food was not given every time, for example, every 20 presses, the behaviour continued. The conditioned response

Who Do You Think You Are?  25

persisted, even if it was only partially reinforced. Rats will continue to press the lever if there is a click of the mechanism, even when food is no longer given (Bugelski, 1938). The time lag between the response and the reinforcement is vital in this paradigm. The optimum period between response and reinforcement in this paradigm was about 500 milliseconds –​ almost immediately. Skinner argued that aside from the presence of rewards, the absence of these rewards was also vital in conditioning. For example, withdrawing an expected reward was taken to be a form of punishment. Skinner even suggested that electric shocks could be used to control children arguing that they were more controlled than other methods, although in his book Walden Two (Skinner, 1948) the emphasis was placed on the control of human behaviour through positive reinforcement, rather than punishment. It is important here to consider the roles of reinforcement, of classical conditioning, and of operant conditioning upon behaviour, before we proceed to explain its role in chimpanzees. First, with a view to reinforcement, it is important to consider that punishment is not the same as negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement strengthens the response by removing aversive stimulus, whereas punishment weakens the response by presenting the aversive stimulus. One example is turning off an alarm in early morning. In negative reinforcement, the actual cessation of the noxious, shrill, alarm is the reinforcement. In terms of punishment, we would consider the strength of the shrill sound as a punishment to the ears. In terms of the difference between classical and operant conditioning, in classical conditioning the unconditioned stimulus is always presented. A response is evoked by the unconditioned stimulus, and the being learns about the relationship between the conditioned stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus. In this type of conditioning, the animal behaviour is elicited. In operant conditioning, on the other hand, the reward depends on the proper reinforcer. One response is chosen among many alternatives, as the being learns that there is a relationship between the response and the reward. In this type of conditioning, animal behaviour seems voluntary. Some examples of operant conditioning in practice include giving a child a reward for doing homework. The promise leads to a heightened chance of the behaviour being performed and also removes the undesirable outcome which might be used to keep the behaviour ongoing, which might be a detention. As well as dichotomising between positive and negative reinforcers/​ reinforcements, we can also classify by classes of innate and learned reinforcers. Primary reinforcers like water, food, and oxygen, are unlearned –​ that is, we have an innate predisposition to finding them reinforcing. These are related to survival. In many experiments, just as with Skinner’s rat example, participants are deprived of food for several hours so that the food reward becomes valuable for its reinforcing properties. Conditioned reinforcers (also called secondary reinforcers), instead obtain value via their association with primary reinforcers.

26  Who Do You Think You Are?

One example in human functioning is money, which has been paired with so many primary reinforcers that it is a strong conditioned reinforcer and also a generalised one. The act of pressing a lever might have little relevance to the complex behaviours that can be learned but, through the act of shaping, Skinner taught pigeons to use their beaks to play ping pong and to participate in other activities involving reward –​even those involving a token economy, insofar as he taught the pigeon that it could swap coins of a certain colour in order to obtain food. Skinner introduced the concept of behaviour shaping, through selective positive reinforcement, designed to increase certain behaviours and to decrease others. This method is commonly used in schools. Children are taught that they can “earn” a particular currency, say a marble, through the presence of certain desirable behaviours and the absence of non-​desirable ones, to swap for a treat later on. Behaviourist theories aid teaching of desirable behaviours and learning about reward, and go some way in explaining personality, but they also demonstrate the role of memory in trauma and in healing. In behavioural therapy, the cognitions behind conditioning involve both classical conditioning and operant conditioning (Mowrer, 1947). The persistence of anxiety disorders such as phobias and panic attacks might be due to the patient having a fear of being hit by a car, and deciding that it is safer to stay indoors. Each day that the person stays indoors causes their behaviour to be reinforced: “Today I didn’t go out (conditioned response) and as a result I didn’t get hit by a car”. Positive reinforcement occurs as a result (“I stayed at home and I’m still alive”) and a lack of the feared event. Under traumatising conditions, movements and actions become unconsciously associated with danger. The individual develops associated body symptoms and the body learns a somatic narrative, with a secondary verbal story. Bessel van der Kolk (2021) explains how, “When people start reliving their trauma, the timekeeping part of the brain that tells you, that was then and this is now, tends to go offline”. The nervous system remembers the trauma, which leaves the individual feeling hypervigilant and dissociative, even years later. Spoken theories for trauma involve aspects of psychoanalysis and cognitive behavioural elements and work by helping the individuals to understand what feels overwhelming, and why, aiding them in finding effective ways of dealing with them. Somatic therapy can help the individual to reverse the ways of coping learned by the body and nervous system during trauma. Skinner’s work was underpinned by a genuine belief that through training and behaviour modification, using operant conditioning techniques, people could improve their lives and create a better society to live in. This was reflected in his novel, Walden Two (Skinner, 1948). However, a number of problems exist with the field of behaviourism. The most obvious is that this approach is mechanistic and ignores consciousness and the subjective experience. It is deterministic, in

Who Do You Think You Are?  27

that behaviour is determined simply by the environment. By its definition, it is reductionist, and complex human (and indeed, animal) behaviour is reduced to a simple stimulus-​response link. While its efficacy in therapy has been discussed above, behavioural therapies treat the symptoms of a disorder and do not seek to uncover the cause of problems as psychoanalysis might. To conclude, while this approach is useful in the consideration of learning and environmental influence on the development of personality and self, it is unrealistic to base our understanding of sentient beings on a model excluding the consideration of mental states. Other factors in the lives of beings: expectations, beliefs, thoughts, and attitudes are influential on personality. Psychological models require a mode to explain why different beings react in such different ways to the same stimulus. The Role of Praise

The expression of praise towards an individual is a way of communicating approval or admiration, and suggests a form of positive reinforcement and conditioning. Friedrich Nietzsche noted that “So long as men praise you, you can only be sure that you are not yet on your own true path but on someone else’s”. The psychological research on praise, in particular of praising adolescents, is double-​ edged. Contingent positive regard (praising achievements) can impact negatively as children become more cautious and worried about failing (Brummelman, Crocker, & Bushman, 2016). Failure becomes risky, and subjective. Instead, praising character strengths is beneficial. Strategic praise promotes a number of factors. First, resilience, for example, in coping with difficult situations and in bouncing back; and second, it promotes self-​compassion, which is about treating the self with kindness. Third, strategic praise can encourage confidence, resulting in self-​belief –​ in other words, having confidence in the self. In the discussion about whether individuals received praise as children/​adolescents, we can consider how this impacted upon feelings regarding the self and current achievements. We might consider as adults whether we praise our partners, whether we receive praise from our partners, and what happens if there is no partner. From whom do we expect praise? Whoever teaches us language bears a responsibility for ensuring that we develop narratives that lead to our flourishing. Individuals become sensitive to reward, and that reward does not necessarily have to be a concrete item or a clear object. It can take be verbal (praise) or even non-​verbal (a look, touch) in form. In the chimpanzees, character strengths could not be praised in the same way, but in similar ways. It is likely that there is the same fine line of conditional positive regard. We have to remember, however, that the Oklahoma chimpanzees were different to usual chimpanzees in the wild. These chimpanzees would have experienced humans to different extents. Nim would have had extensive experience observing human behaviour, for example, through experiences

28  Who Do You Think You Are?

with the children in the LaFarge family. The clips in Project Nim depict a fun, boisterous set of children. The premise of the study was that Nim would be treated as a human infant in every way, and the children were happy to be engaging and inclusive of Nim. The LaFarge family had moved to “a brownstone” with Stephanie and her three children, and her husband, Wer LaFarge, and his four children. A new husband, a new house, and a new family, “I brought Nim into that rather turbulent situation” (Stephanie LaFarge, Project Nim). There was no discussion about it, and nobody in the family was able to use sign language. Nim is shown being involved in the games. “I think I fell in love instantly” (Jenny Lee, Project Nim). Nim is wheeled in a child’s pushchair by one child, then he is shown climbing up onto the roof of a shed with several of the other children. The film explains how Nim did not like Wer, and how Wer did not like Nim. “Almost instantly, I saw how complicated this was going to be” (Stephanie LaFarge, Project Nim). We might consider that the dislike of Wer by Nim might have represented underlying dynamics behind having a new (step)father figure. Nim is depicted throwing books out of a bookcase and coming between Wer and Stephanie. Wer felt excluded, and Nim’s needs were incompatible with the role that Stephanie had as Wer’s wife. We could ask if chimpanzees in the wild have an equivalent. The chimpanzees possess a reinforcement system, but it is less complicated than a human one. Attaching language, as was done here –​ in this case, a series of signs –​ to these behaviours complicates them. Humans end up with a more complicated processing system in teenage years, through adolescence, and into adulthood. Language impacts learning, and since chimpanzees do not have verbal language but do have some communication system, as recent research demonstrates, it is possible that modelling plays a stronger role. In the captured, laboratory chimpanzees, the system was further complicated by their modelling themselves on human behaviours and also on other chimpanzees who were also stuck, captured, in cages, and showing maladaptive versions of reward processing and learning. The system for learning in sentient beings is likely to be a simple, yet sophisticated, set of processes for learning. In the early 1970s, most of the chimpanzees in captivity were wild-​caught, meaning that the young chimpanzee would have witnessed his/​her mother being killed, falling back and dying, before being torn away by captors. This changed by the 1980s and 1990s. It is likely that these wild-​caught chimpanzees had different types of modelling in place compared with “home reared” ones. Add to this the fact that sign language chimpanzees could be considered as ones who were “becoming bilingual”, and this complicates matters further. The chimpanzees who started life in the wild would have picked up some chimpanzee utterances, and those reared in homes from birth would have picked up human ones. In terms of attachment behaviours, those born into the wild would have

Who Do You Think You Are?  29

experienced (one assumes) secure attachments and bonding to their chimpanzee mothers, and would have also experienced the trauma of being taken away from those same mothers –​ and many chimpanzee offspring would have also witnessed the tragic murders of their mothers by the poachers. One further factor will have been where the chimpanzees were wild-​caught. Some chimpanzees were from East Africa, others from central Africa. Different groups of chimps will have been separated from different habitats. In humans, we know that the connection between the teenage brain and risk-​taking is particularly complicated. Adolescence is a key stage of development in humans. It is a time for social changes, hormonal changes, and brain changes. Adolescence is not specific to humans; all animals go through period of development between puberty and becoming sexually mature adults. Interestingly, it is possible to measure various key behaviours during adolescence particularly in rodents, who go through about 30 days of adolescence, where we see increases in behaviours that we typically associate with human adolescence. These include risk-​taking, impulsivity, and large changes in social behaviours. A study by Logue, Chein, Gould, Holliday, and Steinberg (2014) showed that adolescent mice drank more alcohol when they were with other adolescent mice, a behaviour that did not occur in adult mice. Recent research has seen significant changes in how we consider the teenage brain. Until about 20 years ago, the belief was that the human brain stops developing in childhood. However, we now know that this is incorrect, and that research using MRI brain scanning has shown that the human brain develops throughout childhood, and also continues to develop substantially through adolescence and only starts to stabilise in the mid-​20s (Casey, Getz, & Galvan, 2008). The period of maturation sees specific changes. Human brain imaging studies show structural and functional changes in the frontostriatal regions, reflecting increases in cognitive control and self-​regulation. Developmental changes during teenage years show a shift in prefrontal activation from diffuse to focal recruitment over time, as well as elevated subcortical region activity during adolescence. While neuroimaging studies like these cannot characterise developmental changes, the changes seen in volume and structure reflect development in brain projections during the maturation period. There is fine-​ tuning of the brain system with development. Puberty marks the beginnings of sexual maturation, and these are defined by biological markers. Cognitive development through adolescence is associated with progressively greater efficiency of cognitive control capacities. These are dependent upon maturation of the prefrontal cortex, leading to increased activity within focal prefrontal regions. Children have limbic and prefrontal systems which are still developing, whereas adults have fully mature systems. The limbic systems in the adolescent brain are functionally mature in comparison to their prefrontal systems, and there are non-​linear shifts in behaviour across

30  Who Do You Think You Are?

development. These are marked by frontal lobe structural maturation and differences in cognitive function which present in neuropsychological and cognitive measures. Why do many teenagers engage in risky behaviours, even when they are well brought-​up? There are big individual differences in adolescent behaviours. Some teenagers take risks, and others do not. However, if we think about the risks teenagers take which include smoking, binge drinking, experimenting with drugs, or dangerous driving, they have a social aspect to them. These are not risks that teenagers take when they are alone; they take these risks when they are accompanied by a friend, or in a social group. Social context, social pressure, and social influence are key factors in adolescent risk taking. Teenage risk taking is more than “showing off”. The drive to be included by the peer group and not to be segregated or socially excluded is heightened in adolescence because humans do not like to be socially excluded. We all like to be invited to parties and to not be ostracised by our peers. The feeling of not being invited to something is heightened in adolescents than in adults. Adolescents have a drive to be included by their peer group, as a part of gradually becoming an independent adult, where it is necessary to become more independent from parents and affiliated with one’s peers, and with the social group. Teenagers are easily embarrassed, in particular by their parents. There is an intense sense of self-​consciousness connected to the development of a sense of self and who we are. As the individual becomes more aware of self, s/​he becomes more sensitive as to how others perceive them. A study by Somerville et al. (2013) examined the link between the social-​emotional (or “socioaffective”) brain and adolescents’ preoccupation with social evaluation. The researchers demonstrated that the brain and body respond differently when teenagers think that they are being watched. Believing that a peer is actively watching them, is enough to provoke self-​conscious emotion in the teenagers. Using fMRI, the brain was scanned and teenagers, children, and adults, were occasionally told that a red light would indicate that they are being observed by someone their own age. The red light indicated that the camera was alternately off, warming up, or projecting their image to a peer, while behavioural, autonomic, and brain activity responses were taken. The condition where the teenagers thought that they were being watched resulted in heightened embarrassment, heightened stress as measured by sweat on the skin, and heightened activity of parts of the social brain, compared with the children and adult experimental groups. This heightened sensitivity was found to increase in magnitude from childhood to adolescence before partially subsiding into adulthood, demonstrating the development of this sensitivity. The process underlying this involves social and emotional parts of the brain: the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) and striatum, and the connectivity between the areas. This suggests a biological reason for why teenagers, in particular, feel embarrassed.

Who Do You Think You Are?  31

Increased risk-​taking in teenagers is associated with various developmental trajectories of subcortical pleasure, cortical control regions and greater cortical dopamine levels. There are individual differences in reward system activity. These have genetic underpinnings with allelic variants in dopamine-​related genes resulting in either too little or too much dopamine in subcortical regions. This developmental pattern is an evolutionary feature; it is a high-​risk behaviour allowing the individual to leave the family, seek out sexual partners, and find a mate. The dopamine surge allows for the individual to concentrate on those life changes, and individual differences in neural responses to reward predispose some adolescents to risky behaviours. Therefore, the adolescent is at greater risk for negative outcomes, and there is vulnerability towards those risk-​taking behaviours, such as those associated with substance use, sex, and addiction. Chimpanzee teenagers face many of the same kinds of challenges as human teenagers as they go through adolescence. While human adolescents struggle with the challenges of changing bodies and brains, with increased impulsivity and risk-​seeking, and with less emotional regulation than adults, adolescent chimpanzees are more likely to take risks in their games than their adult counterparts, but will wait for a greater delayed reward. Human teenagers also take risks in games, but are more likely to take a smaller, more immediate reward than do chimpanzees. Rosati, Thompson, Atencia, and Buckholtz (2023) studied 40 chimpanzees born in the wild, in a sanctuary in the Republic of Congo. They examined the adolescent chimpanzees playing games testing orientation towards risk-​taking and impulsivity. The chimpanzees were presented with two tests with food rewards; they disliked cucumbers, liked peanuts, and loved bananas. In the first study, both adult and teenaged chimpanzees were asked to choose between two containers: one that always had peanuts and another that had either the dreaded cucumber or treasured banana. Adolescent chimpanzees were more likely to take a risk and go for the cucumber or banana container than the adults. Both groups showed the similar negative reactions of moaning, whimpering, screaming and banging on the table, when they ended up with a cucumber. In the second study, a replication of Mischel’s marshmallow test (Mischel & Ebbeson, 1970), the chimpanzees had the option of one banana slice immediately or to wait for a minute to receive three slices. Both adults and adolescents waited for the three slices at a similar rate, but the teenage chimpanzees were more likely to protest while they were required to wait. Human teenagers, on the other hand, were more likely to take the smaller treat right away. Chimpanzees are generally patient compared to other animals, and their ability to delay gratification is already mature at a young age. In humans, the adolescent years are also the riskiest time for the development of mental illness. Mental illness starts in adolescence, mostly. Around 75% of mental health problems start before the age of 24, and mostly during the

32  Who Do You Think You Are?

teenage years and in adolescence (Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health website, 2020), due to a number of reasons. This is a time of huge social changes and of increased awareness of friendships, and of society’s treatment of young people. The teenaged individual becomes more aware of their place in society and of their future, as they mature through to becoming a young adult. During this same time, there are big changes in sex hormones which impact on mood, and there are also substantial changes in brain structure. Put together, all these social and biological factors make this a period of great vulnerability in terms of mental illness (Blakemore, 2012). There is evidence demonstrating that adolescents respond better to reward than to punishment (Blakemore, 2012), and that they respond better to immediate than to long-​term reward, and to immediate rather than longer-​term consequences of their actions. In terms of public health, this knowledge may be used to encourage young people to make healthy decisions: eating well, not taking risks with smoking, binge-​drinking, and around bullying. Male teenagers are sensitive to peers, and in particular, other male teenagers. While it was once believed that older drivers accounted for more road traffic accidents, it was found in laboratory studies that teenage boys are more likely to engage in risky driving, especially in the presence of their best friend, compared with when they are alone (Blakemore, 2012). Adolescent chimpanzees, too, are more impulsive and risk-​taking during the teenage years. For most chimpanzees, adolescence starts between the ages of about five and seven years. Male chimpanzees are sensitive to the presence of other males, and individual differences are also hugely influential. The principle caregiver is of utmost importance to chimpanzees. This means the roles of each of those caregivers/​researchers during the period of the Oklahoma chimpanzees was more important than those individuals realised. The scientific research on trauma was not developed in those days, and so their influence was underestimated. Human adolescence research emphasises the effect of peer groups and training on behaviours. Humans are clearly complicated creatures, and we would assume the processes to be easier in animals. Training animals can be a direct way to study the impact of attaching words to behaviours. Whoever teaches us language bears a responsibility for ensuring that we can develop narratives which lead to development, growth, and flourishing of self. The whole profession of teaching involves individuals whose chosen job centres around the delivery of those narratives. Considering parental involvement, family, attachment, and the very words that were heard growing up can empower us in developing and maturing in a healthy and fruitful way, across time. Do we, like Nietzsche’s suggestion, find our true path via the words we hear? Or do we follow our own narrative from the start of developing words to fit concepts? There are certainly other factors which influence this: teaching, personality traits, desire for reward, sensitivity

Who Do You Think You Are?  33

to punishment, and response to life events also play their part in development of self. Before Birth

When we think about our personality traits and identity, we tend to overlook life before birth and to skip to the newborn stages onwards. We now know that the nine months in utero are important since they are responsible for shaping who we are and what we become. Birth is one trajectory in the life experience, as much development of self occurs before we enter this world. The importance of those months before birth is a provocative idea in science, but understanding what happens in the womb holds key information about leading a happy, healthy, and longer life. At conception, a sperm fertilises an egg and becomes a zygote, starting off as a one-​cell structure. The DNA of the mother and father are passed onto the infant and at this point, the sex is determined. This germinal period lasts between one and two weeks from conception. In the first week after conception, the zygote divides and multiplies from a one-​cell structure to two, then four, then eight cells, and so on, until differentiation occurs and cells become more specialised, going on to form different organs. By nine months these cells multiply into billions. This is called mitosis, and it is a fragile process. Not many zygotes survive beyond the first few weeks. The successful zygote continues to divide, and then travels down the fallopian tubes to implant itself in the uterus lining. Around 60% of natural conceptions fail to implant in the uterus, but once the zygote attaches, the embryonic period begins. The embryonic period is between three and eight weeks after conception. After implantation, the zygote becomes an embryo. Blood vessels grow to form the placenta, which connects the uterus to provide nourishment and oxygen from the mother to the embryo through the umbilical cord. The cells continue to differentiate, and the basic structures develop into the head, chest, and abdomen which begin to function, and the heart begins to beat. At 22 days post conception, the neural tube forms and this develops, at the back of the embryo, into the spinal cord and brain. Development at this point occurs in two major directions: from head to tail (cephalocaudal) and from midline outwards (proximodistal), so that the structures nearest the head develop before those closest to the feet, and those structures nearest the torso develop before those away from the centre of the body, like hands and fingers. The head develops in the fourth week and the heart starts to pulse. The embryo has gills and a tail which disappear by the end of this stage, when the embryo takes on a more human appearance. It is around 2 cm and weighs about 4 grams, and is able to move and respond to touch. Many embryos (around 20 %) fail to develop past this period usually because of chromosomal abnormalities. The major structures of the body take form, and so

34  Who Do You Think You Are?

it is around this time that the organism is most vulnerable of damage if exposed to teratogens (harmful substances) like drugs, chemicals, infections, and other toxic substances. By about nine weeks, the embryo becomes a foetus, and is the size of a bean. It starts to take the form of a human in appearance, as the tail disappears and the sex organs differentiate. By 12 weeks the foetus is about 9 cm and weighs around 28 grams, and all the body parts, including the external genitalia, are present, and the hair, nails, teeth, as well as both the digestive and excretory systems, develop. At 16 weeks, the foetus has fully developed fingers, toes, and fingerprints, and becomes more sensitive to light and sound. The respiratory system develops, and by the fifth month the sucking and swallowing reflexes, and hiccupping develop, along with the sleep-​wake cycle. The brain continues to grow and doubles in size from 16 to 28 weeks, with most of the neurons developed by the end of this stage, although they are mostly glial cells. It is around now that the foetus can feel pain, and is viable, which means that it will be likely to survive if it is born prematurely. By six months the foetus has well-​developed hearing and can respond to sounds, with well-​formed organs like the lungs, heart, stomach, and intestines. The foetus then prepares for birth between seven and nine months, and is able to exercise muscles and lungs, as well as developing fat layers, in order to gain the last 2,000 grams or so before birth, which works to insulate and help the infant regulate body temperature. At 36 weeks and almost ready for birth, the foetus weighs about 3,000 grams and is about 40 cm long. Weight gain continues until just before birth, by which time the foetus runs out of room to move around, as birth is forthcoming. Many factors at birth can predict quality of life; one such example is birth weight. The Barker hypothesis proposes that weight at birth determines health risk later on in life. Adverse nutrition in early life, including prenatally as measured by birth weight, increases susceptibility to metabolic syndromes including obesity, diabetes, insulin insensitivity, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, as well as complications including coronary heart disease and stroke. Periods of rapid postnatal growth associated with high-​energy intake are risk factors, along with a high-​energy western diet. Theories explaining the mechanism of this association include the thrifty gene, bet-​hedging, foetal predictive adaptive response, and the drifty phenotype hypotheses. The cause of metabolic syndrome is likely to be multifactorial, with nuclear DNA and cellular RNA sequences acting in accordance with environmental influences (Edwards, 2017). Epidemiological data in humans and experimental data indicate that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is a possible mechanism behind low birth weight influencing life span. For example, a history of starvation or deprivation in a grandparent’s early life results in transgenerational effects

Who Do You Think You Are?  35

with influences upon grandchildren. It is still not known whether this is mediated by heritable RNA sequences, or by acquired, possibly mosaic mutations in DNA coding, for example, for regulatory RNAs. Recent research (Leeming, Johnson, Spector & Le Roy, 2019).) has raised the possibility that the nature and quantity of gastrointestinal microorganisms (microbiota) can be modified by diet and, conversely, can modify an animal’s metabolic program. As the microbiota are inherited largely from the mother, modification of her nutrition and health before and during pregnancy, as well as the mode of delivery can influence the infant’s microbiota, introducing further potential avenues to improve prevention, reduction of complications, and treatment of malnutrition and metabolic syndrome. (The Barker Hypothesis; Edwards, 2017.) There may be other explanations for health and well-​being in later life. For example, diet in infancy and lifestyle choices in adult life can impact upon physical weight. Some of the factors influencing longevity can be changed; for example, diet and exercise can be modified in order to control of our physiological destiny. Genetic Inheritance

The way in which we inherit information from past generations is of key interest, since there is a genetic influence (epigenetics) and transmission through how we internalise information passed down through generations, with impact upon how we grow and progress and how culture develops. Family legacy and heritage are carried forwards in this way. We see this in the form of the traditions that are acquired though families. We can consider our own interesting family traditions, and whether we can ever try to change them. Epigenetics

Epigenetics is the study of how environmental factors affect the expression of genes, without altering the underlying genetic code. Recent research shows that some environmental exposures like stress and diet can change the epigenetic hallmarks on an individual’s DNA. These changes are then passed down to future generations. One of the areas where epigenetics has been most researched is in behaviour and mental health. Studies on personality traits have found that certain behavioural traits, like anxiety and aggression, are most likely to be passed down through generations via epigenetic mechanisms. According to Dion et al. (2022) when a mouse is exposed to stress, the resulting changes in the epigenetic marks lead to increased anxiety in the offspring, which are then passed down to future generations. Dion et al. describe how stress induces epigenetic changes link behavioural deficits like poor learning and memory with increased anxiety-​like

36  Who Do You Think You Are?

and depressive behaviours. These are transmitted to offspring across generations via epigenetic mechanisms in the germline. We can expect that the same occurrence exists in human models of behaviour. The epigenetic marks that are passed down from one generation to the next are not necessarily permanent, and are influenced by the environment, and the genetic predisposition, but a certain trait or disease does not necessarily need to be expressed if the environment does not support it. For example, if one’s grandparents are alcoholics it is possible that their offspring will carry the genetic patterns for alcoholism. If those offspring were exposed to an environment with no alcohol available, they would not develop the disease and may not even know that they are carrying the traits. Recent research suggests that grandparents’ experiences also affect their children and grandchildren’s health and behaviour through epigenetics (Serpeloni et al., 2017). This occurs through the process of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Here, an individual experiences change, causing effects upon epigenetic marks on the eggs or sperm, which are then passed down to future generations. It is not fear that is carried down through the generations, it is the sensitivity to fear. As individuals age, so do their cells, which accumulate damage over time. Our offspring do not inherit these changes. When humans are born, they do not inherit their parents’ ages. Instead, they are at zero. It was once believed that germline cells might be ageless, which means protected from the passage of time. Studies have shown signs of ageing in eggs and sperm which disputes this idea. Instead, researchers have hypothesised that germline cells may reset their age after conception, which reverses any damage. A study by Larocca, Lee, West, Labat, and Sternberg (2021) found evidence that supports that germline cells might be ageless and protected from the passage of time. Although it was initially thought that germline cells might be protected from the passage of time, these germline cells have been found to reverse ageing, a rejuvenation which may be leveraged and hijacked in order to promote processes of rejuvenation in other cells. Molecular clocks were used to predict the approximate ages of mouse embryos in early stages of development. The clocks measure epigenetic changes which are chemical tags on DNA that accrue as cells age, or as cells are exposed to toxic events like pollution. These tags change a gene’s activity, but not the information that the gene contains. Johnson, Canning, Kaneko, Pru, and Tilly (2004) studied embryos’ biological ages, which refers to the function and health of cells, in contrast with their chronological age which marks time in days and years. The tracking of these epigenetic changes demonstrated that the mouse embryo age stayed constant during the first stages of cell division, immediately following fertilisation. By about 6.5 to 7.5 days into development, after the embryo attached to the uterus, the average biological age of embryos had dipped, and this was taken as a sign that cells were undergoing a type of rejuvenation. At

Who Do You Think You Are?  37

some point during development, the mouse embryo’s biological age then starts to climb, although it is not yet known the exact point at which that occurs. It is not possible to study human embryos at these earlier stages of development, and so the research is confined to development in mice. Some human embryos have been found to also not age immediately, but these were slightly further along in development than the mouse embryos. This suggests that a similar process may happen in humans, and that epigenetic changes may be just one part of the story. Other factors linked to a cell’s biological age include whether a cell has multiple copies of specific genes, and the clocks that measure epigenetic changes, which cannot pinpoint a precise baseline for germline cells. From Nurture Back to Nature

If we are to believe that it is nature via nurture, then the directionality must be in both ways, and nurture via nature must be possible, also. To explain this, we can consider recent findings on mother-​foetal microchimerism (O’Donoghue, 2008). During pregnancy, foetal cells migrate into the mother’s bloodstream, and then return to the foetus. For the 40 weeks of pregnancy, the cells mix and circulate back and forth. After birth, many of these cells remain in the mother’s body, leaving a permanent imprint in tissue, bones, brain, and skin from the foetus to the mother, and they remain there for over two decades. Every other infant that the mother carries in pregnancy leaves similar hallmarks upon her body, even if the pregnancy is unsuccessful or if there is an abortion. These cells still migrate into their blood stream. Research demonstrates that if the mother’s heart is impaired, for example, the foetal cells travel to the injury site and transform into different types of cells specialising in repairing the heart. In other words, the foetus helps to repair the mother while mother builds the developing foetus. This is the reason why some diseases cease to exist during pregnancy. The mother’s body protects the infant at all costs, and the infant’s cells protect and rebuild the mother in return, so they may both develop and survive safely. This finding can help in therapeutic settings. If a client is struggling to work through distressing emotions, it may be useful for them to learn more about their grandparents’ lives in their early, formative years, as often there are similarities which repeat over the course of the client’s lifetime. Towards a Unified Theory of Being: Time for a New Theory of Evolution

For many years, geneticists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and other neuroscientists have raced and sometimes fought to be at the forefront of explaining human behaviour using a “Unified Theory of Being”. We now have enough research findings to make serious dents into the study of how the physical links to

38  Who Do You Think You Are?

the mental in human beings. A new theory of evolution is now required, and neuroscientists can help. Most neuroscience is neurocentric. This means that it concentrates on activity stemming from one single brain cell. Neuroscience concentrates on brain cell or brain structure activity. Brain scanning can give a readout of what the brain is doing. These help with identifying processes including those in language such as reading, in locating underlying brain areas, and tell us about healthy brain development. Using MEG to Measure Brain Activity Across Time

Brain scanning nowadays includes fMRI, PET (positron emission tomography), EEG (electroencephalography), and MEG (magnetoencephalography). MEG is a tool to study the dynamics and connectivity of large-​scale brain activity and the interactions with the body and the environment. It measures magnetic fields generated by electric currents in the range of femto-​tesla to pico-​tesla. As it is non-​invasive and provides an accurate resolution of the timing of neuronal activity, it is a convenient measure of direct brain function. It also has high temporal and spatial resolution, and in combination with magnetic resonance imaging scanning, it can produce accurate brain mapping. The combination of MEG and MRI is called magnetic source imaging (MSI), and is used clinically in pre-​operative brain mapping, for example, for surgery on epileptic patients. The MEG technique was discovered in 1969 with the first measurements of the incredibly tiny magnetic fields produced by the heart’s electrical signals by David Cohen, a physicist working at MIT. He constructed a shielded room, blocking interference from vast magnetic fields generated by electrical devices in the vicinity and by the earth itself. This shielding technique became central to the MEG technique since the magnetic fields generated by the brain are even quieter still. Scientific advances from measuring the brain’s electrical potentials to recording magnetic fields was made by James Zimmerman and colleagues working at the Ford Motor Company, which was where the super-​conducting quantum interference device (SQUID) was developed (Stokes, 2015). An overall explanation of how MEG works is this: when neurons fire, they release an electric signal, and therefore magnetic fields. An electric current is connected to a magnetic field perpendicular to its direction. In psychology, traditionally we were already measuring the source of these magnetic fields by using electroencephalography (EEG). More specifically, the source of these magnetic fields is the current emitted from the dendrites of pyramidal neurons. As these fire in synchrony as well as in parallel, they release electric charges, while currents from the axons (axials) and from synapses, along with their corresponding magnetic fields, cancel the charge. MEG measures these magnetic fields as they are generated by electric currents in the brain outside the head via electrodes on the skull. As these magnetic fields pass through the head without

Who Do You Think You Are?  39

any distortion, the measurement proffers a strong advantage over EEG, giving a higher spatial and temporal resolution. The usual amplitude of magnetic fields emitted by the brain are tiny. They do not exceed a few hundred femto tesla (10−15 T). The Earth’s magnetic field, by comparison, is between 10−4 and 10−5 T. An MRI is usually 1.5–​3 T (Singh, 2014). The magnetic permeability of biological tissues is almost the same as that of empty space and so the magnetic field is not distorted by scalp or skull (Singh, 2014). There are two problems in measuring these magnetic fields related to the underlying engineering. First, the relatively small magnetic fields need to be recorded. Second, the earth’s stronger magnetic fields need to be shielded out. The recording part is aided by SQUID which is like an extremely sensitive magnetic field gauge operating on the principles of quantum physics to detect in a precise manner, the very tiny magnetic fields produced by the brain. To appreciate the contributions of magnetic shielding and SQUIDs to MEG, it is important to consider that the earth’s magnetic field, the one acting on a compass needle, is at least 200 million times of the strength of the fields generated by the brain trying to read that same compass. To maintain superconductors, an extremely cold environment is needed, and this is achieved by using liquid helium, which exists in liquid form at an extremely low temperature (–​270°C or –​452°F). To lessen the external magnetic noise, the MEG is kept inside a magnetically shielded room. The sensors which record the magnetic fields are called gradiometers or magnetometers. The two types of gradiometers are called axial and planar. Magnetometers give the best signal and are the most sensitive to deep brain areas. They are also most sensitive to competing magnetic noise. Gradiometers, on the other hand, are better at noise reduction. Gradiometers are pairs of magnetometers placed at a small distance from each other, measuring the difference in magnetic field between their two locations (which is why they have the “gradio” prefix, for gradient). This difference subtracts out large and distant sources of magnetic noise (such as earth’s magnetic field), while remaining sensitive to local sources of magnetic fields, such as those emanating from the brain (Singh, 2014). The decay of magnetic fields as a function of distance is more pronounced than for electric fields, and so MEG is more sensitive to activity emitted from the cortex, the rough covering on the superficial of the brain (Singh, 2014). This makes MEG ideal for studying processes which involve the cortex, for example, in the diagnosis and treatments neocortical epilepsy and to inform surgical decisions. Specifically, it can be used in the functional mapping of eloquent cortex, which includes a method for identifying motor, sensory, visual and auditory areas, language cortex mapping, and identification of functional brain tissue inside brain tumours and related to head injury. MEG has also been effective in early

40  Who Do You Think You Are?

identification of autism through measurement of auditory processing in autistic children, and also in detecting cognitive deficit in Alzheimer’s patients. MEG data are analysed in “sensor space” which is where the signals at individual sensors change during different parts of a cognitive task. This gives an estimate of activation along the cortex, and data recorded in the 300 sensors can be projected to source space, which gives an estimate of the location in the brain from where these signals originate (Stokes, 2015). In order to narrow down which possible brain areas could underlie magnetic field activity observed, a number of assumptions need to be made about what brain activity looks like generally, and how that activity is then translated into signals at the scalp level. In MEG, there is higher fidelity of magnetic fields as they pass from the brain to scalp. While it is assumed that neural activation is smooth, this is not the case. Stokes (2015) makes the analogy to stars in the sky. We assume smooth activation of the brain, but this would mean that stars would form clusters rather than appear in patterns all over the sky. This is the very feature of brain activation that allows us to detect magnetic fields using MEG in the first place. Only clusters of neurons within a local region, and which are active in simultaneous fashion, can generate magnetic fields strong enough to be detected. We also assume (wrongly) that the travel of magnetic fields should depend on physical size, shape, and organisation of the brain and scalp, but this is also incorrect since it is those clusters of neurons that produce the magnetic fields for measurement. MEG data are acquired across 300 sensors on the scalp, each of which is registered to an MRI scan of each participant’s head and using a 3D mapping of their scalp which is taken by marking hundreds of points along each participant’s scalp with a digital pen. Together these provides a high spatial resolution description of the head’s anatomy, including the brain. This mathematical estimation provides of where in the brain the measured magnetic fields originated at each point in time. That is to say, this is a literal measure of who we are in space and time. MEG data are analysed in terms of event-​related fields, which consider the timing and size of the magnetic fields changes with reference to an event of interest during a cognitive task (e.g., the appearance of a word). Even if there is much noise in the measurement, it is possible to average across many trials so the noise cancels out, leaving the effect of interest, which always occurs with reference to a precisely timed event in the cognitive task. In EEG these are event-​related potentials. In reaction time studies, similar methodological technique was employed, subtracting reaction time changes to a novel stimulus, from a previously timed cognitive event, to give unit of activation change, for example, in priming tasks (Scarnà, 1999). It is also possible to use Fourier transformations to analyse the data into frequency components: waves, rhythms, or oscillations, and the phase or amplitude changes in response to cognitive stimuli can be measured across time. Neural oscillations are suggested to

Who Do You Think You Are?  41

involved in synchronising activity in neuron populations (or neural networks), and are associated with various cognitive functions including attention control and the ability to prepare for movement or task execution and action. Figure 1.1 shows the different strengths of magnetic fields according to tissue or organ size, and its relative strength according to the environmental field. MEG provides a mathematical estimate of skull size and activation emitted. Given the ability of MEG to give this specific measurement of occupation across time and space, it is hypothesised that we could use it in the same way, to create a unit of occupation of full self. This would give a measurement of how much time and space each human being occupies. MEG is clearly a useful experimental tool but we have to consider that it measures the brain activity in isolation (Gross, 2019). This neurocentric approach is flawed. It ignores the connection of the brain to the rest of the body. There are continuous bidirectional interactions between the brain and the rest of the body. The changing state of the human body influences brain activity and the body is, in turn, controlled by the brain, and their mutual interactions and states affect cognition and are altered when diseased. MEG recordings combined with peripheral recordings of body states are ideally suited to study these dynamic interactions (see Figure 1.1). MEG records top-​down signals from the brain that shapes autonomic functions. Recordings of body signals like respiration, heartbeat, and pupil dilation can characterise aspects of the body’s state which is then conveyed to the brain. These recordings can reveal the mechanisms

FIGURE 1.1 Different

strengths of magnetic fields according to tissue/​organ size, and relative strength in environmental field (Stokes, 2015).

42  Who Do You Think You Are?

underlying brain-​body relationships in both wellness and in disease. For example, it can locate peripheral infections resulting in changes in body state which lead to the production of pro-​inflammatory cytokines modulating brain function, causing reduced motor activity and social withdrawal (Dantzer et al., 2008). Other studies have investigated the influence of changing body states on information processing, such as those involving the cardiac cycle (Critchley & Garfinkel, 2018) and the relationship between the respiratory rhythm, motor response, and cognitive functions (Varga & Heck, 2017). MEG can be used to locate and measure the three-​way relationship between rhythmic body signals, brain rhythms, and both sensory and cognitive processing: the relationship between body, brain, and behaviour (Gross, 2019). Given that this can be taken as such a specific measurement across time and space, we can use it to create a full measurement of self across time. Telling the story about healthy and “normal” brains gives a useful overall picture. Trauma, abuse, neglect, and brain injury impair integration of brain structures. There are various problems with how neuroscience is going about explaining mind function, however. The main problems are threefold. First, brain scanning tells us about the brain, alone. Humans are a whole system, and we cannot focus on the brain alone. For example, most recent work has begun emphasising the importance of the gut biome. There are serotonin receptors located in the gut which can tell us something about mood. Second, the focus in brain scanning work has been on neurons and glia, but other brain substances like myelin are important. Third, we cannot focus on cells alone. Investigating the neuron, brain structures, right or left hemisphere in isolation was helpful historically, but we now need broader and integrated consideration of how brain and body systems flow. Brain scans give a sum activity of neurons firing, but we ignore the involvement of skin and skull. These are impermeable layers to the mind, and so it is the understanding of the integrated brain that is important for developing robust mental health. Maintenance of self-​regulation and of self-​awareness depend upon this integration. Traditionally, psychology as a science has concentrated on average responses of the average human being. This is hugely helpful for us to observe and maintain levels of “normality”; that is, to prevent functioning from becoming abnormal and therefore (in most cases) dysfunctional, distressing, and damaging. We can use information garnered from scientific studies in psychology to consider function relating to good health. A model like this involved consideration of “neural integration”; that is, how interconnected the brain is with other organs (Smith, Thayer, Khalsa & Lane, 2017). Aspects of physiological health which may help with this, include: 1 Reduced levels of stress hormones, in particular, cortisol 2 Improved immune function –​this may result from reduced cortisol and stress hormones, since the body learns how to be at peak in fighting infection, and developing efficient gut and other body process function

Who Do You Think You Are?  43

3 Good heart and chest communication, which can involve maintaining a healthy heart and cholesterol level, as well as other bodily functions 4 As a consequence of the above, inflammation is then reduced 5 Ageing is then repaired, in particular through an enzyme named “telomerase” which can function as a measure of stress and ageing In explaining humans as beings of nature VIA nurture (and vice versa), we can consider how both brain and health perspectives impact upon thinking, emotion, behaviour, and health, leading to robust social function. Studying our social environment gives an idea about both neural and body processes so we can maintain sturdy health and longevity. Adoption

Adoption is interesting from the case of epigenetics. In adoption, the individual is incongruent to one’s environment. Adopted individuals are born into one environment and moved into another. The parents of Nim certainly experienced a type of adoption from their wild roots into the human laboratory. Given that Nim was bred for purpose, at first his case does not seem one of adoption. However, he was taken away from his chimpanzee mother, Carolyn, and given to Stephanie LaFarge to look after at around ten days old, then given again to Laura Anne Petitto before embarking on an unusual developmental attachment trajectory of “over 200 parents” (Tom Martin, 2022, personal communication). Furthermore, there was a bigger, overarching adoption factor, which was that those chimpanzees were adopted into human culture. Most adoptees do not know their genetic heritage, which can cause identity problems and a gap in health information. Nim’s was an example of how knowing one’s genetic heritage can still lead to problems, especially where the environment is of huge incongruence, as we would imagine in cross-​species study. This is at the core of what is wrong with studies on animals. Indeed, we might consider that when we take on a pet, we are adopting a sentient being into our household and culture. Is it healthy to embark on this bond? Most pets are taken on in the hope of a healthy upbringing and normal development. Considering the Oklahoma chimpanzees, the main problem was the lack of foresight into their care, and the same could be said of Nim’s welfare. Once he became too large, the investigators were unsure what to do with him. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)

Not all childhoods are salubrious. We would do well to consider the role of adverse experiences in childhood. The work of Felitti has been fundamental here (e.g., Felitti et al., 1998). It is now well established that there is a sturdy and predictive relationship of health risk and disease in adulthood to the breadth

44  Who Do You Think You Are?

of exposure to emotional, physical, or sexual abuse, and household dysfunction during childhood. Researchers such as Hardt ad Rutter (date) have confirmed the validity of retrospective reports in adulthood of major adverse experiences in childhood upon predicting illness in adulthood. They investigated four domains of important risk experiences in childhood: (1) sexual abuse; (2) physical abuse or severe physical punishment; (3) physical or emotional neglect; and (4) chronic family conflict or disharm. Provided attention is confined to serious adversities that are open to operationalisation, and provided that high quality measurement methods are used, it is clear that an acceptance of retrospective recall is warranted in consideration of therapy and/​or treatment of ACE-​related conditions. Studies should allow for rates of false negative or the vagaries of memories in recall, for the tendency to seek meaning in memories, for the tendency to only recall later in life that which individuals were aware of at the time, and to account for infantile amnesia (whereby most people are unlikely to be able to remember much of what took place in the first two or three years of life), and mood influences, but these biased are not sufficiently great to invalidate retrospective case–​control studies of adversities of an easily defined kind. With these considerations in mind, in is clear that retrospective reports are valid in the piecing together of ACE-​related information. Indeed, if anything, they are likely to provide underestimates of the incidence of abuse/​neglect. In assessing any complex system including the human body and the human mind, it is important to access all components. Indeed, the study of psychology as a field involves learning about those components. Psychologists are the engineers of the human mind. If the mind were a car, psychology would be the study of the engine, and if the car were malfunctioning, we would consider not just the type of malfunction and resulting problems, but also which specific part was malfunctioning, and whether the part would need replacing. We would look at the specific components, and not just the manifest symptom. We would also assume that we would need to get into the car in order to be able to assess what was wrong. Let us consider here the huge flaw in the process of studying language acquisition in chimpanzees in order to understand how language acquisition is occurring in humans. Tom Martin, one of the carers of Nim during his time in New York, reflects upon the experimental hypotheses behind those studies: Ability to use language means what? It makes life easy but it doesn’t define one as human. What was Project Nim suppose to prove? If he did acquire “language”, what difference would it make? He’d still be a chimp and be put back in a cage. Whole lot of talking humans in cages of their own. In medicine there are three sources of diagnostic information: patient history, physical information, and information from laboratory data, such as blood test results. Felitti (2019) advocates the use of a questionnaire which patients

Who Do You Think You Are?  45

complete at home, prior to their appointment. In this way, clinicians are informed about the patient’s medical history, and are able to assess it and to consider every component in the system, so that the clinician is able to consider a number of factors in depth, even before meeting the client, in order to develop an idea about treatment direction even before the first consultation. Working with a comprehensive medical history on people is very useful for treatment, but acquiring this face-​to-​face takes a substantial amount of questioning, lengthy records, and a considerable amount of time, and so it is not practical to do this. Using a condensed questionnaire such as this creates a tool which is an inert mechanism to be used at home, which can then be dealt with in person, with a view to tackling the issues presented (Felitti, 2019). Nature, Nurture, and Nim

The facts about Nim’s biological background have been reported on several occasions –​ by Hess (2008), by Linden (1986) and in the film, Project Nim, as well as by ourselves in our previous book, Primatology, Ethics and Trauma (Ingersoll & Scarnà, 2023). Nim’s mother Carolyn gave birth to Nim in November 1973, in Oklahoma, as part of a research project. It is known that Herb Terrace approached Bill Lemmon with a request for a chimpanzee for language studies. Originally he was given a chimpanzee, Bruno, because his funding was not yet ready. A few years later, he negotiated the use of Nim with Lemmon, and Nim was handed over via his first “foster mother”, Stephanie LaFarge, at about ten days old, and taken to New York. There followed a series of moves and “foster parent” types, and homes, and teachings, until September, 1977, when Nim, equipped with the ability to produce approximately 125 signs in American Sign Language (Terrace, Petitto, Sanders & Bever, 1979; “As of September 25 1977, Nim had acquired 125 signs”), was transferred back to Oklahoma. Nim had been taken away from his birth mother, Carolyn, soon after birth at the Institute for Primate Studies in Oklahoma. Stephanie says she knew nothing about chimpanzees and it was frightening and intimidating. Carolyn was holding Nim and she knew that he would be taken away, since she had had six of her previous babies removed in this same way. Carolyn instantly demonstrated a strong awareness of what was about to happen. Lemmon shot her with a tranquilising gun and then took Nim away quickly before Carolyn could fall on him; perhaps representative of how chimpanzees were taken from their mothers when they were wild-​caught in the African forests. Carolyn was trying to protect Nim. Lemmon raced in and collected Nim, then handed him to Stephanie. Nim did not try to get away, but he screamed, clinging, and attaching “for dear life” (Stephanie LaFarge). Nim was barely two weeks old when he arrived at the New York family. They were in the middle of a new life; Stephanie and Wer LaFarge had just married and they had bought a new house and blended their

46  Who Do You Think You Are?

families. Stephanie had three children and Wer had four. Stephanie says she was not prepared for the wild animal in Nim. The rest of the story is covered in the film Project Nim which was based upon the book by Hess (2008), and so it will not be repeated here at length. Instead, the focus here will be on how Bob came to be one of Nim’s closest carers and best friends. That story begins once Nim was transferred from New York back to Oklahoma. About his first meeting with Nim, Bob says: By the time Nim returned from New York in September 1977, I was already sceptical about what we were doing to the chimpanzees, putting them in cages. By then I had had two years of experience with the chimpanzees, and I knew Nim’s brother, Onan, and had taken him out on walks by myself. Between 1975 and 1977, I had had experience with many other chimpanzees: Kelly, and Washoe, and now Nim was arriving. I knew he was Ally’s brother, and so I was anxious to meet him. Before Nim arrived, I was already wrapped up in taking the chimps out. It was the summer so I had less class work and as it became daytime earlier, and some days were blistering hot, we would try to go early to walk the chimps early, and we would spend a lot of time with them. I was still an undergraduate, remember, so I had to act like one, but I felt really lucky. About a month or so after attending my first lecture by Roger Fouts at Dale Hall in the autumn of 1975, I was allowed to attend the meetings he held with his graduate students and researchers once a week. I hung back and listened, and they would mention this Nim chimp. At first I wondered who this Nim was, but soon I got it. In a way, Nim was in competition with Washoe, because she was considered the first signing chimp. In truth, all of those chimps, Onan, Bruno, Booee, were signing, but Washoe should be given credit for being the first signing non-​human primate. Washoe was signing in 1966, she grew up signing with the Gardners. People cite Koko the gorilla’s signing, but that began in 1972. Through these meetings, we would exchange information about what was going on, and Nim’s name would come up. We have to remember that this was a time before the existence of the internet and social media, and so those meetings were our social media, and one way in which information was exchanged. Ideas and research news were also exchanged through books and journals. By 1976, I’d heard a lot about Nim. I saw the issue of the marijuana-​promoting magazine, “High Times”, with photographs of Nim smoking weed, and David Suskind, the radio and TV presenter, discussed Nim in the New York magazine. We anticipated a chimp who would be something like a cross between his brothers, Ally and Onan. And that was exactly what we got. Ally was a goofball, he would roll around, while Onan was the tough guy. Onan was big and could be cool, and he liked to sign. The first time I met Nim, I could tell he was somewhere

Who Do You Think You Are?  47

in between. He was like a cool New Yorker –​ smart and sophisticated. It was clear he was very intelligent. He was like the country kid who moved to the big city as a baby, and came back as a teenager. On the day Nim arrived in Oklahoma, I was hanging out with Alyse, Ron and Lisa. I was trying not to hang with the main people, the group of grad students. I was an undergraduate, and let them get on with it. Plus, I wasn’t into the cameras, the filming and stuff. They all pulled up in a big station wagon with fake wood trim. Inside the car were Nim, Bill and Joyce, and Charity O’Neill. There were at least two TV people, and, of course, Herb Terrace. There were six or seven people there. By that stage, Nim had become something of a superstar, and so the cameras were from the children’s educational TV series, Sesame Street. Herb was way into the documentation –​ in terms of fame, not science documentation –​ and the New York talk shows were eager to capture Nim’s move to Oklahoma. It was moving to see Nim with his New York people. I quickly sized up the situation to see who the most important people in Nim’s life were. That was Joyce Butler and Bill Tynan, but there were four or five other people around as well and all the TV people, so I just watched everything happen, but it was immediately apparent that Joyce and Bill were the important ones to Nim. That first day was all about the publicity. That night we all left, but Herb and Joyce and Bill all stayed in what we called the “pig barn”, with Nim, in an enclosure adjacent to the other chimpanzees. The chimps were kept behind big steel bars in there. It was like a cowboy jail from the movies. It was far from civilised. Herb says in the film that it was extremely primitive. He had apparently forgotten that in Oklahoma we treated the animals as animals We have to remember that they had raised Nim as a human, while Dr. Lemmon saw chimps more like chimps. I knew Nim’s two brothers, Ally and Onan, and I had also known Carolyn, Nim’s mother, and Pan, Nim’s father, too. I would help, occasionally, with the shifting of the animals when we were cleaning the cages, and so I got to know something of their characters. When I met Nim, I did not expect him to be as sophisticated as he was. I had been around other chimps that had been humanised, but not to this degree. This was the first time that Nim had seen other chimps, and he had been used to sleeping in his own comfortable bed, with his own blanket. On that first day, there was all the filming as he was introduced to Mac, and all the grad students participated in the filming of that [it is shown in the film Project Nim in a detailed scene]. After all that, Herb, Roger, and Bill Lemmon all went back to the office to sign the paperwork to give the possession of Nim to the Oklahoma people. I knew this would be an upsetting time for Joyce and Bill, and so I offered a little walk away from all the hoopla so that they could have a moment or two with Nim before they were gone. And so that’s what we did –​Bill, Joyce, Lisa,

48  Who Do You Think You Are?

Benson, Ron, and I. They grabbed their yoghurt and granola, and we took a short walk, and Joyce and Bill sat with Nim. The rest of us kind of sat there, and let them have their moment. They said their goodbyes. Nim had already been traumatised by being in that cage all night among all those other chimpanzees. At that point, yet again, I realised how fucked up this whole situation was. Lisa and Ron and I –​we were all undergraduates together –​ we had all talked about how messed up this was. Lisa and I went out together the next day –​ she was already dealing with Onan. I said, “I will be his buddy. He will need a buddy. I will be his buddy”. I knew he would need a friend. So I knew that that day, I would be his bud, and I would take him out and be with him, and make sure he didn’t crash psychologically, which we had witnessed with other returned chimps, and die. Experience with other chimps coming in, like Lilith, told me that it would only be a matter of time before he died, because it was such a harsh place for him to come into compared to his experiences up to then, so I knew that that day that I would try and befriend him, and so I started taking him out every day. We were buddies from then on”. The issue of what makes us human and what makes us different to other creatures helps us to consider how we came to be on earth, assume our rule on this planet, and to think about our notions of our own specialness related to consumer society. If it is intelligence, language, and consciousness, that have given us our perceived authority, it is consumer society that has given us the tools to exploit nature for our own benefit. There is plenty of material on “what it means to be human”. This will be a book on what it means to be a good human, presenting the academic work on studies regarding personality, intelligence, family structures, and life experiences, and considering the wider story of what happened to the chimpanzee Nim Chimpsky and his wider family, such as his special female chimpanzee friend, Lilly, and their daughter, Sheba.

2 PERSONALITY THEORIES AND UNDERSTANDING THE SELF

Everybody needs a job. Meaning and purpose …. This was a special group of chimps. They weren’t ordinary chimps. They had a capacity for higher consciousness. (Alyse Moore, Project Nim) This chapter will consider Nim’s personality and the personalities of some of the other Oklahoma chimpanzees, including Lilly, who would become the companion of Nim, and who was looked after by Alyse Moore. While it is not possible to conduct brain scans or genetic analysis, analysis can be performed through observation of existing home footage and detailed discussions with those who knew him. It is possible to conduct analysis upon character retrospectively. Other authors (Claridge, Pryor, & Watkins, 1998) have used personal diaries, historical archives, clinical records, and literary productions to analyse the lives of deceased individuals, and we will do the same here. We will use information about Nim’s family and about his experiences to understand how his character was formed. We will use our knowledge about the captive environment to consider the impact upon traits in chimpanzees. We can compare chimps who were “bred for purpose” with those who were captured from their natural habitats in the wild. In order to consider Nim’s personality, a broader context will be given for personality theories and research into traits and character, and so the chapter will start with a discussion of the main theories of personality formation, linking history of personality function with trait theories such as those of Eysenck and McCrae and Costa, along with Freudian ideas about the psychosexual stages of personality development in childhood, contrasted against behaviourist theories. DOI: 10.4324/9781003400677-3

50  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

Biological underpinnings of personality will then be described with explanation of brain structures and their role in traits. We ask the question of whether chimpanzees and humans have the same personality (“chimpanality”) traits, and we will analyse the existing chimpanzee data with a link to emotional empathy and systemising. This will relate to discussion about male vs. female brains and minds, gender fluidity, gender dysphoria, and all the other tags that humans attach to sexuality. Personality and Individual Differences: No One Theory

In attempting to define the self, we can start by considering the face that we reveal to the world. Which is the face that we choose to present? What is behind the mask that we present to the external environment? The face we present to the world is controlled by key personality traits which are hardwired in the brain and which are enduring over time. It may be helpful to consider that the word “personality” comes from the Latin “persona”, meaning mask. It comprises predictable behaviour patterns called traits, by which others recognise ourselves as ourselves. Our natures vary enormously, so it is very difficult for us to find the correct words to describe and explain what is behind the mask. We might find it easiest to start with the extremes of the more obvious attributes. For instance, some individuals are cheerful, others have a tendency towards being grumpy, some individuals are outgoing, others have a predisposition towards being timid or shy. Yet the human brain comprises the same components. Each of us is prewired with the same lobes and structures; to this extent, human beings do not vary so much. This can be demonstrated through the following exercise. Consider five adjectives or phrases that you think best describes features of your personality. Think about your five adjectives. How do they describe you as “you”? How do those adjectives encompass your being? Did someone call you those things? You may know somebody with the same name as you. How do you recognise yourself from them? The exercise can be repeated with consideration of a close friend or relative. Think of five adjectives that describe your chosen person. Then consider how those five adjectives best capture that person’s personality, distinguishes them from you, and makes them unique. This exercise demonstrates the starting point for identifying the top personality traits by which human beings describe both themselves and each other. Trait psychologists have carried out this very exercise in the search for the numbers and types of traits. The field of individual differences and personality trait theory relies on people being able to label each other on a number of psychological attributes. Individual differences can be measured and studied, since it is possible to classify individuals according to personality characteristics. Some researchers include intelligence in these characteristics whereas others believe that

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  51

intelligence is a separate attribute or process. Individual differences are useful for explaining behaviour, and they are necessary in order for us to be able to predict behaviour, but we also have to remember, however, that they are broad generalisations of behaviour. This means that they are concise and reliable ways to measure human behaviour quickly. However, given that they measure and explain in a quick and reduced way, they also summarise behaviour, and present a condensed version for rapid measurement. This causes the diversity of human behaviour to become overlooked. In recent years, this has become a problem. We usually match or measure the individual against a population, and make assumptions about that individual against that population; considering behavioural characteristics against an average, within a bell-​shaped curve, and in terms of how much deviation there is from the norm, with consideration that most people cluster around the middle and very few people are at the extreme ends of the gaussian distribution. However, it is possible that this is not the most adequate way to measure individual differences. To an extent, though, we have to take a convenient and simple starting point, and while current models of individual differences may not predict all behaviour, we can consider them to do an adequate job of predicting and reflecting a large range of behaviours and characteristics seen in the normal, healthy population representing our society. The study of individual differences allows for examination of the ways in which people are the same –​and also different –​psychologically. Multiple, and often conflicting, theories exist about individual differences. To date, there has been no one unifying theory of individual differences in human behaviour. Each explanation presented is correct. Trait Theory and Factor Analysis

Chapter 1 presented the concepts behind trait theory. Trait theory has been the main study of personality, with the chief goal being to reduce personality into as few rigorous and measurable traits as possible. Models of personality traits have existed for decades and have been tested for reliability and validity using the scientific method. Personality traits are habitual patterns of behaviour, thought, and emotion which are hardwired and enduring over time. They can be discriminated from states, which are short-​lived, transient, and therefore, can change across time. One can be in a state of anger right now, but without having the underlying traits of being an angry person on the whole. Similarly, one can take a drug which might put him/​her into a state of joy, but once the drug has worn off, if s/​he is not generally a person with traits of optimism, s/​he may plunge into a state of unhappiness or despair. Personality traits are not decided randomly. Instead, statistical modelling is applied to identify and define them, through massive selections of items appertaining to features. The technique of factor analysis then demonstrates how

52  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

particular clusters of traits correlate together reliably. It is a type of statistical technique (or, in reality, a set of techniques) that reduces a large number of variables into as few factors as possible to describe a particular phenomenon. Factor analysis extracts the minimum common variance from all of the variables, and pools them into a common score, which can then be scanned as an index of all the variables. In other words, factor analysis is a way of taking a mass of data and to reducing it to a more manageable pool. It can help as a method of finding patterns and correlations, and to demonstrate how those patterns overlap, and the characteristics that are among the multiple patterns. The set of variables that is created –​ sometimes called dimensions –​ can then be used to explain those patterns quickly and simply. Factor analysis is commonly used for explaining data from psychological experiments involving big data sets, for example in explaining socioeconomic or sociological differences. A factor is a set of observed variables with similar response patterns. These can be associated with a “confounding variable” that is not directly measured. Factors are identified through factor loadings. This is where the amount of variation in the data is explained by each factor. There are two types of factor analysis. The first is exploratory factor analysis where the structure of the data is not known, and neither is the number of dimensions in a set of variables; and the second is confirmatory factor analysis which is used as verification when there is a specific idea about the data, for example, about how many dimensions are in a set of variables. Factor analysis has been used traditionally in the personality trait research to condense the existing models of traits into a model comprising as few traits as possible. Most traits are normally distributed, that is to say that a healthy population will fall in the middle of its distribution. Traits are bipolar –​any one trait has two opposite ends lying on the same continuum; for example, high/​ low optimism. Any personality characteristic can be illustrated with the trait continuum, such as self-​esteem or aggression. Reliability and Validity

A key issue in any measurement in psychology is that of reliability and validity. These concepts allow psychologists to keep the measurement of personality scientific and rigorous. The measurement of personality via the use of questionnaires and scales is called psychometrics. The personality questionnaires described so far have undergone extensive testing for reliability and for validity. If a test is reliable, it is consistent in measurement. A questionnaire is reliable if it can produce similar results when used again and again in similar circumstances. An example of a reliable instrument of measurement is a set of scales. Assuming body weight does not change, if we were to weigh ourselves

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  53

each morning at the same time, we would expect the set of scales to give the same measurement each day. This would make the set of scales a reliable instrument, and the same is true of the personality questionnaires used in psychology. However, imagine that the set of weighing scales gave a reliable measurement every day, but instead of giving the correct weight, it consistently gave an incorrect one. In this case we would say that the set of scales, while reliable, would lack validity. Hence, validity refers to whether the instrument of measurement is measuring what it claims to measure. Personality questionnaires might lack validity for several reasons: raters might lie about their responses or they might give what they perceive to be the desired response, or it might be the case that the personality psychologist might claim to be measuring one thing but might be measuring something completely different. There are a number of ways in which psychologists assess reliability and validity. Forms of reliability include test–​retest reliability, split-​half reliability, parallel form reliability, internal consistency. Forms of validity include content validity, face validity, convergent and divergent, and predictive validity. In test–​retest reliability, the scale is given on a number of different occasions and the scores compared. If the scale is reliable, the scores should be the same/​ close to the same on each presentation. We can measure the relationship between presentations using the correlation method. The closer a correlation is to 1, the closer the relationship between two presentations. On the whole, researchers look for a minimum of a correlation of 0.7 for research use, although 0.8 or more is preferable and individual assessment requires 0.9 or more. For split-​ half reliability, the correlation is taken between the sums of the odd-​ and of the even-​numbered items on the test, or of the first half against the second half of the test (or of any potential halves). Parallel form reliability involves the correlation taken between two alternative, or parallel, forms of the test. In internal consistency, inter-​correlations of test items are taken, and an estimate of reliability is derived from these. The statistic used here is called Cronbach’s alpha (written as α). The assessment of validity is a little more complex. With our imaginary extraversion measure, our ultimate endpoint would be to make sure that our test is claiming the construct it is claiming to measure (and not some other construct). Content validity is the extent to which each item is representative of the construct. For this, we would consider each item and its relationship to what is being measured, independently. Face validity considers the extent to which each test item superficially corresponds to the construct being measured. Convergent validity considers whether the test correlates with other measures of the same construct. For example, we might take our imaginary questionnaire and correlate it with other measures. Along with convergent validity, we should consider divergent validity, which is whether our test is different and independent from other, unrelated and distinct scales. Predictive validity is the extent to which the

54  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

test can yield information to enable psychologists to predict criteria associated with the construct. For example, we would expect our imaginary extraversion test to predict levels of arousal-​seeking in various populations. A common difficulty with psychology questionnaires is that various response biases can affect the reliability of responses. These include deliberately responding to extreme categories (such as “strongly agree” on a scale), or deliberately picking one answer such as “a” in multiple choice questions, a tendency to answer questions positively or to present the self as more socially desirable, positive (“faking good”) or as possessing certain qualities. Other factors affecting reliability of responses include practical issues such as whether the rater is bored, tired, emotional or careless, and whether there are environmental factors to consider, such as whether the location of the questionnaire administration is too hot or too cold, too noisy, etc. Questionnaires may be protected against some of these biases by having subtle or repeated items, or by being administered under stringent and favourable conditions. Personality Trait Models and Questionnaire Construction

With consideration of reliability and validity in mind, we can turn our attention to identification of the personality traits. Traits are continuous entities of human identity. Individuals demonstrate the presence of more or less of a trait by: (1) showing behaviour more or frequently between one another, (2) more or less intensively, and (3) more often or rarely across a wide range of situations. Traits need to be distinguished from states, through their temporal aspect. Traits are enduring and stable over long periods and across situations. On the other hand, states are brief and situation-​specific. This holds a range of implications. First, if traits are enduring in this way, we should be able to make statements about individuals. Second, if individuals’ identities are subject to those traits, they should be identifiable through other people’s descriptions about traits. This is demonstrated through a simple exercise whereby a set of statements describing a person are presented. For example, if we were to say that we are thinking of a famous person who was musical, non-​conformist, soulful, and additionally, was controversial and disturbed, and we then add that this person was female, most people are able to identify that it was the singer Amy Winehouse. We could consider, therefore, that those behaviours/​adjectives of being musical, conformist, soulful, controversial, and disturbed are likely to relate to personality traits. They may not comprise the actual traits in themselves, but they form behaviours appertaining to traits, for example, the traits of extraversion, psychoticism/​ agreeableness, and neuroticism. To find the source of each personality trait we have to examine influences that differ across individuals to make people different. Influences that differ across individuals can make one person turn out differently from another. There are

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  55

three kinds of influence upon each personality trait: the family environment, the non-​shared environment, and genetics. These factors will be explained in detail as this book progresses. The earliest study of traits comes from the ancient theory of temperaments. The doctrine of the four humours is associated with the Greek physician Hippocrates (460–​370 BC) and the Roman physician Galen (131–​200 AD). In this model, individuals were assigned to one of four types of temperament according to the four humours. There were yellow blood (choler), black bile (melancholer), blood (sanguis), and phlegm. An imbalance in any of these would cause the individual respectively to become choleric (irritable), melancholic (depressed), sanguine (optimistic), or phlegmatic (calm, listless). The dominance of a humour indicated a characteristic disposition. Galen wrote that the four humours were the bases of temperaments. This was based on the idea that the human body is made up of these four essential fluids, but also that the earth is made up of four elements of earth, air, water, and fire, and with four corresponding qualities: hot, cold, wet, and dry. Personality and psychopathology were connected through this common dependence upon humoral balance, and restoration (and so healthy temperament) was restored through techniques like bleeding, purging, and vomiting. Each humour was characterised by its fluid element and also its physiological effects. For example, a choleric personality had a tendency towards anger, the melancholic towards low mood, sanguine towards optimism and confidence, and phlegmatic towards a stolid calmness. In the 1940s, William Sheldon introduced somatotyping as a means of classifying individuals based on their body type and personality characteristics. On the basis of careful analysis after a large number of surveys on the association between somatotypes and temperament type; he claimed that there are three somatotypes: endomorphs (soft and round), mesomorphs (muscular), and ectomorphs (long and fragile). Sheldon believed that these three essential elements determine each person’s body build or somatotype, and that these reflected a relationship between these elements and three layers of the human embryo –​ the endoderm, the mesoderm, and the ectoderm. Sheldon believed that somatotypes vary in the innate focus of their bodies towards their stomachs, muscles, and nervous systems. He devised a rating scale whereby individuals could measure themselves on each of these three dimensions using a scale from 1 (low) to 7 (high) with a mean of 4 (average). Therefore, a person who was a pure mesomorph would have a score of 1-​7-​1. A pure endomorph would have a score of 7-​1-​1, while a pure ectomorph would score 1-​1-​7, whereas a mostly average person with endomorphic tendencies would have a score of 6-​4-​4. There were corresponding behavioural characteristics. An endomorph was relaxed, and would love to eat, an ectomorph was restrained, artistic, while the mesomorph, in between the two, was energetic and assertive.

56  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

Extreme somatotypes were thought to be rare in a population and the majority of individuals were classified according to their degree of the tendency towards each somatotype. These classifications were based on Sheldon’s examination of up to 4,000 photographs of naked, college-​age males in front, side, and back views, and recognised three basic human personality types. Sheldon was influenced by Kretschmer’s constitutional psychology (Kretchmer, 1925) which used a similar classification of body types, but with the aim of classifying psychiatric syndromes, and so he believed the same was true for each of these personality types, that it is closely correlated with one of three human body types or somatotypes. At around the same time in the history of psychology, Carl Jung classified individuals in terms of the most obvious trait, that of introversion versus extraversion. The introvert, he argued, withdraws into him/​herself especially when encountering stressful emotional conflict, prefers to be alone, tends to avoid others, and is shy. The extravert, on the other hand, reacts to stress by losing him/​ herself in other people and social activity, is drawn to an occupation that allows him to deal directly with many people, e.g., sales, and tends to be conventional, social, and outgoing. This would later become the backbone for how Jungian psychologists would assess personality preferences, by means of the Myers-​ Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). There would be disputes between this school and other rivals, although it would later be demonstrated that all instruments would converge on the Big Five personality traits, which will be described later (McCrae & Costa, 1990, McCrae [in Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology], 2009). The history of the trait approach in terms of the lexical hypothesis began with the work of Gordon Allport (1897–​1967). In 1921, together with his brother, Floyd Henry Allport, published the first work on traits, “Personality Traits: Their Classification and Measurement”. In this publication, he considered the idiographic (unique) vs. nomothetic (comparable) approach. We have to consider that Sigmund Freud was presenting his ideas at this time. Indeed, his statement that “Psychologists would do well to give full recognition to manifest motives before probing the unconscious” reflects his position in the personality approach, and the beliefs of experimental psychologists of the time. Allport and Odbert (1936) identified 17,953 words describing personality traits, and then used this as a basis for identifying the words that describe traits, reasoning that if we are to define a personality scale to measure personality, that same scale should be able to describe it. Traits are building blocks of personality and occur in different combinations, making us unique and influencing our behaviour. Each person has various types of traits hierarchically organised according to how much they influence behaviour. Allport referred to the five to ten traits that best describe an individual’s personality as central traits. One

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  57

activity which might be helpful is to spend a few minutes thinking about the five to ten traits that best describe the self. The aim of the essential trait approach is to reduce large numbers of traits to a few that are essential to understanding personality. The goal is to find the smallest number of traits by which individual differences in personality can be adequately described. After Allport’s work, there were a number of main theories in the essential trait approach. These have been by Murray (1938), Cattell (1961), and by Eysenck (1947). Henry Murray (1938) identified 27 essential traits which he named “needs”. He included in this list an need for aggression, order, play, and sex. He distinguished between primary needs which are biologically based, and secondary needs, which are related to achievement, dominance, affiliation, and nurturance. These secondary needs that have been extensively researched in the psychology of motivation: a need for achievement, for dominance, affiliation, and nurturance. A psychogenic need is a “readiness to respond in a certain way under certain given conditions” (Murray, 1938). Murray used an in-​depth psychology approach with biographical interviews and projective tests. Raymond Cattell was a British psychologist who moved to the United States when he was invited by Edward Thorndike to work at Columbia University. He took up the G. Stanley Hall professorship in psychology at Clark University a year later, recommended by Thorndike. Later he was invited by Allport to join Harvard University a few years later, where he conducted the personality research that would become the foundation for his later scientific work, and during World War II he was a civilian consultant to the US government, researching and developing tests for selection for the armed forces. After the war, he returned to teaching at Harvard (Gillis, 2014). During this work, Cattell noticed that in the other sciences: physics, chemistry, astronomy, medical science, theories were supported by scientific observation and measurement. He worked with Charles Spearman to develop the technique of factor analysis in order to understand the basis of human abilities, and the dimensions and structure of personality. At the University of London with Spearman, Cattell hypothesised that factor analysis could be applied in the domain outside that of human ability, such as in the arrangement and structure of personality (Cattell & Kline, 1977). Exploratory factor analysis could be applied to interpersonal functioning, in order to identify the basic dimensions of social behaviour. In 1961, Cattell identified 16 essential traits, including intelligence, stability, and friendliness. The term “traits” refers to broad traits and dimensions. Broad traits comprise narrower traits, which are correlated. Cattell’s claim was that in order to think about broad traits, we need to consider narrower (primary) traits first. The 16 traits identified by Cattell, were: warmth, reasoning, emotional stability, dominance, liveliness, rule-​consciousness, social boldness, sensitivity,

58  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

vigilance, abstractedness, privateness, apprehension, openness to change, self-​ reliance, perfectionism, and tension. Cattell argued that personality traits should be identified through multiple measurement media, which should include subjective ratings, or life-​record data (L-​data), subjective self-​report questionnaire date (Q-​data), and objective test data (T-​data). These would address problems of susceptibility to response distortion (responding to these questionnaires with a bias towards social desirability) and would also those issues pertaining to reliability and validity (Cattell, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1986d). We might consider L-​data to be biodata nowadays, and to include information about education, work, and volunteering activities, as are used in personnel or organisational psychology for industry or military recruitment. Such biographical data can account for variance seen in self-​report personality measurements and in general mental ability (Mount, Witt, & Barrick, 2000), supporting Cattell’s ideas that these self-​report data can be useful for providing information beyond that acquired by conventional personality measurement. The Sixteen Personality Factor questionnaire (16PF) was based on exploratory factor analyses of several clusters of personality traits that had been obtained through a search of over 4,000 personality terms, which were trait-​descriptive in the English language, and taken from the compilation by Allport and Odbert (1936). Cattell’s work demonstrated a huge development in the use of factor analysis in this work. The problem with Allport’s and subsequent ways of considering traits was in a lack of grounding: “Traits are cortical, subcortical, or postural dispositions having the capacity to gate or guide specific phasic reactions. It is only the phasic aspect that is visible; the tonic is somehow in the still mysterious realm of neurodynamic structure” (Allport, 1966, p. 3). One psychologist who had an issue with this lack of grounding, and this confusion between brain and body, was Hans Eysenck (1947, 1986). Eysenck (1967) considered the biological bases of traits, after some general ideas (Eysenck, 1957) about extraversion and cortical arousability. Eysenck believed the problem to lie in the lack of scientific underpinning to the argument about personality traits. Eysenck shortlisted three “superfactors”. Superfactors are higher order traits, derived from intercorrelations between source traits. They are genetically determined, and focused on temperament. These are the emotional, motivational, and non ability-​related cognitive aspects of behaviour. Eysenck initially related his personality model back to the humours, noting that the two broad dimensions of extraversion and neuroticism could be combined to reflect the four imbalances of the humours (see Figure 2.1). High extraversion and high neuroticism resulted in the choleric type, low extraversion and high neuroticism in the melancholic type, high extraversion and low neuroticism in the sanguine type, and low extraversion and low neuroticism in the phlegmatic type.

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  59

FIGURE 2.1 Eysenck’s

model initially comprised two factors relating to the Ancient Greek theory of humours.

Eysenck’s third factor of psychoticism was added later after subsequent factor analyses (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1970) and was not as well developed in terms of a biological model, although at various times it was argued that there is an association with serotonin (Eysenck 1992), which is the neurotransmitter implicated in pro-​social behaviours (Knutson et al., 1998). Eysenck believed psychoticism to be negatively associated with serotonin function, and positively associated with dopamine function. Psychoticism is a tendency towards psychotic/​sociopathic behaviour. It was developed from research conducted in mental institutions and prisons, with high scorers showing recklessness, disregard for common sense or conventions, inappropriate emotional expression, and a tendency to be hostile, manipulative, and impulsive.

60  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

For Eysenck, each of these factors had an important biological underpinning. The difference between extraversion and introversion lay in the brain’s ascending reticular activating system (ARAS), and formed a part of the brain’s balance of “inhibition” and “excitation”. Extraversion is a part of the reticulo-​cortical circuit, with high extraversion occurring as a consequence of low levels of cortical arousal in ARAS. Extraverts have higher thresholds for cortical arousal than introverts, and as a consequence choose more stimulating activities in order to heighten experience to their preferred level of arousal. On the other hand, low extraversion (introversion) occurs as a result of already high levels of cortical arousal, and results in an individual who does not seek extra arousal from the environment. The factor of neuroticism (vs. emotional stability) occurs as a result of the reticulo-​limbic circuit. High levels of neuroticism arise from excessive activity of the autonomic nervous system, with high levels of neuroticism occurring as a result of excessive activity of the autonomic nervous system. Neurotics are more easily aroused by emotion-​inducing stimuli than emotionally stable individuals, and suffer from moods which change rapidly, going up as well as down, and from being tense, ruminative, and highly strung. According to Eysenck (Eysenck, 1967), individuals who score high on the neuroticism scale are not necessarily neurotics but they might be more susceptible to neurotic problems. The archetypal neurotic symptom is the panic attack. Here are some interesting facts that emerged about human behaviour through use of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ): 1 Extroverts are more likely to have sexual intercourse at younger ages and with more partners than introverts (Eysenck, 1976; Giese & Schmidt, 1968) 2 Introverts tend to demonstrate superior academic achievement. This is found in both western and non-​western cultures (Furneaux, 1957; Kline, 1966) 3 Individuals with high extraversion, high neuroticism, and high psychoticism scores are more likely to engage in criminal activity (Eysenck, 1967, 1977). Most individuals (sometimes called “ambiverts”) are in the middle ranges of these values. In personality questionnaires, these preferences and behaviours are measured. Eysenck was inspired by Pavlov’s theory of excitatory and inhibitory brain processes being linked to conditioning (Eysenck, 1957). Eysenck believed that introverted individuals are relatively easy to condition as they are high in arousal, whereas extraverts, being low in arousal or inhibitory processes, are harder to condition, but there were a number of problems with these points, largely that it assumed that clinically neurotic individuals were so due to conditioning, that introverts were harder to treat than extroverts, and that behaviour therapy –​based on conditioning principles –​would be effective alone in treating neurotic conditions.

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  61

Eysenck also used his theory to explain criminal behaviour, suggesting a biological component to criminality, with those subject to high levels of arousal (and thus extraverted) needing more levels of environmental stimulation to activate their excitement than introverts, who are already at peak levels of arousal. This suggested that environmental stimulation, along with difficulties in conditioning, could cause criminal behaviour. Since neurotics are more reactive and volatile, they too, would be at risk of engaging in offending behaviour. When Eysenck then added the third factor of psychoticism, this proposal was completed by the prediction that the degree to which somebody is antisocial, aggressive, aloof, uncaring, and detached (i.e., psychotic) would also predispose them to criminal behaviour. A score of high E, high N, and high P, therefore, made the individual vulnerable to criminality (Eysenck, 1964). These prior models of personality traits led to the broad acceptance of a model of five traits, which is commonly accepted and highly popular. When we talk about the “Big Five”, we are usually referring to McCrae and Costa’s (1987) model. Costa and McCrae (1976) went back to Cattell’s 16PF scales and found three clusters which formed the starting point for their NEO-​PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985), the standard questionnaire measure for the five factor model (FFM). NEO-​PI stands for Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness Personality Inventory-​Revised, since those were the first traits that the questionnaire measured. Allport’s lists of adjectives describing people were re-​examined first by Goldberg, then by Costa and McCrae, and this led to decades of research which has converged on five personality variables (McCrae & Costa, 1987, 1997; Goldberg, 1990). These, as with Eysenck’s three, are the highest-​level factors of a hierarchical taxonomy based on factor analysis, and five “superfactors”. The five: Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism, are commonly remembered by the acronym “OCEAN”, although it helps to identify the commonality with Eysenck’s three: extraversion/​ introversion and neuroticism (also called negative emotionality) being the same, and agreeableness being the positive side of Eysenck’s psychoticism. The additional factors are of openness to experience and conscientiousness (control and self-​discipline). Eysenck argued that these latter two factors were attributes more related to intelligence than to personality, and which indicate ability (Eysenck, 1993). The Big Five yielded huge amounts of research across multiple continents and cultures, with robust replication across various populations, and remains the most widely accepted framework for personality measurement and description, with the NEO-​PI-​R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) being its most widely used scale. It comprises a 240-​item personality inventory measuring the FFM. It comprises six subordinate dimensions (“facets”) of each of the five factors, and has been

62  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

developed for use with healthy adults. The shorter version, the NEO-​Five Factor Inventory (NEO-​FFI) has 60 items (12 items per domain). Apart from the huge amount of research across populations, the instrument has also been measured to examine personality across time, with Costa and McCrae researching how personality changed with age in the 1970s. In more detail, the indicators of the Big Five are: Openness (individuals scoring high are creative, sensitive, and tolerant; those scoring low are conventional, prefer the familiar, and are routine-​based); Conscientiousness (individuals scoring high are controlled, organised, motivated, and self-​disciplined; those scoring low are careless, untidy, easily distracted, and undependable; Extraversion (those scoring high are sociable, energetic, assertive, active, and gregarious; those scoring low are reserved, independent, solitary, and shy); Agreeableness (those scoring high are helpful, trusting, sympathetic, and co-​ operative; those scoring low are rude, cold, antagonistic, and sceptical); and Neuroticism (those scoring high demonstrate high levels of emotional distress, and are anxious; those scoring low are calm, well adjusted, and have few mood swings). Each of the five supertraits is measured by six subordinate traits. Neuroticism is measured through being hardy-​vulnerable and unemotional-​ emotional; Agreeableness through being ruthless-​soft-​hearted and suspicious-​ trusting. Generally, gender differences have been found across the board, with women scoring consistently higher than men in neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Eysenck, 1991). The Big Five personality factors have emerged in studies of school children and appear to be fairly stable over time (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999). The Big Five have also been associated with various behaviours. For example, people high in conscientiousness achieve higher grades and are seen as more honest, while those high in openness to experience are more likely to play a musical instrument. Individuals who score high on agreeableness are consistently found to smoke less (Paunonen, 2003). The Big Five factors have been reproduced cross-​culturally, but there are various problems associated with their replicability. It is not always the same five that emerge in analyses, nor are there always five factors. Saucier (2009) identifies at least 12 categories of person-​descriptors that are subject to controversy, in terms of whether they should or should not be considered personality attributes. These include the fact that some measures are of types of traits, not types of people. Some situational predicates are recurrently applicable to a particular type of person. For example, some situations are associated with particular personality attributes. An individual may be “always at home” or “constantly with friends” which can lead us to identifying personality tendencies by examining for these extremes. There may also be indicators of geographical or ethnic origin, of social and occupational role categories, of physical attributes, of attributes denoting social status, and the effect of the individual upon others, which involve global evaluations, eccentricity, deviance, normality, or conformity

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  63

to convention, or attributes which are indicative of psychopathology. Finally, generalised attitudes, values, and belief dispositions can be used to express personality traits incorrectly, perhaps when they are indicating temporary state attributes instead. Do Chimpanzees Have These Personality Traits?

The question of whether these models may be transferred to non-​human primates is contentious, but there are several early primate studies that can give us an idea about the consistency of transfer of the human work to primates. Chamove, Eysenck, and Harlow (1972) performed three factor analyses on social interaction data from 168 juvenile macaque monkeys (about 85% males), who were separated from their mothers at birth and reared in individual mesh cages. The monkeys were given daily peer experience starting at between 15 and 90 days of age. For about half the animals this consisted of daily two-​hour pairings in the home cage and bi-​weekly one hour group sessions in a playroom or in a large cage. For the rest, the social experience involved 40-​minute group sessions daily in a playroom. All monkeys were assigned to a group composed of four cage-​mates and all social experience, both in pairings and group sessions, involved these group members. All group social interaction was experienced when all four members were present, so that after a few months the group had formed stable social relationships which were retained even when monkey participants were paired. Monkeys were tested in stable quadrad peer groups; in newly formed dyads with infant, juvenile, and adult stimulus monkeys; and in similar triads with a stimulus animal and a familiar cage-​mate. Three clear behaviour factors emerged most strongly in the most stable condition, and were interpreted as affiliative, hostile, and fearful. The patterns of behaviour were similar to the three major factors in research on human personality; neuroticism-​stability, extraversion-​introversion, and psychoticism. These are the core factors in Eysenck’s model, and form a part of the Big Five. At the time, the authors explained that it was premature to seek proof of the identity of the factors in the monkey species, as no acceptable method existed at that time for any such proof, but that the identification could have been made reasonable with the incorporation of these factors in a nomological network, as adopted by Eysenck and Broadhurst (1964) with reference to emotionality in rats. It was considered possible to test whether affectionate (extraverted) monkeys had lower cortical arousal patterns than non-​affectionate ones, and to test for differences in conditioning between the two groups. The authors believed that suitability of the “neuroticism” tag for the fearful animals could be tested in the same way it was done for emotionality in rats. Finally, the authors considered that psychoticism might be the most difficult factor to investigate, since it was particularly less well researched in the human population. Behaviours involving

64  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

a lack of co-​operation and inappropriate aggression were noted, and quantified the existence of psychoticism in these monkeys. The authors explain how it might have seemed surprising that similar factors emerged from two different species, but they explained the reasoning behind their presence as being due to monkeys and humans (also rodents) having similar brain structures to underpin emotional and fearful behaviour –​ the autonomic system, limbic system, and arousal behaviour, i.e., a cortex linked with an ascending reticular formation. Individual differences arise as a consequence of brain functioning of these systems, with behavioural differences expected to be similar to any species close to humans. It was difficult, in those days, to suggest a biological underpinning for psychoticism, but interestingly they had noted a close relationship to masculinity, and suggested a possible link to hormonal secretion related to sex glands, and supported this idea with citation of investigations in rhesus monkeys (Rose, Holady, & Bernstein, 1971). This observational study demonstrated marked and reliable individual differences between monkeys in their social behaviour, which were characteristic of the animals concerned, and may thus be regarded as aspects of “personality”. The authors argued that experimental work with primates did not pay attention to their “personality”, and that this was a serious omission since, just as with experimentation in human participants, it can be misleading to leave out of the account personality factors like extraversion-​introversion (Eysenck, 1967). This, they argue, is particularly important in rodent studies, where a range of experimental studies can be influenced profoundly by differences in emotionality, with very different theoretical conclusions drawn, depending on strains of animals used (Eysenck and Broadhurst, 1964; Eysenck, 1967). Work with monkeys should consider the importance of individual differences and use measurements of those factors to keep the variance as small as possible. As with other studies on primates, the problem is that these results represent the outcomes of captured primates only, and so it is difficult to obtain conclusive results about personality formation in nonhumans. It may be of some usefulness to consider some of the findings in chimpanzees. Van Hooff (1971) reported a component and cluster analysis of 53 behaviours recorded in a group of 25 chimpanzees, with 69% of the variance accounted for by the components associated with affinitive or social positive, play, aggressiveness, and submissiveness, and additional smaller but significant contributions of the factors termed groom, excitement, and “show” or display. Interaction between Personality Traits and Learning

The processes of habituation and learning via reward and punishment (operant conditioning) were explained previously. There are four basic types of learning. First, habituation. This is where a familiar and inconsequential stimulus is ignored

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  65

FIGURE 2.2 Yerkes–​Dodson

law.

through learning –​ so a repeated loud noise might be startling initially, but the startle response decreases the more we hear it. Second, classical conditioning. Here, there is the learning that one stimulus follows another. For example, in Pavlov’s experiments a tone or light was used and food was delivered to a dog which would salivate. Eventually the dogs would salivate to the tone or light even when no food was delivered. Third, instrumental conditioning, whereby there is learning of the relationship between responses and the outcomes. In this example, we might consider training a dog by using food as a reward. If the dog sits or comes back s/​he receives a biscuit. Finally, complex learning, which involves more than the formation of associations. In humans, this can be the goal-​orientated behaviour arising from a need for achievement, such as completing a qualification or learning to swim well. We can consider that reward and punishment play less of a role in complex learning in comparison to the other three types, as this type of learning is more about self-​determination and intrinsic reward and less influenced by external factors. In other words, complex learning involves hardwired personality traits and internalised factors, and is less influenced by environmental effects. The Yerkes–​Dodson law demonstrates this through consideration of how levels of arousal interact with underlying personality trait distribution in the individual (Figure 2.2 shows Yerkes–​ Dodson law). Measurement of Self in Personality

How can you measure yourself? Scales can tell you how much you weigh. Measuring tapes tell you how tall you are. We notice how small or big we are getting through the size of our clothes. What about the parts of the self that cannot be seen?

66  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

There are four ways in which we can measure the self: 1 Brain scanning: a physical snapshot of an organ which causes and influences how the mind works 2 Personality scales: these indicate if we are individuals who are open to experience, conscientious, extraverted, agreeable, and neurotic (or not) 3 Knowledge from family trees and studies of family lines 4 Genetic analysis: companies like 23andMe provide genetic records about health and heritage from a small sample of saliva As a starting point to defining personality, we can consider how other researchers think about it. Larsen and Buss (2008) consider the role of personality in human nature, and in terms of the multi-​faceted approaches: Personality is the set of psychological traits and mechanisms within the individual that are organized and relatively enduring and that influence his or her interactions with, and adaptations to, the intrapsychic, physical and social environments. (Larsen & Buss, “Personality Psychology”, 2008) We can break down the above statement to consider the component parts of what personality is. “The set of psychological traits” refers to characteristics that describe ways in which people are different from each other or similar to each other. Research on personality traits asks the following questions: how many traits are there? What are the origins of traits? Are they present at birth and therefore innate, or are they learned? If both, to what extent? How are traits organised? They are not randomly present in the individual. Instead, there is organisation. What is the nature of this organisation, and how is it the same/​different from individual to individual? What are the correlations and consequences of traits? The Larsen and Buss statement refers to mechanisms. Psychological mechanisms are like traits, but they refer to the process of personality. Most psychological mechanisms involve an information-​processing activity and a reaction to it. For example, extraverts are prepared to notice and act on certain kinds of social information. The impact of that upon human behaviour then needs to be determined. Larsen and Buss’s definition goes on to consider that personality explains the traits within the individual, meaning that personality is something a person carries with self over time, and from one situation to the next. We are the same people we were last week, last month, last year, and will continue to have these personalities in the coming months and years. Personality traits are hardwired and

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  67

enduring over time, and do not change much across time. Although personalities are influenced by our environments and by other individuals and the personality traits they bring to our society, we carry the same personalities from situation to situation. Traits and mechanisms are not a random collection of elements; they are organised, precisely because mechanisms and traits are linked to one another. Psychological traits are enduring over time, but the mechanisms and states less so. If someone is angry today, s/​he is not necessarily angry tomorrow. Anger-​ proneness is a trait (prone to anger), but whether the person is angry in the moment, may depend on a variety of situational mechanisms: for example, environment, stimuli, arousal, and stress. There is a difference between possessing a trait and expressing associated behaviours as a state. The generalisation about the consistency of personality does not always hold. For example, talkative individuals are not always talkative in lectures. This debate about whether people are consistent across situations in their lives is ongoing, since it is also dependent upon the way in which each behaviour is measured. Honesty measured in one situation (such as cheating on a test) may not correlate with honesty measured elsewhere (such as cheating on income taxes). Although individuals may not be perfectly consistent, there is enough consistency to warrant its inclusion in a definition of personality. With this in mind, we may ask: which is more important in determining what people do? The person or the situation? This point has been strongly debated since the late 1960s, when Stanley Milgram presented results demonstrating that a high percentage of an experimental population would obey when presented with certain situational variables under stressful conditions (Milgram, 1963). Situational variables are best for predicting behaviour in certain situations, but personality traits are best for predicting patterns of behaviour that persist over time and situations (Larsen & Buss, 2009). Larsen and Buss’s statement continues with an explanation of personality traits and mechanisms influencing the individual’s interactions. Traits are influential forces in how we view ourselves, the world, and others, and play a key role in how people shape their lives. They are forces that influence how we think, act, and feel. The person–​environment interaction is complicated, however, and involves a set of evocations. Evocations are the reactions we produce in other people, subject to our perceptions (how we interpret information), to selection (how we choose which situations we enter), and manipulations (how we intentionally influence others). This involves adaptive functioning in terms of accomplishing goals, coping, adjusting, and dealing with life problems and challenges over time. Human behaviour is goal-​oriented, functional, and involves adjustment to environment and events in dealing with challenges and problems in life. Human behaviour is goal-​directed, functional, and purposeful; even behaviours that do

68  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

not appear functional, such as being neurotic and excessive worrying, may serve some function. Personality traits involve adaptations to the intrapsychic, physical, and social environments. The intrapsychic environment refers to “within the mind”, the part of the non-​verifiable reality which involves, for each of us, our memories, dreams, desires, and fantasies. These are not objectively verifiable, but they form a part of our psychological reality, nonetheless. The physical environment that can influence personality trait expression can come in the form of direct threats to survival, or also direct facilitators of it. These can motivate behaviours, or can help to keep us safe. The social environment comprises adaptive challenges. For example, we may desire a good job, but we might have a set of personality traits which make us shy away from the competition. The social environment contains therein the challenges in love and esteem gained from self and from others. The influence of these different factors on personality leads to consideration of wider and important issues in psychology. The various personality approaches to explain personality reflect the multifaceted nature of psychology as a science. Thus, all personality theories emphasise the importance of childhood and also adult experiences in shaping and influencing personality, differing in the dynamics of how those experiences contribute in terms of personality development and change. This includes the effects of experience but also of physiological factors, such as heredity, brain and neurotransmitter systems, and other biological factors. These theories describe the commonness of human nature as well as the uniqueness of individuals in terms of individual differences. A comprehensive explanation of personality considers the relative importance of genetics, traits, sociocultural factors, learning, existential factors, unconscious mechanisms, and cognitive processing (Rathee, 2019). Therefore personality involves the psychoanalytic approach, the trait approach, the biological and evolutionary approaches, the phenomenological or humanistic approaches, the learning approach (involving both behaviourism and social learning theories), and the cognitive approach. These theories are most useful when taken in combination. Singularly, each approach is helpful since it can generate research; each theory can be falsifiable, can organise and integrate existing findings, offering consistency and practical answers to everyday problems. Each theory operates to the principle of parsimony, that is to say, the scientific principle that things are usually connected, or that they behave in the simplest and most economical way, in particular with reference to evolutionary processing. This is why the theory of personality remains at the stage where we have many, sometimes conflicting, theories. There is no grand ultimate and true theory of personality, as there is in the other sciences. The field of biology contains one grand and unifying theory, which is the theory of evolution by natural selection (Darwin, 1859), although as previous discussions in the last chapter explained, this

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  69

theory requires some reconsideration with an emphasis on other characteristics in order to address aspects that were underemphasised or neglected, to bring it in line with the adaptations and current variations of our society. Darwin said that “The time is always ripe for the reinterpretation of theories in the light of new vision and of new facts. This is the very province of science” (Darwin in Barlow, 1958). In “The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals” (1872), Darwin conducted the first pioneering study of emotion. He wrote this a year after “The Descent of Man” in which it was originally intended to be a chapter. Since it grew too long, it became a book of its own, and was finished in just 4 months. Darwin documented the close relations between human emotional expression and that in other complex mammals. Prior to his work, the face was of interest to those who claimed that they could read personality and intelligence from facial features. Darwin concentrated on visible but temporary changes in appearance, forecasting the fundamentals of facial expression, but also of emotion itself. Indeed, it is considered by expert Paul Ekman as “the book that began the science of psychology” (Ekman, 2009), and indirectly contributed to the study of temperament. Darwin’s major insight was that facial expressions of emotion are universal, which challenged the racists of his time by reflecting apes’ and humans’ descent from a common ancestor, and allowing for confirmation of the unity of mankind. He also made the claim the emotions are found in species other than humans; they are not unique to human beings. He made the example of emotions occurring in animals from bees to roosters, dogs, cats, horses, and primates. This view had been considered bad science and anthropomorphism, with the underlying belief reflecting use of language and ability to self-​report. Darwin argued that words are used to describe and reflect emotional experience, and are representations of emotion themselves. Darwin’s studies often overshadow those of another important English Victorian scientist with whom he shared a personal as well as intellectual and scientific relationship: his younger half-​cousin, Francis Galton (1822–​1911) (Gillham, 2001). Darwin had been a role model for Galton, but the two shared major scientific interests after the publication of Darwin’s “On The Origin of the Species” in 1859, which initiated a religious and philosophical crisis in Galton. He eased this through the production of his ideas in “hereditary genius” and the eugenic movement. Galton conducted pioneering studies of human intelligence, proposing the basic concepts of the nature–​nurture dichotomy, laying the conceptual and statistical foundations for behaviour genetics, and proposing the origins of intelligence testing. At around 1882, Galton explored inherited bias of individual differences in personality and intelligence. He tried to establish an inventory of human abilities, measuring sensory acuity, reaction times, movement, and strength, aiming to measure the resemblance between un/​ related individuals in order to explore role of inheritance.

70  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

In our first book, Primatology, Ethics and Trauma (Ingersoll & Scarnà, 2023), we explored the roles of nature and nurture in how human researchers interacted with chimpanzees –​and perhaps less so but nonetheless also, in how the chimpanzees interacted with humans. The research was conducted at a time when the world was divided into a discourse of nature-​OR-​nurture. With recent studies employing more sophisticated techniques, we are now in a position of demonstrating nature via nurture. Nowadays, we neuroscientists understand that it is nature via nurture, and consequently, nurture via nature. Who we become is partly hardwired from birth, and partly due to our character-​building experiences that occur in our environment. Indeed, it is time to reconsider a lot of the initial ideas about Darwin. Psychologist Louis Cozolino explains that “We are not the survival of the fittest. We are the survival of the nurtured … Those who are nurtured best, survive best” (Cozolino, 2014). Moon, Panneton-​Cooper, and Fifer (1993) explain that aside from language being a specifically human function which has demonstrated neurobiological adaptations associated with communication in these other primates, as an evolutionary trend, it is exposure to language that is important for its acquisition and culture. The Oklahoma chimpanzees were unique for being highly encultured, through the attempts to teach them human language. Personalities exist within cultural contexts. Culture influences how we think, behave, and interact with others, and cross-​cultural psychology considers the core dimension of cultural variability, which is collectivism and individualism. “Culture” is a heterogeneous term, and a generally accepted term does not exist; culture depends on the specific area of interest of the psychology researcher. Usually, one specific aspect of culture is focused upon (Guess, 2004). Individualistic cultures emphasise individual needs and accomplishments, whereas collectivist cultures emphasise co-​operation instead of competition, and group (rather than individual) accomplishment. Countries with more individualistic value orientations include the United States and Germany, and countries with predominantly collectivist value orientations include Latin American countries like Venezuela, and Asian countries such as India. Cultural values influence the generation and selection of specific goals and decision-​making strategies to solve problems. Those from individualistic cultures tend to focus on the task itself, quickly finding a solution alone, whereas those from collectivist cultures are more likely to consider the social aspects of the problem, proceeding carefully and involving other individuals, relying strongly on the opinions of their family and friends. The success of decision making depends on what is appropriate and expected within the cultural environments, and the expectations might be quite different. Culture-​specific expectations and values are transmitted across generations, and guide decision-​making strategies, guiding the individual towards those which are good and effective, and which are not appropriate. Cultural expectations and

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  71

values are represented in the individual’s mind and are guiding principles for the selecting specific decision-​making processes (Guess, 2004). By identifying cultural limitations we can gain insight into the universality of personality concepts. In collecting data about personality, we are taking objective measures, sometimes from subjective ratings. With this in mind, then, personality psychology needs to occupy itself with the collection of four different types of data: 1 Self Report –​we can ask the individual directly 2 Informant Report –​ ask someone who knows the individual, such as their partner, spouse, parent, sibling, child, or friend 3 Life outcomes –​we can look at information regarding employment, income, education, etc. 4 Behavioural data –​observation of behaviour across different situations Psychometrics is the study of theory and methods of psychological measurement. It includes intelligence testing, personality traits measurement, and vocational testing. The implications of testing the individual are great, highlighting the need for high professional standards in developing and administering tests and in interpreting their results. Psychologists rely on a gaussian distribution to explain results. This is the distribution of independent random errors of observation, which takes on a normal distribution as the number of observations become large. The gaussian distribution, named after German mathematician, Carl Friedrich Gauss, is also referred to as the “bell-​shaped curve” (see Figure 2.3). A normal distribution is an arrangement of data that is symmetrical, so it has no skew. It forms a bell-​shaped pattern where the mean, median and/​or mode falls in the centre at the highest peak, and it is parametric, which means that the distribution is characterised by two parameters: the mean/​ average, and the standard deviation. The standard deviation measures how far the values are from the mean of the data set. Any value that is two or more standard deviations from the mean is considered abnormal, or impaired, if it is performance. It is the square root of the average of the squared distance from the mean. There is a problem with consideration of “normality” as a normal distribution in this way, through use of a bell-​shaped curve. To determine the distribution of a trait, it is necessary to measure it, which means the creation of a scale. Personality scales measure whatever psychologists consider personality to “be”, and so psychologists make the scale so that the distribution is normal, simply by changing the benchmark for a normal score. Furthermore, the population within which the distribution is contained may not indicate true normality. For example, with intelligence we say that to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation

72  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

FIGURE 2.3 Gaussian

distribution.

From Principles and Practice of Clinical Medicine (2008) Chin, R. and Lee, B.Y.

of 15 is “normal”. However, it is not entirely normal, as individuals score on the higher end. In order to address this, we might alter the scoring system to reflect “true” normality. Whether it is scientifically reasonable to do this, is a persisting argument. We have little sense for what intelligence is (“Intelligence is whatever intelligence tests measure” [Boring, 1923]), and intelligence is an ordinal measure rather than a ratio one: if we take three individuals with the same intelligence level, it does not necessarily mean that they are intelligent in the same three ways. A note here about the Oklahoma chimpanzees. In our first book (Ingersoll & Scarnà, 2023), we make the claim that “Chimps are dangerous since they are around five times the strength of humans, yet with the intellect of around a five-​seven year old, which endows them with the ability to plan and to create situations”. Alyse Moore corrected us. Psychologists believe that chimpanzees have an intellect based at around those ages, but in truth, chimpanzees are difficult to test, and even more so when they are older, since they do not respond well to being tested. Chimpanzees continue growing, but “they go off in another space or dimension”. We always assumed that chimpanzee psychological and intellectual growth is the same as it is in humans, but according to Alyse Moore and other chimpanzee carers, it grows in another direction. Other animals are not subject to the same laws of nature as humans. We might also consider that, as much as our human arrogance allows us, we believe that our thinking abilities are akin to those test animals’ abilities, but we cannot be certain, and especially not of those chimpanzees who had the ability to use sign language. We cannot apply an ordinal measure to a developing being. How could this be reconciled with the information on personality scales and tests? Several psychological instruments reflect normal distributions (the extraversion and neuroticism measurements on the Big Five and the EPQ),

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  73

and others do not (psychoticism on the EPQ). Some populations are roughly average or normal (most market towns in the United Kingdom) and some are not (Bedford, in the United Kingdom, has an abnormally high number of migrants, and is not representative of the rest of the United Kingdom). Several periods in history are normal (1970s in the United Kingdom) and others are not (2020 and the years following COVID). It is important to remember that normality is not necessarily representative, and that abnormality does not indicate disorder. To summarise, there is no one, unified theory or definition of personality. The study from different approaches led to a number of factors affecting the theories. Psychometrics refers to the measurement of personality, with statistics being a tool that psychologists use to measure constructs in human behaviours which include personality, some of which can be extended to explain chimpanzee behaviours, characters, and identity. Male vs. Female, Sex vs. Gender

At all times we need to consider if the scale we are using is the useful and correct instrument for what we are purporting to be measuring. Psychologists convert the behaviours they observe into numbers which may be analysed. They draw inferences about underlying brain regions, about neurotransmitters, about accompanying behaviours, and sometimes even make projections of likely outcomes. From statistics gathered from observations and experiments, psychologists construct scales which can then be used in the measurement of the same or similar human beings in similar environments, at similar times. We need to question, at all times, if the construct that we are using reflects the characteristics of the underlying brain and sometimes other biology, and associated behaviours. One such construct is sex/​gender. The British neuroscientist Gina Rippon presents phenomenal reasons and arguments concerning both the sex differences in the brain, and also gender differences in the brain. Whether the male and female brains are different depends on how we measure it. Rippon defends the position that sex differences are due to life experiences. The human brain starts as being gender neutral, just as the heart and liver does, but it is societal influence that leads to male–​female distinctions (Rippon, 2019). Simon Baron-​Cohen introduced the ideas that autistic spectrum disorder is an extreme expression of the “male brain” (Baron-Cohen, 1990). The reason why it was three-​to-​four times more common in boys, it was argued, was because of sex differences in the brain. Males engage in a kind of masculine behaviour, Baron-​Cohen argued, which is manifested as a tendency to systemise, to favour rule-​based ways of processing the world, whereas females, he argued, have more empathic and emotional behaviours. The question of male vs. female brains will be discussed with relevance to some of the findings on autism. This is important, because some of the language

74  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

deficits demonstrated by individuals with autistic spectrum condition are similar to the language capabilities demonstrated by chimpanzees who were able to sign. The pre-​linguistic zone occupied by both is rich in semantic understanding, but looser in application of linguistic tags. The chimpanzees play an important role in these debates, since their brains would have developed independently from the human cultural environment if they had been raised in the wild. Since they were encultured beings, raised among humans, they provide a rich source of information regarding “sex” and “gender”. Sex is binary. An excellent account is given by Dawkins (2023) where he explains that the evolution of anisogamy sees sexual reproduction where the gametes are either macrogametes or eggs, and microgametes or sperm. Around 15,000 sperm can be packed into one human egg. Most animals adhere to anisogamy, although some primitive plants and animals are isogamous and have medium-​sized isogametes instead of micro-​and macro-​gametes. This anisogamy binary gives the oldest, deepest, and perhaps most obvious way to distinguish the sexes. In addition, mammals and birds can be distinguished through sex. Each human has 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent, among which are the two sex chromosomes: XX for females and XY for males. Any mammal with a Y chromosome develops as a male. Occasionally, individuals are born as intersexes, although these are rare. Fausto-​Sterling considers that around 1.7% of the population are born this way, including those with Klinefelter and with Turner syndromes (0.02% are intersex if these are excluded). Individuals with Klinefelter have an extra X chromosome and so carry XXY. This Y chromosome ensures they are males and produce microgametes. Turner syndrome individuals are unambiguous females. They have no Y chromosome, but only one X chromosome in place of the usual two, XX, so with a total of 45 instead of 46. Genuine intersex individuals occur too rarely to challenge sex being binary. The medical definition of human sex is the biological sex of a person based on genital anatomy and sex chromosomes. In biology, it is defined by the size of gametes, such as sperm and eggs, with females having the larger gametes. Gender is a social construct. It is not the same as sex, which is biological. In behaviours, the term “gender” is about socialisation issues “such as, for example, the pink and blue tsunami which washes over newly arrived humans” (Rippon, 2019). Many of the arguments about sex and gender originated in the fact that the term “sex” was used to refer to both biological and social characteristics, but gender separates the social from the biological, and some of the time, can result in brain-​changing effects of a social process. Added to this, is the problem that the English language –​ whether we are using British or American versions –​ does not contain pronouns in the same way. It does not assign gender within its nouns, like la señora (the woman) in Spanish. Grammatical gender is a linguistic process whereby words are classified in terms of being masculine or feminine, or in some languages, neuter (Scarnà

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  75

1999). It is present in most Indo-​European languages, which have two or three genders. Other languages such as Bantu have up to 20 genders (Corbett, 1991). It is believed that in these languages grammatical gender is arbitrary, with no underlying rationale for which words are assigned which grammatical gender (Maratsos, 1979). Not every researcher agrees that grammatical gender assignment is arbitrary, however. Zubin and Koepcke (1981) studied 1,466 monosyllabic German nouns for which gender was not determined by suffixes. They found certain rules for determining gender. Examination of phonetic correlations resulted in 24 phonological rules which, along with morphological and semantic regularities, accounted for the gender assignment to about 90% of their set of nouns. The rules included a phonetic and a morphological motivation for gender, and semantic determination. Some of the rules included, for example, that if the noun ended in particular constant clusters, it tended to be feminine. With other nouns, long vowels tended to be masculine or neuter, and the more consonants a monosyllabic noun had in either initial or final position, the more likely it is to be masculine. In Italian there are two categories of gender, with all nouns being either masculine or feminine. For a handful of nouns referring to entities with an intrinsic sex, the correspondence between sex and grammatical gender is systematic: “uomo” (man) is masculine and “donna” (woman) is feminine. Here, the gender of this type of noun can be determined by the underlying conceptual representations, or its natural gender. For most of the other nouns which refer to objects and abstract entities, gender is arbitrarily employed and referred to as grammatical gender. For this type of noun, gender is a strictly linguistic characteristic. For example, in Italian, the synonyms of sasso and pietra both means stone, but the first is masculine and the second is feminine. Gender assignment is simply one single aspect of syntactic information necessary to construct phrasal structures during sentence production, although it affects sentence form to a great degree. In languages with a grammatical gender system, the speaker has to know the gender so that the noun can agree with the determiners. For example, tazza is feminine and is preceded by la but bicchiere is masculine and is preceded by il. Some adjectives also have to agree with the nouns: il pane fresco and la frutta fresca. The function of grammatical gender received attention with regard to architecture of language production and comprehension systems. Again, it is important to note that these are not sexual identities. The term “gender” has come to refer to the cultural side of an individual’s sex, and covering culturally assigned roles. The debate over sex versus gender differences is discussed by Frans de Waal in his recent book, “Different: What Apes Can Teach Us About Gender” (de Waal, 2022). It is heated and complex, and in the same way as he assumes the position of placing to one side the 20,000 or so research articles on brain sex

76  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

differences, we must do similar here. However, just as de Waal does, we ought to consider here the dualistic approach besides which these debates are housed. De Waal considers the human belief that “while our bodies are a product of evolution, our minds are ours alone”, and he explains that since humans are not subject to the same laws of nature as animals, this becomes a position of neo-​creationism, and one which neither denies nor embraces fully evolution. He attributes this, as we do, to our use of language: While our species is blessed with language and a few other intellectual advantages, socio-​emotionally we are primates through and through. We are equipped with a large monkey brain and the psychology that it entails, including how we navigate a world of open (mainly) two sexes. Calling them “genders” doesn’t change all that much. However refined our rhetoric may get, it can never fully disentangle the cultural category of “gender” from the biological one of “sex” and the bodies, genitals, brains, and hormones that come with it. (de Waal, 2022; pp. 309–​310) In the chimpanzee work, sex and sex differences are important because these encultured animals could hold the key to understanding the point at which sex becomes gender. If gender really is a process of cultural assignment, it is likely that those chimpanzees would have been born with biological determinants of some typically feminine behaviours (like mothering or fathering), whereas others, like wearing dresses and choosing typically female/​male toys, could have been learned. Autism is additionally important here. If Baron-​Cohen is correct, and there are sex differences in the brain which translate as systemising over empathising behaviours, we should be able to see versions in those chimpanzees, albeit retrospectively. The problem with considering these findings scientific is that they are post-​hoc, and therefore heavily biased. Fragments from interviews with the carers of chimpanzees, along with historical facts from published sources, will be presented here. The differences in male–​female brains and autism are also important in the consideration of the Oklahoma chimpanzees for the overlap in symptoms of both autism and of trauma. Taking the case of Washoe, who was cold, harsh, and aloof, and not an agreeable chimpanzee, we might ask if these traits were due to her underlying personality traits, or to her environment and nurture. It is highly likely that her upbringing was hugely influential in the expression of these behaviours. At just a few months old, Washoe was captured from her mother. It is assumed that her mother was shot by hunters, as was the tradition of the time. We know that the brain is one of the most underdeveloped organs at birth. Any serious trauma, such as a sudden separation from the mother, causes physical changes in the structure of the developing brain. It damages

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  77

the infant’s ability to process emotion, it impairs the feeling of safety and trust in others, and it leaves profound scars, and impairs processing in adulthood. The effect of this on Washoe cannot be underestimated. Having witnessed her mother dying, Washoe was then placed in a crate and taken across to the United States, where she was kept at the Holloman Air Force Base. After a few months she was adopted (“cross-​fostered”) by Allen and Beatrix Gardner. Ironically, Beatrix Gardner studied her PhD just a few metres from where I type this, in the Department of Zoology at Oxford University, even in the same building where I sometimes worked, in Experimental Psychology on South Parks Road in Oxford (the building was abandoned in 2017 and demolished in 2020 because of an asbestos problem. Washoe was safe in the care of the Gardners, but whether they tended to her chimpanzee needs fully is difficult to assume. By definition, any chimpanzee kept in a trailer and taught to sign is not having his or her needs fulfilled. Washoe was raised as a child, and taught American Sign Language. It is likely that those months would have been another tricky transition for Washoe, and one very different to her life in the forests in Africa. There were no other chimpanzees for her to socialise with, and she would have quickly forgotten her chimpanzee utterances. Teaching Washoe a second language would have silenced her first and natural voice. Much later, Washoe was introduced to Roger Fouts and then taken across to a new home in the Institute for Primate Studies at the University of Oklahoma, another enormous change which exposed her to other chimpanzees for the first time since her separation from her mother and home. The story of the birth of her second infant, Sequoyah, is told in our first book. Washoe did not bond with this baby, and refused to care for him. The baby was removed for safety, and nurtured by the young researcher-​carers. He was then placed back in the cage with Washoe, who went on to ram a toothbrush to the back of his throat, resulting in his death. What makes a mother kill her offspring? We may never know from the world of the chimpanzee in the wild, but there are also human reports of this occurring. What makes mothers harm their young? Washoe’s resultant inability to mother was due to her lack of models of mothering, and most likely also due to incidences of trauma. Parents with trauma are physically present but mentally absent, leaving the child isolated. The focus here is on mothering, since we are considering attunement in mothers, specifically, but fathers with trauma are similarly affected. A number of states cause emotional neglect and a lack of maternal warmth and validation. Having a mother who is not emotionally attuned and available causes pain and lifelong emotional effects. Mothers who were not provided with resources and support to process their own traumatic experiences struggle to interact within a healthy, functional role, in raising their own children. This is often referred to as a “mother wound”. Traumatic events to one’s mother affects how she treats herself, her body, how she views herself, and how she teaches her offspring to value or view

78  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

positive and negative events. She passes on coping mechanisms, including any dysfunctional ones that she became reliant upon. Her offspring will internalise those beliefs and also develop unhealthy coping mechanisms. Mother wounds can result from authoritarian filial piety, immigrant, refugee and/​or war experiences, poverty, racism, and from abuse that can be emotional, physical, sexual, and/​or verbal, resulting from patriarchal societies, sexism, and internalised misogyny, and (treated or untreated) psychological illness. This results in an individual who is unable to present their full self, either because they are concerned about threatening others, or because they have problems in setting boundaries. These individuals struggle in connecting with the self. They demonstrate a high tolerance for poor treatment from other individuals, and engage in people-​pleasing and emotional care-​taking behaviours, putting themselves in competition with others (especially other women). They also demonstrate self-​sabotage, parentification, and are overly rigid or dominating. They experience higher levels of psychological illnesses including eating disorders, mood disorders, addictions, and personality disorders. We are wary of attempting to diagnose any chimpanzee with any psychological disorder. Apart from the fact that neither author is a psychiatrist or veterinarian as we discuss in our previous book, we are clear that even when we speak about Washoe’s unusual and shocking behaviours, we are not diagnosing: to define abnormality, one must have an understanding of what normality is, and the main problem with the Oklahoma chimpanzees is that they had come from such unusual beginnings, and had been held captive for so long, that they were not normal anymore, which rendered any form of classification of abnormality difficult. However, that Washoe suffered traumatic experiences is indisputable and the central content of her life experiences. Washoe struggled with her mothering. The details of these struggles, among others, include the fact that she put her infant down on the floor within hours of giving birth, and that she rejected her baby almost immediately. Later, she used her baby as a display object, and employing sign language, she continued to barter with the carers using the infant. Examples of this include holding the baby up, banging him violently against the cage, and holding the baby up by one arm while signing ORANGE, ORANGE (and other food or drink) HURRY, HURRY. These demonstrate atypical, and poor, mothering skills. These accounts of Washoe’s behaviour were not just given by Robert, but also by multiple researchers involved in Washoe’s care. Many of the Oklahoma chimpanzee researchers believed that they knew how to care for the animals in a healthy and functional manner, but in truth, many investigators did not know what was occurring in those cages and in the laboratories, or did not understand or predict what could happen, and overlooked the role of the dynamics. Many of the researchers were psychologically absent, either because of alcoholism, drugs, and unresolved trauma issues, or were not physically in the same place as their animals.

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  79

This profile of apparently incompetent mothering is also present in mothers with autism. In recent years, much has been written about having children with autism, but little has been written about being the offspring of a parent with the condition –​in other words, about having been parented by those with autism, or “being aspergated” (Ingersoll & Scarnà, 2023), and much less has been written about becoming a mother if one has autism, herself. Recent studies have identified a hidden pool of women who have grown up with undiagnosed autism and who have become aware of their own conditions when researching their children’s spectrum disorders and recognising themselves in their findings. Pohl, Crockford, Blakemore, Allison, and Baron-​Cohen (2020) conducted an anonymous online survey for autistic mothers, and compared 355 autistic mothers with 132 non-​ autistic mothers of at least one autistic child. The study found results consistent with those of trauma: autistic mothers face challenges which are unique and in line with the consequences of trauma. For example, the study found that autistic mothers were more likely to have experienced psychiatric conditions such as pre-​ or post-​partum depression, greater rates of anxiety, selective mutism, and isolation. Furthermore, the fact they experience problems associated with autism itself further exacerbates resultant communication issues, so they were more likely to report feeling misunderstood by professionals and not knowing which details were appropriate to share with them, with heightened concerns about being judged about their parenting, feeling unable to turn to others for support, and with heightened difficulties in multitasking, domestic responsibilities, and creating social opportunities for their child. Generally, there were differences in education, gender identity, and age of mother at birth of first child. Taken together, it is clear that autistic mothers experience additional challenges, which would benefit from tailored support and acceptance. Nonetheless, these mothers were able to act in the best interests of their children, putting each child’s needs first. In a different study analysing autistic traits, depression, and anxiety in maternal-​ infant bonding in postpartum women, Fukui et al. (2023) found that higher scores in social skills, attention switching, communication, and imagination were associated with higher levels of depression. Additionally, higher scores for social skills, attention switching, attention to detail, and communication were associated with higher anxiety. This suggests that maternal autistic traits are related to anxiety and depression, but only slightly related to maternal-​infant bonding at one month postpartum. Difficulties in social skills and imagination were associated with failure of maternal-​infant bonding, but there was also better maternal-​infant bonding demonstrated by those who showed more attention to detail. Taken together, it is likely that attending to detail and putting the child’s needs first are what differentiate autistic parenting from traumatic versions of parenting. In our first book, we explain that with Washoe and the other Oklahoma chimpanzees, many of the behaviours exhibited were versions of responses to

80  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

traumatic incidences. In Washoe, these led to an interesting set of responses which may have looked like autism, or like a personality disorder. Washoe showed “aggression camouflaged as affection” (Linden, 1986 p.92) which is also reminiscent of features of antisocial personality disorder in humans. Antisocial personality disorder is characterised by impulsivity, irritability, a disregard and violation of the rights of others, conning others, physical fights/​assaults, recklessness, consistent irresponsibility, and a lack of remorse (DSM-​5). The causes given for antisocial personality disorder include developmental factors that may cause brain function changes, such as abuse and unstable family life. It is difficult to diagnose retrospectively, and personality disorders are complicated, by definition. It is possible that some of the behavioural manifestations in Washoe would have been consistent with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD), which is now referred to as emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) by the DSM-​5. This is a disorder of mood and of how one interacts with others. The symptoms usually emerge in adolescence and persist into adulthood. Symptoms include emotional instability (the psychological term for this is affective dysregulation), disturbed patterns of thinking or perception (cognitive distortions or perceptual distortions), impulsive behaviour, and intense but unstable relationships with others (NHS, 2022). These manifest as a fear of getting abandoned, self-​harm, suicidal tendencies, frequent mood swings, unjustified anger bursts, impulsive decision-​making, paranoia around people, inferiority complexes, and feelings of worthlessness, unstable relationships, stress, and dissociation. Again, the causes stem from both genetic and environmental factors, and most sufferers have experienced some kind of trauma or neglect as children. It is likely that those Oklahoma chimpanzees were suffering through their ability to label. In teaching them to sign using ASL, the humans in caring roles had inadvertently given them a script for labelling their emotions. This tool would have helped them in expressing some of their needs, but would have also hindered the processing of their trauma. It would have created a tool for ruminating. In humans, in order to understand and accept emotional intensity, it is important to understand why that emotion is present, and that it is there for a reason. Language serves as a tool for labelling our emotions, to tell ourselves a story about why those emotions are there, and to reprocess those emotions in order to enable posttraumatic growth and self-​compassion. Alyse Moore

Alyse has a remarkable story. She was born in 1947 in Texas and was the first woman to graduate in Forestry from Texas A&M University. At 27 after reading about the work of John Lilly, of Fritz Walter, and that which Roger Fouts was

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  81

doing, she went to Oklahoma for PhD study under Bill Lemmon, who offered to make her Assistant Director of the IPS. Alyse Moore explains how Lemmon was “intrigued” by her, and did not know what to make of her tough and determined ways. She ran a baby chimp “unit” (in a trailer) where she nurtured baby chimpanzees who had been taken from mothers. She fed them back to health, performed minor surgery, and taught them basic hoots to get used to life in the cages among other chimpanzees. She did not finish her PhD, in part because she lost her data and her notes in a tragic and life-​changing fire whereby three of Nim’s baby siblings, twin boys and a female singleton chimpanzee, died. After this sad and catastrophic event, Alyse took time out and moved to “hang out” in Nashville. She then came back for Lilly later, and a home was found when the IPS was closed and the other chimps sold to LEMSIP. Alyse also ran a movie animal business, training chickens, ducks, pigs, alongside her horses. She has a ranch in Texas and was a champion cowgirl. She worked with Bob Dunn, who had Bubbles, the chimpanzee of Michael Jackson. Alyse says I was very naïve about many things. I was a shy, stuttering girl. Maybe that’s why I was told that I could never do anything. I believed that if you work hard, you will do well. It may be as a result of coming from a poor family who worked its way up during the Depression. I felt like I didn’t know how to take defeat. Lilly

Alyse bought Lilly from a catalogue in 1974, when she was 27. Lilly was about 18 months when she arrived, on 11th June, 1974. Alyse explains, She was skin and bones when she came. She had no birthday, so I started from the day she came. I tried to start signing right away. Alyse quarantined with Lilly for the first month after Lilly’s arrival from Africa via brothers William Herbert, Nelson Bunker, and Lamar Hunt; a billionaire oil family. We authors are embarrassed to admit that our first book included Nim’s family tree, and we misspelt Lilly as “Lily”. However, there is a good reason for our ignorance. Alyse’s stories, having been underplayed within the Oklahoma chimpanzee families, did not feature much in any previous books, and it did not occur to us to calculate that this was more than a simple spelling error. Her name was also misspelt in Project Nim. Lilly did not get the credit that she deserved since she, along with Nim, were hidden behind the achievements of Washoe, who at the time was being lauded as the first chimpanzee to have language. In Oklahoma, Alyse was not a regular employee. Although she was under Lemmon’s supervision, she served a different role from the others –​ she

82  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

was his Number Two, and being primed for directorship of the IPS for when Lemmon would retire. Lilly was named after John Lilly, who was an American physician, neuroscientist and psychoanalyst, but also a philosopher and inventor. He was a member of a generation of counterculture scientists and thinkers who provoked controversy, which included Allen Ginsberg, Timothy Leary, and similar writers. Lilly had conducted research during World War II before training as a psychoanalyst, and in the 1950s he developed the isolation tank as a means of isolating the self from all external stimuli, to explore human consciousness. He then extended this work to communication with dolphins, in particular in research on how bottlenose dolphins vocalise, opening various centres in the US Virgin Islands and in San Francisco. John Lilly began a series of experiments on psychedelic drugs and on the isolation tank, or in the company of dolphins, in the early 1960s, and wrote these up in his books: Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer (Lilly, 1968) and in The Center of the Cyclone (1972). He studied yoga and paid special attention to self-​enquiry meditation, with reference to a human biocomputer paradigm which he had described (Lilly, 1968, 1972). He later travelled to Chile and trained under spiritual leader Oscar Ichazo, explaining the maximum degree of consciousness which he felt he had achieved during training. Lilly believed that: In the province of the mind what one believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits. These limits are to be found experimentally and experientially. When so found these limits turn out to be further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of the mind there are no limits. However, in the province of the body there are definite limits not to be transcended. (Lilly, 1968) Lilly made numerous inventions besides the isolation tank. These included the micrometric measurement of the melting point of drugs (1940), the electric manometer (1942), the nitrogen meter (1943), an apparatus for measuring pressure variations (1947), an apparatus for measuring respiratory flow (1950), and a multi-​channel apparatus (1950). Alyse had been told by Texas A&M that she would be able to get grants to study Lilly. A&M gave me a lot of grants. ‘Just do your work. Raise her as a human child’. I took the methodology –​ and Lilly’s name –​ from the work by John Lilly, who worked with dolphin communication. Lilly cost $950 and was one of the last chimpanzees to come across from Africa into the US. She was about one and a half years when she arrived, was severely depressed, and

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  83

she took four months to start to sign. I couldn’t touch her hands. I couldn’t move her hands or anything like that. I had a dog that had puppies, and she would spend her time with the dog. The dog would not let humans in with her babies, but she let Lilly lie with them. I had always had a good instinct with animals. Growing up, I was a severe stutterer. I understood the land and the trees, better than I understand people. After four months, I could move her hands to make signs. For the first few months, in Texas, I went into quarantine with her. She would take naps behind the music room, and she adapted well. She had eleven signs in the first four months. This was similar to Washoe’s in her first four months. John Lilly came to talk to us and helped me open up my own consciousness to the things that were happening, that were on another level. I was in a chimpanzee world. We learned chimpanzee. None of the individuals understood that they were entering an all-​encompassing world of chimpanzee life, since they would be living among the animals. It could never be a nine-​to-​five job: “I would dream in chimpanzee”. It is not so surprising that chimpanzee-​ness affected Alyse this much. If both nature and nurture are important in character formation, we might consider that the humans entering that world were becoming influenced by the chimpanzee behaviours. Indeed, she explains how sometimes, in restaurants, her friends would remark that she was eating like a chimpanzee. “I grunt like a chimpanzee now, still”. In her book on Alex the African grey parrot, Irene Pepperberg explains how she became more like Alex to the extent that she caught herself falling into the language of her parrot and asking for cork nuts instead of almonds, at the supermarket. “It is very easy to lapse into the language of the lab. The students do it all the time, mimicking Alex’s particular cadence: ‘Shou-​wah … foo-​wah … thu-​reeh’. It’s an in joke that occasionally escapes to the outside world” (Pepperberg, 2009). It is important to consider what Alyse was bringing to her and Lilly’s mother-​ daughter dynamic, from her own childhood experiences of being mothered. Alyse feels she was not mothered well. Her parents divorced after 30 years. Perhaps the clue to her own maternal detachment is in her mother’s mothering. Her maternal grandmother worked in Christian boarding schools, and so her mother was raised in a range of institutions, and they would move around. Alyse’s mother was a talented photographer, also an unusual woman, independent and clearly a skilled observer. Later in life, Alyse was able to travel with her mother around the world. Her mother took photographs and she helped to carry her bags. One time we were in Egypt. We were in the Sahara. She was 70. I really liked her at that stage of her life. It was brave of her to leave my father. My father was present, but he wasn’t much of a father. I had late speech. I didn’t speak until I was about one-​and-​a-​half years old. They didn’t understand what they understand now. I then didn’t talk again until I was about five. They would

84  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

always bicker. All the time. My mother had always lived through me; I’d have her over at the trailer when I had extra babies. She would get up with them so I could sleep. It was hard to be in front of the camera while she would take photos. Alyse has a younger brother, and she noticed that, It was probably good for him when everything went bad for me. It gave him a chance to shine. I led the change and when things went wrong, I didn’t have to do that anymore. I didn’t have to be in charge. I loved not having that responsibility. It is clear that Alyse dedicated herself to the study of chimpanzee behaviours, and in order to obtain a PhD: “I always had this ability to put a lot of energy into it. I would be willing the chimpanzees into things sometimes”. Perhaps the forestry background and interest in music, both ways of subjecting the self into different frequencies, may have had something to do with these interests. “I always understood plants, forests, and the outdoors, more than people. I didn’t know how to read relationships, and it took me a long time to make friends”. A common experience that has been observed in individuals who worked closely with chimpanzees, is that they usually had unusual or unique experiences with language themselves: “I was very shy and had a stutter”. At university, she had started her studies majoring in Speech and Hearing Therapy, before deciding to convert to Forestry, and then moving to Oklahoma to pursue her PhD work. “This wasn’t a quick doctorate. It became my life’s work. We all have gifts from God, and that was one of mine”. Alyse describes how her work time was spent working in a different state of consciousness, having to go back and forth, in and out, from chimpanzee to human time. She is clearly still affected by this period of time in her life, and indeed, it appears to have shaped her current modes of thinking and behaviours. She is traumatised by those events. “I wonder after we get through this reminiscing, how difficult it will be for me to put it in the past again”. She had Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy last year, since she was suffering from flashbacks and nightmares of the tragic incident involving the fire at the IPS. EMDR therapy is a psychological treatment technique which involves moving the eyes a specific way while traumatic memories are processed. EMDR’s goal is to help with healing from trauma or other distressing life experiences through reprogramming. “Three years before, I knew that I needed help. Something was holding me back, and I couldn’t process the events”. Alyse describes her favourite time of day with the chimpanzees. “It was at lunch. Only Fouts, Tiny, and I were allowed on the island with the older chimps.. After having their lunch, the chimpanzees were mellow. We would hang out.

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  85

They would just lounge around and I could groom and be groomed by them”. The life and legacy of Dwight Russell, known as Tiny, is explained in our first book (Ingersoll & Scarnà, 2023). Tiny was the Operations Manager at IPS. He was a tall, large man whose help with the chimpanzees was integral to the students being able to conduct studies. He ran the day-​to-​day operation at the IPS, which was referred to colloquially as the Chimp Farm. Alyse recognised that Tiny was more than a maintenance man, and she alerted Lemmon to Tiny’s skills and abilities. I always knew Tiny would get me out of a bad situation. He had charisma and was big in size. At first he wasn’t around, he just did the maintenance. But later he would help with the chimps. I started getting into the cage with a group of mothers. The males would come over and want to explore. I didn’t know if I would get bit while I took the babies. Tiny stayed on the other side of the cage. He was passive. The chimp would get me because I was the baby stealer. I knew Tiny could get me out of a bad situation. Tiny would invite her to dinner, and during this stage. At the time, she was living in her van in the trees when she and Tiny began a relationship. Lemmon found them the house of a friend of his; a small, green house of redwood. Lemmon and his wife would invite Alyse and Tiny over every two weeks, and would give Alyse tips on how to look after Lilly. “One day, Lilly ran away. He told me: ‘I’ve seen this before. She’ll come back. Don’t make a big thing of it. Just tell her she did a good job’; which she did”. Lemmon lived in a house made from blown concrete over wire. His wife had moved into the other room, and so he had asked Tiny to build in various gadgets and controls from his (Lemmon’s) room. When the babies came, Lemmon and his wife would take meals to Alyse and Tiny. A typical day at the IPS is described by Alyse in Figure 2.4. Mary Jane

Mary Jane was an infant I got at one-​and-​a-​half years. I had her eight months. Her mother had died. I remember when I first brought her back, Lilly was so excited, she needed to go to the bathroom. She tried holding Mary Jane. I set her down and Lilly would scoop her up. Lilly had the whole baby experience. We thought Mary Jane was diabetic. It turned out she had Hirschsprung disease. Mary Jane had a severely swollen colon. Hirschsprung disease is a rare condition which is seen in around 1 in 5,000 human newborns, and occurs when the ganglion cells in the muscles of the bowel do not develop in the womb. It is associated with genetic mutations, and sometimes runs in families. The ganglion cells are missing from a section at the

86  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

FIGURE 2.4 Lilly

soon settled into her new home. Alyse took on her role of looking after the baby chimpanzees who were taken away from their mothers. The chimpanzees would be neurotic and severely depressed, and it was usually the females who died. These chimpanzees were frightened. They did not quite know who or what they were, and they would regard Lilly with caution: “She’s going to attack me”. Alyse began looking after a chimpanzee named Mary Jane.

end of the bowel extending to the anus, and it is untreatable, and so it does not go away. The child’s intestine cannot pass stools and so it becomes blocked. All children with this condition require surgery. Lilly was a big help with the babies, and she became a model for the other youngsters, including Nim’s half-​sisters. The babies were sick, depressed, or about to be sold. Lilly knew that they were depressed, and she knew that they were extremely clingy. By this stage, Lilly was a teenager, and she wanted to

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  87

put them on her back, rather than hold them ventral-​to-​ventral. I made sure the babies were held 24 hours a day, and held all night, then they would come into my bed, and I would get peed on again. “After four months, Mary Jane was feeling better and was ready to go out and Lilly started to take her out in our front yard. There was a large oak tree and a swing. Lilly was giving out leaves and helped Mary Jane to take some. Having never done this before, Mary Jane couldn’t decipher the good leaves, and so Lilly showed her. Lilly became a model for the other youngsters. By this stage, we got a grant from Oklahoma to study acquired traits for signing. I was supposed to get a farm hand, and it was a done deal. Lemmon said “If you finish this doctorate, you can run this place”; but then the fire happened. Before computers, all my notes were handwritten, and I lost everything in the fire and did not complete the doctorate. Then the money dried up, and after the fire, I took some time out, and Lemmon kept Lilly for me. I never saw a future until I got her and became her mom”. As Lilly became older, Alyse adapted to making sure that her needs were met. She had special chores when we travelled (see Figures 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 for photographs of some of Lilly’s chores). I thought she could tell me stuff about herself, like if she needed to be with the group or by herself. I gave her the choice. She started being with the others in the cage. I gave her the choice if she wanted to come in or stay out at night, and finally she wanted to be in the cage at night. She signed DIRTY when left in the indoor-​outdoor group cage, and she didn’t pee in the cage, and she wouldn’t go outside if it was dirty. She had different best friends. At first these were Mac and Kelly, and towards the end, Vanessa. Vanessa picked on her the worst. After the baby came, they became the best of friends, since that was then Vanessa’s part, to get close to the baby. After that, Lilly was dominant. Rise to Power

Lilly was kind. Some chimpanzees like Vanessa become a bully, but she did not. Lilly would wade into a fight, but she wasn’t a fighter. Like Nim, she had had to learn to share. They all learned at different rates. Lilly was about six months older than Nim. At the research centre, Nim had become more dominant. Lilly didn’t know or ask where she was from, but she did become a more dominant chimp, and so was Nim. Alyse tells me about how she watched certain traits develop in Lilly. “I wrote a paper on Lilly’s rise to power”. Having a baby is seen as a status raiser in the chimpanzee group. Alyse explains how she watched Lilly rise in status because

88  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

FIGURE 2.5, 2.6 AND 2.7 Lilly’s

chores when travelling.

Personality Theories and Understanding the Self  89

  FIGURE 2.5, 2.6 AND 2.7 Continued

she used Mary Jane as her status raiser. “Lilly controlled the whole thing. They had to get to Lilly to get to Mary Jane, so the other chimps, like Vanessa, who had previously bullied Lilly, ended up holding her in respect to be able to touch the baby”. In the wild, chimpanzees may lose their first one or two babies before they are able to understand how to parent them, and they learn this from multiple observations of other mothers in their group. The quality of modelling depends on the group rank of the mother, and how many babies she has had successfully. That does vary, even in the wild, and in Oklahoma, these were mostly hand-​ raised chimpanzees (raised by humans). Lilly met Nim just a few days after he arrived in Oklahoma from Terrace in New York: Three students were taking him for walks, and I told them that I had wanted the exchange to be just us (the Oklahoma researchers) and him. The TV crew was there, and Nim had a rope around his waist. I knew I was going to be bit. He got me right in the wrist. I thought Nim needed someone to be with. It is interesting at this stage that Robert, too, understood that Nim needed someone: “Herb never came back. I thought, ‘I’m gonna become Nim’s friend.

90  Personality Theories and Understanding the Self

I’m gonna hang with Nim and we’ll see what happens …’ There wasn’t much I could do for him in terms of the cage, but get him OUT” (Project Nim). Alyse says: “I took him home every night, as I wanted to make sure he would eat. I took him home for a week, in the afternoon. Dinner was the only meal I wanted him to have with us, so I could keep an eye on his eating in those first few days. I used to season his food at first because he was used to human food, and then I cut down on the seasoning. He had his first days in the cage. I got into the cage with him. He and Lilly were never close at first; I have no idea why. He was inward and he did not show himself. He wasn’t into playing; he would sit around and watch. He would like to wash up. He would have dinner with us, and then I took him back to the cage. He was not trying to be my friend, and I wasn’t trying to be his. I wasn’t horrible to him; I just wasn’t open with him. Maybe if he had been more open, maybe I would have been. I knew he’d been passed around a lot, and had changed homes so many times. I didn’t have him around the babies. I had a hard time reading Nim on the inside. People had to be open with him. Nim was not always allowed to express himself. He was a spoiled child. He could play with Bob, but with me, he was always looking side to side, like if he was checking to see if he was doing things right. When he first arrived, Nim just withdrew. He sat in the corner of the cage and he didn’t want to play. Unlike some of the other home-​reared chimps, Lilly had a smile. She smiled a lot. After six months, I put him with Lilly. They got to be better friends over time. Lilly didn’t beat him up like she did some of the others. Lilly shared a cage with Nim, and with his brother Onan, and with Mac, although she also spent a lot of time outside socialising with students and helping Alyse to look after the babies. Washoe, Ally, and an everchanging group of other chimpanzees lived in separate cages in the same building, and so Lilly was surrounded by signing students and chimpanzees.”

3 WE’RE IN HERE BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT ALL THERE Captivity

There’s no way you can carry out research on animals, and for it to be humane. It can’t be humane, because you’ve already put them in a cage. That was already the first step. And from then on, it’s downhill. (Dr James Mahoney, 20/​20) Chimpanzees kept as pets come to sanctuary having experienced a broad range of humanisation processes: they come being able to perform certain tasks, with their ears pierced, wearing jewellery, and adopting humanly habits. Chimpanzees and monkeys are still kept as pets in the United States and in other countries. These animals are treated as commodities for the purposes of human entertainment. The needs of humans as well as those of a chimpanzee will be explained. The different forms of captivity in animal studies will be presented; from the snatching of infants from their mothers in Africa (“wild harvesting”), to the rescuing of animals who were kept as pets, and the other “in between” models, the chimpanzee ordered from the back of a catalogue and the ones who were bred for the purposes of research. The finding of sanctuary for these and other primates will be explained, along with the bigger worldwide problems of dangers of decline of these species. Many of the Oklahoma chimpanzees in their cages were existing, not living. This chapter will consider how they were able to survive. We will also consider how humans in captivity have found ways to survive under extremely noxious conditions, referring to the experiences of Viktor Frankl and other Holocaust survivors, with reference to theories of self efficacy. The effects of trauma on the brain in humans, both in terms of the Holocaust but also of the Romanian orphanages of the 1980s will be considered, with discussion of Man as “the master DOI: 10.4324/9781003400677-4

92  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

of animals” and the morality behind the authoritarian model over chimpanzees, as well as issues of body ownership. Nim was born in Oklahoma at the Institute of Primate Studies (IPS), but came to be held in captivity in a number of different environments. First, he was given to Stephanie LaFarge to look after within her large and newly blended family. Later, he had an assortment of language teachers –​over 100 “parents”, before his move to Oklahoma, and then to LEMSIP. His enculturement during these different developmental periods will be investigated. Lilly, on the other hand, was ordered from a catalogue by her “mother”, Alyse Moore. In chimpanzees in the wild, as in human children, early childhood includes important developmental stages for the modelling and formation of attachments. We will discuss the trauma that ensues in chimpanzees kept in this way, and the impact that those experiences have upon adult experiences, such as in adolescence and in parenting. In the 2000s, I conducted research into the manic episodes that occur within bipolar disorder (Scarnà et al., 2003). For this, I recruited elated and euphoric patients from wards in the Warneford Hospital, a psychiatric hospital where Oxford University’s Department of Psychiatry is located. I was researching a non-​drug treatment, an amino acid mixture, to lower dopamine levels in the brain. Mania is thought to be caused by an excess of the neurotransmitter, dopamine. Research studies had already been conducted by scientists on rats on brain dopamine before and after this dopamine-​blocking mixture, and we wanted to see if we could develop a new way of treating mania. Manic patients do not like taking drugs, since these medications cause unpleasant side effects. Much dopamine is created within areas of the brain that control movement, and so blocking its effects there can cause tardive dyskinesia, a type of stiffness, and other side effects which are difficult to treat. We found promising results in our tyrosine-​depleting mixture, both over a six-​hour period and during a two-​ week period, one on and one off the mixture. The patients who took our mixture were discharged from hospital earlier, and were better able to regulate their sleep patterns and attentional processes. It was during this period that I encountered a manic patient who was wearing a t-​shirt which said “We’re in here because we’re not all there”. In the United Kingdom, psychiatric patients who are “sectioned” are kept in hospital under the section of the Mental Health Act of 1983. There are different types of sections, each with different rules and different lengths of times to keep the patient in hospital, depending on which section they are detained under. What happens to the patient under a section depends on which section they are detained under, the specific mental health problem, the need for care and treatment, and upon personal circumstances. Patients can be sectioned if they or someone else has raised concerns about their mental health, and patients are sectioned if they need to be assessed or treated, if their health would be at risk of getting worse without treatment, if their safety or someone else’s safety would be at risk if they did not

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  93

get treatment, or if the doctor thinks that they need to be assessed and/​or treated in hospital, such as if they require regular monitoring because they are taking new and powerful medication. Before a patient can be lawfully sectioned, s/​ he needs to be assessed by mental health professionals. There are similarities between the involuntary keeping of an unwell human being and the keeping of an animal for studies. The patient wearing the t-​shirt who was under a section presented a stark reminder of the different forms of being “all there”. Our study had undergone stringent ethical direction and clearance and occasionally we had to report adverse effects or concerns back to the University Research Ethics Committee. One particular sensitivity was around the issue of informed consent. How does a euphoric, irrational patient with a psychological disorder, under a legal sectioning, give informed consent to taking part in an experiment? Our rule was to explain the study, suggest the individual discuss it with their next of kin or a close friend or family member (of course, even this makes assumptions around the sanity and rationality of one’s kin), and I would return in 48 hours to reassess the decision to participate or not. After 48 hours, I would ask the patient to describe the study back to me, and if there was sufficient detail and they still wanted to, they could take part. The patient-​participant had the right to withdraw from the study at any time, without having to give reason to do so. In the hospital ward, no participant was paid but in our accompanying studies on healthy participants, payment was made for study time, and it was made clear that this was reimbursement for time and not earned payment. We can compare and contrast this with the situation with the animal participants. No chimpanzee was paid in any way for any study (in fact, we might say in some ways that they were the ones paying the human investigators) and none had the possibility to withdraw from any study. The participation was 100% and non-​negotiable. One way around these problems lay in the attitude of the researcher, and in the importance of having clear and strong boundaries with the animal as the experimental participant. As Pepperberg says, I made a conscious effort not to [view Alex’s behaviour anthropomorphically]. While we were working together, I tried to interpret everything in a very scientific manner. It was only after his death that this big barrier that I had put up between us, in terms of my scientific objectivity, started crumbling because there wasn’t going to be any more science. According to Alyse Moore, Bill Lemmon sometimes compared the incarceration of the Oklahoma chimpanzees with prison inmates. Lemmon had been a therapist and had other psychologists training with him at Lexington State prison in Oklahoma. He also worked with convicted but released sex offenders who were mostly paedophiles, running various sessions for them

94  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

alongside his private practice. Lemmon had seen prison inmates smearing faeces on the walls of their cells while in seclusion, something that the chimpanzees held in captivity also did inside their cages. Faecal smearing, also known as scatolia, is an issue arising in a number of conditions and situations. Children with autism or those with other sensory issues sometimes smear their faeces if they do not find a suitable outlet for their senses, such as playing with paint or playdough. Interestingly, Alyse Moore reported that, much to her frustration, the chimpanzees did not tend to like playing with playdough. This suggests that the smearing performed by the chimps was done as a result of their seclusion rather than as a straightforward pastime, although there can be medical causes for developing faecal smearing such as infections, abdominal pain and discomfort, with children using this as a means of exploring and alleviating their medical problem. The manic patients I worked with on the psychiatric wards during my bipolar disorder and schizophrenia research also performed faecal smearing from time to time, especially when under a section and under observation. Mason (1996) describes a case of scatolic behaviour in a psychotic patient in seclusion. There is an intricate and complex dilemma in managing these situations involving scatolic behaviour, in particular because the overlaps between mental impairment, developmental disorder, psychiatric chaos, or protest behaviours, is not always clear. Can Animal Experiments Ever Be Ethical?

Animals have been involved in experimentation as early as 384 BC (Hajar, 2011), and although animal experimentation has provided helpful results in both medical and psychological fields, usually it involves the animal suffering, and whether these experiments are considered humane is questionable. It is clear that the Oklahoma chimpanzees experienced great suffering and trauma, and some were subjected to inappropriate situations and inhumane conditions. Even if animals can seem the best subjects, one has to ask at all times if they are participating in the experiment, or if the experiment is being carried out on them. Various regulations have been passed in order to attempt to protect animals used in experiments. The Laboratory Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1966 in the United States, and provided regulations for transport, sale, and handling of animals (Regulation of Animal Research, 2004). This act is known as the Animal Welfare Act and has been amended four times since 1966 with the most recent amendment in 1991. The biggest amendment in 1985 involved the addition of the Animal Welfare Information Center, which provided researchers with a database of alternatives to painful animal experiments (Regulation of Animal Research, 2004). This amendment established that each facility using a protected animal must register with the US Department of Agriculture and establish a committee to review all protocols involving living and warm-​blooded animals. The United Kingdom also has legislation in place to protect animals used in experiments.

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  95

The Animal Scientific Procedures Act was passed in 1986 and has had various amendments (Regulation of Animal Research, 2004). This Act includes regulations of all scientific procedures on any vertebrate animal. Specifically, this includes the principles of three R’s: The principle of reducing the number of animals used in research, refining scientific procedures to minimise pain, and replacing animal experiments with in vitro models when possible. While there are various regulations in place to enforce ethical experiments involving animals, many experiments are still highly unethical, and additionally, the experiments that took place prior to this legislation were also unethical. We explained in detail in our first book why the chimpanzee language experiments were unethical. Most were conducted in the 1960s and 1970s at a time when ethical procedures were less regulated. The studies used chimpanzees to investigate whether language is learned or innate in humans, partly due to our sharing of DNA with chimpanzees. The initial participants of these studies were infant chimpanzees who had been removed from their mothers in the wild. The mothers were stalked and shot out of their hiding places in trees so that they would fall to the ground, and the babies could be stolen. If she was sheltering her baby by falling on her back, the baby could be taken, but there was a risk that if she fell on her stomach, both mother and infant would die. If the baby chimpanzee survived, s/​he would have experienced immense trauma from having watched the mother die and through being removed by strangers. After being captured, the screaming infant would then be bound by hand and foot to a carrying pole and transported to the coast, a harrowing journey usually lasting several days (Fouts & Mills, 1998). Other chimpanzee participants that came to research in different ways were either initially pets from households where they were dressed as humans, given alcohol, and shown maladaptive behaviours before being discarded by their owners and given up for animal research, performing animals who were no longer needed in films or circuses, or they were chimpanzees formerly used in other types of experimentation. Once the chimpanzee participants were put into experimentation placements, the studies would begin with further neglect and abuse as experimental participants. Booee had undergone a split-​brain procedure in order to test the function of the separate hemispheres. Researchers thought that the procedure could be used in human epileptics, and so it was further tested in animals. Have these experiments been performed in the United Kingdom, they would have clearly violated the UK’s Animal Scientific Procedures Act, as they did not minimise pain in any way and instead caused unnecessary pain and suffering to the chimpanzee. Other chimpanzees came to the laboratory with symptoms of severe stress and anxiety, demonstrated through their pulling their own hair out, picking themselves, biting themselves, and starving themselves, sometimes even to death. Additionally, they were denied proper care, neglected of regular walks, and suffered impoverished interactions with caregivers.

96  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

Not only did the chimpanzees suffer extreme abuse and live in poor conditions, but the teaching of sign language also left them traumatised in two ways: first, because they were stolen from their families, and second, by being thrust into the human world and expected to learn human processes, they became confused. Introducing human language to a chimpanzee gave them a mode of thinking and processing in a way which no chimpanzee is programmed to deal with; although even us making this assumption is unethical, in some ways, since it is not clear that primates have reduced capacity for processing. How Can Experiments on Animals Be More Ethical?

One set of studies in particular has been conducted by the laboratory of Catherine Hobaiter (Graham & Hobaiter, 2023) who researches the evolution of communication and social behaviours in chimpanzees in particular, gestural communication in a non-​intrusive way, through the setting up of a field station in Uganda. The study group uses cameras to capture primates in their natural environment, and the experimenter studies them by spending time and observing them at distance. If they walk, the researcher walks with them: if they choose to spend time with each other, she does this too, if they choose to sit under the trees eating fruit, she does this also. The chimpanzees remain in their natural environment and are not subjected to any inhumane conditions like being kept in cages, or being controlled by humans. Instead, the researchers observe the chimpanzees in their natural environments in order to investigate natural communication techniques, without imposing on their lifestyles. No medical procedures or language learning or conditioning are conducted on these primates and additionally, these experiments do not violate any of the three principles of the UK’s Animal Scientific Procedure Act. One of the problems with the ethical guidelines themselves is that they are not complete. For example, the USA’s Animal Welfare Act does not protect rats, mice, or birds, which are the most common animals used in experimentation. In fact, an amendment was passed recently to permanently exclude these animals from protection under the Animal Welfare Act. As there are no regulations in the United States on what can be done to these animals, many studies continue to use them as experimental subjects. Use of animal participants could be ethical if the studies do not interrupt the natural habitat and environment of the animals –​ this would usually be an observational study only. As soon as experimental or medical procedures are put in place, the study becomes unethical. Another way in which experimentation can be made more ethical is by improving the living conditions of the animals. The research studies involving animals in sanctuaries closely resembling their natural environments are inherently more ethical than those where the animals are kept in cages. The Oklahoma chimpanzee studies could have been conducted more ethically through different ways. The main way could have been to have changed the

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  97

experimental question altogether. “Wouldn’t it be exciting to communicate with a chimp, and to find out what it was thinking?” asks Herb Terrace in Project Nim, “If they could be taught to articulate what they were thinking about, this would be an incredible expansion of human communication and possibly give some insight into how language, in fact, did evolve”. From the outset, this created an artificial and unethical study condition, since it equipped the chimpanzees with a learning paradigm and language that was not natural to them, providing a means of processing their experiences in an unnatural way. The fact the procedures were repeated across several creatures also rendered the studies unethical, as did the reason for conducting this work in the first place. The process of investigating language could have been conducted in a more ethically rigorous manner; for example by using the fewest numbers of animals as possible, and altering the procedures to minimise pain. Researchers have a duty of care in choosing a research question and in designing a study appropriately. The Oklahoma chimpanzee studies involved several versions of captivity. Many of the experimental subjects had been taken as infants from their mothers in Africa, a process that was referred to as “wild harvesting”. At least three chimpanzees came to IPS after life in a Mexican circus, and several after being kept as pets. Those chimpanzees arrived having experienced a broad range of humanisation processes: some arrived being able to perform certain tasks, others with their ears pierced, wearing jewellery, and having adopted human habits. We would do well to ask here about the qualities in individuals who feel the need to keep such animals. Bessel van der Kolk refers to traumatised humans as being “in a cage” (van der Kolk, 2021). If there is no imprint of a safe person, there is little hope for many other secure attachments. Some of the chimpanzee researchers were in metaphorical cages of trauma of their own. It is no surprise that some of the individuals who chose to work with the Oklahoma chimpanzees had mood disorders or language problems themselves. Robert says that, “Every human who came to the studies on chimps had messed up systems of care”. The chimpanzees were able to perceive this. These were not normal chimpanzees, but they were not normal humans, either. Indeed, we may question the quality of life and chances of survival of those animals, given that they were kept not just in van der Kolk’s cages of trauma, but also in real cages, without any ability to leave the experimental environment at the end of the working day. We would do well to consider what humans who have mood and language problems bring to the interactions with such animal participants. Alyse Moore tells of a student with bipolar disorder who wanted to work with Lilly. I hired a girl that I didn’t know was bipolar. The big chimps would go nuts. I wasn’t sure what the problem was. Students sometimes got tired of doing the same tasks. They wanted to have a good rapport with chimps, but some

98  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

didn’t. That was why, the chimps sensed it. How? There was another level of consciousness. The chimps could size up people. They could really look inside them. They were faster and instantaneous in their judgments. I asked Alyse if, who was hypervigilant about their carers, whether she thought this was a survival strategy on the part of the chimpanzees. “Absolutely. You had to be honest within yourself as they seemed able to read all your emotions” Tom Martin was a carer with bipolar disorder, who looked after Nim from 1977–​1978 during Nim’s time in New York. Tom told me how he started looking after Nim shortly after his first manic episode. He saw Nim on the cover of a magazine, and decided to find Herb Terrace’s number. He gave Herb a call; “I contacted Herb while I was in White Plains Hospital during my first hospitalization in 1975. He said to contact him when I was out”. Tom started working there after his discharge from hospital. He had contact with Nim all day, and would then go home in the evenings. Tom did some data analysis at Columbia University as a part of his Batchelor of Arts degree studies, starting in December 1976. Terrace wrote Tom an evaluation so he could obtain credit for his work with Nim. Tom remembers sharing car rides back to Riverdale, the big house and estate where Nim was being taught to sign by Laura Pettito and others, with Terrace and Nim. Nim was in the front seat with Terrace. One day while in an elevated mood, Tom thought about Nim: “ ‘He doesn’t belong here, he belongs with other chimps. This guy’s life is imprisoned. He stuck with me’. He enjoyed it, and we were buddies. But I knew he didn’t belong there. I walked into Herb’s office barefoot, I put the keys on his desk, and I told him I needed to be out of there. I was distraught. ‘Sorry’, I said, ‘Nim belongs with other chimps. This is wrong and I can’t be a part of it.’ I was also getting manic but there was no admission to hospital. It must have been 1977. When you work with chimps, there’s a certain thing that we feel about life. When you look into the eyes of any animal, a chimp, or a dog or a horse, you make a connection. Nim taught me about humanity. He taught me we are all equals. He would look at me and I know he was thinking, ‘How can you cage me?’ We are all the same. What gives us the right to kill animals? What is intelligent about that? We all have an energy and an inner life, and we are all the same”. It is, of course, possible that the mood elevations experienced during a manic episode elevated some of these individuals into working with these chimpanzees. An aspect of manic episode that is underreported but commonly seen is the variety of altered nonpsychotic sensory changes (Parker, Paterson, Romano, & Graham, 2017). The DSM-​5 observes that during manic episodes some patients may perceive a “sharper sense of smell, hearing, or vision”, and ICD-​10 lists hyperacusis as a possible concomitant of mania. Parker et al. report that, from a participant pool of 66 patients with bipolar disorder, 19 participants affirmed changes in hearing during a hypomanic/​manic episode, with 13 reporting

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  99

improvement and six describing “different” hearing, involving amplification, sounds heard more clearly, or subthreshold sounds being heard distinctly. The researchers also investigated five other sensory phenomena, and 53 participants reported changes in danger perception, 39 changes in intuition, 55 changes in empathy or connectedness, and 29 changes in their ability to predict future events. A further five experienced synaesthesia, which was reported during both hypomanic and depressive episodes. This hyperacuity process can be considered an elevation into a non-​linguistic, hypersensory space which is already inhabited by an encultured but not-​quite-​linguistic being, such as a chimpanzee who is being taught to sign. Nim was born in Oklahoma but came to be held in captivity in a range of different environments. First, as an infant he was given to Stephanie LaFarge to look after within her large and newly blended family. He then had various language teachers –​ over 100 “parents”, before his move to Oklahoma at age four and a half, and then later to LEMSIP. His enculturement during these different developmental periods led to a range of modelling behaviours. In chimpanzees in the wild, childhood and adolescence are important times for modelling and formation of attachments. The trauma that ensues in chimpanzees kept in this artificial way and the impact that those experiences have upon adult life experiences, such as in adolescence and in parenting, were huge. Many of the problems are precisely to do with the fact that chimpanzees are so human-​ like. Robert discusses the issue of captivity in a video, “Captivity is the Enemy of Animals”, which he made for the American nonprofit organisation, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). In it, he explains that just as with human individual differences, each chimpanzee is different; some are more intelligent than others, and each has their own set of personality traits which translate as differences in resilience. Few studies had considered this in raising and teaching those chimpanzees and in their participation in the experiments. Being a chimpanzee, compared with being an insect, amphibian, or other non-​ primate animal, confers a greater degree of anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics, including behaviours, to non-​humans. This can include inanimate objects, but in this case, refers to animals (Airenti, 2015). Specifically, in the chimpanzee studies it refers to the explanation of non-​human behaviour as motivated by human mental states. At no stage did any of the researchers consider if there is an animomorphism; that is, if any of the chimpanzees considered the humans more animalistic than they were. The interpretation was always of the non-​human behaviours with human interpretations, rather than the other way around. Few studies have considered the cognitive basis of anthropomorphism, or the role of emotion in learning. Indeed, models explaining psychological development, such as that of Piaget, have focussed on cognitive aspects of learning across time, at the expense of considering the social or emotional aspects. Where the social aspects of

100  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

development were considered, such as by Vygotsky, they refer to sociocognitive processes, such as the role of learning or play. Emotional consideration usually emphasises the role of empathy, rather than a more important variable of social contagion. Social contagion is as the spread of behaviours, attitudes, and emotion through groups from one member to another. Adolescents are prone to social contagion because they are particularly susceptible to peer pressure and social influence. Situations which provoke anthropomorphisation are not necessarily healthy. Anthropomorphism in some people can take on a pathological extension; for example, there have been some individuals who have developed romantic feelings for objects –​ these cases are rare, but they do exist. There are also various neurological/​delusional misidentification syndromes where individuals become confused about the imagined versus the reality of features of human family members or friends. Capgras syndrome, for example, is characterised by a false belief that an identical duplicate has replaced someone significant, and in Cotard syndrome individuals believe that parts of their body are missing, or that they are dying, dead, or do not exist. The conditions which elicit anthropomorphisation do not necessarily hinge on empathy. The core feature is familiarity (Airenti, 2015; Mori, 1970). Familiarity occurs from two perspectives: existing or pursued. We feel familiarity towards our pets; this is existing. In a different scenario where we are being pursued by a fear-​provoking animal, we might imagine or initiate a conversation in order to simulate familiarity, instead, and in the hope of calming the animal down. Masahiro Mori discusses the idea of “uncanny valley”. If the other is a robot instead of an animal, there is the consideration of how far one has to consider human-​like qualities and appearances in order to inspire feelings of familiarity (Mori, 1970). Mori believed that similarity to humans does not necessarily produce familiarity. Indeed, in fact an almost perfect reproduction of human features evokes a more scary and monstrous entity (for example, clowns), resulting in fear or repulsion instead of attraction. We can consider here the results from the Stanford Prison Study Experiment: the use of deindividuation was used to explain some of the harm inflicted by the guards upon the prisoners. Deindividuation is a phenomenon in which people engage in antisocial behaviours in situations in which they believe that they cannot be identified. By giving participants numbers and the guards mirrored sunglasses, the experimenter created a sense of loss of identity and personal responsibility, so that the two groups became immersed in their respective group norms. The guards became sadistic, since they did not take personal responsibility for their actions (the uniforms also helped with this) and the prisoners developed a form of learned helplessness leading to submission to the guards, since they learned that any action would have little effect on the outcome of their situation. We could consider that –​ specifically in the Oklahoma studies –​ the researchers

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  101

took on roles similar to those of the prison guards, and the chimpanzees of the prisoners. In the prison study experiment, the learned helplessness upon the actions of the guards led the prisoners to giving up on responding. Several of the Oklahoma chimpanzees had a similar outcome. We describe in our first book the case of Maybelle, for instance, who was left at IPS by her human caretaker, Vera Gatch, a psychotherapist and student of Lemmon, and who deteriorated as soon as her caretaker was gone (Ingersoll & Scarnà, 2023). Maybelle developed diarrhoea and a respiratory infection, despite being cared for around the clock. Her condition deteriorated rapidly with her diarrhoea turning into dysentery, and her lung infection into pneumonia, and she died. It is likely that going from a home with a human attachment figure to being moved to a place of capture, surrounded by cages, was too much for her psychological health and her immune system. Another chimpanzee, Salomé, was also observed to shrivel up and die in the absence of her human mother. Salomé had started life as being raised by Church Blakey a patient of Lemmon’s, and his wife, Susie. Salomé was left at OPS when they went on holiday, acquired pneumonia, and was close to death. When the Blakeys rushed home, Salomé managed to recovered from her grief-​induced illness, but when the Blakeys then decided to take another vacation shortly after, she died within a few days. The problem is just as Mori explains in his uncanny valley hypothesis: a too-​ close reproduction of a human, which tries to obtain a complete resemblance, is risky. Mori gives a situation with Japanese puppet theatre where the puppets that resemble humans less well in terms of movement on stage are better at producing familiarity. He considers familiarity as a function of a robot’s appearance, and notes that as robots appear more human-​like the human’s sense of familiarity increases until it plunges into the “uncanny valley” (see Figure 3.1 for graph demonstrating this). He believes that it is more sensible to pursue a “safe” familiarity with a nonhuman-​like design. There is evidence suggesting that in robotics, the uncanny valley effect is being overcome through a “clone devaluation effect” (Yonemitsu, Sasaki, Gobara, Yamada, & Pochiwatko, 2021). If humanoid robots with the same appearance are mass-​produced and become commonplace, we are more likely to encounter situations where humanlike products have faces which are exactly like human faces. This leads to perceived duplication of identity, and effects on other multiple processes related to memory, emotion, and face recognition. It is likely that these same processes were at play in the bonding processes between the researchers and these Oklahoma chimpanzees. We could argue that the Oklahoma chimpanzees would add a special category to this uncanny valley theory. Since they behave in ways that are so close to humans and that are predictable and stir memories of ourselves in us humans, they are able to stir fundamental and predictable feelings in us from the outset,

102  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

FIGURE 3.1 Uncanny

Valley –​ Hypothesised emotional response of participants plotted against anthropomorphism of a robot, by Mori (1970). The uncanny valley is the region of negative emotional response towards robots that seem “almost” human, and movement amplifies the emotional response.

evoking empathy very easily. Projection of world features onto this non-​human being is easier than for other non-​humans like birds or dogs since the way they move and behave are so familiar to us. Just as in a puppet show where the appearance of the characters is not as important as is their role to recall something that is already in the viewer’s mind, so this factor was at play with the chimpanzees. The fact that chimpanzee behaviours were predictable from the start is what predisposed humans to treat them with familiarity. We could ask what happens in less defined situations, when we deal with entities of the real world. Urquiza-​Haas and Kotrschal (2015) describe how from a very young age, humans naturally attribute human features to objects and animals in some situations and that it is possible to track the developmental trajectory of these cognitive bases: which mental states and feelings are implied, and how mental features are intertwined with perceptive features. We could argue that the mix of this uncanny valley case with anthropomorphism and the problems with deindividuation caused by incarcerating the chimpanzees led to some unusual and quasi-​sadistic situations. Robert explains an episode in which the chimpanzees witnessed the slaughtering of the cows on the IPS site. Lemmon kept cows on site in order to provide the meat for the Radcliffe diet, the mixture prepared and fed to the

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  103

chimpanzees with added vitamins. During one unfortunate incident, Robert was privy to the death of one of the animals: The moral obligation of how to treat animals better was not talked about. Lemmon had his own cows slaughtered. One day the executioner shows up in this old blue pickup truck with two poles that formed a V hanging over and above the bed of the truck. There was a pulley or wench with rope. This was all nonchalant; like it was a regular day at the office for everyone there but me. I was aware, but not really understanding, of what was about to happen. Once he was set up right outside the doors of the pig barn, literally just feet from the door, the cow was walked up, with the rope wrapped and tied around one leg. Unceremoniously the cow was hoisted up, head down, slightly over my head height. Then the executioner grabbed the cow by the ear and with one swipe of his hand wielding a knife he cut the cow’s throat. I saw the cow take its last breath. The cow bled out in a big bucket, and hung there and died. I almost threw up, to be honest, and I immediately walked away. It really hit me hard. That cow was looking at all of us like we were murderers, which we were. I don’t remember if he butchered the cow right there, because I was so traumatized [Indeed, Alyse Moore explains how she was given the gift of fine prime steaks and other cuts by Lemmon] but I think it did get butchered right there. I tried to act like everyone else, but I was not successful. I ate meat then; prime rib was my favourite. But after that, it was never as ‘tasty’ to me. A few years later at a talk in a school, I met a kid who challenged me after I gave a talk about Nim, and called me out on my hypocrisy, and so I became vegetarian straight away. The cow watched us as she died. I was messed up after that. Nim was inside the building but he and all the chimps in there could see. Do you know the video that shows Nim throwing a stick at the cows? Well, it was that cow that got butchered, right there, it was one of those cows that we had interacted with a lot, so that was weird … There’s a film of us discovering a dead cow. The cow died and was left in the field, and over the course of a few months it decayed. We visited over time. I’m confident he knew the cow was dead the day we first found it. Nim poked it, and would come up to it and stare. We found dead animals a lot in the woods so I’m pretty sure he knew what being dead meant. Whether he thought about it when not in the presence of dead things is another question. Skeletons and birds in various states of decay. He was afraid of live cows, but he didn’t seem to be as bothered by the dead one, and was willing to approach it. There were approximately four different models of captive primates in the Oklahoma chimpanzee studies. They were not solely sign language studies, since Bill Lemmon’s research objectives included the study of behaviour and

104  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

communication in chimpanzees to better understand the origin and nature of human communication. Far from the language questions, Lemmon was involved in writing many of the state’s mental health policies. He was involved in the creation and execution of many public programmes, and founded the clinical psychology department at the University of Oklahoma (OU). He became the expert in raising and breeding captive chimpanzees, studying their mating habits, sexuality, and social development. The chimpanzees at the University of Oklahoma were either: 1 2 3 4

Wild-​caught Ex pet –​in effect, half-​pet, half-​human Ex performing –​as above but with more, and often more specific training Bred for the purposes of research

Other representations of the four models would have been apparent in zoo populations. Several of those primates would have also been taught to sign. Not many zoo chimpanzees were given up for research unless as part of a taxonomic advisory group (TAG), which is a group experts who decided which chimpanzee would be selected for procreation, and which would be moved, male or female, from one facility to another. The zoo model is aside from the research one, and will not be discussed here. Bill Lemmon had first acquired Pan, Wendy, and a few other chimps, who had been wild-​caught. The plan had been to have a colony in a similar way to the one that Paul and Jo Fritz at the Primate Foundation of Arizona had. He was interested in the psychological aspects of development, such as of sexual processes, and comparing humans to chimpanzees in some of the topics in psychoanalysis. He had also considered keeping other animals for similar research purposes –​sheep, and at one stage he even toyed with obtaining elephants. Carolyn’s offspring eventually formed the main cohort of chimpanzees who were bred for purpose. Nim was born into this cohort after several years. The IPS became a successful and well-​known chimpanzee breeding programme. This “breeding for purpose” would have led to a particular form of outcome. Robert explains how: Nim was an extraordinary being, and it was clear that his personality was strong. Nim had a good grasp on how it is to not be a human in a world that was inhabited by humans and he had a strong theory of mind. However, he was bred to be among humans from birth. Nim was taken from Carolyn aged approximately ten days and given to Stephanie LaFarge. Any chimpanzee attachment behaviours would have soon been paralleled perhaps even forgotten, or at least replaced with attachment

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  105

towards the human figure of Stephanie, and towards the LaFarge children. It is worth noting here that the LaFarge family had only just come together relatively recently prior to Nim’s arrival. In the first model of captivity, “wild catching” is the method involved. Chimpanzees like Washoe and some of the others had been abducted from their birth mothers, and it was later that other chimpanzees were passed on to Lemmon via the Gardners and other researchers, including those from the Holloman Air Force Base, or via the second type of captivity where chimpanzees had previously been raised as half-​pet half-​human. One such chimp was Kelly. Kelly was an ex pet chimpanzee, who was shy, delicate, and needy. She had come from a privileged home where she had been spoilt, and had received whatever she had wanted. Like Nim, once she arrived at IPS, she needed a friend to help her to navigate the situation. For many females, the cage was a place of modelling. Washoe was one of them. She was not a natural mother, but there were mothers who had strong personalities, and who were successful and resilient, like Mona. Mona had lived in the large group and was a high ranking female, so she had a lot of experience with other chimpanzees, and benefitted from observations of multiple males and females. Mona was in a group with most of the mother chimpanzees, including Pampy, Carrie, and several others. Robert says: These chimpanzee mothers had better modelling in those cages because they could see each other and work out the relationships. Pan was the dominant male in this group with Ally and Washoe. You cannot think for the chimpanzees, they have to figure out for themselves in that group, who the alpha male is and how to pick up those social skills. They had not seen other chimpanzees as they would have done in the wild. Also they represented a variety of chimpanzees that came from all over Africa. Some were from laboratory-​based backgrounds, others not so, and they were all thrown together, yet still managed to sort themselves out. They also made different sounds, like dialects if they had been human, but somehow they made themselves understood to each other. When it came to fertility, Carolyn, Nim’s mother, was a unusual chimpanzee. Ally was born first, and was a single birth. The next birth of Carolyn’s were a non-​identical twin pair, I believe loaned to researchers in Canada. Then Carolyn had another singleton birth, Onan, then twins again, and then Nim. Then another set of twins, followed by another singleton baby who was named Ham and who was pulled off and sold, and finally the set of twins Ezekiel and Zebediah (Zeke and Zeb) who perished in the fire. Many of these infants can be seen in the photograph in Figure 3.2. These twin births are not mentioned so much in existing books on the Oklahoma

106  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

FIGURE 3.2 Some

of Carolyn’s infants.

From left to right: George Kimball and Ally, Ron Helterbrand with his hands on Nim’s neck, Robert Ingersoll, Onan and Lisa Benson, Alyse Moore and Ham. This photograph was taken by Dwight Russell AKA Tiny.

chimpanzees. In the wild, it is rare to see sets of twins in primates. This is because each infant takes a lot of time, energy, and food to rear. When mothers have twins, they will often abandon one because it is too difficult for them to care for both at the same time. Why did Carolyn have so many twins? If Carolyn became pregnant every time she ovulated, this would appear to be a functional problem where her ovaries would release one egg, then two eggs, then one and so on, in this unusual pattern. None of the researchers who were involved in Carolyn’s care at the time has been able to answer this question. One suggestion is that it is possible that the diet of the chimpanzees in the primate institute was particularly enriched. Dr Lemmon understood the requirements of the chimps and calculated their dietary needs closely. Cardiomyopathy is a problem for chimps and the Radcliffe diet appeared to help with that. He considered closely the vitamins that went into the food for the chimpanzees. Both Alyse and Robert noted that the levels of vitamin C in particular, was high. It is also possible that

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  107

the chimpanzees, being kept captive, enclosed together, and bored, were able to take more opportunities to procreate, so that a heightened number of copulations interacted with heightened conditions for fertility. It is also possible that this occurrence was due to stress in Carolyn, who ultimately came to represent all mothers within the laboratory chimpanzees. She was a dominant chimpanzee, but like many in captivity, she was resigned to her fate. We turn to fertility research in humans to try to explain these findings in Carolyn. Stress in pregnancy in humans has been linked to a number of different variables, mostly implying negative results for health of both the mother and the infant, including higher risk of depression in the mother, premature birth, low birth weight, and birth complications. The human literature does not give many indications for explaining the interesting pattern of results regarding Carolyn’s fertility, but there is evidence suggesting that stress is a key determinant of sex of infant delivered. Karlen et al. (2013) and Romero-​Gonzalez (2018)studied women with elevated stress levels before, during, and after conception. They measured biological stress through cortisol levels in hair and via a range of stress questionnaires, finding significant differences in maternal hair cortisol in the first trimester based upon the sex of the infant they had given birth to. The mothers were twice as likely to give birth to a female child if cortisol concentrations were higher –​or the other way around: if the cortisol concentration was lower, mothers were more likely to give birth to a male. Stress and worry during pregnancy activate the hypothalamic-​pituitary-​adrenal (HPA) axis; also known as the fight-​ or-​flight response, leading to increases in the stress hormone, cortisol, which crosses the placenta and which affects foetal development (Karlen, Frostell, Theodorrson, et al., 2013; Romero-​Gonzalez, Capaaros-​Gonzalez, Gonzalez-​ Perez, et al., 2008). One explanation for sex differences is that sperm carrying an X chromosome are better equipped to reach an egg under adverse conditions. According to Song (2014) the level of sex chromosomes in sperm may be altered by stress which reduces the viability of Y chromosomes and affects the sex distribution. X chromosomes are better at passing through cervical mucus, so hormonal changes caused by stress affects more of the Y chromosomes, rendering the X chromosomes greater genetic achievers. It is also possible that this finding is due to male foetuses being more likely to be miscarried under conditions of stress (Song 2014), and to the fact that Y foetuses mature more slowly than X foetuses presenting more pregnancy complications, preterm birth, and are more likely to have shorter telomeres at birth. It is also possible that parental stress modifies the concentration of sex hormones through HPA axis activation, which has an effect upon sex allocation. The sex of the zygotes is influenced by stress of both parents around conception time, with the higher the stress level being associated with the increased chance of giving birth to a girl (Chason, McLain, Sundaram,

108  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

et al., 2012; Grant, 2007; James & Grech, 2017; Navara, 2018; Song, Mohamed, Pang, et al. 2018), although the results are not consistent. The findings demonstrate that the biological sex of a future infant can be conditioned by the mother’s stress levels during conception and the first weeks of pregnancy. It is possible that stress is one influence and may have impact upon chromosomes in a way that influences the likelihood of gestation of twins through the hosting environment of the foetus, perhaps alongside other key factors. Babies and Trust

In human societies, people distinguish between relationships which involve strong levels of attachment and which involve obligation and mutual responsiveness, and within which people are more willing to share bodily fluids like saliva. These are termed “thick” relationships. They can be compared to “thin” relationships which do not involve moral obligation or exchange of bodily fluids. The navigation of social relationships is a skill that is partly innate in babies, but which also develops very quickly after birth. Infants are able to distinguish between these types of relationships, and it is a critical ability for survival in human society. There are specific signals involving saliva which are used as a cue by infants for recognising and understanding of whether two individuals have a strong relationship and mutual obligation to help one another. This involves observation of whether two people share food, kiss, and have other interactions involving the exchange of saliva. Thomas, Woo, Nettle, Spelke, and Saxe (2022) found that infants who expect humans to share saliva come to one another’s aid when one person is in distress. They do this more than when individuals share toys or interact in ways not involving the sharing of saliva. Infants are not initially cognisant of which relationships are distant, and which are closer and morally obliging, and so they learn this by observing what is around them. Young infants aged between 16.5 and 18.5 months observed interactions between human actors and puppets. In the first experiment, a puppet shared an orange with a human, and then threw a ball backwards and forwards with a different human experimenter. This group was compared to infants aged between 8.5 and 10 months. It was found that infants were more likely to orient towards the human who had shared the food with the puppet, and not the one who had shared the toy, when the puppet was in distress. In a second experiment demonstrating the saliva cue directly, the actor placed her finger in her mouth and then in the puppet’s mouth, or alternatively on her forehead and then onto the puppet’s forehead. When the actor then experienced distress, toddlers and infants looked towards the mouth-​to-​mouth puppet if the actress in distress was the person in the initial interactions, and when the central actress expressed distress. The experimental findings suggest that saliva sharing is the important

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  109

key component in helping infants to understand social relationships of those around them. It is possible that the ability to distinguish between thick and thin relationships is to then be able to determine which adults to depend upon for survival, especially as humans depend on adult carers for longer than other species. This evidence is that young children make distinctive inferences about thick relationships, which are characterised by strong attachment, obligation and mutual responsiveness. The identification of this proximal psychological mechanism allows infants to perceive variability in the mechanism, which is useful in diverse social and ecological environments. The skill probably enables younger humans to acculturate to their local and culturally specific relationship structures. The pattern of who does, and does not, share saliva allows infants to distinguish those who are kin (parents, siblings, grandparents) versus non-​kin (daycare teachers, nannies) among their caregivers, and can inform their earliest understanding of the conceptual structure of family. The findings are similar in non-​human primates. In an exploration of evolutionary and comparative foundations of intuitive parenting, Bard (1994) studied the maternal behaviour and competence of chimpanzees through naturalistic observations of mother chimpanzees’ interactions with their very young infants. They found that chimpanzees demonstrated maternal competence through the behaviours of carrying the newborn infant and allowing the infant to breastfeed, and there are other very early mother–​infant interactions including play, “exercise”, cradling and grooming, which suggest intuitive parenting behaviours similar to humans and based on a form of psychobiological pre-​adaptedness. Chimpanzee mothers are also able to assess their offspring’s behavioural states and muscle tone through visual inspections and movement of legs, arms, fingers and toes, and from about 2 weeks post-​birth, will spend time in mutual gaze. Neonatal chimpanzees sustain face-​to-​face interactions even with human adults. It was considered that chimps showed good maternal competence through sensitive responsivity to infants’ communicatory signals. Other research on monkeys showed that when infant monkeys cried, other members of the group would look to the infant’s parents, as a request for them to step in. Vervet monkeys who heard a familiar juvenile in distress looked towards that juvenile’s mother, as if expecting her to respond (Seyfarth & Cheney, 1984). This suggests that primates have knowledge about who affiliates with whom, and the role of the being upon whom another being is performing behaviours. These studies reveal the biological underpinnings of intimacy; the close familiarity and friendship enjoyed between two beings. In exploring non-​ verbal communication, the chimpanzees were trained to use a different form of intimacy with their carers. The act of learning to sign would have had impact upon the forming of attachments which had not been considered in the research.

110  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

First, the fact that they had to learn to use their hands, since they have better control over hands than their voice, would have impacted upon emotional expression. The chimpanzees’ vocal folds prevent them from forming sounds as humans do. The chimpanzees were immersed in human society from very young ages –​or, in the case of Nim, from birth. At around the first five years of life, chimpanzees like he and Washoe would have memorised about 150 words which they became adept at signing, with an ability to express their needs such as drinking, eating, sleeping, hugging, even demonstrating that they could pass on these signs to their offspring. In many ways, the experiments were successful in that they established a dialogue between human and animal, but important points were missed, mostly centring around the point that if a chimpanzee is raised like a human and in a human home, s/​he will begin to consider him/​herself a human and his/​her perception will change so s/​he will become more humanlike in behaviours and also in perceptions of his/​her identity. Animal scientists such as Tecumseh Fitch (Fitch, 2005) working on the evolution of human speech and using a comparative approach to identify the mechanisms shared between humans and other species, have noted that rather than teaching animals our forms of language and communication, we ought to be studying how to talk to them in their own language. Teaching a human language to a solitary chimpanzee distances him/​her from his/​her identity, and makes it harder –​ if not impossible –​ for that chimp to socialise with other chimps in future, if s/​he is to be introduced to a colony later on. The recent chimpanzee work by Hobaiter and colleagues which examines these communication differences also accounts for the discrepancies in perception between chimpanzee and human, and for any arising complications. The group has found that gestural communication in great apes is intentional, in the same way as human languages. Gestures are a communication method used between being and being, and chimpanzees use gestures as humans do, to gain and keep the attention of the individual that they wish to communicate with. Their gestures are purposeful and goal-​directed. Hobaiter and colleagues studied families of chimpanzees in Uganda, observing their gestural communication, and have been able to compile a dictionary of these gestures. A vocabulary of over 70 gestures has already been identified and is available online, for all researchers who wish to communicate with large primates to consult and contribute to. The visual vocabulary is described and explained in this dictionary, so that intention and meaning is clear. For example, in one interaction, a male chimpanzee is gesturing to a female chimpanzee to invite her to move towards him. He displays an object and shakes both hands, and the female, who is sitting at the edge of the forest, looks at him. He stops, and he waits for a response, and realising that the first gestural communication did not work, he stops to think, and then repeats

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  111

the gesture. He holds the same big object shape first with one hand, then with two hands, looks over, repeats and persists, demonstrating insistence that he would like the female to come to him. Eventually, the female chimp moves over and greets him. He is the alpha chimp, and so they sit down together and rest. He has achieved his goal in communicating with her. The research affirms that certain gestures have an origin which may have been missed over evolutionary periods. For example, a gesture that is made to stroke another’s mouth when begging for food. Some of the primates gestures are universal to the extent that all large primates: chimpanzees, orangutans, bonobos, gorillas, and humans, can understand them. The gesture of stroking another’s mouth originates from cupping a hand under the mouth of another to obtain food scraps. Then it was used between beings at distance, and now it is also used to beg for support, for example, during a fight. The finding is surprising because it reflects both a cultural revolution of the initial sign, but it also teaches us humans how we might have learned to make our own gestures in asking for food or other things. We would have learned the same gesture as babies, perhaps partly innately, and partly by copying it from other humans. In both form and in meaning, these gestures are strongly governed by the genetic inheritance of the species. Even if we have to abandon any hope of being able to “speak” to chimpanzees, we humans are fortunate to share a joint genetic heritage with primates, in order that they can teach us the origins of our behaviours, and give us access to that particular pre-​linguistic space. Being able to obtain these research findings from a non-​captive population of chimpanzees can be considered an empirical and scientific success. Finding Freedom

The last of the human freedoms: to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances. (Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning, 1946) Frankl reported how those who lived in concentration camps during World War II observed men walking through the huts comforting others and giving away their last pieces of bread. These were taken as proof that everything can be taken away from beings, apart from the choice of attitude to any given set of circumstances, and the ability to make one’s own choices: And there were always choices to make. Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self.

112  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

From Frankl’s examples, freedom means the power to give away one’s last possession –​ the piece of bread –​ as well as the inner freedom from deciding whether or not to submit to external power. One is free when one becomes a subject, not an object, when one is self-​determined rather than determined, and when one is not coerced or dependent upon anyone or anything else. The freedom is then marked by a free expression of humanity, namely, here, the desire to give. It is not clear what the primate equivalent of this would be, but since the Oklahoma chimpanzees were highly encultured, it is likely that they would have learned from the human models around them. In studies on children’s and adults’ judgments of equitable resource distributions, Paul Bloom’s laboratory (McCrink, Bloom, & Santos, 2010) found that that this kind of social evaluation develops across time. In a comparison of evaluating the “niceness” of a character who is distributing resources, while four-​year-​olds focused exclusively on absolute amount, five-​year-​olds showed some sensitivity to proportion, and adults focused exclusively on proportion. This was in a “Giving Game”, in which two puppets with different amounts of chips each gave some portion of these chips to the children, and in an accompanying analogous task for the adults. Furthermore, the nature of making sacrifices for others is partly modelled, and involves mature appreciation of how social relationship matters for evaluation, which emerges relatively late in development. Children aged five and six years old (i.e., younger) and eight and nine years old (older), and adults consider social relationship when evaluating unhelpful or helpful actions. When the participants in this study learned about a person in need who was (or was not) aided by a friend versus a stranger, older children and adults judged an unhelpful friend as being meaner than an unhelpful stranger, and a helpful stranger as nicer than a helpful friend. Younger children, on the other hand, did not judge an unhelpful friend as any meaner than an unhelpful stranger, and they judged a helpful friend as nicer than a helpful stranger. Primates are able to form, maintain and repair long-​term cooperative relationships with kin and non-​kin (de Waal, 2008; Melis, 2017; Muller & Mitani, 2005). Engelmann, Haux, and Herrmann (2019) explored preferential prosociality in instrumental helping, demonstrating that both young children and (laboratory) chimpanzees provide help to conspecifics at a personal cost. The chimpanzees in this study were co-​observed in one phase during which naturally occurring social interactions were recorded to determine friendship dyads, and were then selectively paired with their friend or a neutral individual from their group to determine whether chimpanzees would be more motivated to help their friend. The chimpanzees came from the Sweetwater Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Kenya, and so were semi-​encultured with access to a large outdoor enclosure. It is unknown how much human exposure each chimp had received, and so how much of this behaviour had been learned from humans. The authors noted motivations to provide help were preferential in chimpanzees, suggesting that

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  113

partiality towards friends is grounded early in human evolution, and suggest that social relationships influence cooperative interactions in chimpanzees. These chimpanzees were more likely to select a risky cooperative option that required trust in a partner when they interacted with a friend (Engelmann, Herrmann, & Tomasello, 2015; Engelmann & Herrmann, 2016) and were more successful at solving a mutualistic collaboration task when they are paired with a tolerant partner (Melis, Hare, & Tomasello, 2006). In wild populations, observations suggests that chimpanzees are more likely to groom with conspecifics to whom they are bonded, to support them in fights, and to share food with them (Muller & Mitani, 2005; Muller, Wrangham, & Pilbeam, 2017; Samuni et al., 2018; Seyfarth & Cheney, 2012). What happens when such captive chimpanzees find temporary freedom? It appears that after the escape plans have been put in place, chimpanzees generally do not know what to do with their newly found liberty. There are several examples of how the chimpanzees in enclosures at the Institute for Primate Studies in Oklahoma tried to find glimmers of freedom. Alyse tells of a few incidents of chimpanzees finding freedom: We had several breakouts, but it was mostly the girls, and they would pick the locks. Tiny taught me how they would get out, but once out they wouldn’t go far, because they would get scared. The chimps were afraid of open fields. On one occasion, I tried putting the adolescents on the island for a couple of weeks. They did not like it. All the action was going on in their barn. Onan and Nim stole the rowboat one morning. Lilly was at home and not part of the escape. The boat got loose. Nim knew how to row a boat, and so Nim and Onan rowed to the shore. Nim was found in nearby field and was very scared. He came right over to me, shouting a fear scream when found. Onan was nowhere to be found. He had been getting more difficult for the students to control, and would often run away when being looked after by students. There was a new housing development about half a mile away, and late that afternoon we received a call from them to come for Onan.” On a different occasion, Alyse and colleagues had a call from a nearby residential subdivision. This time it was Onan, Nim’s brother. We got into the company car, which was Lemmon’s Mercedes. We got to the house that Onan had broken into. The people let us inside. Once we got inside, there was popcorn all over the place, and we found Onan, sitting on the couch, watching a movie, eating popcorn, bananas, apples, and candy. He had his cheeks full of food. He just got up, carried the popcorn under his arm, and I opened the car upfront and he got in.

114  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

It appears that on the whole, the chimpanzees were compliant if given freedom: I would have visitors to see Lilly, speakers would come visit us after their presentations. I would have them play that computer game, Pong. Lilly would play against the computer and we would fix it so it would look like she was winning. Lilly would be jumping up and down and doing flips, and so I would say to the visitor to take her out to walk near the woods. They would leave with the lead around Lilly, the lead in one hand, holding Lilly’s hand in the other. They would come back and Lilly would be leading them. I knew that there would be something special that had happened to them within that time in the woods. “Other chimpanzees could be less agreeable, and even frightening. Alyse explains how Pan’s “big loose” had caused her to become scared. Lemmon had raised Pan, a big male (father of Onan, Ally, Nim, and the others). We had to be careful around him. They would be sitting in front of each other by Lemmon’s fireplace. One day there was a showdown, and the chimpanzee started to shake. Lemmon sat, staring at him, and Pan stared back. They were staring into the eyes of each other, and Pan escaped. I was in the trailer with the babies, holding one of the them. Tiny had been out to buy the fruit and vegetables we needed. I looked up and saw Pan. I didn’t know if he was going to kill me or if he was going to rape me, there and then. I threw the babies into the closet for safety. At least he wouldn’t be able to smell them in there”. “Another time, when Pan was growing up, Alyse reports that Pan was on top of the cage, and Lemmon had to come up with a ladder. He jumped on top of the cage, and Pan was screaming and running. I thought: “that chimp is going to kill Lemmon”. Lemmon held out his hand with his big ring with a pronated wrist gesture, and Pan held it and kissed it. You had to admire the man for the fortitude to do this, and to make the chimp believe he should do this”. In some instances, the chimpanzees (and television viewers and other observers) were given the impression of having liberty. Alyse describes how Booee was filmed being taken for a walk, but Tiny was behind the cameraman with a shotgun. Poor Booee was rather docile due to his split brain, and Bruno, his cagemate, was something of a bully. “Booee always got beaten up after being released”. Many of these were protest behaviours. Ron Helterbrand says, The sad thing is that you raise these chimps like humans and then you put them in a cage. Their mind is blown. One time, I was observing Washoe. Diana (Davis, graduate student) comes into the lab wanting to talk to Washoe, and talking to me. Washoe had water in her mouth and she spat it, right into Diana’s face. On the other side, it is not just about words.

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  115

Both Alyse and Ron tell the story of a chimpanzee “breakout”. Alyse says, “We had to be careful opening and closing the cages. We had to check everything”. There is no doubt that looking after so many tiny newborn chimpanzees and other infants would have taken its toll on Alyse and the others’ attentions, just as it does on any parent of a young infant. Alyse tells of this situation when Sherry had broken out. She formed a long line of apples and things collected, including vitamin powder. “One Friday night, we used to say that it would be when cowboys would brawl, we would find chimpanzees having bun fights, and having fun. On this occasion I found them hooting more”. Ron says, The time the chimps broke out, this was started by Sherry, who was on top of the juvenile cage, surrounded by the other chimps. And as we went in we saw that she was swaggering on top of the cage. She had got into the wine that Bill Lemon had made and stored in a disused freezer. We call Tiny and Alyse, and they go in and count the chimps. We search everywhere for the missing chimpanzee. We look everywhere for the missing chimp, and finally we open the walk-​in freezer. Onan is in there. He has handfuls of chow which he’s munching on, and he looks up and greets us. Why Have Chimpanzees Been Used?

Chimpanzees are more like humans than any other animal. Since we share around 98.3% of our DNA, their brains, organs and blood are much like our own, and so they were considered the best model for medical research. Unfortunately, medical researchers did not consider that many of those chimpanzees would have lives that continued well after their moment in research history had passed. Several of the chimpanzees who lived in Oklahoma now live in sanctuary elsewhere, as a result of those studies. Since many of these chimpanzees lived as long as 50 years, they were forced to live out their lives in captivity, enslaved by their owners and “carers”: the military, research scientists, or medical workers, for the purpose of performing experiments. The initial modern animal rights movements in the 1980s and 1990s attempted to give these animals basic rights and to allow them to count as beings, but this movement had limited success. Cavalieri and Singer (1993) published the Great Ape Project, demanding that the creatures be recognised as beings, and not as property. Peter Singer was responsible for the resulting animal rights movement called the Great Ape Project, an animal rights movement promoting that animals be recognised as more than experimental property. In the television documentary, 20/​20 in 1996, Roger Fouts, one of the main carers, at the time, of Washoe, Tatu, Moja, Loulis, and Dar, says that it is important to find human responsibility; that if we brought them into experimentation, then we have to make sure that we give them a proper

116  We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity

way to live afterwards. The problem, as he highlights, is that the chimpanzees could not simply be sent back to Africa. In 1995, the great majority of the 1,750 chimps held in captivity in the United States were used in biomedical research. These chimpanzees would be routinely sedated to undergo liver biopsies, to have their blood drawn, and to be injected with deadly viruses. The chimpanzees at LEMSIP at this time lived in elevated cages measuring 5 × 5 × 7 feet. It was not clear with whom the responsibility for these studies and these chimpanzees lay: was it the researcher who ignores the fact that chimpanzees are akin to humans, or was it the veterinary doctor who performed the experiments in the name of medicine to save human lives, and who held a heavy conscience for it? Dr James Mahoney was the chief veterinarian at LEMSIP and stood in as the human who had to make these decisions of conscience, in terms of choosing which chimpanzees would enter the various clinical trials. He explained the objectives of that research in the programme 20/​20. In the 1990s, the objectives to that clinical research were to find new viruses and also vaccines. In those days it seemed that the chimpanzee was the only appropriate animal model in which to grow the virus, and therefore the animal became a candidate for hosting the virus. Over time, these chimpanzees used in medical research saved hundreds of thousands of human lives, for example through investigation of the vaccine for Hepatitis B disease, which was a major killer in the Third World, and most recently, in the development of the COVID vaccine. Six chimpanzees in the United Kingdom were known to have been used in COVID research work. The active substance of the Oxford/​AstraZeneca COVID vaccine is a single recombinant replication-​deficient chimpanzee adenovirus (ChAdOx1) vector. This codes for the S glycoprotein of SARS-​CoV-​2 (ChAdOx1-​S [recombinant]) (Joe et al., 2022). Following vaccine administration, this vector enters into the cells of the body. It produces the S glycoprotein of SARS-​CoV-​2 which is then expressed on the surface of the cells. Expression of the spike protein induces neutralising antibodies and T-​cells to be raised against it. Should the body then become infected with SARS-​CoV-​2, the immune system will recognise the SARS-​CoV-​2 virus and attack it. The Pfizer and the Moderna vaccines are not inserted into recombinant chimpanzee adenovirus (Gov.UK, Freedom of Information request on what the chimpanzee adenovirus used for in the Oxford/​ Astrazeneca vaccine; November, 2021). Both of these vaccines would never have been developed without this kind of research. In Dr Mahoney’s time at LEMPSIP in the 1990s, AIDS was the focus of the chimpanzee research since it was believed that only chimps and humans could carry the HIV virus, although chimps never actually get the disease. In order to test the vaccine in a human being, one would have to take a person who had never been exposed to HIV and to ask them to be injected with a vaccine in the hope that that vaccine would work. A laboratory research study would then involve injecting that being with 1,000 times an infectious dose, in the hope

We’re In Here Because You’re Not All There: Captivity  117

that the vaccine would prevent development of HIV or AIDS infections in that person. Given this, a human model was not possible. Before they were old enough to have to spend all their time inside a cage, the baby chimpanzees would spend their days in playrooms, where they could receive the same loving affection, holding, and cuddling as human babies need. Once they were around six years old and too powerful to be easily controlled, the chimpanzees were placed in cages with other playful juveniles. Experimentation would begin, and they would eventually be moved onto the adult wards, where a steel cage will become their “homes” for the rest of their decades. The enormous similarity between the great apes and human beings had rendered them beings upon which we believed we could experiment. The 20/​20 television presenter, Hugh Downs, asked Dr Mahoney if, given these similarities, humans have a right to use them in this way. His response was, “I personally don’t think we have a right now. I am thoroughly convinced that we do not have a right. I can only say that we have a need”. When he is asked if he wished he were doing something else, he replied; Yes, every day. Every night. Unfortunately, we do need to use them in research, that’s my belief. But I’m not so thoroughly convinced about my rightness in doing so that I feel I can do it without having a terrible conscience. It may pain us to know that we are still testing on animals. We cannot pretend that we have not benefitted from these sacrifices, and that our relative wellness rests upon the sacrifice of such animals. As a society, we could work towards making this experimentation a thing of the past, perhaps by funding more in vitro studies, researching organ growth or use of human participants, in order that the use of animal subjects for human medicine could be drastically reduced, if not eliminated.

4 OVERFAMILIAR

This chapter will concentrate on theories behind interpersonal relationships, particularly in connection to healthy family models. In her recent book “Every Family Has a Story”, Julia Samuel (2022) considers the impact of family relationships on our lives with consideration of the skills gained within family well-​being that help with improving relationships. Within our family environment, we learn how to communicate effectively, how to set boundaries, how to fight productively, and how to allow for change and development. Family break-​ups and reconciliation can also be considered in this regard. In addition, some of the death experiences of both the researchers and the chimpanzees will be covered in the following chapters. The research on the Oklahoma chimpanzees can be examined from two angles. First, the academic laboratory can be thought of as a family of sorts. The supervisor of the doctorate student acts as a sort of mother or father of a laboratory, with the PhD students and post-​docs in offspring and sibling roles. The dynamics leading to traumatic experiences with the Oklahoma group of researchers and carers have received a paucity of attention. During the research of our first book, many of Nim’s and Washoe’s carers came forward to discuss the trauma from which they still suffer, reflecting upon the severity and depth of those experiences. The interviews with those carers revealed the enormity of their suffering, and reflected their family positions and experiences at the time. For example, one of these carers describes emotional disruption in watching Washoe give birth to a baby chimpanzee who subsequently died. He had come to the academic work having suffered the death of his father from a young age. This experience with Washoe contributed to his already complicated grief experience, and inevitably led to his later profession working within a first response team. DOI: 10.4324/9781003400677-5

Overfamiliar  119

Another researcher who was privy to the same chimpanzee infant death episode explained how the experience led her to a career in human trauma therapy much later. She described how she still has strong recollections, and how she blocked out the memories, now realising that those experiences influenced the direction she took. How those carers –​ including one of the authors, Robert –​ dealt with that trauma and rebuilt their futures through posttraumatic growth is noteworthy. Tedeschi and Calhoun (2004) identify the usefulness in posttraumatic growth. They consider positive outcomes which emerge after trauma, through resilience and posttraumatic growth, and discuss how “[Individuals] not only bounce back from trauma, but use it as a springboard to further individual development or growth, and the development of more humane social behaviors and social organization” (Tedeschi et al., 1998). Posttraumatic growth is new to science, but in religion and literature it has been discussed in the context of explaining human suffering in bringing people closer to wisdom, truth, and God, with various cultural traditions and tales centring around it; for example, the phoenix that never dies but builds a nest in which it is engulfed by flames, to be reborn from ashes. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Freud also discussed “the usefulness of suffering for personal development”. Indeed, some studies have identified posttraumatic growth as a sort of “antithesis of posttraumatic stress disorder, emphasizing that growth outcomes are reported even in the aftermath of the most traumatic circumstances, and even though distress coexists with this growth” (Tedeschi et al., 1998). We can also consider the role of self-​compassion here. Neff (2016) identifies this as those elements crucial to healthy behaviour, whereby compassion as demonstrated in love for others is extended to the self for one’s failings, inadequacies and experiences of suffering. It is the same type of open-​heartedness related to compassion for others. The suffering individual must notice that suffering is occurring, must recognise that suffering is part of the shared human experience, and learns to respond with feelings of care and concern towards oneself, instead of shame, self-​loathing, and suffering. Factor analysis has demonstrated the concept of self-​compassion to be comprised of three factors: 1 Self-​kindness vs. self-​judgment –​ this is warmth and understanding towards the self when there is inadequacy or failure. Difficulty is seen as a part of being human and is inevitable. Individuals cannot simply just get what they want, when they want. 2 Common humanity vs. isolation –​ “Being human” is to be vulnerable and imperfect. Inadequacy is a part of the human fabric. Instead of suffering in isolation, empathy and belonging are encouraged. 3 Mindfulness vs. over-​identification –​This is the ability to empathise with the plight of others, weighing up one’s own situation against a wider context.

120 Overfamiliar

There is observation of negative thoughts with openness and in mindful awareness, without denying them, rather than suppressing or exaggerating. In western culture, self-​compassion is typically discouraged. It is seen as involving a “cringe” factor. Individuals are encouraged to show themselves as being strong, stoic, and not soft. The concept of self-​compassion can be confused with self-​pity or complaining, and can be seen as self-​indulgent. Research by Neff and others (Neff & Beretvas, 2013; Neff, 2016) shows how self-​compassion is associated with intrinsic motivation, learning and growth goals, curiosity and exploration, and with less fear of failure, since “Motivation of self-​compassion stems from desire for the self’s well-​being”. There is promotion of a supportive emotional environment for change, and a sense of safety is needed to see oneself clearly, to detect maladaptive patterns and to make changes. In terms of its underpinnings, Gilbert (2005, Gilbert & Procter, 2006) demonstrated that self-​compassion taps into the mammalian care-​giving system. We are innately endowed with ability to give and receive care, and self-​compassion taps into the same physiological system that allows mothers to bond with and soothe infants, promoting release of oxytocin, vasopressin, and opiates. This biopsychosocial model can be added to psychodynamic theory. How self-​compassionate we are is based upon early attachment experiences and internal modelling of parental messages. We Are Family

An interesting aspect of human culture is in the fabric of the family unit. Humans and animals have in common that our children are raised by mothers and fathers, and often by other adults, also. Our earliest attachments with our closest caregivers influence these relationships and influence our personal development and growth. Sometimes our children are raised by a wide range of other caregivers; by grandparents, aunts, uncles, and siblings, who may even be children, themselves. The uniqueness of the family unit including the hierarchy from parent to child and from grandparent to parent, can be explored here, with the dynamics that exist also within the similar work unit containing hierarchies, such as within the academic laboratory and between PhD supervisor and student. The animal-​to-​human and also animal-​to-​animal bonds in captivity are unique. Irene Pepperberg describes her close relationship with the African grey parrot, Alex, in the 30 years over which she conducted psychological research and analysis. Pepperberg demonstrates how the deep connection developed with a working animal, and the trauma associated with him, is greatly meaningful, perhaps more so than it is in a pet-​owner bond. For animals who are working participants in a cognitive science/​psychology laboratory, the carer is in loco parentis and becomes responsible for the welfare of the animal. In fact, the

Overfamiliar  121

relationship is very different to one where the animal has been captured from, say, vivisection experiments, since those animals do not have a relationship with their captors. One level of captivity of psychology experiment animals can be one where the captured comes to know his/​her captor as a friend as well as a colleague. These cases are important because they demonstrate that while these laboratory experiments were regarded as studies of language, they are better shown as significant being-​to-​being attachments. In Pepperberg’s case, the animal did not even have to be a primate. It is the value of the sentient being itself, that counts. Other issues under consideration concern the boundaries in place between human and animal, the planning and cost of animal upkeep, in terms of both financial cost and time, the quality of the scientific output and its credibility as research, given that the animal becomes a combination of a participant, a “working colleague”, and a friend. All of the chimpanzees under study formed strong attachments with their human carers. Nim, it was said, had “over 200 carers” (Martin, personal communication), yet he was still able to develop robust links and bonds, while the special mother-​daughter bond formed between Alyse Moore and Lilly also had its peculiarities. These factors affecting attachment were pertinent in these bonds, and ultimately the sad endings associated with breaking those bonds, either when the chimpanzee was moved from one place of study to another, or when the animal died, carried great significance The next chapter will explore the grief experiences behind those severing of ties and rupturing of those bonds. In “Every Family Has a Story”, Julia Samuel asks readers to consider the narratives within our families. “Every family has a story. A story of love and loss. Joy and pain” (Samuel, 2022). The story of the Oklahoma chimpanzee families governed many of the behavioural outcomes, but so did those of the human carers working with the chimpanzees. Here, we will not delve into the family histories of many of those members too deeply out of respect for individual privacy, but a narrative or understanding of what-​had-​been can help us understand and interpret those events and how each individual might have dealt with it. Each human’s underpinnings and traumas will have contributed to the experiences and growth of every chimpanzee. We can consider the Oklahoma environment as a sort of family. If this is the case, then Dr William (Bill) Lemmon, who started the community, would be the father. Lemmon was born into a working-​class family in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1916. He obtained his doctorate from Ohio State University, where he studied with Carl Rogers (Hess, 2008). Hess explains how Lemmon was a promising young psychologist with a background in biology and a passion for the theories of Sigmund Freud. By the time he was 28 years old he was married with three children, director of several clinics and the Psychology Department at Maryland University. He met his second wife, Dorothy (Dottie) Lemmon here; she was one of his students. In 1945, after his divorce from first wife, Lemmon and Dottie

122 Overfamiliar

moved to Norman, Oklahoma when he was offered a position in the Department of Psychology at Oklahoma University. With Dottie, Lemmon had two more children, Peter and Sally. Dottie became a clinical psychologist with her own practice separate from his and away from the University, at a local mental health centre, with independence from Lemmon in both work and personal ventures. In 1957, Lemmon and Dottie bought a farm on East Lindsey Street on the outskirts of Norman, which comprised a farmhouse built in 1907 and 140 acres of meadows, woods and ponds. These were ideal surroundings for farm and other animals, and by this stage, Lemmon’s research focussed on animal behaviour and comparative psychology. He had visions of making this farm into a sort of research institute with different species of animals, and worked on the designs of this with his university income and funds from his highly successful private practice (Hess, 2008). He bought exotic birds and small mammals and began a sort of collection of creatures, and by 1964, the Institute for Primate Studies was founded on Lemmon’s farm. He added more birds, dogs (border collies), spider monkeys, gibbons, and sheep, buying in twos where possible in order to breed them so that he could study their mating habits, gestation periods, and reproduction. The offspring were sold to researchers or given away to friends. There were also greenhouses and gardens where Lemmon and his wife grew fruit trees and vegetables. He was at distance from OU, and he could experiment on his animals in a freer way. Lemmon became known at the University for being an eccentric, charismatic, popular professor and psychotherapist, refusing to give in to convention. He dressed in a particular way: when other professors wore suits and ties, Lemmon wore jumpsuits, leather sandals with bare feet, and a belted trench coat in the winter, with “the collar flipped up, as if he were a spy” (Hess, 2008). Lemmon shaved his head and had a well-​trimmed goatee beard and bushy eyebrows. In 1946, the Dean of the University sent him a letter on official stationery, asking him to wear socks and shave off his goatee “as people were beginning ‘to think he was eccentric’ ” (Hess, 2008). He shaved it off, temporarily, but carried on wearing his sandals barefoot. The University of Oklahoma was conservative, as was the state of Oklahoma, and Lemmon was highly unconventional and ahead of his time. Lemmon did things differently. The relationships he fostered with his students, colleagues, clinical psychology department, and even his patients, were unusual. His chimpanzee research was radical and different. For example, while the bulk of his research was on the study of the behaviour and communication of chimpanzees to better comprehend the origin and nature of human communication, one of his 1970s research projects involved clitoral orgasms in female chimpanzees. He was seen as a visionary leader, a magnetic and charming individual with new ideas. However, it appears that his ideas were too unusual to be funded, even if they could be executed in practice, and he never made any significant contributions to any field of research.

Overfamiliar  123

Lemmon’s mysterious character carried heavy weight, and he had a sort of aura about him, whereby students jostled to get physically close to him, and to copy his style –​if he smoked a certain brand of cigarettes, students switched to that brand (Hess, 2008). Alyse Moore recalled a Halloween party when students came dressed as Lemmon, in signature orange jumpsuits and wearing sandals. It was Lemmon’s practice to suggest his students undergo psychotherapy or similar with faculty members or with himself. Students were often both training therapists and patients. This is still common in psychotherapy practice, although nowadays it would be deemed unethical to receive psychotherapy from one’s professor. Little is known about the parents of Bill Lemmon. As “father” of the laboratory, what was he bringing to the experience? Very little is known about his own family experiences. He grew up in Ohio, studied in Maryland, then moved to Oklahoma. Considering his techniques with the animals, we might assume that he had come from a disciplinarian family which had rigid behavioural rules. Lemmon was a Freudian who called the behaviourist theories of B.F. Skinner “rat science”. It was unusual for a clinical psychologist of those days to follow Freud, and even more interestingly, he attempted to do Freudian-​type research on the chimpanzees in the hope that he could explore their early development and personality formation. The fact he disciplined the animals with shock prods and housed them in cages suggests unconscious use of behaviourist techniques, but on the other hand, we might ask how else we might discipline and control a large ape. Lemmon believed that comparative studies between humans and chimpanzees would lead to discoveries into the human brain and its evolution. As these were the days before brain scanning techniques, this was novel and highly relevant to the field of psychology. It could be said that this was Lemmon’s way of doing neuroscience, even before the field existed. It is difficult to describe how Lemmon was, as a father to his children. Alyse tells how he spent the main holidays like Christmas with lab members like her, and Tiny. Lemmon was a Freudian, which was rather unusual for a clinical psychologist. He did Freudian research on his chimpanzees, hoping to explore their early development in order to work out how their personalities were formed. Like Sigmund Freud, he involved his children in his research life. He purchased his first chimpanzees, Pan (born in Ghana) and Wendy (born in Sierra Leone), who were both a year old when they arrived, and raised them alongside his children Peter and Sally, who were eleven and ten. The three other children from his first marriage would visit periodically. The fact that Peter Lemmon remembers Pan and Wendy fondly suggests that the children were not so affected by their father’s antics. Robert remembers Bobby Lemmon, his grandson, as playing an active part in the laboratory, also. It is described by Hess (2008) that Bill Lemmon’s first son, William Lemmon III (“Butch”) from his first marriage, was hit by a car in Norman when visiting his father in 1957, and

124 Overfamiliar

was killed. Peter Lemmon says his father “never emotionally recovered from the tragedy” (Hess, 2008). Nothing has ever been made of this. Robert says he never uttered a word about this, and the others did not know, either. It is hard to imagine anything larger than the death of one’s own child to impact upon one’s life experiences. It is possible to consider that Lemmon dealt with the loss of his child, through an existence with the chimps, and by creating life. As a chimpanzee “father”, he was strict but kind. The chimpanzees respected him and he loved them. He rescued many chimpanzees from pet situations and from the circus environment. Hess (2008) describes him as being proud of each newborn chimp. Robert had a unique relationship with Lemmon, and one wonders if this was because of the uncanny coincidence that Robert, too, had experienced a road accident, and nearly lost his life. Robert was run over by a drunk driver at 18 years old, and almost lost his life. He was in hospital for 9 months and given last rites. Or perhaps Lemmon detected a fragile son-​father bond in Robert, and understood that he needed some sort of rescuing. Whatever the reason, few people knew how Lemmon helped Robert to overcome serious abuse experiences. Robert says: It didn’t take me long to figure out the dynamics at the IPS. I quickly learned that Dr Lemmon was the director, and in charge of the ongoing day-​to-​day activity at the IPS. I also became aware of the palpable tension between the Dr Fouts camp and the Dr Lemmon camp. Like most of the students, I tried my best to not let the rift between Roger and Dr Lemmon get in the way of my ability to help with the chimps. It didn’t take me long to first realize that I could handle the responsibility of taking chimps out of their enclosures, or cages, and be in free contact with them. To conduct the behavioural and cognition research that Roger did, it was necessary to be with the chimps, out of their enclosures. Since Dr Lemmon was in charge and was there at the IPS most of the time, my skills and ability to handle adult chimps and subadult chimps became known to the staff from their observation of me handling various chimps, and that information was passed along to Dr Lemmon. Within a year or so of my time at the IPS, I was given permission to come out whenever I wanted or needed during business hours, and take chimps on walks, which Dr Lemmon called “excursions”. I was also granted permission to come out on the weekends. He also passed along the master key to all the closure locks, to an IPS staff member who passed it along to me. That was a high honour. Dr Lemmon had the reputation for being difficult and for wanting things done his way. Over the next three or four years, I split my time between being a student of Fouts, but I also spent a great deal of my free time, when not attending class on

Overfamiliar  125

campus, at the IPS. Dr Lemmon requested that staff at IPS have weekly meetings with him in his office, like a therapy session. One day while I was on IPS grounds, he asked if I would participate in that type of session, and organised a time with his secretary for a once-​a-​week, one-​hour session. At first I was very nervous about this. Dr Lemmon was an imposing figure. Some people described him as scary. I saw him as a no-​nonsense person, in charge, who had a lot of responsibilities. I started my sessions with Dr Lemmon that week. Although I had never been to therapy, it was how I’d imagined therapy to be. He asked about my history; where I was from, what my interests were, why I was working at the IPS, and what my goals were, both personally and academically. He made me feel comfortable. He asked about my education up to college, and then he asked about my family. This didn’t happen in one session, but over the course of a few months. He was like a stern but concerned grandfather. He was very well read, and clever. He gave me books to read from his bookshelf; books about and by Sigmund Freud, B.F. Skinner, Noam Chomsky and others. One day he asked me what was troubling me. I didn’t really know what to say at first, but I sensed he knew I had a long-​term serious issue that was bothering me, something I had never spoken to anyone about. I told him about the abuse that I had endured from my father. Along with my sister, I had been abused by my father for almost my entire childhood. Verbally, physically, psychologically, and sexually. I had never spoken of that. Dr Lemmon made me feel comfortable enough to tell him the truth. Like many survivors of abuse, at first I was ashamed and embarrassed. He helped me get over that in the following weeks. I felt more comfortable exploring. He made a request and a gesture that was to me almost as life-​changing as the chimps, themselves. He explained that he counselled –​in a group setting –​men who had been abusive towards their children, like my dad, and who had been forced by the courts to seek treatment. He invited me to attend those sessions as his student and colleague. He also gave me advice about opening up a dialogue with my sister, and encouraged me to reach out to her and suggest she get similar counselling. He changed how I perceived myself and my childhood issues, which were traumatic and had, up until then, shaped my life. Besides letting me have the experience that I was having with the chimps, which I’ve described as the best times of my life, he helped me to understand and deal with the trauma that I had been carrying my entire life. It probably had a great deal to do with what had introduced me to the chimp experiences. This also changed how I saw the chimps, radically. I realised that they were traumatised, as well. At that time, I didn’t label it as a trauma, but I realised that there was something fundamentally wrong with what we were experiencing with these animals. At the end of each working time, after being with the chimps all day, we put them back into their cages and went home. However, the chimps

126 Overfamiliar

could not go home. They were in what was their home. Cages. During the day when we took them out, they received a kind of therapy. But at the end of the day, they were put back in those cages. This realisation was a huge “aha” moment. At around the same time as I started my own research, Nim was returned to the IPS from New York, in 1977. By 1979 or 1980, when Herb Terrace wrote his book claiming that Nim didn’t initiate conversation and was mimicking the teacher, I experienced something very different. I saw initiation and spontaneity in his use of ASL, often on our walks or excursions. I wanted to document these incidences of Nim’s spontaneity initiation. Portable video equipment had recently been made available, and so during one of our weekly meetings I asked Dr Lemmon if he would provide me with that equipment. It was a long shot, but I had to ask. The next weekend when I was at the IPS, he asked me to come into his office. On the floor there were three boxes marked “Sony” with brand-​new state-​of-​ the-​art video cameras. He said, “There’s your equipment”. I was stunned and pleased. Much of the video that is seen of Nim and me in Oklahoma, in the film Project Nim, was taken with that equipment. I wanted to document Nim’s sign use when he was on simple walks with his friends, and not in the sterile student–​teacher setting that he was subjected in New York. Also, I was interested in cognitive mapping, and had ideas on how to expand on the ASL research with maps of Nim’s and the other chimps’ enclosures at the IPS. I wanted to see if the chimps would recognise locations on the maps, if they could learn to read maps and, if given a camera, what they might photograph. “It was an extraordinary time, and to this day, I’m grateful to Dr Lemmon for those kind gestures and for his belief in me. A solid father figure is important to the growth of family members. Others had different experiences with Dr Lemmon; some experiences may not have been positive, but for me, he turned out to become a very important figure.” It is well documented that the academic unit within a university functions as a sort of family, with a hierarchy. Within any organisation, whether it be a commercial enterprise, an interest or charity group, or even a family unit, there exists a similar pecking order. Individuals at the top exploit those at the bottom, while those at the bottom usually wish to rise to the top. This creates a network and a token economy. The token can manifest in many ways; it can be about the possession of money, of knowledge, even of mundane information. Individuals at the bottom in possession of any of these create an imbalance of power against those at the top, creating a desire or demand, and disrupting the pecking order. Individuals try to break away from the network, and to find a way of beating the system in which they find themselves embroiled. The humans in the chimpanzee studies were, more often than not, embroiled in a similar system, with complex interactions and inappropriate relationships. This led to the chimpanzees also being confused about boundaries, and

Overfamiliar  127

testing them. Many of those stories are presented in the historical accounts of behaviours –​indeed, much of the content to us humans is considered salacious. We seem fascinated by sensational accounts of chimpanzees using pornographic images, of communal bathing and of showers shared with humans. As with other examples given, if we swap chimp for child, we can see how inappropriate and unethical this was, and also still is, in terms of sharing those details. While we humans often believe ourselves to be superior, we do have to ask why we engaged continuously in such boundary-​crossing behaviours. Identifying that those behaviours were wrong is a part of handing back the dignity to those chimpanzees, and it is a part of our social duty. The assortment of PhD students and researchers who came into the chimpanzee work under Lemmon’s supervision were from a range of backgrounds, but it is noteworthy that many had had absent or emotionally unavailable parents. These were often parents who were inappropriate or abusive, and usually who were pathologically immature. As a consequence, a lot of the young researchers were impetuous or egocentric, and lacked the ability or awareness to predict the impact of their behaviours upon the chimpanzees. The same profile can be seen with other psychology researchers who worked with animal participants. Lindsay Gibson (2023) explains in her book, “Recovering from Emotionally Immature Parents”, how individuals with such emotionally immature parents had childhoods that were overshadowed by parental unpredictability and emotional overreactivity. “They grew up as captives of emotionally immature parents, psychological infants armed with rigid authority and a powerful adult body” (Gibson, 2023). Even those from the better behaved emotionally immature families would have experienced a parent who was aloof and rejecting, so thus could grow up feeling emotionally lonely, and deprived of connections. Even if these parents often appeared competent and dependable on the outside, they were usually self-​preoccupied and limited in empathy so that they were not able to engage with their children properly, and sometimes “betrayed the child by absenting themselves whenever the child had a real problem or needed protection” (Gibson, 2023). In her autobiographical account of her relationship with Alex the parrot, “Alex & Me” (Pepperberg, 2009), Irene Pepperberg starts her account with a description of her bonding with a baby parakeet which she was given shortly after her fourth birthday. For the purposes of telling her story, Pepperberg refers to the bird as No-​name. “And that’s not completely inappropriate, because in truth, at that point in my young life I felt a little bit like a no-​name entity myself”. She describes how her parents were consistent with this type of emotionally underdeveloped parenting: My mom was what in those days would have been called a “refrigerator” parent: cold and distant, she never hugged me spontaneously or spoke loving

128 Overfamiliar

words to me, and she never played with me or read to me. My dad taught elementary school during the day, studied thanks to the GI Bill for a master’s degree at night, and took care of his sick mother, so I didn’t see him from one “good morning” kiss to the next. (Pepperberg, 2009) Pepperberg’s biography is rich in the fruits of transgenerational trauma and childhood adversity. She explains her experiences through the socioeconomic situation of her parents: I’d fill in coloring books my aunt gave me. My mom and dad disapproved of spending money for such things –​ or maybe didn’t have any to spare –​ and instead my dad drew circles and other shapes on pieces of paper, so I could fill them in like Easter eggs. I was never given toys, mostly because my parents had never been given toys in their childhoods, and so it was something they didn’t even think about. Possibly, some of these child-​rearing practices were not just as a result of being a social migrant, but a throwover from different cultures, too: “Both my parents were first-​generation Americans: my mom’s parents were Romanian, my dad’s Lithuanian, and both had experienced severe deprivation growing up”. Undoubtedly, the isolation experienced by Pepperberg allowed her to bond with her parakeet companion, “Until the day that No-​name entered my life it had been just me, a loner with no one to talk to all day but myself. But now that had changed”. There is no doubt that the interpersonal skills that Pepperberg would acquire would go on to aid her bird friendships: “Now it was no longer just me. Now it was No-​Name and me”, and perhaps the fact those birds would learn to speak is not a coincidence: “I had a companion at last, someone to talk to …”. The bonding would help Pepperberg to form strong, reliable, and boundaried attachments “… someone who appeared to be devoted to me”. This way of being would have influenced the humans in the Oklahoma chimpanzee studies similarly. When it came to the researchers assuming the role of parents, those who had experienced this detached and underdeveloped type of parenting would have involuntarily inflicted similar upon the animals. This would have resulted in similar difficulties (note, not lack) regarding empathy, self-​involvement, and an inability to provide a satisfying emotional connection with their chimpanzee “children”. Many of these individuals produced the very environments in which they grew up –​ “a family atmosphere characterised by conflict, mockery and a lack of emotional intimacy”. Gibson explains how, paradoxically, many emotionally immature parents behave like real adults in other ways, functioning well at work or in their social group. This created further confusion, since the offspring could not understand their parents’ inconsistencies

Overfamiliar  129

and contradictory behaviours; and the only thing making sense would have been for them to have blamed themselves, believing mistreatment and being overlooked to have occurred as a result of being unlovable or not interesting enough. In these cases, emotional needs are seen as illegitimate by the child, and are minimised so they create a sense of guilt towards parents. The problem with emotionally immature individuals is that a childhood spent with such parents can lead to long-​lasting feelings of emotional loneliness as well as ambivalence about relationships in general. Emotional loneliness is the result of feeling unseen and not responded to. In a similar regard, each of the chimpanzees in the family under study in this book had his or her own difficult history and story: from Pan and Carolyn who had been taken from forests, to Nim who was bred for purpose, Lilly who was bought from a catalogue (but likely came from Africa) to their daughter, Sheba, who was born into the Institute in Oklahoma and who today resides in a sanctuary in Louisiana. There is evidence showing that not only our genes but also our psychological underpinnings are inherited across generations via the process of epigenetics. The power of grandparents and parents to influence the individual has been hugely underplayed. Every sentient being holds their own narrative, but this is also influenced by his/​her family, especially in the development of a new family unit. Emotional systems can be held across three, four, or five generations, and are managed by members of that family. Samuel explains how they are led by parents and grandparents, who shape resilience especially in the face of big life experiences and traumatic losses (Samuel, 2022). Part of the generation of these emotional systems has a physical locus. All of a female baby’s gametes, or egg cells, are created while she is growing inside her mother’s womb. When that female’s mother was in her grandmother’s uterus, half of her DNA was also there. In a sense, we females are our age plus our mother’s age old. We exist for about five months inside our grandmother as an egg, and epigenetic markers form from her emotional experiences, which means that our daughters and her eggs and her emotional experiences leave epigenetic imprints for her grandchildren (Kirschenbaum, 2023). Those lives will be formed as a consequence of us. With this in mind, we now understand the enormity of the emotional and social responsibility for our future generations. In recent years, we have been unprepared for this intimacy that infancy requires. The carers and researchers of the Oklahoma chimpanzees were unprepared for the intimacy of infancy. The principal investigators would have completed their degrees and doctorates just after World War II, and as with most people from those times, would have lived by the need to survive and multiply, with a stiff upper lip and without discussion of feelings. They would have had strength and tenacity, with a good front for personal vulnerability. The narrative for trauma did not exist yet, and any underlying pain or hurtful experience would have been buried, with the self moving on. The prevailing attitude was that if

130 Overfamiliar

you do not talk about it, it does not exist, and one can move on. Psychotherapists understand, though, that the scars of these wounds continue to grow. The agony of loss requires a certain type of cultivation, and grief needs to be worked through. These pain is not always visible to outside observers. In an analysis of various families and their generations of trauma the psychoanalyst, Julia Samuel, writes in “Every Family Has A Story” (2022) that What is often not recognized is that behaviours like these are the legacy of trauma. Trauma doesn’t have language. Trauma has no concept of time. It sits on high alert in our bodies, ready to be ignited many decades after the original traumatic event. It doesn’t allow for the processing of emotion. (Samuel, 2022) It is possible to analyse those generations and individuals retrospectively, and to understand some of the family systems –​the dynamics of interconnected processes and of interrelated systems –​ to comprehend better the objectives of the work, but also what was achieved and the states of being that the animals were put in. We can go back and reflect upon the actions of Lemmon, of the other the human “parents” of Carolyn, Pan, Nim, Lilly, and Sheba. Much will be beyond the scope and requirements of this book, but we can reflect upon the influences, at least to some extent, upon the animals, to make them into the creatures they became. Emotional systems are not logical, and the purpose of them is to give us information crucial to our survival: body messages about safety and danger which help us to have our needs met. These researchers were working at a time when much was left unsaid. Just as Samuel does in her book, we can look back at these “parents” and ask, what did they know? What did they think about? Did they know what they felt about their own families? Did they ever talk about things that were happening at home, or that had happened to them? Did they each harbour hidden (or even not-​so-​secret) pain? It is certainly the case that much of this information was not voiced; at least not within earshot. Aside from the oddities of keeping a chimpanzee (and other animal) farm, Lemmon was holding weekly sessions with convicted sex criminals. His workers and researchers were often observing; he invited some of them to sit in and watch the sessions. He provoked curiosity, listening, and interest, which gave the impression of a sort of hiding of information, while those around him continued looking for clues. Lemmon also gave the impression of possessing strong emotional stability. Psychotherapists have spent a great number of years explaining that emotional stability is a fundamental psychological building block which is essential to live well. Without emotional stability, we are always recovering from previous overreactions. Whether one receives emotional stability in one’s upbringing is a question of luck, but also of transmission of knowledge and information. If the

Overfamiliar  131

individual was fortunate, emotional stability was available in childhood and the nurturing was done by people who were, themselves, stable, and through whom strong emotional self-​regulation is inherited. Indeed, the field of psychotherapy attempts to promote this, and to allow individuals to understand that if emotional stability was not possible, if the individual grew up in an emotionally unstable home that left him/​her disregulated and with little emotional stability, change is possible. The place of starting does not necessarily mean the place of continuation. It is likely that Lemmon was attuned to this, hence his activity in therapeutic psychology, but also his very active promotion of group sessions and recovery work. Alex

Not all animal-​to-​human bonds studied in the field of academic psychology involve chimpanzees. One such union is demonstrated through the work by Alex with his carer/​colleague, Irene Pepperberg. In the 1970s, when most people started studying the communication of animals, they used the creatures with genetic relationships to humans, such as great apes, or they used dolphins since they possess large brains. When Pepperberg proposed to conduct her studies with a parrot, research scientists were surprised and underwhelmed at her proposal to conduct experiments on a creature with a brain the size of a walnut. Scientists questioned how Pepperberg would maintain scientific objectivity while working with a pet. She described in a YouTube interview how her work was novel and not fitting of the category of classical neuroscience (World Science Festival, 2009). Pepperberg persevered, obtained preliminary data, and achieved credibility. At around the same time, other scientists were studying birdsong and the striking parallels between the ontogeny of vocal learning in humans and birds. Pepperberg and Alex worked together to demonstrate his intelligence and understanding. Alex had learned to identify about 50 different objects, and he could identify seven colours and five shapes, which he called the one-​, two-​, three-​, four-​, five-​, and six-​cornered objects. Alex could also identify the materials of these items, and could combine these labels. He was able to use language to request food, and could categorise more than 100 different objects. Alex understood numbers up to eight, and concepts like bigger versus smaller, and same versus different, as well as absence. Pepperberg could show Alex two things and say “What same?”. Or “[it] needs a colour, shape, matter”, and “none if nothing” to ask if they were same or different. This created the start of a 30-​year bond. Pepperberg’s research at Brandeis University and at Harvard, covering several decades of study on cognition and communication in grey parrots and continues, even though Alex died in 2007. Pepperberg describes the complexity of life with Alex and the various issues and factors connected with the development and management of a bond with

132 Overfamiliar

and subsequent death of a working animal. Remembering Dr James Mahoney’s statement that “Animals born in captivity are born into tragedy” (Mahoney, Project Nim), we can contemplate Alex’s position as a parrot in captivity and under the powers of his psychology-​experimenter owner. Pepperberg’s experiences with Alex refute any sense of slavery, since her boundaries with him were clear and healthy. However, we can recognise that Alex was purchased by Pepperberg. He was not born into her care. We should also remember here that chimpanzees are not parrots, and that parrots are not chimpanzees (Pepperberg, personal communication), so it may be unfair to make comparisons with, say, Alyse Moore, who bought Lilly from a catalogue. It is possible that healthy boundaries in nurturing can prevent or remove tragedy, and from the myriad of research papers and clips available, it is clear that Pepperberg was an emotionally mature, astute researcher–​“parent”–​carer, with clear boundaries between herself and her parrot colleague. Pepperberg discusses how she worked hard to maintain this boundary in order to retain scientific credibility. She clearly took seriously her responsibilities for balancing the keeping of a laboratory, the funding and supporting of her work, with the tension of keeping Alex not just as a pet, but also as a colleague. Alex was continuously considered her pet but Pepperberg explains that he was also her scientific colleague. He was my research subject, but he was my colleague and I cared about him the way you would care about a colleague, the way … I treated my students. You care about them, but you have a barrier. You keep a barrier to keep your scientific objectivity. You treat them differently than you treat your child or your spouse, but you care about them. (Pepperberg, YouTube clip) Alex, on the other hand, did not always treat her like a colleague, and had a very different relationship, in that he could push her, teasing her. Pepperberg tells the story of how when Alex was about 15 years old, he and Pepperberg were taking part in a radio interview with the BBC. Pepperberg asked him to identify the colour and shape of an object, and he demonstrated a particular type of interaction with her, perhaps indicative of the comfortable bond they shared. When she asked him to tell her the colour and shape of an object, he did not reply properly. When she asked what colour a particular object was, he ignored her question or refused to answer it correctly, leading Pepperberg to frustration. Consequently, she walked away. As she did so, he told her, in his small voice, “I’m sorry. Come here. Orange”. There are associated issues around the time and financial costs of animal upkeep, and the potential of the animal participant to become a friend as well as a colleague. Unsurprisingly, this brings in a different range of dynamics,

Overfamiliar  133

and associated attachments and bonding styles, which, inevitably leads to a particular form of grief experience. Pepperberg describes her ongoing divorce in the context of the events of the time, and it is noteworthy that she describes how she felt tearful at the death of Alex, but not so much at the death of her marriage (Pepperberg, 2009). These episodes validate that while these animal studies started as research participants in language, the force of being-​to-​being attachments drove the focus away from that work. They also demonstrate that the participants did not have to be primates in order for strong being-​to-​being bonds to develop, demonstrating the context of the value of the sentient being. Our human arrogance and sense of closeness make chimpanzees appear as more human than they really are. This probably led to some of the mistreatment in Oklahoma. These factors were less pertinent with Alex; he was able to tease his owner and to change the parameters of reasoning within a conversation. Alex was not an ordinary bird; he was one who had been taught by humans. This may make us wonder what it means to be a parrot taught by humans. Indeed, it makes for fascinating philosophical connotations. Humans are born with (what was once believed to be) a unique ability to understand that things continue to exist even when out of sight; we possess a theory of mind. Humans come to realise that things continue to exist beyond their physical presence. To be bothered by a lack of that physical presence is at the core of traumatic memory and grief. If there is this capacity for this, there is the ability to miss and yearn for another being. The Oklahoma chimpanzees were certainly capable of this type of memory and of theory of mind. Nim remembered Joyce Butler after well over ten years, as well as Tom Martin, and the other caregivers, including, of course, Robert when each of them visited Nim after many years. Washoe was able to sign in conversation about the other chimpanzees, including Loulis, in their absence, and Lilly signed about Tiny, after Tiny’s death. Alyse Moore, Lilly’s owner, explains how Lilly was highly empathetic, and would always look into why someone was crying, and why they were laughing. Alyse tells me how one Halloween, the researchers were playing with a set of plastic fangs. It became a joke for Lilly that she would put the fangs in and would tease the others, squealing and then signing FUNNY to make sure that they knew they were toy fangs, and that it was a joke. The capacity to sign about others and to infer their mental states and reasons for them relates to cognitive mapping. This is the ability to calculate where one is in the world, relative to other beings and other objects. In a particular sense, this is reflected in our production of grammar, and syntax: who did what, to whom, and where? Clive Wearing, the British conductor who suffered severe amnesia following a case of herpes encephalitis in 1987, is able to learn over time that he has a lack of memory (Ashikkerib, 2006). He is able to use semantic information –​which flowers are in bloom, the weather, the seasons –​to calculate where he must be in the world in terms of time. In an interview in 1998, he

134 Overfamiliar

is asked by his wife, Deborah Wearing, “How long ago?” (have you had this condition). The fact he is able to reply: “Years, that’s all I know” suggests an positioning of self across time. She then asks if he has any idea of when he became ill, and he is able to reply accurately, “sometime in the eighties”. When probed when in the 80s, he is able to pinpoint, correctly, the mid-​80s. He is asked which month it might be, and he can look out of the window and say with certainly, “It looks like March, April” when it is April. He can also remember that it is his birthday in April, although he is unsure of his age. The fact we do not need memory to estimate the passage of time suggests the role of semantic information in timekeeping, and in positioning the self in this world. In our first book, and also in previous chapters, we explain how this relates, on a broader level, to our own ability to position ourselves in time and space. In order to do this work and to consider these issues in these animals, it is necessary to consider one’s place on this planet (Ingersoll & Scarnà, 2023), and it is likely that the Oklahoma chimpanzees were also able to reflect upon this. In 1980, Washoe painted a picture. The son of the famous paleo-​ anthropologist, Louis Leakey, Richard Leakey, also a paleo-​anthropologist, was visiting the chimpanzees and they were given materials to produce paintings. The one painted by Washoe is shown in Figure 4.1. Washoe produced this series of brush strokes on the piece of paper to make a painting called “NAME”, when she was asked to paint herself. On the face of it, just a few strokes. However when she was asked, she replied in sign that she had painted herself. On closer inspection the strokes show a W. The sign for Washoe was the W sign in ASL. This indicates the beginnings of matching letters to sounds. Washoe was able to paint a W when asked to paint herself –​this resembles the beginnings of writing. Alex, the parrot, too, demonstrated the initial bases of the reading experience. When he was interviewed by a scientific committee Media Lab at MIT, where Alex and Pepperberg were working on animal, human, and computer interfaces, he was asked by the CEOs to identify and sound out letters and words. Alex was learning via colourful magnetic letters that are commonly attached to the refrigerator in family homes. The different coloured plastic letters were pointed out on a tray, and Alex was asked “What sound?” The researchers asked “Say what colour” or “what sound is blue?”. Alex responded correctly, and was praised by the researchers, “Good birdie!”. He responded, “wanna nut”, knowing he could ask for anything as a reward. Pepperberg explained how he could not keep his audience waiting while he ate nuts, so she suggested they continue with a few more trials. “What sound is green?”. Again, when Alex responded correctly, he was praised, “Good birdie”. Alex became more and more agitated, repeating, “Want my nut”. Pepperberg describes how, “finally, after about the 6th or 7th one of these, he looks at me and his puffs up his little birdy feathers and he goes, ‘Want nut. N-​U-​T’ as though, you know, he’s telling his stupid owner, ‘Do I have to spell it for you here?’ ” Alex was, in fact, further ahead in his learning than his carers had anticipated. He had calculated how to parse this word. Only the letters

Overfamiliar  135

FIGURE 4.1 Painting

by Washoe, “NAME”.

N and T on the board, and he added the U by himself. A remarkable achievement that reflected the manner in which he would often demonstrate the creativity in his learning and in his capabilities. In the chimpanzees, the naming of individuals including the self was an indication that they knew that each individual had a different role and different physical and behavioural (personality) characteristics. Not only did they know their own names, but they also knew the names of the researchers. Washoe gave Bob his name. One of the evenings when she was in labour, Robert engaged in a game of “what name that?”. He held up objects, asking her to sign the names, which she did, until he signed “WHAT NAME YOU?” and she replied with the sign for WASHOE but asked, by way of return, the same question: “NAME YOU”. “I didn’t have a name”, says Bob, so I told her that I didn’t have one. At that time it had not occurred to me to invent a name sign for me. I signed NO NAME to indicate I didn’t have a name in sign, and so she signed to me, NAME YOU ‘BOB’, with BOB being the forefinger and middle finger of the right hand drawn across the left brow ridge, and from that time forward she used that, which I, of course, adopted. The sign Washoe made for BOB is also the sign for B. The interesting implication is not so much that Washoe had worked out that B was for BLACK

136 Overfamiliar

FIGURE 4.2 Bruce

and Young’s model of face recognition (Bruce & Young, 1986).

and also for BOB, but in her actual enquiry over Bob having a name. Giving a linguistic tag to a person indicates that chimpanzees are able to think about them in their absence. Naming of people is particularly complicated, given that the process requires face processing, then access to a semantic store of information about them, and finally a lexical tag which is generally specific to them (Bruce & Young, 1986 see Figure 4.2). It also implies that Washoe was able to keep a running narrative across time, of who was doing something, what they were doing, and to whom they were doing it. Who-​did-​what-​to-​whom is at the core of being able to process grammar, and to conjugate verbs. Brought Up

How is it possible to have two (or more) children who are raised by the same parents in the same way, but turn out differently? This is inevitable. No two children are raised in the same family and therefore, no two children have the same parents. The youngest has never had the experiences that come with being

Overfamiliar  137

the older child, or an only child, and the oldest has never had the experience of being the youngest (Maté 2000). For example, being the youngest means the child commands the respect and authority of the oldest child, and being the oldest child means having been in the position to compete for the cuteness and lovability of being the youngest. Furthermore, the oldest child will never have had the experience of having had an older child in the family, the experience of the insult of “I was the only one” and having to share the parents’ attention with an interloper. When parents have their first child they are at a different stages of personal development, of their relationship and economic position than in later years, and so they are in a different position in the family unit. No two children are the same temperamentally. Each human being has a unique pattern of traits. Each child is different and so evokes a different part of the parent, so even if a parent loves both children equally, they will not respond to the child in the same way. Gabor Mate explains that “Whatever the hopes, wishes or intentions of the parent, the child does not experience the parent directly: the child experiences the parenting” (Maté, 2000). Even if they do attempt to respond in the same way in either child, the child will not evoke the same response from the parent, and so it is fair to say that no child has exactly the same parents. Plomin and Daniels (2011) explain that one of the most important findings emerging from human behavioural genetics is that the environment rather than heredity provides the best available evidence for the importance of environmental influences on personality, psychopathology, and cognition. Environmental influences make two children in the same family as different from one another, as much as do pairs of children selected randomly from the population. They describe quantitative genetic methods and research that conclude that the nonshared environment is responsible for most environmental variation relevant to psychological development, and in the consideration of the relationships between nonshared environmental influences and behavioural differences between children in the same family, they note the far-​reaching implications of finding that psychologically relevant environmental influences make children in a family different from, not similar to, one another. The same would have been true of the chimpanzee family relationships. We might consider that each chimpanzee had a unique combination of parental figures. A few would have had their “chimpanzee parents” present, but largely in Oklahoma, each chimpanzee was raised and nurtured by a combination of ever-​changing human carers who were entering the relationships with their own varied, and often problematic, histories of family dynamics. Nim’s Family

Figure 4.3 shows the family tree of Nim Chimpsky. This will help us to understand the background of various family members; in particular of Sheba, Nim’s daughter, who is of significant interest.

138 Overfamiliar

FIGURE 4.3 Nim

Chimpsky’s family tree.

Nim’s Parents (Or: Sheba’s Grandparents), Pan and Carolyn

Nim’s father was Pan (see Figure 4.4). He was wild-​caught from Ghana and brought to Oklahoma at one year old, where he was raised in Dr Lemmon’s home alongside his two children and became the most prolific of the Oklahoma male chimps. Pan mated freely with Carolyn and also with Wendy, the first of the chimps bought by Bill Lemmon, and several other females. He showed great interest in Carolyn, but less in their offspring, although it is normal for male chimps to have little involvement in raising their infants, even in the wild (Hess, 2008). Pan was a large and wide-​chested, dangerous chimpanzee, known to be Lemmon’s favourite. Since Pan was the oldest and strongest member of the Oklahoma colony, he became the Alpha male, and Lemmon was careful to dominate him, something that the other chimpanzees were terrified by: “If it could be said that Pan ruled over the chimpanzees, it could be said that Lemmon ruled over Pan” (Hess, 2008). Nim’s mother and father were wild-​caught at different times. Nim’s mother was Carolyn, who was also wild-​caught, from Africa and imported into the United States in 1955 (see Figure 4.5). She was sold to the Chicago Zoological Society. Therefore, Sheba had a wild-​caught grandfather and a wild-​caught grandmother, but a lab-​bred father. Carolyn was the most productive breeder at the IPS. She had her first baby, Ahab, two years after arriving in Oklahoma. She gave birth to fourteen infants including five sets of twins (Hess, 2008). All of them were taken from her within weeks of their birth. Nim was the seventh infant. Carolyn arrived in Norman in 1966 when she was 11. In Chicago she had demonstrated unacceptable levels of hostility to zoo-​goers, spitting and hurling faeces at them. She was described as difficult and sullen; we can attribute this to the trauma of her move into captivity. In Norman, Carolyn was at ease right away, and the spitting diminished. She was able to spend time with other chimps, and Lemmon nurtured her well, feeding

Overfamiliar  139

FIGURE 4.4 Nim’s

father, Pan.

FIGURE 4.5 Nim’s

mother, Carolyn.

140 Overfamiliar

her an adequate diet mix of wholegrains, vegetables, beef from cows raised on the same grounds, vitamins, castor oil, and other nutrients, in the form of the “Radcliffe diet”. The chimpanzees also had access to fresh fruits which were grown in the orchards of IPS. The origins of Lilly, Sheba’s mother are unknown. She was wild-​caught, and thought to have been one of the last African chimpanzees brought into the United States through trade. Her owner, Alyse Moore, was present once Lilly entered the United States via the wealthy Hunt brothers, billionaires who exported wild animals. Alyse quarantined with Lilly for her first month. Alyse was told by Texas A&M University, who gave her grants to study Lilly, not to read what anyone else was doing with chimps, therefore, to study Lilly naively and away from the influence of other research. Nim and Lilly’s Daughter: Sheba

The date of Sheba’s birth is not clear, but she was born of an accidental pregnancy in 1982/​1983 to father Nim Chimpsky, and mother, Lilly. The sanctuary Chimp Haven in Louisiana, where Sheba currently resides, celebrated Sheba’s 35th birthday on 4 September 2016, which would make her year of birth 1981. Sheba is one of the last of the IPS Oklahoma chimpanzees and to this day childless. She ended up there via a convoluted path. Sheba is of particular interest because of her hybrid heritage. She had a laboratory-​raised set of family members, with each of the combinations of backgrounds. She had wild-​caught grandparents, a lab-​bred father, and a mother who was wild-​caught and raised in a human home as well as alongside the laboratory chimps. We are wary of using this term “wild-​caught” since it is a sanitised way to describe a chimpanzee taken from the forest, whose mother was usually killed for the purposes of the infant to be taken away by captors. Sheba’s Mother: Lilly

The story of Sheba’s mother, Lilly, connects the chimpanzees Nim, Sheba, the parents Pan and Carolyn. Researcher-​wise, a number of the well-​known primatologists are also connected: Bill Lemmon for having bred Nim from Carolyn, and keeping the other chimpanzees, then, of course, Roger Fouts and his involvement both in Oklahoma and later in Ellensburg in Washington, Alyse Moore for having Lilly whom she was allowed to keep when she landed a job at the IPS with Bill Lemmon, and then David Autry and Robert, who arranged to have Lilly sent to California. At around 1983/​1984, Sheba’s father Nim was sent to LEMSIP, the medical research lab in New York. To keep Sheba’s mother, Lilly, from meeting the same fate, Alyse Moore (who is also in Project Nim) agreed to give Lilly to the nefarious Bob Dunn, a trainer in Los Angeles, California, whose facility was used as a kind of halfway house whenever a place was needed to house

Overfamiliar  141

chimpanzees. Bob Dunn had no lofty goals about saving the planet, and had a long history in the entertainment business. It was he who supplied Bubbles and other chimpanzees to Michael Jackson. Later on, the director of the Center for Great Apes in Florida took Bob Dunn’s chimps, in exchange for Dunn bulldozing his place. Alyse Moore knew Bob Dunn, so she took Lilly from Norman, Oklahoma and transported her to Dunn in Los Angeles. Lilly had lived in Oklahoma under Bill Lemmon, the director of the research group where the chimpanzees like Nim were bred. Lilly’s owner, Alyse, had been working for Lemmon, and he had allowed her to keep Lilly alongside the others. Now it was time for a move to LA. Lilly was dosed up, put in a box and put on the back of a truck belonging to fellow OU student, David Autry. Once she had regained consciousness, she was taken to the airport and flown to California, and Alyse then flew out a few days later. Bob Dunn and/​or his people collected Lilly at the other end. Lilly was pregnant when she left Oklahoma, and by process of elimination, the carers knew Nim had to be the father of Lilly’s offspring (Sheba). Sheba Later

Sheba was born at IPS in Oklahoma and was a surprise. Lilly was staying in the group cage most of time, by choice, and she was found with her baby one morning, and with the others surrounding her. Alyse says, “I put the other chimps outside the cage and went inside with her and her baby. She was mothering well, until she held the baby up to me. I told her ‘no’, that the infant was her baby. She parented well, holding the baby on the ventral–​ventral position as she should, and not putting her down, or letting the others get to close to the baby.” Alyse had to find a way to care for Lilly, as they were asked to leave the Chimp Farm. Alyse and Tiny had planned to leave with Lilly and Mac to find a small ranch to buy in the North. Tiny was killed on 15th August, just three weeks before Sheba was born. After a couple of weeks, Alyse left for a few days, and returned to see Lilly pacing in the cage, looking extremely distraught, with no baby. Lemmon said he sold “it”, and that Lilly had to leave. I was forced to find immediate and temporary placement for her. Sheba had been sold to the Columbus Zoo in Columbus, Ohio. Alyse says, “Jo Fritz told me about Bob Dunn, a movie chimp trainer. At that time he had two chimps: Oopsie who was a year younger than Lilly and Sam, a gentle and kind twelve year old. Both had been raised in Bob’s home with his kids. Sam still went out for walks in the neighbourhood. During Lilly’s first six months there, Bob moved and built more living quarters for the chimps and other animals. Sam died and was replaced with another male chimp around fifteen years of age, who was a bully to the girls, especially Lilly, who would stand up more to him than the others. I would go out there every month for 7–​10 days. I always stayed at Bob Dunn’s house, and Lilly would come and we would spend time together.”

142 Overfamiliar

Sheba later went on to stay with Dr Sarah (Sally) Boysen in the early 1990s. Dr Boysen was a researcher at the Center for Cognitive Science at Ohio State University. Naturally, Dr Boysen has had problems doing her research, since she found it hard to make the transition to the understanding that research on captive primates is flawed. In our first book, Primatology, Ethics & Trauma (Ingersoll & Scarnà, 2023) we also discuss the chimpanzee Abigail, who went to Dr Boysen after Abigail’s carer, Marge Fenner, became too frail. Abigail was set to be “euthanised”. The word “euthanised” is placed within quotation marks. The definition of euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending life to eliminate pain and suffering, but in this case, Abigail would have been killed simply because her carer became too old to care for her. Dr Boysen kindly took over Abigail’s care after Bob appealed to her. Dr Boysen was forced out of her lab by Ohio State University. Naturally, she protested, even chaining herself to the gate to prevent the move. Her chimpanzees: Kylian, Ivy, Bobby, Darrell, and Sheba, went on to be housed at the Primarily Primates sanctuary, but two of them died despite being advised against the move. The chimpanzee Darrell was overweight and as had been predicted, the move killed him. He died less than a year after the move. The Academic Family

In “Primatology, Ethics & Trauma” we discuss the subtleties of some of the human–​human and human–​chimpanzee relationships in the Oklahoma set-​ ups. We discussed the difficult nature of the relationship between the two main investigators on the chimp farm, Dr Bill Lemmon and of Dr Roger Fouts. We would like to remind our readers here that we do not wish to castigate either person. This is not a personal attack on either individual. Both were working within the social norms, within the cultural norms, and within the capacity for emotional processing that was available to them at the time. Lemmon is described as having power over his colleagues and an ability to dominate chimpanzees, in particular, with his power “underscored at various times when chimpanzees broke out of the main cage complex” (Linden, Silent Partners, 1986). There was clearly a difficult dynamic between Drs. Fouts and Lemmon, with tension between the two men which would surface in both trivial and serious ways: “One former graduate student described their relationship as ‘like two alpha [dominant] male chimpanzees butting heads’ ” (Linden, 1986).

Familial Resilience

Who are the human beings who conduct animal research? Why do they choose to conduct experiments involving animals? What sort of relationship did the humans

Overfamiliar  143

have among each other? In our first book, we explain how it is crucial to consider these dynamics between the main caregivers in order to understand what they brought to the complicated human–​chimpanzee interactions. For example, in considering the behaviours shown by the chimpanzees, it is necessary to consider the laboratory dynamics, including the relationship between Bill Lemmon and Roger Fouts. If each chimpanzee had been a human fostering or adoption placement, extensive attention would be given to the background and dynamics within the family. Who was now the father figure for these chimpanzees? Was it Fouts, or was it Lemmon? Was a father figure even necessary? What were each of these two, to the chimpanzees? What were the other researchers bringing to the studies? What was the personal trauma that each researcher was bringing to their individual and respective relationships with Lilly, Nim, Carolyn, Pan, Sheba, and the others? The results from those influences upon each individual chimpanzee’s personality traits were revealed as the years unfolded. Some of the female chimpanzees found it hard to function as mothers, demonstrating interactions that were cold, harsh, aloof, and dominating. We can consider that these may have occurred as an effect of inherited trauma. In the “wild-​caught” examples, chimpanzees were subjected to multiple traumatic experiences, starting as infants when they would have watched their mothers getting killed, when they would have experienced being taken away and sent to the United States, and then their actual arrivals and stays in the United States, before being placed within the university departments for study. Other chimpanzees in the bred-​for-​ purpose model might have been protected from such harsh experiences, but were similarly subject to multiple traumatic experiences, being taken away from birth mothers and placed in the care of changing figures, many of whom were young and inexperienced researchers with no parenting experience, or with their own histories of having been parented poorly. Then, the actual studies, themselves. Life was tough for many of these chimpanzees who were taught to sign. They were expected to learn from individuals who were reported to not be fluent in the very language that they were teaching, and they were expected to perform under high standards with harsh methods of learning. In the process of learning, many were isolated and made to live away from other chimpanzees. The human–​ chimpanzee switches must have been perplexing in the developmental stages and everyday interactions, and would have created difficulty and confusion. These studies were also conducted at a time when many researchers had fragile relationships with their own families. People did not discuss emotions as they do now. The studies reflect a number of shifts in historical time. At the start of those studies, people treated chimpanzees as they would have done cats and dogs. As time went by, they realised that chimps are not cats or dogs, and that they are not humans. These present problems of husbandry. Little was considered regarding the healthcare of the animals. Nowadays, there are sanctuaries, and there are

144 Overfamiliar

specific veterinarians who make the decisions regarding the health and well-​ being of these animals. There is better preventative care, such as regular blood tests, urine checks, and health check-​ups. Sanctuaries have become advanced for primate care. Many of the main carers’ relationships with the chimpanzees were not of a father-​child kind, but more like an older brother or same-​age sibling. Some researchers have reported how the main carers would shout at the chimps, and they would answer back. Nim never tried to hurt Robert; he did not act aggressively to him, or to Alyse Moore. Nim had a particular connection to Robert, and equally Lilly to Alyse, that others did not. Each of the two humans could make their respective chimpanzees do things that others could not, based on the time that they were spending together and the relationships that they had built. Much of the time, the behaviours towards the chimpanzees were borne out of a problem that needed to be solved, usually concerning their upkeep. With Washoe, Roger Fouts had to solve the problem of her being a single chimpanzee within a university facility. Alyse had to find a way to have Lilly looked after while she dealt with her grief of the baby chimps who died in the fire. Each of these individuals were finding ways to defend and to take care of the chimps, as though they were one of her own children. Furthermore, we have to remember that these human carers were very young, generally only in their mid-​20s, trying to keep academic positions, writing up research or PhDs, and dealing with college professors. Each chimpanzee had other relationships with other humans aside from their main human carers. There were various graduate students and researchers of different ages, and with varied trauma histories, themselves. What were those individuals to them? If these were human children under retrospective analysis, we would go through their families very carefully to consider the familial linkage with each family member and the trauma bonds passed on over generations. The social positionings in each chimpanzee’s life were constantly unclear and too complicated to contemplate. It is possible that some of the chimpanzee toughness was as a result of these life hardships. The aloofness and hardness may have been, in part, as a way of surviving their ordeal. Humans who experience Adverse Childhood Experiences encounter changes in brain development which affect how the body responds to stress. These are through traumatic events which can include violence, abuse, and growing up in a family with mental health or substance use problems. Children facing ACEs have an adulthood linked to chronic health problems, mental illness, and substance misuse, because this stress from ACEs can negatively affect a child’s brain development, immune system, and stress-​response system. These changes can affect attention, decision-​making, and learning. As a consequence, children growing up with toxic stress may have difficulty forming healthy and stable relationships in adulthood, since the psychological adversity can impact

Overfamiliar  145

upon physical development, leading to problems in personality later on. In other words, some of the personality traits demonstrated by the chimps were representative of their resilience. The sanctuaries report that of the chimpanzees rescued as pets, the females are more vulnerable to dying than the males. One such example is Lilith, who “belonged” to Marge Fenner, the woman who we describe in Primatology, Ethics and Trauma, as being the carer of Abigail (Ingersoll & Scarnà, 2023). Lilith was in Marge Fenner’s care before Abigail. She did not survive 10 days past being removed from Marge’s care. By contrast, we can compare this to Nim, who was warm and gregarious, and who survived endless temporary carers and different environments, including his spell at LEMSIP and his final respite in the Black Beauty Ranch. This resilience and consistent posttraumatic growth is likely to have been, at least in part, as a result of his beginnings. Nim’s start in life, although traumatic, was different to the rest of the chimpanzees. Although bred for purpose from Carolyn in Oklahoma, and taken away from her at around 10 days old, Nim was fortunate to land in the arms of Stephanie LaFarge, who became his foster mother for about a year and a half. His mother was not killed before his eyes, but “disappeared” and replaced by a human mother who had nurturing mothering skills. The move into the LaFarge household has been underestimated. His foster “siblings” were the children in the family. This led to Nim being exceptionally insightful of human emotion. Stephanie LaFarge says, “He knew every dynamic that was in the room, instantly”. Jenny Lee explains how, as a 14-​year-​old, Nim knew when she was upset: “He would come over and he would just come and sit with you, and hug you, and then just kiss the tears away … and it was amazing … just … unconditional” (“Project Nim”). After his initial attachment periods developed among the LaFarges, Nim knew life on the Delafield estate, where primary caregivers, Joyce Butler, along with Bill Tynan, was able to provide consistent, committed, and boundaried care while teaching him sign language. We would do well to remember that each of those relationships formed had bidirectionality of care and love, and there would have been the development of trust within that space of attachment and bonding. Genetics

Recent research in genetics involves understanding various evolutionary processes that have shaped the composition and evolution of genomes. Researchers have been interested in understanding the dynamics of genetic variation in populations, and also in the underlying causes of individual differences. The approaches used in this measurement include molecular biology, bioinformatics, and statistical modelling. One recent focus has been on viral evolution, in particular, endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) constituting a portion of vertebrate genomes.

146 Overfamiliar

Mammalian DNA is strewn with the signatures of past retroviral infections, and at least 8% of the human genome can be attributed to ERVs. Researchers taking a single-​locus approach have developed a simple susceptible-​infected-​ recovered model. With this, they have been able to investigate the circumstances under which a disease-​causing retrovirus can become incorporated into the host genome, and spread through the host population, to see if it were to confer an immunological advantage. Researchers have started to unravel which circumstances are favourable for ERVs to colonise genomes, and their impact upon host genomes. Kanda, Tristem, and Coulson (2013) explored effects of immunity and life history on the dynamics of an ERV, and found that signatures of ERVs are likely to go to fixation in a population when the probability of evolving immunity to a related exogenous version of the virus is extremely small. Changing the speed of the host life history influences the likelihood that an exogenous retrovirus will incorporate and spread to fixation. These researchers found that signatures of ERVs are likely to go to fixation within a population when the probability of evolving immunity to a related exogenous version of the virus is extremely small. These results provide theoretical support for the idea that endogenisation can help a host evolve immunity to a retroviral infection, and there are various examples of ERVs conferring immunity to related exogenous retroviruses through a variety of mechanisms, in mice, hens, and sheep. There are many recent examples of co-​option of ERVs as a host defence mechanism to retroviruses (Aswad & Katzourakis, 2012) and most recent genomic data available will allow these findings to be investigated with application to primate groups. This could potentially give information on the genetic heritage of wild-​caught Pan and Carolyn, also of Lilly’s background, via the genetic heritage of Sheba. These investigations could be aligned to work on survival of trauma and adversity. How do we help survivors of childhood adversity? Although childhood adversity can have lasting effects into later life, positive adaptations have also been found. These include an increase in prosocial behaviour. Prosocial behaviour means the social behaviours that benefit other people, like helping, sharing, donating, co-​operating, and volunteering. A study on Irish adult survivors of adversity (Rohner, Salas Castillo, Carr, & Thoma, 2022) found that five themes connected to later life prosocial behaviours: enhanced empathy, self-​identity, amelioration, compassion fatigue in intrafamilial survivors, and denouncing detrimental social values in institutional survivors. We can use these findings to help in motivating people and in therapy, but also in explaining how we make friends and form connections. The interest here is in how humans make friends with all sentient beings, which means also with their animals. It is no coincidence that trauma survivors often have pets, work with animals, or adopt them.

Overfamiliar  147

Out of adversity comes creativity. Difficult early experiences can result in evaluation leading to later liberty and great relief. The best outcome is self-​ compassion. Adversity, while leading to toxic effects, can be considered as a form of ignition to reach a point where one realises that events and effects cannot get any worse, allowing for appreciation beyond measure, and perhaps an ego boundary, even if this is not always obvious during the childhood years.

5 RELATIONSHIP FORMATION AND MAINTENANCE

The previous chapter presented theories of attachment, and here those theories are presented with reference to models of family, relationship formation and maintenance. Relationship formation in humans is complicated, especially when we consider arranged marriages and Internet dating. The theories of Sternberg (1986) and Trivers’ parental investment theory (1973) will be explained alongside other explanations of relationships. Romantic relationship formation in humans takes many forms, often involving power dynamics, affiliation, and commitment. In chimpanzees, relationships are formed in a similar way. The Oklahoma chimpanzees demonstrated a confusion of bonds, and so relationships were not quite so straightforward. This chapter will consider how one part of the impact of captivity is maladaptive bonding. The second part of this chapter will investigate the physical aspects of being: the body, its objectification, aspects of self-​objectification, and grooming. In chimpanzees, self-​grooming such as plucking hair and scraping away skin imperfections is important for animals to look after themselves for the removal of parasites and the retention of cleanliness. In each other, grooming is a part of social bonding and cohesion. Grooming helps to maintain social processes; in humans, it has evolutionary origins in similar processes. We will consider the mental burden of personal grooming, and how overgrooming in humans has led to psychological disorders. This chapter will analyse aspects of bodily ownership and duality. Is your mind solely what your brain “does”? Which are the other body parts involved in mind processing? Chimpanzees groom each other to strengthen social bonds, to reassure each other, and to reassure each other and make up after conflict. The front cover of this book shows Robert DOI: 10.4324/9781003400677-6

Relationship Formation and Maintenance  149

with Nim, on a day when Nim had accidentally scratched Robert’s face and was examining the damage on him. Relationship breakdown will also be considered in this chapter. We will discuss two psychological models of relationship breakdown in humans: Duck’s model of relationship dissolution (1998), and Lee (1984). We ask, “Out of sight, out of mind?” or “Til death us do part”? Both will be considered with relationship to partner death and grief experiences in both humans and chimpanzees. How do we make friends? Do you remember when and where you first met your best friend, or your closest friends? The chances are that you were brought together by work, or by a shared interest. Do you think that people make friends with others who are similar, or is it the case that “opposites attract”? In this chapter the formation of both platonic and love relationships will be discussed. It is important to note that much of the research into romantic relationships is androcentric and concerns heterosexual relationships. That is, that the research often concerns male participants and female love “targets”. This largely reflects the fact that these experiments were conducted in the 1960s at a time when social psychology departments were male-​dominated. More recent studies have considered the generalisation of these findings across other types of relationships. Defining Love

The definition of a love relationship involves an active and conscious choice to connect to others (Fromm, 1956). The feeling of love in a healthy relationship is associated with overall happiness (Argyle, 1987) and can be an important factor to perceived self-​discovery and growth (Aron et al., 2013). Kim and Hatfield (2004) distinguished between romantic relationships which involve companionate love and emotional intimacy, long-​term relationships involving friendship, and passionate love involving intense physical attraction. Proximity, Familiarity, and Similarity

The variable of homophily is strong in both human and primate relationship selection. Homophily is the idea that individuals with similar characteristics are more likely to form friendships and other relationships (McPherson, Smith-​ Lovin, & Cook, 2001). The variable of homophily comprises the three aspects of proximity, familiarity, and similarity. As early as the 1930s, the topic of relationship formation started being investigated within social psychology. Bossard (1932) found that of 5,000 couples who applied to get married in Philadelphia, over half lived close to each other. This highlighted the importance of proximity in relationship formation. Festinger (1950) analysed the friendships forged in university settings by students in halls of residence, finding that people were more likely to become friends

150  Relationship Formation and Maintenance

with other students on the same floor or corridor, than with those who lived on the floor above or below. We could argue that there is less importance placed on physical proximity nowadays, as we are able to use social networking sites and text messages to meet people and maintain contact. Proximity establishes liking by increasing familiarity (Reis et al., 2011). Zajonc (1968) found the more frequently participants saw a particular face, the more they liked it and presumed that they would like the person, referred to as the “mere exposure effect”. Familiarity refers to knowing someone well, in order to create intimacy. Familiarity carries dual effects: knowing someone well can cause you to lose respect for them –​familiarity breeds contempt –​but it is also the case that “birds of a feather flock together”, as people who recognise each other are more likely to be drawn together. In the 1970s Byrne and colleagues proposed the law of attraction, that is, that communication is easier when there is similarity. If two people have shared attitudes and interests, it facilitates time together and makes it a rewarding experience. A similar socio-​economic background and similar experiences in education also facilitate attraction. Kandel (1978) found that teenagers in pairs were similar in terms of socio-​economic status, and were also from similar ethnic and religious backgrounds. Hill, Rubin, and Peplau (1976) also found similarity of race, class and religion in pairs of friends as well as in couples who were dating. Furthermore, differences in attitudes tend to make us dislike others (Singh & Ho, 2000). This is also shown when individuals are revealed to each other in real life. Moreland and Beach (1992) demonstrated, through causal analysis, that the effects of exposure on familiarity and similarity are mediated by its effects on attraction. It is clear that love is a force of attraction best described as an affinity, and involves a complex blend of familiarity, attraction, and similarity which can strengthen social relations by encouraging a sense of closeness and kinship among people. In therapeutic settings, the concept of transference proposes that our encounters with new acquaintances who in some way resemble a significant other activate our associated schemas so we perceive them in the same way (Chen & Andersen, 1999). This therapeutic space also constitutes a non-​ linguistic space important for development of a bond. Homophily in human relationship formation is also demonstrated in age, ethnicity, class, education, interests (Marsden, 1988; McPherson et al., 2001; Shrum et al., 1988), and consistently also regarding personality traits (Izard, 1960). Extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience (Digman, 1990) predict relationship formation in adolescents and young adults (Nelson et al., 2011; Selfhout et al., 2010), and similarity in neuroticism or conscientiousness do not (Selfhout et al., 2010, but see Kurtz & Sherker, 2003). Most definitions of love additionally involve some mention of emotion, usually of feeling good alongside a level of friendliness. Is the love you have for your partner the same as the love you have for your parents? The two different

Relationship Formation and Maintenance  151

loves are associated with different feelings and distinct behaviours. What about the love for some thing rather than someone? Can you love chocolate in the same way as you love a partner? Human relationships are incredibly complex and dynamic. Within the love for a partner there are many different permutations with a number of underlying theories of causation. Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) suggested that relationships develop through two “fields”: the field of availables which is the possible people with whom we might have a relationship, and the field of desirables; those who we would consider potential partners, after having filtered out the non-​available individuals. They identify three different factors which are important in formation and in the progress of the relationship, which they name “filters”. The first involves social or demographic variables. We may even be unaware of this filter exerting its effects, because most of the individuals we meet are already of a similar social class, education level and ethnicity. The next filter, once two people have formed a relationship, is the similarity of attitudes and values. The chances of a short-​term relationship developing into something longer term is dependent upon shared beliefs and values. If the couple are very different, it is unlikely that there will be progress. Finally, once a couple has become established in a long-​term relationship, there is complementarity of emotional needs –​how well the two people work as a couple and how they meet one another’s needs. Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) found that the most important factor reported by couples up to 18 months into a relationship was attitude similarity. After 18 months, psychological compatibility and complementarity of emotional needs became more important, in a study of student couples who had been together for either more or less than 18 months. Motivation

Another way in which researchers have considered relationship formation and maintenance is through motivation. Individuals enter relationships with a host of needs, including the need for emotional support and a sense of belonging, which they are motivated to have fulfilled, and they are motivated to acquire resources, although they will differ with regard to the norms guiding how those benefits are provided. Reward/​need theories suggest that if these needs are met, the relationship will last. Members assume that benefits are given with the expectation of receiving a benefit. Similarly there are different types of reward obtained from a relationship. If two people enjoy spending time together, for example, they might find each other’s company rewarding. There is also an exchange of rewards (Clark & Mills, 1979) in the initial phases. Clark and Mills termed these “exchange relationships”. As the relationship progresses, rewards are exchanged in a less reciprocal way, so rewards are given through concern of the partner’s welfare rather than with the expectation of a benefit. Clark and Mills (1979) called these “communal relationships”.

152  Relationship Formation and Maintenance

According to Rusbult (1983) it takes around 12 weeks for a relationship to start being affected by the “costs” incurred, and Mackie and Smith (2002) showed that this meeting of needs of the two people involved is a significant factor in the survival of long-​term and happy relationships, with long-​term and happy relationships having met the needs, whereas unmet needs cause unhappiness, or the end of the relationship. In Western culture, we take it for granted that relationships are voluntary, since we generally choose our own partners. We consider that a partner might be temporary and that partner selection is individualistic –​ that is, chosen by two individuals rather than by families (Moghaddam, 1993). These key assumptions are not shared by people in other cultures, and the study of interpersonal relationships reflects this. It is worth bearing in mind that even though these theories cannot capture the complexity and dynamic nature of human relationships across cultures, they can still give us an idea of the main factors involved. Other theories are termed “social exchange theories”, using concepts from economics and from operant conditioning to describe how relationships involve these costs (Homans, 1961). These also take into account each partner’s expectations prior to entering the relationship. Thibaut and Kelley (1959) describe how we view relationships as business transactions, whereby each member of the couple maintains a “balance sheet”, a comparison level, comparing it with past relationships and any alternatives which might be on offer, through a comparison level for alternatives. However, Argyle (1987) argued that people do not begin to count the costs within a relationship until dissatisfaction occurs. While these theories allow for identification of why people get together, they assume that each individual is somewhat self-​centred and likely to leave the relationship if it produces a loss. However, people do continue to stay in relationships which yield little reward and within which they are being punished. In other words, these theories fail to address the issue of investment. Rusbult and van Lange (1996) proposed a model of investment, which states that the best predictor as to whether a relationship will last is commitment by each partner. This is made up of several factors, for example, a feeling of satisfaction from the relationship, a belief that the relationship offers better rewards than the alternatives, and substantial investments such as shared friendships, property and emotional investments. Evolutionary Theories of Partner Selection

Another explanation of relationship formation is from the evolutionary perspective. Human reproductive behaviours originated in the evolutionary history in order to aid survival of the human race. Ideas to this effect were proposed by Robert Trivers, whose parental investment theory (1972, 1973)

Relationship Formation and Maintenance  153

states that there are differences between males and females in their behaviours within and regarding relationships, and that these are influenced by the different amounts of parental investment made by each gender. Males have a small investment in offspring. Given that they have large amounts of sperm and remain fertile through life, they have a greater potential than females to reproduce over time. They are capable of multiple matings, with the only limit on the number of offspring produced being the availability of female partners. Instead, females have a large investment in each offspring because of a limited supply of eggs and a relatively short reproductive life. This caps the number of offspring that can be produced, but also each offspring carries a bigger investment from the female. Apart from having to nurture and carry the foetus for about 40 weeks, she then has to give birth to it and to continue to feed it. All of these require continuous investment. Gender and sex differences implicated in sexual choosiness have traditionally been explained as males demonstrating more of a preference for sexual variety than females. This is called the “Coolidge effect” after President Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge and his wife were shown around a farm and taken on separate tours. Mrs Coolidge noticed there were a lot of hens, and she inquired as to whether one rooster was enough, given how many hens there were. The people showing her around told her that “Well, the rooster works very hard. The rooster has sex dozens of times a day”. Mrs Coolidge replied “Well, be sure to tell that to the President”. Sometime later the President passed the same pens and was told about the hens and the one, solitary rooster, and about his wife’s remark. The President asked the man, “Same hen every time?” The man replied “No, different hen every time”. The President responded, “Tell that to Mrs Coolidge”. Physical contact, similarity and familiarity, competence, physical attractiveness and gain/​ loss are important factors in how relationships are both formed and maintained. Sternberg’s work on attraction has allowed us to consider aspects of intimacy, passion and commitment, while other researchers conceptualise romantic relationships in economic terms, highlighting rewards and needs. Although extensive studies have evaluated the Coolidge effect in males (Dewsbury, 1981; Lucio et al., 2014), the theory has been only recently extended to females, and so a wider definition that includes both sexes is imperative. The Coolidge effect could be defined as the renewal of motivational and appetitive components of sexual behaviour due to sexual novelty, after mating repeatedly with a single partner. Sexual behaviour in humans is influenced by factors that cannot always be controlled under a laboratory conditions, including individual differences and sociocultural connotations influenced by the endocrine status (Atallah et al., 2016; Brotto et al., 2016; Thomas & Thurston, 2016). The previous chapter on personality traits explained how extroverts tend to have more sexual partners than do introverts. Personality traits, number of sexual partners, sexual

154  Relationship Formation and Maintenance

activity frequency, sexual satisfaction, risk taking within sexual behaviours all influence sexual partner selection (Allen & Desille, 2017; Heaven et al., 2000; Hoyle et al., 2000). These factors influencing sexual satiation cannot always be studied in scientific settings owing to ethical limitations, and so most of the research has focussed on habituation and dishabituation to a sexual stimulus (Dawson et al., 2013; Heiman, 1977). According to these theories in their current forms, we should see males being more likely to engage in shorter-​term, sexual relationships, but with women being more reluctant to do so. These theories would also explain why, in many (although not all) cultures across time, humans have pairing after pairing, with one lifetime coupling being rare. The theory is further supported by research findings by Clark and Hatfield (1989) and Clark (1990). An attractive confederate on a university campus asked male and female students three questions. The confederate propositioned each student, saying: “I’ve been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive” and then asked three questions in turn: first, whether the student participant would go out with them that night, second whether the student participant would go to his/​her apartment that night and third, whether the student participant would go to bed with him/​her that night. The results revealed an interesting gender divide. First, around 50% of the males would go out with the female confederate and 50% of the females would go out with the male confederate that evening. However, 69% of the males agreed to go back to the female confederate’s apartment and 75% agreed to sleep with her, whereas few of the females agreed to go back to the male confederate’s apartment, and none of them agreed to sleep with him. This gender difference was taken as evidence that males are less choosy and more impulsive when it comes to pairing up with a female. We might argue that trustworthiness of the stranger might affect the results, but Clark (1990) found that even when participants were reassured that the stranger was trustworthy, the results showed the same pattern, with females not agreeing to casual sex. We might think that this is connected to parental investment, but Buss and Schmidt (1993) found a similar pattern in lesbian females, where the sex act was considered to be one of desire and not for procreation (the study was conducted before same-​sex marriage and parenting). This dichotomy in sexual selection was also reflected in a research study by Buss and Schmidt (1993). These researchers asked males and females how many sexual partners they hoped to have in the future. They found that on average, men in their sample would have liked eight over the following two years, whereas females reported hoping for one partner. When asked how many sexual partners they hoped to have over a lifetime, the females predicted four and five, while the males hoped for 18 partners. The personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience (Digman, 1990) will also influence the Coolidge effect. These

Relationship Formation and Maintenance  155

three personality traits predict relationship formation in adolescents and young adults (Nelson et al., 2011; Selfhout et al., 2010), while similarity in terms of neuroticism or conscientiousness do not (Selfhout et al., 2010, but see Kurtz & Sherker, 2003). These relate back to the influence of homophily in relationship formation, part of which is also demonstrated in age, ethnicity, class, education, and interests (Marsden, 1988; McPherson et al., 2001; Shrum et al., 1988). In chimpanzees, the same factors of homophily have been found to be present in friendships and relationships. Familiarity, similarity, and proximity are all present in these bonds. Massen and Koski (2018) found in 38 captive chimpanzees that friendships and relationships showed that friends were more similar than non-​friends in personality characteristics, in particular in terms of sociability and boldness, and those aspects relating to socio-​positive and cooperative behaviours. The authors suggest that this is because having friends similar to self in personality decreases uncertainty and increases certainty in interactions. It promotes reliability, particularly in co-​operative contexts, allows for predictability of behaviours in others, and is adaptive. These authors suggest that finding homophily in these chimpanzees suggests that homophily in humans dates back to our last common ancestor with chimpanzees; although we should remember here that captive chimpanzees in zoos will have been subjected to far more human interactions, and therefore may not be representative of chimpanzees in the wild. Do beings who are similar attract each other, or is it that with attraction, beings become more similar? In addition to these homophily factors, humans also show the effect of propinquity: there is a bias in humans called the mere exposure effect. This is where individuals show a preference for things that they are more familiar with. Repeated exposure to a stimulus increases their liking and familiarity for that stimulus, even if they are not conscious of it. The more we encounter something, the more we prefer it, based on familiarity alone. Zajonc (1968) demonstrated the effect through three studies involving word frequency and evaluation, interpersonal contact and interpersonal attraction, and musical frequency and liking. Attraction is also affected by initial familiarity and discriminability, and competence. In “Project Nim”, Jenny Lee explains how Nim fitted into their newly blended family. The film shows the hallmarks of homophily: affiliation, belonging, warmth. It was not difficult for Nim to become like a family member. Furthermore, Nim is dressed in human clothes, which probably helped with the bonding process, and Stephanie LaFarge explains how she breastfed him, which she said was to reassure him, although it is not clear whether she was lactating. The other chimpanzees were also exposed to these effects. Alyse Moore describes how at around 3 or 4 years old, Lilly would dress up to go to the post office or university, choosing her favourite dress, handbag (usually with her favourite baby doll in it) and banana yellow sunglasses. It is not surprising that the chimpanzees modelled themselves on their human caregivers.

156  Relationship Formation and Maintenance

There are hundreds of examples of how the chimpanzees modelled themselves upon their humans in this way. Alyse describes how “Lilly loved dressing up. She loved shoes, and she would dress up in my underwear. She would comb her hair and powder her face with white powder, and I would say, ‘Oh Lilly, you look beautiful!’ which she would like”. Alyse did not wear face powder herself, so she thinks that Lilly was copying her (Alyse’s) mother or grandmother. Lilly would also twirl hair curls at the side of her head, and engage in other humanlike grooming behaviours. Was it that the chimpanzees were becoming more human, or was it that the humans were taking on traits from the chimpanzees? There was certainly a special space of bonding, that same space within which attachment occurs. Alyse describes how at the end of the working day there would be “a shift from chimp time to other time”. Alyse and Lilly would share a bubble bath, one on each end, and would have a gin and tonic and a joint, signifying the end of the working day and the start of the evening. “I really don’t know how she did this with the chimps, but she could shift from chimp time to human time”. Relationships involve the expression of strong patterns of attachment styles (de Botton, 2006) which are formed out of our childhood needs, in humans, even before language is developed. These needs are designed to help us to survive, and to protect our fragile senses of ego and emotion, although in the expression of our attachment styles, we may show emotional responses which are hurtful or aggressive, and which cause damage to partners. Alyse explains how she thought that by teaching Lilly signs, and by allowing her the freedom to choose whether she stayed out in her cage with her chimpanzee friends at night, or whether she would come into the trailer and sleep with her human friends, Lilly might have found it easier to communicate her needs: “I thought she could tell me stuff about herself and if she needed to be with the group in the cage. The objective was to have her more with the chimps.” When she finally wanted to be in the cage with the other chimps at night, she signed DIRTY. She wouldn’t go outside at nights at first, because the cage would be dirty and the other chimps were scared. Eventually she did choose to stay out. Irene Pepperberg’s strong boundaries with Alex are revealed in her discussions about the animal not just being an experimental subject, but also a collaborator and colleague. This is not just reassigning of familial bond, but of maintaining strict ethical standards and of an appropriate boundary. In humans, a cognitive bias in attraction and relationship formation is in the perception of competence. Evolutionary theory predicts that natural selection will use cognitive biases. Cognitive biases are a sort of short cut in thinking. They are thought processes caused by the tendency of humans to simplify information

Relationship Formation and Maintenance  157

processing, as a sort of coping mechanism to enable the brain to process large amounts of information fast, and to prioritise facts. There is a cognitive bias in the acquisition of social information, but the precise nature of these biases in group contexts, including for primates, remains unknown. Aronson, Willerman, and Floyd (1966) identified one such cognitive bias named the “pratfall effect”. This is the tendency for appeal to increase after an individual makes a mistake, depending on that individual’s perceived competence. There are counterintuitive benefits from making mistakes. Highly competent people become more likeable after making mistakes, but those who appear average tend to become less likeable, even after making the same mistake. Various studies have identified the effects of gender, self-​esteem, and blunder severity, and noted that the effect is still present even when those are controlled. Aronson initially referred to this as the “blemishing effect” when used in marketing. Chimpanzees perform a sort of version of this pratfall effect. Hobaiter, Poisot, Zuberbühler, Hoppitt, and Gruber (2014) identify this as a sociological factor in chimpanzees, to decide competence. In the wild “dominance is competence” (Hobaiter et al., 2014) and the influential factors are who the chimpanzees were born to, and where they were born into. They studied the differences in behaviours between chimpanzee communities in Uganda; some communities were found to use tools and some did not, while others used different tools for the same task. The behavioural variations were described as “cultural” which means, in human groups, a sort of spreading of knowledge when one individual learns from another. In most cases the behaviours are long-​established and it is difficult to identify how they spread originally. Hobaiter’s team was fortunate to be able to document the appearance and spread of two novel tool use behaviours, investigating the spread of new variations of “leaf-​sponges”, tools dipped in water to drink from, commonly produced by the Sonso chimpanzees by folding leaves in their mouth. Different chimpanzees developed two new variants: moss-​sponging (a sponge made of moss or a mixture of leaves and moss) and leaf-​sponge re-​use (using a sponge left behind on a previous visit). Neither moss-​sponging nor leaf-​sponge re-​use had been previously observed in the Sonso chimpanzees in Sonso in over 20 years of continuous observation, reliably marking them as novel behaviours. Since most research findings have been from captive chimpanzees, it could be argued that the results are not always a reflection of true chimpanzee culture, but since this novelty was observed in groups in the wild, the evidence is robust for this being a true evolutionary finding, which is most likely to reflect culture in humans. This was one of the first studies to track across real time how new and natural behaviour is transmitted from individual chimpanzee to individual chimpanzee in a wild community and in a non-​invasive way. The results reflect strong evidence for social transmission along the chimpanzees’ social network, showing how wild chimpanzees learn novel tool-​use from each other. The findings also support

158  Relationship Formation and Maintenance

the claim that some of the observed behavioural diversity in wild chimpanzees can be interpreted as cultural learning. These findings also reflect the gain-​loss theory seen in humans (Aronson & Linder, 1965). The Dutch philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, said that “Hatred which is completely vanquished by love passes into love; and love is thereupon greater than if hatred had not preceded it” (Spinoza, 1677 in Lloyd, 2002). This theory maintains that people’s like or dislike for others is more strongly affected by the degree to which they believe they have gone up or down in other people’s estimation rather than by the unvarying degree to which they think they are attractive or unattractive to those people. In other words, gain-​loss theory suggests that the increase (gain) or decrease (loss) in esteem has more of an effect than any kind of constant or consistent level of liking or disliking. This explains why it is common for attraction to build when two people who initially dislike each other begin to change their opinions of one another. Although two individuals may dislike each other initially, if their perceptions become more favourable, then they will end up loving each other that much more than if they had always just liked each other. This can be true in all types of relationships whether they are platonic friendships, romantic relationships, or business relationships. Kendal et al. (2015) investigated the tendency for chimpanzees to copy dominant and knowledgeable individuals. They suggest that these behaviours hold implications for cultural diversity. Kendal et al. exposed four captive groups of chimpanzees to a novel extractive foraging device and identified four social transmission biases: (1) to copy higher-​ranking chimpanzees, (2) to copy expert chimpanzees, (3) to copy others when uncertain, and (4) to copy others of low rank. High-​ranking chimpanzees were un-​strategic in their use of acquired knowledge. This, combined with the bias for others to observe them, can explain the presence of high innovation rates in juveniles and subordinates which do not generate a correspondingly high frequency of traditions in chimpanzees. Immigrants in chimpanzees rank low, typically, and so this may explain the “copying dominants” bias. Humans show a similar social transmission bias to copying knowledgeable individuals. Young children discriminate between competent and incompetent models (Harris & Corriveau, 2011) and “copying experts” enhances individual and group accuracy (King, Cheng, Starke, & Myatt, 2012). In chimpanzees, the level of competence is perceived higher in other chimpanzees who are seen as “natives”. This contributes to the maintenance of distinct cultural behaviours in neighbouring communities, despite sharing similar ecology and knowledgeable migrants. The authors suggest that a strategy of copying dominant chimpanzees restricts the accumulation of tradition within chimpanzee communities and maintains cultural diversity. This is also seen in conformist transmission of social knowledge, and the authors also use this

Relationship Formation and Maintenance  159

transmission bias to explain homogenisation, and rich cultural diversity observed in both modern and prehistoric humans (Pagel & Mace, 2004; Pétrequin, 1993). Grooming

Grooming behaviours in chimpanzees allow them to reduce stress, and to remove parasites. Chimpanzees are able to bond with one another through grooming. The Oklahoma chimpanzees would groom the human carers, which reflects the importance of those bonds. Grooming carries huge impact in chimpanzee interactions as it is also indicative of rank, and has been shown to be modified according to whether there are higher ranking members of the community nearby. Lower ranking members tend to groom the higher ranking members of the group, in the hope of receiving benefits which include protection, acceptance, and reciprocal grooming. Newton-​Fisher and Kaburu (2017) found that chimpanzees in the Budongo Forest Reserve in Western Uganda modified their behaviours according to perceived competence/​higher rankings of other community members. Their findings demonstrated that if another chimpanzee with a higher rank than the chimp being groomed was nearby, the grooming chimp would stop sooner, than if not. Chimpanzees do this to prevent investing too much time with one chimpanzee if there is a risk that that chimp will be groomed by another, or will not reciprocate in their grooming. Instead, they look to groom a nearby, higher-​ranking chimp. The same group also found that if a larger number of other chimpanzees are nearby, regardless of rank, the grooming chimp will stop grooming sooner than if there were no other chimps nearby, or a small number. The findings demonstrate the role of grooming over that of prior social interaction –​ chimpanzees appear motivated by the circumstances of their grooming, and its investment towards possible benefits. This also mirrors the economic theories of relationship formation. Robert explains his experiences of being groomed by Nim and others: It formed bonds for us with them. There was nothing like it, lying around in the forest, grooming and being groomed by a chimp friend. We groomed on walks to establish that sense of attachment, and we asked and signed to them to groom us, which they did. We also saw them grooming one another. It was a calming activity, and a great honour when a chimpanzee would allow it, and vice versa. It was more than in the physical sense of touch, it was a sense of belonging and understanding one another. It affected me, and I presume them, psychologically. It was a bit like mimicking what being a chimp was like, and having chimps there in person, not just pretending. I think this feeling was two-​way.

160  Relationship Formation and Maintenance

Our attachment styles inform how we share love and affection, and influence how we connect and bond with loved ones, and may result in specific responses within relationships: for example taking things personally, or resenting an individual. This allows for the creation of a safe space for disputes, and for reconciliation and resolution of these disputes, which are likely to be subconscious repeats of previous arguments from situations –​even from our family dynamics in the early years –​arising from our attachment patterns. It is possible to identify, discuss, and transform an interaction stemming from an insecure attachment style into one reflection a secure style, although it takes considerable discussion, argument, and understanding from both parties, regarding how to work together for a mutually healthy and happy future. Taking into account this creation of safe space for disputes, the role of nurture becomes important in the creation of a safe space within which sentient beings can form bonds. The question becomes one of trust and continuity. If there is an argument and the individual takes time away, can the partner be trusted to still be there on return? According to Gerhardt (2004), children with disorganised attachments are confused since they do not know if they can trust parents, who sometimes hurt them, and sometimes also frighten them. It becomes “an exquisitely painful dilemma” in childhood, when children rely on their parents’ presence. The parents’ presence –​ and competence –​ is of utmost importance in the creation and maintenance of safe bonds. If the partner is still present after conflict, this suggests resolution. The safest situation is one where the parent –​ and later, the partner is both physically present and mentally present. Perhaps as safe, insofar as it is as certain, is the scenario where the partner is both physically and mentally absent. In this scenario, the attachment system is motivating the child to go to the parent, but experience tells them that this could be dangerous, as instead of providing comfort, the parent could provoke fear and could attack. The parent can become a frightening figure, either because of their aggression, or because of the child’s extreme vulnerability and anxiety. The most confusing scenario for the child (and later the partner), is the situation where the parent/​partner is physically present but mentally absent, as can be the case where the parent or partner is an alcoholic or drug addict, or suffering from mental health problems. Indeed, in some conditions like schizophrenia or personality disorders, it can be problematic for the child (or partner) to have the parent present, since it is difficult for the child/​partner to predict which parent will be available, and in what form. As adults, these children become confused about their love relationships. They can become caught up in sado-​masochistic relationships since they will have learned this “poisonous concoction of love combined with harm” (Gerhardt, 2004). The high levels of stress results in heightened levels of the stress hormone, cortisol, and they are additionally at risk of developing psychopathology in adulthood. These effects of early abuse and neglect render the child at high risk of neural problems, since heightened stress

Relationship Formation and Maintenance  161

FIGURE 5.1 Sternberg’s

triangular theory of love.

responses lead to high corticotropic factor (CRF) and cortisol, affecting brain circuitry involving the orbitofrontal cortex, the anterior cingulate, the amygdala, hypothalamus, and therefore also the balance between serotonin and dopamine. From these examples, it is clear to understand the power of transgenerational influences. Sternberg’s triangular theory of love divides love into three components: intimacy, passion, and commitment (1977, see Figure 5.1). Sternberg argues that these components are key parts of loving relationships, and the amount of love that an individual experiences is dependent on how strong such factors are. Sternberg categorises these components into various types of relationships and states such as no love, liking, infatuated love, empty love, romantic love, companionate love, fatuous love and consummate love (1977). By applying the triangular theory of love in assessing if love can survive, the factors that contribute to love can be explored, helping individuals to make informed decisions on how to navigate their relationships. Passion

While associated with romantic relationships, the role of passion is also active in new friendships and the start of bonding with other sentient beings. Passion can refer to the physical attraction, sexual desire and psychological involvement associated with being with another individual (Sternberg, 1977). Through motivation for an individual, the feeling of passion swiftly develops but can similarly be quick to dissipate. Passion is often experienced instantaneously, and especially when an individual encounters someone who elicits intense attraction.

162  Relationship Formation and Maintenance

However, once the peak of arousal within the relationship is met, passion tends to recede, stabilising at a consistent level of arousal (Sternberg, 1977). In the early stages of romantic love, the intense feelings of passion can exhibit characteristics similar to addictive behaviours (Fisher et al., 2016). The neural pathways are the same for addiction as they are for this early stage, passionate love. For those who persevere beyond the initial intensely passionate love stage, attachment for the other begins to develop. The combination of romantic love and attachment combine to facilitate human pair bonding (Fisher et al., 2016). Self-​expansion theory explains how significant emotional experiences and exhilaration inherent in passionate love contribute to personal growth and a sense of individual accomplishment (Aron et al., 2013). Self-​expansion strengthens the bond between individuals, deepening their connection and sustaining their union (Aron et al., 2013). Sternberg (1977) explained, though, that as passion is difficult to control on a conscious level, this, as well as its temporal nature, makes it the most challenging component to maintain over the course of a long-​term relationship, and its role is more clearly defined within short term relationships. Murray et al.’s (1996) positive illusion theory explains how passion can be a component in sustaining love through its role in positive perceptions (Murray et al., 1996). Relationships are more likely to last when partners idealise one another, perhaps through physical attractiveness or desirability. Research published by Murray et al. (1996) demonstrated that partners who held idealised perceptions of each other experienced heightened relationship satisfaction. In positive illusion theory individuals uphold positive feelings and perceived fulfilment within the relationship, which contribute to its survival. Finally, Sternberg explains how passion results in intermittent reinforcement and assessments of relationship fulfilment (Sternberg, 1977). If satisfaction persists, the recommendation is to continue reinforcement, and if not, efforts are made to enhance the relationship (Sternberg, 1977). Intimacy

Sternberg (1986) describes the central role of intimacy achieved through emotional connection, trust, and satisfaction by shared time and reciprocal communication. Simpson et al. (1998) describe how securely attached individuals are more likely to have committed and lasting relationships because they feel safe with their partner. Sternberg adds that to uphold a relationship over time, the relationship should aim to avoid becoming predictable, and should instead comprise change and variety through activities, shared interests, and new behavioural patterns (Sternberg, 1986). However, this viewpoint fails to address conflict resolution, considered imperative in maintaining a balanced relationship (Clark et al., 1979).

Relationship Formation and Maintenance  163

Commitment

Commitment is the deliberate choice to love another (Sternberg, 1977). Maintenance of love and maximising the happiness achieved through the relationship is key to preserving commitment (Sternberg, 1977). Lewis (1977) found that couple happiness and duration of commitment were strong predictors of the strength of commitment within relationships. According to Sternberg, love begins with the deliberate choice of a partner and commitment emerges as a vital tool for overcoming relationship hardships (1977). Sternberg explains that commitment is the easiest component to control, suggesting that in the context of marriage, if an individual finds passion and intimacy for another, there is no cognitive commitment to comply (1977). However, it is important to remember Sternberg’s western perspective on commitment whereby individuals possess significant choice autonomy. In arranged marriages the perspective is not so individualistic, but collectivist, involving the input of a group. Sternberg also explains that the strength of commitment does not guarantee relationship satisfaction (Sternberg, 1977). One explanation is that individualistic cultures highly value romantic love (Moghaddam, 1993) and that once “empty love” described by Sternberg (1977) as a relationship whereby both individuals are committed to another in the absence of intimacy and passion, is reached it is accepted by both parties that the relationship starts to fail. Conversely, a study examining arranged marriages demonstrated a trajectory from empty love to increased affection as the marriage progressed (Epstein, Pandit, & Thakar, 2013). Additionally, the recognition of alternative partners in a paradox-​of-​ choice analysis and cost-​benefit scrutiny within a relationship are also critical factors influencing individual decisions to remain committed to partners (Thibaut et al., 1959). Sternberg argues that the relative importance each component has in a loving relationship varies temporally, in other words, the relationship evolves from one type of love to another with the passage of time. At the earlier stages of a love relationship the passion component plays a major role and intimacy component plays a moderate role, whereas in later stages the intimacy and commitment components play relatively more important roles. Wojciszke describes a six-​ stage model which outlines the common trajectory of love relationships, notwithstanding deviations (Wojciszke, 2002). Based on a study of 202 males and 770 females between 17 and 69 years, Wojciszke’s trajectory, represented in Sternberg’s taxonomy, is as follows: Stage-​1: only passion Stage-​2: passion and intimacy (fatuous love) Stage-​3: passion, intimacy, and commitment (consummate love) Stage-​4: intimacy and commitment, but no passion (companionate love)

164  Relationship Formation and Maintenance

Stage-​5: only commitment (empty love) Stage-​6: dissolution (commitment withdrawn) Other researchers (Ahmetoglu et al., 2010; Sumter et al., 2013) reported a similar temporal correlation with the same components and types of love relationships as Sternberg. The Universal Validity of the Triangular Theory of Love

Research has confirmed the universal validity of Sternberg’s model. A recent, cross-​cultural study examined a sample of 7,332 participants from 25 countries, and confirmed the universal existence of Sternberg’s three components (Sorokowski et al., 2021). Another study of 2,791 participants aged 12 to 88 years concluded that the existence of the three components is present in both adolescents and adults (Sumter et al., 2013). With regard to whether the three structures are distinct or overlapping, Sternberg suggests that the three components are deeply interwoven and that it is not possible to separate them (Brehm, 1985; Duck, 1983; Hinde, 1979; Kelley, 1983, cited in Sternberg, 1986). Lewis (2011) has found that ahead of commitment and passion, it is the component of intimacy that has the highest association with relationship satisfaction. Individuals find the greatest pleasure in depths of friendship, which she interprets as a result of “the basic human need to belong and connect” (Lewis, 2011). Indeed, Wojciszke similarly defines passion as “a state of intense longing for a union with the other” (Wojciszke, 2002). Sternberg explains that separating the commitment element from love is ignoring a vital element of decisiveness which alone helps one to survive hard times in a relationship (Sternberg, 1986). In consideration of these three components is the need for union; a unique, deep-​seated and definitive aspect of the social animal. Sternberg considers that to keep love surviving, one should consider it an ongoing process relying on conscious efforts of nurturing to survive, and so commitment to nurturing each component is key in maintaining the viability of a love relationship (Sternberg, 1986). To keep commitment, couples must maximise the satisfaction they draw from the relationship, which requires a focus on intimacy and passion. To preserve intimacy, predictability must be avoided, with new routines, dynamics, and behavioural patterns introduced in order to give the relationship the perception of growth. To maintain passion, the needs should be met within the relationship, which must then be developed such that it continues to satisfy the relevant needs and starts to satisfy those needs it cannot meet yet.

6 INHERITANCE OF KNOWLEDGE AND CONNECTION WITH DYING

It is impossible to speak about chimpanzees without considering humanity’s relationship with nature and specifically, with sentient beings. What constitutes a sentient being? Who decides, what is a thinking creature? How does this impact upon our relationship with our fellow beings on this planet? The 2020s saw individuals such as “Joe Exotic”, also known as “Tiger King”, the American tiger attraction owner, sentenced to 22 years in prison in January 2020, for multiple charges, including animal abuse. We can consider the human arrogance behind animal ownership, pets, and the label attached to animals in the name of human entertainment. A number of recent films and television series such as “Nope” and “Umbrella Academies” have started to use the chimpanzee model as a vehicle for addressing issues in trauma. Both used CGI generated images of chimpanzees, Umbrella Academies had studied chimpanzees at Wellington Zoo to inform these. We can consider here the ethics of using chimpanzees in roles like these, and the objectification of primates. Social media continues to screen clips depicting the signing primates as celebrities. This is harmful and disrespectful to the species for encouraging this sense of objectification. This decade has also seen the welcome focus on topics connected to rewilding the planet. The preservation and sanctuary of chimpanzees is under huge scrutiny given that they are already almost extinct. Existing models of good practice in primate sanctuary with reference to conservation issues include, for example, the 23 members of the Pan American Sanctuary Alliance (PASA) and eight members of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA). In examining the measures in place for conservation, such as those practices involving the use of plastics and other manmade materials and ideas about energy, we might ask what we do now with the information on the original DOI: 10.4324/9781003400677-7

166  Inheritance of Knowledge and Connection with Dying

chimpanzee language studies. How can we change how we connect with others, as well as with this planet, in order to create effective methods of sustainability? How do we look to the future? This chapter will consider how to make good the existing findings so that similar studies are not repeated. Dying

One question mark that remained after the film “Project Nim” surrounded Nim’s death. The question that has been raised by students and viewers over the years is how he died and how that news was broken to his best friends, including Robert, and how they coped with Nim’s death in the interim. How is it to grieve for a chimpanzee friend? How do individuals who work with animals cope with a major bereavement episode? Is it different to how grief is between humans? Nim’s Death

This is how Robert learnt about Nim’s death: In that time my role in Nim’s life was changing, because by that stage Nim had three chimp friends at the Black Beauty Ranch, and it felt like there was a lot of pressure to not have me around there. Cleveland Amory, the head of Black Beauty Ranch, had put this pressure on Chris Byrne, the ranch manager, to keep me away from there since the other chimpanzees had been introduced to keep Nim company. I had been pulling back, and stopped going every weekend. The reason I stepped back was to allow Nim to develop his friendships with the chimps. My main focus was Nim, and activism, and the other chimps, and my store (Jungle Jim’s) which was a front for all that. The store wasn’t making me much money, so I was only just staying afloat. I had much going on and all these pressures were on me. However, I thought that the one thing that I could count on was that Nim was safe and that he would always be there. Not in a million years did I think that Nim was going to die. I didn’t realise that it would be so sudden. I was here in Oklahoma and it was early in the morning. In those days we only had landlines, so it was that phone that rang. I thought it was going to be one of my Jungle Jim’s employees to ring in sick, and so I was surprised to hear, “Bob”. I immediately thought “It’s the voice of Dr James Mahoney”. He was about to give me the worst news I had ever received in my life. I wasn’t ready for it at all. I still have the chair that I was sitting in when I heard the news. “Bob … You’ve lost your best friend”. Then he said, “Nim died this morning, of a heart attack”. Dr Mahoney told me all about how it had happened, about Nim’s vet, and that Chris Byrne had tried to help Nim. He had tried to do mouth-​to-​mouth, and had tried to do CPR.

Inheritance of Knowledge and Connection with Dying  167

I couldn’t talk. I thanked him. I said, “I appreciate you telling me before I saw it in the news or heard elsewhere”. I then called Chris Byrne and talked for about a minute. Chris was blunt. “Yeah, he’s dead”. He was crushed, like me. He had developed a relationship of his own with Nim, and had been gracious enough to let me continue with mine, too. I could hear how devastated he was. Little did we know that less than a year later, Chris Byrne would also be dead, in a freak accident involving a “four-​wheeler” (a four-​ wheeled utility vehicle) when it tipped over and killed him. I believe this was partly because after Nim’s death, he just didn’t take care in the same way anymore. No question about it, he was also deeply affected by the grief. I had wanted Nim to know that I was still alive, and that I still cared. And so every time I visited Nim at the Black Beauty Ranch, I made sure he knew that I would be back. I think he could remember the many times that he was left behind. He would be horribly depressed for days after I left. Each time, I thought if he realised that I was coming back, he would be less depressed. I honestly think that he understood when I spoke to him about this. I would explain to him that he was now too big to be outside his enclosure on the grounds of the Black Beauty Ranch, and that this was the best place for him. I do think he understood. Robert’s explanation of his grief for Nim reflects the complications of interspecies relationships. In the previous chapter discussing closeness of being to humans, some of the points were highlighted regarding this. It is not that Nim was a chimp; it is that Nim was a “he”, and not an “it”. There was a tendency in those days to refer to animals and pets as “it” rather than to use the appropriate pronouns. This made the friendships complicated, and the bond that was both tight and rigid became somewhat confusing. It was novel for humans to have a cross-​species bond like this. Up until then, animals were considered things and not beings. Yet these were not objects or items; these were beings, like any other sentient beings, with individual identities and feelings. Nim had pronouns, like any human. Lilly’s Death

This is how Alyse Moore learnt about the death of Lilly: Lilly was in California and I would go out once a month. I had just started that. I was back here in Oklahoma trying to find a place for her. Robert Ingersoll and his dad were going to offer us his (Ingersoll’s father’s) chicken ranch to house the Oklahoma chimpanzees. We had intended to move all the OU chimps to this chicken ranch in Florida. We were going to buy it with Tiny’s money. We had written up the proposals and submitted them to LEMSIP and

168  Inheritance of Knowledge and Connection with Dying

Lemmon. Lilly was included in that plan. However, Lemmon didn’t go for that, and had already made his own deal with LEMSIP and with Cleveland Amory at the Black Beauty Ranch, and discounted our ability to pull off such a big undertaking. Our plan fell through and the IPS chimps were mostly moved to LEMPSIP. During these visits, I would take Lilly out of her cage where she spent her days, and she would stay with me in the house. Bob Dunn also took me to other places that had the chimps during these visits. Animal control at that time in the 1980s was not good, and lots of animals were abused. I saw stuff I never want to see again. I wanted to show Bob Dunn and his buddies how not to be harsh with the animals. I put it to them that they might have a longer working chimp as a return. On that day, Bob Dunn called me, I knew that they were up in Wildlife Way Station in Los Angeles, since he was having work done on the cages. Some of the chimps were there from LEMSIP, Martine Colette was in charge. In my last visits, Lilly was very unhappy there. They put her with a new male chimpanzee friend and she didn’t get on with him, he was pretty abusive. She would repeatedly sign to me KEY and MOUNTAINS. [Alyse and Lilly had made a camping special trip to the Valley of the Gods, a scenic sandstone valley in Utah. Alyse describes the trip as a sort of turning point, where their roles changed a bit. There were other trips to the mountains where it is likely that Lilly felt free. No wonder then, that she would sign this during that particular time of captivity.] One night they forgot to lock Lilly in. She was left outside in the cold. Lilly suffered hypothermia, and died. Bob Dunn called me and told me about Lilly’s death, apologising over and over. He told me he had her cremated. I went out there right away. At that point, Bob Dunn and I were still friends. He apologised and told me he owed me a chimp. But that chimp would never be Lilly. All my life and long term decisions had been based around my life with Lilly. I had turned down TV shows in favour of being seen as a good scientist. It is something that feels like you will have forever. I’d been around animals, but this wasn’t like anything I had ever known. These animals had higher intellect and capacity to learn. It was a very morally wrong thing to do to them. Alex’s Death

Irene Pepperberg discusses Alex’s death in a clip in a talk on YouTube (Pepperberg, date). She also discusses it in her book (Pepperberg, 2009). She describes how a grant application was turned down but then resubmitted on September 1st, 2007, and they were told that they would get the money for one year on the basis of some completed preliminary studies, and when they won the

Inheritance of Knowledge and Connection with Dying  169

research funds, she felt that things were turning around. Pepperberg describes sitting at her desk one morning, replying to emails from the time differences overseas, over breakfast at her desk, including one from a European consortium using animals and young children as models for intelligent learning systems. This was wonderful justification that their research work was meaningful, and that the scientific community was understanding the science. As Irene sat at the computer, she noticed the arrival of an email saying “sad news” from the vet at Brandeis where her three birds, Alex, Gryphon, and Arthur, were at this time. And I didn’t think much about it. You know, it could have been one of the technicians. There was a problem in the family –​sickness, and we were going to collect some money for flowers or something. Things like that happened all the time. So I open up the e-​mail and it wasn’t exactly about a technician, except that a technician had found a dead parrot in the back left hand corner of the room and my first reaction was, ‘OK, it’s a horrible mistake. This can’t be.’ And then I’m going to know there’s only one parrot and I do go into a sort of a shock. Irene called the lab. “I’m thinking as much as I love Griffin and Arthur. Can’t be Alex … but it is and I can’t remember how I got dressed”. Irene explains her shock at seeing that the veterinarian had wrapped Alex’s body so she could take it for a private autopsy. I remember sitting in the grieving room saying our final goodbyes, but I was in shock. This happened on a Friday. We had only called a couple of close friends to tell them this. A couple of people came in to be with me that weekend. They made sure I was fed. They took care of me. And I was still in complete shock over the weekend. She then explains some complicated emotions: “I mean, you know, it’s a bird. So I say “whatever””She talks about going into autopilot and answering emails and interviews, without actually processing anything. And in somewhere towards the end of the week we get this big box of letters from a grade school. And one of the letters was from a young boy and he says, I know how you feel. My grandma died this summer. Your heart will heal. And all of a sudden it hit me. Irene describes how, at this point, she had identified the barrier that she had put between herself and Alex, from her scientific objectivity. She realised at this point that there was no longer going to be any science “and that just completely crumbled and I realised I had lost the most important being in my life for the last 30 years”.

170  Inheritance of Knowledge and Connection with Dying

These cases illustrate the few differences between grief for a human and grief for an animal in the special bond between researcher and animal colleague, participant, and friend. The traditional five cycles in coping with dying and coping with bereavement of Kübler-​Ross (1969) have gained worldwide acceptance. Through a series of interviews with adults who had a terminal illness, Kübler-​ Ross (1969) identified five psychosocial stages; denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, which she interpreted as “defense mechanisms which last for different periods of time and which replace each other, or co-​exist” (Corr, 2019). Corr (2019) identified that there are both strengths and weakness of the theory: the stages imply linearity, and the understanding of whether the stages are descriptive or prescriptive is unclear, as is the role of individual differences in how beings move through the stages, although there are also alternative theories which recognise personal pathways rather than universal stages, such as Worden’s task model (Worden, 2018), Rando’s “R” processes (Rando, 1993), Stroebe and Schut’s dual process model (Stroebe & Schut, 1999, 2010), and Rubin’s two-​track model (1999). Kübler-​Ross’s model remains important for constructive and professional applications, although the implications for being used too rigidly can lead to unreliability. Indeed, Colin Murray Parkes, psychiatrist and life president of the UK Charity, Cruse Bereavement Care, explains that “There is no evidence that all bereaved people will benefit from counselling and research has shown no benefits to arise from counseling for no other reason than that they have suffered a bereavement” (Shaffer, 1972). In one of her other books, “Grief Works”, Julia Samuel (Samuel, 2018) explains how “Often the most we can do in the face of death is to be creatively alive”. She describes grief-​stricken participants who become creators focussing their energy on specific projects and demonstrating immensely a deep and powerful capacity for love and loyalty. These themes are certainly prevalent in the human carers discussing their animal research companions. The basis of human existence is presence. By its very definition, presence also indicates absence. The human brain is wired to recognise presence from the start. Scientists have discovered that the ability to perceive addition and subtraction is innate (Wynn, 1992). By the age of about three months, the infant starts to develop object permanence. The infant begins to understand that the object continues to exist in the world, even when it cannot be seen. It is around this same time that the infant develops separation anxiety; when the mother leaves the room, the infant believes that she has ceased to exist. This is the cause of much human anxiety. As we grow up, part of the abilities to keep a partner and a relationship going is dependent upon the rationalisation of separation and of presence. The Oklahoma chimpanzees, too, had a sense of loss and understanding death. Alyse Moore describes how Lilly continued to sign TINY after Tiny’s death. She signed TINY, MOUNTAINS, KEY, DRIVE,

Inheritance of Knowledge and Connection with Dying  171

CAR, repeatedly. After a while, she signed TINY’s name less. She knew that he was not coming back. Lilly had been around death, insofar as she would have seen some of the baby chimps dying. She was likely to have been close by when the chimpanzee Lileth died in the pig barn, and was being revived by Robert and Tiny. Lilly and the other chimpanzees also witnessed a couple of deaths on the “chimpanzee island”. There had been suicides; a couple of the Oklahoma chimps had purposefully walked into the water, and drowned. One time Tiny went in and rescued a chimpanzee who was trying to drown himself. “We put that chimpanzee into the lab after that”, says Alyse, “He was distant and very depressed, but he was able to survive”. Alyse explains that it was clear that Lilly had some concept of death. At the IPS when a chimpanzee would die, the corpse would be sent off to Anthropology departments for necropsies, or the skeletons would be sent to the Museum of Osteology in Oklahoma City. The dead animal would be placed in a cage so that the other animals could not get to the skeleton. On one particular occasion, Alyse put one of the chimp corpses in a cage in a tree to decompose, and this time, Lilly saw it. “She had a call I’d never heard before. A shriek, like a death call”. What constitutes a sentient being? Who decides what a thinking creature is? How does this impact upon our relationship with our fellow beings on this planet? Humans reflect and absorb electromagnetic waves and electrochemical energy (Singh, 2014). Each human occupies a physical space upon this planet. We absorb these electromagnetic waves in a way that resembles the wiring of an old fashioned style plug. Indeed, our scanning of the brain using magnetoencephalography (MEG) capitalises our very ability to measure accurately the waves which are emitted from a small superficial part of the brain, namely the cortex. If we are able to produce those particular waves which are emitted –​and then measured –​in that way, there is no reason to suppose that the same should not be true of the waves emitted from the rest of the body. Brain scanning techniques like MEG can be used as tools to study the dynamics and connectivity of large-​scale brain activity and their interactions with the body and the environment. Thus, the environment becomes important not just through ecological values and issues to do with preservation, but as the object towards which we attach and connect, through this magnetic energy. We like to believe that we are special, unique, characteristic beings; but the fact that we are able to classify ourselves and to read out the waves emitted when our minds are at work, suggests that we are not as unique as we like to think. In many respects, Crick (1994) was correct to say that “you are nothing but a pack of neurons”. Cross-​human differences are overrated. If cross-​human differences are overrated, so, then, are differences across species. Animals are beings who are able to think, and so MEG can also be used in calculations about how they think. We must remember here that just because

172  Inheritance of Knowledge and Connection with Dying

we are able to conduct an experiment does not mean that we should conduct it. A literature review reveals that research studies have already been conducted using MEG on small animals like guinea pigs and mice (De Cheveigné, Linden, Chait, Christianson, McAlpine, Uehara, Adachi, Kawai, Miyamoto, & Kado H, 2010), and on macaque monkeys (Zumer et al., 2010). Of course, just because we can does not necessarily mean that we should use these techniques on animals, and robust scientific or medical rationale is imperative. We might ask whether animals have the same, or higher, or lower levels of emission compared with humans, and we could even consider a rank ordering of this nature, starting with ourselves and working backwards from animals with large levels of cortical matter (primates like gorillas and bonobos) to those with low levels (birds and fish). We must pay careful consideration, however, not to fall into the trap of believing that the higher the levels of activation, the “more” sentient the being. It is seductive to consider a superiority in terms of our human thought processes against animals with lower brain activations. This mode of thinking is dysfunctional and leads us to underestimate cognitive processes in animals. Avians, for example, have smaller cortical areas, but more efficient forebrains, capable of effective nest-​gathering activity, collecting feathers and other furnishings, and remembering how to return to locations where eggs were laid. Avians are capable of sophisticated spatial processing compared with human function. Looking at current levels of homelessness and housing crises, we might even consider that avians are showing more refined levels of adaptation to their environment. If we are to celebrate inclusion and diversity, we should hold fast the understanding that the levels of brain activity and levels of sentience are of the same importance. Indeed, it should not matter how much space any individual sentient being should occupy, just as it should not matter in humans how thin, fat, short, or tall they are. The importance is in the cellular level. We cannot measure brain activity in one species and call it important, yet deny its significance in the other species. Either we admit that all creatures are of importance, or we accept that every being is null and void. It does not make sense to accept existence and sentience in one species while denying it in others. The acceptance that there is nothing so special about humans, then, leads us back to Darwin. Human beings are little more than a set of cells. Darwin was not a species-​ist, and neither should we be. What have we learned from use of the chimpanzee model as a media figure? Social media continues to screen clips depicting the signing primates as celebrities. People are still talking about Koko the gorilla. Clips are still being presented of famous media figures interacting with, or seemingly returning to the wild, primate figures after their rescue from captivity. This is both harmful and disrespectful to the species. Recent films and television series (e.g., “Nope” and “Umbrella Academies”) have started to use the chimpanzee model as a vehicle for addressing issues in trauma, without actually inflicting trauma on chimpanzees in the process, thankfully. We would

Inheritance of Knowledge and Connection with Dying  173

do well to critically analyse the ethics of using chimpanzees in roles like these, with recognition of the wider issue objectification of primates. It seems, then, that the best way to look to the future and to accept the studies that were performed on these chimpanzees, the trauma that those times inflicted, and the understanding of a safer and more secure future, is through acceptance. Acceptance can be aided through existing scientific models of posttraumatic growth and resilience, and through the promotion of self-​compassion. In self-​ compassion, the elements which are central to healthy behaviours can be engaged. These include compassion demonstrated as love and respect for others but also extended to the self, for one’s failings, inadequacies and experiences of suffering. Statistical modelling has identified this as three factors: self-​kindness in the place of self-​judgement, common humanity in place of isolation, and mindfulness in place of over-​identification. Rather than penalising any of the individuals involved, now is the time to accept that they were working with a limited capacity to understand what they were investigating and the burdens that were placed upon the study participants. Rather than criticising the shortcomings of the work, it is more productive to examine the work with kindness within this context, in order that we might learn from the limitations of those studies, and retain for those researchers and chimpanzees their dignity and rightful place in history.

REFERENCES

Ahmetoglu, G., Swami, V., & Chamorro-​Premuzic, T. (2010). The relationship between dimensions of love, personality, and relationship length. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(5), 1181–​1190. Airenti, G. (2015). The cognitive bases of anthropomorphism: From relatedness to empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(1), 117–​127. Allen, M. S., & Desille, A. E. (2017). Personality and sexuality in older adults. Psychology & Health, 32(7), 843–​859. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Henry Holt. Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1–​10. Allport, G. W. & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-​names, a psycho-​lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, i–​171. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-​5 (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing. Andics, A., Gábor, A., Gácsi, M. Faragó, T., Szabó, D., & Miklósi, A. (2016). Neural mechanisms for lexical processing in dogs. Science, 353(6303), 1030–​1032. Argyle, M. (1987). The psychology of happiness. London: Methuen. Aron A., Lewandowski G. J., Mashek D., & Aron E. N. (2013). The self-​expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In Simpson J. A., Campbell L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–​115). New York: Oxford University Press. Aronson, E., & Linder, D. (1965). Gain and loss of esteem as determinants of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 156–​171. Aronson, E., Willerman, B., & Floyd, J. (1966). The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal appeal. Psychonomic Science, 4(6), 227–​228. Ashbaugh, A, Marinos, J., & Bujaki, B. (2018). The impact of depression and PTSD symptom severity on trauma memory. Memory, 26(1), 106–​116. Ashikkerib. (2006) Clive Wearing, Part 2b: Living Without Memory. Available at: www. yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​xCyv​zI2a​VUo (Accessed 23 January 2023).

References  175

Aswad, A., & Katzourakis, A. (2012). Paleovirology and virally derived immunity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 627–​636. Atallah, S., Johnson-​Agbakwu, C., Rosenbaum, T., Abdo, C., Byers, E. S., Graham, C., Nobre, P., Wylie, K., & Brotto, L. (2016). Ethical and sociocultural aspects of sexual function and dysfunction in both sexes. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(4), 591–​606. Bard, K. A. (1994). Evolutionary roots of intuitive parenting: Maternal competence in chimpanzees. Early Development and Parenting, 3(1), 19–​28. Baron-​Cohen, S. (1990). Autism: A specific cognitive disorder of “mind-​blindness”. International Review of Psychiatry, 2(1), 81–​90. Bertolero, M.A., Yeo, B.T., & D'Esposito, M. (2015). The modular and integrative functional architecture of the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(49), E6798–​E6807. Blakemore S. J. (2012). Development of the social brain in adolescence. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 105(3), 111–​116. Bossard, J. H. S. (1932). Residential propinquity as a factor in marriage selection. American Journal of Sociology, 38(2), 219–​224. Bourne, C., Mackay, C., & Holmes, EA. (2013). The neural basis of flashback formation: The impact of viewing trauma. Psychological Medicine, 43, 1521–​1532. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Attachment and Loss. New York: Basic Books. Bozzatello, P., Rocca, P., Baldassarri, L., Bosia, M., & Bellino, S. (2021). The role of trauma in early onset borderline personality disorder: A biopsychosocial perspective. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 721361. Bradshaw, G. A., Capaldo, T., Lindner, L., & Grow, G. (2008). Building an inner sanctuary: Complex PTSD in chimpanzees. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 9(1) 9–​34. Brehm, S. S. (1985). Intimate relationships. Crown Publishing Group/​Random House. Brotto, L., Atallah, S., Johnson-​Agbakwu, C., Rosenbaum, T., Abdo, C., Byers, S. E., Graham, C., Nobre, P., & Wylie, K. (2016). Psychological and interpersonal dimensions of sexual function and dysfunction. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(4) 538–​571. Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77(3), 305–​327. Brummelman, E., Crocker, J., & Bushman, B. J. (2016). The praise paradox: When and why praise backfires in children with low self-​esteem. Child Development Perspectives, 10(2) 111–​115. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belkapp Press. Bugelski, R. (1938). Extinction with and without sub-​goal reinforcement. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 26(1), 121–​134. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–​232. Casey, B. J., Getz, S., & Galvan, A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28(1), 62–​77. Catalano, R., & Bruckner, T. (2006). Secondary sex ratios and male lifespan: Damaged or culled cohorts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(5), 1639–​1643. Cattell, R. B. (1986a). Dodging the third error source: Psychological interpretation and use of given scores. In R. B. Cattell & R. C. Johnson (Eds.), Functional psychological testing: Principles and instruments (pp. 496–​543). New York: Brunner/​Mazel.

176 References

Cattell, R. B. (1986b). The actual trait, state, and situation structures important in functional testing. In R. B. Cattell & R. C. Johnson (Eds.), Functional psychological testing (pp. 33–​53). New York: Brunner/​Mazel. Cattell, R. B. (1986c). The psychometric properties of tests: Consistency, validity, and efficiency. In R. B. Cattell & R. C. Johnson (Eds.), Functional psychological testing: Principles and instruments (pp. 54–​78). New York: Brunner/​Mazel. Cattell, R. B. (1986d). The 16 PF personality structure and Dr. Eysenck. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 153–​160. Cattell, R. B., & Kline, P. (Eds.). (1977). The scientific analysis of personality and motivation. New York: Academic Press. Cavalieri, P., & Singer, P. (Eds.) (1993). The great ape project (312 pp.). London: Fourth Estate. Chamove, A. S., Eysenck, H. J., & Harlow, H. F. (1972). Personality in monkeys: Factor analyses of rhesus social behaviour. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24(4), 496–​504. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​146407​4720​8400​309 Chason, R. J., McLain, A. C., Sundaram, R., Chen, Z., Segars, J. H., Pyper, C., & Buck Louis, G. M. (2012). Preconception stress and the secondary sex ratio: A prospective cohort study. Fertility and Sterility, 98(4), 937–​941. Chen, S., & Andersen, S. M. (1999). Relationships from the past in the present: significant-​ other representations and transference in interpersonal life. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 123–​190. Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B.F. Skinner’s ‘Verbal Behaviour’. Language, 35, 26–​58. Claridge, G., Pryor, R., & Watkins, G. (1990). Sounds from the bell jar. London: MacMillan Press. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37, 12–​24. Clark, R. D. (1990). The impact of AIDS on gender differences in willingness to engage in casual sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 771–​782. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2, 39–​54. Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cornelissen, P. L., Kringelbach, M. L., Ellis, A. W., Whitney, C., Holliday, I. E., & Hansen, P. C. (2009). Activation of the left inferior frontal gyrus in the first 200 ms of reading: evidence from magnetoencephalography (MEG). PLoS One, 4(4), e5359. Corr, C. A. (2019). The ‘five stages’ in coping with dying and bereavement: Strengths, weaknesses and some alternatives, Mortality, 24(4), 405–​417. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Cozolino, L. (2014). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachment and the developing social brain. New York: W. W. Norton. Crick, F. H. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York: Scribner. Critchley, H. D, & Garfinkel, S. N. (2018). The influence of physiological signals on cognition. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19, 13–​18.

References  177

Culp, R. E., Watkins, R. V., Lawrence, H., Letts, D., Kelly, D. J., & Rice, M. L. (1991). Maltreated children’s language and speech development: Abused, neglected, and abused and neglected. First Language, 11(33), 377–​389. Dantzer, R., O'Connor, J. C., Freund, G. G., Johnson, R. W., & Kelley, K. W. (2008). From inflammation to sickness and depression: When the immune system subjugates the brain. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 9(1), 46–​56. Darwin, C. (1958). In Barlow, N. (ed.). The autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–​ 1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with appendix and notes by his granddaughter Nora Barlow. London: Collins. Dawkins, R. (2022). Why biological sex matters. The New Statesman, July 2023. www. newst​ates​man.com/​ideas/​2023/​07/​bio​logi​cal-​sex-​bin​ary-​deb​ate-​rich​ard-​dawk​ins. Accessed July 2023. Dawson, S. J., Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2013). Habituation of sexual responses in men and women: A test of the preparation hypothesis of women’s genital responses. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10(4), 990–​1000. De Botton, A. (2006). Essays in love. Revised ed. London: Picador. DeCasper, A. J., & Fifer. W. P. (1980). Of human bonding: Newborns prefer their mother’s voices. Science, 208, 174–​176. DeCasper, A. J., & Spence, M. J. (1986). Prenatal maternal speech influences newborns’ perception of speech sounds. Infant Behavior and Development, 9, 133–​150. De Cheveigné, A., Linden, J., Chait, M., Christianson, B., McAlpine, D., Uehara, G., Adachi, Y., Kawai, J., Miyamoto, M., & Kado, H. (2010). MEG responses to sound in guinea pig and mouse. In Frontiers in Neuroscience Conference Abstract: Biomag 2010 –​ 17th International Conference on Biomagnetism. doi: 10.3389/​conf.fnins. 2010.06.00428. De Waal F. B. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279–​300. De Waal, F. B. M. (2022). Different: What apes can teach us about gender. London: Granta Books. Dewsbury, D. A. (1981). Effects of novelty of copulatory behavior: The Coolidge effect and related phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 89(3), 464. Diamond, D. M., Campbell, A. M., Park, C. R., Halonen, J., & Zoladz, P. R. (2007). The temporal dynamics model of emotional memory processing: A synthesis on the neurobiological basis of stress-​induced amnesia, flashbulb and traumatic memories, and the Yerkes–​Dodson Law. Neural Plasticity, 33. doi:10.1155/​2007/​60803. PMID 17641736. Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-​factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–​440. Dion, A., Muñoz, P. T., & Franklin, T. B. (2022). Epigenetic mechanisms impacted by chronic stress across the rodent lifespan. Neurobiology of Stress, 17, 100434. Duck, S. (1983). Friends for life. New York: St. Martin’s. Edwards, M. (2017). The Barker Hypothesis. In: Preedy, V., & Patel, V. (eds) Handbook of famine, starvation, and nutrient deprivation. Springer, Cham. Eisler, R. (2019). Re-​examining Darwin and human evolution from a partnership perspective: A conversation with David Loye. Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies, 6(3), Article 4.

178 References

Elliott, R., Watson, J. C., Goldman, R. N., & Greenberg, L. S. (2004). Adapting process-​ experiential therapy to particular client problems. In R. Elliott, J. C. Watson, R. N. Goldman, & L. S. Greenberg, Learning emotion-​focused therapy: The process-​ experiential approach to change (pp. 287–​310). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Engelmann, J. M., Haux, L. M., & Herrmann, E. (2019). Helping in young children and chimpanzees shows partiality towards friends. Evolution & Human Behavior, 40(3), 292–​300. Engelmann, J. M. & Herrmann, E., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Chimpanzees trust conspecifics to engage in low-​cost reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 282, p. 20142803. Engelmann, J. M. & Herrmann, E. (2016). Chimpanzees trust their friends. Current Biology,26(2), 252–​256. Ekman P. (2009). Darwin’s contributions to our understanding of emotional expressions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 364(1535), 3449–​3451. Epstein, R., Pandit, M., & Thakar, M. (2013). How love emerges in arranged marriages: Two cross-​cultural studies. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 44(3), 341–​360. Eysenck, H. J. (1957). The dynamics of anxiety and hysteria. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Eysenck, H.J. (1976). Sex and personality. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1970). Crime and personality: Item analysis of questionnaire responses. British Journal of Criminology, 11, 49–​62. Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences. 13, 667–​673. Feldman, H., Goldin-​Meadow, S., & Gleitman, L. R. (1978). Beyond Herodotus: The creation of language by linguistically deprived children. In A. Lock (ed.) Action, symbol, and gesture: The emergence of language (pp. 351–​414). New York: Academic Press. Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 14(4), 245–​258. Felitti, V. J. (2019). Health appraisal and the adverse childhood experiences study: National implications for health care, cost, and utilization. Permanente Journal, 23, 18–​26. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–​282. Fisher, H. E., Xu, X., Aron, A., & Brown, L. L. (2016). Intense, passionate, romantic love: A natural addiction? How the fields that investigate romance and substance abuse can inform each other. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 687. Fitch, T. W. (2005). The evolution of language: A comparative review. Biology & Philosophy, 20(2), 193–​203. Fodor, J. A. (1981). The mind-​body problem. Scientific American, 244(1), 114–​125. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28(1–​2), 3–​71. Fodor, J. (2006) How the mind works: what we still don’t know. Daedalus, 135(3), 86–​94. Fouts, R. & Mills, S. (1998). Next of kin: My conversations with chimpanzees. New York: Harper Paperbacks.

References  179

Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving (Original English ed.). New York: Harper Perennial. Fukui, N., Watanabe, Y., Motegi, T., Hashijiri, K., Ogawa, M., Egawa, J., Enomoto, T., & Someya, T. (2023). Relationships among autistic traits, depression, anxiety, and maternal-​infant bonding in postpartum women. BMC Psychiatry, 23(1), 463. https://​ doi.org/​10.1186/​s12​888-​023-​04970-​y. Funnell, E. (2000). Apperceptive agnosia and the visual recognition of object categories in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Neurocase, 6 (6), 451–​463. Furneaux W. D. (1957). The selection of university students. Report to the Imperial College of Science, London. Gapp, K., Bohacek, J. Grossman, J. et al. (2016). Potential of environmental enrichment to prevent transgenerational effects of paternal trauma. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41, 2749–​2758. Gerhardt, S. (2004). Why love matters: How affection shapes a baby’s brain. London: Routledge. Gibson, L. (2023). Recovering from emotionally immature parents. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications. Giese, H., & Schmidt, G. (1968). Studenten Sexualität. Verhalten und Einstellung. Rowohlt: Reinbek. Gilbert, P. (2005). Compassion: Conceptualizations, research and use in psychotherapy. London, UK: Brunner-​Routledge. Gilbert, P. & Procter, S. (2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high shame and self-​criticism: a pilot study of a group therapy approach. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 353–​379. Gillis, J. (2014). Psychology’s secret genius: The lives and works of Raymond B. Cattell. Amazon Kindle Edition. Gillham, N. W. (2001). Sir Francis Galton and the birth of eugenics. Annual Review of Genetics, 35, 83–​101. https://​doi.org/​10.1146/​annu​rev.genet.35.102​401.090​055. Girard-​Buttoz, C., Zaccarella, E., Bortolato, T., Friederici, A. D., Wittig, R. M., & Crockford, C. (2022). Chimpanzees produce diverse vocal sequences with ordered and recombinatorial properties. Communications Biology, 5, 410. Graham, K., Badihi, G., Safryghin, A., Grund, C., & Hobaiter, C. (2022). A socio-​ ecological perspective on the gestural communication of great ape species, individuals, and social units. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 34(3), 235–​259. Graham, K. E., & Hobaiter, C. (2023). Towards a great ape dictionary: Inexperienced humans understand common nonhuman ape gestures. PLoS Biology 21(1), e3001939. Grant, V. J. (2007). Could maternal testosterone levels govern mammalian sex ratio deviations? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 246(4), 708–​719. Gross, J. (2019). Magnetoencephalography in cognitive neuroscience: A primer. Neuron, 104(2), 189–​204. Grummitt, L. R., Kreski, N. T., Kim, S. G., Platt, J., Keyes, K. M., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2021). Association of childhood adversity with morbidity and mortality in US adults: A systematic review. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(12), 1269–​1278. doi:10.1001/​ jamapediatrics.2021.2320. Guess, C. (2004). Decision making in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 4(1). Gurvits, T. G., Shenton, M. R., Hokama, H. et al. (1996). Magnetic resonance imaging study of hippocampal volume in chronic combat-​related posttraumatic stress disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 40, 192–​199.

180 References

Hajar R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. Heart views, 12, 42. Happé F., & Frith, U. (1996). The neuropsychology of autism. Brain, 119(4), 1377–​1400. Hardt, J., & Rutter, M. (2004). Validity of adult retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences: Review of the evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 260–​273. Harris, P. L., & Corriveau, K. H. (2011). Young children’s selective trust in informants. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 1179–​1187. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Conceptualizing romantic love as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–​524. Heaven, P. C. L., Fitzpatrick, J., Craig, F.L, Kelly, P., & Sebar, G. (2000). Five personality factors and sex: preliminary findings. Personality and Individual Differences, (28)6, 1133–​1141. Heiman, J. R. (1977). A psychophysiological exploration of sexual arousal patterns in females and males. Psychophysiology, 14(3), 266–​274. Hess, E. (2008). Nim Chimpsky. The chimp who would be human. New York: Random House. Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32(1), 147–​168. Hinde, R.A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. London: Academic Press. Hobaiter, C., & Byrne, R. W. (2011). The gestural repertoire of the wild chimpanzee. Animal Cognition, 14(5), 745–​767. Hobaiter, C., & Byrne, R. W. (2014). The meanings of chimpanzee gestures. Current Biology, 24(14), 1596–​1600. Hobaiter, C., Poisot, T., Zuberbühler, K., Hoppitt, W., & Gruber, T. (2014) Social network analysis shows direct evidence for social transmission of tool use in wild chimpanzees. PLOS Biology, 12(9), e1001960. Hobaiter, C. (2020). Gestural communication in the great apes: Tracing the origins of language. In L. M. Hopper & S. R. Ross (Eds.), Chimpanzees in context: A comparative perspective on chimpanzee behavior, cognition, conservation, and welfare (pp. 233–​ 259). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior. New York: Harcourt Brace & World. Hoyle, R. H., Fejfar, M. C., & Miller, J. D. (2000). Personality and sexual risk taking: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 1203–​1231. Ingersoll, R., & Scarnà, A. A. (2023). Primatology, ethics & trauma. London and New York: Routledge. Izard, C. (1960). Personality similarity and friendship. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(1), 47–​51. James, W. H., & Grech, V. (2017). A review of the established and suspected causes of variations in human sex ratio at birth. Early Human Development, 109, 50–​56. Joe, C. C. D., Jiang, J., Linke, T., Li, Y., Fedosyuk, S., Gupta, G., Berg, A., Segireddy, R. R., Mainwaring, D., Joshi, A., Cashen, P., Rees, B., Chopra, N., Nestola, P., Humphreys, J., Davies, S., Smith, N., Bruce, S., Verbart, D., Bormans, D., … Douglas, A. D. (2022). Manufacturing a chimpanzee adenovirus-​vectored SARS-​CoV-​2 vaccine to meet global needs. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 119(1), 48–​58. Johnson, J., Canning, J., Kaneko, T., Pru, J. K., & Tilly, J. L. (2004). Germline stem cells and follicular renewal in the postnatal mammalian ovary. Nature, 428(6979), 145–​150.

References  181

Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection (2nd ed.). New York: Brunner-​Routledge. Johnson, S. M. (2008). Hold me tight: Seven conversations for a lifetime of love. New York: Little, Brown & Co. Johnson, S. M., & Greenman, P. S. (2006). The path to a secure bond: emotionally focused couple therapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(5), 597–​609. Kanda, R. K., Tristem, M., & Coulson, T. (2013). Exploring the effects of immunity and life history on the dynamics of an endogenous retrovirus. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 368(1626), 20120505. Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427–​436. Karlén, J., Frostell, A., Theodorsson, E., Faresjö, T., & Ludvigsson, J. (2013). Maternal influence on child HPA axis: a prospective study of cortisol levels in hair. Pediatrics, 132(5), e1333–​e1340. Kavanagh, B. (2007). The phonemes of Japanese and English: A contrastive analysis study. Aomori University of Health and Welfare, 8, 283–​292. Kelley, H. H. (1983). Love and commitment. In H. H. Kelley et al. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 265–​314). New York: Freeman. Kendal, R., Hopper, L. M., Whiten, A., Brosnan, S. F., Lambeth, S. P., Schapiro, S. J., & Hoppitt, W. (2015). Chimpanzees copy dominant and knowledgeable individuals: Implications for cultural diversity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(1), 65–​72. Kerckhoff, A., & Davis, K. E. (1962). Value consensus and need complementarity in mate selection. American Sociological Review, 27, 295–​303. Kim, J., & Hatfield, E. (2004). Love types and subjective well-​being: A cross-​cultural study. Social Behavior and Personality, 32(2), 173–​182. Kim, K. H. S., Relkin, N. R., Lee, K-​M., & Hirsch, J. (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature, 388, 171–​174. King, A. J., Cheng, L., Starke, S. D., & Myatt, J. P. (2012). Is the ‘true wisdom of the crowd’ to copy successful individuals? Biology Letters, 8, 197–​200. Kirschenbaum, G. (2023). The nurture revolution: Grow your baby’s brain and transform their mental health through the art of nurtured parenting. Grand Central Publishing. Kline P. (1966). Extraversion, neuroticism, and academic attainment in junior school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 36, 92–​94. Knutson, B., Wolkowitz, O. M., Cole, S. W., Chan, T., Moore, E. A., Johnson, R. C., Terpstra, J., Turner, R. A., & Reus, V. I. (1998). Selective alteration of personality and social behavior by serotonergic intervention. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155(3), 373–​379. Kretschmer, E. (1925). Physique and character: An investigation of the nature of constitution and of the theory of temperament; with 31 plates. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner. Kross, E., Berman, M. G., Mischel, W., Smith, E. E., & Wager, T. D. (2011). Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(15), 6270–​6275. https://​doi.org/​10.1073/​pnas.110​2693​108. Kubler-​Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: Macmillan. Kuhl, P. K. (1991). Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception & Psychophysics, 50(2), 93–​107.

182 References

Kurtz, J. E., & Sherker, J. L. (2003). Relationship quality, trait similarity, and self-other agreement on personality ratings in college roommates. Journal of Personality, 71(1), 21–​48. Larocca, D., Lee, J., West, M. D., Labat, I., & Sternberg, H. (2021). No time to age: uncoupling ageing from chronological time. Genes, 12(5), 611. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature. New York: McGraw-​Hill Higher Education. Lee, L. (1984). Sequences in separation: A framework for investigating endings of the personal (romantic) relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1(1), 49–​73. Leeming, E. R., Johnson, A. J., Spector, T. D., & Le Roy, C. I. (2019). Effect of diet on the gut microbiota: Rethinking intervention duration. Nutrients, 11(12), 2862. Levine, P. A., & Frederick, A. (1997). Waking the tiger: Healing trauma: The innate capacity to transform overwhelming experiences. California: North Atlantic Books. Lewis, D. M. (2011). Intimacy, passion, and commitment as predictors of couples' relationship satisfaction. Ann Arbor, MI: Capella University. Retrieved April 23, 2023, from www.proqu​est.com/​disser​tati​ons-​the​ses/​intim​acy-​pass​ion-​com​mitm​ent-​ as-​pre​dict​ors-​coup​les/​docv​iew/​894264​700/​se-​2. Linden, E. (1986). Silent partners: The legacy of the ape language experiments. New York: Times Books. Lloyd, G. (2002). Routledge philosophy guidebook To Spinoza and the ethics. London: Routledge. Logue, S., Chein, J., Gould, T., Holliday, E., & Steinberg, L. (2014). Adolescent mice, unlike adults, consume more alcohol in the presence of peers than alone. Developmental Science, 17(1) 79–​85. Luby, J. L., Barch, D. M., Belden, A., Gaffrey, M. S., Tillman, R., Babb, C., Nishino, T., Suzuki, H., & Botteron, K. N. (2012). Maternal support in early childhood predicts larger hippocampal volumes at school age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(8) 2854–​2859. Lucio, R. A., Rodríguez-Piedracruz, V., Tlachi-López, J. L., García-Lorenzana, M., & Fernández-Guasti, A. (2014). Copulation without seminal expulsion: The consequence of sexual satiation and the Coolidge effect. Andrology, 2(3), 450–​457. Luppi, A. I., Mediano, P. A. M., Rosas, F. E., Holland, N., Fryer, T. D., O’Brien, J. T., Rowe, J. B., Menon, D. K., Bor, D., & Stamatekis, E. A. (2022). A synergistic core for human brain evolution and cognition. Nature Neuroscience, 25, 771–​782. Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (Eds.) (2002). From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Mahoney, J. (2010). From elephants to mice: Animals who have touched my soul. Tennessee: Howell Books. Maratsos, M. (1979). Learning how and when to use pronouns and determiners. In P. Fletcher & M. Garman (Eds), Language acquisition (pp. 225–​240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marsden, P. V. (1988). Homogeneity in confiding relations. Social Networks, 10(1), 57–​76. Mason T. (1996). Scatolia: psychosis to protest. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 3(5), 303–​311. Maté, G. (2000). Scattered: How attention deficit disorder originates and what you can do about it. New York: Plume Book.

References  183

McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York: W. Morrow. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford Press. McCrink, K., Bloom, P., & Santos, L. R. (2010) Children’s and adults’ judgments of equitable resource distributions. Developmental Science, 13(1), 37–​45. McPherson, J. M., Smith-​Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–​444. Melis, A. P. (2017). The evolutionary roots of prosociality: The case of instrumental helping. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 82–​86. Melis, A. P., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Engineering cooperation in chimpanzees: tolerance constraints on cooperation. Animal Behaviour, 72(2), 275–​286. Menzies, R. (1937) Conditioned vasomotor responses in human subjects, Journal of Psychology, (4)1, 75–​120. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–​378. Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mischel, W., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1970). Attention in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 329–​337. Mody, M., & Belliveau, J. W. (2013). Speech and language impairments in autism: Insights from Behavior and Neuroimaging. North American Journal of Medicine and Science, 5(3), 157–​161. Moghaddam, F. M., Taylor, D. M., & Wright, S. C. (1993). Social psychology in cross-​ cultural perspective. New York: W.H. Freeman. Moore, S., McEwen, L., Quirt, J., et al. (2017). Epigenetic correlates of neonatal contact in humans. Development and Psychopathology, 29(5), 1517–​1538. Moreland R. L., & Beach S. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 255–​276. Mori, M. (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–​35. Morris, D. (1962). The biology of art. Methuen, London: Knopf. Morris, D., Collett, P., Marsh, P., & O’Shaughnessy, M. (1981). Gestures: Their origins and distribution. Methuen, London: Knopf. Mount, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Incremental validity of empirically keyed biodata scales over GMA and the five factor personality constructs. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 299–​323. Mowrer, O. H. (1947). On the dual nature of learning—​a re-​interpretation of “conditioning” and “problem-​solving.” Harvard Educational Review, 17, 102–​148. Muller, M. N. & Mitani, J. C. (2005). Conflict and cooperation in wild chimpanzees, advances in the study of behavior. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 35, 275–​331. Muller, M. N., Wrangham, R. W., & Pilbeam, D. R. (Eds.) (2017). Chimpanzees and human evolution (pp. 142–​173). Harvard: Harvard University Press. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-​fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–​1180.

184 References

Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers–​Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists. National Health Service. (2022). Overview: Borderline personality disorder. [Leaflet]. Accessed July 2023: www.nhs.uk/​men​tal-​hea​lth/​con​diti​ons/​bor​derl​ine-​pers​onal​ity-​ disor​der/​overv​iew/​ National Research Council (US) Committee to Update Science, Medicine, and Animals. Science, Medicine, and Animals. (2004). Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). Regulation of Animal Research. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/​ books/​NBK24​650/​ Neff, K. D. (2016). The Self-​Compassion Scale is a valid and theoretically coherent measure of self-​compassion. Mindfulness, 7(1), 264–​274. Neff, K. D., & Beretvas, S. N. (2013). The role of self-​compassion in romantic relationships. Self and Identity, 12(1), 78–​98. Newton-​Fisher, N. E., & Stefano S. K. Kaburu, S. S. K. (2017). Grooming decisions under structural despotism: The impact of social rank and bystanders among wild male chimpanzees. Animal Behaviour, 128: 153. Nolen-​Hoeksema, S. (2004). Abnormal psychology. Boston, MA: McGraw-​Hill. O’Donoghue K. (2008). Fetal microchimerism and maternal health during and after pregnancy. Obstetric Medicine, 1(2), 56–​64. Pagel, M., & Mace, R. (2004). The cultural wealth of nations. Nature, 248, 275–​278. Pétrequin, P. (1993). North wind, south wind. Neolithic technical choices in the Jura mountains, 3700–​2400 BC. In: Lemonnier, P. (ed.), Technological choices: Transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic. London: Routledge. Parker, G., Paterson, A., Romano, M., & Graham, R. (2017). Altered sensory phenomena experienced in bipolar disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(12), 1146–​1150. Patrick, C.L Heaven, P. C. L., Fitzpatrick, J., Craig, F. L., Kelly, P., & Sebar, G. (2000). Five personality factors and sex: Preliminary findings. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(6), 1133–​1141. Paunonen, S.V. (2003), Big five factors of personality and replicated predictions of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84, 411–​424. Pepperberg, I. (2009). Alex & Me: How a scientist and a parrot discovered a hidden world of animal intelligence and formed a deep bond in the process. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In: Inhelder, B., Chipman, H. H., Zwingmann, C. (Eds.), Piaget and his school. Springer Study Edition. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (2011). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(3), 563–​582. Pohl, A. L., Crockford, S. K., Blakemore, M., Allison, C., & Baron-​Cohen, S. (2020). A comparative study of autistic and non-​autistic women’s experience of motherhood. Molecular Autism, 11(1), 3. Rando, T. A. (1993). Treatment of complicated mourning. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Rathee, S. (2019). Personality theories: A brief overview. Delhi Psychiatry Journal, 22(2), 201–​208. Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed lead to attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557–​570.

References  185

Rippon, G. (2019). The gendered brain. London: Vintage. Rogers, C. (1951). Client-​centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rohner, S. L., Salas Castillo, A. N., Carr, A., & Thoma, M. V. (2022). Childhood adversity and later life prosocial behavior: A qualitative comparative study of Irish older adult survivors. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 966956. Romero-​Gonzalez, B., Caparros-​Gonzalez, R. A., Gonzalez-​Perez, R., Delgado-​Puertas, P., & Peralta-​Ramirez, M. I. (2018). Newborn infants’ hair cortisol levels reflect chronic maternal stress during pregnancy. PLoS ONE, 13(7): e0200279. Rosati, A. G., Emery Thompson, M., Atencia, R., & Buckholtz, J. W. (2023). Distinct developmental trajectories for risky and impulsive decision-​making in chimpanzees. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 152(6), 1551–​1564. Rose, R. M., Holaday, J. W., & Bernstein, I. S. (1971). Plasma testosterone, dominance rank and aggressive behaviour in male rhesus monkeys. Nature, 231(5302), 366–​368. Rowan, A. N., D’Silva, J. M., Duncan, I. J. H., & Palmer, N. (2021). Animal sentience: history, science, and politics. Animal Sentience, 31(1). DOI: 10.51291/​ 2377-​7478.1697. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. (2020). State of child health. Available at: https://​sta​teof​chil​dhea​lth.rcpch.ac.uk/​evide​nce/​men​tal-​hea​lth/​pre​vale​nce/​(Accessed 23 October, 2023). Rubin, S. S. (1999). The two-​track model of bereavement: Overview, retrospect, and prospect. Death Studies, 23, 681–​714. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 45, 101–​117. Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 564–​ 596). New York: Guilford. Sabihi, S., Dong, S. M., Durosko, N. E., & Leuner, B. (2014). Oxytocin in the medial prefrontal cortex regulates maternal care, maternal aggression and anxiety during the postpartum period. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 6(8) 258. Samuel, J. (2018). Grief works: Stories of life, death, and surviving. First Scribner hardcover edition. New York: Scribner. Samuel, J. (2022). Every family has a story. London: Penguin Books. Samuni, L., Preis, A., Mielke, A., Deschner, T., Wittig, R. M., & Crockford, C. (2018). Social bonds facilitate cooperative resource sharing in wild chimpanzees. Proceedings Biological Sciences, 285(1888), 20181643. Saucier, G. (2009). Semantic and linguistic aspects of personality. In P. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 379–​399). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scarnà, A. (1999). Lexical processing in monolinguals and bilinguals. PhD thesis, University of York. Scarnà, A., & Ellis, A. W. (2002). On the assessment of grammatical gender knowledge in aphasia: The danger of relying on explicit, metalinguistic tasks. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(2), 185–​201. Scarnà, A., Gijsman, H., Mctavish, S., Harmer, C., Cowen, P., & Goodwin, G. (2003). Effects of a branched-​chain amino acid drink in mania. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182(3), 210–​213.

186 References

Selfhout, M., Burk, W., Branje, S., Denissen, J., van Aken, M., & Meeus, W. (2010). Emerging late adolescent friendship networks and Big Five personality traits: A social network approach. Journal of Personality. 78, 509–​538. Serpeloni, F., Radtke, K., de Assis, S. G., Henning, F., Nätt, D., & Elbert, T. (2017). Grandmaternal stress during pregnancy and DNA methylation of the third generation: An epigenome-​wide association study. Translational Psychiatry, 7(8), e1202. Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D.L. (2012). The evolutionary origins of friendship. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 153–​17. Shaffer, T. L. (1972) Bereavement: Studies of grief in adult life by Colin Murray Parkes. Kentucky Law Journal, 61(2), Article 8. Sheridan, M. A., Fox, N. A., Zeanah, C. H., McLaughlin, K. A., & Nelson III, C. A. (2012). Variation in neural development as a result of exposure to institutionalization early in childhood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(32) 12927–​12932. Shrum, W., Cheek Jr, N., & MacD, S. (1988). Friendship in school: Gender and racial homophily. Sociology of Education, 61(4): 227–​239. Singh, R., & Ho, S. Y. (2000). Attitudes and attraction: A new test of the attraction, repulsion and similarity-​dissimilarity asymmetry hypotheses. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(2), 197–​211. Singh S. P. (2014). Magnetoencephalography: Basic principles. Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology, 17(Suppl. 1), S107–​S112. https://​doi.org/​10.4103/​0972-​2327.128​676 Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. Macmillan. New York. Skinner B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press. Smith, R., Thayer, J.F., Khalsa, S.S. & Lane, R.D. (2016). The hierarchical basis of neurovisceral integration. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, 75(2017) 274–​296. Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The Big Five personality traits and the life course: A 45-​year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(2), 208–​232. Somerville, L. H., Jones, R. M., Ruberry, E. J., Dyke, J. P., Glover, G., & Casey, B. J. (2013). The medial prefrontal cortex and the emergence of self-​conscious emotion in adolescence. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1554–​1562. Song, S. (2014). Evidence of adaptive intergenerational sex ratio adjustment in contemporary human populations. Theoretical Population Biology, 92, 14–​21. Song, W. H., Mohamed, E. A., Pang, W. K., Kang, K. H., Ryu, D. Y., Rahman, M. S., & Pang, M. G. (2018). Effect of endocrine disruptors on the ratio of X and Y chromosome-​bearing live spermatozoa. Reproductive Toxicology, 82, 10–​17. Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Karwowski, M., et al. (2021). Universality of the triangular theory of love: Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Triangular Love Scale in 25 countries. Journal of Sex Research, 58(1), 106–​115. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–​135. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(3), 313–​335. Sternberg, R. J. (2004). A triangular theory of love. In Reis, H. T.; Rusbult, C. E. Close Relationships. New York: Psychology Press. Stokes, M. (2015). Nature education: Brain metrics. Available at: www.nat​ure.com/​scita​ ble/​blog/​brain-​metr​ics/​what_​d​oes_​meg_​meas​ure/​(Accessed: 22 October 2023).

References  187

Stroebe, M., & Schut, H. (1999). The dual process model of coping with bereavement: Rationale and description. Death Studies, 23, 197–​224. Stroebe, M., & Schut, H. (2010). The dual process model: A decade on. Omega, Journal of Death & Dying, 61, 273–​291. Suddendorf, T., Addis, D. R., & Corballis, M. C. (2009). Mental time travel and the shaping of the human mind. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1317–​1324. Sumter, S. R., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). Perceptions of love across the lifespan: Differences in passion, intimacy, and commitment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37(5), 417–​427. Sylvestre, A., Bussières, È.-​L., & Bouchard, C. (2016). Language problems among abused and neglected children: A meta-​analytic review. Child Maltreatment, 21(1) 47–​58. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​10775​5951​5616​703. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma & transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455–​471. Tedeschi, R. G., Park, C. L., & Calhoun, L. G. (Eds.). (1998). Posttraumatic growth: Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, UK. Tedeschi, R. G. & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence, Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–​18. Terrace, H. S., Petitto, L. A., Sanders, R. J., & Bever, T. G. (1979). Can an ape create a sentence? Science, 206(4421), 891–​902. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Thomas, A. J., Woo, B., Nettle, D., Spelke, E., & Saxe, R. (2022). Early concepts of intimacy: Young humans use saliva sharing to infer close relationships. Science, 375(6578), 311–​315. Thomas, H. N., & Thurston, R. C. (2016). A biopsychosocial approach to women’s sexual function and dysfunction at midlife: A narrative review. Maturitas, 87, 49–​60. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–​179). Chicago: Aldine. Trivers, R. L., & Willard, D. E. (1973). Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science, 179, 90–​92. Urquiza-​Haas, E. G., & Kotrschal, K. (2015). The mind behind anthropomorphic thinking: attribution of mental states to other species. Animal Behaviour, 109, 167–​176. Van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. (1971). Aspects of the social behaviour and communication in human and higher non-​human primates. Rotterdam: Bronder. Van der Kolk, B. (2014). The body keeps the score: Mind, brain and body in the transformation of trauma. London: Penguin Books. Van der Kolk, B. (2021, December 13–​14). 2-​Day trauma conference the body keeps the score. Oxford, UK: Pesi. Van der Kolk, B. (2021, December). How to work with the traumatized brain. A live web seminar sponsored by the National Institute for the Clinical Application of Behavioral Medicine (NICABM). Storrs, CT: NICABM. Varga, S., & Heck, D. H. (2017). Rhythms of the body, rhythms of the brain: Respiration, neural oscillations, and embodied cognition. Consciousness and Cognition, 56, 77–​90.

188 References

Vygotsky, L. S., & van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (Eds.). (1994). The Vygotsky reader (T. Prout, Trans.). Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158–​177. Watson, J. B. (1924). Talking and thinking. In Behaviorism (Chapter 10, pp. 180–​200). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism (Revised Edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wilke, C., Lahiff, N. J., Badihi, G., et al. (2022). Referential gestures are not ubiquitous in wild chimpanzees: Alternative functions for exaggerated loud scratch gestures. Animal Behaviour, 189, 23–​24. Williams, L. M., Debattista, C., Duchemin, A. M., Schatzberg, A. F., Nemeroff, C. B. (2016). Childhood trauma predicts antidepressant response in adults with major depression: Data from the randomized international study to predict optimized treatment for depression. Translational Psychiatry, 6(5), e799. doi: 10.1038/​ tp.2016.61. PMID: 27138798; PMCID: PMC5070060. Wise S. M. (2000). Rattling the cage: Toward legal rights for animals. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Wojciszke, B. (2002). From the first sight to the last drop: A six-​stage model of the dynamics of love. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 33(1), 15–​25. Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Worden, J. W. (2018). Grief counseling and grief therapy: A handbook for the mental health practitioner. New York: Springer. World Health Organization. (2021). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (11th ed.). https://​icd.who.int/​ World Science Festival. (2009). The Moth: Alex and Me –​Irene Pepperberg. Available at: www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​rrX1​nrvP​bLY Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358, 749–​750. Yonemitsu, F., Sasaki, K., Gobara, A., & Yamada, Y. (2021). The clone devaluation effect: A new uncanny phenomenon concerning facial identity. PloS one, 16(7), e0254396. Yumei, Z., Ning, Z, Zaizhu, H., et al. (2010). Magnetoencephalography of language: New approaches to understanding the cortical organization of Chinese processing. Neurological Research, 32(6), 625–​628. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1. Zubin, D., & Köpcke, K-​M. (1981). Gender: A less than arbitrary grammatical category. Chicago Linguistic Society, 17, 439–​449. Zumer, J. M., Nagarajan, S. S., Krubitzer, L. A., Zhu, Z., Turner, R. S., & Disbrow, E. A. (2010). MEG in the macaque monkey and human: Distinguishing cortical fields in space and time. Brain Research, 1345, 110–​124.

INDEX

Abigail the chimpanzee 19, 142, 145 Abreu, Rosalia 8 adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) 43, 144 adversity 128, 144, 146, 147 Africa 29, 77, 81, 82, 91, 97, 105, 116, 129, 138; African 45, 140 African grey parrot 83, 120 AIDS 116, 117 Alex, the Parrot 83, 93, 120, 127, 131–​3, 156, 168, 169 Allport, Gordon 20, 56–​8 Ally 2, 46, 47, 90, 105, 106, 114 ambivalent attachment style 10–​13 Amory, Cleveland 166, 168 Animal Scientific Procedures Act 95 Animal Welfare Act 94, 96 Animal Welfare Information Center 95 Anthropomorphism 99, 100, 102 ARAS (ascending reticular activating system) 60, 64 Aristotle 21 Arthur, the Parrot 169 ASL (American Sign Language) 80, 126, 134 AstraZeneca 116 attachment 6, 9–​13, 28, 29, 32, 43, 92, 97, 99, 101, 108–​10, 120, 121, 128, 133, 145, 148, 156, 159, 160, 162 autism 18, 40, 73, 76, 79, 80, 94 aversion therapy 24

Barker hypothesis 34, 35 Baron-​Cohen, Simon 18, 73, 76, 79 behaviourism 16, 21–​3, 26, 68; behaviourists 21, 26, 49, 123 Benson, Lisa 47–​8, 106 Big Five 56, 61–​3; FFM (Five Factor Model) 61 bilingual 4, 28 bipolar disorder 92, 94, 97, 98 Black Beauty Ranch 145, 166–​8 blemishing effect 157 Booee the chimpanzee 46, 95, 114 Bowlby, John 9, 11 Boysen, Sarah/​Sally 142 brain 4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 17, 19, 20, 26, 29–​34, 37–​9, 49–​50, 58, 60, 64, 66, 68, 74, 80, 91, 92, 95, 115, 123, 131, 144, 148, 157, 170–​2; amygdala 161; gender 50, 73, 75; hippocampus 161; HPA axis 107; hypothalamus 161; MEG scanning 40–​3; pituitary 107 Bruno the chimpanzee 115, 45, 46 Bubbles the chimpanzee 81, 141 Budongo Forest Reserve 159 Butler, Joyce 47, 133, 145 Byrne, Chris 166, 167 Capgras syndrome 100 captivity 1–​3, 8, 28, 91, 92, 94, 97, 99, 105, 107, 115, 116, 120, 121, 132, 138,

190 Index

148; capture 2, 17, 24, 28, 47, 49, 50, 64, 76, 95, 96, 101, 121, 138, 152 cardiomyopathy 106 caregivers 32, 95, 109, 120, 133, 143, 145, 155 Carolyn the chimpanzee 1, 2, 5, 19, 43, 45, 47, 104–​7, 129, 130, 138–​40, 143, 145, 146 Cattell 57, 58, 61; 16PF 58, 61 CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) 23, 26 Center for Great Apes (CGA) 141 Chim the chimpanzee 8 Chomsky, N. 17, 18, 125 collectivist cultures 70, 163 Colette, Martine 168 Columbia University 57, 98 confirmatory factor analysis 52 Congo 31 connectionist 17, 18; connectionism 17 constructivist theory 16 cortisol 42, 107, 160, 161 Cotard syndrome 100 COVID 116, 73 Cozolino, Louis 70 creativity 19, 135; and adversity 147 Crick, Francis 172 Cronbach’s alpha 53 cross generational transmission of attachment 12 Cruse Bereavement Care 170 Damasio, Antonio 19 Dar the chimpanzee 115 Darrell the chimpanzee 142 Darwin, Charles 5, 7, 68–​70, 172 Davis, Diana 114 death 78, 93, 95, 101, 103, 118, 119, 124, 132–​3, 149, 170, 171; Alex’s 168; dying 166; Lilly’s 167–​8; Nim’s 166–​7 de Botton, Alain 156 descartes 17 developmental 43; changes 29; disorders 18, 94; factors 80; pattern 31; periods 92, 99; psychologists 14; stages 16, 92, 143; trajectory 31, 102 de Waal, Frans 75–​6, 112 dissociation 80 DNA 13, 14, 33–​6, 95, 115, 129, 146 Downs, Hugh 117 DSM-​5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) 80, 98

dualistic perspective 17, 76 dual process model 170 duck 164; model of relationship dissolution 149 Dunn, Bob 81 EEG (electroencephalography) 38–​40 EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing) 84 emotion 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 19, 20, 30, 37, 43, 51, 54, 58, 62, 64, 69, 73, 77, 78, 80, 98–​101, 116, 120, 124, 129, 143, 145, 150–​2, 156, 162, 169; emotional connection 4, 10, 129, 162; emotional expression 59, 110; emotional needs 150; emotional processing 8, 44, 50, 56, 142; emotional response 12, 31, 102, 156; emotional stability 57, 60, 109, 130; emotional unavailability 22, 127; emotionality 61, 63, 64 Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) 11, 12 epigenetics 5, 14, 35, 36, 43, 129 EPQ (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire) 57–​63, 72, 73 ethics 3, 165, 173; Primatology, Ethics & Trauma 1, 2, 4, 45, 70, 142, 145; University Research Ethics Committee 93 Eugenic movement 8, 22, 69 EUPD (emotionally unstable personality disorder) 80 exploratory factor analysis 52, 57 Eysenck, Hans 49, 57–​63 familarity 10, 100–​2, 109, 149, 150, 153, 155 Fenner, Marge 142, 145 fight-​or-​flight response 107 Fitch, Tecumseh 110 flashbacks 84 fMRI, 6, 19, 30, 38; MRI 29, 38–​40 Fodor, J. A. 17–​18 Fouts, Roger 46, 77, 80, 84, 95, 115, 124, 140, 142–​4 Frankl, Viktor 91, 111, 112 frequency 40, 154, 155, 158 Freud, Sigmund 22, 49, 56, 119, 121, 123, 125; Freudian 49, 123 Fritz, Jo and Paul 104, 141 Fritz, Walter 80 functionalism 18

Index  191

gain-​loss theory 158 Galton, Francis 69 Gardner, Allen and Beatrix 77; Gardners 46, 105 Gatch, Vera 101 Gauss, Carl Friedrich 71; Gaussian distribution 41, 51, 71, 72 genetics 13, 35, 55, 68, 69, 137, 145; 23andMe 66; see also epigenetics Gerhardt, Sue 160 gestures 15, 110–​11, 126 gorillas 111, 172; Koko 46 gradiometers 39 Great Ape Project 115 grief 101, 118, 121, 130, 133, 144, 149, 166, 167, 170 Gryphon, the Parrot 169 Helterbrand, Ron 106, 115 Hess, Elizabeth 1, 45, 46, 121–​4, 138 High Times magazine 46 history 1, 17, 19, 20, 34, 44, 49, 56, 73, 115, 125, 129, 141, 146, 152, 173 HIV 116, 117 Hobaiter, Catherine 2, 96, 110, 157 Holloman Air Force Base 77, 105 Holocaust survivors 91 homophily 149, 140, 155 HPA axis 107; see also fight-​or-​flight response Hume 21 immune system 101, 116, 144 individualistic cultures 70, 152, 163 Ingersoll, Robert 2, 4, 45, 70, 72, 79, 85, 101, 106, 134, 142, 145, 167 insecure attachment style 12, 160 Institute for Primate Studies 45, 77, 92, 113, 122; IPS 81, 82, 85, 92, 97, 101, 102, 104, 105, 124–​6, 138, 140, 141, 168, 171 intelligence 1–​3, 6, 8, 48, 50, 51, 57, 61, 69, 71, 72, 131 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 11, 98 Italian 75 Jackson, Michael 81, 141 Joe Exotic/​Tiger King 165 Johnson, Sue 11, 12 Jungle Jim’s 166

Kelly the chimpanzee 46, 87, 105 Kenya 112 Koko, the Gorilla 172 Kübler-​Ross 170 Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (1966) 94 Lafarge family, 28, 105; Stephanie 28, 43, 45, 92, 99, 104, 145, 155; Wer 28, 45 language 3–​9, 14–​16, 18, 19, 22, 27, 28, 32, 38, 39, 44, 48, 58, 69, 70, 73–​6, 80, 81, 83, 84, 92, 95–​7, 99, 104, 110, 121, 131, 133, 143, 156, 166; acquisition 4, 44, 70; grammatical gender 75; sign language 1, 2, 45, 72, 77, 103, 145; trauma 130 Leary, Timothy 82 Lee, Jenny 28, 145, 155 LEMSIP 1, 2, 81, 92, 99, 116, 140, 145, 167, 168 Lexington State Prison, Oklahoma 93 Lilith the chimpanzee 48, 145 Lilly the chimpanzee 2, 48, 49, 81, 82, 83, 85–​90, 92, 97, 113, 114, 121, 129, 130, 132, 133, 138, 140–​6, 155, 156, 167, 168, 171 Lilly, John 80, 82, 83 Linden, Eugene 1, 45, 80, 142, 172 Locke, John 21 London Zoo 5, 7 Los Angeles 140, 141, 168 loss 121, 124, 129, 130, 152, 153, 158, 170; of identity 100 (see also gain-​loss theory) Loulis the chimpanzee 115, 133 Mac (MacArthur) the chimpanzee 47, 87, 90, 141 Mahoney, James 2, 91, 116, 117, 132, 166 Mania 92, 98 Martin, Tom 43, 44, 98, 133 Mary Jane the chimpanzee 85–​7, 89 Masahiro, Mori 100–​2 materialism 17 Maybelle the chimpanzee 19, 101 McCrae & Costa 20, 49, 56, 61, 62; Costa & McCrae 61 MEG 38–​42, 171, 172; magnetoence­ phalography 38, 171 memory 6, 8, 9, 16, 19, 22, 26, 35, 101, 133, 134 Mental Health Act (1983) 92

192 Index

Milgram, Stanley 67 Mischel, marshmallow test 31 Moderna 116 modular theories 17, 19 Moja the chimpanzee 115 Moore, Alyse 49, 72, 80, 81, 92, 93, 97, 103, 106, 121, 123, 132, 133, 140, 141, 144, 155, 167, 170 motivation 5, 8, 57, 58, 75, 112, 120, 151, 153, 161 Mowrer, O. H. 26 Murray Henry 57, 162 Murray Parkes, Colin 170 Museum of Osteology, Oklahoma City 171 Myers-​Briggs Type Indicator 56 NAPSA (North American Sanctuary Alliance) 165 neural integration 42 New York Magazine 46 Nietzsche, Friedrich 27, 32, 119 Nim 1–​5, 7–​8, 19, 24, 27, 28, 43–​8, 49, 52, 81, 86–​90, 92, 97–​9, 103–​5, 110, 113, 114, 118, 121, 126, 129, 130, 132, 133, 137–​41, 143–​5, 149, 155, 159, 166–​7 non-​human primates 63, 109 Nope, film 165, 172 Norman, Oklahoma 5, 122, 123, 138, 141 O’Neill, Charity 47 objectification 173 Oklahoma 1, 2, 5, 7, 27, 32, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 112, 113, 115, 118, 121, 122, 123, 126, 128, 129, 133, 134, 137, 138, 140–​2, 145, 148, 159, 166, 167, 170, 171 Onan the chimpanzee 2, 46, 47, 48, 90, 105, 106, 113–​15, 138 orangutan 7, 111 Oxford; Oxford University 77, 92, 116; Warneford Hospital 92 Pan the chimpanzee 2, 5, 19, 47, 104, 105, 114, 123, 129, 130, 138–​40, 143, 146 Pan-​American Sanctuary Alliance (PASA) 165 Panzee the chimpanzee 8

Pavlov, Ivan 22–​4, 60, 65 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) 99 Pepperberg, Irene 83, 93, 120, 121, 127, 128, 131–​4, 156, 168, 169 Petitto, Laura Anne 43, 45 Pfizer 116 Piaget, Jean 14–​17, 99 Pig barn 47, 103, 171 Plato 21 polymorphism 13, 14 positive illusion theory 162 Positron Emission Tomography (PET) 38 posttraumatic 2, 80, 119, 145, 173 pratfall effect 157 primates 1, 3, 5, 7, 63, 64, 69, 70, 76, 91, 96, 103, 104, 106, 109–​12, 133, 142, 157, 165, 172, 173 Project Nim 1, 4, 28, 44–​7, 49, 81, 90, 97, 126, 132, 140, 146, 155, 166 psychometrics 52, 71, 73 Pylyshyn, Z. W. 17 Regulation of Animal Research 94, 95 Rippon, Gina 74 Riverdale 98 Rockefeller Foundation 8 Rogers, Carl 11, 121 Romanian orphanages 91 safety 77, 92, 114, 120, 130 Salomé the chimpanzee 101 Samuel, Julia 118, 121, 129, 130, 170 sanctuary 2, 5, 24, 31, 91, 112, 115, 129, 140, 142, 165 sanctuaries 2, 96, 143–​5 Scarnà, Antonina Anna 2, 4, 40, 45, 70, 72, 74, 79, 85, 92, 101, 134, 142, 145 Schindler, Oskar 2 schizophrenia 94, 160 secure attachment style 160 sentient beings 1, 4–​7, 27, 28, 43, 121, 129, 133, 146, 160, 161, 165, 167, 171, 172 Sequoyah the chimpanzee 77 Sesame Street 47 Sheba the chimpanzee 2, 19, 48, 129, 130, 137, 138, 140–​6 Singer, Peter 115 Skinner, B. F. 24–​6, 123, 125 Sonso chimpanzees 157 Spinoza, Baruch 158

Index  193

SQUID 39 Stanford Prison Study Experiment 100 Sternberg, R. J. 36, 148, 153; triangular theory of love 161–​4 stress 30, 35, 42, 43, 56, 95, 107, 108, 119, 144, 160 suicidal 80; suicide 171 survival 7, 70, 97, 98, 108, 146, 152 Suskind, David 47 Sweetwater Chimpanzee Sanctuary 112 Tardive dyskinesia 92 Tatu the chimpanzee 115 taxonomic advisory group (TAG) 104 Terrace, Herb 24, 45, 47, 89, 97, 98, 126 Texas A&M University 80, 82, 140 therapy 12, 27, 44, 125, 126, 147; aversion therapy 24; behaviour(al) therapy 23, 26, 60 (see also cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)); psychodynamic therapy 5 (see also EMDR); psychotherapy 11, 13, 121, 123 (see also emotionally focused therapy (EFT)); somatic therapy 26; Speech and Hearing Therapy 84; trauma therapy 119 Tiny, Dwight Russell 84, 85, 106, 113–​15, 123, 133, 141, 167, 170–​1 trauma 1, 2, 4, 7, 26, 29, 32, 42, 45, 48, 70, 76, 79, 80, 84, 91, 92, 94–​6, 99, 103, 118–​21, 125, 128–​30, 133, 138, 143, 144, 146, 165, 173; transgenerational trauma 2; traumatic events 2, 77, 78, 80, 129, 144(see also Primatology, Ethics and Trauma); traumatising background 10 Turner syndrome 74 Tynan, Bill 47, 145 Uganda 2, 96, 110, 157, 159 UK 95, 96, 116, 170

Umbrella Academies, series 165, 172 Uncanny Valley 100–​2 universal 69, 111, 170; key emotions 11; mechanisms 12; processes 16; universality of personality 71; universal validity 164 University of Oklahoma 77, 104, 122 US(A) 2, 96 US Department of Agriculture 94 Valley of the Gods, Utah 168 Van der Kolk, Bessel 26, 97 Vanessa the chimpanzee 87, 89 vegetarian 103 Vygotsky, L. S. 16, 100 Washoe the chimpanzee 4, 19, 46, 76–​81, 83, 90, 105, 110, 114, 115, 118, 133–​6, 144 Watson, John 21 Wearing, Clive 6, 133; Deborah Wearing 6, 134 Wellington Zoo 165 White Plains Hospital 98 Wildlife Way Station 168 Wolfe, Joseph 23 word(s) 6, 7, 22, 32, 40, 50, 56, 69, 75, 110, 114, 128, 134, 142, 155 Worden’s task model 170 Wundt 22 Wynn, Karen 170 Yerkes, Robert Mearns 7, 8; Yerkes-​ Dodson Law 8, 65 Zajonc, R. B. 150, 155 Zimmerman, James 38 zoo(s) 2, 8, 104, 141 155, 165; Columbus Zoo, Ohio 141; zoo-​goers 138 (see also London Zoo)