Search for a Universal Test for Self-Awareness

As parents, aunts, uncles, and older siblings, we can’t help but test if our newly beloved additions are able to recognize themselves in a mirror. We prod them stating, “Who is that in the mirror? Is that you?” We marvel at their grimaced faces and become overjoyed when they realize the reflection is simply theirs. However, what proves that the infant is self-aware? Without speech, does the mere fearless approach to the mirror indicate that they have become self-aware? Since the 1970s, neuroscientists have relied on a modified version of the mirror test to definitively confirm self-awareness in both humans and animals alike. As described by Daniel Bor, the author of The Ravenous Brain, the test involves the placement of a mark on the participant’s body, usually on the face or forehead, and the further analysis of their actions when situated in front of a mirror. In order to pass the test, the subject “has to recognize the image as itself, and further needs to realize that this spot is a new unnatural addition to its facial makeup, before finally having the motor ability to touch the colored spot on its own body” (Bor 130).  It has been widely accepted that humans are able to complete such a task by the age of 24 months.

Recently, an article in Scientific American has illustrated a series of research studies published in The Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology that have called this method into question. The article by Maggie Koerth-Baker reveals that the universal acceptance of the age of self-awareness only applied to children of Western countries in which the former studies took place. What’s more, in some nations such as Fiji and Kenya, children failed to pass the mirror test even at the age of six years. What can be drawn from such verdicts? Is it reasonable to believe that the children in Kenya and Fiji are simply not self-aware? As such a claim is highly unlikely, the validity of the previously described method has been contested by current psychologists and neuroscientists.

Daniel Bor had some implications that the mirror test may be flawed. After observing his own daughter, he realized that even if she noticed the spot on her face she didn’t automatically remove it. In fact, Bor describes, “She might even have liked her new facial feature” (130). In light of this, the article in Scientific American mentions the results of the mirror test conducted by Joshua Plotnik on three elephants. Although only one subject passed, the other two animals “still demonstrated much self-aware behavior, such as making repetitive movements that showed they connected the image to themselves” (Koerth-Baker). The reason as to why the two subjects did not pass mimicked the reason as to why Bor’s daughter failed to remove the spot as well: They merely were not interested in removing the unnatural element.

In adopting these methods to all species, the differences in attention have not been examined.  Bor explains, “There is a great multitude of hidden, complex assumptions required to demonstrate that you can recognize yourself in the mirror. Only a considerable intelligence, and a high level of consciousness, with a motivation directed in the right way, would be able to pass the test” (131). Maggie Koerth-Baker further describes that an animal’s interaction with the environment undeniably impacts their performance on the test. For instance, gorillas have repeatedly failed to confirm their self-awareness through the test because they avoid eye contact. Additionally, elephants are conditioned to place objects such as dirt or water on their body, not take them off. As Bor mentioned, there must be motivation to react in specific way to confirm self-awareness: This poses a problem in adopting the method to large-scale use.

The children that were examined in Fiji and Kenya ultimately reacted differently to the presented task due to a difference in cultural socialization. Non-western participants are taught to “emphasize interdependence over independence” (Koerth-Baker). Hence, when presented with the mark on their face they reacted by freezing, and showed visible signs of discomfort. The children were stunned that they no longer conformed to the society at large with the unnatural addition, leading to this reaction of freezing. Researchers note that this response can be viewed as merely an indirect confirmation that they were in fact self-aware. Western children, on the other hand, are socialized to be independent and unique; hence, they are exposed to mirrors at a very early age. These differences led to marked differences in responses to a universally applied test. In essence, as Daniel Bor states, “This clearly demonstrates how many different ways an animal could fail at the mirror recognition test, even if it clearly has the ability to pass” (130). 

References: 

Daniel, Bor. The Ravenous Brain: How the New Science of Consciousness Explains Our Insatiable Search for Meaning. New York: Basic, 2012. Print

Koerth-Baker, Maggie. "Kids (and Animals) Who Fail Classic Mirror Test May Still Have Sense of Self." Scientific American RSS. Nov 2010. Web