Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:39:09.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Objectivism should not be a casualty of innovation's operationalization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2007

Rachel L. Kendal ,
Lewis Dean  and
Kevin N. Laland
Rachel L. Kendal
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3HN, United Kingdom; [email protected]://www.dur.ac.uk/anthropology/staff/profiles/?id=5444
Lewis Dean
Affiliation:
School of Biology, St. Andrews University, St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9TS, United Kingdom. [email protected]@st-andrews.ac.ukhttp://lalandlab.st-andrews.ac.uk/
Kevin N. Laland
Affiliation:
School of Biology, St. Andrews University, St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9TS, United Kingdom. [email protected]@st-andrews.ac.ukhttp://lalandlab.st-andrews.ac.uk/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We agree with Ramsey et al. regarding the need for new methods and concepts in the study of innovation, and welcome their initiative, but are concerned that their operationalization is over-reliant on subjective judgements.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , August 2007 , pp. 413 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Kendal, R. L., Coe, R. L. & Laland, K. N. (2005) Age differences in neophilia, exploration and innovation in family groups of callitrichid monkeys. American Journal of Primatology 66:167–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laland, K. N. & Janik, V. (2006) The animal cultures debate. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21(10):542–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laland, K. N., Kendal, J. R. & Kendal, R. L. (in press) Animal culture: Problems and solutions. In: The question of animal culture, ed. Laland, K. N. & Galef, B. G. Jr. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laland, K. N. & Reader, S. M. (1999) Foraging innovation in the guppy. Animal Behaviour 57:331–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lefebvre, L., Reader, S. M. & Sol, D. (2004) Brains, innovations and evolution in birds and primates. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 63(4):233–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morand-Ferron, J., Lefebvre, L., Reader, S. M., Sol, D. & Elvin, S. (2004) Dunking behaviour in Carib grackles. Animal Behaviour 68:1267–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolakakis, N. & Lefebvre, L. (2000) Forebrain size and innovation rate in European birds: Feeding, nesting and confounding variables. Behaviour 137:1415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reader, S. M. (2006) Brain size in primates as a function of behavioral innovation. In: Evolution of nervous systems, vol. V: The evolution of primate nervous systems, ed. Preuss, T. M. & Kaas, J. H., pp. 261–66. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N. (2001) Primate innovation: Sex, age and social rank differences. International Journal of Primatology 22:787–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reader, S. M. (2002) Social intelligence, innovation and enhanced brain size in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99:4436–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reader, S. M. (2003a) Animal innovation: An introduction. In: Animal innovation, ed. Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N., pp. 3–35. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N., eds. (2003b) Animal innovation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar