Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:43:52.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence from convergent evolution and causal reasoning suggests that conclusions on human uniqueness may be premature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2012

Alex H. Taylor  and
Nicola S. Clayton
Alex H. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom. [email protected] Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. [email protected]
Nicola S. Clayton
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We agree with Vaesen that there is evidence for cognitive differences between humans and other primates. However, it is too early to draw firm conclusions about the uniqueness of the cognitive mechanisms underlying human tool use. Tests of causal understanding are in their infancy, as is the study of animals more distantly related to humans.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , August 2012 , pp. 241 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Bugnyar, T., Schwab, C., Schloegl, C., Kotrschal, K. & Heinrich, B. (2007) Ravens judge competitors through experience with play caching. Current Biology 17:1804–808.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Call, J. & Tomasello, M. (2008) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends in Cognitive Science 20:1478–84.Google Scholar
Clayton, N. S. & Dickinson, A. (1998) Episodic-like memory during cache recovery by scrub jays. Nature 395:272–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emery, N. J. & Clayton, N. S. (2001) Effects of experience and social context on prospective caching strategies in scrub jays. Nature 414:443–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hare, B., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. (2001) Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Animal Behaviour 61(1):139–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, G. R. (1996) Manufacture and use of hook-tools by New Caledonian crows. Nature 379(6562):249–51. doi: 10.1038/379249a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, G. R. & Gray, R. D. (2004) The crafting of hook tools by wild New Caledonian crows. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271(Suppl.):S88–S90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulcahy, N. J. & Call, J. (2006a) How great apes perform on a modified trap-tube task. Animal Cognition 9:193–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penn, D. C. & Povinelli, D. J. (2007b) On the lack of evidence that non-human animals possess anything remotely resembling a “theory of mind.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362:731–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. & Povinelli, D. J. (2008) Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31(2):109–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raby, C. R., Alexis, D. M., Dickinson, A. & Clayton, N. S. (2007) Planning for the future by Western Scrub-Jays. Nature 445:919–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmelz, M., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. (2011) Chimpanzees know that others make inferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:17284–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seed, A. M., Call, J., Emery, N. J. & Clayton, N. S. (2009) Chimpanzees solve the trap problem when the confound of tool-use is removed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 35:23–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Silva, F. J., Page, D. M. & Silva, K. M. (2005) Methodological-conceptual problems in the study of chimpanzees' folk physics: How studies with adult humans can help. Learning and Behavior 33:47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A., Elliffe, D., Hunt, G. & Gray, R. (2010) Complex cognition and behavioural innovation in New Caledonian crows. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277(1694):2637–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, A. H., Hunt, G. R., Medina, F. S., Gray, R. D. (2009a) Do New Caledonian crows solve physical problems through causal reasoning? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:247–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, A. H., Hunt, G. R., Roberts, R., Gray, R. D. (2009b) Causal reasoning in New Caledonian crows: Ruling out spatial analogies and sampling error. Communicative & Integrative Biology 2:311–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tebbich, S. & Bshary, R. (2004) Cognitive abilities related to tool use in the woodpecker finch, Cactospiza pallida . Animal Behaviour 67:689–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visalberghi, E. & Limongelli, L. (1994) Lack of comprehension of cause–effect relations in tool-using capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Comparative Psychology 108(1):15–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vonk, J. & Povinelli, D. J. (2006) Similarity and difference in the conceptual systems of primates: The unobservability hypothesis. In: Comparative cognition: Experimental explorations of animal intelligence, ed. Wassermann, E. M. & Zentall, T. R., pp. 363–87. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar