Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T22:43:58.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Three ingredients for becoming a creative tool user

from Part I - Cognition of tool use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

By
Josep Call
Edited by
Crickette M. Sanz ,
Josep Call  and
Christophe Boesch
Josep Call
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Crickette M. Sanz
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Josep Call
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie, Germany
Christophe Boesch
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie, Germany
Get access

Summary

The bird approaches the transparent vertically oriented tube and looks down its opening with apparent interest. Then it looks at the tube from the side and walks around the tube to look down into the opening with one scrutinizing eye once more. There is a worm located at the bottom of the tube, beyond the bird’s reach. After a few seconds, the bird steps away from the tube, picks up a stick with its beak and inserts it down the tube’s opening. Once inside, it grabs the tool again and applies downward pressure on it so that the tool dislodges the platform that is keeping the worm inside the bottom of the tube. The worm drops free from the bottom of the tube to be picked up by the bird, which quickly flies away.

Observations like this pose a double challenge to researchers in the field of comparative cognition. The first challenge is to explain why some species can come up with innovative solutions while others facing the same situation do not do so. For instance, pigeons presented with the same task as crows and left to their own devices may be incapable of producing the same solution, even after hours of exposure to the same problem. One possible explanation for this outcome is that this crow species, unlike the pigeons, may have a strong predisposition to using tools since this has offered it an adaptive advantage. In fact, the crow is in all likelihood a New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides), well known for their propensity and dexterity at making and using tools to extract embedded food from substrates. The fascinating thing is that the above description is not about a New Caledonian crow, but a distantly related cousin, the rook (Corvus frugilegus). Rooks, unlike New Caledonian crows, do not usually use tools in this way, but they can do so in the laboratory, as Bird and Emery (2009) discovered. This revelation poses a second challenge to comparative researchers: How are rooks solving this problem? What cognitive mechanisms are responsible for the observed behavior and what experiences are necessary for this clever solution to emerge? Since all species are endowed with associative learning mechanisms, a key question to be explained is where interspecific differences come from. Nowhere is this challenge so acute as in the area of tool use in animals.

Type
Chapter
Information
Tool Use in Animals
Cognition and Ecology
 , pp. 3 - 20
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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

Birch, H. G. (1945). The relation of previous experience to insightful problem-solving. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 38, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird, C. D. & Emery, N. J. (2009). Insightful problem solving and creative tool modification by captive nontool using rooks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 106, 10370–10375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bräuer, J., Kaminski, J., Riedel, J., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Making inferences about the location of hidden food: social dog – causal ape. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120, 38–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruner, J. S. (1972). Nature and uses of immaturity. American Psychologist, 27, 687–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burghardt, G. M. (2006). The Genesis of Animal Play: Testing the Limits. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Call, J. (2004). Inferences about the location of food in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118, 232–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Call, J. (2006). Descartes’ two errors: reasoning and reflection from a comparative perspective. In Hurley, S. & Nudds, M. (eds.) Rational Animals (pp. 219–234). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Call, J. & Tomasello, M. (2007). Comparing the gestural repertoire of apes. In Call, J. & Tomasello, M. (eds.) The Gestural Communication of Apes and Monkeys (pp. 197–220). New York: LEA.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. E. (1986). The role of insight in giftedness. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.) Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 201–223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. E. (1995). The suddenness of insight. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.) The Nature of Insight (pp. 125–156). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dominowski, R. L. & Dallob, P. (1995). Insight and problem solving. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.) The Nature of Insight (pp. 33–62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Duncker, K. (1945). On Problem Solving. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Ellen, P. & Pate, J. L. (1986). Is insight merely response chaining? A reply to Epstein. Psychological Record, 36, 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, R. (1987). The spontaneous interconnection of four repertoires of behavior in a pigeon (Columba livia). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 101, 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, R., Kirshnit, C., Lanza, R. P. & Rubin, L. (1984). “Insight” in the pigeon: antecedents and determinants of an intelligent performance. Nature, 308, 61–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Girndt, A., Meier, T. & Call, J. (2008). Task constraints mask great apes’ ability to solve the trap-table task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 54–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Hammerschmidt, K. & Fischer, J. (2008). Constraints in primate vocal production. In Oller, K. & Griebel, U. (eds.) The Evolution of Communicative Creativity: From Fixed Signals to Contextual Flexibility (pp. 93–120). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hanus, D., Mendes, N., Tennie, C. & Call, J. (in press). Comparing the performances of apes (Gorilla gorilla, Pan troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus) and humans (Homo sapiens) in the floating peanut task. PLoS ONE.
Haun, D. B. M., Call, J., Janzen, G. & Levinson, S. C. (2006). Evolutionary psychology of spatial representations in the Hominidae. Current Biology, 16, 1736–1740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinrich, B. (1999). Mind of the Raven. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
Hunt, G. R. (1996). Manufacture and use of hook-tools by New Caledonian crows. Nature, 379, 249–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katona, G. (1940). Organizing and Memorizing: Studies in the Psychology of Learning and Teaching. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Köhler, W. (1925). The Mentality of Apes. New York: Liverright.Google Scholar
Köhler, W. (1969). The Task of Gestalt Psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Macphail, E. M. (1987). The comparative psychology of intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 645–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, N. R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans II: the solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12, 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, N. R. F. & Schneirla, T. C. (1935). Principles of Animal Psychology. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Maltzman, I. (1955). Thinking: from a behaviorist point of view. Psychological Review, 62, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marín Manrique, H. & Call, J. (2011). Spontaneous use of tools as straws in great apes. Animal Cognition, 14, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marín Manrique, H., Gross, A. N. & Call, J. (2010). Great apes select tools based on their rigidity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36, 409–422.Google Scholar
Marín Manrique, H., Sabbatini, G., Call, J. & Visalberghi, E. (in press). Tool choice on the basis of rigidity in capuchin monkeys. Animal Cognition.
Mayer, R. E. (1995). The search for insight: grappling with Gestalt psychology’s unanswered questions. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.) The Nature of Insight (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mendes, N., Hanus, D. & Call, J. (2007). Raising the level: orangutans use water as a tool. Biology Letters, 3, 453–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulcahy, N. J., Call, J. & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2005). Gorillas and orangutans encode relevant problem features in a tool-using task. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, K. P. (1976). Man the Tool-maker. 6th edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Parker, S. T. & Gibson, K. R. (1979). A developmental model for the evolution of language and intelligence in early hominids. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 367–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pepperberg, I. M. (1999). The Alex Studies: Cognitive and Communicative Abilities of Grey Parrots. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (ed.) (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: Norton.CrossRef
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. & Laland, K. N. (2002). Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 99, 4436–4441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roby-Brami, A., Hermsdörfer, J., Roy, A. C. & Jacobs, S. (2012). A neuropsychological perspective on the link between language and praxis in modern humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 367, 118–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seed, A. & Call, J. (2009). Causal knowledge for events and objects in animals. In Watanabe, S., Blaisdell, A. P., Huber, L. & Young, A. (eds.) Rational Animals, Irrational Humans (pp. 173–188). Tokyo: Keio University.Google Scholar
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
Seed, A., Hanus, D. & Call, J. (in press). Causal knowledge in corvids, primates and children: more than meets the eye? In McCormack, T. (ed.) Tool Use and Causal Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seifert, C. M., Meyer, D. E., Davidson, N., Patalano, A. L. & Yaniv, I. (1995). Demystification of cognitive insight: opportunistic assimilation and the prepared-mind perspective. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.) The Nature of Insight (pp. 65–124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selz, O. (1913). Uber die Gesetze des geordneten Denkverlaufs. Stuttgart: W. Spemann.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. H., Elliffe, D., Hunt, G. R. & Gray, R. D. (2010). Complex cognition and behavioural innovation in New Caledonian crows. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. .CrossRef
Thorpe, W. H. (1963). Learning and Instinct in Animals. London: Methuen and Co.Google Scholar
Torigoe, T. (1985). Comparison of object manipulation among 74 species of non-human primates. Primates, 26, 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S. C., Mikheenko, Y. P., Argyle, L. D., Robbins, T. W. & Roberts, A. C. (2006). Selective prefrontal serotonin depletion impairs acquisition of a detour-reaching task. European Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 3119–3123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weir, A. A. S., Chappell, J. & Kacelnik, A. (2002). Shaping of hooks in New Caledonian crows. Science, 297, 981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Creativity: Genius and Other Myths. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive Thinking. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive Thinking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wimpenny, J. H., Weir, A. A. S., Clayton, L., Rutz, R. & Kacelnik, A. (2009). Cognitive processes associated with sequential tool use in New Caledonian crows. PLoS ONE, 4, e6471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimpenny, J. H., Weir, A. A. S. & Kacelnik, A. (2011). New Caledonia crows use tools for non-foraging activities. Animal Cognition, 14, 459–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×