Task Features Highlight Individual Differences in Tool Use by Capuchins

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Cummins-Sebree ◽  
Joseph D. Perazzo ◽  
Karly A. Branch ◽  
Dorothy M. Fragaszy
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Tool Use ◽  
Task Features

scholarly journals Are there geniuses among the apes?

2012 ◽  
Vol 367 (1603) ◽  
pp. 2753-2761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esther Herrmann ◽  
Josep Call
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Tool Use ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
General Intelligence ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Multiple Tasks ◽  
Multiple Species ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Factors Affecting Performance

We are often asked whether some apes are smarter than others. Here we used two individual-based datasets on cognitive abilities to answer this question and to elucidate the structure of individual differences. We identified some individuals who consistently scored well across multiple tasks, and even one individual who could be classified as exceptional when compared with her conspecifics. However, we found no general intelligence factor. Instead, we detected some clusters of certain abilities, including inferences, learning and perhaps a tool-use and quantities cluster. Thus, apes in general and chimpanzees in particular present a pattern characterized by the existence of some smart animals but no evidence of a general intelligence factor. This conclusion contrasts with previous studies that have found evidence of a g factor in primates. However, those studies have used group-based as opposed to the individual-based data used here, which means that the two sets of analyses are not directly comparable. We advocate an approach based on testing multiple individuals (of multiple species) on multiple tasks that capture cognitive, motivational and temperament factors affecting performance. One of the advantages of this approach is that it may contribute to reconcile the general and domain-specific views on primate intelligence.

Kinesthetic Aftereffects Day by Day: Trends, Task Features, Reliable Individual Differences

1973 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Weintraub ◽  
Gary S. Green ◽  
Thomas R. Herzog
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Task Features ◽  
Day By Day

scholarly journals Prototypical actions with objects are more easily imagined than atypical actions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R Madan ◽  
Adrian Ng ◽  
Anthony Singhal
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Everyday Life ◽  
Mental Imagery ◽  
Tool Use ◽  
Imagery Ability ◽  
Imagery Task ◽  
Novel Object ◽  
Movement Imagery ◽  
Objective Tests

Tool use is an important facet of everyday life, though sometimes it is necessary to use tools in ways that do not fit within their typical functions. Here we asked participants to imagine characters using objects based on instructions that fit the prototypical actions for the object or were atypical in a novel object-action imagery task. Atypical action instructions either described sensible, substitute uses of the object, or actions that were bizarre but possible. Participants were better able to imagine the prototypical than atypical actions, but no effect of bizarreness was found. We additionally assessed inter-individual differences in movement imagery ability using two objective tests. Performance in the object-action imagery task correlated with the movement imagery tests, providing a link between motor simulations and mental imagery ability.

Functional fixedness in tool use: Learning modality, limitations and individual differences

2018 ◽  
Vol 190 ◽  
pp. 11-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe Munoz-Rubke ◽  
Devon Olson ◽  
Russell Will ◽  
Karin H. James
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Tool Use ◽  
Functional Fixedness

scholarly journals If I told you everyone picked that (inefficient) tool, would you? Children attend to normative language when imitating and transmitting tool use

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cara J. DiYanni ◽  
Jennifer Marie Clegg ◽  
Kathleen H. Corriveau
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Tool Use ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Normative Language ◽  
Goal Completion ◽  
Within Subjects ◽  
The Impact

In this study, we extended research on children’s imitation by examining the impact of normativity on children’s decision about whether to imitate inefficient actions in the context of tool use. In particular, this study explored how conventional language (highlighting norms) versus instrumental language (highlighting a desired end-goal) influenced children’s imitation and transmission of the use of an inefficient tool to achieve a particular end-goal. Rather than examining children’s imitation of unnecessary actions that do not impede goal-completion, we examined children’s conformity with a modeled behavior that may result in sacrificing goal completion. Thus, the stakes of conforming with the stated norm were higher than when children are asked to imitate a series of unnecessary actions that may not impede achieving a designated goal. Children (N = 96 4- to 6-year-olds) were presented with either a conventional or instrumental description of a model’s actions before watching the model choose an inefficient tool. Results indicated that children who heard conventional language imitated the model’s inefficient tool choice and chose to teach a third party to use the inefficient tool at significantly higher rates than when they heard instrumental language. The use of a within-subjects design allowed us to confirm that descriptions that included conventional language impacted children’s imitation and transmission of inefficient tool use above and beyond individual differences in children’s baseline imitation rate. The results have implications for the extent to which children will conform with what “we” are “supposed” to do.

Individual Differences in Patterns of Spontaneous Online Tool Use

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie J. Shute ◽  
Kevin A. Gluck
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Tool Use ◽  
Online Tool

The challenge of accounting for individual differences in folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin C. Ruisch ◽  
Rajen A. Anderson ◽  
David A. Pizarro
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Individual Variation ◽  
Political Ideologies ◽  
Economic Beliefs ◽  
Existing Data

AbstractWe argue that existing data on folk-economic beliefs (FEBs) present challenges to Boyer & Petersen's model. Specifically, the widespread individual variation in endorsement of FEBs casts doubt on the claim that humans are evolutionarily predisposed towards particular economic beliefs. Additionally, the authors' model cannot account for the systematic covariance between certain FEBs, such as those observed in distinct political ideologies.

Individual differences, social attention, and the history of the social motivation hypotheses of autism

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Mundy
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Early Development ◽  
Emotional Development ◽  
Social Motivation ◽  
Social Attention ◽  
Social Emotional Development ◽  
Social Emotional ◽  
Precise Understanding ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of

Abstract The stereotype of people with autism as unresponsive or uninterested in other people was prominent in the 1980s. However, this view of autism has steadily given way to recognition of important individual differences in the social-emotional development of affected people and a more precise understanding of the possible role social motivation has in their early development.

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Beliefs

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.

Inter-individual variation shapes the human microbiome

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily F. Wissel ◽  
Leigh K. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Individual Variation ◽  
Human Microbiome ◽  
Individual Variability ◽  
Microbiota Composition ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Microbiome Research

Abstract The target article suggests inter-individual variability is a weakness of microbiota-gut-brain (MGB) research, but we discuss why it is actually a strength. We comment on how accounting for individual differences can help researchers systematically understand the observed variance in microbiota composition, interpret null findings, and potentially improve the efficacy of therapeutic treatments in future clinical microbiome research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document