Generalized Relational Matching by Guinea Baboons ( Papio papio ) in Two-by-Two-Item Analogy Problems

Abstract

Analogical reasoning is considered the hallmark of human reasoning, but some studies have demonstrated that language- and symbol-trained chimpanzees can also reason analogically. Despite the potential adaptive value of this ability, evidence from other studies strongly suggests that other nonhuman primates do not have this capacity for analogical reasoning. In our three experiments, 6 of 29 baboons acquired the ability to perform a relational matching-to-sample (RMTS) task in which pairs of shapes composed relational displays. Five of these 6 monkeys then transferred this ability to RMTS tasks using novel exemplars of identity (elements in a pair are the same) and nonidentity (elements in a pair are different) relations. This transfer occurred even on trials in which the incorrect pair shared an element with the sample pair with which it was being compared. The baboons retained this ability 12 months later. The findings from our study of symbol-naive monkeys indicate that although language and symbol training facilitate conceptual thinking in nonhuman primates, such training is not a prerequisite for analogical reasoning.

Keywords

cognition cognitive processes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Blaisdell

A. P.

Cook

R. G.

(2005). Two-item same–different concept learning in pigeons. Learning & Behavior, 33, 67–77.

Cheney

D. L.

Seyfarth

R. M.

(2007). Baboon metaphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Christie

Gentner

(2007). Relational similarity in identity relation: The role of language. In Vosniadou

Kayser

(Eds.). Proceedings of the Second European Cognitive Science Conference (pp. 601–666). London, England: Taylor & Francis.

Cook

R. G.

Wasserman

E. A.

(2007). Learning and transfer of relational matching-to-sample by pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1107–1114.

Dasser

(1988). A social concept in Java monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 36, 225–230.

Fagot

Bonté

(2010). Automated testing of cognitive performance in monkeys: Use of a battery of computerized test systems by a troop of semi-free ranging baboons. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 507–512.

Fagot

Paleressompoulle

(2009). Automatic testing of cognitive performance in baboons maintained in social groups. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 396–404.

Fagot

Parron

(2010). Relational matching in baboons (Papio papio) with reduced grouping requirements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36, 184–193.

Fagot

Wasserman

E. A.

Young

M. E.

(2001). Discriminating the relation between relations: The role of entropy in abstract conceptualization by baboons (Papio papio) and humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 27, 316–328.

10.

Flemming

T. M.

Beran

M. J.

Washburn

D. A.

(2007). Disconnect in concept learning by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta): Judgment of relations and relations-between-relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 55–63.

11.

Flemming

T. M.

Thompson

R. K. R.

Beran

M. J.

Washburn

D. A.

(2011). Analogical reasoning and the differential outcome effect: Transitory bridging of the conceptual gap for rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 353–360.

12.

Flemming

T. M.

Thompson

R. K. R.

Fagot

(2011). Baboons, like humans, solve an analogical matching task by categorical abstraction of relations. Manuscript submitted for publication.

13.

Gentner

(2003). Why we’re so smart. In Gentner

Goldin-Meadow

(Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 195–235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

14.

Gillan

D. J.

Premack

Woodruff

(1981). Reasoning in the chimpanzee: I. Analogical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 7, 1–17.

15.

Premack

(1983). Animal cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 351–362.

16.

Premack

(2010). Why humans are unique: Three theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 22–32.

17.

Schusterman

R. J.

Kastak

(1998). Functional equivalence in a California sea lion: Relevance to animal social and communicative interactions. Animal Behaviour, 55, 1087–1095.

18.

Thompson

R. K. R.

Oden

D. L.

(1996). A profound disparity revisited: Perception and judgment of abstract identity relations by chimpanzees, human infants, and monkeys. Behavioural Processes, 35, 149–161.

19.

Thompson

R. K. R.

Oden

D. L.

(2000). Categorical perception and conceptual judgments by nonhuman primates: The paleological monkey and the analogical ape. Cognitive Science, 24, 363–396.

20.

Thompson

R. K. R.

Oden

D. L.

Boysen

S. T.

(1997). Language-naïve chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) judge relations between relations in a conceptual matching-to-sample task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23, 31–43.

21.

Wasserman

E. A.

Fagot

Young

(2001). Same-different conceptualization by baboons (Papio papio): The role of entropy. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 42–52.

22.

Wasserman

E. A.

Hugart

J. A.

Kirkpatrick-Steger

(1995). Pigeons show same-different conceptualization after training with complex visual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 21, 248–252.

23.

Young

M. E.

Wasserman

E. A.

(1997). Entropy detection by pigeons: Response to mixed visual displays after same-different discrimination training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23, 157–170.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB