Comparing the performances of apes (Gorilla gorilla, Pan troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus) and human children (Homo sapiens) in the floating peanut task.

Daniel Hanus, Natacha Mendes, Claudio Tennie, Josep Call
Author Information
  1. Daniel Hanus: Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. hanus@eva.mpg.de

Abstract

Recently, Mendes et al. [1] described the use of a liquid tool (water) in captive orangutans. Here, we tested chimpanzees and gorillas for the first time with the same "floating peanut task." None of the subjects solved the task. In order to better understand the cognitive demands of the task, we further tested other populations of chimpanzees and orangutans with the variation of the peanut initially floating or not. Twenty percent of the chimpanzees but none of the orangutans were successful. Additional controls revealed that successful subjects added water only if it was necessary to obtain the nut. Another experiment was conducted to investigate the reason for the differences in performance between the unsuccessful (Experiment 1) and the successful (Experiment 2) chimpanzee populations. We found suggestive evidence for the view that functional fixedness might have impaired the chimpanzees' strategies in the first experiment. Finally, we tested how human children of different age classes perform in an analogous experimental setting. Within the oldest group (8 years), 58 percent of the children solved the problem, whereas in the youngest group (4 years), only 8 percent were able to find the solution.

References

  1. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Aug 27;364(1528):2405-15 [PMID: 19620111]
  2. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2006 Jan;32(1):91-6 [PMID: 16435969]
  3. Cognition. 2003 Sep;89(2):133-55 [PMID: 12915298]
  4. Anim Cogn. 2008 Jul;11(3):449-56 [PMID: 18204869]
  5. Anim Cogn. 2006 Jul;9(3):193-9 [PMID: 16612632]
  6. Biol Lett. 2007 Oct 22;3(5):453-5 [PMID: 17609175]
  7. Psychol Sci. 2005 Jan;16(1):1-5 [PMID: 15660843]
  8. Folia Primatol (Basel). 1990;54(1-2):86-99 [PMID: 2157651]
  9. J Comp Psychol. 2005 Feb;119(1):23-32 [PMID: 15740427]
  10. PLoS One. 2010 May 12;5(5):e10544 [PMID: 20485684]
  11. Child Dev. 2001 Jul-Aug;72(4):1032-53 [PMID: 11480933]
  12. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Aug 27;364(1528):2417-28 [PMID: 19620112]
  13. Z Tierpsychol. 1967 Oct;24(4):476-89 [PMID: 5597717]
  14. Anim Cogn. 2009 Mar;12(2):209-16 [PMID: 18766391]
  15. J Exp Psychol. 1952 Oct;44(4):288-91 [PMID: 13000071]
  16. Science. 2002 Aug 9;297(5583):981 [PMID: 12169726]
  17. J Hum Evol. 1999 Jun;36(6):719-41 [PMID: 10330335]
  18. Nature. 1964 Mar 28;201:1264-6 [PMID: 14151401]
  19. Curr Biol. 2006 Feb 21;16(4):378-83 [PMID: 16488871]
  20. Anim Cogn. 2008 Jul;11(3):423-30 [PMID: 18183433]

MeSH Term

Animals
Arachis
Child
Child, Preschool
Cognition
Female
Gorilla gorilla
Hominidae
Humans
Male
Pan troglodytes
Pongo pygmaeus
Tool Use Behavior

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0taskorangutanstestedchimpanzeespeanutpercentsuccessfulchildrenwaterfirstsubjectssolvedpopulationsfloatingexperimentExperimenthumangroup8yearsRecentlyMendesetal[1]describeduseliquidtoolcaptivegorillastime"floating"NoneorderbetterunderstandcognitivedemandsvariationinitiallyTwentynoneAdditionalcontrolsrevealedaddednecessaryobtainnutAnotherconductedinvestigatereasondifferencesperformanceunsuccessful12chimpanzeefoundsuggestiveevidenceviewfunctionalfixednessmightimpairedchimpanzees'strategiesFinallydifferentageclassesperformanalogousexperimentalsettingWithinoldest58problemwhereasyoungest4ablefindsolutionComparingperformancesapesGorillagorillaPantroglodytesPongopygmaeusHomosapiens

Similar Articles

Cited By (44)