Reasoning in the chimpanzee: I. Analogical reasoning.

Abstract

Analogical reasoning in a 16-yr-old female chimpan7.ee (Sarah) was studied in five experiments. The general design of the analogy problems was where same was Sarah's plastic symbol for "same." Sarah solved analogy problems with two types of displays: (a) forced choice, in which she had to complete an analogy by choosing the correct B' from a set of alternatives (Experiments IA, In, and 3A) and (b) same-different, in which she had to complete an analogy by choosing the correct predicate, Same or Different (Experiments 2 and JB). In addition, she correctly solved both figural analogy problems, in which the stimuli were geometric figures and the relations among them were differences in size, color, or marking (Experiments IA, In, and 2), and conceptual analogy problems, in which the stimuli were household objects and the relations were functional and spatial (Experiments 3A and 3n). Simple mechanisms for problem solution, e.g., physical matching, feature combination, and choice on the basis of association, were ruled out. The data strongly indicate that Sarah used the relation between A and A' to solve the analogy problems (Experiment IB). The implications for theories of human and animal cognition are discussed.Are there cognitive abilities that are and for Thorndike, reasoning was the pi ii unique to humans? Most influential nineteenth pal cognitive difference between hum century theorists proposed that reasoning and nonhumans. In contrast, a few e; was restricted to humans (e.g., Hohhouse, theorists suggested that nonhumun anin

Concept Learning in Animals

“…Early evidence of Sarah's capacity for making analogical judgments was reflected in her performance on formal analogical problems involving geometric forms and functional relationships between everyday objects (Gillan, Premack, & Woodruff, 1981). Additional evidence of this animal's capacities for analogical problem solving with geometric forms included not only the completion of partially constructed analogies, but also the spontaneous undirected construction of analogies from geometric elements (Oden, Thompson, & Premack, 2001).…”

“…Sarah successfully completed the target relation by choosing from two alternative forms the one that produced an analogy. Sarah further demonstrated her capacity in the Gillan et al (1981) study by both judging and completing analogical relations based on the functional properties of objects, such as their capacity to open or to mark other objects. For example, a can opener holds the same functional relation to a can of vegetables as does a key to a padlock.…”

“…For example, a can opener holds the same functional relation to a can of vegetables as does a key to a padlock. Gillan et al (1981) interpreted Sarah's performance on both geometric and functional analogy problems as evidence of her ability to establish the higher-order analogical relationships "same" or "different" between the two sides of the analogy by first comparatively assessing the lower-order relationships within each side and then comparing them. However, as described in Oden et al (2001), at least some of Sarah's apparent analogical-based performances could have been achieved by less sophisticated strategies, including, for example, featural matching rules and similarity, if not identity, judgments.…”

“…Oden et al (2001) further explored the boundaries of Sarah's analogical reasoning capacities in a series of experiments that again used simple geometric forms. In two of the four conditions of this study, Sarah had to complete partially constructed analogies from either two or three alternatives, similar to the task used by Gillan et al (1981). In the other two conditions, Sarah had to construct analogical relations by placing geometric forms from a randomized group of four or five alternatives onto the initially empty display board.…”

“…In an early set of experiments, Gillan et al (1981) presented Sarah with four simple geometric forms placed on a display board in a 2 x 2 format (as shown in Figure 9). The two items on the left-hand side instantiated the base relation and the two items on the right-hand side instantiated the target relation, which was either the same as or different from that of the base relation.…”