Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1339–1346 | Cite as

Baboons (Papio papio), but not humans, break cognitive set in a visuomotor task

  • Sarah M. Pope
  • Adrien Meguerditchian
  • William D. Hopkins
  • Joël FagotEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Cognitive set can be both helpful and harmful in problem solving. A large set of similar problems may be solved mechanically by applying a single-solution method. However, efficiency might be sacrificed if a better solution exists and is overlooked. Despite half a century of research on cognitive set, there have been no attempts to investigate whether it occurs in nonhuman species. The current study utilized a nonverbal, computer task to compare cognitive set between 104 humans and 15 baboons (Papio papio). A substantial difference was found between humans’ and baboons’ abilities to break cognitive set. Consistent with previous studies, the majority of humans were highly impaired by set, yet baboons were almost completely unaffected. Analysis of the human data revealed that children (aged 7–10) were significantly better able to break set than adolescents (11–18) and adults (19–68). Both the evolutionary and developmental implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Cognitive set Baboons Einstellung Problem solving Strategies Comparative 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the staff of the CNRS Station de Primatologie (Rousset, France), especially Romain Lacoste and Jean-Christophe Marin, for technical assistance. Marianne Jover and Gérard Meguerditchian are acknowledged for their help in the pilot study. We thank the Zoo Atlanta staff, especially our staff liason Joseph Mendelson, for help and hospitality. S. Pope is funded by the Chateaubriand Fellowship from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development as well as Georgia State University’s Second Century Initiative Primate Social Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior fellowship. A Meguerditchian is funded by the French National Ambassy Agency (ANR “LangPrimate”) Grant reference ANR-12-PDOC-0014_01. W. Hopkins is funded by National Institutes of Health grants: NS-73134 and HD-60563. J. Fagot is funded by the Premilang2″ ANR Grant ANR-13-BSH2-0002-01.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that this research was conducted with no financial, commercial, or other pursuits, which could be construed as potential conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10071_2015_904_MOESM1_ESM.png (40 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PNG 39 kb)

References

  1. Aftanas MS, Koppenaal RJ (1962) Effects of instructional problems and jar position variation on the water-jar Einstellung test. Psychol Rep 10:359–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beilock SL, DeCaro MS (2007) From poor performance to success under stress: working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. J Exp Psychol Learn 33:983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilalić M, McLeod P, Gobet F (2008) Why good thoughts block better ones: the mechanism of the pernicious Einstellung effect. Cognition 108:652–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Conway CM, Christiansen MH (2001) Sequential learning in non-human primates. Trends Cogn Sci 5:539–546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Crooks NM, McNeil NM (2009) Increased practice with ‘set’ problems hinders performance on the water jar task. In: Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Amsterdam, the Netherland, July 29-1. http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2009/papers/114/Index.html
  6. Cunningham JD (1965) Einstellung rigidity in children. J Exp Child Psychol 2:237–247Google Scholar
  7. Deruelle C, Fagot J (1998) Visual search for global/local stimulus features in humans and baboons. Psychon Bull Rev 5:476–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duncker K, Lees LS (1945) On problem-solving. Psychol Monogr 58(5):iGoogle Scholar
  9. Fagot J, Bonté E (2010) Automated testing of cognitive performance in monkeys: use of a battery of computerized test systems by a troop of semi-free-ranging baboons (Papio papio). Behav Res Methods 42:507–516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fagot J, De Lillo C (2011) A comparative study of working memory: immediate serial spatial recall in baboons (Papio papio) and humans. Neuropsychologia 49:3870–3880CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fagot J, Paleressompoulle D (2009) Automatic testing of cognitive performance in baboons maintained in social groups. Behav Res Methods 41:396–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Henderson KB, Pingry RE (1953) Problem-solving in mathematics. In: Fehr HF (ed) The learning of mathematics its theory and practice. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, pp 228–270Google Scholar
  13. Horner V, Whiten A (2005) Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Anim Cogn 8:164–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Janzen HL, Maguire TO, Boersma FJ (1976) A developmental analysis of set patterns in children: a normative study. In: Proceedings of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, California, 19–23 April. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED124861
  15. Luchins AS (1942) Mechanization in problem solving: the effect of Einstellung. Psychol Monogr 54:1–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luchins AS, Luchins EH (1950) New experimental attempts at preventing mechanization in problem solving. J Gen Psychol 42:279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miles C, Morgan MJ, Milne AB, Morris EDM (1996) Developmental and individual differences in visual memory span. Curr Psychol 15:53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Ohshiba N (1997) Memorization of serial items by Japanese monkeys, a chimpanzee, and humans. Jpn Psychol Res 39:236–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rohrer D, Taylor K (2006) The effects of overlearning and distributed practise on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Appl Cogn Psych 20:1209–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL (1969) Artifact in behavioral research, vol 121. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Ruscio AM, Amabile TM (1999) Effects of instructional style on problem-solving creativity. Creat Res J 12:251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stoet G, Snyder LH (2003) Executive control and task-switching in monkeys. Neuropsychologia 41:1357–1364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sweller J, Levine M (1982) Effects of goal specificity on means–ends analysis and learning. J Exp Psychol Learn 8:463-474Google Scholar
  25. Thomason ME, Race E, Burrows B, Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Glover GH, Gabrieli JD (2009) Development of spatial and verbal working memory capacity in the human brain. J Cogn Neurosci 21:316–332PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah M. Pope
    • 1
    • 2
  • Adrien Meguerditchian
    • 2
    • 3
  • William D. Hopkins
    • 1
    • 4
  • Joël Fagot
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Neuroscience Institute and Language Research CenterGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Laboratory of Cognitive Psychology, CNRSAix Marseille UniversityMarseille Cedex 3France
  3. 3.Brain and Language Research InstituteMarseilleFrance
  4. 4.Division of Developmental and Cognitive NeuroscienceYerkes National Primate Research CenterAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations