Advertisement

Are apes essentialists? Scope and limits of psychological essentialism in great apes

Abstract

Human reasoning is characterized by psychological essentialism (Gelman in The essential child: origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press, New York, 2003): when reasoning about objects, we distinguish between deep essential properties defining the object’s kind and identity, and merely superficial features that can be changed without altering the object’s identity. To date, it is unclear whether psychological essentialism is based on the acquisition of linguistic means (such as kind terms) and therefore uniquely human, or whether it is a more fundamental cognitive capacity which might be present also in the absence of language. In the present study, we addressed this question by testing whether, and if so, under which circumstances non-human apes also rely on psychological essentialism to identify objects. For this purpose, we adapted classical verbal transformation scenarios used in research on psychological essentialism (Keil in Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1989) and implemented them in two nonverbal tasks: first, a box task, typically used to test object individuation (Experiment 1), and second, an object choice task, typically used to test object discrimination, object preferences and logical inferences (Experiments 2–4). Taken together, the results of the four experiments suggest that under suitable circumstances (when memory and other task demands are minimized), great apes engage in basic forms of essentialist reasoning. Psychological essentialism is thus possible also in the absence of language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Anderson JR, Sallaberry P, Barbier H (1995) Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by capuchin monkeys. Anim Behav 49:201–208

  2. Bräuer J, Call J (2011) The magic cup: great apes and domestic dogs individuate objects according to their properties. J Comp Psychol 125:353–361

  3. Cacchione T, Schaub S, Rakoczy H (2013) Fourteen-month-old infants infer the continuous identity of objects on the basis of non-visible causal properties. Dev Psychol 49:1325–1329

  4. Cohen J, Cohen P (1983) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, New Jersey

  5. Deak GO (2006) Do children really confuse appearance and reality? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:546–550

  6. DeLoache J (2000) Dual representation and young children’s use of scale models. Child Dev 71:329–338

  7. Fontanari L, Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2011) Object individuation in 3-day-old chicks: use of property and spatiotemporal information. Dev Sci 14:1235–1244

  8. Fontanari L, Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2014) Use of kind information for object individuation in young domestic chicks. Anim Cogn 17:925–935

  9. Gelman SA (2003) The essential child: origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press, New York

  10. Gelman SA, Markman EM (1986) Categories and induction in young children. Cognition 23:183–209

  11. Gelman SA, Markman EM (1987) Young children’s inductions from natural kinds: the role of categories and appearances. Child Dev 58:1532–1541

  12. Gelman SA, Wellman HM (1991) Insides and essences: early understandings of the non-obvious. Cognition 38:213–244

  13. Gottfried GM, Gelman SA (2005) Developing domain-specific causal-explanatory frameworks: the role of insides and immanence. Cognitive Development 20:137–158

  14. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH (1964) Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science 146:549–551

  15. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH, Cable C (1976) Natural concepts in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 2:285–302

  16. Keil FC (1982) Intelligence and the rest of cognition. Intelligence 6:1–21

  17. Keil FC (1989) Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. MIT Press, Cambridge

  18. Krachun C, Call J, Tomasello M (2009) Can chimpanzees distinguish appearance from reality? Cognition 112:435–450

  19. Kripke S (1972) Naming and necessity. In: Davidson D, Harman G (eds) Semantic of natural language. Reidel, Dordrecht

  20. Krøjgaard P (2004) A review of object individuation in infancy. Br J Dev Psychol 22:159–183

  21. Medin D (1989) Concepts and conceptual structure. Am Psychol 44:1469–1481

  22. Medin D, Ortony A (1989) Psychological essentialism. In: Vosniadou S, Ortony A (eds) Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 179–195

  23. Mendes N, Rakoczy H, Call J (2008) Ape metaphysics: object individuation without language. Cognition 106:730–749

  24. Mendes N, Rakoczy H, Call J (2011) Primates do not spontaneously use shape properties for object individuation: a competence or a performance problem? Anim Cogn 14:407–414

  25. Needham A, Baillargeon R (2000) Infants’ use of featural and experiential information in segregating and individuating objects: a reply to Xu, Carey, and Welch (1999). Cognition 74:255–284

  26. Newman GE, Herrmann P, Wynn K, Keil FC (2008) Biases towards internal features in infants’ reasoning about objects. Cognition 107:420–432

  27. Pepperberg IM (2013) Abstract concepts: data from a Grey parrot. Behav Process 93:82–90

  28. Phillips W, Santos LR (2007) Evidence for kind representations in the absence of language: experiments with rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Cognition 102:455–463

  29. Phillips W, Shankar M, Santos LR (2010) Essentialism in the absence of language? Evidence from rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Dev Sci 13:F1–F7

  30. Putnam H (1975) The meaning of meaning. In: Putnam H (ed) Mind, language and reality. Cambridge University Press, London

  31. Quine WVO (1960) Word and object. MIT Press, Cambridge

  32. Rakoczy H, Cacchione T (2014) The developmental and evolutionary origins of psychological essentialism lie in sortal object individuation. Behav Brain Sci 37:500–501

  33. Sanchez A, Pereto M, Call J (2016) Differences in between-reinforcer value modulate the selective-value effect in great apes (Pan troglodyes, P. paniscus, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo abelii). J Comp Psychol 130(1):1–12

  34. Santos LR, Sulkowski GM, Spaepen GM, Hauser MD (2002) Object individuation using property/kind information in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Cognition 83:241–264

  35. Seed A, Seddon E, Greene B, Call J (2012) Chimpanzees ‘folk physics’: bringing failures into focus. Philos Trans R Soc B 367:2743–2752

  36. Shutts K, Condry KF, Santos LR, Spelke ES (2009) Core knowledge and its limits: the domain of food. Cognition 112:120–140

  37. Uller C, Carey S, Hauser M, Xu F (1997) Is language needed for constructing sortal concepts? A study with nonhuman primates. In: Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University conference on language development. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, pp 665–677

  38. van de Walle GA, Carey S, Prevor M (2000) Bases for object individuation in infancy: evidence from manual search. J Cogn Dev 1:249–280

  39. Xu F (2002) The role of language in acquiring object kind concepts in infancy. Cognition 85:223–250

  40. Xu F (2005) Categories, kinds, and object individuation in infancy. In: Gershkoff-Stowe G, Rakison D (eds) Building object categories in developmental time. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 63–89

  41. Xu F (2007) Language acquisition and concept formation: count nouns and object kinds. In: Gaskell G (ed) Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 627–634

  42. Xu F, Baker A (2005) Object individuation in 10-month-old infants using a simplified manual search method. J Cogn Dev 6:307–323

  43. Xu F, Carey S, Quint N (2004) The emergence of kind-based object individuation in infancy. Cogn Psychol 49:155–190

  44. Yerkes RM, Dodson JD (1908) The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. J Comp Neurol Psychol 18:459–482

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Trix Cacchione.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 14317 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 15057 kb)

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 14317 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 15057 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cacchione, T., Hrubesch, C., Call, J. et al. Are apes essentialists? Scope and limits of psychological essentialism in great apes. Anim Cogn 19, 921–937 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-0991-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Object individuation
  • Essentialism
  • Comparative cognition
  • Categorization
  • Conceptual development