Animal Intelligence: The Theories Of Thorndike And Köhler
Intelligence is one of the great concepts studied by psychology and, furthermore, one of the most difficult to explain. Intellect being a defining capacity of the human being, It is difficult to trace its evolutionary roots and, therefore, come to understand how its biological bases originated in our species. However, it is not true that the intellectual capacity we have has come from nowhere, and this is also manifested in studies of other species with which we have common ancestors: the so-called research on animal intelligence.
The ability to mentally create simple scenes in which problems can be solved virtually, also called insight ability, is also typical of some recently evolved animals. The foundations of intelligent behavior can be found, therefore, in other species contemporary to ours. Regarding the study of animal intelligence, two of the leading psychologists are Wolfgang Köhler associated with the psychology of Gestalt and Edward Thorndike behavioral psychologist.
First of all, we must clarify the object of study of both Kölher and Thorndike. The first of them wants to verify to what extent intelligent behaviors exist in animals, especially in anthropoids, but specifies that their level of intelligence is behind that of human beings in terms of insight capacity. The second of them, Thorndike, highlights the object of his study as a process described in terms of laws of association. Therefore, while Köhler focuses on the qualitative leaps that occur in the animal’s behavior when solving a problem (explained by the fact of come “suddenly” to the resolution of a problem thanks to the power of insight), Thorndike explains problem solving in animals as a cumulative process of repetitions.
Referring to Thorndike, we highlight his special interest in the knowledge of sensory faculties, phenotypes, reactions and representational links established by experience when studying animal intelligence. According to him, the word “association” can encompass a multitude of different processes that manifest themselves in multiple contexts. Thus, For Thorndike, association not only does not mark the limits of rational behavior, but is the substrate of it as it is the mechanism by which certain animals adapt to the environment in the best possible way For this reason, it discards the negative connotations of a word linked to laboratory scope
Kölher, however, considers that there is no associationist psychologist who in his impartial observations does not distinguish and contrast non-intelligent behaviors on the one hand and non-intelligent behaviors on the other. This is why when Thorndike, after his research with cats and chickens, mentions that “nothing in his behavior seems intelligent,” Kölher considers that whoever formulates the results in these terms should be more flexible in its definition of animal intelligence
The method
For Thorndike’s object of study, that is, interpreting the ways of animals, he constructed a study method based on the mediation of temporal progress curves These curves of progress in the formation of “correct” associations, calculated from the records of the animal’s times in successive trials, are absolute facts. He considers them good representations of the progress in the formation of the association because they account for two essential factors: the disappearance of all activity except that which leads to success and the realization of this last activity in a precise and voluntary way
The place
The medium for this type of analysis was the laboratory, since it allowed variables to be isolated as much as possible. As for the animals under his study, he mainly used cats, but also chickens and dogs, to determine the ability and time it took for these animals to construct a set of actions that were sufficiently effective to achieve their goals, that is, to achieve the food or what the researcher showed them through the bars of the box.
Kölher, despite occasionally using chickens and dogs as experimental subjects to study animal intelligence, focuses his attention on anthropoids. For these, he constructs a complicated geometry of movements so that the animals reach their objective, which is located so that it would be visually identified by the anthropoids. He also considers of utmost importance the fact that the behaviors of these animals must be continually observed, for which he carries out a good observation-based analysis Kölher believes that only by causing insecurity and perplexity in chimpanzees through slight modifications of the problem can we study the constant adaptation to circumstances that is manifested through intelligent action.
Thorndike concluded that the starting point for the association is the set of instinctive activities activated at the moment when the animal feels uncomfortable in the cage, either because of confinement or because of a desire for food. In this way one of the movements present in the varied behavioral repertoire of the animal would be selected for success The animal then associates certain impulses that have led to success with the feeling of confinement, and these “useful” impulses are strengthened through the association.
Kölher, in addition to his idea of the importance of geometric conditions, took into account that Chance can lead animals to privileged and unequal positions since sometimes it can happen that a series of coincidences lead the animal directly to the goal, masking the entire process as a display of animal intelligence. This leads him to the conclusion that The more complex the work to be done, the lower the probability of a solution by chance He also believes that the experiment becomes more difficult when a part of the problem, if possible the most important one, is not visible from the starting point, but only known by experience. This is why he considers the complexity of the problem and consequently the discrimination between behaviors determined by chance and intelligent behaviors important.
The critics
Kölher had some objections to Thorndike’s experiments. The main one was his criticism of Thorndike’s idea that in animals no idea emanates from perception from which to work mentally to solve a problem (as it does in humans), but they were simply limited to establishing connections between experiences. Köler, however, talks about the insight capacity of many animals, the property of being able to suddenly arrive at the solution to a problem through the mental representation of what is happening in the environment.
In turn, Thorndike denied that in the animal there is a consciousness of the available ideas or impulses, and therefore also denied the possibility that animal association is identical to the association of human psychology. From this position, denied the existence of animal intelligence
Kölher, however, affirms that intelligent behaviors do exist, at least in anthropoids, even though they are inferior to that of human beings. This lower level of insight of non-human animals is fundamentally explained by the lack of the ability to create language and the limitation in the repertoire of possible ideas, which remain linked to the concrete and the immediate environment.
