Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Letter

Insight learning or shaping?

Johan Lind, Stefano Ghirlanda, and Magnus Enquist
  1. aCentre for the Study of Cultural Evolution Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden;
  2. bDepartment of Zoology Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden; and
  3. cDepartment of Psychology University of Bologna small Viale Berti-Pichat 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS July 14, 2009 106 (28) E76; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906120106
Johan Lind
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: johan.lind@zoologi.su.se
Stefano Ghirlanda
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Magnus Enquist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Bird and Emery (1) showed that rooks (Corvus frugilegus) can learn to manufacture and use tools to obtain food. They suggest that these behaviors emerge through insight and the authors touch upon a fundamental question in the study of animal intelligence: How can insight learning be separated from shaping?

Insight learning was defined by Thorpe (2) as “the sudden production of a new adaptive response not arrived at by trial behavior or as the solution of a problem by the sudden adaptive reorganization of experience.” An early claim of insight learning was Tolman's maze-navigating rats (3). But the exact nature of insight learning is elusive.

Shaping, developed by Skinner (4), is a powerful method in which novel behavior (target behavior) is created through successive reinforcement of behaviors, which become more and more similar to the target behavior.

Through shaping, animals can be taught impressive and novel behaviors. For example, dolphins can be taught to leave their trainer, swim in open water for miles to retrieve an object, and immediately return to their trainer. Bird and Emery used shaping when training their rooks. First, birds obtained food by just pushing a stone into the apparatus, which (according to the authors themselves) could have happened initially by accident. Then, stones were positioned in close proximity to the apparatus, and only as a final step, rooks had to fetch stones from the ground to the apparatus in order to obtain food. Additionally, the animals had learned in previous experiments to extract food from plastic tubes by pulling or pushing objects inside the tubes. Nevertheless, the use of shaping does not exclude insight.

Thorpe (2) failed to provide unambiguous criteria to distinguish insight learning from shaping, and to date we still rely upon verbal arguments rather than solid methodology. Hence, because the same behaviors, here tool production and tool use, can potentially arise both through insight learning and shaping, we emphasise that one cannot judge any experiment by its end result alone. One must focus on how the end result was achieved. It is impressive to watch rooks bending wires to fetch rewards. But this novel behavior should not be seen in isolation without taking the whole training sequence into account.

The capacity to form sameness and difference concepts was previously thought to be uniquely human. But now we know that even insects have this capacity (5). If shaping procedures become common in animal tool-use studies, then perhaps a large part of the animal kingdom will soon be considered capable of using tools. To understand tool use in animals, it is important to know what animals can achieve spontaneously.

It is clear that rooks are skilled learners. But to avoid ambiguous verbal arguments, we need a scale by which quantitative experiments can be judged rather than arguing about whether a behavior is attributed to shaping or insight learning. Thus, by replacing verbal arguments with a quantitative framework to evaluate both task complexity and animal behavior, we might understand whether Bird and Emery's rooks are unusually apt learners, and why. Perhaps we will discover that insight learning and operant conditioning are not unitary, mutually exclusive mechanisms, as it is maintained today.

Footnotes

  • 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: johan.lind{at}zoologi.su.se
  • Author contributions: J.L., S.G., and M.E. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bird CD,
    2. Emery NJ
    (2009) Insightful problem solving and creative tool modification by captive nontool-using rooks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:10370–10375.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Thorpe WH
    (1964) Learning and Instinct in Animals (Methuen, London).
  3. ↵
    1. Tolman EC,
    2. Honzik CH
    (1930) Insight in rats. Univ Calif Publ Psychol 4:215–232.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Peterson GB
    (2004) A day of great illumination: B. F. Skinner's discovery of shaping. J Exp Anal Behav 82:317–328.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Giurfa M,
    2. Zhang S,
    3. Jenett A,
    4. Menzel R,
    5. Srinivasan MV
    (2001) The concept of “sameness” and “difference” in an insect. Nature 2001 410:930–933.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Insight learning or shaping?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Insight learning or shaping?
Johan Lind, Stefano Ghirlanda, Magnus Enquist
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2009, 106 (28) E76; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0906120106

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Insight learning or shaping?
Johan Lind, Stefano Ghirlanda, Magnus Enquist
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2009, 106 (28) E76; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0906120106
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Related Articles

  • Reply to Lind et al.: Insight and learning
    - Jul 01, 2009
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 106 (28)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Smoke emanates from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant a few days after tsunami damage
Core Concept: Muography offers a new way to see inside a multitude of objects
Muons penetrate much further than X-rays, they do essentially zero damage, and they are provided for free by the cosmos.
Image credit: Science Source/Digital Globe.
Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Venus flytrap captures a fly.
Journal Club: Venus flytrap mechanism could shed light on how plants sense touch
One protein seems to play a key role in touch sensitivity for flytraps and other meat-eating plants.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Kuttelvaserova Stuchelova.
Illustration of groups of people chatting
Exploring the length of human conversations
Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Panda bear hanging in a tree
How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490