Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:56:51.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowing psychological disposition might help to find innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2007

Gyula K. Gajdon
Gyula K. Gajdon
Affiliation:
Department for Neurobiology and Cognition Research, University of Vienna, A-1090 Vienna, Austria; [email protected]://www.nc.univie.ac.at/index.php?id=7246 Konrad Lorenz Institute for Ethology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, A-1160 Vienna, Austria.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ramsey et al.'s article provides a more sensitive framework for comparative innovation than others' operationalisations have done. Nevertheless, a methodology has to be elaborated in order to determine to what degree a behaviour is novel. Psychological processes have to be considered when evaluating the value of reference groups and in order to figure out where to look for innovation.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , August 2007 , pp. 409 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bischof, N. (1985) Das Rätsel Oedipus: Die biologischen Wurzeln des Urkonfliktes von Intimität und Autonomie. Piper.Google Scholar
Caro, T. M. & Hauser, M. D. (1992) Is there teaching in nonhuman animals? The Quarterly Review of Biology 67:151–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fairbanks, L. A. (1993). Risk-taking by juvenile vervet monkeys. Behaviour 124:57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairbanks, L. A. & McGuire, M. T. (1993) Maternal protectiveness and response to the unfamiliar in vervet monkeys. American Journal of Primatology 30:119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gajdon, G. K., Fijn, N. & Huber, L. (2004) Testing social learning in a wild mountain parrot, the kea (Nestor notabilis). Learning and Behavior 32:62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gajdon, G. K., Fijn, N. & Huber, L. (2006) Limited spread of innovative behaviour in wild kea, Nestor notabilis. Animal Cognition 9:173–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haemig, P. D. (1989) A comparative experimental study of exploratory behavior in Santa Cruz Island and mainland California scrubjays, Aphelocoma coerulescens. Bird Behavior 8:32–42.Google Scholar
Kummer, H. & Goodall, J. (1985) Conditions of innovative behaviour in primates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 308:203–14.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, L. & Bolhuis, J. (2003) Positive and negative correlates of feeding innovations in birds: Evidence for limited modularity. In: Animal innovation, ed. Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, L., Gaxiola, A., Dawson, S., Timmermans, S., Rosza, L. & Kabai, P. (1998) Feeding innovations and forebrain size in Australian birds. Behaviour 135:1077–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettke-Hofmann, C., Ebert, C., Schmidt, T., Steiger, S. & Stieb, S. (2005a) Personality traits in resident and migratory warbler species. Behaviour 142:1357–75.Google Scholar
Mettke-Hofmann, C., Winkler, H. & Leisler, B. (2002) The significance of ecological factors for exploration and neophobia in parrots. Ethology 108:249–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermans, S., Lefebvre, L., Boire, D. & Basu, P. (2000) Relative size of the hyperstriatum ventrale is the best predictor of feeding innovation rate in birds. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 56: 196–203.Google Scholar