Adaptability, learning and information processing are significant contributors to ‘general intelligence’. The ability to adapt is undoubtedly an important element of intelligence, yet criticisms exist as to whether it alone can define intelligence. Being able to adapt to a host of situations is an incredibly valuable skill, and without it, survival is inevitably more difficult. Warren (1973) suggests that assumptions made about the link between adaptability and intelligence have formed the basis of much comparative psychology over the last century. Changing one’s behaviour based on an experience is a broad definition of learning; it’s integral to survival, and those quick to learn in both the animal and human world are seen to be some of the most intelligent among us. Measuring learning has been the subject of a multitude of experiments, and has found interesting results that suggest certain parallels between species. Skard (1950) compared the number of trials taken to learn a complex maze, and found no difference between humans and rats; Warren (1965) also found that in a simple discrimination task, no difference existed between goldfish, chickens, horses, cats and rhesus monkeys. Whilst this research suggests speed of learning is similar amongst humans and animals, Angermeiser (1984) found human infants to be the slowest learners in comparison with ten other types of animals. These results imply that speed of learning is not the most accurate of descriptions of intelligence; it seems unlikely that many would try to argue that bees were more intelligent than humans, and it ignores any other aspect of learning such as depth, length and application. Method of testing appears to have a great influence on the results found; further research into valid testing methods seems wise, yet is plagued with criticism: “Intelligence is what is measured by intelligence tests.” (Boring, 1923).
Comparing information processing capacities is another way of defining general intelligence. All of us, animal and human, are subjected to a huge amount of information every day; we do not process all of it, but select the most useful elements. Lacking this skill would result in learning very little about the world, and having a high level of it would certainly contribute to what we think of as high intelligence. This definition of intelligence provides us with another means of testing similarities and differences between humans and animals, and whether the phrase ‘general intelligence’ can really be extended to the cognition of animals. Kettner & Thompson (1982) investigated the electrical activity of rabbits’ cerebellums during a learning task, and Macphail (1993) illustrates how the hippocampus and amygdala are important for animals to measure time. Hendersen (1985) found support for long-term memory in rats: no significant difference was found for shock avoidance when comparing immediate testing with testing two months later after conditioning. Much research has shown there to be definite similarities between memory processes in a range of animals including pigeons, chimpanzees and honey-bees (Roberts & Van Veldhuizen, 1985; Menzel, 1978, and Brown & Demas, 1994). This research implies a certain level of intelligence is apparent in animals, and similarities exist between species, though its parallels to humans are not clear.
One aspect of humans’ intellect that sets itself apart from other species is the ability to communicate effectively and with sophistication. Chomsky (1957), Macphail (1993) and Pinker (1994) have all argued language’s exclusivity to humans, yet differing levels of communication are seen to exist across species. Honey-bees are said to demonstrate the most complex form of communication other than human, performing a difference type of dance to indicate location of food (Pearce, 2000), and almost all mammals use clear body language to show aggression, submission and a range of emotions. Not only expressing language, but interpreting it must be evidence of a certain level of intellect. However, body language is far from the level of communication demonstrated by humans, so can it truly be called an aspect of intelligence? Several attempts have been made to teach animals human language, or something close; Gardner & Gardner (1969) successfully taught a chimpanzee 132 words in North American sign language, who then taught their child 22 of those signs. This is considerable evidence for cognitive ability to learn languages and communicate effectively. However, this level is demonstrated only in apes: the closest animal to humans, and therefore not necessarily representative of animal cognition across species. Other levels of understanding language have been shown to exist in dogs and dolphins, even to the point of applying syntactic rules to new arm signals (Herman, Richards & Wolz, 1984). This suggests that some animals do possess more than just being able to represent instinctual needs, and that language comprehension does exist in some animals, implying a potential measurable intelligence.
There is an undeniable difference in the intelligence of animals and the intelligence of humans, although experimental methods do not seem to be able to quantify this difference. Animals do seem to be able to process a variety and depth of information, and their speed of learning can even exceed that of a human. Animals do appear to have some level of intelligence, certainly in particular forms such as learning, memory and the ability to form social relationships, yet our ability to process complex stimuli, reason, adapt and learn is far more advanced. Much of this research can be incredible useful in the study of human cognition, even if direct comparison is sometimes difficult. Without any conclusive definition, it seems likely that the study of general intelligence and its application to animal cognition will continue to be a point of debate and interest for some time.
Word count: 1300
References
Anastasi, A. (1992). What counselors should know about the use and interpretation of
psychological tests. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70(5), 610-615
Angermeier, W.F. (1984). The evolution of operant learning and memory. Basel:
Karger.
Boring, E. (1923). Intelligence as the test tests it. New Republic, 6, 35.
Brown, M.F. & Demas, G.E. (1994) Evidence for spatial working memory in
honeybees. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 344-352.
Gardner, R.A., & Gardner, B.T. (1969). Teaching sign language to a chimpanzee.
Science, 165, 664-672.
Hendersen, R.W. (1985). Fearful memories: The motivational significance of
forgetting. In F.R. Brush & J.B. Overmier (Eds.), Affect, conditioning, and
cognition: Essays on the determinants of behaviour (pp.43-53). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Herman, L.M., Richards, D.G., & Wolz, J.P. (1984) Comprehension of sentences by
the bottlenosed dolphin. Animal Learning and Behaviour, 10, 22-34.
Kettner, R.E., & Thompson, R.F. (1982) Auditory signal detection and decision
processes in the nervous system. Journal of Comparative and Physiological
Psychology, 96, 328-331.
Macphail, E.M. (1993) The neuroscience of animal intelligence. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Menzel, E.W. (1978). Cognitive mapping in chimpanzees. In S.H. Hulse, H. Fowler,
& W.K. Honig (Eds.), Cognitive processes in animal behaviour (pp.375-422).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Penguin.
Roberts, W.A., & Van Veldhuizen, N. (1985), Spatial memory in pigeons on the
radial maze. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal behaviour
processes, 11, 241-260.
Skard, O. (1950). A comparison of human and animal learning in the Stone multiple
T-maze. Acta Psychologica, 7, 89-109.
Sternberg, R.J. (2000). Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambrige University
Press
Boring, E.G. (1923). Intelligence as the tests test it. New Republic, 35, 35-37.
Pearce, J.M. (2000) Animal learning and cognition (3rd ed.). Psychology Press.
Warren, J.M. (1965). Primate learning in comparative perspective. In A.M. Schrier,
H.F. Harlow, & F.Stollnitz (Eds.), Behaviour of nonhuman primates: Modern research trends (pp.249-281). New York: Academic Press.
Warren, J.M. (1973) Learning in vertebrates. In D.A. Dewsbury & D.A
Rethlingshafer (Eds.), Comparative psychology: A modern survey (pp.471-509). New York: McGraw-Hill.
