Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T21:16:15.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Imitation is not the “Holy Grail”of comparative cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 1998

M. D. Matheson
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 matheson@uga.cc.uga.edu doree@arches.uga.edu
D. M. Fragaszy
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 matheson@uga.cc.uga.edu doree@arches.uga.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

We commend Byrne & Russon for their effort to expand and clarify the concept of imitation by addressing the various levels of behavior organization at which it could occur. We are concerned, however, first about the ambiguity with which these levels are defined and second about whether there is any particular need for comparative cognition to keep focusing on imitation as an important intellectual faculty. We recommend stricter definitions of hierarchical behavioral levels that will lend themselves to operational definitions and continued study of how animal subjects organize their goal-directed behavior as opposed to whether it is or is not imitation.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press