On the psychological origins of tool use
•Tool use is ubiquitous in human life.•Six author groups respond to four questions on tool use in humans and nonhuman animals.•They differ in what they identify as tool use and the involved psychological processes.•None identified even a single psychological process that is specific to humans.•This...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 2022-03, Vol.134, p.104521-104521, Article 104521 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | •Tool use is ubiquitous in human life.•Six author groups respond to four questions on tool use in humans and nonhuman animals.•They differ in what they identify as tool use and the involved psychological processes.•None identified even a single psychological process that is specific to humans.•This discussion will foster a more comprehensive understanding of tool use.
The ubiquity of tool use in human life has generated multiple lines of scientific and philosophical investigation to understand the development and expression of humans’ engagement with tools and its relation to other dimensions of human experience. However, existing literature on tool use faces several epistemological challenges in which the same set of questions generate many different answers. At least four critical questions can be identified, which are intimately intertwined—(1) What constitutes tool use? (2) What psychological processes underlie tool use in humans and nonhuman animals? (3) Which of these psychological processes are exclusive to tool use? (4) Which psychological processes involved in tool use are exclusive to Homo sapiens? To help advance a multidisciplinary scientific understanding of tool use, six author groups representing different academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology, psychology, neuroscience) and different theoretical perspectives respond to each of these questions, and then point to the direction of future work on tool use. We find that while there are marked differences among the responses of the respective author groups to each question, there is a surprising degree of agreement about many essential concepts and questions. We believe that this interdisciplinary and intertheoretical discussion will foster a more comprehensive understanding of tool use than any one of these perspectives (or any one of these author groups) would (or could) on their own. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0149-7634 1873-7528 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104521 |