photocredit: wkprc.eva.mpg.de
"German-American psychologist, one of the founders of Gestalt psychology with Kurt Koffka. Köhler gained fame with his studies on cognitive processing involved in problem-solving by animals. Köhler argued that animals do not learn everything through a gradual trial-and-error process, or stimulus-response association. His tests in Tenerife in the 1910s with chimpanzees suggested that these animals solved problems by understanding - like human beings, they are capable of insight learning, the "aha!" solutions to problems. Köhler also discovered with von Restoff the isolation effect in memory, contributed to the theory of memory and recall, and developed a non-associationist theory of the nature of associations.
"Sultan tries to reach the fruit with the smaller of the two sticks. Not succeeding, he tears at a piece of wire that projects from the netting of his cage, but that too is in vain... He suddenly picks up the little stick once more, goes up to the bars directly opposite the long stick, scratches it towards him with the "auxiliary," seizes it, and goes with it to the point opposite the objective (the fruit), which he secures."
(from The Mentality of Apes, 1925)
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/kohler.htm
The second aim is theoretical. Even assuming the anthropoid ape behaves intelligently in the sense in which the word is applied to man, there is yet from the very start no doubt that he remains in this respect far behind man, becoming perplexed and making mistakes in relatively simple situations; but it is precisely for this reason that we may, under the simplest conditions, gain knowledge of the nature of intelligent acts. The human seldom performs for the first time in his life tasks involving intelligence of so simple a nature that they can be easily investigated; and when in more complicated tasks men really find a solution, they can only with difficulty observe their own procedure. So one may be allowed the expectation that in the intelligent performances of anthropoid apes we may see once more in their plastic state processes with which we can no longer immediately recognize their original form: but which, because of their very simplicity, we should treat as the logical starting-point of theoretical speculation."
Excerpted from Wolfgang's Kohler's book The Mentality of Apes (1925).
http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/kohler2.htm
"The psychological phenomenon that most interested Köhler was insight or intelligence (“Einsicht”). Contrary to Thorndike and Pavlov who stated that learning by association (e.g., trial-and-error) was the only way animals could solve problems, Köhler believed that Chimpanzeess could find solutions to problems that were “…complete whole which may, in a certain sense, be absolutely appropriate to the situation.” The work of Thorndike and Watson, which in effect showed the learning process – and animals – to be dumb, was a reaction to overly generous interpretations of the problem-solving abilities of animals by naturalists at that time. Köhler’s work was in turn a reaction to the associationists’ dumbing-down of animals and mental processes. He applied the experimental method to the questions of animal intelligence; unlike the behaviourists to follow, he provided naturalistic problems for the animals to solve.
Köhler’s most well-known work on chimp cognition was in the use of tools to gain access to food. A chimp would have to stack boxes to reach a banana that was suspended out of reach, or insert a narrow stick into a thicker one to produce a tool long enough to reach food. While Köhler’s star chimp, Sultan, did not immediately put two shorter sticks together to make one long one, he worked on the sticks for over an hour. When they had fitted together, Sultan immediately used the new tool to retrieve the bananas. This solution demonstrates insight – recognizing the “problem space” – rather than foresight."
http://wkprc.eva.mpg.de/english/files/wolfgang_koehler.htm
Re: Thorndike and Köhler
"Thorndike tested large numbers of dogs and cats in order to see what there is in the wonder-stories that are told about these domestic pets. The result was very unfavourable to the animals, and Thorndike came to the conclusion that, so far from "reasoning," they do not even associate images with perception, as humans do, but remain limited chiefly to the experiential linking of mere "impulses" with perceptions. This investigation did what was necessary in a negative way at the time, but, as is now being shown (also in America), it went a little too far. The tests were based upon those animal stories, and consequently were made so difficult that the result was bound to fall out badly; under the influence of the animals’ failures in these tests, Thorndike then drew generalizations about their capacities, which do not follow from those difficult experiments. However stupid a dog may seem compared to a chimpanzee, we suggest that in such simple cases as have just been described, a closer investigation would be desirable.
Regarding their principle, I must make a further objection to Thorndike’s experiments. They were designed as intelligence tests of the same type as our own (insight or not?), and ought therefore, to have conformed to the same general conditions, and, above all, to have been arranged so as to be completely visible to the animals.
For if essential portions of the experimental apparatus cannot be seen by the animals, how can they use their intelligence faculties in tackling the situation?"
More?
Click:
http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/kohler1.htm
Note on Thorndike's Puzzle Box
"It was merely to put animals when hungry in enclosures from which they could escape by some simple act, such as pulling at a loop of cord, pressing a lever, or stepping on a platform. (A detailed description of these boxes and pens will be given later.) The animal was put in the enclosure, food was left outside in sight, and his actions observed. Besides recording his general behavior, special notice was taken of how he succeeded in doing the necessary act (in case he did succeed), and a record was kept of the time that he was in the box before performing the successful pull, or clawing, or bite. This was repeated until the animal had formed a perfect association between the sense-impression of the interior of that box and the impulse leading to the successful movement. When the association was thus perfect, the time taken to escape was, of course, practically constant and very short."
http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/thorn.htm
+
bravenet.com