Osiurak and Reynaud (O&R) provide a novel and interesting perspective on the cognitive basis of cumulative technological culture (CTC). They argue that humans' enhanced capacity for technical-reasoning – the ability to reason about the causal function of physical objects – is the driving force behind CTC, providing the causal knowledge needed for cumulative technological development. The paper highlights the need for a cognitive approach to understanding cumulative culture, with a particular focus on technical (causal) reasoning. The article presents a detailed account of how technical-reasoning underpins human tool innovation – which in turn facilitates CTC.
Innovation has been extensively studied across multiple disciplines, including, among others, psychology, archeology, anthropology, zoology, business studies, and economics. Measures of innovation vary across disciplines, from individual problem-solving challenges to accruement of patents and industry awards. The authors, in using Ramsey et al.'s (Reference Ramsey, Bastian and van Schaik2007) definition, adopt the traditional cultural evolution approach to innovation, in which it is treated as an exclusively asocial process, devoid of influence from social information; “Innovation can be defined as the generation of a novel learned behavior that is not the consequence of social learning or environmental induction (Ramsey et al. Reference Ramsey, Bastian and van Schaik2007)” (sect. 2.2.4, para. 1).
Although there is some variation in definitions of innovation across fields, it is typically required that an innovation should be novel and valuable (criterion used in the definition of the target article). Innovations should also be transmitted to others, a social component, as a marker of their value (Muthukrishna & Henrich Reference Muthukrishna and Henrich2016), a criterion not applied by O&R.
We, thus, comment on the definition of innovation used, and suggest that O&R's account would be strengthened by considering the contribution social learning makes to innovation at the individual and group levels. Specifically, explicitly distinguishing individual-level asocial innovations from socially-mediated innovations – a distinction gaining increasing traction – would help understand how each form contributes to cumulative culture. This would also allow investigation of whether technical-reasoning underpins independent invention and innovations based on modifying others' products. Additionally, because cumulative culture depends upon innovations being faithfully transmitted to others, researchers should consider the wider social contexts involved in the successful uptake of innovations by others. Throughout our commentary, we focus on the development of tool innovation to illustrate our points.
Innovation can be investigated at both individual and group levels. At the individual level, for instance, developmental psychologists examining the ontogeny of tool innovation typically assess this through the presentation of a novel puzzle which participants must individually solve. A widely used example is the “Hook Task,” whereby children must fashion a pipecleaner into a hook shape to retrieve an out of reach reward (Beck et al. Reference Beck, Williams, Cutting, Apperly and Chappell2016). Arguably, the most notable result from previous research using this task is that children, across cultures, find asocially solving this relatively simple problem markedly difficult. Performance improves with age, but it is not until around early adolescence when the majority children consistently solve these types of asocial tool-use problems.
Yet, asocial problem-solving tasks by nature prohibit investigation of socially-mediated innovations. There has been a recent shift within cultural evolution studies to incorporate the role of social information during some (potentially most) innovations (Carr et al. Reference Carr, Kendal and Flynn2016; Muthukrishna & Henrich Reference Muthukrishna and Henrich2016). This conceptualization delineates asocial innovation (termed innovation-by-invention), from innovations arising from modifying, combining, or refining previously witnessed tool-behaviors (termed innovation-by-modification), such as an incorrectly-sized hook (Cutting et al. Reference Cutting, Apperly, Chappell and Beck2019). The former, which may be relatively rare, might arise from particularly gifted individuals or serendipitous events, whereas the latter, likely to be more frequent, involves modifying the behaviors or output of others, thereby incorporating some form of social learning.
The distinction between asocial- and socially-mediated innovations is necessary because each may differentially contribute to cultural evolution and thus to CTC (Carr et al. Reference Carr, Kendal and Flynn2016). Innovation-by-invention forms the basis for diversification of cultural technology, whereas cumulative technological progression depends upon the modification of existing technology. That is, technological advances are typically not the product of a sole inventor, but through incremental modifications of others' output. Experimental work has begun to indicate that each form of innovation may have different developmental trajectories (Carr et al. Reference Carr, Kendal and Flynn2015; Cutting et al. Reference Cutting, Apperly, Chappell and Beck2019), potentially signifying they may be supported by different cognitive mechanisms. Thus, we encourage O&R to delineate innovations arising from asocial invention and those based on modifying the output of others. This would also allow further investigation of the developmental trajectory and cognitive underpinnings (including the role technical-reasoning plays) in each form of innovation.
At the group level, there is a need to examine how innovations spread throughout populations.
Humans' vast cultural diversity is because of our capacity to acquire and transmit innovations (Legare & Nielsen Reference Legare and Nielsen2015). Cumulative technological progression is contingent on the social transmission of novel behaviors, and successful diffusion throughout a population is indicative of an innovation's value, and the producer's sense of others' need for innovations. Thus, innovations are inherently social and should be examined as such (Turner & Flynn Reference Turner, Flynn, Obhi and Cross2016). To fully understand human cumulative culture, there is a need to examine, in unison, asocially- and socially-mediated innovations, and their subsequent social diffusion. Psychologists are now well placed to employ experimental and observational techniques to examine how individuals perceive and adopt novel behaviors from others, group level characteristics more conducive to successful diffusion, and the cognitive mechanisms involved in the successful uptake others' innovations.
Human CTC is fundamental to our species' cultural diversity; diversity purportedly maintained through social learning and innovation. Innovation has traditionally been represented as independent invention, and research has targeted determining characteristics of so-called innovators and the contexts which promote successful innovation. Yet, in contrast to claims that innovation is an asocial endeavor, we argue that innovation is inherently social – it typically involves modification of the outputs of others and successful innovations are socially transmitted to others. Both the individual and group approaches to examining innovation are interesting and crucial avenues of investigation. The more these approaches are integrated, the more scientific value they hold.
Osiurak and Reynaud (O&R) provide a novel and interesting perspective on the cognitive basis of cumulative technological culture (CTC). They argue that humans' enhanced capacity for technical-reasoning – the ability to reason about the causal function of physical objects – is the driving force behind CTC, providing the causal knowledge needed for cumulative technological development. The paper highlights the need for a cognitive approach to understanding cumulative culture, with a particular focus on technical (causal) reasoning. The article presents a detailed account of how technical-reasoning underpins human tool innovation – which in turn facilitates CTC.
Innovation has been extensively studied across multiple disciplines, including, among others, psychology, archeology, anthropology, zoology, business studies, and economics. Measures of innovation vary across disciplines, from individual problem-solving challenges to accruement of patents and industry awards. The authors, in using Ramsey et al.'s (Reference Ramsey, Bastian and van Schaik2007) definition, adopt the traditional cultural evolution approach to innovation, in which it is treated as an exclusively asocial process, devoid of influence from social information; “Innovation can be defined as the generation of a novel learned behavior that is not the consequence of social learning or environmental induction (Ramsey et al. Reference Ramsey, Bastian and van Schaik2007)” (sect. 2.2.4, para. 1).
Although there is some variation in definitions of innovation across fields, it is typically required that an innovation should be novel and valuable (criterion used in the definition of the target article). Innovations should also be transmitted to others, a social component, as a marker of their value (Muthukrishna & Henrich Reference Muthukrishna and Henrich2016), a criterion not applied by O&R.
We, thus, comment on the definition of innovation used, and suggest that O&R's account would be strengthened by considering the contribution social learning makes to innovation at the individual and group levels. Specifically, explicitly distinguishing individual-level asocial innovations from socially-mediated innovations – a distinction gaining increasing traction – would help understand how each form contributes to cumulative culture. This would also allow investigation of whether technical-reasoning underpins independent invention and innovations based on modifying others' products. Additionally, because cumulative culture depends upon innovations being faithfully transmitted to others, researchers should consider the wider social contexts involved in the successful uptake of innovations by others. Throughout our commentary, we focus on the development of tool innovation to illustrate our points.
Innovation can be investigated at both individual and group levels. At the individual level, for instance, developmental psychologists examining the ontogeny of tool innovation typically assess this through the presentation of a novel puzzle which participants must individually solve. A widely used example is the “Hook Task,” whereby children must fashion a pipecleaner into a hook shape to retrieve an out of reach reward (Beck et al. Reference Beck, Williams, Cutting, Apperly and Chappell2016). Arguably, the most notable result from previous research using this task is that children, across cultures, find asocially solving this relatively simple problem markedly difficult. Performance improves with age, but it is not until around early adolescence when the majority children consistently solve these types of asocial tool-use problems.
Yet, asocial problem-solving tasks by nature prohibit investigation of socially-mediated innovations. There has been a recent shift within cultural evolution studies to incorporate the role of social information during some (potentially most) innovations (Carr et al. Reference Carr, Kendal and Flynn2016; Muthukrishna & Henrich Reference Muthukrishna and Henrich2016). This conceptualization delineates asocial innovation (termed innovation-by-invention), from innovations arising from modifying, combining, or refining previously witnessed tool-behaviors (termed innovation-by-modification), such as an incorrectly-sized hook (Cutting et al. Reference Cutting, Apperly, Chappell and Beck2019). The former, which may be relatively rare, might arise from particularly gifted individuals or serendipitous events, whereas the latter, likely to be more frequent, involves modifying the behaviors or output of others, thereby incorporating some form of social learning.
The distinction between asocial- and socially-mediated innovations is necessary because each may differentially contribute to cultural evolution and thus to CTC (Carr et al. Reference Carr, Kendal and Flynn2016). Innovation-by-invention forms the basis for diversification of cultural technology, whereas cumulative technological progression depends upon the modification of existing technology. That is, technological advances are typically not the product of a sole inventor, but through incremental modifications of others' output. Experimental work has begun to indicate that each form of innovation may have different developmental trajectories (Carr et al. Reference Carr, Kendal and Flynn2015; Cutting et al. Reference Cutting, Apperly, Chappell and Beck2019), potentially signifying they may be supported by different cognitive mechanisms. Thus, we encourage O&R to delineate innovations arising from asocial invention and those based on modifying the output of others. This would also allow further investigation of the developmental trajectory and cognitive underpinnings (including the role technical-reasoning plays) in each form of innovation.
At the group level, there is a need to examine how innovations spread throughout populations.
Humans' vast cultural diversity is because of our capacity to acquire and transmit innovations (Legare & Nielsen Reference Legare and Nielsen2015). Cumulative technological progression is contingent on the social transmission of novel behaviors, and successful diffusion throughout a population is indicative of an innovation's value, and the producer's sense of others' need for innovations. Thus, innovations are inherently social and should be examined as such (Turner & Flynn Reference Turner, Flynn, Obhi and Cross2016). To fully understand human cumulative culture, there is a need to examine, in unison, asocially- and socially-mediated innovations, and their subsequent social diffusion. Psychologists are now well placed to employ experimental and observational techniques to examine how individuals perceive and adopt novel behaviors from others, group level characteristics more conducive to successful diffusion, and the cognitive mechanisms involved in the successful uptake others' innovations.
Human CTC is fundamental to our species' cultural diversity; diversity purportedly maintained through social learning and innovation. Innovation has traditionally been represented as independent invention, and research has targeted determining characteristics of so-called innovators and the contexts which promote successful innovation. Yet, in contrast to claims that innovation is an asocial endeavor, we argue that innovation is inherently social – it typically involves modification of the outputs of others and successful innovations are socially transmitted to others. Both the individual and group approaches to examining innovation are interesting and crucial avenues of investigation. The more these approaches are integrated, the more scientific value they hold.
Financial support
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant number 1730678).
Conflict of interest
None.