Causal Reasoning Versus Associative Learning: A Useful Dichotomy Or A Strawman Battle In Comparative Psychology?

The debate about whether or not one could/should ascribe reasoning abilities to animals has deep historical roots and seems very up-to-date in the light of the immense body of new empirical data originating from various species and research paradigms. Associative learning (AL) seems to be a ubiquitous low-level contender for any cognitive interpretation of animal behavior, mostly because of the assumed mechanistic simplicity and phylogenetic prevalence. However, the implicit assumption that AL is simple and therefore the most parsimonious mechanism to describe seemingly complex behavior can and must be questioned on various grounds. Using recent empirical findings with chimpanzees as an example, I argue that at times inferential reasoning might be the most likely candidate to account for performance differences between experimental and control conditions. Finally, a general conclusion drawn from the current debate(s) in the field of comparative psychology could be that a dichotomist battle of 2 conceptual camps-each of which is lacking a clear and homogeneous theoretical framework-is a scientific deadlock.