Abstract

Although genetically heterogeneous laboratory mice express individual differences in general cognitive ability (c.f., “intelligence”), it is unknown whether these differences are translated into behaviors that would promote survival. Here, genetically heterogeneous laboratory CD-1 mice were administered a series of cognitive tests from which their aggregate general cognitive ability was estimated. Subsequently, all animals were tested on nine (unlearned) tasks designed to assess behaviors that could contribute to survival in the wild. These tests included nest building (in the home and a novel environment), exploration, several indices of food finding, retrieval, and preference, and predator avoidance. Like general cognitive ability, a principal component analysis of these measures of survival-related behaviors (survival-readiness) yielded a general factor that accounted for ~25% of the variance of mice across all of the tasks. An aggregate metric of general cognitive ability predicted an aggregate metric of general survival-readiness (r = .64), suggesting that more intelligent animals would be more suited for survival in natural environments. The nature of the pattern of correlations between general cognitive ability and performance on individual tests of fitness (where tests conducted in previously unexplored contexts were more closely related to general cognitive ability) suggests the possibility that heightened attention (which is taxed in a novel environment) may be the common mediator of both of these classes of abilities, although other potential mediators are discussed. In total, these results suggest that performance on tasks that are explicitly intended to assess the likelihood of survival can be impacted by cognitive abilities.

Highlights

  • In response to the question “how do we know that our [IQ] tests are ‘good’ measures of intelligence?,” Wechsler (1944) wrote:“The only honest answer we can make is that our own experience has shown them to be so

  • We examined the correlations between general cognitive factor scores and each measure of survival-readiness to determine which, if any, of those individual behaviors were predicted by general cognitive ability

  • #61, low cognitive ability #29, high cognitive ability median. It had been noted by several authors (e.g., Burkart et al, 2016; Locurto, 2017) that measures of “intelligence” in non-human animals have suffered from the lack of independent verification of the impact of those measures on outcomes that were independent of the intelligence test itself

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In response to the question “how do we know that our [IQ] tests are ‘good’ measures of intelligence?,” Wechsler (1944) wrote:“The only honest answer we can make is that our own experience has shown them to be so. It is much more impressive that IQ test performance predicts outcomes that are not dependent on formal test-taking abilities, such as rank and performance ratings obtained in military service (Gottfredson, 2003), job performance ratings and satisfaction (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998), income and life-long earnings (Murray, 1998), and even such distantly related outcomes as the inverse relationship between IQ and racist beliefs (Dhont and Hodson, 2014), obesity (Richards et al, 2009), clinical depression (Gale et al, 2009), the likelihood of developing cancer, and even death by automobile accident (Leon et al, 2009) Given these observations, it is not surprising that IQ is directly related to longevity (Wilson et al, 2009). This list of outcomes predicted by performance on the IQ test has been necessarily truncated, but the predictive validity of IQ tests have been discussed more extensively elsewhere (e.g., Gottfredson, 1998, 2003)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call