Author
Listed:
- Nick A R Jones
- Kirstin Gaffney
- Giacomo Gardella
- Annie Rowe
- Helen C Spence-Jones
- Amelia Munson
- Tom M Houslay
- Mike M Webster
Abstract
The “cognitive styles” hypothesis suggests that individual differences in behavior are associated with variation in cognitive performance via underlying speed-accuracy trade-offs. While this is supported, in part, by a growing body of evidence, some studies did not find the expected relationships between behavioral type and cognitive performance. In some cases, this may reflect methodological limitations rather than the absence of a true relationship. The physical design of the testing arena and the number of choices offered in an assay can hinder our ability to detect inter-individual differences in cognitive performance. Here, we re-investigated the cognitive styles hypothesis in threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), adapting the maze design of a previous study which found no cost to decision success by faster (bolder) individuals. We used a similar design but increased the size of the maze and incorporated an additional choice in the form of a third maze arm. We found, in accordance with cognitive style expectations, that individuals who were consistently slower to emerge from the start chamber made fewer errors than fish that emerged faster. Activity in an open field test, however, did not show evidence of a relationship with decision success, possibly due to the low number of repeated observations per fish in this separate assay. Our results provide further empirical support for the cognitive styles hypothesis and highlight important methodological aspects to consider in studies of inter-individual differences in cognition.
Suggested Citation
Nick A R Jones & Kirstin Gaffney & Giacomo Gardella & Annie Rowe & Helen C Spence-Jones & Amelia Munson & Tom M Houslay & Mike M Webster, 2025.
"A reinvestigation of cognitive styles in sticklebacks: decision success varies with behavioral type,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 36(1), pages 1-13.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:36:y:2025:i:1:p:1-13.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:36:y:2025:i:1:p:1-13.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.