The fittest fiddle: Researchers study violinevolution via function and fancy17 November 2015

UI researchers say behavior, particularly psychologistEdward Thorndike’s law of effect, is the foundationalprinciple behind the evolution of the violin and otherhandmade inventions. Simply put, behaviors that arefollowed by positive outcomes tend to be repeated.Credit: ©istockphoto.com/Susan Chiang

It's tempting to believe the violin was created in themind's eye of its most famous craftsmen: theAmati, Stradivari, and Guarneri families.

After all, the beloved musical instrument is a thingof beauty. Art, you might say.

But researchers at the University of Iowa say it'stime to take a radically new look at the evolution ofthe violin—and other inventions, for that matter.

They agree with two recent and widely publicizedphysical science reports that found trial anderror—not intelligent or creative design—areresponsible for the evolution of the instrument overhundreds of years. In those cases, the scientistslikened the evolution of the violin to the evolution ofspecies: survival of the fittest fiddle.

The UI researchers, however, say a basic law of

behavior—psychologist Edward Thorndike's law ofeffect—is the foundational principle behind theevolution of the violin, not the law of naturalselection. Simply put, behaviors that are followedby positive outcomes tend to be repeated.

So, over time, luthiers—people who make violinsand other stringed instruments—unwittingly inchedtoward reproducing violins that sounded better orwere deemed, by others, to be more beautiful.

"Violin sound holes may have increased in lengthover several hundred years because they producedmore volume, but violin makers didn't consciouslyknow that and plan those increases," says EdWasserman, a psychology professor at the UI andcoauthor of the paper. "There were likely to havebeen random variations in sound holes during theconstruction process, and those violins with longersound holes were then more likely to have beenfavored by customers because of their superioracoustic properties."

The paper, "Evolution of the Violin: The Law ofEffects in Action" appeared Nov. 17 in the Journalof Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning andCognition and is a review and theoretical analysisof two other recent studies about the samesubject—one by MIT professor Nicholas Makris andthe other by Dan Chitwood, a researcher at theDonald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis,Missouri.

For their studies, the scientists examined changesin the physical attributes of the violin over time,such as its overall shape and the size of its soundholes.

Then, the UI researchers turned their attention tothe luthiers.

"Those papers were physical science reportsbeautifully detailing construction details of earlyviolins," Wasserman says. "They suggested that

1 / 3

the biological law of natural selection might provideinsights into their results, but they were utterlyunaware of a much better interpretive account: thebehavioral law of effect."

In their paper, Wasserman and co-author PatrickCullen, a UI undergraduate majoring in biology,argue: "Violins did not evolve; rather, the behaviorof the violin makers evolved. Once the matter isproperly rephrased, it must be appreciated that anyreal insights into the changing shape of violins willcome only when we can explain how and why violinmakers changed their methods of fabrication."

For Cullen, the paper provides an opportunity to"broaden our world view."

"By that, I mean that by thinking abut thedevelopment of these man-made objects in thecontext of the law of effect, we realize that we arenot actually that different from the natural worldaround us, despite our impressive achievements,"he explains.

Both the law of natural selection and the law ofeffect play out over an extended period of time.

"Measurable changes in the violin spanned thelifetimes of many violin makers," says Ralph R.Miller, distinguished professor of psychology at theState University of New York at Binghamton andeditor of Journal of Experimental Psychology:Animal Learning and Cognition. "A full account ofviolin evolution has to take into account the fact thatgenerations of masters and apprentices worked inclose collaboration with one another.

"They also saw the works of other violin makers,"he adds. "Thus, a socialcomponent—imitation—surely participated in theprocess."

Miller believes the recent studies into the evolutionof the violin have made way for a dramaticallydifferent view of how handmade things, such asviolins, have come into being.

"Contrary to widely held beliefs, the romance ofcreative inspiration may not be as common aspersistent cycles of variation, selection based on

outcomes, and imitation," Miller says. "Wassermanand Cullen make a compelling case for the law ofeffect in conjunction with imitation giving rise toinvention."

More information: Edward A. Wasserman et al.Evolution of the Violin: The Law of Effect in Action., Journal of Experimental Psychology: AnimalLearning and Cognition (2015). DOI:10.1037/xan0000086

Daniel H. Chitwood et al. Imitation, GeneticLineages, and Time Influenced the MorphologicalEvolution of the Violin, PLoS ONE (2014). DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0109229

Provided by University of Iowa

2 / 3

APA citation: The fittest fiddle: Researchers study violin evolution via function and fancy (2015,November 17) retrieved 16 July 2018 from https://phys.org/news/2015-11-fittest-fiddle-violin-evolution-function.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, nopart may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

3 / 3