Abstract: Four experiments examined the effects of rearing in isolation on rats performance on discrimination-based and social learning tasks. After demonstrating that the rearing procedures produced similar results in an open field task to those previously established (Experiment 1), rats were subjected to two discrimination tasks: an instrumental occasion setting procedure (Experiment 3) and a nonspatial win-stay/lose-shift versus win-shift/lose-stay procedure (Experiment 4). Deficits in acquisition of the necessary discriminations were noted in the rats raised in isolation, but there were no differences between isolation-reared and socially reared subjects in response acquisition per se. In Experiment 2, rats were presented with an observational learning task using the bidirectional control procedure. Socially reared rats had a tendency to imitate the behavior they had observed, but rats raised in isolation performed the opposite behavior to that observed, indicating a failure to use a conspecific as a reference point in the task. The presence of a mirror during rearing in isolation was also investigated, but was found to have little effect in attenuating the above deficits in behavior.

Abstract: In an attempt to increase the reliability of the demonstrator-consistent responding effect produced in the bidirectional control procedure, experiments 1-4 sought conditions that would magnify the matching effect. The aim was to produce a robust demonstrator-consistent responding effect in order that future analytic experiments could investigate the psychological processes responsible for this effect. The joystick responses of observer rats trained using the standard bidirectional control procedure parameters were compared with those of observers subject to conditions identified in the social learning literature as favourable for imitation. Unlike mice, observer rats in experiments 1 a and 1 b tended to push a joystick in the same direction as their demonstrators when the demonstrators were either familiar or unfamiliar males and females. Comparable demonstrator-consistent responding occurred following observation of a standard and a salient joystick response (experiment 2). Experiment 3 showed that the discriminative accuracy of a demonstrator's responding was important for matching behaviour, and suggested that matching might be enhanced with more than the conventional single observation session. Experiment 4 confirmed that the bidirectional control effect is sensitive to the amount of observational experience; after six observation sessions, demonstrator-inconsistent responding occurs. The results of experiments 1-3 are, and those of experiment 4 are not, compatible with the hypothesis that demonstrator-consistent responding in the bidirectional control is caused by olfactory cues deposited by demonstrators on the joystick.

Abstract: Hungry rats observed a conspecific demonstrator pushing a single manipulandum, a joystick, to the right or to the left for food reward and were then allowed access to the joystick from a different orientation. The effects of right-pushing vs left-pushing observation experience on (1) response acquisition, (2) reversal of a left-right discrimination, and (3) responding in extinction, were examined. Rats that had observed left-pushing made more left responses during acquisition than rats that had observed right-pushing, and rats that had observed demonstrators pushing in the direction that had previously been reinforced took longer to reach criterion reversal and made more responses in extinction than rats that had observed demonstrators pushing in the opposite direction to that previously reinforced. These results provide evidence that rats are capable of learning a response, or a response-reinforcer contingency, through conspecific observation.

Abstract: There has been relatively little research on the psychological mechanisms of social learning. This may be due, in part, to the practice of distinguishing categories of social learning in relation to ill-defined mechanisms (Davis, 1973; Galef, 1988). This practice both makes it difficult to identify empirically examples of different types of social learning, and gives the false impression that the mechanisms responsible for social learning are clearly understood. It has been proposed that social learning phenomena be subsumed within the categorization scheme currently used by investigators of asocial learning. This scheme distinguishes categories of learning according to observable conditions, namely, the type of experience that gives rise to a change in an animal (single stimulus vs. stimulus-stimulus relationship vs. response-reinforcer relationship), and the type of behaviour in which this change is detected (response evocation vs. learnability) (Rescorla, 1988). Specifically, three alignments have been proposed: (i) stimulus enhancement with single stimulus learning, (ii) observational conditioning with stimulus-stimulus learning, or Pavlovian conditioning, and (iii) observational learning with response-reinforcer learning, or instrumental conditioning. If, as the proposed alignments suggest, the conditions of social and asocial learning are the same, there is some reason to believe that the mechanisms underlying the two sets of phenomena are also the same. This is so if one makes the relatively uncontroversial assumption that phenomena which occur under similar conditions tend to be controlled by similar mechanisms. However, the proposed alignments are intended to be a set of hypotheses, rather than conclusions, about the mechanisms of social learning; as a basis for further research in which animal learning theory is applied to social learning. A concerted attempt to apply animal learning theory to social learning, to find out whether the same mechanisms are responsible for social and asocial learning, could lead both to refinements of the general theory, and to a better understanding of the mechanisms of social learning. There are precedents for these positive developments in research applying animal learning theory to food aversion learning (e.g. Domjan, 1983; Rozin & Schull, 1988) and imprinting (e.g. Bolhuis, de Vox & Kruit, 1990; Hollis, ten Cate & Bateson, 1991). Like social learning, these phenomena almost certainly play distinctive roles in the antogeny of adaptive behaviour, and they are customarily regarded as 'special kinds' of learning (Shettleworth, 1993).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)