|
|
van de Waal, E., & Bshary, R. (2011). Social-learning abilities of wild vervet monkeys in a two-step task artificial fruit experiment. Anim Behav, 81.
|
|
|
|
Hoppitt, W., & Laland, K. N. (2008). Social processes influencing learning in animals: a review of the evidence. Adv Study Behav, 38, 105–165.
|
|
|
|
Liedtke, J., & Schneider, J. M. (2017). Social makes smart: rearing conditions affect learning and social behaviour in jumping spiders. Anim. Cogn., 20(6), 1093–1106.
Abstract: There is a long-standing debate as to whether social or physical environmental aspects drive the evolution and development of cognitive abilities. Surprisingly few studies make use of developmental plasticity to compare the effects of these two domains during development on behaviour later in life. Here, we present rearing effects on the development of learning abilities and social behaviour in the jumping spider Marpissa muscosa. These spiders are ideally suited for this purpose because they possess the ability to learn and can be reared in groups but also in isolation without added stress. This is a critical but rarely met requirement for experimentally varying the social environment to test its impact on cognition. We split broods of spiders and reared them either in a physically or in a socially enriched environment. A third group kept under completely deprived conditions served as a 'no-enrichment' control. We tested the spiders' learning abilities by using a modified T-maze. Social behaviour was investigated by confronting spiders with their own mirror image. Results show that spiders reared in groups outperform their conspecifics from the control, i.e. 'no-enrichment', group in both tasks. Physical enrichment did not lead to such an increased performance. We therefore tentatively suggest that growing up in contact with conspecifics induces the development of cognitive abilities in this species.
|
|
|
|
Sato, S., Sako, S., & Maeda, A. (1991). Social licking patterns in cattle (<em>Bos taurus</em>): influence of environmental and social factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 32(1), 3–12.
Abstract: To investigate the functions of social licking in cattle, four calves (one heifer and one steer in each of two herds), known to exhibit frequent social licking were observed continuously for 2 h before sunset for 13 days, using the focal animal sampling method. Calves were observed under various environmental conditions. Social licking significantly decreased on rainy days and tended to increase in a dirty barn and when food was restricted. Solicitation for social licking occurred not only from dominant animals of pairs but also from subordinates. Of the licking interactions, 31% occurred following solicitation, and these accounted for 39% of the total time spent licking. Following solicitation, 78% of social licking was oriented to the head and the neck regions that were inaccessible to self-licking animals. Unsolicited licking, however, was oriented not only to the head and the neck but also to the back and the rump regions, and these two latter regions were the major ones to receive licking. The effect of social relationships on social licking was investigated using least-squares analysis of variance. Social factors investigated were the difference of dominance values, the dominance-subordinance relationship, and kinship and familiarity; the sex of calves involved was also considered. Only familiarity had a significant effect on licking; exchanges of social licking increased with length of cohabitation. We suggest that social licking may have a cleaning effect, a tension-reducing effect and a bonding effect.
|
|
|
|
Sato, S. (1984). Social licking pattern and its relationships to social dominance and live weight gain in weaned calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 12(1), 25–32.
Abstract: Social licking patterns of heifer and steer herds were observed and recorded during periods of resting and intermittent feeding. The results revealed the following features: (1) heifers and steers had 15.0 and 15.2 social licking interactions per hour which lasted for 37.8 and 41.0 s on average, respectively. The average time an animal spent licking was about 25 s per hour; (2) all the animals in the herds were licked by others, but only 72.3% of the animals licked other animals; (3) the animals close in the social hierarchy tended to lick each other for a longer time than did remote animals; (4) the time receiving l licking and weight gain tended to be positively correlated. The observations suggest that (1) the motivation of giving licking may be individual-specific and may be influenced by genetic factors, while that of receiving licking appears to be general, and that (2) social licking may mean not only cleaning the skin and hair of a passive partner, but also leading it to psychological stability.
|
|
|
|
Webster, M. M., & Laland, K. N. (2008). Social learning strategies and predation risk: minnows copy only when using private information would be costly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 275(1653), 2869–2876.
Abstract: Animals can acquire information from the environment privately, by sampling it directly, or socially, through learning from others. Generally, private information is more accurate, but expensive to acquire, while social information is cheaper but less reliable. Accordingly, the 'costly information hypothesis' predicts that individuals will use private information when the costs associated with doing so are low, but that they should increasingly use social information as the costs of using private information rise. While consistent with considerable data, this theory has yet to be directly tested in a satisfactory manner. We tested this hypothesis by giving minnows (Phoxinus phoxinus) a choice between socially demonstrated and non-demonstrated prey patches under conditions of low, indirect and high simulated predation risk. Subjects had no experience (experiment 1) or prior private information that conflicted with the social information provided by the demonstrators (experiment 2). In both experiments, subjects spent more time in the demonstrated patch than in the non-demonstrated patch, and in experiment 1 made fewer switches between patches, when risk was high compared with when it was low. These findings are consistent with the predictions of the costly information hypothesis, and imply that minnows adopt a 'copy-when-asocial-learning-is-costly' learning strategy.
|
|
|
|
Laland K.N. (2004). Social learning strategies. Learn. Behav., 32, 4–14.
Abstract: In most studies of social learning in animals, no attempt has been made to examine the nature of the strategy adopted by animals when they copy others. Researchers have expended considerable effort in exploring the psychological processes that underlie social learning and amassed extensive data banks recording purported social learning in the field, but the contexts under which animals copy others remain unexplored. Yet, theoretical models used to investigate the adaptive advantages of social learning lead to the conclusion that social learning cannot be indiscriminate and that individuals should adopt strategies that dictate the circumstances under which they copy others and from whom they learn. In this article, I discuss a number of possible strategies that are predicted by theoretical analyses, including copy when uncertain, copy the majority, and copy if better, and consider the empirical evidence in support of each, drawing from both the animal and human social learning literature. Reliance on social learning strategies may be organized hierarchically, their being employed by animals when unlearned and asocially learned strategies prove ineffective but before animals take recourse in innovation.
|
|
|
|
Custance, D., Whiten, A., & Fredman, T. (1999). Social learning of an artificial fruit task in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J. Comp. Psychol., 113(1), 13–23.
Abstract: Social learning in 11 human-raised capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) was investigated using an artificial fruit that was designed as an analogue of natural foraging problems faced by primates. Each subject observed a human model open each of 3 principal components on the fruit in 1 of 2 alternative ways (“morphs”). The capuchin monkeys reproduced, to differing extents, the alternative techniques used for opening 1 component of the task (poking vs. pulling while twisting out a pair of smooth plastic bolts) but not the other 2. From the subjects' actions on the bolt latch, independent coders could recognize which morph they had witnessed, and they observed a degree of matching to the demonstrator's act consistent with simple imitation or object movement reenactment (A learns from watching B how an object, or parts of an object, move). Thus, these capuchins were capable of more complex social learning than has been recently ascribed to monkeys. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
|
|
|
|
McVey, A., Wilkinson, A., & Mills, D. S. (2018). Social learning in horses: the effect of using a group leader demonstrator on the performance of familiar conspecifics in a detour task. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, .
Abstract: Learning through the observation of others allows the transfer of information without the costs incurred during individual trial and error learning. Horses (Equus caballus) are a highly social species, which might be expected to be capable of learning from others, but experimental findings are inconsistent, and potentially confounded by social facilitation effects not related directly to the learning of the task. We refined the methods used in previous equine social learning studies, to examine and distinguish specific social influences on learning of a task: we used predefined group leaders rather than agonistically dominant individuals to demonstrate a detour task to familiar conspecific observers; in addition we had two control groups: a non-observer (true control) and a group with the demonstrator simply present at the goal (social facilitation control). 44 socially kept horses were allocated to one of the three test conditions and took part in five trials each. Success rate, latency and detour direction were recorded. There was no significant difference between the three groups in the likelihood of them succeeding in the task nor latency to succeed; however there was a significant difference in the route chosen by the groups, with the true control choosing the side with the entrance gate significantly more than either the observer group or social facilitation group. Both of the latter two groups chose to go in the same direction relative to themselves, regardless of which side the gate was. Seven out of nine horses in the observer group chose the same direction as their demonstrator every time. Our results show a significant role of social facilitation on detour behaviour and highlight the importance of including adequate controls for simpler cognitive influences on behaviour before claims can be made about the specific learning of motor actions or goal directed behaviour. Social cues may be important to horses if the task is sufficiently challenging and motivationally important, so future work should consider more demanding, but ecologically relevant situations, in order to maximise the potential revelation of social learning effects which do not depend on simple local or stimulus enhancement effects.
|
|
|
|
Krueger., K., & Farmer, K. (2018). Social learning in Horses: Differs from individual learning only in the learning stimulus and not in the learning mechanisms. In 14th Meeting of the Internatinoal Society for Equitation Science.
Abstract: Equine welfare can be enhanced by applying species specific training. This may incorporate social learning, as horses are highly social and social stimuli are of primary importance. Social learning is comparable to individual learning in its learning mechanisms, differing primarily in the way it is stimulated. Our initial study showed that horses of different breeds (N = 38) follow humans after observing other horses doing so, but only if the observed horse was familiar to and higher ranking than the observer (Fisher's exact test: N = 12, P = 0.003). A second study showed that horses and ponies (N = 25) learned to pull a rope to open a feeding apparatus after observing demonstrations by conspecifics, again, only if the demonstrating horse was older and higher ranking than the observer (Fisher's combination test, N = 3, v2 = 27.71, p = 0.006). Our third approach showed that horses and ponies (N = 24) learned to press a switch to open a feeding apparatus after observing a familiar person (GzLM: N = 24, z = 2.33, P = 0.02). Most recently, we confronted horses and ponies (N = 50) with persons demonstrating different techniques for opening a feeding apparatus. In this study we investigated whether the horses would copy the demonstrators' techniques or apply their own. Here only some horses copied the technique, and most of the successful learners used their mouths irrespective of the demonstrators' postures (Chi Square Test: N = 40, df = 2, χ2 = 31.4, p < 0.001). In all the approaches social stimuli elicited learning processes in the test horses, while only a few individuals in the control groups mastered the tasks by individual learning. The following behaviour observed in the initial study may have been facilitated by a social stimuli (social facilitation), and the opening of the feed boxes in the subsequent studies appear to be mostly the result of enhancement (social enhancement). Some horses may have used the social stimuli at first and continued their learning process by individual trial and error. However, the horses were also selective in whom and some in how to copy. This may have been conditioned (socially conditioned) or the result of simple forms of reasoning on the reliability of the particular information provided by demonstrators of certain social ranks or social positions, as high ranking and familiar horses and familiar persons were copied and some imitated exactly.
Lay person message: Traditional riding instructions suggest that horses learn by observing other horses. For example, older, more experienced driving horses are used for initial training of young driving horses. We have shown that horses indeed use learning stimuli provided by other horse, as well as by humans. Horses readily accept stimuli observed in high ranking and familiar horses, and familiar persons. Such stimuli elicit learning processes which are comparable to individual learning. We suggest applying social learning whenever possible, as it is much faster and less stressful than individual learning, where learners experience negative outcomes in trial and error learning.
|
|
