|
|
Griffin A.S.,. (2004). Social learning about predators: A review and prospectus. Learn. Behav., 32, 131–140.
Abstract: In comparison with social learning about food, social learning about predators has received little attention. Yet such research is of potential interest to students of animal cognition and conservation biologists. I summarize evidence for social learning about predators by fish, birds, eutherian mammals, and marsupials. I consider the proposal that this phenomenon is a case of S-S classical conditioning and suggest that evolution may have modified some of the properties of learning to accommodate for the requirements of learning socially about danger. I discuss some between-species differences in the properties of socially acquired predator avoidance and suggest that learning may be faster and more robust in species in which alarm behavior reliably predicts high predatory threat. Finally, I highlight how studies of socially acquired predator avoidance can inform the design of prerelease antipredator training programs for endangered species.
|
|
|
|
White, D. J. (2004). Influences of social learning on mate-choice decisions. Learn. Behav., 32, 105–113.
Abstract: Evidence from both field and laboratory is consistent with the hypothesis that animals can acquire mate preferences by observing the mating behavior of others. It is difficult, however, to distinguish social learning about mates from a host of other social effects on mating that do not produce changes in preferences. Examples are drawn from laboratory studies on mate choice in female and male Japanese quail that illustrate ways in which social cues influence mating decisions. Quail of both sexes use social cues to modify their mate choices, but the sexes use the information to serve different purposes. Female quail gain preferences for males seen mating with other females, whereas males avoid females that they had observed mating with other males. This sex difference in social learning provides an example of how costs and benefits of sexual behavior can shape decision-making processes. Implications of the influence of social learning on sexual selection are briefly discussed.
|
|
|
|
Reader S.M.,. (2004). Distinguishing social and asocial learning using diffusion dynamics. Learn. Behav., 32, 90–104.
Abstract: Theoretical models predict that the cumulative number of individuals displaying a socially learned novel behavior will follow an accelerating pattern over time, whereas asocial processes have been associated with linear or decelerating functions. This raises the possibility that the shape of the diffusion curve may reveal something about the learning processes involved. If true, this would be particularly useful for identifying social transmission in observational field studies. Published data are reviewed and are found to provide limited support for this view. The use of accelerating curves as a diagnostic is challenging because (1) alternative theoretical models make similar predictions, (2) clear supporting empirical data are lacking, and (3) practical considerations frequently make accurate construction of the diffusion curve difficult.
|
|
|
|
Gajdon G.K.,, Fijn N.,, & Huber L.,. (2004). Testing social learning in a wild mountain parrot, the kea (Nestor notabilis). Learn. Behav., 32, 62–71.
Abstract: Huber, Taborsky, and Rechberger (2001) reported an experiment in which the efficiency with which captive keas opened a complex food container was increased by observation of a skilled conspecific. However, only testing social learning in free-ranging animals can demonstrate social learning in natural conditions. For that purpose, a tube-lifting paradigm was developed and tested on keas both in captivity and in Mount Cook National Park, New Zealand. The task was to remove a tube from an upright pole in order to gain access to a reward inside the tube. The top of the pole was higher than a standing kea, so that, to remove the tube, an individual had to simultaneously climb onto the pole and manipulate the tube up the pole with its bill. Because only 1 naive bird managed to remove a tube twice in 25 halfhour sessions and disappeared after success, another bird was trained to solve the task and to provide demonstrations for others. Even under such conditions, only 2 of at least 15 birds learned to remove the tube in 28 sessions. There was no indication that observer birds' use of bill and feet when exploring the tube changed as the number of observations of tube removal increased in a way that would, in principle, increase the likelihood of tube removal. The results suggest a dissociation of social learning potential as assessed in laboratory animals, and social transmission of foraging techniques in natural populations.
|
|
|
|
Galef Jr B.G.,. (2004). Approaches to the study of traditional behaviors of free-living animals. Learn. Behav., 32, 53–61.
Abstract: I review literature on four different approaches to the study of traditions in animals: observation of free-living animals, laboratory experiment, armchair analysis, and field experiment. Because, by definition, a tradition entails social learning of some kind, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to establish that a behavior is in fact traditional without knowledge of how it develops. Observations of free-living animals often provide strong circumstantial evidence of a tradition. However, even in the view of several researchers who have studied possibly traditional behaviors in natural populations, observation alone has not proven sufficient to show that social learning contributes to development of behaviors of interest. The relevance of laboratory experiments to the understanding of the development of behaviors in free-living animals is always open to challenge. Armchair analyses of field data can produce interesting hypotheses but cannot test them. Field experiments to determine how behaviors of interest develop in population members provide a promising way forward.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Kurtzman H.S., Church R.M., & Crystal J.D. (2002). Data archiving for animal cognition research: Report of an NIMH workshop. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 405–412.
|
|
|
|
Whiten, A., Horner, V., Litchfield, C. A., & Marshall-Pescini, S. (2004). How do apes ape? Learn. Behav., 32(1), 36–52.
Abstract: In the wake of telling critiques of the foundations on which earlier conclusions were based, the last 15 years have witnessed a renaissance in the study of social learning in apes. As a result, we are able to review 31 experimental studies from this period in which social learning in chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans has been investigated. The principal question framed at the beginning of this era, Do apes ape? has been answered in the affirmative, at least in certain conditions. The more interesting question now is, thus, How do apes ape? Answering this question has engendered richer taxonomies of the range of social-learning processes at work and new methodologies to uncover them. Together, these studies suggest that apes ape by employing a portfolio of alternative social-learning processes in flexibly adaptive ways, in conjunction with nonsocial learning. We conclude by sketching the kind of decision tree that appears to underlie the deployment of these alternatives.
|
|
|
|
Doré, F. Y., Fiset, S., Goulet, S., Dumans, M. - C., & Gagnon, S. (1996). Search behavior in cats and dogs Interspecific differences in working memory and spatial cognition. Anim Learn. & Behav., 24(2), 142–149.
Abstract: Cats and dogs search behavior was compared in different problems where an object was visibly
moved behind a screen that was then visibly moved to a new position. In Experiments 1 (cats) and 2 (dogs),
one group was tested with identical screens and the other group was tested with dissimilar screens.
Results showed that in both species, search behavior was based on processing of spatial information
rather than on recognition of the visual features of the target screen. Cats and dogs were unable to find
the object by inferring its invisible movement. They reached a high level of success only if there was
direct perceptual evidence that the object could not be at its initial position. When the position change
was indicated by an indirect cue, cats searched more at the object`s initial than final position, whereas
dogs searched equally at both positions. Interspecific similarities and differences are interpreted in
terms of the requirements for resetting working memory.
|
|
|
|
SYLVAIN GAGNON, F. R. A. N. C. O. I. S. Y. D. O. R. E. (1993). Search behavior of dogs (Canis familiaris) in invisible displacement problems. Anim Learn. & Behav., 21(3), 246–254.
Abstract: Gagnon and Dor (1992) showed that domestic dogs are able to solve a Piagetian object permanence
task called the invisible displacement problem. A toy is hidden in a container which is
moved behind a screen where the toy is removed and left. Dogs make more errors in these problems
than they do in visible displacement tests, in which the object is hidden directly behind
the target screen. In Experiment 1, we examinedcomponents ofthe standard procedure of invisible
displacements that may make encoding or retention of the hiding location more difficult than
it is in visible displacements. In Experiment 2, we compared dogs performances in visible and
invisible displacement problems when delays of 0, 10, and 20 sec were introduced between the
objects final disappearance and the subjects release. The results revealed that dogs poorer performance
in invisible displacement tests is related to the complex sequence of events that have
to be encoded or remembered as well as to a difficulty in representing the position change that
is signaled, but not directly perceived.
|
|
