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)

Abstract: 1. Behaviours associated with a high or low tendency to feather peck could be used as predictors of feather pecking behaviour in selective breeding programmes. This study investigated how strain and age at testing influenced responses in behavioural tests. 2. Four layer-type strains (ISA Brown, Columbian Blacktail, Ixworth and a high feather pecking (HP) and a low feather pecking (LP) line of White Leghorn) were reared in 6 same-strain/line pens of 8 birds from one day old. Birds in half the pens were given an open field test, a novel object test and a test with loose feather bundles between 4 and 12 weeks of age and a tonic immobility (TI) test at 13 weeks of age. All pens were tested with fixed feather bundles at 26 weeks, and undisturbed behaviour in the home pens was videoed at 1 and 27 weeks of age. Daily records of plumage damage were used as an indicator of feather pecking activity in the home pens. 3. Strain did not influence novel object test, open field test or loose feather test behaviour, although age effects in all three tests indicated a reduction in fearfulness and/or an increase in exploratory behaviour with increasing age. 4. White Leghorns showed longer TI durations than the other strains but less pecking at fixed feather bundles than ISA Browns and Columbian Blacktails. 5. There were few associations between behaviour in the 5 different tests, indicating that birds did not have overall behavioural traits that were consistent across different contexts. This suggests hens cannot easily be categorised into different behavioural 'types', based on their test responses and casts doubt on the usefulness of tests as predictors of feather pecking.

Abstract: During the past 24 years, I have used a modeling technique (M/R procedure) to train Grey parrots to use an allospecific code (English speech) referentially; I then use the code to test their cognitive abilities. The oldest bird, Alex, labels more than 50 different objects, 7 colors, 5 shapes, quantities to 6, 3 categories (color, shape, material) and uses 'no', 'come here', wanna go X' and 'want Y' (X and Y are appropriate location or item labels). He combines labels to identify, request, comment upon or refuse more than 100 items and to alter his environment. He processes queries to judge category, relative size, quantity, presence or absence of similarity/difference in attributes, and show label comprehension. He semantically separates labeling from requesting. He thus exhibits capacities once presumed limited to humans or nonhuman primates. Studies on this and other Greys show that parrots given training that lacks some aspect of input present in M/R protocols (reference, functionality, social interaction) fail to acquire referential English speech. Examining how input affects the extent to which parrots acquire an allospecific code may elucidate mechanisms of other forms of exceptional learning: learning unlikely in the normal course of development but that can occur under certain conditions.