Abstract: Female zebra finches show a preference for male zebra finches over heterospecific males based solely on the auditory cues of males, such as songs. The present study was designed to investigate whether females show a similar preference for male zebra finches based solely on visual cues. Using a Y-maze apparatus, social preference of female zebra finches was studied between male zebra finches and male Bengalese finches in three experiments. In experiment 1, where female zebra finches could see and hear live male zebra finches and male Bengalese finches, the females preferred to associate with the male zebra finches. In experiment 2, using a sound-attenuated experimental apparatus, subjects could see, but not hear, male zebra finches and male Bengalese finches. The subjects did not show a significant preference for associating with zebra finches. In experiment 3, as in experiment 2, females could see live male zebra finches and male Bengalese finches in the sound-attenuated chambers. However, in experiment 3, the subjects also heard prerecorded auditory cues (i.e., songs and calls) of male zebra finches, which were presented simultaneously in both arms of the maze. Although the females could not use the auditory cues to identify the location of the male zebra finches, they preferred to associate with the male zebra finches rather than the male Bengalese finches. These results suggest that visual cues alone were effective in initiating choice behaviors by females and that auditory cues facilitate such visually based choice behaviors.

Abstract: Traditional psychological approaches to animal learning and behavior have involved either the atheoretical behaviorist approach proposed by B. F. Skinner (1938), in which input-output relations are described in response to environmental manipulations, or the theoretical behaviorist approach offered by C. L Hull (1943), in which associations mediated by several hypothetical constructs and intervening variables are formed between stimuli and responses. Recently, the application of a cognitive behaviorist approach to animal learning and behavior has been found to have considerable value as a research tool. This perspective has grown out of E. C. Tolman's cognitive approach to learning in which behavior is mediated by mechanisms that are not directly observable but can be inferred from the results of critical experiments. In the present article, the author presents several examples of the successful application of the cognitive behaviorist approach. In each case, the experiments have been designed to distinguish between more traditional mechanisms and those mediated by hypothesized internal representations. These examples were selected because the evidence suggests that some form of active cognitive organization is needed to account for the behavioral results.

Abstract: Reports from different laboratories have suggested that nonhuman primates have somewhat similar dimensions of personality. To date, however, no attempts have been made to statistically replicate a specific factor structure. In the present report, two independent observers recorded the behavior of 58 adult male rhesus monkeys, and then rated the animals with the use of a 50-item personality instrument. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the ratings resulted in the replication of a previously described four-factor personality structure [Maninger et al., American Journal of Primatology 61:73-83, 2003]. The first two dimensions-Sociability and Confidence-showed strong loadings and are similar to Affiliation and Agency dimensions in humans. The remaining dimensions-Equability and Irritability-were less clear, and it is possible that additional traits will have to be identified before a more robust structure can be established for these dimensions.

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)