Abstract: Our understanding of how, why, and the circumstances under which animals use social information has been facilitated by three principal areas of research, social learning, public information use and social eavesdropping. With few exceptions, these related concepts have remained remarkably distinct within the literature, with little discussion or integration among them. Are these distinctions warranted? We tackle the issue by exploring similarities and differences between the concepts with respect to how animals gather and use social information, the type of information gathered, how information is packaged, and the relative payoffs to individuals involved. We contend that none of the currently dominant paradigms, social learning, public information use, or social eavesdropping, provide a unifying theme for studying social information use. Instead, we favour the central characteristic of the three concepts, social information use, as the overarching umbrella, and advocate a broader conceptual framework for understanding more comprehensively how animals behave with their social environments. Our intention is not to revolutionize the fields of social learning, public information use or social eavesdropping, but rather to stimulate discussion among researchers investigating the abilities of animals to extract information from the social environment.

Abstract: In the local population of kea in Mount Cook Village, New Zealand, some keas open the lids of rubbish bins with their bill to obtain food scraps within. We investigated the extent to which this innovation has spread in the local population, and what factors limit the acquisition of bin opening. Only five males of 36 individually recognised birds were observed to have performed successful bin opening. With one exception there were always other keas present, watching successful bin opening. Seventeen additional individuals were seen to have benefitted from lid opening. Their foraging success was less than that of the bin openers. Social status of bin openers did not differ from scrounging males. Among the individuals that were regularly seen at the site of the bins but were not successful in bin opening, social status and the ratio of feeding directly from open bins correlated with the amount of opening attempts. We conclude that scrounging facilitated certain behavioural aspects of bin opening rather than inhibiting them. The fact that only 9% of opening attempts were successful, and the long period of time required to increase efficiency in lid opening shows that mainly individual experience, and to a lesser extent insight and social learning, play key roles in acquisition of the opening technique. The results indicate that the spread of innovative solutions of challenging mechanical problems in animals may be restricted to only a few individuals.

Abstract: This experiment examines the cues used by cattle to discriminate between people, particularly the role played by facial cues. We trained and tested eight Holstein cows 5 days each week for 2 months. For each cow, we used two people, a rewarder and a non-rewarder, of different size and dressed in overalls of the same colour. The operant chamber was a large box within which stood the two people. The cow could see, smell and touch each person. A lever was placed in front of each person. When the cow pushed the lever in front of the rewarder, it received 75 g of concentrate and nothing when it pushed on the other one. For each test session, the cows made 10 choices. The placement of the people was determined randomly according to the Gellerman series. The success criterion was defined as at least eight correct choices out of 10 trials for two consecutive sessions (binomial law P<0.003). During the shaping, seven cows out of eight learned to press the lever to obtain the food. The cows were then tested in a series of 10 trials with only the rewarder present. Seven out of seven cows succeeded in reaching the success criterion. In experiment 1, both the rewarder and the non-rewarder were present and standing upright at normal height and in full view of the cow. Five out of seven cows achieved the success criterion. In experiment 2, the cows could see only the faces of the two people. None of the cows were able to reach the success criterion. In experiment 3, both people were present standing up and wearing identical masks that completely covered their heads. Five cows out of five achieved the success criterion. In experiment 4, we changed the relative height of the people. Five cows out of five succeeded when the two people stood so they were of equal height but with their faces visible. However, no cows succeeded when the people were both of equal height and had their faces covered. This study suggests that cows seem to use multiple cues to discriminate between people. Cows appear able to use either body height or the face to discriminate between people but use of the face alone is more difficult when the cows cannot see the rest of the body.

Abstract: In the current study two groups of young chimpanzees (4–6 and 8–9 years old) were given a T-bar and a food item that could only be reached by using the T-bar. Experimental subjects were given the opportunity to observe an adult using the stick as a tool to obtain the food; control subjects were exposed to the adult but were given no demonstration. Subjects in the older group did not learn to use the tool. Subjects in the younger group who were exposed to the demonstrator learned to use the stick as a tool much more readily than those who were not. None of the subjects demonstrated an ability to imitatively copy the demonstrator's precise behavioral strategies. More than simple stimulus enhancement was involved, however, since both groups manipulated the T-bar, but only experimental subjects used it in its function as a tool. Our findings complement naturalistic observations in suggesting that chimpanzee tool-use is in some sense «culturally transmitted» — though perhaps not in the same sense as social-conventional behaviors for which precise copying of conspecifics is crucial.

Abstract: Fourteen riding horses of mixed age and breed were randomly allocated to observer and control treatments. An additional horse was pre-trained as a demonstrator to walk the 13.8 m length of the test arena and select one of two food buckets using colour and pattern cues. Observer horses were exposed to correct performances of the task by the trained demonstrator, for 20 trials held over 2 days. Control horses were subjected to the same handling and placement procedures as the observer horses but without exposure to the behaviour of the demonstrator. The third day for all subjects was designated as a test day. Each subject was released individually in a predetermined place in the arena, and the latency to walk the length of the test arena to the food buckets, the latency to feed, the identity of the bucket approached and the identity of the bucket selected were recorded on ten consecutive trials. During tests both food buckets contained food to minimize the possibility of individual trial and error learning. On the first trial the mean latency to approach the goal area was 18 s for observer horses, compared with 119 s for control horses (t = 2.8, d.f. = 12, P < 0.01) and the mean latency to eat was 35 s for observer horses, compared with 181 s for control horses (t = 4.86, d.f. = 11, P < 0.001). However, observer horses were no more likely to choose the demonstrated bucket than control horses on the first trial. Twelve of the 14 horses decreased their latency to approach the goal area during the series of ten trials, but there were no significant changes in the buckets selected.