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: We tested for social learning and imitation in common marmosets using an artificial foraging task and trained conspecific demonstrators. We trained a demonstrator marmoset to open an artificial fruit, providing a full demonstration of the task to be learned. Another marmoset provided a partial demonstration, controlling for stimulus enhancement effects, by eating food from the outside of the apparatus. We thus compared three observer groups, each consisting of four animals: those that received the full demonstration, those that received the partial demonstration, and a control group that saw no demonstration prior to testing. Although none of the observer marmosets succeeded in opening the artificial fruit during the test periods, there were clear effects of demonstration type. Those that saw the full demonstration manipulated the apparatus more overall, whereas those from the control group manipulated it the least of the three groups. Those from the full-demonstration group also contacted the particular parts of the artificial fruit that they had seen touched (localised stimulus enhancement) to a greater extent than the other two groups. There was also an interaction between the number of hand and mouth touches made to the artificial fruit for the full- and partial-demonstration groups. Whether or not these data represent evidence for imitation is discussed. We also propose that the clear differences between the groups suggest that social learning mechanisms provide real benefits to these animals in terms of developing novel food-processing skills analogous to the one presented here.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Studies on the prevalence of behavioural disorders in horses and on associated risk factors have revealed inconsistent results. There are many studies on the neuropharmacological, surgical or mechanical therapy of stereotypies, but little is known about their causation. OBJECTIVES: To explore risk factors associated with the occurrence of behavioural disorders in horses. METHODS: A sample of horse owners, selected randomly and representative for Switzerland, was contacted in a postal survey. Answers were provided for 622 stables (response rate 35.2%). Individual data of 2,341 horses were examined with path analysis (multivariable linear and logistic regression), and adjustment made for possible confounding effects due to age and breed. RESULTS: Out of 60 possible risk factors, 11 were associated with the outcome at the univariable level (null-hypothesis path model) and 3 factors remained after the backward logistic regression procedure. Mature Warmbloods and Thoroughbreds, assessed by the owners to be reactive, fed 4 times a day and without daily pasture, had increased odds of displaying crib-biting, weaving and box-walking. Furthermore, indirect associations of 5 factors with the outcome were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The final logistic regression model of risk factors leads to the hypotheses that causal prevention of stereotypic behaviours should be based upon housing and management conditions which allow tactile contact with other horses (e.g. mutual grooming), daily free movement (paddock or pasture), as well as the provision of high amounts of roughage but of little or no concentrates. POTENTIAL CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is one of the aims of population medicine to prevent the development of behavioural disorders. Further research is needed to test the concluding hypotheses in experimental studies or to verify them in the context of similar observational studies.

Abstract: Bonobos (Pan paniscus; n = 4), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes; n = 12), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla; n = 8), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus; n = 6) were presented with 2 cups (1 baited) and given visual or auditory information about their contents. Visual information consisted of letting subjects look inside the cups. Auditory information consisted of shaking the cup so that the baited cup produced a rattling sound. Subjects correctly selected the baited cup both when they saw or heard the food. Nine individuals were above chance in both visual and auditory conditions. More important, subjects as a group selected the baited cup when only the empty cup was either shown or shaken, which means that subjects chose correctly without having seen or heard the food (i.e., inference by exclusion). Control tests showed that subjects were not more attracted to noisy cups, avoided shaken noiseless cups, or learned to use auditory information as a cue during the study. It is concluded that subjects understood that the food caused the noise, not simply that the noise was associated with the food. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

Abstract: I examine leadership in Wolf (Canis lupus) packs based on published observations and data gathered during summers from 1986 to 1998 studying a free-ranging pack of Wolves on Ellesmere Island that were habituated to my presence. The breeding male tended to initiate activities associated with foraging and travel, and the breeding female to initiate, and predominate in, pup care and protection. However, there was considerable overlap and interaction during these activities such that leadership could be considered a joint function. In packs with multiple breeders, quantitative information about leadership is needed.