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: Animal communication generally occurs in the environment of a network of several potential signallers and receivers. Within a network environment, it is possible to gain relative information about conspecifics by eavesdropping on signalling interactions. We presented male great tits with the opportunity to gain such information by simulating singing interactions using two loudspeakers. Interactions were presented so that relevant information was not available in the absolute singing behaviour of either individual, only in the relative timing of their songs in the interaction as a whole. We then assayed the information extracted by focal males by subsequently introducing one of the 'interactants' (i.e. loudspeakers) into the territory of the focal male. Focal males responded with a reduced song output to males that had just 'lost' an interaction. Focal males did not respond significantly differently to 'winners' as compared with intruders recently involved in an interaction that contained no consistent information. Focal males also responded by switching song types more often when encountering males that had recently been involved in a low-intensity interaction. These results provide the clearest evidence yet that male songbirds extract information from signal interactions between conspecifics in the field.

Abstract: Opportunities for social learning within a group of animals are likely to be influenced by the social dynamics of that group. Some individuals may be more influential demonstrators than others even when there are no differences in their skill level or performance. In this study of domestic hens,Gallus gallus domesticus, differences in demonstrator salience were examined. From 24 separate flocks we selected as demonstrators a dominant cockerel, a dominant hen, a mid-ranking hen or a subordinate hen. Demonstrators were pretrained to perform an operant discrimination task to obtain food. Six observers from each flock individually watched the demonstrator perform the task for four 5-min sessions held on consecutive days. On the fifth day observers were tested individually in the operant chamber. We analysed data from 19 flocks, where there were no quantitative differences in demonstrator performance. Observer hens of relatively high social status performed more correct operant pecks than observer hens of relatively low social status. Demonstrator category also had a significant effect on subsequent observer behaviour. Hens that had observed cockerels performed very few general pecks or operant pecks. Hens that had observed dominant hens performed more operant pecks, but hens that had observed sub-ordinate hens performed more general pecks in the chamber. The results suggested either that there was an interaction between dominance and gender in demonstrator salience or that dominant hens might have been influential because of some factor imperfectly associated with their dominance status. A possible candidate was the foraging ability of the dominant hens. In a second experiment using the same protocol, we manipulated the prior foraging success of dominant hens from four additional flocks but this had no significant effect on their subsequent influence as demonstrators.

Abstract: Processing of serial information was assessed by training six macaques on a five-item list of objects arranged into the four conditional pairs, A-B+, B-C+, C-D+, and D-E+. An analogous list (F through J) was similarly trained. Subsequently, both lists were linked by training on E-F+, a pair that provided adjacent elements from each list. Then, all unique and trained object pairs from both lists were presented as a test. Results indicated that the objects were retained as a single, linearly organized list with choice accuracy directly related to interitem distance between paired objects. A second experiment explored the consequences of incidence of conflicting information on list organization. In both experiments, selections depended on representational processes and supported the view that monkeys and pigeons retain serial lists in qualitatively different ways.