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: Seven horses with headshaking are described. No physical abnormalities were detected in any of the cases. Six of these horses had onset of clinical signs in the spring. The role of light was assessed by application of a blindfold or dark grey lens to the eyes, covering the eyes with a face mask and observing the horse in total darkness outdoors. Cessation of headshaking was observed with blindfolding (5/5 horses), night darkness outdoors (4/4 horses) and use of grey lenses (2/3 horses). Outdoor behaviour suggested efforts to avoid light in 4/4 cases. The photic sneeze in man is suggested as a putative mechanism for equine headshaking. Five of 7 horses had improvement with cyproheptadine treatment (0.3 mg/kg bwt b.i.d.). Headshaking developed within 2 calendar weeks of the same date for 3 consecutive years in one horse. Neuropharmacological alterations associated with photoperiod mechanisms leading to optic trigeminal summation are suggested as possible reasons for spring onset of headshaking.

Abstract: The social development of a female rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) was followed from the day of birth until her death, at age 32 months. The subject, born to an older mother, had an extra autosome (karyotype: 43, XX, +18), an affliction that came about spontaneously. MRI scans revealed that she was also hydrocephalic. Compared to 23 female monkeys growing up under identical conditions, the subject showed serious motor deficiencies, a dramatic delay in the development of social behavior, poorly established dominance relationships, and greater than usual dependency on mother and kin. The subject was well-integrated into the social group, however.

Abstract: Animal learning research has increasingly used complex stimuli that approximate natural objects, events, and locations, a trend that has accompanied a resurgence of interest in the role of cognitive factors in learning. Accounts of complex stimulus control have focused mainly on cognitive mechanisms and largely ignored the contribution of stimulus information to perception and memory for complex events. It is argued here that research on animal learning stands to benefit from a more detailed consideration of the stimulus and that James Gibson's stimulus-centered theory of perception serves as a useful framework for analyses of complex stimuli. Several issues in the field of animal learning and cognition are considered from the Gibsonian perspective on stimuli, including the fundamental problem of defining the effective stimulus.