Abstract: The bidirectional control procedure was used to determine whether pigeons (Columba livia) would imitate a demonstrator that pushed a sliding screen for food. One group of observers saw a trained demonstrator push a sliding screen door with its beak (imitation group), whereas 2 other groups watched the screen move independently (possibly learning how the environment works) with a conspecific either present (affordance learning with social facilitation) or absent (affordance learning alone). A 4th group could not see the screen being pushed (sound and odor control). Imitation was evidenced by the finding that pigeons that saw a demonstrator push the screen made a higher proportion of matching screen pushes than observers in 2 appropriate control conditions. Further, observers that watched a screen move without a demonstrator present made a significantly higher proportion of matching screen pushes than would be expected by chance. Thus, these pigeons were capable of affordance learning.

Abstract: Eight pigeons were trained and tested in a simultaneous same/different task. After pecking an upper picture, they pecked a lower picture to indicate same or a white rectangle to indicate different. Increases in the training set size from 8 to 1,024 items produced improved transfer from 51.3% to 84.6%. This is the first evidence that pigeons can perform a two-item same/different task as accurately with novel items as training items and both above 80% correct. Fixed-set control groups ruled out training time or transfer testing as producing the high level of abstract-concept learning. Comparisons with similar experiments with rhesus and capuchin monkeys showed that the ability to learn the same/different abstract concept was similar but that pigeons require more training exemplars.

Abstract: The maze learning ability of six pony foals that had been weaned at birth was compared to that of six foals reared normally. The foals' learning ability was also compared to their mothers' learning ability at the same task; the correct turn in a single choice point maze. The maze learning test was conducted when the foals were 6 to 8 mo old and after the mothered foals had been weaned. There was no significant difference between the ability of orphaned (weaned at birth) and mothered foals in their ability to learn to turn left (6 +/- .7 and 5.1 +/- .1 trials, respectively) or to learn the reversal, to turn right (6.7 +/- .6 and 6.2 +/- .6 trials, respectively). The orphan foals spent significantly more time in the maze in their first exposure to it than the mothered foals (184 +/- 42 vs 55 +/- 15 s. Mann Whitney U = 7, P less than .05). The mothers of the foals (n = 11) learned to turn left as rapidly as the foals (5.9 +/- .7 trials), but they were slower to learn to turn right (9.8 +/- 1.4 vs 6.4 +/- .4 trials, Mann Whitney U = 33, P less than .05), indicating that the younger horses learned more rapidly. There was no correlation between the trials to criteria of the mare and those of her foal, but there was a significant negative correlation between rank in trials to criteria and age (r = -65, P less than .05) when data from the mare and foal trials were combined. The dominance hierarchy of the mares was determined using a paired feeding test in which two horses competed for one bucket of feed. Although there was no correlation between rank in the hierarchy and maze learning ability, there was a correlation between body weight and rank in the hierarchy (r = .7, P less than .05). This may indicate either that heavier horses are likely to be dominant or that horses high in dominance gain more weight. Maternal deprivation did not appear to seriously retard learning of a simple maze by foals, although the orphans moved more slowly initially. The lack of maternal influence on learning is also reflected in the lack of correlation between the mare's learning ability and that of her foal. Young horses appear to learn more rapidly than older horses.

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: Twenty-four yearling Quarter Horse fillies were divided into three groups (I) very limited handling, (II) intermediate handling and (III) extensive handling. At about 14 months of age, each horse was preconditioned for 2 weeks and then run in a simple place-learning T-maze test in which it had to locate its feed. Thirty trials were run daily for 20 days, with the location of the feed changed each day. To retire from the maze, a horse had to meet the criterion: 11 correct responses in 12 tries, with the last eight being consecutive. Horses in Group II required the fewest trials to reach criterion. These horses also learned more and had the highest percentage of correct responses (P less than .05). Mean trainability tended to predict learning ability; however, trainability and trials to criterion were not significantly correlated. Mean emotionality scores indicated a tendency for horses in the intermediately handled group to be less emotional than those in Group I or III. Results indicated that horses with an intermediate amount of handling scored higher on an intermediate test of learning. All handled horses scored higher on learning tests than those not handled.