Abstract: The purpose of this study was to develop an effective method for trailer loading horses based on principles of positive reinforcement. Target training and shaping were used to teach trailer-loading behavior to 5 quarter horse mares in a natural setting. All 5 had been trailer loaded before through the use of aversive stimulation. Successive approximations to loading and inappropriate behaviors were the dependent variables. After training a horse to approach a target, the target was moved to various locations inside the trailer. Horses started training on the left side of a two-horse trailer. After a horse was loading on the left side, she was moved to the right side, then to loading half on the right and half on the left. A limited-hold procedure and the presence of a companion horse seemed to facilitate training for 1 horse. Inappropriate behaviors fell to zero immediately after target training, and all the horses successfully completed the shaping sequence. Finally, these effects were observed to generalize to novel conditions (a different trainer and a different trailer).

Abstract: Training can best be explained as a process that occurs through stimulus-response-reinforcement chains, whereby animals are conditioned to associate cues in their environment, with specific behavioural responses and their rewarding consequences. Research into learning in horses has concentrated on their powers of discrimination and on primary positive reinforcement schedules, where the correct response is paired with a desirable consequence such as food. In contrast, a number of other learning processes that are used in training have been widely studied in other species, but have received little scientific investigation in the horse. These include: negative reinforcement, where performance of the correct response is followed by removal of, or decrease in, intensity of a unpleasant stimulus; punishment, where an incorrect response is paired with an undesirable consequence, but without consistent prior warning; secondary conditioning, where a natural primary reinforcer such as food is closely associated with an arbitrary secondary reinforcer such as vocal praise; and variable or partial conditioning, where once the correct response has been learnt, reinforcement is presented according to an intermittent schedule to increase resistance to extinction outside of training.

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: Golden hamsters were reinforced with intracranial electrical stimulation of the lateral hypothalamus (ICS) for spending time engaging in one of seven topographically defined action patterns (APs). The stimulation used as reinforcer elicited hoarding and/or feeding and supported high rates of bar pressing. In Experiment 1, hamsters were reinforced successively for digging, open rearing, and face washing. Digging increased most in time spent, and face washing increased least. Experiments 2-5 examined these effects further and also showed that “scrabbling,” like digging, was performed a large proportion of the time, almost without interruption, for contingent ICS but that scratching the body with a hindleg and scent-marking showed relatively little effect of contingent ICS, the latter even in an environment that facilitated marking. In Experiment 6, naive hamsters received ICS not contingent on behavior every 30 sec (fixed-time 30-sec schedule). Terminal behaviors that developed on this schedule were APs that were easy to reinforce in the other experiments, but a facultative behavior, face washing, was one not so readily reinforced. Experiment 7 confirmed a novel prediction from Experiment 6--that wall rearing, a terminal AP, would be performed at a high level for contingent ICS. All together, the results point to both motivational factors and associative factors being involved in the considerable differences in performance among different reinforced activities.