|
|
Choleris, E., & Kavaliers, M. (1999). Social Learning in Animals: Sex Differences and Neurobiological Analysis. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav., 64(4), 767–776.
Abstract: Social learning where an “individual's behavior is influenced by observation of, or interaction with, another animal or its products” has been extensively documented in a broad variety of species, including humans. Social learning occurs within the complex framework of an animal's social interactions that are markedly affected by factors such as dominance hierarchies, family bonds, age, and sex of the interacting individuals. Moreover, it is clear that social learning is influenced not only by important sexually dimorphic social constraints but also that it involves attention, motivational, and perceptual mechanisms, all of which exhibit substantial male-female differences. Although sex differences have been demonstrated in a wide range of cognitive and behavioral processes, investigations of male-female differences in social learning and its neurobiological substrates have been largely neglected. As such, sex differences in social learning and its neurobiological substrates merit increased attention. This review briefly considers various aspects of the study of social learning in mammals, and indicates where male-female differences have either been described, neglected and, or could have a potential impact. It also describes the results of neurobiological investigations of social learning and considers the relevance of these findings to other sexually dimorphic cognitive processes.
|
|
|
|
Clarke, J. V., Nicol, C. J., Jones, R., & McGreevy, P. D. (1996). Effects of observational learning on food selection in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 50(2), 177–184.
Abstract: Fourteen riding horses of mixed age and breed were randomly allocated to observer and control treatments. An additional horse was pre-trained as a demonstrator to walk the 13.8 m length of the test arena and select one of two food buckets using colour and pattern cues. Observer horses were exposed to correct performances of the task by the trained demonstrator, for 20 trials held over 2 days. Control horses were subjected to the same handling and placement procedures as the observer horses but without exposure to the behaviour of the demonstrator. The third day for all subjects was designated as a test day. Each subject was released individually in a predetermined place in the arena, and the latency to walk the length of the test arena to the food buckets, the latency to feed, the identity of the bucket approached and the identity of the bucket selected were recorded on ten consecutive trials. During tests both food buckets contained food to minimize the possibility of individual trial and error learning. On the first trial the mean latency to approach the goal area was 18 s for observer horses, compared with 119 s for control horses (t = 2.8, d.f. = 12, P < 0.01) and the mean latency to eat was 35 s for observer horses, compared with 181 s for control horses (t = 4.86, d.f. = 11, P < 0.001). However, observer horses were no more likely to choose the demonstrated bucket than control horses on the first trial. Twelve of the 14 horses decreased their latency to approach the goal area during the series of ten trials, but there were no significant changes in the buckets selected.
|
|
|
|
Lindberg, A. C., Kelland, A., & Nicol, C. J. (1999). Effects of observational learning on acquisition of an operant response in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 61(3), 187–199.
Abstract: The effect of observational learning on the acquisition of an operant response was examined in eighteen riding horses and ponies. The test horses were randomly divided into three groups of six and individually exposed to one of three treatments. An additional horse was trained as a demonstrator, to perform the operant response. The observer horses watched either the demonstrator performing the bin-opening response (Group D+B); the demonstrator standing passively (Group D); or the operant bin in the absence of the demonstrator (Group B). Observers had access to and were free to interact with an identical bin during testing. Observers in Groups D+B and D were socially familiar with the demonstrator. Each test horse was tested once a day for 10 days. An ANOVA revealed no significant differences between treatment groups in the number of responses or the time taken to reach the learning criterion. However, there were highly significant differences between breed types, with non-warmbloods performing more bouts of opening the bin and feeding (p=0.02), feeding from the bin sooner (p=0.01) and reaching the criterion for learning sooner than warmbloods (p=0.05). There was also a significant negative linear relationship between horses' ages and time spent investigating the bin, with younger horses performing more investigative behaviour (y=-3.08x+106.86; p=0.02).
|
|
|
|
Pokorná, M., & Bartošová, J. (2012). Social learning in horses. In K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2. International Equine Science Meeting (Vol. in press). Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
Abstract: Social observational learning is one of learning abilities expected in domestic horses (Equus caballus) because of their ecological and evolutional history. However, a few studies on this type of learning in horses failed to provide clear evidence of observational learning and/or could not distinguished it from other types of learning. We tested interspecific observational learning abilities using the spatial task and a human demonstrator. We hypothesised that 1) horses with possibility of observing a human demonstrator will complete the task in shorter time than control horses without any demonstrator, and 2) horses observing a familiar demonstrator will carry out the task in shorter time than horses with an unfamiliar demonstrator due to established positive human-horse relationship. We randomly allocated 24 riding horses of mixed age and breed to three groups per 8 and started the task either with observing a familiar demonstrator, unfamiliar demonstrator or without demonstrator (control group). Each horse was released individually at the starting point in the experimental paddock and the latency to pass the task was recorded. A horse completed the task once it walked 25 m from the starting point to the squared area (4x4 m) fenced by a tape, went into it through the entrance on the opposite side and touched the bucket with food. Eight people served as demonstrators, each for one familiar and one unfamiliar horse. Horses from groups with a demonstrator, either familiar or unfamiliar, reached the food bucket significantly faster than control horses during the first trial (mean±SE: 29.1±3.13 s with familiar, 28.9±3.13 s unfamiliar and 41.5 ± 3.13 s without demonstrator, P<0.02, GLMM, PROC MIXED, SAS). Horses did not differ in time needed to reach the fence of the squared area, but in “solving time”, i.e. time from reaching the fence of the squared area and touching the bucket (14.6±2.34, 14.3±2.34 and 27.6±2.34 s in horses with familiar, unfamiliar or without demonstrator, P<0.001). Despite our presumption, the horses observing a familiar demonstrator finished the task in comparable time as horses with an unfamiliar demonstrator (P=0.85) which indicated little effect of long lasting positive relationship between a horse and a particular human. We found, however, large individual variability in performance of individual demonstrators. Further, horses did not differ in time needed to pass the same task without a demonstrator repeated either shortly or 7 days after the first test which supported that interspecific observational learning rather than social facilitation occurred. In conclusion, horses with a human demonstrator, regardless familiar or unfamiliar, were able to solve the task in shorter time compared to control horses but they did not differ in performing repeated task if they learned it by individual or social learning process. This indicates that interspecific observational learning does occur in horses. Supported by AWIN, EU FP7 project No. 266213.
|
|
|
|
Tomasello, M., Davis-Dasilva, M., Camak, L., & Bard, K. (1987). Observational learning of tool-use by young chimpanzees. Human Evolution, 2(2), 175–183.
Abstract: In the current study two groups of young chimpanzees (4–6 and 8–9 years old) were given a T-bar and a food item that could only be reached by using the T-bar. Experimental subjects were given the opportunity to observe an adult using the stick as a tool to obtain the food; control subjects were exposed to the adult but were given no demonstration. Subjects in the older group did not learn to use the tool. Subjects in the younger group who were exposed to the demonstrator learned to use the stick as a tool much more readily than those who were not. None of the subjects demonstrated an ability to imitatively copy the demonstrator's precise behavioral strategies. More than simple stimulus enhancement was involved, however, since both groups manipulated the T-bar, but only experimental subjects used it in its function as a tool. Our findings complement naturalistic observations in suggesting that chimpanzee tool-use is in some sense «culturally transmitted» — though perhaps not in the same sense as social-conventional behaviors for which precise copying of conspecifics is crucial.
|
|
