Local enhancement or stimulus enhancement? Bumblebee social learning results in a specific pattern of flower preference

2014 ◽  
Vol 97 ◽  
pp. 185-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurore Avarguès-Weber ◽  
Lars Chittka
Author(s):  
William Hoppitt ◽  
Kevin N. Laland

This chapter presents a classification of social learning mechanisms and explains how these mechanisms can be distinguished empirically. In most published social learning studies it is very difficult to determine exactly which mechanisms are operating. This is because experiments are often not designed with this primary purpose. Nonetheless, in such cases a researcher may still wish to draw some inferences about the process underlying a particular case of social learning. The chapter discusses stimulus enhancement, local enhancement, observational conditioning, response facilitation, social facilitation, imitation, observational R-S learning, emulation, opportunity providing, inadvertent coaching, and production imitation. It also considers a pragmatic approach to characterizing mechanisms of social transmission.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Zentall

Social influence and social learning are important to the survival of many organisms, and certain forms of social learning also may have important implications for their underlying cognitive processes. The various forms of social influence and learning are discussed with special emphasis on the mechanisms that may be responsible for opaque imitation (the copying of a response that the observer cannot easily see when it produces the response). Three procedures are examined, the results of which may qualify as opaque imitation: the bidirectional control procedure, the two- action procedure, and the do-as-I-do procedure. Variables that appear to affect the emergence of opaque imitation are identified and other complex forms of response copying are discussed. Keywords: bidirectional control procedure; contagion; emulation; imitation; local enhancement; object movement reenactment; observational conditioning; opaque imitation; social enhancement; social facilitation; social influence; social learning; stimulus enhancement; two action procedure


1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 690-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Gardner ◽  
Cecilia Heyes

Byrne & Russon's proposal that stimulus enhancement, emulation, and response facilitation should be lumped together as priming effects conceals important questions about nonimitative social learning, fails to forge a useful link between the social learning and cognitive psychological literatures, and leaves unexplained the most interesting feature of phenomena ascribed to “response facilitation.”


Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 221
Author(s):  
Maria Vilain Rørvang ◽  
Tina Bach Nielsen ◽  
Janne Winther Christensen

Animals can acquire new behavior through both individual and social learning. Several studies have investigated horses’ ability to utilize inter-species (human demonstrator) social learning with conflicting results. In this study, we repeat a previous study, which found that horses had the ability to learn from observing humans performing an instrumental task, but we include a control for stimulus enhancement. One human demonstrator and thirty horses were included, and the horses were randomly assigned to one of three treatments: (A) full human demonstration, (B) partial human demonstration, and (C) no human demonstration. The task was for the horses to touch an object situated 1 m away from a feed box, to open this feed box, and thereby obtain a food reward. The success of each horse, the behavior directed towards the apparatus and the human, and behaviors indicative of frustration were observed. The results showed that horses observing a full and partial human demonstration were not more successful in solving the instrumental task than horses not observing any demonstration. Horses that did not solve the task expressed more box- and human-oriented behavior compared to successful horses, which may be an indication of motivation to solve the task and/or frustration from being unable to solve the task.


2000 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.M. Heyes ◽  
E.D. Ray ◽  
C.J. Mitchell ◽  
T. Nokes

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara A Wood ◽  
Rachel L Kendal ◽  
Lydia M Hopper ◽  
Susan P Lambeth ◽  
Steven J Schapiro ◽  
...  

Social learning theories predict biased transmission dictating what and whom is copied. We presented a novel tool-use task to six groups of captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) to investigate a model proficiency bias. The study included six groups totalling 54 chimpanzees (24 males) housed in six social groups at the KCCMR, University of Texas, U.S.A. Subjects were aged 12- to 43-years-old (M = 24.5 years, SD = 7). In each of four groups (N = 33, Males = 18), two models were trained to use one of two visually and functionally different ‘hook’ and ‘spoon’ tools to obtain baskets containing food that were otherwise out-of-reach. Once trained, the models demonstrated their tool-use in the presence of the group. The two models differed in their novel-task-solving proficiency as ascertained by prior interactions with novel tasks (also observed by group members) and caregiver ratings of each chimpanzee’s general proficiency. Two groups of ‘control’ chimpanzees (N = 21) had no prior information regarding the task and saw no conspecific demonstrations. Within the experimental groups, significantly more chimpanzees touched the tool used by the ‘high proficiency’ model than the one used by the ‘low proficiency’ model (p < 0.001), demonstrating some degree of model-based social learning bias. The tool used in observing chimpanzees’ first attempts and first successes, however, did not differ as a function of which model used the tool. This was likely because the task could be easily learned asocially. We propose that the chimpanzees’ tool-use behaviour was guided by biased stimulus enhancement alongside asocial learning. As with humans, chimpanzees demonstrate an ability to discern the most proficient model but also show the flexibility to asocially acquire multiple successful methods. Thus, chimpanzees and humans both demonstrate adaptive social learning strategies dictating when and whom they copy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo Bernal-Gamboa ◽  
◽  
Luis A. Hernández ◽  
José Eduardo Reynoso-Cruz ◽  
Javier Nieto ◽  
...  

Recently, several authors have reported evidence of helping behavior in rats. However, the mechanisms underlying such behavior are unclear. Two experiments with Wistar rats used the task developed by Sato et al. (2015) to assess whether social enhancement affects the helping response. Experiment 1 tested whether rats placed in a dry compartment adjacent to a pool-type compartment (where another rat was trapped) opened a door to allow the trapped wet rat to escape from the water. The behavior of rats was also examined by reversing the roles (wet rats were placed in the dry compartment, while dry rats were placed in the pool-type compartment). The results obtained with 16 rats, using analysis of variance (ANOVA), showed that no rat opened the door to liberate a soaked cagemate; even rats that had previously experienced soaking did not open the door to allow the trapped rat to enter the dry area. In Experiment 2, a pre-training phase was introduced that involved local enhancement (the researchers opened the door). The results obtained with 32 rats and analyzed using an ANOVA showed that, with the pre-training phase, rats learned to help a cagemate, both in the initial and role-reversal sessions. The findings are discussed based on the methodological differences of both studies (such as the housing and strain of rats). The discussion also covers the role of social learning in the modulation of helping behavior in rats, with the desire for social contact being advanced as an alternative explanation for helping behavior.


1997 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 459-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daren H. Kaiser ◽  
Thomas R Zentall ◽  
Bennett G Galef

Zentall Sutton and Sherburne (1996) reported that pigeons observing a conspecific demonstrator either step on or peck at a treadle to obtain food subsequently showed a significant tendency to manipulate the treadle as had their demonstrator Zentall et al suggested this finding showed observer pigeons had learned by imitation to peck at or step on the treadle However, the same result might have been obtained if pigeons had learned to step on the treadle by trial and error, and pigeons exposed to a treadle-pecking demonstrator had come to peck at the treadle as a result of nonimitative social-learning processes such as local enhancement or contagion Here we report the results for two control groups showing that pigeons do not learn to step on or peck at a treadle for food reward unless they observe a relevant demonstrator These results considerably strengthen the original conclusion Future research using the two action method to demonstrate imitative learning should include similar controls


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document