103_21_full

103_21_full - PSYC
103
 Winter
2011
...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: PSYC
103
 Winter
2011
 Lecture
21
 Social
Learning
 Young
chimpanzees
learn
how
to
crack
nuts
 from
adults
 [email protected]://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRN‐ fHdGzUY&feature=watch_response
 Social
Learning
 •  Behavioral
profiles
of
each
 community
are
 disTncTvely
different,
 [email protected] comprising
many
 behavioral
variants
 –  e.g.
wood
on
stone,
stone
 on
stone,
aimed
throw,
etc.
 •  Chimpanzees
living
to
the
 west,
but
not
to
the
east,
 of
the
Sassandra‐N'Zo
 river
on
the
Ivory
Coast
 use
stones
to
crack
nuts
 –  Suggests
cultural
 transmission,
not
geneTc
 (Whiten
et
al.,
1999)
 Social
Learning:
outline
 1.  2.  3.  4.  Diet
selecTon
and
foraging
 Choosing
a
mate
 Fear
of
predators
 Copying
behavior
 A.  Mimicry
 B.  ImitaTon
 5.  Theory
of
mind
 6.  Self‐recogniTon
 Diet
selecTon
and
foraging
 Animals
can
learn
something
where
to
eat
based
upon
where
others
eat
 •  STmulus
enhancement:
an
increase
in
the
tendency
to
approach
an
object
 as
a
consequence
of
another
animal
interact
with
it
 •  McQuoid
&
Galef,
1992
 
Training:
jungle
fowl
placed
in
enclosure
with
several
food
dishes,
only
one
 of
which
was
consistently
filled
with
food
 
Test:
another
group
of
fowl
watched
the
first
group,
then
allowed
to
 explore
enclosure
 
Result:
New
group
shows
preference
for
preferred
bowl
of
first
group
 Diet
selecTon
and
foraging
 Similar
findings
for
octopi
(Fiorito
&[email protected],
1992)
and
bees
(Worden
&
Papaj,
2005)
 Observer
 Demonstrator
 Demonstrator
 Demonstrator
 Observer
 Observer
 Choosing
dark
ball
(R)
leads
to
food
reward,
 white
ball
(W)
leads
to
shock;
observers
show
 preference
for
what
demonstrators
learned
 Demonstrators
prefer
green
flowers;
 observers
show
same
preference
 Diet
selecTon
and
foraging
 Once
animals
have
acquired
food
preferences,
these
preferences
are
oken
 difficult
to
disrupt
 •  Neophobia:
a
reluctance
to
approach
something
that
is
novel
 Galef,
Lee,
&
Whisken,
2005

 Training:
Demonstrators
eat
cocoa‐ flavored
food,
observers
choose
 cocoa‐flavored
food
 Test:
Observers
presented
with
1)
 different
flavored
foods
(cocoa,
 cinnamon,
anise,
thyme)
for
six
days,
 2)
demonstrators
that
had
eaten
 unfamiliar
food,
or
3)
both
eaTng
 unfamiliar
foods
and
interacTng
with
 demonstrators
that
had
eaten
 unfamiliar
foods
 Result:
Those
foods
had
no
 measurable
effect
on
rats’
socially
 learned
food
preferences,
 demonstraTng
stability
of
socially
 enhanced
food
preferences
over
Tme
 Diet
selecTon
and
foraging:
ExcepTons
 No
evidence
that
observer
animals
can
learn
to
avoid
poisonous
food
as
a
 result
of
interacTng
with
a
sick
demonstrator
that
had
eaten
the
poisonous
 food
(Galef,
McQuoid,
&
Whiskin,
1990).
 Training:
e.g.
Demonstrators
eat
 cinnamon‐flavored
food,
then
injected
 with
LiCl
and
become
sick.

Observers
 then
interact
with
poisoned
 demonstrators.

 Test:
Observers
presented
with
cocoa‐
 and
cinnamon‐flavored
food.



 Result:
Observers
that
ate
both
foods,
 then
injected
with
LiCl
will
form
 aversion
to
food
NOT
eaten
by
 demonstrator
 
Observer
rats
exhibit
enhanced
 preference
for
foods
eaten
by
sick
 demonstrators
 Diet
selecTon
and
foraging:
ExcepTons
 Principles
that
control
food
selecTon
in
rats
not
always
true
 for
other
species.
 Capuchin
monkeys:
 • 
They
do
tend
to
eat
unfamiliar
food
if
present
with
other
 monkeys
 • 
No
evidence
that
diet
selecTon
in
monkeys
is
affected
by
 smelling
the
breath
of
a
conspecific
who
has
just
consumed
 food
 Food
aversion:
 • 
Tamarin
monkeys:
Observers
seeing
monkey
eat
and
react
 to
disgusTng
food
will
avoid
same
food
 • 
Japanese
macaques:
may
learn
food
aversion
from
mothers
 • 
Squirrel
monkeys:
adults
prevent
infants
from
approaching
 toxic
prey
 Diet
selecTon
and
foraging
 Animals
returning
to
their
colonies
aker
 eaTng
food
may
provide
informaTon
about
 food
supply.
 Galef
(1988):
 Training:
Rats
trained
to
run
to
different
goals
 each
day,
and
each
goal
contained
different
 flavors
of
food.

Rats
had
strong
tendency
to
 return
to
a
goal
box
once
it
had
learned
that
 it
contained
food.
 Test:
Prior
to
first
trial,
experimental
rat
 confined
in
start
box
with
another
rat,
which
 had
just
eaten
food
of
the
flavor
available
in
 the
correct
goal
box.
 Result:
Experimental
rat
more
likely
to
run
 directly
to
correct
goal
 B
 (cinnamon)
 C

 (cocoa)
 A

 (cheese)
 Start
 Choosing
a
mate
 Guppies
 •  Female
observer
chooses
male
previously
seen
with
companion
 rather
than
male
seen
alone
 Japanese
quail
 •  Female
chooses
male
previously
seen
courTng
and
maTng
with
 another
female
 •  If
male
given
choice,
male
prefers
female
seen
in
isolaTon
 Lekking
species
(e.g.
Sage
grouse)
 •  Males
and
females
gather
in
one
maTng
area
(“lek”)
 •  Females
tend
to
choose
the
same
few
males
as
mates
 Humans
 •  Mate
preferences
among
North
American
college
students
in
1939,
 1956,
1967,
1977,
1985,
and
1996:
regional
as
well
as
temporal
 variaTons
 –  e.g.,
Students
in
Texas
were
more
interested
in
chasTty,
religious
 background,
and
neatness
than
were
students
in
Michigan
 –  Over
Tme,
the
value
placed
on
chasTty
by
both
sexes
dropped,
and
the
 [email protected](Buss
et
al.
2001)
 Fear
of
predators
 Adult
free‐ranging
monkeys
show
robust
fear

 response:
fleeing,
fearful
expressions,
alarm
calls,
etc.
 Laboratory
monkeys
show
no
such
response;
fear
is
 not
innate
but
acquired
(to
an
extent)
 Acquired
fear
of
snakes
in
monkeys
is
a
Pavlovian
condiToned
response
 
 
CS
=
sight
of
snake
 
 
US
=
another
monkey
displaying
fear
of
snake
 •  ObservaTonal
condiToning:
an
increase
in
the
likelihood
of
a
sTmulus
 eliciTng
a
response,
based
on
the
subject’s
uncondiToned
reacTon
to
the
 response
of
another
animal
to
the
same
sTmulus
 •  ObservaTon
of
free‐ranging
monkey
fear
response
sufficient
for
laboratory
 monkeys
to
learn
 •  Learning
can
then
be
passed
from
one
laboratory
monkey
to
another
 Fear
of
predators
 •  Is
fear
innate
or
learned?
 –  Fear
learning
works
only
with
innate
disposiTon
to
fear
of
sTmuli
(e.g.
won’t
work
with
 showing
edited
tape
of
monkey
afraid
of
flowers)
 Infants
may
possess
a
perceptual
template
for
evoluTonarily
relevant
sTmuli
 (Rakison
&
Derringer,
2007)
 Test:
present
5
mo
old
infants
with
template
of
spider
(schemaTc,
reconfigured,
 and
scrambled)
 Result:
infants
look
longer
at
schemaTc
spider;
control
studies
with
flower
 template
show
no
increased
looking
Tme
 Babies
not
necessarily
born
with
a
fear
of
spiders,
but
the
mechanism
may
 predispose
them
to
learn
about
spiders
in
a
different
way
than
they
would
learn
 about
dogs
or
cats
 Copying
behavior
 Both
mimicry
and
imitaTon
result
in
animals
 performing
new,
arbitrary
responses
 •  Mimicry
(social):
copying
the
response
of
a
 demonstrator
when
it
does
not
result
in
any
 tangible
reward
 •  ImitaTon:
copying
the
response
of
a
 demonstrator
when
it
leads
to
reward
 Copying
behavior:
Mimicry
 African
grey
parrot
has
the
 capacity
to
mimic
humans.
 Training:
Experimenter
spent
 a
few
minutes
every
day
with
 parrot,[email protected] while
performing
a
 stereotyped
movement
 Result:
Parrot
performs
 acTons
without
presence
of
 presenter,
suggesTng
 behavior
is
unlikely
due
to
 influence
of
extrinsic
reward
 Examples
of
imitaTon
of
human
movements
by
a
parrot.
While
 performing
these
acTons
the
bird
said:
"ciao"
(A
and
B),
"look
at
 my
tongue"
(C),
"turn"
(D),
"peanut"
(E
and
F),
"whoops,
dropped
 the
peanut"
(G
and
H),
"[head]
shake"
(I
and
J),
"nod"
(K),
and
 "heads
up"
(L).
[The
nibbling
response
(F)
was
not
itself
imitaTve,
 but
occurred
only
as
a
sequel
to
E.]
(Moore,
1992)
 Copying
behavior:
Mimicry
 Does
mimicry
really
exist?
 •  Does
an
animal
repeat
a
behavior
for
the
 same
purpose,
or
is
it
simply
just
“playing?”
 •  Goes
against
principles
of
instrumental
 condiToning...
if
reliably
compleTng
behavior
 without
reward,
what
is
the
point?
 Importance
of
mimicry
 •  Acquire
skills
 •  CommunicaTon
(e.g.
song
learning)
 •  Social
funcTon
 –  Capuchin
monkeys
are
more
likely
to
sit
closer
to
 and
exchange
tokens
with
a
human
who
imitated
 their
acTons
than
one
who
did
not
(Paukner
et
al.,
 2009)
 –  Unconscious
desire
to
create
rapport?

Both
 children
and
adults
copy
others
when
social
goals
 are
important
 Copying
behavior:
ImitaTon
 NaturalisTc
evidence
 Chimpanzee
example
of
breaking
open
nuts
 with
stones
a
form
of
imitaTve
learning
 [email protected] But
this
can
be
explained
by
non‐imitaTve
 phenomenon
 •  Social
enhancement:
an
increase
in
the
 tendency
to
perform
an
established
 response
because
of
the
presence
of
one
or
 more
conspecifics
 Explains
how
behavior
of
birds
opening
milk
 [email protected],
now,
likely
 Pavolovian
condiToning;
CS
=
foil
top,
US
=
 cream
 •  Presence
of
second
bird
sufficient
to
 encourage
first
bird
to
peck
at
foil
cap
–
 reduce
fear,
encourage
foraging
response
 Copying
behavior:
ImitaTon
 Laboratory
studies
 Advantage:
control
for
individual
history
of
animals
 •  ImitaTon
in
rats
–
lever
pressing
 –  Rats
more
likely
to
press
lever
if
watching
a
rat
press
for
reward
(vs.
watching
nothing,
or
 watching
a
rat
that
receives
no
reward
for
pressing
lever)
 –  Caveats:
social
enhancement,
observaTonal
appeTTve
condiToning
([email protected] movement
of
lever,
associaTng
with
delivery
of
food)
 Techniques
to
overcome
caveats:
 •  “Do
as
I
do”
test
 •  BidirecTonal
control
 •  Two‐acTon
control
 Copying
behavior:
ImitaTon
 “Do
as
I
do”
test
 • 
Chimpanzees
able
to
correctly
imitate
novel,
 arbitrary
acTons
(Hayes
&
Hayes,
1952)
 • 
Not
as
useful
for
other
species
 Bidirec0onal
control
 • 
Observer
has
opportunity
to
respond
by
 pushing
the
pole
in
one
of
two
direcTons
 • 
If
observer
pushes
pole
in
same
direcTon
as
 demonstrator,
this
is
viewed
as
imitaTon
(Heyes
 &
Dawson,
1990)
 • 
Caveat:
odor
cue,
though
also
works
with
 Japanese
quail,
which
are
less
sensiTve
to
odors
 Two‐ac0on
control
 • 
Demonstrator
trained
to
either
peck
or
step
on
 Tp
feeding
device
 • Observer
shows
strong
preference
for
making
 same
response
(Dawson
&
Foss,
1965)
 – Specific
response
not
accounted
for
by
sTmulus
 enhancement
nor
observaTonal
condiToning
 Copying
behavior:
ImitaTon
 Problem
of
emulaTon
 •  EmulaTon
learning:
learning
about
the
properTes
of
 objects
by
observing
another
animal
 –  Understanding
the
goal
of
the
model’s
acTons
and
producing
the
 same
results
as
the
model
without
copying
the
model’s
behavior
to
 achieve
the
desired
results
 Is
an
observer
imitaTng
a
demonstrator,
or
learning
 something
about
the
consequences
of
an
acTon?
 •  e.g.
Observer
chimpanzee
watches
demonstrator
open
 tube
with
food
either
by
breaking
it
or
by
removing
caps
at
 either
end
(Call
et
al.,
2005)
 •  Observer
is
given
tube
and
opens
it
using
the
same
 method
as
demonstrator,
but
in
a
somewhat
related
 manner
(e.g.
pulling
off
caps
rather
than
twisTng
off)
–
 suggests
emulaTon
rather
than
imitaTon
 Previous
techniques
likely
not
due
to
emulaTon
learning
 • 



For
bidirecTonal
control,
“ghost
control”
discounts
 emulaTon
learning
 – Pushing
pole
in
one
direcTon
in
the
absence
of
any
demonstrator

 
observer
show
no
preference
for
pushing
panel
in
a
parTcular
direcTon
 Copying
behavior:
ImitaTon
 Mechanisms
of
imitaTon
 Observer
watching
performer
will
excite
 tendency
of
observer
to
perform
same
 response
 •  Mirror
neurons:
neurons
that
are
 acTvated
when
watching
another
 animal
perform
a
parTcular
acTon
and
 when
making
the
same
acTon
 themselves
 •  Understanding
of
mirror
neurons
does
 not
yet
account
for
arbitrary
responses
 (e.g.
“Do
as
I
do”)
 Copying
behavior
 Is
a
chimp
smarter
than
a
child?
 [email protected]://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIAoJsS9Ix8
 Copying
behavior
 •  Chimps
open
the
puzzle
box
quickly
and
efficiently,
they
copy
only
the
 necessary
acTons,
and
ignore
the
rest...
but
kids
seem
more
confused.

 Children
copy
all
of
the
adult's
acTons
‐
even
the
unnecessary
ones
that
 chimps
know
to
ignore.
 •  OverimitaTon:
tendency
to
copy
unnecessary
acTons
 •  Possible
explana0ons:
 –  Children
may
make
the
reasonable
assumpTon
that
they
are
supposed
to
be
copying
the
 adult
 –  Children
might
be
reluctant
to
“contradict”
an
adult
by
ignoring
some
of
her
acTons
 –  Children
they
may
assume
that
the
adult
understands
something
important
about
the
 Puzzle
Box
that
isn’t
obvious,
and
thus
that
they
should
copy
all
of
her
acTons
even
if
 some
of
them
seem
appear
unnecessary.
 –  Children
learn
a
great
deal
by
imitaTng,
so
much
so
that
it’s
possible
imitaTon
may
be
 something
of
a
habit.

 –  Children
may
just
want
to
please
the
adult
by
copying
her
acTons
 –  Children
treat
the
acTons
they
see
adult’s
direcTng
towards
new
objects
as
a
source
of
 highly
reliable
informaTon,
automaTcally
perceiving
those
acTons
as
necessary
and
 important
even
when
their
own
eyes
might
suggest
otherwise*
 [email protected]:[email protected]he‐mystery‐of‐overimitaTon.html
 Social
learning:
Concepts
 •  Presence
of
one
animal
influences
what
another
learns
in
 several
domains
 –  –  –  –  Diet
selecTon
and
foraging
 Choosing
a
mate
 Fear
of
predators
 Copying
behavior
 •  Copying
behavior
present
in
many
animals
(though
several
 excepTons)
 –  Mirror
neurons
may
account
for
such
behavior,
enabling
one
animal
to
 detect
mental
state
of
a
conspecific
 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/24/2012 for the course PSYC 103 taught by Professor Pearlberg during the Spring '07 term at UCSD.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online