Heyes C M
Department of Psychology, University College London.
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1994 May;69(2):207-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1994.tb01506.x.
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)
关于社会学习的心理机制,相关研究相对较少。这在一定程度上可能是由于人们习惯根据不明确的机制来区分社会学习的类别(戴维斯,1973;盖尔夫,1988)。这种做法既使得难以通过实证确定不同类型社会学习的实例,又给人一种错误印象,即认为负责社会学习的机制已被清楚理解。有人提议将社会学习现象纳入当前非社会学习研究者所使用的分类体系。该体系根据可观察的条件来区分学习类别,即导致动物发生变化的经验类型(单一刺激与刺激 - 刺激关系与反应 - 强化物关系),以及检测到这种变化的行为类型(反应唤起与可学习性)(雷斯克拉,1988)。具体而言,已提出三种对应关系:(i)刺激增强与单一刺激学习,(ii)观察性条件作用与刺激 - 刺激学习,即巴甫洛夫条件作用,以及(iii)观察性学习与反应 - 强化物学习,即工具性条件作用。如果如所提出的对应关系所示,社会学习和非社会学习的条件相同,那么就有理由相信这两组现象背后的机制也是相同的。如果人们做出一个相对没有争议的假设,即在相似条件下发生的现象往往由相似机制控制,情况就是如此。然而,所提出的对应关系旨在作为关于社会学习机制的一组假设,而非结论;作为将动物学习理论应用于社会学习的进一步研究的基础。协同努力将动物学习理论应用于社会学习,以查明社会学习和非社会学习是否由相同机制负责,这既可能导致一般理论的完善,也能更好地理解社会学习的机制。将动物学习理论应用于食物厌恶学习(如多姆扬,1983;罗津和舒尔,1988)以及印记学习(如博尔胡伊斯、德沃克斯和克鲁伊特,1990;霍利斯、滕凯特和贝特森,1991)的研究中存在这些积极发展的先例。与社会学习一样,这些现象几乎肯定在适应性行为的个体发生中发挥独特作用,并且它们通常被视为“特殊类型”的学习(谢特沃思,1993)。(摘要截取自400字)