New research shows that animals learn socially like humans do.

1. Verified by Psychology TodayFind a Therapist (City or Zip)
Nathan H. Lents, Ph.D.
Beastly Behavior
Source: Frans de Waal, (K. Powell, PLOS Biology
2003)
In Humans and Animals, Social Learning Drives
Intelligence
New research shows that animals learn socially like humans do.
Posted Mar 26, 2018
SHARE TWEET EMAIL MORE
The human capacity to learn exceeds that of any other animal. Indeed, our massive memories and impressive
computing power are the engines of all that makes us different from other animals, rooted mostly, but not entirely,
in language.
However, the way that humans and animals learn may not be as different as many people think.
We all know that humans do most of their learning socially,
that is, we learn from others rather than discovering things
ourselves through trial-and-error. Formal schooling is
entirely based on social learning. Even so-called self-
directed learning and discovery is actually social because
when we discover information in a book, someone else put
it there.
Reading a book may seem like a solitary endeavor, but
those are someone else's words on those pages,
communicating to us through time and space using the
magic of the written word. The truth is that we do not often
derive new knowledge from first principles. Instead, we
learn what others have discovered and each generation
cumulatively adds to the global knowledge base.
Because animals do not go to school, we often think of their
learning as entirely different. When we see a bird building a
nest, for example, we assume that birds must have a built-in
instinct to build nests and then learn to do it through trial-
and-error. That may be right, but there may also be a social
component to animal learning.
Carel van Schaik and his colleagues at the University of
Zurich recently wrote an article in a special edition of the
Spanish Journal of Psychology dedicated to "Cognition and
Culture in an Evolutionary Contex." In this article, entitled,
"The Ecology of Social Learning in Animals and its Link
with Intelligence," van Shaik makes the argument that many
scientists have been under-appreciating the role of social
learning in animals.

2. Source: The Spanish Journal of Psychology
Source: Steve Evans/WikiCommons
Source: onkelramirez1/Pixabay
Paraphrasing, van Schaik writes that field biologists have long tended to conclude that high-level skills of animals
were the product of natural selection and thus largely innate, requiring little learning at all. Comparative
psychologists, on the other hand, tend to think more about animal learning, but assume that it mostly happens as
an individual endeavor. Anthropologists, on the other hand, tend to think more about how animals might learn
things socially. In other words, scientists from the three disciplines that do research on animal learning harbor very
different ideas about that learning and often talk right past each other.
As van Schaik puts it, "Those who study animals tend to expect strong genetic foundations and little learning, but
where it happens, assume individual learning, whereas those who study humans automatically expect cultural
processes to underlie our cognitive abilities."
Fortunately, the question of how animals learn things can be interrogating through careful observation in the field
and experiments with captive animals.
It has long been known that most social animals that are
reared artificially in captivity will be deficient in many skills
that adult animals of that species are generally proficient at.
For examples, chimpanzees raised without adult
chimpanzees do not know how to build nests or care for
young when they become parents themselves. Ring-tailed
lemurs raised artificially do not show the "normal" food
preferences that wild lemurs display and instead will eat a
larger variety of food.
Cross-fostering experiments, in which animals are raised by
members of a different species, have also revealed the
effects of social learning. For example, Frans de Waal and
Denise Johanowicz allowed some young rhesus macaques,
which don't normally engage in social reconciliation
following a conflict, to spend five months of their young
lives with stump-tailed macaques, which are much more prone to reconciling disputes peacefully. These fostered
rhesus macaques learned the behavior of reconciliation and it stuck with them even after they were placed back
with other rhesus macaques. Surprisingly, this more conciliatory approach to conflict resolution remained even
after other habits they had picked up faded.
Two cross-fostering examples in wild animals, one with cockatoos and one with tits, show that birds learn their
foraging behaviors from their parents, rather than having an innate knowledge that is shaped through trial-and-
error. For example, Galah cockatoos will forage and eat like Mitchell's cockatoos when they are raised by Mitchell's
cockatoos and will largely ignore their conspecific fellow Galahs even in adulthood.
In his paper, van Schaik then goes on to describe various modes of learning, including and especially social modes
and provides evidence from many bird and mammal species demonstrating that some of the most essential skills
for many animals are actually learned socially, rather than individually. For example, while Northwestern Crows may

3. Source: Larry Eifert, Clams on the Half Shell
References
van Scheick, et al. (2017). Spanish Journal of Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
SHARE TWEET EMAIL MORE
learn to open clamshells on their own, they definitely rely
on learning from conspecifics regarding where to find these
claims.
The continuing discovery that birds and mammals do a
great deal of their learning socially, rather than individually,
has important implications for how human intelligence
evolved. It is well known that the explosion of innovation
and creativity in our lineage began well after our species
had adopted our current anatomical form, including brain
size, and is largely attributed to the acquisition of language
and symbolic thinking around 65,000 years ago. From this
point forward, each generation of humans inherited the
collected knowledge of the previous generation, which was
transmitted socially through language. This steady
accumulation of knowledge led to the eventual
development of agriculture and everything else flowed from
that.
If we consider that our ape ancestors were already learning
a great deal from each other, the evolutionary drive toward cognitive capacity was really just a drive for "more of
the same." The great conundrum of language and symbolic thought is that humans had to have evolved the
capacity for these skills before they were actually used. You can't do something until you have the means to do it.
When it comes to language and symbolism and culture, it could be that the means to do it was social learning pure
and simple. Over the last seven million years (and even going much further back than that, truth be told), the
selective pressure was for increasing sociality, social cooperation, and social learning.
If we view human evolution as a rising tide of social learning, the emergence of language seems almost inevitable.
I further find this probable because it also addresses a lingering paradox of ethology - how can natural selection
possibly be the only tool by which animals "learn" very complex skills? Of course, natural selection is involved in
shaping anything and everything about us, and of course some animals really do have genetically programmed
behaviors that are complex, such as a beaver building a dam, a behavior that appears to be almost completely
innate. But we are expecting too much of natural selection to think that all of the complex behaviors we see in
animals is the product of pure genetics and "survival of the fittest."
Social learning resolves this conundrum. Animals species didn't have to sit around and wait for random mutation to
give them the innate knowledge of where to find food. They learned from their parents and others. The role of
evolution, then, was to continually select for better learners, and better social learners specifically, at least in some
lineages.
Especially ours. The mutations that made us human with all our impressive abilities are those that made us better
social learners. We learned to be human.
COMMENT

4. About the Author
Nathan H. Lents, Ph.D., is a professor of molecular biology at John Jay College, of the City University of New York.
View Author Profile
More Posts
Continue Reading
In Humans and Animals, Social Learning Drives Intelligence
New research shows that animals learn socially like humans do.
Want Teens To Smoke Less Pot? Legalize It
Evolutionary psychology predicted it, data now confirms it.
The Meaning and Meaninglessness of Genealogy
Researching our family background is all the rage, but what does it all mean?
Most Popular
The Most Loving Thing You Can Say to Your
Partner
How Untreated Depression Changes the
Brain Over Time
There's a New Way to Make Someone Feel
Inferior
One Trait That Predicts Addiction
More Like This
Are Humans Unique?
Professor Kevin Laland On What Made Us Who We Are
What Are the Limits of Canine Learning?
Human Babies Rely on Primitive Reflexes to Learn Language
Do Dog Barks Signal Emotional Information to Humans?

5. Top Posts
March 24 - 30
Too Much Charisma Is Bad for Leadership Cut Calories, Live Longer
Social Learning Drives Intelligence Handwriting Helps Kids Read
Find a Therapist
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
City or Zip
North America:
United Kingdom:
Are you a Therapist?
Get Listed Today
USA Canada
England Northern Ireland Scotland Wales
Recent Issues
Subscribe Today!

6. About Privacy Terms Psychology Today © 2018 Sussex Publishers, LLC