The Effects of Vicarious Learning with Experienced Rats

1
The Effects of Vicarious Learning with
Experienced Rats Jessie Young and
Lyndsey Wells Randolph College
Lynchburg, VA 24503
Results Quadrant Preference A one-sample t-test
was conducted for the two experienced rats to
determine whether preference for the correct
quadrant was exhibited. A quadrant preference
greater than .25 indicated a good memory. Both
rats showed a poor preference for the correct
quadrant, t(1) 2.636, p .231 (two-tailed)
with scores of .09 and .20 compared to the model
rat who had a .26. Paired-Sampled T-test were
run in order to see if the quadrant preferences
were significantly different in each rat. The
only significant difference found was between the
SW and SE quadrants, t(2)4.865, p.04. However,
a significant difference was almost found between
the NW and NE quadrants, t(2)4.09, p.055.
Introduction Vicarious learning is defined as a
change in behavior due to the experience of
observing a model (Chance, 2006). Various animal
studies have been done in the past vicarious
operant conditioning. Most results showed the
animals did greatly benefit from observing the
model. The animals that observed, performed the
task in less time as compared to animals that did
not watch the model (Chance, 2006). For example,
Herbert Harsh (1944) conducted a study using a
turntable where one cat learned to spin the table
in order to receive food while four other cats
observed. The cats who observed outperformed the
model cat all around. Past research has found
that vicarious operant conditioning has been
successful in various animals including monkeys,
cats, and humans. However, we have not read many
studies using rats. We have also not read any
studies where they had used vicarious learning
with subjects that had previously learned to do
the task a different way. In order to test this,
we used rats that had previously learned to
complete the task in a different location. Due to
the majority of past research showing vicarious
learning to be successful, we hypothesize the
experienced rats will have a high quadrant
preference for the SE quadrant after observing
the model being trained in the sand maze to dig
for FL in the SE quadrant.

• Discussion
• The experiences rats did not learn to dig in the
  SE quadrant by using vicarious learning. This is
  probably due to the fact that the rats did not
  seem to be paying attention to the model rat.
• The majority of time spend by all three rats were
  in the western quadrants. This may be because the
  rats cages were located on that side. This seemed
  to be very distracting for the rats when they
  were in the maze.
• In addition, the model rats behavior was not
  ideal. He seemed to be more interested in the
  other rats and running around the maze instead of
  eating the FL. This could cause confusion for the
  rats who are observing.
• The experienced rats showed a higher preference
  for the NW quadrant. This may be due to their
  previous training.
• Observer's learning history is very important and
  because they had previously learned to dig in the
  NW quadrant perhaps a blocking situation
  occurred. It may be more difficult to establish a
  new quadrant preference if the previously learned
  quadrant was strong enough to block out the new.
  
• During the testing period, the rats were left in
  the room. For the model rat, the cages served as
  visual cues, however, for the experienced rats,
  this may have served as a larger distraction.
• In the future, it would be beneficial to test a
  larger amount of rats, as well as have a control
  group consisting of rats that did not get to
  observe a model. It would also be interesting to
  compare rats who have previous experience to
  those who do not. Also, we would like to see the
  use of a different apparatus because perhaps the
  sand maze was a little challenging to observe.

Method Subjects The subjects were 6-month-old,
male Long-Evans rats (N3). Our experienced group
consisted of 2 rats who had previously learned to
dig in the NW quadrant, and our model was an
inexperienced rat that learned to dig in the SE
quadrant. Rats were reduced to and maintained at
85 of their free-feeding weights one week prior
to experimentation and water was available ad
libitum. Apparatus A plastic pool that was 36
inches wide by 6 inches deep was filled with a
sand and crushed Froot Loops (FL) cereal mixture.
This sand maze was 2 inches deep with
approximately 11 ounces of FL crushed and mixed
with 100 pounds of play sand and was elevated of
the ground by 36 inches (Chandler Wetzel,
2006). The observational towers were created
using lab stools with empty cages stacked on top.
The subjects were sitting approximately 1 ½ feet
above the sand maze and placed as close as
possible to the western edges of the maze.
Procedure Before training, the two experienced
rats were set in a way so they could observe the
inexperienced rats shaping trials in the sand
maze, as seen in Figure 1. The model rat was
taught to dig in the south east quadrant of the
same maze using 10 shaping trials, (4 on day one,
4 on day two, and 2 on day three). The FL were
always buried at a shallow level in order to
insure he will always find the FL. During the
trials, 10 FL halves were placed in the SE
quadrant. The rat was then placed in the maze
using random location placement for each trial
(N, E, S, W). Latency to dig and number of FL
consumed were recorded for each trial. Each trial
ended when the rat consumed 6 FL. Between each
trial, the sand was mixed and the walls were
wiped down in order to extinguish intra-maze
cues. On the day of Testing, one at a time, each
rat was placed into the sand maze starting from
the south, for three minutes, while being
recorded with a video camera. Testing was used as
an extinction trial, meaning there were no FL in
the maze. After each had finished their testing,
the videos were used to measure the amount of
time spend in each quadrant and quadrant
preferences were calculated.
References Chance, P. (2006). Learning and
behavior Active learning edition (5th
ed.) Belmont, CA Thomson/Wadsworth. Chandler
Wetzel (2006). Acquisition and retention in rats
Comparing olfactory and visual cues as
facilitators of learning. Poster
presented at Randolph-Macon Womans College,
Lynchburg, VA. Gotthard, G.H. (2008).
Experimental Psychology Learning
Laboratory Lab Manual. Randolph College.
Figure 1