Reciprocal heuristics: A discussion of the relationship of the study of learned behavior in laboratory and field

At the turn of the century, the initiators of laboratory study of animal learning advocated two very different approaches to the subject matter. Willard Small favored the investigation of learning in ecological settings appropriate to individual species. E. L. Thorndike treated the process of association formation in animals as a general one, best studied in situations distant from those to which subject species were adapted. The latter view dominated laboratory study of animal learning for 80 years. The consequent absence of ecological content from laboratory investigations of animal learning, together with recent expansion in knowledge of the behavior of free-living animals, has created opportunities for ecologically sound investigations of animal learning of the type first advocated by Small. Studies of taste-aversion learning, although introducing evolutionary issues into the study of animal learning, do not exemplify such an approach. Integration of field and laboratory studies of behavioral plasticity in animals requires a change in the methods used to select phenomena for analysis. Such integration does not often lead to identification of the behavioral processes underlying the development of particular behaviors observed in nature. Rather, its results are an increase in the variety of learning processes investigated in laboratory settings and enhanced understanding of the behavioral capacities of subject species.