Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Cambridge Journals Online - CUP Full-Text Page
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2009), 32:224-225 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009
doi:10.1017/S0140525X09001137

Open Peer Commentary

Of mice and men: Revisiting the relation of nonhuman and human learning


Holger Schultheisa1 and Harald Lachnita2

a1 Transregional Collaborative Research Center Spatial Cognition, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany schulth@sfbtr8.uni-bremen.de http://www.cosy.informatik.uni-bremen.de/staff/schultheis/
a2 Department of Psychology, Philipps-University Marburg, 35032 Marburg, Germany lachnit@staff.uni-marburg.de http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~lachnit/
Article author query
schultheis h [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
lachnit h [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]

Abstract

To support their main claim, Mitchell et al. broach the issue of the relationship between the learning performance of human and nonhuman animals. We show that their argumentation is problematic both theoretically and empirically. In fact, results from learning studies with humans and honey-bees strongly suggest that human learning is not entirely propositional.

The propositional nature of human associative learning Chris J. Mitchell, Jan De Houwer and Peter F. Lovibond School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Kensington 2052, Australia chris.mitchell@unsw.edu.au http://www.psy.unsw.edu.au/profiles/cmitchell.html; Department of Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium jan.dehouwer@ugent.be http://users.ugent.be/~jdhouwer/">; School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Kensington 2052, Australia p.lovibond@unsw.edu.au http://www.psy.unsw.edu.au/profiles/plovibond.html">


Metrics