In general, naive individuals appear more likely to learn from interaction with familiar rather than unfamiliar members of their species. Kaveliers and colleagues (2005) reported that naive laboratory-bred deer mice showed greater social learning of defensive responses to biting flies after observing responses of familiar members than after observing responses of unfamiliar members. Earlier, Valsecchi and colleagues (1996) reported striking differences in social learning of food preferences among Mongolian gerbils, depending on whether they were exposed to familiar or unfamiliar demonstrators. At the time, this was unexpected because Gaief and colleagues (1984) had previously reported no familiarity effect in Norway rats on social learning of food preferences. However, Gaief et al (1998) subsequently uncovered a significant familiarity effect that was evident when demonstrators are some hours before interacting with observers but absent when demonstrators are immediately before interacting.
Which of the following can be inferred about the report by Gaief and colleagues (1984) as it is described in the passage?
It introduced a concept that the report by Kaveliers and colleagues was intended to clarify.
It highlighted an inaccuracy in the report by Valsecchi and colleagues
It led to an incorrect supposition on the part of some scientists
It played an important role in developing an understanding of social learning between members of different species.
It suggested that the familiarity effect is stronger in some species than in others.
Select one answer choice.

