Social-Cognitive Learning 2023 PDF

Socialcognitive Learning Mind, Brain, & Behaviour 1 PSYC10003 Learning & Cognition Week 3, Lecture 1 Meredith McKague [email protected] In this lecture we explore three classic experiments that challenged the behaviourist account of psychology, providing evidence for more cognitive and social...

Socialcognitive Learning Mind, Brain, & Behaviour 1 PSYC10003 Learning & Cognition Week 3, Lecture 1 Meredith McKague [email protected] In this lecture we explore three classic experiments that challenged the behaviourist account of psychology, providing evidence for more cognitive and social accounts of learning. 1 Learning Outcomes Understand Understand the concept of a cognitive map and explain the experimental evidence provided by Tolman to support it Understand Understand the concept of latent learning and explain the evidence provided by Tolman and Bandura to support it Understand Understand the the concept of and processes involved in social-cognitive learning (Bandura), including the processes of vicarious reinforcement and punishment. Explain Explain how Bandura’s experiments provided evidence for social-cognitive learning. Explain Explain the implications of Tolman’s and Bandura’s findings for Behaviourism 2 As always, we start with a set of learning outcomes for this lecture. The content of the lecture relates to content in the textbook chapter on learning over pages 234-239 on Social-cognitive learning, with a focus on the work of Tolman and Bandura. First half we will discuss the work of Edward Tolman, and in the second half we will look at the work of Albert Bandura. 2 “As early as 1929, Lashley reported incidentally the case of a couple of his rats who, after having learned an alley maze, pushed back the cover near the starting box, climbed out and ran directly across the top to the goal-box where they climbed down in again and ate. Other investigators have reported related findings. All such observations suggest that rats really develop wider spatial maps which include more than the mere trained-on specific paths.” E.C. Tolman (1948).“Cognitive maps in mice and men”, Psychological Review, 55(4), 189-208. Edward Tolman (1889-1956) was an early cognitive psychologist working in the first half of the 20th C ,an era dominated by Behaviourist approaches to psychology. He believed cognitive processes played an important role in learning complex behaviours, even in (non-human) animals. Even though it is harder to demonstrate cognitive processes, they can be inferred indirectly using clever experimental techniques. Today we discuss two of Tolman’s influential studies of maze running behaviour in lab rats. He shows us how, contrary to the views of behaviourists, it is possible to hypothesise about and measure internal mental representations and processes. Quotation from: From E.C. Tolman (1948) “Cognitive maps in mice and men”, first published in The Psychological Review, 55(4),189-208. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Tolman/Maps/maps.htm 3 • A cognitive map is a mental representation of the spatial characteristics of a familiar environment. • Tolman set out to test the idea that rats develop ‘spatial maps’ of their environment, rather than a series of chained responses. • Studied using maze-running experiments. 4 4 5 The following description of the experiment comes from Tolman (1948) “In the first experiment, Tolman, Ritchie and Kalish used the set-up shown in Fig.15. This was an elevated maze. The animals ran from A across the open circular table through CD (which had alley walls) and finally to G, the food box. H was a light which shone directly down the path from G to F. After four nights, three trials per night, in which the rats learned to run directly and without hesitation from A to G, the apparatus was changed to the sun-burst shown in Fig.16. The starting path and the table remained the same but a series of radiating paths was added. The animals were again started at A and ran across the circular table into the alley and found themselves blocked. They then returned onto the table and began exploring practically all the radiating paths. After going out a few inches only on any one path, each rat finally chose to run all the way out on one. The percentages of rats finally choosing each of the long paths from 1 to 12 are shown in Fig.17. It appears that there was a preponderant tendency to choose path No.6 which ran to a point some four inches in front of where the entrance to the food-box had been. The only other path chosen with any appreciable frequency was No.1that is, the path which pointed perpendicularly to the food-side of the room.” 5 Latent learning • Tolman challenged the traditional behaviorist account with another classic experiment in which he demonstrated that learning could occur in the absence of rewards and punishments. 6 6 7 This is Tolman’s hand-drawn graph of the results of this study. The following slide adapts this to colour to make it easier to read. 7 8 This is a reproduction of Tolman’s data that is a bit easier to read. The graph shows the average (mean) number of errors (dead end alleys) made by the rats learning the maze over a 20 day period. Three groups of rats in mazes. Group A (blue line): These rats provide a point of comparison for the other two conditions. They were never reinforced with food rewards – they merely explored the maze each day. Group B (Green line): This is the standard condition in which the rats find a food reward (+reinforcer) in the goal box each day. Group C: (red line) This is the crucial group of rats. These rats received the same treatment as those in Group A (never rewarded) up until day 10. On the 11th day they found a reward in the goal box. On the 12th day their performance equalled the rats who had been continuously reinforced. This was called the delayed reward condition The rats in Group A appear not to learn The rats in group B learned quickly. The rats in group C also appeared not to learn But when given a food reward on the 11th day, their performance on subsequent days equalled the performance of the rats in group B. 8 • Latent learning means “hidden” learning Latent learning • The Group C rats’ learning was not observable until the gaol was provided. • Tolman's research showed rewards affect whether the learned behaviour will be demonstrated, not whether learning has occurred. • Learning can occur in the absence of directly experienced rewards and punishments. 9 9 SocialCognitive Learning theory • Observational learning provides another example of how learning can occur indirectly, without direct reinforcement or punishment. • Learning takes place “socially” and “ vicariously” through observing others (“models”). • Albert Bandura is the psychologist most associated with the study of observational learning. • Observational learning takes place through active judgement and constructive processes – that is, it involves cognitive processes of mental representation. 10 Social-Cognitive Learning Theory emphasizes the ability to learn by observing a ‘model’ or by receiving verbal instructions, without firsthand experience by the observer. Observational learning, is also sometimes referred to as vicarious learning, social learning, or modeling. Observational learning is “social learning” because it involves interaction with other people. 10 “Our theories have been incredibly slow in acknowledging that man can learn by observation as well as by direct experience. This is another example of how steadfast adherence to orthodox paradigms makes it difficult to transcend the confines of conceptual commitment. Having renounced cognitive determinants, early proponents of behaviourism advanced the doctrine that learning can occur only by performing responses and experiencing their effects. This legacy is still very much with us. The rudimentary form of learning based on direct experience has been exhaustively studied, whereas the more pervasive and powerful mode of learning by observation is largely ignored. A shift in emphasis is needed.” Albert Bandura, 1974 This quotation from Albert Bandura provides a clear example of the ‘zeitgeist’ (the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time) in psychology during the 60s and 70s. The field was ready for a paradigm shift, away from pure behaviorism towards a more cognitive and social approach to learning. 11 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1965, Vol. 1, No. 6, 589-595 Read the original paper here INFLUENCE OF MODELS' REINFORCEMENT CONTINGENCIES ON THE ACQUISITION OF IMITATIVE RESPONSES ' ALBKRT BANDURA2 Stanford University In order to test the hypothesis that reinforcements administered to a model influence the performance but not the acquisition of matching responses, groups of children observed an aggressive film-mediated model either rewarded, punished, or left without consequences. A post-exposure test revealed that response consequences to the model had produced differential amounts of imitative behavior. Children in the model-punished condition performed significantly fewer matching responses than children in both the model-rewarded and the no-consequences groups. Children in all 3 treatment conditions were then offered attractive reinforcers contingent on their reproducing the model's aggressive responses. The introduction of positive incentives completely wiped out the previously observed performance differences, revealing an equivalent amount of learning among children in the model-rewarded, model-punished, and the no-consequences conditions. 12 This is the original abstract from the 1965 paper. It describes a famous study in which Bandura investigated the social and cognitive processes involved in how children learn to reproduced aggressive behaviours they have observed others perform. Come back to this slide after I have explained the study over the coming slides and see if you can interpret the meaning of the abstract, especially the parts I have highlighted. The first highlighted phrase makes this aim clear – Bandura was interested in demonstrating learning that was latent. Children will learn from what they observe, but will only perform (demonstrate) that learning observably in behaviour under certain conditions. 12 Method: Modelling Aggression • The film began with the model walking up to an adult-size Bobo doll and ordering him to “clear the way”. • After glaring at the doll, the model exhibited four novel aggressive responses, each accompanied by a distinctive verbalization: 1. The model laid the Bobo doll on its side, sat on it, and punched it in the nose while remarking, "Pow, right in the nose, boom, boom." 2. The model then raised the doll and pommelled it on the head with a mallet. Each response was accompanied by the verbalization, "Sockeroo . . . stay down." 3. The model then kicked the doll about the room, and these responses were interspersed with the comment, "Fly away.” 4. The model threw rubber balls at the Bobo doll, each strike punctuated with "Bang." This sequence was repeated twice. The rewarding and punishing consequences were introduced in the closing scene of the film. The next four slides take you through the details of Bandura’s methods. As we go through the details, notice how each of the three film conditions is designed to provide clear measures of the specific behaviors that might be imitated. This is important for the reliability of the measures, and agreement between the people who are rating the behaviours. So, broadly, the experiment went like this: Three groups of four-year-old children were recruited for the study. All children started by watching a short film showing an adult playing aggressively 13 with a Bobo doll (large inflated balloon doll). There were three different versions of the film, each showing a different consequence for the aggressive behaviour that are detailed over the following slides. Each child was randomly allocated to one of the three versions of the film. After viewing a version of the film, each child was then put in a waiting room to wait for their parent to collect them. The waiting room had lots of toys, including the bobo doll, the rubber mallet, and the balls that had been seen in the film. The children were not aware that they were being observed through a one-way mirror. The research assistants were trained to 13 score occurrences of the target behaviours from the film. To be scored as having reproduced one of the aggressive behaviours, the child had to reproduce both the action and the verbalisation that went with it. The following slides describe each of the three conditions in detail. 13 Modelling consequences: Positive reinforcement • In the model-rewarded condition, a second adult appeared with a supply of candies and soft drinks and informed the model that he was a "strong champion" and that his superb aggressive performance clearly deserved a generous treat. • He then poured him a large glass of 7-Up, and readily supplied additional energybuilding nourishment including chocolate bars, Cracker Jack popcorn, and an assortment of candies. • While the model was rapidly consuming the treats, his admirer symbolically reinstated the modeled aggressive responses and engaged in considerable positive social reinforcement. 14 14 Modelling Consequences: Positive Punishment • In the model-punished condition, the reinforcing agent appeared on the scene shaking his finger menacingly and commenting reprovingly, "Hey there, you big bully. You quit picking on that clown. I won't tolerate it." • As the model drew back he tripped and fell, the other adult sat on the model and spanked him with a rolled-up magazine while reminding him of his aggressive behaviour. • As the model ran off cowering, the agent forewarned him, "If I catch you doing that again, you big bully, I'll give you a hard spanking. You quit acting that way.“ 15 No Consequences • Children in the no-consequences condition viewed the same film as shown to the other two groups except that no reinforcement ending was included. 16 • After the film each child played alone in a room with several toys, including a bobo doll. • The children were observed through a one-way mirror. After watching whichever version of the film the child had been allocated, they were then left alone to play in a room full of toys, including those seen in the film. The question of interest is: Will the consequences that the child observed affect the likelihood of the kids in the different film conditions performing those behaviors when given the opportunity. And, if so, can we show that this occurred, despite all children being able to demonstrate the observed behaviors if they are explicitly asked to. This slide shows stills from the video. You can watch the original film from the experiment, plus an introduction and narrative from Bandura himself, via the hyperlink on the slide. The top row shows a female adult ‘model’ producing three of the four targeted behaviors we described earlier – the push to the ground and punch in the nose, the fly-away aggression, and the mallet aggression. Then we see two of the children in the playroom after viewing the film - a boy and a girl. These are examples of children who did imitate what they saw. Both the gender of the model, and the child’s gender were studied as variables – the data on the following slide collapse over model gender but show the breakdown for boys and girls. You can watch the video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmBqwWlJg8U 17 Results: Explain the evidence from the data 18 Here’s the actual data from the study – again, this is a hand-drawn graph from the original paper. Both papers we are discussing today are available in links provided in the slides if you are interested in getting the details. The black bars show the final condition in which children were offered an incentive to show the experimenter the behaviours they had observed the adult performing (i.e., they were given permission, and encouraged, to display the model’s behaviours to demonstrate what they had learned). The cross-hatched white bars show the critical initial condition in which children were offered no incentive to display the behaviours they had seen – they were just left to play in the room with the toys, including the bobo doll and the mallet. If you focus on the cross-hatched white bars to start with you will see that the boys and girls in the “model punished” condition were much less likely to display the behaviours than the children in the other two groups (which were essentially the same). If you then look at the black bars compared across conditions you will see that boys and girls in each observation condition performed similarly when asked to show the experimenter what they had seen – i.e., the important point is that the children had all learned the behaviours equally. Finally, it is interesting to note an overall effect of gender whereby girls were less likely than boys to display the aggressive behaviours, regardless of incentives. 18 SocialCognitive learning theory — Bandura’s study demonstrated vicarious reinforcement and vicarious punishment — that learning can occur socially through observation, in the absence of directly experienced consequences. — Performance of aggressive acts is influenced by mental representations of observed consequences. — Knowledge remained latent in the model-punished group until a reward was introduced. 19 Direct personal experience of reinforcement or punishment was not necessary for learning to occur in children who observed the model. All children, regardless of which condition they had been in, subsequently demonstrated learning from the model when they were later rewarded for performing the acts they had witnessed – even those who had witnessed no consequences. Rather, the results show that it is the expectation for reinforcement or punishment as a consequence of behaviour that affected whether the children would demonstrate what they had learned through observation. 19