Learning Approach PDF

Introduction The main assumptions of the learning approach: o conditioning helps to explain changes in behaviour o social learning helps to explain changes in behaviour. Study 1 was Bandura et al. (Aggression) Title: Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggr...

Introduction The main assumptions of the learning approach: o conditioning helps to explain changes in behaviour o social learning helps to explain changes in behaviour. Study 1 was Bandura et al. (Aggression) Title: Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models. The year bandura et al was conducted: 1961 The Psychology being investigated: o Social Learning Theory: social behaviour is learned primarily by observing and imitating others. It is “learning by proxy”. The Four components to it are: o Attention: Observers must pay attention to the behaviour of the model. The model must have some feature that attracts the observer. o Retention: Observers must store the behaviour in their long-term memory so that the information can be used again (when the observer wants to imitate the behaviour). o Reproduction: Observers must feel capable of imitating the retained, observed behaviour. o Motivation: Observers who experience vicarious reinforcement are more likely to imitate the behaviour. This is when the model has been rewarded for performing the observed behaviour. Vicarious punishment can also happen: the role model is punished for the observed behaviour, so is less likely to imitate it. Background o Learning behaviour by imitating others is called observational learning. o Several studies have demonstrated that children are influenced by witnessing adult behaviour in the same situation and in the presence of the adult who modelled the behaviour. o This study is concerned with learning gender-specific behaviours. What are the Aims? o The Overall aim: To investigate observational learning of aggression. o Specific aims: o To see whether children would reproduce aggressive behaviour when the model was absent. o To look for gender differences in the learning of aggression. Procedure o Research Method: Laboratory experiment and Observations o Experimental Design: Independent groups, Matched pairs design o IV: (1) behaviour of the model – aggressive or non-aggressive (2) sex of the model (3) sex of the child o DV: amount of behaviour observed in 8 categories o Sample: 72 participants: 36 boys and 36 girls from Stanford University Nursery School. Their ages ranged from 37 months to 69 months, with a mean age of 52 months. 2 adults, a male and a female, served as the role models in the experiment. One female experimenter conducted the study for all 72 participants. o Sampling Technique: Opportunity Sampling o Participants were divided into eight experimental groups, six children each, and one control group of 24 participants who watched no model. o Children in each condition were matched for their levels of physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression towards inanimate objects and aggressive inhibition. o The experimenter and a nursery teacher rated fifty-one participants independently on a four-five-point scale. A very good agreement of 0.89 was achieved.; Experimental Groups Sex of Child Sex of Model Type of Behaviour 1 Male Male AGGRESSIVE 2 Female Female AGGRESSIVE Experimental Groups Sex of Child Sex of Model Type of Behaviour 3 Male Female AGGRESSIVE 4 Female Male AGGRESSIVE 5 Male Male NON-AGGRESSIVE 6 Female Female NON-AGGRESSIVE 7 Male Female NON- AGGRESSIVE 8 Female Male NON-AGGRESSIVE Modelling the Behaviour o Each child was brought individually to a playroom by the experimenter. She then invited the model, who was outside the room. o The experimenter took the child to one corner of the room, which was their play area. She demonstrated how the child could design a picture with potato prints and the stickers provided. o The experimenter then escorted the model to the room's opposite corner, which contained a small table and chair, a tinker toy set, a mallet and a 5- foot inflated Bobo doll. She explained that these were the materials provided for the model to play with and then left. o In the non-aggressive condition, the model assembled the tinker toys quietly, subduedly, ignoring the Bobo doll. o In the aggressive condition, the model began assembling the tinker toys, but after a minute, he turned to the Bobo and played with it. o The model punched the Bobo, sat on it and punched it repeatedly, hit it with a mallet on the head and aggressively kicked it about in the room. o The model also included verbal aggression such as, “sock him in the nose,” “Pow,” “throw him in the air”, and two non-aggressive comments: “he keeps coming back for more” and “he sure is a tough fella”. o This lasted for about 10 minutes.  Aggression Arousal o This was included for two reasons: (1) observation of aggressive behaviour exhibited by others tends to reduce the probability of aggression on the part of the observer and (2) to instigate or annoy the children. o The participants were taken to a different room with some very attractive toys. o The attractive toys included a fire engine, a locomotive, a jet fighter plane, a cable car, a colourful spinning top, a doll set complete with a wardrobe, a doll carriage, and a baby crib. o They were allowed to play with them for 2 minutes before the experimenter stopped them and said that they were reserved for other children. Testing for Delayed Imitation o Children were taken into the experimental room, which contained a variety of toys, including aggressive and non-aggressive toys. o The aggressive toys were a 3-foot tall inflatable Bobo doll, a mallet and peg board, two dart guns and a tether ball with a face painted on it, which hung from the ceiling. o The non-aggressive toys included a tea set, crayons and colouring paper, a ball, two dolls, three bears, cars, trucks, and plastic farm animals. o The toys were placed fixedly. o Children were observed playing for the next 20 minutes. o Two more observers (the models) watched the child play and had an inter-rater reliability of 0.90 o Three types of aggression were recorded: (1) imitative aggression (physical and verbal), (2) non-imitative aggression, and (3) partially imitative aggression. Results o There was a significant difference in levels of imitative aggression between the group that witnessed aggressive behaviour and the other two groups. o There was a significant difference in levels of imitative physical and verbal aggression.  o Significantly more non-aggressive play was recorded in the non-aggressive model condition. o Children who had witnessed an aggressive model were significantly more aggressive themselves. o Overall, very little difference was present between aggression in the control group and the non-aggressive modelling condition. o Boys were significantly more likely to imitate male-aggressive models. o Boys were significantly more physically aggressive than girls. Girls were slightly more verbally aggressive. Conclusions o Witnessing aggression in a model can be enough to produce aggression by an observer. o Children selectively imitate gender-specific behaviours. Ethical Issues o Children were exposed to aggressive behaviour and were not protected. o Informed consent was taken from the nursery teacher. Strengths o The study has high levels of standardisation and, hence, a higher reliability. o The study has many controls, and this increases its validity. o There was a high inter-observer/ inter-rater reliability. o Low risk of demand characteristics. o Using a matched pairs design reduced the effects of the participant variable. o The use of quantitative data allows for easier statistical analyses. Weaknesses o The study lacks ecological validity and mundane realism.  Issues and Debates o Application to Everyday Life: can be helpful in advertising agencies. o Individual and Situational Explanation: This study supports the situational side of the debate as the situation that the children found themselves in caused the imitated aggressive behaviour. o Nature versus Nurture: this supports the nurture side of the debate as the environment they found themselves in caused the imitated aggressive behaviour. o The use of children who are less susceptible to demand characteristics could become more aggressive after this study. The 2nd study was Fagen et al. (Elephant Learning) Title: Positive reinforcement training for a trunk wash in Nepal’s working elephants: demonstrating alternatives to traditional elephant training techniques The year it was conducted: 2014 Psychology being investigated: o Operant conditioning- Learning through the consequences of our actions. Behavior that is rewarded is more likely to be repeated. o Primary Positive reinforcers- a reward that fulfils basic needs, food, and shelter. o Secondary Positive Reinforcement (SPR) training involves using reinforcers like sound markers and primary positive reinforcers like food. o Shaping- Giving rewards only for movements or behaviors closest to the desired behavior. o Behavior chaining- When different behaviors learned are chained together in a sequence and performed. Background o Mahouts' traditional method of training elephants relies on punishment, which uses pain or fear to shape behaviour. o Therefore, in 2011, the Nepalese government introduced annual Tuberculosis testing of captive elephants to reduce transmission, and researchers were encouraged to develop new training methods based on positive reinforcement (like the one used by Fagen et al.)  o Particularly, research by Desmond and Laule, 1991 showed that positive reinforcement methods have been shown to improve the psychological well-being of elephants. o SPR has been used successfully with several animal species, including pandas, primates and antelopes. Aim To investigate if free-contact traditionally trained elephants can participate in a trunk wash through training using positive reinforcement. Method o Research method- Controlled Observation (Structured Observation) o Sample: 4 female juvenile elephants aged 5-7 and 1 adult female elephant estimated to be around 50. o Common characteristics of the sample: all docile, not currently pregnant, their mahout was willing to participate, traditionally trained and no previous experience with SPR training. Behavioral checklist Behavior Description Trunk Distal end of trunk onto trainers outstretched palm. Here Trunk held upwards either in a loose curl or dorsal aspect of the tip Trunk Up of the trunk. Bucket Trunk gently placed inside a bucket. Blow Elephant gives strong, distinct exhale through the trunk. Elephant holds the trunk still with the trunk held in the position Steady previously requested. Procedure Elephants trained in the morning (7.30 to 10 am) and evening (4 to 7 pm) Sessions were never more than two days apart.  To complete the trunk wash, elephants had to complete the 5 behaviors stated above. Elephants were trained using- Capturing, Luring, Shaping and Secondary Reinforcers Capturing- Encouraged to perform usual natural behaviors using a reward. Luring- Encouraging unusual behaviors through careful and strategic positioning of reward. Shaping- Gradually, rewarding elephants only for behaviors which are the most accurate and closest to the expected behavior. Secondary Reinforcers- Teaching elephants to associate the sound of a whistle (secondary reinforcer) with arrival of chopped banana (primary reinforcer/reward) Trainers introduced one syllabus verbal cues during the training process to prompt the success of learning of all 5 behaviors. Cues had no definition in English or Nepali as researchers didn’t want the mahouts to think elephants understood human language (a common local myth). Behavioral chaining used to get the elephants to learn all the 5 behaviors in order, following the verbal cue. Started by teaching 2 of the behaviors in order and respectively giving the reward. overtime, more behaviors were added to the chain to complete all 5 behaviors. Syringe introduced once all trunk wash behaviors are learnt as an aversive stimulus that the elephants might find unpleasant once all trunk wash behaviors are learnt. The elephants were rewarded in step 1(Trunk here) until they gradually were happy with the syringe touching their trunk., in a process called desensitization. counter conditioning used to teach elephants to associate the syringe with arrival to chopped banana. overtime, syringe went from aversive stimulus to conditioned stimulus. Trainer then encouraged elephant to accept syringe being inside the trunk so that fluid droplets can be injected inside. the fluid was gradually injected from 1 to 15 ml till the complete 60ml. The measured variable of- minutes of training, number of cues made by trainer and success rate of each behavior and sequence.  Elephants were graded on their ability to complete the sequence of behaviors, with 80 percent being the passing grade. Individual behaviors scored with 90 percent as the passing grade. If a sequence failed, they were tested for a shorted sequence. Results o 4 juvenile elephants learned full trunk wash in 25-35 sessions. o Session duration ranged from 10-13 minutes with an average of 2 minutes. o Elephant 5 (the oldest elephant) never tested for the full trunk wash as she failed to learn the full sequence. o Success rate of individual behaviors increased from 39% in session 10 to 89.3% in session 35. Number of sessions to pass average session time Elephant trunk wash (minutes) 1 25 10.29 2 30 12.42 3 35 13.27 4 35 11.11 \ Strengths Use of behavioral checklist with detailed exact descriptions which increases reliability. Done is a naturalistic setting causing ecological validity to be high. Weakness Small sample size- nor generalizable Measurement of elephant’s performance was subjective. Ethics Low physical or psychological harm Issues and Debate Application to everyday life- Improves captive animal welfare to improve health of elephants and reduce TB in humans. Fagen’s technique can be easily replicated to teach behaviors through positive reinforcement. Individual versus Situational- the 5 elephants have individual differences in the speed at which they learnt the trunk wash. Saavedra and Silverman (Button Phobia) Title: Case Study: Disgust and a Specific Phobia of Buttons. Year: 2002 Psychology being investigated: o Evaluative learning is a form of classical conditioning in which a person comes to perceive or “evaluate” a previously neutral object negatively. o It does not depend on the individual expecting or being aware of the association between the neutral object and the negative outcome. o An individual may negatively evaluate a specific object or event without anticipating the threat of an objective contaminant. o This elicits a feeling of disgust rather than fear. Background o Phobia: a persistent and unreasonable fear of an object. The fear is disproportionate to the danger posed and leads to avoidance of the object. o Fear: an unpleasant emotion caused by an organism’s defensive response to an imminent threat o Disgust: a feeling of revulsion or disapproval aroused by something unpleasant or offensive. o The role of disgust within phobias has received very little attention. o Disgust could interact with the fear of a phobic stimulus produces, to increase avoidance of that stimulus. o Disgust has been hypothesized as a concurrent emotion that, in interaction with fear, may result in increased avoidance behaviour. Aims o To investigate the cause of button phobia in a child. o To attempt to treat a child’s phobia via targeting both disgust and fear responses.  Procedure o Research Method: Case Study, Observations and Questionnaires o Quantitative data: Distress ratings and Severity ratings o Qualitative data: Questions about why the boy found buttons disgusting o Sample: A 9-year-old Hispanic American boy who was part of the Child Anxiety and Phobia Program at Florida International University. He came with an avoidance of buttons. o Sampling Technique: Opportunity Sampling o The boy and the mother gave informed consent to participate in the assessment and intervention procedures. Written content was also provided to publish this study. o The boy met the DSM-IV criteria for a specific phobia of buttons. o The phobia began when the boy was 5 years old in kindergarten, during an art project involving buttons. o The boy ran out of buttons, so he was asked to come to the front of the class and take them. His hand slipped when he reached the bowl, and the buttons fell on him. He described this experience as distressful. o The duration of the phobia was 4 years. o He did not express significant stressors or events that could be related to the phobia’s onset during this period. Behavioural Exposures o The child was treated with an exposure-based treatment programme that tackled cognitions and behaviour. o The treatment involved the use of contingency management. The mother provided positive reinforcement if the boy successfully completed the gradual exposure to buttons. o Treatment sessions lasted about 30 minutes with the boy alone and 20 minutes with the boy and his mother. o Before the first session, the boy devised a disgust and fear hierarchy using distress ratings on a 9-point scale (from 0-8) via a feelings thermometer, as shown in Table 1. o The most difficult were small, clear plastic buttons. o He had 4 sessions of behavioural exposure to buttons using this hierarchy.  Disgust Imagery and Cognitions o After the behavioural exposure, it was planned to have 7 sessions looking into the boy’s disgusted imagery and cognitions with a view of helping him to change these over time. o Further probing revealed that the boy found buttons disgusting upon contact with his body. o He also expressed that buttons emitted unpleasant odours. o These seven sessions involved exploring the vicarious o things about buttons he found disgusting with the boy and using specific cognitive strategies. o He was prompted to imagine buttons falling on him, express how they looked, felt, and smelled, and elaborate on how these imagery exposures made him feel. o Although the boy indicated that buttons were “disgusting and gross”, even with intense probing, it was difficult for him to describe What about buttons rendered them disgusting and gross. Results o By session 4, the boy had successfully completed all in-vivo exposure tasks up to those with the highest distress ratings. o Even though he could handle more and more buttons, his distress rating increased dramatically from sessions 2 to 3 and 3 to 4.  o In session 4, the boy’s subjective ratings that had been 6 or 7 before the treatment were now higher. o This phenomenon was consistent with evaluative learning. o Disgust-related imagery exposures and cognitions appeared to be successful in reducing the boy’s subjective ratings of distress. o In the imagery sessions, he had to imagine hundreds of buttons falling on him; before the cognitive restructuring, he rated the experience as 8. This decreased to 5 midway through the session and ended up as 3. o In a session where he had to imagine hugging his mother while she was wearing a shirt with many buttons, the distress ratings went from 7 to 4 to 3. o He was followed up 6 and 12 months after treatment, and he no longer met the specific phobia of buttons Conclusions o Disgust plays a key role in the development and maintenance of a phobia but a mixture of behavioural exposure and cognitive restructuring helped to eliminate the feelings of disgust. Ethical Issues o The participant was severely distressed, and protection was provided. o Informed consent was taken from the mother and the boy. Strengths o Qualitative and quantitative data were both acquired in this study. o This case study focused on one person only; hence, detailed data was collected. o The study was conducted in a therapeutic setting and hence had ecological validity. Weaknesses o The study lacks mundane realism. o This case study used only one participant; hence, it has a low generalisability. o The ratings are subjective, and this lowers reliability. Issues and Debates o Application to Everyday Life: For treating other phobias o Nature versus Nurture: The process of acquiring the phobia relates to nurture.