Notes Social Learning Theory
Notes Social Learning Theory
Notes Social Learning Theory
Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies Discuss the use of compliance techniques Evaluate research on conformity to group norms Discuss factors influencing conformity
Given that the majority of people tend to follow norms most of the time, norms are very important regulators of behaviour (Baron et al., 2008). Furthermore, by generating expectations about peoples behaviour norms make social life fairly predictable. True insights into the nature of norms are gained by reflecting on expressions like a well-known fact, public opinion or the way things are so often used in everyday speech. What people are talking about when using such expressions are social norms (Smith and Mackie, 2009). Several social psychologists distinguish between explicitly written laws and regulations (e.g. speed limits) from social norms and point out that deviations from social norms are punished from relevant social groups and not from the legal system (Hewstone and Martin, 2008). Many social norms are implicit such as Dont stare at others for long periods of time whereas others are more explicit (like, for instance, the dress code in a traditional organisation). Often we may not even be aware of the norms regulating our behaviour and the behaviour of others. Norms also differ with respect to how restrictive they are. Thus, norms relevant to group loyalty (i.e., norms relevant to talking badly about ones ingroup to others) tend to be more restrictive compared to norms that relate to less important aspects of the group (e.g., how many hours of sleep on average group members can get at night). Ref. Law et al. IB Psychology (2010)
Learning Outcome
Explain
social
learning
theory,
making
reference
to
two
relevant
studies Why
is
Social
Learning
Theory
important?
Social
Learning
Theory
spans
all
three
levels
of
analysis
and
is
fundamental
to
being
human.
Social
learning
theory
explains
how
culture
is
transmitted
to
children,
it
explains
the
cognitive
mediation
of
reinforcement
and
is
tied
to
the
biological
level
of
analysis
through
mirror
neurons.
Albert
Bandura
(1925
present,
age
87)
is
the
representative
theorist.
His
theory
assumes
that
humans
learn
behaviour
through
indirect
learning
(observational
or
vicarious
learning)
in
other
words,
people
can
learn
by
watching
models
and
imitating
their
behaviour.
Sometimes
the
model
is
trying
to
have
a
direct
effect
on
the
learner
for
example,
when
a
teacher
instructs
children
how
to
solve
a
problem
but
often
models
serve
as
indirect
models,
in
that
they
are
not
trying
to
influence
behaviour.
According
to
Bandura,
social
learning
involves
the
following
factors.
Attention:
The
person
must
first
pay
attention
to
the
model.
Retention:
The
observer
must
be
able
to
remember
the
behaviour
that
has
been
observed.
Motor
reproduction:
The
observer
has
to
be
able
to
replicate
the
action.
Motivation:
Learners
must
want
to
demonstrate
what
they
have
learned.
Motivation
to
imitate
the
behaviour
of
the
model
is
quite
complex. There are several factors which may influence whether or not the observer decides to imitate and learn.
Attention
Consistency:
If
the
model
behaves
in
a
way
that
is
consistent
across
situations-for
example,
always
being
brave
then
the
observer
will
be
more
likely
to
imitate
than
if
the
model
behaves
in
different
ways
depending
on
the
situation.
Identification
with
the
model:
There
is
a
tendency
to
imitate
models
who
are
like
ourselves
for
example,
in
terms
of
age
and
gender.
Rewards/punishment:
Bandura
argues
that
people
can
learn
from
observing
what
happens
to
others;
they
dont
have
to
experience
the
consequences
themselves.
This
is
called
vicarious
reinforcement
in
Banduras
theory
and
happens
when
we
watch
people
around
us
whether
in
reality
or
in
movies.
this
called
observational
learning.
Liking
the
model:
warm
and
friendly
models
are
more
likely
to
be
imitated
than
cold,
uncaring
models.
A
study
by
Yarrow
et
al
(1970)
showed
that
children
learn
altruistic
behaviour
better
from
people
with
whom
they
have
already
developed
a
friendly
relationship
than
from
people
they
do
not
know.
Motivation
Retention
Motor Production
Social Learning theory has been used to explain many things including depression, phobias, education, aggression, violence and terrorism. The original emphasis that Bandura took was particularly concerned with the transmission of aggression to children. In the 1980s Bandura renamed SLT as Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) to accommodate the ever-
increasing importance of thinking of cognitive factors. In addition Bandura highlights the effects of self-efficacy on behavior. This term refers to a persons belief in his or her own effectiveness in specific situations. If we believe in our ability to perform an action, we are more motivated to do so. However, we are more likely to imitate a model performing in areas in which our sense of self- efficacy is high. Banduras view on how reinforcement operates make it possible to understand how normative standards (i.e. criteria for acceptable behavior in our society) become internalised. It would be impossible to learn what counts as acceptable behaviour solely by direct forms of learning. Rather, we learn the social norms that define normative standards largely by indirect learning.
Research
Banduras first study:
Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) Bobo doll experiment
see end of notes for a write up of this study and a copy of the original article can be obtained from the link below. Copy
of
original
Article:
Bandura,
Ross
and
Ross
(1961)
TRANSMISSION
OF
AGGRESSION
THROUGH
IMITATION
OF
AGGRESSIVE
MODELS.
First
published
in
Journal
of
Abnormal
and
Social
Psychology,
63,
575-582.Classic
Studies
in
Psychology:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Bandura/bobo.htm
Videos:
Bandura talking about his original (1961) study with some clips from the children taking part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YclZBhn40hU The Brain: A secret history: Bandura and the Bobo Doll experiments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zerCK0lRjp8&feature=player_embedded
Bandura (1965) Bobo doll experiment copy of the original article can be obtained from the
link below. Copy
of
original
Article:
Bandura
(1965)
INFLUENCE
OF
MODELS
REINFORCEMENT
CONTINGENCIES
ON
THE
ACQUISITION
OF
IMMITATIVE
RESPONSES.
First
published
in
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
Volume
1,
Number
6,
589-595.
http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1965JPSP.pdf
Bandura (1965) showed young children a film of an adult behaving aggressively towards an inflatable Bobo doll. These dolls are based on the image of the Bozo the clown and always bounce back when knocked down. The aggressive acts performed by the adult model included throwing the Bobo doll in the air, kicking it across the room and hitting it in the head with a wooden mallet. There were three experimental conditions under which the film was shown: Control Condition: The children were shown the film with the adult behaving aggressively with the bobo doll. Model rewarded condition: Children saw the same film used in the control condition but after the aggression was over, a second adult appeared in a film to reward the aggression with sweets and a soft drink. Model-punished condition: As the model rewarded condition, but the second adult scolded and spanked the model for behaving aggressively.
After viewing the film, all the children were taken individually into a playroom with several toys which included a bobo doll and a mallet. While in the playroom, the childrens behavior was observed for a period of 10-minutes and any acts of aggression similar to those performed by the model were recorded.
Findings: The control and the model-rewarded groups showed an equal level of aggressiveness towards the Bobo doll (2.5 acts). The model punished condition was associated with significantly fewer aggressive acts (1.5 acts).
However, when at a later stage, the children were asked to reproduce the behavior of the model and were rewarded for each act of aggression, they displayed they all (regardless of which original condition they were in) produced the same number of aggressive acts (3.5 acts).
Evaluation Points:
Banduras study exemplifies and supported the following features of SLT Vicarious (observational) learning the children clearly learnt specific aggressive behaviours by observing the adult model. The learning manifested during the second part of the study was based on vicarious reinforcement or punishment as the children were not rewarded or punished themselves.
Reinforcement or punishment was necessary for performance not learning. All children behaved in an equally aggressive manner towards the Bobo doll when rewarded to do so. Methodologically speaking, The study was a well-controlled experiment. Because the models performed aggressive acts unlikely to be part of the childrens repertoire. Bandura could clearly identify acts of imitative aggression.
Banduras findings supported his theory that aggression is learnt, rather than instinctive, type of behaviour. Negative Criticism: Despite its strengths and importance, these studies can be criticised on a number of grounds. Questions arise as to the extent to which the aggression documented was aggression. Many people would doubt that hitting an inanimate doll, especially one that bounces back with a smile after every hit, qualifies as real aggression. Were the children perhaps responding to demand characteristics? Some of the children did say that they thought they were expected to show aggression. Also, the fact that some aspects of the aggression can be learnt does not mean that all aggressive behaviour is learnt behaviour. Banduras studies can be criticized both for its artificiality and its ethical standards.
Gergely et al. (2002) Selective imitation in 14 moth old infants copy of the original
article can be obtained from the link below. Copy
of
original
Article:
Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Kirly, I. (2002) Nature Volume 415, page 755
http://webhost.ua.ac.be/funmorph/publications/Van%20Damme%20et%2 0al%202002%20Nature.pdf This experiment used 14 month old infants as particiapnts and involved two conditions
(b) Hands-free condition: In this condition, the infants observed an adult place her hands on the table. Following this she used a strange action to illuminate a light box, she bent over and pressed the light box with her forehead. Findings: One week later, the same infants were even the opportunity to play with the light box. 69% of them used the head to illuminate the light. (a) Hands-occupied condition: Infants in this condition observed the adult perform the same strange action to illuminate the box. In this condition, however, the model was using her hands to hold the blanket around her shoulders. This rendered the hands unavailable for the other actions. Findings: When given the opportunity one week later to play with the box, only 27% of the infants illuminated the light using their head. The rest used their hands to press the light. Evaluation: Discussing their findings, Gergely et al. (2002) note that in the hands-occupied condition (picture (a) above) infants seemed to assume that the adult used her head because she had to. But this constraint did not apply to the infants. In the hands free condition (picture (b) above) adults could have chosen to use their hands she did not. The children seem to have assumed that there must have been a reason for this choice so they copied it. Gergeley et al.s findings, which have been replicated with 12 month old infants (Schwier et al. 2006) demonstrate that very young infants have the ability to observe a models behaviour and infer his or her intention and constrains on his or her behaviour. The infants then use such information to decide precisely what parts of the models behaviour are possible and desirable to imitate. So not only are 14 (even 12-) month old children capable of observational learning, they also combine their basic ability to imitate with more abstract and complex forms of reasoning, much as would be expected from Banduras increasingly cognitive SCT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pwKzTRG5E
Further research into SLT Application of the social learning theory in real life the impact of TV & Film violence According to the Social Learning Theory, there is a chance that violence on television will lead to more violent children. But is this so? The results of studies on the effects of televised violence are consistent. By watching aggression, children learn how to be aggressive in new ways and that they also draw conclusions about whether being aggressive to others will bring them rewards or punishment. There are two key studies that have been carried out. You may like to investigate these as an extension of SLT in real life learning. Huesmann and Eron (1986): Longitudinal study. Monitor children over 15 years Positive correlation between number of hours of violence watched on television by elementary school children and the level of aggression demonstrated as teenagers. Those who watched more violent TV when they were 8 years were more likely to be arrested / prosecuted for criminal acts as adults. Kimball and Zabrack (1986) Children are significantly more aggressive two years after TV was introduced to their town Charlton et al. (2000) St Helena natural experiment see link below for paper Aim: investigate the effect of introducing the television on children and their violence levels Method: natural experiment - setting up cameras in the playground of 2 primary schools on the island (children aged between 3-8), and UK psychologists were to observe them before and after the introduction with TV. Content analysis of TV programs shows different in quantity of violence compared to those who watch in the UK. Therefore children in St Helena and UK were exposed to the same amount of violence. Result: analyzed hundreds of hours of videotape, backed up by interview data from teachers , parents, older children showed that there were no increase in antisocial behavior amongst the children in St Helena. Good behavior had been maintained even after 5 years of exposure to violent television Evaluation of violence and TV Television isn't always a negative influence. For example, researchers have found that sesame street helped develop academic and social skills, it also helped people learn positive behaviors such as sharing, empathy and academic curiosity. Could there be another explanation for the results? For example, children who watched television may have lived in families that facilitated violent behavior
References:
All in the mind: Podcast about the Bobo doll experiments:
aggression.html
Psycholotron org: Social Learning Theory
http://www.psychlotron.org.uk/newResources/approaches/AS_AQB_approaches_SLT Basics.pdf
Ramachandran, V.S. (2012) Mirror neurons and imitation learning as the driving force behind "the great leap forward" in human evolution. From the Third Culture: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/
http://www.cultivosurbanos.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Ramachandran-VSMirror-neurons-and-imitation-learning-as-the-driving-force-behind-the-great-leapforward-in-human-evolution.pdf
Simply Psychology: Bandura Social Learning Theory
http://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html
Extension work
Read article from the Psychologist (2009): Albert Bandura: Social Cognitive Theory
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_22- editionID_176-ArticleID_1521-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/0609band.pdf
PAG Mirror Neuron review and references at end of this document Interesting Blog on topic of Mirror Neurons: Understanding an embracing Diversity: Mirror Neurons and their roles in language development, learning and Autism http://learningneverstops.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/mirror-neurons-and-itsrole-in-language-development-learning-and-autism/
The children in the aggressive and non-aggressive condition were further subdivided by sex and the sex of the role model they were exposed to. Aggressive Condition Non-Aggressive Condition
This complicated design therefore has three independent variables: (1) The condition the children were exposed to, (2) the sex of the role model and (3) the sex of the child. The children were tested individually In stage one of the experiment children were brought to the experimental room by the
experimenter. The room was set out for play and the activities were chosen because they had been noted to have high interest for nursery school children. One corner was arranged as the child's play area, where there was a small table and chair, potato prints and picture stickers. After settling the child in its corner the adult model was escorted to the opposite corner of the room where there was a small table, chair, tinker-toy set, a mallet and a five foot inflatable Bobo doll. After the model was seated the experimenter left the experimental room. In the non-aggressive condition In the aggressive condition The model ignored Bobo and assembled the The model began by assembling the tinker- tinker-toys in a quiet, gentle manner. toys, but after one minute turned to Bobo and was aggressive to the doll in a very stylised and distinctive way. After ten minutes the experimenter entered and took the child to a new room which the child was told was another games room. In stage two the child was subjected to 'mild aggression arousal'. The child was taken to a room with relatively attractive toys. As soon as the child started to play with the toys the experimenter told the child that these were the experimenter's very best toys and she had decided to reserve them for the other children. Then the child was taken to the next room for stage three of the study where the child was told it could play with any of the toys in there. In this room there was a variety of both non-aggressive and aggressive toys. The child was kept in this room for 20 minutes during which time their behaviour was observed by judges through a one-way mirror. Observations were made at 5-second intervals therefore giving 240 response units for each child. DEPENDENT VARIABLES: Three measures of imitation were obtained. The observers looked for responses from the child that were very similar to the display by the adult model. These were: 1. Imitation of physical aggression (for example, punching the doll in the nose) 2. Imitative verbal aggression (for example, repeating the phrases "Pow!" or "Sock him in the nose". 3. Imitative non-aggressive verbal responses (for example child repeats ?He keeps coming back for more?) They also recorded other types of physical and verbal aggressive behaviours that were not complete imitations of the adult model: The results enabled the researchers to consider (a) Which children imitate the models, (b) Which models the children imitate (c) Whether the children showed a general increase in aggressive behaviour or a specific imitation of the adult behaviours. FINDINGS: The main findings were:
1. The children in the aggressive model condition made more aggressive responses than the children in the non-aggressive model condition 2. Boys made more aggressive responses than girls; 3. The boys in the aggressive model conditions showed more aggressive responses if the model was male than if the model was female; 4. The girls in the aggressive model conditions also showed more physical aggressive responses if the model was male but more verbal aggressive responses if the model was female; (However, the exception to this general pattern was the observation of how often they punched Bobo, and in this case the effects of gender were reversed). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support Bandura's Social Learning Theory. That is, children learn social behaviour such as aggression through the process of observation learning - through watching the behaviour of another person. Some stills from this experiment.
Functional MRI scans recorded brain activity in all conditions, including the resting time. Brain areas were correlated with watching the different clips with the instructions given to only watch the movies or to pay attention to the intentions. More neural activity was recorded when participants watched all three movie clips over the resting time. The most important scans examined differences between the intention condition and the action/context conditions. There was no difference between the scans of those told to jus watch the clips and those told to pay attention to the interiors. Both groups showed an understanding of the intentions when debriefed. Understanding anothers intentions is automatic, activation the left frontal lobes of everyone. The differences occurred between the intention clip and the other two. Reading anothers intentions activates neurones in the interior frontal cortex, an area known to have mirror neurons. Iaconboni, et al. (2005) concluded that mirror neurons are active when decoding anothers intentions. This study is important because it is the first evidence that specific neurons fire when someone tries to figure out what another is doing. Ramanchandran (2006) believes that mirror neurons will do for Psychology what DNA has done for biology they provide a unifying framework and help us explain a host of metal abilities that have remained mysterious and inexplicable to experiments. Mirror neurons help us explain how humans are able to understand the gestures of others and then provide the chance for language to evolve. He suggests that mirror neurons of children with autism do not fire properly and expects that mirror neuron theory will explain and possibly treat people with autism in the future.
References:
Dobbs, D. (2006) A revealing reflection: mirror neurons seem to effect everything from how we learn to speak and how we build culture. Scientific American Mind, Volume 17, number 2, pages 22-27. http://155.97.32.9/~bbenham/Minds%20and%20Morals/Mirror%20Neurons%20Dobbs.pdf
Huesdmann,
L.
R.
&
Kirwil,
L.
(2007)
Why
observing
violence
increases
the
risk
of
violent
behaviour
by
the
observer.
Chapter
28,
pages
545-580,
in
Flanner,
D.
J.,
Vazsonyi,
A.
T.,
Waldman,
I.D.
(Editors)
The
Cambridge
Handbook
of
Violent
Behavior
and
Aggression,
Cambridge
University
Press.
Online
ISBN:9780511816840
Paperback
ISBN:9780521607858
Chapter
available:
http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/aggr/articles/Huesmann/2007.Huesmann&Kirwil.WhyObservingViol.Camb ridgePress.pdf
Iaconboni, M. Molnar-Szakacs, I., Gallese, V, Buccino, G., Mazziotta, J.C. & Rizzolatti, G. (2005) Grasping the Intentions of Others with One's Own Mirror Neuron System http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030079 Ramachandran, V. S. (2006) MIRROR NEURONS AND THE BRAIN IN THE VAT, in Edge the Third Culture http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran06/ramachandran06_index.html Winerman,
L.
(2005)
The mind's mirror: A new type of neuron - called a mirror neuron - could help explain how we learn through mimicry and why we empathize with others. Monitor, Volume 36, number 9, page 48. http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct05/mirror.aspx