Behaviourist Approach Flashcards
- ASSUMPTION: WE ARE ALL BORN ‘TABULA RASA’
Meaning we are BORN with a ‘BLANK SLATE’. ASSUMING that ALL BEHAVIOUR IS LEARNT; an EFFECT of our ENVIORNMENT and EXPERIENCES with EMPHASIS on NURTURE rather than NATURE. This approach also suggests that WE DO NOT ACTIVELY THINK about OUR BEHAVIOUR and INSTEAD RESPOND PASSIVELY to our ENVIRONMENT (VICARIOUS REINFORCEMENT). However, IT IS deemed ENVIRONMENTALLY DETERMINISTIC, as it assumes BEHAVIOUR is INFLUENCED by EXTERNAL FACTORS rather than EVOLUTION or GENETICS. We ADAPT our BEHAVIOUR through VICARIOUS REINFORCEMENT - occurs when we SEES ROLE MODELS being REWARDED for their ACTIONS and therefore MIMICK IT. BANDURA used this ASSUMPTION to explain AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR, in 1961, using the EXPERIMENT of the ‘BOBO DOLL’, where he DISCOVERED that CHILDREN IMITATED BEHAVIOUR that was EXPRESSED BY THEIR OBSERVATIONS: ROLE MODEL AGGRESSIVELY ATTACKING THE BOBO DOLL BY HITTING IT. The CHILDREN VICARIOUSLY COPIED the ROLE MODELS ACTIONS. Thus PROVING BANDURA’S ‘SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY’ which CONCLUDED that CHILDREN LEARN VICARIOUSLY by ACTING and IMITATING the ADULTS around them.
- ASSUMPTION: CONDITIONING
We have been CONDITIONED by our ENVIRONMENT to BEHAVE a CERTAIN WAY. There are TWO TYPES OF CONDITIONING: CLASSICAL and OPERANT. CLASSICAL assumes behaviour is learnt through ASSOCIATION (PAVLOV’S DOGS). OPERANT assumes behaviour is learnt through REINFORCEMENT. An eg of OPERANT CONDITIONING is found by SKINNER’S RESEARCH of ‘SKINNER’S BOX’ on RATS. He found TWO TYPES of REINFORCEMENT: POSITIVE and NEGATIVE. In ONE trial, EVERYTIME the rat PRESSED ON the LEVER it was REWARDED with a PELLET of FOOD: POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT. This BEHVIOUR is LIKELY to be REPEATED due to the REWARD RECEIVED. In ANOTHER TRIAL, the RAT was CONTINUALLY SHOCKED until it PRESSED the LEVER: NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT. This behaviour is LIKELY TO BE REPEATED as it REMOVED an UNPLEASANT STIMULUS. An EVERYDAY example of POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT can be found through PARENTS giving their CHILD a STICKER every time the CHILD EATS THEIR VEGETABLES.
- ASSUMPTION: HUMANS AND ANIMALS LEARN IN SIMILAR WAYS
BEHAVIOURIST assume that the LAWS OF LEARNING are SIMILAR for HUMANS and NON-HUMAN ANIMALS. Many research is conducted on ANIMALS within a LAB ENVIRONMENT allowing for CONTROLLED RESEARCH to take place and the FINDINGS are then GENERALISED TO HUMAN BEHAVIOUR. PAVLOV conducted research on DOGS to INVESTIGATE CLASSICAL CONDITIONING. He FOUND dogs had LEARNT TO ASSOCIATE the NEUTRAL STIMULUS (BELL) with the CONDITIONED RESPONSE: SALIVATING. CLASSICAL CONDITIONING has then been APPLIED TO UNDERSTAND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, and has been SUCCESSSFULLY APPLIED to DEVELOP TREATMENTS for ABORMAL HUMAN BEHAVIOUR. For e.g., SYSTEMATIC DESENSITISATION is a THERAPY offered on CLASSICAL CONDITIONING for patients with SEVERE PHOBIAS. Aiming to EXTINGUISH the FEAR ASSOCIATION and REPLACE the response of FEAR with RELAXATION. EG: someone with ARACHNOPHOBIA seeing a SPIDER and FEELING RELAXED.
MAIN COMPONENTS OF AVERSION THERAPY:
1. HOW IT WORKS ?
INDIVIDUALS are REPEATEDLY presented with an AVERSIVE STIMULUS (a drug which makes them feel NAUSEOUS) at the SAME TIME as DOING the UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOUR (eg DRINKING ALCOHOL). The AVERSIVE STIMULI (UCS) EMETIC produces an UCR (VOMITING) which leads to AVOIDANCE. REPEATINGLY PAIRING the UNDESIRABLE BEHVIOUR (ALCOHOL), which is a NEUTRAL STIMULUS (NS), with VOMITING leads to an ASSOCIATION being made between VOMITING and ALCOHOL. ALCOHOL (which was a NS is now a CS) will be AVOIDED and RESULT in the CLIENT to be LESS INCLINED to ENGAGE in UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOUR.
MAIN COMPONENTS OF AVERSION THERAPY:
2. COVERT SENSITISATION
COVERT SENSITISATION is a UNIQUE type of AVERSION THERAPY that FOLLOWS the SAME BASIC PRINCIPLES, however the AVERSIVE ELEMENT is not ACTUALLY PRESENT in the THERAPY. INSTEAD, the client is asked to use their IMAGINATION to IMAGINE the UNPLEASANT CONSEQUENCES rather than EXPERIENCE it. For example, an ALCOHOLIC would be GUIDED to IMAGINE UPSETTING SCENES WHILST they are DRINKING. The THERAPIST may VERBALLY ENCOURAGE the client to IMAGINE the SCENARIO getting WORSE (eg. from being sick on the streets to vomiting over someone on the first date). This employs PRINCIPLES OF SYSTEMATIC DESENSITISATION as it GRADYALLY INCREASES EXPOSURE to a NEGATIVE FEELING until the MOST EXTREME SITUATION is REACHED. This form of AVERSION THERAPY is MUCH LESS COMMON than TRADITIONAL FORMS.
MAIN COMPONENTS OF AVERSION THERAPY:
3. NEW DEVELOPMENTS
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS in treating ALCOHOLISM have REFINED the use of TRADITIONAL AVERSION THERAPY. A new DRUG - TRYPTOPHAN METABOLICS- induces NAUSEA when PAIRED with ALCOHOL, but also REWARDS ABSTINENCE by INDUCING FEELINGS of TRANQUILITY and CALMNESS. They work by PREVENTING ALCOHOL ABSORPTION and instead lead to FEELINGS of NAUSEA, VOMITING and HOT FLUSHES. Unlike CONVENTIONAL AVERSION COMPOUNDS, this treatment also OFFERS POSITIVE REINFORCEMENTS of ABSTINENCE (the relaxing feeling when NOT CONSUMING ALCOHOL) for being committed to the treatment
MAIN COMPONENTS OF AVERSION THERAPY:
4. OPERANT CONDITIONING
AVERSION THERAPY also EMPLOYS the use of OPERANT CONDITIONING. Once an ASSOCIATION has been made BETWEEN a ONCE PLEASANT STIMULUS (ALCOHOL) and an UNPLEASANT FEELING (SICKNESS) , the individual TENDS to AVOID future situations that INVOLVE being IN CONTACT with the STIMULUS. For example, an ALCOHOLIC might AVOID going to the PUB , creating a PATTERN of NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT ( AVOIDANCE of what is now an UNPLEASANT SITUATION), MOTIVATING the individual to CONTINUE to AVOID these situations.
CLASSIC EVIDENCE: LITTLE ALBERT - WATSON and RAYNER (1920)
METHODOLOGY
This STUDY involves ONE PPs, an INFANT aged 9 MONTHS who was known as ‘LITTLE ALBERT’. It could be described as a CONTROLLED OBSERVATION as it COULDNT BE REGARDED AS AN EXPERIMENT as there was only ONE CONDITION (a WELL-LIT DARKROOM where ALBERT was PLACED on a MATTRESS on TOP of TABLE) and it is NOT a CASE STUDY as NO IN-DEPTH DETAILS were GIVEN about ALBERT.
CLASSIC EVIDENCE: LITTLE ALBERT - WATSON and RAYNER (1920)
PROCEDURES
EMOTIONAL TESTS: ALBERT=9 MONTHS
He was CONFRONTED SUDDENLY with a WHITE RAT, RABBIT, DOG, MONKEY and MASK to name a few. THEN, he was TESTED with a LOUD SOUND, made by STRIKING a STEEL BAR
SESSION 1: ESTABLISHING A CONDITIONED EMOTIONAL RESPONSE - ALBERT= 11 MONTHS 3 DAYS OLD, was presented with a RAT and when he REACHED for it the BAR was STRUCK just BEHIND his HEAD.
SESSION 2: TESTING THE CONDITIONED EMOTIONAL RESPONSE- ALBERT=11 MONTHS 10 DAYS, shown a RAT with NO SOUND to SEE is PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE AFFECTED his BEHAVIOUR, was then EXPOSED 5 TIMES to JOINT STIMULATION (RAT+SOUND)
SESSION 3: GENERALISATION- ALBERT=11 MONTHS 15 DAYS, RESEARCH QUESTION was whether the LEARNED LINK between RAT and NOISE WOULD BE GENERALISED to OTHER OBJECTS. ALBERT was presented with the RAT, WOODEN BLOCKS, A RABBIT , DOG for example.
SESSION 4: CHANGING THE ENVIRONMENT- ALBERT= 11 MONTHS 20 DAYS , the CONDITIONED EMOTIONAL RESPONSE was ‘FRESHENED UP’ using JOINT STIMULATION. He was TAKEN TO a NEW ENVIRONMENT- LARGE WELL-LIT LECTURE ROOM with FOUR people PRESENT, he was PLACED in the CENTRE of the ROOM
SESSION 5: THE EFFECT OF TIME- ALBERT 12 MONTHS 21 DAYS. ALBERT was TESTED for the LAST TIME, he had been to the INTERIM but NO EMOTIONAL TESTS had been CONDUCTED. This TEST included a SANTA MASK, FUR COAT, RAT, RABBIT , DOG and the BLOCKS.
CLASSIC EVIDENCE: LITTLE ALBERT - WATSON and RAYNER (1920)
FINDINGS
EMOTIONAL TESTS:
he showed NO FEAR towards the OBJECTS
AFTER banging the bar THREE TIMES, on the THIRD TIME he BROKE OUT into a FIT of CRYING
SESSION 1:
he JUMPED and FELL FORWARD, BURYING hid HEAD on the TABLE where he SAT, BUT DID NOT CRY, HOWEVER on the SECOND TRY he WHIMPERED a little.
SESSION 2:
he DID NOT REACH for the RAT, JUST STARED at it - he was ONLY CAUTIOUS towards the RAT. During JOINT STIMULATION, he BEGAN TO CRY and ‘CRAWL AWAY so RAPIDLY WAS CAUGHT WITH DIFFICULTY’
SESSION 3:
FEAR had only been GENERALISED to the RABBIT as he CRIED and TRIED TO CRAWL AWAY, he even PLAYED with WATSON’S HAIR, showing NO FEAR RESPONSE.
SESSION 4:
AFTER BEING TAKEN TO A NEW ENVIRONMENT, ALBERT’S response to the RAT, RABBIT and DOG was LESS EXTREME. HOWEVER, after ‘FRESHENING UP’ the CONDITIONED FEAR RESPONSE WAS STRONGER.
SESSION 5:
ALBERT responded to TEST OBJECTS completely DIFFERENTLY to the CONTROL OBJECT (the blocks). His REACTION to FURRY OBJECTS was NOT AS EXTREME but HE STILL AVOIDED THEM and WHIMPERED, he OCCASSIONALLY CRIED.
CLASSIC EVIDENCE: LITTLE ALBERT - WATSON and RAYNER (1920)
CONCLUSIONS:
Demonstrated with EASE that a FEAR RESPONSE can be CREATED and that SUCH LEARNED RESPONSES generalise to SIMILAR STIMULI. WATSON and RAYNER suggested ‘it was PROBABLE’ that many PHOBIAS are AQUIRED this way. HOWEVER, they saw that the PERSISTENCE of EARLY CONDITIONED RESPONSES would ONLY BE FOUND in PERSONS who are ‘CONSTITUTIONALLY INFERIOR’ (prone to mental vulnerability)
EXPLAINING AGGRESSION AND CRIMINAL BEHVAVIOUR
Meaning we are BORN with a ‘BLANK SLATE’. ASSUMING that ALL BEHAVIOUR IS LEARNT; an EFFECT of our ENVIORNMENT and EXPERIENCES with EMPHASIS on NURTURE rather than NATURE. This approach also suggests that WE DO NOT ACTIVELY THINK about OUR BEHAVIOUR and INSTEAD RESPOND PASSIVELY to our ENVIRONMENT (VICARIOUS REINFORCEMENT). However, IT IS deemed ENVIRONMENTALLY DETERMINISTIC, as it assumes BEHAVIOUR is INFLUENCED by EXTERNAL FACTORS rather than EVOLUTION or GENETICS. We ADOPT our BEHAVIOUR through VICARIOUS REINFORCEMENT - occurs when we SEES ROLE MODELS being REWARDED for their ACTIONS and therefore MIMICK IT. BANDURA used this ASSUMPTION to explain AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR, in 1961, using the EXPERIMENT of the ‘BOBO DOLL’, where he DISCOVERED that CHILDREN IMITATED BEHAVIOUR that was EXPRESSED BY THEIR OBSERVATIONS: ROLE MODEL AGGRESSIVELY ATTACKING THE BOBO DOLL BY HITTING IT. The CHILDREN VICARIOUSLY COPIED the ROLE MODELS ACTIONS. Thus PROVING BANDURA’S ‘SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY’ which CONCLUDED that CHILDREN LEARN VICARIOUSLY by ACTING and IMITATING the ADULTS around them. THIS SAME PRINICPLE CAN BE APPLIED TO UNDERSTAND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR . WHEN PEOPLE THROUGHOUT CHILDHOOD ARE SURROUNDED BY TOXIC CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR, THEY PASSIVELY OBSERVE AND IMITATE SUCH BEHAVIOURS THROUGH ADULTHOOD.
CONTEMPORARY DEBATE: CONDITONING TECH’s ARE APPROPRIATE to control children’s behaviour
- SUPERNANNY used the ‘NAUGHTY STEP’ to CORRECT inappropriate behaviour. When A CHILD MISBEHAVES their MOTHER MAY SHOUT. This ATTENTION although UNPLEASANT is POSITIVELY REINFORCING. The SUPERNANNY TECHNIQUES like the NAUGHTY STEP work best when PARENTS make a BIG DEAL about GOOD THINGS their CHILD DOES; giving POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT at the APPROPRIATE TIME. PARENTS CONTROL OVER POCKET MONEY has been USED to INCREASE POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS like WASHING THE DISHES. GILL asked PARENTS to ENCOURAGE CHORE COMPLETION by the PAYMENT OF POCKET MONEY or POSTPONEMENT of POCKET MONEY, this was FOUND TO BE SUCCESSFUL at it INCREASED the CHILDREN’S completion of 20% of the HOUSEWORK.
- A child’s PEERS are children who are SIMILAR in AGE and DEVELOPMENT. In our EARLY YEARS we may be INFLUENCED BY OUR PARENTS, but when we move to EDUCATION, the INFLUENCE OF PEER GROUPS BEGINS TO GROW. In order to REDUCE NEGATIVE SANCTIONS of a PEER GROUP and INCREASE POSITIVE SANCTIONS, children IMITATE their PEERS. ULTIMATELY, we ARE CONDITIONED by OUR PEERS.
CONTEMPORARY DEBATE: CONDITONING TECH’s ARE NOT APPROPRIATE to control children’s behaviour
- The NAUGHTY STEP is CRITICISED by CHILDCARE EXPERTS. MORRIS claimed that it has ‘LONG -TERM EMOTIONAL EFFECTS’. CHILDREN are NOT able to REFLECT ON their BEHAVIOUR and VERBALISE their EXPERIENCE in the SAME WAY AN ADULT CAN. WITHOUT HELP and EMPATHY the NAUGHTY STEP may have a NEGATIVE EFFECT on DEVELOPMENT.
- PEER INFLUENCES may not be DESIRABLE. BRICKER ET AL found that CHILDREN as young as 10 WERE MORE LIKELY TO TRY SMOKING if members of THEIR PEER GROUP SMOKED, this shows how CHILDREN’S DESRIE for POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT from THEIR PEERS is NOT ALWAYS HEALTHY.
Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the BEHAVIOURIST APPROACH
EXAMPLE PARAGRAPH:
The behaviourist approach is a SCIENTIFIC APROACH. This means that there is clear variables that can be measured, tracked and examined using scientific research methods. For example, PAVLOV conducted his research into classical conditioning in dogs in a controlled, laboratory setting and had strict control over variables, making the findings more reliable. WATSON and RAYNER also used highly scientific methods in there study of LITTLE ALBERT by using a controlled environment and a consistent control condition throughout (the building blocks), leading to higher levels of scientific rigor. This is a strength of the approach because using scientific methods means there is a high level of control, leading to a high level of internal validity. The scientific nature of the approach also allows for causal relationships to be established, making it easier to develop effective and successful treatments and therapies.
