Learning Approach Flashcards
Bandura - psychology being investigated
•social learning theory which centres around observing and imitating behaviour
- people pay attention to role model
- retail this info in their memory
- must feel like they are capabl of imitating teh behaviour
- must feel motivated to want to imitate the behaviour / feel they will get rewarded for imitation
• aggression - physical (hitting) and verbal (shouting)
• delayed imitation - when someone witnesses a behaviour at one point in time but only reproduces that behaviour at a different point in time
• A - attention
R - retention
R - reproduction
M - motivation
• association - classical conditioning
• reinforcement - operant conditioning
• conditioning and social learning helps to explain changes in behaviour
Learning approach
• conditioning helps to explain changes in behaviour
• social learning helps to explain changes in behaviour
Operant conditioning
Classical conditioning
Bandura background
Bandura aim
Bandura hypotheses
Social learning theory
Bandura research method
Bandura design
Bandura IV
Bandura DV
Bandura CV
Bandura apparatus/rooms
Bandura sampling method
Bandura sample
Bandura procedure
Bandura results
Bandura conclusions
Bandura application to everyday life
Bandura strengths
Bandura weaknesses
Bandura individual vs situational
Bandura nature vs nurture
Bandura use of children (debate)
Pepperberg - psychology being investigated
• social learning theory (ARMM)
—> when a person/animal observes and imitates a chosen behaviour
• the concepts of same and different
—> understanding whether two objects share a feature, such as matter, or not
• animal cognition
—> whether non-humans have the ability to think and reason
Pepperberg background
Pepperberg aim
• to test whether a parrot could learn the concepts of ‘same’ or ‘different’
• to investigate whether a parrot could comprehend symbolic understanding of same/different
Pepperberg research method
Case study
Laboratory experiment
Pepperberg Sampling method
Opportunity - parrot that Pepperberg owned
Pepperberg sample
• African Grey parrot named Alex
• been the focus on study on inter species communication and cognitive abilities since June 1977
• allowed free access (upon request) to all part of the lab for the 8hrs the trainers were present
• trials occured in various locations
• during sleeping hours, he was confined to a wire cage (~62x62x73 cm)
• water and standard food mix were available continuously
• fresh fruit, veg, specialty nuts and toys were provided at the bird’s vocal request
Pepperberg procedure
• In each trial, Alex was presented with 2 objects that could differ in one of three categories: shape, colour, matter
E.g. blue wooden triangle and blue wooden square
• in some trials, Alex asked by trainer “what’s same?” And “what’s different?”
• correct response = Alex names categories that are same and different
• tasks involves pair of familiar items, unfamiliar or one of each
• principle trainer…
Pepperberg principle trainer prodcedure
• present in each trial but sat facing away from Alex, unable to see objects
• after each of Alex’s responses, trainer repeated answer aloud
• correct = rewarded with praise and given the items. Answer correct first time counted towards the first trial response rate
• incorrect/indistinct = Alex told “No!”, object removed while trainer turned head (time out)
• correction procedure repeated until correct response given - number of errors was recorded
Pepperberg general training procedure
• primary technique = model/rival technique, based on principles of social learning
• one of the humans acts as a trainer to a second human
• trainer asks the second human questions about objects, giving praise and rewards for correct answers, shows disapproval for incorrect answers
• second human acts as a model for Alex’s responses, but also rival to trainer’s attention
• role of model and trainer frequently reversed and Alex given opportunity to participate in sessions
• in any training with purpose to acquire a label, the reward was both objects = continuous reinforcement
• to keep Alex’s motivation high, choose reward object if correct
E.g. got answer correct and stated “i want cork” - would be given cork
Pepperberg same/different training procedure
• trainer held up 3 objects in from of model, asked “what’s same?” or “what’s different?”
• types of questions and training objects were mixed within each session
• model responds with correct category label and given objects as reward
• if model gives incorrect category label, trainer scolded them
• when error occurs, all objects removed from sight then presented with same question - then role of trainer and model is reversed
• Alex first learned categories of colour then shape
• then trained on third label, matter (“mah-mah”). Study delayed as this took some time to ensure he was accurate
• 2-4 sessions a week, 5-60 mins long
• trained on other tasks to prevent boredom e.g. number concepts, new labels for other objects, recognition of photos and objects
Frequency of sessions - pepperberg
2-4 sessions per week
5-60 mins long
Tests on familiar objects
• involved similar objects to those used in training but never the same ones
• items combined one additional colour, shape and material available in the lab
• were variously coloured and shaped objects of wood and rawhide and, later, variously shaped keys
• trials included presentations of objects previously examined as novel exemplars on the transfer tests
• individual objects used in more than one trail but pairings of objects were always novel - pair presented only when Alex was incorrect
Transfer tests with novel objects
• Alex presented with pairs of objects which had never been used together, in training
• also not used in previous tests asking same/differ
• objects may have been totally novel
• at least one pair of objects was unfamiliar to Alex
• asked what’s same / what’s different
• praised/rewarded if answered correctly
• if incorrect, told “No!” and object was removed while trainer turned head (time out)
Test procedures - pepperberg
• Alex tested by secondary trainers who had not worked with him on learning same/different
• on previous day to trial, principle trainer would list all possible objects that could be used for testing
• student would choose questions from the same or different pairs, then randomly order them
• researcher only interested in data from same/different, but other questions included to prevent boredom
E.g. what colour/shape, how many
Describe what the principle trainer would do during the test procedure
• sat in room with back to parrot/Alex
• did not loo at Alex during presentation of test objects
• did not know object being presented
• repeated out loud what Alex said (translating e.g. “mah-mah” = matter)
• then decided if the response was correct/incorrect/indistinct
Pepperberg apparatus
Objects that have similar and different properties with regard to colour, shape and material. For training and testing the objects were used to restricted to red, green or blue
Pepperberg use of probes
• pepperberg concerned Alex might not be attending to questions but noted just responding to the physical characteristics of the objects themselves
• by looking at shapes of objects he could have determined the one category that was same/different
• so, at random intervals, probes were administered - Alex asked questions for either 2 of the 3 category labels could be the correct response
Example of use of probes in pepperberg
• He would be shown a yellow and blue wooden triangle and asked “what’s same?”
—> if he were ignoring question and answering on basis of attributes to prior training, would of given incorrect answer
—> if answering properly, would have two correct responses
• having 2 possible correct answers provided additional protection against expectation curing
Model/rival technique
• one human acts as trainer/teacher to second human
• present object and ask questions about objects or what’s same/different
• given praise/reward for correct answers - item given to Alex
• show disapproval for incorrect answers - item taken away
• second human acts as a rival for the trainers attention
• parrot allow to participate in any verbal exchanges
• Alex observed interactions (between model and rival)
• roles were frequently reversed
Describe what Alex was allowed to do during non-sleeping hours, when he was not being used in a trial
• allowed free access to all parts of the laboratory
• has to be contingent in a correct vocalisation
•allowed to eat any standard food; drink as much water as wanted; food and waster always available; not deprived of this/has access to/fed regularly
• could request fresh fruit/veg/nuts
•could request toys
Pepperberg training results
• training to acquire colour and shape, as labels separate from the questions “what’s same?” and “what’s different?”, took 4 months
• training to acquire “mah-mah” (matter), a totally novel vocalisation, took 9 months
• vocalisations that involve new phonemes (sounds that don’t occur in previously acquired labels) take considerably longer to train than those that are recombinations of familiar phonemes
• length of each session depended on Alex’s willingness to attend to training
• possible that Alex had begun to acquire the same/different concept before he could produce the required category labels
Pepperberg results - tests on familiar objects
• Alex school was 99/126 = 76.6% for all trials (first trials plus correction procedures)
• 69/99 = 69.7% on first trial only performances
• Alex’s score for all trials was better than his first-trial-only performances
Pepperberg results - tests on novel objects
• 96/113 = 85% on all trials
• 79/96 = 82.3% on first trial performances
Pepperberg - Outline how the overall test score was calculated in the study
By dividing the total number of correct identification by the total number of presentations required
Pepperberg conclusion
Pepperberg strengths
Pepperberg weaknesses
Pepperberg methodological weaknesses
• sample size = 1
—> Difficult to generalise - Alex may have been qualitatively different to other parents so he may not represent a large population of them/wild parrots
• lacks ecological validity
Pepperberg - application to everyday life
• (how) teach animals to use the model/rival technique – can be used in other settings E.g. therapy settings
• (what) Service dogs may be taught which tablets the same/different for people who need help identifying the correct medication
• (how) Teaching children using the model/rival technique can be used in the classroom
Pepperberg - individual vs situational
Pepperberg - nature vs nurture
Pepperberg - use of animals debate
Saavadra and silverman - psychology being investigated
Saavadra and silverman - background
Saavadra and silverman - aim
• to examine the role of classical conditioning in relation to fear and avoidance of a particular stimulus
• in context of a specific phobias, researchers wanted to see if using a type of exposure therapy could reduce the disgust and distress associated with buttons
Saavadra and silverman - hypothesis
Saavadra and silverman - research method
Saavadra and silverman - sampling method
Saavadra and silverman - sample/participant
Saavadra and silverman - how he got the phobia
Saavadra and silverman - procedure
Saavadra and silverman - behavioural exposures
Saavadra and silverman - results
Saavadra and silverman - conclusions
Saavadra and silverman - strengths
Saavadra and silverman - weaknesses
Saavadra and silverman - application to everyday life
Saavadra and silverman - individual vs situational
Saavadra and silverman - nature vs nurture
Saavadra and silverman - use of children debate
