Learning approach Flashcards
Define the learning approach
Early 20cen / John Watson / see behaviour - ignored what can’t see (body language/expression) against psychodynamic (unconscious) / predict + control behaviour (shooting gun in crowd evoke panic / security guards at football match / behaviourist approach - focus on actual behaviour instead of mental process / nurture - learnt from environment / varied surroundings make us different - stimulus response learning (perfume stimulus response remembering someone (association) - different environmental stimulus creates different response / association - classical - song with person - human+animal learn in same way - reinforcements - opporant - merits at school
Classical conditioning: main features
Ivan Pavlov - Russian psychologist created classical conditioning = learning through association / learning is passive based on reflex behaviour - human+animals have / learning through associating a a stimulus which naturally bring about a a response with new stimulus so that it brings about the same response e.g. bang on desk - blow in eye - blink
Conditioned
taught to respond respond / learned
unconditioned
reflex / natural / instinct
stimulus
any change in the environment that on organism registers - heat song perfume
response
any behaviour that the organism emits as a consequence of a stimulus - remembering someone
reflex
consistent connection between a stimulus and response - blinking
classical conditioning - key terms
UCS / UCR / NS / CS / CR / extinction / generalisation / spontaneous recovery / discrimination
UCS
anything that naturally has the power to produce a response in a human or animal - smell of food
UCR
natural reflex response to an unconditioned stimulus - salivation to the presence of food
NS
something in the environment which does not initially cause a response - dog would not normally salivate to the sound of a bell
CS
the neutral stimulus becomes the conditioned stimulus when it acquires the ability to produce a specific response in a human or animal - only happens after the NS is paired with the UCS - bell paired with food
CR
learnt response to something that doesn’t naturally have the power to produce a response in humans or animals - salivating to the sound of the bell
Pavlovs dogs experiment
UCS: food UCR: salivating to food NS: bell…pairing NS+UCS…CS: bell CR: salivating to bell / extinction - after time dogs don’t salivate to bell / generalisation - dogs salivate to whistle / discrimination - dogs only salivate to original bell / spontaneous recovery - after a long period dog salivates a bit to sound of bell
Extinction
when the CR (salivation to bell) declines + disappears because the CS (bell) is repeatedly shown without the UCS (food) - bell rung no food presented
Spontaneous recovery
When CR reappears in a weakened form in response to the CS - after weeks dog salivates a bit to sound of bell again
Generalisation
when stimuli similar to the CS brings of CR - dog will salivate to the sound of door bell as well
Discrimination
The CR is only produced in response to the CS not similar stimuli - dog only salivates to original bell not door bell
CC - Removal of fears
phobia = fear / associating pleasant with a feared object is still used successfully today
CC - systematic desensitisation
person getting used to a certain stimulus / often used to reduce fears / each therapy bring spider closer to patient
Watson and Raynor 1920: Aim
- classical conditioning 2. bring about phobic response
Watson and Raynor 1920: Procedure
case study - lab experiment - Little Albert + IV - stimulus / pre-conditioning - 9 months / conditioning trials - 11 months / post conditioning test
Watson and Raynor 1920: Results
Before conditioning - 9 months / 1 trial - distressed / 2 trial suspicious / 3 trial - cried + leaned away / 7 weeks later - generalisation
Watson and Raynor 1920: Conclusion
Classical conditioning - bring about phobic behaviour
Watson and Raynor: Evaluate - strengths
Reliable - standardised procedure - control of extraneous variables - replicable / increase experimental validity - lab experiment / Little Peter treatment - CC can bring about fear
Watson and Raynor: Evaluate - weaknesses
Ethical concerns - generalised fear - psychological harm - stress / ecological validity low - lab experiment - / generalisability - case study
CC - Aversion Therapy
behaviourist therapy / changing or removing undesired behaviour / rid patients of CS - alcohol / CS paired with UCS to bring about UCR / eventually CS is associated with unpleasant response = stop behaviour / alcohol - emetic drug / over generalisation - to other drinks (soft drinks)
Aversion therapy - evaluate - strengths
success rate - Frawley + Smith tested marijuana cocaine alcohol - 81% abstained at 6months 71.3% abstinent 20 months / classical conditioning - explainable
Aversion therapy - evaluate - weaknesses
unethical - withdrawal symptoms / social control to change behaviour - homosexuals to straight men - naked pics + electric shocks
Operant conditioning: main features
Consequences / first proposed Thorndike 1911 - animals trial+error ‘Law of Effect’ / B. F. Skinner developed principles - applied to humans / voluntary behaviour - learning though consequences / punishment+reinforcement / control what is learnt - control future behaviour / Skinner = reinforcement better than punishment - Skinner box
Reinforcement: positive
when behaviour is repeated because something good is given e.g. merits for good homework
Reinforcement: negative
when behaviour s repeated because something bad is removed e.g. doing homework so you don’t get shouted at
Punishment
when behaviour stops because something bad is given e.g. get shouted at for not doing your homework
Consequences - children / subjectivity
naughty child will see punishment as attention so repeats the behaviour / subjective - unique to every individual
Primary reinforecments
rewards that are natural - warmth / food / shelter / sex - primary drives / basic needs
Secondary reinforcements
rewards that can get you primary drives - money to buy food / sometimes secondary reinforcements become primary - money
Application: CC
to society+ people through two therapies - aversion + systematic desensitisation
Application: OC
society through token economy programmes + education / training guard dogs / any area where rewards are used to shape behaviour
Lab expt: features
IV manipulated -DV measured / experimental + control group / cause+effect relationship / controls avoid situational + experimenter effects / hypotheses - experimental (what’s predicted) - non / directional
Lab expt: evaluate - strengths
reliable - IV controls standardised / objectivity - double blind technique - IV / generalisable - sample method - representative / cause+effect
Lab expt: evaluate - weaknesses
low eco validity / ethical problems - controls artificial tasks / validity - regard to task + controls
Lab expt - animals: for
no demand characteristics / high levels of control / animals develop faster than humans / ethics - can do more to animals than humans - brain lesion / stimuli response can be isolated / objectivity
Lab expt - animals: against
complexity - generalisability / validity - eco - not natural / ethics - animals must be acknowledged / rules making it difficult to use animals - suitable caging - home office licences - endangered animals - competent handlers - no harm
SLT: main features
learning through OIM / Bandura = ARRM / copying your role model / takes into account cognitive processing - not simply stimulus response learning
SLT: OIM
Observation: watching your role model
Imitation: copying your role model
Model: personalising the action
E.g. watching mum bake cup cake / do it yourself / you make biscuits instead of cupcakes
SLT: ARRM
Attention: focusing (teacher making paper plane)
Retention: processing info (remembering steps)
Reproduction: carrying it out ( make the plane yourself)
Motivation: getting praise for something (teacher giving merit - you want to do it again)
SLT: Role models
Characteristics: same gender / similar age / status, power, fame,success / Identify with them - style / Look up
SLT: vicarious consequences
Learning from your role model - Lindsay Lohan doing drugs went to prison - you won’t do drugs / Being skinny - become a model - seen as beautiful - you will want to loose weight so you can become famous too
SLT: criticism
role of reinforcement - underestimated in SLT / neglects idea of nature - supports nurture / mixed evidence that violence on TV will influence children
Key issue
The influence of role models on anorexia
Anorexia: description
60,000 Britain with eating disorders / 9/10 female / anorexia highest mortality rate of psychiatric illness / anorexia is being extremely underweight (15% lower) - refusal to eat properly if all / suffers see fat when painfully thin / starts teenage years - girls stop menstruating - body shut down / actor pop star - seen as role model / actresses in 1990’s 10% fat levels - supposed to be 22-26% / anorexia role models - damages self-esteem + lead to impressionable teens linking thin with fame / media’s obsession with thin models = contributed to growth in eating disorders among girls
Anorexia: explanation - SLT
Role models - successful celebs / observed by fans / imitated by fans / Size zero model Eliana Ramos died - eating disorder - very famous seen on TV / girls want to be like her - restrict their calorie intake = lose weight - learnt through observation / Bandura - behaviour copied if rewarded - anorexic models (female/similar age) get media attention + earning money through modelling / vicarious reinforcement (Eliana Ramos) - link then being stick thin with fame+fortune - girls indirectly rewarded for loosing weight when they see their role models getting rewarded
Anorexia: explanation - OC
Positive reinforcements; complimented for loosing weight
Negative reinforcements: not eating to avoid anxiety
Punishment: becoming sick because of not eating
Anorexia: explanation - CC
As you loose weight you will get compliments - associate loosing weight with being admired and getting compliments
Bandura Ross+Ross (1961): Aim
demonstrate that if children were witnesses to an aggressive display by an adult they would imitate this aggressive behaviour when given the opportunity
Bandura Ross+Ross (1961): Procedure
F36+M36 - 4yrs4months / F1+M1 role model / matched pairs - pre existing aggression - observation 1-5point scale / 3conditions: aggressive-non aggressive-control group / aggressive+non subdivided into sex + sex of role model exposed to / 3 IV’s (condition sex rolemodel +child)
Bandura Ross+Ross (1961): Procedure stage 1
experimental room - child in one corner ( at desk with potato stamps + stickers ) adult in other ( tinker toys+ bobo doll) / non aggressive - model ignores bobo doll assembles tinker toys / aggressive - 1 min tinker toys - turns to bobo doll stylised aggression / 10 mins long - child taken out to another room
Bandura Ross+Ross (1961): Procedure stage 2
taken to room 2 /mild aggression arousal / child shown room filled with toys - not allowed to play / reserved for another child - frustration occurs
Bandura Ross+Ross (1961): Procedure stage 3
taken to third room / told they can play with any toys / tinker toys + bobo doll in the room - aggressive+non / 20 mins duration / one-way mirror / observations at 5 second intervals - 240 response units per child
Bandura Ross+Ross (1961): Procedure criteria looked for
- imitation of physical aggression (punching bobo nose) / 2. verbal aggression (pow / sock him in the nose) / 3. non aggressive verbal responses ( he keeps coming back for more)
Bandura Ross+Ross (1961): Procedure researcher considered
which children imitate the models / which models the children imitate / whether child showed general increase in aggressive behaviour or specific imitation of adult behaviours
Bandura Ross+Ross (1961): Results
- The children in the aggressive condition made more aggressive responses than in non-aggressive / aggression = boys > girls / boys in aggressive model showed more aggressive responses if model was male rather than female / girls in aggressive conditions also showed more physical aggressive responses if model was male + verbal aggression if female model / exception to this general pattern - observation of how often they punched bobo = effects of gender reserved
Bandura Ross+Ross (1961): Conclusion
findings support Bandura’s SLT theory / children learn social behaviour such as aggression through the process of observation learning - watch + imitating other persons behaviour / boys were more aggressive than girls – however less likely to copy aggressive behaviour from a female model
Bandura Ross+Ross (1961: strengths
lab experiment - high level of control = cause +effect – the model did have an effect on the child’s subsequent behaviour because all other variables were controlled / such high level of control = replicated (gender of model, time children observed, behaviour of the model) / the study yields quantitative data which can be analysed using inferential statical tests (chi squared) - these tests permit statements to be made about how likely the results are due to chance - objectivity
Bandura Ross+Ross (1961): Evaluation weaknesses
unethical - there is the possibility of the problem that children suffered long term consequences as a result of the study / interpreting behaviour towards the bobo doll as aggression - perhaps the children interpreted their own behaviour as play / not ecologically valid - lab experiment - situation of child + adult model limited social situation - no interaction with model at any point - model and child are strangers - not like normal modeling which often takes place within a family / snap shot study rather than longitudinal - can’t see if single exposure can have a long-term effect
Bandura Ross+Ross (1961): ethics
presumptive consent / right to withdraw / psychological harm - created individuals that were aggressive - long term effect on children
Gender development - learning theory
through process of observation, reinforcement, modeling + imitation of gender-appropriate behaviours in parents, peers + social groups
Gender development -describe
Nurture / stereotypical activities / media + significant others / from birth / family + friends / OC / SLT
Gender development - evaluation - strengths
Daphne Went / Cramer + Skidd pre-schooled aged boy + girls stereotypes of gender appropriate behaviours / Langlois + Downs punishment influence behaviour - father disapproving playing with girls toys / learning - common sense
