Learning Theories Flashcards
Classical conditioning X5 AO1
Learning by association
It is the response is a reflex action to the stimulus
Before
UCS = UCR
NS = no response
During
UCS+NS= UCR
After
CS= CR
Evidence for classical conditioning and practical issues
Watson and Rayner:
11 month old boy was conditioned by classical conditioning to have a phobia of white rats that was then generalized to all fluffy things. This was done by pairing the white rabbit (NS) with a loud noise (UCS).
However a practical issue with this study is that it was a single participant experiment on a baby, the baby could be more malleable to create a fear in him than the general population so may not be appropriate to use as evidence for classical conditioning.
Pavlov:
Having initially investigated into digestion of dogs and finding that the dogs associated the laboratory technician with food and would start salivating when they herd her.
Pavlov did a second experiment which involved ringing a bell (NS) before food (UCS) was given to the dogs to condition the dog to start salivating when the bell rang (CR). They found that the response could be generalized to similar toned bells. It could also become extinct if it was rung and no food was presented after time. Once the behaviour had been extinguished the ringing of the bell could cause spontaneous recovery
A practical issue is that it is done on dogs therefore it may not be appropriate to generalise to humans who have a different brain structure.
Application of classical conditioning (including phobias)
Systematic desensitisation:
Is the gradual reduced anxiety caused by a phobia using classical conditioning. It helps by creating a new response towards the phobia with relaxation rather than anxiety. It is done by creating a anxiety hierarchy then relaxation followed by gradual exposure.
It is supposed by Capafons study which found that SD is highly effective for fear of flying with a 90% success rate.
No evidence of spontaneous recovery.
Strengths and shortcomings of classical conditioning
The theory can be considered reductionist e.g. the focus on humans being simple respondants of stimulus which lead to response associations is somewhat limited.
Humans may be more complex and factors between stimulus –response is somewhat ignored.
That said, isolating complex behaviour allowed for research into classical conditioning to be carried out such as Little Albert and this has given scientific credibility to the theory.
The role of individual differences is largely ignored e.g. some people may be more easily manipulated in terms of learning mechanisms.
Classical conditioning alternative
Evolution by natural selection as the behaviour may not be due to association but due to evolution for survival.
Operarnt conditioning X5 AO1
Learning by consequence
where a new behaviour is created or an existing behaviour removed as a result of selective use of rewards
and punishments. Behaviour is shaped by successive reinforcements until the animal/human is doing precisely what is
wanted.
Positive reinforcement to increase behaviour something good is given (rewards, food)
Negative reinforcement to increase behaviour something bad is taken away and so positive behavior increases. (electric shock)
These reinforcemens can be continuos but run the risk of reinforcement satisfaction. Or partial reinforcement (fixed intervals, variable intervals, fixed ratio, variable ratio)
Negative Punishment to decrease behaviour something bad is given (smack, detention)
Positive punishment to decrease behaviour something good is taken away (Xbox)
Operarnt conditioning evidence
Skinner
Rats and pigeons were placed in the “Skinner’s box” and where they learned to do certain behaviours such as press a leaver.
Skinner found that the behaviour could be taught by positive reinforcement (rat pressed lever and got food pelet). Negative reinforcement (electric shock intill lever pressed) Possitive punishment (rat pressing lever get shock) Negative punishment (rat pressed lever and food pelet no longer given)
Skinner also found that in partial reinforcement
Fixed interval there was a dramatic drop in response after reinforcement which then increased near the time the reinforcement was going to get offered.
Variable intervals gave a reasonably steady behaviour
Fixed ratio caused extinction very quickly
Variable ratio worked well
Practical issue with Skinner is that due to it being done on animals such as rats it may not be appropriate to generalise for the wider population due to differences in brain size and structure.
Operant conditioning application
Used in school and education setting to help encourage good behaviour by using a points system, where children are rewarded with stickers when they show the desired behaviour. (Positive reinforcement)
Strengths and weaknesses of operant conditioning
Reductionist to assume everyone responds to consequence and that behaviour is environmentally determined.
That said, the theory rests on scientific methodology there for the impact of consequence on learning is measured objectively.
individual differences are largely ignored e.g. some people may learn more easily through consequences whilst others may not. Some individuals are intrinsically motivated
and therefore respond less to consequences such as reward.
Operant conditioning alternative
Biological
Some behaviours may be biologically driven e.g. behaviours such as phobias are not learnt through consequence but through evolution.
Social learning theories 5x AO1
Learning by observation (thinking is indualistic unlike OC &CC)
We learn from people we look up to and identify with. The individual observes a behaviour being performed by a model (another person) and notes the consequences of their actions.
The observer then imitates or models (copies) the behaviour that they have seen (the likelihood of the behaviour observed being imitated depends on the consequences of the activity for the model.)
If the model was rewarded for their actions, then the likelihood of imitation is increased. Whereas, if they are punished for a behaviour then reproduction is unlikely.
- Attention
- Retention
- Motivation
- Reproduce
the perceived relationship between the model and the observer will increase imitation e.g. If the model is the same gender, age, is powerful or has a high status position.
Observers are more likely to imitate a model if they have relatively low self-esteem and high dependency on
those around them which is why SLT is a more powerful explanation for children’s behaviour.
Evidence for social learning theories
Bandra:
3 Experiments
1) same sex model compared to a model of the opposite sex.
He found that children in control showed less aggression than those with a model. Male model was copied more.
2) aggressive Vs non violent model by a human model, filmed human model and cartoon model.
Found that the aggressive groups differed significantly from the control. However there is not much difference between real and filmed modeled.
3) vicarious reinforcement through a model being punished for physical and verbal aggression. Found that rewards lead to more imitation of aggressive behaviour in boys and girls.
All supports SLT
Practical issue as it only contained child participants so not appropriate to generalise to adults due to their malleablity.
Application of social learning theories
Disproves Frueds concept on how watching violence makes you less violent.
And gives understanding of gender development and gender roles in society.
Strengths and weaknesses of social learning theories
Reductionist to assume that everyone will learn through observation and imitation.
That said, the theory rests on scientific methodology therefore the impact of consequence on learning is measured objectively.
individual differences are largely ignored e.g. some people may learn more easily through imitation whilst others may demonstrate the free will to have autonomy in their
behaviour.
Alternative to social learning theories
Evolution by natural selection
Some behaviours may be biologically driven e.g. behaviours such as phobias are not learnt through consequence but through evolution.
The theory is also limited because it can not explain how novel behaviours arise without imitation.
How does classical conditioning explain phobias
Classical conditioning an association with an existing UCS is needed e.g. pain is a natural response to a naturally occurring stimulus e.g. being bitten.
Pain (UCS) = Anxiety (UCR)
Pain (UCS) + Dog (NS) =Anxiety (UCR)
Dog (CS) =Anxiety (CR)
If that anxiety response generalises from that particular dog to all dogs, then the result would be that the
person became anxious every time they saw a dog. In other words, they would have developed a phobia.
Evidence of classical conditioning explaining phobias
Watson and Raynor
demonstrated that a baby can develop a phobia when a (NS) is paired with something that causes a (UCR)
which leads to a phobia of the (CS)
This provides credibility to the fact that phobias are actually learnt.
practical issues with the use of one child. Therefore, it may be that it may be more difficult for adults to develop a phobia through association.
Pavlov
Showed how dogs would start salivating (UCR) to the footsteps or presences of the lab technician or with a bell which they associated food with. (CR). Therefore phobias could also be learnt through association of a NS and UCR.
A practical issue with this is that it only uses dogs and therefore cannot be generalised to human adults.
Application of classical conditioning (Phobias)
Treatment of phobias such as systematic desensitisation