strengths and weaknesses of learning approach Flashcards
strength of pavlov’s experiments with dogs x2
- careful controls e.g. controlled environment for dogs = objective and scientific credibility
- reliable , repeated with metronome, buzzer, bell etc.. results showed reliable data
weakness of pavlov’s experiments x2
- lack generalisability to humans
- ecological validity lacking as he took away ‘naturalness’ of situation e.g. dog in chamber with no other stimuli present
strength of classic study
applicable to real life; humans can be conditioned to fear = can be ‘unconditioned’ in phobia treatments helping people
weakness of classic study x3
- lacks task validity
- low generalisability
- lacks ecological validity (even tho in nursery it was lab conditions)
strength of contemporary study x2
- carefully matched control group advantageous as it acts as baseline comparison between two groups = confidence in findings
- lab conditions have well controlled procedures every pp experienced initial stage of study same way = standardised procedure minimises effects of extraneous variables
weakness of contemporary study x2
- small sample size = lacks generalisability
- assessed fear using interview questioning - prep set questions given so pp often chose best fit option rather than being accurately able to describe their view = limited validity of responses as their true view may not be matched
strengths of operant conditioning x2
- explain addiction; a substance can be addictive if it is rewarding ie pleasurable
- supported by skinner’s observation
weakness of operant conditioning x2
- study uses animals lacking generalisability
- observations only only account for observable behaviours and not for any unobservable behaviour eg mental, emotional states , making explanations limited and oversimplified.
strengths of classical conditioning x2
- supported by pavlov
- applied to therapy e.g. aversion therapy getting rid of phobias
weaknesses of classical conditioning x2
- animal study on dogs lack generalisability
- unethical? caused unnecessary suffering to dogs
strengths of social learning theory x2
- supported by bandura studies
- Becker 2002 figi girls on tv get slimmer causing girls to get slimmer = model imitation
weaknesses of social learning theory x2
- ignores biological influences on behaviour e.g gene EPHX2
- bandura lacks ecological validity (in lab conditions)
strength of bandura 1961 study
reliability of measurement of the dv - two judges were used and their observations were checked for reliability. One judge did not known which condition each child had been put in = double blind technique to avoid bias when recording behaviour (high inter-observer reliability)
weakness of bandura 1961 study
- children were aged 3-6, all from standford university nursery, representing only the american upper-middle class white population at time = lacks generalisability
strength of bandura 1961 study
experimental methods in all 3 conditions + control group are the same except the IV = scientific credibility so cause and effect can be drawn
weakness of bandura 1963 study
lacks validity - artificial setting where behaviour was observed = may not be real life aggression at all, but modelled aggression that the children thought they had to display
strength of bandura 1965 study
reliability because of inter-observer reliability between two observers who had no knowledge of what condition each child was in
weakness of bandura 1965 study
majority of children do not reproduce the behaviour exhibited by the model even when positive incentives are presented, suggesting that the child’s motivations and previous experiences prior to investigation may have influenced their response to a model.
strength of how learning theories explain the maintenance of phobias
backed up and developed using experiments with careful controls and where all the findings have been replicated e.g. watson and rayner, skinner (OC) and bandura SLT
weakness of how learning theories explain the maintenance of phobias
although animal studies have similar brain structures they are not the same when it comes to anxiety and fear and how in humans these can arise from cognition (thinking) which is less likely in animals = not generalisable
strength of systematic densensination x2
more ethical than other therapies for phobias such as flooding as it involved gradual exposure which is not as stressful and individuals are fully involved in their therapy + consensual in their own time)
- supported by Capafons (treatment worked for 90% of people)
weakness of SD
-limited in effectiveness as it can only be used for phobias and not for other metal disorders e.g. SCHIZOPHRENIA which may have a biological cause
- can be very costly and time consuming several hours of multiple sessions
strengths of flooding x2
- much faster treatment than SD
- supported by Wolpe (1973) showed flooding can be successful - drove car around a girl who was terrified but overtime she learnt to calm down
weaknesses of flooding x2
- very frightening and not ethical
- spontaneous recovery possible = treatment may be short-lived and not that effective