Presentation on theme: "Monkey see monkey do!. Observational learning occurs when someone uses observation of another person's actions and their consequences to guide their."— Presentation transcript:
Monkey see monkey do!
Observational learning occurs when someone uses observation of another person's actions and their consequences to guide their future actions Because the person being observed is referred to as a model, observational learning is often called modelling (or social learning). This is not to say that every time we watch someone do something we learn how to do it – some people are perceived as more significant or important than others and thus their behaviour is more likely to be imitated.
Observational learning is a more active process than either classical or operant conditioning It is not entirely different from conditioning. It can be a lot more efficient than trial and error learning or waiting until reinforcement or punishment is given.
E.g. Language phrases/sayings – we tend to pick up specific phrases from people we admire or respect. “awesome”, “sick”, “cool” – have their own unique, non-literal meanings to subcultures of adolescents over the years. Status and image of movie stars, cartoon characters (e.g. Homer/Bart) provide the motivation for adolescent to observe and retain the behaviour to reproduce it when the opportunity arises.
Sometimes, the model is not as important in motivating the learner – and the motivation simply arises from a need to know. e.g. Watching someone burn a DVD and then doing it yourself will provide its own reinforcement of satisfaction and added convenience.
Normal Operant Conditioning the learner is directly reinforced or punished Vicarious reinforcement – viewing a model being reinforced can strengthen behaviour in an observer Vicarious punishment – viewing a model being punished can weaken a behaviour in an observer
Will children model violent behaviour? Does TV violence effect children? Does it matter who they observe? Are boys more violent than girls?
All experiments involved children witnessing adult models be in the room with a bobo doll Some models were aggressive some calm and some ignored the doll altogether Children were then given the opportunity to play in a room with the doll Aggressive acts by the child towards the doll were recorded
3 conditions Experimental Aggressive model in room with child Non aggressive model in room with child Control No model in room
Aggressive model condition - sub groups 6 boys with male model 6 boys with female model 6 girls with male model Non aggressive model condition – sub groups 6 boys with male model 6 boys with female model 6 girls with male model Control condition – 24 children each with no model in the room
Children who saw aggressive model performed more aggressive acts Boys were more aggressive over all Boys imitated aggression more from male models Girls imitated physical aggression more from male models rather than female Girls imitated verbal aggression from female models rather than male Children already had sex role expectation about male and female aggression – ‘that’s not the way for a lady to behave’, ‘that man is a strong fighter’. These expectations influenced how much they imitated male Vs female aggression. Behaviour learned through observation may not be demonstrated unless opportunity presented
4 conditions Experimental Live Human aggressive model Human aggressive models on film Aggressive cartoon character Control No model shown
Exposure to aggressive models increases the probability that children will behave aggressively This is true both for real life models and film- portrayed models Sex differences were again found
4 conditions Experimental Aggressive model Rewarded with praise and a food treat Aggressive model Punished with verbal telling off and a spanking Control Non aggressive model Received no consequence No model shown
Model reinforced – More copied aggressive behaviour No significant difference between other conditions Boys were more aggressive than boys generally Children in experimental conditions were later asked which of the two models they would like to be The models success in gaining reward was a key factor in choosing who they wanted to be like
According to Bandura, four elements account for observational learning and are essential for it to occur. ATTENTION RETENTION REPRODUCTION MOTIVATION-REINFORCEMENT
The learner plays an active role in the learning process. They must: Pay attention in order to observe the modeled behaviour Attention may be influenced by numerous factors e.g. observer’s perceptual capabilities observer’s motivation and interest level situation in which the behaviour is observed the kinds of distracters present model’s characteristics (such as attractiveness)
Attention is influenced by factors such as: Perceived importance of the behaviour (e.g. Keyboarding skills to obtain a job) Distinctiveness of the behaviour (e.g. Uniqueness, different, unusual) Behaviour’s effect on us (e.g. Satisfaction, convenience, security)
Bandura (1977) considered we are more likely to imitate models with the following characteristics: +ve perception of model (liked, high status) Perceived similar traits between model and observer (age, sex) Model is familiar to observer and is known through previous observation Model’s behaviour is visible and stands out clearly against other “competing” models Model demonstrates behaviour that observer perceives they are able to imitate
Generally, the greater similarity between model and learner, the more attractive or successful the model, the more likely we are to follow their example. (e.g. Use of celebrities in advertising)
Mentally retain what has been observed Responses learned by modeling are often not needed until some time after they have been acquired Therefore, memory plays an active role in observational learning. The more meaningful we can make the mental representation, the more accurately we are able to replicate the behaviour when necessary.
Linking a visual image with a verbal description of the model’s actions is an effective strategy to assist the memory processes.
Be capable of Reproducing the behaviour We must have the ability to put into practice what was observed. Our ability to reproduce the modelled response may be restricted by physical ' limitations Paraplegics cannot learn to walk by observing others
We must also have the potential to be competent enough to develop the necessary skills to imitate the behaviour. e.g. Imitating a professional footballer’s kicking style may be reproduced but not with the same level of skill due to the footballer’s attributes that cannot be learned such as reflexes, agility, balance and pose,superior motor co-ordination.
Be motivated or have some reinforcement available to perform the behaviour Unless the behavioural response provides a reward for you or is useful, it is unlikely that you will want to learn it. Bandura identified additional types of reinforcement that influence motivation in addition to the standard types described by Skinner.
1. External Reinforcement – comparable to learning by consequences. When offered money or praise as a reinforcer then motivation will be influenced in a positive way. 2. Vicarious Reinforcement – Observing the modelled behaviour being reinforced for other people. Young child observing older sibling who works hard at school rewarded with getting into tertiary course of their choice may model the same studious behaviour after vicariously experiencing the reinforcement.
3. Self-reinforcement – when we are reinforced by meeting certain standards of performance we set for ourselves. +ve – sense of pride and achievement at getting good VCE results that you believe you are capable of achieving. -ve – avoiding a bored future in a mindless job may act as a self-reinforcement for achieving academic success.
Behaviour acquired by observational learning may need to be maintained by operant conditioning principles of reinforcement.
The ‘Ah Ha!’ Experience Insight learning is a type of learning involving a period of mental manipulation of information associated with a problem, prior to the realisation of a solution to the problem. (Finally see the solution to a problem after mental manipulation) The learning is said to have occurred when the relationships relevant to the solution are grasped. Learning appears to occur in a “flash”
The solution is usually performed without error Initial studies on insight learning conducted by German psychologist, Wolfgang Kohler. Kohler used chimpanzees in his experiments on learning and problem-solving as they were available where he was working at the University of Berlin’s primate colony in the Canary Islands off the coast of Africa.
Kohler (1925) believed that learning, especially in primates and people, involved cognitive processes and not just stimulus- response relationships. Kohler’s experiments presented several problems to chimpanzees, each with different solutions.
THE STICK PROBLEM Food placed out of reach outside cage of chimp Two sticks within reach on floor of cage (hollow bamboo rods) Each too short to reach banana or other fruit Placed together to form a “double stick” long enough the sticks can be used to get the food
First tried to reach between cage bars in futile attempt to get banana Flew into temper tantrum Calmed down, tried other solutions including each stick independently and one of the boxes. 1 hour later – Sultan squatted indifferently on the box as if he had given up Plays carelessly with sticks and while doing this holds one rod in either hand so they lie in a straight line and pushes thinner one a little way into opening of thicker one Jumps up, runs towards bars and draws banana towards him with the double stick.
Kohler concluded this was an example of insight learning. It seemed to Kohler (although he could not be certain about what was going on inside Sultan’s head) that Sultan had mentally organised the sticks into a suitable relationship which he instantly recognised as the solution to the problem.
Kohler believed there appeared to be different stages in the process of insight learning: 1. Initial helplessness or inability to deal with the problem 2. A pause in activity 3. A sudden and smooth performance of the solution.
Preparation A “getting ready” period Person or animal gathers as much information as possible about what needs to be done. May “look for leads” by using information available in attempting possible solutions.
Incubation A mental “time out” period when the information gained in preparation stage appears to be put aside. But - Information continues to be processed or reflected upon and “weighed up” in the background (or at an unconscious level).
Insightful Experience The “ah-ha” experience – occurs so suddenly. Occurs due to some mental event that unexpectedly bridges the gap between the problem and its solution in a “flash”. Like a sudden period of illumination after feeling for some time as though you’re in the dark.
Verification When the visual image that flashed into the mind during the insightful (solution) experience is acted upon with overt behaviour and is tested.
Preparation - Sultan tries to reach with his arms, tries to reach with one stick, all attempts fail Incubation - sits at the back of the cage and seems to have given up Insightful experience - realises he is holding both sticks and can join them together Verification - uses the double stick to reach the food.
Kohler observed the same kind of insightful learning and problem-solving process occurred with other problems he presented to chimpanzees. e.g. “THE BOX PROBLEM” – banana suspended from cage ceiling and some boxes scattered around cage floor. Eventually chimps would stack the boxes on top of each other, scamper up and grab the banana.
Kohler (1927) believed that insight was not the result of random trial and error responses, although some of this type of behaviour may be displayed in the preparation stage.
Learning appears to be sudden and complete First time solution is performed, it is usually done with no errors Solution is less likely to be forgotten than if it is learned by rote (repetitive drill) Principle underlying solution is easily applied to other relevant problem-solving situations
Insight depends on 3 key factors: 1. Whether the problem has elements that can be manipulated in such a way as to enable discovery of their relationship 2. Whether the organism trying to solve the problem has the cognitive ability to manipulate the elements of the problem in such a way as to identify their relationship 3. Whether all the tools, processes and other information necessary for the solution are available to the problem- solver (within vision or “mentally” through prior experience)
Insight learning, like observational learning is described as a form of cognitive learning. Principles of classical or operant conditioning do not account for insight learning. e.g. Animals in Kohler’s problem solving situations do not show any successive approximations of the solution that can be reinforced. Cognitive processes also involved – this is different to traditional CC and OC which ignore cognition
In insight learning, the organism seems to know a correct solution to a problem, apparently without having every been reinforced for it or any response that approximates it. Trial and error or observation may have played a role in an organism learning a rule or method for solving a problem at some time prior. e.g. Chimps may have learned in the wild prior to the experiments the use of various kinds of sticks and climbing skills on different structures.
Accumulation of past experiences probably played some role in the appearance of an insightful solution to the problem. To have insight, you need previous experience with material covered in the new learning experience.
1930s – US psychologist Edward Tolman conducted maze learning studies with rats that highlighted two aspects of learning that challenged the traditional conditioning theories. The studies indicated that: 1. Learning can occur without reinforcement of observable actions 2. Learning can occur without revealing itself in observable behaviour
Tolman and Charles Honzik (1930) – experiment with rats who ran individually through a maze once a day over several weeks. See maze in Fig on page 528 Hungry rat must find its way from start box to goal box where a food reward is given Many possible blind alleys on the way Rat first entering the maze it will enter blind alleys (make errors) in attempts to get to goal box. With more trials, learning is observed as the amount of time taken (or number of errors made) to get to the goal box decreases.
Rats run a maze with a food reward at the finish point All rats run the maze once a day Performance timed 3 groups of rats 1. Always reinforced at the end of the maze 2. Never reinforced at the end of the maze 3. Not reinforced until the 11 th day
All groups showed some improvement in time taken to reach the goal box. Some marked differences in performance of each group.
GROUP 1 – (always reinforced) – quickly learned to run maze with few errors and gradually reduced errors to near zero. GROUP 2 – (never reinforced) – showed little improvement in amount of time taken to reach the goal box and rats continued to make many more errors throughout experiment than Group 1 rats. GROUP 3 – (no reinforcement until Day 11) – On Day 12 this group ran the maze almost as efficiently as Group 1. By Day 2, the rats were achieving almost the same times for running the maze as the Group 1 rats.
This was evidence that learning had actually taken place before the reinforcer was available and therefore the reinforcement was not really necessary for learning to occur. Tolman concluded that the rats in Group 3 had learned the route during the first 10 days, but only revealed this learning when a reward provided the incentive for doing so.
The rats learned the layout of the maze, but they did not perform in the maze until food motivated them to use the information. Latent learning is the term used to describe this type of learning.
Group 1 - got faster and faster Group 2 - remained slow Group 3 - showed no improvement until reinforcement was introduced on day 11 then were even faster than group 1 Conclusions Learning can happen without reinforcement Behaviour not displayed unless incentive to do so Learning and performance are different
Latent – hidden Latent learning is learning that occurs without any direct reinforcement but remains unexpressed, or hidden, until is needed. The learning can take place without any direct reinforcement - this challenged Skinner’s operant conditioning theory where reinforcement has such an important role in explaining learning of all types of behaviour. Observing behaviour is the only way to measure learning I know many songs but I’m not singing them now!
Bandura’s experiments on observational learning also showed that latent learning occurs. e.g. You may know the route to the local “fish and chip” shop but don’t translate this knowledge into performance by going there until the need arises. Similarly, there are many things that organisms know but don’t demonstrate. e.g. Know how to light a cigarette even if never smoked one in your life.
Now, as a result, most psychologists distinguish between learning and performance. Just because something is not demonstrated it cannot be assumed that it hasn’t been learned. It may have been learned, but simply not yet performed.
Learning may not be directly observed in behaviour. We must not also assume that performance is a complete representation of what a person knows. E.g. Parenting skills learned as a child may not be performed until adulthood when becoming a parent.
Conditioning theorists assumed maze learning resulted from a series of stimulus- response associations for a sequence of turns. Tolman concluded rats learned the location of places in the maze.
On the 11 th. Day for the Group 3 rats, they demonstrated their latent cognitive learning by running through the maze efficiently. The rats that were never reinforced probably developed a comparable mental picture but never had a reason to use it. Tolman used the word “cognitive map” to describe the mental picture used by the rats to navigate the maze.
A cognitive map is a term used to describe the mental picture used by the rats to navigate in the maze. A cognitive map is a mental representation of the relationship between locations.
Rats had developed a mental picture of the maze as they learned the general layout Once the cognitive map was formed rats could chose alternate routes when doors blocked Rats always took the shortest possible route around the block known as the ‘principle of least effort’ We all have cognitive maps of our physical environments through latent learning
The learning is not undertaken with the intention of ever having to retrieve the information for a reward, but the learning still occurs. Not always perfectly accurate or perfect replicas of reality They are often distorted by our own perception and even the age at which they were established.