Behaviorism Classical Conditioning (Pavlov) “Modern” Classical Conditioning (Watson) Operant Conditioning (Skinner) Social Learning Theory (Bandura) Study on Imitation and Transmission of Aggression (1961)

Classical Conditioning (Pavlov) Pavlov had his lab assistants feed dogs meat powder so their rates of salivation could be measured Dogs began to salivate when they saw the assistants, even when they had no meat powder Minty-fresh Office http://www.hulu.com/watch/159637/the-office-phyllis-wedding

Classical Conditioning A type of learning that occurs when an individual learns to produce an involuntary emotional or physiological response similar to an instinctive or reflexive response There are main concepts of the process that you need to understand

4.Conditioned Response (CR) 1. Unconditioned Stimulus(UCS) Object or event causes an instinctive or reflexive (unlearned) physiological or emotional response In Pavlov’s experiment, the meat powder was the UCS 4.Conditioned Response (CR) Learned physiological or emotional response that is similar to the unconditioned response In Pavlov’s experiment, the dogs’ salivation without the meat powder is the CR 2. Unconditioned Response(UCR) Instinctive or reflexive (unlearned) physiological or emotional response caused by the unconditioned stimulus (UCS). In Pavlov’s experiment, the UCR was the dogs’ salivation resulting from the meat powder. 3. Conditioned Stimulus (CS) Object or event becomes associated with the unconditioned stimulus In Pavlov’s experiment, lab assistants became associated with the meat powder

Curiously Strong Office

Classical Conditioning In Pavlov's experiment… 1. Neutral Stimulus (NS): tuning fork/bell 2. Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS): presentation of food 3. Unconditioned Response (UCR): salivation (THE NS BECOMES THE CS) 4. Conditioned Stimulus (CS): sound 5. Conditioned Response (CR): salivating after the sound

Processes in classical conditioning Generalization: responding the same way to similar stimuli (example) Discrimination: responding differently to similar but not identical stimuli. Extinction: gradual disappearance of a learned response. Occurs when a conditioned stimulus is presented repeatedly but not followed by the unconditioned stimulus (example)

John Watson and Conditioning A. Background 1. Freud described the phobia of Little Hans as the result of psychosexual development. Hans oedipal desires caused him to fear his father. This fear was then transferred to horse which may have resembled Hans’ father. 2. John Watson felt that Freud ignored a critical piece of evidence. When he was a child Hans saw an accident involving a horse and cart that would have startled him. Watson saw this as the cause of the fear.

Watson & Little Albert (1920) 1. Albert B and 11 month old child living at the hospital referred to as Baby Albert for the purposes of the experiment 2. He was a stolid and unemotional infant who was quite healthy 3. Watson and Rayner were unconcerned with giving the boy a phobia as this fear would do the boy “little harm” and he would develop fears on his own soon anyway 4. The plan called for the subject to be “frightened” by banging two metal poles together

Watson & Little Albert (1920) C. The Experiment 1. At first the subject responded favorably to the rat (smiling and cooing) and was willing to touch the rat 2. It took 7 pairings of the loud noise with the rat to get a fear response 3. Albert showed no fear of objects like his blocks, however, he did show generalization to other “furry” objects like a rabbit and a dog 4. After 5 days without conditioning the CR had diminished somewhat

Watson & Little Albert (1920) 5. The researchers confounded their own experiment by conditioning the subject with the UCR and some of the generalized stimuli (rabbit and dog) 6. Some doubts exist as to whether or not this fear response was actually a phobia. When Albert was allowed to suck his thumb he showed no response whatsoever. 7. Some other errors included no control subject and no careful monitoring of the CR

Watson & Little Albert (1920) D. Important Concerns 1. Ethical standards today prevent exposing subjects to harm like that done in this experiment. 2. The mother eventually removed the subject, preventing any further experimentation or removal of the fear 3. The researchers planned on using various techniques to remove the fear a. Presentations of the stimulus w/ food or candy b. Tactile stimulation of the subject’s erogenous zones while presenting the CS 4. The long term impact on the subject is still debated a. Possibly extinguished over time b. However, some research suggest that it may not have been extinguished because fear is often difficult to extinguish on its own

Watson & Little Albert (1920) The Procedures in summation 1. UCS = loud noise 2. UCR = crying to the loud noise 3. Neutral stimulus = the rat 4. CS = the rat 5. CR = crying to the rat 6. GS = the rabbit or dog etc.

Operant Conditioning (Skinner, 1952) The work of B.F. Skinner 1. Considered the Father of Operant Conditioning 2. Based his work on the Law of Effect (Thorndike) 3. Skinner Basics a. Believed that all learning occurs as a result of experience b. Believed that cognitive terms were useless c. Believed that all animals including humans learn in basically the same way, therefore studies done on animals can be extrapolated to humans d. Most of his studies were done on rats and pigeons e. Believed man has very little free will f. Unlike Pavlov and Watson, says that behavior is voluntary 4. A prolific author who’s works include Walden Two and Beyond Freedom and Dignity

Operant Conditioning (Skinner, 1952) Reinforcer: is any consequence that strengthens the behavior it follows (increases frequency and duration) Positive Reinforcement: strengthening behavior by presenting a desired stimulus (examples) Negative reinforcement: strengthening behavior by removing an aversive stimulus (examples) Big Bang Reinforcement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_mIEnnlF4

Operant Conditioning (Skinner, 1952) Punishment: process that weakens or suppresses behavior. behavior followed by a punisher is less likely to be repeated in similar situations Type I punishment (presentation punishment): presenting an aversive stimulus following the behavior. (example) Type II punishment (removal punishment): removing a pleasant stimulus following the behavior (example)

Reinforcement vs. Punishment

Criticisms of Behaviorism Does not account for cognitive processes Does not account for social learning Stress of rewards and punishments Over-used in schools and society in general People learn what to do, but not why to do instead

Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1961) Premise that learning occurs through (a) the interaction with other people and (b) through the use of observation and modeling Observational learning = learning by observing others Modeling = the process of observing and imitating a specific behavior It is believed that this behavior is facilitated by motor neurons that fire both when a person acts and when they observe another acting Conditions for effective modeling= Need attention, retention, reproduction, motivation

Social Learning vs. Operant Conditioning Bandura (social learning) Skinner (operant conditioning) Learning can take place all at once (rather than over a period of time) Learning is a step by step process that involves reinforcement of behaviours Learning can occur through observation and modeling Direct reinforcement is needed for a behaviour to be learned Learned behaviour can be stored demonstrated as needed S-O-R model (cognitive process a vital part to learning) S-R model (very limited if any cognitive process)

Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models “This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1961) AICE AS Level Developmental Psych Unit Lecture 1

Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1961) AICE Psych- Developmental Psych Unit Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models

Background of the Study What’s the cause of aggression? Theorists point to 3 possibilities (not gamma rays) 1- biologically pre-programmed 2- situational factors 3- aggression is learned CUE 1- Which of the above possibilities to you believe is most applicable? Explain!

Background & Premise for Study Bandura believed that conditioning on its own is inadequate as an explanation of the majority of social behaviour To test this idea, he set out to design a study to provide support for his concepts CUE 2- Briefly describe how you would conduct a study to test this concept? Include all relevant aspects as we have talked about in class

Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1961) Premise that learning occurs through (a) the interaction with other people and (b) through the use of observation and modeling Observational learning = learning by observing others Modeling = the process of observing and imitating a specific behavior It is believed that this behavior is facilitated by motor neurons that fire both when a person acts and when they observe another acting Conditions for effective modeling= Need attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation

Purpose of the Study AICE says- To demonstrate that learning can occur through mere observation of a model and that imitation can occur in the absence of that model OCR and everyone else says- Looked at whether children would imitate the actions of different role models when given the opportunity… (key point here) even if they saw these behaviours in a different environment and the original model they observed performing the aggressive act was no longer present

Hypotheses (1-2) H1- Children shown aggressive models will show significantly more imitative aggressive behaviour than those shown non-aggressive or no models H2- Children shown non-aggressive, subdued models will show significantly less aggressive behaviour than those shown aggressive or no models

Hypotheses (3-4) H3- Children will imitate the behaviour of same sex models to a greater degree than opposite sex models H4-Boys will show significantly more imitative aggression than girls, especially with the male rather than female aggressive model

Methodology- Overview Design: lab experiment Site: Stanford University Subjects: 72 total- 1:1 M:F, 36 boys and 36 girls from the University Nursery School Age Range: 37-69 months old, x=52 months (3 years to almost 6 years old) CUE 3- What are 2 strengths and 2 weaknesses with this sample?

Methodology- Overview 3 groups, each with 24 children (12 M & 12 F) 1- Experimental 1:observed an aggressive model 2- Experimental 2: observed a non-aggressive model 3- Control: no exposure to any model Groups were subdivided totaling 8 experimental and 2 control groups Independent measures design compare groups to each other CUE 4- Describe an ‘independent designs’ study. CUE 5- Which other studies reviewed so far implemented this design study?

Methodology-Participant Allocation Subjects No role model Aggressive Model Non- Aggressive (Control group) Male Model Female Model Boys 12 6 Girls

Methodology- Variables IV- 1- presence of a model 2- gender of model 3- behavior of model (aggressive/non-aggressive) DV-amount of aggression displayed by the child in a later situation (both imitative and non-imitative)

Methodology- Variables (continued) To control for extraneous variables within the study Researcher and teacher rated children on 5-point scale on: previous displays of physical & verbal aggression aggression towards objects ability to control their behavior when they were angry This inter-rater reliability allowed ‘equal’ placement of children in terms of aggression level within the groups (helps reliability) CUE 6- AGAIN, describe the concept of inter-rater reliability. CUE 7- In the other studies discussed so far that used inter-rater reliability, describe how it was accomplished in those studies.

Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models “This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1961) AICE AS Level Developmental Psych Unit Lecture 2

Procedure- Phase 1 Modeling Condition *Note- there is no report of the control group children in regards to treatment in the rooms (probably just played with toys) For both experimental groups: Phase 1 Setup: Each child individually taken to an experimental room at the nursery and the model (stooge) was invited to “join in the game” Child seated at one corner with stickers and potato prints Model seated at opposite corner with tinker toys, a mallet, and the Bobo doll. Experimenter then left the room.

Procedure- Phase 1- Modeling Condition Phase 1 Experimentation: Non-aggressive condition: Model assembles and plays with the tinker toys and ignores the Bobo doll for the 10 minute duration

Procedure- Phase 1- Modeling Condition Aggressive condition: Model started playing by himself/herself w/the tinker toys for a minute… Then started beating up Bobo with specific acts that could be imitated by the child… Laying Bobo on his side, sitting on it & punching it, hitting it with the mallet, throwing it in the air, and kicking it around Said remarks of “pow,” “hit him down,” & “he sure is a tough fella!” Models were supposed to be identical in their actions (p. 576)

Still footage from a later study

Procedure- Phase 2- Aggression Arousal All children (including control) were taken to the next room and subjected to ‘mild aggression arousal’. Children allowed to play with ‘very attractive toys’ (fire engine, jet plane, spinning top, doll set, baby crib) for 2 minutes, then was told by the experimenter that they were her best toys and that she needed to save them for the other boys and girls to play with. Each child was then told that they could play with any toy in the next room and went on to room 3 CUE 8- Which toys would you use today if you were ‘updating’ the experiment?

Procedure- Phase 2- Aggression Arousal WHY DID THEY DECIDE TO POTENTIALLY UPSET THE KID? For aggressive group- Other studies showed that watching others acting aggressive often inhibits your aggressiveness For non-aggressive group- they didn’t experience or have the potential to experience aggression in Phase 1, so Bandura wanted to give them a reason to be aggressive For control group- to ensure equal treatment and opportunities among participants and possible results CUE 9- Why was it necessary for the control group Ps to experience this as well? (hint, do not say the above reasons!)

Procedure- Phase 3- Test for Delayed Imitation Each child was escorted to a room with a one-way mirror Child was recorded for 20 minutes by 2 observers (on the other side of mirror) recording the child’s actions every 5 seconds (240 observations for each child) A neutral experimenter sat on one side of the room while the child played with the available toys; Aggressive toys: mallet, dart gun, tether ball, 3 ft. Bobo doll Non-aggressive toys: tea set, crayons, dolls, cars, animals All observers didn’t know which condition the child was in except whether the child had a male or female model CUE 10- Describe the importance of the observers not knowing which condition the children were in. CUE 11- What type of condition is this known as in experimental trials?

Procedure- Phase 3- Test for Delayed Imitation Categories of displayed behavior that child may have exhibited 1- Imitation behavior of aggressive model Physical aggression (punching, sitting on, kicking, etc.) Verbal aggression (“pow,” “sock him in the nose,” etc.) Non-aggression speech (“he sure is a tough fella!”) 2-Partial imitation behavior of aggressive model Like using the mallet on other toys or just sitting on Bobo 3-Non-imitative physical & verbal aggression Just punching or using other toys to beat-up Bobo, “shoot the Bobo,” horseplaying/biting 4-Non-aggressive behavior Non-aggressive play with the available toys or just sitting quietly

“Man, that Bobo…” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZXOp5Pop IA&feature=related

Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models “This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1961) AICE AS Level Developmental Psych Unit Lecture 3

Results (1) LOOK AT OLIVER BOOK SCAN (pg. 203-204) Children from the aggressive model group showed significantly more imitation of the model’s physical & verbal aggression and non-aggressive verbal responses (H1) Children from the aggressive model group showed more partial imitation & non-imitative physical & verbal aggression (but not to a sig. degree) (H1)

Results (2) Children from the non-aggressive model group showed very little aggression (but not always sig. less than the control)(H2) In the non-aggressive group, the male model had a significant inhibiting effect on the children (H2) Boys displayed sig. more imitative physical & verbal aggression with male model Girls displayed more verbal imitative aggression & non-imitative aggression with female model (but a not sig. diff.) (H4)

Discussion (1) Study provided support for Bandura’s social learning theory Learning through social behaviour & modeling Shows identification of which models are likely to be imitated Study shows that children can learn as a result of imitation and without reinforcement This suggests that modeling is a form of observational learning

Discussion (2) Study shows that people will produce new behaviours that they have observed & generalize these behaviours to new situations Expands operant conditioning by the idea that this imitative behavior can be rewarded or punished Female aggression seemed to cause confusion amongst children as it went against social norms “That’s not the way for a lady to behave”

Discussion (3) Aggressive male models more likely to be imitated as it was seen as normal behaviour within society May help explain results of boys & girls aggression levels May be due to children’s understanding of sex-appropriate behaviour like fighting is acceptable for boys but not girls Comments like “Al’s a good socker, he beat up Bobo” Girls’ higher instances of verbal aggression may be a result of non-clearly defined sex-roles and thus their outlet while possibly suppressing desire for physical aggression

Discussion (4) Contributions to Psychology: Demonstrated how children can acquire new behaviors simply by observing adults Social learning theorists believe that most of one’s personality is formed through this modeling process Laid the groundwork for decades of research and studies on the effects of children watching (and now playing) violence within the media (or in person)

Strengths of the Study Lab setting enabled better control of variables, providing cause & effect of modeled behavior and recorded behavior Lab allows for replication of study Quantitative data allowed for inferential stats, leading to the probability for results due to chance Qualitative data provided better overall picture of the Ps actions instead of only numerical results

Weaknesses of the Study Low ecological validity/mundane realism No true standardization of models (videos used in later trials) Sample from one middle-class US nursery school Criticized as categorizing children’s actions as aggressive, but children may have seen their behavior as play Numerous ethical issues (but this even pre-dated Milgram)

Ecological Validity Child in a room with a stranger and an inflatable doll is not normally occurring Lacked adults/peers that the children knew in the room to see how they would act (as they have more influence) Cannot generalize results from beating up a doll to other situations A Bobo doll is SUPPOSED to be punched & hit (would it be different if it was a teddy bear or a Perry plush??) Bizarre acts of aggressive were shown & imitated against a Bobo doll- not a real person

Ethics Participants were children Parental consent acquired? Guidelines for RTW? Debriefing not mentioned Possible long-term effects were any children more aggressive afterwards? Children were asked to witness aggressive behavior Children were expected to exhibit aggressive behavior Children were mildly provoked to feel aggression Children observed covertly Some children experienced distress in the study Phase 2- stopping them from playing with the toys Phase 2  3 - some Ps didn’t want to go to the next room without the experimenter and/or wanted to leave before time was up (again, RTW)

Things to Think About… How could this study be modified for more ecological (internal and external) validity? How could researchers lessen some of the ethical concerns of the study? How could the data collection and analysis be stronger? What aspects of the study could be changed to produce more reliability and generalization?