Term paper
Malotaibi
lecture_8_chapter_8.pptVicarious Learning
Chapter 8
*
Introduction
Can an organism learn through observation of another organism, which is known as vicarious?
Thorndike (1898) found no evidence for observational learning in cats. Operant learning better explained a cat’s learning experience.
Early vicarious learning experiments failed miserably, leading to abandoning its study for 30 years.
Albert Bandura reignited interest in studying vicarious learning, which was used to treat behavior disorders.
*
Thorndike’s (1898) placed a cat in a puzzle box. The cat learned the box while another cat watched the learning session. When the observer cat was placed in the box it did not show any learning advantage for watching another cat successfully complete the session. It went through the same operant learning that any other cat went through in learning to solve the problem.
The area of vicarious learning reignited in the 1960s due to the work of Albert Bandura.
Basic Procedures
Vicarious learning refers to a change in behavior that is due to the experience of observing a model.
This type of learning sometimes is referred to as observational learning.
A monkey learns how to find a raisin under a cup by watching another monkey engage in the task.
A dog learns how to open a screen door by watching another dog engage in the behavior.
*
A dog learns to escape an electrified chamber when a tone is presented because it observed this behavior previously.
Get class to provide examples.
Vicarious Pavlovian Conditioning
There is evidence to suggest that organisms can learn behavior through vicarious Pavlovian conditioning.
Barnett and Benedetti (1960) found that fear of a buzzer (CS) can be vicariously conditioned, although it may have been higher-order conditioning, not vicarious learning.
The Venn and Short (1973) experiment clearly demonstrates that, in reference to vicarious Pavlovian conditioning, classical conditioning, and not vicarious learning, occurred.
There is limited current evidence for vicarious Pavlovian conditioning.
*
Barnett and Benedetti (1960) – A model (a confederate) appeared to receive shock shortly after the sound of the buzzer. The participants observed the model. The question was “will the sound of the buzzer become a CS for fear?” The observer’s GSR response to the sound was tested and confirmed that the sound became a CS for fear, even though they never received a shock.
Berger (1962) observers watched a model sitting at a table with their finger rested on a shock apparatus. Periodically a buzzer sounded and the lights in the room went dim for a few seconds. There were 2 groups of interest: group 1 were told that the person would receive a shock, and when the lights dimmed, the person withdrew their hand from the apparatus; group 2 also were told that the person would receive shock, but when the light dimmed the person did not withdraw their hand. Using GSR to measure fear of the buzzer, the group who saw the withdrawing hand were conditioned to fear the buzzer; however, the group that did not see the withdrawing hand did not react fearfully based on GSR output.
These studies seem to provide strong evidence for vicarious Pavlovian conditioning, but another explanation for these findings is higher-order conditioning.
Venn and Short (1973) showed preschool children a film where another child reacted fearfully toward 1 of 2 toys (Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck). A mother would present the Mickey Mouse toy and the child would freak out, but when presented the Donald Duck toy, the child made irrelevant comments (in this case, regarding the behavior of the model, Mickey Mouse was not paired with an aversive US; the model does not actually fear the toy). Then, the children sat at a table and were presented 2 telegraph keys with either Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck mounted on top. There was a signal light above each key. The children had previously learned (before seeing the film) that pressing the keys led to the release of M and M candy when the light above the corresponding key was lit. The children were told they again could obtain candy for pressing a lever when a light was on, but this time, both lights above both keys were lit. The children had to press a lever for candy, but they could press any lever (or a combination of lever presses) to receive candy. Will the children fear the Mickey Mouse key, and therefore, avoid the mouse key to receive reinforcement. This is exactly what happened - children avoided pressing the mouse key. However, this study was also conducted where the model showed a particular fondness for the mouse toy, and it was found that the children significantly preferred the mouse toy. According to these authors, because the observers never saw the Mickey Mouse toy paired with an aversive US, an explanation of learning based on vicarious learning is false. The change in the behavior is a direct result of pairing a toy with a fear reaction/ happy reaction that led to aversion or preference. This evidence suggests that classical conditioning is operating and not vicarious learning.
Vicarious Operant Learning
Empirical evidence shows that an animal can benefit from observing the consequences of a model’s behavior during operant learning.
Carl Warden (1940) was the first to demonstrate vicarious operant learning using monkeys.
Vicarious operant learning has been supported using human children (Rosekrans & Hartup, 1967).
This type of learning also has been demonstrated using adult humans (Kanfer & Marston, 1963).
Could this be why some people tend to become aggressive after sporting events?
*
Warden (1940) constructed a special experimental environment with 2 compartments so that identical problems could be simultaneously solved in each compartment. He put an observer monkey in one compartment (it was restrained so it could not practice/use the apparatus). The restrained monkey watched a second monkey engaged in a task to receive reinforcement (it had previously learned the task). In one study, the task involved pulling a chain to open a door to receive a raisin. The observers watched the act 5 times and then was released to solve the problem in its own chamber (it was given 60 seconds to perform the task. If the animal was unsuccessful, it would be restrained again for a certain period of time before being released for another 60 seconds. This method occurred for 6 trials). The observers showed a clear advantage for performing the task, which is evidence for vicarious learning (often perfect performance on a single trial). These type of results have replicated using a variety of species and a variety of methods, including avoidance and escape paradigms).
Rosekrans and Hartup (1967) had nursery school children watch an adult model play with toys. Sometimes the model would hit a large inflated doll with a mallet, and the model also would poke a clay figure with a fork (aggressive statements also were uttered by the model). In one condition, the aggressive behavior was reinforced by the experimenter. In another condition, the experimenter criticized the aggressive behavior. Then the observer was given the opportunity to play with the toys. Children who saw aggression reinforced played aggressively, and kids who saw aggression punished played more peacefully.
Kanfer and Marston (1963) had college students sit alone in a room and communicate with the experimenter via a microphone and earphones. Each time the student was signaled by the experimenter, the student was required to say any word that came to mind. The students could hear other students engaging in the same task via the earphones (actually it was prerecorded). Over the course of the experiment, the students began to respond more and more with human nouns, such as boy, hero, woman. In one group, when the student responded with a human noun they were rewarded (“good”). In another group, the students did not receive any comment for human nouns stated. The students who heard that the human nouns were rewarded increased the amount of these nouns stated.
Sporting events are a series of aggressive acts that are reinforced rather than punished. Is this why violence increases after these events? Is it due to vicarious operant learning?
Vicarious Learning Versus Imitation
Vicarious learning is not necessarily imitation.
An observer may behave identically to a model (imitation). Imitating unsuccessful behavior is not vicarious learning.
Generalized imitation refers to the general tendency to imitate modeled successful behavior (even when the behavior is not reinforced).
Fiorito and Scotto (1992) found that octopi would model behavior that was NOT reinforced. Why?
The non-reinforced behavior is imitated because of its relation to other reinforced behaviors (Baer & Sherman, 1964).
*
Regarding the first point, Dick and Anne both have learned to make a toy boat in the past. Then Dick is making a boat while Anne watches. If Anne now makes a boat, an observer may believe that vicarious learning has taken place. You must know the past learning experiences of the subject to confirm such a conclusion.
It is also possible that a person can learn from an observer, but the learner does not demonstrate the learning.
If Anne imitates an unsuccessful behavior elicited by Dick, then imitation and not learning has occurred.
Sometimes an observer will imitate a model’s behavior even though the behavior was never reinforced. Fiorito and Scotto (1992) trained octopi to attack a red or white ball. If the animal attacked the correct ball, it received food. If the animal attacked the incorrect ball, it received a shock (the correct ball was either red or white – 4 conditions). An untrained octopus observed the training. Then the untrained octopus was given an opportunity to attack the balls, but without the consequence of reinforcement or punishment. Animals that seen the red ball attacked by a model tended to attack the red ball. Why would these animals learn these behaviors even when no discernible consequences followed?
Baer and Sherman (1964) used a puppet to provide reinforcement to children for imitative behavior. Four behaviors were modeled: mouthing, head nodding, speaking nonsense, and pressing a lever. The researchers only reinforced the occurrence of the first 3 behaviors (not the fourth). However, the likelihood of occurrence of the fourth behavior also significantly increased. This suggests that a general tendency to imitate can be reinforced, not just the tendency to imitate specific behaviors, which is known as generalized imitation. This generalized imitation occurs because it has led to reinforcement in the past.
Variables Affecting Vicarious Learning
A variety of variables have an impact on the success of the vicarious learning procedure:
Consequences of the model’s behavior –The consequence must completely be contingent on behavior.
Consequences of the observer’s behavior – Despite whether the model’s behavior is successful, the observer’s behavior must be successful for it to be repeated.
Emotional state of the observer (as arousal increases, learning tends to decrease) and task complexity determines success (easier tasks tend to be learned more easily).
*
It is difficult to increase/decrease behavior with intermittent/non-contingent consequences.
If you see a friend doing well at a video game, you may now attempt to play the game. If you are unsuccessful, the behavior of game play will be punished and will extinguish.
Characteristics of the model – Humans tend to model another’s behavior more successfully when the model is likable, attractive, competent, and prestigious. Observers also are more likely to imitate a model if their physical characteristics are highly salient, which is evident with regard to celebrities.
Observer’s age – Vicarious learning has different effects depending on the age of the observer. Younger observers are more likely to imitate, while older observers are more effective at observational learning.
Observer’s learning history – If a child’s aggressive behavior has been reinforced previously, they are more likely to imitate or model aggression.
Variables Affecting Vicarious Learning
*
People tend to learn from models who are attractive, competent, prestigious, and likable. Berger (1971) presented the model to the observer either as a subject or as an assistant. If observers thought the model was a subject, they learned less in comparison to believing that the model was an assistant. Fisher and Harris (1976) confronted people in shopping malls or on a college campus and asked people the price of certain items. It appeared that the experimenter approached 2 people simultaneously, but one of the people was a confederate who either wore an eye-patch or not. The confederate was asked to guess the price first. Later, the observer was asked to remember the confederates guess. The accuracy of recall was higher when the confederate wore an eye-patch. This experiments also was conducted where the mood of the confederate was manipulated (happy, neutral, upset). Observers tended to remember the expressive confederates. Explain that people tend to pay attention to others who are more salient.
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory
According to Albert Bandura, vicarious learning is accounted for by four processes that occur during or shortly after observation:
Attentional processes – Degree to which the observer pays attention to the model (the greater the better!).
Retentional processes – Acts performed by the observer to help to recall the model’s behavior. These may include constant motor repetition of the behavior or a verbal representation of the behavior (in humans).
*
Attentional processes – Degree to which the observer pays attention to the model (the greater the better!). If the subject does not attend to the model, or attends to irrelevant behavior of the model, learning will not occur.
Retentional processes – Acts performed by the observer to help to recall the model’s behavior. These may include constant motor repetition of the behavior or a verbal representation of the behavior that is repeated (in humans).
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory
Motor reproductive processes – You must be skilled at the behavior being modeled.
Motivational processes – The organism must believe that modeling or imitating the behavior will lead to reinforcement.
The theory, although intuitive, is not without problems. It fails to account for learning histories and animals do not engage in retentional processes (only humans). These problems led to the Miller-Dollard reinforcement theory.
*
Motor reproductive processes – You must be skilled at the behavior being modeled. For example, can you conduct brain surgery after watching the learning channel program outlining the procedure?
Motivational processes – The organism must believe that modeling or imitating the behavior will lead to reinforcement. The greater the contingency that exists between the behavior and the reward, the more likely the person will perform the behavior.
When 2 people seem to focus on learning a task differently is this caused by differing attentional processes? Or does different learning histories account for the differences. For example, a grandmother trains you how to open her safe. If you believe grandma is rich (based on past history of being showered with gifts), but your brother believes that grandma is poor (grandma hates this guy and gives him nothing), you are more likely to attend to the safe opening training.
Miller-Dollard Reinforcement Theory
The theory suggests that vicarious learning simply is a variant of operant conditioning.
Accordingly, changes in the observer’s behavior are due to the observer receiving consequences, not due to observing a model receive consequences.
Children will learn not to imitate a model to receive reinforcement.
A serious problem with the theory is that observer imitation often occurs without reinforcement. However, generalized imitation appears to account for this phenomena.
*
A boy hears his father return from work and rushes to the door. The younger brother also runs behind his older brother to greet his father. If the father responds cheerfully and gives each boy candy, the reinforced behavior for the elder boy is running toward the door, and the reinforced behavior of the younger boy is imitation of his brother. It is well known that animals will engage in imitative acts to receive reinforcement, but will not imitate when the behavior is ignored or punished.
In one experiment, children watched a model manipulate a machine to receive candy. Then the children were given the opportunity to use the machine. In one group, imitating the model led to candy. In the second group, not imitating the model paid off.
Why, if an observer receives reinforcement for imitating a model’s behavior, imitative acts occur even when the model no longer is present? For example, the younger boy sees his older brother run to the door to see his father, but the younger boy is restrained from engaging in the behavior. Several minutes later, the younger boy runs to the door when given freedom to do so even when the older brother no longer is modeling the behavior. This is not a problem for the theory because it is expected that stimuli can have sustained effects even when not present. For example, if you see an interesting movie preview, it will continue to influence your behavior even when it is absent.
The biggest problem for the theory is that imitation occurs even when the observer’s behavior is not reinforced. Once a child learns to imitate a behavior for reinforcement, it may imitate other behaviors even when these behaviors are not reinforced. Generalized imitation seems to explain this phenomena.
Foraging Behavior
Research suggests that foraging behavior (the act of looking for food) largely involves vicarious learning.
Fisher and Hinde (1949) found that, through imitation of other birds, hummingbirds stole milk off of people’s porches.
Sherry and Galef (1984) scientifically supported the presence of vicarious learning in black-capped chickadees.
Kuo (1930) found that cats would only kill rats if they had seen their mother engage in the behavior.
It seems that certain behaviors considered to be innate may be due to vicarious learning.
*
Fisher and Hinde (1949) found that, through imitation of other birds, hummingbirds stole milk off of people’s porches. The birds appeared to learn how to peck through the seal of the milk bottle. Monkeys who learn to dip potatoes in water to wash them off are soon imitated by other monkeys.
Sherry and Galef (1984) suggested that birds could have had a prior learning history for opening milk bottles, or simply could have been drinking from an already open container. They captured black-capped chickadees and presented them with plastic mini-coffee containers, and 4 of the birds instantly pecked through to get the milk (they became the models). One group viewed the models for 5 trials and the other group did not (they simply were presented the creamers). Birds in the observation condition were more likely to peck through the creamer to receive milk.
Kuo (1930) found that cats would only kill rats if they had seen their mother engage in the behavior, which is evidence for vicarious learning (killing does not seem to be as instinctive as was once thought).
Crime and Television
Bandura (1973) suggested that criminal behavior is influenced powerfully by the observation of criminal models, which is prevalent on TV.
People are unlikely to engage in criminal behavior when the criminal model has not been reinforced.
Larsen (1968) found that in programs intended for children, TV characters achieved their goals criminally 56% of the time.
Bandura (1963) confirmed that there is a link between television viewing and criminal behavior.
*
Is television crime reinforced often? Absolutely!
In 1968, it was found that 56% of TV characters (child program) achieved goals using violent acts. Would this be greater today?
Eron (1992) conducted a longitudinal study and found that kids who spent significant time at age 8 watching TV tended to be more likely to be convicted of a serious crime at age 30.
Bandura (1963) presented nursery school children a 5 minute videotape of Rocky and Johnny. Johnny is playing with various toys and Rocky asks to share the toys. Johnny refuses to share and Rocky overpowers him and takes all the toys. As well, Rocky is reinforced for his aggression because he gets to play with the toys and takes generous helpings of pop and cookies. Then, children are placed in a playroom full of toys. Experimenters counted the number of aggressive acts, such as hitting a bobo doll. Children who viewed violence tended to be violent and tended to imitate exact violent behaviors seen on the video.
It has been confirmed that the evidence for a causal link between TV violence and aggressive behavior in children is overwhelming.
Therapy for Phobia
Vicarious learning procedures have been used to treat a variety of behavior problems, such as phobia.
One method used is to allow a fearful subject to watch a model engage with the feared object without experiencing distress.
Jones (1924) was the first person to use this procedure called “method of social imitation.”
However, sometimes this method can backfire, which is what happened in the case of Vincent.
*
Jones would get children to engage with a feared object without negative consequences while a fearful child observes. However, this method can backfire. What if the model imitates the fearful child? This would reinforce the fear experienced by the fearful child. Vincent showed no fear of Rabbits. However, when placed in a room with a fearful child, Vincent became fearful of the rabbit. Vincent was supposed to be the non-fearful model.
Therapy for Phobia
Due to the problems with the previous method, Bandura and Menlove (1968) decided to use film/video to display the non-fearful model.
Bandura and Menlove (1968) used films to eliminate children’s phobia of dogs.
Participant modeling combines modeling with counterconditioning.
It is impossible to know the extent of impact that vicarious methods have on learning compared to other methods, such as Pavlovian conditioning. However, it is arguable that humans largely learn using vicarious methods.
*
Bandura and Menlove (1968) used the video technique to help children between 3 and 5 to overcome fear of dogs. One group saw 8 films that gradually showed a 5 year old boy become less fearful toward a cocker spaniel. A second group saw films of a variety of aged people interacting with a variety of dogs. Children who saw the fearless models tended to lose their fear of dogs.
Participant modeling – first the observer watches the model perform the desirable act, and then the model guides the observer through the same behavior.
Bandura (1969) used participant modeling to help college students overcome fear of snakes. A model first demonstrated handling of a snake without negative consequences. Then the model brought the observer into the room and guided the observer through a series of interactions with the snake. The college students no longer feared snakes.
