Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
107 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Who developed social learning theory and what number is it |
Bandura in 1977. It is the third learning theory |
|
|
What were some of the strong societal changes in the 1960s (2) |
•civil rights movement •president Kennedy was shot |
|
|
What did the changes in society spark |
The interests of academic psychologists to study the social aspects associated with human behaviour |
|
|
What was the name of another psychologist interested in social changes post war |
Milgram |
|
|
What were banduras three studies |
•1961 - aggression vs non aggression •1963 - real life vs film aggression •1965 - aggression is rewarded |
|
|
Aims of banduras 1961 study (4) |
1. Children exposed to aggressive model produce more aggressive acts than those not exposed 2. Observation of non aggressive models would inhibit aggression 3. Children will imitate the behaviour of same sex model more than model of the opposite sex 4. Boys would display more aggression than girls |
|
|
Design of banduras 1961 study |
Matched pairs design |
|
|
Method of banduras 1961 study (2) |
•lab experiment - they were matched upon aggression levels identified by a female experimenter and their nursery teacher •children were rated on a 5 point aggression scale for displays of physical or verbal aggression |
|
|
Sample of banduras 1961 study |
•72 children - 36 boys and girls from Stafford university nursery - ages 37-69 months •24 children in all 3 conditions |
|
|
What were the 3 conditions in banduras 1961 study |
•aggressive model •non-aggressive model •control group |
|
|
Procedure of banduras 1961 study - modelling stage (4) |
•took 10 Minutes •child was seated and encouraged to play with stickers and potato prints •model was in opposite corner of room - tinker toy, mallet and bobo doll for them to play with •model played nicely for 1 minute then was aggressive |
|
|
How many times in the modelling stage were aggressive acts done (bandura 1961) |
Repeated 3 times in a 10 minute period |
|
|
What were the physically aggressive acts in bandura 1961 (3) |
•laid doll on its side, sat on it and punched it •raised doll and hit on head with mallet •threw doll in the air and kicked around the room |
|
|
Verbally aggressive responses in bandura 1961 (only 3/5 needed for this flashcard) |
•sock it to him •throw him in the air •hit him down •pow •kick him |
|
|
Non aggressive phrases in bandura 1961 (2) |
•he keeps coming back for more •he sure is a though fella |
|
|
What was the procedure like for the non aggressive condition of bandura 1961 (2) |
•same as aggressive condition except adult assembled tinkertoys in quite subdued manner and ignored bobo doll •after 10 Minutes experimenter collected child saying they were going to another room |
|
|
What was the mild aggression arousal stage for bandura 1961 - stage 2 (2) |
•all children taken to room 2 •room filled with attractive toys (dollset, cable car, spinning top) - they played for 2 minutes |
|
|
What did experimenter say to child in room 2 - bandura 1961 (4) |
•these are my very best toys •I don't just let anyone play with them •I have decided to keep them for other children •but you can play with the toys in the next room |
|
|
What was stage 3 of bandura 1961 -test for delayed imitation (4) |
•20 minutes - all children to room 3 •it contained aggressive toys - bobo doll, mallet, dart gun •non aggressive toys aswell - dolls, crayons, tea set •experimenter stayed as some refused to go in alone. He worked discreetly in other corner |
|
|
What did the two observers do in stage 3 of banduras 1961 study |
They scored the subjects behaviour at 5 second intervals - 240 observations |
|
|
What categories of behaviour did the observers look for in stage 3 of bandura 1961 (3) |
1. Imitative aggression (physical and verbal) 2. Partial imitation 3. Non Imitative aggression |
|
|
What were the 4 results from bandura 1961 |
1. Participants in aggressive condition showed more aggression than those who were not 2. Those in non aggressive condition showed significant difference in aggressive condition to control group (no model) 3. Sex of model impacted on participants - more likely to copy same sex model 4. Boys imitated more aggressive acts than girls - especially with same sex model |
|
|
Did the control group of banduras 1961 study see an aggressive or non aggressive model |
Neither - they saw no model at all |
|
|
Conclusion of bandura 1961 study |
•not all behaviour is learnt through the process of punishment and reward as previously suggested by skinner through the principles of operant conditioning |
|
|
What stages must be present for a behaviour to be produced (3) |
1. Observation 2. Modelling 3. Imitation |
|
|
Generalisability of banduras 1961 study (2) |
•Participants were from the same university - could be biased •majority were the children of academics so not representative of target population |
|
|
Reliability of banduras 1961 study (3) |
•measurement were carried out by 2 observers to record behaviour in test for delayed imitation stage - results were checked •one observer was blind to the condition - avoid bias •interpreter reliability |
|
|
Application of bandura 1961 study (3) |
•lab setting •the setting and doll was not realistic - lacks ecological validiy •this means there is an implication on how applicable the findings are |
|
|
Validity of bandura 1961 study (3) |
•lab setting- controls (aggression levels prior were controlled by being matched •cause and effect •high validity |
|
|
Ethics of bandura 1961 study (3) |
•doesn't ensure full ethical consent •not clear if permission was granted •consent may not have been given |
|
|
What was banduras 1963 study |
Imitation of film mediated aggressive models |
|
|
In what year was banduras real life vs film aggression study |
1963 |
|
|
Aim of banduras 1963 study |
To test whether the exposure of children to film mediated aggressive models would increase the probability of aggressive behaviour |
|
|
Method and design of banduras 1963 study (3) |
•lab experiment •matched pairs design - matched on aggression levels •levels identified by a female experimenter and the nursery teacher - 5 point aggression scale |
|
|
How many participants in banduras 1963 study (2) |
•96 children - 48 boys and 48 girls aged 3 - 6 •24 children in all 4 conditions |
|
|
What were the 4 conditions in banduras 1963 study |
•real life aggressive model condition •human file aggressive model •cartoon film aggressive model •control group |
|
|
(1) modelling stage - real life aggression condition (4) |
•10 Minutes •first room - child encouraged to play with stickers •model to opposite room - tinker toy, mallet, bobo doll for him to play with •played tinkertoys 1 minute then acted aggressively - 3 times in 10 minute period |
|
|
What were the physically aggressive acts in modelling stage (1963 bandura) (3) |
•laid doll on the side, sat on it and punched in the nose •raised doll up and hit head with mallet •threw doll in air and kicked around the room |
|
|
Verbally aggressive responses for bandura 1963 (4) |
•pow •throw him in the air •kick him •hit him down |
|
|
Non aggressive phrases in modelling stage (bandura 1963) (2) |
•he keeps on coming back for more •he sure is a though fella |
|
|
Modelling stage of bandura 1963 human film aggression (4) |
•semi - darkened room for 10 mins •introduced to picture materials and informed about movie while playing •male projectionist •models in film were same adults who participated in real life |
|
|
What was a control in human film aggression condition (modelling stage bandura 1963) |
TV was 6 foot away from the child's table |
|
|
cartoon film aggression modelling stage procedure and control (bandura 1963) (5) |
•Participants sat at table with picture construction material Control: TV 3 foot away from table •experimenter said "I guess I'll turn on the colour tv" •female model as black cat -Herman cat •cat aggressive to doll - identical to real life |
|
|
Bandura 1963 mild aggression arousal stage 2 (4) |
•2 minutes •all children - room 2 •filled with attractive toys - plane, spinning top, dollset, baby crib •experimenter said they were his best toys and were reserved for other children |
|
|
Test for delayed imitation stage 3 - bandura 1963 (6) |
•20 minutes •all children to room 3 •aggressive toys - 3 ft bobo, mallet, dart guns, peg board •non aggressive toys - tea set, crayons, dolls, bears, cars •experimenter stayed if they wanted but worked discretely at other side of room •behaviour observed at 5 second intervals |
|
|
Mean total aggression for 4 conditions |
Real life aggression - 83 Human film aggression - 92 Cartoon aggression - 99 Control group - 54 |
|
|
Conclusion of banduras 1963 study (3) |
•observing filmed aggressive acts will lead to aggressive acts •learning was vicarious •if behaviour seemed acceptable they may have imitated as they thought it was ok to |
|
|
Generalisability of bandura 1963 (2) |
•all from stanford university nursery - bias •children of academics - not representative |
|
|
Reliability of bandura 1963 (4) |
•measurements carried out by 2 observers to record behaviour in test for delayed imitation •observers checked for reliability between answers •one observers was blind to the condition - avoid bias •inter rater reliability |
|
|
Application of bandura 1963 (2) |
•limited in application as it was a lab setting - children seeing reinforced aggression •non reinforced behaviour with parents - lacks ecological validiy |
|
|
Validity of bandura 1963 (4) |
•lab setting and number of controls •control group - provide baseline measurements •able to measure difference between conditions •cause and effect |
|
|
Ethics of bandura 1963 (3) |
•no full ethical consideration •not clear if permission was granted •no mention about parents giving consent |
|
|
In what year was banduras social learning theory |
1965 |
|
|
What was the aim of banduras 1965 study |
To investigate which reinforcements would influence the performance of a participants when imitating behaviour |
|
|
What principles does bandura 1965 use to explain observational learning |
Operant conditioning |
|
|
Method and design of banduras 1965 |
•lab experiment •independent groups design |
|
|
Sample of banduras 1965 (3) |
•66 children - 33 boys and 33 girls from stanford university •aged between 42-71 months •22 students in each condition |
|
|
What were the 3 conditions in banduras 1965 study |
•model rewarded condition •model punished condition •no consequences condition |
|
|
What was the name of banduras 1965 study |
Influence of models reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses |
|
|
Bandura 1965 procedure (2) |
•individually into semi-darkened room. Had business to attend before proceed to surprise playroom •when waiting child watched TV program - lasted 5 minutes |
|
|
What happened in the TV program of bandura 1965 procedure (4) |
•model walked to adult sized bobo doll - ordered him to clear away •glaring for a moment there was aggressive responses and verbalisation •each sequence was repeated twice •punishment and rewarding contingencies associated with models aggressive responses introduced in closing scene |
|
|
4 aggressive responses in bandura 1965 procedure film |
•laid doll on side, sat on it and punched in nose - "pow, right in the nose, boom, boom" •raised doll pomeled on head with mallet - "sockeroo .. stay down" •kicked doll round room - "fly away" •threw rubber balls at ball with each strike "bang" |
|
|
Bandura 1965 model reward condition procedure (4) |
•second adult appeared with candy. He was called a strong champion •poured him a large glass of 7 up •popcorn, chocolate •other model engaged in considerable positive social reinforcement |
|
|
Bandura 1965 model punished condition procedure (3) |
•model shook finger menacingly and commented "hey there you big bully, you quit picking on that clown. I won't tolerate it" •model tripped and fell - other model smacked him with rolled up magazine •as model ran off cowering - "if I catch you doing that again, you big bully, I'll give you a hard smacking. You quit acting that wat" |
|
|
What happened in bandura 1965 no consequences condition |
Viewed same film but no reinforcement at the end |
|
|
What happened after bandura 1965 procedure |
Experimental condition |
|
|
What happened in bandura 1965 experimental room (4) |
•Immediately after children escorted to room - bobo dolls, balls, mallet, dart guns, plastic farm animals, doll house •children allowed to play with all toys and experimenter left •all spent 10 mins and behaviour recorded every 5 seconds •there were 2 observers |
|
|
Results of bandura 1965 study (3) |
•boys showed significantly more imitative responses compared to girls •model rewarded condition showed significantly more imitative responses compared to model punished Condition •no significant difference in imitative responses between model reward condition and no consequences condition |
|
|
Conclusion of bandura 1965 study |
•reinforcements administered to model influence observers performance •observations alone will not provide sufficient conditions for imitative or observational learning •behaviour can be vicariously transmitted through observation of consequences including no consequences to models behaviour |
|
|
Definition of vicarious learning |
Learning that is derived from indirect sources such as hearing or observation rather than direct hands on indtruction |
|
|
Generalisability of bandura 1965 study (2) |
•all from stanford university nursery - bias •children of academics- unrepresentative |
|
|
Reliability of bandura 1965 (3) |
•two measurements carried out by two observers - high inter rater reliability •all participants went through same procedure •can be replicated in future onto more participants |
|
|
Application of bandura 1965 (2) |
•lab settings with children seeing reinforced behaviour. None carried out by parents which lacks ecological validity •implication to research findings on how applicable the findings are of children's natural responses to seeing someone they know being aggressive |
|
|
Validity of bandura 1965 (3) |
•controlled lab experiment with several controls - cause and effect •control group to provide bandura with baseline measurements in which he could compare the conditions •controls enabled to measure differences between conditions and meant cause and effect - high validity |
|
|
Ethics of bandura 1965 (2) |
•ethical conciderations as participants were exposed to aggressive reinforcements which may have influenced or changed behaviour in the long run •not fully protected from harm |
|
|
Observational learning |
The process to which learning takes place from watching someone rather than doing something oneself |
|
|
4 steps to observational learning |
1. First behaviour is modelled by a role model 2. Observer identified with the role model 3. Behaviour is observed and noted 4. Behaviour is imitated and so is learned. Whether it is repeated again depends on reinforcement and rewards |
|
|
In what year did bandura publish social learning theory |
1977 |
|
|
What does banduras 1977 social learning theory propose |
That people learn behaviour through observations of others. This is observational learning |
|
|
Modelling |
Displaying a behaviour |
|
|
Role model |
Someone important to an individual |
|
|
Imitation |
Copying the behaviours of others |
|
|
What does bandura imply about imitation |
It's a form of selection of what is imitated and could be a two way process between the environment and individual |
|
|
Reciprocal determinism |
The idea of learning being a two way process with the environment and individual |
|
|
4 cognitive processes |
Attention Retention Reproduction Motivation |
|
|
Description of attention |
Social learning theory says an individual has to pay more attention through their sensory memory to identify which behaviour is distinctive or relevant to that individual |
|
|
Description of retention |
Social learning theory proposes that episodic memories are stored in the LTM which is where the process of storing visual images from observations are kept |
|
|
Description of reproduction |
Once a behaviour has been modelled and is stored in the LTM it can be reproduced under certain circumstances - reinforcement |
|
|
Motivation description |
Reproduction links to motivation. This links to operant conditioning because behaviour that is rewarded is more likely to be shown |
|
|
What is a key principle of social learning theory |
Vicarious learning |
|
|
Vicarious reinforcement |
Connected to observational learning - social learning theory explains that learning takes place through direct reinforcement and indirect (vicarious) reinforcement |
|
|
Vicarious reinforcement example |
A person works hard because a colleague has been rewarded for hard work |
|
|
Vicarious punishment example |
Someone does not park in a particular place because they have seen someone get a parking ticket there |
|
|
Vicarious extinction example |
People stop doing something because they have seen people not rewarded for doing it |
|
|
4 stages of vicarious reinforcement |
Modelling effect Eliciting effect Disinhibiting effect Inhibitory effect |
|
|
Modelling effect for vicarious reinforcement |
Someone does something they have seen and would not have done otherwise |
|
|
Eliciting effect of vicarious reinforcement |
Someone watches a behaviour and copies it but does it a bit differently |
|
|
Disinhibiting effect for vicarious reinforcement |
Behaviour is done that someone would not have thought ok but has seen it done without negative consequences and now thinks it's ok |
|
|
Inhibitory effect for vicarious reinforcement |
Someone sees a role model punished for a behaviour and so they don't do it again |
|
|
Application of the likelihood of a behaviour being imitated |
Boys are more likely to imitate males whilst girls are more likely to imitate females |
|
|
Application - individual differences related to social learning theory |
Cognitive processes |
|
|
How does social learning theory explains the acquisition of phobias |
Children learn to imitate behaviour through imitation, observation, modelling. If someone observes a role model showing fear in a certain situation then the person watching can learn the phobia. |
|
|
Generalisability of social learning theory (2) |
•all from stanford university nursery - bias •children of academics - unrepresentative |
|
|
Reliability of social learning theory (3) |
•relates to the research that underpins the theory •lab based experiments which carried out standardised procedures and controls •replicable |
|
|
Application of social learning theory (3) |
•we can explain how humans learn aggressive behaviour •influential in developing behaviour management techniques e.g modelling therapies •having a positive role model can give an individual something to aim for, allowing them to change behaviour with the role model |
|
|
Validity of social learning theory (3) |
•research that underpins the theory •lab based experiments carried out - controls •cause and effect links can be established |
|
|
Ethics of social learning theory (3) |
•underpins the theory •ethical considerations as they were exposed to aggressive reinforcements which may have influenced or changed behaviour in the long run •Participants not fully protected |
