Download observational learning

Observational Learning
DR DINESH RAMOO
Introduction
 Suppose Jimmy watches a TV program where a hero defeats a villain by
putting the villain in a headlock; afterward, Jimmy puts his sister in a
headlock.
 Or suppose Vicky notices that her friend Natalie gets many compliments
when she wears her hair in a French braid; Vicky asks her mother to French
braid her hair for a party.
 Or suppose Keith observes that a co-worker got fired after failing to meet an
important deadline; Keith is careful to meet his deadline.
 All of these examples illustrate observational learning, also called social
learning or modeling, which is learning by observing others. Let’s take a
look.
Imitation and Modelling
Modeling and Imitation
 If you visit another country with customs unlike your own, you may find much that seems
bewildering.
 Even the way to order food in a restaurant may be unfamiliar.
 A hand gesture such as is considered friendly in some countries but rude and vulgar in
others.
 Many visitors to Japan find the toilets confusing. With effort you learn foreign customs
either because someone explains them to you or because you watch and copy.
 You model your behavior after others or imitate others. You also model or imitate the
customs of a religious organization, fraternity or sorority, new place of employment, or any
other group you join.
 Why do we imitate? Sometimes, other people’s behavior provides information.
 For example, if you go outside and see people carrying umbrellas, you assume they know
something you don’t, and you go back for your own umbrella.
 You also imitate because other people’s behavior establishes a norm or rule.
 For example, you wear casual clothing where others dress casually and formalwear where
others dress formally. You also imitate automatically in some cases.
 When you see someone yawn, you become more likely to yawn yourself. Even seeing a photo
of an animal yawning may have the same result.
 You are not intentionally copying the animal, and the animal is not providing you with any
information. You imitate just because seeing the yawn suggested the idea of yawning.
 You automatically imitate many other
actions that you see, often with no
apparent motivation (Dijksterhuis &
Bargh, 2001).
 If you see someone smile or frown, you
briefly start to smile or frown.
 Your expression may be just a quick,
involuntary twitch, and an observer may
have to watch carefully to see it, but it
often does occur.
 Even newborns imitate facial expressions
(Meltzoff & Moore, 1977, 1983)
 Spectators at an athletic event sometimes move their arms or legs slightly in
synchrony with what some athlete is doing.
 When expert pianists listen to a composition they have practiced, they start
involuntarily tapping their fingers as if they were playing the music (Haueisen &
Knosche, 2001).
 Similarly, people tend to copy the hand gestures they see (Bertenthal, Longo, &
Kosobud, 2006).
 You can demonstrate this tendency by telling someone, “Please wave your hands”
while you clap your hands.
 Many people copy your actions instead of following your instructions.
Imitation and Mirror Neurons
 Imitation relates to an exciting discovery in brain functioning known as mirror neurons, which are
activated while you perform a movement and also while you watch someone else perform the same
movement, such as reaching to grab an object.
 You identify with what someone else is doing, imagine what it would be like to make the same
movement, and start activating cells that would make the movement (Fogassi et al., 2005; Gallese,
Fadiga, Fogassi, & Rizzolatti, 1996).
 Something similar happens in other brain systems. Watching someone showing an expression of
disgust activates the same brain areas as if you were feeling disgusted yourself (Wicker et al., 2003).
 Mirror neurons are probably important for imitation and other social behaviors. However, we do not
yet know how they develop. Are you born with mirror neurons, or do they develop as you learn how to
identify with other people?
 Albert Bandura, Dorothea Ross, and Sheila Ross
(1963) studied the role of imitation for learning
aggressive behavior.
 They asked two groups of children to watch
films in which an adult or a cartoon character
violently attacked an inflated “Bobo” doll.
 Another group watched a different film. They
then left the children in a room with a Bobo doll.
 Only the children who had watched films with
attacks on the doll attacked the doll themselves,
using many of the same movements they had
just seen.
 The clear implication is that children copy the
aggressive behavior they have seen in others.
Observational Learning
Distinguishing Observational Learning from Other Phenomena
 First, it’s worth noting that observational learning differs from
imitation; for instance, in the above example with Keith, observational
learning meant doing something different than what Keith’s co-worker
had done.
 It’s also important to note that some behaviors might appear to be
observational learning but actually aren’t.
 Consider three phenomena noted by Gluck and colleagues (2008) that
might be mistaken for observational learning.
1. Contagion
 contagion, a phenomenon in which a response by one individual tends
to elicit the same response in others, might be mistaken for
observational learning.
 For example, perhaps you’ve noticed that when one person yawns,
others tend to yawn also. Have they learned to yawn by observing
others? Obviously not.
2. Classical Conditioning
 one might mistake classical conditioning for observational learning.
 Suppose Michelle is in the garage with her mother when a mouse scurries by.
 Her mother screams and jumps away. This might cause Michelle to be afraid
of mice, but not necessarily because she learned her mother’s fear.
 It could be that her mother’s scream scared Michelle (just like the loud noise
scared little Albert), and because the mouse was also present (just like the rat
for little Albert) Michelle might learn to fear mice.
3. Stimulus enhancement
 behaviors that are due to stimulus enhancement might be mistaken for observational learning.
 Stimulus enhancement, as the name implies, occurs when attention is directed to a stimulus, such
as when an illusionist says, “Keep your eyes on the red ball.” How could this be mistaken for
observational learning?
 Well, suppose one night we discover that a raccoon has learned how to open a garbage can, and, much
to our dismay, the following night many raccoons have opened many garbage cans.
 We might assume that they learned how to do this by watching the first raccoon, but that might not be
what happened.
 It could be that the behavior of the first raccoon caused the other raccoons to realize that garbage cans
might hold some tasty treasures—pizza crusts, fried chicken skins, and half-eaten jellyrolls.
 This might have emboldened the other raccoons to try to open garbage cans, and after a bit of effort
they might have figured out how to do it. Thus, the first raccoon might not have taught them how to
open garbage cans but might simply have directed their attention to the garbage cans.
Real Observational Learning
 Although not everything that looks like observational learning really is,
observational learning is a real phenomenon and probably a quite
common one.
 For example, Herbert and Harsh (1944) arranged for cats to observe
another cat (called a model) that was learning to solve a problem to
obtain food.
 Cats that observed the learning process solved the problem faster.
 Remarkably, even fish can learn from observation. Johnsson and Åkerman (1998)
allowed rainbow trout to observe contests between fish competitors.
 The observer fish were then confronted with dominant fish that they had or had not
observed.
 Observer fish that lost to previewed opponents reduced their aggression more
quickly; perhaps they thought, “I’ve seen this fish before and I’d better not tangle
with it.”
 Observer fish that won against previewed opponents increased their aggression
more quickly; perhaps they thought, “I’ve seen this fish before and I can beat it.”
 Apparently, observing a dominant opponent in advance provided information that
they used when deciding whether or not to challenge the dominant fish.
 In another study (Meunier & colleagues, 2007) rhesus monkeys had the opportunity to find
hidden food rewards.
 On each trial, two objects were presented, one covering a treat, and a monkey could choose
to move one object.
 If the monkey chose correctly the researcher moved to the next pair; if the monkey chose
incorrectly it had the opportunity to try again. In each testing session, up to 10 pairs of
objects were used.
 Another monkey observed this testing before being tested. These observers benefited from
the opportunity to watch the prior testing; errors were reduced by 39%.
 In a similar study (Subiaul & colleagues, 2000) some rhesus monkeys learned to respond to
photographs on a touch-sensitive monitor while other monkeys observed. Monkeys learned
the photograph sequences faster if they had first observed another monkey perform them.
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
 Now let’s consider an influential theory of observational learning.
 According to Bandura’s social learning theory (e.g., Bandura, 1977),
observational learning involves four processes.
 To learn from observing someone, one must pay attention to the model.
 Consistent with this, research indicates that learning is enhanced when the
model is especially likely to draw attention, such as when the model is
attractive, competent, or high in social power (e.g., Brewer & Wann, 1998).
 However, an interesting exception to this rule should be noted. If the model
attracts attention away from the task, perhaps by being sexually desirable,
learning might be impaired (the Venus Effect; Warden & Jackson, 1935; cited
in Chance, 1999).
 A similar finding occurs with sexy ads; a sexy model often draws attention
away and so reduces memory for the product (e.g., Jones & colleagues, 1998).
Presumably this is not what advertisers want.
1. Retention
 In addition to paying attention to the model, observers must remember the
model’s actions to learn from them; this is referred to as retention.
 Consistent with this, research indicates that strategies that enhance retention
also enhance learning.
 For example, in a study of Microsoft Excel training, Yi and Davis (2003)
found that strategies designed to increase retention also increased
observational learning.
 Similarly, in a study of supervisor training, Decker (1982) found that
formalized retention strategies improved observational learning.
 The observer must be able to perform the model’s actions; this is referred to
as reproduction.
 From the standpoint of someone trying to learn, this might be the most
difficult part of social learning.
 If I observe LeBron James dunking a basketball, or Rafael Nadal hitting a
tennis serve, or Michael Phelps swimming the butterfly, I might attend to
these behaviors and I might even be able to remember them, but that doesn’t
mean I can actually do them.
 If I could, my teen years would have been much different!
 Even if observers attend to a model, remember what the model did, and can reproduce the model’s
actions, they might not perform the behavior unless they are motivated to do so.
 For example, suppose Timmy observes the following scene.
 Linna and Porschae are talking and eating cookies. Suddenly Bruno runs up, pushes them down, and
takes their cookies.
 Fortunately, Bruno’s mother witnesses this behavior; she grabs Bruno firmly, walks him over to Linna
and Porschae, makes him apologize and return the cookies, and sits him in time-out for 15 minutes.
 Timmy might well have attended to Bruno’s behavior, and Timmy might also be able to remember
what Bruno did and be able to reproduce Bruno’s behavior, but Timmy is not likely to imitate Bruno
because he saw what happened to Bruno.
 Indeed, research indicates that observers do not tend to imitate aggressive behavior if the model is
punished for being aggressive (e.g., Bandura & colleagues, 1963). Our ability to learn from the
reinforcements of others is called vicarious reinforcement.
Applications
 No doubt you can already see how observational learning is relevant to everyday life, but let me note a
few applications briefly.
 First, observational learning can be used to treat some types of disorders.
 For example, Paterson and Arco (2007) used modeling to help boys with autism to play more
appropriately.
 Moreover, the modeling intervention was delivered by videotape, which would be convenient for many
parents. Similarly, Pepperberg and Sherman (2000) used modeling to help children with autism;
children with developmental delays, physical disabilities, and poor language skills; and children with
hyperactivity and poor cognitive and social abilities.
 All these groups of children showed improvements. Götestam and Berntzen (1997) found that
modeling could be used to treat phobia. People with animal fears observed others being treated by
exposure to the animal. The observers showed reduced anxiety and were then treated with direct
exposure; the treatment goal was reached much more quickly. Götestam (2002) found similar results
in the treatment of spider phobia.
 Second, observational learning can be used to teach motor skills. For
example, observational learning has been used to teach squat lifting and
balancing form (Ram & colleagues, 2007), swimming (Weiss &
colleagues, 1998), ball throwing (Horn & colleagues, 2007), cascade
juggling (Hayes & colleagues, 2008), and finger abduction force (i.e.,
trying to separate one’s fingers against an elastic band; Porro &
colleagues, 2007).
 Interestingly, research suggests that observing an action activates some
of the same neurons that performing an action does (mirror neurons;
Bates & colleagues, 2005; Stefan & colleagues, 2005), and this might be
true of the motor system in general (Tkach & colleagues, 2007).
 observational learning can explain why viewers of violence might be more violent
themselves.
 In some of the most well-known observational learning research, Bandura and colleagues
(e.g., Bandura & colleagues, 1961) arranged for children to view a model beating up a Bobo
doll (an inflatable clown doll that is designed to be hit).
 When the children were upset they tended to mimic the aggressive Bobo doll bashers. The
cycle of family violence, the tendency for people who experience abuse to be more likely
to become abusive themselves (e.g., Downs & colleagues, 1996; Malinosky-Rummel &
Hansen, 1993), might also be partially due to observational learning.
 As you might guess, observational learning pertains to the important question of whether TV
violence increases aggression in viewers (it does; e.g., Anderson & colleagues, 2003).
However, it should be noted that positive behaviors (e.g., helping) can also be taught by
observational learning (Mares & Woodard, 2005).
Self-Efficacy in Social Learning
 We primarily imitate people we regard as
successful.
 So, when we watch an Olympic diver win a
gold medal for a superb display of physical
control, why do most of us not try to imitate
those dives?
 We imitate someone else’s behavior only if we
have a sense of self-efficacy—the perception
of being able to perform the task successfully.
 You consider your past successes and failures,
compare yourself to the successful person,
and estimate your chance of success.
 We see this effect in children’s life aspirations.
 Nearly anyone would like a high-paying, high prestige profession, but many think they could
never rise to that level, so they don’t try (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli,
2001).
 One value of getting more women and minorities into high-visibility leadership jobs is that
they provide role models, showing others that the opportunity is available.
 Sometimes, people know that they cannot do much by themselves but gain confidence in
what they can do with a group effort (Bandura, 2000).
 Even groups differ in their feeling of efficacy or non-efficacy.
 A group with confidence in its abilities accomplishes much more than a group with doubts.
Self-Reinforcement and Self-Punishment
 We learn by observing others who are doing what we would like to do. If our
sense of self-efficacy is strong enough, we try to imitate their behavior.
 But actually succeeding often requires prolonged efforts. People typically set
a goal for themselves and monitor their progress toward that goal.
 They provide reinforcement or punishment for themselves, just as if they
were training someone else.
 They say to themselves, “If I finish this math assignment on time, I’ll treat
myself to a movie and a new magazine. If I don’t finish on time, I’ll make
myself clean the stove and the sink.” (Nice threat, but people usually forgive
themselves without imposing the punishment.)
 Some therapists teach clients to use self-reinforcement. One 10-year-old boy had a habit of biting his
fingernails, sometimes down to the skin and even drawing blood.
 He learned to keep records of how much nail-biting he did in the morning, afternoon, and evening,
and then he set goals for himself.
 If he met the goals by reducing his nail-biting, he wrote compliments such as “I’m great! I did
wonderful!” The penalty for doing worse was that he would return his weekly allowance to his parents.
 An additional reinforcement was that his father promised that if the son made enough progress, he
would let the son be the “therapist” to help the father quit smoking. Over several weeks the boy quit
nail biting altogether (Ronen & Rosenbaum, 2001).
 One amusing anecdote shows how self-reinforcement and self-punishment can fail: Psychologist Ron
Ash (1986) tried to teach himself to quit cigarettes by smoking only while he was reading
Psychological Bulletin and other highly respected but tedious publications. He hoped to associate
smoking with boredom. Two months later, he was smoking as much as ever, but he was starting to
enjoy reading Psychological Bulletin!
Television and Observational Learning
 Does television promote observational learning? The impact of TV can be found in these
figures: By the time the average person has graduated from high school, she or he will have
viewed some 15,000 hours of TV, compared with only 11,000 hours spent in the classroom.
 In that time, viewers will have seen some 18,000 murders and countless acts of robbery, arson,
bombing, torture, and beatings.
 Children watching Saturday morning cartoons see a chilling 26 or more violent acts each hour
(Pogatchnik, 1990).
 Even G-rated cartoons average 10 minutes of violence per hour (Yokota & Thompson, 2000).
 In short, typical TV viewers are exposed to a massive dose of media violence, which tends to
promote observational learning of aggression (Bushman & Anderson, 2001).
 What effect does the North American penchant for TV watching have on behavior? To
answer this question, a team of researchers found a town in northwestern Canada that did
not receive TV broadcasts. Discovering that the town was about to get TV, the team seized a
rare opportunity. Tannis Williams and her colleagues carefully tested residents of the town
just before TV arrived and again 2 years later. This natural experiment revealed that after
the tube came to town:
 Reading development among children declined (Corteen & Williams, 1986).
 Children’s scores on tests of creativity dropped (Harrison & Williams, 1986).
 Children’s perceptions of sex roles became more stereotyped (Kimball, 1986).
 There was a significant increase in both verbal and physical aggression. This occurred for
both boys and girls, and it applied equally to children who were high or low in aggression
before they began watching TV (Joy et al., 1986).
 The last finding comes as no surprise. Studies show conclusively that if large groups
of children watch a great deal of televised violence, they will be more prone to
behave aggressively (Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Hughes & Hasbrouck, 1996).
 In other words, not all children will become more aggressive, but many will.
 Especially during adolescence, viewing lots of violence on television is associated
with actual increases in aggression against others (Johnson et al., 2002).
 It’s little wonder that a large panel of medical and psychological experts recently
concluded that media violence is a serious threat to public health (Bushman &
Anderson, 2001).
Questions?