* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Differential Psychology
Survey
Document related concepts
Psychophysics wikipedia , lookup
Behavior analysis of child development wikipedia , lookup
Educational psychology wikipedia , lookup
Normality (behavior) wikipedia , lookup
Insufficient justification wikipedia , lookup
Personality psychology wikipedia , lookup
Inclusive fitness in humans wikipedia , lookup
Father absence wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
Learning theory (education) wikipedia , lookup
Behaviorism wikipedia , lookup
Albert Bandura wikipedia , lookup
Psychological behaviorism wikipedia , lookup
Classical conditioning wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Overview Differential Psychology Learning Perspectives on Personality • Introduction to Learning Perspective • Early Learning Theories – Classical conditioning – Operant conditioning • Social Learning & Social Cognitive Theories – Bandura Dr Andreas Fichtinger • Evaluation & conclusion Introduction Introduction to Learning Perspective on Personality • “The experiences of life change us, and they do so in ways that are lawful and predictable”. (Carver & Scheier, 2000, p. 310) Introduction Introduction • Learning perspective lies at the “nurture” end of the nature-nurture debate • It draws on traditions of behaviourism & social psychology • Related concepts include: modelling, reinforcement, social norms, etc. • Underlying assumption of learning perspective is: – all behaviour is learned through experiences & by interaction with the environment • Person viewed as entering the world as a “tabula rasa” – But acknowledge existence of instincts and pre-set responses to stimuli & – preference for pleasure & desire to avoid pain • Learning theorists view your Personality (individual differences) essentially to arise from… – the moulding (learning experiences) you receive in your environment (i.e. your pattern of behaviour is shaped by experience) • Hence learning theorists emphasise: – environmental influences – concrete events that can be identified & scientifically studied • Learning theories are therefore a clear movement against psychoanalytic perspectives due to their… – overemphasis on unconscious, drives or instincts – problems to verify introspective information – abstract & difficult to measure nature of psychoanalytic theory 1 Introduction • From an early learning perspective, personality is therefore merely the… – sum of everything you do, not what you think or feel Introduction • Thus, Social Learning Theory & Social Cognitive Theory were proposed which view humans as… • Causes of behaviour can be directly observed – self-directive & • Theoretically, a person’s behaviours are derived from… – Classical conditioning (paired associations) – Operant conditioning (rewards & punishments) …found in the social and physical world. – someone whose cognitions affect our learning • However, many learning theorists considered these considerations as being too simplistic → More elaborate theories have been developed → Hence, internal (cognitive) & social events are seen as important as well as external behavioural events • To social learning perspectives, Personality consists therefore of… – ...all learned tendencies a person has acquired including those from social influences Introduction Example: • Would you have been the same person you are today had you been brought up in vastly different circumstances in a different country? • At least, you would have quite different beliefs & views of the world and yourself • Because some cultures encourage & reward certain behaviours, whilst others value and emphasise certain other behaviours Early Learning Theories • Classic Conditioning • Operant Conditioning • Thus, strong argument that differences in personality across cultures due to different social practices (particularly during childhood) Classical Conditioning • Classical conditioning explains how a previously neutral stimulus can have a learned effect on someone • This takes place by pairing… – an unconditioned stimulus (US; which already produces an unconditioned response (UR)) with – a neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus; CS) • In this way the organism learns to respond to the CS with a conditioned response (CR) which is like the UR • Learned associations are the building blocks of behaviour & personality Classical Conditioning • Peoples’ preferences for persons, events, things, places & ideas likely to be influenced by classical conditioning processes • Most likes & preferences and dislikes & biases that define our personality develop through “emotional conditioning” – Emotional conditioning refers to classical conditioning where conditioned responses (CRs) are emotional reactions • Theorists claim that conditioning processes represent important contributors to human experience & personality 2 Classical Conditioning: Pavlov’s Dogs Classical Conditioning Terms • Unconditioned Stimulus (US): a stimulus that will provoke a response without training – e.g. food • Unconditioned response (UR): the response to an unconditioned stimulus US (food) UR (salivation) – e.g. salivation pair with • Conditioned Stimulus (CS): a stimulus that is paired with an US, and comes to provoke the same response as the US (in the absence of the US) – e.g. tone CS (tone) • Conditioned Response (CR): the same response as the UR, but now to a CS, rather than to an US – e.g. salivation Classical Conditioning: “Dog Phobia” US (bitten by dog) UR (fear) NB The more often this pairing occurs the more likely that learning will have taken place Classical Conditioning Acidic wine (US) – salivation (UR) US (Dry wine) pair with CS (dog) UR (Salivation) pair with CR (fear) Classical Conditioning: Hospital phobia US (chemotherapy) CR (salivation) UR (nausea) CS (Joe’s Bar) CR (Salivation) Advanced Concepts → • Conditioned stimuli rarely occur in exactly same form as they did earlier people can discriminate & generalise – Discrimination: you can discriminate “one bar” from another & so not all bars may provoke same response (as Joe’s bar) pair with – Generalisation: walking in a very similar bar may cause the same response (CR; salivation) OR CS (hospital) CR (nausea) CS (Dr Hope) CR (nausea) • Also possible that conditioned responses go away: → – Extinction: when a CS comes repeatedly without the US you no longer get the CR • e.g. When you go to Joe’s bar & drink no longer dry wine, then you no longer get the CR (salivation) when you go there 3 How is this Personality? • Remember: according to the behaviourist approach, personality is what we do – We are the sum-total of our observable, measurable behaviours Operant conditioning – Things like dog phobia, salivating when we hear the dinner bell, etc. define us – Unconscious or otherwise unobservable reasons for the things we do are irrelevant to behaviourist approaches to personality Operant Conditioning Operant conditioning • Operant conditioning is more active than classical conditioning • B.F. Skinner (1938) – was interested how animals learn to operate in their world in such a way as to change it (to animals • People are seen to act upon their environment & • He focused on environmental conditions & environmental determinism – behaviour is then shaped by the response the behaviour receives • Operant conditioning relies on the “law of effect” – If a behaviour results in a more satisfying state of affairs your are more likely to do it again – If a behaviour results in a less satisfying state of affairs your are less likely to do it again. Operant conditioning terms • Reinforcement: increasing the frequency or probability of a behaviour by presenting or removing a stimulus following that behaviour advantage) – consequence of operant behaviour produces reinforcement • Criticised psychoanalytic perspective as it cannot be operationally defined & measured • “Skinner box” & pigeons – box contains bar & chute for delivery of food pellets – pigeon placed in box, dances around first before hitting the bar & getting food – it begins to hit bar more often as its behaviour is reinforced by reward of food More on Reinforcement • Positive Reinforcement: increasing the frequency or probability of a behaviour by presenting an appetitive stimulus following the behaviour – e.g. press lever, get food • Punishment: decreasing the frequency or probability of a behaviour by presenting or removing a stimulus following that behaviour • Negative Reinforcement: increasing the frequency or probability of a behaviour by removing an aversive stimulus following the behaviour – e.g. press lever, shock ends 4 More on Punishment Operant Conditioning • Positive Punishment: decreasing the frequency or probability of a behaviour by presenting an aversive stimulus following the behaviour – e.g. climb pole to birdfeeder = shock (squirrels) • Negative Punishment: decreasing the frequency or probability of a behaviour by removing an appetitive stimulus following the behaviour Stimulus added Stimulus taken away Behaviour Increases Positive Reinforcement (+ appetitive) Negative Reinforcement (- aversive) Behaviour Decreases Positive Punishment (+ aversive) Negative Punishment (- appetitive) – e.g. break rules = no cigarettes (prison inmates) Summary • Reinforcement increases frequency of a behaviour – Positive reinforcement = adding something nice – Negative reinforcement = by taking something nasty away Lauren & her Mum • Lauren’s mother praises her every time she cleans her bedroom. Soon, Lauren is cleaning her room more and more. Positive reinforcement → • Do not confuse negative reinforcement with punishment! – Reinforcement increases the frequency of a behaviour – Punishment decreases the frequency of a behaviour Ron, the dog phobic Lisa, problem child • Ron is so afraid of dogs he usually leaves his house by the back door to avoid meeting his neighbour's puppy. Often he tries to work up the nerve to leave the front way, but his heart pounds and he feels awful. As soon as he decides to chicken out one more time, Ron feels better. Soon he is always sneaking out the back. Negative reinforcement • Lisa goes outside and throws rocks at passing cars. Her parents discuss potentially dangerous consequences with her by presenting her pictures or stories of related accidents. Positive punishment → → 5 Ryan, the Don Juan • Ryan dates as much as he can. The women he dates smile and flirt with him, until he mentions that he is married. Then they stop smiling and flirting. Ryan stops mentioning that he is married on his dates. Negative Punishment → Advanced operant conditioning concepts • Discrimination: being able to discriminate between stimuli – difference caused by variation in prior reinforcement • Generalisation: allows responding automatically in new settings & with new people because of similarities with prior situations • Extinction: occurs when behaviour that once led to a reinforcer does not any longer (behaviour drops off) Advanced operant conditioning concepts • Schedules of reinforcement: different schedules lead to different behavioural tendencies across time – Continuous reinforcer: behaviour is followed by a reinforcer every single time (extinction is easy!) – Partial reinforcer: behaviour is not reinforced every time; happens at different ratios or intervals, such as… • Ratio reinforcer: get reinforced after number of occurrences of the behaviour (e.g. on average, every n responses) • Interval reinforcer: get reinforced after period of time that the behaviour occurred (e.g. every n hours/minutes/days; weakly pay check) Personality change • Some types of behaviour are caused by learning • Demonstrated by therapies used in clinical practice, which are based on learning theories – • • Phobias are acquired by classical conditioning – some neutral US is paired with a CS that produces fear • Phobias are maintained by operant conditioning – each time the phobic object is removed or avoided negative reinforcement occurs – Because the phobic object is always avoided, the phobic never learns the object is harmless Systematic Desensitisation Think of dog FEAR !! goal to “unlearn” (extinguish) certain behaviours So…… Systematic desensitisation (counter conditioning) – Person learns that previously anxiety provoking stimuli now are associated with relaxation (so a different emotion is conditioned) • e.g. Dog phobia treatment 1. person feels intense fear in presence of dog 2. person taught relaxation technique 3. person taken through anxiety hierarchy (from least threatening [picture of dog] to most threatening [patting a dog]) • Two-stage theory of phobias Aversion therapy: pairing an unpleasant stimulus with undesirable responses (e.g. smoking cessation) Relaxation Response NO FEAR pair with DOG NO FEAR 6 Aversion Therapy for Smoking Smoke Pleasure Social Learning theories So…… Put nauseating substance on tongue NAUSEA pair with Smoke cigarette NAUSEA Criticism of other perspectives • Radical behaviourism is flawed Social Learning Theory “One difficulty with many learning theories is their almost exclusive emphasis on the processes of acquisition of behaviour and performance, and their almost total neglect of the content of personality”. (Julian Rotter, 1972) Social learning theory • As a consequence Albert Bandura proposed his Social learning theory – by putting the “person” back into personality • Extension of behaviourism – using concepts of operant & classical conditioning to explain human social behaviours • People are moulded by their life experiences • Learning occurs through interactions with other people – e.g. whilst growing up, important people such as parents or teachers reinforce certain behaviours & ignore or punish others – ignores cognition and emotions • e.g. assumes that actual reinforcement is necessary for learning to occur – Rejects free will • Psychoanalytic perspectives of behaviour & personality are flawed – based on inferred drives/ needs/ etc. which cannot be tested – ignore conscious cognitions – ignore situational influences Social learning theory • Learning is primary factor in development of personality • General social learning view is that new behaviour is shaped by rewarding & punishing consequences • Bandura went further and assumed that “behaviour can be shaped by simply observing and imitating (or modelling) behaviour of others” • Key concepts: (i) reinforcement & (ii) imitation 7 Bandura’s Triadic Model of Reciprocal Determinism Overt (shown) Behaviour Environmental Influences Social learning theory • Bandura’s biggest contribution to learning theory are his suggestions that… – …new patterns of behaviour can be acquired in the absence of external reinforcement – …we can pay attention to what others do & repeat their actions Personal factors (beliefs, expectations, self-perceptions) Self-Regulation & Cognition • We can exercise control over our behaviour through self-regulation – we are not slaves to environmental influences – we have “free will” • Cognition allows us to… – …use previous experiences, rather than “trial-anderror”, – …foresee probable consequences of our acts, and behave accordingly • Self-regulation allows us to… – …choose behaviours that help us avoid punishments – …move toward long-term goals. Basic Processes of Observational Learning 1. Attentional processes • attend to & accurately perceive model’s behaviour 2. Retention processes • remember the model’s behaviour 3. Motor reproduction processes • translate symbolically coded memories of the model’s behaviour into new response patterns 4. Motivational processes • if positive reinforcement is potentially available, enact the modelled behaviour • i.e. we learn through observation, rather than through direct reinforcement Learning through Modelling • Much of what we do is learned through observing and speaking with others (“models”), – not through personal experience • We form a cognitive image of how to perform certain behaviours through modelling → image is then used as a guide for later behaviours → our cognitive abilities give us the capability for insight & foresight Types of Reinforcement in Observational Learning • Social reinforcement – Important form of reinforcement which shapes human personality & behaviour in society • e.g. reinforcers such as acceptance, hugs, approval, interest, praise, etc. • Self-reinforcement – Reward or punish self for meeting or failing to meet own standards • e.g. I study for one hour, then I can have that piece of cake • Vicarious reinforcement – Vicarious positive reinforcement • e.g. seeing people who train hard win gold medals at Olympics reinforces physical exercise in observers – Vicarious punishment 8 Empirical Evidence • Children who see an adult behave aggressively might view that aggressive behaviour as a positive thing (i.e. expect positive reinforcement of some type for that behaviour) • Consequently they are likely to imitate that aggressive behaviour Bandura’s “Bobo Doll” Study (1963) • • Bandura, Ross & Ross (1963) - investigated whether children imitate a model’s aggressive behaviour Method: – • – Bandura & Huston, 1961 • Children imitate a model’s aggressive behaviour in the presence of the model – Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961 • Children imitate a model’s aggressive behaviour in a new setting, away from the model Bandura’s “Bobo Doll” Study Participants: • – 48 boys & 48 girls attending Stanford University nursery school (mean age = 4.3 yrs) Participants were matched across experimental groups for degree of aggressive behaviour shown in nursery school interactions Exposure to an aggressive model (4 conditions) 1. 2. 3. 4. Observe an adult model behave aggressive Observe same adult model & same behaviours, but on film Observe same behaviours performed by a cartoon character Control group (no observations) Pictures from Bandura’s experiment on learned aggressive behaviour. When watching An adult behave aggressively toward an inflated doll, the children in Badura’s study imitated many of the aggressive acts of the adult model. Key results – Children who saw aggressive model made more aggressive acts than those who saw the non-aggressive model • Physical aggression • Verbal aggression – Boys violence behaviour was influenced more by aggressive male model than by aggressive female model (104 vs. 48.4 instances) – Girls were more aggressive in the aggressive female condition than in the male condition (57.7 vs. 36.3 instances) – Boys were more likely to imitate physical violence – Girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression Practical implications • Violence on TV, computer games, internet etc. • Hot topic ever since! • E.g. Follow-up by Bandura et al. (1963) Conclusion – Live adult model, model on film, cartoon → all produced more violent behaviours • Optimistic note: modelled violence can be altered under certain conditions – Reinforcement vs. punishment 9 Summary Strengths of learning perspectives • We acquire, maintain & modify behaviours that we see others perform • Impressive experimental evidence (scientific, testable, • We decide which behaviours to keep & when to use them, by using: • Importance of the environment: explains situational variations in behaviour – Symbolic thought (“what are my long term goals?”) – Emotion (“damn that Bobo doll”) – Self-regulation (“I really want to scream at my boss, but I need that job, so…”) • Badura and other Social Learning Theorists put the “person” back into personality by stressing the interplay of (i) personal factors, (ii) environmental factors & (iii) behaviour supported by research findings) • Building blocks can explain complex behavioural patterns • Social cognitive concepts have many useful applications • Bandura’s theory has been open to change & now incorporates an increased emphasis on cognitive process Strengths of learning perspectives Weaknesses of learning perspective • Useful for explaining emotional reactions & action tendencies • Tend to explain specific behaviour & behaviour changes but not a comprehensive theory of personality • Useful therapeutic applications, such as: – Behaviour therapy is focused & effective for a variety of behaviour problems – Cognitive Behaviour Therapy methods are also very popular • Personhood seems missing • Role of biology ignored: overlooks individual differences present from birth • In depth case studies are lacking – partly because comprehensive personality assessment tests have not been developed from the learning perspective References • • • • • • Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. (2000). Perspectives on Personality (4th ed.) Needham Heights. Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2008). Personality and Individual Differences. BPS Blackwell Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model to understand the personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249-264. Funder, D.C. (1994). The personality puzzle. Norton: New York. Maltby, J., Day, L., & Macaskill, A. (2006). Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence. Prentice Hall. Pervin, L.A. & John, O.P. (2000). Personality. Theory and Research (8th ed.). Wiley. 10