Observational Learning
Module 08 Reading
CHAPTER 9
OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING
WHAT IS OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING?
Putting Observational Learning into Perspective
Observational Learning Defined
Noncognitive Observational Learning
Imitation: Bridging the Gap with Cognition
Imitation and the Theory of Mind
Mice and Joystick Pushing
Birds and Milk Drinking
Observational Learning with Cognition
Deferred Imitation
Factors Affecting Probability a Model will be Imitated
Check Your Learning: What Is Observational Learning?
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL LEARNING
Psychological Explanations of Social Learning
Biological Explanations of Social Learning
Evolution and Social Learning
Mirror Neurons and Social Learning
Box 9.1 Natural Selection of Mirror Neurons
Autism and Social Learning
Check Your Learning: Explanations of Social Learning
REINFORCEMENT IN OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING
What Type of Reinforcement Drives Observational Learning?
Interactions Between Observational Learning and Operant Conditioning
Check Your Learning: Reinforcement in Observational Learning
WHAT BEHAVIORS AND BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS CAN BE LEARNED THROUGH OBSERVATION?
Achievement Motivation
Academic Skills
Aggressive Behavior
Bobo Doll Experiments
Violence in the Media
Modeling in Behavior Therapy
The Transmission of Culture
Check Your Learning: What Behaviors and Patterns Can Be Learned through Observation?
LEARNING IN THE REAL WORLD: MODELING BY YOUTH SPORTS COACHES
Online Resources
Key Terms and Definitions
References
Tables
Figures
One day a five-year-old girl was trying to figure out how to play a recorder using sheet music. Unfortunately, since she was only five, she did not know how to read sheet music. Her daddy came in the room, borrowed the recorder, and played Mary had a Little Lamb. The little girl asked, “Daddy, can you write down on this paper which fingers I need to move?” Her daddy replied, I don’t think that is going to work. Then the daddy had an idea, he said, “Just watch my fingers and then you’ll be able to do it too.” The little girl was skeptical at first, but she watched her daddy and imitated what he did. Of course it took a lot of repetitions (remember, she’s only five years old). Eventually though the little girl mastered Mary had a Little Lamb and proceeded to play it over and over and over, really loudly! Unless the little girl learned to read sheet music, the only way for her to learn the song was through Observational Learning.
WHAT IS OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING?
If you were unlucky enough to put your hand on a hot stove top (as the son of one of your authors once did), you would have learned to not do it again due to operant conditioning. The behavior of putting a hand on the stove was followed by a punisher (pain). However, if you watched your little brother put his hand on the stove and watched him scream in pain, you probably concluded that if you put your hand on the stove it would probably hurt you as well.
Watching your brother and learning from his painful experience is an example of observational learning, or a change in behavior that occurs as a result of observing a behavior and its consequences. Related terms include social learning, modeling, or vicarious learning. With observational learning, we can learn about the rewards and punishments that are likely to follow our behaviors without actually experiencing these contingencies for ourselves, thus greatly enhancing our ability to learn about the world.
Putting Observational Learning into Perspective
So far, this book has essentially dealt with ways that humans and animals interact with the world. The more complex the process an organism is able to employ, the better the animal is able to adapt to new or changing environments. Simple organisms primarily use instinctive behaviors to allow them to interact with the world; complex organisms use them too, but to a much lesser degree. Instinctive behaviors range in complexity from pure reflexes, to kineses and taxes, to fixed-action patterns. Instinctive behaviors, which are hard-wired and unchangeable, are a useful way for an organism to deal with their environment, but only if the environment does not change. More complex organisms can use learning to help them interact with a world that changes. Learning ranges from the simplest forms involving habituation, to classical conditioning and operant conditioning. All of these forms of learning we have discussed so far have one thing in common, an animal must have direct experience in order to change its behavior. With observational learning an animal’s behavior can change to meet a changing environment even without the animal having direct experience with the environment, that is, we can learn by observing the mistakes of others.
If we were to keep this discussion of ways that animals adapt to the world going, it would have to involve communication, language, and writing. All of these are ways that we can adapt to the world and understand the contingencies, even though we have no direct experience, nor have we seen anything; instead, we simply need to be told, or even read it in a book. We can benefit from the successes and failures of others. At the extreme, we can benefit from the experiences of people we have never met and even those who have been dead for thousands of years. Because humans can use the most complex of these processes better than any other animal, we are best able to adapt to a changing world. As evidence, there is no other species that occupies as many different places and climates on earth as homo sapiens do!
Observational Learning Defined
Learning is an inferred change in the organism’s mental state which results from experience and which influences in a relatively permanent fashion the organism’s potential for subsequent adaptive behavior. In observational learning, this change occurs after viewing others rather than actually experiencing the reinforcers and punishers for ourselves. In the simplest forms of observational learning involving social facilitation and stimulus (local) enhancement, no complex cognitive mechanisms need to be employed to explain the behavioral change in an animal that results from watching other animals. In imitation, the behavior change occurs because an animal sees and copies the behavior of others, but does not necessarily understand about the consequences of the behavior. In true social learning, the change in behavior is due to the viewing of the consequences to another with the expectancy that if the learner performs the new behavior the same consequences will occur to them as well. True social learning requires a fairly complicated explanation to understand which involves complex cognitive processes we’ll discuss, such as a theory of mind.
Noncognitive forms of Observational Learning
There is a debate about which types of behavioral changes qualify as true observational learning, especially when it comes to animals.
__________________________________________________________________________
Think Ahead
****If a deer hears the sound of a snapping twig, it may run away. However, other deer that see the running deer may also run. Use what you know to decide whether or not this is a case of true social learning. Before reading further, write down your answer and the reasons for it.
__________________________________________________________________________
If a deer runs after seeing another deer run, it is probably not true social learning. Rather, this is probably a case of social facilitation, which is a type of imitation in which the observation of another organism’s behavior increases the likelihood that the same behavior, which is in the current repertoire of behavior, will be exhibited (Zajonc, 1965). In other words, the deer already knew how to run and when it sees another deer running, it begins to run without actually knowing why it is running. In a perhaps more fitting description, Zentall (2006) refers to this phenomenon as contagion. Social facilitation (contagion) requires no complicated cognitive explanations. The observer animal is pushed by the behavior of the demonstrator animal.
For an extreme case of behavior which looks like it is cognitively complex when it is in fact probably quite simple, we will turn to Frida the octopus.
An octopus in a German zoo has learned to open jars of shrimp by watching zoo attendants perform the act underwater. Frida, a five-month-old female octopus, opens the jars by pressing her body on the lid and grasping the sides with the suckers on her eight tentacles. With a succession of body twists she unscrews the lid (BBC, 2003).
How amazing! An invertebrate animal is able to exhibit quite a complex learning phenomenon (see Figure 9.1). But, before we jump to conclusions, it is time to invoke Morgan’s Canon: “In no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher psychological processes, if it can be fairly interpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development” (Morgan, 1896, p. 59). We could explain Frida’s behavior using a complex cognitive explanation, or we could learn a little bit about octopus behavior. In the wild, one of the largest sources of food for octopi is shellfish. To open shellfish, octopi press their body against the top of the shellfish, grasp the bottom with their tentacles, then twist. This sounds an awful lot like the way Frida opens jars of shrimp. A simpler explanation for Frida’s behavior, then, involves stimulus (local) enhancement, a type of observational learning in which there is an increased likelihood of behavior focused on a particular point or object following the observation of another organism interacting with that point or object. The actual behaviors Frida exhibits were already in her repertoire before she observed anything.
[[Insert Figure 9.1 about here (Octopus opening jar)]]
Bennet Galef, a firm believer in Morgan’s Canon, has studied the social transmission of information; in particular, taste preferences in rats (see Heyes and Galef, 1996 for a review). As a little tidbit you might not know, rats cannot vomit (Fox, Anderson, Loew, & Quimby, 2002). Vomiting serves a valuable purpose for us; it allows us to expel potentially toxic substances. However, since a rat cannot vomit, if a rat ingests a toxic substance (such as poison), it is too late, the rat will die. Therefore, rats are incredibly averse to new flavors. One of your authors was frustrated in graduate school when trying to teach a rat to run a maze as a demonstration for a class with which he was working. The first step in teaching the rats involved creating a reliable reinforcer. The author was told that Kellogg’s Froot Loops worked well. Unfortunately, as the author found out, it took over a week of exposure to Froot Loops just to get the rats to start eating them. When a rat experiences a novel food (such as Froot Loops), it will take the tiniest nibble it can, then wait. If it feels ill at any point in the next 24 hours or so, the rat will never eat the food item again. This is why rat poison needs to be so strong: If the amount of poison in the nibble is not enough to do the job, the rats will become “bait shy” and never touch that flavor again.
In his research on taste preference, Bennet Galef demonstrated that rats do not even have to experience sickness for themselves in order to become averse to a flavor. In the general procedure used by Galef (see Figure 9.2), a demonstrator and an observer rat are first housed together and allowed to eat rat chow. The rats are then isolated and food deprived. The demonstrator rat, which is now quite hungry, is then given access to a novel flavor (cinnamon flavored mashed potatoes, perhaps!). The demonstrator and observer rats are then caged together for a time, during which the observer rat has a chance to smell the breath of the demonstrator rat. Then the observer rat (who is also hungry) is given access to two different novel foods (e.g., cinnamon flavored mashed potatoes and cocoa flavored mashed potatoes), one of which the demonstrator has eaten. The experimenter then measures how much of each of the foods the observer rat eats. Generally, the observer rat eats significantly more of the “demonstrated” flavor (cinnamon in this case).
Clearly, the transmission of taste preferences has huge survival implications and evolution seems to have set up rats with an innate ability to obtain preferences in this manner. Once a food preference has developed, it will pass from mother to child, down through the generations. Social learning and social transmission of preferences is clearly at the root of culture (Galef, 1990; Galef & Whiskin, 1995).
[[Insert Figure 9.2, Social Transmission of Food Preferences by Rats, about here]]
If a rat has been fed cinnamon flavored food pellets and subsequently given an injection to make it sick, it will develop a taste aversion and never touch cinnamon flavored food pellets again. (See Chapter 4 for more details of research on conditioned taste aversions.) However, despite the strength of learning normally seen in taste aversions, peer pressure is apparently stronger. Galef and Whiskin (2008) fed cinnamon flavored food pellets to a second rat (demonstrator) which was then allowed to interact with the original (observer) rat that had previously been made sick. Following this exposure, the rat that normally would not have ever touched cinnamon flavored food pellets chose them about 1/3 of the time when given a choice. Could we interpret this as peer pressure for conformity?
Imitation: Bridging the Gap with Cognition
In psychology’s early days, imitation was seen as a very simple thing. In fact, “to ape” meant to imitate something with no cognitive activity involved – implying that primates imitate behavior without thinking. The medieval bishop St. Albertus Magnus, who strove to reconcile religion and scientific thought, was unaffectionately referred to as “Aristotle’s Ape” due to what many of his detractors viewed as a blind repetition of Aristotle (Hergenhahn, 2009).
Imitation and the Theory of Mind. In more recent years, however, it has been realized that true imitation is actually a fairly complex skill which may require a theory of mind, a complex cognitive process in which one must see another’s actions, interpret the actions and translate these actions into muscle movements of one’s own. For true imitation to occur, we must understand the other organism as a separate entity from ourselves which thinks and acts as we do. “Some researchers have even argued that true imitation requires that the observer recognize the intentional structure of the actions of the demonstrator” (Zentall, 2006, p. 342). (We’ll talk more about theory of mind later in this chapter as well as in Chapter 10.)
More than a century ago, McDougall (1908) noticed that his 4-month-old son would imitate certain facial gestures, particularly tongue protrusion. In this case, however, it is probably more sensible to explain the tongue protrusion in terms of a fixed action pattern which is triggered by the sight of the parent sticking out their tongue, clearly more instinctual than cognitive. Meltzoff and Moore (1977), in a definite demonstration of imitation as instinct, demonstrated four gestures (lip protrusion, mouth opening, tongue protrusion, and sequential finger movement) to 12- and 21-day-old infants. Parents reported that they had never demonstrated any of these expressions and that the infants had had no experience with mirrors. The infants were videotaped and observers who were blind to the expressions being demonstrated scored the videos. Even these very young infants imitated quite readily, with tongue protrusion being the best imitated expression. Figure 9.3 shows examples of the demonstrated faces and those produced by the infants.
[[Insert Figure 9.3, series of 6 Meltzoff photos, about here]]
Mice and Joystick Pushing. Collins (1988) performed a study in which mice demonstrated a form of observational learning which probably qualified as imitation rather than a fixed action pattern. A demonstrator mouse (Mus musculus) pushed a joystick for food while other mice observed (the apparatus can be seen in Figure 9.4). Mice watching the joystick pushed to the left for food subsequently pushed the joystick significantly more to the left. These results were replicated by Heyes and Dawson (1990) using rats. It seems doubtful that the mice and rats “knew” just by watching that the pushing of the joystick to the left led to reinforcement (I’ll invoke Morgan’s canon again!). In fact, it could be argued that the behavior of pushing the joystick to the left probably would have developed even if no observation had ever been made; the observation followed by imitation just sped up the rate of acquisition. At least initially, the mice and rats were probably pushed by instinctual drives which made them imitate other animals, rather than being pulled by the thought of reinforcement for the exhibited behavior.
[[Insert Figure 9.4, photo of mouse in joystick apparatus, about here]]
Birds and Milk Drinking. As we saw in Chapter 1, in the early 1900s milk delivery customers in England experienced a rash of “thefts” – birds were obtaining milk by piercing the bottle caps with their beaks. The phenomenon started locally, but spread geographically over several decades; it eventually involved multiple species of birds (Fisher & Hinde, 1949). This seems to be another example of imitation, where behavior of an observer bird is pushed by the behavior of the demonstrator bird, rather than pulled by a cognitive understanding of the consequences.
Observational Learning with Cognition
Subiaul, Cantlon, Holloway, and Terrace (2004) demonstrated imitation in Rhesus Macaques that seemed to require higher level cognitive mechanisms. In this experiment, demonstrator monkeys were taught to touch a series of pictures on a video screen in a particular order in order to receive reinforcement. Observer monkeys watched this procedure, and then were required to touch the same sequence of pictures, however, the pictures were in completely different places on the screens for the demonstrator and observer (see Figure 9.5). As the researchers explained, “Experiments on imitation typically evaluate a student’s ability to copy some feature of an expert’s motor behavior. Here, we describe a type of observational learning in which a student copies a cognitive rule rather than a specific motor action” (p. 407). We now see a form of true imitation where the observer’s behavior is clearly being pulled by an expectation of consequences for that behavior. This “cognitive imitation” is also called true social learning. However, unequivocal social learning that cannot be explained using simpler principles is mostly reserved for higher mammals.
[[Insert Figure 9.5, diagram of video screens with pictures, about here]]
Deferred Imitation. If an animal views a model’s behavior, and the animal then reproduces the behavior after some time has passed, the animal has demonstrated deferred imitation. Immediately displayed imitation can often be explained away using simpler mechanisms such as fixed action patterns. However, if imitation is deferred, then the behavior seems to require a much more complicated explanation that must invoke the theory of mind. Deferred imitation seems to represent a cognitively higher form than immediate imitation (Zentall, 2006). Dorrance and Zentall (2001) had a Japanese quail model a behavior of treadle stepping. An observer quail was given the opportunity to imitate the behavior either immediately, or after 30 minutes. Regardless of whether immediate or deferred, the quail imitated the treadle stepping behavior. Clearly, when a delay was added before the quail had an opportunity to imitate, any possible explanation for the behavior which invokes reflexes must be dismissed. Due to Morgan’s canon, I am hesitant to assume higher mental processes in quail, but the evidence seems to point in this direction. (In Chapter 10 we will return to these issues.)
Factors Affecting the Probability a Model will be Imitated. Mischel (1971) describes the factors of rewardingness, dominance, similarity, and sincerity as determining which models will be imitated. The existence of these factors implies that the observer can calculate some probability of being reinforced, and adjust that probability based on these factors. The fact that these factors exist seems to be proof that imitation can, at least sometimes, involve cognition. Though these factors primarily have been studied and discovered in humans, they have been demonstrated to a lesser degree in other animals as well. Capuchin monkeys learn how to create and use tools by watching other, older members of the troop. However, the young monkeys are far more likely to spend their time observing proficient tool users (Ottoni, de Resende, & Izar, 2005).
____________________________________________________________________
Think Ahead
****Though children are exposed to many different models whose behavior could be imitated, they do not imitate all of them. Which people do you think that children will be more likely to imitate? Before reading further, write down your answer.
____________________________________________________________________
Bandura and Huston (1961) tested the rewardingness of a model as a factor in imitation. Nursery school children met individually with a woman who acted “nurturant” (affectionate and caring) with half of them and “nonnurturant” (aloof) with the other half. Later, the children were brought back together with the woman to play a game, during which she made several distinctive movements and noises. If the woman had acted “nurturant” during the first meeting with the child, the child was significantly more likely to imitate her distinctive movements and noises during the second meeting. The authors argued that this was evidence that children tend to imitate their parents because they are the ones most likely to provide them with rewards.
Mischel and Grusec (1966) demonstrated that children who interact with an adult introduced as “the new teacher” are more likely to imitate this adult than if the adult is introduced as “a visiting teacher from out of town.” Presumably, “the new teacher” will hold some dominance and power over the children, hence the children’s increased probability of imitation. Burnstein, Stotland, and Zander (1961) showed that children are more likely to imitate a model who is the same gender, same age, or has similar interests. Klass (1979) showed that children are more likely to imitate a model whom they perceive to be sincere.
Check Your Learning: What Is Observational Learning?
Observational learning is an extension of the ways that we modify our behaviors to meet the challenges of the environment, in particular, a changing environment.
From its simplest forms such as contagion and social enhancement to true social learning, all forms of observational learning share in common the fact that they allow us to better adapt to our environment than we could through our own direct experiences by benefiting from the experiences of others.
The majority of behavioral changes in animals that are due to observational learning can be explained in very simple ways that do not involve complex cognitive mechanisms.
However, once we begin looking at imitation and true social learning, we need to invoke a theory of mind in order to truly understand why behaviors change.
Deferred imitation and factors such as rewardingness involve cognition in observational learning.
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL LEARNING
So far in this chapter we have discussed what does and does not constitutes observational learning, also known as Social Learning. The next obvious question is, how do we explain social learning? We will address both psychological and biological explanations for the phenomenon of learning by watching others.
Psychological Explanations of Social Learning
Miller and Dollard (1941) were among the first to attempt to explain social learning, and they did so using behavioristic explanations, consistent with ideas that dominated psychology at the time. They argued that if we have been reinforced for imitating someone in the past, we will continue to imitate them in the future. This theory came to be referred to as “imitation as a generalized operant response.” Baer, Peterson, and Sherman (1967) reinforced a group of severely mentally-challenged children for imitating a variety of behaviors exhibited by their teacher including standing up, nodding yes, and opening a door. Following these experiences with reinforcement, the children continued to imitate their teacher in the absence of reinforcement. Apparently, the children learned the general operant response of imitating their teacher. When basic learning principles such as generalization were added, a whole lot of social learning could be explained using purely behavioral terms. Using this explanation of social learning, there was no need for any cognition to muddy up the picture.
Bandura and Walters (1963) argued that traditional learning theory was incomplete. Though much of human behavior could be explained through instincts, habituation, classical conditioning, and operant conditioning, learning can also occur through vicarious experiences. Humans can learn things they themselves have never actually experienced through the process of modeling which incorporates both visual and auditory components, that is, we can learn by watching, or by listening. Though modeling can be narrowly displayed with imitation, modeling can also be much larger, such as when a boy identifies with his father and tries to “become him” over a period of years as he grows up.
Learning by modeling incorporates three distinctly different types of behavioral change (Bandura & Walters, 1963). First, in the imitative sense, a learner can directly copy the model’s behavior. Second, in many cases the model’s demonstrated behavior invokes inhibition or disinhibition of behaviors the learner already knows. That is, the learner can learn through modeling which behaviors to perform (or not perform) in certain contexts. The teacher hopes that her disciplining of a student for screaming will not only reduce the probability that the naughty student will scream again (in an operant sense), but will also model the inhibition of screaming to the other students in the class. The other kids already know how to scream, but they need to learn when and where screaming is unacceptable. Third, modeling can elicit an already learned response. When one child sees some crayons and paper, they may begin coloring, but they then become a model for other children, eliciting their coloring behavior as well (and, of course, the screaming and fighting over the crayons and paper).
In the process of direct imitation, the observer does not need to observe the consequences of the behavior. However, the second two ways that modeling is displayed (inhibition/disinhibition and elicitation) require a viewing of consequences of the behavior to the model. In his social cognitive theory of learning, Bandura (1971) argues that the process of learning by observation of others differs very little from traditional operant conditioning. According to Bandura, traditional operant conditioning can be observational learning of the consequences of our own actions followed by a cognitive appraisal of the probability of similar consequences if we repeat the behavior. That is, observational learning and operant conditioning both involve expectations about the consequences of our future actions. In one case these expectations arise based on our own past experiences, whereas in the other case, the expectation arises due to our witnessing the experiences of others (Eyck, 2008).
The social cognitive theory of learning proposes that learning by observation requires four processes in order to be effective: attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation (Bandura, 1977). First, we do not learn from everything we observe. If you are sleeping in chemistry class while the professor is demonstrating (modeling) an experiment you are supposed to perform, you are not paying attention and there is no probability that you will be able to produce the required steps when necessary.
Second, we must be able to retain the memory of the behaviors we have observed for some length of time. The memory must be accessible at the time the new behavior is to be performed.
Third, the subject must have the physical motor skills to reproduce the observed behavior. You might be able to pay attention while watching a juggling demonstration and retain the memory of how the juggling was performed, but when you try to reproduce the behavior you might find that your dexterity is poor and you continually drop the balls, despite “knowing” how to juggle. One of your authors is an expert golfer, in theory, but in practice, not so much.
Finally, even if you have paid attention, retained the memory, and have the required motor skills, you may not perform a new behavior without the right motivation or incentives. One of your authors knows a family that tried a novel approach to toilet training their young son. They bought a video demonstrating the process. The video was bright and colorful so the boy paid attention. The parents discussed the video over and over with the boy, to ensure that he retained the knowledge. Unfortunately, for quite some time, whenever the boy needed to poop, he demanded that he be given a diaper. Because he was able to wait for the diaper, he obviously had the motor skills required for the behavior. But unfortunately for the parents, the boy lacked the motivation to use the potty. He just didn’t want to use the potty no matter how many reinforcements the parents tried to give.
Bandura’s psychological explanation of social learning does a good job of explaining how learning progresses through the observation of the actions and consequences to others. However, we also need to consider the organism that is doing the learning.
Biological Explanations of Social Learning
No matter how many times you demonstrate the technique, it is impossible to teach a gazelle to dribble a basketball, they don’t have hands! Biology always places limits on what we can learn. All animals (including humans) are born biological creatures with limits, but each species also has unique potentials not seen in other species. Not only are humans born with the potential to learn to dribble a basketball, they also are born uniquely prepared for social learning. Though many animals seem to exhibit at least some types of observational learning, it seems as though humans exploit learning through social sources in a way that is incomparable to other animals. Humans are born ready to learn from others.
Evolution and Social Learning. Instincts can do a great job of explaining how organisms adapt to their environments. A bird, for example, would probably never be able to build a nest if the only tool it had at its disposal was the ability to learn through trial and error. However, evolution has given the bird an instinct to build a nest (and to migrate and do a variety of other skills). Combining the instinct to build a nest with some imprinting which seems to occur in the actual nest where the bird itself was raised, the bird is able to perform the complex action of nest building. Further, the bird’s ability to build a good nest is enhanced through experience with nest building. Developing in true Lamarckian fashion, what is now instinctual in a bird probably developed with the help of observational learning during the lifetimes of individuals, in particular, imitation.
From an evolutionary perspective, it can be argued that blind imitation by an organism increases the probability that the organism will survive. If a deer runs when it sees other animals run, though it does not know why it is running, it has just decreased the probability that it will get eaten by a bear or some other predator. Much of the behavior of individual humans (and deer) is shaped by the principles of reward and punishment throughout their individual lifetimes. However, the behavior of other individuals in the species has also presumably been shaped in a similar manner, based on its consequences. Therefore, by imitating them, the new individual can take advantage of the experiences of others.
Once upon a time, a deer was attacked by a bear, but managed to escape and run away. The deer learned quite quickly, through classical conditioning, to pair the smell of a bear with pain and fear. Further, it learned through operant conditioning that the behavior of running away from the smell led to a drop in that pain and fear (which would definitely be a satisfying state of affairs). Later, that deer was frolicking with his herd when it smelled a bear and ran away. The other deer in the herd also smelled the bear and observed their herd-mate running away. The other animals in the herd experienced the smell of bear associated with fear in their herdmate. Following an instinct to imitate, they too ran away and as they did, the fear dissipated. This behavior began to be transmitted from generation to generation, long after the original deer that had actually been attacked had died (hopefully of natural causes!).
Griffin and Evans (2003) showed that a Tammar wallaby’s fear of a fox (a wallaby predator) that was acquired through direct experience could be socially transmitted to a predator-naïve companion. Similarly, Ferrari and Chivers (2008) demonstrated social transmission of fear of salamanders in frogs. Further, the amount of fear transmission increased as the tutor-to-observer ratio increased. The survival value of these mechanisms seems obvious.
Mirror Neurons and Social Learning. In the 1990s, Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Gallese, and Fogassi (1996) were studying the actions of individual motor neurons in the premotor cortex of macaques.“Neurons were recorded using tungsten microelectrodes inserted through the dura which was left intact. Neuronal activity was amplified and monitored on an oscilloscope. Individual action potentials were isolated with a time-amplitude voltage discriminator” (p. 132). After implanting the electrodes in areas specialized for the control of hand actions, the researchers began recording the activity (action potentials) of the individual neurons in the ventral premotor cortex as the macaques were reaching for and manipulating objects. However, they found that some of these neurons (now called mirror neurons) not only fired when the macaque was manipulating objects, they also fired when the macaques watched the human researcher picking up the objects. Subsequently, it was found that they responded even better to the actions of other macaques (conspecifics). The functions of mirror neurons have been a subject of debate ever since (Iacoboni & Mazziotta, 2007).
Because it is unethical to implant electrodes which can record the activity of individual neurons into the brains of human beings, researchers cannot be 100% certain of their existence in humans. However, evidence of a mirror-system has been discovered using fMRI, TMS, and EEG recordings, all techniques which record the activity of clusters of neurons rather than individual neuron firing (Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004). According to Patricia Greenfield, “Other animals – monkeys, probably apes and possibly elephants, dolphins and dogs – have rudimentary mirror neurons, several mirror neuron experts said. But humans, with their huge working memory, carry out far more sophisticated imitations” (Blakeslee, 2006). As all these animals tend to be fairly high on the evolutionary ladder, it seems safe to conclude that mirror neurons are an evolutionarily new phenomenon.
The mirror neuron system seems to allow us to be able to imitate behaviors that are demonstrated (Arbib, Bonaiuto, & Rosta, 2006). However, nature combines with nurture: Calvo-Merino, Glaser, Grezes, Passingham, & Haggard (2005) report that the mirror neuron system works best when the behaviors demonstrated are already part of the observer’s repertoire. fMRI recordings were made on participants that were experts in either ballet dancing or capoeira (a Brazilian dance) as they watched videos of other dancers either dancing ballet or capoeira. As can be seen in Figure 9.6, there was far more activity in the premotor areas (the area where mirror neurons are thought to reside) of these dancers when watching that dance style in which they were experts. If you were asked to imitate a speaker speaking your own language, it would probably be pretty easy. If you were asked to imitate a speaker of a different language whose very sounds are unfamiliar to you, the task would be considerably harder. Presumably, the experiences of your lifetime make you “ready” to imitate some things better than others.
[[Insert Figure 9.6, fMRI images of premotor cortex, about here]]
Not only does the mirror neuron system seem to allow us to learn new skills through imitation, but Rizzolatti and Craighero (2004) also argue that the mirror neuron system forms the very foundation of our ability to socialize with others and work cooperatively for larger goals:
A category of stimuli of great importance for primates, humans in particular, is that formed by actions done by other individuals. If we want to survive, we must understand the actions of others. Furthermore, without action understanding, social organization is impossible. (p. 169)
It is believed that mirror neurons allow an animal to “understand” the behavior of another animal. This understanding of other organisms seems to create the basis of the theory of mind, which, as we saw earlier in the chapter, is an important requirement for many forms of social learning. If another person is reaching into a cookie jar, because of our mirror neurons and the theory of mind they are thought to create, we know that the person wants a cookie and thinks there are cookies in the jar. It is this ability that allows us to imitate and understand that the rewards and punishments we see others receiving would also be given to us if we performed the same behaviors.
The mirror neuron system also seems to play a large role in our ability to display empathy (Gazzola, Aziz-Zedah, & Keysers, 2006). Certain brain regions become active both when we experience an emotion such as disgust, happiness, or pain as well as when we view others experiencing the same emotion (see Figure 9.7). The areas active are slightly different from those that are active during motor tasks. Box 9.1 discusses the role mirror neurons played in the history of the human species.
[[insert Figure 9.7, fMRI images of pain and empathy, about here]]
[[insert Box 9.1, Natural Selection of Mirror Neurons, about here]]
Autism and Social Learning. Autism is a pervasive developmental disorder characterized by impaired communication and social interactions as well as restricted and repetitive behavior patterns and delayed language development. Many individuals with autism engage in echolalia, an imitation of words that have just been heard. This phenomenon would make it appear that individuals with autism are excellent imitators. However, the opposite is actually true: Imitative deficits in children with autism have been reported by a variety of researchers and it has been suggested that this inability to imitate at an early age is the source of the other problems and deficits seen in autism (Baron-Cohen, Ring, Moriarty, Schmitz, Costa, & Ell 1994; Beadle-Brown & Whiten, 2004).
Showing an apparent deficit in the theory of mind, children with autism seem to have a difficult time understanding the perspective of another. If a child with autism is asked to demonstrate a gesture of a person they are facing, such as holding the hand palm out, the child may hold their hand with the palm facing themselves. Since the palm of the demonstrator had been facing the child, it is in some ways imitative to also face their palm to themselves, but seems to indicate a lack of ability to take the demonstrator’s perspective.
One theory of autism states that a dysfunction of the mirror neurons may contribute to impairments in imitation and an inability to empathize and thus form many of the autistic symptoms. However, the brains of people with autism differ from those of people without autism in many areas, including the hippocampus, cerebellum, amygdala, and others (Brambilla et al., 2003). Dapretto, Davies, Pfeifer, Scott, Sigman, Bookheimer, and Iacoboni (2005) separated groups of normal children and high-functioning autistic children and surveyed their brains while they watched and imitated different faces expressing various emotions. The brains of each group responded in similar manners across most regions of the brain. However, in the area of the brain where the mirror neuron system is thought to reside, the high-functioning autistic children showed reduced activity. Though the children with autism were able to imitate the facial expressions they saw, they had trouble understanding the emotional states being observed.
As we’ve seen, an organism not only needs to have experience in order to take advantage of social learning, their biology will limit how much they can benefit from the experience. Humans seem unique among other animals in that their brains make them prepared to take advantage of social learning.
Check Your Learning: Explanations of Social Learning
Much of the behavioral change that is caused by observational learning can be explained using operant conditioning principles. If, in the past, imitation was followed by reinforcement, then, there is an increased probability that the organism will imitate again if given the opportunity to do so.
Bandura added a cognitive component to social learning in the form of expectations of reinforcement. The social cognitive theory of learning proposes that learning by observation requires four processes in order to be effective: attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation.
Biology has also contributed to our understanding of observational learning. Imitation might be purely instinctual, with the instinct to imitate arising as a result of natural selection.
The presence of the mirror neuron system in certain animal species suggests that these animals are born with an inherent capacity and readiness for social learning.
Researchers have found indications of social learning deficits in people with autism.
REINFORCEMENT IN OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING
In traditional reinforcement theory, behaviors which are followed by reinforcements are more likely to be repeated in the future. Because of this, traditional reinforcement theory cannot explain how new behaviors begin through observational learning when no actual reinforcement has been yet received by the animal, though traditional reinforcement theory does pick up once the new behavior has begun. In this section we will explore the connections between reinforcement and observational learning, and between observational learning and operant conditioning.
What Type of Reinforcement Drives Observational Learning?
In order to help us understand the role of reinforcement in observational learning, let’s use an example, the orcas that live in an aquarium in Niagara Falls, Canada (Figure 9.8). Orcas are carnivores that eat primarily fish and other marine life, but they would also enjoy eating other animals, if they could catch them. A four-year-old orca in the aquarium learned how to “fish” for seagulls. Though it is pure speculation, researchers guess that the orca learned the “fishing” behavior in the following way. The orca probably had a bit of indigestion one day when he regurgitated a bit of his fish. The pieces of fish floated to the surface and were spotted by a passing gull which landed on the water and began to eat the fish. The orca, probably trying to get back his fish, scooped it up, but also got a tasty surprise, a gull as well (Mason, 2005). Thorndike’s law of effect clearly tells us that since the behavior of regurgitation was followed by a “satisfying state of affairs” in the form of a tasty bird treat, the probability of the regurgitation behavior recurring in the future increases. Sure enough, this orca began “fishing” for birds almost every day. Moreover, soon other members of the orca’s group also began “fishing”; a demonstration of cultural transmission. Though the law of effect can explain how “fishing” is maintained once started, it fails to explain how the other members of this orca’s pod started the new behavior.
_____________________________________________________________________
Think Ahead
****What type of reinforcement would explain why the orcas that watched the “fishing” orca began the behavior of fishing themselves? Before reading further, write down your answer.
____________________________________________________________________
For the first orca, the behavior was probably learned accidentally. For subsequent orcas the question of what reinforcement was driving the initial “fishing” behaviors remains unclear, but a possible answer is vicarious reinforcement, the process where the consequences of a behavior for a model are viewed and internalized by an observer. However, the very existence of vicarious reinforcement is subject to debate, though the next section explores some possible explanations for this phenomenon.
[[Insert Figure 9.8, orca, about here]]
Interactions Between Observational Learning and Operant Conditioning
As you will no doubt agree, humans are awfully smart. We can determine the probable rewards and punishments that we would be likely to receive for performing behaviors we’ve not yet performed. That is, we can engage in true social learning rather than just other simpler forms of observational learning. But what can we learn in this manner?
Bandura and Walters (1963) argued that observational learning combines with direct reinforcement of our behaviors. We watch the behaviors of others, then, often we are reinforced when we imitate them. If a boy watches a bully push another child and take a toy, the boy will learn that if he is a bully he too may be rewarded. If the boy then goes and pushed a different child and does in fact get a desired toy, the bullying will have been reinforced and the law of effect and the rules of operant conditioning will take over and explain how the behavior is maintained.
Observational learning seems to be a part of who we are as human-beings; we seem to be designed to do it (Meltzoff & Moore, 1977). In fact, we are so ready to learn through observation that one of the things parents often say to their children is “do as I say, not as I do.” Parents, the largest demonstrator for social learning in their children, form a crucial foundation for their children’s behaviors and personality, regardless of whether the parents demonstrate “good” or “bad” behaviors. The children of parents that smoke, drink, or swear are more likely to themselves smoke, drink, or swear than the children of other parents. However, in a more positive way, if parents are polite and kind, their children are more likely to be polite and kind as well. Jeanne Ormrod (2003) takes it further and argues that teachers also play an important role in children’s learning acquisition and personality development by both demonstrating the curriculum and modeling virtuous living.
Check Your Learning: Reinforcement in Observational Learning
Though the exact nature of the reinforcement that drives observational learning is difficult to pin down, there clearly is some type of reinforcement driving the learning.
In order to fit observational learning in with traditional learning theory, vicarious reinforcement is often used to help explain how behavior can be modified in the absence of an external reinforcer or punisher.
WHAT BEHAVIORS AND BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS CAN BE LEARNED THROUGH OBSERVATION?
We have seen that observational learning interacts with operant conditioning by … Let’s look at several ways in which observation can teach us … Can observation motivate us to achieve in work, sports, and school? Do we learn aggressive behavior by observation? And can observational learning or modeling be used therapeutically to improve behavior?
Achievement Motivation
Educators, sports coaches, and business managers have always been interested in identifying what motivates students, athletes, and workers to apply self-discipline and work hard to achieve results. Part of the answer seems to lie in the combination of observational learning with operant conditioning.
Bandura and Kupers (1964) demonstrated how achievement motivation and self-discipline might develop through the modeling of rules of self-reinforcement. Children observed a model playing a bowling game. The model rewarded themselves with M&Ms for either any score above 10 in the game (low criterion for self-reinforcement), or for scores above 20 only (high criterion for self-reinforcement). Following the demonstration, when the children were allowed to play the game by themselves, they tended to reward themselves using the same criterion set by the model. Bandura and Walters (1963) argue that children must see many similar instances of self-reinforcement modeled by parents and others. Emulation refers to the imitation of the goals one observes, but not necessarily the same behaviors. Thus, children may learn a high level of achievement motivation by watching their parents working hard at their jobs, but then apply that achievement motivation in a different setting such as school.
Academic Skills
Students learn many academic skills through observational learning and modeling; especially if one includes the ability to learn through listening (remember that the staple of the college classroom is the lecture). Science teachers often make use of demonstrations, and math teachers present mathematical calculations on a board. However, even better than direct modeling of academic skills, Zimmerman (2004) describes cognitive modeling, in which the model not only demonstrates how to do something, but also how to think about something (the thought process involved in problem solving). Students can also learn a general attitude towards education and academic achievement in general from their peers (Harris, 1998).
Aggressive Behavior
One of your authors once had a friend who loved to watch wrestling on TV with his young son. The boy began imitating exactly what he saw on TV. The young boy bodyslammed his stuffed animals and put them in headlocks. When the boy did this, his father provided social reinforcements in the form of applauding, cheering, and encouragement. When the boy went to school, the violent behaviors which had previously only been reinforced with stuffed animals, generalized to his classmates. From the very beginning, his teachers had many problems with the boy and frequently sent him home for fighting. Of course this single case does not “prove” that watching violent television directly leads to violent behavior (there was social reinforcement involved as well), but it is compelling evidence that violence on television does have an effect on behavior.
Bandura and Walters (1959) provide correlational evidence that the parents who provide the strongest punishments for aggressive behaviors tend to produce the most aggressive children. Unfortunately, when parents punish aggressive behavior severely, they are also modeling the use of aggression as a solution to a problem.
Bobo Doll Experiments. In a now classic series of experiments, Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961; 1963a; 1963b) demonstrated the roots of aggression in social learning. Though Bandura performed a great many different experiments, the general procedure remained much the same. Young children (about 4 to 5 years old) observed an adult model who acted either aggressively or non-aggressively to a Bobo doll. A Bobo doll is an inflatable punching toy decorated to look like a clown that is weighted on the bottom so that when it is punched and knocked over, it automatically stands itself up again. Aggressive models used the same series of behaviors with the Bobo doll for every child, which included punching, kicking, and hitting with a mallet as well as verbal violence. Following this exposure, the children were placed into a room with really exciting toys (fire engines and jets), but, in order to create frustration, were interrupted by the experimenter after only a few minutes and told that these exciting toys had to be saved for other children. The children were then led to a room by themselves which had video cameras installed for observation. This final room had a variety of toys, both aggressive (dart gun, Bobo doll, mallet, tether ball with face painted on it) and non-aggressive toys (tea set, paper and crayons, ball, dolls, toy car). The children’s behavior was monitored for 20 minutes while they interacted with the toys and aggressive behaviors were counted. Bandura demonstrated a variety of findings throughout his experiments, namely, that children imitate aggressive behavior that they witness (see Figure 9.9). The most consistent finding across all experiments is that boys displayed much more physically aggressive behavior than girls (what a shock this revelation must be!). However, when it came to verbal aggression, boys and girls were much more similar, though boys again displayed a bit more. The researchers also found that children were more likely to imitate a model that was the same gender as they themselves were (i.e., boys imitated an adult male model and girls imitated a female model). When the aggressive adult demonstrator was shown on a video, rather than actually being present, children displayed less imitative aggression.
[[Insert Figure 9.9, series of Bobo Doll photos, about here]]
However, it wasn’t until Bandura (1965) provided the models with rewards and punishments that an unequivocally cognitive form of imitation was demonstrated. After the aggressive model had exhibited the aggression against the Bobo doll, the experimenter came in and either rewarded or punished the adult model.
For children in the model-rewarded condition, a second adult appeared with an abundant supply of candies and soft drinks. He informed the model that he was a “strong champion” and that his superb aggressive performance clearly deserved a generous treat. He then poured him a large glass of 7-Up, and readily supplied additional energy-building nourishment including chocolate bars, Cracker Jack popcorn, and an assortment of candies. While the model was rapidly consuming the delectable treats, his admirer symbolically reinstated the modeled aggressive responses and engaged in considerable positive social reinforcement.
For children in the model-punished condition, the reinforcing agent appeared on the scene shaking his finger menacingly and commenting reprovingly, “Hey there, you big bully. You quit picking on that clown. I won’t tolerate it.” As the model drew back he tripped and fell, the other adult sat on the model and spanked him with a rolled-up magazine while reminding him of his aggressive behavior. As the model ran off cowering, the agent forewarned him, “If I catch you doing that again, you big bully, I’ll give you a hard spanking. You quit acting that way.” (p. 591)
The experiment then proceeded as described. The children were not only provided with a model of aggression, but a demonstration of the consequences of aggression. The children that saw the aggressive model rewarded exhibited far more aggression than the children that saw the aggressive model punished. Presumably, when children watched the models being rewarded and punished, they then calculated the probability that they themselves would be rewarded or punished for the same behavior.
Violence in the Media. Following Bandura’s seminal work, a great deal of attention has been paid to the role of the media in all of its forms on violent behavior. Anderson, Carnagey, and Eubanks (2003) reported an increase in aggressive thoughts and hostile feelings following exposure to violent music lyrics. As early as the 1980s, subliminal messages contained in music of the rock group Judas Priest was blamed for a rash of suicides in the 1980s (Henry & Pappa, 1990). Unfortunately, the amount of violence contained in music lyrics remains quite high.
Most of the attention has been given to the violence shown on television and the movies. According to the nonprofit group TV-Free America, the average child sees 8,000 murders on TV by the time he or she finishes elementary school. Eron and Huesmann (1986) performed a longitudinal study of the effects of television violence on aggression. They visited children in 1960 when they were about 8 years old. They found that those children that watched violent television at home tended to behave aggressively at school. They returned in 1971 and found that those boys who had watched the most violent television at age 8 were more likely to get in trouble with the law as teenagers. In 1980 they returned one more time when the participants were about 30 and found that those boys who had viewed the most violent television at age 8 were more likely to have been convicted of serious crimes, more likely to use violence to discipline their children, and more likely to treat their spouses aggressively.
Of course this study and others like it are purely correlational. Preference for violent television could cause aggression, or aggressive tendencies could cause a preference for violent television, or a third factor could cause both. However, research seems to point most strongly to the first possibility. Thankfully, children can also learn prosocial behavior through observational learning when they watch programs such as Sesame Street and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood that model positive values.
Video games add another dimension to violence, as the person playing the game actually carries out acts of violence (see Figure 9.10). The tragic school shooting at Columbine High School is often blamed on the video game Doom.
The latest computer games involve pretty gruesome scenes – severed limbs and drive-by shootings are standard fare. But opinion is divided on whether such games give rise to real-life violence. When Craig Anderson watches teenagers playing violent video games such as Doom and Grand Theft Auto, he believes that seeds of aggression are being sown in their minds. (Reichhardt, 2003, p. 367)
Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley (2007) describe increased aggressive behavior in the real world following exposure to violent video games, even for short periods of time. This effect is seen for children that were previously rated as aggressive or nonaggressive.
[[Insert Figure 9.10, kid playing shooting game, about here]]
Baron, Straus, and Jaffee (1988), in support of the cultural spillover theory, argue that violence in the media leads to violence in society. This theory states that levels of acceptance of violence in the media are reflected by levels of acceptance of violence in society; violence in the media “spills over” into society. As an example, the level of acceptance of violence a society exhibits, measured in many ways, including attitudes toward corporal punishment, but also through levels of media violence, predicts the rate of rape seen in that society. Molitor and Hirsch (1994) showed that children are more likely to tolerate aggressive behavior in the real world following exposure to TV shows or films with violent contents.
In an effort to clean up their images, the movie, television, music, and video game industries have introduced rating systems. This has been done in an attempt to give the user an informed choice. Beginning in 2000, television manufacturers have been required to install a V-chip on all new televisions so that the consumer can control what children watch. In truth, however, the rating systems and V-chips are attempts to shift the blame for potential future violence from the artists that create or companies that produce the content to the consumer, most notably the parents.
From these examples we can see that, although causation is difficult to prove, research has repeatedly shown strong correlations between violence in the media and aggressive behavior. However, on a more positive note, there are also correlations between prosocial television programs and prosocial behavior in children. Unfortunately, our televisions seem to be flooded with a lot more violence than prosocial behavior.
Modeling in Behavior Therapy
Most of the time observational learning occurs quite spontaneously in uncontrolled settings. Most parents never explicitly teach their child the “F” word, but most children learn it anyway. The children definitely see it “demonstrated” in a variety of sources. Observational learning can also be put to use in more controlled ways. That is, we can take advantage of our knowledge of how social learning works and apply it in a clinical setting.
Using simple reinforcement and punishment is an easy way to increase or decrease the probability of a behavior that is currently in an animal’s repertoire of behavior. If you only had simple reinforcement as a tool and you wanted an elephant to dance on its back feet, all you would have to do is wait until it began dancing, then reward it to increase the probability the elephant will dance again in the future. However, if teaching an elephant to dance is your goal, you’d be in for a long wait, because dancing is not part of the elephant’s normal behavioral repertoire!
______________________________________________________________________
Think Ahead
****How might we get an animal, or a person, to exhibit a new behavior that is unlike any behavior that they currently do? Before reading further, write down your answer.
______________________________________________________________________
The method of successive approximations, a technique commonly used in behavior therapy and animal training, is a good way to teach an organism a complex skill that is not part of the animal’s normal repertoire of behavior. Even if you used the method of successive approximation, it would take a while to get the elephant to dance on its back feet, but it definitely would be possible. You would have to first wait for the elephant to lift a foot, and then reinforce it. Eventually, the elephant would immediately lift its foot to get a reinforcer. After firmly establishing this step, the trainer would have to wait until both feet are off the floor in order to give reinforcement. Gradually, the skill of dancing on the back feet would be developed. If you were able to take advantage of modeling, as you often can with humans, you could greatly speed the process of teaching complex behaviors that have a very low or even zero probability of spontaneous occurrence. If you wanted to teach a child with autism to say “please” and “thank you,” demonstration of the words to the child would greatly speed up the process.
According to Bandura (1977), much abnormal psychological functioning arises as a result of faulty modeling. That is, a person’s expectations about the reinforcements and punishments they will receive for their behaviors does not match what they would actually receive. As an example, if a woman is afraid of spiders, for whatever reason, she may scream when she sees one. The woman’s young daughter, having no natural fear of spiders, sees her mother scream and exhibit fear in the presence of spiders. The daughter then comes to expect that the presence of spiders leads to fear. If, instead of screaming, the mother were to explain something about spider behavior (e.g., spiders eat other bugs, but they build webs that are a nuisance, and some spiders are poisonous), the daughter would have more positive expectations about spiders. Bandura’s approach to abnormal psychology underscores how children learn both the good things and the bad things from parents and other models.
Modeling is often the tool of choice for eliminating fears or unwanted behaviors in a clinical setting, especially when systematic desensitization is impractical. The therapist can arrange a situation in which the desired behavior is modeled such that the patient can see the correct behaviors. Direct modeling, which involves the use of live models, is more effective at modifying behaviors than symbolic modeling, which involves the use of models on film. Bandura, Grusec, and Menlove (1967) used graduated modeling of interactions with a friendly dog to reduce children’s excessive fear of dogs. With graduated modeling, the observer watches, either live or on video, as a model performs behaviors which gradually increase in intensity. The children with fear of dogs watched a child their own age performing increasingly interactive behaviors with a friendly dog. The child approached the dog, petted the dog, fed the dog, walked around with the dog, and finally, the demonstrator actually got into the pen with the dog and played with it. The children’s fear of dogs greatly diminished following this exposure.
Barber (1994) used participant modeling to reduce Introductory Psychology students’ fear of laboratory rats. In participant modeling, the observer not only watches the model, but also participates to varying degrees in the interaction with the feared object. Introductory Psychology students received mild exposure to laboratory rats by holding the clear plastic boxes in which the rats were transported. At the same time, they witnessed volunteers handling the actual rats. There was a significant fear reduction following this exposure. Participant modeling has been shown to be more effective than either symbolic or direct modeling, possibly due to the participant’s increased feelings of mastery in the situation (Bandura, Blanchard, & Ritter, 1969).
Modeling can also be used therapeutically in medical settings. Patients who have suffered a stroke typically experience motor impairments and must face many hours of rehabilitation to regain abilities such as walking, writing, and speaking. Unfortunately, people recovering from strokes tend to have limited energy so that rehabilitation can occur only very slowly. Recent understanding of the function of mirror neurons has led to potential future treatment strategies. In a study by Ertelt and colleagues (2007), stroke patients were divided into two groups and all patients were given standard physical therapy. However, the experimental group also observed videos of everyday hand and arm actions while the control group watched videos of geometric shapes and letter sequences. The patients in the experimental group showed significant improvement in motor functions both compared to baseline and to the control group. Presumably, the improvement in motor functioning came about as a result of improvement in cognitive functioning. Through the action of the mirror neuron system, the motor portions of the brains of the patients in the experimental group essentially got twice as much exercise as the patients in the control group.
The Transmission of Culture
Observational learning greatly increases the possible ways that we can modify our behavior to fit our environment. We can essentially double or more the number of “experiences” we can benefit from. As the presence of the incredibly complex mirror neuron system suggests, the adaptive benefits we receive from learning from others must be immense. These adaptive benefits must outweigh the problems that social learning creates as well, such as the learning of phobias or superstitions that have no basis in truth. Observational learning, in all its forms, allows for the transmission of shared knowledge in a group.
Check Your Learning: What Behaviors and Behavioral Patterns Can Be Learned through Observation?
9-4
Children seem to learn many things, both good and bad, through observation. Some of these things are specific, such as a dislike for a particular food, but many are very general, such as a sense of achievement motivation.
Of particular interest in recent years is the social transmission of aggression through violent television, movies, video games, and music.
Of huge importance is an understanding of the role that observational learning can play in therapy.
LEARNING IN THE REAL WORLD: MODELING BY YOUTH SPORTS COACHES
Whenever a new youth sports season begins, one of the first things the coach must do is to demonstrate the correct technique for the sport in question. This might begin with a direct demonstration of technique. Perhaps the coach would demonstrate the correct technique for shooting free-throws by holding the ball and over-exaggerating the correct movements, such as the knee bending and the arm positions, to make them visually obvious. While demonstrating, the coach uses verbal prompts to ensure that the players are watching the appropriate parts of the body.
The more similar a model is to ourselves, the more likely we are to learn from them. Therefore, when at least one of the players has gotten the required movement down fairly accurately, the coach will use this child as a demonstrator. Additionally, in order to make the model as similar to the players as possible, some coaches may record the players in action, and then use the video of the players to demonstrate to the players themselves the times they were correctly and incorrectly using the techniques.
Finally, the coach may instruct the children to go home and watch professionals playing the sport on television and tell them to pay attention to the movements they use. An effective coach must be well aware of the power of demonstrating and modeling in the teaching of new sports skills and techniques.
Modeling can be used to greatly decrease the amount of time required for a patient to acquire a desirable behavior.
Using reinforcement and punishment of models is an effective way to modify existing undesirable reinforcement contingencies a person may have.
Observational learning allows for the generation and transmission of culture and cultural traditions.
Box 9.1 Natural Selection of Mirror Neurons
Ramachandran (2000) notes that the hominid brain reached its modern size (roughly 1300 cc) about 250,000 years ago, yet many of humanity’s greatest accomplishments occurred much more recently. “The great leap forward” in human evolution, which incorporated things such as complex tool use, clothing, stereotyped dwellings, and widespread cave art, which occurred around 40,000 years ago, was not the direct product of the large human brain. In retrospect, it seems obvious: The selective processes of evolution can only select things an animal is capable of expressing. This would mean that the potential for these skills would have to arise before the expression of these skills.
Ramachandran argues that these advanced cognitive developments, including language, complex tool use, and empathy, all occurred as a result of the effects of mirror neurons and the ability to imitate which they created. These complex skills allowed for the socialization required for cooperation and large scale planning (e.g., imagine how much planning was required to hunt a woolly mammoth!). According to this theory, the mirror neuron system made it possible for the Egyptians to build the pyramids, and they seem to be at least indirectly responsible for almost every cultural achievement humans have made in the last 40,000 years.
Online Resources
Read a discussion of the possible roles that mirror neurons played in human evolution.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran/ramachandran_p1.html
View a video in which Dr. Daniel Glaser discusses his study on how the mirror neuron systems of expert dancers differ from those of nondancers when viewing filmed dance.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/01.html
Read how an understanding of mirror neurons is leading to advances in stroke rehabilitation therapy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=therapeutic-reflection
Read how an understanding of Mirror Neurons leads to a neurological understanding of empathy.
http://www.robotcub.org/misc/papers/06_Rizzolatti_Craighero.pdf
Read about how observational learning is being used to help patients with autism learn social and daily living skills.
- http://www.childrenshospital.org/clinicalservices/Site1850/mainpageS1850P12sublevel16.html
- http://newsinfo.iu.edu/web/page/normal/5254.html
Key Terms and Definitions
Observational Learning: A change in behavior that occurs as a result of observing a behavior and its consequences.
Vicarious Learning: Another name for observational learning.
Social Facilitation (Contagion): Situation in which the observation of another organism’s behavior increases the likelihood that the same behavior, which is in the current repertoire of behavior, will be exhibited.
Social Facilitation: Type of imitation in which the observation of another organism’s behavior increases the likelihood that the same behavior, which is in the current repertoire of behavior, will be exhibited.
Stimulus (local) Enhancement: A type of imitation in which there is an increased likelihood of behavior focused on a particular point or object following the observation of another organism interacting with that point or object.
Imitation: A change in behavior following the observation of the behavior being performed by another organism; the copying of behavior that was not previously part of the animal’s repertoire of behavior.
Social Learning: A change in behavior following the observation of the act and its consequences performed by another organism.
Morgan’s Canon: Precept that animal activity should always be explained using the simplest mechanisms possible (a.k.a. principle of parsimony or Occam’s razor).
True Imitation: A change in behavior following the observation of the behavior being performed by another organism whereby the observer recognizes the intentional structure of the model and invokes a theory of mind in order to replicate; the copying of behavior that was not previously part of the animal’s repertoire of behavior.
Theory of Mind: Ability to attribute thoughts and feelings to oneself and others as well as ability to understand that other’s thoughts and desires are different from one’s own.
Imitation-as-instinct: A change in behavior following the observation of the behavior being performed by another organism which is best explained as the results of a fixed-action pattern rather than any cognitive mechanisms; the copying of behavior that was not previously part of the animal’s repertoire of behavior.
Modeling: Term introduced by Bandura which is often used interchangeably with observational learning. Procedure in which a model (demonstrator; tutor) exhibits a behavior and an observer (learner; student) watches.
Social Cognitive Theory of Learning: States that at least some of the knowledge an individual attains about the consequences of self behaviors can come through the observation of the consequences of others.
Mirror Neurons: Neurons which fire both when an organism performs a behavior and when the organism observes another organism performing the same behavior.
Autism: A pervasive developmental disorder characterized by impaired communication and social interactions as well as restricted and repetitive behavior patterns and delayed language development
Vicarious Reinforcement: Process where the consequences of a behavior for a model are viewed and internalized by an observer. The observer does not actually experience the consequences for themselves during the process of learning.
Emulation: The imitation of the goals observed, without using the exact same behaviors observed.
Cognitive Modeling: A form of modeling in which the model not only demonstrates the correct behavior, but also describes the logic behind the behavior.
Cultural Spillover Theory: Theory that levels of acceptance of violence in the media are reflected by levels of acceptance of violence in society; violence in the media “spills over” into society.
Direct Modeling: Therapeutic modeling technique in which the models are actually present with the patient.
Symbolic Modeling: Therapeutic modeling technique in which the models are not actually present with the patient but are instead seen on video.
Graduated Modeling: A type of modeling used in behavior therapy where the model performs behaviors that gradually increase in intensity.
Participant Modeling: Therapeutic modeling technique in which the observer (client) not only watches one or more models interacting with a feared object, but participates to varying degrees in the interaction with the feared object.
References
Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Eubanks, J. (2003). Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 960-971.
Anderson, C.A., Gentile, D.A., & Buckley, K.E. (2007). Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Arbib, M. A., Bonaiuto, J, & Rosta, E. (2006). The mirror system hypothesis: From a macaque-like mirror system to imitation. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Evolution of Language, 3-10.
Baer, D. M., Peterson, R. F., & Sherman, J. A. (1967). The development of imitation by reinforcing behavioral similarity to a model. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 405-416.
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 589-595.
Bandura, A. (1971). Psychological Modeling: Conflicting Theories. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., Blanchard, E. B., & Ritter, B. (1969). Relative efficacy of demonstration and modeling approaches for inducing behavioral, affective, and attitudinal changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(3), 173-199.
Bandura, A., Grusec, J. E., & Menlove, F. L. (1967). Vicarious extinction of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 16-23.
Bandura, A. & Huston, A. C. (1961). Identification as a process of incidental learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 311-318.
Bandura, A. & Kupers, C. J. (1964). The transmission of patterns of self-reinforcement through modeling. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 1-9.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963a). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(1), 3-11.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963b). Vicarious reinforcement and imitation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(6), 601-607.
Bandura, A. & Walters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent Aggression. New York: Ronald Press.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Barber, N. (1994). Reducing fear of the laboratory rat: A participant modeling approach. Teaching of Psychology, 21, 228-230.
Baron, L., Straus, M. A., & Jaffee, D. (1988). Legitimate violence, violent attitudes, and rape: A test of the cultural spillover theory. In R. A. Prentky and V. L. Quisey (Eds.), Human sexual aggression: Current perspectives. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 528 (p. 79-110). Salem, MA: New York Academy of Sciences.
Baron-Cohen, S., Ring, H., Moriarty, J., Schmitz, B., Costa, D., & Ell, P. (1994). Recognition of mental state terms: Clinical findings in children with autism and a functional neuroimaging study of normal adults. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165(5), 640-649.
BBC (2003, Feb 25). Octopus twists for shrimp. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from BBC News Web site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2796607.stm
Beadle-Brown, J. D. & Whiten, A. (2004). Elicited imitation in children and adults with autism: Is there a deficit? Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 292, 147-163.
Blakeslee, S. (2006, January 10). Cells that read minds. New York Times.
Brambilla, P., Hardan, A., di Nemi, S. U., Perez, J., Soares, J. C., & Barale, F. (2003). Brain anatomy and development in autism: Review of structural MRI studies. Brain Research Bulletin, 61(6), 557-569.
Burnstein, E., Stotland, E, & Zander, A. (1961). Similarity to a model and self-evaluation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 257-264.
Calvo-Merino, B., Glaser, D. E., Grezes, J, Passingham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2005). Action observation and acquired motor skills: An fMRI study with expert dancers. Cerebral Cortex, 15(8), 1243-1249.
Collins, R. L. (1988). Observational learning of a left-right behavioral asymmetry in mice (Mus musculus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 102(3) 222-224.
Dapretto, M., Davies, M. S., Pfeifer, J. H., Scott, A. A., Sigman, M., Bookheimer, S. Y., & Iacoboni, M. (2005). Understanding emotions in others: Mirror system dysfunction in children with autism spectrum disorders. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 28-30.
Dorrance, B. R. & Zentall, T. R. (2001). Imitative learning in Japanese quail depends on the motivational state of the observer at the time of observation. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 62-67.
Eron, L. D. & Huesmann, L. R. (1986). The role of television in the development of prosocial and antisocial behavior. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (eds.), The Development of Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior: Research, Theories, and Issues. New York: Academic Press.
Ertelt, D., Small, S., Solodkin, A., Dettmerns, C., McNamara, A., Binkofski, F., & Buccino, G. (2007). Action observation has a positive impact on rehabilitation of motor deficits after stroke. Neuroimage, 36, 164-173.
Eyck, L. T. (2008). Social learning. S. F. Davis & W. Buskist (Eds.), 21st Century Psychology: A Reference Handbook (pp 351-359). Los Angeles: Sage.
Ferrari, M. C. O & Chivers, D. P. (2008). Cultural learning of predator recognition in mixed-species assemblages of frogs: The effect of tutor-to-observer ratio. Animal Behaviour, 75(6), 1921-1925.
Fisher, M. S. & Hinde, R. A. (1949). The opening of milk bottles by birds. British Birds, 42, 347-357.
Fox, J., Anderson, L., Loew, F. Quimby, F. (2002). Laboratory Animal Medicine (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.
Galef, B. G. Jr. (1990). A historical perspective on recent studies of social learning about foods by Norway rats. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44(3), 311-329.
Galef, B. G. Jr. & Whiskin, E. E. (1995). Learning socially to eat more of one food than of another. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 109(1), 99-101.
Galef, B. G. Jr. & Whiskin, E. E. (2008). ‘Conformity’ in Norway rats? Animal Behaviour, 75(6), 2035-2039.
Gazzola, V, Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Keysers, C. (2006). Empathy and the somatotopic auditory mirror system in humans. Current Biology, 16, 1824-1829.
Griffin, A. S. & Evans, C. S. (2003). Social learning of antipredator behaviour in a marsupial. Animal Behaviour, 66(3), 485-492.
Harris, J. R. (1998). The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. New York: Free Press.
Henry, W. A., III, & Pappa, E. (1990). Did the music say “do it”? Time, 136(5), 65.
Hergenhahn, B. R. (2009). An Introduction to the History of Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Heyes, C. M. & Dawson, G. R. (1990). A demonstration of observational learning in rats using a bidirectional control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42B(1), 59-71.
Heyes, C. M. & Galef, B. G. Jr. (1996). Social Learning in Animals: The Roots of Culture. San Diego: Academic Press.
Iacoboni, M. & Mazziota, J. C. (2007). Mirror neuron system: Basic findings and clinical applications. Annals of Neurology, 62(3), 213-218.
Klass, E. T. (1979). Relative influence of sincere, insincere, and neutral symbolic models. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 27, 48-59.
Mason, B. (2005). More animals join the learning circle. New Scientist, 187(2514), 8.
McDougall, W. (1908). An Introduction to Social Psychology. London: Methuen.
Meltzoff, A. N. & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198, 75-78.
Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mischel, W. (1971). Introduction to Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Mischel, W. & Grusec, J. (1966). Determinants of the rehearsal and transmission of neutral and aversive behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 197-205.
Molitor, F. & Hirsch, K. W. (1994). Children’s toleration of real-life aggression after exposure to media violence: A replication of the Drabman and Thomas studies. Child Study Journal, 24(3), 191-208.
Morgan, C. L. (1896). An Introduction to Comparative Psychology. London: W. Scott.
Ormrod, J. E. (2003). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ottoni, E. B., de Resende, B. D., & Izar, P. (2005). Watching the best nutcrackers: What capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) know about others’ tool-using skills. Animal Cognition, 8(4), 215-219.
Ramachandran, V. S. (2000). Mirror neurons and imitation learning as the driving force behind “the great leap forward” in human evolution. Retrieved June 12, 2008, from Edge Web site: http://edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran/ramachandran_p1.html
Reichhardt, T. (2003). Video violence: Playing with fire? Nature, 424(6947), 367.
Rizzolatti, G. & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169-192.
Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131-141.
Subiaul, F., Cantlon, J. F., Holloway, R. L., & Terrace, H. S. (2004). Cognitive imitation in rhesus macaques. Science, 305, 407-410.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269-274.
Zentall, T. R. (2006). Imitation: Definitions, evidence, and mechanisms. Animal Cognition, 9, 335-353.
Zimmerman. B. J. (2004). Sociocultural influence and students’ development of academic self-regulation: A social-cognitive perspective. In D. M. McNerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big Theories Revisited (pp. 139-164). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Figure Captions
Figure 9.1. Frida the octopus “learned” how to open jars of shrimp simply by watching trainers do it.
http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-octi.jpg
Figure 9.2. In Galef’s basic procedure, a demonstrator rat first ingests a novel food, then is allowed to interact with an observer rat. After interaction the observer rat is given the choice between the demonstrated food and another food. (FIGURE 11.7 from Gluck, Mercado, and Meyers)
Figure 9.3. Samples of the faces demonstrated by an adult and the gestures produced by infants in Meltzoff and Moore’s (1977) study.
Figure 9.4. Apparatus used by Collins (1988) in a demonstration of what might be imitation in mice rather than simple social facilitation.
Figure 9.5. Example of stimuli used by Subiaul, Cantlon, Holloway, and Terrace (2004) which seem to demonstrate true imitation.
Figure 9.6. Activity in the mirror neuron system was maximal for ballet dancers watching videos of ballet dancing and for capoeira dancers watching films of capoeira dancing. Activity in the mirror neuron system was low when nondancers watched videos of dancing of either type (from Calvo-Merino, Glaser, Grezes, Passingham, & Haggard, 2005).
Figure 9.7. The left picture shows an image of a brain of a person while they are experiencing pain. The right picture is the image of a brain of a person while they are watching a loved one experience pain.
Figure 9.8. An orca in the captivity figured out how to capture seagulls by regurgitating bits of fish. In an interesting demonstration of social learning, the other orcas in the aquarium soon learned the trick as well.
Figure 9.9. Demonstrations of aggression by adult models (top row of pictures) and the reproduction of these aggressive behaviors by children (bottom row of pictures) from an experiment by Bandura. (FIGURE 11.1 from Gluck, Mercado, and Meyers).
Figure 9.10. It has been shown that violent video games such as this can lead to increased levels of violence by the game player.
Figure 9.1
Figure 9.2
Figure 9.3
Figure 9.4
Figure 9.5
Figure 9.6
Figure 9.7
Figure 9.8
(Try to get a photo of orca actually catching a gull.)
Figure 9.9
Figure 9.10
