Learning (behaviourist) Approach:

Assumptions of the approach:

Scientific approach – Behaviourists believe psychology is a science. Theories need to be supported by empirical data
through carefully controlled observations & measurement of behaviours.

Focus on observable behaviour – Watson thought that instead psychologists should only study things that could be
directly observed – behaviour & environmental conditions producing it – not the mind.

Tabula Rasa (Blank slate) – Watson took the view that we enter the world as a blank slate 0 inly to have capacity to
learn – we learn things from our environment & experiences. Person’s unique ways of behaving are the result of
their unique set of learning experiences.

Free Will – Don’t believe we have free will. Think that all our behaviour is determined by learning experiences &
environment we are in.

Conditioning – Watson believed that the main process by which we learn is conditioning. This type of learning by
which a human or animal learns that two things are associated. This idea originated with the work of Pavlov (classical
conditioning)

Animal Research – Little difference between learning that takes place in humans and that in other animals.
Therefore research can be carried out on animals as well as humans.

Methods:

Lab – favoured as they allow researchers to control precisely the conditions under which learning occurs. Allowing
cause & effect to be drawn between 2 variables. Sometimes deliberately manipulate learning in order to asses
effects on target of behaviour.

Researchers study human learning in labs but like to deliberately change human behaviour in real life settings.

Animal research – Much research involves studying learning in animals under lab conditions using experimental
methods. Assume animals learn in the same was as humans but are more convenient to study.

Strengths
Reliability – methods used are objective & have high
control over variables. Insists on precise measurement
of behaviour – have higher scientific creditability
Application – Behaviourist psychologists have made
breakthroughs in ways of creating behaviour through
association of behaviours - operant conditioning proven
effectiveness of modifying behaviour amongst those
who hard to teach in other ways (autistic children) &
those with phobias benefit from therapies like
systematic desensitisation.
Weaknesses
Low ecological validity – research done in lab
experiments, artificial conditions do not reflect the real
world context – behaviour may not be fully natural
experience of learning.
Low generalisability – wide use of animals, whilst
conditioning can be observed through species – there
are genetic influences on what different species can &
can’t learn which reflects their evolutionary histories –
meaning generalisation between species must be made
with caution.

Nature nurture – early behaviourist ideas incorrect
about not measuring thoughts & feelings, their ideas
helped create new theories which help understand
nature-nurture debate & freewill – helped understand
prior roles & experiences of psychology
Validity – only studying what we can measure such as
behaviour & learning experiences through
observations. Not focusing on the mind that we are
unsure if it exists & cannot measure – has higher
scientific rigor meaning higher in validity
Low validity – conditioning ignores mental process in
learning, studies on human behaviour show classical or
operant conditioning cannot adequately explain how
ppts solve problems without period of trial & error
which mental process plays a part in – meaning that it
lacks validity as the theory is limited & cannot explain it
all.
Reductionist – ignores bio influences on behaviour
stating no matter how complex, behaviour can be
broken down into fundamental process of conditioning
– Holistic view which integrates nature & nurture
Classical Conditioning (Pavlov): Learning through association.

Aim: Study the cerebral cortex & see if it makes associations & look at mechanisms at linking reflexes to cortex.
Neutral stimulus (Something which doesn’t provide a unconditioned response usually)
Unconditioned stimulus (unlearned behaviour response)
Unconditioned response (natural response/ reflex response)
Conditioned stimulus (stimulus associated with UCS now produce same response as UCS)
Conditioned response (Learnt behaviour that is response to CS)
Procedure:
 Pavlov studied reflex of salivating, to see if dogs could be conditioned to salivated at unrelated stimulus.
 IN a series of experiments – Pavlov used variety of neutral stimuli (metronome, bell, buzzer) as it doesn’t
produce natural response.
 He matched neutral stimulus (NS) with food (UCS) giving a natural response of salivation (UCR) to condition new
stimulus of the bell (CS) to give the same natural unconditional response for the conditioned stimulus (CR).
 Isolated dog in small room so couldn’t hear footsteps outside. Secured in a harness & device that delivered saliva
in measuring instrument. From adjacent room they could adjust the dog bowl.
 Before placing food in dog’s mouth, Pavlov sounded a metronome – after several pairings of metronome & food
the dog salivated to metronome alone waiting for food.
 The new conditioning to give the response is conditioned response
Results:
 Metronome – salivation started after 9 seconds & by 45 11 drops collected.
 Dogs only salivated if NS/CS presented before UCS. Dog had to be alter, no other stimuli present to distract
learning.
 Pavlov wanted to see reliability, seeing if vanilla odour & rotating disc present before food would create same
effect.
 Pavlov paired further NS to CS e.g shape colour (CS2) to metronome (CS1) & found higher order conditioning
possible. Dogs generalise sounds to similar tones. More similarity of neutral & CS the greater the drool.

Extinction: Association between CS & UCS is no longer there. E.g giving food with no bell. This will stop the
conditioned response.
Spontaneous Recovery: After response has been extinguished, it may suddenly reappear for no apparent reason e.g
doorbell ringing.

Conclusion:
 Pavlov concluded that it is signalisation in the brain that links metronome to food & thus gives reflex response to
salivation.
 Conditioning sensitive to EV & individual differences (same experiment on 2 dogs but 2 different responses)
Strengths Weaknesses
R – controlled EV (sound proofing room) so couldn’t hear G – study is carried out on dogs who have
footsteps, made sure the dog was alert & no other stimuli different brains & BIO functions to humans –
present – controlled environment where can test for cannot fully generalise effects on humans
consistancies. (V – same E but creates cause & effect relation)
V- (ecological) experiment took place in artificial
R – other experiments linking other NS to Cs (shape colour & lab where conditions were standardized (same
metronome) for higher order conditioning – reliable as could NS before food) same harness, sound proof
pair other neutral stimuli room) control of EV – lack of mundane realism
ignoring real life stimulus.
A – understanding pairing NS with UCS creates UCR which can
create phobias - we can use this & extinction techniques to E – distress brought on dogs as they were kept in
distinguish phobias cages, put in harness & devices attached to
collect saliva – dogs put through harm.
V – animals don’t have participant variables in the same was
as humans so they control for themselves – no chance of
demand characteristics arising.
 Watson & Rayner (Classic study)
Aim: Could condition fear of an animal by simultaneously presenting an animal & striking a steel bar to make a loud
noise & frightening the child. Fear transferred to other animals & objects. There would be an act of time on the
conditioning process.

Background: Need reflex action to occur in response to stimulus & other behaviour to cause reaction. In infancy
there are only instinctive emotions. Albert raised from birth in a hospital.

Procedure:
 11 months 3 days – White rat presented to Albert, when he went to touch the rat, steel bar was struck above his
head. He jumped but didn’t cry. He went to touch the rat again, the bar was struck and he fell forwards &
whimpered.
 1 week later – rat presented, Albert showed no tendency to touch the rat. Rat moved, its nose touching albert & he
withdrew. Albert went to touch rat but halted showing UCS & NS weakly engaged.
 7 episodes of joint stimulation of rat & sound. After the rat was shown & Albert cried instantly. He tried to crawl
away – convincing case of conditioning fear response.
 Tested with blocks (to see if fear generalised ) no response. Rat alone caused whimpering & withdrawal. Blocks
given, than rat again where Albert moved away.
 Blocks than a rabit presented causing Albert to cry, dog presented with no negative response.
 Blocks given, then fur coat making Albert fret, when it got closer he cried.
 Cotton wool put on his feet, he kicked it away. Santa mask presented – Albert withdrew.

Results:
 At 1 yr 21 days – assessed time on conditioning.
 Concluded conditioning emotion lasted longer than 1 month but weaker enforcement.
 He was removed from hospital before conditioning removed. Thought conditioning lasted a lifetime.

Conclusion:
 Successful in conditioning infant to fear an animal that he didn’t already fear. Conditioning was repeated.
 Generalised stimulus which caused Albert to fear other stimulus like rabbits and fur coats & cotton wool.
 Conditional response lasted longer than 1 month & thought to last a lifetime. Experiment completed showing
conditioned emotional response.

Strengths
R – use of standardized procedure in pre-
conditioning & the 7 episodes of join stimulation
therefore meant high control over EV as only one
changed at a time – showing easier to replicate to
test for constancies.
A – Given an understanding of fear & that a
response can be conditioned into a human by
pairing 2 stimuli – if we can understand how
phobias develop than we can understand ways to
rehabilitate phobias.
V – the use of a standardized procedure in
conditioning & 7 episodes of joint stimulation
meant high control of EV as only one changed at a
time & used blocks to see if fear generalised –
meaning strong cause & effect relation as can be
sure fear has been associated with the rat
characteristics.
Weaknesses
G – study used one, young child & lacked population validity
as findings cannot be generalised as Albert grew up in a
hospital not the real world – might never of experiences fear
& may response differently than other children.
R – there was only one ppt & the study has never been
replicated due to ethical issues of harm & distress – cannot
say results are reliable
V – study took place with no control group which we could
compare to the experimental group for better
understanding of conditioned response – we cannot be sure
conditioning caused fear when could be exposure to a
strange animal.
E – Albert was not protected from harm & his mother
withdrew him from study – mother didn’t know implications
of her decision & phobia not extinguished
V – low ecological – hitting bar in lab – low mundane realism
V – Watson’s observations were subjective
Operant conditioning (Skinner): Voluntary learning.

Behaviour is either rewarded for desired behaviour (to repeat) or punished for undesirable (extinguish)

Thorndike: put cat in a cage with a latch & placed salmon outside cage, cat scratched the cage & eventually hit the
latch & the door opened, with repetition amount of time & effort spent decreased.
Behaviour giving a desired effect became dominant & occurred faster (trial & error)
Law of effect – effect of behaviour (hitting latch) was good (get out for food) behaviour learnt.

Skinner: Recorded behaviour of animals in response to different consequences using shaping – reinforces like food
gradually to guide an animals actions to desired behaviour.
Box: Contained lever for animal (rat or pigeon) to press for food. Has speaker, lights that could trigger behaviour &
shock generator attacked to floor to deliver electric shock to behaviour.

Reinforcement: + strengthens response presenting pleasurable stimulus after response (food, attention, approval,
money) - strengthens response by reducing or removing aversive stimulus (painkillers for headache)

Punishment: Opposite to reinforcement, consequence that decreases frequency by administering undesirable

consequence or withdrawing desirable one. + Punishment when given (slap) – punishment is withdrawing desired
stimulus (phone)
Punishment doesn’t achieve desired behaviour; only stops undesirable ones.

Reinforcers: Primary – occurs natural & doesn’t need learning in order to work (evolutionary & aid survival) food,
money, water, sex
Secondary – are stimulus that become rewarding being paired with reinforcing stimulus (money for food)

Shaping: Variant of Operant conditioning. Instead of waiting for subject present desired behaviour leading to reward
Skinner trained a rat to push leader by rewarding movement towards it until rat pushed the lever. Once target
behaviour shaped, not other behaviour rewarded as it’s in desired form.
Strengths Weaknesses
Thorndike – showed with trial & error a cat could get out a Kohler – found primates solve problems in flash of
cage to get + reinforce by hitting the latch – behaviour can insight rather than trial & error showing role of
be learnt through reinforcement decreasing time & effort cognitive factors – this is an incomplete explanation
needed of learning process of human & animals.

Skinner – showed rats learnt when to press lever on red
light which would produce positive reinforcement of food
so would repeat behaviour – shows behaviour can be learnt
through reinforcement.
V – easier to test as they can be tested under controlled lab
conditons & animals don’t produce ppt variables – can’t
show demand characteristics meaning valid
A – Shows that desired behaviour can be achieved through
reinforcement to repeat behaviour & punishment to stop
undesired behaviour – token economy used to encourage
desired behaviour to exchange for primary reinforcers.
R – standardized procedure as controlled environment of
lab study means control of EV & manipulating one variable
at a time – easier to test for consistencies
G – uses animal research & animals don’t share some
bio functions & complex outer layers of the cerebral
cortex as humans do. Cannot think & evoke reason
like humans – harder to extrapolate findings to
humans.
Social learning theory – learning through observation
rather than personal experience & used of
reinforcement of behaviour – desired behaviour
repeated if motivated to do so, no need for trial &
error.
Low ecological validity – done in a controlled,
artificial lab environment where rewards &
punishments might not represent real life – meaning
behaviour is unnatural & lacks mundane realism.
Reinforcement schedules:

Variable Ratio: Applying an reinforce after a variable number of responses. They work the best under many
circumstances. E.g would be a slot machine or the rat pressing lever & getting food after every 2 presses, then 4,
then 7 making it difficult to stop.

Response: Fast

Extinction: Slow.

Fixed Ratio: Applying reinforcement / punishment after a specific number of behaviours. E.g salesperson getting
bonus every 3rd ice cream he sells. Behaviour doesn’t change until right before the present number. Behaviour
doesn’t change until right before the present number.

Response: Fast

Extinction: medium.

Variable Interval: Reinforcing someone after a variable amount of time. If the boss checks your work periodically,
you then understand the power of this schedule. You don’t know when the next check-up may be, you have to be
working at all times. More consistent behaviour.

Response: Fast (slower than ratio)

Extinction: slow (hard to extinguish)

Fixed Interval: Applying reinforce after specific amount of time. E.g raise every year & not in between. Therefore
people only tend to improve their performance before time period expires.

Response: medium

Extinction: Medium
 Social Learning Theory:
Refers to behaviour that is acquired through result of experience with others rather than acquired alone. Based on
observational learning (watching others & copying their actions to learn new behaviour).
Based on learning through observation, imitation, modelling of another person or role model.

Three core concepts: 1) learning through observation – in bobo doll experiment Bandura demonstrated children
learn & imitate behaviours observed.
Bandura identified 3 basic models of observation:
Live model – involves an actual individual demonstrating a behaviour.
Verbal instructional model – descriptions or explanations of behaviour.
Symbolic model – involves a real or fictional character displaying behaviour in books, films, TV.
Effective role models same age, gender, higher status, respected.

2) Mental state are important to learning: External enviro reinforcement not only factor influencing learning.
Internal reinforcement such as pride, satisfaction, sense of accomplishment can influence learning of behaviour.

3) Learning led to permanent change in behaviour, observation learning demonstrates ppl can learn new info
without demonstrating new behaviour.
Humans & animals learn through modelling
SLT accepts element of thinking in learning process (refuted by CC & OC)
Categorises affecting imitation – Characteristics of observer, characteristics of role model, and consequences of
behaviour for role model.

Vicarious Learning: Learning through others success or punishment. Vicarious reinforcement is learning via another
being awarded for desirable behaviour. Vicarious punishment is tendency not to repeat observed behaviour if a
person is being punished for it. Vicarious extinction – stop producing behaviour as another is not being rewarded for
it.

Modelling process:
Attention: need to pay attention to role model, see how they are acting.
Retention: need to remember what behaviour you have noticed – need to encode it.
Reproduction: need to be able to reproduce/imitate behaviour
Motivation: have to want to imitate the behaviour
Bandura (1961) – children who watched adult play aggressive with a bobo
doll afterwards were more likely to repeat same aggressive behaviour –
learn through observation.
Bandura 1965 – Used vicarious learning when models rewarded for being
aggressive, children more likely to imitate while model punished decreased
aggression – supports idea learning through vicarious reinforcement /
punishment.
Boyatzis – increased violent play immediately after children viewed power
rangers imitating ‘karate kick’ – shows how children imitate aggression
through observation.
A – theory suggests that we learn through observation to behaviours around
us, encouraged by vicarious learning to help reproduce – introduce
watershed & age certified films to stop observational learning of aggressive
behaviour.
Stemmed research – explains cycle of violence that victims of physical abuse
as a child more likely to be an abusing parent. – increases chances of being
abusive later on in life.
Validity – looks at social & cog; looking at mental process of retention,
attention, motivation, reproduction – more holistic view
Objectivity– behaviour not often exhibited
immediately after observing behaviour –
may imitate while after learning has taken
place leading meaning difficult to measure
Validity – can’t explain why some children
watch TV & don’t copy the aggressive
behaviour – some children naturally
aggressive even without playing a video
game, cannot account for individual
differences & cannot conclude exposure to
violence causes aggression.
Biological theory – damage to brain areas
such as PFC causes impulsive behaviour as
it’s the break to our aggression – nature
cannot fully explain role of aggression.
 Bandura 1961:
Aim: To demonstrate that if children were passive witnesses to an aggressive display by an adult they would imitate
this aggressive behaviour when given then opportunity.
Hypothesis: Children exposed to aggressive models will reproduce aggressive acts. 2 – children exposed to non-
aggressive models will reproduce less aggressive acts. 3 – children imitating behaviour of a same sex model greater
degree than opposite sex. 4 – boys will be more predisposed than girls towards imitating aggression.

Method: Sample – 36 boys & 36 girls aged between 37-69 months (mean 52 months)
Subjects divided into groups of 6 subjects each, control of 24 subjects.
Half experimental group exposed to aggressive model & half non-aggressive. Divided further into male & female
subjects.
Half subjects in aggressive & Non-aggressive viewed same sex models, the rest opposite sex. Control not exposed to
adult models (tested for generalisability of situation)
Experimental & control subjects matched on basis of ratings of aggressive behaviour in social interactions in nursery.
3 IV (condition child exposed, sex of role model, sex of child)

Procedure: tested individually. Stage 1 – child brought to experimental room set out for play & activities chosen to
have high interest in nursery school children. Child took to one corner with child’s play area. Experimenter escorted
model to other corner where a mallet & bobo doll was.
Non aggressive – model ignored doll & assembled tinkertoy in quiet, gentle manner
Aggressive – model assembled tinker toy, after turned to bobo doll & aggressive in distinctive way. Raised the doll &
pummelled it on the head with a mallet. After 10 mins child taken to a games room
Stage 2 – aggressive arousal: child subject to mild aggression as taken to a room with attractive toys & told child they
were the best toys & reserved for other children.
Stage 3 – child took to next room & told can play with any of the toys, in room there were no aggressive & aggressive
(mallet, bobdoll, dart gun, tea set) In room for 20 mins & behaviour observed by judges through one way mirror,
made at 5 second intervals, 240 responses for each child.

Results: Aggressive model made more aggressive responses than those in non-aggressive.
Boys more aggressive responses than girls.
Boys in aggressive model showed more aggressive reponses if model male.
Girls in aggressive showed more physical aggression with male model, but more verbal aggression with a female
model.
Imitative physical aggression F – (F 5.5) (M 7.2) ( C 1.2) M – (F 12.4) (M 25.8) (C 2)
Conclusion: Supports idea children learn aggression through observational learning. That boys produce more
aggression than girls, more aggression produced when paired with male model.
R – standardized procedure as model had same verbal G – only conducted on 36 boys & 36 girls on children aged 3-5
& physical behaviours, child went through same 3 from the same university nursery – results cannot be
stages, same room of toys. – easier to test for generalised to older children, these children may have more
consistencies. educated parents or ppt variables.

R – inter-rater reliability was very high (0.89) –
meaning most of time observers agreed on behaviour
shown removing subjectivity of observations.
V – precise control over EV such as gender of model,
time child observed model – EV (situation & ppt)
where controlled so establish control & effect.
A – Shows how children who are exposed to an
aggressive model are more likely to imitate their
aggressive acts –lead to measures like watershed
being put in place to protect children.
Ecological V – limited social situation of child, adult with no
intervention. Lab emphasised as stranger adult isn’t usually left
with child to show aggressive behaviour – lacks mundane
realism
V – Bandura used a bobo-doll which is designed to be hit
(showing violent behaviour) Children might of expected
experimenter wanted them to behave in this way – demand
characteristics & could be lvl of researcher bias.
E – Deliberately tried to encourage children to be aggressive &
not taught to remove this aggression – may carry on aggressive
nature after study.
Bandura (1963):
Hypothesis: Test exposure of children to film-mediated aggressive model would increase probability of ppts
aggression.

Sample: 96 ppts (48 boys & 48 girls) aged 35 to 69 months (3-5) from Stanford university nursery school.

Procedure: Divided into 3 experimental groups & a control group.

G1 – watched real life male/female model become violent towards a bobo doll.
G2 – watched 10 minute film version of male/female model becoming aggressive to bobo doll.
G3 – Watched cartoon version of female model dressed as cat becoming aggressive to bobo doll.
CG – not exposed to aggression (base line)

Following exposure all 4 groups individually put in a room with experimenter & exposed to a mild frustration
situation to elicit aggression. Children then allowed to play freely in room full of toys including bobo doll & weapons
used by model.
Researcher observed children & noted interaction with bobo doll.

Results: Children exposed to aggressive behaviour, real-life, film or cartoon reformed nearly twice as much
aggressive behaviour as control.
Boys exhibited more overall aggression than girls.
Boys showed more total aggression, imitative, gun play, non-imitative aggression than girls.
Boys with male model had S.D more aggressive gun play . Female with female model less gun play.
Boys seen aggressive female model more likely to sit on doll rather than punching suggesting gender of model & sex
appropriation of behaviour an important factor.

Mean num of aggressive acts: Live model 83, film model 92, cartoon 99, control 54

Conclusion: Children will imitate filmed aggression in the same way as live aggressive models.
Watching filmed violence is not cathartic instead of becoming less aggressive they showed more aggression.
Bandura surprised with cartoon model imitation as expected less imitation as role model became less realistic (but
weakened social inhabitations)

R – standardized procedure as all conditions viewed G – used 96 ppts all from Stanford university nursery
same live model, film model or cartoon model, same aged between 3-5 – this means we can only generalise
standardized room where behaviour observed – easier results to this age group and not adults. These children
to replicate for consistencies of results may have specific ppt variables.

R – inter-rater reliability was very high (0.89) – meaning
most of time observers agreed on behaviour shown
removing subjectivity of observations.
R – bandura filmed the study of children performing
violent acts against bobo-doll & the TV clips are also
online – meaning anyone can watch the study and draw
similar conclusions making more replicable.
V – precise control over EV such as gender of model,
time child observed model – EV (situation & ppt) where
controlled so establish control & effect.
A – Shows how children who are exposed to an
aggressive model are more likely to imitate their
aggressive acts –lead to measures like watershed being
put in place to protect children.
Ecological V – limited social situation of child, adult with
no intervention. Lab emphasised as stranger adult isn’t
usually left with child to show aggressive behaviour –
lacks mundane realism
V – Bandura used a bobo-doll which is designed to be
hit (showing violent behaviour) Children might of
expected experimenter wanted them to behave in this
way – demand characteristics & could be lvl of
researcher bias.
E – Deliberately tried to encourage children to be
aggressive & not taught to remove this aggression –
may carry on aggressive nature after study.
Bandura (1965):
Aim: To see if reinforcement administered to a model influences the performance but not acquisition of imitating
responses

Sample: 32 boys & 33 girls (65) from 42-71 months (3-5) from Stanford University. Randomly assigned to 1/3
conditions of 11 boys & 11 girls. Matched pairs of model & child.

Procedure: In each condition children watched a film where adult acted aggressively towards a bobo-doll but
consequence varied.
Film1 – aggressive model rewarded – second adult arrived with sweet supply & soft drinks. Verbally said aggression
deserved a treat.
Film 2 – aggressive model punished – adult agent turned up verbalised punishment calling ‘big bully’. The model
tripped & the adult spanked him with a rolled up magazine. Adult said if he saw him do it again he’d get a hard
spanking.
Film 3 – (control) aggressive model got neither punishment or reward.

Immediately after exposure children taken to a room contained with toys – including bobo doll.
Children behaviour observed by 2 separate observers using 1 way mirror.
Inter-rater reliability tested & compared for 10 children 99% agreed – neither researcher knew condition child was
in.
Children taken into another room & told for each physical or verbal imitation rewarded with fruit juice of sticker
booklet. If described behaviour they were encouraged to demonstrate it.

Results: Children watching aggressive model being reinforced or no consequence showed more aggression than
those part of punished model.
When children offered reward for imitating models behaviour even punished condition imitated models behaviour.
Boys more aggressive than girls but girls nearly as aggressive if reinforced.
Observational learning can occurred by viewing model even if model is neither reinforced nor punished.

Conclusion: Results show after watching film when children left alone in a room with bobo doll & props used by
aggressive adults they imitate actions witnessed.
Model rewarded & control more willing for ppts to imitate aggressive behaviour.
Further testing indicates children in each condition had equal amount of learning only motivation factor kept
behaviours from being similar.
G – uses a large sample of 65 children containing both Ecological V – limited social situation of child, adult with
genders 32 boys & 33 girls – has enough sample to no intervention. Lab emphasised as stranger adult isn’t
generalise to young children of both genders. usually left with child to show aggressive behaviour –
lacks mundane realism
R – Standardized procedure such as standardized
behaviours of models, toys in each room – easier to V – Bandura used a bobo-doll which is designed to be
replicate for consistencies of results. hit (showing violent behaviour) Children might of
expected experimenter wanted them to behave in this
R – High inter-rater which was 0.99 or 99% - meant way – demand characteristics & could be lvl of
most times the separate observers agreed on the researcher bias.
behaviour shown & this removes subjectivity.
E – Deliberately tried to encourage children to be
A – Highlight how children will imitate the behaviour of aggressive & not taught to remove this aggression –
role models if vicarious rewarding happens – led to may carry on aggressive nature after study.
measures such as the watershed being put in place.

V – precise control over EV like ppt variables – gender

of model, time child observed model, model behaviour
– meaning cause & effect can be established.
 Phobias:
An extreme or irrational fear of aversive stimulus. Cab affect your everyday life & stop you from performing some
natural everyday activities.
Psychological disorder 11% of the population deal with at 1 point in their life.
Some people know their behaviour is exaggerated & interferes with their everyday life so seek psychological help.

Example:
Aerophobia, scared of spiders, anything can be a phobia.

Classical Conditioning:
Explains phobias that we associate natural stimuli (e.g spider) with an conditional stimulus such as being attacked or
threatened that gives unconditioned response of fear & pain. Once these are paired conditioning becomes stringer
becoming conditioned stimulus (spider) causing conditioned response of fear.

Suggests phobias created through association of neutral stimuli & unconditioned response paired.

Operant Conditioning:
Sees learning as voluntary by rewarding behaviours so individuals will repeat the behaviour or punish them to stop
undesired behaviour. Used to shape behaviour.
More of reinforcement of phobias then directly causing them. We use negative reinforcement to avoid aversive
stimuli which creates fear by never actually facing the phobic object to extinguish the behaviour. Some people get
attention from having a phobia of an object & to some this is a reward, the behaviour will not be extinguished as it
will continue to receive attention.

Social Learning Theory:

Explains phobias through modelling process watching role models (live models) demonstrate a behaviour or
symbolic role model acting a behaviour from Tv shows.
4 modelling stages shape behaviour. Attention – have to pay attention to see phobic behaviour from others around
us. We need to retain the behaviour, this can help be seeing repeated versions of it. Need to reproduce it, as fear is a
reflex response we can all repeat it. We need to be motivated to repeat the behaviour – seeing someone else scared
of a spider or by vicarious learning (other reinforced or punished)

SLT explains we have phobias by observing & imitating fear responses by watching a creditable role model
performing the behaviour.
Bandura 1961 - Supports idea children learn aggression Ecological V – limited social situation of child, adult with
through observational learning. That boys produce more no intervention. Lab emphasised as stranger adult isn’t
aggression than girls, more aggression produced when usually left with child to show aggressive behaviour –
paired with male model – supports research that behaviour lacks mundane realism
is imitated by observational learning.
G – uses animal research & animals don’t share some
V – Used a control group through independent measures to bio functions & complex outer layers of the cerebral
compare to the experimental group where not exposed to cortex as humans do. Cannot think & evoke reason like
aggressive model – makes stronger & valid comparison humans – harder to extrapolate findings to humans.
between two groups showing effect of manipulation of IV.
E – Albert was not protected from harm & his mother
Skinner – showed rats learnt when to press lever on red light withdrew him from study – mother didn’t know
which would produce positive reinforcement of food so implications of her decision & phobia not extinguished
would repeat behaviour – shows behaviour can be learnt
through reinforcement. Low ecological validity – done in a controlled, artificial
lab environment where rewards & punishments might
Watson & Reyner – found that could condition fear into not represent real life – meaning behaviour is unnatural
infant child by pairing a white rat with striking a metal bar & lacks mundane realism.
creating reflex response of fear – fear can be conditioned
through association.
Treatments for phobia:

Phobia’s can be acquired through paired associations & reinforced through avoiding phobic stimuli. Treatments on
basis that what can be learnt can be unlearnt. Therapies based on exposure & response prevention.

Exposure therapy conducted using Vivo exposure (real life) or Vitro (imagination). Vitro useful in cases of trauma or
situations vivo is not affective.
Individual encouraged to repeatedly face anxiety stimulus until no longer have same level of anxiety.

Response prevention means reframing from engaging in typical avoidance or escaping from feared stimuli.

Exposure means facing or confronting ones fear repeatedly until the fear subsides, due to habituation (when
behaviour & sensory response diminish over time).

Once habituation occurs, the fearful behaviour will be extinguished. This is on basis supported by classical conditions
where association is removed.

Two types of treatment are systematic Desensitisation & Flooding.

Systematic Desensitisation (Wolpe):

 Aim is to remove the fear response of a phobia by substituting a relaxation response to conditioned stimulus
using counter conditioning.

 Takes place over a number of sessions depending on strength of phobia & clients ability to relax usually 4-6 or up
to 12.

 Both therapists & clients agree on a goal – fear is not distinguished until goal complete.

 Systematic Desensitisation can be paired with modelling (ppt modelling) In which patients observe models in
presence of phobic stimulus who responding with relaxation. Encourages patients to imitate model & relive fear.

 Exposure in 2 ways; Vitro (imagines exposure to phobic stimuli) Vivo (actually exposed to phobic stimuli)

 Based on principles of reciprocal inhabitation – can’t be both anxious & relaxed at the same time.

 3 typical stages:
1 – Construction of fear hierarchy
2 – Training in relaxation techniques – control of breathing, muscle relaxation or meditation.
3 – Gradual exposure to aversive stimulus from least fearful, working way up using relaxation techniques to
cope.

 Client imagines or confronted by stimuli until it fails to evoke any anxiety indicating anxiety has been successful.

Capafons – showed success of overcoming a fear of
aerophobia, a programme until 3 phases of focus on
relaxation by stopping anxious thoughts. 90% of
experimental group decreased their fear – shows
reciprocal inhabitation is effective at removing phobias.
Brosrian & thrope – Experimental programme to help
16 technophobic students on IT course compared to CG
with no treatment. Anxiety levels sig lower – shows that
the treatment is effective.
Strength - Has clear rationale based on classical
conditioning that is a behaviour can be learnt therefore
can be unlearnt – gives ppl the confidence that the
treatment will work as follows some principles of the
theory
Cheap – treatment is relatively cheap, quick unlike
biological treatments, these have no side effects & have
widely used throughout NHS to treat anxiety – making
it more practical, effective & higher compliance.
Barlow & Durand – found overexposure to phobic
stimulus during early stages of the therapy can intensify
the phobia – shows SD susceptible to ID on phobia type,
reaction. Not good for everyone.
Weakness – individual differences undermine therapy
as relies on clients ability to be able to imagine fearful
situations, some people cannot create vivid image –
therefore not always effective.
Weakness – it’s useful for phobias & anxiety disorders
but not useful for other mental health issues such as
psychoses – individuals need to be able to relax & some
people cannot do this.
V – Patients who use vitro way of exposing phobia by
drawing a vivid imagine of the phobia in their head may
not be imagining such a situation – therefore ppt may
be again trying to avoid the aversive stimuli

E – more ethical compared to flooding which bombards

patients with aversive stimuli by throwing them into
deep end – therefore SD less likely to cause
psychological harm.
Flooding:

 Based on fact phobia is learnt & needs to be extinguished by exposure to aversive stimuli.

 Client exposed to stimulus straight at top of the hierarchy. Demonstrates irrationality of fear as ppt put in
situation with their worst fear.

 Under controlled conditions & psychologically proven relaxation techniques subjects replaces fear with
relaxation by being so scared until their body can no longer put up with the fear response.

Process:
 Patients anxiety maintained at such a high level, eventually exhaustion takes place.
 When a person experiences an alarm reaction the body is put on high alert where non-urgent activity in the
body ceases while energy directed to areas for fight or flight response. As it’s used up the body will become
calm.
 If patient cannot make escape or avoid the response extinction will occur.

Exposure & relaxation:

 When patient is in extreme anxiety, exhaustion soon sets in & fear decreases. Patients see they came to no
harm & fear of stimuli extinguished.
 Therapists typically offer no help/ little reassurance apart from use of relaxation techniques to calm
themselves
.
 Key of flooding is rapid exposure to the CS rather than spaced. The approach will facilitate the extinction.

 Exposure in 2 ways; Vitro (imagines exposure to phobic stimuli) Vivo (actually exposed to phobic stimuli)

Wolpe - took a girl with a phobia of cars on a drive until
she calmed down, and reported that although initially
distressed she did calm down and her fear was
removed. – shows that straight out exposure is
expected
Wolitzky-Taylor et al (2008) carried out a metanalysis of
33 studies and found that exposure-based treatments
were effective at treating phobia relative to no
treatment.
Boulougoris, Mark and Marset (1971) found that
flooding was superior to SD in a group of 16 phobia
sufferers, and that effects lasted over 12 months –
showing Flooding more effective than SD
R - Has clear rationale based on classical conditioning
that is a behaviour can be learnt therefore can be
unlearnt – gives ppl the confidence that the treatment
will work as follows some principles of the theory
E - forced exposure to the phobic object which creates
high alert body state for fight and flight, ppts exposed
until energy is depleated & exhaustion occurs - causes
distress to the patient & psychological harm.
Weakness - difficult to predict the likely duration of
treatment as exposure needs to last as long it takes to
disconfirm the individual’s fear. - minimising distraction
in order to endure attention is paid to the relevant
stimuli, doesn’t account for individual differences in
extinction times.
V - Another issue is that extinction learning is highly
context dependent; new learning that occurs during
exposure may fail to generalize outside the treatment
context – meaning patients may not be able to repeat
behaviour in real life setting so may lack mundane
realism.
Mealiea and Nawas (1971) also found SD was superior
to flooding in patients with a snake phobia. – flooding
may not be as effective as SD
 Capafons (Contemporary)
Aim: to test whether systematic desensitisation is an effective therapeutic treatment for Aerophobia.

Sample: 41 people with Aerophobia. 20 randomly assigned to treatment group, 21 to control group. Treatment had
8 males & 12 females. Control 9 males 12 females. (Recruited through media campaign – voluntary)

Method:
 Groups matched in terms of age, sex, self-reported fear lvl & psychological measures.
 DV – answers to questions to diagnose Aerophobia, (how afraid of flying are you, do you travel by plane, list of
symptoms while traveling by airoplane [muscular tension, sweaty, loss of control])
 2 questionnaires measuring fear of flying; fear of flying scale during flight, preliminaries & without being on
flight.
 Another scale measuring expectations of danger & anxiety, psychological anxiety.
 Physiological measures; heart rate, palm temp, muscular tension when watching video of plane trip.

Procedure:
 Interviewed individually for self-report data.
 Return to Uni & shown video of traveller taking a plane journey starting with packing case & ending with landing;
individually tested in same room with standardized temp & distance from screen.
 Experimental group – after 8 weeks were given 2, 1 hour sessions / week of SD treatment (mx 15 sessions, min
12)
 3 phases; relaxation & imagination training, 2 focusing on establishing phobia hierarchy, 3 applied SD to phobia.
 Post treatment: ppts had 2 flights, 1st 7 days after treatment. Physiological rates taken – heart rate, palm temp,
muscular tension during take-off simulation.
Results:
 No S.D between control & treatment prior to treatment.
 Comparisons made before & after treatment (fear of flying reduced by treatment – EG 12.3 CG -9.8 control
group’s fear went up)
 EG S.D than controls after treatment on all but palm temp & fear without involvement.

Conclusion:
 Program was successful at reducing fear of flying in treatment group even tho 10% had no S.D
 No reduction of fear in control showing passing of time not enough to remove phobia.

R – standardized procedure; same room temp, same self-
report questionnaire for Dv, same 2, 1 hour sessions per week
– easier to replicate for consistencies of results.
R – quantitative data for self-report data via a structured
questionnaire such as fear of flying scale – means data is
statistical & objective and can only be seen in a narrow
perspective so easier to replicate.
V – used control group which didn’t undergo treatment while
experimental group did. Fear of flying after treatment from to
13.3 while controls 35 – more meaningful comparisons can be
made & now sure fear doesn’t decrease over time.
E – more ethical as simulations meant that vitro exposure
occurred (through imagination), phobias can already be
distressing & if the ppt couldn’t cope in vivo exposure it could
be less ethical – less likely to be psychologically harmed.
Practical:
G – ppts recruited through volunteer sample through
media campaign using sample of 41 with aerophobia –
not representing everyone with aerophobia & SD may be
better with Aerophobia.
Ecological V – experimental video took place in a room in
a university where prestigious link made – situation may
not create phobic symptoms to the video or demand
characteristics may be shown.
V – exposure to phobia was done through video clips of
planes taking off & simulations – the task /situation lacks
validity as ppts aren’t actually on a plane so behaviour
may not be accurate to the real world.
Individual differences – 2 of the treatment group (10%)
did not reduce their fear after treatment completed –
showing systematic desensitisation may be affected by
individual differences.
Aim: Investigate gender differences in helping behaviour with regards to holding a door open for another.

Non-directional Hypothesis: There will be a S.D between males & females in likely hood of holding the door open for
another person.
Null: There will be no S.D between males & females in likely hood of holding the door open for another person if so
it will be due to chance.

Procedure: 63 ppts – 33 female, 30 males. Opportunity sample.

We went & sat in a busy coffee shop between 9-20 am on a Monday.
We observed those who came into the shop via the push door, we tallied those who held open the door and
gathered notes on age, appearance (attractiveness), reaction & how busy they were.
Inter-rater reliability of 99%

During observation I noticed that people who didn’t open the door were often portrayed in a rush or distracted.
More males held open the door for females rather than the same sex.
The door was held open more for those who needed the help such as those with bags or prams.

Results: Held door (male -24) (female – 12) Not hold door (male 6) (female 15)
Males more likely to hold a door open.
Used Chi-squared test got calc value of 4.57 which was bigger than critical value of 3.84.

Conclusion: There is a S.D – more males have helping behaviour of holding open the door while females mostly
don’t. This could be down to chivalry & gender roles of a male being taught to hold open a door for a woman.

Improvements: Wider location sample so not just generalizable to Stourbridge. Look at more helping behaviour to
help increase validity of results.

Research: Social Learning theory.

G – wide sample of 63 people, 33 female and 30 males
– we can apply the findings to both genders in the
Stourbridge area.
R – 99% inter-rater reliability from observers looking at
helpful behaviour – therefore removes researcher bias
& makes the findings more accurate & less subjectivity
V – Qualitative data via observations & the use of
thematic analysis allows trends to be created so we can
establish categories to put people in for helpful
behaviour - produces rich and insightful data to look at
complex human behaviour.
V – naturally setting of a coffee shop & field experiment
observation allowed experiments see ppts in natural
setting –high mundane realism & natural behaviour
G – done on a Monday morning using opportunity
sample who were there at the time in Stourbridge town
– sample Is biased to certain people & doesn’t
represent whole population.
V – Lack of control over extraneous variables due to the
nature being field experiment & ppt variables were not
considered – cannot determine cause & effect as some
ppts may have been conditioned to be more helpful
than others.
V – Experiment gathered qualitative data on sex, guess
of age of the gender, if attractive or how they were
portrayed – this is subjective as we don’t know the true
age, attractiveness is an subjective concept. Lacks
validity.
E – used a covert experiment where the sample which
we observed were unaware that they were taking part
in an experiment – consent, right to withdraw was not
taken into account making unethical.

Key Question: Is the influence of role models & celebrities something that causes Anorexia Nervosa?
Anorexia Nervosa: An eating disorder which is characterised by extreme weight loss (15% of BMI), restrictive eating,
periods of purging & anxiety associated with weight gain.

Clinical Characteristics: Anxiety associated with excessive fear of being overweight. Obsessed with weight.
Weight – weight loss considered abnormal when drops below 85% of individuals normal weight. AN patient avoids
food or carefully monitors to avoid weight gain.
Body image distortion – Thinness is vital to self-esteem. AN patients don’t see their own thinness & deny seriousness
of their low body weight. See themselves much bigger than they are.

Facts: Affects 1/200 adolescents, starts in teen years with 95% of sufferers between 12-29 years old. 90% sufferers
are female. Rates of male sufferers are rising. Most common in western cultures with around 1% Uk girls in schools
being anorexic.

Media: Social cultural factors commonly associated with AN as more in industrialised societies with idea of
attractiveness linked to slimness.
95% of ppl own a TV & watch 3-4 hours a day, Nearly half of girls read a magazine each weak.
Advertisers spend money to hire slim models to influence behaviour to get money.
Damaging paradox of modern society which media promotes promoting low weight sculpting ideal body. Media
presents advertising of food which will want to increase consumption.

SLT: Role models which are same gender, age have a stronger influence. Ppl from Media, models & celebrities.
Arrm – Attention – pay attention to role model being thin & eating little.
Retention – we are all capable of remembering as always in the media
Reproduction – cutting down on food, starving & doing more exercise
Motivation – low self-esteem & body image, vicarious reinforcement for losing weight & being thin (celebrities
making money, being famous, complimented, called pretty)

Operant conditioning: + reinforcement through compliments and attention for being slim & losing weight. Neg
reinforcement by other for being ‘fat’ & mean comments about weight to encourage change. Losing weight to
remove aversive stimulus of being bullied.
Fearn – studied women on island of Fyi, western Tv Holland – found 56% concordance rat in MZ twins while
introduced 1995 & 3 yrs later 74% young women said 7% in DZ twins when studying 34 pairs of twins – can be
they were too fat or big. – supports that we learn eating bio explanation for AN.
disorders off role models who are skinny & implement
body style. V – concordance rate of Holland is 56%, if we expected
AN to be biological we would expect higher
Lai – found rate of anorexia increased for Chinese concordance rate among MZ twins – lacks validity as
residents in Hong Kong as cultures became westernised could be other factors than just biology.
– suggests cultural effect brought by western
advertising of slimness. Eysenck – states all women in west exposed to media
only 3-4% of them develop an eating disorder – shows
SLT – role models more likely to affect targets with the anorexia and exposure to role models by the media
same sex, age & personality – most magazines use doesn’t affect everyone, doesn’t account for ID
female’s role models more likely to affect women
explaining gender difference. Doesn’t explain age profile – as media affects 95% of
sufferers between 12-39 – SLT has issues not being able
A – suggests that anorexia is caused by role models to explain why doesn’t affect everyone exposed to
looking too skinny or fat showing in the media and media.
being reinforced for being skinny – lead to introduction
of laws stopping body shaming in media or intro of
other branches of therapy

Individual Differences:
People differ because of environmental influences such as different reward patterns. Different behaviour being
observed leading to different patterns of behaviour.

Operant conditioning: Predict patterns of reward can be used to shape differences in behaviour.
Formed basis of Token economy programme which uses positive reinforcement to shape our behaviours.
E.g encourage certain behaviours & discourage others; in a prison a token given which can be traded for a reinforce
tailored to individual inmate giving rise to difference in behaviour.
Different schedules of reinforcement produce different behaviour.

Social Learning Theory: Individual differences in behaviour as individuals exposed to different role models, modelling
different behaviours.
Different experiences of each individual explains differences in behaviour.
For modelling to be effective role model must be powerful and relevant in the eyes of the observer so not all models
will have the same effect on different observers.
Vicarious reinforcement would also play a role in the behaviours that are learnt.

Individual differences in how we learn:

Behaviourists assume principles of learning are universal. E.g Pavlov found in one experiment that the same
experiment done on different dogs produced opposite effects. Concluded classical conditioning was sensitive to
individual differences.

Operant conditioning sensitive to individual differences as Vaughan found operant condition was effective technique
for learning as experiment groups were significantly different to control group in urination following system of
rewards. found that there were individual differences between the cows, with some leaning more quickly than
others. The researchers speculated that these differences could include age, ability, temperament or motivation.

SLT : acknowledged that individual differences may have been a factor in Bobo doll studies. The children would have
had different temperaments, different prior experiences – these were possible extraneous variables that were not
measured or controlled for. Self-efficacy also plays a part in modelling. Self-efficacy refers to how an individual feels
about their capability to succeed at a task. Individual will only copy a behaviour if they believe they are capable of
doing so.

Vaughan - found that there were individual differences
between the cows, with some leaning more quickly
than others. - The researchers speculated that these
differences could include age, ability, temperament or
motivation effecting learning.
Support - study of the effectiveness of a token economy
programme to change behaviour in a young offenders
institution found that 10-20% of people did not respond
to TEP – may not be effective for everyone & need
personalisation for learning.
Reductionist – only looks at factors of individual
differences on learning, however there could be
biological factors such as brain damage which could
influence learning – more holistic ideas needed
Bandura – low validity as didn’t control possible ppt
variables such as temperaments, prior experiences
which would be EV – this could have been sample bias
on the results as wasn’t controlled meaning cannot
draw cause & effect as unable to say observational
learning cause increase aggression.

Bandura - The children would have had different Ecological V – limited social situation of child, adult with
temperaments, different prior experiences these would no intervention. Lab emphasised as stranger adult isn’t
have been Ev not controlled – showing individual usually left with child to show aggressive behaviour –
differences would have an income on his experiment. lacks mundane realism

Developmental Issues:
 Learning psychologists can explain how we develop certain types of behaviour due to patterns of reinforcement,
observation. E.g operant conditioning would explain how different patterns of reward and punishment cause
behaviour to develop – for example a child who is positively reinforced for ‘naughty’ behaviour (attention) &not
punished for it may grow up to be naughtier than a child who was conditioned differently.

SLT would predict that the behaviours that a child observes from role models will be the behaviour that the child
develops.

Developmental psychology in relation to gender:

Gender identity & role is a set of behaviours that are learned from the environment. Gives rise to individual
differences as people have different learning experiences.

SLT: Gender behaviours can be learned through observation. Children observe the people around them behaving in
ways relating to gender. They pay attention to some of these models and encode their behaviour. At a later time
they may imitate the behaviour observed. They may do this regardless of whether the behaviour is ‘gender
appropriate’ or not but there are a number of processes that make it more likely that a child will reproduce the
behaviour that its society deems appropriate for its sex.

Is more likely to imitate those people it perceives as similar to itself. More likely to imitate behaviour modelled by
people the same sex. Children observe their parents as role models & engage with the same sex parent when
performing stereotypical activities.
Even if parents do not engage in stereotypical roles, children still exposed to media portraying men and women.
There are also others such as grandparents, teachers and peers who may display & encourage gender appropriate
behaviour.

People around the child will respond to the behaviour it imitates with either reinforcement or punishment. Likely
child will be reinforced for acting in gender appropriate ways and punished or ignored for gender inappropriate
behaviour.

child will observe consequences of other people’s behaviour and will be motivated to imitate the behaviour it has
seen reinforced and avoid imitating the behaviour it has seen punished (vicarious reinforcement and punishment).
Boys rewarded by attention rather than direct reward, for male behaviour in society; girls are rewarded for female
behaviour. Children may be punished for inappropriate gender specific behaviour.

Operant Conditioning: States that we are rewarded for playing with gender appropriate toys or acting in gender
appropriate ways. Or we are punished for acting in ways or playing with toys not appropriate to our gender. We can
also encourage gender appropriate behaviour by shaping, rewarding behaviour until it’s in its final desired outcome.

Fagot: She observed children around 2 playing at home with parents recording reinforcements (praise) &
punishment (told off). Boys reinforced for playing with gender appropriate toys & punished for playing with dolls
while girls reinforced for playing with dolls & punished for rough & tumble play. Supports individual differences arise
from gender role behaviour in child’s environment.
Fagot: found boys & girls reinforced for gender appropriate & Reductionist – only looks at learning effects on
punished for gender inappropriate behaviour – supports ID arise gender development but ignores the role of
from how gender roles learnt from child’s environment. biology on gender effects such as hormones or
genes – not holistic view.
Langlois & Downs (1980) found that the punishment is more
pronounced when boys display feminine behaviour in the view of Alternative Theory – Freud – states we go
their father. – showing punished for gender inappropriate through Oedipus & electra complex where we
behaviour. gain our gender role identity from castration fear
or penis envy – ignores the role of
Sears et al (1957) found that parents intervene more frequently psychodynamic theories.
when girls are aggressive than when boys are aggressive. –
reinforcing gender appropriate behaviour