Learning Lab Final

Introspection (Wundt)

Consciousness → critics: not reliable

Behaviorism (Watson/Skinner/Thorndike)

Stimulus and response is sufficient (let’s ignore everything else that happens in the brain) → critics: how can you possibly know what the stimulus is that the person is responding to?

Cognitive Revolution (Miller & Chomsky)

We better go back to trying to understand consciousness → critics: but how do you know what’s in someone’s mind?

Modern Cognitive Neuroscience (Gazzaniga)

What we really want is to see it in the brain → critics: just because you can see it doesn’t mean you know it’s associated with that behavior. What we really want is real world behavior at scale and big data

Computational Social Science (Gollwitzer)

uses advanced computing—such as machine learning, network analysis, and agent-based modeling—to analyze large-scale data and simulate social phenomena

Thorndike and Watson’s lack of evidence for learning by observation

Almost no one conducted experimental investigation of observational learning for years

Until the 1930’s when Carl Warden’s research led to a resurgence of interest in this area, including the famous Bandura studies.

Carl Warden (50’s) was one of the first psychologists to experimentally demonstrate observational learning in animals

he taught one monkey (the model) how to pull a chain to get a raisin. He had another monkey observe this. The observer benefited from having seen the model monkey perform this task

Carl Warden’s Animal Intelligence paper 1951

He reviewed and compared a wide variety of animal species for problem-solving, reasoning, imitation, and other cognitive abilities

Warden brought empiricism to the question of animal intelligence

Warden found that the animals who performed best (e.g. chimpanzees and other primates) were most similar to humans in their social organization and problem-solving skills.

Observational Learning

Learning by observing events and their consequences

Two types of observational learning

social observational learning

asocial observational learning

Social Observational Learning

We learn by watching others and noticing whether they get rewarded or punished

• Observing the behavior of another individual (usually the same species) and the consequences of the model’s behavior

Vicarious reinforcement

If the consequences of the model’s behavior strengthen the observer’s tendency to behave in a similar way, it’s called vicarious reinforcement

Vicarious punishment

If the consequences of the model’s behavior weaken the observer’s tendency to behave in a similar way, it’s called vicarious punishment

Asocial observational learning

Learning from the observation of events and their consequences in the absence of a model. Note: There is no other person you are watching, but events themselves

Example of asocial observational learning

Learning from observed EVENTS: You hear thunder while you’re swimming in the lake. You get out because you know lightning usually follows thunder

Bandura - Social Learning Theory (1960’s)

Warden’s work paved the way for Bandura.

Bandura posited that people learning new behaviors by imitating others

Social learning requires:

1. Attention: it’s not just about exposure; there has to be attention

2. Retention: you have to be able to remember the behavior

3. Motor Reproduction: you have to physically be able to perform the behavior

4. Motivation: what are the rewards for doing the behavior? the punishments for not doing it?

Frederick Kanfer and Albert Marston (1963) experiment

They had college students sit in an experimental room alone and communicate

with the experimenter by way of a microphone and earphones.

○ Each time the experimenter signaled the student, they said the first word that

came to mind.

○ As the students waited for the signal, they could hear what seemed to be the

responses of other students taking their turn. (It was actually a prerecorded tape.)

The people on the tape responded with more and more human nouns—words like

boy, woman, and hero.

• Group A: heard the experimenter say, “Good,” each time a person on the tape

responded with a noun.

• Group B: heard the experimenter say nothing.

Michael Tomasello

• Leading researcher on the processes of social cognition, social learning,

cooperation, and communication from developmental, comparative, and

cultural perspectives

• Studies how and why young children develop the social and cognitive skills

that enable them to become cooperative and communicative adult humans.

And, how the presence and development of these skills differ between young

human children and great apes (e.g., chimpanzees, bonobos).

Social Learning Strategies

Imitation, Emulation, and Overimitation

Imitation

Imitation involves understanding the model’s intention and then copying

their movements/actions to achieve the same goal.

→ The learner tries to do what the model did.

Tomasello argues that imitation requires understanding the model’s intention,

not just the movement

Emulation

Emulation is learning from the results of another’s action rather than the
specific action pattern.
● The learner notices what happens in the environment. Then achieves the same outcome, possibly using different actions
● Example (Tomasello):
○ A chimp sees a tool used to retrieve food and learns that the tool can get food, but might use the tool differently than the demonstrator

Overimitation

Over-imitation involves including irrelevant acts when imitating.

● Humans do this more than non humans—even when they know the acts are

irrelevant.

● Why would anyone do this? The learner assumes the demonstrator’s actions

are intentional and meaningful—even if they know there is no obvious connection to the task.

○ They assume there may be hidden causal or social information

Overimitation - born or developed?

Overimitation emerges early during childhood and gradually increases with age

Is overimitation uniquely human

No, but animals do not over imitate as much as humans

Tomasello- Learning through others

Learning is not the same for all species.

● Social species rely on social learning more than other species.

● …BUT there are aspects of social learning that are uniquely human. This is

due, in part, to humans’ unique cognitive processes (e.g. higher order mutual/common knowledge)

● Social learning is efficient → think back to the Boyd et al article about cultural

niche hypothesis.

● Humans tend to perceive behavior in intentional terms - that is that people do

things for a reason.

3 papers with distinct takes on social learning

Tomasello: Humans learn differently from animals because humans have a

deeper sense of theory of mind.

● Fernald and Foushee both examine one kind of learning: language learning

• Fernald: Culture and socialization influence learning styles and cognitive

development.

• Foushee: Children actively learn by adapting to their environment

How does our social nature impact learning

• joint intentionality

• shared attention

Sometimes explicit learning/pedagogy → but this can lead to over-imitation; instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery

What affects observational learning

• Task Difficulty

• the Skill of the Model

• Characteristics of the Model

• Characteristics of the Observer

• The Consequences of the Observed Acts

• The Consequences of the Observer’s Behavior

Task Difficulty

Observing models will help learners with difficult tasks more than with easy
tasks

Skill of the Model

There are advantages to observing both skilled and unskilled (novice) models.
○ Watching a novice, you can see how mistakes are made; watching a skilled model, you see the correct way

Characteristics of the Model

Studies have demonstrated that human observers tend to learn more from attractive, likable, and prestigious models

• also ability to attract attention → eye patch study

Observer Characteristics

• The species of the observer (humans, apes, and dogs learn more by
  observing than many other species)

• Learning history (chimps with language training learn more by observation
  than those without such training)

• Developmental age, gender, and visual and hearing abilities

Consequences of observed acts and behaviors

If observing others pays off, we tend to spend more time doing so

Fernald and Morikawa (1993)

• The study by investigates how Japanese and American mothers communicate
  with their infants during play.

• Both American and Japanese accommodated their speech to the special
  needs of the infant in similar ways: simplifying their speech, repeating
  themselves frequently, and using interesting sounds to engage the infant's
  attention.

  • But there were some differences that were shaped by beliefs and
    practices specific to their cultures.
    ■ American mothers mothers label objects more directly, and
    frequently.
    ■ Japanese mothers use objects to foster social routines and
    politeness.

  • From the mother's speech, the infant begins to acquire not only the rules
    of a language, but also the cultural norms

Foushee & Morikawa (1993)

Background: Traditional theories emphasize child-directed speech as essential for
language learning, but many cultures rarely address infants directly.

Hypothesis: Infants can learn words not only from speech directed at them but
also by overhearing language used around them.

Procedure: Researchers tested Tseltal Maya infants—who are seldom spoken
to—using gaze-tracking to measure recognition of common nouns and honorifics
never addressed to children.

Results: Infants understood both familiar nouns and adult-only honorifics, showing
they learn from overheard speech, challenging assumptions about the necessity of
direct linguistic input

Generalization

The tendency for the effects of a learning experience to spread

Four kinds of generalization

1. Generalization across people (which we might think of as vicarious
   generalization)

2. Generalization across time (also called response maintenance), which you could consider the opposite of forgetting

3. Generalization across behaviors (known as response generalization)

• if X behavior led to a reward, maybe some other similar behavior
  will too

4. Generalization across situations (known as stimulus generalization)

Stimulus discrimination

The tendency for behaviors to occur in some situations but not in others.

• make a distinction between two similar things

Simultaneous Discrimination

Two or more stimuli are presented at the same time.

• Only one stimulus is correct (the S+), and responding to it is

reinforced.

• Responding to the other stimulus(s) (the S-) is not reinforced

Successive Discrimination

Stimuli are presented one after another, not simultaneously

• each cue appears separately, and the user learns to discriminate over time

Matching to sample

a sample stimulus is presented

the learner must then choose from a set of stimuli, and the correct choice is the one that matches from the sample stimulus

Oddity Matching (opposite of matching to sample)

A sample stimulus is presented

The learner must then choose from a set of stimuli, and the correct choice is the one that is different from the sample stimulus

Errorless Discrimination Training

Aims to prevent errors during learning by gradually introducing stimuli and responses

• ensures that the learner makes correct choices from the beginning

The Differential Outcomes Effect

The finding that discrimination training proceeds more rapidly when different behaviors produce different reinforcers

Stimulus control

The tendency for a behavior to occur in the presence of a stimulus

Social norms

Socially shared definitions of the way people should or do behave

• descriptive norms (what people do)

• prescriptive norms (what people should do)

Norms often have no value beyond their social value

Value derived from its acceptance/importance within which it operates
What we wear, how and what we eat - varies greatly

Why follow norms?

• Fear of social sanctions

• Information about effective and adaptive action

• Understanding and following norms has survival benefits

• Stablize cooperation

Three stages of learning a norm

• Pre-learning: Collecting social information.

• Reinforcement Learning: Dynamically adjusting behavior via feedback.

• Internalization: Incorporating the norm into one's personal value system

Pre-learning - Detection phase

Gather situational and social cues to form an initial "norm prediction".
○ Norm Detection: Identifying potential rules by observing others and
the environment.
○ Social Monitoring: Tracking what the "majority" does to identify
prototypical behavior.
○ Self-Monitoring: Being hyper-aware of one's own actions to avoid
early social sanctions

Reinforcement Learning (Adjustment) - Social shaping

The Learning Loop:
● Step 1: Attempting a behavior based on the initial prediction.
● Step 2: Receiving rewards (e.g., approval, smiles) or punishments (e.g.,
frowns, eye-rolls) from others.
● Step 3: Calculating the difference between the expected social outcome and
the actual result.
○ Positive Prediction Error: You expected a neutral reaction but got a warm smile.
(Result: "I should do this more often.")
○ Negative Prediction Error: You expected a laugh at a joke but got stony silence.
(Result: "This behavior is not a norm here; I must stop.")
● Step 4: Continuous updating of the internal "norm map" to match group
expectations.

Internalization

Personal/Moral Value: The norm becomes a part of the individual's moral core.

Majority Norm: Following it because it is what "everyone" does.

Default Option: The behavior becomes automatic and requires no conscious thought

Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can't
join them, beat them: effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior

This study asks whether social exclusion, including being told you will be alone in the future, affects aggressive behavior toward others.

Social exclusion is manipulated in two main ways:
(1) by telling participants, based on fake personality feedback, that they will end up
alone in life, and
(2) by telling them that other participants rejected them for a group task.
The dependent variable is aggression, measured in several ways across five
experiments: Negative job evaluations of someone who insulted them (Experiments
1–3); Blasting a person with aversive noise, even when that person was neutral
(Experiments 4–5) 22

Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media:
A field experiment in Rwanda

This study asks whether a reconciliation-themed radio soap opera can affect intergroup prejudice, perceived norms, and cooperative behavior.

Media exposure is manipulated by randomly assigning Rwandan listeners to either
a reconciliation-themed soap opera or a health-focused control program over one
year.

The dependent variables are:
Perceived social norms (e.g., about trust, intergroup marriage, dissent)
Behavioral measures (e.g., participation in discussion, cooperation activities)
Personal beliefs about ethnic group relations and trauma

The authors find that the program significantly changed perceived norms and
behavior but had little effect on private beliefs, which suggests that media
interventions may work best by shifting what people believe others think and
do—not necessarily by changing personal attitudes

Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: effects of
being ignored over the Internet

This study asks whether being ignored online (cyberostracism) affects people’s
psychological needs and conformity.
● Cyberostracism is manipulated by excluding participants from a virtual ball-toss game.
○ The dependent variables are self-reported feelings of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence (Experiment 1), and conformity behavior on a subsequent judgment task
(Experiment 2).
● Psychological responses are measured by self-report ratings on belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence, and behavioral conformity on a subsequent task.
● The authors find that participants who were ostracized felt worse on all four needs and were more likely to conform, which suggests that even brief online exclusion can threaten fundamental psychological needs and influence behavior.

Learning Styles

● Visual (learn by seeing: diagrams, charts, maps)
● Auditory (learn by hearing: lectures, discussions, podcasts)
● Kinesthetic (learn by doing: hands-on, labs, movement
● Reading/Writing (learn by reading and note-taking)

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning Styles. Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Background: There was widespread belief called the “meshing hypothesis”
based on the idea that learning is optimized when instructional methods match the learner’s preferred sensory or cognitive style.

• The researchers did not dispute that learners expressed preferences, but they did not believe this preference alone was enough to justify the claim that
  catering to those preferences would improve learning outcomes.

Implicit theories (mindsets)

beliefs about whether abilities or traits can change

two broad patterns:

• fixed (entity)

• growth (incremental)

Cargo Cults

Emerged in Melanesia in late 19th
century: Papua New Guinea, Solomon
Islands, Tanna.
● Communities in this area developed
rituals to bring material goods.
● The Rituals were triggered by
encounters with colonial and military
forces.
○ Indigenous observers saw
foreigners receiving abundant
goods (“cargo”)
○ Believed foreign rituals (marching,
flag-raising, signaling) caused the cargo to arrive

why keep doing a ritual if it doesn’t work?

Rituals reduce anxiety, create order, and foster connection.
○ Performing prayers has been shown to reduce stress.
○ Rituals forge a sense of community and identity.

Rituals- cognitive niche argument

If ritual belongs here, it is an individual problem-solving tool.
○ Humans use rituals to hack their own brains. (To be calm, focused)
○ It is a cognitive technology used to gain a sense of control over an
unpredictable environment.

Rituals- cultural niche argument

If ritual belongs here, it is a group survival adaptation.
● We don't need to understand why a ritual works to benefit from it. We just
need to copy the "prestigious" models who are surviving.
● Ritual is cumulative cultural knowledge. Like a complex recipe or a detoxifying process for a plant, the "logic" is stored in the culture, not the individual's head

How cargo cults demonstrate learning

Observational Learning

• Melanesians observed foreign soldiers’ rituals (marching, drills, signaling).

• They inferred a cause-and-effect relationship between rituals and arriving cargo.

• their new rituals were a behavioral change based on those observations.

Associative Learning

• Communities linked two experiences:

  • Soldiers performing rituals

  • Cargo arriving afterward

• Even though the connection was coincidental, the repeated pairing created a learned association

Learning as Adapta

Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most - Fernbach et al (2019)

There is widespread agreement among scientists that genetically modified
foods are safe to consume and have the potential to provide substantial
benefits to humankind.
● A poll by the Pew Research Center found that 88% of US scientists thought
GM foods were safe to eat.
● Yet, many people still harbour concerns about them or oppose their use
○ Only 37% of lay people in that same survey thought they were safe

Rethinking the knowledge-deficit problem

● Public opposition to science is often attributed to a lack of knowledge.
● But the research on this is mixed and interventions to increase knowledge
don’t always work.
→ Maybe the problem isn’t what people know, but what people think they know…

Frederic Bartlett’s discoveries relating to memory

People make systematic errors when trying to recall stories

Memory is an active process and we transform what we encounter; it’s reconstructive (using schemas)

People search for meaning in the act of recall

• they try to integrate new info such that it is consistent with personal experiences

Skinner’s approach on forgetting

Forgetting is a deterioration in learned behavior following a retention interval. Once the experiences that produce learning end, the behavior may then change

Ways to measure forgetting

● Free Recall
● Prompted Recall
● Relearning
● Recognition
● Delayed Matching to Sample
● Extinction
● Gradient Degradation

Free Recall

A method of measuring forgetting that consists of providing the opportunity to perform the learned behavior

Prompted Recall

A method of measuring forgetting in which hints (prompts) about the behavior to be performed are provided.

Relearning

A method of measuring forgetting in which a behavior is learned to some criteria before and after a retention interval

Recognition

A method of measuring forgetting in which the subject is required to identify stimuli experienced earlier.

Delayed matching to sample

A method of measuring forgetting in which the opportunity to match a sample follows a retention interval

• an animal (or person) sees a sample, experiences a delay, and then is asked to select that sample from an array of options

Extinction Method

A method of measuring forgetting by comparing the rate of extinction after a retention interval with the rate of extinction immediately after training

• First, you teach a behavior, then waiting, and then placing it on extinction (which means you stop reinforcing it). If the behavior declines faster after the delay than it would have immediately after training, this indicates that some forgetting has occurred.

Gradient Degradation

A method of measuring forgetting in which a behavior is tested for generalization before and after a retention interval. A flattening of the generalization gradient indicates forgetting

• Example: After training a pigeon to peck a specific yellow disc, it will
  mostly respond to that exact color. But after a delay, it may respond to a wider range of similar colors. This loss of precision is a sign of forgetting.

Forgetting as an active process

The brain isn’t just losing bits of information, it’s replacing some info with new info →active overwriting

Factors that Affect Forgetting

● Overlearning
● Prior Learning
● Meaningfulness of the Material
● Subsequent Learning
● Changes in Context

Overlearning

learning beyond mastery can help reduce forgetting.
● The greater the amount of overlearning on a relearning task or a fluency task, the less people forget, even over long periods of time.

Proactive interference

when previous learning interferes with recall

Meaningfulness of the material

Rate of forgetting varies with the meaningfulness of the material learned

• People recall sentences in a correct order rather than those in random order; chess experts could remember boards set up in meaningful patterns, but not those set up randomly

Retroactive Interference

Forgetting caused by learning that occurred subsequent to the behavior in question.
Instead of previous learning interfering, new learning interferes.

Changes in context

Context, stimuli present during learning that do not have direct relevance to what someone learns, affects forgetting in adults

• ex: Students who learned a list of words standing up recalled them best
  standing up (and those who learned them sitting down recalled them
  best sitting down)

Limits to learning

Our capabilities limit what it can learn.
Every animal has an umwelt, which affects how it experiences the world
and it will impact what can be learned”

• Dogs can smell things that we can’t

• Hawks can see things we can’t

Animals do not inherit learned behavior; instead behavior acquired
through learning dies with the individual.
■ Cultural tools, practices are one way to acquire “inherit” learning

Critical Periods for learning

This is an open debate:
● There is a critical (or highly sensitive) period for phonetic learning—the ability
to distinguish speech sounds—that occurs between 6 and 12 months of age.
● Infants experience a perceptual narrowing after this time.