AS Level Psychology: The Learning Approach Revision

Flashcards for reviewing the Learning approach AS Level Psychology topics, covering Bandura et al., Fagen et al., and Saavedra and Silverman.

How do psychologists from the Learning approach view human development at birth?

We all begin life as a blank slate; experiences and interactions with the environment shape our behaviour, and these changes are directly observable.

What are the main processes through which learning occurs according to the Learning approach?

Operant conditioning, classical conditioning, and social learning.

Which model is used by the Learning approach to help understand conditioning and social learning processes?

The stimulus-response model.

What is observational learning according to Social Learning Theory in Bandura et al.?

New behaviours are learned by watching the behaviour of others.

In Social Learning Theory, what is a 'model' and what is 'modelling'?

The person whose behaviour is observed is called the model, and the imitation of their behaviour is called modelling.

What impact does reinforcement (including vicarious reinforcement) have on learned behaviours?

It increases the likelihood of learned behaviours being imitated.

What are the four stages of observational learning outlined in Bandura et al.?

Attention, retention, motivation, and reproduction.

How is aggression defined in the context of Bandura et al.'s study?

An act of hostility with the intention of harming another, which can be physical or verbal.

What did previous research show about children's imitation of aggressive acts before Bandura's study?

Previous research showed that children imitate observed behaviour when models are present.

What specific question did Bandura want to investigate regarding aggressive acts in his background research?

Whether children would imitate observed aggressive acts in new settings when models were absent.

Why did Bandura suggest children might be more likely to imitate same-sex models?

Because parents tend to reinforce children's 'sex-appropriate' behaviour (Fauls and Smith, 1956).

What was Bandura et al.'s aim regarding aggressive versus non-aggressive models?

To discover whether children observing an aggressive model exhibit more aggressive acts than children observing a non-aggressive model.

What was Bandura et al.'s aim regarding non-aggressive models versus no models?

To discover whether children observing a non-aggressive model exhibit fewer aggressive acts than children who do not observe a model.

What was Bandura et al.'s aim regarding same-sex versus opposite-sex models?

To discover whether children who observe same-sex aggressive models exhibit more aggressive acts than children who observe opposite-sex aggressive models.

What was Bandura et al.'s aim regarding gender differences in aggression?

To discover whether boys exhibit more aggressive acts than girls.

What research method and experimental design were used in the study by Bandura et al.?

A laboratory experiment with a matched design.

How was each child's aggression level rated prior to group allocation in Bandura et al.?

Each child was observed by the experimenter and a nursery teacher, and their aggression level was rated using four five-point scales.

How were matched triplets of children allocated to experimental and control groups in Bandura et al.?

Children were put into groups of three with similar aggression levels, and then randomly allocated to either the control group, aggressive model group, or non-aggressive model group.

What type of observation was used to collect data in Bandura et al.?

Covert, non-participant, structured, controlled observation through a one-way mirror using behavioural categories.

How was time sampling structured during the observation session in Bandura et al.?

A 20-minute session was divided into 5-second intervals, providing 240 response 'units' per child.

What were the three independent variables in Bandura et al.'s study?

1. Model condition (control group/no model, aggressive model, non-aggressive model). 2. Sex of model (same or opposite to the child). 3. Sex of children (male or female).

What was the dependent variable measured in Bandura et al.'s study?

The number of behaviours (out of 240 maximum) in each response category.

What were the three main response categories recorded for aggression in Bandura et al.?

Imitative aggression responses, partially imitative responses, and non-imitative aggressive responses.

Describe the sample size and age demographic in Bandura et al.'s study.

72 children (36 boys and 36 girls), aged 3–6 years old (mean age: 4 years, 4 months).

Where were the participants recruited from in Bandura et al.'s study?

Stanford University nursery school.

What occurred during Phase 1 (Modelling) of Bandura et al.'s procedure?

The child played with potato prints and stickers while the adult played with a tinker toy set and a five-foot inflatable Bobo doll in a room for 10 minutes.

What specific aggressive actions were shown by the aggressive model in Phase 1 of Bandura et al.?

Physical: hit Bobo with a mallet, sat on Bobo and punched his nose, threw and kicked Bobo; Verbal: 'sock it in the nose' and 'kick him'.

Describe the procedure used during Phase 2 (Mild aggression arousal) in Bandura et al.

The child was taken to a room with attractive toys (fire engine, doll set, spinning top) for two minutes before being told the toys were reserved for other children.

What was the purpose of Phase 2 in Bandura et al.'s procedure?

To mildly arouse aggression in all children before testing for delayed imitation.

Describe the room setup and toys present in Phase 3 (Test for delayed imitation) of Bandura et al.

The room contained aggressive toys (e.g. mallet), non-aggressive toys (e.g. tea set), and a three-foot child-size Bobo doll.

How long was the child observed alone during Phase 3 in Bandura et al.?

20 minutes.

State two standardisation controls used in Bandura et al.'s procedure.

1. Toys in rooms one and three were placed in the same positions. 2. The model's actions were always identical, in the same order, and for the same length of time.

How was inter-rater reliability assessed in Bandura et al. and what was the result?

Observations were made by two independent observers whose data were compared, yielding correlation scores in the 0.9 range.

How was psychological harm an ethical issue in Bandura et al.'s study?

Children witnessed aggressive behaviour and were mildly provoked, with the expected outcome being that they would imitate aggression.

How was confidentiality handled in Bandura et al.'s study?

Children were not named in the article, but the nursery school they attended was named.

What did Bandura et al. find regarding children exposed to aggressive models compared to non-aggressive models?

Children in the aggressive model condition showed significantly more imitation of physical and verbal aggression than children in non-aggressive model or no model conditions.

What same-sex effect was found among boys and girls in Bandura et al.?

There was evidence of a same-sex effect for boys (who imitated male models more than female models), but not for girls.

How did male models influence behaviour compared to female models across all children in Bandura et al.?

Male models had a greater influence on behaviour than female models in both boys and girls.

Which gender exhibited more physical aggression overall in Bandura et al.?

Boys imitated more physical aggression than girls.

What main conclusion was drawn by Bandura et al. regarding observing aggressive models?

Observing aggressive models can lead to imitative aggression in another setting and in the absence of the model.

What strength regarding reliability is noted for Bandura et al.'s study?

Two independent observers recorded the children's behaviour and their scores were highly correlated, showing high inter-observer reliability.

Why might the sample in Bandura et al. lack generalisability?

Children were from the nursery of a prestigious university, so the sample may not be representative of children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

What two practical applications for society are suggested by Bandura et al.'s findings?

1. Exposing children to friendly and prosocial role models in parenting and education. 2. TV networks censoring content or providing warnings to prevent children viewing aggressive programs.

How is operant conditioning defined in the context of Fagen et al.?

A learning process where behaviours are reinforced (become more likely) when rewarded and become less likely when punished.

What is 'shaping' in operant conditioning according to Fagen et al.?

Gradually modifying behaviour through a series of stages until the animal consistently reproduces the desired behaviour by rewarding behaviours increasingly similar to the target.

What is 'behavioural chaining' in operant conditioning according to Fagen et al.?

Training animals to perform a sequence of behaviours using reinforcement, where each behaviour is learned through shaping and then chained together.

Define positive reinforcement and give the elephant example from Fagen et al.

Target behaviour is followed by something desirable (a reinforcer/reward); e.g., an elephant is given chopped banana for raising its trunk.

Define negative reinforcement and give the elephant example from Fagen et al.

Removal of an aversive/negative stimulus as a reward following target behaviour; e.g., an elephant is prodded with a stick until it raises its trunk.

Define punishment and give the elephant example from Fagen et al.

Undesirable behaviours are followed by an unpleasant/aversive stimulus; e.g., prodding an elephant with a stick when it puts its trunk in any position other than raised.

Define primary reinforcement and give the elephant example from Fagen et al.

Using a reinforcer that meets a biological need; e.g., giving chopped banana after an elephant raises its trunk.

Define secondary reinforcement and give the elephant example from Fagen et al.

Using a reinforcer that does not meet a biological need but is associated with a primary reinforcer; e.g., blowing a whistle associated with banana after classical conditioning.

Why did Fagen et al. seek an alternative to traditional mahout training methods?

Traditional methods rely on punishment and negative reinforcement, raising concerns about animal welfare and keeper safety.

What specific medical test required the elephants to undergo trunk wash training in Fagen et al.?

Testing the elephants for tuberculosis.

What was the main aim of the study by Fagen et al.?

To investigate whether secondary positive reinforcement could be used to train elephants to voluntarily complete a trunk wash.

What research method was used in Fagen et al.?

Structured, non-participant observation.

List the five trunk-wash behaviours recorded on the behavioural checklist in Fagen et al.

1. Trunk here. 2. Trunk up. 3. Trunk down. 4. Blow into the bucket. 5. Hold steady.

How was success defined for testing sessions in Fagen et al.?

Achieving an 80 per cent success rate, meaning correct behaviour was shown eight out of ten times.

Describe the sample of elephants used in Fagen et al.

5 female elephants housed at the same stable in Nepal: 4 juveniles aged 5–7 years (born at stable) and 1 adult in her 50s.

Why were these specific five elephants chosen for Fagen et al.'s study?

They were docile (easy to handle), not pregnant, and their handlers were available and willing.

How long did training sessions last in Fagen et al.?

2.5 to 3 hours.

Define 'capturing' and 'luring' as used in training the elephants in Fagen et al.

Capturing: banana given following naturally occurring desired behaviours; Luring: positioning banana to encourage desired behaviours.

How were verbal cues used during elephant training in Fagen et al.?

One-syllable verbal cues were used to prompt the elephants to show the five trunk-wash behaviours.

How were elephants desensitised to the syringe in Fagen et al.?

Trainers gradually brought the syringe closer to the trunk, rewarding the elephant with banana each time she allowed it nearer.

What was counter conditioning in the context of Fagen et al.'s study?

Conditioning the elephant to associate the syringe (an aversive stimulus) with banana.

Name two controls used to ensure procedure standardisation in Fagen et al.

1. Using the same behavioural checklist with detailed operational descriptions. 2. Standardised training using same verbal cues in the stalls.

What ethical measure reduced distress for the elephants and risk for trainers in Fagen et al.?

Elephants, although chained, were free to walk away if they did not want to participate.

How was quantitative data collected during observation sessions in Fagen et al.?

By recording minutes of training, number of verbal cues made, and pass/fail success rates for each behaviour and sequence.

How many sessions and total minutes did juvenile elephants take to learn the full trunk wash in Fagen et al.?

25–35 sessions, averaging 12 minutes per session (total training time: 367 minutes).

Why did the adult female elephant fail to learn the full sequence in Fagen et al.?

She failed to meet success criteria for blowing and hold steady, and was never fully desensitised to the syringe.

How much did the overall success rate for behaviors improve after 35 sessions in Fagen et al.?

Success rate for accurate individual behaviours/sequences increased from 39 to 89 per cent.

Which behaviour was the most difficult to learn, and which was the easiest in Fagen et al.?

Most difficult: trunk here / trunk in hand (295 offers); Easiest: blow into bucket (54 offers).

What was the main conclusion of Fagen et al.?

Secondary positive reinforcement is effective for training juvenile elephants to voluntarily and reliably participate in a trunk wash.

Why was Fagen et al.'s study considered high in validity regarding trainer communication?

Mahouts did not speak or signal to the elephants, meaning behavioural changes were due to secondary positive reinforcement and not additional communication.

Why was observer subjectivity a potential weakness in Fagen et al.?

Only one observer made decisions about whether elephants passed or failed, which may have introduced bias if they wanted the elephants to succeed.

How can Fagen et al.'s findings benefit society and animal welfare in everyday life?

Provides a safe method to test elephants for tuberculosis to reduce transmission to humans, and allows training for other veterinary procedures (e.g. blood samples, X-rays).

How does evaluative learning differ from classical expectancy learning in Saavedra and Silverman?

Expectancy learning involves anticipating a negative or threatening event, whereas evaluative learning produces a strong emotional response (e.g. disgust) without expectation of a specific event.

Give the example of evaluative learning provided in the text of Saavedra and Silverman.

A woman picks a flower (neutral stimulus), is disgusted by a slimy worm (unconditioned stimulus), and subsequently feels sick (conditioned response) at the sight of similar flowers.

How was operant conditioning incorporated into the boy's treatment in Saavedra and Silverman?

The boy received praise (positive reinforcement) from his mother for touching buttons (the desired target behaviour).

What diagnostic manual and interview schedule were used in Saavedra and Silverman?

DSM-5 and the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV–Child and Parent (ADIS-C/P).

What prior research finding regarding disgust informed Saavedra and Silverman's study?

Targeting disgust helps treat adults with blood-injury phobias, and as fear decreases, so does disgust in spider-phobic children.

What were the two main aims of Saavedra and Silverman's study?

1. To identify the cause of the boy's phobia. 2. To test cognitive-behavioural therapy, including imagery exposure, as a treatment for a disgust-based phobia of buttons.

What research method and design were used by Saavedra and Silverman?

A case study with a longitudinal design.

Describe the participant sample in Saavedra and Silverman's study.

A nine-year-old Hispanic-American boy referred to a clinic in Florida, USA due to a phobia of buttons (with no other disorders).

What measurement tool was represented by this scale in Saavedra and Silverman's study, and how was it used?

A psychometric rating scale called a 'feelings thermometer' (0–8 point scale) used to assess symptom severity and obtain quantitative data on subjective distress/disgust.

What specific event triggered the boy's button phobia at age five?

He tipped a bowl of buttons onto himself at kindergarten in front of his class while at the teacher's desk.

How did the button phobia affect the boy's daily life?

He was unable to touch/handle buttons (including dressing/undressing), had poor concentration at school due to uniform buttons, and avoided buttoned clothes and people wearing buttons.

How was the disgust/fear hierarchy created during therapy in Saavedra and Silverman?

The boy ranked 11 button-related stimuli from least to most distressing using a feelings thermometer (0–8 point scale).

Describe the behavioral exposure procedure during sessions 1–4 in Saavedra and Silverman.

Four 50-minute exposure sessions (20 minutes with mother) where the boy was gradually exposed to ranked stimuli and positively reinforced (praised) for tolerating/touching buttons.

Describe the procedure used during the seven imagery exposure sessions in Saavedra and Silverman.

The boy imagined and described the look, smell, and feel of buttons combined with cognitive restructuring by the therapist.

At what post-treatment timepoints were follow-up assessments conducted in Saavedra and Silverman?

At 6 months and 12 months after treatment.

How was ethical consent handled for the participant in Saavedra and Silverman?

Informed consent was obtained from both the mother and child, helping to protect them from psychological harm.

What aspect of Saavedra and Silverman's study compromised the boy's anonymity?

Personal details relating to the acquisition of the phobia were included in the report.

What sampling technique was used to select the boy in Saavedra and Silverman?

Opportunity sampling, as he was referred to the clinic due to his unusual phobia.

What was the unexpected outcome on distress ratings during the first four exposure sessions in Saavedra and Silverman?

Feelings thermometer distress ratings increased, and some hierarchy situations received higher distress ratings after four sessions than before.

How did distress ratings change following imagery exposure for 'buttons falling all over his body' and 'hugging his mother with a shirt full of buttons'?

Buttons falling all over his body went down from 8 to 5 to 3; hugging his mother with a shirt full of buttons went down from 7 to 4 to 3.

What were the results at the 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments in Saavedra and Silverman?

Phobia criteria were no longer met on the ADIS-C/P, buttons no longer triggered distress, and school uniform with small clear plastic buttons was worn daily without issue.

What did Saavedra and Silverman conclude about treating childhood disgust-based phobias?

Childhood disgust-based phobias can be explained using evaluative learning and may require imagery exposure and cognitive restructuring as well as exposure therapy.

How did data triangulation increase the validity of Saavedra and Silverman's study?

Combining qualitative data (semi-structured interviews, observation notes) and quantitative data (feelings thermometer) increased credibility.

Why does Saavedra and Silverman's study have low reliability?

Therapy sessions were patient-focused and individualized, meaning they cannot be replicated exactly.

How does Saavedra and Silverman's study relate to the nature versus nurture debate?

Nurture is supported as learning experiences in therapy changed behaviour, while Nature is supported because disgust has evolutionary survival value to avoid germ-ridden stimuli.