An example of this is Bandura's bobo doll study of aggression with children. This theory is also useful when treating phobias. But as everything this theory also has disadvantages for example, the fact that it focuses too much on the 'nurture' side of the nature/nurture debate. It suggests that all behaviour is learned but cognitive and biological elements have been proved to affect behaviour an example of this is the assumption that people learn behaviour by observing others getting rewarded for certain actions. It’s also difficult to use this theory with adults, as it is more difficult to manipulate them with punishments and rewards unlike
Skinner – Operant Conditioning Operant conditioning is a method of learning that occurs through rewards and punishments for behavior. Through operant conditioning, an association is made between a behavior and a consequence for that behavior. Operant conditioning was coined by behaviorist Skinner, which is why you may occasionally hear it referred to as Skinnerian conditioning. As a behaviorist, Skinner believed that internal thoughts and motivations could not be used to explain behavior. Instead, he suggested, we should look only at the external, observable causes of human behavior.
What is the dependent variable? How would you define it operationally? Having Fun With Operational Definitions Adapted from teachpsychscience.org Directions: Identify and operationally define the independent and dependent variables in each of the following research ideas. Research Idea #1: A social psychologist was interested in whether people are more likely to exhibit conformity when they are in situations that make them feel nervous and unsure of themselves. What is the independent variable?
Furthermore, Suzuki effectively discusses the quality of life for the animals being tested, and the depressing and deprived realities that these helpless animals survive. Suzuki makes valid points throughout his article including his statement, “What gives us the right to exploit other living organisms as we see fit? How do we know that these other creatures do not feel pain or anguish just as we do?”(p.91). Suzuki utilizes pathos to strengthen his argument and attempts to shape the opinion of the public. Is it intelligence that determines the animal’s self-worth and right to live, or is it that animals may possess the same if not identical Neuroanatomy of humans?
Abstract This paper will attempt to explore two different viewpoints on the use of deception in human participants for social psychological experiments. The paper will compare and contrast two different articles that have conflicting views on the topic. Alan C. Elms, the author of a pro- deception article views deception as just, ethical, and even necessary tool of social psychology; however he does assert a very strong degree of caution, and care when implementing deception in an experimental design (1985). Opposite Elms, Diana Baumrind views deception as unethical and unfair to unsuspecting subjects who are unaware of such “trickery”. She debates that the harm done to the individual, society, and to the profession are at times irreversible or to great and outweigh possible benefit from the study.
This was particular the case when they saw the adult being rewarded for their aggressive behaviour, thus supporting that reward influences the likelihood of a behaviour being performed. However, the study lacks validity because the children may have been aware of what was expected of them, leading to them displaying demand characteristic when playing with the doll. The study also focuses on aggression towards a doll rather than real-life aggression, meaning the same results may not be applied in real life settings. There is also the key aspect of gender differences, as boys were more likely to be more aggressive than guys thus resulting in their violent behaviour. To an extent, it can also be argued that the experiment was unethical as the children may have
1b: Describe the social learning theory of aggression The social learning theory of aggression aims to explain how behaviour can be explained not just by our own direct experiences but through observations of the experiences of other people (learning through observation, imitation and modelling). This theory is a behaviourist approach created by Albert Bandura who aimed to explain how children imitated aggressive behaviour or acts. SLT takes into account the thought process of an individual- unlike operant and classical conditioning. Bandura argued that children imitate aggressive acts through four processes; the first of process is attention where the model is being observed rather then just present. The second being retention where the observer must remember what they have seen or learnt.
Spanking and other types of corporal punishment tend to make children rebel. In contrast to other corrective methods that will easily teach them a valuable lesson. Children don’t think prudently like adults do. However, they do have a sense of fairness which doesn’t help when punishment is being issued. For the reason that the child may realize that he or she is being mistreated and unloved when punished.
Instrumental conditioning, is when behavior is reinforced and is dependent on his or her behavior (Olson & Hergenahn, 2013). Classical conditioning, is when an unconditioned stimulus is paired with a conditioned response and visa-versa many times, which changes behavior. Instrumental and classical cognition both can change one’s behavior, but classical conditioning helps in forming a behavior that more conductive to survival, and instrumental conditioning helps in learning to avoid certain situations, events, or effects. Cognitive expectancy is an important factor in instrumental and classical
He did an experiment on two groups of children, with an adult hitting a Bobo doll. “The first group was then shown a second adult either ignoring or encouraging the aggressive behaviour, while in the other group the second adult intervened to punish the aggressive behaviour.” Tassoni. P (2007: 71). After the children had watched the adult, they were put into a room, and their responses were written down. The first group of children mirrored the aggressive behaviour on the doll, whereas the second group showed little aggressive behaviour towards it.