Picture this. It is 1961 and you are walking down the halls of a university and you are in the building where psychologist Albert Bandura is conducting an experiment. You see an adult whacking aggressively at a big doll and then you see a child doing the same exact set of actions, maybe even being more aggressive such as using a hammer. Can, you imagine the picture? This experiment is called the Bobo Doll experiment.
So what is the Bobo Doll experiment? The experiment shows the effects of observational learning learned by children coming from the adult's actions. The experiment starts with the and adults showing the child who is in the same room hitting, stabbing, and yelling at the doll name Bobo. The psychologist records in the scene such as the face of the child and their reactions to the adult. Since this is 1961, these scientists had the authority of using young children ages five through seven for experiments which unfortunately, it could cause fear of Bobo dolls now. Anyway, the child is alone and they are given a bunch of toys. Once the toys are taken, away and is left which the Bobo doll, it is seen that the child is doing the same set of action of what the adult has done to the same doll: hitting, screaming, and even slashing with an object like a hammer. As a resulting experiment, Bandura does not use the Bobo doll, but rather bring in a television and show them a clip of a child hitting the doll and a clip of fantasy fighting such as in movies. Consequently, these children are more prone to violence and to get into a fight. According to Crash Course in Psychology, this shows the effects of observational learning or mirror learning which is partnered with conditioning and association, and rewards with punishments. During this time, psychologist Albert Bandura testified this theory of how important parents are to children in their development of learning because they are the models of how children should act. In psychology terms, models are the process of observing and imitating a specific behavior. However, since we are in the age of technology, many media (like YouTube or Snapchat) and technology like what we see in the news or movies can influence our observational learning and how we behave.
0 Comments
This episode in the show The Big Bang Theory introduces the topic of operant conditioning. Here is the link to the video: http://youtu.be/JA96Fba-WHk
Sheldon shows positive reinforcement by giving the Penny a chocolate every time she displays a good behavior. He chooses a continuous reinforcement schedule to condition Penny’s behavior. He believes by doing this, it will increase those behaviors. Giving chocolate is a perfect example of positive reinforcement, and this explained the concept in the right way. However, the concept of negative reinforcement was not displayed in the correct way. Negative reinforcement is when a behavior is strengthened by stopping, removing or avoiding a negative outcome or aversive stimulus. However, Sheldon is stating that being electrocuted is a negative reinforcement when it is actually not. Negative means removing, and giving a electric shock is actually a positive punishment and not a negative reinforcement. This episode is trying to show examples of positive and negative reinforcement. Although it gives a perfect example of positive reinforcement, it fails to represent a negative reinforcement. ![]() Watch this cool video, then read the post below! This video will change your view of chimps forever. https://youtu.be/yrPb41hzYdw An experiment similar to the one demonstrated in this video was executed by Wolfgang Khöhler, in 1925. He presented each chimp with the same problem: some food that was too high to reach. First, the chimps attempted to reach the food through trial and error, but to no avail. Then, after contemplating the problem for a while, each chimp would have a sudden flash of insight, then use a chair, a stick, or another object to obtain the food. This type of learning is called insight; it is not determined by conditioning, rather, it is a sudden understanding of a solution to the problem. Just think about it: a book that will not fit inside a box is intuitively turned on its side to fit. An paper lands out of reach under a car can be recovered by blowing in its direction so it floats out the other side. When have you solved a problem through insight? Have you seen a police dog before? Do you see most of them catching a burglar or sniffing out the culprit during a investigation? Many of these dogs are trained by police dog trainers as young as eight to ten weeks old. In order for these dogs to be successful in the police force, many of them are trained with positive reinforcement.
Positive reinforcement is "a stimulus presented after a response that increases the probability of that response happening again." This can work with humans with the example of receiving a good grade on a test or a quiz. Since most dogs are food driven, such as German Shepherds, dog trainers rewards them with a quick treat or immediate affection once a certain actions is made. Some other techniques, according to Positive Police Dogs, that trainers use verbal cues to help support a negative punishment or to stop a stimulus from happening. This verbal cue means that to the dog "what you are doing or what you are about to do isn't going to be rewarding." Dog trainers from the police force should never use violence such as hitting, slapping, or screaming because it can harm the relationship with the dog and the trainer emotionally and physically. According to Sound off Signal, the training for dogs in order to serve in the police force is a four twelve week-long program that is assigned to a specific officer. One type of training some of the dogs do is sniffing out certain smells such as drugs like heroin. Based on the training, the young German Shepherd find fours different smells: birch oil, food, a tennis ball, and the heroin. Once the dogs discovers the drug in every trial, the trainers sends a positive reinforcement through a treat for doing a good job. This can be helpful in life because during an investigation, the dog can sniff out the right smell clearly. Overall, many dogs trained for the police force use positive reinforcement. Not only these dogs are used for police dogs, but they are still a man's best friend. Can this be applied to your dog? ![]() Many people spend hours upon hours playing video games, but what causes such fervent dedication? Video games employ various means to keep their players coming back; today, we will focus on the tactic of operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is associating an effect with a certain behavior in order to encourage or discourage said behavior. Operant conditioning can shape behaviors in four ways: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment and negative punishment. While reinforcement encourages one behavior, punishment discourages it. Positive means to give or apply something to encourage or discourage a certain behavior, while negative means to take something away to encourage or discourage a certain behavior. For example, positive punishment would be to inflict injuries on a gamer’s avatar if the avatar does not fight against an opponent, while negative reinforcement would be to take away a responsibility of the gamer for a period of time in congratulations for completing another task. Each of these is used in video games to encourage players to keep playing. One common example of positive reinforcement games use is rewarding gamers with coins, points or badges after a job well done. A player will be rewarded for short term goals, satisfying instant gratification, but when a player is offered a bigger or rare prize for more work, the player is encouraged to spend more time to earn it. The more effort put in, the more that is earned. Additionally, the gamer is encouraged to constantly play because of the element of unpredictability, where the game will reward you randomly. Just like a casino game, this means that a gamer must play as much as they can, because they never know when they will be rewarded and do not want to miss an opportunity to earn more. While these electronic points and medals don’t have any tangible reward, they are valued for their symbolism of mastery. How many points a player earns shows how accomplished they are at a game, how many hours of dedicated work they give to the game, making each reward more meaningful. But points can be just as easily lost as earned. Games also use negative punishment; if one does not open the game for too long, or stops playing altogether, the player begins to fall behind in the game as others move ahead. In essence, the player “loses” more opportunities to grow and earn in the world of the video game. If a player does not complete a task, they could potentially even lose what they have earned, discouraging the player from potentially failing at a later task. And how does a player not fail? That’s right; by playing more. Video games give insight to what people value, and how that knowledge can be used to train people through operant conditioning to follow certain behaviors. . .Now please excuse me, I need to get back to Temple Run. http://yukaichou.com/gamification-study/behavior-principles-and-good-game-design/ http://scienceofconsequences.blogspot.com/2013/10/video-games-schedules-of-reinforcement.html https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/mccal006/video-games-and-operant-conditioning Pictures: https://psychlopedia.wikispaces.com/operant+conditioning http://vidgenx.com/portfolio/video-gamer/ ![]() Punishment refers to any event that weakens or reduces the likelihood of a behavior. There are two categories of punishment: positive and negative punishment. Positive punishment weakens a response by presenting something unpleasant after the response. An example of this type of punishment would be giving a child extra chores after they misbehave. Transversely, negative punishment weakens a response by reducing or removing something pleasant. An example of this would be taking away a child’s toy. Both of these methods of punishment will decrease the likelihood that a child will repeat these behaviors; however, there is does not seem to be one style of discipline that is clearly more effective or at least more frequently utilized. To find out the opinions of the local community, six high school students were asked, “what do you think is the most appropriate method of discipline and why?” Out of the six interviewed students, three of them three of them answered with some form of negative punishment. Their responses varied from taking away children’s toys to taking away cell phones and other privileges as a form of punishment for older children. Student A explains, “I think taking away toys is the most effective method of discipline because . . . they'll be more likely to follow directions the next time because they'll remember that you took away something they cared about. When I was younger I wasn't really disciplined, which is probably why I’m like this.” Student A’s response brings up an important point. The selection of high school students as the interviewees was in fact purposeful. This age group was selected because they are entering young adulthood, but can recall the various methods of discipline they experienced or currently experience. Thus, they can attest to which methods they believed are effective and appropriate by considering their own past. Two out of the six students believed that time outs, a method of positive punishment, was the most appropriate. Student B elaborates on the time out method, saying that “time outs are the most effective because it is time to think about what they’ve done, and it gives them time to cool off. And then afterwards asked them what they learned, and if they have no answer send them back. I mean thats what my parents did to me.” The final student did answer with a method of either positive of negative punishment. Instead, they actually answered with the second of operant conditioning forms: reinforcement. Student C believes that “being rewarded for good behaviors is the most effective.” This is classified as positive reinforcement, and is defined as strengthening a response by presenting something pleasant after the response. Even from these small, informal interviews, no clear conclusion can be drawn. Both methods are widely utilized and both seek to yield the same response. Just as in all other parts of parenting, it seems there is no easy answer. So, to all you parents out there, good of luck! ![]() From a young age, we are taught right from wrong. However, the different methods of discipline vary from different parents. There are two types of conditioning: reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcement works by increasing a behavior while punishment weakens or reduces it. These forms of discipline can either be positive and negative, referring to whether something was presented or removed. Positive reinforcement strengthens a response by presenting something pleasant after the response, like praising a child for good grades, and negative reinforcement strengthens a response by reducing or removing something unpleasant, like taking painkillers to alleviate a headache. Both situations reinforce this behavior to happen again in the future. Conversely, positive punishment weakens a response by presenting something unpleasant after the response, like grounding a child after having a bad attitude, and negative punishment weakens a response by reducing or removing something pleasant, like taking away phone privileges after getting poor grades. I believe positive reinforcement works better than any type of punishment because it makes a person feel better. In order to prove this theory, I asked students at school what method of discipline they find most appropriate and effective. Some agreed that positive reinforcement is the way to go, specifically verbal praise or physical rewards. However, contrary to my belief, the majority of students interviewed felt that negative punishment is most effective. Taking away phone privileges was a common theme mentioned by those that thought reducing a pleasant stimulus was the more compelling method of discipline. Similarly, students felt the next best form of discipline is positive punishment. All who mentioned this type of conditioning said that timeouts would work best for children. While a good amount of interviewees believe presenting an unpleasant stimulus is a good way to weaken a certain behavior in children, all agreed that violence is never the answer. One student suggested that inflicting violent actions might result in aggression and rebelliousness as children grow older. Overall, from the collected data, I found that punishment may be the more effective method of discipline. Whether it is adding an unpleasant stimulus or removing a pleasant stimulus, it can be seen that punishment has a greater effect than reinforcement. Although, the collected data cannot accurately represent the true most effective method of discipline because only teenage girls were interviewed. Research actually shows that reinforcement is more effective. Nonetheless, it still goes to show the impactful effect of punishment in their lives. While every parent is entitled to their own ways of raising their children, the repercussions should be considered. Again, different methods of discipline vary from parent to parent and what is meant to be a punishment to one child might come across as a reinforcement to another. Take, for example, the class clown who gets in trouble. While the teacher will call him out and punish him for being disruptive, he is actually given reinforcement in getting the attention he sought out all along. What then is the best way to discipline a child? https://quizlet.com/_3z0ded
Have a test? Click on this link to see a review of the Cerebral Cortex ![]() How do children develop in their relationship with their caregivers? Psychologist John Bowlby believed that the relationship of a child to their caretaker resulted in all or nothing: either a relationship or no relationship. However, psychologist Mary Ainsworth disproved Bowlby’s theory that attachment is an all or nothing process in her famous and intriguing experiment titled, The Strange Situation. In 1969, she developed a test called the Strange Situation Classification (SSC), designed to root out the differences in attachments various babies have with their mothers. The experiment goes like this: A toddler and it’s mother are placed in a homely room with lots of toys, while the researchers watch through a one way glass taking notes about the child’s behavior every 15 seconds. While the setting is nice and comforting, it is different then what the child is used to, so theoretically, the child should act more attached to their mother in this unfamiliar area.
According to how the child reacted, Ainsworth separated the children into three groups: Secure Attachment, Ambivalent Attachment and Avoidant Attachment. When a child demonstrates Secure Attachment, the child is distressed when the mother leaves and comforted when the mother returns to comfort the child. The child usually ignores the stranger when alone, but with his or her mother, is more likely to interact with the stranger because they use their mother as a safe base to explore their environment. In Ambivalent Attachment, the child exhibits intense distress when the mother leaves, is completely mistrustful of the stranger yet is not easily comforted by the mother in return. The child may even push his or her mother away. The child who displays Ambivelant Attachment cries more and explores less because they cannot depend on a reliable base to explore. Lastly, the child who shows Avoidant Attachment usually is not interested in his or her mother, and plays normally whether the child is with his or her mother, the stranger, or completely alone. The child shows litter preference for the mother or the stranger. Ainsworth’s results give interesting insight to how parenting styles can affect the relationship between the child and caregiver, even affect the child’s personality. https://www.simplypsychology.org/mary-ainsworth.html ![]() Do you think you could live without your sight? Daniel Kish, who has been blind since infancy, explains how he uses echolocation to hike in the mountains, cook and ride his bike. By using clicking sounds similar to bats and dolphins, Kish has tuned his ear and brain to detect variations in the sounds that bounce back at him. For example, if Kish holds a flat glass one arm-length from his face, the echo of the click sound he makes will sound lower when it bounces back to him, than if the glass had been half that distance. For a demonstration, click here. According to smithsonian.com, echolocation provides “flashes” of the surrounding area. One might compare the experience to turning on and off a flashlight. Kish explains that echolocation can help those who are blind in navigating their world. Though echolocation cannot completely replace sight, it allows for the brain to register what is around it, and react accordingly. For example, Kish explains that when he clicks at a bush the sound waves that bounce back can be interpreted in his mind as fuzzy, thin, wispy or soft. Echolocation is not a super-human trait; in contrast, through years of experimentation and practice, anyone can train their brain to recognize distances, depth, shape, even surface textures through the powers of echolocation. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a05kgcI9D2Q https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A8lztr1tu4o&feature=youtu.be https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-does-human-echolocation-work-180965063/ Picture from: http://discovermagazine.com/2015/july-aug/27-sonic-vision |
AuthorHello. Welcome to all things psychology. Enjoy! Archives
December 2017
Categories
All
|