Learning approach
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- —
- Level
- AS
Learning objectives
—Learning approach - main assumptions• Main assumptions of the learning approach- We all begin life as a blank slate. Experiences and interactions with the environment shape our behaviour and these changes are directly observable.- We learn through the processes of operant conditioning, classical conditioning and social learning. This can be understood using the stimulus-response model.—Bandura et al. (aggression)• Bandura et al. (aggression)- Bandura, A, Ross, D and Ross, S A (1961), Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3): 575-82- The study by Bandura et al. tested social learning theory. The study investigated whether a child would imitate aggressive behaviour if they witnessed such behaviour in an adult. The study was an experiment comparing several variables using observation as a technique to collect data.- The psychology being investigated includes: social learning theory; aggression.- For this study, candidates should understand the background, aims, procedure and methodology as appropriate (research method, sample and demographics, sampling technique, experimental design, controls, question types, data-collection technique, and measured and manipulated variables), ethical issues, quantitative and qualitative results and their representation and interpretation, conclusions, and strengths and weaknesses; describe and evaluate the methodology; and relate the study to psychological issues and debates.—Fagen et al. (elephant learning)• Fagen et al. (elephant learning)- Fagen, A, Acharya, N and Kaufman, G E (2014), Positive Reinforcement Training for a Trunk Wash in Nepal's Working Elephants: Demonstrating Alternatives to Traditional Elephant Training Techniques. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 17(2): 83-97- The study by Fagen et al. investigated the use of positive reinforcement training for trunk washing in a group of working elephants to improve captive management and welfare. Secondary reinforcement training was used to train the elephants to perform specific behaviours. The research method was an observation with success measured using a behavioural checklist.- The psychology being investigated includes: operant conditioning; reinforcement (positive, negative, primary and secondary); shaping; behavioural chaining.- For this study, candidates should understand the background, aims, procedure and methodology as appropriate (research method, sample and demographics, sampling technique, experimental design, controls, question types, data-collection technique, and measured and manipulated variables), ethical issues, quantitative and qualitative results and their representation and interpretation, conclusions, and strengths and weaknesses; describe and evaluate the methodology; and relate the study to psychological issues and debates.—Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia)• Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia)- Saavedra, L M and Silverman, W K (2002), Case study: disgust and a specific phobia of buttons. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(11): 1376-79 Saavedra and Silverman studied a child with button phobia. They investigated how classical conditioning can be used to treat a child's phobia by targeting disgust and fear responses. The case study research method was used with interviews, various scales and observations as techniques.- The psychology being investigated includes: evaluative learning; operant conditioning; classical conditioning; phobias.- For this study, candidates should understand the background, aims, procedure and methodology as appropriate (research method, sample and demographics, sampling technique, experimental design, controls, question types, data-collection technique, and measured and manipulated variables), ethical issues, quantitative and qualitative results and their representation and interpretation, conclusions, and strengths and weaknesses; describe and evaluate the methodology; and relate the study to psychological issues and debates.
The learning approach explains observable change through association, consequence and modelling
Two linked assumptions organise the approach: experience and environmental interaction shape directly observable behaviour from an initially blank slate; learning occurs through classical conditioning, operant conditioning and social learning, often represented as a stimulus-response relation.
| Mechanism | What changes behaviour? | Diagnostic example | Do not confuse it with |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classical conditioning | Association between stimuli makes a previously neutral stimulus elicit a response | Buttons become linked with fear/disgust after an aversive incident | A consequence delivered after behaviour |
| Operant conditioning | Consequences alter the future probability of a behaviour | Banana after a correct trunk action increases repetition | Positive = morally good; it means something is added |
| Social learning | Attention to a model followed by retention/reproduction; direct reward is not required | Children reproduce a model's aggressive acts after the model leaves | Simple stimulus-response association without representation |
| Core study | Environmental input | Observable output | Best-supported mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bandura et al. | Aggressive/non-aggressive/no model | Coded imitative and other aggression | Social learning |
| Fagen et al. | Whistle-banana contingencies and successive approximations | Criterion trunk behaviours and completed wash | Operant conditioning |
| Saavedra & Silverman | Aversive history plus exposure/reinforcement treatment | Distress ratings and button contact | Evaluative/classical and operant learning |
To apply the approach, name the mechanism, identify the environmental event, operationalise the observable response, and state how the evidence changes the probability/association/modelled behaviour. A label such as 'nurture' is not enough without this chain.
Blank slate is an explanatory emphasis, not proof that genes, brain processes or cognition never contribute. Similar outcomes can arise by different mechanisms, and a learned behaviour can still involve attention, emotion and biological constraints.
Bandura et al. isolated how children reproduce an adult model's aggression
Aim: test whether children imitate an aggressive adult when the model is absent, and whether imitation varies with the model's and child's sex. The sample was 72 Stanford University Nursery School children (36 girls, 36 boys), aged 37-69 months (mean 52 months).
| Design element | Operational detail | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Conditions | Aggressive model, non-aggressive model, or no-model control; male/female models and children | Separates exposure, model sex and child sex |
| Matching | Children were rated for prior aggression and matched across conditions | Reduces pre-existing aggression as an alternative explanation |
| Modelling phase | Adult used a Bobo doll and standardised aggressive acts/phrases or quiet non-aggressive play | Makes behaviour available for direct imitation |
| Aggression arousal | Attractive toys were removed after about two minutes and reserved for other children | Creates comparable frustration before the test |
| Test | Child observed through a one-way mirror with aggressive/non-aggressive toys | Records delayed imitation after the model has left |
Observers coded imitative physical aggression, imitative verbal aggression, mallet aggression, non-imitative physical/verbal aggression and aggressive gun play. Gun play meant shooting darts, aiming the gun at an object or firing imaginary shots. Inter-rater agreement and standard categories support reliability, but codes reduce the context and meaning of play.
| Comparison | Pattern | Inference |
|---|---|---|
| Aggressive vs non-aggressive/control | Aggressive-model children reproduced substantially more modelled aggression | Observation can produce new aggressive responses without direct reinforcement |
| Same-sex vs opposite-sex model | Same-sex imitation was generally stronger | Identification with a model can affect reproduction |
| Boys vs girls | Boys showed more physical aggression; girls were relatively more likely to imitate verbal aggression | Sex differences depend partly on aggression type and model |
| Model absent at test | Distinct acts/phrases appeared after the adult left | Supports retention and delayed reproduction, not immediate copying only |
| Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|
| Standardised model, toys, arousal and coding improve replication and comparison | Bobo-doll play is artificial; ecological validity and transfer to harmful real aggression are uncertain |
| Matched baseline aggression and no-model control improve internal validity | Children from one university nursery limit population/cultural generalisation |
| Quantitative frequencies permit direct condition/sex comparisons | Counts omit motives, emotion and whether behaviour persists |
| Young children may show fewer hypothesis-demand effects | Exposure to aggression, induced frustration, covert observation, weak withdrawal/consent/debrief and no aggression-reduction phase create serious ethical concerns |
Bounded application: reduce children's exposure to aggressive models and show salient, preferably relatable models behaving calmly and tidying/playing cooperatively. This follows modelling evidence; rewarding the child directly would instead be an operant-conditioning intervention.
The study shows short-term reproduction in a controlled play setting, not that every observed aggressive act causes lasting violence. Distinguish imitative responses from other aggression and a result (more acts in a condition) from the conclusion that observation can be sufficient for acquisition.
Fagen et al. shaped and chained elephant behaviours using whistle-banana reinforcement
Aim: evaluate positive-reinforcement training as a welfare-oriented alternative for teaching working elephants in Nepal to cooperate with a trunk wash used in tuberculosis management. Five female elephants took part: four juveniles and one older adult, selected for factors including docility, no current pregnancy/calf, mahout willingness, traditional training history and no prior secondary-positive-reinforcement experience.
| Learning component | Exact role in training |
|---|---|
| Primary reinforcer | Chopped banana directly satisfies a biological need |
| Secondary reinforcer | A whistle, consistently paired with banana, marks the correct response immediately |
| Positive reinforcement | Whistle/banana follow a desired behaviour, increasing its future probability |
| Shaping | Reinforce successive approximations—for 'trunk up', lure with banana near the forehead and progressively require greater height |
| Behavioural chaining | Join component behaviours such as trunk here, trunk up/down, steady, blow and water into the complete wash sequence |
Training was observed against a behavioural checklist and criterion test. 'Trunk here' required the distal/ventral trunk to rest gently on the trainer's palm. 'Steady' required holding the previously requested trunk position while head, ears or feet could move. Trainers used luring and shaping, reinforced correct approximations, and recorded sessions/trials and task difficulty until the full sequence met criterion.
| Outcome | Exact interpretation |
|---|---|
| Four of five elephants passed the full trunk-wash test | Positive-reinforcement training was feasible for most of this small working-elephant sample |
| Juveniles passed within 25-35 sessions; Elephant 2 passed in 25 | Learning speed varied even under the same broad programme |
| The older fifth elephant did not pass | Age/history/individual differences may constrain transfer; failure is evidence, not an outlier to erase |
| Component behaviours improved through successive criteria | Supports shaping/chaining rather than a single one-step reward account |
| Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|
| Operational checklist, task criteria and session counts allow replication and within/individual comparison | Five selected females in one Nepalese working context limit species/population/setting generalisation |
| Quantitative trials/sessions reveal progress and individual differences | No untreated/traditional-training comparison isolates causality; trainer/elephant histories differ |
| Real management task gives high mundane validity and practical welfare value | Observer/trainer expectations and difficulty judgements can affect validity |
| Positive reinforcement, small necessary sample, relevant species, food/water access and ability to walk away reduce harm | Existing chaining to posts and delayed rewards may still create welfare concerns; animal ethics must be evaluated, not assumed |
Application: pair a precise marker with a meaningful reward, define small observable approximations, reinforce only progress toward the target, then chain mastered components. This can reduce coercive handling, but reward value, health, age, prior training and voluntary participation must be monitored.
Positive reinforcement means adding a consequence that increases behaviour—not simply being kind. The whistle is secondary because pairing gives it value; banana is primary. Four successes support feasibility in this setting, not guaranteed effectiveness for every elephant or proof that training alone caused all change.
Saavedra and Silverman tracked fear, disgust and treatment in one button-phobia case
The participant was a 9-year-old Hispanic-American boy referred by his mother to a Child Anxiety and Phobic Program. He met DSM-IV criteria for specific button phobia, not OCD; the problem began around age five after a bowl of buttons fell on him at school. Aims included examining disgust/evaluative learning and testing imagery exposure plus positive reinforcement.
| Evidence source | Operational detail | Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic interview/history | DSM criteria, onset incident and avoidance | Establishes clinical case and possible acquisition route |
| Feelings Thermometer | 0-8 subjective distress hierarchy for 11 button stimuli (0 none, 8 highest) | Repeated quantitative self-report comparison |
| Fear/disgust reports and observations | Reactions to imagined and real buttons | Tests whether disgust is distinct from fear |
| Post-treatment/follow-up | Diagnostic status, reported distress and everyday button use | Tests maintenance and practical change |
| Stage | What happened | Learning interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Acquisition/history | Bowl of buttons fell on him; visual/tactile qualities became aversive | Evaluative/classical association may have conditioned fear/disgust |
| Behavioural exposure | Gradual contact with button stimuli was attempted | Extinction/counterlearning opportunity, but some severity ratings increased |
| Imagery exposure | He repeatedly imagined increasingly distressing button scenarios | Controlled exposure targets fear/disgust without immediate full contact |
| Positive reinforcement | Mother rewarded successful completion of gradual exposure | Operant consequence strengthens approach/coping behaviour |
| Follow-up | Minimal distress, no longer met phobia criteria, wore clear plastic buttons on school uniform | Improvement generalised beyond questionnaire scores in this case |
For imagining hugging his mother while her shirt was full of buttons, distress fell from 7 before exposure to 4 midway and 3 after the final imagery session. After treatment he reported minimal distress, no longer met diagnostic criteria and could wear plastic buttons daily. These converging measures support meaningful change, but the combined treatment prevents attribution to one component.
| Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|
| Rich interviews, observation, scales and history provide triangulation and ecological clinical detail | One unusual case cannot represent other ages, genders, cultures or phobias |
| Standardised 0-8 hierarchy and repeated ratings show change over time; follow-up tests maintenance | Ratings are subjective and vulnerable to demand/social desirability; numbers do not make them objective |
| Everyday outcome (wearing buttons) supports practical validity | No control, randomisation or component comparison; maturation, attention and expectancy remain alternatives |
| Parent involvement and graded imagery can be adapted ethically | Deliberately evoking distress requires consent/assent, monitoring and stopping safeguards; behavioural exposure sometimes raised distress |
Ethical application: assess a diagnosed person's individual fear/disgust hierarchy and acquisition history, obtain consent/assent, use carefully graded imagery exposure, monitor distress and pair completed approach steps with appropriate support/reinforcement. Do not prescribe from this case alone or force high-intensity contact.
A falling-button event is a plausible learned origin, not definitive causal proof. Reduced thermometer ratings plus daily button use strengthen the improvement claim, but this single case cannot establish universal effectiveness or show whether imagery exposure, reinforcement, relationship factors or their combination produced the change.