LEARNING APPROACH(ES)

Learning approaches measure and explain human behaviour as a product of environment and
experience. The A level psychology syllabus specifies two learning approaches: behaviourism and social
learning theory.

The behaviourist approach to psychology explains behaviour as a result of learning from experience,
such as via classical and operant conditioning.
CLASSICAL CONDITIONING (IVAN PAVLOV)
One principle of the Behaviorist approach is Classical Conditioning. It explains how behaviours are
learned from experience via (subconscious) association.
The earliest and most famous record of classical conditioning is found in Pavlov (1927). Pavlov showed
how dogs could be conditioned to salivate (a natural response to food) in response to a bell ringing (a
neutral stimulus) by ringing the bell at the same time as presenting the dog with food. The repeated
occurrence of the bell ringing at the same time as the food meant the dogs learned to associate the bell
with food. Eventually, this association produced a conditioned response in the dogs, who would salivate
at the sound of the bell even when there was no food.
A basic assumption of behaviourism is the validity of animal studies in explaining human behaviour. In
the case of classical conditioning, there are plenty of human examples like the one above. For example,
hearing a phone notification go off (even if it’s someone else’s with the same tone) may cause you to
instinctively reach into your pocket for your phone.

Other examples of classical conditioning in humans can be seen in the explanation of phobias by the
bahaviorists.

OPERANT CONDITIONING (BF SKINNER)

Operant conditioning is another principle of behaviourism. It explains how behaviours are learned from
and reinforced in response to consequences.

There are 3 types of consequences for behaviour:

Positive reinforcement: Behaving in a way that gets rewarded/praised/you get something good in
response for.

E.g.: Doing your homework because it gets praised by the teacher

Negative reinforcement: Behaving in a way to avoid negative/unpleasant/bad consequences.

E.g.: Doing your homework to avoid getting told off by the teacher

Punishment: Negative/unpleasant/bad consequences for behaviour.

E.g.: Getting told off by the teacher for not doing your homework

An example of operant conditioning is found in the research of Skinner (1948) and Skinner (1953).
Skinner’s experiments involved putting animals (rats and pigeons) in cages like the one below:

In one variation of the experiment, pressing the response lever caused food to come out of the food
dispenser. The rat quickly learned this consequence and so would repeat the behaviour to get more
food. This is an example of positive reinforcement.
Another variation of the experiment demonstrated learning through negative reinforcement. In this
setup, an electrified grid would cause pain to the rat but pressing the response lever turned the
electrified grid off. Similar to the other experiment, the rats quickly learned to go straight to the
response lever when put in the box.

These experiments demonstrate how learning through positive and negative reinforcement increases the
chances of a behaviour being repeated

SOCIAL LEARNING APPROACH

Like behaviourism, the social learning approach to psychology also explains behaviour as a result of
learning from experience, but adds the extra element of learning by observing others’ behaviour. This
kind of learning allows for the inclusion of cognitive elements (e.g. mediating processes) in explaining
behaviour e. g Albert bandura: (the bobo doll experiment).

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

CORE STUDY 1 (BANDURA ET AL AGGRESSION)

The psychology being investigated includes: social learning theory; aggression
Aim

To investigate whether a child would learn aggression by observing a model and would reproduce this
behaviour in the absence of the model, and whether the sex of the role model was important.

Hypotheses

1. Observed aggressive behaviour will be imitated.

2. Observed non-aggressive behaviour will be imitated.
3. Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model.
4. Boys will be more likely to copy aggression than girls.

Background

Children copy adults. The social setting makes the child imitate what he/she is watching.
Imitative learning: Learning a new behaviour through observing a role model, and imitating it later in
the absence of the model. Children are also differently rewarded for their copying behaviour depending
on their sex.

Research Method

It was a laboratory experiment with controlled situations.

Research Design and Variables
Independent measures design was implemented as different children were used in each condition of the
study. There was matched participants design where children were divided into 3 groups based on their
initial levels of aggression.
Independent Variable:

• model-type: aggressive or non-aggressive model

• model-gender: whether the model is the same gender as the child or not.

• learner-gender: whether the child was a boy or girl.

Dependent Variable: The behaviour the child displayed, which was measured through a controlled
observation.

Sample

1. 72 children aged 3-6 years.

2. There were 36 boys and 36 girls obtained from the Stanford University nursery.
3. The sampling method used was opportunity sampling.

Procedure

1. Before the experiment, the children were observed in their nursery school by the experimenter
and a teacher who knew them.
2. They were rated on 4 five-point scales measuring physical aggression, verbal aggression,
aggression to inanimate objects, and anxiety.
3. They were assigned to 3 groups with their aggression levels matched.
4. 51 children were rated by 2 observers and similar ratings were produced therefore, there is
inter-rater reliability.
5. 12 boys and 12 girls were in control groups who saw no model.
6. The remaining children were divided equally by sex between aggressive and non-aggressive
model groups, and within those, between same and opposite same-sex models.
 7. The experimenter and children were in the 'play area' where they made potato prints.
8. In the opposite corner of the room there was a table, chair, Tinkertoy set, mallet, and a 5-foot
Bobo doll. This is where the model sat, in the conditions where there was one.
9. The experimenter remained in the room but appeared to be working quietly at their desk.

➔ In the non-aggressive condition, the model assembled the Tinkertoy set for 10 minutes.

➔ In the aggressive condition, the model assembled the toy for a minute and then attacked the Bobo
doll. For 9 minutes the aggressive sequence was repeated 3 times. Aggressive comment made: "Kick
him."

➔ In the control condition, the student did not see any model.

10. The experimental procedure continued when all participants were deliberately mildly annoyed.
11. Children were told that they could play with the toys in the room, but 2 minutes into playing,
they were told to stop.
12. They were informed that the toys were reserved for other children and that the toys were the
experimenter's very best.
13. The child was observed for 20 minutes through a 1-way mirror.
14. The experimental room had a 3-foot Bobo doll, a mallet and other toys.
15. Their behaviour was observed in 5-second intervals.
16. There was an inter-rater reliability score of 0.89.

Results

Children exposed to aggressive models imitated their exact behaviour. They were significantly more
aggressive than the children in other groups. Imitation was greater for boys than girls. Boys were more
likely to imitate physical aggression and girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression.

The average imitative physical aggression for male subjects with male models was 25.8 which is much
higher than that for female subjects which was 7.2. This exhibits that boys imitated physical aggression
more than girls.

With the female model, girls imitated less aggression than with the male model. Girls with female
models imitated an average of 5.5. Boys with female models imitated an average of 12.4.

For non-aggressive play, girls played with dolls and boys played with guns. Comments were made on sex-
typed behaviour.

Conclusions

 Observation and imitation cause behaviour to be learnt without reinforcement.

 Observed aggressive behaviours are imitated.
 Observed non-aggressive behaviours are imitated.
 Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model.
 Boys are more likely to copy aggression than girls.
Strengths

1. It was a laboratory experiment, so it was possible to control extraneous variables. For example,
all children had seen their models for the same length of time.
2. Model behaviour was standardised. This makes the research more valid, reliable, and replicable.
3. There is high inter-rater reliability, and it leads to accurate data collection.
4. Children were unaware that they were being watched, and this increased validity as they are less
likely to show demand characteristics.

Weaknesses

1. Only 6 children were used in each experimental condition and this is a small sample.
2. They are all from the same nursery and had academically able parents. This could bias the
sample and lower the validity.
3. Children may have imitated behaviour, due to demand characteristics and social desirability, as
they might have thought that they had to imitate the model.
4. A longitudinal study would have better explained the durability of the newly learned behaviour.

Ethical Issues

 Some children might have been harmed by becoming more aggressive. Children had been mildly
annoyed, which could be psychologically distressing.
 Children didn't have the opportunity to consent or withdraw. As the study may have caused
distress to the children, this is a key ethical issue. The headteacher was aware, but the parents
were not informed and so their consent was missing.

Application to Everyday Life

The study shows that when children (especially boys) are exposed to violence or aggression in real
life or through the media, the models influence their behaviour

Nature vs. Nurture

Boys imitated more aggressive behaviour than girls because they have more hormone testosterone,
which is a nature factor. Boys may be more likely to imitate aggression because they have learned
about male stereotypical behaviour

Individual vs. Situational Explanation for Behaviour

The situational influence of models had led children to imitate aggressive behaviour. Individual
factors explain why the acquisition of behaviours differ between boys and girls, and it may be
because they are differently rewarded for sex-typed behaviours.

CORE STUDY 2 Fagen et al. (elephant learning 2014)

The psychology being investigated includes: operant conditioning; reinforcement (positive, negative,
primary and secondary); shaping; behavioural chaining.
Psychology Being Investigated Expanded

Operant Conditioning – The study explores operant conditioning, a learning process where
behaviours are controlled by their consequences. In SPR, desirable behaviours are reinforced with
rewards (positive reinforcement), increasing the likelihood of these behaviours being repeated.

Positive Reinforcement – SPR involves introducing a positive stimulus (a reward) after a desired
behaviour is performed, strengthening that behaviour. This technique contrasts with traditional
methods that often use negative reinforcement or punishment.

Animal Learning and Behavior Modification – The study delves into how learning theories apply to
animals, particularly elephants. It examines how behavioural modification techniques can be
adapted to animal training (shaping behavior) moving away from aversive methods towards more
welfare-oriented approaches.

Impact of Training Methods on Animal Welfare – A significant aspect of the psychology being
investigated is the impact of training methods on the psychological well-being of animals. The study
implicitly explores how humane training methods like SPR can positively affect animals’ mental
health and welfare, reducing stress and improving cooperation.

Understanding Animal Behavior and Cognition – The study also contributes to understanding the
cognitive capabilities of elephants, including their ability to learn, remember, and respond to training
cues. It sheds light on the cognitive processes underlying learning in animals and how they can be
leveraged in training.

Background to the Study

The study by Ariel Fagen, Narayan Acharya, and Gretchen E. Kaufman is set against the backdrop of
traditional elephant training methods in Nepal, which heavily rely on punishment and aversion
techniques. Amidst a global shift towards more humane animal training approaches, particularly in
zoos and conservation areas, this study focuses on introducing and assessing the effectiveness of
Secondary Positive Reinforcement (SPR) training. This humane alternative, which rewards desired
behaviours to encourage repetition, was applied to train captive elephants to voluntarily participate
in a trunk wash for tuberculosis testing. The study’s context highlights the increasing emphasis on
animal welfare and the psychological impact of training methods, aiming to demonstrate a more
ethical approach to managing captive elephants’ health and well-being.

AIM
The study focused on evaluating the effectiveness of Secondary Positive Reinforcement (SPR)
training methods for free-contact elephants in Nepal, specifically for voluntarily participating in a
trunk wash for tuberculosis testing.

Procedure and Methodology

Sample
1. Five female elephants,
2. Four juveniles and one adult,
3. They were housed in the same stable in Nepal.
4. The elephants were traditionally trained and had no previous exposure to SPR training.
Training Methodology
1. The SPR technique involved using a short whistle blow as the secondary reinforcer and chopped
bananas as the primary reinforcer.
2. Training occurred in morning and afternoon sessions while the elephants were chained in their
stalls.
3. The presence of the elephants’ mahouts was required for safety, but they were instructed not to
interact with the elephants during training sessions.

Behavioural Tasks – The elephants were trained in five basic behavioural task,
 Trunk here (placing the trunk in the trainer’s hand),
 Trunk up (lifting the trunk upward),
 Bucket (placing the trunk in a bucket),
 Blow (exhaling strongly through the trunk),
 Steady (holding the trunk still in the requested position).
Training Process
 Firstly, the elephants were taught the bridge between the primary and secondary
reinforcers.
 Secondly, they were taught the basic tasks using capture, lure, and shaping techniques
 The elephants were then trained to perform these tasks in sequence (behavioural chaining),
culminating in the full trunk wash sequence.
Desensitisation and Counterconditioning – This was used to introduce the syringe and sample fluid.
This procedure gradually got the elephants used to these elements of the trunk wash.

Data Collection – Training sessions were timed, and the number of cues given for each behaviour
was tallied. Performance tests were administered approximately every five sessions to assess the
elephants’ proficiency in the trained behaviours.
 Results
1. Four juvenile elephants successfully learned the trunk wash within 35 sessions or fewer. The
mean success rate improved from 39.0% to 89.3% following training.
2. The total training time varied among elephants, ranging from 257 to 451 minutes.
3. The relative difficulty of tasks was assessed based on the number of offers necessary to
achieve a passing score.
Conclusions
1. SPR was found to be a feasible and efficient training method for juvenile elephants.
2. The study demonstrated that elephants could be trained voluntarily without resorting to
traditional punishment-based methods.
3. SPR training could be beneficial in various captive management programs globally.
Strength
1. Standardised Training Procedures – The study utilized standardised training procedures across all
subjects. Each elephant was trained using the same basic behavioural tasks (e.g., ‘Trunk here’,
‘Trunk up’, ‘Bucket’, ‘Blow’, ‘Steady’) and the same sequence of training steps. This
standardisation enhances the internal validity of the study by ensuring that any observed
differences in learning and performance were due to the elephants’ individual differences rather
than variations in training methods.
2. Replicability of Results – The training methodology employed in the study is replicable, allowing
for repeated studies to verify results. The clear documentation of the training procedures, the
use of objective measures, and the detailed description of the behavioural tasks make it possible
for other researchers to replicate the study. This is crucial for validating the findings and
contributes to the overall reliability of the research.
3. Ecological Validity – The study was conducted in a natural setting where the elephants were
already living and being cared for. This means the training occurred in the elephants’ regular
environment, rather than in a contrived laboratory setting. Such a setting enhances the
ecological validity of the study, as the behaviours and responses of the elephants are more likely
to reflect how they would react in real-world situations.
Weaknesses
1. Limited Sample Size and Diversity – The study involved only five elephants, all of whom were
female and predominantly juveniles. This limited sample size and lack of diversity in age and sex
may reduce the generalizability of the findings. The results might not represent male elephants,
older elephants, or those with different backgrounds or training histories.
2. Subjective Assessment Criteria – The criteria for judging the success of the trained behaviours
were subjectively determined by the trainer. While performance tests were used to assess
proficiency, the determination of whether a behaviour was of sufficient quality for the trunk
wash was based on the trainer’s judgment. This subjective assessment could introduce bias and
affect the validity of the results.
3. Potential Environmental and External Influences – The training environment included potential
distractions such as the presence of tourists, other animals, and proximity to meal times. These
factors could have influenced the elephants’ performance and learning rate, potentially affecting
the validity of the study’s results. Additionally, the study did not control for these external
 variables, which might have impacted on the training effectiveness and the elephants’
responses, also affecting the validity of the results.
CORE STUDY 3 Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia 2002)
The psychology being investigated includes: evaluative learning, operant conditioning, classical
conditioning, phobias.
Aim
 To understand the causes of button phobia (koumpounophobia) in a child.
 To treat a child’s phobia of buttons using disgust and fear responses.
Background
Classical conditioning was investigated by Ivan Pavlov. Classical conditioning is learning through
association. 2 stimuli (neutral and unconditioned) are linked together to produce a new learned
response. Some psychologists believe that phobias can be learned and unlearned just like other
behaviours. Phobias may be caused by evaluative learning which is a type of classical conditioning
where the individual forms an association between a previously neutral stimulus and a negative
emotion.
Hepburn and Page (1999) – Page, in his study of adults with a blood phobia, found that treating
patients’ disgust and fear would help them to make progress.

Research Method, Design and Variables

1. It was a case study involving one participant (a boy)
2. His life history and treatment were studied in-depth.
3. Data were collected using self-report measures.
4. The boy and his mother were interviewed about the onset of his phobia and the subsequent
behaviour

Sample
1. A 9-year-old Hispanic American boy.
2. He started showing symptoms for 4 years prior to the start of the study when he knocked over a
bowl of buttons in front of his class and teacher.
3. Sampled through the opportunity sampling technique.
4. The boy and the mother gave informed consent to participate and publish the results.

Methodology
The DSM-IV (4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) was used to
diagnose him with button phobia (koumpounophobia). The results of the treatment were measured
using a 9-point scale of disgust known as the 'Feelings thermometer'.
Procedure
An exposure-based treatment programme that tackled cognition and behaviours was used. With the
suggestion of the boy, a special disgust and fear hierarchy using a distress rating from 0-8 was
devised, with 8 being ‘small clear plastic buttons’ and 0 being 'large denim buttons'. The boy was
asked to rate 11 different scenarios that included buttons. The subjective ratings were used as a
Feelings Thermometer.
Interventions (treatment) used: two interventions were used
1. Positive Reinforcement Therapy: a behavioural therapy based on operant conditioning. It uses
positive reinforcement principles, applying contingency management The boy was rewarded for
showing less fear and for handling the buttons. The mother provided positive reinforcement if
the boy successfully completed the gradual exposure to buttons. Sessions lasted for about 30
minutes with the boy alone, and 20 minutes with the boy and his mother.
2. Imagery Exposure: Imagery exposure therapy was based on classical conditioning using the Vivo
method. An interview with the boy revealed that he found buttons touching his body disgusting
and believed that buttons smelled unpleasant. This formed the basis for disgust imagery
exercises. The boy was asked to imagine buttons falling on him, and consider how they looked,
felt, and smelled. Exposures progressed from images of larger to smaller buttons, in line with the
boy's fear hierarchy.

The boy had 4 sessions of behavioural exposure to the buttons using the hierarchy. Then 7
sessions were planned to look into his disgust imagery and cognitions. He got to know what he
found disgusting about buttons and, researchers used self-control and cognitive strategies with
him to change these thoughts.

Result
Positive reinforcement therapy
 The boy was observed approaching the buttons more positively.
 His objective ratings of distress increased between sessions 2 and 3.
 By session 4, the number of items on the hierarchy increased in dislike from the original
scores.
 Despite his behaviour to the fearful stimuli improving, his feelings of disgust and fear
increased by the end of the therapy.
  Findings were consistent with evaluated learning.
 Despite the behavioural change, evaluative reactions remain the same.

Imagery exposure therapy

 The therapy was successful in reducing his rating of distress. For example, when he had
to imagine buttons falling on him, prior to imagery therapy/cognitive restructuring, he
rated the experience as 8 on a scale of 0 to 8. This rating decreased to 5 midways
through the session, and was just 3 by the end of the session.
 The boy was followed up 6 and 12 months after treatment and at both times he did not
meet the DSM-IV criteria for a specific phobia anymore.
 He could wear clear plastic buttons on his school uniform shirt.
Conclusion
1. Emotions and cognitions relating to disgust are important in the development and maintenance
of a phobia.
2. Imagery exposure has a long-term effect on reducing distress relating to specific phobias as it
tackles negative evaluations.
Strengths and Weaknesses
1. highly valid as the participant was studied over a period of time. Standardised measures such as
the Feelings Thermometer were used.
2. Quantitative data collected show the improvements seen which were highly likely due to the
treatment.
3. Qualitative data collected was helpful in understanding the reasons underlying phobias. They got
rid of his phobia.
4. The sample is difficult to generalise as the case is less likely to be representative of the general
population.
5. The study is subjective as the boy created his own hierarchy of disgust/fear and gave personal
ratings.
6. The case study involved building rapport with the participant thus, there is less room for
objectivity. Researcher bias may take place, thus compromising validity.
7. There might have been demand characteristics shown as the boy was fully aware he was
undergoing therapy; this might have affected the ratings he gave.

Application to real life

Shows how therapy based on classical conditioning can be used to treat some phobias. It also shows the
long-term improvement from exposure therapies.

Nature vs Nurture
Classical conditioning relies solely on a nurture-based explanation of learning. Phobias are not innate
but, are considered to be products of negative experiences with previously neutral stimuli.

Use of children in psychological research

The boy and the mother gave informed consent. The study was highly distressing however, researchers
aimed to improve his quality of life which may justify the temporary distress caused during the
treatment.