Observational

Learning
PSYCH 220
 • Thorndike (1898) put one cat in a puzzle box and
another cat in a nearby cage. The first cat had
already learned how to escape the box, and the
second had only to observe its neighbor to learn
the trick. But when Thorndike put this cat into the
puzzle box, he found that it did not imitate its
more learned fellow. Instead, it went through the
Thorndike got same sort of operant learning any other cat went
through in learning to solve the problem. No
it wrong... matter how often one cat watched another escape,
it seemed to learn nothing.
• Observational learning had received less attention
over the years than Pavlovian and operant
procedures, partly because early attempts to show
observational learning in animals failed.
Warden's
Experiments
• Made experimental chambers.
• Had a model monkey and an
observer monkey, which was
restrained.
• The model monkey had to solve
simple problems like pulling a
chain to get a raisin.
Warden and colleagues’
experiments
• Experiment with monkeys and raisins
• 47% of observer monkeys solved the
problem in 10 seconds
• 75% of observer monkeys solved the
problems in 30 seconds
• Even monkeys who did not solve the
problem indicated that they had
learned something about it through
their actions
The Basic Question in
Observational
Learning....
CAN ONE INDIVIDUAL
LEARN BY OBSERVING THE
EXPERIENCE OF ANOTHER?
 Observational (or vicarious) learning is a
change in behavior due to the experience of
observing a model.

Observational
Learning

There are two basic proceedures in

observational learning:
Vicarious Reinforcement: an Vicarious Punishment: an observer
observer looks on as a model’s looks on as a model’s behavior is
behavior produces reinforcement. punished.
 Mirror Neurons provide the neural
basis for observational learning

Mirror Neurons

Seeing or actually doing a task

activate the same part of the brain
Herbert & Harsh’s (1944) Experiment with Cats

• Up to 4 cats were put in a box and one

served as the model.
• The model had to turn a wheel to get
food.
• Some observer cats watched up to 30
trials until attempting it themselves
• Cats who observed a model cat turning a
wheel to obtain food learned to perform
the same task in considerably fewer
trials.
• Overall, the observer cats outperformed
the model cats.
Bandura & McDonald’s (1963) Experiment
• Had children listen to stories and judge which of two characters was naughtier.
• In a typical story, John breaks 15 cups while answering his mother’s call to dinner;
in another story, Henry breaks one cup while in the act of stealing cookies.
• The children's moral judgements were subjective (based on intent) or
objective (who caused more damage).
• The children then observed a model making judgements.
• The model always used the objective approach to make her judgment, and an
experimenter approved these judgments. The experimenter also approved the child’s
judgments when they reflected the objective approach.
• The results showed after modeling the children were more likely to be objective in
their judgements.
Rosekrans & Hartup’s (1967) Experiment
• Showed differential effects of reinforcement and punishment of a model’s behavior.
• Researchers had nursery school children watch an adult model as she played with some toys, at times
beating a large inflated doll on the head with a mallet and poking a clay figure with a fork.
• As she played, the model made such comments as “Wham, bam, I’ll knock your head off” and
“Punch him, punch him, punch his legs full of holes.”
• In one condition, these aggressive acts were praised by an adult who made remarks such as “Good
for you! I guess you really fixed him that time.”
• In another condition, the model’s behavior was repeatedly criticized by an adult who said things such
as, “Now look what you’ve done, you’ve ruined it.”
• After watching the model play and seeing her behavior either praised or criticized, the observer then
got a chance to play with the same toys.
• The results showed that children who saw aggressive behavior reinforced tended to play
aggressively, whereas those who saw aggressive behavior punished tended to play more peaceful
Bandura’s Experiment on Modeling
Levy’s (1974)Experiments

• Studied the effects of model reinforcement and punishment on picture preference.

• In one experiment children ranging from preschoolers to sixth graders looked on as
a model went through a series of picture pairs, indicating which of each pair she
preferred.
• Each of these choices resulted in approval, disapproval, or a neutral consequence.
• The observers then went through the picture pairs, indicating their own preferences.
• The results showed that the children were influenced by the consequences of the
model’s choices.
• Children tended to imitate the model when the model’s choice won approval and to
select the opposite picture when the model’s choice was criticized.
Higgins' (1989) Experiment

• Found that children would imitate superstitious behavior after

watching a videotape of a model engaging in the behavior.
• The model pressed a doll’s nose and received marbles.
• This behavior was superstitious because pressing the doll’s nose did
not cause the marbles to appear; reinforcement was accidental.
• The observers repeatedly imitated this behavior even though the
marbles they received were not contingent on it.
Kanfer and Marston's (1963) Experiment:
Vicarious Reinforcement
• Had college students sit in an experimental room alone and communicate
with the experimenter by way of a microphone and earphones.
• Each time the experimenter signaled the student, he or she said the first
word that came to mind.
• As the students waited for the signal, they could hear what seemed to be
the responses of other students taking their turn. What the students really
heard was a prerecorded tape.
• Over the course of the experiment, the people on the tape responded with
more and more human nouns (words such as boy, woman, and hero).
Kanfer and Marston's (1963) Experiment

• There were four different treatment groups, but two are of special interest:
• In one group, each time one of the people on the tape responded with a human noun, the
experimenter said “good”;
• In the second group, the observer heard the same taped response, but the experimenter made
no comment.
• In neither case did the observer receive any direct reinforcement for saying human nouns.
• These two groups of students showed the same inclination to say human nouns
during the baseline period when no responses were reinforced, and both said more
human nouns as they heard others do so.
• But the students who heard human nouns approved showed a much greater increase
in nouns than did those who had not heard nouns approved.
 Imitation is simply copying a behavior after observing a model.

Observational learning may result in copying the behavior, but it may also result
in doing some thing completely different as a result of observing the model.

How is Observation Imitation is not necessary for observational learning to occur

Different from
Imitation?
Imitation might be evidence that learning did not occur

Imitation does not require the observation of consequences. Subjects have a

tendency to imitate models regardless of whether or not a model receives
reinforcement because imitation has paid off in the past
Generalized Imitation
• Our tendency to imitate models is the product of experience.
• We learn to observe and imitate successful models because doing so often leads us to
success.
• But we also learn to observe and imitate models even when we have not observed that
their behavior is reinforced.
• If you are walking down a city street and suddenly a crowd of people comes rushing
toward you as if they are fleeing space aliens, you are likely to run with them—even
though you have no idea why they are running and have not observed that their
running produces any benefit. You are likely to imitate them because imitating groups
has paid off in the past. For example, if you are to go to a certain place but are unsure
how to get there, you have learned that “following the crowd” often pays off.
• This is generalized imitation. In social psychology we call it conformity
 What factors influence
observational learning?

Consequences of Consequences of
Characteristics of Observer’s age and
the model’s the observer’s
the Model learning history
behavior behavior
 Consistent reinforcement or punishment of a
model’s behavior gets better results than
inconsistent consequences.
Consequences of
the Model’s
Behavior In the Rosekrans and Hartup (1967) study
described earlier, when a model’s aggressive
behavior was consistently reinforced, the observer
tended to adopt it; when it was consistently
punished, the observer tended to avoid making it.
 If a given behavior produces one kind of
consequence for a model and a very
different kind of consequence for an
observer, the latter consequences will
Consequences of eventually win out.
the Observer’s
Behavior Ultimately, people usually do what works
for them—regardless of whether it worked
for a model.
 Numerous studies have demonstrated that human
observers tend to learn more from models who are
perceived as being competent, attractive, likable,
and prestigious than from models who are perceived
to lack these characteristics.

Characteristics of
the Model Status, likeability, age, gender, competence, and
other model characteristics affect observational
learning because they induce the observer to look at
the model. The more attentive an observer is to a
model, the more likely they are to learn from the
model’s behavior.
 Observational procedures may have different effects with
different age groups.

Observer's Age Age differences may vary with gender.

It is commonly assumed that the young benefit most from

observing others, but in fact the opposite is more often the case.
Young children usually get less from observing others than older
children do, and older children usually learn less than adults.
 The ability to learn from a model may also depend on
learning experiences prior to viewing a model.

A child whose aggressive behavior has been reinforced

Observer's on numerous occasions is probably more likely to imitate
Learning Hx an aggressive model than is a child with a different
learning history.

Adults may learn more than children from observing

others because the adults have had more practice at it.
Theories in Observational Learning
Social Cognitive Theory
Argues that observational learning is accounted
for by four processes that occur during or shortly
after observation of a model: attentional,
retentional, motor reproductive, and motivational.
Miller-
Dollard Reinforcement Theory
Argues the changes in an observer’s behavior are
due to the consequences of the observer’s
behavior, not those of the model.
 Attentional processes

• Observer pays attention to the model.

Retentional processes

• Observer is able to recall the information about the model’s

behavior and repeat it (or a verbal representation of it).
Social Cognitive
Theory Motor reproductive processes

• Observer has the ability to engage in the actions to replicate the

model actions or a variation of those actions.

Motivational processes

• Observer is motivated to repeat the model’s behavior.

 According to the Miller-Dollard reinforcement theory,
observational learning is due to reinforcement.

Observational learning is a variation of operant learning.

Miller-Dollard
Reinforcement
Theory
Changes in the observer’s behavior are due to the
consequences of the observer’s consequences (not the
model’s consequences).

This theory places more emphasis on the observer’s

history and experiences.