Other Mechanisms of Social Learning

Social learning involves more than observational learning. It also depends on classi- cal conditioning, operant conditioning, and punishment.

Classical Conditioning

Ivan Pavlov first explained classical conditioning in the late 19th century (Bower &

Hilgard, 1981). Pavlov observed that when meat powder is placed in a dog’s mouth, the dog salivates. The food is an unconditioned stimulus that elicits an uncondi- tioned response: salivation. Pairing a neutral stimulus, such as the sound of a bell, with the food powder results in conditioning dogs to salivate at the sound of the bell.

The bell is a conditioned stimulus that has acquired the power to elicit what is now the conditioned response of salivation. Thus neutral stimuli that accompany (usu- ally precede) unconditioned stimuli often become conditioned stimuli (Bower &

Hilgard, 1981).

Classical conditioning is not a very prominent part of what we typically think of as school learning, but humans frequently do develop emotional responses through classical conditioning. For example, fearful reactions to stimuli associated with pain are easily learned by humans via classical conditioning (Bandura, 1986; Hoffman, 1969; Watson, 1927). Thus a student who trips over a hurdle may become classically conditioned to fear gym class. Or a student who was embarrassed by knocking over a podium during a speech may become classically conditioned to fear public speaking.

Classically conditioned emotional responses often are not maintained. They can undergo a process called extinction by subsequent experience with the conditioned stimulus that is not followed by the unconditioned response. Thus if future experi- ences in gym class or speaking in front of the class are pleasant, after a while the fear subsides.

Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning applies to more learning situations than classical condition- ing. In classical conditioning the focus of learning is on the stimulus that elicits a response, typically an involuntary emotional response or ref lex. In operant condi- tioning, the focus is on an emitted response, a behavior the learner can control.

Although B. F. Skinner is the psychologist most associated with operant conditioning (Skinner, 1953), E. L. Thorndike detailed its most fundamental principle in 1913.

Thorndike’s Law of Effect describes the following relationship: the likelihood of an operant response being emitted is increased when it is followed by a reinforcer.

Consider an example. Suppose a teen is thirsty. She puts 75¢ in a soda machine and receives a soda. Receiving the soda is reinforcement for depositing the 75¢.

When she is thirsty in the future, she will be more likely to put 75¢ in a soda machine as a result of this experience. The operant response of putting money in a soda

machine can undergo the process of extinction, however. This process begins when a person makes a response and does not receive the expected reinforcement. If the same teen had put 75¢ in a soda machine and no soda came out, the best guess is that the teen would not put any more money in that machine. One trial of not receiv- ing a soda may be enough to extinguish the response of putting money in the soda machine, at least with this particular soda machine at this particular time. Usually extinction only occurs after several instances of unreinforced operant responses.

Receiving a soda is an unconditioned reinforcer in that it satisfies a biological deprivation, that of thirst. Other unconditioned reinforcers include food, sex, and exposure to aesthetically pleasing stimuli, such as when a child is reinforced for cor- rectly adjusting a telescope by seeing a vivid detailed view of the Moon. Most rein- forcers that people receive are not unconditioned reinforcers, however, but condi- tioned reinforcers. Thus, for coming to work and doing your job, your employer gives you a check. No biological need is satiated by the check directly. The check allows you to purchase food, drinks, and entertainment, however, all of which do ful- fill your basic needs for nourishment and stimulation. Conditioned reinforcers acquire their reinforcement properties by being paired with unconditional reinforc- ers. That is, money was not always valuable to you but became so because it allowed you to acquire unconditioned reinforcers.

There are two general categories of reinforcers, positive reinforcers and nega- tive reinforcers. The occurrence of both of these types of reinforcers following a behavior increases the likelihood of that behavior. The difference between the two is in the type of consequence that causes the increase in the behavior. Many high- school students are positively reinforced for turning on the radio and hearing music that they like. When a student turns off a radio that is blaring some type of disliked music, however, that is negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement involves the pre- sentation of a stimulus following a response; negative reinforcement involves the cessa- tion of an aversive stimulation following a response. That is, if polka music is aversive to a student, the student would be reinforced for the behavior of turning the radio off because cessation of the polka music occurs after the radio is turned off, and it is more likely the student will turn the radio off again next time she or he hears polka music. In other words, the student has been conditioned to escape the stimulus of polka music.

How can teachers get students to exhibit the behaviors they want by using the principles of operant conditioning? If the desired behavior sometimes is exhibited by the students, then teachers can increase its frequency through positive or negative reinforcement. How can teachers get students to exhibit behaviors they have not yet exhibited? Teachers can do this through a process called shaping, by reinforcing behaviors that become closer and closer to the desired behavior. Thus, when stu- dents learn to write, teachers first reinforce them for whatever they can do and keep at them to write more. Then the demands of the teachers increase. Initially, students are reinforced for forming letters correctly, but later they are only reinforced if their groups of letters form words, and eventually they are only reinforced for writing complete sentences. Finally, they have to put sentences together in coherent para- graphs. The demands increase as schooling continues. Ultimately, college students only receive reinforcement for an accurate and clearly written 15-page paper. Many patterns of response important in education are learned through shaping.

Teachers can also vary the delivery of reinforcements. Typically, reinforcements occur intermittently rather than after every response. Learning that occurs via inter-

Social Theories of Development

§§§

¹²⁷

mittent reinforcement is more resistant to extinction than learning that occurs under continuous reinforcement. For example, perhaps one in three football games is really exciting. Yet people keep coming back for more despite the high likelihood of a boring game. Although Skinner did not use the word expectation, other behavior- ists have in their explanations of such behavior (Rotter, 1954). Continuous reinforce- ment produces an expectation of reinforcement every time, which increases vulnera- bility to extinction whenever a reinforcement fails to occur. In contrast, intermittent reinforcement creates an expectation that reinforcement is a sometimes occurrence, and that if a person persists reinforcement eventually occurs.

Reinforcement can be intermittent in two ways. In a ratio reinforcement sched- ule, reinforcement follows a certain number of responses. Thus children in a class who receive stickers for completing 10 worksheets are on a ratio schedule of rein- forcement. Alternatively, reinforcement can be delivered at certain time intervals or on an interval reinforcement schedule. Some teachers reinforce a class on Fridays with extra time to talk to friends if the class has been able to get weekly work in on time. The two types of schedules lead to different patterns of response. The ratio schedule tends to produce high rates of responding that do not vary much, except perhaps for a small reduction in responding immediately after payoff. The interval schedule tends to produce a rapid decline in performance immediately after payoff that only gradually increases until it reaches a maximum just before payoff. Thus, for the teacher with the Friday reinforcement schedule, there would be fewer assign- ments coming in on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, compared to Thursday and Friday.

Punishment

Negative reinforcement is often confused with punishment, even though negative reinforcement and punishment result in different outcomes. Negative reinforcement increases the likelihood of behavior; punishment decreases the likelihood of behavior.

Punishmentis the presentation of aversive stimulation following a response. Thus, if a preschooler darts into the parking lot at the daycare center, the teacher gives the child a stern reprimand that serves as a punishment. The response of darting away was followed by the aversive stimulation of adult disapproval. So the likelihood of the child running into the parking lot should decrease. Consider this example of nega- tive reinforcement: if the sound of a car’s warning buzzer is aversive, a high-school student taking behind-the-wheel instruction will buckle up the seatbelt in order to make the sound stop. The behavior of buckling up the seatbelt is negatively rein- forced and the probability of this behavior occurring increases. In the example of negative reinforcement, the response (buckling the seat belt) resulted in the cessa- tion of the aversive stimulus (the car buzzer) and the likelihood of the behavior (buckling the seat belt) increased. In the example of the punishment, the aversive stimulus (the reprimand) was not present until after the response and the likelihood of the behavior (darting in the parking lot) decreased.

In Skinner’s view, behaviorism is a very positive approach to student learning and development. The emphasis is on catching the students doing well and reinforc- ing them for it. If the students cannot do well given their current competencies, then reinforce them for behaviors in the right direction and gradually shape the appropri- ate response. Skinner (1953) suggested that when teachers use punishment, they should also provide an alternative behavior that will be reinforced. For example, if a

student is talking during a quiet study time, the teacher should remind the student firmly that this is the time to study quietly, but should also make sure the student has something interesting to work on. Skinner also argued that reductions in the fre- quency of undesirable behaviors using punishment were short lived and that punish- ment led to undesirable by-products, such as emotional responses of anxiety or anger.

Other researchers have found that punishment can have stable effects on elimi- nation of undesirable behaviors without lasting side effects (Walters & Grusec, 1977). For example, supplementing punishment with rationales for obeying can make punishment more effective (Cheyne & Walters, 1969; LaVoie, 1973, 1974;

Parke, 1969, 1974). In many cases, however, rationales alone can be as effective or more effective than punishments, and they may also help students internalize prohi- bitions, making it more likely that they will behave appropriately in the future (Hoffman, 1970; Kanfer & Zich, 1974). Rationales presented to young children (e.g., preschoolers) need to be concrete (e.g., “You might break this toy if you play with it because it is fragile”). Abstract rationales that focus on the rights and feelings of oth- ers (e.g., “The owner of this toy will feel bad if you play with it”), however, are increasingly effective with advancing age during childhood (LaVoie, 1974; Parke, 1974; Walters & Grusec, 1977). Thus undesirable behaviors often can often be sup- pressed without resorting to punishment.

Nevertheless, punishment still exists in schools. Effective school punishments are ones that have a reasonable connection to the infraction. In Blackwood (1970), junior-high students who had misbehaved copied essays as punishment. Some stu- dents copied an essay emphasizing the negative effects of classroom disobedience, while others copied an essay about steam engines. The students who copied an essay emphasizing why misbehavior was a problem were less likely to misbehave following the punishment than were students who copied the steam engine essay. MacPherson, Candee, and Hohman (1974) conducted a similar study with elementary students who had misbehaved in a cafeteria. Again, postpunishment behavior was better for students who had copied essays providing rationales for obeying school rules.

Although there is little evidence that corporal punishment leads to better behaved students (Edwards & Edwards, 1987), it is still a common practice in some schools, most commonly in the form of “paddling” (Hyman, 1990; Hyman & Wise, 1987). This practice would not meet with Skinner’s (1977) approval since he believed that corporal punishment teaches that might makes right: “The punishing teacher who punishes teaches students that punishment is a way of solving problems”

(p. 336). Research also indicates that children socially learn the punitive tactics they experience and observe (Parke & Slaby, 1983). Moreover, punishment has other undesirable side effects, including causing children to avoid future interactions with their punishers (Bandura, 1986). Does a disciplinary technique that causes children to learn physical aggression and to avoid their teachers really make sense?