The experiment also has a lot of ethical issues. The associations made might have persisted indefinitely after Albert had left the hospital without treatment to remove the phobia. The extent to which Albert would be hurt psychologically was clearly not taken into consideration, and the whole process was clearly a frightening experience for the subject. In general, there are several strengths and weaknesses of classical conditioning. For instance, a strength would be the ability classical conditioning has to explain the source of particular behaviors like phobias, and thus allow for people to help treat, reverse, or condition their phobia with something less threatening. On the downside, classical conditioning may take a long time, as it is a gradual process, in which several trials are necessary before something can be learnt. This process also cannot be applied to all species and situations. For example, with regard to animals, much of what an organism can and cannot easily learn has to do with its evolutionary history and learning opportunities. So different animals will react differently to the same stimuli in the same environment. These behaviorists also neglect to include the cognitive aspects of learning.
In 1961, social learning theorists, Bandura and Ross conducted an experiment involving 72 children, (half boys and half girls) to demonstrate that learning could occur just by observing a model, and that imitation could occur without the model’s presence. The experiment had three conditions: a control group where no model was shown, a group exposed to an aggressive model, and a group exposed to a passive model. Half the children observed models of the same sex while the other half observed models of the opposite sex. Children were assessed upon their aggressiveness by rating scales and sorted into groups of similar behavior.
In all three stages of the experiment, the children were assessed individually. Children were taken into a room individually containing toys like potato prints and stickers for 10 minutes while either a non-aggressive adult model played in a quite manner, or while an aggressive model expressed aggression towards an inflated Bobo doll by punching it, kicking it, sitting on it, and striking it on the head with a mallet, at the same time shouting out aggressive statements like, ‘sock him in the nose!’ All children were then brought into another room to be observed for 20 minutes through a one-way mirror. The room had both aggressive and non-aggressive toys, and observations of the children’s behavior were made at 5-second intervals while recording the types and frequency of their imitations and responses. The results showed that children exposed to aggressive models would imitate the model’s physical and verbal aggression even more so than children who were exposed to the non-aggressive model or no model at all. In addition, children exposed to non-aggressive models showed very little aggression. Same-sex models were also more likely to provoke imitation of behavior than opposite-sex models, although not more significantly. These results supported their theory that learning could occur just by observing a model, and that imitation could occur without the model’s presence.
There were several ethical concerns with this experiment however. For one, putting children in a situation to watch and replicate violent behavior may have had lasting aggressive effects on the lives of children. The children’s exposure to an adult’s aggression might even be seen as abuse as their violence may have frightened the children. In addition, the children knew the Bobo doll was not a real person so they may have allowed themselves to express their aggression toward the doll. If a real person had been used, the results may have been significantly different. In addition, the children may not have meant to express aggression, and may have solely viewed the punching and kicking of the Bobo doll as another way to play with toys.
With regard to the result of the boys showing more aggression than the girls, this result could have been closely related to the cultural context the boys grew up in. For instance, in the western culture where men have the expectation of needing to be good fighters, the researchers themselves may have already thought that boys would be more aggressive than girls, which could possibly have influenced their observations. The boys themselves may have been influenced by this cultural expectation, which caused them to be more aggressive than the girls. In addition, there is little ecological validity. For instance, the model used was a stranger; it would be very uncommon for children to be alone with strangers since much of their childhood would be spent surrounded by people they know who will give their insights on whatever is happening.
In general, social learning theory has its advantages as it can be applied to a wide range of behavior and because it is applicable to people of all ages in different situations. Because of this, and through learning by observation, a greater understanding of the role of learning in development can be obtained. It can also explain why individuals imitate acts of violence. However, the disadvantages of social learning theory is that experimentation is frequently used, making learning in development a complex, and lengthy process. Critics have also pointed out that social learning theorists tend to try and describe the whole socialization process in one laboratory based situation – neglecting other environmental and biological factors.
In 1967, Siegman and Maier conducted an experiment involving 24 experimentally naïve mongrel dogs to see if helplessness could be learned. The dogs were separated into three conditions: the yoked condition, the escaped condition, and the control. In the escaped condition, dogs were suspended in the hammock and received 64 shocks of a 6.0mA magnitude at intervals of 90 seconds. If after 30 seconds, the dog failed to press the panel that terminated the shocks, the shock would be terminated. In the yoked condition, the same procedure was carried out, except the panel would not terminate any shocks, and the termination of the shock was dependent on the time it took for the escaped conditioned dogs to escape. In phase 2 of the experiment, the escape-conditioned dogs were given 10 trials in a shuttle box, which darkened when a trial was to begin. After ten seconds, shocks were delivered. The shocks could be terminated only if the dog jumped over a barrier. However, if the dog failed to escape after 60 seconds, the shock would be terminated, and a new trial would occur after 90 seconds. The yoked conditioned dogs were tested in the same way.
The results showed that the yoked-control dogs took an average of 48.22 seconds to escape while the dogs in the other two conditions took less than 27 seconds on average to escape. The difference in times was significantly different. Yoked dogs failed to escape 9/10 times, while 12.5% of dogs in the control had the same results and 0% of the dogs in the escape condition failed this many times. In general, dogs in the yoked control condition were more likely to fail than dogs in the other conditions as their lack of success in the first phase seemed to affect their ability to learn a straightforward escape routine in phase 2. These results support the notion of learned helplessness.
However, there are many ethical concerns in relation to how the dogs were treated during the experiment. It is noted that one dog even died during the experiment. The extent of the effects of how much the dogs were psychologically and physically tortured with the shocks could have been long-term, and it is unknown whether the dog’s health conditions and tolerance for pain were observed before the experiment was conducted. It is also likely that the researchers did not monitor how much suffering the animals were feeling during the experiment.
The samples could also have been flawed in several ways, which could have altered the results significantly. For instance, within each sample, the personalities of the dogs could have differed significantly. Some dogs – while experimentally naïve, may have still undergone a form of training which may have given them a slight advantage in terms of having more confidence and recognizing patterns. In addition, there may have been such a dog in the escaped condition, who consistently jumped over the barrier or pushed the lever. Alternatively, these actions could have set an example for the other dogs to follow as a result of social learning theory. The gender and size of the dogs in each sample could also have affected the result – dogs in the escaped condition may have had more dogs with better physical build and muscle tone that could have enabled them to jump over the barrier more efficiently than the dogs in the yoked control.
Weaknesses in the procedure were mostly related to timing. Since the duration of each successive shock in the yoked control in both phases was dependent on how fast the dogs in the escaped condition escaped, the dogs in the yoked condition in phase 2 might have escaped had they been given more time. Perhaps the outcome shouldn’t have been observed as ‘learned helplessness,’ since the dogs in the yoked control might have just been significantly slower to recognize the escape route – or as previously mentioned, the dogs within the sample may not have been so efficient and thus prevented them from applying social learning. Because of these factors, the experiment cannot be said to have been reliable. However, ecological validity is high because the results were concluded to be significantly different (p < 0.5), and because these results can be applied to humans effectively. Seligman and Maier’s work may provide valuable insights into the phenomenon of institutionalization for instance. For example, people who stay in hospitals and residential units for a long time appear to lose their individuality. This might occur because their lives are so strictly controlled, with very little room to make their own decisions. Their work could help us understand how to avoid, inhibit, and reverse this process.
In conclusion, environmental explanations of learning like classical conditioning, social learning theory, and learned helplessness has its advantages and disadvantages. A disadvantage is that the methods in which the result is obtained is usually a long process. In addition, the method used to generate these environmental explanations of learning frequently poses several ethical issues, which may inflict long-term psychological and physical damage. Samples used are also not likely to be representative of the general public in terms of culture, gender, and lots of other factors, which may impact its ecological validity and mundane realism. Assumptions based on the results, which have not been tested are also made which may not necessarily work in real life (eg: Little Albert and the ability to take away phobias). However, on the lighter note, the results of these explanations are applicable to a wide range of behaviors, which can be used to reverse, explain, or inhibit undesired behaviors, and encourage other desired behaviors. Environmental explanations of learning also look at both cognitive and behaviorist aspects of learning.
