Prepared Social Learning of Barrett and Broesch - Literature review Example

Barrett and Broesch prepared social learning study s Humans are very well-known to be social specie, and first of all, it’s noticeable when humans relay on other humans’ experience preparedly, rather than forming individual opinion on a subject. However, there are subjects when humans have to rely on social learning, because there’s no other way to develop an individual behavior, for example, when direct individual experience can be fatal to a human being. Here we describe H. Clark Barrett and James Broesch study of prepared social learning about dangerous animals in children. We critically evaluate this study within Bandura social learning theory, and because the peculiarity of the results of the study, it is also critically discussed within the cultural aspect of social influence. It can be said, that during social learning individual automatically experiences social influence, because individual is imposed upon values and emotions coming from outside: from the environment and other individuals. It is originally implied that individual him/ herself can develop opinion and/or model of behavior for specific situation, but for some reason he/ she doesn’t develop them. Then behavior and/or emotional attitude can be learned by imposing, for example, when individual experience is too dangerous to retrieve. In current study, Barrett and Broesch are specifically focused on case when behavior can only be developed by obeying to a strange influence for a reason of dangerousness. Study description A theoretical foundation for the study was a social learning theory, and specifically the idea of prepared social learning upon conditions when “social learning becomes less costly than individual learning” (Barrett and Broesch 2012, 500). Barrett and Broesch had developed their own theories based on Mineka et. al. studies of macaques: macaques had demonstrated more attendance to information about local danger than to any other kind of information. “Interestingly, studies of Mineka et. al. showed that fear acquisition can occur in a single trial and without feedback: a monkey need not actually experience that a snake can cause injury in order to acquire the fear” (Barrett and Broesch 2012, 500). Predator fear was a domain of prepared social learning (Tomasello and Call 1997, 285). Therefore, Barrett and Broesch proposed that not all information is equally learnable and uptake of content depends on usefulness of information. Scientists had formulated several predictions for the study. Based on theory of usefulness of information, they firstly predicted that content about animals’ dangerousness will be learned better than other types of content (Barrett and Broesch 2012, 501). Another prediction was inspired by the Mineka et. al. macaque studies: experimental samples will demonstrate a single-trial learning without feedback. Third prediction was about retaining of danger information. Barrett and Broesch proposed that this kind of information will enter long-term memory after a single exposure (2012, 501). The forth prediction was about cross-cultural effect for danger information on humans. Scientists proposed that information about dangerous animals is equally important for humans from diverse environments. To prove these hypothesis experimental groups of children were formed: one group of children from urban Los Angeles, for whom animal danger is close to zero, and one group of Shuar children from indigenous society in the Amazon region, where animal danger is real. Barrett and Broesch chose specifically children to study because they expected children to show more effects than adults for two reasons: lack of experience and background knowledge, and because children’s attentional and working memory are more likely to be restricted (2012, 501). Shuar children appeared to be older than Americans, because the society was rather small and all children willing to participate were used. Groups were shown cards with pictures of unknown animals, and information about animals’ name, diet and dangerousness was provided. Experiment consisted of training part and experimental part one week later, in order to prove that information about danger enters long-term memory. Before the training “interviewer initiated a brief discussion” to be sure that children understood what means under the terms “safe” and “dangerous” in context of animals (Barrett and Broesch 2012, 503). Cards were shuffled after the training and before the experimental part. No feedback information was provided for all cases. The results revealed that scientists were right about most of their predictions. Both experimental groups had shown more successful learning of danger information in comparison with information about animals’ diet and especially animals’ names. By the fact, that the results were retrieved without any feedback information and after single-trial learning, the second prediction was confirmed. As the results were retrieved since week after the trial, the third prediction was also confirmed: danger information had entered long-term memory. As for the fourth prediction about cross-cultural effect of danger information in children, it hadn’t been proved. For some reasons, Shuar children had demonstrated much better results in learning information about dangerous animals, than American children. Critical evaluation The subject of current study is quite specific, because even in social learning theory, developed by Bandura the “questions of survival” stand apart (1971, 5). When Bandura speaks about social learning theory and about either direct learning, or learning through modeling, he qualifies “questions of survival” as ones, learned through modeling. But he also admits, “Apart from questions of survival, it is difficult to imagine a socialization process in which […] practices are taught to each new member by selective reinforcement of fortuitous behaviors” (1971, 5). Individuals usually are aspired to survive, and therefore to pay more attention on information about danger. Firstly, the motivation is a psycho-biological fear of death. It is well-known, that all evolutional and adaptive changes were made by humans in order to save the specie under the conditions of unfriendly environment. Secondly, for the same reason, one individuals are reinforced to survive by other individuals. “Anticipation of reinforcement is one of several factors that can influence what is observed and what goes unnoticed” (Bandura 1971, 9). Before the experiment, Barrett and Broesch say, interviewer had discussed with children terms of “danger” and “safe”, and in this way, children’s observation was actualized. Yet, better results were shown by Shuar experimental group. Critically discussing own experimental results Barrett and Broesch say, the results can be reasoned by disproportion in age (generally, Shuar group was older than American one) and/or by different “folkbiological background knowledge” (2012, 506). In fact, both reasons do not exclude each other. Elder age could afford Shuars a ground for actualization of attention and, at the same time, for Shuar children animal danger is more real. Speaking about cultural differences Barrett and Broesch fairly point on localization of animal danger for Shuar children and therefore, Shuars paid more attention to danger information in comparison with Americans. Scientists say, “Culture could have an effect if cultural phenomena among the Shuar, such as hunting or parents’ talk about animals” (2012, 506). But also, there could be other cultural factors which determined the results. Andrzej Nowak and Robin R. Vallacher point, that there are differences for collectivistic and individualistic cultures in social influence. “In so-called collectivistic cultures […] independence among individuals is emphasized at the expense of independence so that individuals are readily influenced by the opinions, attitudes, and expectations of others. In so-called individualistic cultures greater emphasis is placed on independence, with individuals maintaining a greater degree of autonomy in their self-concept, attitudes, and lifestyle” (2000, 139). Indigenous society which Shuars definitely are, appears to raise their children in more collectivistic tradition than different American families raises children in Los Angeles. American cultural tradition (generally, whole Western cultural traditions) is highly individual and opposite to almost relative relationships in tribes. This factor also may cause the results: American samples were more independent in their behavior while Shuar samples were children from comparatively small society, and apparently, with the same reinforced behavior on the subject of animal danger. Also, Nowak and Vallacher speak about social influence differences in less and more modernized societies. Individuals in rural societies are more stable in their opinions and behavior, and are better subjected to social influence. “In relatively modernized societies, in contrast, there is considerably more social mobility […]. This disturbs the stability of social influence exerted on an individual by his or her social context” (Nowak and Vallacher 2000, 139). For this reason too Shuar children could be more “trained” on a subject of animal danger. However, both reasons refer to cultural differences between Americans and Shuars. Yet, it was hypnotized by Barrett and Broesch, that information about dangerous animals would have equal cross-cultural value. At the same time, according to Bandura’s social learning theory, “questions of survival” is a very specific part of social learning. In their turn, Mineka et. al. macaque studies have shown, that fear of local danger is common for all samples of a specie and motivates them to prepared learning. Therefore, in the light of all above said, we propose that in “questions of survival” humans do demonstrate equal prepared learning ability, despite the cultural differences. We also propose that results could be more approving if Barrett and Broesch had chosen a more real for both experimental groups type of danger. References Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press. Barrett, H. C. and Broesch, J. (2012). Prepared social learning about dangerous animals in children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33 (449-508). Nowak, A. and Vallacher, R. R. (2000). Societal Transition: Towards a Dynamical Model of Social Change. In Wosinska, W., Cialdini, R. B., Barrett, D. W. and Reykowski, J. (Eds.) The Practice of Social Influence in Multiple Cultures (pp. 130-150). Psychology Press. Tomasello, M., and Call, J. (1997). Primate Cognition. Oxford University Press. Read More