7.1 Learning From Others

Like other animals, humans learn by experiencing associations between stimuli (classical conditioning), such as the bell and the food for Pavlov’s dogs (Pavlov, 1927). If every time we see Tim, we have a good time, our association of Tim with good feelings may lead us to develop a positive attitude toward Tim and seek out his company. We also learn to repeat behaviors that in the past have been followed by favorable outcomes and avoid behaviors that have had unfavorable outcomes (operant conditioning). If every time we tell a joke, our friends praise us, we will become more likely to tell additional jokes. In addition to these forms of learning, we humans also learn a great deal by garnering information from others and from observing others and imitating their behaviors.

Social Learning Theory

An old expression captures the basic idea of social learning: “Monkey see, monkey do.” Plenty of animals learn this way, not just monkeys. Birds learn songs from other birds. Untrained dogs learn faster if they are taught behaviors alongside dogs who are already trained (Adler & Adler, 1977). Research in Italy has even shown that octopi are faster at learning how to open a jar to get food if they first had an opportunity to observe another octopus do it (Fiorito & Scotto, 1992). However, we humans are probably the species most reliant on social learning. The renowned teacher of psychology Henry Gleitman put it this way:

Social learning

The capacity to learn from observing others.

[I]n the course of a lifetime, human beings learn a multitude of problem solutions that were discovered by those who came before them. They do not have to invent spoken language or the alphabet; they do not have to discover fire or the wheel or even how to eat baby food with a spoon. Other people show them. (Gleitman, 1981, p. 498)

From driving a car and hitting a tennis ball to eating sushi or doing the tango, we learn largely from watching others model those behaviors. In fact, we saw in chapter 4 that certain neurons, called mirror neurons, are activated both when one does an action oneself and when one simply observes another person perform that action (Uddin et al., 2007). As the neuroscientist Marco Iacoboni notes, “When you see me perform an action—such as picking up a baseball—you automatically simulate the action in your own brain” (Blakeslee, 2006). Albert Bandura (1965) developed social learning theory and an associated research program to better understand factors that affect how people are influenced by observing others.

Albert Bandura’s classic Bobo doll studies illustrate how we learn our behaviors by watching others. Here we see that the adult’s (top panel) aggressive actions are subsequently modeled by both boys and girls.
[Dr. Albert Bandura]

In Bandura’s seminal studies (Bandura et al., 1961, 1963a, 1963b), mildly frustrated nursery school children (between ages three and six) watched a film of a young woman punch and kick a large inflated Bobo doll and hit it with a mallet. Children readily imitated this behavior when they were later given an opportunity to play with the Bobo doll, punching and kicking the doll and hitting it with the mallet in a manner that was eerily similar to the model’s behavior, right down to repeating the same aggressive remarks that the model had made (e.g., “Pow, right in the nose, boom, boom.”). Similar results occurred whether the film showed a live-action model or a cartoon figure hitting a cartoon depiction of the doll. But observing and learning a behavior doesn’t necessarily mean we will imitate it. According to social learning theory, we can either be encouraged to engage or discouraged from engaging in both new and known behaviors on the basis of whether the consequences of the actions for the model are positive or negative. Thus, children were more likely to imitate the Bobo-doll-bashing model if the model was rewarded for the actions (e.g., supplied with a 7 Up and candy), and were less likely if the model was punished for the actions (e.g., a second adult spanked the aggressive model with a rolled-up magazine) (Bandura, 1965). Learning is also influenced by our sensitivity to social cues and motivations. For example, imitation was also more likely when the model seemed likeable and similar to the children. Finally, social learning is more likely if the behavior observed is consistent with the motivational state of the observer. So frustrated kids are more likely to imitate a violent model. But rewarded models tend to be imitated regardless of the motivational state of the observer.

233

Does the tendency to imitation also occur in adults? The next time you find yourself at a restaurant, take a look at the people at other tables. How often do you see people mirroring each other’s posture—two people both leaning in on their elbows, or a group that all have their arms folded across their chests? Tanya Chartrand and John Bargh (1999) documented this phenomenon, which they called the chameleon effect—the tendency to mimic unconsciously the nonverbal mannerisms of someone with whom you are interacting.

Chameleon effect

The tendency to mimic unconsciously the nonverbal mannerisms of someone with whom you are interacting.

Like father like son? People often mirror the posture and mannerisms of those they are talking to. Sometimes mirroring conveys warmth and contentment, but other times shared animosity.
[Holloway/Getty Images]

To document the chameleon effect, the researchers paired each participant with a partner and had them take turns telling a story about a photograph. The participants performed this task twice, with two different partners. Unknown to the participants, these partners actually were confederates of the experimenters and had been trained ahead of time either to rub their faces or shake one of their feet at certain times during the interaction. They had also been trained to smile or remain neutral during the interaction. The interactions were videotaped and later coded by judges, according to how often the participants rubbed their faces or shook a foot. As expected, when doing the task with a face-rubbing confederate, participants were more likely to rub their faces; when doing the task with a foot-shaking confederate, participants were more likely to shake a foot. They were also more likely to smile when the confederate they were paired with was smiling. None of the participants reported having any conscious awareness of the other person’s mannerisms or the fact that they might have mimicked them.

Additional research shows that this kind of mimicry isn’t limited to casual, nonverbal behaviors. People also automatically shift their attitudes toward what they think another person’s opinions might be, especially when they are motivated to get along with that person. To show this, one study (Sinclair et al., 2005) had White participants complete an implicit association test (the IAT, which we introduced back in chapter 3) to measure their automatically activated attitudes toward African Americans in the presence of an experimenter who was wearing a T-shirt that either was blank or said “Eracism” (a play on words that suggests the eradication of racism). The researchers also had the experimenter act in either a friendly or rude way.

234

The researchers predicted that people would shift their attitudes toward the attitude of the experimenter, but only if they liked her. Compared with the blank T-shirt, the Eracism shirt communicated that the experimenter might have more positive attitudes toward minorities. So when the experimenter wore the latter shirt and was likeable, participants indeed exhibited more positive implicit attitudes toward African Americans in their IAT responses. But this study also demonstrated that participants did not shift their attitudes when they did not like the antiracism experimenter. Similarly, the chameleon effect occurs mainly when the other person is likeable (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003; Lakin & Chartrand, 2003).

The role of liking suggests that mimicry often may happen because most social interactions involve a general goal of trying to get along. Unless they are truly disagreeable, most people go into an interaction with a stranger with the goal of being liked. Our group-living ancestors were probably more successful at propagating their genes into the future by being able to interact with each other smoothly and thereby coordinate behavior to achieve shared goals. Given our general sociability as a species, then, we shouldn’t be surprised that people have an unconscious tendency to mimic others’ mannerisms and attitudes.

APPLICATION: Harmful Media-inspired Social Learning

APPLICATION:
Harmful Media-inspired Social Learning

However, this aptitude for social learning has its downside. The sociologist David Phillips (1974, 1979) discovered that media portrayals of celebrity suicides are associated with subsequent increases in suicides and car accidents among the general public. Philips also showed that the more media coverage suicides get in a particular region of the country, the more people tried the act themselves. Feature films also often inspire unfortunate examples of social learning. The award-winning 1978 film The Deer Hunter showed soldiers playing the game of Russian roulette (Cimino et al., 1978). In the following weeks, many instances of teenagers playing this dangerous game were reported. In 1993 another film, The Program, had a scene in which teenagers were shown lying down on the median between car lanes (Goldwyn et al., 1993). Within days of the film’s appearance in theaters, numerous teens tried this, sometimes with tragic consequences. We’ll examine other unsavory examples of social learning in a later chapter that discusses the effects of media portrayals of aggression.

Social Priming

Observing others perform an action does much more than merely provide a model. Such exposure also communicates information about our social world. Thus, another basic way that people influence us is by priming ideas, norms, and values. For instance, watching someone engage in aggression makes aggressive concepts more accessible (Bushman, 1998). As we saw in chapter 3, when concepts are made salient or more accessible, they are more likely to influence our behavior. When other people remind us of the norm to be fair or to be charitable, for example, often we are more likely to act in accord with those norms.

Robert Cialdini’s (2003) focus theory of normative conduct emphasizes the important role that salience plays in enhancing the influence of norms. This theory distinguishes between two different types of norms. Injunctive norms are beliefs about which behaviors are generally approved of or disapproved of in one’s culture. Descriptive norms are beliefs about what most people typically do. Often the two norms align. For instance, people generally think that motorists should stop at red lights and that most of them do. However, norms can also diverge. People also think that others should not litter but believe that most people do. In studies directed toward decreasing littering and increasing energy conservation and recycling, Cialdini and colleagues have found that reminding people of either type of norm regarding these behaviors, whether through exposure to another person’s behavior or to a posted sign, tends to increase adherence to the norms.

APPLICATION: Using Norms to Preserve

APPLICATION:
Using Norms to Preserve

How can norms be used to reduce theft of wood from Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park?
[Getty Images/Gallo Images]

There is a danger to using norms to change behavior. Cialdini (2003) has noted that well-intentioned efforts to get people to do the right thing, such as public service announcements, sometimes make salient a descriptive norm that turns out to be counterproductive. For instance, in 2000, visitors to the fascinating Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona were greeted by a sign saying, “Your heritage is being vandalized every day by theft losses of petrified wood of 14 tons a year, mostly a small piece at a time.” Although this sign surely communicates the injunctive norm that it is wrong to take the wood, it also implies the descriptive norm that many people do take the wood. In such a case, the injunctive and descriptive norms being made salient are working at cross-purposes. Cialdini and colleagues (2006) ran a study in which they created and posted signs at two different spots in the park. One sign emphasized only the injunctive norm: “Please don’t remove the petrified wood from the park.” The other sign emphasized only the descriptive norm: “Many past visitors have removed the petrified wood from the park, changing the state of the Petrified Forest.” The researchers were able to measure theft by tracking the disappearance of subtly marked pieces of wood placed throughout the park. Compared with the park average of just under 3% of the (specially marked) wood being stolen, the injunctive sign led to only 1.67% of the wood being stolen, but the descriptive sign led to a disturbing theft rate of 7.92%. So when you’re trying to get people not to do bad things, be careful not to make salient the idea that many or most people do those bad things.

Injunctive norm

A belief about what behaviors are generally approved of or disapproved of in one’s culture.

Descriptive norm

A belief about what most people typically do.

235

Social Contagion

The ideas of both mimicry and social priming may also help explain a phenomenon that Gustave Le Bon (1896) labeled social contagion: that ideas, feelings, and behaviors seem to spread among people like wildfires. Le Bon noted how people in crowds come to behave almost as if they were of one mind. Since his time, studies have shown that everything from yawns, laughter, and applause to moods, goals, and depression seems to be contagious, spreading easily from person to person (e.g., Aarts et al., 2004; Hatfield et al., 1993; Provine, 2004). For instance, when participants were given the goal of remembering an emotionally neutral speech, they became happier if the voice was slightly happy and sadder if the voice was slightly sad (Neumann & Strack, 2000). Even obesity seems to be contagious. The medical researchers Christakis and Fowler (2007) analyzed data on body-mass index for more than 1,200 adults over a 32-year period. They found that if a particular person becomes obese, the chances that a friend of theirs subsequently also will become obese increases by 57%.

Social contagion

The phenomenon whereby ideas, feelings, and behaviors seem to spread across people like wildfire.

236

APPLICATION: Psychogenic Illness

APPLICATION:
Psychogenic Illness

One particularly remarkable form of social contagion is called mass psychogenic illness (Colligan et al., 1982). This phenomenon occurs when an individual develops physical symptoms with no apparent physical cause, which then leads other people to feel convinced that they too have the same (psychologically generated) symptoms. Instances of this phenomenon seem to date at least back to the Middle Ages (Sirois, 1982). In one fairly well-documented case that occurred in 1998, a high school teacher in Tennessee reported a gasoline smell in her classroom and developed headaches, dizziness, and nausea. As word got out, others in the school soon began reporting similar symptoms. In fact, once the idea of the gas leak and its supposed effects began to spread, over 170 students, teachers, and staff members searched internally and ultimately found such symptoms in themselves, and the entire school was evacuated. Careful investigation by the Tennessee Department of Health determined that there was no physical cause of the symptoms (Jones et al., 2000). Eventually, the authorities convinced everyone there was no gas leak, and the symptoms disappeared.

SECTION review: Learning From Others

Learning From Others
Humans learn a great deal by observing and imitating others.
Social Learning
  • We learn to do something new from watching others model the behavior.
  • We unconsciously tend to mimic the nonverbal mannerisms of others.
  • We also shift our attitudes toward those of people we like.
  • Social Priming

  • Reminders of norms and values can influence behavior.
  • Injunctive norms and descriptive norms can have different influences on behavior.
  • Social Contagion

  • Ideas, feelings, and behaviors can spread among people like wildfire.