Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Short note on observational learning
Applicability of Observational Learning
Applicability of Observational Learning
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Short note on observational learning
Kassem Abusnineh
English III AP
Dawson
3 Feb 2016
“Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper void of all characters, without any ideas. How comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE” ("The Nature versus Nurture Debate or Controversy"). Experience is defined as the observing, encountering, or undergoing of things generally as they occur in the course of time, and genetics is the study of heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics, thus both factors are believed to have tremendous effects on the personalities
…show more content…
Furthermore, well-renowned psychologists like John Locke and Albert Bandura set out to find the answer. Their ambitions have taken them far, Albert Bandura proposed the theory of observational learning, which is referred to as shaping or modeling. Even though, observational learning can be learned throughout any stage in life, it tends to occur more in the way that children act. Bandura demonstrated that we are prone to engage in observational learning, and demonstrated this through the fact that children as young as 21 days old, will attempt to mimic facial expressions and movements, which demonstrates how impactful observational learning can be at such a young age. Bandura also conducted an experiment, Bobo doll experiment, in which children observed a film that showed an adult repeatedly beating a bobo doll aggressively. However, after viewing the film, the children were permitted to play with a real bobo doll, with no supervision. Therefore, Bandura concluded that children were most likely to mimic the actions of an adult ("What Is Observational Learning?"). Furthermore, the Bobo doll experiment also relates well to the ideology of the British philosopher, John Locke. Locke refuses to believe the ideology of Descartes, that human beings know certain things naturally without being taught it. Therefore, Locke created the theory of “Tabula Rasa” or clean slate, in which he believed that infants know nothing at birth and that all ideas develop come from experience ("John Locke's Theory of Tabula Rasa"). Thus, demonstrated that since children’s minds are blank at birth, it demonstrates how much the environment has a significant impact on the development of personality. Therefore, John Locke and Albert Bandura both proved that the environment in which children occupy themselves in, are what overall influences their
On October 9, 1968, a set of twins were born, but separated at birth and ultimately, put up for adoption. The decision to separate the twins came from the adoption agency who wanted to conduct a nature versus nurture experiment; however, the experiment was conducted in secret. However, for unknown reasons, the experiment never developed to fruition. Unaware the child they adopted was a twin; both sets of parents raised a singular child. Thirty-five years later, one twin began a search for her biological mother through the adoption agency, only to find out that she was born a twin. Upon learning her identity, she reached out to her twin and they began the journey of getting to know one another by comparing characteristics that appeared similar such as temperament and mannerism. They even discovered that they both held positions as a film critic and enjoyed almost identical movies.
“Which influences a person the most, their genetic makeup and biology or their upbringing and
Today, realising that genes and environment cooperate and interact synergistically, traditional dichotomy of nature vs. nurture is commonly seen as a false dichotomy. Especially operant conditioning, i.e. the learning of the consequences of one's own behavior can lead to positive feedback loops between genetic predispositions and behavioral consequences that render the question as to cause and effect nonsensical. Positive feedback has the inherent tendency to exponentially amplify any initial small differences. For example, an at birth negligible difference between two brothers in a gene affecting IQ to a small percentage, may lead to one discovering a book the will spark his interest in reading, while the other never gets to see that book. One becomes an avid reader who loves intellectual challenges while the other never finds a real interest in books, but hangs out with his friends more often. Eventually, the reading brother may end up with highly different IQ scores in standardized tests, simply because the book loving brother has had more opportunities to train his brain. Had both brother received identical environmental input, their IQ scores would hardly differ.
For this first analytical essay, I have decided to have a go at analyzing the Nature Vs. Nurture using my own viewpoint as a sibling. No doubt this is a topic that has been debated to mental death already, but I think it is something I will benefit from thinking about. Also, at the end of my main topic, I will quickly address a topic brushed on in the book.
Noted psychologist Jerome Kagan once said "Genes and family may determine the foundation of the house, but time and place determine its form" (Moore 165). The debate on nature versus nurture has been a mystery for years, constantly begging the question of whether human behavior, ideas, and feelings are innate or learned over time. Nature, or genetic influences, are formed before birth and finely-tuned through early experiences. Genes are viewed as long and complicated chains that are present throughout life and develop over time. Nature supporters believe that genes form a child's conscience and determine one's approach to life, contrasting with nature is the idea that children are born “blank slates,” only to be formed by experience, or nurture.
Nature, the more scientific theory of the two, is the belief that hereditary traits found in our genes make us who we are, believable but not very convincing when we consider the theory of nurture. Human beings learn new things everyday, as soon as we come in to the world, our learning process begins. As a newborn baby, we slowly learn and adapt in order to survive in a new environment which is unlike that of our mothers wombs, our first environment in which we first grew, adapted to and developed in. The home environment parents and siblings play a huge role in determining personality. Influences from outside the family are also very important to the development of ones personality. But everything starts at home.
The ‘Nature versus Nurture’ argument can be traced back several millenniums ago. In 350 B.C., philosophers were asking the same question on human behaviour. Plato and Aristotle were two philosophers who each had diverse views on the matter. On the one hand, Plato believed that knowledge and behaviour were due to inherent factors, but environmental factors still played a role in the equation. Conversely, Aristotle had different views. He believed in the idea of “Tabula Rasa”- the Blank Slate theory supported the nurture side of the argument and put forward the view that everyone was born with a ‘Tabula Rasa’, Latin for ‘Blank Slate’. He proposed that “people learn and acquire ideas from external forces or the environment”. Was he right when he proposed that the mind is a blank slate and it is our experiences that write on these slates? This theory concluded that as humans, we are born with minds empty of ideas and at birth we have no knowledge or awareness of how we should behav...
Nature and Nurture are both things that work together they aren’t just separate jobs. They each may do a bit of different things but all in all they both work together and they do things with each other and may also do some things alone.
In attempt to understand individuals, psychologists debate whether nature or nurture accounts for human abilities and capacities. The term “nature” refers to the characteristics and abilities that derive from genetics, such as eye color. The term “nurture” indicates the abilities and capacities we acquire from society and the environment around us – the things we learn. Both nature and nurture influence how humans behave and function. Determining where the qualities and characteristics derive from will help us understand and assist the subject we desire to learn about.
The Biological approach to personality places emphasis on the genetic influences related to the development of an individual’s personality. Some may believe that children and their parents can have very similar personalities, for example a young boy having his father’s anger (Stelmack, 1990). Though this approach has often been questioned by psychologists, it is not disregarded all together. Some believe that genetics do have a role in an individual’s personality development; however environments, as well as personal experiences all work in forming personality.
The environment that was presented to them significantly influenced the traits that these people grew to have. Though genetics does serve an important role in the development of a person, it is more like a guide. It is important, just less important than the environment someone is surrounded by. Genetic factors simply set up a kind of blueprint for the brain. The human brain will recognize how something is supposed to be.
“The nature-nurture issue is a perennial one that has resurfaced in current psychiatry as a series of debates on the role that genes (DNA) and environments play in the etiology and pathophysiology of mental disorders” (Schaffner)
How does the study of twins help us understand the nature-nurture controversy with respect to intelligence better?
Someone can physically look like their parents, siblings or even ancestors from the third generation. When a baby is born, it is common to learn in a natural way. No one teaches a baby how to crawl or how to react when he and she is hungry. However, talents, qualities and personalities are developed through experiences. The environment in which people grew up can have a lasting effect or influence on the way they talk, behave and respond to things around. According to Steven Pinker, Behavioral genetics has shown that temperament emerges early in life and remains fairly constant throughout the life span, that much of the variation among people within a culture comes from differences in genes, and that in some cases particular genes can be tied to aspects of cognition, language, and personality (2). Researchers believe that the origin of behaviors occur in genes in the DNA or even animal instincts which this concept is known as nature of human behavior. Other researchers believe that people are they were they are because they are taught to do so. This concept is well known as nurture in human behavior. In society, there will always be the doubt between Do we born in this way or do we behave according to life experiences? I strongly believe that nurture plays an important role in the upbringing of a child and the decisions that one makes in the future. Firstly, humans learn from their environment and other’s behaviors. Secondly, culture is a huge remark in people’s life. Finally,
Nature vs nurture debate is an old argument, I believe that nature and nurture both work together. Your genes are something that you are born with but your experiences and how you were raised also make you the person you are today. Experiences and opportunities help you develop your personality. It also provides a valuable training ground for later life. Human culture, behavior, and personality are cause primarily by nature and nurture not nature or