Social Learning Theory discussion

[Angelique]

I thought it might be a good idea not to derail another thread and instead open a discussion of Social Learning and how it blends with Operant Conditioning and Classical Conditioning and may apply to our personal and social relationships with our canine family members.

Albert Bandura is often considered the "father" of the Social Learning concept in Human Psycholgy. Yeah, I know...not Dog Psychology, but all animals are the same anyway, right?

Now, I go a little further than Bandura in that I define Social Learning as any information exchange or communication between two living beings through one of the senses or through a commonly understood language, to be included in the definition of Social Learning.

Social Learning is easily understood as an indirect form of Operant Conditioning or Classical Conditioning. Social animals have learned to save energy and avoid risks by learning through the experience of others.

Another point of view regarding social learning is the members of a social group have evolved this form of learning and work together for the reward of passing on their own, or a connected genetic code.

This is the goal (life reward) of every living organism on the planet. To pass on their genes and stay alive long enough to do so. That's it. Social animals from ants to dogs exploit their social learning skills through collective information, communication, and cooperation.

Please remember, I am also in support of Operant Conditioning and Classical Conditioning which work in harmony rather than against Social Learning.

It's like arguing nature vs nurture. I say it isn't either/or...it's both, but also involving intelligent choice.

Articles and interesting links:

STANFORD Magazine: September/October 2006 > Features > Albert Bandura

TIP: Theories

Social Learning Theory (Bandura) at Learning Theories

SOCIAL LEARNING KNOWLEDGE BASE -

Social Cognitive Theory

Social Cognitive Theory

 

[Dekka]

Yes this is pretty basic and good. But the larger questions are do dogs look to us to 'model' behaviour on? How much do animals actually model or learn by watching (vs primates) Primates all do this. But horses, for example, do very little. Even when you deprive a horse of contact with other horses in its formative years.. it can still socially interact with other horses as an adult.

 

[Criosphynx]

what about humans with no desire to reproduce? I'm sure there are animal examples as well.

 

[Doberluv]

It's very interesting Angelique. This has been included in much of my own research as I study evolution and domestication of dogs. It is not clear, in fact whether all the things dogs can do in regard to imitation is due to evolution, (selection) or if some of it is due to the ability to learn because of past training.

There are lots of experiments and studies and some interesting discoveries about dogs that were not known before. They're finding out that dogs are probably smarter than we think. For example, how they can fast map. They may even have some rudimentary understanding of language. (not just making associations) But rudimentary and they have an ability to group like things together. Or how they are similar to human infants in selective imitation. For example, very young babies will imitate a mother who indicates an object by bumping it with her head, but only if there is no obvious reason to do so. In other words, if the mother's hands are tied or unable to reach for the object....it is plain that she must use her head instead of the more efficient use of touching the object with her hand, the baby (when able) will skip the head bumping and go straight for the object with his hand since that is more efficient. On the other hand, if the mother's hands are not occupied but she still uses her head to indicate the object, the young child will also imitate her by using his head. This is something that dogs will do also. But in response to imitating other dogs. There are many interesting things scientists are studying about dogs.

As far as operant and classical conditioning "vs" social learning, this is not an either/or situation. Imitation, fast mapping, understanding human social cues has been studied for quite a while now in dogs and they're amazing this way. But as far as training our dogs to heel, sit, stay, do complicated tricks, imitation of humans doesn't appear to have much significance or efficiency. At this point, it doesn't look like they imitate humans nearly as well as they do other dogs. They do recognize many of our social cues, unlike any other animal and do seem to learn from them to a degree. Chimpanzees or wolves will solve problems better than dogs when they are of a non-social nature. But when we're talking about complex tricks and such in training, relying on imitation certainly isn't as effective as the behaviorism model. Can you train your dog to spin around in circles as a trick or teach it to flip pages in a book like Dekka's dog by having him watch you do it? I can train my dog to come by reinforcing the recall as is the typical method but expecting him imitate my coming to him to learn the recall would be fruitless.

So I guess I don't know what the point is of your bringing up the social learning in that other thread which was talking about certified behaviorists...training pet dogs to do the things we like them to do. It is indeed an interesting topic. But where it's applicable to heel, sit, stay, drop on recall, etc etc....(the things that are normally asked about on the dog forum) I don't know why "social learning" is thought by you to have great bearing on training while learning theory...behaviorism, operant conditioning is usually dismissed by you, but proven to be what works to train all animals, not to mention the more biddable dog and is exceedingly efficient.

In addition, the things dogs do in regard to imitation or social learning, still boils down to the law of effect...to condition-response. Do this and that happens. Do that and something else happens. In other words, they only imitate something and keep on repeating that behavior which they're imitating IF there's something to be gained by it. Again....operant conditioning is the bottom line even though social learning is part of the repertoire of any animal which lives in groups. That's understood.

That concept is not new. Some of the intricate details that are experimented on and such may be new and produce some interesting findings....revelations which were not known before. But the concept over all, that animals living in groups feed off each other to one degree or another is not new. Most all dog owners have observed these things in their dogs for a long time. It's just that, like anything, science breaks it down into scientific terms and delves into it more.

what about humans with no desire to reproduce? I'm sure there are animal examples as well.

This would be an evolutionary oddity. Just as there are other incidental variables in how certain genes wound up being passed on can be the rarity. For example...most people who eat too much gain weight. Gaining weight and hanging onto calories would have been advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint. That's why over-weight people are not the exception, but more...the rule, especially these days with our life style. There are those rare people (I can't stand them) who will eat thousands and thousands of calories a day and remain as lean as a pole, some, who try to gain weight, but have a hard time. Those peoples' ancestors should not have survived back in the cave man days when food was more scarce and hard to come by, where acquiring food burned a lot of calories. They should not have survived to be able to pass on those genes which burn more calories than they take in. But some did. Some genes snuck through the gene pool....like illegal Mexicans sneaking through the border. People who didn't want or couldn't have children were the rarity, obviously or we wouldn't have such a population explosion. An evolutionary oddity. And not only that, but I'm sure other factors come into play which have to do with human mental or emotional, social and cognitive complexities which animals don't match. So in animals, it is probably much rarer that they do not have that drive to reproduce except when conditions warrant that they shouldn't...such as over population or other constraints within their group or range.

 

[Angelique]

what about humans with no desire to reproduce? I'm sure there are animal examples as well.

You mean like me? :rofl1:

Could be genetic (nature), could be how I was raised (nurture), could be I made the choice not to reproduce for personal reasons which include the fact that there are too many humans already. I wasn't without kids though. I've raised two stepsons and a few other kids.

With some animals, I think it can be genetic. But more often it would probably come down to environmental and/or social forces such as either a lack of food and water or overpopulation.

With social animals, there can be a shift to the goal of passing on a connected genetic code, rather than a personal one. Wolves may stay with a pack of genetically connected individuals (an extended family), but only the alpha pair will actually mate. This tells me the social drive is very strong.

It's not that these animals are acting selflessly. It's just how they are "wired" according to the evolution of their species.

Like wolves, dogs are very good at functioning within a social group without mating. I guess we shouldn't tell them that our genetic code is different from their's, huh?

This simple factor is probably one primary reason we can co-exist so easily with them.

 

[corgipower]

This is the goal (life reward) of every living organism on the planet. To pass on their genes and stay alive long enough to do so. That's it. Social animals from ants to dogs exploit their social learning skills through collective information, communication, and cooperation.

Now I understand why Jean Donaldson had a video of a dog humping her leg!! It's the ultimate reward! :rofl1:

I highly doubt that the is the goal of every living organism. I don't have any desire to pass on my genetics. If that were such an important goal, then neutering would become a punishment. I don't think dogs do what they do in hopes of passing on their genes. Dogs don't heel, sit, stay, retrieve dumbbells, run obstacle courses or gather sheep in hopes of reproducing. Even if reproduction were a "life reward" I don't see how it's applicable to training.

As for social learning, all the studies I've read indicate that this is something primates - apes and humans do far better than other species.

As I said in the other thread ~

Tyr has learned some things by observation and imitation. He's a mimic in ways that I've never seen in another dog. Those behaviors appeared initially through observation and imitation. Those behaviors were repeated only if he received reinforcement ~ OC.

So I've seen "social learning" in a dog. Tyr learned how to play with Ares by watching and imitating Ares and Morgan with each other. Tyr learned how to roll by watching Ares and Morgan. Tyr improved his heeling and retrieves by watching Ares. Tyr learned to swipe a paw playfully across Ares' muzzle by imitating Ares after Ares did that to Tyr.

All the dogs I've worked with over the years, Tyr is the only one I've seen who is capable of learning by observation and imitation. That doesn't make for a very useful tool as a dog trainer. Also, Tyr will attempt a behavior because he learned it by watching and mimicking, but he won't repeat it if it isn't reinforced or if it is punished. Tyr watched the corgis play with each other and then mimicked them. He was rewarded by their interaction of him and by Ares' acceptance of him. He learned how to roll, which he rarely does - it's not sufficiently self rewarding for him to perform this behavior and I have done nothing to encourage it. Tyr watched Ares heel and retrieve, and his positioning was much improved, his holding of the dumbbell was better. But after Tyr learned it by watching, I rewarded Tyr for doing it. When Tyr attempted to copy the swiping of a paw across Ares' muzzle, Ares snarled, which is a punisher to Tyr and the behavior hasn't been seen since.

Social animals have learned to save energy and avoid risks by learning through the experience of others.

However, even Tyr doesn't learn by watching another dog receive punishment. Tyr will attempt the same misbehaviors and receive the punishers himself.

Social learning on it's own doesn't work. It still needs OC in order for a learned behavior to stick. I can copy behaviors all day, but if they're not rewarding, I'm not going to repeat them.

 

[Angelique]

So I guess I don't know what the point is of your bringing up the social learning in that other thread which was talking about certified behaviorists...training pet dogs to do the things we like them to do. It is indeed an interesting topic. But where it's applicable to heel, sit, stay, drop on recall, etc etc....

Because the thread was about behaviorist schools, not training schools. But as I mentioned in that thread, most "trainers" are not sticking to training (heel, sit, stay...). These very same trainers who condemn those (who use a different philosophy than theirs) for working with dogs without having a behaviorist certification, are they themselves out there "playing" amature behaviorist (usually trying to "cure" aggression) with other people's dogs with no behaviorist certification of their own.

Now, how arrogant and hypocritical is that?. :yikes:

My opinion in that thread had to do with the fact that there is no school currently which I've found that teaches a wider range of sciences to those who wish to pursue a behaviorist career and specialize in dogs and Dog Psychology. I am entitled to an opinion in an open public forum regarding a question, aren't I?

I don't know why "social learning" is thought by you to have great bearing on training while learning theory...behaviorism, operant conditioning is usually dismissed by you...

Do you even read my posts? :lol-sign:

I think you'll find my issue with the behavior of certain evangelical trainers has nothing to do with Operant Conditioning, Classical Conditioning, Social Learning, science, psychology, etc...

But anyway. I hope that answered your questions so we can please stay on topic.

 

[Angelique]

I highly doubt that the is the goal of every living organism. I don't have any desire to pass on my genetics.

I have no desire either. I also know a lot of other folks who feel the same way. I think it has a lot to do with the pressures of human overpopulation removing the drive. Who knows?

But humans aside...

All things being equal, how many living organisms as a species, do not seek to reproduce their own or a connected genetic code? Can you name a few?

ETA: I think Jean was the one in the video getting "rewarded". Somone needs to send that woman a "personal touch". :rofl1:

 

[Doberluv]

Because the thread was about behaviorist schools, not training schools. But as I mentioned in that thread, most "trainers" are not sticking to training (heel, sit, stay...). These very same trainers who condemn those (who use a different philosophy than theirs) for working with dogs without having a behaviorist certification, are they themselves out there "playing" amature behaviorist (usually trying to "cure" aggression) with other people's dogs with no behaviorist certification of their own.

Curing or getting close-to-curing dog or human aggression by desensatizing dogs to other dogs or humans is training. There are methods which trainers use all the time and the best methods are gleaned from behaviorists who not only train sit, stay and down and understand training concepts, but who also understand at a deeper level why dogs do the things they do. Trainers come in a wide range of expertise. Some trainers can only train sit, come, stay, while other trainers, such as myself and others right here on the forum also work with dogs that have behavioral issues which are incompatible with living harmoniousy with humans and our life style. A certified behaviorist has gone to school and earned a degree in animal behavior where it applies to lots of animals, not just dogs. They are the best bet for dogs with problems which are not having success with other trainers. I have recently worked through two dogs' aggression issues...human aggression. Any dog that has bitten can never be called "cured." But they have become very manageable and much, much safer around visitors....(both had a problem with visistors, not their own family) I used desensatization techniques and positive associations applied to these visitors. The owners continue to impliment these techniques along with good supervision and management. The dogs are 90% more trusting of people and have learned to a great degree that visistors mean good news. So, please don't imply that I or anyone like me is hypocritical or arrogant. These people of whom I speak would not have been able to afford a certified behaviorist, the likes of whom doesn't even exist within 90 miles of my area. These people ran the risk of their dogs seriously biting someone and having to be destroyed. These dogs are now much, much safer and happier. And so are the owners.

If I ever were to run into a scenario or situation which I thought was beyond my ability to help, I would not hesitate one second to recommend a certified behaviorist. And I do plenty of times right here on the forum, in fact. I never once thought that I know and can handle absolutely anything that could possibly ever come my way.

Now, how arrogant and hypocritical is that?.

Nice. Thank you very much.

BTW...social learning by observation of humans would have done little to condition these dogs not to bite or learn alternative ways of dealing with their issues. Oh sure....being calm and unexciteable helps a dog to calm down as that rubs off on dogs to a degree. Duh. But observation and imiatation of non-conspecifics is not demonstrated in dogs and without a pro-active, systematic, conditioning/training....these dogs would not have made the progress they did. Even dogs that live in muliple dog house holds....one can have aggression issues while the other doesn't. That doesn't mean that the one with the issues is going to lose his aggression by watching the friendly dog interact nicely with humans. So relying on a non-pro active approach to working through aggression problems....leaving it up to dogs to observe and imitate is ludicrous.

 

[corgipower]

All things being equal, how many living organisms as a species, do not seek to reproduce their own or a connected genetic code? Can you name a few?

As a species isn't the same as individuals. Sure, a bitch comes into heat and her desire is to breed and all the males in the area desire to breed to her. And then she goes out of heat and she no longer desires to breed and the males no longer desire to breed to her.

It's not an ongoing desire and it's not useful for training purposes and it can be effected by sterilization. And not all intact males nearby have mating with her as a primary desire - I've owned intact bitches and intact dogs and the males were perfectly able to ignore the female when she was in heat. Not all bitches in heat have mating as a primary desire.

As a species, yes, they need to reproduce in order to survive. But it's not a conscious desire. They don't think about the need to survive in order to be able to reproduce. That's human thinking.

 

[Criosphynx]

I have no desire either. I also know a lot of other folks who feel the same way. I think it has a lot to do with the pressures of human overpopulation removing the drive. Who knows?

But humans aside...

All things being equal, how many living organisms as a species, do not seek to reproduce their own or a connected genetic code? Can you name a few?

ETA: I think Jean was the one in the video getting "rewarded". Somone needs to send that woman a "personal touch". :rofl1:

I know...personally with me... I find (to put it in training terms) being around children a very punishing/negative experience.

The idea of caring for another human being is a complete turnoff. Its hard to explain. I think I have too many selfish drives to put my life on hold to raise a child.



Hey Doberluv...Iam one of those bean pole eat anything people...Honestly its truely awful at times. If Iam late on a meal i get massive headaches/backaches etc etc....

perhaps tho.... genes like that had a use at som' point. Perhaps in an enviroment with plenty of resources... there are lots of different metabolisms in nature and those organisms succeed. All suited to the amount of resources in the enviroment.


Iam off to go eat again....

 

[Doberluv]

I think Jean was the one in the video getting "rewarded". Somone needs to send that woman a "personal touch".

Animal behavior again. Not anthropormorphizing. Sex is one of the few primary reinforcers. Typically, a conditioned reinforcer followed by a primary reinforcer is used. Allowing the dog to hump may be gross and disgusting, unacceptable behavior to humans. But to dogs, it is a primary reinforcer. It may not be what every trainer would use. I use a lot of food and toys and to a great extent, life rewards. Jean is simply broading her use of rewards.

CP. I don't think dogs are consciously aiming to reproduce and pass on their genes. It's probably more instinctual. They probably don't know why they do it. They just do it. But most of the things they do, they do to survive and it ultimately winds up that they reproduce and keep the species going.

But anyway. I hope that answered your questions so we can please stay on topic.

I thought I was on topic. What is the topic? *too lazy to post a smiley*

 

[Angelique]

I thought I was on topic. What is the topic? *too lazy to post a smiley*

Don't let anyone tell you aren't a Dominant Master Ninja. :fighting0040:

*Ahem*

And now for something completely different (kinda):

PSYC E-1091 Home Psychology E-1091 (Fall 2008-2009)

Social Learning and Evolution

:lol-sign:Here's a fun one:

Cultaptation: social learning tournament

Hmmmmm:

IngentaConnect Social facilitation of learning in mixed-species schools of commo...

Looks like an interesting read:

Mammalian Social Learning - Cambridge University Press

Other stuff:

Animal Behavior at UPenn - David J White Lab

 

[Ohm]

I highly doubt that the is the goal of every living organism. I don't have any desire to pass on my genetics. If that were such an important goal, then neutering would become a punishment. I don't think dogs do what they do in hopes of passing on their genes. Dogs don't heel, sit, stay, retrieve dumbbells, run obstacle courses or gather sheep in hopes of reproducing. Even if reproduction were a "life reward" I don't see how it's applicable to training.

there is no thought behind a gene's action...it's automatic. selfishness, for example, is a behavior that increases the chances of survival (e.g. increases the number of copies) of genes in one individual at the expense of another. in other words, it is the effect of a behavior that increases or decreases gene survival. if you have no desire to reproduce, your genes will go with you, including those that prevented you from having this desire. but you are the product of genes that did successfully reproduced.

as for dog behavior, of course heeling when asked is a strategy for genes to increase their survival. if dogs were incapable of these simple behaviors, they would not likely be our companion animals.

 

[Dekka]

Still what does this really have to do with being a canine behaviorist. You need methods that work and can be applied by the owners.

So many people are still caught up on the idea that dogs are pack animals. If you use Operant/classical conditioning that doesn't matter. IF you are dealing with an out of control dog it is training that is going to fix the problems. If it is aggression then simple (in theory) desensitization works wonders.

 

[Criosphynx]

Still what does this really have to do with being a canine behaviorist. You need methods that work and can be applied by the owners.

So many people are still caught up on the idea that dogs are pack animals. If you use Operant/classical conditioning that doesn't matter. IF you are dealing with an out of control dog it is training that is going to fix the problems. If it is aggression then simple (in theory) desensitization works wonders.

I agree. The simpler the explanation is to the owners the better. Most owners already have a lot of "pack" and "dominance" ideas in their head without adding to it.

I honestly think most people need a "this works and this is why it works"

not

"well in nature a mama dog does x to a baby dog so the baby dog no longer does y because he feels bad" types of explainations

 

[Angelique]

Still what does this really have to do with being a canine behaviorist. You need methods that work and can be applied by the owners.

There is no degree for a canine behaviorist. Applied Animal Behaviorists are not dog specific. Animal Behaviorists are not dog specific.

Yes, owners need access to methods which can be applied which give them results for the problems they want addressed, for a reasonable price, and within a reasonable amount of time...which they can use and understand.

So many people are still caught up on the idea that dogs are pack animals. If you use Operant/classical conditioning that doesn't matter. IF you are dealing with an out of control dog it is training that is going to fix the problems. If it is aggression then simple (in theory) desensitization works wonders.

"In theory" not in proof through results?

And people are free to choose a strict OC/CC philosophy if they want and ignore the rest. It's one's own choice based on what they comprehend and feel comfortable with.

But I'm afraid I see a lot going on between dogs and owners socially (emotionally, and mentally) which impacts the effectiveness of one's success with OC and CC, and seek to understand this impact.

That's my choice...and it looks like I'm certainly not alone in my views.

 

[lizzybeth727]

I think Dekka meant that desensetization is simple in theory, not that it works in theory. It does work, I've seen it and done it countless times, and I'm sure Dekka has too.

But I guess it does only work with people who can comprehend it and feel comfortable with it.

 

[Angelique]

I agree. The simpler the explanation is to the owners the better. Most owners already have a lot of "pack" and "dominance" ideas in their head without adding to it.

I honestly think most people need a "this works and this is why it works"

not

"well in nature a mama dog does x to a baby dog so the baby dog no longer does y because he feels bad" types of explainations

Yeah, have you ever seen somone's eyes cross when you start explaining Operant Conditioning quadrants to them? :rofl1:

I know a lot of trainers who still don't get them.

Sorry, I'll stick to the foundations of what's been studied and documented in nature to help round out the laboratory theories, when it comes to the real world.

Both areas do have value though.

 

[Angelique]

I think Dekka meant that desensetization is simple in theory, not that it works in theory. It does work, I've seen it and done it countless times, and I'm sure Dekka has too.

But I guess it does only work with people who can comprehend it and feel comfortable with it.

Desensitization works great with truely fearful dogs. Not aggressive dogs who have been mislabeled as "reacting in fear". There's a difference.