An Overview of Situationism (in Psychology)

Introduction

Under the controversy of person–situation debate, situationism is the theory that changes in human behaviour are factors of the situation rather than the traits a person possesses. Behaviour is believed to be influenced by external, situational factors rather than internal traits or motivations. Situationism therefore challenges the positions of trait theorists, such as Hans Eysenck or Raymond B. Cattell. This is an ongoing debate that has truth to both sides; psychologists are able to prove each of the view points through human experimentation.

Brief History and Conceptions

Situationists believe that thoughts, feelings, dispositions, and past experiences and behaviours do not determine what someone will do in a given situation, rather, the situation itself does. Situationists tend to assume that character traits are distinctive, meaning that they do not completely disregard the idea of traits, but suggest that situations have a greater impact on behaviour than those traits. Situationism is also influenced by culture, in that the extent to which people believe that situations impact behaviours varies between cultures. Situationism has been perceived as arising in response to trait theories, and correcting the notion that everything we do is because of our traits. However, situationism has also been criticised for ignoring individuals’ inherent influences on behaviour. There are many experiments and evidence supporting this topic, and shown in the sources below but also in the article itself. But these experiments do not test what people would do in situations that are forced or rushed, most mistakes are made from rushing and or forgetting something due to lack of concentration. Situationism can be looked at in many different ways, this means that situationism needs to be tested and experimented in many different ways.

Criticisms for Situationism

While situationism has become an increasingly popular theory in the field of philosophy, some wonder why it never quite garnered the same attention in the field of psychology. One reason for this could be the criticisms put forth by psychologists who believe that there just because a personality effect does not account for the entirety of an observed behaviour, there is no reason to believe that the rest is determined by situational effect. Rather, many psychologists believe that trait-situation interactions are more likely responsible for observed behaviours; that is, we cannot attribute behaviour to just personality traits or just situational effects, but rather an interaction between the two processes. Additionally, the popularity of the Big Five-Factor Model of Personality within the field of psychology has overshadowed the theory of situationism. Because this model of personality identifies specific personality traits and claims they can explain behaviour and decisions of an individual, situationism has become a bit obsolete.

Experimental Evidence

Evidence For Situationism

Many studies have found series of evidence supporting situationism. One notable situationist study is Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. This study was considered one of the most unethical because the participants were deceived and were physically and psychologically abused. The goal of the study was that Zimbardo wanted to discover two things. If prison guards abused prisoners because of their nature, or because of the power and authority they were given in the situation. They also wanted to figure out if prisoners acted violent and savage because of their nature or because of being in a secluded and violent environment. To carry out this experiment, Zimbardo gathered 24 college men and paid them 15 dollars each an hour to live two weeks in a mock prison. The participants were told that they were chosen to be guard or prisoner because of their personality traits, but they were randomly selected. The prisoners were booked and given prison clothes and no possessions. They were also assigned a number to be referred to with the intent of farther dehumanizing them. Within the first night, the prisoner and guard dynamics began to take place. The guards started waking up the prisoners in the middle of the night for count, and they would yell and ridicule them. The prisoners also started developing hostile traits against the guards and having prison related conversations. By the second day, the guards started abusing the prisoners by forcing them to do push ups, and the prisoners started rebelling by removing their caps and numbers, and hiding in their cells with their mattresses blocking the door. As the days passed the relationship between the guards and prisoners became extremely hostile- the prisoners fought for their independence, and the guards fought to strip them of it.

There were many cases where the prisoners began breaking down psychologically, and it all started with prisoner 8612. After one day after the experiment started, prisoner number 8612 has anxiety attacks and asked to leave. He was then told “You can’t leave. You can’t quit.” He then went back to the prison and “began to act ‘crazy,’ to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control.” After this, he was sent home. The other prisoner that broke down was 819. 819 had broken down and was told to rest in a room. When Dr. Zimbardo went to check on him he said ” what I found was a boy crying hysterically while in the background his fellow prisoners were yelling and chanting that he was a bad prisoner, that they were being punished because of him.” Zimbardo then allowed him to leave but he said he could not because he was labelled as a bad prisoner, to which Zimbardo responded “Listen, you are not 819. My name is Dr. Zimbardo, I am a psychologist, and this is not a prison. This is just an experiment and those are students, just like you. Let’s go.” He stopped crying suddenly and looked up at me just like a small child awakened from a nightmare and said, “OK, let’s go.”

The guards also began to have extremely abusive relations with the prisoners. Zimbardo claimed there were three types of guards. The first were the guards that followed all the rules but got the job done, the second felt bad for the prisoners, and the third were extremely hostile and treated them like animals. This last type showed behaviours of actual guards and seemed to have forgotten they were college students, they got into their roles faster, and seemed to enjoy tormenting the prisoners. On Thursday night, 6 days into the experiment, Zimbardo described the guards as having “sadistic” behaviour, and then decided to close down the study early.

This study showed how regular people can completely disassociate with who they are when their environment changes. Regular college boys turned into broken down prisoners and sadistic guards.

Studies investigating bystander effects also support situationism. For example, in 1973, Darley and Batson conducted a study where they asked students at a seminary school to give a presentation in a separate building. They gave each individual participant a topic, and would then tell a participant that they were supposed to be there immediately, or in a few minutes, and sent them on their way to the building. On the way, each participant encountered a confederate who was on the ground, clearly in need of medical attention. Darley and Batson observed that more participants who had extra time stopped to help the confederate than those who were in a hurry. Helping was not predicted by religious personality measures, and the results therefore indicate that the situation influenced their behaviour.

A third well-known study supporting situationism is an obedience study, the Milgram experiment. Stanley Milgram made his obedience study to explain the obedience phenomenon, specifically the holocaust. He wanted to explain how people follow orders, and how people are likely to do unmoral things when ordered to by people of authority. The way the experiment was devised was that Milgram picked 40 men from a newspaper add to take part in a study at Yale University. The men were between 20 and 50 years old, and were paid $4.50 for showing up. In this study, a participant was assigned to be a “teacher” and a confederate was assigned to be a “learner”. The teachers were told the learners had to memorise word pairs, and every time they got it wrong they were shocked with increasing voltages. The voltages ranged from 15 to 450, and in order for the participants to believe the shock was real, the experimenters administered to them a real 45v shock, The participant was unaware that the learner was a confederate. The participant would test the learner, and for each incorrect answer the learner gave, the participant would have to shock the learner with increasing voltages. The shocks were not actually administered, but the participant believed they were. When the shocks reached 300v, the learner began to protest and show discomfort. Milgram expected participants to stop the procedure, but 65% of them continued to completion, administering shocks that could have been fatal, even if they were uncomfortable or upset. Even though most of the participants continued administering the shocks, they had distressed reactions when administering the shocks, such as laughing hysterically. Participants felt compelled to listen to the experimenter, who was the authority figure present in the room and continued to encourage the participant throughout the study. Out of 40 participants, 26 went all the way to the end.

Evidence against Situationism

Personality traits have a very weak relationship to behaviour. In contrast, situational factors usually have a stronger impact on behaviour; this is the core evidence for situationism. In addition, people are also able to describe character traits of close to such as friends and family, which goes to show that there are opposing reasons showing why people can recall these traits.

In addition, there are other studies that show these same trends. For example, twin studies have shown that identical twins share more traits than fraternal twins. This also implies that there is a genetic basis for behaviour, which directly contradicts situationist views that behaviour is determined by the situation. When observing one instance of extroverted or honest behaviour, it shows how in different situations a person would behave in a similarly honest or extroverted way. It shows that when many people are observed in a range of situations the trait-related reactions to behaviour is about .20 or less. People think the correlation is around .80. This shows that the situation itself is more dependent on characteristics and circumstances in contrast to what is taking place at that point in time.

These recent challenges to the Traditional View have not gone unnoticed. Some have attempted to modify the Traditional View to insulate it from these challenges, while others have tried to show how these challenges fail to undermine the Traditional View at all. For example, Dana Nelkin (2005), Christian Miller (2003), Gopal Sreenivasan (2002), and John Sabini and Maury Silver (2005), among others, have argued that the empirical evidence cited by the Situationists does not show that individuals lack robust character traits.

Current Views: Interactionism

In addition to the debate between trait influences and situational influences on behaviour, a psychological model of “interactionism” exists, which is a view that both internal dispositions and external situational factors affect a person’s behaviour in a given situation. This model emphasizes both sides of the person-situation debate, and says that internal and external factors interact with each other to produce a behaviour. Interactionism is currently an accepted personality theory, and there has been sufficient empirical evidence to support interactionism. However, it is also important to note that both situationists and trait theorists contributed to explaining facets of human behaviour.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationism_(psychology) >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.

An Overview of Rationalisation (Defence Mechanism)

Introduction

Rationalisation is a defence mechanism (ego defence) in which apparent logical reasons are given to justify behaviour that is motivated by unconscious instinctual impulses. It is an attempt to find reasons for behaviours, especially one’s own. Rationalisations are used to defend against feelings of guilt, maintain self-respect, and protect oneself from criticism.

Rationalisation happens in two steps:

  • A decision, action, judgement is made for a given reason, or no (known) reason at all.
  • A rationalisation is performed, constructing a seemingly good or logical reason, as an attempt to justify the act after the fact (for oneself or others).

Rationalisation encourages irrational or unacceptable behaviour, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defence against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt or shame). People rationalise for various reasons—sometimes when we think we know ourselves better than we do. Rationalisation may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behaviour or feeling in question.

Brief History

Quintilian and classical rhetoric used the term colour for the presenting of an action in the most favourable possible perspective. Laurence Sterne in the eighteenth century took up the point, arguing that, were a man to consider his actions, “he will soon find, that such of them, as strong inclination and custom have prompted him to commit, are generally dressed out and painted with all the false beauties [color] which, a soft and flattering hand can give them”.

DSM Definition

According to the DSM-IV, rationalisation occurs “when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for their own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations”.

Examples

Individual

Rationalisation can be used to avoid admitting disappointment: “I didn’t get the job that I applied for, but I really didn’t want it in the first place.”
Egregious rationalisations intended to deflect blame can also take the form of ad hominem attacks or DARVO. Some rationalisations take the form of a comparison. Commonly, this is done to lessen the perception of an action’s negative effects, to justify an action, or to excuse culpability:

  • “At least [what occurred] is not as bad as [a worse outcome].”
  • In response to an accusation: “At least I didn’t [worse action than accused action].”
  • As a form of false choice: “Doing [undesirable action] is a lot better than [a worse action].”
  • In response to unfair or abusive behaviour from a separate individual or group to the person: “I must have done something wrong if they treat me like this.”

Based on anecdotal and survey evidence, John Banja states that the medical field features a disproportionate amount of rationalisation invoked in the “covering up” of mistakes. Common excuses made are:

  • “Why disclose the error? The patient was going to die anyway.”
  • “Telling the family about the error will only make them feel worse.”
  • “It was the patient’s fault. If he wasn’t so (sick, etc.), this error wouldn’t have caused so much harm.”
  • “Well, we did our best. These things happen.”
  • “If we’re not totally and absolutely certain the error caused the harm, we don’t have to tell.”
  • “They’re dead anyway, so there’s no point in blaming anyone.”

In 2018, Muel Kaptein and Martien van Helvoort developed a model, called the Amoralisations Alarm Clock, that covers all existing amoralisations in a logical way. Amoralisations, also called neutralisations, or rationalisations, are defined as justifications and excuses for deviant behaviour. Amoralisations are important explanations for the rise and persistence of deviant behaviour. There exist many different and overlapping techniques of amoralisations.

Collective

  • Collective rationalisations are regularly constructed for acts of aggression, based on exaltation of the in-group and demonisation of the opposite side: as Fritz Perls put it, “Our own soldiers take care of the poor families; the enemy rapes them”.
  • Celebrity culture can be seen as rationalising the gap between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, by offering participation to both dominant and subaltern views of reality.

Criticism

Some scientists criticise the notion that brains are wired to rationalise irrational decisions, arguing that evolution would select against spending more nutrients at mental processes that do not contribute to the improvement of decisions, such as rationalisation of decisions that would have been taken anyway. These scientists argue that rationalising causes one to learn less rather than learn more from their mistakes, and they criticise the hypothesis that rationalisation evolved as a means of social manipulation by noting that if rational arguments were deceptive, there would be no evolutionary chance for breeding individuals that responded to the arguments and therefore making them ineffective and not capable of being selected for by evolution.

Psychoanalysis

Refer to Psychoanalysis.

Ernest Jones introduced the term “rationalisation” to psychoanalysis in 1908, defining it as “the inventing of a reason for an attitude or action the motive of which is not recognized” – an explanation which (though false) could seem plausible. The term (Rationalisierung in German) was taken up almost immediately by Sigmund Freud to account for the explanations offered by patients for their own neurotic symptoms.

As psychoanalysts continued to explore the glossed of unconscious motives, Otto Fenichel distinguished different sorts of rationalisation – both the justifying of irrational instinctive actions on the grounds that they were reasonable or normatively validated and the rationalising of defensive structures, whose purpose is unknown on the grounds that they have some quite different but somehow logical meaning.

Later psychoanalysts are divided between a positive view of rationalisation as a stepping stone on the way to maturity, and a more destructive view of it as splitting feeling from thought, and so undermining the powers of reason.

Cognitive Dissonance

Leon Festinger highlighted in 1957 the discomfort caused to people by awareness of their inconsistent thought. Rationalisation can reduce such discomfort by explaining away the discrepancy in question, as when people who take up smoking after previously quitting decide that the evidence for it being harmful is less than they previously thought.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology) >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.

An Overview of Motivated Forgetting

Introduction

Motivated forgetting is a theorised psychological behaviour in which people may forget unwanted memories, either consciously or unconsciously. It is an example of a defence mechanism, since these are unconscious or conscious coping techniques used to reduce anxiety arising from unacceptable or potentially harmful impulses thus it can be a defence mechanism in some ways. Defence mechanisms are not to be confused with conscious coping strategies.

Thought suppression is a method in which people protect themselves by blocking the recall of these anxiety-arousing memories. For example, if something reminds a person of an unpleasant event, their mind may steer towards unrelated topics. This could induce forgetting without being generated by an intention to forget, making it a motivated action. There are two main classes of motivated forgetting: psychological repression is an unconscious act, while thought suppression is a conscious form of excluding thoughts and memories from awareness.

Refer to An Overview of Motivated Reasoning and Emotional Reasoning.

Brief History

Neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot was the first to do research into hysteria as a psychological disorder in the late 19th century. Sigmund Freud, Joseph Breuer, and Pierre Janet continued with the research that Charcot began on hysteria. These three psychologists determined that hysteria was an intense emotional reaction to some form of severe psychological disturbance, and they proposed that incest and other sexual traumas were the most likely cause of hysteria. The treatment that Freud, Breuer, and Pierre agreed upon was named the talking cure and was a method of encouraging patients to recover and discuss their painful memories. During this time, Janet created the term dissociation which is referred to as a lack of integration amongst various memories. He used dissociation to describe the way in which traumatising memories are stored separately from other memories.

The idea of motivated forgetting began with the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in 1894. Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud had similar views on the idea of repression of memories as a form of self-preservation. Nietzsche wrote that man must forget in able to move forward. He stated that this process is active, in that we forget specific events as a defence mechanism.

The publication of Freud’s famous paper, “The Aetiology of Hysteria”, in 1896 led to much controversy regarding the topic of these traumatic memories. Freud stated that neuroses were caused by repressed sexual memories, which suggested that incest and sexual abuse must be common throughout upper and middle class Europe. The psychological community did not accept Freud’s ideas, and years passed without further research on the topic.

It was during World War I and World War II that interest in memory disturbances was piqued again. During this time, many cases of memory loss appeared among war veterans, especially those who had experienced shell shock. Hypnosis and drugs became popular for the treatment of hysteria during the war. The term post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was introduced upon the appearance of similar cases of memory disturbances from veterans of the Korean War. Forgetting, or the inability to recall a portion of a traumatic event, was considered a key factor for the diagnosis of PTSD.

Ann Burgess and Lynda Holmstrom looked into trauma related memory loss in rape victims during the 1970s. This began a large outpouring of stories related to childhood sexual abuse. It took until 1980 to determine that memory loss due to all severe traumas was the same set of processes.

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) was created in 1992 as a response to the large number of memories claimed to be recovered. The FMSF was created to oppose the idea that memories could be recovered using specific techniques; instead, its members believed that the “memories” were actually confabulations created through the inappropriate use of techniques such as hypnosis.

Theories

There are many theories which are related to the process of motivated forgetting.

The main theory, the motivated forgetting theory, suggests that people forget things because they either do not want to remember them or for another particular reason. Painful and disturbing memories are made unconscious and very difficult to retrieve, but still remain in storage. Retrieval Suppression (the ability to utilise inhibitory control to prevent memories from being recalled into consciousness) is one way in which we are able to stop the retrieval of unpleasant memories using cognitive control. This theory was tested by Anderson and Green using the Think/No-Think paradigm.

The decay theory is another theory of forgetting which refers to the loss of memory over time. When information enters memory, neurons are activated. These memories are retained as long as the neurons remain active. Activation can be maintained through rehearsal or frequent recall. If activation is not maintained, the memory trace fades and decays. This usually occurs in short term memory. The decay theory is a controversial topic amongst modern psychologists. Bahrick and Hall disagree with the decay theory. They have claimed that people can remember algebra they learnt from school even years later. A refresher course brought their skill back to a high standard relatively quick. These findings suggest that there may be more to the theory of trace decay in human memory.

Another theory of motivated forgetting is interference theory, which posits that subsequent learning can interfere with and degrade a person’s memories. This theory was tested by giving participants ten nonsense syllables. Some of the participants then slept after viewing the syllables, while the other participants carried on their day as usual. The results of this experiment showed that people who stayed awake had a poor recall of the syllables, while the sleeping participants remembered the syllables better. This could have occurred due to the fact that the sleeping subjects had no interference during the experiment, while the other subjects did. There are two types of interference; proactive interference and retroactive interference. Proactive interference occurs when you are unable to learn a new task due to the interference of an old task that has already been learned. Research has been done to show that students who study similar subjects at the same time often experience interference. Retroactive interference occurs when you forget a previously learnt task due to the learning of a new task.

The Gestalt theory of forgetting, created by Gestalt psychology, suggests that memories are forgotten through distortion. This is also called false memory syndrome. This theory states that when memories lack detail, other information is put in to make the memory a whole. This leads to the incorrect recall of memories.

Criticisms

The term recovered memory, also known in some cases as a false memory, refers to the theory that some memories can be repressed by an individual and then later recovered. Recovered memories are often used as evidence in a case where the defendant is accused of either sexual or some other form of child abuse, and recently recovered a repressed memory of the abuse. This has created much controversy, and as the use of this form of evidence rises in the courts, the question has arisen as to whether or not recovered memories actually exist. In an effort to determine the factuality of false memories, several laboratories have developed paradigms in order to test whether or not false repressed memories could be purposefully implanted within a subject. As a result, the verbal paradigm was developed. This paradigm dictates that if someone is presented a number of words associated with a single non-presented word, then they are likely to falsely remember that word as presented.

Similar to the verbal paradigm is fuzzy-trace theory, which dictates that one encodes two separate things about memory: the actual information itself and the semantic information surrounding it (or the gist). If we are given a series of semantic information surrounding a false event, such as time and location, then we are more likely to falsely remember an event as occurring. Tied to that is Source Monitoring Theory, which, among other things, dictates that emotionally salient events tend to increase the power of the memory that forms from said event. Emotion also weakens our ability to remember the source from the event. Source monitoring is centralised to the anterior cingulate cortex.

Repressed memory therapy has come under heavy criticism as it is said that it follows very similar techniques that are used to purposefully implant a memory in an adult. These include: asking questions on the gist of an event, creating imagery about said gist, and attempting to discover the event from there. This, when compounded with the fact that most repressed memories are emotionally salient, the likelihood of source confusion is high. One might assume that a child abuse case one heard about actually happened to one, remembering it with the imagery established through the therapy.

Repression

The idea of psychological repression was developed in 1915 as an automatic defensive mechanism based on Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic model in which people subconsciously push unpleasant or intolerable thoughts and feelings into their unconscious.

When situations or memories occur that we are unable to cope with, we push them away. It is a primary ego defence mechanism that many psychotherapists readily accept. There have been numerous studies which have supported the psychoanalytic theory that states that murder, childhood trauma and sexual abuse can be repressed for a period of time and then recovered in therapy.

Repressed memories can influence behaviour unconsciously, manifesting themselves in our discussions, dreams, and emotional reactions. An example of repression would include a child who is abused by a parent, who later has no recollection of the events, but has trouble forming relationships. Freud suggested psychoanalysis as a treatment method for repressed memories. The goal of treatment was to bring repressed memories, fears and thoughts back to the conscious level of awareness.

Suppression

Thought suppression is referred to as the conscious and deliberate efforts to curtail one’s thoughts and memories. Suppression is goal-directed and it includes conscious strategies to forget, such as intentional context shifts. For example, if someone is thinking of unpleasant thoughts, ideas that are inappropriate at the moment, or images that may instigate unwanted behaviours, they may try to think of anything else but the unwanted thought in order to push the thought out of consciousness.

In order to suppress a thought, one must:

  1. Plan to suppress the thought; and
  2. Carry out that plan by suppressing all other manifestations of the thought, including the original plan.

Thought suppression seems to entail a state of knowing and not knowing all at once. It can be assumed that thought suppression is a difficult and even time consuming task. Even when thoughts are suppressed, they can return to consciousness with minimal prompting. This is why suppression has also been associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Directed Forgetting

Suppression encompasses the term directed forgetting, also known as intentional forgetting. This term refers to forgetting which is initiated by a conscious goal to forget. Intentional forgetting is important at the individual level: suppressing an unpleasant memory of a trauma or a loss that is particularly painful.

The directed forgetting paradigm is a psychological term meaning that information can be forgotten upon instruction. There are two methods of the directed forgetting paradigm: item method and list method. In both methods, the participants are instructed to forget some items, the to-be-forgotten items and remember some items, the to-be-remembered items. The directed forgetting paradigm was originally conceived by Robert Bjork. The Bjork Learning and Forgetting Lab and members of the Cogfog group performed much important research using the paradigm in subsequent years.

In the item method of directed forgetting, participants are presented with a series of random to-be-remembered and to-be-forgotten items. After each item an instruction is given to the participant to either remember it, or forget it. After the study phase, when participants are told to remember or to forget subsets of the items, the participants are given a test of all the words presented. The participants were unaware that they would be tested on the to-be-forgotten items. The recall for the to-be-forgotten words are often significantly impaired compared to the to-be-remembered words. The directed forgetting effect has also been demonstrated on recognition tests. For this reason researchers believe that the item method affects episodic encoding.

In the list method procedure, the instructions to forget are given only after half of the list has been presented. These instructions are given once in the middle of the list, and once at the end of the list. The participants are told that the first list they had to study was just a practice list, and to focus their attention on the upcoming list. After the participants have conducted the study phase for the first list, a second list is presented. A final test is then given, sometimes for only the first list and other times for both lists. The participants are asked to remember all the words they studied. When participants are told they are able to forget the first list, they remember less in this list and remember more in the second list. List method directed forgetting demonstrates the ability to intentionally reduce memory retrieval. To support this theory, researchers did an experiment in which they asked participants to record 2 unique events that happened to them each day over a 5-day period in a journal. After these five days, the participants were asked to either remember or forget the events on these days. They were then asked to repeat the process for another five days, after which they were told to remember all the events in both weeks, regardless of earlier instructions. The participants that were part of the forget group had had worse recall for the first week compared to the second week.

There are two theories that can explain directed forgetting: retrieval inhibition hypothesis and context shift hypothesis.

The Retrieval Inhibition Hypothesis states that the instruction to forget the first list hinders memory of the list-one items. This hypothesis suggests that directed forgetting only reduces the retrieval of the unwanted memories, not causing permanent damage. If we intentionally forget items, they are difficult to recall but are recognized if the items are presented again.

The Context Shift Hypothesis suggests that the instructions to forget mentally separate the to-be-forgotten items. They are put into a different context from the second list. The subject’s mental context changes between the first and second list, but the context from the second list remains. This impairs the recall ability for the first list.

Psychogenic Amnesia

Motivated forgetting encompasses the term psychogenic amnesia which refers to the inability to remember past experiences of personal information, due to psychological factors rather than biological dysfunction or brain damage.

Psychogenic amnesia is not part of Freud’s theoretical framework. The memories still exist buried deeply in the mind, but could be resurfaced at any time on their own or from being exposed to a trigger in the person’s surroundings. Psychogenic amnesia is generally found in cases where there is a profound and surprising forgetting of chunks of one’s personal life, whereas motivated forgetting includes more day-to-day examples in which people forget unpleasant memories in a way that would not call for clinical evaluation.

Psychogenic Fugue

Psychogenic fugue, a form of psychogenic amnesia, is a DSM-IV Dissociative Disorder in which people forget their personal history, including who they are, for a period of hours to days following a trauma. A history of depression as well as stress, anxiety or head injury could lead to fugue states. When the person recovers they are able to remember their personal history, but they have amnesia for the events that took place during the fugue state.

Neurobiology

Motivated forgetting occurs as a result of activity that occurs within the prefrontal cortex. This was discovered by testing subjects while taking a functional MRI of their brain. The prefrontal cortex is made up of the anterior cingulate cortex, the intraparietal sulcus, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. These areas are also associated with stopping unwanted actions, which confirms the hypothesis that the suppression of unwanted memories and actions follow a similar inhibitory process. These regions are also known to have executive functions within the brain.

The anterior cingulate cortex has functions linked to motivation and emotion. The intraparietal sulcus possesses functions that include coordination between perception and motor activities, visual attention, symbolic numerical processing, visuospatial working memory, and determining the intent in the actions of other organisms. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex plans complex cognitive activities and processes decision making.

The other key brain structure involved in motivated forgetting is the hippocampus, which is responsible for the formation and recollection of memories. When the process of motivated forgetting is engaged, meaning that we actively attempt to suppress our unwanted memories, the prefrontal cortex exhibits higher activity than baseline, while suppressing hippocampal activity at the same time. It has been proposed that the executive areas which control motivation and decision-making lessen the functioning of the hippocampus in order to stop the recollection of the selected memories that the subject has been motivated to forget.

Examples

War

Motivated forgetting has been a crucial aspect of psychological study relating to such traumatising experiences as rape, torture, war, natural disasters, and homicide. Some of the earliest documented cases of memory suppression and repression relate to veterans of the Second World War. The number of cases of motivated forgetting was high during war times, mainly due to factors associated with the difficulties of trench life, injury, and shell shock. At the time that many of these cases were documented, there were limited medical resources to deal with many of these soldiers’ mental well-being. There was also a weaker understanding of the aspects of memory suppression and repression.

Case of a Soldier (1917)

The repression of memories was the prescribed treatment by many doctors and psychiatrists, and was deemed effective for the management of these memories. Unfortunately, many soldiers’ traumas were much too vivid and intense to be dealt with in this manner, as described in the journal of Dr. Rivers. One soldier, who entered the hospital after losing consciousness due to a shell explosion, is described as having a generally pleasant demeanour. This was disrupted by his sudden onsets of depression occurring approximately every 10 days. This intense depression, leading to suicidal feelings, rendered him unfit to return to war. It soon became apparent that these symptoms were due to the patient’s repressed thoughts and apprehensions about returning to war. Dr. Smith suggested that this patient face his thoughts and allow himself to deal with his feelings and anxieties. Although this caused the soldier to take on a significantly less cheery state, he only experienced one more minor bout of depression.

Abuse

Many cases of motivated forgetting have been reported in regards to recovered memories of childhood abuse. Many cases of abuse, particularly those performed by relatives or figures of authority, can lead to memory suppression and repression of varying amounts of time. One study indicates that 31% of abuse victims were aware of at least some forgetting of their abuse and a collaboration of seven studies has shown that one eighth to one quarter of abuse victims have periods of complete unawareness (amnesia) of the incident or series of events. There are many factors associated with forgetting abuse including: younger age at onset, threats/intense emotions, more types of abuse, and increased number of abusers. Cued recovery has been shown in 90% of cases, usually with one specific event triggering the memory. For example, the return of incest memories have been shown to be brought on by television programs about incest, the death of the perpetrator, the abuse of the subject’s own child, and seeing the site of abuse. In a study by Herman and Schatzow, confirming evidence was found for the same proportion of individuals with continuous memories of abuse as those individuals who had recovered memories. 74% of cases from each group were confirmed. Cases of Mary de Vries and Claudia show examples of confirmed recovered memories of sexual abuse.

Legal Controversy

Motivated forgetting and repressed memories have become a very controversial issue within the court system. Courts are currently dealing with historical cases, in particular a relatively new phenomenon known as historic child sexual abuse (HCSA). HCSA refers to allegations of child abuse having occurred several years prior to the time at which they are being prosecuted.

Unlike most American states, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand have no statute of limitations to limit the prosecution of historical offenses. Therefore, legal decision-makers in each case need to evaluate the credibility of allegations that may go back many years. It is nearly impossible to provide evidence for many of these historical abuse cases. It is therefore extremely important to consider the credibility of the witness and accused in making a decision regarding guiltiness of the defendant.

One of the main arguments against the credibility of historical allegations, involving the retrieval of repressed memories, is found in false memory syndrome. False memory syndrome claims that through therapy and the use of suggestive techniques, clients mistakenly come to believe that they were sexually abused as children.

In the United States, the statute of limitations requires that legal action be taken within three to five years of the incident of interest. Exceptions are made for minors, where the child has until they reach eighteen years of age.

There are many factors related to the age at which child abuse cases may be presented. These include bribes, threats, dependency on the abuser, and ignorance of the child to their state of harm. All of these factors may lead a person, who has been harmed, to require more time to present their case. As well as seen in the case below of Jane Doe and Jane Roe, time may be required if memories of the abuse have been repressed or suppressed. In 1981, the statute was adjusted to make exceptions for those individuals who were not consciously aware that their situation was harmful. This rule was called the discovery rule. This rule is to be used by the court as deemed necessary by the Judge of that case.

Psychogenic Amnesia

Severe cases of trauma may lead to psychogenic amnesia, or the loss of all memories occurring around the event.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_forgetting >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.

An Overview of Externalising Disorders

Introduction

Externalising disorders are mental disorders characterised by externalising behaviours, maladaptive behaviours directed toward an individual’s environment, which cause impairment or interference in life functioning. In contrast to individuals with internalising disorders who internalise (keep inside) their maladaptive emotions and cognitions, such feelings and thoughts are externalised (manifested outside) in behaviour in individuals with externalising disorders. Externalising disorders are often specifically referred to as disruptive behaviour disorders (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorder) or conduct problems which occur in childhood. Externalising disorders, however, are also manifested in adulthood. For example, alcohol- and substance-related disorders and antisocial personality disorder are adult externalising disorders. Externalising psychopathology is associated with antisocial behaviour, which is different from and often confused for asociality.

Brief History

The classification for several externalising disorders changed from DSM-IV to DSM-5. ADHD, ODD, and CD were previously classified in the Attention-deficit and Disruptive Behaviour Disorders section in DSM-IV. Pyromania, kleptomania, and IED were previously classified in the Impulse-Control Disorders Not Otherwise Specified Section of DSM-IV. ADHD is now categorised in the Neurodevelopmental Disorders section in DSM-5. ODD, CD, pyromania, kleptomania, and IED are now categorised in the new Disruptive, Impulse-Control, and Conduct Disorders chapter of DSM-5. Overall, there were many changes made to the DSM from the transition of DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5, which was somewhat controversial.

Signs and Symptoms

Externalising disorders often involve emotion dysregulation problems and impulsivity that are manifested as antisocial behaviour and aggression in opposition to authority, societal norms, and often violate the rights of others. Some examples of externalising disorder symptoms include, often losing one’s temper, excessive verbal aggression, physical aggression to people and animals, destruction of property, theft, and deliberate fire setting. As with all DSM-5 mental disorders, an individual must have functional impairment in at least one domain (e.g. academic, occupational, social relationships, or family functioning) in order to meet diagnostic criteria for an externalising disorder. Moreover, an individual’s symptoms should be atypical for their cultural and environmental context and physical medical conditions should be ruled out before an externalising disorder diagnosis is considered. Diagnoses must be made by qualified mental health professionals. DSM-5 classifications of externalising disorders are listed herein, however, ICD-10 can also be used to classify externalising disorders. More specific criteria and examples of symptoms for various externalising disorders can be found in the DSM-5.

DSM-5 Classification

There are no specific criteria for “externalising behaviour” or “externalising disorders”. Thus, there is no clear classification of what constitutes an externalizing disorder in the DSM-5. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), pyromania, kleptomania, intermittent explosive disorder (IED), and substance-related disorders are frequently referred to as externalising disorders. Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder has also been posited as an externalising disorder, but little research has examined and validated it to date given its recent addition to the DSM-5, and thus, it is not included further herein.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Inattention ADHD symptoms include: “often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, at work, or during other activities,” “often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities,” “often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly,” “often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace,” “often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities,” “often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort,” “often loses things necessary for tasks or activities,” “is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli (for older adolescents and adults, may include unrelated thoughts),” and “is often forgetful in daily activities.”

Hyperactivity and impulsivity ADHD symptoms include: “often fidgets with or taps hands or feet or squirms in seat,” “often leaves seat in situations when remaining seated is expected,” “often runs about or climbs in situations where it is inappropriate,” “is often unable to play or engage in leisure activities quietly,” “is often “on the go,” acting as if “driven by a motor,” “often talks excessively,” “often blurts out an answer before a question has been completed,” “often has difficulty waiting his or her turn,” and “often interrupts or intrudes on others.”

In order to meet criteria for an ADHD diagnosis, an individual must have at least six symptoms of inattention and/or hyperactivity/impulsivity, have an onset of several symptoms prior to age 12 years, have symptoms present in at least two settings, have functional impairment, and have symptoms that are not better explained by another mental disorder.

Oppositional Defiant Disorder

ODD symptoms include: “often loses temper,” “is often touchy or easily annoyed,” “is often angry and resentful,” “often argues with authority figures, or for children and adolescents, with adults,” “often actively defies or refuses to comply with requests from authority figures or with rules,” “often deliberately annoys others,” and “often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior.” In order to receive an ODD diagnosis, individuals must have at least four symptoms from above for at least six months (most days for youth younger than five years) with at least one individual who is not a sibling, which causes impairment in at least one setting. Rule outs for a diagnosis include symptoms occurring concurrently during an episode of another disorder.

Conduct Disorder

CD symptoms include “often bullies, threatens, or intimidates others,” “often initiates physical fights,” “has used a weapon that can cause serious physical harm to others,” “has been physically cruel to people,” “has been physically cruel to animals,” “has stolen while confronting a victim,” “has forced someone into sexual activity,” “has deliberately engaged in fire setting with the intention of causing serious damage,” “has deliberately destroyed others’ property (other than by fire setting),” “has broken into someone else’s house, building, or car,” “often lies to obtain goods or favors or to avoid obligations,” “has stolen items of nontrivial value without confronting a victim,” “often stays out at night despite parental prohibitions, beginning before age 13 years,” “has run away from home overnight at least twice while living in the parental or parental surrogate home, or once without returning for a lengthy period,” and “is often truant from school, beginning before age 13 years.” In order to receive a CD diagnosis, individuals must have three of these symptoms for at least one year, at least two symptoms for at least six months, be impaired in at least one setting, and not have an antisocial personality disorder diagnosis if 18 years or older

Antisocial Personality Disorder

ASPD symptoms include: “failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest,” “deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure,” “impulsivity or failure to plan ahead,” “irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults,” “reckless disregard for safety of self or others,” “consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations,” and “lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.” In order to meet diagnostic criteria for ASPD, an individual must have “a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years,” three or more of the above symptoms, be at least age 18 years, have a conduct disorder onset before age 15 years, and not have antisocial behaviour exclusively during schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

Pyromania

Pyromania symptoms include: “deliberate and purposeful fire setting on more than one occasion,” “tension or affective arousal before the act,” “fascination with, interest in, curiosity about, or attraction to fire and its situational contexts,” and “pleasure, gratification, or relief when setting fires or when witnessing or participating in their aftermath.” In order to receive a pyromania diagnosis, “the fire setting is not done for monetary gain, as an expression of sociopolitical ideology, to conceal criminal activity, to express anger or vengeance, to improve one’s living circumstances, in response to a delusion or hallucination, or as a result of impaired judgment.” A conduct disorder diagnosis, manic episode, or antisocial personality disorder diagnosis must not better account for the fire setting in order to receive a pyromania diagnosis.

Kleptomania

Kleptomania symptoms include: “recurrent failure to resist impulses to steal objects that are not needed for personal use or for their monetary value,” “increasing sense of tension immediately before committing the theft,” and “pleasure, gratification, or relief at the time of committing the theft.” In order to receive a kleptomania diagnosis, “the stealing is not committed to express anger or vengeance and is not in response to a delusion or a hallucination.” Additionally, in order to receive a diagnosis, “the stealing is not better explained by conduct disorder, a manic episode, or antisocial personality disorder.”

Intermittent Explosive Disorder

IED symptoms include:

“recurrent behavioral outbursts representing a failure to control aggressive impulses as manifested by either of the following: 1) Verbal aggression (e.g., temper tantrums, tirades, verbal arguments or fights) or physical aggression toward property, animals, or other individuals, occurring twice weekly, on average, for a period of 3 months. The physical aggression does not result in damage or destruction of property and does not result in physical injury to animals or other individuals. 2) Three behavioral outbursts involving damage or destruction of property and/or physical assault involving physical injury against animals or other individuals occurring within a 12-month period.”

In order to receive an IED diagnosis, “the magnitude of aggressiveness expressed during the recurrent outbursts is grossly out of proportion to the provocation or to any precipitating psychosocial stressors,” “the recurrent aggressive outbursts are not premeditated” and “are not committed to achieve some tangible objective.” Additionally, to receive an IED diagnosis, an individual must be six years or older (chronologically or developmentally), have functional impairment, and not have symptoms better explained by another mental disorder, medical condition, or substance.

Substance Use Disorders

According to the DSM-5, “the essential feature of a substance use disorder is a cluster of cognitive, behavioral, and physiological symptoms indicating that the individual continues using the substance despite significant substance-related problems.” Given that at least 10 separate classes of drugs are covered in the DSM-5 Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders section, it is outside the scope of this article. Refer to the DSM-5 for more information on signs and symptoms.

Comorbidity

Externalising disorders are frequently comorbid or co-occurring with other disorders. Individuals who have the co-occurrence of more than one externalising disorder have homotypic comorbidity, whereas individuals who have co-occurring externalising and internalising disorders have heterotypic comorbidity. It is not uncommon for children with early externalising problems to develop both internalising and further externalising problems across the lifespan. Additionally, the complex interplay between externalising and internalising symptoms across development could explain the association between these problems and other risk behaviours, that typically initiate in adolescence (such as antisocial behaviours and substance use).

Stigma

Consistent with many mental disorders, individuals with externalising disorders are subject to significant implicit and explicit forms of stigma. Because externalising behaviours are salient and difficult to conceal, individuals with externalising disorders may be more susceptible to stigmatisation relative to individuals with other disorders. Parents of youth with childhood mental disorders, such as ADHD and ODD, are frequently stigmatised when parenting practices are strongly implicated in the aetiology or cause of the disorder. Educational and policy-related initiatives have been proposed as potential mechanisms to reduce stigmatisation of mental disorders.

Psychopathic Traits

Individuals with psychopathic traits, including callous-unemotional (CU) traits, represent a phenomenologically and etiologically distinct group with severe externalising problems. Psychopathic traits have been measured in children as young as two-years-old, are moderately stable, are heritable, and associated with atypical affective, cognitive, personality, and social characteristics. Individuals with psychopathic traits are at risk for poor response to treatment, however, some data suggest that parent management training interventions for youth with psychopathic traits early in development may have promise.

Developmental Course

ADHD often precedes the onset of ODD, and approximately half of children with ADHD, combined type also have ODD. ODD is a risk factor for CD and frequently precedes the onset of CD symptoms. Children with an early onset of CD symptoms, with at least one symptom before age 10 years, are at risk for more severe and persistent antisocial behaviour continuing into adulthood. Youth with early-onset conduct problems are particularly at risk for ASPD (note that an onset of CD prior to age 15 is part of the diagnostic criteria for ASPD), whereas CD is typically limited to adolescence when youth’s CD symptoms begin during adolescence.

Treatment

Despite recent initiatives to study psychopathology along dimensions of behaviour and neurobiological indices, which would help refine a clearer picture of the development and treatment of externalising disorders, the majority of research has examined specific mental disorders. Thus, best practices for many externalising disorders are disorder-specific. For example, substance use disorders themselves are very heterogeneous and their best-evidenced treatment typically includes cognitive behavioural therapy, motivational interviewing, and a substance disorder-specific detoxification or psychotropic medication treatment component. The best-evidenced treatment for childhood conduct and externalising problems more broadly, including youth with ADHD, ODD, and CD, is parent management training, a form of cognitive behavioural therapy. Additionally, individuals with ADHD, both youth and adults, are frequently treated with stimulant medications (or alternative psychotropic medications), especially if psychotherapy alone has not been effective in managing symptoms and impairment. Psychotherapy and medication interventions for individuals with severe, adult forms of antisocial behaviour, such as antisocial personality disorder, have been mostly ineffective. An individual’s comorbid psychopathology may also influences the course of treatment for an individual.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalizing_disorder >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.

An Overview of Schema (in Psychology)

Introduction

In psychology and cognitive science, a schema (pl.: schemata or schemas) describes a pattern of thought or behaviour that organises categories of information and the relationships among them. It can also be described as a mental structure of preconceived ideas, a framework representing some aspect of the world, or a system of organising and perceiving new information, such as a mental schema or conceptual model. Schemata influence attention and the absorption of new knowledge: people are more likely to notice things that fit into their schema, while re-interpreting contradictions to the schema as exceptions or distorting them to fit. Schemata have a tendency to remain unchanged, even in the face of contradictory information. Schemata can help in understanding the world and the rapidly changing environment. People can organise new perceptions into schemata quickly as most situations do not require complex thought when using schema, since automatic thought is all that is required.

People use schemata to organise current knowledge and provide a framework for future understanding. Examples of schemata include mental models, social schemas, stereotypes, social roles, scripts, worldviews, heuristics, and archetypes. In Piaget’s theory of development, children construct a series of schemata, based on the interactions they experience, to help them understand the world.

Refer to Schema Therapy.

Brief History

“Schema” comes from the Greek word schēmat or schēma, meaning “figure”.

Prior to its use in psychology, the term “schema” had primarily seen use in philosophy. For instance, “schemata” (especially “transcendental schemata”) are crucial to the architectonic system devised by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason.

Early developments of the idea in psychology emerged with the gestalt psychologists (founded originally by Max Wertheimer) and Jean Piaget. The term schéma was introduced by Piaget in 1923. In Piaget’s later publications, action (operative or procedural) schémes were distinguished from figurative (representational) schémas, although together they may be considered a schematic duality. In subsequent discussions of Piaget in English, schema was often a mistranslation of Piaget’s original French schéme. The distinction has been of particular importance in theories of embodied cognition and ecological psychology.

This concept was first described in the works of British psychologist Frederic Bartlett, who drew on the term body schema used by neurologist Henry Head in 1932. In 1952, Jean Piaget, who was credited with the first cognitive development theory of schemas, popularised this ideology. By 1977, it was expanded into schema theory by educational psychologist Richard C. Anderson. Since then, other terms have been used to describe schema such as “frame”, “scene”, and “script”.

Schematic Processing

Through the use of schemata, a heuristic technique to encode and retrieve memories, the majority of typical situations do not require much strenuous processing. People can quickly organise new perceptions into schemata and act without effort. The process, however, is not always accurate, and people may develop illusory correlations, which is the tendency to form inaccurate or unfounded associations between categories, especially when the information is distinctive.

Nevertheless, schemata can influence and hamper the uptake of new information, such as when existing stereotypes, giving rise to limited or biased discourses and expectations, lead an individual to “see” or “remember” something that has not happened because it is more believable in terms of his/her schema. For example, if a well-dressed businessman draws a knife on a vagrant, the schemata of onlookers may (and often do) lead them to “remember” the vagrant pulling the knife. Such distortion of memory has been demonstrated. (refer to Background research next) Furthermore, it has also been seen to affect the formation of episodic memory in humans. For instance, one is more likely to remember a pencil case in an office than a skull, even if both were present in the office, when tested on certain recall conditions.

Schemata are interrelated and multiple conflicting schemata can be applied to the same information. Schemata are generally thought to have a level of activation, which can spread among related schemata. Through different factors such as current activation, accessibility, priming, and emotion, a specific schema can be selected.

Accessibility is how easily a schema can come to mind, and is determined by personal experience and expertise. This can be used as a cognitive shortcut, meaning it allows the most common explanation to be chosen for new information.

With priming (an increased sensitivity to a particular schema due to a recent experience), a brief imperceptible stimulus temporarily provides enough activation to a schema so that it is used for subsequent ambiguous information. Although this may suggest the possibility of subliminal messages, the effect of priming is so fleeting that it is difficult to detect outside laboratory conditions.

Background Research

Frederic Bartlett

The original concept of schemata is linked with that of reconstructive memory as proposed and demonstrated in a series of experiments by Frederic Bartlett. Bartlett began presenting participants with information that was unfamiliar to their cultural backgrounds and expectations while subsequently monitoring how they recalled these different items of information (stories, etc). Bartlett was able to establish that individuals’ existing schemata and stereotypes influence not only how they interpret “schema-foreign” new information but also how they recall the information over time. One of his most famous investigations involved asking participants to read a Native American folk tale, “The War of the Ghosts”, and recall it several times up to a year later. All the participants transformed the details of the story in such a way that it reflected their cultural norms and expectations, i.e. in line with their schemata. The factors that influenced their recall were:

  • Omission of information that was considered irrelevant to a participant;
  • Transformation of some of the details, or of the order in which events, etc., were recalled; a shift of focus and emphasis in terms of what was considered the most important aspects of the tale;
  • Rationalisation: details and aspects of the tale that would not make sense would be “padded out” and explained in an attempt to render them comprehensible to the individual in question; and
  • Cultural shifts: the content and the style of the story were altered in order to appear more coherent and appropriate in terms of the cultural background of the participant.

Bartlett’s work was crucially important in demonstrating that long-term memories are neither fixed nor unchanging but are constantly being adjusted as schemata evolve with experience. His work contributed to a framework of memory retrieval in which people construct the past and present in a constant process of narrative/discursive adjustment. Much of what people “remember” is confabulated narrative (adjusted and rationalised) which allows them to think of the past as a continuous and coherent string of events, even though it is probable that large sections of memory (both episodic and semantic) are irretrievable or inaccurate at any given time.

An important step in the development of schema theory was taken by the work of D.E. Rumelhart describing the understanding of narrative and stories. Further work on the concept of schemata was conducted by W.F. Brewer and J.C. Treyens, who demonstrated that the schema-driven expectation of the presence of an object was sometimes sufficient to trigger its incorrect recollection. An experiment was conducted where participants were requested to wait in a room identified as an academic’s study and were later asked about the room’s contents. A number of the participants recalled having seen books in the study whereas none were present. Brewer and Treyens concluded that the participants’ expectations that books are present in academics’ studies were enough to prevent their accurate recollection of the scenes.

In the 1970s, computer scientist Marvin Minsky was trying to develop machines that would have human-like abilities. When he was trying to create solutions for some of the difficulties he encountered he came across Bartlett’s work and concluded that if he was ever going to get machines to act like humans he needed them to use their stored knowledge to carry out processes. A frame construct was a way to represent knowledge in machines, while his frame construct can be seen as an extension and elaboration of the schema construct. He created the frame knowledge concept as a way to interact with new information. He proposed that fixed and broad information would be represented as the frame, but it would also be composed of slots that would accept a range of values; but if the world did not have a value for a slot, then it would be filled by a default value. Because of Minsky’s work, computers now have a stronger impact on psychology. In the 1980s, David Rumelhart extended Minsky’s ideas, creating an explicitly psychological theory of the mental representation of complex knowledge.

Roger Schank and Robert Abelson developed the idea of a script, which was known as a generic knowledge of sequences of actions. This led to many new empirical studies, which found that providing relevant schema can help improve comprehension and recall on passages.

Schemata have also been viewed from a sociocultural perspective with contributions from Lev Vygotsky, in which there is a transactional relationship between the development of a schema and the environment that influences it, such that the schema does not develop independently as a construct in the mind, but carries all the aspects of the history, social, and cultural meaning which influences its development. Schemata are not just scripts or frameworks to be called upon, but are active processes for solving problems and interacting with the world. However, schemas can also contribute to influential outside sociocultural perspectives, like the development of racism tendencies, disregard for marginalised communities and cultural misconceptions.

Modification

New information that falls within an individual’s schema is easily remembered and incorporated into their worldview. However, when new information is perceived that does not fit a schema, many things can happen. One of the most common reactions is for a person to simply ignore or quickly forget the new information they acquired. This can happen on an unconscious level—meaning, unintentionally an individual may not even perceive the new information. People may also interpret the new information in a way that minimises how much they must change their schemata. For example, Bob thinks that chickens do not lay eggs. He then sees a chicken laying an egg. Instead of changing the part of his schema that says “chickens don’t lay eggs”, he is likely to adopt the belief that the animal in question that he has just seen laying an egg is not a real chicken. This is an example of disconfirmation bias, the tendency to set higher standards for evidence that contradicts one’s expectations. This is also known as cognitive dissonance. However, when the new information cannot be ignored, existing schemata must be changed or new schemata must be created (accommodation).

Jean Piaget (1896–1980) was known best for his work with development of human knowledge. He believed knowledge was constructed on cognitive structures, and he believed people develop cognitive structures by accommodating and assimilating information. Accommodation is creating new schema that will fit better with the new environment or adjusting old schema. Accommodation could also be interpreted as putting restrictions on a current schema, and usually comes about when assimilation has failed. Assimilation is when people use a current schema to understand the world around them. Piaget thought that schemata are applied to everyday life and therefore people accommodate and assimilate information naturally. For example, if this chicken has red feathers, Bob can form a new schemata that says “chickens with red feathers can lay eggs”. This schemata, in the future, will either be changed or removed entirely.

Assimilation is the reuse of schemata to fit the new information. For example, when a person sees an unfamiliar dog, they will probably just integrate it into their dog schema. However, if the dog behaves strangely, and in ways that does not seem dog-like, there will be an accommodation as a new schema is formed for that particular dog. With accommodation and assimilation comes the idea of equilibrium. Piaget describes equilibrium as a state of cognition that is balanced when schema are capable of explaining what it sees and perceives. When information is new and cannot fit into a previous existing schema, disequilibrium can happen. When disequilibrium happens, it means the person is frustrated and will try to restore the coherence of his or her cognitive structures through accommodation. If the new information is taken then assimilation of the new information will proceed until they find that they must make a new adjustment to it later down the road, but for now the person remains at equilibrium again. The process of equilibration is when people move from the equilibrium phase to the disequilibrium phase and back into equilibrium.

In view of this, a person’s new schemata may be an expansion of the schemata into a subtype. This allows for the information to be incorporated into existing beliefs without contradicting them. An example in social psychology would be the combination of a person’s beliefs about women and their beliefs about business. If women are not generally perceived to be in business, but the person meets a woman who is, a new subtype of businesswoman may be created, and the information perceived will be incorporated into this subtype. Activation of either woman or business schema may then make further available the schema of “businesswoman”. This also allows for previous beliefs about women or those in business to persist. Rather than modifying the schemata related to women or to business persons, the subtype is its own category.

Self-schema

Schemata about oneself are considered to be grounded in the present and based on past experiences. Memories are framed in the light of one’s self-conception. For example, people who have positive self-schemata (i.e. most people) selectively attend to flattering information and ignore unflattering information, with the consequence that flattering information is subject to deeper encoding, and therefore superior recall. Even when encoding is equally strong for positive and negative feedback, positive feedback is more likely to be recalled. Moreover, memories may even be distorted to become more favourable: for example, people typically remember exam grades as having been better than they actually were. However, when people have negative self views, memories are generally biased in ways that validate the negative self-schema; people with low self-esteem, for instance, are prone to remember more negative information about themselves than positive information. Thus, memory tends to be biased in a way that validates the agent’s pre-existing self-schema.

There are three major implications of self-schemata. First, information about oneself is processed faster and more efficiently, especially consistent information. Second, one retrieves and remembers information that is relevant to one’s self-schema. Third, one will tend to resist information in the environment that is contradictory to one’s self-schema. For instance, students with a particular self-schema prefer roommates whose view of them is consistent with that schema. Students who end up with roommates whose view of them is inconsistent with their self-schema are more likely to try to find a new roommate, even if this view is positive. This is an example of self-verification.

As researched by Aaron Beck, automatically activated negative self-schemata are a large contributor to depression. According to Cox, Abramson, Devine, and Hollon (2012), these self-schemata are essentially the same type of cognitive structure as stereotypes studied by prejudice researchers (e.g. they are both well-rehearsed, automatically activated, difficult to change, influential toward behavior, emotions, and judgments, and bias information processing).

The self-schema can also be self-perpetuating. It can represent a particular role in society that is based on stereotype, for example: “If a mother tells her daughter she looks like a tom boy, her daughter may react by choosing activities that she imagines a tom boy would do. Conversely, if the mother tells her she looks like a princess, her daughter might choose activities thought to be more feminine.” This is an example of the self-schema becoming self-perpetuating when the person at hand chooses an activity that was based on an expectation rather than their desires.

Schema Therapy

Schema therapy was founded by Jeffrey Young and represents a development of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) specifically for treating personality disorders. Early maladaptive schemata are described by Young as broad and pervasive themes or patterns made up of memories, feelings, sensations, and thoughts regarding oneself and one’s relationships with others; they can be a contributing factor to treatment outcomes of mental disorders and the maintenance of ideas, beliefs, and behaviours towards oneself and others. They are considered to develop during childhood or adolescence, and to be dysfunctional in that they lead to self-defeating behaviour. Examples include schemata of abandonment/instability, mistrust/abuse, emotional deprivation, and defectiveness/shame.

Schema therapy blends CBT with elements of Gestalt therapy, object relations, constructivist and psychoanalytic therapies in order to treat the characterological difficulties which both constitute personality disorders and which underlie many of the chronic depressive or anxiety-involving symptoms which present in the clinic. Young said that CBT may be an effective treatment for presenting symptoms, but without the conceptual or clinical resources for tackling the underlying structures (maladaptive schemata) which consistently organize the patient’s experience, the patient is likely to lapse back into unhelpful modes of relating to others and attempting to meet their needs. Young focused on pulling from different therapies equally when developing schema therapy. Cognitive behavioural methods work to increase the availability and strength of adaptive schemata while reducing the maladaptive ones. This may involve identifying the existing schema and then identifying an alternative to replace it. Difficulties arise as these types of schema often exist in absolutes; modification then requires replacement to be in absolutes, otherwise the initial belief may persist. The difference between cognitive behavioural therapy and schema therapy according to Young is the latter “emphasizes lifelong patterns, affective change techniques, and the therapeutic relationship, with special emphasis on limited reparenting”. He recommended this therapy would be ideal for clients with difficult and chronic psychological disorders. Some examples would be eating disorders and personality disorders. He has also had success with this therapy in relation to depression and substance abuse.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology) >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.

What is Coherence Therapy?

Introduction

Coherence therapy is a system of psychotherapy based in the theory that symptoms of mood, thought and behaviour are produced coherently according to the person’s current mental models of reality, most of which are implicit and unconscious. It was founded by Bruce Ecker and Laurel Hulley in the 1990s. It has been considered among the most well respected postmodern/constructivist therapies.

General Description

The basis of coherence therapy is the principle of symptom coherence. This is the view that any response of the brain–mind–body system is an expression of coherent personal constructs (or schemas), which are nonverbal, emotional, perceptual and somatic knowings, not verbal-cognitive propositions. A therapy client’s presenting symptoms are understood as an activation and enactment of specific constructs. The principle of symptom coherence can be found in varying degrees, explicitly or implicitly, in the writings of a number of historical psychotherapy theorists, including Sigmund Freud (1923), Harry Stack Sullivan (1948), Carl Jung (1964), R.D. Laing (1967), Gregory Bateson (1972), Virginia Satir (1972), Paul Watzlawick (1974), Eugene Gendlin (1982), Vittorio Guidano & Giovanni Liotti (1983), Les Greenberg (1993), Bessel van der Kolk (1994), Robert Kegan & Lisa Lahey (2001), Sue Johnson (2004), and others.

The principle of symptom coherence maintains that an individual’s seemingly irrational, out-of-control symptoms are actually sensible, cogent, orderly expressions of the person’s existing constructions of self and world, rather than a disorder or pathology. Even a person’s psychological resistance to change is seen as a result of the coherence of the person’s mental constructions. Thus, coherence therapy, like some other postmodern therapies, approaches a person’s resistance to change as an ally in psychotherapy and not an enemy.

Coherence therapy is considered a type of psychological constructivism. It differs from some other forms of constructivism in that the principle of symptom coherence is fully explicit and rigorously operationalised, guiding and informing the entire methodology. The process of coherence therapy is experiential rather than analytic, and in this regard is similar to Gestalt therapy, Focusing or Hakomi. The aim is for the client to come into direct, emotional experience of the unconscious personal constructs (akin to complexes or ego-states) which produce an unwanted symptom and to undergo a natural process of revising or dissolving these constructs, thereby eliminating the symptom. Practitioners claim that the entire process often requires a dozen sessions or less, although it can take longer when the meanings and emotions underlying the symptom are particularly complex or intense.

Symptom Coherence

Symptom coherence is defined by Ecker and Hulley as follows:

  1. A person produces a particular symptom because, despite the suffering it entails, the symptom is compellingly necessary to have, according to at least one unconscious, nonverbal, emotionally potent schema or construction of reality.
  2. Each symptom-requiring construction is cogent—a sensible, meaningful, well-knit, well-defined schema that was formed adaptively in response to earlier experiences and is still carried and applied in the present.
  3. The person ceases producing the symptom as soon as there no longer exists any construction of reality in which the symptom is necessary to have.

There are several forms of symptom coherence. Some symptoms are necessary because they serve a crucial function (such as depression that protects against feeling and expressing anger), while others have no function but are necessary in the sense of being an inevitable effect, or by-product, caused by some other adaptive, coherent but unconscious response (such as depression resulting from isolation, which itself is a strategy for feeling safe). Both functional and functionless symptoms are coherent, according to the client’s own material.

In other words, the theory states that symptoms are produced by how the individual strives, without conscious awareness, to carry out self-protecting or self-affirming purposes formed in the course of living. This model of symptom production fits into the broader category of psychological constructivism, which views the person as having profound, if unrecognized, agency in shaping experience and behaviour.

Symptom coherence does not apply to those symptoms that are not directly or indirectly caused by implicit schemas or emotional learnings—for example, hypothyroidism-induced depression, autism, and biochemical addiction.

Hierarchical Organisation of Constructs

As a tool for identifying all of a person’s relevant schemas or constructions of reality, Ecker and Hulley defined several logically hierarchical domains or orders of construction (inspired by Gregory Bateson):

  • The first order consists of a person’s overt responses: thoughts, feelings, and behaviours.
  • The second order consists of the person’s specific meaning of the concrete situation to which they are responding.
  • The third order consists of the person’s broad purposes and strategies for construing that specific meaning (teleology).
  • The fourth order consists of the person’s general meaning of the nature of self, others, and the world (ontology and primal world beliefs).
  • The fifth order consists of the person’s broad purposes and strategies for construing that general meaning.
  • Higher orders (beyond the fifth order) are rarely involved in psychotherapy.

A person’s first-order symptoms of thought, mood, or behaviour follow from a second-order construal of the situation, and that second-order construal is powerfully influenced by the person’s third- and fourth-order constructions. Hence the third and higher orders constitute what Ecker and Hulley call “the emotional truth of the symptom”, which are the meanings and purposes that are intended to be discovered, integrated, and transformed in therapy.

Brief History

Coherence therapy was developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s as Ecker and Hulley investigated why certain psychotherapy sessions seemed to produce deep transformations of emotional meaning and immediate symptom cessation, while most sessions did not. Studying many such transformative sessions for several years, they concluded that in these sessions, the therapist had desisted from doing anything to oppose or counteract the symptom, and the client had a powerful, felt experience of some previously unrecognised “emotional truth” that was making the symptom necessary to have.

Ecker and Hulley began developing experiential methods to intentionally facilitate this process. They found that a majority of their clients could begin having experiences of the underlying coherence of their symptoms from the first session. In addition to creating a methodology for swift retrieval of the emotional schemas driving symptom production, they also identified the process by which retrieved schemas then undergo profound change or dissolution: the retrieved emotional schema must be activated while concurrently the individual vividly experiences something that sharply contradicts it. Neuroscientists subsequently determined that these same steps are precisely what unlocks and deletes the neural circuit in implicit memory that stores an emotional learning—the process of reconsolidation.

Due to the swiftness of change that Ecker and Hulley began experiencing with many of their clients, they initially named this new system depth-oriented brief therapy (DOBT).

In 2005, Ecker and Hulley began calling the system coherence therapy in order for the name to more clearly reflect the central principle of the approach, and also because many therapists had come to associate the phrase “brief therapy” with depth-avoidant methods that they regard as superficial.

Evidence from Neuroscience

In a series of three articles published in the Journal of Constructivist Psychology from 2007 to 2009, Bruce Ecker and Brian Toomey presented evidence that coherence therapy may be one of the systems of psychotherapy which, according to current neuroscience, makes fullest use of the brain’s built-in capacities for change.

Ecker and Toomey argued that the mechanism of change in coherence therapy correlates with the recently discovered neural process of “memory reconsolidation”, a process that can “unwire” and delete longstanding emotional conditioning held in implicit memory. The assertions that coherence therapy achieves implicit memory deletion align with the growing body of evidence supporting memory reconsolidation. Ecker and colleagues claim that:

  • (a) their procedural steps match those identified by neuroscientists for reconsolidation;
  • (b) their procedural steps result in effortless cessation of symptoms; and
  • (c) the emotional experience of the retrieved, symptom-generating emotional schemas can no longer be evoked by cues that formerly evoked it strongly.

The process of removing the neural basis of the symptom in coherence therapy (and in similar postmodern therapies) is different from the counteractive strategy of some behavioural therapies. In such behavioural therapies, new preferred behavioural patterns are typically practiced to compete against and hopefully override the unwanted ones; this counteractive process, like the “extinction” of conditioned responses in animals, is known to be inherently unstable and prone to relapse, because the neural circuit of the unwanted pattern continues to exist even when the unwanted pattern is in abeyance. Through reconsolidation, the unwanted neural circuits are “unwired” and cannot relapse.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_therapy >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.

What is Transactional Analysis?

Introduction

Transactional analysis is a psychoanalytic theory and method of therapy wherein social interactions (or “transactions”) are analysed to determine the ego state of the communicator (whether parent-like, childlike, or adult-like) as a basis for understanding behaviour. In transactional analysis, the communicator is taught to alter the ego state as a way to solve emotional problems. The method deviates from Freudian psychoanalysis, which focuses on increasing awareness of the contents of subconsciously held ideas. Eric Berne developed the concept and paradigm of transactional analysis in the late 1950s (refer to reachback and afterburn).

Brief History

Eric Berne presented Transactional Analysis to the world as a phenomenological approach, supplementing Freud’s philosophical construct with observable data. His theory built on the science of Wilder Penfield and René Spitz along with the neo-psychoanalytic thought of people such as Paul Federn, Edoardo Weiss, and Erik Erikson. By moving to an interpersonal motivational theory, he placed it both in opposition to the psychoanalytic traditions of his day and within what would become the psychoanalytic traditions of the future. From Berne, transactional analysts have inherited a determination to create an accessible and user-friendly system, an understanding of script or life-plan, ego states, transactions, and a theory of groups.

Berne’s theory was based on the ideas of Freud but with distinct differences. Freudian psychotherapists focused on client personalities. Berne believed that insight could be better discovered by analysing a client’s social transactions. Berne mapped interpersonal relationships to three ego-states of the individuals involved: the Parent, Adult, and Child state. He then investigated communications between individuals based on the current state of each. He called these interpersonal interactions transactions and used the label games to refer to certain patterns of transactions which popped up repeatedly in everyday life in every human interaction.

The origins of transactional analysis can be traced to the first five of Berne’s six articles on intuition, which he began writing in 1949. Even at this early juncture and while still working to become a psychoanalyst, his writings challenged Freudian concepts of the unconscious.

In 1956, after 15 years of psychoanalytic training, Berne was refused admission to the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute as a fully-fledged psychoanalyst. He interpreted the request for several more years of training as a rejection and decided to walk away from psychoanalysis. Before the end of the year, he had written two seminal papers, both published in 1957.

  1. In the first article, Intuition V: The Ego Image, Berne referenced P. Federn, E. Kahn, and H. Silberer, and indicated how he arrived at the concept of ego states, including his idea of separating “adult” from “child”.
  2. The second paper, Ego States in Psychotherapy, was based on material presented earlier that year at the Psychiatric Clinic, Mt. Zion Hospital, San Francisco, and at the Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Clinic, UCSF School of Medicine. In that second article, he developed the tripartite scheme used today (Parent, Adult, and Child), introduced the three-circle method of diagramming it, showed how to sketch contaminations, labelled the theory, “structural analysis”, and termed it “a new psychotherapeutic approach”.

A few months later, he wrote a third article, titled “Transactional Analysis: A New and Effective Method of Group Therapy”, which was presented by invitation at the 1957 Western Regional Meeting of the American Group Psychotherapy Association of Los Angeles. With the publication of this paper in the 1958 issue of the American Journal of Psychotherapy, Berne’s new method of diagnosis and treatment, transactional analysis, became a permanent part of the psychotherapeutic literature. In addition to restating his concepts of ego states and structural analysis, the 1958 paper added the important new features of transactional analysis proper (i.e. the analysis of transactions), games, and scripts.

His seminar group from the 1950s developed the term transactional analysis (TA) to describe therapies based on his work. By 1964, this expanded into the International Transactional Analysis Association. While still largely ignored by the psychoanalytic community, many therapists have put his ideas in practice.

In the early 1960s, he published both technical and popular accounts of his conclusions. His first full-length book on TA was published in 1961, titled Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. Structures and Dynamics of Organisations and Groups (1963) examined the same analysis in a broader context than one-on-one interaction.

Overview

TA (Transactional Analysis) is not only post-Freudian, but, according to its founder’s wishes, consciously extra-Freudian. That is to say that, while it has its roots in psychoanalysis, since Berne was a psychoanalytically-trained psychiatrist, it was designed as a dissenting branch of psychoanalysis in that it put its emphasis on transactional rather than “psycho-” analysis.

With its focus on transactions, TA shifted the attention from internal psychological dynamics to the dynamics contained in people’s interactions. Rather than believing that increasing awareness of the contents of unconsciously held ideas was the therapeutic path, TA concentrated on the content of people’s interactions with each other. Changing these interactions was TA’s path to solving emotional problems.

TA also differs from Freudian analysis in explaining that an individual’s final emotional state is the result of inner dialogue between different parts of the psyche, as opposed to the Freudian hypothesis that imagery is the overriding determinant of inner emotional state. (For example, depression may be due to ongoing critical verbal messages from the inner Parent to the inner Child.) Berne believed that it is relatively easy to identify these inner dialogues and that the ability to do so is parentally suppressed in early childhood.

In addition, Berne believed in making a commitment to “curing” his clients, rather than just understanding them. To that end he introduced one of the most important aspects of TA: the contract—an agreement entered into by both client and therapist to pursue specific changes that the client desires.

Revising Freud’s concept of the human psyche as composed of the id, ego, and super-ego, Berne postulated in addition three “ego states” – the Parent, Adult, and Child states—which were largely shaped through childhood experiences. These three are all part of Freud’s ego; none represent the id or the superego.

Unhealthy childhood experiences can lead to being pathologically fixated in the Child and Parent ego states, bringing discomfort to an individual and/or others in a variety of forms, including many types of mental illness.

Berne considered how individuals interact with one another, and how the ego states affect each set of transactions. Unproductive or counterproductive transactions were considered to be signs of ego state problems. Analysing these transactions according to the person’s individual developmental history would enable the person to “get better”. Berne thought that virtually everyone has something problematic about their ego states and that negative behaviour would not be addressed by “treating” only the problematic individual.

Berne identified a typology of common counterproductive social interactions, identifying these as “games”.

Berne presented his theories in two popular books on transactional analysis: Games People Play (1964) and What Do You Say After You Say Hello? (1975).

By the 1970s, because of TA’s non-technical and non-threatening jargon and model of the human psyche, many of its terms and concepts were adopted by eclectic therapists as part of their individual approaches to psychotherapy. It also served well as a therapy model for groups of patients, or marital/family counselees, where interpersonal (rather than intrapersonal) disturbances were the focus of treatment.

TA’s popularity in the US waned in the 1970s. The more dedicated TA purists banded together in 1964 with Berne to form a research and professional accrediting body, the International Transactional Analysis Association, or ITAA.

Fifty Years Later

Within the framework of transactional analysis, more recent transactional analysts have developed different and overlapping theories of transactional analysis: cognitive, behavioural, relational, redecision, integrative, constructivist, narrative, body-work, positive psychological, personality adaptational, self-reparenting, psychodynamic and neuroconstructivist.

Some transactional analysts highlight the many things they have in common with cognitive behavioural therapy: the use of contracts with clear goals, the attention to cognitive distortions (called “adult decontamination” or “child deconfusion”), the focus on the client’s conscious attitudes and behaviours and the use of “strokes”.

Cognitive-based transactional analysts use ego state identification to identify communication distortions and teach different functional options in the dynamics of communication. Some make additional contracts for more profound work involving life plans or scripts or with unconscious processes, including those which manifest in the client-therapist relationship as transference and countertransference, and define themselves as psychodynamic or relational transactional analysts. Some highlight the study and promotion of subjective well-being and optimal human functioning rather than pathology and so identify with positive psychology. Some are increasingly influenced by current research in attachment, mother-infant interaction and by the implications of interpersonal neurobiology and non-linear dynamic systems.

Outline

Transactional analysis integrates the theories of psychology and psychotherapy because it has elements of psychoanalytic, humanist and cognitive ideas.

According to the International Transactional Analysis Association, TA “is a theory of personality and a systematic psychotherapy for personal growth and personal change.”

  1. As a theory of personality, TA describes how people are structured psychologically. It uses what is perhaps its best known model, the ego-state (Parent-Adult-Child) model, to do this. The same model helps explain how people function and express their personality in their behaviour.
  2. As Berne set up his psychology, there are four life positions that a person can hold, and holding a particular psychological position has profound implications for how an individual operationalizes his or her life. The positions are stated as:
    • I’m OK and you are OK. This is the healthiest position about life and it means that I feel good about myself and that I feel good about others and their competence.
    • I’m OK and you are not OK. In this position I feel good about myself but I see others as damaged or less than me and this is usually not healthy.
    • I’m not OK and you are OK. In this position the person sees him/herself as the weak partner in relationships as the others in life are definitely better than the self. The person who holds this position will unconsciously accept abuse as OK.
    • I’m not OK and you are not OK. This is the worst position to be in as it means that I believe that I am in a terrible state and the rest of the world is as bad. Consequently, there is no hope for any ultimate supports.
  3. It is a theory of communication that can be extended to the analysis of systems and organisations.
  4. It offers a theory for child development by explaining how our adult patterns of life originated in childhood. This explanation is based on the idea of a “Life (or Childhood) Script”: the assumption that we continue to re-play childhood strategies, even when this results in pain or defeat. Thus it claims to offer a theory of psychopathology.
  5. In practical application, it can be used in the diagnosis and treatment of many types of psychological disorders and provides a method of therapy for individuals, couples, families and groups.
  6. Outside the therapeutic field, it has been used in education to help teachers remain in clear communication at an appropriate level, in counselling and consultancy, in management and communications training and by other bodies.

Philosophy

  • People are OK; thus each person has validity, importance, equality of respect.
  • Positive reinforcement increases feelings of being OK.
  • All people have a basic lovable core and a desire for positive growth.
  • Everyone (with only few exceptions, such as the severely brain-damaged) has the capacity to think.
  • All of the many facets of an individual have a positive value for them in some way.
  • People decide their story and destiny, therefore these decisions can be changed.
  • All emotional difficulties are curable.

Freedom from historical maladaptations embedded in the childhood script is required in order to become free of inappropriate, inauthentic and displaced emotions which are not a fair and honest reflection of here-and-now life (such as echoes of childhood suffering, pity-me and other mind games, compulsive behaviour and repetitive dysfunctional life patterns). The aim of change under TA is to move toward autonomy (freedom from childhood script), spontaneity, intimacy, problem solving as opposed to avoidance or passivity, cure as an ideal rather than merely making progress and learning new choices.

Ego-State or Parent–Adult–Child (PAC) Models

Many of the core TA models and concepts can be categorised into

  • Structural analysis – analysis of the individual psyche.
  • Transactional analysis proper – analysis of interpersonal transactions based on structural analysis of the individuals involved in the transaction.
  • Game analysis – repeating sequences of transactions that lead to a result subconsciously agreed to by the parties involved in the game.
  • Script analysis – a life plan that may involve long-term involvement in particular games in order to reach the life pay-off of the individual.

At any given time, a person experiences and manifests his or her personality through a mixture of behaviours, thoughts, and feelings. Typically, according to TA, there are three ego-states that people consistently use:

  • Parent (“exteropsyche”): a state in which people behave, feel, and think in response to an unconscious mimicking of how their parents (or other parental figures) acted, or how they interpreted their parent’s actions. For example, a person may shout at someone out of frustration because they learned from an influential figure in childhood the lesson that this seemed to be a way of relating that worked.
  • Adult (“neopsyche”): a state of the ego which is most like an artificially intelligent system processing information and making predictions about major emotions that could affect its operation. Learning to strengthen the Adult is a goal of TA. While people are in the Adult ego state, they are directed towards an objective appraisal of reality.
  • Child (“archaeopsyche”): a state in which people behave, feel, and think similarly to how they did in childhood. For example, a person who receives a poor evaluation at work may respond by looking at the floor and crying or pouting, as when scolded as a child. Conversely, a person who receives a good evaluation may respond with a broad smile and a joyful gesture of thanks. The Child is the source of emotions, creation, recreation, spontaneity, and intimacy.

Berne differentiated his Parent, Adult, and Child ego states from actual adults, parents, and children, by using capital letters when describing them. These ego states may or may not represent the relationships that they act out. For example, in the workplace, an adult supervisor may take on the Parent role, and scold an adult employee as though he were a Child. Or a child, using the Parent ego-state, could scold her actual parent as though the parent were a Child.

Within each of these ego states are subdivisions. Thus Parental figures are often either:

  • more nurturing (permission-giving, security-giving) or
  • more criticising (comparing to family traditions and ideals in generally negative ways);

Childhood behaviours are either

  • more natural (free) or
  • more adapted to others.

These subdivisions categorise individuals’ patterns of behaviour, feelings, and ways of thinking, which can be functional (beneficial or positive) or dysfunctional/counterproductive (negative).

Berne states that there are four types of diagnosis of ego states. They are: “behavioural” diagnosis, “social” diagnosis, “historical” diagnosis, and “phenomenological” diagnosis. A complete diagnosis would include all four types. It has subsequently been demonstrated that there is a fifth type of diagnosis, namely “contextual”, because the same behaviour will be diagnosed differently according to the context of the behaviour.

Ego states do not correspond directly to Sigmund Freud’s ego, superego, and id, although there are obvious parallels: Superego/Parent; Ego/Adult; Id/Child. Ego states are consistent for each person, and (argue TA practitioners) are more observable than the components of Freud’s model. In other words, the ego state from which someone is communicating is evident in their behaviour, manner and expression.

Emotional Blackmail

Emotional blackmail is a term coined by psychotherapist Dr. Susan Forward, about controlling people in relationships and the theory that fear, obligation, and guilt (FOG) are the transactional dynamics at play between the controller and the person being controlled. Understanding these dynamics are useful to anyone trying to extricate from the controlling behaviour of another person, and deal with their own compulsions to do things that are uncomfortable, undesirable, burdensome, or self-sacrificing for others.

Forward and Frazier identify four blackmail types each with their own mental manipulation style:

TypeExample
Punisher’s ThreatEat the food I cooked for you or I will hurt you.
Self-Punisher’s ThreatEat the food I cooked for you or I will hurt myself.
Sufferer’s THreatEat the food I cooked for you. I was saving it for myself. I wonder what will happen now.
Tantaliser’s ThreatEat the food I cooked for you and you may get a really yummy desert.

There are different levels of demands – demands that are of little consequence, demands that involve important issues or personal integrity, demands that affect major life decisions, and/or demands that are dangerous or illegal.

Effectiveness

A 1995 research article by the staff of Consumer Reports, with Martin Seligman as consultant, assessed that psychotherapy conducted by a group of Transactional Analysts is more effective than that of groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, marriage counsellors, and physicians; and that psychotherapy lasting more than six months is 40% more effective than that lasting less than six months.

A 2010 review found 50 studies on transactional analysis that concluded it had a positive effect, and 10 where no positive effect was found. No studies that concluded a negative effect were found.

Criticism

The three major limitations of Berne’s work are:

  • Berne’s emphasis on structural explanation (rather than on those derived from an energy theory).
  • His failure to develop a script reversal technique which would satisfy his own criteria of conciseness and theoretical consistency.
  • An apparent dependence upon content analysis.

In Popular Culture

When Will Hunting from the movie Good Will Hunting is being choked by Sean Maguire, you can see the spine of the book I’m OK, You’re OK in the bookcase that Will is being pinned against.

Thomas Harris’s successful popular work from the late 1960s, I’m OK, You’re OK, is largely based on transactional analysis. A fundamental divergence, however, between Harris and Berne is that Berne postulates that everyone starts life in the “I’m OK” position, whereas Harris believes that life starts out “I’m not OK, you’re OK”.

New Age author James Redfield has acknowledged Harris and Berne as important influences in his best-seller The Celestine Prophecy (1993). The protagonists in the novel survive by striving (and succeeding) in escaping from “control dramas” that resemble the games of TA.

Singer/songwriter Warren Zevon mentions transactional analysis in his 1980 song “Gorilla, You’re a Desperado” from the album Bad Luck Streak in Dancing School.

Singer-songwriter Joe South’s 1968 song, “Games People Play”, was based directly on transactional-analytic concepts and Berne’s book of the same name.

TA makes an appearance in Antonio Campos’ 2016 biographical drama Christine, a film covering the events that led TV journalist Christine Chubbuck to die by suicide on TV. She is brought to a transactional analysis therapy session by a colleague, where they introduce her to the “Yes, But…” technique.

Singer John Denver references transactional analysis in his autobiography. His wife at the time, Annie Denver, was getting into the movement. John says he tried it but found it wanting.

Eric Berne’s Games People Play was featured prominently on an episode of Mad Men. The book was seen in Season 4, Episode 11, titled “Chinese Wall”. The approximate time period for this episode is September 1965. By late September 1965, Games People Play had been on the New York Times non-fiction bestseller list for nine weeks already.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.

What is Social Defeat?

Introduction

In social psychology, social defeat is the negative experience of being excluded from the majority group. The term is used in the study of the physiological and behavioural effects of hostile interactions among either animals or humans, in either a dyadic or in a group-individual context, potentially greatly affecting control over resources, access to mates, and social positions.

Background

Research on social stress has accumulated a useful body of knowledge, providing perspective on the effects of detrimental social and environmental interaction on the brain. Research and experimentation suffer from many methodological difficulties: usually a lack of ecological validity (similarity with natural conditions and stressors) or are not amenable to scientific investigation (difficult to test and verify).

Social psychology approaches to human aggression have developed a multitude of perspectives, based on observations of human phenomena like bullying, physical and verbal abuse, relational and indirect aggression, etc. Despite the richness of theories developed, the body of knowledge generated has not satisfied scientific requirements of testability and verifiability.

Animal studies of within-species aggression developed in 2 main branches:

  1. Approaches based on laboratory experiments, on controlled conditions, allowing the measurement of behavioural, endocrine and neurological variables, but with the shortcoming of applying unnatural stressors (such as foot-shocks and restraint stress) in unnatural conditions (laboratory cages rarely approximate native habitats); and
  2. Approaches based on observations of animals in naturalistic settings, which avoided artificial environments and unnatural stresses, but usually not allowing the measurement of physiological effects or the manipulation of relevant variables.

In real life situations, animals (including humans) have to cope with stresses generated within their own species, during their interactions with conspecifics, especially due to recurrent struggles over the control of limited resources, mates and social positions (Bjorkqvist, 2001; Rohde, 2001; Allen & Badcock, 2003).

Social defeat is a source of chronic stress in animals and humans, capable of causing significant changes in behaviour, brain functioning, physiology, neurotransmitter and hormone levels, and health (Bjorkqvist, 2001; Rohde, 2001; Allen & Badcock, 2003).

Brief History

The social defeat approach was originated from animal experiments, using the “resident-intruder” paradigm, in which an animal was placed in the cage of another animal or group of animals of the same species, in a manner that allowed a non-lethal conflict. It has been documented to produce anxiety-like and depressive-like behavioural declines in susceptible mice, for instance.

If animals are allowed to fight on a single occasion only, it is usually regarded as a model of acute stress; if they are allowed to fight on several occasions, on different days, consecutive or not, it is regarded as a model of chronic stress. After the defeat or in the interval between fights, the subordinate animal may also be exposed to threats from the dominant one, by having to stay in a cage or compartment beside or nearby the dominant, exposed to its visual or olfactory cues.

Later, the social defeat approach was also applied to observations of animal within-species aggression, in the wild, which suggested that the hypotheses generated on artificial laboratory settings can also be applied in observed in natural settings, confirming the predictions of the model.

In Humans

It has been proposed that animal models of social conflict may be useful for studying a number of mental disorders, including major depression, generalised anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, drug abuse, aggressive psychopathologies, eating disorders and schizophrenia (Bjorkqvist, 2001; Selten & Cantor-Graae, 2005; Rohde, 2001).

The social defeat model has been extended to include observations of human aggression, bullying, relational aggression, chronic subordination and humiliation. The social defeat model attempts to extend animal studies to include human behaviour as well, in contrast to the social psychology study of aggression, in which comparisons are drawn exclusively from experiments involving humans (Bjorkqvist, 2001; Rohde, 2001).

Bullying has interesting parallels with animal models of social defeat, the bully being equivalent to the dominant animal and the victim the subordinate one. At stake are possessions of material objects, money, etc., social position in the group, represented by in-group prestige, and the consequent lack of access to mates, including for socio-sexual behaviours like copulation. Human victims typically experience symptoms like low self-esteem (due to low regard by the group), feelings of depression (due to unworthiness of efforts), social withdrawal (reduced investments in the social environment), anxiety (due to a threatening environment), and they can also be shown to experience a plethora of physiological effects, e.g. increased corticosterone levels, and also a shift towards sympathetic balance in the autonomic nervous system (Bjorkqvist, 2001).

Research about human aggression, usually conducted by psychologists or social psychologists, resembles to a great extent the research about social defeat and animal aggression, usually conducted by biologists or physiological psychologists. However, there is the problem of the use of different terminologies for similar concepts, which hinders communication between the two bodies of knowledge (Bjorkqvist, 2001).

Similarly, research on depression has employed similar constructs, such as learned helplessness, although that theory is focused on the perceived inability to escape any sort of negative stimuli rather than on social factors.

Behavioural and Physiological Effects

Social defeat is a very potent stressor and can lead to a variety of behavioural effects, like social withdrawal (reduced interactions with conspecifics), lethargy (reduced locomotor activity), reduced exploratory behaviour (of both open field and novel objects), anhedonia (reduced reward-related behaviours), decreased socio-sexual behaviours (including decreased attempts to mate and copulate after defeat), various motivational deficits, decreased levels of testosterone (due to a decline in the functionality of the Leydig cells of the testes), increased tendencies to stereotyped behaviours and self-administration of drugs and alcohol (Rygula et alli, 2005; Huhman, 2006).

Research also implicates that the referred behavioural effects are moderated by neuroendocrine phenomena involving serotonin, dopamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, and in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, locus ceruleus and limbic systems (Bjorkqvist, 2001; Rygula et alli, 2005; Selten & Cantor-Graae, 2005; Marinia et alli, 2006; Huhman, 2006).

Both animal and human studies suggest that the social environment has a strong influence on the consequences of stresses. This finding seems to be especially true in the case of social stresses, like social defeat (Bjorkqvist, 2001; Rygula et alli, 2005; de Jong et alli, 2005).

In animal studies, animals housed collectively showed reduced symptoms after defeat, in comparison with those housed alone; and animals that live in more stable groups (with stable hierarchies, less intra-group aggression) exhibit reduced effects after a defeat, in comparison with those housed in a more unstable group (de Jong et alli, 2005). In separate studies, defeat behaviours can be modulated by acetylcholine (Smith et al., 2015).[2]

In human studies, individuals with greater support seem to be protected against excessive neuroendocrine activation, thereby reducing the adverse effects of stresses in general, and especially stresses of social origin.

This apparent confusion, in which social defeat generates behavioural and neuroendocrine effects, both of which depending on social contextual variables, raises the question of how to interpret this data. A useful concept is the concept of “causal chain”, in which recurrent evolutionary events, in this case intra-specific competition, generates selective pressures that last for thousands of generations, influencing a whole species. This way physiological phenomena may evolve, in this case the referred neuro-endocrine phenomena, to facilitate adaptive patterns of action by individuals, in this case the referred behavioural effects. According to this framework, selective pressures generated by intra-specific competition can be considered as the ultimate cause, the neuroendocrine phenomena can be considered to be the proximate causes (sometimes also called mechanisms or moderators) and the observed behavioural alterations are considered the effects (the end events in the causal chain)(Gilbert et alli, 2002; Allen & Badcock, 2003; Rygula et alli, 2005).

Some authors, for example Randolph Nesse, warn us that patterns of behaviour commonly considered inappropriate or even pathological may well have adaptive value. Evolutionary psychology provides several possible explanations for why humans typically respond to social dynamics in the way that they do, including possible functions of self-esteem in relation to dominance hierarchies. In a synchronic perspective behaviours considered abnormal may in fact be part of an adaptive response to stressors in modern or at least in old environments, for example social stressors from chronic subordination or interpersonal conflicts (Gilbert et alli, 2002; Allen & Badcock, 2003). Similarly, from a diachronic perspective various behaviours related to intra-species competition or predator-prey relationships may have played a role in the evolution of human abilities, for example defensive immobilisation is hypothesized to have played a role in the evolution of both human parent-child attachment and theory of mind.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_defeat >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.

What is Mirroring?

Introduction

Mirroring is the behaviour in which one person subconsciously imitates the gesture, speech pattern, or attitude of another. Mirroring often occurs in social situations, particularly in the company of close friends or family, often going unnoticed by both parties. The concept often affects other individuals’ notions about the individual that is exhibiting mirroring behaviours, which can lead to the individual building rapport with others.

Mirroring is distinct from conscious imitation under the premise that while the latter is a conscious, typically overt effort to copy another person, mirroring is unconsciously done during the act and often goes unnoticed. It has also been described as the chameleon effect.

The display of mirroring often begins as early as infancy, as babies begin to mimic individuals around them and establish connections with particular body movements. The ability to mimic another person’s actions allows the infant to establish a sense of empathy and thus begin to understand another person’s emotions. The infant continues to establish connections with other individual’s emotions and subsequently mirror their movements.

Mirroring can establish rapport with the individual who is being mirrored, as the similarities in nonverbal gestures allow the individual to feel more connected with the person exhibiting the mirrored behaviour. As the two individuals in the situation display similar nonverbal gestures, they may believe that they share similar attitudes and ideas as well. Mirror neurons react to and cause these movements, allowing the individuals to feel a greater sense of engagement and belonging within the situation.

Occurrence

Mirroring generally takes place unconsciously as individuals react with the situation. Mirroring is common in conversation, as the listeners will typically smile or frown along with the speaker, as well as imitate body posture or attitude about the topic. Individuals may be more willing to empathize with and accept people whom they believe hold similar interests and beliefs, and thus mirroring the person with whom one is speaking may establish connections between the individuals involved.

Interviews

Additionally, mirroring may play a role in how well an individual fares in a job interview. Within a study conducted by Word, Zanna and Cooper, interviewers were instructed to follow specific types of body language in different experimental conditions. In one condition, interviewers were instructed to demonstrate distant and uninterested body language (such as leaning away or avoiding eye contact), and in another condition, they were asked to demonstrate more welcoming body language (such as smiling and making eye contact). As a result, the individuals being interviewed began to mirror the actions of the interviewer, and thus the individuals in the condition with less friendly body language fared worse within the interview than did individuals in the friendly condition. The study demonstrates that the initial attitudes that an interviewer may have of the individual being interviewed may affect the performance of the interviewee due to mirroring.

Effects of Lacking

Individuals with autism or other social difficulties may be less likely to exhibit mirroring, as they may be less unconsciously and consciously aware of the actions of others. This factor may cause additional difficulties for the individuals, as without mirroring, establishing connections with other people may be more difficult. Additionally, other individuals may be less likely to build rapport with the person, as without mirroring the person may seem more dissimilar and less friendly. Individuals who are not unconsciously aware of the gesture may have difficulties in social situations, as they may be less able to understand another person’s perspective without it being explicitly stated, and thus may not understand covert cues that are often used in the social world. It is possible for autistic individuals to deliberately learn and become aware of these cues.

Examinations in Humans

The use of non-invasive fMRI studies have shown that there is evidence of mirroring in humans similar to that found in monkeys in the inferior parietal lobe and part of the inferior frontal gyrus. Humans show additional signs of mirroring in parts of the brain not observed to show mirroring properties in primates, such as the cerebellum. Mirroring has also been shown to allow neurotypical children to understand what the intentions of an action are before seeing the entire sequence. Because of this, a child can see someone pick up food with the intention to eat and fire all necessary motor chains needed for them to pick up their own food and go through the motions of eating it as well. It has been shown that children with autism lack this motor chain reaction and are thought to use other senses, such as visual or somatosensory, to accomplish similar tasks.

Development

In infant-parent interactions, mirroring consists of the parent imitating the infant’s expressions while vocalizing the emotion implied by the expression. This imitation helps the infant to associate the emotion with their expression, as well as feel validated in their own emotions as the parent shows approval through imitation. Studies have demonstrated that mirroring is an important part of child and infant development. According to Kohut’s theories of self-psychology, individuals need a sense of validation and belonging in order to establish their concepts of self. When parents mirror their infants, the action may help the child develop a greater sense of self-awareness and self-control, as they can see their emotions within their parent’s faces. Additionally, infants may learn and experience new emotions, facial expressions, and gestures by mirroring expressions that their parents utilise. The process of mirroring may help infants establish connections of expressions to emotions and thus promote social communication later in life. Infants also learn to feel secure and valid in their own emotions through mirroring, as the parent’s imitation of their emotions may help the child recognise their own thoughts and feelings more readily.

Self-Concept

Mirroring has been shown to play a critical role in the development of an infant’s notion of self. The importance of mirroring suggests that infants primarily gather their social skills from their parents, and thus a household that lacks mirroring may inhibit the child’s social development. Without mirroring, it may be difficult for the child to relate their emotions to socially learned expressions and thus have a difficult experience in expressing their own emotions.

Empathy

The inability to properly mirror other individuals may strain the child’s social relationships later in life. This strain may exist because others may feel more distant from the child due to a lack of rapport, or because the child may have a difficult time feeling empathy for others without mirroring. Mirroring helps to facilitate empathy, as individuals more readily experience other people’s emotions through mimicking posture and gestures. Mirroring also allows individuals to subjectively feel the pain of others when viewing injuries. This empathy may help individuals create lasting relationships and thus excel in social situations. The action of mirroring allows individuals to believe they are more similar to another person, and perceived similarity can be the basis for creating a relationship.

Rapport

Rapport may be an important part of social life, as establishing rapport with an individual is generally the initial route to becoming friends or acquaintances with another person. Mirroring can help establish rapport, as exhibiting similar actions, attitudes, and speech patterns as another person may lead them to believe that one is more similar to them and thus more likely to be a friend. Individuals may believe that because one replicates the individual’s gestures, that one may hold similar beliefs and attitudes as the individual. Mirroring may be more pervasive in close friendships or romantic relationships, as the individuals regard each other highly and thus wish to emulate or appease them. Additionally, individuals who are friends may have more similarities than two strangers, and thus may be more likely to exhibit similar body language regardless of mirroring.

The activation of mirror neurons takes place within the individual who begins to mirror another’s movements and allows them a greater connection and understanding with the individual who they are mirroring, as well as allowing the individual who is being mirrored to feel a stronger connection with the other individual.

Power Dynamics

Additionally, individuals are likely to mirror the person of higher status or power within the situation or when they feel physical attraction to the other person. Mirroring individuals of higher power may create an illusion of higher status, or create rapport with the individual in power, thus allowing the person to gain favour with the individual in power. This mechanism may be helpful for individuals in situations where they are in a position of bargaining with an individual who possesses more power, as the rapport that mirroring creates may help to persuade the higher status individual to help the person of lower status. These situations include job interviews, other work situations such as requesting promotions, parent-child interactions and asking professors for favours. Each of these situations involves one party who is in a less powerful position for bargaining and another party who has the ability to fulfil the person of lower status’s needs but may not necessarily wish to. Thus, mirroring can be a useful tool for individuals of lower status in order to persuade the other party to provide goods or privileges for the lower status party.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirroring >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.

What is Observational Learning?

Introduction

Observational learning is learning that occurs through observing the behaviour of others. It is a form of social learning which takes various forms, based on various processes. In humans, this form of learning seems to not need reinforcement to occur, but instead, requires a social model such as a parent, sibling, friend, or teacher with surroundings. Particularly in childhood, a model is someone of authority or higher status in an environment. In animals, observational learning is often based on classical conditioning, in which an instinctive behaviour is elicited by observing the behaviour of another (e.g. mobbing in birds), but other processes may be involved as well.

Human Observational Learning

Many behaviours that a learner observes, remembers, and imitates are actions that models display and display modelling, even though the model may not intentionally try to instil a particular behaviour. A child may learn to swear, smack, smoke, and deem other inappropriate behaviour acceptable through poor modelling. Albert Bandura claims that children continually learn desirable and undesirable behaviour through observational learning. Observational learning suggests that an individual’s environment, cognition, and behaviour all incorporate and ultimately determine how the individual functions and models.

Through observational learning, individual behaviours can spread across a culture through a process called diffusion chain. This basically occurs when an individual first learns a behaviour by observing another individual and that individual serves as a model through whom other individuals learn the behaviour, and so on.

Culture plays a role in whether observational learning is the dominant learning style in a person or community. Some cultures expect children to actively participate in their communities and are therefore exposed to different trades and roles on a daily basis. This exposure allows children to observe and learn the different skills and practices that are valued in their communities.

Albert Bandura, who is known for the classic Bobo doll experiment, identified this basic form of learning in 1961. The importance of observational learning lies in helping individuals, especially children, acquire new responses by observing others’ behaviour.

Albert Bandura states that people’s behaviour could be determined by their environment. Observational learning occurs through observing negative and positive behaviours. Bandura believes in reciprocal determinism in which the environment can influence people’s behaviour and vice versa. For instance, the Bobo doll experiment shows that the model, in a determined environment, affects children’s behaviour. In this experiment Bandura demonstrates that one group of children placed in an aggressive environment would act the same way, while the control group and the other group of children placed in a passive role model environment hardly shows any type of aggression.

In communities where children’s primary mode of learning is through observation, the children are rarely separated from adult activities. This incorporation into the adult world at an early age allows children to use observational learning skills in multiple spheres of life. This learning through observation requires keen attentive abilities. Culturally, they learn that their participation and contributions are valued in their communities. This teaches children that it is their duty, as members of the community, to observe others’ contributions so they gradually become involved and participate further in the community.

Influential Stages and Factors

The stages of observational learning include exposure to the model, acquiring the model’s behaviour and accepting it as one’s own.

Bandura’s social cognitive learning theory states that there are four factors that influence observational learning:

  1. Attention: Observers cannot learn unless they pay attention to what’s happening around them. This process is influenced by characteristics of the model, such as how much one likes or identifies with the model, and by characteristics of the observer, such as the observer’s expectations or level of emotional arousal.
  2. Retention/Memory: Observers must not only recognise the observed behaviour but also remember it at some later time. This process depends on the observer’s ability to code or structure the information in an easily remembered form or to mentally or physically rehearse the model’s actions.
  3. Initiation/Motor: Observers must be physically and/intellectually capable of producing the act. In many cases, the observer possesses the necessary responses. But sometimes, reproducing the model’s actions may involve skills the observer has not yet acquired. It is one thing to carefully watch a circus juggler, but it is quite another to go home and repeat those acts.
  4. Motivation: The observer must have motivation to recreate the observed behaviour.

Bandura clearly distinguishes between learning and performance. Unless motivated, a person does not produce learned behaviour. This motivation can come from external reinforcement, such as the experimenter’s promise of reward in some of Bandura’s studies, or the bribe of a parent. Or it can come from vicarious reinforcement, based on the observation that models are rewarded. High-status models can affect performance through motivation. For example, girls aged 11 to 14 performed better on a motor performance task when they thought it was demonstrated by a high-status cheerleader than by a low-status model.

Some have even added a step between attention and retention involving encoding a behaviour.

Observational learning leads to a change in an individual’s behaviour along three dimensions:

  1. An individual thinks about a situation in a different way and may have incentive to react to it.
  2. The change is a result of a person’s direct experiences as opposed to being in-born.
  3. For the most part, the change an individual has made is permanent.

Effect on Behaviour

According to Bandura’s social cognitive learning theory, observational learning can affect behaviour in many ways, with both positive and negative consequences. It can teach completely new behaviours, for one. It can also increase or decrease the frequency of behaviours that have previously been learned. Observational learning can even encourage behaviours that were previously forbidden (for example, the violent behaviour towards the Bobo doll that children imitated in Albert Bandura’s study). Observational learning can also influence behaviours that are similar to, but not identical to, the ones being modelled. For example, seeing a model excel at playing the piano may motivate an observer to play the saxophone.

Age Difference

Albert Bandura stressed that developing children learn from different social models, meaning that no two children are exposed to exactly the same modelling influence. From infancy to adolescence, they are exposed to various social models. A 2013 study found that a toddlers’ previous social familiarity with a model was not always necessary for learning and that they were also able to learn from observing a stranger demonstrating or modelling a new action to another stranger.

It was once believed that babies could not imitate actions until the latter half of the first year. However, a number of studies now report that infants as young as seven days can imitate simple facial expressions. By the latter half of their first year, 9-month-old babies can imitate actions hours after they first see them. As they continue to develop, toddlers around age two can acquire important personal and social skills by imitating a social model.

Deferred imitation is an important developmental milestone in a two-year-old, in which children not only construct symbolic representations but can also remember information. Unlike toddlers, children of elementary school age are less likely to rely on imagination to represent an experience. Instead, they can verbally describe the model’s behaviour. Since this form of learning does not need reinforcement, it is more likely to occur regularly.

As age increases, age-related observational learning motor skills may decrease in athletes and golfers. Younger and skilled golfers have higher observational learning compared to older golfers and less skilled golfers.

Observational Causal Learning

Humans use observational Moleen causal learning to watch other people’s actions and use the information gained to find out how something works and how we can do it ourselves.

A study of 25-month-old infants found that they can learn causal relations from observing human interventions. They also learn by observing normal actions not created by intentional human action.

Comparisons with Imitation

Observational learning is presumed to have occurred when an organism copies an improbable action or action outcome that it has observed and the matching behaviour cannot be explained by an alternative mechanism. Psychologists have been particularly interested in the form of observational learning known as imitation and in how to distinguish imitation from other processes. To successfully make this distinction, one must separate the degree to which behavioural similarity results from:

  • Predisposed behaviour;
  • Increased motivation resulting from the presence of another animal;
  • Attention drawn to a place or object;
  • Learning about the way the environment works, as distinguished from what we think of as;
  • Imitation (the copying of the demonstrated behaviour).

Observational learning differs from imitative learning in that it does not require a duplication of the behaviour exhibited by the model. For example, the learner may observe an unwanted behaviour and the subsequent consequences, and thus learn to refrain from that behaviour. For example, Riopelle (1960) found that monkeys did better with observational learning if they saw the “tutor” monkey make a mistake before making the right choice. Heyes (1993) distinguished imitation and non-imitative social learning in the following way: imitation occurs when animals learn about behaviour from observing conspecifics, whereas non-imitative social learning occurs when animals learn about the environment from observing others.

Not all imitation and learning through observing is the same, and they often differ in the degree to which they take on an active or passive form. John Dewey describes an important distinction between two different forms of imitation: imitation as an end in itself and imitation with a purpose. Imitation as an end is more akin to mimicry, in which a person copies another’s act to repeat that action again. This kind of imitation is often observed in animals. Imitation with a purpose utilises the imitative act as a means to accomplish something more significant. Whereas the more passive form of imitation as an end has been documented in some European American communities, the other kind of more active, purposeful imitation has been documented in other communities around the world.

Observation may take on a more active form in children’s learning in multiple Indigenous American communities. Ethnographic anthropological studies in Yucatec Mayan and Quechua Peruvian communities provide evidence that the home or community-centred economic systems of these cultures allow children to witness first-hand, activities that are meaningful to their own livelihoods and the overall well-being of the community. These children have the opportunity to observe activities that are relevant within the context of that community, which gives them a reason to sharpen their attention to the practical knowledge they are exposed to. This does not mean that they have to observe the activities even though they are present. The children often make an active decision to stay in attendance while a community activity is taking place to observe and learn. This decision underscores the significance of this learning style in many indigenous American communities. It goes far beyond learning mundane tasks through rote imitation; it is central to children’s gradual transformation into informed members of their communities’ unique practices. There was also a study, done with children, that concluded that Imitated behaviour can be recalled and used in another situation or the same.

Apprenticeship

Apprenticeship can involve both observational learning and modelling. Apprentices gain their skills in part through working with masters in their profession and through observing and evaluating the work of their fellow apprentices. Examples include renaissance inventor/painter Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, before succeeding in their profession they were apprentices.

Learning without Imitation

Michael Tomasello described various ways of observational learning without the process of imitation in animals:

  • Exposure: Individuals learn about their environment through close proximity to other individuals that have more experience. For example, a young dolphin learning the location of a plethora of fish by staying near its mother.
  • Stimulus enhancement: Individuals become interested in an object from watching others interact with it. Increased interest in an object may result in object manipulation, which facilitates new object-related behaviours by trial-and-error learning. For example, a young killer whale might become interested in playing with a sea lion pup after watching other whales toss the sea lion pup around. After playing with the pup, the killer whale may develop foraging behaviours appropriate to such prey. In this case, the killer whale did not learn to prey on sea lions by observing other whales do so, but rather the killer whale became intrigued after observing other whales play with the pup. After the killer whale became interested, then its interactions with the sea lion resulted in behaviours that provoked future foraging efforts.
  • Goal emulation – Individuals are enticed by the end result of an observed behaviour and attempt the same outcome but with a different method. For example, Haggerty (1909) devised an experiment in which a monkey climbed up the side of a cage, stuck its arm into a wooden chute, and pulled a rope in the chute to release food. Another monkey was provided an opportunity to obtain the food after watching a monkey go through this process on four separate occasions. The monkey performed a different method and finally succeeded after trial and error.

Peer Model Influences

Observational learning is very beneficial when there are positive, reinforcing peer models involved. Although individuals go through four different stages for observational learning: attention; retention; production; and motivation, this does not simply mean that when an individual’s attention is captured that it automatically sets the process in that exact order. One of the most important ongoing stages for observational learning, especially among children, is motivation and positive reinforcement.

Performance is enhanced when children are positively instructed on how they can improve a situation and where children actively participate alongside a more skilled person. Examples of this are scaffolding and guided participation. Scaffolding refers to an expert responding contingently to a novice so the novice gradually increases their understanding of a problem. Guided participation refers to an expert actively engaging in a situation with a novice so the novice participates with or observes the adult to understand how to resolve a problem.

Cultural Variation

Cultural variation can be seen by the extent of information learned or absorbed by children in non-Western cultures through learning by observation. Cultural variation is not restricted only to ethnicity and nationality, but rather, extends to the specific practices within communities. In learning by observation, children use observation to learn without verbal requests for further information, or without direct instruction. For example, children from Mexican heritage families tend to learn and make better use of information observed during classroom demonstration than children of European heritage. Children of European heritage experience the type of learning that separates them from their family and community activities. They instead participate in lessons and other exercises in special settings such as school. Cultural backgrounds differ from each other in which children display certain characteristics in regards to learning an activity. Another example is seen in the immersion of children in some Indigenous communities of the Americas into the adult world and the effects it has on observational learning and the ability to complete multiple tasks simultaneously. This might be due to children in these communities having the opportunity to see a task being completed by their elders or peers and then trying to emulate the task. In doing so they learn to value observation and the skill-building it affords them because of the value it holds within their community. This type of observation is not passive, but reflects the child’s intent to participate or learn within a community.

Observational learning can be seen taking place in many domains of Indigenous communities. The classroom setting is one significant example, and it functions differently for Indigenous communities compared to what is commonly present in Western schooling. The emphasis of keen observation in favour of supporting participation in ongoing activities strives to aid children to learn the important tools and ways of their community. Engaging in shared endeavours – with both the experienced and inexperienced – allows for the experienced to understand what the inexperienced need in order to grow in regards to the assessment of observational learning. The involvement of the inexperienced, or the children in this matter, can either be furthered by the children’s learning or advancing into the activity performed by the assessment of observational learning. Indigenous communities rely on observational learning as a way for their children to be a part of ongoing activities in the community (Tharp, 2006).

Although learning in the Indigenous American communities is not always the central focus when participating in an activity, studies have shown that attention in intentional observation differs from accidental observation. Intentional participation is “keen observation and listening in anticipation of, or in the process of engaging in endeavours”. This means that when they have the intention of participating in an event, their attention is more focused on the details, compared to when they are accidentally observing.

Observational learning can be an active process in many Indigenous American communities. The learner must take initiative to attend to activities going on around them. Children in these communities also take initiative to contribute their knowledge in ways that will benefit their community. For example, in many Indigenous American cultures, children perform household chores without being instructed to do so by adults. Instead, they observe a need for their contributions, understand their role in their community, and take initiative to accomplish the tasks they have observed others doing. The learner’s intrinsic motivations play an important role in the child’s understanding and construction of meaning in these educational experiences. The independence and responsibility associated with observational learning in many Indigenous American communities are significant reasons why this method of learning involves more than just watching and imitating. A learner must be actively engaged with their demonstrations and experiences in order to fully comprehend and apply the knowledge they obtain.

Indigenous Communities of the Americas

Children from indigenous heritage communities of the Americas often learn through observation, a strategy that can carry over into adulthood. The heightened value towards observation allows children to multi-task and actively engage in simultaneous activities. The exposure to an uncensored adult lifestyle allows children to observe and learn the skills and practices that are valued in their communities. Children observe elders, parents, and siblings complete tasks and learn to participate in them. They are seen as contributors and learn to observe multiple tasks being completed at once and can learn to complete a task while still engaging with other community members without being distracted.

Indigenous communities provide more opportunities to incorporate children in everyday life. This can be seen in some Mayan communities where children are given full access to community events, which allows observational learning to occur more often. Other children in Mazahua, Mexico are known to observe ongoing activities intensely. In native northern Canadian and indigenous Mayan communities, children often learn as third-party observers from stories and conversations by others. Most young Mayan children are carried on their mother’s back, allowing them to observe their mother’s work and see the world as their mother sees it. Often, children in Indigenous American communities assume the majority of the responsibility for their learning. Additionally, children find their own approaches to learning. Children are often allowed to learn without restrictions and with minimal guidance. They are encouraged to participate in the community even if they do not know how to do the work. They are self-motivated to learn and finish their chores. These children act as a second set of eyes and ears for their parents, updating them about the community.

Children aged 6 to 8 in an indigenous heritage community in Guadalajara, Mexico participated in hard work, such as cooking or running errands, thus benefiting the whole family, while those in the city of Guadalajara rarely did so. These children participated more in adult regulated activities and had little time to play, while those from the indigenous-heritage community had more time to play and initiate in their after-school activities and had a higher sense of belonging to their community. Children from formerly indigenous communities are more likely to show these aspects than children from cosmopolitan communities are, even after leaving their childhood community.

Within certain indigenous communities, people do not typically seek out explanations beyond basic observation. This is because they are competent in learning through astute observation and often nonverbally encourage to do so. In a Guatemalan footloom factory, amateur adult weavers observed skilled weavers over the course of weeks without questioning or being given explanations; the amateur weaver moved at their own pace and began when they felt confident. The framework of learning how to weave through observation can serve as a model that groups within a society use as a reference to guide their actions in particular domains of life. Communities that participate in observational learning promote tolerance and mutual understand of those coming from different cultural backgrounds.

Other Human and Animal Behaviour Experiments

When an animal is given a task to complete, they are almost always more successful after observing another animal doing the same task before them. Experiments have been conducted on several different species with the same effect: animals can learn behaviours from peers. However, there is a need to distinguish the propagation of behaviour and the stability of behaviour. Research has shown that social learning can spread a behaviour, but there are more factors regarding how a behaviour carries across generations of an animal culture.

Learning in Fish

Experiments with ninespine sticklebacks showed that individuals will use social learning to locate food.

Social Learning in Pigeons

A study in 1996 at the University of Kentucky used a foraging device to test social learning in pigeons. A pigeon could access the food reward by either pecking at a treadle or stepping on it. Significant correspondence was found between the methods of how the observers accessed their food and the methods the initial model used in accessing the food.

Acquiring Foraging Niches

Studies have been conducted at the University of Oslo and University of Saskatchewan regarding the possibility of social learning in birds, delineating the difference between cultural and genetic acquisition. Strong evidence already exists for mate choice, bird song, predator recognition, and foraging.

Researchers cross-fostered eggs between nests of blue tits and great tits and observed the resulting behaviour through audio-visual recording. Tits raised in the foster family learned their foster family’s foraging sites early. This shift—from the sites the tits would among their own kind and the sites they learned from the foster parents—lasted for life. What young birds learn from foster parents, they eventually transmitted to their own offspring. This suggests cultural transmissions of foraging behaviour over generations in the wild.

Social Learning in Crows

The University of Washington studied this phenomenon with crows, acknowledging the evolutionary trade-off between acquiring costly information first-hand and learning that information socially with less cost to the individual but at the risk of inaccuracy. The experimenters exposed wild crows to a unique “dangerous face” mask as they trapped, banded, and released 7-15 birds at five different study places around Seattle, WA. An immediate scolding response to the mask after trapping by previously captured crows illustrates that the individual crow learned the danger of that mask. There was a scolding from crows that were captured that had not been captured initially. That response indicates conditioning from the mob of birds that assembled during the capture.

Horizontal social learning (learning from peers) is consistent with the lone crows that recognised the dangerous face without ever being captured. Children of captured crow parents were conditioned to scold the dangerous mask, which demonstrates vertical social learning (learning from parents). The crows that were captured directly had the most precise discrimination between dangerous and neutral masks than the crows that learned from the experience of their peers. The ability of crows to learn doubled the frequency of scolding, which spread at least 1.2 km from where the experiment started to over a 5-year period at one site.

Propagation of Animal Culture

Researchers at the Département d’Etudes Cognitives, Institut Jean Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure acknowledged a difficulty with research in social learning. To count acquired behaviour as cultural, two conditions need must be met: the behaviour must spread in a social group, and that behaviour must be stable across generations. Research has provided evidence that imitation may play a role in the propagation of a behaviour, but these researchers believe the fidelity of this evidence is not sufficient to prove the stability of animal culture.

Other factors like ecological availability, reward-based factors, content-based factors, and source-based factors might explain the stability of animal culture in a wild rather than just imitation. As an example of ecological availability, chimps may learn how to fish for ants with a stick from their peers, but that behaviour is also influenced by the particular type of ants as well as the condition. A behaviour may be learned socially, but the fact that it was learned socially does not necessarily mean it will last. The fact that the behaviour is rewarding has a role in cultural stability as well. The ability for socially-learned behaviours to stabilise across generations is also mitigated by the complexity of the behaviour. Different individuals of a species, like crows, vary in their ability to use a complex tool. Finally, a behaviour’s stability in animal culture depends on the context in which they learn a behaviour. If a behaviour has already been adopted by a majority, then the behaviour is more likely to carry across generations out of a need for conforming.

Animals are able to acquire behaviours from social learning, but whether or not that behaviour carries across generations requires more investigation.

Hummingbird Experiment

Experiments with hummingbirds provided one example of apparent observational learning in a non-human organism. Hummingbirds were divided into two groups. Birds in one group were exposed to the feeding of a knowledgeable “tutor” bird; hummingbirds in the other group did not have this exposure. In subsequent tests the birds that had seen a tutor were more efficient feeders than the others.

Bottlenose Dolphin

Herman (2002) suggested that bottlenose dolphins produce goal-emulated behaviours rather than imitative ones. A dolphin that watches a model place a ball in a basket might place the ball in the basket when asked to mimic the behaviour, but it may do so in a different manner seen.

Rhesus Monkey

Kinnaman (1902) reported that one rhesus monkey learned to pull a plug from a box with its teeth to obtain food after watching another monkey succeed at this task.

Fredman (2012) also performed an experiment on observational behaviour. In experiment 1, human-raised monkeys observed a familiar human model open a foraging box using a tool in one of two alternate ways: levering or poking. In experiment 2, mother-raised monkeys viewed similar techniques demonstrated by monkey models. A control group in each population saw no model. In both experiments, independent coders detected which technique experimental subjects had seen, thus confirming social learning. Further analyses examined copying at three levels of resolution.

The human-raised monkeys exhibited the greatest learning with the specific tool use technique they saw. Only monkeys who saw the levering model used the lever technique, by contrast with controls and those who witnessed poking. Mother-reared monkeys instead typically ignored the tool and exhibited fidelity at a lower level, tending only to re-create whichever result the model had achieved by either levering or poking.

Nevertheless, this level of social learning was associated with significantly greater levels of success in monkeys witnessing a model than in controls, an effect absent in the human-reared population. Results in both populations are consistent with a process of canalisation of the repertoire in the direction of the approach witnessed, producing a narrower, socially shaped behavioural profile than among controls who saw no model.

Light Box Experiment

Pinkham and Jaswal (2011) did an experiment to see if a child would learn how to turn on a light box by watching a parent. They found that children who saw a parent use their head to turn on the light box tended to do the task in that manner, while children who had not seen the parent used their hands instead.

Swimming Skill Performance

When adequate practice and appropriate feedback follow demonstrations, increased skill performance and learning occurs. Lewis (1974) did a study[54] of children who had a fear of swimming and observed how modelling and going over swimming practices affected their overall performance. The experiment spanned nine days, and included many steps. The children were first assessed on their anxiety and swimming skills. Then they were placed into one of three conditional groups and exposed to these conditions over a few days.

At the end of each day, all children participated in a group lesson. The first group was a control group where the children watched a short cartoon video unrelated to swimming. The second group was a peer mastery group, which watched a short video of similar-aged children who had very good task performances and high confidence. Lastly, the third group was a peer coping group, whose subjects watched a video of similar-aged children who progressed from low task performances and low confidence statements to high task performances and high confidence statements.

The day following the exposures to each condition, the children were reassessed. Finally, the children were also assessed a few days later for a follow-up assessment. Upon reassessment, it was shown that the two model groups who watched videos of children similar in age had successful rates on the skills assessed because they perceived the models as informational and motivational.

Do-as-I-do Chimpanzee

Flexible methods must be used to assess whether an animal can imitate an action. This led to an approach that teaches animals to imitate by using a command such as “do-as-I-do” or “do this” followed by the action that they are supposed to imitate . Researchers trained chimpanzees to imitate an action that was paired with the command. For example, this might include a researcher saying “do this” paired with clapping hands. This type of instruction has been utilised in a variety of other animals in order to teach imitation actions by utilising a command or request.

Observational Learning in Everyday Life

Observational learning allows for new skills to be learned in a wide variety of areas. Demonstrations help the modification of skills and behaviours.

Learning Physical Activities

When learning skills for physical activities can be anything that is learned that requires physical movement, this can include learning a sport, learning to eat with a fork, or learning to walk. There are multiple important variables that aid in modifying physical skills and psychological responses from an observational learning standpoint. Modelling is a variable in observational learning where the skill level of the model is considered. When someone is supposed to demonstrate a physical skill such as throwing a baseball the model should be able to execute the behaviour of throwing the ball flawlessly if the model of learning is a mastery model. Another model to utilise in observational learning is a coping model, which would be a model demonstrating a physical skill that they have not yet mastered or achieved high performance in. Both models are found to be effective and can be utilised depending on the what skills is trying to be demonstrated. These models can be used as interventions to increase observational learning in practice, competition, and rehabilitation situations. Observational learning is also dependent on the learner’s intentions and goals where performance can be enhanced by increasing instruction and beneficial feedback depending on the individual’s age, personality, and abilities.

Neuroscience

Recent research in neuroscience has implicated mirror neurons as a neurophysiological basis for observational learning. Mirror neurons were first discovered in 1991 by researchers led by Giacomo Rizzolatti. The scientists had a device connected to a monkey to monitor brain activity. When the scientists came into the lab eating ice cream, the device buzzed. This accidental finding led them to mirror neurons which are an essential part in imitation and observational learning. These specialised visuomotor neurons fire action potentials when an individual performs a motor task and also fire when an individual passively observes another individual performing the same motor task. In observational motor learning, the process begins with a visual presentation of another individual performing a motor task, this acts as a model. The learner then needs to transform the observed visual information into internal motor commands that will allow them to perform the motor task, this is known as visuomotor transformation. Mirror neuron networks provide a mechanism for visuo-motor and motor-visual transformation and interaction. Similar networks of mirror neurons have also been implicated in social learning, motor cognition and social cognition.

Clinical Perspective

Autism Spectrum Disorder

Discrete trial training (DTT) is a structured and systematic approach utilised in helping individuals with autism spectrum disorder learn. Individuals with autism tend to struggle with learning through observation, therefore something that is reinforcing is necessary in order to motivate them to imitate or follow through with the task. When utilising DTT to teach individuals with autism modelling is utilised to aid in their learning. Modelling would include showing how to reach the correct answer, this could mean showing the steps to a math equation. Utilising DTT in a group setting also promotes observational learning from peers as well.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_learning >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.