As Alice Eagly and Shelly Chaiken describe, a child eventually learns the evaluative meanings of the words "good" and "bad" if these conditioned stimuli are repeatedly paired with unconditional stimuli such ad food or physical punishment.Discuss whether you agree or disagree with this theory. Use modern examples to justify your answer.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Amelia's DQ week 4
The attitude research that is mentioned in our book discusses a human's ability to differentiate negative words from positive words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Eagly and Cahiken’s theory. Watching my aunts and uncles raise my cousins I have seen many different instances of my cousins learning the words “good” and “bad,” especially when paired with unconditioned stimuli, not necessarily food or physical punishment.
ReplyDeleteExamples I’ve seen have been when my cousins would be playing on something outside that could end potentially hurting them because they are small, such as playing on a swing the wrong way. My uncle would tell my cousin no and explain that they could potentially get hurt. My cousin doesn’t listen and goes back to doing what she was doing before being told no. My uncle again stops her by saying no and incorporating the words “that’s bad” into his explanation. My cousin returns to the swing, playing on it the wrong way and this time falls and gets hurt before my uncle has the chance to stop her. Although he comforts her when she is hurt, he tells her again that that is bad and the wrong way to play on the swing. She has learned her lesson and doesn’t do it again.
An example of good is when a toddler is being potty trained. When the toddler uses the toilet his mother and father will hug him, tell him “Good job”, and somehow reward him by letting him watch his favorite movie, giving him extra time to play with his toys before bed or even giving him a special treat of candy. The toddler learns that if he does not use the toilet he does not receive his parents praise or the treat in whatever form it comes. The toddler learns that using the toilet is “good.”
I think this theory does have merit because it is hard to change people's minds once they have a strong opinion or reaction to a subject. The book gave the example of the dog and the bell. The dog was conditioned to salivate when a bell was rung even if it was not eating a steak. An example of this theory can be seen in the movie “Crash”. A woman was condition to hold her purse closer whenever a black man would pass her. The woman was with her husband in a nice part of town but still reacted with fear when she saw two young black males approach her. The theory described in the book can be seen in real life and can definitely effect how people react to certain situations and topics.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Eagly and Chaikan's theory can be seen in everyday situations. For example, students are conditioned to desire and strive for "good" grades. We are praised for doing well and therefore work to do well so we can receive praise. However, students who receive "bad" grades perhaps will be scolded by parents or will be required to visit with the teacher, which is seen as "bad." This is a simplistic example of learning to associate the words "good" or "bad" with certain experiences.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of conditioning comes from NBC's "The Office," Jim puts this theory to work by training Dwight to need a breath mint when he hears the chime of a rebooting computer. Jim, of course, reboots his computer several times over the course of a few weeks, and at the moment when the computer chimes, Jim offers Dwight a breath mint. Finally, Jim believes he has Dwight trained to need a mint when he hears the chime, so he reboots his computer. Sure enough, Dwight hears the chime and automatically holds out his hand to receive a mint. Jim stares blankly at Dwight and asks what he is doing. Dwight replies that his mouth suddenly tastes "bad" and he needs a mint but doesn't know why.
I completely agree with this theory, as it has a lot of relevance to modern day examples. Children are usually taught by parents in their early stages what is acceptable behavior ("good") and what isn't acceptable behavior ("bad").
ReplyDeleteI know that when I was young, my parents would reward my "good" behaviors with little treats, depending on how good the behavior was. However, when I acted out in a "bad" way, they would discipline me, therefore lessening the the reappearance of the so-called "bad" behavior.
This theory could get a little technical, however, do to the different meanings between what is considered "good" behavior and what is considered "bad" behavior to some. What may be bad to others may be considered good. All in all, though, this theory is very practical and can be applied to many scenerios.
I completely agree with this theory and think it can be applied to many different scenarios. When kids are young they are constantly being told by their parents what is good and bad. Children get so accustomed to what their parents tell them is good and bad, that their actions and behaviors starts to reflect this.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was younger my parents would reward my good behavior by letting me stay up a few minutes later at night, or by buying me a treat at a store. This would make me want to continue to behave well so that I could enjoy these benefits. When I acted "bad" my parents would send me to time-out or take away a privilege. By doing these things, I learned that my actions were inappropriate and that I should not behave that way.
I also think that each family raises their kids differently, and so this theory could be different according to each individual family.
I agree with the theory. It does not matter what the situation is, if the situation leads to success or failure there is unconditioned stimuli or extrinsic benefits to every situation. An example could be a typical work environment.
ReplyDeleteIf an employee has a good evaluation there is a pay raise, which leads to the employee feeling successful and happy. This person may then feel that the behaviors that were rewarded are good and will lead to more extrinsic benefits.
Another example on the other side may be an employee that experiences a poor evaluation. This employee does not get a pay raise. The unconditioned stimuli make the employee realize that his or her behavior is bad and will not lead to success.
I would have to agree with this theory. There are many different examples that you could give, especially relating to parents and children, but this is also evident in societal norms. While it may not be "bad" to talk while you were in an elevator and yet, even people in the middle of a conversation will stop talking until after they've exited the elevator. However, as young children we are conditioned to this behavior. It's the same with cell phone etiquette. There is no rule or law against using your cell phone in places like classrooms, churches, or restaurants and yet, we are conditioned to think it is rude and "bad" if a person uses their phone in any one of those places.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this theory. I believe that when we are children, our parents instill in us what is "good" and "bad". I do think that as we age our perception of good and bad evolves as we change. What we learn as children is simply a base to build on.
ReplyDeleteAn everyday example are the words good and bad themselves. We learn that some things are good or bad but we also learn that if something is "bad" it is something we shouldn't do or something that can harm us. We are taught from a very young age to associate these words with certain behaviors and consequences.
Another example is how we dress. If we are told that sweaters look good and are stylish we wear them as a societal norm and to fit in. In certain situations, if we don't we are ridiculed or possible ostracized because we stray from the norms of cultural dress.
I agree with Eagly and Chaiken's theory of negative words as stimuli. It's a matter of one being shaped by one's environment. Similar to Pavlov's experiment with the dogs, people can be trained using different stimuli to behave in certain ways.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when my sister and I were very young, my mom would braid our hair every few weeks. At the time, it was really painful and to make us feel better, my dad would go out and purchase our favorite cookies. He did this every single time we had our hair braided and with time, my sister and I came to associate the cookies with braids. Whenever my mom would call us to get our hair done, instead of complaining and hesitating as we once did, we actually got excited. And we would very willingly sit still because sitting still meant that our dad would buy the cookies for us.
In the same way, if a child is brought up with negative or positive references to people that are different, eventually, he or she will develop appropriate associations and reactions to these people.
I completely agree with Eagly and Chaiken’s theory that children learn the “evaluative meanings,” of good and bad if they are continuously associated with, “unconditional stimuli such as food or physical punishment.” I believe that both nature and nurture play a role in how someone’s personality will play out in real life. When it comes to language and socialization, however, nurture’s role is all-encompassing because one cannot learn the language and social behavior without looking to one’s family and other associations (friends, extended family, authority figures, media, etc.) to learn social logistics.
ReplyDeleteA word such as “good,” or “bad,” is simply an arrangement of letters in a certain way to represent something, someone, or some phenomenon. For example: Look at a chair. When you look at the, “chair,” you think, “chair,” only because you speak the English language and you have been taught that the object you’re looking at is called, “chair.” The same goes for good and bad—in recent years, children have been socialized very differently with different worldviews than in the past. In the 1960s, a Caucasian child in America may have been socialized to think that they are different than children of different race and appearance—they may have been taught that associating with people of other races is, “bad.” Today, with the rising amount of diversity in America, a Caucasian child may now be taught that they are no different from anyone else—that everyone is equal and associating with people of different background is, “good.”
In the book, Public Opinion, Glynn, Herbst, O’Keefe, Shapiro, and Lindeman state that, “Attitudes are neither formed nor changed in a vacuum,” (p. 134). One example of this phenomenon is Nickelodeon’s “Kids Pick the President,” activity for the 2008 Presidential election. This activity involved Nickelodeon airing information about Obama and McCain and then allowing kids to go online and cast their votes for who they think should be President. Years ago, children were to be, “seen and not heard.” Today, children are being socialized more and more that it is okay, and, “good,” to speak out and have an opinion in society. This does not happen through nature (in a vacuum), but through changes in the surrounding society and the ways in which children are socialized to know the difference between, “good,” and, “bad.” When children are rewarded for certain behaviors and punished for others, they learn quickly that for engaging in certain behaviors are socially acceptable and others are unacceptable, though the difference between what is and is not acceptable to society are changing by the day.
I also agree with the theory. We learn words and what they mean from how we grew up. Everyone has basically said everything that I would say.
ReplyDeleteAs we get older, we start to make decisions for ourselves to see what is considered "good" and "bad." My aunts, uncles, and grandmother from my mom's side of the family use to think it was ok to make comments about the Native American people. I thought it was ok to say these kind of things when I was younger, but now I know how horrible some of the things are.
It is all about learning.