We are in truth, more than half what we are by imitation - Lord Chesterfield
We like to think that we're smarter than monkeys. But truthfully, the old phrase "Monkey see, monkey do." applies just as much to human behavior as to primate behavior. We both learn by observing behavior and then attempting to replicate it.
Albert Bandura proved the validity of learning through observation alone in a famous psychological study. He didn't believe that direct reinforcement could account for all types of learning, so he devised the Bobo Doll Study. In it, he filmed a women beating up a bobo doll, an inflatable, egg-shaped creature with a weighted bottom that makes if bob back up when you knock it down. She punched the clown, shouting "sockeroo!" She hit it with a hammer, sat on it, kicked it, and so on, shouting aggressive phrases all the while.
Bandura took this film and showed it to a group of kindergarteners who, not surprisingly, liked it a whole lot. Then he sent them into the playroom, which contained, among other things, a bobo doll and a few little hammers. Predictably, the kids beat the daylights out of the bobo doll. They punched it, shouting "sockeroo!" They hit it with their hammers, kicked it, sat on it, and essentially imitated the actions of the woman in the film. This hardly seems like an experiment until you consider what Bandura left out of his scenario. A reward.
According to the previously held standard behavioristic learning theory, people changed their actions in response to a reward or punishment. The children hitting the bobo doll changed their behavior without any provocation.
Bandura's new social cognitive theory changed the way people thought about learning. It also shed some light onto the existence of prejudice in our culture. This effect is unfortunate but true; people observe traits that support prejudices or others showing prejudice, and internalize the negative bias. They are influenced by many things, prevalent among them the media.
For example, one stereotype propagated by today's pop culture is that of the mean, shallow, blond sorority girl. In almost every teen movie, the popular sorority girl plays the villain and torments the story's sensitive and unconventional protagonist. I'm not one for watching teen chick flicks, and my exposure to story lines of this sort has been limited, but I recently came face to face with a set of prejudices I didn't know I had, that I believe were influenced by media. Upon my arrival at UCF, I met my roommates, and the first thing I learned about them was that they were rushing for sororities. Immediately, I began thinking very negative and judgmental thoughts; I had a very clear idea in my mind of what to expect from them: insincerity, shallowness, and desire to elevate themselves by belittling others.
Keep in mind that I'd never really interacted with sorority girls previously - my negative feelings were certainly not based off of past experience.
Luckily, my expectations didn't turn out to be even close to the truth. My roommates are, first of all, not carbon copies of a stereotype but people with very different interests and personalities. Two of them are, as you would expect from sorority girls, extremely extraverted, but the third is quite shy. They are all very friendly; they don't throw wild parties or give numerous insincere compliments. One of them loves musicals and is majoring in Theatre; another wants to be a nurse. Also, they do not wear pink all the time, like in the movies. It's been four months and I have yet to overhear any of them gossiping or spreading rumors or even criticizing others behind their backs. In short, they are very likable people.
I guess that my exposure to media that stereotyped sorority girls, and possibly judgmental comments I've heard from my peers on the same subject, influenced me to a much larger extent than I realized. If I had stopped and thought about it, I would have realized that a couple of my friends from high school who I know to be kind people joined sororities at their colleges, and therefore the stereotype must have at least a couple exceptions. Hopefully now I will be more on guard when it comes to passing judgment on people groups.
In hindsight, it is easy to see how my mental processes directly matched up to steps in the observational learning and modeling process. At some point in middle or elementary school, probably at a a birthday sleepover, I must have watched a movie that portrayed sorority girls as cruel, insincere, and shallow. The movie captured my attention, and even though I can't remember what its title was or even the plot, I retained the characterization of sorority girls. Then in conversation, a friend made a derogatory comment about sorority girls, or popular girls. I verbally agreed, and the stereotype was further reinforced. Soon I was reproducing statements that continued to develop the stereotype. Because it is so widespread in American teenage society, any comment I made that coincided with prejudice against sorority girls prompted agreement from my audience. (Ironically enough, most teenagers, even the popular ones, make statements that are prejudiced against that stereotypical popular kid who few have met but everyone knows exists in the movies and TV shows.) This positive reinforcement motivated me to continue my stereotype until just four months ago when it was challenged and proven too simplistic to truly represent the group.
Now that I am aware of this tendency to form opinions on subjects that I have no facts or experience about, I really hope I'll be evaluating my prejudices for basis. I've never considered myself a prejudiced person, but truthfully, all humans are subject to the influence of observation. Now that I know that when I'm passively taking in information I'm no better at maintaining rationality and not allowing myself to be influenced into copying behaviors than your average monkey, I think I'll be more motivated to actively examine the basis of my biases.
