My question is about the production aspect of an imitator. The book states that the imitator must be able to produce the behavior, and gives the example of Michael Jordan's basketball moves and how people could memorize them , but they couldn't produce them. I was a little bit confused as to what this had to do with learning. I feel as if I've learned a lot from observing people, and though I haven't been able to exactly produce it every time, I've felt like I've learned something. If I hear an amazing singer, for example, sometimes I'm not able to produce the same sound or do the same technique - I've learned what it sounds like and how to do it, I just wasn't able to do it myself. Does this not count as learning? Or rather, does it not count as me being an imitator? Why is it that we must be able to produce the behavior? Are there cases where this isn't so?
Relevance is important because it's a factor in determining whether or not someone will even be interested in observing them. For example, I wouldn't really care to observe a really good World of Warcraft player - I have no interest in the activity. Also, the more similar a model is to the person observing, the more likely they'll be observed. For example, I'm more likely to pay attention and observe someone singing who is closer to my age, rather than someone much older or younger.
Competence is also a characteristic of a model. I wouldn't really care to observe a bad singer; rather, I'd be more interested in watching a good singer and imitating their techniques. It's important for the model to have competence in the behavior being observed.
High status helps a model as well - it's the idea of having a role model, someone you look up to. I know in high school, I really looked up to the kids older than me, especially in choir. Even my parents are role models for me, so I'm more likely to observe their behavior because in my life, they're high status. This can also include celebrities and political figures. When I grew up, Lizzy McGuire was a HUGE show, and I really did observe her behaviors and try to be like her.
Finally, gender-appropriateness is another characteristic of a good model. Gender appropriate behaviors are behaviors that society has claimed to be specific to a certain gender. For example, men are viewed as stronger, so observing "manly" activities such as lifting heavy things would be more effective if a man was doing it rather than a woman.
In my educational life, one of my choir teachers from high school was a huge model for me. She was relevant in that she helped teach me how to sing - and not only that, but she embodied what I want to do for my career. Also, she was a fantastic singer and choir director, so I loved watching her and seeing the results of her work. She had high status as well, in that she was an adult and my leader for one of the choirs I was in. I always payed attention when she directed me, and would go home and practice every suggestion she had. Also, I loved talking to her after class about conducting and her degree. This is a good example of an assumption in the social cognitive theory - learning may or may not include a behavior change. I was learning a lot about conducting from her, but my behavior didn't change because I didn't ever get the chance to conduct in high school. Now that I'm in college, and getting more opportunities to do so, I'm using that knowledge I learned from her. After working with her, I always was more motivated, not just to practice the songs we were working on or to become a better singer, but to become a teacher and get a good music education degree. She was a great model for my learning, and I hope to be that for someone someday!
It's not quite black and white when considering what counts as modeling or imitation. The big picture is that models exist and influence learning in particular ways. Remember that there are multiple 'imitator characteristics', and production is just one. Just as someone could give more or less attention to the model, the imitator may produce the behavior in a way that is more or less identical to the original behavior. There are individual differences in everything, and all students 'may be more or less likely to meet any of the conditions' (178).
ReplyDeleteRemember, gender appropriateness also describes whether the model is the same gender as the observer.... So, EVEN IF the behavior is not 'gender appropriate' according to mainstream culture, gender match up will increase imitation. So, a girl observing a female being aggressive might be more likely to show aggression than if she was observing a male.