Social norms

Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies Discuss the use of compliance techniques Evaluate research on conformity to group norms Discuss factors influencing conformity

What is Social norms?

A social norm is a generally accepted way of thinking, feeling, or behaving that most people in a group agree on and endorse as right and proper (Smith and Mackie, 2007, p.309). Thus, norms provide for a groups appraisal of what is to be viewed as: True or false Appropriate or inappropriate

Given that the majority of people tend to follow norms most of the time, norms are very important regulators of behaviour (Baron et al., 2008). Furthermore, by generating expectations about peoples behaviour norms make social life fairly predictable. True insights into the nature of norms are gained by reflecting on expressions like a well-known fact, public opinion or the way things are so often used in everyday speech. What people are talking about when using such expressions are social norms (Smith and Mackie, 2009). Several social psychologists distinguish between explicitly written laws and regulations (e.g. speed limits) from social norms and point out that deviations from social norms are punished from relevant social groups and not from the legal system (Hewstone and Martin, 2008). Many social norms are implicit such as Dont stare at others for long periods of time whereas others are more explicit (like, for instance, the dress code in a traditional organisation). Often we may not even be aware of the norms regulating our behaviour and the behaviour of others. Norms also differ with respect to how restrictive they are. Thus, norms relevant to group loyalty (i.e., norms relevant to talking badly about ones ingroup to others) tend to be more restrictive compared to norms that relate to less important aspects of the group (e.g., how many hours of sleep on average group members can get at night). Ref. Law et al. IB Psychology (2010)

Learning Outcome

Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies Why is Social Learning Theory important?
Social Learning Theory spans all three levels of analysis and is fundamental to being human. Social learning theory explains how culture is transmitted to children, it explains the cognitive mediation of reinforcement and is tied to the biological level of analysis through mirror neurons. Albert Bandura (1925 present, age 87) is the representative theorist. His theory assumes that humans learn behaviour through indirect learning (observational or vicarious learning) in other words, people can learn by watching models and imitating their behaviour. Sometimes the model is trying to have a direct effect on the learner for example, when a teacher instructs children how to solve a problem but often models serve as indirect models, in that they are not trying to influence behaviour. According to Bandura, social learning involves the following factors.
Attention: The person must first pay attention to the model. Retention: The observer must be able to remember the behaviour that has been observed. Motor reproduction: The observer has to be able to replicate the action. Motivation: Learners must want to demonstrate what they have learned. Motivation to imitate the behaviour of the model is quite

complex. There are several factors which may influence whether or not the observer decides to imitate and learn.

Attention

Consistency: If the model behaves in a way that is consistent across situations-for example, always being brave then the observer will be more likely to imitate than if the model behaves in different ways depending on the situation. Identification with the model: There is a tendency to imitate models who are like ourselves for example, in terms of age and gender. Rewards/punishment: Bandura argues that people can learn from observing what happens to others; they dont have to experience the consequences themselves. This is called vicarious reinforcement in Banduras theory and happens when we watch people around us whether in reality or in movies. this called observational learning. Liking the model: warm and friendly models are more likely to be imitated than cold, uncaring models. A study by Yarrow et al (1970) showed that children learn altruistic behaviour better from people with whom they have already developed a friendly relationship than from people they do not know.

Motivation

Social Learning Theory

Retention

Motor Production

Social Learning theory has been used to explain many things including depression, phobias, education, aggression, violence and terrorism. The original emphasis that Bandura took was particularly concerned with the transmission of aggression to children. In the 1980s Bandura renamed SLT as Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) to accommodate the ever-

increasing importance of thinking of cognitive factors. In addition Bandura highlights the effects of self-efficacy on behavior. This term refers to a persons belief in his or her own effectiveness in specific situations. If we believe in our ability to perform an action, we are more motivated to do so. However, we are more likely to imitate a model performing in areas in which our sense of self- efficacy is high. Banduras view on how reinforcement operates make it possible to understand how normative standards (i.e. criteria for acceptable behavior in our society) become internalised. It would be impossible to learn what counts as acceptable behaviour solely by direct forms of learning. Rather, we learn the social norms that define normative standards largely by indirect learning.

In summary, there are three key concepts to SLT

Modeling was the focus of Banduras early research . Modeling means to observe the actions of another person, from an idea of how one should behave and use the ideas to guide future behavior (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy, the belief that one is capable of starting and carrying through a required action was added a little later. Moral disengagement, when someone abandons a moral belief helps explain terrorism. All three are important in understanding modern use of social learning theory.

SLT has a cultural context

Social learning theory is situated in a cultural context. Modeling and self-efficacy unfold within cultures. Social cognitive theory explains how people grow and change in all cultures (Bandura, 2002). Bandura cautions cross-cultural researchers not to simply view humans as falling into extremes such as individualism and collectivism, suggesting that individuals have access to both ends of the continuum. Successful behavior that adapts to the demands of any culture requires a combination of personal, proxy and collective agency. Agency means the conditions necessary for observational learning to occur: attention to the behaviour, retention of the observed scene, motivation to reproduce the behaviour, and potential reproduction of the behaviour - in other words, the individual has to be able to do what they saw being done. The salience of the model is also important. Criteria for salience: 1. The model stands out in contrast to other models 2. The model is liked and respected by the observer 3. The observer perceives a similarity between him/herself and the model 4. The models behaviour is reinforced. Self-efficacy plays a major role in determining whether one will imitate or not imitate a behaviour. Self-efficacy is the persons belief in their ability to effectively achieve their goals.

Research
Banduras first study: Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) Bobo doll experiment
see end of notes for a write up of this study and a copy of the original article can be obtained from the link below. Copy of original Article: Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) TRANSMISSION OF AGGRESSION THROUGH IMITATION OF AGGRESSIVE MODELS. First published in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.Classic Studies in Psychology: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Bandura/bobo.htm Videos:
Bandura talking about his original (1961) study with some clips from the children taking part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YclZBhn40hU The Brain: A secret history: Bandura and the Bobo Doll experiments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zerCK0lRjp8&feature=player_embedded

Bandura (1965) Bobo doll experiment copy of the original article can be obtained from the
link below. Copy of original Article: Bandura (1965) INFLUENCE OF MODELS REINFORCEMENT CONTINGENCIES ON THE ACQUISITION OF IMMITATIVE RESPONSES. First published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 1, Number 6, 589-595. http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1965JPSP.pdf

Bandura (1965) Abstract:

In order to test the hypothesis that reinforcements administered to a model influence the performance but not the acquisition of matching responses, groups of children observed an aggressive filmmediated model either rewarded, punished, or left without consequences. A post exposure test revealed that response consequences to the model had produced differential amounts of imitative behavior. Children in the model-punished condition performed significantly fewer matching responses than children in both the model-rewarded and the no-consequences groups. Children in all 3 treatment conditions were then offered attractive reinforcers contingent on their reproducing the model's aggressive responses. The introduction of positive incentives completely wiped out the previously observed performance differences, revealing an equivalent amount of learning among children in the model-rewarded, model-punished, and the no-consequences conditions.

Bandura (1965) showed young children a film of an adult behaving aggressively towards an inflatable Bobo doll. These dolls are based on the image of the Bozo the clown and always bounce back when knocked down. The aggressive acts performed by the adult model included throwing the Bobo doll in the air, kicking it across the room and hitting it in the head with a wooden mallet. There were three experimental conditions under which the film was shown: Control Condition: The children were shown the film with the adult behaving aggressively with the bobo doll. Model rewarded condition: Children saw the same film used in the control condition but after the aggression was over, a second adult appeared in a film to reward the aggression with sweets and a soft drink. Model-punished condition: As the model rewarded condition, but the second adult scolded and spanked the model for behaving aggressively.

After viewing the film, all the children were taken individually into a playroom with several toys which included a bobo doll and a mallet. While in the playroom, the childrens behavior was observed for a period of 10-minutes and any acts of aggression similar to those performed by the model were recorded.

Findings: The control and the model-rewarded groups showed an equal level of aggressiveness towards the Bobo doll (2.5 acts). The model punished condition was associated with significantly fewer aggressive acts (1.5 acts).

However, when at a later stage, the children were asked to reproduce the behavior of the model and were rewarded for each act of aggression, they displayed they all (regardless of which original condition they were in) produced the same number of aggressive acts (3.5 acts).

Evaluation Points:
Banduras study exemplifies and supported the following features of SLT Vicarious (observational) learning the children clearly learnt specific aggressive behaviours by observing the adult model. The learning manifested during the second part of the study was based on vicarious reinforcement or punishment as the children were not rewarded or punished themselves.

Reinforcement or punishment was necessary for performance not learning. All children behaved in an equally aggressive manner towards the Bobo doll when rewarded to do so. Methodologically speaking, The study was a well-controlled experiment. Because the models performed aggressive acts unlikely to be part of the childrens repertoire. Bandura could clearly identify acts of imitative aggression.

Banduras findings supported his theory that aggression is learnt, rather than instinctive, type of behaviour. Negative Criticism: Despite its strengths and importance, these studies can be criticised on a number of grounds. Questions arise as to the extent to which the aggression documented was aggression. Many people would doubt that hitting an inanimate doll, especially one that bounces back with a smile after every hit, qualifies as real aggression. Were the children perhaps responding to demand characteristics? Some of the children did say that they thought they were expected to show aggression. Also, the fact that some aspects of the aggression can be learnt does not mean that all aggressive behaviour is learnt behaviour. Banduras studies can be criticized both for its artificiality and its ethical standards.

Gergely et al. (2002) Selective imitation in 14 moth old infants copy of the original
article can be obtained from the link below. Copy of original Article:

Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Kirly, I. (2002) Nature Volume 415, page 755
http://webhost.ua.ac.be/funmorph/publications/Van%20Damme%20et%2 0al%202002%20Nature.pdf This experiment used 14 month old infants as particiapnts and involved two conditions

(b) Hands-free condition: In this condition, the infants observed an adult place her hands on the table. Following this she used a strange action to illuminate a light box, she bent over and pressed the light box with her forehead. Findings: One week later, the same infants were even the opportunity to play with the light box. 69% of them used the head to illuminate the light. (a) Hands-occupied condition: Infants in this condition observed the adult perform the same strange action to illuminate the box. In this condition, however, the model was using her hands to hold the blanket around her shoulders. This rendered the hands unavailable for the other actions. Findings: When given the opportunity one week later to play with the box, only 27% of the infants illuminated the light using their head. The rest used their hands to press the light. Evaluation: Discussing their findings, Gergely et al. (2002) note that in the hands-occupied condition (picture (a) above) infants seemed to assume that the adult used her head because she had to. But this constraint did not apply to the infants. In the hands free condition (picture (b) above) adults could have chosen to use their hands she did not. The children seem to have assumed that there must have been a reason for this choice so they copied it. Gergeley et al.s findings, which have been replicated with 12 month old infants (Schwier et al. 2006) demonstrate that very young infants have the ability to observe a models behaviour and infer his or her intention and constrains on his or her behaviour. The infants then use such information to decide precisely what parts of the models behaviour are possible and desirable to imitate. So not only are 14 (even 12-) month old children capable of observational learning, they also combine their basic ability to imitate with more abstract and complex forms of reasoning, much as would be expected from Banduras increasingly cognitive SCT.

Is there a neural basis for SLT?

Modern biological research indicate that mirror neurons may play an important role in understanding human intentions/emotions. Mirror neurons are brain cells that fire when an animal performs an action and when it sees the same action performed by others, thus mirroring anothers behaviour. Gallese et al (1996) discovered, using direct neuronal recording of the interior frontal cortex in macaque monkeys, that certain hand-movement neurons would fire when the monkey grasped an object or when it saw another monkey or person perform the same action. Iacoboni (2004) asked participants to look at human faces while undergoing an fMRI. First the participants had to imitate the faces they were shown, and then they had to simply watch as they were shown the faces again. The findings indicated that no only were the same areas of the brain activated in both cases, but it became clear that the limbic system was stimulated - observing a happy face activated pleasure centers in the brain. Ramachandran: Most patients with a right hemisphere stroke have complete paralysis of the left side of their body and will complain about it, as expected. But about 5% of them will vehemently deny their paralysis even though they are mentally otherwise lucid and intelligent. This is the so called "denial" syndrome or anosognosia. Ramachandran found that some of these patients not only denied their own paralysis, but also denied the paralysis of another patient whose inability to move his arm was clearly visible to them and to others. Denying ones own paralysis is odd enough, but why would a patient deny another patient's paralysis? Ramachandran suggests that this bizarre observation is best understood in terms of damage to Rizzolatti's mirror neurons. It's as if anytime you want to make a judgement about someone else's movements you have to run a virtual reality simulation of the corresponding movements in your own brain and without mirror neurons you cannot do this. Ramachandran (2002) EEG recordings of 10 individuals with autism showed a dysfunctional mirror neuron system. Their mirror neurons responded only to what they did and not to the doings of others. The EEG data was analyzed for mu rhythm suppression. Mu rhythm, a human brain-wave pattern, is suppressed or blocked when the brain is engaged in doing, seeing or imagining action, and correlates with the activity of the mirror neuron system. In most people, the mu wave is suppressed both in response to their own movement and to observing the movement of others. Subjects were tested while they moved their own hands and while they watched videos of visual white noise (baseline), of bouncing balls (nonbiologic motion) and of a moving hand. As expected, mu wave suppression was recorded in the control subjects both when they moved and when they watched another human move. In other words, their mirror neuron systems acted normally. The mirror neurons of the subjects with autism spectrum disorders, however, responded anomalously -- only to their own movement. SEE SEPARATE SECTION ON MIRROR NEURONS - PAG However, human social cognition requires many other brain areas. Thus, this theory alone cannot explain all aspects of social learning. Videos 13 & 11 minutes
Mirror Neurons http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzMqPYfeA-s Ramachandaran: the neurons that shaped civilisation: Ted Talk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pwKzTRG5E

Further research into SLT Application of the social learning theory in real life the impact of TV & Film violence According to the Social Learning Theory, there is a chance that violence on television will lead to more violent children. But is this so? The results of studies on the effects of televised violence are consistent. By watching aggression, children learn how to be aggressive in new ways and that they also draw conclusions about whether being aggressive to others will bring them rewards or punishment. There are two key studies that have been carried out. You may like to investigate these as an extension of SLT in real life learning. Huesmann and Eron (1986): Longitudinal study. Monitor children over 15 years Positive correlation between number of hours of violence watched on television by elementary school children and the level of aggression demonstrated as teenagers. Those who watched more violent TV when they were 8 years were more likely to be arrested / prosecuted for criminal acts as adults. Kimball and Zabrack (1986) Children are significantly more aggressive two years after TV was introduced to their town Charlton et al. (2000) St Helena natural experiment see link below for paper Aim: investigate the effect of introducing the television on children and their violence levels Method: natural experiment - setting up cameras in the playground of 2 primary schools on the island (children aged between 3-8), and UK psychologists were to observe them before and after the introduction with TV. Content analysis of TV programs shows different in quantity of violence compared to those who watch in the UK. Therefore children in St Helena and UK were exposed to the same amount of violence. Result: analyzed hundreds of hours of videotape, backed up by interview data from teachers , parents, older children showed that there were no increase in antisocial behavior amongst the children in St Helena. Good behavior had been maintained even after 5 years of exposure to violent television Evaluation of violence and TV Television isn't always a negative influence. For example, researchers have found that sesame street helped develop academic and social skills, it also helped people learn positive behaviors such as sharing, empathy and academic curiosity. Could there be another explanation for the results? For example, children who watched television may have lived in families that facilitated violent behavior

References:
All in the mind: Podcast about the Bobo doll experiments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b008fxv9 Charlton et al. (2000) St Helena Study http://www.southaxholme.doncaster.sch.uk/subjects/v2/psychology/revision/agressi on/files/Charlton%20St%20Helena.pdf

Clark, D. (2012) Plan B Blog: Bandura (1925 - ) Bobo dolls, aggression, mirror neurons & video http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/bandura-1925-bobo-dolls-

aggression.html
Psycholotron org: Social Learning Theory

http://www.psychlotron.org.uk/newResources/approaches/AS_AQB_approaches_SLT Basics.pdf
Ramachandran, V.S. (2012) Mirror neurons and imitation learning as the driving force behind "the great leap forward" in human evolution. From the Third Culture: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/

http://www.cultivosurbanos.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Ramachandran-VSMirror-neurons-and-imitation-learning-as-the-driving-force-behind-the-great-leapforward-in-human-evolution.pdf
Simply Psychology: Bandura Social Learning Theory

http://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html

Extension work
Read article from the Psychologist (2009): Albert Bandura: Social Cognitive Theory

http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_22- editionID_176-ArticleID_1521-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/0609band.pdf
PAG Mirror Neuron review and references at end of this document Interesting Blog on topic of Mirror Neurons: Understanding an embracing Diversity: Mirror Neurons and their roles in language development, learning and Autism http://learningneverstops.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/mirror-neurons-and-itsrole-in-language-development-learning-and-autism/

Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961)

AIMS: The aim of Bandura's experiment was to demonstrate that if children were witnesses to an aggressive display by an adult they would imitate this aggressive behaviour when given the opportunity. METHOD: They tested 36 boys and 36 girls aged between 37 to 69 months (mean = 4 years and 4 months). The role models were one male adult and one female adult. The children were matched on the basis of their pre-existing aggressiveness. They did this by observing the children in the nursery and judged their aggressive behaviour on four 5-point rating scales. It was then possible to match the children in each group so that they had similar levels of aggression in their everyday behaviour. The experiment is therefore an example of a matched pairs design. There were three main conditions (1) the aggressive condition, (2) non-aggressive condition and (3) the control group.

The children in the aggressive and non-aggressive condition were further subdivided by sex and the sex of the role model they were exposed to. Aggressive Condition Non-Aggressive Condition

This complicated design therefore has three independent variables: (1) The condition the children were exposed to, (2) the sex of the role model and (3) the sex of the child. The children were tested individually In stage one of the experiment children were brought to the experimental room by the

experimenter. The room was set out for play and the activities were chosen because they had been noted to have high interest for nursery school children. One corner was arranged as the child's play area, where there was a small table and chair, potato prints and picture stickers. After settling the child in its corner the adult model was escorted to the opposite corner of the room where there was a small table, chair, tinker-toy set, a mallet and a five foot inflatable Bobo doll. After the model was seated the experimenter left the experimental room. In the non-aggressive condition In the aggressive condition The model ignored Bobo and assembled the The model began by assembling the tinker- tinker-toys in a quiet, gentle manner. toys, but after one minute turned to Bobo and was aggressive to the doll in a very stylised and distinctive way. After ten minutes the experimenter entered and took the child to a new room which the child was told was another games room. In stage two the child was subjected to 'mild aggression arousal'. The child was taken to a room with relatively attractive toys. As soon as the child started to play with the toys the experimenter told the child that these were the experimenter's very best toys and she had decided to reserve them for the other children. Then the child was taken to the next room for stage three of the study where the child was told it could play with any of the toys in there. In this room there was a variety of both non-aggressive and aggressive toys. The child was kept in this room for 20 minutes during which time their behaviour was observed by judges through a one-way mirror. Observations were made at 5-second intervals therefore giving 240 response units for each child. DEPENDENT VARIABLES: Three measures of imitation were obtained. The observers looked for responses from the child that were very similar to the display by the adult model. These were: 1. Imitation of physical aggression (for example, punching the doll in the nose) 2. Imitative verbal aggression (for example, repeating the phrases "Pow!" or "Sock him in the nose". 3. Imitative non-aggressive verbal responses (for example child repeats ?He keeps coming back for more?) They also recorded other types of physical and verbal aggressive behaviours that were not complete imitations of the adult model: The results enabled the researchers to consider (a) Which children imitate the models, (b) Which models the children imitate (c) Whether the children showed a general increase in aggressive behaviour or a specific imitation of the adult behaviours. FINDINGS: The main findings were:

1. The children in the aggressive model condition made more aggressive responses than the children in the non-aggressive model condition 2. Boys made more aggressive responses than girls; 3. The boys in the aggressive model conditions showed more aggressive responses if the model was male than if the model was female; 4. The girls in the aggressive model conditions also showed more physical aggressive responses if the model was male but more verbal aggressive responses if the model was female; (However, the exception to this general pattern was the observation of how often they punched Bobo, and in this case the effects of gender were reversed). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support Bandura's Social Learning Theory. That is, children learn social behaviour such as aggression through the process of observation learning - through watching the behaviour of another person. Some stills from this experiment.

MIRROR NEUONS: What the brain does during social learning

Mirror neuron research probably applies to all social learning experiences and is likely the biology behind social learning theory. Mirror neurons appear to fie automatically during social learning so we should care about the content of television, movies and video games. Parenting and teaching take on an even more importance in light of mirror neuron research. Approximately 25% to 30% of juvenile offenders say that they have attempted crimes seen in the media (Huesmann and Kirwil, 2007). For example, a 7-year-old in Texas has been watching wrestling on television when he turns away for the TV and , mimicking a move he has just seen, runs at his 3-year-old brother with his arm extended, nits him and the neck and kills him Huesman & Kirwali 2007, page 555 It is no surprise that aggression is a popular topic and to a certain extent, we are all fascinated and perplexed with why people imitate the media. While there are important genetic predispositions to aggression, much of it is socially learnt. Violent copycat crimes occur shortly after witnessing violence (Huesman and Kirwali, 2007). Media obviously must prime the imitation, but a level of analysis approach tells us that there is more to the story. Something must happen in the brain that affects the mind during social learning. The first experiments showed that mirror neurons fire in the premotor cortex of monkeys when they performed hand actions, when they saw another perform hand actions, and when they hear the sound of a task that they had experienced, such as the sound of paper tearing (Dobbs 2006). We now know that human mirror neurons are more numerous and complicated than those in monkeys. In addition, to firing in the premotor cortex, human mirror neurons fire in brain areas related to language, such as Brocas area. Primates and humans imitate hand movements from early life the hitting and grabbing that children observe from media sources are similar to all the other motor functions imitated in mirror neuron experiments. Research shows that the babies imitate facial expressions also appear to be linked to emotions (Huesmann & Kirwil, 2007). It has been suggested that imitating anothers facial expression automatically activates emotions that then activate schemas and scripts about how to behave. Mirror neurons are part of living together in cultures. Social learning is one category of the cultural acquisition device, so mirror neurons help explain how humans develop cultures. As social learning is an etic, it is likely an evolutionary adaptation. Ramachanadran (2006) believes that human cultural inheritance characterizes our species and liberates us from the constraints of a purely gene based evolution. Winerman, (2005), suggest that scientists are learning more all the time about the functions of mirror neurons. Early monkey experiments show that mirror neurons are active in recognising others; actions, showing what mirror neurons do. For example, showing that the context of an action may be important in deciphering intention if Mary holds a apple, and has a scowl on her face, she may throw the apple. A research study by Ianconboni et al. (2005) below - provides evidence for the link between action and intention involves mirror neurons: Iaconboni, et al. (2005) designed an experiment to see how mirror neurons networks helped in decoding anothers intentions. Participants were 23 right-handed males and females with an average age of 26 years. They were recruited from newspaper adverts. Repeated measures participants watched three movie clips showing context alone, action alone, and then context with actions (the intention clips). A blank resting screen appeared between each clip. The context movie showed two pictures of a tea service, one before tea and the other after the tea. The action movie features a coffee mug on a blank background and a person either grasping it with the entire hand or just on the handle. The intention movie showed both types of grasping interspersed in the before and after teach clips. The action- and context-only movie did not contain information that allowed participants to infer intention. Some participants were told to just watch the clips and others were told to pay attention to the grasping and try to decide what the intention was.

Functional MRI scans recorded brain activity in all conditions, including the resting time. Brain areas were correlated with watching the different clips with the instructions given to only watch the movies or to pay attention to the intentions. More neural activity was recorded when participants watched all three movie clips over the resting time. The most important scans examined differences between the intention condition and the action/context conditions. There was no difference between the scans of those told to jus watch the clips and those told to pay attention to the interiors. Both groups showed an understanding of the intentions when debriefed. Understanding anothers intentions is automatic, activation the left frontal lobes of everyone. The differences occurred between the intention clip and the other two. Reading anothers intentions activates neurones in the interior frontal cortex, an area known to have mirror neurons. Iaconboni, et al. (2005) concluded that mirror neurons are active when decoding anothers intentions. This study is important because it is the first evidence that specific neurons fire when someone tries to figure out what another is doing. Ramanchandran (2006) believes that mirror neurons will do for Psychology what DNA has done for biology they provide a unifying framework and help us explain a host of metal abilities that have remained mysterious and inexplicable to experiments. Mirror neurons help us explain how humans are able to understand the gestures of others and then provide the chance for language to evolve. He suggests that mirror neurons of children with autism do not fire properly and expects that mirror neuron theory will explain and possibly treat people with autism in the future.

References:
Dobbs, D. (2006) A revealing reflection: mirror neurons seem to effect everything from how we learn to speak and how we build culture. Scientific American Mind, Volume 17, number 2, pages 22-27. http://155.97.32.9/~bbenham/Minds%20and%20Morals/Mirror%20Neurons%20Dobbs.pdf Huesdmann, L. R. & Kirwil, L. (2007) Why observing violence increases the risk of violent behaviour by the observer. Chapter 28, pages 545-580, in Flanner, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Waldman, I.D. (Editors) The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression, Cambridge University Press. Online ISBN:9780511816840 Paperback ISBN:9780521607858 Chapter available: http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/aggr/articles/Huesmann/2007.Huesmann&Kirwil.WhyObservingViol.Camb ridgePress.pdf Iaconboni, M. Molnar-Szakacs, I., Gallese, V, Buccino, G., Mazziotta, J.C. & Rizzolatti, G. (2005) Grasping the Intentions of Others with One's Own Mirror Neuron System http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030079 Ramachandran, V. S. (2006) MIRROR NEURONS AND THE BRAIN IN THE VAT, in Edge the Third Culture http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran06/ramachandran06_index.html Winerman, L. (2005) The mind's mirror: A new type of neuron - called a mirror neuron - could help explain how we learn through mimicry and why we empathize with others. Monitor, Volume 36, number 9, page 48. http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct05/mirror.aspx