document_title: Fragile X syndrome

question_text: what type of mutation is fragile x syndrome

text: Fragile X syndrome

text: Signs and symptoms[edit]

text: Most young children do not show any physical signs of FXS.[7] It is not until puberty that physical features of FXS begin to develop.[7] Aside from intellectual disability, prominent characteristics of the syndrome may include an elongated face, large or protruding ears, flat feet, larger testes (macroorchidism), and low muscle tone.[8][9] Recurrent otitis media (middle ear infection) and sinusitis is common during early childhood. Speech may be cluttered or nervous. Behavioral characteristics may include stereotypic movements (e.g., hand-flapping) and atypical social development, particularly shyness, limited eye contact, memory problems, and difficulty with face encoding. Some individuals with fragile X syndrome also meet the diagnostic criteria for autism.

text: Males with a full mutation display virtually complete penetrance and will therefore almost always display symptoms of FXS, while females with a full mutation generally display a penetrance of about 50% as a result of having a second, normal X chromosome.[10] Females with FXS may have symptoms ranging from mild to severe, although they are generally less affected than males.

text: Physical phenotype[edit]

text:
Large, protruding ears (both)
Long face (vertical maxillary excess)
High-arched palate (related to the above)
Hyperextensible finger joints
Hyperextensible ('double-jointed') thumbs
Flat feet
Soft skin
Postpubescent macroorchidism (large testicles in men after puberty)[11]
Hypotonia (low muscle tone)[12]

tag: ul

text: Intellectual development[edit]

text: Individuals with FXS may present anywhere on a continuum from learning disabilities in the context of a normal intelligence quotient (IQ) to severe intellectual disability, with an average IQ of 40 in males who have complete silencing of the FMR1 gene.[9] Females, who tend to be less affected, generally have an IQ which is normal or borderline with learning difficulties. The main difficulties in individuals with FXS are with working and short-term memory, executive function, visual memory, visual-spatial relationships, and mathematics, with verbal abilities being relatively spared.[9][13]

text: Data on intellectual development in FXS are limited. However, there is some evidence that standardized IQ decreases over time in the majority of cases, apparently as a result of slowed intellectual development. A longitudinal study looking at pairs of siblings where one child was affected and the other was not found that affected children had an intellectual learning rate which was 55% slower than unaffected children.[13]

text: Autism[edit]

text: Fragile X syndrome co-occurs with autism in many cases and is a suspected genetic cause of the autism in these cases.[8][15] This finding has resulted in screening for FMR1 mutation to be considered mandatory in children diagnosed with autism.[8] Of those with fragile X syndrome, prevalence of concurrent autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been estimated to be between 15 and 60%, with the variation due to differences in diagnostic methods and the high frequency of autistic features in individuals with fragile X syndrome not meeting the DSM criteria for an ASD.[15]

text: Although individuals with FXS have difficulties in forming friendships, those with FXS and ASD characteristically also have difficulties with reciprocal conversation with their peers. Social withdrawal behaviors, including avoidance and indifference, appear to be the best predictors of ASD in FXS, with avoidance appearing to be correlated more with social anxiety while indifference was more strongly correlated to severe ASD.[15] When both autism and FXS are present, a greater language deficit and lower IQ is observed as compared to children with only FXS.[14]

text: Genetic mouse models of FXS have also been shown to have autistic-like behaviors.[16][17][18][19][20]

text: Social interaction[edit]

text: FXS is characterized by social anxiety, including poor eye contact, gaze aversion, prolonged time to commence social interaction, and challenges forming peer relationships.[21] Social anxiety is one of the most common features associated with FXS, with up to 75% of males in one series characterized as having excessive shyness and 50% having panic attacks.[15] Social anxiety in individuals with FXS is related to challenges with face encoding, the ability to recognize a face that one has seen before.[22]

text: It appears that individuals with FXS are interested in social interaction and display greater empathy than groups with other causes of intellectual disability, but display anxiety and withdrawal when placed in unfamiliar situations with unfamiliar people.[15][21] This may range from mild social withdrawal, which is predominantly associated with shyness, to severe social withdrawal, which may be associated with co-existing autism spectrum disorder.[15]

text: Females with FXS frequently display shyness, social anxiety and social avoidance or withdrawal.[9] In addition, premutation in females has been found to be associated with social anxiety.

text: Individuals with FXS show decreased activation in the prefrontal regions of the brain.

text: Psychiatric[edit]

text: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is found in the majority of males with FXS and 30% of females, making it the most common psychiatric diagnosis in those with FXS.[8][21] Hyperactivity and disruptive behavior peak in the preschool years and then gradually decline with age, although inattentive symptoms are generally lifelong.[21]

text: Aside from the characteristic social phobia features, a range of other anxiety symptoms are very commonly associated with FXS, with symptoms typically spanning a number of psychiatric diagnoses but not fulfilling any of the criteria in full.[21] Behaviors such as hand flapping and biting, as well as aggression, can be an expression of anxiety. Although only a minority will meet the criteria for obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), a significant majority will feature obsessive-type symptoms. However, as individuals with FXS generally find these behaviors pleasurable, unlike individuals with OCD, they are more frequently referred to as stereotypic behaviors.

text: Mood symptoms in individuals with FXS rarely meet diagnostic criteria for a major mood disorder as they are typically not of sustained duration.[21] Instead, these are usually transient and related to stressors, and may involve labile (fluctuating) mood, irritability, self-injury and aggression.

text: Individuals with fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS) are likely to experience combinations of dementia, mood, and anxiety disorders. Males with the FMR1 premutation and clinical evidence of FXTAS were found to have increased occurrence of somatization, obsessive–compulsive disorder, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, phobic anxiety, and psychoticism.[23]

text: Hypersensitivity and repetitive behavior[edit]

text: Children with fragile X have very short attention spans, are hyperactive, and show hypersensitivity to visual, auditory, tactile, and olfactory stimuli. These children have difficulty in large crowds due to the loud noises and this can lead to tantrums due to hyperarousal. Children with FXS pull away from light touch and can find textures of materials to be irritating. Transitions from one location to another can be difficult for children with FXS. Behavioral therapy can be used to decrease the child’s sensitivity in some cases.[12]

text: Perseveration is a common communicative and behavioral characteristic in FXS. Children with FXS may repeat a certain ordinary activity over and over. In speech, the trend is not only in repeating the same phrase but also talking about the same subject continually. Cluttered speech and self-talk are commonly seen. Self-talk includes talking with oneself using different tones and pitches.[12]

text: Vision[edit]

text: Ophthalmologic problems include strabismus. This requires early identification to avoid amblyopia. Surgery or patching are usually necessary to treat strabismus if diagnosed early. Refractive errors in patients with FXS are also common.[14]

text: Neurological[edit]

text: Individuals with FXS are at a higher risk of developing seizures, with rates between 10% and 40% reported in the literature.[24] In larger study populations the frequency varies between 13% and 18%,[9][24] consistent with a recent survey of caregivers which found that 14% of males and 6% of females experienced seizures.[24] The seizures tend to be partial, are generally not frequent, and are amenable to treatment with medication.

text: Individuals who are carriers of premutation alleles are at risk for developing fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS), a progressive neurodegenerative disease.[10][25] It is seen in approximately half of male carriers over the age of 70, while penetrance in females is lower. Typically, onset of tremor occurs in the sixth decade of life, with subsequent progression to ataxia (loss of coordination) and gradual cognitive decline.[25]

text: Working memory[edit]

text: From their 40s onward, males with FXS begin developing progressively more severe problems in performing tasks that require the central executive of working memory. Working memory involves the temporary storage of information 'in mind', while processing the same or other information. Phonological memory (or verbal working memory) deteriorates with age in males, while visual-spatial memory is not found to be directly related to age. Males often experience an impairment in the functioning of the phonological loop. The CGG length is significantly correlated with central executive and the visual–spatial memory. However, in a premutation individual, CGG length is only significantly correlated with the central executive, not with either phonological memory or visual–spatial memory.[26]

text: Fertility[edit]

text: About 20% of women who are carriers for the fragile X premutation are affected by fragile X-related primary ovarian insufficiency (FXPOI), which is defined as menopause before the age of 40.[10][25]  The number of CGG repeats correlates with penetrance and age of onset.[10]  However premature menopause is more common in premutation carriers than in women with the full mutation, and for premutations with more than 100 repeats the risk of FXPOI begins to decrease.[27]  Fragile X-associated primary ovarian insufficiency (FXPOI) is one of three Fragile X-associated Disorders (FXD) caused by changes in the FMR1 gene.FXPOI affects female premutation carriers of Fragile X syndrome, which is caused by the FMR1 gene, when their ovaries are not functioning properly.  Women with FXPOI may develop menopause-like symptoms but they are not actually menopausal.  Women with FXPOI can still get pregnant in some cases because their ovaries occasionally release viable eggs.[28]

text: Causes[edit]

text: Fragile X syndrome is a genetic disorder which occurs as a result of a mutation of the fragile X mental retardation 1 (FMR1) gene on the X chromosome, most commonly an increase in the number of CGG trinucleotide repeats in the 5' untranslated region of FMR1.[10][25] Mutation at that site is found in 1 out of about every 2000 males and 1 out of about every 259 females. Incidence of the disorder itself is about 1 in every 3600 males and 1 in 4000–6000 females.[29] Although this accounts for over 98% of cases, FXS can also occur as a result of point mutations affecting FMR1.[10][25]

text: In unaffected individuals, the FMR1 gene contains 5–44 repeats of the sequence CGG, most commonly 29 or 30 repeats.[10][25][30] Between 45-54 repeats is considered a "grey zone", with a premutation allele generally considered to be between 55 and 200 repeats in length. Individuals with fragile X syndrome have a full mutation of the FMR1 allele, with over 200 CGG repeats.[8][30][31] In these individuals with a repeat expansion greater than 200, there is methylation of the CGG repeat expansion and FMR1 promoter, leading to the silencing of the FMR1 gene and a lack of its product.

text: This methylation of FMR1 in chromosome band Xq27.3 is believed to result in constriction of the X chromosome which appears 'fragile' under the microscope at that point, a phenomenon that gave the syndrome its name. One study found that FMR1 silencing is mediated by the FMR1 mRNA. The FMR1 mRNA contains the transcribed CGG-repeat tract as part of the 5' untranslated region, which hybridizes to the complementary CGG-repeat portion of the FMR1 gene to form an RNA·DNA duplex.[32]

text: Inheritance[edit]

text: Fragile X syndrome has traditionally been considered an X-linked dominant condition with variable expressivity and possibly reduced penetrance.[9] However, due to genetic anticipation and X-inactivation in females, the inheritance of Fragile X syndrome does not follow the usual pattern of X-linked dominant inheritance and some scholars have suggested discontinuing labeling X-linked disorders as dominant or recessive.[33] Females with full FMR1 mutations may have a milder phenotype than males due to variability in X-inactivation.

text: Before the FMR1 gene was discovered, analysis of pedigrees showed the presence of male carriers who were asymptomatic, with their grandchildren affected by the condition at a higher rate than their siblings suggesting that genetic anticipation was occurring.[10] This tendency for future generations to be affected at a higher frequency became known as the Sherman paradox after its description in 1985.[10][34] Due to this, male children often have a greater degree of symptoms than their mothers.[35]

text: The explanation for this phenomenon is that male carriers pass on their premutation to all of their daughters, with the length of the FMR1 CGG repeat typically not increasing during meiosis, the cell division that is required to produce sperm.[10][25] Incidentally, males with a full mutation only pass on premutations to their daughters.[25] However, females with a full mutation are able to pass this full mutation on, so theoretically there is a 50% chance that a child will be affected.[25][30] In addition, the length of the CGG repeat frequently does increase during meiosis in female premutation carriers due to instability and so, depending on the length of their premutation, they may pass on a full mutation to their children who will then be affected.

text: Pathophysiology[edit]

text: FMRP is found throughout the body, but in highest concentrations within the brain and testes.[8][10] It appears to be primarily responsible for selectively binding to around 4% of mRNA in mammalian brains and transporting it out of the cell nucleus and to the synapses of neurons. Most of these mRNA targets have been found to be located in the dendrites of neurons, and brain tissue from humans with FXS and mouse models shows abnormal dendritic spines, which are required to increase contact with other neurons. The subsequent abnormalities in the formation and function of synapses and development of neural circuits result in impaired neuroplasticity, an integral part of memory and learning.[8][10][36] Wiring changes have long been suspected to be involved in the sensory pathophysiology[37] and most recently a range of circuit alterations have been shown, involving structurally increased local connectivity and functionally decreased long-range connectivity.[38]

text: In addition, FMRP has been implicated in several signalling pathways that are being targeted by a number of drugs undergoing clinical trials. The group 1 metabotropic glutamate receptor (mGluR) pathway, which includes mGluR1 and mGluR5, is involved in mGluR-dependent long term depression (LTD) and long term potentiation (LTP), both of which are important mechanisms in learning.[8][10] The lack of FMRP, which represses mRNA production and thereby protein synthesis, leads to exaggerated LTD. FMRP also appears to affect dopamine pathways in the prefrontal cortex which is believed to result in the attention deficit, hyperactivity and impulse control problems associated with FXS.[8][10][21] The downregulation of GABA pathways, which serve an inhibitory function and are involved in learning and memory, may be a factor in the anxiety symptoms which are commonly seen in FXS.

text: Diagnosis[edit]

text: Cytogenetic analysis for fragile X syndrome was first available in the late 1970s when diagnosis of the syndrome and carrier status could be determined by culturing cells in a folate deficient medium and then assessing for "fragile sites" (discontinuity of staining in the region of the trinucleotide repeat) on the long arm of the X chromosome.[39] This technique proved unreliable, however, as the fragile site was often seen in less than 40% of an individual's cells. This was not as much of a problem in males, but in female carriers, where the fragile site could generally only be seen in 10% of cells, the mutation often could not be visualised.

text: Since the 1990s, more sensitive molecular techniques have been used to determine carrier status.[39] The fragile X abnormality is now directly determined by analysis of the number of CGG repeats using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and methylation status using Southern blot analysis.[9] By determining the number of CGG repeats on the X chromosome, this method allows for more accurate assessment of risk for premutation carriers in terms of their own risk of fragile X associated syndromes, as well as their risk of having affected children. Because this method only tests for expansion of the CGG repeat, individuals with FXS due to missense mutations or deletions involving FMR1 will not be diagnosed using this test and should therefore undergo sequencing of the FMR1 gene if there is clinical suspicion of FXS.

text: Prenatal testing with chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis allows diagnosis of FMR1 mutation while the fetus is in utero and appears to be reliable.[9]

text: Early diagnosis of fragile X syndrome or carrier status is important for providing early intervention in children or fetuses with the syndrome, and allowing genetic counselling with regards to the potential for a couple's future children to be affected. Most parents notice delays in speech and language skills, difficulties in social and emotional domains as well as sensitivity levels in certain situations with their children.[40]

text: Management[edit]

text: There are no cure for the underlying defects of FXS.[2] Management of FXS may include speech therapy, behavioral therapy, sensory integration occupational therapy, special education, or individualised educational plans, and, when necessary, treatment of physical abnormalities. Persons with fragile X syndrome in their family histories are advised to seek genetic counseling to assess the likelihood of having children who are affected, and how severe any impairments may be in affected descendants.[41]

text: Medication[edit]

text: Current trends in treating the disorder include medications for symptom-based treatments that aim to minimize the secondary characteristics associated with the disorder. If an individual is diagnosed with FXS, genetic counseling for testing family members at risk for carrying the full mutation or premutation is a critical first-step. Due to a higher prevalence of FXS in boys, the most commonly used medications are stimulants that target hyperactivity, impulsivity, and attentional problems.[9] For co-morbid disorders with FXS, antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are utilized to treat the underlying anxiety, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and mood disorders. Following antidepressants, antipsychotics such as Risperdal and Seroquel are used to treat high rates of self-injurious, aggressive and aberrant behaviors in this population (Bailey Jr et al., 2012). Anticonvulsants are another set of pharmacological treatments used to control seizures as well as mood swings in 13%–18% of individuals suffering from FXS. Drugs targeting the mGluR5 (metabotropic glutamate receptors) that are linked with synaptic plasticity are especially beneficial for targeted symptoms of FXS.[9] Lithium is also currently being used in clinical trials with humans, showing significant improvements in behavioral functioning, adaptive behavior, and verbal memory. Few studies suggested using folic acid, but more researches are needed due to the low quality of that evidence.[42] Alongside pharmacological treatments, environmental influences such as home environment and parental abilities as well as behavioral interventions such as speech therapy, sensory integration, etc. all factor in together to promote adaptive functioning for individuals with FXS.[41]

text: Current pharmacological treatment centers on managing problem behaviors and psychiatric symptoms associated with FXS. However, as there has been very little research done in this specific population, the evidence to support the use of these medications in individuals with FXS is poor.[43]

text: ADHD, which affects the majority of boys and 30% of girls with FXS, is frequently treated using stimulants.[8] However, the use of stimulants in the fragile X population is associated with a greater frequency of adverse events including increased anxiety, irritability and mood lability.[21] Anxiety, as well as mood and obsessive-compulsive symptoms, may be treated using SSRIs, although these can also aggravate hyperactivity and cause disinhibited behavior.[9][21] Atypical antipsychotics can be used to stabilise mood and control aggression, especially in those with comorbid ASD. However, monitoring is required for metabolic side effects including weight gain and diabetes, as well as movement disorders related to extrapyramidal side effects such as tardive dyskinesia. Individuals with coexisting seizure disorder may require treatment with anticonvulsants.

text: Prognosis[edit]

text: A 2013 review stated that life expectancy for FXS was 12 years lower than the general population and that the causes of death were similar to those found for the general population.[44]

text: Research[edit]

text: Fragile X syndrome is the most translated neurodevelopmental disorder under study.[45] The increased understanding of the molecular mechanisms of disease in FXS has led to the development of therapies targeting the affected pathways. Evidence from mouse models shows that mGluR5 antagonists (blockers) can rescue dendritic spine abnormalities and seizures, as well as cognitive and behavioral problems, and may show promise in the treatment of FXS.[8][46][47] Two new drugs, AFQ-056 (mavoglurant) and dipraglurant, as well as the repurposed drug fenobam are currently undergoing human trials for the treatment of FXS.[8][48] There is also early evidence for the efficacy of arbaclofen, a GABAB agonist, in improving social withdrawal in individuals with FXS and ASD.[8][15]

text: In addition, there is evidence from mouse models that minocycline, an antibiotic used for the treatment of acne, rescues abnormalities of the dendrites. An open trial in humans has shown promising results, although there is currently no evidence from controlled trials to support its use.[8]

text: The first complete DNA sequence of the repeat expansion in someone with the full mutation was generated by scientists in 2012 using SMRT sequencing.[49]

text: History[edit]

text: In 1943, James Purdon Martin and Julia Bell described a pedigree of X-linked mental disability, without considering the macroorchidism (larger testicles).[50] In 1969, Herbert Lubs first sighted an unusual "marker X chromosome" in association with mental disability.[51] In 1970, Frederick Hecht coined the term "fragile site". And, in 1985,  Felix F. de la Cruz outlined extensively the physical, psychological, and cytogenic characteristics of those afflicted in addition to prospects for therapy.[52] Continued advocacy later won him an honour through the FRAXA Research Foundation in December 1998.[53]


document_title: National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

question_text: where do the griswolds live in christmas vacation

root

text: National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

text: Plot[edit]

text: With Christmas only a few weeks away, Chicago resident Clark Griswold decides it is time to get a Christmas tree. He gathers his wife Ellen, daughter Audrey, and son Rusty and drives out to the country where he picks out a huge tree. Realizing too late that they didn't bring any tools to cut the tree down, they are forced to uproot it instead, before driving home with the tree strapped to the roof of their car.

tag: p

text: Soon after, both Clark's and Ellen's parents arrive to spend Christmas, but their bickering quickly begins to annoy the family. Clark, however, maintains a positive attitude, determined to have a "fun old-fashioned family Christmas." He covers the house's entire exterior with 25,000 twinkle lights, which fail to work at first, as he has accidentally wired them through his garage's light switch. When they finally come on, they temporarily cause a citywide power shortage and create chaos for Clark's snobby neighbors, Todd and Margo. While standing on the front lawn admiring the lights, Clark is shocked to see Ellen's cousin Catherine and her husband Eddie, as they arrive unannounced with their children, Rocky and Ruby Sue, and their Rottweiler dog, Snot. Eddie later admits that they are living in the RV they drove, as he is broke and has been forced to sell his home. Clark offers to buy gifts for Eddie's kids so they can still enjoy Christmas.

text: Clark begins to wonder why his boss has not given him his yearly bonus, which he desperately needs to replace an advance payment he has made to install a swimming pool. After a disastrous Christmas Eve dinner, he finally receives an envelope from a company messenger, who had overlooked it the day before. Instead of the presumed bonus, the envelope contains a free year's membership for the Jelly of the Month Club. This prompts Clark to snap and go into a tirade about Frank, and out of anger, requests that he be delivered to the house so Clark can insult him to his face.

text: Eddie takes the request literally, drives to Frank's mansion, and kidnaps him. Clark confronts him about the cancellation of the employees' Christmas bonuses. Meanwhile, Frank's wife, Helen, calls the police, and a SWAT team storms the Griswold house and holds everyone at gunpoint. Frank decides not to press charges and explains the situation to his wife and the authorities, who scold him for his decision to scrap the bonuses, and decides to reinstate them (with Clark getting an add-on of 20% of his salary).

text: The family head outside, with Rocky and Ruby Sue believing they see Santa Claus in the distance. Clark tells them it's actually the Christmas Star and that he finally realizes what the holiday means to him. Uncle Lewis says the light is coming from the sewage treatment plant; reminding Clark that Eddie had been dumping his sewage into a storm drain. Before Clark can stop him, Uncle Lewis tosses a lit match, triggering an explosion. Aunt Bethany starts singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" and the whole family and the SWAT team join in, gazing at Clark's Santa Claus and reindeer set burning and flying into the distance. The entire family and the SWAT team members then celebrate inside the house, while Clark and Ellen happily share a Christmas kiss.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Chevy Chase as Clark Griswold
Beverly D'Angelo as Ellen Griswold
Juliette Lewis as Audrey Griswold
Johnny Galecki as Russ Griswold
John Randolph as Clark W. Griswold Sr.
Diane Ladd as Nora Griswold
E.G. Marshall as Art Smith
Doris Roberts as Frances Smith
Randy Quaid as Cousin Eddie
Miriam Flynn as Cousin Catherine
Cody Burger as Rocky
Ellen Hamilton Latzen as Ruby Sue
William Hickey as Uncle Lewis
Mae Questel as Aunt Bethany
Sam McMurray as Bill
Nicholas Guest as Todd Chester
Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Margo Chester
Brian Doyle-Murray as Frank Shirley
Natalia Nogulich as Helen Shirley

text: Production[edit]

text: National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation originated from a short story by writer John Hughes called "Christmas '59," which was published in the December 1980 issue of National Lampoon magazine.[6] "The studio came to me and begged for another one, and I only agreed because I had a good story to base it on," said Hughes. "But those movies have become little more than Chevy Chase vehicles."[7] Director Chris Columbus initially was to direct the film, but due to a personality clash between him and Chevy Chase, Columbus left the film and was replaced by Chechik. Hughes eventually gave Columbus the script to Home Alone.[8].

text: Principal photography began on March 27, 1989 in Summit County, Colorado,[9] with footage shot in Silverthorne, Breckenridge, and Frisco.[10] From there the production moved to Warner Bros. Studio Facilities in Burbank, California, where the set of the Griswold family's house is located.[11]

text: Music[edit]

text: The musical score for National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation was composed by Angelo Badalamenti. It is the only installment of the Vacation film series not to include Lindsey Buckingham's "Holiday Road". In its place is a song entitled "Christmas Vacation" that was written for the movie by the husband-wife songwriting team of Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil and performed by Mavis Staples of The Staple Singers fame.[12] The song was covered in 2007 by High School Musical star Monique Coleman for the 2007 Christmas album Disney Channel Holiday.[13]

text: Despite several popular songs being present in the film, no official soundtrack album was released. In 1999, a bootleg copy containing music featured in the film along with select cuts of dialogue dubbed as the "10th Anniversary Limited Edition" began to appear on Internet auction sites with the claim that Warner Bros. and RedDotNet had pressed 20,000 CDs for Six Flags Magic Mountain employees to sell to customers entering the park.[14] However, while the discs were individually numbered out of 20,000, only 7,000 were sold as a part of an on demand production printed at gift shop kiosks within the park.[15] Forums on movie music sites such as SoundtrackCollector later declared the disc to be a bootleg due to its inaccuracies.[16] For instance, the cut "Christmas Vacation Medley" (claiming to be the work of composer Angelo Badalamenti) is really a track called "Christmas at Carnegie Hall" from Home Alone 2: Lost in New York by composer John Williams and does not actually contain any of Badalamenti's Christmas Vacation score.

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: The movie debuted at #2 at the box-office while grossing $11,750,203 during the opening weekend, behind Back to the Future Part II.[17] The movie eventually topped the box-office charts in its third week of release and remained #1 the following weekend. It went on to gross a total of $71,319,546 in the United States while showing in movie theaters.[18]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: At the time of the film's release, the film received mixed to positive reviews; however, over time, many have cited it as a Christmas classic. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 64% of 36 film critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 6.2 out of 10. The site's consensus reads, "While Christmas Vacation may not be the most disciplined comedy, it's got enough laughs and good cheer to make for a solid seasonal treat."[19]

text: Entertainment magazine Variety responded positively to the film stating, "Solid family fare with plenty of yocks, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation is Chevy Chase and brood doing what they do best. Despite the title, which links it to previous pics in the rambling Vacation series, this third entry is firmly rooted at the Griswold family homestead, where Clark Griswold (Chase) is engaged in a typical over-reaching attempt to give his family a perfect, old-fashioned Christmas."[20] Rita Kempley of The Washington Post gave the film a positive review explaining that "it will prove pater-familiar to fans of the 1983 original and the European Vacation sequel. Only it's a bit more whimsical."[21]

text: Janet Maslin of The New York Times gave the film a mediocre review explaining that the "third look at the quintessentially middle-American Griswold family, led by Clark and the very patient Ellen is only a weary shadow of the original National Lampoon's Vacation." Maslin went on to say that "the best thing the new film does is to bring back Cousin Eddie, the wily, scene-stealing slob whose disgusting habits are a source of considerable amusement."[22] Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film two out of four stars saying, "The movie is curious in how close it comes to delivering on its material: Sequence after sequence seems to contain all the necessary material, to be well on the way toward a payoff, and then it somehow doesn't work."[23]


document_title: Household income in the United States

question_text: what is the average yearly income for an american

text: Household income in the United States

text: Definition[edit]

text: A household's income can be calculated various ways but the US Census as of 2009 measured it in the following manner: the income of every resident of that house that is over the age of 15, including wages and salaries, as well as any kind of governmental entitlement such as unemployment insurance, disability payments or child support payments received, along with any personal business, investment, or other recurring sources of income.[5]

text: The residents of the household do not have to be related to the head of the household for their earnings to be considered part of the household's income.[6] As households tend to share a similar economic context, the use of household income remains among the most widely accepted measures of income. That the size of a household is not commonly taken into account in such measures may distort any analysis of fluctuations within or among the household income categories, and may render direct comparisons between quintiles difficult or even impossible.[7]

text: Recent trends[edit]

text: The U.S. Census Bureau reported in September 2017 that real median household income was $59,039 in 2016, exceeding any previous year. This was the fourth consecutive year with a statistically significant increase by their measure.[10]

text: Changes in median income reflect several trends: the aging of the population, changing patterns in work and schooling, and the evolving makeup of the American family, as well as long- and short-term trends in the economy itself. For instance, the retirement of the Baby Boom generation should push down overall median income, as more persons enter lower-income retirement. However, analysis of different working age groups indicate a similar pattern of stagnating median income as well.[11]

text: Journalist Annie Lowrey wrote in September 2014: "The root causes [of wage stagnation] include technological change, the decline of labor unions, and globalization, economists think, though they disagree sharply on how much to weight each factor. But foreign-produced goods became sharply cheaper, meaning imports climbed and production moved overseas. And computers took over for humans in many manufacturing, clerical, and administrative tasks, eroding middle-class jobs growth and suppressing wages."[12]

text: Another line of analysis, known as "total compensation," presents a more complete picture of real wages. The Kaiser Family Foundation conducted a study in 2013 which shows that employer contributions to employee healthcare costs went up 78% from 2003 to 2013.[13] The marketplace has made a trade-off: expanding benefits packages vs. increasing wages.

text: Measured relative to GDP, total compensation and its component wages and salaries have been declining since 1970. This indicates a shift in income from labor (persons who derive income from hourly wages and salaries) to capital (persons who derive income via ownership of businesses, land and assets). This trend is common across the developed world, due in part to globalization.[14] Wages and salaries have fallen from approximately 51% GDP in 1970 to 43% GDP in 2013. Total compensation has fallen from approximately 58% GDP in 1970 to 53% GDP in 2013.[15]

text: However, as indicated by the charts below, household income has still increased significantly since the late 1970s and early 80s in real terms, partly due to higher individual median wages, and partly due to increased opportunities for women.

text: According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%.[16] However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth.[17]

text: Uses[edit]

text: Use of individual household income: The government and organizations may look at one particular household's income to decide if a person is eligible for certain programs, such as nutrition assistance [18] or need-based financial aid,[19] among many others.

text: Use at the aggregate level: Summaries of household incomes across groups of people - often the entire country - are also studied as part of economic trends like standard of living and distribution of income and wealth. Household income as an economic measure can be represented as a median, a mean, a distribution, and other ways. Household income can be studied across time, region, education level, race/ethnicity, and many other dimensions. As an indicator of economic trends, it may be studied along with related economic measures such as disposable income, debt, household net worth (which includes debt and investments, durable goods like cars and houses), wealth, and employment statistics.

text: Median inflation-adjusted ("real") household income[edit]

text: Median inflation-adjusted ("real") household income generally increases and decreases with the business cycle, declining in each year during the periods 1979 through 1983, 1990 through 1993, 2000 through 2004 and 2008 through 2012, while rising in each of the intervening years.[16] Extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less than $2 per person per day before government benefits, more than doubled from 636,000 to 1.46 million households (including 2.8 million children) between 1996 and 2011, with most of this increase occurring between late 2008 and early 2011.[20]

text: CBO income growth study[edit]

text: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office conducted a study analyzing household income throughout the income distribution, by combining the Census and IRS income data sources. Unlike the Census measure of household income, the CBO showed income before and after taxes, and by also taking into account household size.[21] Also, the CBO definition of income is much broader, and includes in kind transfers as well as all monetary transfers from the government.[21] The Census' official definition of money income excludes food stamps and the EITC, for example, while CBO includes it.

text: Between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%. This compares with the Census' growth of 10%.[16] However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth.[17]

text: While median gross household income showed much stronger growth than depicted by the Census, inequality was shown to still have increased. The top 10% saw gross household income grow by 78%, versus 26.5% for the median. Interestingly, the bottom 10%, using the same measure, saw higher growth than the median (40%).[17]

text: Mean household income[edit]

text: Another common measurement of personal income is the mean household income. Unlike the median household income, which divides all households in two halves, the mean income is the average income earned by American households. In the case of mean income, the income of all households is divided by the number of all households.[22] The mean income is usually more affected by the relatively unequal distribution of income which tilts towards the top.[23] As a result, the mean tends to be higher than the median income, with the top earning households boosting it. Overall, the mean household income in the United States, according to the US Census Bureau 2014 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, was $72,641.[24]

text: The US Census Bureau also provides a breakdown by self-identified ethnic groups as follows (as of March 2014):

text:
Mean household income by ethnicity[24]

Ethnic category
Mean household income

Asian alone
$90,752

White alone
$79,340

Hispanic or Latino
$54,644

Black
$49,629

tag: table

text: Mean vs. median household income[edit]

text: Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. The means and medians for households and families are based on all households and families. Means and medians for people are based on people 15 years old and over with income.

text: Aggregate income distribution[edit]

text: The aggregate income measures the combined income earned by all persons in a particular income group. In 2007, all households in the United States earned roughly $7.723 trillion.[25] One half, 49.98%, of all income in the US was earned by households with an income over $100,000, the top twenty percent. Over one quarter, 28.5%, of all income was earned by the top 8%, those households earning more than $150,000 a year. The top 3.65%, with incomes over $200,000, earned 17.5%. Households with annual incomes from $50,000 to $75,000, 18.2% of households, earned 16.5% of all income. Households with annual incomes from $50,000 to $95,000, 28.1% of households, earned 28.8% of all income. The bottom 10.3% earned 1.06% of all income.

text: Household income and demographics[edit]

text: Racial and ethnic groups[edit]

text: White Americans made up roughly 75.1% of all people in 2000,[26] 87.93% of all households in the top 5% were headed by a person who identified as being White alone. Only 4.75% of all household in the top 5% were headed by someone who identified as Hispanic or Latino of any race,[27] versus 12.5% of persons identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino in the general population.[26]

text: Overall, 86.01% of all households in the top two quintiles with upper-middle range incomes of over $55,331 were headed by someone identifying as White alone, while 7.21% were being headed by someone who identified as Hispanic and 7.37% by someone who identified as African American or Black.[27] Overall, households headed by Hispanics and African Americans were underrepresented in the top two quintiles and overrepresented in the bottom two quintiles. Households headed by people who identified as being Asian alone were also overrepresented among the top two quintiles. In the top five percent the percentage of Asians was nearly twice as high as the percentage of Asians among the general population. Whites were relatively even distributed throughout the quintiles only being underrepresented in the lowest quintile and slightly overrepresented in the top quintile and the top five percent.[27]

text: In terms of race in 2010 data, Asian American households had the highest median household income of $57,518, European-American households ranked second with $48,977, Hispanic or Latino households ranked third with $34,241. African-American or Black households had the lowest median household income of all races with $30,134.[28]

text:
Ethnic group
All households
Lowest fifth
Second fifth
Middle fifth
Fourth fifth
Highest fifth
Top 5%

White alone
Number in 1000s
92,702
16,940
18,424
18,978
19,215
19,721
5,029

Percentage
81.93%
74.87%
81.42%
83.87%
84.92%
87.16%
87.93%

Asian alone
Number in 1000s
4,140
624
593
786
871
1,265
366

Percentage
3.65%
2.76%
2.26%
3.47%
3.84%
5.59%
6.46%

Black
Number in 1000s
13,792
4,474
3,339
2,637
2,053
1,287
236

Percentage
12.19%
19.77%
14.75%
11.65%
9.07%
5.69%
4.17%

Hispanic or Latino
(of any race)
Number in 1000s
12,838
3,023
3,130
2,863
1,931
1,204
269

Percentage
11.33%
13.56%
13.83%
12.20%
8.53%
5.89%
4.75%

text: Source: US Census Bureau, 2004[27]

text: Education and gender[edit]

text: Household income as well as per capita income in the United States rise significantly as the educational attainment increases.[30] In 2005 graduates with a Master's in Business Administration (MBA) who accepted job offers were expected to earn a base salary of $88,626. They were also expected to receive an "average signing bonus of $17,428."[31]

text: According to the US Census Bureau persons with doctorates in the United States had an average income of roughly $81,400. The average for an advanced degree was $72,824, with men averaging $90,761 and women averaging $50,756 annually. Year-round full-time workers with a professional degree had an average income of $109,600 while those with a master's degree had an average income of $62,300. Overall, "…[a]verage earnings ranged from $18,900 for high school dropouts to $25,900 for high school graduates, $45,400 for college graduates and $99,300 for workers with professional degrees (M.D., D.P.T., D.P.M., D.O., J.D., Pharm.D., D.D.S., or D.V.M.).[32]

text: Individuals with graduate degrees have an average per capita income exceeding the median household income of married couple families among the general population ($63,813 annually).[32][33] Higher educational attainment did not, however, help close the income gap between the genders as the life-time earnings for a male with a professional degree were roughly forty percent (39.59%) higher than those of a female with a professional degree. The lifetime earnings gap between males and females was the smallest for those individuals holding an associate degrees with male life-time earnings being 27.77% higher than those of females. While educational attainment did not help reduce the income inequality between men and women, it did increase the earnings potential of individuals of both sexes, enabling many households with one or more graduate degree householders to enter the top household income quintile.[32] These data were not adjusted for preferential differences among men and women whom attend college. For example, men often study fields of engineering while women often pursue social sciences.

text: Household income also increased significantly with the educational attainment of the householder. The US Census Bureau publishes educational attainment and income data for all households with a householder who was aged twenty-five or older. The biggest income difference was between those with some college education and those who had a Bachelor's degree, with the latter making $23,874 more annually. Income also increased substantially with increased post-secondary education. While the median annual household income for a household with a householder having an associate degree was $51,970, the median annual household income for householders with a bachelor's degree or higher was $73,446. Those with doctorates had the second highest median household with a median of $96,830; $18,289 more than that for those at the master's degree level, but $3,170 lower than the median for households with a professional degree holding householder.[29]

text:
Criteria
Overall
Less than 9th grade
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college
Associate degree
Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree or more
Master's degree
Professional degree
Doctoral degree

Median annual individual income
Male, age 25+
$33,517
$15,461
$18,990
$28,763
$35,073
$39,015
$50,916
$55,751
$61,698
$88,530
$73,853

Female, age 25+
$19,679
$9,296
$10,786
$15,962
$21,007
$24,808
$31,309
$35,125
$41,334
$48,536
$53,003

Median annual household income
$45,016
$18,787
$22,718
$36,835
$45,854
$51,970
$68,728
$73,446
$78,541
$100,000
$96,830

text: SOURCE: US Census Bureau, 2003[29][34]

text: The change in median personal and household since 1991 also varied greatly with educational attainment. The following table shows the median household income according to the educational attainment of the householder. All data is in 2003 dollars and only applies to householders whose householder is aged twenty-five or older. The highest and lowest points of the median household income are presented in bold face.[29][34] Since 2003, median income has continued to rise for the nation as a whole, with the biggest gains going to those with associate degrees, bachelor's degree or more, and master's degrees. High-school dropouts fared worse with negative growth.

text:
Year
Overall Median
Less than 9th grade
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college
Associate degree
Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree or more
Master's degree
Professional degree
Doctoral degree

1991
$40,873
$17,414
$23,096
$37,520
$46,296
$52,289
$64,150
$68,845
$72,669
$102,667
$92,614

1993
$40,324
$17,450
$22,523
$35,979
$44,153
$49,622
$64,537
$70,349
$75,645
$109,900
$93,712

1995
$42,235
$18,031
$21,933
$37,609
$44,537
$50,485
$63,357
$69,584
$77,865
$98,302
$95,899

1997
$43,648
$17,762
$22,688
$38,607
$45,734
$51,726
$67,487
$72,338
$77,850
$105,409
$99,699

1999
$46,236
$19,008
$23,977
$39,322
$48,588
$54,282
$70,925
$76,958
$82,097
$110,383
$107,217

2001
$42,900
$18,830
$24,162
$37,468
$47,605
$53,166
$69,796
$75,116
$81,993
$103,918
$96,442

2003
$45,016
$18,787
$22,718
$36,835
$45,854
$56,970
$68,728
$73,446
$78,541
$100,000
$96,830

Average
$43,376
$18,183
$23,013
$37,620
$46,109
$51,934
$66,997
$72,376
$78,094
$104,368
$94,487

text: SOURCE: US Census Bureau, 2003[29]

text: Age of householder[edit]

text: Household income in the United States varies substantially with the age of the person who heads the household. Overall, the median household income increased with the age of householder until retirement age when household income started to decline.[35] The highest median household income was found among households headed by working baby-boomers.[35]

text: Households headed by persons between the ages of 45 and 54 had a median household income of $61,111 and a mean household income of $77,634. The median income per member of household for this particular group was $27,924. The highest median income per member of household was among those between the ages of 54 and 64 with $30,544 [The reason this figure is lower than the next group is because pensions and Social Security add to income while a portion of older individuals also have work-related income.].[35]

text: The group with the second highest median household income, were households headed by persons between the ages 35 and 44 with a median income of $56,785, followed by those in the age group between 55 and 64 with $50,400. Not surprisingly the lowest income group was composed of those households headed by individuals younger than 24, followed by those headed by persons over the age of 75. Overall, households headed by persons above the age of seventy-five had a median household income of $20,467 with the median household income per member of household being $18,645. These figures support the general assumption that median household income as well as the median income per member of household peaked among those households headed by middle aged persons, increasing with the age of the householder and the size of the household until the householder reaches the age of 64. With retirement income replacing salaries and the size of the household declining, the median household income decreases as well.[35]

text: Household size[edit]

text: While median household income has a tendency to increase up to four persons per household, it declines for households beyond four persons. For example, in the state of Alabama in 2004, two-person households had a median income of $39,755, with $48,957 for three-person households, $54,338 for four-person households, $50,905 for five-person households, $45,435 for six-person households, with seven-or-more-person households having the second lowest median income of only $42,471.[36]

text: Geography[edit]

text: Considering other racial and geographical differences in regards to household income, it should come as no surprise that the median household income varies with race, size of household and geography. The state with the highest median household income in the United States as of the US Census Bureau 2009 is Maryland with $69,272, followed by New Jersey, Connecticut and Alaska, making the Northeastern United States the wealthiest area by income in the entire country.[37]

text: Regionally, in 2010, the Northeast reached a median income of $53,283, the West, $53,142, the South, $45,492, and the Midwest, $48,445.[38] Each figure represents a decline from the previous year.

text: Income by state[edit]

text: In 2010, the median household income by state ranged from $35,693 in Mississippi to $66,334 in Maryland. Despite having the highest median home price in the nation[39] and home prices that far outpaced incomes,[40] California ranked only ninth in income, with a median household income of $61,021.[41] While California's median income was not near enough to afford the average California home or even a starter home, West Virginia, which had one of the nation's lowest median household incomes, also had the nation's lowest median home price.[39][41]

text: By Census Bureau Region, of the 15 states with the highest median household income, only Minnesota is located in the Mid-West, while eight are in the Northeast (New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and New York) and the other six (Alaska, Hawaii, California, Washington, Colorado and Utah) are in the West.

text: The southern states had, on average, the lowest median household income, with nine of the country's fifteen poorest states located in the South. However, most of the poverty in the South is located in rural areas. Metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, Birmingham, Dallas, Houston, and Miami are areas within the southern states that have above average income levels. Overall, median household income tended to be the highest in the nation's most urbanized northeastern, upper midwestern and west coast states, while rural areas, mostly in the southern and mountain states (like New Mexico, Montana and Idaho), had the lowest median household income.[41]

text: As of 2015, the median household income ranged from $40,037 in Mississippi to $76,805 in Maryland.[42][43]

text:
Rank
State
2015[42][43]
2009
2008
2007
2004–2006

1
Maryland
$76,805
$77,491
$78,641
$78,808
$77,548

2
New Hampshire
$75,675
$60,567
$63,731
$62,369
$60,489

3
Alaska
$75,112
$66,953
$68,460
$64,333
$57,639

4
Connecticut
$72,889
$67,034
$68,595
$65,967
$59,972

5
District of Columbia
$70,071
$59,290
$57,936
$54,317
$47,221

6
Minnesota
$68,730
$55,616
$57,288
$55,082
$57,363

7
New Jersey
$68,357
$68,342
$70,378
$67,035
$64,169

8
Massachusetts
$67,861
$64,081
$65,401
$62,365
$56,236

9
Washington
$67,243
$56,548
$58,078
$55,591
$53,439

10
Colorado
$66,596
$55,430
$56,993
$55,212
$54,039

11
Utah
$66,258
$55,117
$56,633
$55,109
$55,179

12
Hawaii
$64,514
$64,098
$67,214
$63,746
$60,681

13
California
$63,636
$58,931
$61,021
$59,948
$53,770

14
Virginia
$61,486
$59,330
$61,233
$59,562
$55,108

15
Wyoming
$60,925
$52,664
$53,207
$51,731
$47,227

16
Iowa
$60,855
$48,044
$48,980
$47,292
$47,489

17
Oregon
$60,834
$48,457
$50,169
$48,730
$45,485

18
Nebraska
$60,747
$47,357
$49,693
$47,085
$48,126

19
Illinois
$60,413
$53,966
$56,235
$54,124
$49,280

20
Pennsylvania
$60,389
$49,520
$50,713
$48,576
$47,791

21
Vermont
$59,494
$51,618
$52,104
$49,907
$51,622

22
Missouri
$59,196
$45,229
$46,867
$45,114
$44,651

23
New York
$58,005
$54,659
$56,033
$53,514
$48,201

24
Delaware
$57,756
$56,860
$57,989
$54,610
$52,214

25
North Dakota
$57,415
$47,827
$45,685
$43,753
$43,753

26
Texas
$56,473
$48,259
$50,043
$47,548
$43,425

27
Rhode Island
$55,701
$54,119
$55,701
$53,568
$52,003

28
Wisconsin
$55,425
$49,993
$52,094
$50,578
$48,874

29
South Dakota
$55,065
$45,043
$46,032
$43,424
$44,624

30
Kansas
$54,865
$47,817
$50,177
$47,451
$44,264

31
Michigan
$54,203
$45,255
$48,591
$47,950
$47,064

32
Ohio
$53,301
$45,395
$47,988
$46,597
$45,837

33
Arizona
$52,248
$48,745
$50,958
$49,889
$46,729

34
Nevada
$52,008
$53,341
$56,361
$55,062
$50,819

35
Indiana
$51,983
$45,424
$47,966
$47,448
$44,806

36
Idaho
$51,624
$44,926
$47,576
$46,253
$46,395

37
Montana
$51,395
$42,322
$43,654
$43,531
$38,629

38
North Carolina
$50,797
$43,674
$46,549
$44,670
$42,061

39
Georgia
$50,768
$47,590
$50,861
$49,136
$46,841

40
Maine
$50,756
$45,734
$46,581
$45,888
$45,040

41
Florida
$48,825
$44,736
$47,778
$47,804
$44,448

42
Tennessee
$47,330
$41,725
$43,614
$42,367
$40,676

43
Oklahoma
$47,077
$41,664
$42,822
$41,567
$40,001

44
South Carolina
$46,360
$44,625
$43,329
$40,822
$39,454

45
Louisiana
$45,922
$42,492
$43,733
$40,926
$37,943

46
New Mexico
$45,119
$43,028
$43,508
$41,452
$40,827

47
Alabama
$44,509
$40,489
$42,666
$40,554
$38,473

48
West Virginia
$42,824
$37,435
$37,989
$37,060
$37,227

49
Arkansas
$42,798
$40,489
$41,393
$42,229
$41,679

50
Kentucky
$42,387
$40,072
$41,538
$40,267
$38,466

51
Mississippi
$40,037
$36,646
$37,790
$36,338
$35,261

text: The median personal income per person, after adjusting for costs of living with local regional price parities and the national PCE price index, averaged $44,255 in 2015 (in 2009 chained dollars). Median adjusted personal income per capita varied from $36,814 in Mississippi to $57,520 in Connecticut (and $57,943 in the District of Columbia). The states closest to the national average were California and Texas, at $44,269 and $44,173 respectively.[44]

text: Social class[edit]

text: Household income is one of the most commonly used measures of income and, therefore, also one of the most prominent indicators of social class. Household income and education do not, however, always reflect perceived class status correctly. Sociologist Dennis Gilbert acknowledges that "... the class structure... does not exactly match the distribution of household income" with "the mismatch [being] greatest in the middle..." (Gilbert, 1998: 92) As social classes commonly overlap, it is not possible to define exact class boundaries.

text: According to Leonard Beeghley[citation needed] a household income of roughly $95,000 would be typical of a dual-earner middle class household while $60,000 would be typical of a dual-earner working class household and $18,000 typical for an impoverished household. William Thompson and Joseph Hickey[citation needed] see common incomes for the upper class as those exceeding $500,000 with upper middle class incomes ranging from the high 5-figures to most commonly in excess of $100,000. They claim the lower middle class ranges from $35,000 to $75,000; $16,000 to $30,000 for the working class and less than $2,000 for the lower class.

text:
Academic class models

Dennis Gilbert, 2002
William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, 2005
Leonard Beeghley, 2004

Class
Typical characteristics
Class
Typical characteristics
Class
Typical characteristics

Capitalist class (1%)
Top-level executives, high-rung politicians, heirs. Ivy League education common.
Upper class (1%)
Top-level executives, celebrities, heirs; income of $500,000+ common. Ivy league education common.
The super-rich (0.9%)
Multi-millionaires whose incomes commonly exceed $350,000; includes celebrities and powerful executives/politicians. Ivy League education common.

Upper middle class[1] (15%)
Highly-educated (often with graduate degrees), most commonly salaried, professionals and middle management with large work autonomy.
Upper middle class[1] (15%)
Highly-educated (often with graduate degrees) professionals & managers with household incomes varying from the high 5-figure range to commonly above $100,000.
The rich (5%)
Households with net worth of $1 million or more; largely in the form of home equity. Generally have college degrees.

Middle class (plurality/
majority?; ca. 46%)
College-educated workers with considerably higher-than-average incomes and compensation; a man making $57,000 and a woman making $40,000 may be typical.

Lower middle class (30%)
Semi-professionals and craftsmen with a roughly average standard of living. Most have some college education and are white-collar.
Lower middle class (32%)
Semi-professionals and craftsmen with some work autonomy; household incomes commonly range from $35,000 to $75,000. Typically, some college education.

Working class (30%)
Clerical and most blue-collar workers whose work is highly routinized. Standard of living varies depending on number of income earners, but is commonly just adequate. High school education.

Working class (32%)
Clerical, pink- and blue-collar workers with often low job security; common household incomes range from $16,000 to $30,000. High school education.
Working class
(ca. 40–45%)
Blue-collar workers and those whose jobs are highly routinized with low economic security; a man making $40,000 and a woman making $26,000 may be typical. High school education.

Working poor (13%)
Service, low-rung clerical and some blue-collar workers. High economic insecurity and risk of poverty. Some high school education.

Lower class (ca. 14–20%)
Those who occupy poorly-paid positions or rely on government transfers. Some high school education.

Underclass (12%)
Those with limited or no participation in the labor force. Reliant on government transfers. Some high school education.
The poor (ca. 12%)
Those living below the poverty line with limited to no participation in the labor force; a household income of $18,000 may be typical. Some high school education.

References: Gilbert, D. (2002) The American Class Structure: In An Age of Growing Inequality. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, ISBN 0534541100. (see also Gilbert Model);
Thompson, W. & Hickey, J. (2005). Society in Focus. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon; Beeghley, L. (2004). The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
1 The upper middle class may also be referred to as "Professional class" Ehrenreich, B. (1989). The Inner Life of the Middle Class. NY, NY: Harper-Collins.

text: Distribution of household income[edit]

text: Distribution of household income in 2014 according to US Census data[edit]

text:
US Census Bureau figures for 2014

Income of Household
Number (thousands) [45]
Percentage
Percentile
Mean Income [45]
Mean number of earners [46]
Mean size of household [46]

Total
124,587
—
—
$75,738
1.28
2.54

Under $5,000
4571
3.67%
0
$1,080
0.20
1.91

$5,000 to $9,999
4320
3.47%
3.67th
$7,936
0.34
1.78

$10,000 to $14,999
6766
5.43%
7.14th
$12,317
0.39
1.71

$15,000 to $19,999
6779
5.44%
12.57th
$17,338
0.54
1.90

$20,000 to $24,999
6865
5.51%
18.01th
$22,162
0.73
2.07

$25,000 to $29,999
6363
5.11%
23.52th
$27,101
0.82
2.19

$30,000 to $34,999
6232
5.00%
28.63th
$32,058
0.94
2.27

$35,000 to $39,999
5857
4.70%
33.63th
$37,061
1.04
2.31

$40,000 to $44,999
5430
4.36%
38.33th
$41,979
1.15
2.40

$45,000 to $49,999
5060
4.06%
42.69th
$47,207
1.24
2.52

$50,000 to $54,999
5084
4.08%
46.75th
$51,986
1.32
2.54

$55,000 to $59,999
4220
3.39%
50.83th
$57,065
1.41
2.56

$60,000 to $64,999
4477
3.59%
54.22th
$62,016
1.46
2.64

$65,000 to $69,999
3709
2.98%
57.81th
$67,081
1.51
2.67

$70,000 to $74,999
3737
3.00%
60.79th
$72,050
1.57
2.73

$75,000 to $79,999
3484
2.80%
63.79th
$77,023
1.60
2.79

$80,000 to $84,999
3142
2.52%
66.58th
$81,966
1.63
2.79

$85,000 to $89,999
2750
2.21%
69.11th
$87,101
1.77
2.90

$90,000 to $94,999
2665
2.14%
71.31th
$92,033
1.82
2.96

$95,000 to $99,999
2339
1.88%
73.45th
$97,161
1.81
2.97

$100,000 to $104,999
2679
2.15%
75.33th
$101,921
1.79
3.01

$105,000 to $109,999
2070
1.66%
77.48th
$107,187
1.88
3.01

$110,000 to $114,999
1922
1.54%
79.14th
$112,069
1.93
3.12

$115,000 to $119,999
1623
1.30%
80.68th
$117,133
1.98
3.14

$120,000 to $124,999
1863
1.50%
81.99th
$122,127
1.93
3.09

$125,000 to $129,999
1452
1.17%
83.48th
$127,166
1.99
3.12

$130,000 to $134,999
1512
1.21%
84.65th
$131,863
2.00
3.18

$135,000 to $139,999
1219
0.98%
85.86th
$137,284
1.98
3.11

$140,000 to $144,999
1290
1.04%
86.84th
$142,199
1.97
3.03

$145,000 to $149,999
1024
0.82%
87.87th
$147,130
2.01
3.11

$150,000 to $154,999
1146
0.92%
88.70th
$151,940
1.85
3.12

$155,000 to $159,999
848
0.68%
89.62th
$157,177
2.08
3.15

$160,000 to $164,999
875
0.70%
90.30th
$162,019
2.02
3.13

$165,000 to $169,999
786
0.63%
91.00th
$167,101
2.10
3.16

$170,000 to $174,999
717
0.58%
91.63th
$172,169
2.17
3.21

$175,000 to $179,999
607
0.49%
92.21th
$177,187
2.19
3.28

$180,000 to $184,999
619
0.50%
92.69th
$182,055
2.03
3.19

$185,000 to $189,999
556
0.45%
93.19th
$187,299
2.03
3.20

$190,000 to $194,999
485
0.39%
93.64th
$192,241
2.19
3.29

$195,000 to $199,999
436
0.35%
94.03th
$197,211
2.23
3.27

$200,000 to $249,999
3249
2.61%
94.38th
$220,267
2.08
3.24

$250,000 and over
3757
3.02%
96.98th
$402,476


document_title: Observational learning

question_text: name the psychologist who greatly contributed to our understanding of observational learning

text: Observational learning

text: Human observational learning[edit]

text: Many behaviors that a learner observes, remembers, and imitates are actions that models display and display modeling, even though the model may not intentionally try to instill a particular behavior. A child may learn to swear, smack, smoke, and deem other inappropriate behavior acceptable through poor modeling. Bandura claims that children continually learn desirable and undesirable behavior through observational learning. Observational learning suggests that an individual's environment, cognition, and behavior all incorporate and ultimately determine how the individual functions and models.[2]

text: Through observational learning, individual behaviors can spread across a culture through a process called diffusion chain. This basically occurs when an individual first learns a behavior by observing another individual and that individual serves as a model through whom other individuals learn the behavior, and so on.[3]

text: 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.[4] This exposure allows children to observe and learn the different skills and practices that are valued in their communities.[5]

text: 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' behavior.

text: Albert Bandura states that people’s behavior could be determined by their environment. Observational learning occurs through observing negative and positive behaviors. Bandura believes in reciprocal determinism in which the environment can influence people’s behavior and vice versa. For instance, the Bobo doll experiment shows that model, in a determined environment, affects children’s behavior. 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.[6]

text: 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.[7]

text: Stages[edit]

text: Bandura's social cognitive learning theory states that there are four stages involved in observational learning:[8]

text:
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.
Retention/Memory: Observers must not only recognize the observed behavior 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.
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.
Motivation: Coaches also give pep talks, recognizing the importance of motivational processes to learning.

tag: ol

text: Bandura clearly distinguishes between learning and performance. Unless motivated, a person does not produce learned behavior. 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.[9]

text: Some have even added a step between attention and retention involving encoding a behavior.

text: Observational learning leads to a change in an individual's behavior along three dimensions:

text:
An individual thinks about a situation in a different way and may have incentive to react to it.
The change is a result of a person's direct experiences as opposed to being in-born.
For the most part, the change an individual has made is permanent.[10]

text: Effect on behavior[edit]

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

text: Age difference[edit]

text: Albert Bandura stressed that developing children learn from different social models, meaning that no two children are exposed to exactly the same modeling 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 modeling a new action to another stranger.[11]

text: 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.

text: 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.[12] 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 behavior.[13] Since this form of learning does not need reinforcement, it is more likely to occur regularly.

text: As age increases, age-related observational learning motor skills may decrease in athletes and golfers.[14] Younger and skilled golfers have higher observational learning compared to older golfers and less skilled golfers.

text: Observational causal learning[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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.[15]

text: Comparisons with imitation[edit]

text: Observational learning is presumed to have occurred when an organism copies an improbable action or action outcome that it has observed and the matching behavior 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 behavioral similarity results from (a) predisposed behavior, (b) increased motivation resulting from the presence of another animal, (c) attention drawn to a place or object, (d) learning about the way the environment works, as distinguished from what we think of as (e) imitation (the copying of the demonstrated behavior).[16]

text: Observational learning differs from imitative learning in that it does not require a duplication of the behavior exhibited by the model. For example, the learner may observe an unwanted behavior and the subsequent consequences, and thus learn to refrain from that behavior. 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.[17] Heyes (1993) distinguished imitation and non-imitative social learning in the following way: imitation occurs when animals learn about behavior from observing conspecifics, whereas non-imitative social learning occurs when animals learn about the environment from observing others.[18]

text: 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.[19] 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 utilizes 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.

text: 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-centered 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.[20] 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.[20] 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 behavior can be recalled and used in another situation or the same.[21]

text: Apprenticeship[edit]

text: 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.[22]

text: Learning without imitation[edit]

text: Michael Tomasello described various ways of observational learning without the process of imitation in animals[23] (ethology): Exposure- Individuals learn about their environment with a 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.

text:
Stimulus enhancement – Individuals become interested in an object from watching others interact with it.[24] Increased interest in an object may result in object manipulation, which facilitates new object-related behaviors 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 behaviors 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 behaviors that provoked future foraging efforts.
Goal emulation – Individuals are enticed by the end result of an observed behavior 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.[25]

text: Peer model influences[edit]

text: 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[citation needed].

text: 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.[26]

text: Cultural variation[edit]

text: 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 then children of European heritage.[27][28] 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.[29] 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.[7] 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.[5] This type of observation is not passive, but reflects the child's intent to participate or learn within a community.[4]

text: 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 favor of supporting participation in ongoing activities strives to aid children to learn the important tools and ways of their community.[27] Engaging in shared endeavors – 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.[27] 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.[28] Indigenous communities rely on observational learning as a way for their children to be a part of ongoing activities in the community (Tharp, 2006).

text: Although learning in the Indigenous American communities is not always the central focus when participating in an activity,[28] 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 endeavors”. 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.

text: 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.[30] 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.[31]

text: Indigenous communities of the Americas[edit]

text: 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.[5] 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.

text: Indigenous communities provide more opportunities to incorporate children in everyday life.[32] 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.[32] Other children in Mazahua, Mexico are known to intensely observe ongoing activities.[32] In native northern Canadian and indigenous Mayan communities, children often learn as third-party observers from stories and conversations by others.[33] 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.[34] Often, children in Indigenous American communities assume the majority of the responsibility for their learning. Additionally, children find their own approaches to learning.[35] 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 how to do the work. They are self-motivated to learn and finish their chores.[36] These children act as a second set of eyes and ears for their parents updating them about the community.[37]

text: Children aged 6 to 8 in an indigenous heritage community in Guadalajara, Mexico participated in hard work, such as cooking or running errands, to benefit 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 own after-school activities and had a higher sense of belonging to their community.[38]

text: Within certain indigenous communities people do not typically seek out explanation beyond basic observation. This is because they are competent in learning through astute observation. 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.[32] 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.[39] Communities that participate in observational learning promote tolerance and mutual understand of those coming from different cultural backgrounds.[40]

text: Other human and animal behavior experiments[edit]

text: 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 behaviors from peers. However, there is a need to distinguish the propagation of behavior and the stability of behavior. Research has shown that social learning can spread a behavior, but there are more factors regarding how a behavior carries across generations of an animal culture.[41]

text: Learning in fish[edit]

text: Experiments with ninespine sticklebacks showed that individuals will use social learning to locate food.[41]

text: Social learning in pigeons[edit]

text: 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.[42]

text: Acquiring foraging niches[edit]

text: 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.[43] Strong evidence already exists for mate choice, bird song, predator recognition, and foraging.

text: Researchers cross-fostered eggs between nests of blue tits and great tits and observed the resulting behavior 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 behavior over generations in the wild.[44]

text: Social learning in crows[edit]

text: The University of Washington studied this phenomenon with crows, acknowledging the evolutionary tradeoff between acquiring costly information firsthand 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.

text: Horizontal social learning (learning from peers) is consistent with the lone crows that recognized 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.[45]

text: Propagation of animal culture[edit]

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

text: 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 behavior is also influenced by the particular type of ants as well as the condition. A behavior may be learned socially, but the fact that it was learned socially does not necessarily mean it will last. The fact that the behavior is rewarding has a role in cultural stability as well. The ability for socially-learned behaviors to stabilize across generations is also mitigated by the complexity of the behavior. Different individuals of a species, like crows, vary in their ability to use a complex tool. Finally, a behavior’s stability in animal culture depends on the context in which they learn a behavior. If a behavior has already been adopted by a majority, then the behavior is more likely to carry across generations out of a need for conforming.

text: Animals are able to acquire behaviors from social learning, but whether or not that behavior carries across generations requires more investigation.[46]

text: Hummingbird experiment[edit]

text: 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.[47]

text: Bottlenose dolphin[edit]

text: Herman (2002) suggested that bottlenose dolphins produce goal-emulated behaviors 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 behavior, but it may do so in a different manner seen.[48]

text: Rhesus monkey[edit]

text: 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.[49]

text: Fredman (2012) also performed an experiment on observational behavior. 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.

text: 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.

text: 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 canalization of the repertoire in the direction of the approach witnessed, producing a narrower, socially shaped behavioral profile than among controls who saw no model.[50]

text: Light box experiment[edit]

text: 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.[51]

text: Swimming skill performance[edit]

text: When adequate practice and appropriate feedback follow demonstrations, increased skill performance and learning occurs. Lewis (1974) did a study[52] 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: Neuroscience[edit]

text: Recent research in neuroscience has implicated mirror neurons as a neurophysiological basis for observational learning.[53] These specialized 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.[54] 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.[55] 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.[56]