Social Learning Theory (SLT)
Introduced by Albert Bandura, the Social Learning Theory (SLT) explains how individuals learn behaviors and attitudes by observing others. It focuses on the role of modeling and reinforcement in shaping behavior, emphasizing that people can learn without direct experience.
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) builds on Social Learning Theory by emphasizing the role of cognitive processes in shaping behavior. It explains that learning is not just a reaction to the environment but involves active thinking.
Observational Learning:
- Individuals learn by watching others, including their actions and the consequences of those actions. This is known as vicarious reinforcement.
- For example, children might imitate a parent’s behavior after observing its outcomes.
Triadic Reciprocal Determinism:
- SCT emphasizes the bidirectional interaction between:
- Personal factors (e.g., cognitive, emotional, physical attributes)
- Behavior (e.g., actions and decisions)
- Environment (e.g., social and physical surroundings).
- These factors continuously influence one another, shaping learning and behavior.
Human Agency:
- SCT posits that individuals are active participants in shaping their own behavior through intentionality, self-regulation, and self-reflection:
- Intentionality: Setting and pursuing specific goals.
- Forethought: Anticipating the outcomes of actions.
- Self-reactiveness: Regulating and motivating behavior.
- Self-reflectiveness: Evaluating and adjusting actions based on outcomes.
Self-Efficacy:
- The belief in one’s ability to successfully perform a behavior.
- Higher self-efficacy increases the likelihood of imitating behaviors, persisting in challenges, and achieving goals.
Identification:
- Learning is more effective when the observer identifies with the model, perceiving them as similar in traits, values, or experiences.
Learning can occur indirectly through observing others, not just through direct experience.
Key Studies
Bobo Doll Experiment
Case studyBandura, Ross, and Ross (1961)
Aim:
To investigate whether observing an adult model behaving aggressively toward a Bobo doll would increase aggressive behaviors in children.
Method:
Laboratory experiment with structured observation. The independent variable (IV) was the type of model behavior (aggressive, non-aggressive, or no model). The dependent variable (DV) was the children's subsequent behavior.
Participants:
72 children (36 boys, 36 girls), aged 3–6 years.
Procedure:
- Stage 1:
Children were randomly assigned to one of three groups:- Aggressive model group: The model acted aggressively toward the Bobo doll, using physical and verbal aggression.
- Non-aggressive model group: The model played calmly with toys.
- Control group: No model was shown.
- Stage 2:
Each child was taken to a new room and exposed to a frustrating situation (denied access to attractive toys). - Stage 3:
In the final room, children had access to toys, including a smaller Bobo doll. Their behavior was observed through a one-way mirror for 20 minutes.
Results:
- Children exposed to the aggressive model exhibited significantly more aggressive behaviors than other groups.
- Same-sex models led to higher imitation rates.
- Boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression, while girls imitated verbal aggression.
Conclusion:
The study supports observational learning, showing that children can acquire new behaviors by watching others.
Evaluation:
- The study used a laboratory setting with standardized procedures. This strengthens the internal validity.
- Findings have implications for media influence on children's behavior.
- The study has low ecological validity, as the lab environment and the Bobo doll do not reflect real-world aggression.
- Exposing children to aggressive behavior raises ethical issues.
- The study did not measure long-term behavioral changes.
- 72 children from one nursery school may not be representative of wider populations.
Self-Efficacy and Aggression
Case studyPerry, Perry, and Rasmussen (1986)
Aim:
To explore the relationship between self-efficacy, expected consequences, and aggressive behavior in children.
Method:
Correlational study using questionnaires.
Participants:
Elementary schoolchildren (mean age 11.3), grouped as aggressive or non-aggressive.
Procedure:
- Children completed two questionnaires:
- Self-efficacy: Measured their confidence in performing aggressive behaviors.
- Consequences: Assessed their beliefs about the positive or negative outcomes of aggression.
Results:
- Aggressive children believed it was easier to act aggressively and that aggression would lead to rewards (e.g., self-protection).
Conclusion:
Self-efficacy and perceptions of consequences are important cognitive factors influencing aggression.
Evaluation:
- No causation. The study demonstrates bidirectional ambiguity as it cannot establish whether self-efficacy and expected consequences cause aggression or if aggressive children simply develop these beliefs over time.
- Self-reported data is unreliable and may be influenced by social desirability, misunderstanding of questions, or memory biases.
- Limited generalizability as the sample consisted only of elementary school children.
Reciprocal Determinism in Mathematics
Case studyWilliams and Williams (2010)
Aim:
To examine reciprocal determinism by studying the relationship between self-efficacy and mathematics performance across cultures.
Method:
Correlational study using data from 15-year-olds across 33 countries. Statistical modeling was applied to analyze relationships.
Results:
- Reciprocal determinism was supported in 24 of 33 countries.
- Students with higher math self-efficacy performed better, and better performance increased self-efficacy.
Conclusion:
The study demonstrates how personal factors (self-efficacy), behavior (math performance), and environment (education systems) interact reciprocally.
Evaluation:
- Diverse sample from 33 countries make the findings more generalizable across different cultures.
- Statistical modeling strengthens the reliability of the results by reducing biases.
- Reciprocal determinism was not found in all 33 countries, suggesting that cultural or educational differences may influence the relationship.
- It does not establish causal relationships between self-efficacy and math performance.
Critical Thinking
Applications of Social Cognitive Theory
- Education: SCT emphasizes the role of modeling and self-efficacy in learning.
- Teachers can enhance student outcomes by serving as positive role models, encouraging peer collaboration, and fostering self-belief in academic abilities.
- These strategies help students persist through challenges and engage more actively in their learning.
- Health Promotion: SCT is widely used to design interventions that encourage positive health behaviors, such as adopting a balanced diet, increasing physical activity, or quitting smoking.
- By building self-efficacy and offering relatable role models, campaigns can effectively motivate individuals to make healthier lifestyle choices.
- Media Influence: SCT explains how exposure to media shapes societal norms and individual behaviors by modeling desirable or undesirable actions.
Campaigns promoting diversity or anti-bullying messages can influence viewers' attitudes, while harmful portrayals (e.g., glorification of violence) may normalize negative behaviors.
Strengths
- Explains Indirect Learning: SCT accounts for observational learning, which behaviorism overlooks, providing a more comprehensive framework for understanding how people acquire new behaviors without direct reinforcement.
- Supported by Diverse Research: SCT is backed by diverse methodologies, including experiments (e.g., Bandura’s Bobo Doll study), longitudinal studies, and correlational research, offering robust empirical support.
Limitations
- Testing Reciprocal Determinism: The bidirectional relationship between personal factors, behavior, and environment is challenging to measure in controlled settings, as isolating these variables can oversimplify their interaction.
- Reliance on Correlational Data: Much of the supporting evidence for SCT is correlational, limiting the ability to establish causal relationships. This makes it difficult to determine whether observed behaviors result directly from modeled actions.
- Ecological Validity: Early studies, like Bandura’s Bobo Doll experiments, were conducted in artificial settings, which may not fully reflect real-world behaviors, limiting their ecological validity.
