IB Docs (2) Team
Social Cognitive Theory
Social Cognitive Learning Theory – formerly known as Social Learning Theory – assumes that humans learn behaviour through observational learning—in other words, people can learn by watching models and imitating their behaviour. Sometimes the model is trying to have a direct effect on the learner—for example, when a teacher instructs children how to solve a problem—but often models serve as indirect models, in that they are not trying to influence behaviour. Unlike some learning that we do, we do not need positive reinforcement – that is, a reward – to continue the behaviour. The fact that the model was rewarded or punished for a behaviour, is enough for us. This is what Bandura calls vicarious reinforcement.
According to Bandura, social cognitive learning involves the following cognitive factors.
- Attention: In order to learn a behaviour, the learner must pay attention to the model. There are certain factors that may influence whether attention is paid to the model, including the attractiveness of the model, the authority of the model, or the desirability of the behaviour.
- Retention: The observer must be able to remember the behaviour that has been observed in order to produce that behaviour immediately or after some time.
- Motivation: Learners must want to replicate the behaviour that they have observed. In order to do this, they must understand what the potential outcome is if they repeat the behaviour – what Bandura called outcome expectancies.
- Potential: In order to reproduce an observed behaviour, observers must physically and/or mentally be able to carry out the behaviour - that is, there needs to be a certain level of self-efficacy.
Motivation to imitate the behaviour of the model is quite complex. There are several factors that may influence whether or not the observer decides to imitate and learn.
- Consistency: If the model behaves in a way that is consistent across situations—for example, always being brave—then the observer will be more likely to imitate the model than if the model behaves in different ways depending on the situation.
- Identification with the model: There is a tendency to imitate models who are like us — for example, in terms of age and gender.
- Liking the model: Warm and friendly models are more likely to be imitated than cold, uncaring models.
Finally, social cognitive learning theory argues that learning is most likely to occur if the observer has high self-efficacy. Self–efficacy is one's belief in one's ability to successfully accomplish a task. Bandura and other researchers have found Individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to believe they can master challenging problems and they can recover quickly from setbacks and disappointments. Therefore, self-efficacy plays a central role in whether a learner will imitate the behaviour of a model. Those who have low levels of self-efficacy will fear failure and are less likely to attempt imitating the behaviour of the model.
Social cognitive learning theory has been used to explain many things but particularly the role of violence in the media on aggression in children.
Research in psychology: Bandura et al (1961)
In one of the earliest experiments, Bandura et al had two aims. First, the researchers wanted to see if children would imitate aggression modeled by an adult; and second, they wanted to know if children were more likely to imitate same-sex models.
Children aged 3 to 6 years (36 boys and 36 girls) were divided into groups. The groups were matched with regard to aggression based on an evaluation by their nursery school teachers. One group was exposed to adult models who showed aggression by either bashing an inflatable “Bobo” doll or using verbal aggression toward the Bobo; a second group observed a non-aggressive adult who assembled toys for 10 minutes, and a third group served as a control and did not see any model. In the first and second groups, some children watched same-sex models, and some watched opposite-sex models.
After watching the models, the children were placed in a room with toys. Very soon, they were taken out of the room, being told that those toys were for other children, and then they were put into the room with the Bobo doll. This was done so that all of the children experienced some level of frustration that may lead to them showing aggression. The children were observed behind a one-way mirror and their behaviours were recorded. Bandura’s group found that the children who had observed the aggressive models were significantly more aggressive—both physically and verbally. The children showed clear signs of observational learning. With regard to the second aim, Bandura observed that girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression, whereas boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression. When boys observed women bashing the Bobo doll, they often made comments like “Ladies shouldn’t do that!” In other words, the children were more likely to imitate the same-sex adult.
In spite of the fact that this study supports social cognitive learning theory, it is important to critically evaluate the study with regard to both its method and its ethics. First, the experiment has been criticized for low ecological validity. Not only was it carried out in a laboratory, but there are also other factors that make the situation less than natural. There is only a very brief encounter with the model, and the children are intentionally frustrated after they begin to play with a toy. This situation does little to predict what happens if a child is repeatedly exposed to aggressive parents or violence on television. One also has to question the actual aggression that was observed. Does the aggression against a Bobo doll indicate learned aggression in general, or it is highly specific to this situation?
Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963) carried out a follow-up study to see whether children were also willing to imitate a model presented in the media. In this experiment Bandura exposed a group of children to either a movie featuring the same aggressive actions as in the first experiment or a cartoon in which a cat beat a Bobo doll with a hammer. There was also a control group that watched no film. After the movie, he then placed the children in a room with a Bobo doll to see how they behaved with it. Bandura found that the children who had watched the violent movie showed more aggressive behaviour toward the Bobo doll, regardless of whether there were real people or cartoons. The control group demonstrated significantly lower levels of aggression.
In addition to the questionable ecological validity of Bandura’s two studies, there are other methodological considerations. The aggression modeled by the adult in the first experiment was not completely standardized, meaning that the children may have observed slight differences in the aggression displayed. However, when the film was used, this behaviour was standardized, eliminating confounding variables. Also, in spite of the attempt to match the participants with regard to aggression, it was based on observations from teachers and parents, and this may not have been completely accurate. Finally, there is the question of demand characteristics: the children may have acted aggressively because they thought it would please the researcher.
One also has to consider the ethics of using young children in such an experiment. Observing adult strangers act in such a violent manner might be frightening to children. Also, it is questionable whether it is appropriate to teach children violent behaviour. There was no guarantee that once violent behaviour was learned, it would not become a permanent feature of the child’s behaviour, or be generalized to other situations.
ATL: Thinking critically
A boarding school has asked for your professional advice. The school is concerned about the number of young students who are playing video games in their free time. They are concerned because they have heard that playing video games may lead to aggressive behaviour as teens.
- What do you think about this claim?
- How would you investigate this question in order to provide evidence for or against the claim?
- Find at least one study that investigates this question. What are the strengths and limitations of that study?
Teacher only boxGaming is a popular pastime for young people that is often demonized as the source of many societal problems. This is usually a good discussion with students.
As for what they think about the claim - this is where they share their opinion. It is always a good idea to ask what evidence their opinion is based on. Often, students will give anecdotal evidence from their personal lives or the stories of friends. They may also give anecdotal evidence from what they have heard in the media - that is, a story of a school shooter that was an avid gamer.
Asking them how to investigate the claim will most likely lead to suggestions of experimental designs. It is important to discuss with them how they will measure "aggressive behaviour" in an ecologically valid - but ethical manner.
Have them share the studies that they have found and their thoughts on their limitations.
Application of social cognitive learning theory in real life
According to social cognitive learning theory, there is a chance that violence on television will lead to more violent children. But is this so? The results of studies on the effects of televised violence are consistent. By watching aggression, children learn how to be aggressive in new ways and they also draw conclusions about whether being aggressive to others will bring them rewards or punishment. Huesmann and Eron (1986) carried out a longitudinal study, monitoring children’s behaviour over a 15-year period. They found a positive correlation between the number of hours of violence watched on television by elementary school children and the level of aggression demonstrated when they were teenagers. They also found that those who watched a lot of television violence when they were 8 years old were more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for criminal acts as adults.
However, because the study is only correlational, no cause and effect relationship can be concluded. It also is not possible to eliminate dispositional factors from the study. Perhaps children that had a biological predisposition to violence watched more television. The study suffers from bidirectional ambiguity. We cannot know whether television watching makes children aggressive or whether aggressive children watch more television.
In an important study carried out in McMurdo, children were found to have become significantly more aggressive two years after television was introduced to their town (Joy, Kimball, and Zabrack 1986). The results of these two studies indicate a link between watching violent television and aggressive behaviour, but we should critically consider the findings: could there be another explanation?
Television is not always a negative influence. There is strong evidence that children’s shows such as Sesame Street—developed to teach academic and social skills—can help children learn positive behaviours such as sharing, empathy, and academic curiosity. A vast number of soap operas have made use of social learning theory in order to affect change in society. The Sabido Method uses Bandura’s social cognitive learning theory as the basis for television and radio dramas that aim to prevent unwanted pregnancies, reduce the spread of HIV, promote literacy, and empower women in developing countries. As a result of broadcasting the serial Twende na Wakati (Let’s Go with the Times) in Tanzania between 1993 and 1996, researchers found increases in safe sex, women’s status, and family planning.
ATL: Thinking critically
The island of St Helena in the Atlantic Ocean has been the site of an interesting natural experiment carried out by Charlton et al (2002). Television was first introduced on St Helena in 1995. Psychologists from the UK used this unique opportunity to investigate the effect of the introduction of television on aggression in children. Cameras were set up in the playgrounds of two primary schools on the island, and the behaviour of children (between the ages of 3 and 8 years) was observed before and after the introduction of television. A content analysis of the television programs showed little difference in the quantity or level of violence watched when compared with children in the UK, so children on St Helena were exposed to exactly the same level of violence.
Analysis of hundreds of hours of videotape, backed up by interview data from teachers, parents, and some of the older children, showed no increase in antisocial behaviour among the children of St Helena. The good behaviour evident before the arrival of television had been maintained even after five years of exposure to violent television.
1 Find information about the people and culture of St Helena. What are the major differences between this community and communities in the UK?
2 Discuss possible reasons why the results of this study are so different from the results of the studies conducted by Bandura et al. and by Joy, Kimball & Zabrack.
Teacher only box1. Find information about the people and culture of St Helena. What are the major differences between this community and communities in the UK?
The island of St Helena has a population of just over 6000 people. The island is very isolated and the demographics are predominantly African and mixed race. The island was originally uninhabited; many of the Africans are originally from Angola and were brought to the island as slaves by the Portuguese. The per capita GDP of St Helena's is about 12,000 USD In the UK, the per capita GDP is roughly 42,000 USD.
2. Discuss possible reasons why the results of this study are so different from the results of the studies conducted by Bandura et al. and by Joy, Kimball & Zabrack.
St Helena may not have identified as strongly with the British culture represented on television as the Canadians in the Joy study. In addition, the parenting styles of the families on St Helena may be more traditional and power distance may be stronger than in the Northern Canadian cultures.
Evaluation of social cognitive learning theory
Social cognitive learning theory helps explain why behaviours may be passed down in a family or within a culture. It also explains why children can acquire some behaviours without trial-and-error learning. However, although a behaviour may be acquired, it is not always demonstrated. The child might learn something from watching a model but may not exhibit that behaviour for some time. Because this gap exists between when one observes the model and when one may demonstrate the behaviour, it is difficult to establish 100 percent that the behaviour is the result of observing the model. Neither does social learning theory explain why some people never learn a behaviour, in spite of the above criteria being met.
In spite of much of the research being experimental and rather artificial in nature, the theory itself has been applied in many different ways – including health promotion programs and therapy for anxiety disorders.
CAS
Make a plan using Social Cognitive Learning Theory to promote a higher level of environmental awareness in your school community.
Checking for understanding
Which of the following is not a factor in social cognitive learning theory?
Although research shows that we are more likely to imitate someone who is in our in-group, it is not a necessary factor in social cognitive learning theory.
What is meant by vicarious reinforcement?
Vicarious reinforcement means that we don't have to personally experience a reward or a punishment for a behaviour; we can watch another person experience it and then learn though the process of observation.
According to Bandura, which of the following is not true about Social Cognitive Learning?
We are more likely to imitate a model if their behaviour is consistent. If it appears that luck was the reason for an outcome, we are less likely to imitate it.
How many independent variables were there in Bandura’s (1961) study?
The three IV's were the gender of the model, the gender of the child and the level of aggression of the model.
What is an explanation for why the children in Bandura’s 1961 study did not imitate the behaviour of the female model when she was bashing the Bobo?
The behaviour of the woman did not fit the children's schema of how a woman was "supposed to behave."
The researchers that watched the children in Bandura’s study had similar scores on the aggression of the children. What does this mean about the study?
As the scores for aggression were similar for the different researchers, we say that the study has high inter-rater reliability. This is an example of researcher triangulation - by seeing that different researchers came up with the same measurement of the DV, it strengthens the findings. In psychology, we don't often use the word "accurate." Accuracy means how well we have actually measured something. So, if you weigh yourself, how accurate is your scale - does it give you your exact weight, or is it "off." This is a term you should not use in the discussion of most research in psychology.
The children in Bandura’s study may have acted more aggressive because they thought that the researcher wanted them to. This is an example of
This is an example of a demand characteristic known as "expectancy effect" - when participants try to behave in the way that they think that the researcher wants them to behave.
Studies like Huesmann and Eron’s have the problem of bidirectional ambiguity. This means that …
Bidirectional ambiguity means that we don't know if the tv viewing led to the aggression or whether aggressive children watch more television. This is a key limitation of correlational research.
Which of the following best describes the study done on the island of St Helena?
The study is a natural experiment since the independent variable was not manipulated by the researcher, but was "naturally occurring." In this case, television came to teh island of St Helena and the researchers decided to measure its effect on the local population.
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn