ERQ marking: SCT
Below you will find three sample ERQs for the question: Evaluate Social Cognitive Theory.
For each of the samples, refer to the rubric to award marks. After each sample, there is a predicted grade as well as feedback on the strengths and limitations of the sample.
Sample 1
Social Cognitive Theory, developed by Albert Bandura, explains how humans learn behaviour by observation and being reinforced by society. The theory has been used to explain human aggression. The main aspects of Bandura’s theory include reciprocal determinism, reinforcements, behavioural capability, expectations, observational learning, and self efficacy. Initially tested with the Bobo Doll experiment, Bandura suggested that witnessing a certain type of behaviour can cause a person to replicate it later on. My position on this is that it can be applicable to only certain groups, such as children, and that there are many factors that can change behaviour in people.
A prime aspect of SCT is observational learning. The Bobo Doll experiment famously launched Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, where he suggested that children could learn aggression by witnessing it. A strength in this experiment is that it’s very simple to replicate, as all the variables such as gender and age, can be controlled. It has been replicated and shown that the results are generally accurate. However, a limitation is that all the participants were kindergartners from Stanford professors meaning that they most likely came from a wealthy background, so this experiment is not able to have any predictive validity across different classes. There is also no way of knowing whether these aggressive behaviours were long term, as the children were only looked at during one point of their lives. It is also hard to pinpoint what exactly aggression is. It can be argued that bashing a Bobo doll can or cannot be aggressive, and it depends on the child’s mindset when they hit the doll.
Evaluating Bandura’s theory would require a reductionist’s approach, as you are looking to see how one sole variable affects behaviour, and this is problematic for a number of reasons. On one hand it is positive because if the theory were true, we would be able to reduce one variable from a situation to prevent aggression. On the other hand, there is no possible way of knowing that one sole variable is the cause of behaviour. Although experiments are well controlled to prevent the influence of confounding variables, many factors can affect a person's behaviour. In the Bobo Doll experiment, for example, we have no way of knowing if the amount of time the child was given with the Bobo doll affected the aggressiveness, or whether or not the children recognised the adult hitting the doll from when the researchers took observations of the children on the playground, and whether or not that could have affected the level of aggression in correlation with familiarity.
The theory itself was built on one experiment initially, and although that study has been extensively replicated it has little heuristic validity. There are not many instances in real life where children are exposed being alone with adults strangers who are acting aggressively. The closest situation that it can be compared to is domestic abuse within a child’s family, but even then the child knows the aggressor. And although connecting this study to domestic abuse can be insightful, there would be little that could be done in terms of prevention, as domestic abuse is often unknown by outsiders and not understood by children. The ethics of the study are also questionable, as it is unknown whether or not the children had the right to withdraw from the study. It should also be considered that this experiment could have had long-term consequences for the children.
As the research done by Bandura demonstrates, aggression can be learned by observation. However, this does not suggest that by being exposed to and aggressor will cause aggression in others. It is difficult to isolate variables to determine correlation, and the applications of the study are difficult as it will never be certain whether or not x causes y.
632 words
Focus on the question: Although there is some recognition of the topic of the question, the response is generally not focused on the question. There is no real attempt to evaluate the theory. 0 marks.
Knowledge and understanding: The response demonstrates limited understanding of the theory. There are a series of appropriate terms identified, but none of them are explained. There is some reference to observational learning, but this is also limited. Psychological terminology is used, but often incorrectly - for example, "accuracy" and "heuristic validity." 1 mark.
Use of research: There is an attempt to use one study - the Bashing Bobo study. However, there is very little understanding of the study shown and it is not used effectively to make an argument. 1 mark
Critical thinking: There is an attempt to evaluate the study, but it is often undeveloped or incorrect. The evaluation is focused on the study rather than on the theory. 3 marks.
Clarity and organization: The response demonstrates some organization and clarity, but it is not sustained. 1 mark.
Total: 6 marks
Predicted: 3
Sample 2
This essay will evaluate the Social Cognitive Learning Theory through its application to aggression. The social cognitive learning theory is a theory proposed by Albert Bandura that suggests that human behaviour can be learned through observation, from watching models and imitating their behaviour. Effective modeling requires three conditions: attention, retention and motivation. In order for the learning to happen, attention must be paid to the model; this can be affected by the authority, attractiveness or the desirability of the models behaviour or the outcome of said behaviour. If the model is seen as being rewarded for a behaviour, the observer will also want to receive such a reward. This is known as vicarious reinforcement. Following the observation, the learner must be able to retain and remember the behaviour. Finally, the learner must have the motivation to repeat the behaviour based on the outcome expectancy. Several factors affect the learner's motivation to replicate behaviour, such as the likeability of the model, identification with the model and the consistency of the behaviour. In addition, the individual must feel that he can actually do what the model can do - in other words, there must be a feeling of self-efficacy.
Bandura's Bashing Bobo Study (1961), explored the theory through a lab experiment investigating how aggressive behaviour develops in children. His aim was to see whether or not and to what extent the children would replicate the behaviour of a model assigned to them. Bandura selected 36 boys and 36 girls, ranging in age from 3 - 5 years old. The children were divided into groups to study to what extent the participants would imitate an aggressive v.s nonaggressive model as well as same-sex v.s non-same sex model. Bandura's findings were that children who saw aggressive models, did in fact act more aggressively themselves, boys were in general more aggressive than girls and were more influenced by male models. Girls were more physically aggressive when in observing a male model but were more verbally aggressive when with a female model. The study strengthens Bandura's theory as it was clear that the participants (both boys and girls) imitated their model.
The study is also evidence of the motivation factor of cognitive learning; boys were more influenced by male models because they identified with them and girls were more likely influenced by the female-models. Boys also viewed the male model as an authority figure; one of the participants even compared the behaviour of the model to that of his father. This identification provided a sense of self-efficacy - that is, that the children were able to do what the model had done. Another advantage of the study is that the participants were pre-tested on their aggression levels using researcher triangulation and the outliers were removed from the experiment. A limitation of this study is that the setting is rather artificial and does have ecological validity; the encounter with the model is very brief and the children are in an unusual environment, being placed alone in a room with a stranger. The aggression is also measured on a doll and does not reflect on how the children would act with a real-life human being or animal. Finally, the study only looks at the short-term effects of observing the model and does not show that the behaviour was learned and then shown again in the future; The theory also cannot explain the children that did not imitate the model. It appears that the theory may have stronger explanatory power than predictive power for an individual's behaviour.
Joy et al. (1986) carried out a prospective natural experiment on the effects of television on the level of aggression of children. Children in a remote part of McMurdo were tested and observed on their levels of aggression one year prior to the introduction of television and a year after. The study found that the children were more aggressive a year after they gained access to TV. A similar study was carried out on the island of St. Helena by Charlton et al. (2002). In contrast, the 2002 study did not find any change in aggression. Following an examination of both studies some major differences can be found in the two studies. Firstly, children in St. Helena were more likely to watch TV with their parents, so it may be presumed that they were not as easily exposed to violent television. Secondly, the majority of St. Helena is black, while the majority of western television features white actors. Therefore, in accordance to the social cognitive theory the children in St.Helena would be viewing the behaviour of an out-group, making them less likely to replicate the behaviour than Canadian children observing the behaviour of their white in-group. This is because they do not identify with the group and therefore may not feel the sense of self-efficacy in being able to replicate the behaviour. Both studies were natural experiments and have high ecological validity since in both cases the children were observed on the playground in their regular environment. A limitation found in both studies is that aggression on the playground is difficult to quantify and it is possible that there may have been some level of researcher bias.
There are several strengths of the theory. First, there is empirical evidence to support it. The theory has been shown to have validity both in the lab (Bandura) and in natural environments (Joy and Charlton). The theory also can be applied to a large range of behaviours, not just aggression. It has been used in education as well as in therapy. Finally, the theory is complex and explains cultural differences in behaviour. It also shows how we may learn without having to directly receive a reward or punishment. There are, however, limitations of the theory. First, the theory is only one perspective. It does not account for biological factors in aggression. How biology influences SCT could be a factor. Secondly, the studies of aggression have ethical concerns. Finally, the theory cannot explain all behaviour as some children did not imitate the model in spite of meeting the criteria of the theory.
Overall, it can be concluded that despite its limitations the social cognitive theory is supported by research and can help contribute to our understanding of human behaviours.
1043 words
Focus on the question: The response is clearly focused on the question. The introduction clearly identifies the issue to be discussed and puts it into the context of aggression research. 2 marks.
Knowledge and understanding: There is good knowledge of the theory demonstrated. Psychological terminology is used effectively. 6 marks.
Use of research: Three studies are used effectively. There is some lack of clarity of the Bandura study. Would have been better to choose two studies and pay more attention to the details of Bandura's study. 5 marks.
Critical thinking: Both strengths and limitations are explained. Ideas are fairly well developed and linked to the demands of the question - that is, not only the research but the theory is directly evaluated. 5 marks.
Clarity and organization: The essay is well structured and clearly written. 2 marks
Total: 20 marks
Predicted: 7
Sample 3
Social cognitive theory states that humans can learn by watching and imitating someone else’s behaviour. It occurs if the person has high self-efficacy, which means they believe that they are able to succeed in the task. Social cognitive theory can be used to explain aggression in children.
A longitudinal study done by Huesmann on social-cognitive theory looked at the relationship between watching violent TV at a young age and adult aggression. The researchers gathered data on children of ages 6-10 that were exposed to aggressive TV characters and violent movie sequences. The researchers gathered correlational data on the children later in life when they were 20-25 years old. Over half of the original participants attended. The results show that childhood exposure to TV violence predicted aggressive behaviour in their adulthood. The researchers also observed aggression of different genders of the participants. They found that male participants showed more physical aggression, whereas women showed more social or indirect aggression. This study can show some correlation between exposure of violent TV and later aggression in adulthood. A strength of the study is that it showed change over time; it also had a large sample size. One limitation of this study is that other variables such as social status, education level or in what environment the children grew up in can have an effect on the final results. Even though these variables were taken into account, they were not connected with the final results.
Another study on the correlation between TV viewing and adult aggression was done by Johnson. They interviewed a group of 14 - 22 year olds and their mothers about their aggressive behaviour. The results show that participants who watched 1-3 hours of TV per day were more likely to commit a crime than those who watched less than 1 hour a day. Unlike the previous study, this study quantified the number of hours the participants spent watching TV. One limitation this study can have is social desirability effect with the interviews, especially the interviews with their mothers as they will not want to come off as bad mothers who let their children watch too much TV. There is no way to verify that the estimates of television time are accurate. Another limitation can be that the researchers did not specify the content that was showed on the TV, so we don’t really know if it is the violence on TV that makes the children violent later in life, or if it is simply exposure to the media itself.
Since there are so many studies done on aggression in social cognitive learning theory, we can understand that the theory is testable and has a high heuristic theory as it can be applied to multiple situations. This theory can predict behaviour but not explain it. The problem with self-efficacy is that it cannot be measured. The theory is not focused on one culture or gender, so it is holistic.
The Social cognitive theory has both strengths and limitations. It can predict behaviour and has high heuristic validity, but at the same time it cannot explain behaviour and has low ecological validity.
520 words
Focus on the question: There is an attempt to focus on the question, but this is not sustained. Focus is mainly on studies. 1 mark.
Knowledge and understanding: There is some knowledge demonstrated. The theory is not clearly explained; there is only a very basic understanding, lacking detail and development. Psychology terminology is not used with great precision and there are errors in some of the conclusions made about the studies. 3 marks.
Use of research: Two studies are used to some effect. Links to the social cognitive theory are not highly explicit. 3 marks.
Critical thinking: There is an attempt to evaluate both the research and the study, but both needed to be better developed and more accurate. 3 marks.
Clarity and organization: There is a sense of structure. Language communicates effectively. 2 marks.
Total: 12 marks
Predicted: 5