Chapter 17. Bandura’s Social-cognitive Theory
Biographic Sketch:
-Born in Canada in 1925.
-Got a BA from University of British Columbia in Vancouver in 1949 and a Ph.D. in psychology from University of Iowa in 1952.
-He mainly taught at Stanford University.
-His research involved with “developing a social-cognitive approach to the understanding of human behavior.”
Personality Development:
-Watch the behavior of caregivers and imitate the behavior of successful models (reinforced behaviors) and avoid imitating the behavior of unsuccessful ones (punished behaviors).
-The process is complicated because:
(a) Inconsistent parenting (differences between mother and father/across settings/across situations).
(b) Differences between parents and other social agents such as teachers/peers.
(c) The potency and effectiveness of a particular reinforcement or punishment varies from one to another (a punishment like consequence may not actually be a punishment to the person).
(d) Different reinforcement schedules (FI, VI, FR, VR) for different behaviors by different social agents in different settings (i.e., seriously aggressive behaviors at times get the most SR+).
(e) Different self-reinforcement/punishment (different criteria).
*G1 (stringent self-reward for Bowling scores) vs. G2 (lenient criteria for self-reward)
Both G1 and G2 observe models who keep or violate the criteria.
G1 who saw a model violating the standard were the least likely to hold the rule.
This means “Do as I say and do” than “Do as I say, not as I do.”
-Different biological characteristics (genetic factors such as body shape, hair color) lead to different personalities.
Concepts and Principles:
1. Behavior/personality results from a complex interplay between internal processes (cognitive factors) and external influences (It is similar to Rotter’s theory but unlike Skinner’s theory)
2. Triadic Reciprocal Determinism: Interactions among the Cognitive/personal factors, Behavior, and Environmental influences.
(Ex) Personal preferences (thoughts or cognitions) of ESPN Change the environment getting a cable service watch the channel the behavior can also reshape or change cognitions or environments.
3. Cognitive processes are as important as SR/Punishment.
(a) Behavior may not be controlled by immediate external reinforcement.
(ex) Behave based on Anticipated Outcomes: Buying car insurance before an accident (similar to Rotter’s expectancy concept).
(b) Behavior can be acquired without external reinforcement.
(ex) Observational learning/modeling: simply watch what others do and repeat their actions (i.e., trial-error-learning is too costly: swim, drive, etc.)
4. Modeling theory: Watch what others do and then imitate them.
Many factors affect the modeling process.
(a) The personality characteristics of the observer (i.e., tend to imitate models of the same gender) (i.e., incompetent learners are more likely to imitate the behavior of a successful one) (i.e., those who were reinforced for the behavior are more likely to imitate the behavior).
(b) The characteristics of the model (i.e., more likely to model the behavior of nurturing, competent, similar, and influential models).
(c) More modeling when models got the consequences of their behaviors (i.e., vicarious learning).
(ex) Children watched a 5-minute film where an adult displayed physically and verbally aggressive behavior toward a plastic Bobo doll
G1 saw no consequence to the model for his aggressive behaviors, G2 saw a segment of the model getting praise/SR, and G3 saw the model being spanked by a rolled-up newspaper
Each of them was allowed to play in a room that contained a Bobo doll, three balls, a mallet, and pegboard, and other toys
G3 showed the least aggressive behavior.
-Does different behavior mean different learning (acquisition)?
No!!! Everybody learned the aggressive behavior but those who got punished for aggressive behaviors did not simply display them.
(ex) After the experiment, all of them were offered attractive prizes contingent on their reproducing the models’ aggressive behaviors No differences between the three groups in terms of modeling aggressive behaviorsThis suggests that viewing violent TV or movies is harmful (the violent behavior will surface under appropriate circumstances (i.e., peer pressure).
5. Modeling and aggression:
-By the time the average child graduates from elementary school, he or she will have witnessed more than 8,000 murders and approximately 100,000 other acts of violence on TV (Bushman, 1998) (i.e., rock stars senselessly break things on MTV/commit violent acts against women, the old John Wayne’s shoot-em-ups, power rangers killing monsters, etc.)
-73% of violent acts in the Mass Media were unpunished (Bushman, 1998).
-Simple exposure to aggressive behaviors in the Mass Media leads to aggression, even if the models were punished for their aggressive behaviors.
(a) Under appropriate situations (as shown by Bandura’s experiment).
(b) Know that violence is wrong but also believe that it is fun (i.e., tend to admire bad guys’ aggressive behavior, and all the SR+ got early overrides/outweighs punishment at the end).
(c) An eye-for-an-eye or “he deserves it” attitude.
(d) Dehumanizing victims (i.e., cartoons)
(e) Victims recover from violent acts with no injuries (i.e., comedy).
6. What should we do?
(a) Petition government agencies to control the commercial marketing of violence. Has not been effective because we have “freedom of speech” and tend to oppose governmental control.
(b) Protest to government officials about the amount of violence shown in the media. Ineffective.
(c) Let broadcasters regulate themselves.
(d) Create a public violence-monitoring system and publish what they found. Somewhat effective.
(e) Reward desirable programs that are non-violent, informative, and interesting (i.e., Sesame Street)
(f) Parental monitoring and controlling.
7. Efficacy Expectations: Individuals’ beliefs or convictions that they can produce certain behaviors.
-Those who have performed effectively tend to have high (or realistic) Efficacy Expectations.
-Those who have not performed effectively tend to have low (or unrealistic) Efficacy Expectations.
-K, S, and A do not guarantee good performance (i.e., low self-efficacy, self-doubts).
-Even a strong sense of efficacy does not guarantee good performance (i.e., no incentive).
-Efficacy expectations and judgments of self-efficacy affect one’s choice of activities, environmental settings, effort to exert, and length of the chosen activity.
(ex) Low efficacy expectationsavoid threatening situationsIf can’t avoid, tend to expand little effort or give up quicklyno chance to learn new skills and further enhance their low efficacy expectations.
(ex) High efficacy expectationschallenge hard tasks and expand maximum effortpersist in the pursuit of their goalsengage in minimum of self-criticismenhance their high efficacy expectations.
8. Sources affecting efficacy expectations
(a) Performance accomplishments
-Personal mastery/success experiences High efficacy expectations
-Repeated failure Low efficacy expectations.
(b) Vicarious Experiences
-Watch other people performing successfully High efficacy expectations
-Watch other people performing poorly Low efficacy expectations.
(c) Verbal Persuasion
-Verbally encourage people to believe that they perform well
-Verbal discouragement such as criticism, belittling, and ridicule.
(d) Emotional Arousal
-Relaxed and not highly aroused Experience high efficacy expectations.
-Tense, nervous, high arousal Expect failure and experience low efficacy expectations.
9. Research on Self-Efficacy:
(a) Positive social relationships with classmates and teachers / positive verbal comments from significant others Academic out-performance High efficacy expectations Employ various strategies such as rehearsal, elaboration (paraphrase), and organization (outline) strategies, expand more efforts, and feel less arousal more academic out-performance and higher efficacy expectations.
(b) Females with low self-efficacy tend to eliminate traditionally masculine occupations (i.e., accountant, engineer, etc) regardless of their abilities and skills (Bonett, 1994).
(c) People with high self-efficacy expectations tend to seek early treatment for various physical and psychological problems and show better outcomes.
Therapeutic Implications:
(a) Treatment for autistic children: First gain attention sitting in front of themReward positive behaviors such as eye contactLet them model sounds, words, and phrases of speech and reward for proper responding.
(b) Treatment for Fear/phobia: Let them watch a model approach, pet, handle the feared objects without being bitten.