Social learning theory came about during the late 1800s. William James’ and Dollard and Miller research in 1941 formed the foundation for the 1963 development of the theory and concepts by Bandura. Researchers note that Bandura was the first theorist to apply the social learning theory to education. However, in 1983, Bandura renamed the theory as Social Cognitive Theory. Additionally, Bandura detached his theory from the behaviorists’ theory because he did not believe that the environment had any influence on the theory. Over the years, Bandura conducted numerous studies, but the most popular of these studies included young children and bobo dolls. Bandura reinforced his theory as one that was strong in modeling and the experience of observational learning. Bandura’s observations served as a guide to the social cognitive theory that many psychologists use today.
The social learning theory includes “people’s search for predictability and some measure of control over events that affect their lives,” (Bandura, 2002, p. 35). The fact is that the constant changes communicative access, global human interconnectedness, and the rapidly developing cyber world transform the speed, nature, and reach of human development. One cannot hope to achieve growth and development if there are no changes in the way society perceives life. In fact, there would be a society that is stagnant. People change for different reasons. A child adapts the behavior of his mother and maintains that behavior over time. The child knows no other behaviors unless he or she meets different people in different settings. With the additional choice of behaviors, the child can hold to a single behavior to emulate or choose to combine two or more behaviors and create a unique behavior that shapes their national life.
Transformational changes disrupt and reorganize the life of every individual. In addition, it changes the way one looks at technology. Despite the fact that there are a number of elements impact on the ways in which an individual thinks learns and act, there is the fundamental premise that “one has the power to produce changes by one’s actions,” (Bandura, 2002, p.35). Efficacy beliefs come to the forefront when one thinks of the ways in which the environment impacts on one’s life. Bandura notes “Human well-being and attainments require an optimistic and resilient efficacy,” (Bandura, 2002, p. 36). The realist seeks ways to adjust behavior to suit the situation, but the “efficacy beliefs regulate human functioning throughcognitive, motivational, emotional, and choice processes,” (Bandura, 2002, p. 36). In the end, Bandura reiterates that efficacy is important to the individual as it develops the individual’s the expectations of the results of a situation.
Bandura’s experiment on learned behavior comes through his use of individuals beating a bobo doll. Children watched the video and copied the behavior of the adults towards the bobo doll. The study was repeated overtime, but the same results occurred. The findings to Bandura reinforcing the theory that social learning theory stem from the learnt behavior that individuals experience on a daily basis. Although Bandura made changes to his studies, the results proved to be the same. In one study, the subjects were punished and rewarded based on their imitations.
In addition, Bandura applied different models to ascertain any changes in the responses. The findings showed that none of the changes had an impact on the subject’s behaviors. In the final analysis, Bandura realized that retention, motivation, attention, imagery and language impacted the behaviors of these subjects. In terms of attention, the individual learns from the amount of attention that one pays to the features of the modeled activities. Retention reflects the way an individual shows the capacity to recollect the behavior that they subject observes.
Similarly, language and imagery aids in the development of information retention. The fact is that individuals retain the mental images of the behaviors they view as verbal descriptions and mental images along with the capacity to replicate or imitate the behavior based on their personal understanding of the behavior. According to Bandura’s experiments reproduction includes an individual’s ability to change symbolic representations into actions that are appropriate. Arguably, behavioral reproduction occurs when one organizes one’s reaction according to the pattern the one models. In fact, the more an individual models a behavior, the better able one is to replicate the behavior. In addition, Bandura’s theory suggests that motivation is fundamental to the way the individual repeats the behavior. Motivation increases the need to continue a behavior.
Just as motivation inspires behavior, so too do threatening behaviors. Bandura postulates “it is generally agreed that anxiety serves as an important motivational determinant in the development and maintenance of maladaptive behavior,” (Bandura, 1956, p.333). As such, “the patient’s anxiety and defenses developed against them constitute the focus if the therapeutic interviews,” (Banduram 1956, p.333). The total evidence points to the fact that defensive and anxiety behaviors presents a co-effective behavior instead of causally linked. Similarly, the aversive incident can be vicarious or personal and leads to anticipation of injury that stimulates defensive conduct and fear in the patient. Threats will always inspire emotional feelings and behaviors. Nevertheless, these behaviors can be fixed with effective coping strategies. Arguably, individuals develop self-protective behaviors when they are in potentially threatening situations even though they are not frightened.
Studies show that social learning theory started with the social influence of behavior on the patients. As such, Bandura added a cognitive element the original perspective of the theory as he believed that reciprocal determinism impacts a person’s behavior with each other. Bandura studied adolescent aggression and realized that the social learning theory is too simply as behavior causes environmental problems. As such, Bandura postulates that personality is an interaction among three components: behavior, the environment, and one’s capacity to entertain the images in language and one’s mind. In fact, social learning theory is a conduit between the cognitive and behaviorist learning theory as it includes the beliefs that memory, attention, and motivation. Bandura’s theory is connected to Lace’s Situated Learning and Vygotsky Social Development Theory as it reinforces the significance of social learning on behavior.
Bandura’s social learning theory is a significant theory of learning and development. The theory stems from “the basic concepts of traditional learning theory, [as] Bandura believed that direct reinforcement could not account for all types of learning,” (Cherry, n.p., para. 1). In addition, Cherry notes “while the behavioral theories of learning suggested that all learning was the result of associations formed by conditioning, reinforcement, and punishment, Bandura's social learning theory proposed that learning can also occur simply by observing the actions of others,” (Cherry, n.p., para. 1). Arguably, Bandura theory combined social elements with the idea that individuals learn new information and behaviors when they watch other people in action. The fact is that observational learning is modeling that explains a variety of behaviors.
There are three fundamental concepts at the foundation of social learning theory. Firstly, there is the belief that people learn by way of observation. Secondly, there is the idea that inner mental capacities fundamental to the learning process. Finally, the theory realizes learned behavior does not always effect change in behaviors. The fact is that people learn through observation. In his researches, Bandura noted three fundamental models of observational learning: “A live model, which involves an actual individual demonstrating or acting out a behavior; a verbal instructional model, which involves descriptions and explanations of a behavior,” (Bandura, 1977, para. 1). In addition, Bandura’s theory includes “a symbolic model, which involves real or fictional characters displaying behaviors in books, films, television programs, or online media,” (Bandura, 1977, para. 1).
Bandura notes that through the process of modeling “not all observed behaviors are effectively learned,” (Bandura, 1977, para. 1). The factors that involve the learner and the model play an integral role in determining the success of social learning. However, there are certain steps that one should take in order to improve the modeling and observational learning processes. Additionally, in order to learn, one needs to pay attention,” (Bandura, 1977, para. 1). The fact is that “anything that distracts your attention is going to have a negative effect on observational learning,” (Bandura, 1977, para. 1). One’s ability to retain information is an important to the learning process. Still, Bandura points “retention can be affected by a number of factors, but the ability to pull up information later and act on it is vital to observational learning,” (Bandura, 1977, para. 1). Finally, “for observational learning to be successful, [one has] to be motivated to imitate the behavior that has been modeled,” ((Bandura, 1977, para. 1). Punishment and reinforcement are important in motivating the individual.
The social cognitive theory has a number of strengths and weaknesses. These strengths include the fact that the theory makes it easy to handle the number of inconsistencies in the behavior in a positive way. Another of the number of strengths that the theory offers precise representation as it explains the way an individual learns a behavior. In addition, the theory offers a way to combine cognitive and social theories of learning. The social cognitive theory is easy to comprehend and accurate as it accounts for the cognitive processes that one finds in social learning. Critics note that the theory explains a vast number of behaviors as they relate to the learning process.
As with all theories, Bandura’s theory has weaknesses. In analyzing the theory, it was clear that there was too much emphasis on the result of the behavior and not on how the observer uses the findings. In addition, the theory does not offer much information on the mental and physical changes that occur during the use of the theory with patients. Arguably, there is a limit to the explanation of the patients’ behavior and the differences in these behaviors are not explained. The use of punishment and reward to determine the way in individual react in the experiments is one of the greatest weaknesses of the theory as individuals have different perceptions on the differences between punishment and rewards. The fact is that Bandura’s theory shows bias as the experiment with the bobo dolls drew samples from the nursery at Stanford University, and therefore the results do not give a true reflection of the behaviors of children in a different social setting.
Bandura’s theory of social learning is one of the more popular approaches that educational and child developmental theorists use to explain the way in which children acquire knowledge. The view combines the cognitive and behavioral approaches to learning. Nonetheless, the theory suggests that negative behavior in children change based on the particular environment that the child socializes. The theory of observational behavior is flexible as it clarifies the belief that children learn based on the social context. The bobo doll experiment suggests that the behavior in a child depends on the behavior of others in the same situation. Similarly, children are more relaxed at home, but find problems as they attempt to relax in the school setting. The fact is that the authority figure in the home and the authority figure at school are different. A child may associate a punishment at home as a loving means of correction, and therefore this changes the meaning of the punishment. On the other hand, a child sees punishment at school as a harsher method even though they are the same. The simple explanation is that punishment carries a different meaning as it depends on the punisher. Bandura does not distinguish between the social setting and punishment and therefore the theory has flaws.
A number of critics suggest that the theory is flexibility as it explains the differences in the behavior and learning processes of the child. Bandura’s theory includes the involvement of the environment on the child’s behavior. Similarly, the controversial debate on nature versus theory adds to the premise that the environment impacts on the way the child develops language and social skills. Both theories share similar perspectives which suggest that the society impacts on the social development of the child. Bandura reinforces the concept that a change in the child's environment has an impact on the behavior of the child. Nonetheless, the theory is weak as it does not deal with the way that the child processes and handles new information. In fact, the theory does not hold the child accountable as it goes deeply into looking at the way in which the society impacts on the child and less on the way the child processes the new behavior.
Nonetheless, the theory looks carefully at the way the child gains knowledge or learn behaviors based on the influences in the environment. One of the most notable elements in the theory is the belief in multiple ways that a child learns. Bandura reiterates that an individual learns from unswerving experiences or from observation. In contrast, the theory is weak as social learning theory does not rely on distinctive progressions in growth and learning, but the theory is dependent on age. The fact that the theory neglects to delve into the development of the child from every aspect of the child’s life creates a sense of weakness in the theory. The fact is that children mature at different levels in life. The typical milestones occur irrespective of the environmental factors.
The reality is that individuals learn new ideas on a daily basis because of the differences in the socialization process. Individuals learn from each other through imitating, observing, and modeling. The fact is that learning comes through the observation of the attitudes, behaviors, results of these behaviors. The social learning theory suggests that human behavior is a constant communal interaction of environmental, cognitive, and behavioral factors. In his theory, Bandura postulates that many human behaviors come through observation and modeling of behaviors. In observing those in the environment, new behaviors develop and serve as the guideline for different actions. Grusec writes “social learning theory began as an attempt by Robert Sears and others to meld psychoanalytic and stimulus response learning theory into a comprehensive explanation of human behavior,” (Grusec, 1992, p. 776). In later years, Bandura removed the psychoanalytic aspect of the theory and focused more on the information-processing and cognitive capacities that govern the social behavior of the individual.
Both Bandura and Sears represent the theory of social learning, but the theories are different. Sears theory was grounded in the Hullian learning theory and had a strong psychoanalytic foundation. In contrast, Bandura’s social learning theory centers on the operant conditioning to learning and completely disregarded the psychoanalytic theory except for its content. Nonetheless, Bandura “struggled to make theoretical sense of the phenomenon of modeling,” (Grusec, 1992, p. 776) as he abandoned Skinner’s operant theory. In addition, Bandura abandons his views of the explanation of the mechanistic conditioning and embraced the concepts of information processing.
Over time, a number of psychologists developed their own perspectives on different theories. These theories guide the perspectives of thoughts and actions. Sigmund Freud reiterated the perspective that the id influences one’s actions and the ego develops from actions that arise from borrowed energy and acts serves as a commanding force in one’s life. In addition, Sigmund Freud believed that aggression is a general, widespread factor the influences human behavior. Based on Fred’s theory individuals are not aware of the presence of aggression as the superego suppresses the actions of the individuals. The id, ego, and superego influence the actions and behaviors of individuals and create the balance in the way the individual learns social actions or behaviors.
Similarly, Erikson’s theory justifies the role of the ego that exists in the mind and gives coherence to the different experiences that the individual learns in the environment from a conscious or unconscious perspective. Erikson postulates that the ego shapes human behavior and the level of aggression in the individual. Erikson and Freud’s theories justify the perception that social learning does not occur simply because of the social environment. In fact, Freud and Erikson’s theory contrast those of Bandura and shows that individuals learn in a variety of ways.
One could say that Bandura’s perception individual’s behavior is a result of accidental or purposeful observation shows limitations when one analyzes the theories of Erikson and Freud. The fact is that individuals learn different lessons based on different situations because the mind works in different ways. In his review of the social learning theory, Bulat Sanditov writes that Bandura’s observational modeling stems from the processes of carefully looking at the model’s behavior, retaining the knowledge of the behavior, and reproducing the behavior based on different levels of motivation and punishment, (Sanditov, 2006, p. 6). Additionally, Sanditov writes that the behavior occurs through the media, Internet or in the environment. The fact is that learning and behavioral adjustments go farther that the social environment. Although one may see the behavior in others, it does not mean that one will learn the behavior from others because the superego determines individuality in an individual.
Sanditov’s analysis further incorporates an analysis of the researchers who work with the theories that animal behavior and social psychology draws parallel between pure imitation and social learning as a means of developing one’s learning capacity, (Sanditov, 2006, p. 7). Based on Heyes’ belief, Sanditov concludes that “the process of social learning is not imitation,” (Sanditov, 2006, p. 7), but natural instincts of the individual. In fact, one could argue objectively that human behavior stems of natural instincts in many cases. An individual knows that there is an unpleasant feeling when one pushes one’s hands in a fire. Of course, the individual may not understand that the terminology that fire burns, but the unpleasant feeling is instinctive and draws on a pattern that suggests that there must be an avoidance of any fires.
Jeffery looks at criminal behavior as it relates to the social learning theories presented by Bandura. He reiterates that the learning theory revolves around the concept of conditioning and that behavior is directly related to the environment of the individual, (Jeffery, 1965, p. 265). In addition, Jeffery points to Pavlov’s views that classical conditioning comes with “stimulus eliciting a response” (Jeffery, 1965, p. 265) in behaviors. Therefore, “the concept of operant behavior is important to sociologists because most social behavior is of an operant nature,” (Jeffery, 1965, p. 265). However, Akers believe that some of the rational choices in criminal behaviors stem from the fundamental belief that proposition that includes the family, peers, and moral judgment, (Akers, 1990, p. 655).
With this in mind, one can argue that rational choice stems from social factors that impact one’s criminal or non-criminal behavior. A child who grows in an environment where everyone one steals kills for a living learns that stealing and killing is an accepted behavior. In fact, the child imitates the behavior as best as possible and will not understand that these behaviors are against the law. Behaviorist theorists argue that one learns behavioral patterns through social learning principles. But, there are others who argue that criminal behaviors stem from inherited behaviors. If this were true, then there would be more criminals in the society. The fact is that behavioral influences stem from the rational choices that one makes in life and not just social learning. One chooses to become a criminal and the choice comes from the knowledge or ability to choose.
In addition, Sutherland’s theory suggests that differential association inspires two basic assumptions. Firstly, deviant behavior occurs when the individuals define a specific situation as being a suitable event for social norms and the law. Secondly, the definitions of the specific incident stem from historical or past experience that the individuals encounters, and in particular cases where there are previous associations with other individuals. According to this view, Sutherland does not suggest that simple associations with other people of who carry out deviant behaviors impacts deviant or delinquent behaviors. Instead he postulates that criminal behavior stems from conflicting values or the superego and not merely what one learns from the observed behaviors. Nonetheless, “these past experiences influences reinforcements, expectations, and expectancies, all of which shape whether a person will engage in a specific behavior and the reasons why a person engages in that behavior,” (The Social Learning Theory, n.d., par. 1).
Arguably, “the biggest strength of behaviorism as it relates to social learning and social cognitive theory is that real world examples can be applied and can be quickly and easily administered,” (Social Cognitive Learning Theory’s Limitations, Strengths and Weaknesses, 2012, par. 1.). Still, one can say “the social learning theory cannot account for all development behavior since thoughts and feelings are influenced by many internal and external factors as well as inherited and maturation factors,” (Social Cognitive Learning Theory’s Limitations, Strengths and Weaknesses, 2012, par. 1). Bandura’s social learning theory is important to the education system, but despite Bandura’s remarkable findings, there is the weakness in understanding the general complexity involved in human behavior differences, and personalities as well as biological factors. The theory does reflect the reasons for an individual different reaction to similar situations. In fact, it does not show why rewards impact or reduce behaviors.
In concluding, the social learning theory is one that many theorists believe impacts the lives of individuals in the learning process. Individuals learn a number of behaviors based on the environmental factors while for others, the ego and superego drives the behavioral patterns. While the social learning theory creates the avenue for modeling, imitating, and repeating behaviors, much behavior stems from the use of punishments and reinforcements to shape the behavior. Nonetheless, the theory shows bias as much of Bandura’s experiments involved one particular group of children and does not speak for all children at different socio-economic levels. The fact is that behavior comes with activities in the society. The law punishes criminal behavior at the highest level, but there are criminals who choose to carry out criminal behaviors. With this in mind, one can conclude that individuals learn behaviors, but there are other factors that allow one to make the ultimate decision about the things that they do with their lives.
Works Cited
Akers, Ronald (1990) “Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory in
Criminology: The Path not Taken,” 81 J.Crim. L. & Criminology 653 (1990-1991). Web.
Accessed December 2, 2014.
Bandura, Albert, (1977) “What is Social Learning Theory? Social Learning Theory, Web.
Accessed December 2, 2014.
Bandura, Albert, (2002) “The Growing Primacy of Perceived Efficacy in Human Self-
development, Adaptation and Change, Web. Accessed December 2, 2014
Bandura, Albert (1956, May) “Psychotherapist’s Anxiety Level, Self-insight, and
Psychotherapeutic Competence,” Reprinted from the Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, Vol., 52. No. 3, Stanford University. Accessed December 2, 2014
Cherry, Kendra “Theories of Development Social Learning Theory How People Learn By
Observation,” Psychology Expert, Accessed December 2, 2014
Gruesec, Joan E., (1992) “Social Learning Theory and Development Psychology: The Legacies
of Robert Sears and Albert Bandura,’ Developmental Psychology, Vol. 28. No.5. pp.
776-786. Web. 0012-1649/92. Accessed December 2, 2014
Jeffery C.R. “Criminal Behavior and Learning Theory, 56 J. Crim. L Criminology & Police Sci.
294 (1965). Web. Accessed December 2, 2014.
McLeod, Saul (2011) “Bandura - Social Learning Theory” Accessed December 2, 2014
Sanitiov, Bulat (2006) “Essay on Social Learning and Imitation,” Dissertation, Maastricht
Social Cognitive Learning Theory’s Limitations, Strengths and Weaknesses (2012) Web.
Accessed December 2, 2014
The Social Learning Theory, (n.d) Behavioral Change Models. Web. Accessed December 2,
2014
