SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY

The evolution from traditional behavioral views of personality to more cognitive

approaches is probably best illustrated by the work of Albert Bandura
(1977a, 1986, 2001, 2006). Bandura rejects the behaviorists depiction of
human beings as passive recipients of whatever stimuli life throws their way.
Certainly individuals respond to environmental events, and certainly they often
learn characteristic behaviors as the result of rewards and punishments.
But people possess other capacities that are distinctly human. By reducing
the process through which people grow and change to the way a rat learns
to press a bar, strict behaviorists overlook some of the most important causes
of human behavior. Because these overlooked causes generally involve thinking
and symbolic processing of information, Bandura refers to his approach
as a social-cognitive theory.

Reciprocal Determinism
Bandura adds a new twist to the question of whether behavior is determined
by internal or by external forces. He argues that there are both internal and
external determinants of behavior, but behavior is not determined exclusively by either or by a simple combination.
Bandura introduces instead the concept
reciprocal determinism. That is, external determinants of behavior, such as rewards
and punishments, and internal determinants, such as beliefs, thoughts,
and expectations, are part of a system of interacting influences that affect not
only behavior but the various parts of the system as well. Put more simply,
each part of the systembehaviors, external factors, and internal factors
influences each of the other parts.

Imagination and Self-Regulation
Bandura identifies several features unique to humans that must be considered
to understand personality. Unlike lower animals, people use symbols and
forethought as guides for future action. Instead of working our way through
rewards and punishments in a trial-and-error fashion every time we face a
new problem, we imagine possible outcomes, calculate probabilities, set goals,
and develop strategies. We do all of this in our mind without engaging in random
actions and waiting to see which will be rewarded or punished. Of
course, past experiences with reinforcements or punishments affect these judgments.
But think about the way you prepare for a vacation. Most likely you
think about several options of where and when to go, how to get there, who
to go with, what to bring, what to do when you arrive, and so on. By imagining
what a vacation will be like at various locations and with various people,
you dont have to literally try out each option to see if the experience will be
reinforcing or punishing.
Bandura also argues that most behavior is performed in the absence of
external reinforcements and punishments. Our daily actions are largely controlled
by what he calls self-regulation. Although we often strive to obtain
external rewards, we also work toward self-imposed goals with internal rewards.

Because much of our behavior is the result of self-regulation, Bandura
challenges the radical behaviorist assertion that people will perform just about
any action if the environmental contingencies are altered appropriately.
Anyone who attempted to change a pacifist into an aggressor or a devout religionist
into an atheist, Bandura wrote, would quickly come to appreciate the
existence of personal sources of behavioral control (1977a, pp. 128129).

Observational Learning
Perhaps social-cognitive theorys most important contribution to the understanding
of human behavior and personality is the concept of vicarious or observational
learning. In addition to classical and operant conditioning, we can learn
by observing or reading or just hearing about other peoples actions. Many behaviors
are too complex to be learned through the slow process of reinforcement and
punishment. We dont teach pilots to fly by putting them in the cockpit and reinforcing
correct behaviors and punishing incorrect ones. Bandura maintains that
children would never learn to talk during their preschool years if they had to be
reinforced for every correct utterance. Instead, the pilots and the toddlers watch
others fly and talk, noting which behaviors work and which dont.

Bandura draws an important distinction between learning and performance.
Behaviors learned through observation need not be performed. This
idea again clashes with traditional behaviorists, who maintain that we cannot
learn something until we have actually engaged in that behavior. But think
for a moment of some of the behaviors you could perform if you wanted to,
even though you never have. For example, although you have probably never
picked up a pistol and shot another human being, youve observed this behavior
in movies often enough for it to be part of your behavioral repertoire.
You might even know to stand with your feet apart and to hold the weapon
at eye level with both hands in front of you, just like the actors portraying
police do. Fortunately, most of us will never perform this behavior, but it is
one we have probably learned through observation.

Why do we perform some of the behaviors we learn through observation
but not others? The answer lies in our expectations about the consequences.
That is, do you believe the action will be rewarded or punished? In the case of
shooting another person, most of us expect this behavior will be punishedif
not in a legal sense, then through self-punishment in the form of guilt and lowered
feelings of worth.

But if we have never performed the behavior, where do we get our expectations
about consequences? Again, from observing others. Specifically, was
your model for the behavior rewarded or punished? For example, a high
school boy may watch an older friend ask someone for a date. He pays close
attention to how the friend engages the potential date in conversation, what is
said, and so on.



In both cases, the boy paid close enough attention
to learn how his friend went about asking for a date. But whether he will
perform the behavior depends on what he thinks will happen.

Bandura (1965) demonstrated this learning-performance distinction in a
classic experiment with important social implications. Nursery school children
watched a television program in which an adult model performed four
novel aggressive acts on an adult-size plastic Bobo doll:
First, the model laid the Bobo doll on its side, sat on it, and punched it in the
nose while remarking, Pow, right in the nose, boom, boom. The model then
raised the doll and pommeled it on the head with a mallet. Each response was
accompanied by the verbalization, Sockeroo stay down. Following the
mallet aggression, the model kicked the doll about the room, and these responses
were interspersed with the comment, Fly away. Finally, the model threw
rubber balls at the Bobo doll, each strike punctuated with Bang. (pp. 590591)
The children saw one of three endings to the film. Some saw a second adult reward
the aggressive model with soft drinks, candy, and lots of praise. Others saw
the model spanked with a rolled-up magazine and warned not to act aggressively
again. A third group was given no information about the consequences of the aggressive
behavior. Next, each child was left alone for 10 minutes of free playing
time. Among the many toys in the room were a Bobo doll and all the materials
needed to perform the aggressive acts they had seen. An experimenter watched
through a one-way window to see how many of the four acts of aggression the
children would perform spontaneously. Each child was then offered fruit juice
and small toys for each of the four aggressive acts he or she could perform for
the experimenter. This last step was included to see if the children could perform
the behaviorthat is, had they learned the responses from watching the model?
The results are shown in Figure 13.4. Nearly all the children in all three
groups could perform the behaviors when asked. However, whether they
chose to perform the behavior when left alone depended on the consequences
they expected. Although all of the children had learned how to act aggressively,
the ones who had seen the model rewarded were significantly more
likely to perform the behaviors than those who had seen the model punished.

Self-Efficacy
The answer may lie in what Bandura calls
self-efficacy. People stop smoking and lose weight when they convince themselves
they can do it. Many smokers complain that they have tried to quit many
times but just cant. From a social-cognitive analysis, one reason these smokers
are unable to kick their habit is precisely because they believe they cannot.

Indeed, in many cases
the distinction between the two therapy procedures may lie only in how they
are interpreted. Behavior modification therapists explain successful systematic
desensitization in terms of replacing old stimulus-response bonds with new
ones. Social-cognitive therapists maintain that mastery experiences change efficacy
expectations, leading to the change in behavior.

ASSESSMENT: BEHAVIOR OBSERVATION METHODS

Unlike those who practice other approaches to psychotherapy, behavior
therapists typically do not spend much time trying to discover the initial cause
of a clients problem. Instead, they focus on treating observable behaviors.
Other therapists may see the behavior as a sign of some underlying conflict,
but for behavior therapists, the behavior is the problem.

Strengths
One reason for the endurance of the behavioral/social learning approach is its
solid foundation in empirical research. This contrasts with other approaches
to personality, which are sometimes based on intuition or on data gathered
from biased samples.

Another strength of the behavioral/social learning approach lies in the
development of some useful therapeutic procedures. Studies find these procedures
to be effective in treating a number of psychological problems, especially
when combined with elements from cognitive therapies (Christensen, Atkins,
Yi, Baucom, & George, 2006; Mitte, 2005; Shadish & Baldwin, 2005).
Moreover, behavioral treatments are popular. One survey asked marriage and
family therapists about their primary treatment approach when working with
clients (Northey, 2002). By a large margin, cognitive-behavioral was the
most commonly cited approach.

The social learning theories and Banduras social-cognitive theory added
cognitive variables to the behavioral approach and thereby expanded the
range of phenomena explained by this perspective. These theories have helped
to fill in the gaps many psychologists see in traditional behaviorism. Social
learning models of personality allow us to understand thoughts, expectancies,
and values along with basic behavior conditioning principles within one theoretical
framework. These models have also helped to bridge traditional behaviorism
with cognitive approaches to personality.

Others criticize the behavioral/social learning approach for giving inadequate
attention to the role of heredity.

SUMMARY
Bandura proposes that internal states, the environment, and behavior all
affect one another. He maintains that people often regulate their own
behavior and that we engage in purposeful, future-oriented thinking.
Bandura has added to classical and operant conditioning the notion that
we learn through observing others, although whether we perform the
behaviors we learn depends on our expectancies for rewards or
punishments.

Banduras Four-Step Model
Obviously, simple
exposure to an aggressive model is not enough to turn us into violent people

Bandura (1973, 1986) has an answer to this question. He explains that
observational learning and performance consist of four interrelated processes.
People must go through each of four steps before exposure to aggression
leads them to act aggressively. They must attend to the aggressive
action, remember the information, enact what they have seen, and expect
that rewards will be forthcoming. Fortunately, most of the time circumstances
prevent people from moving through the entire process. Unfortunately,
sometimes they do.

But attending to an aggressive act is only the first step in the observational
learning process. People must also remember information about the models behavior.
You are unlikely to recall any one aggressive behavior you saw on television
a few weeks ago unless the behavior was quite gripping.

Practice and mental rehearsal can keep the action fresh in our minds.
Children who play with toy guns and plastic combat equipment may embed
the actions of their aggressive heroes permanently into their memories.

Researchers agree that exposure to aggressive models increases a persons
likelihood of acting aggressively. Banduras four-step model helps explain
why people sometimes imitate aggressive acts they see and sometimes do not.
Before people imitate aggression, they must attend to the act, recall it, have
the opportunity to engage in the behavior, and believe the aggression will
lead to rewards. Research from laboratory and long-term field studies indicates
that exposure to mass media violence increases aggressive behavior.