Social Learning Research Paper

This sample Social Learning Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of psychology research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

Within the discipline of psychology, there are several explanations for the process by which humans and other organisms learn. Social learning, or observational learning, is the type of learning that occurs when we acquire new behaviors, or increase the performance of previously learned behaviors, by observing others. At first glance, the topic of social learning may appear so simplistic and logical that it does not require further exploration. After all, who would disagree that we learn many behaviors and skills by observing another person perform them? As we will discover, however, the process of social learning is complex and influenced by a number of factors.

The goal of this research-paper is to build a basic understanding of social learning theory. In order to achieve this goal, the chapter begins with a brief review of the development of social learning as a topic of study in psychology, presents an overview of the most widely cited theory of social learning, and explores how researchers use social learning to explain a variety of phenomena in humans.

The Study Of Learning

Learning has been a topic of great interest since early in the history of modern psychology. In order to gain a better understanding of the process of social learning, we begin by briefly reviewing two more traditional approaches to the study of learning.

Classical Conditioning

One type of learning studied by early researchers such as Ivan Pavlov, and later John B. Watson, is classical conditioning. Classical conditioning occurs when an organism develops an automatic reflexive response to a neutral event that has no prior meaning. Pavlov demonstrated that he could condition dogs to salivate (a reflex) to the sound of a metronome (a neutral event), even if they did not subsequently receive food. Classical conditioning explains why some of us flinch involuntarily in anticipation of a loud noise, such as a balloon popping, and why our mouths begin to water when we simply think about tart candy or biting down on a lemon slice. Classical conditioning remains a topic of study in the field of learning, and there is a wealth of empirical support for its principles (see Chapter 33, Classical Conditioning, and Chapter 34, Recent Trends in Classical Conditioning). In its most basic form, however, classical conditioning describes the process of learning as it relates to involuntary or reflexive behavior. How then, do we learn voluntary behaviors?

Operant Conditioning

Another type of learning studied by early researchers such as Edward Thorndike and B. F. Skinner is operant or instrumental conditioning (see Chapter 36, Operant Conditioning, and Chapter 37, Recent Trends in Operant Conditioning). Skinner (1953), among others, demonstrated that an organism could acquire a new behavior using reinforcement, or unlearn an old behavior using punishment. In the case of operant conditioning, researchers believe the behaviors are voluntary because the organism chooses to do them in anticipation of a reward, or chooses not to do them to avoid punishment. In this context both rewards and punishments are consequences of behaviors. For example, parents can toilet-train children by providing a reward (e.g., praise, brightly colored stickers) each time they successfully use the potty chair. The reward, or consequence, increases the likelihood that a child will choose to use the potty chair in the future. We also can apply the principles of operant conditioning to decrease or eliminate undesirable behavior. For instance, some parents spank their young children when they dart into the street. Researchers believe that a punishment such as a spanking, which is a consequence of darting into the street, decreases the likelihood that a child will choose to engage in the same behavior in the future. Like classical conditioning, operant conditioning remains a widely studied topic in the field of learning, and a great deal of research supports its principles. Nevertheless, operant conditioning does not fully explain the acquisition of all voluntary behavior.

Early Theories of Social Learning

During the first half of the 20th century, many psychologists believed that they could explain most instances of voluntary learning using the principles of operant conditioning (e.g., Skinner, 1953); however, these principles are very specific. From an operant conditioning perspective, an organism spontaneously performs a behavior, which is then immediately followed by a consequence (i.e., reward or punishment). The consequence then influences the likelihood that the organism will perform the behavior in the future. In other words, the reward or punishment must be delivered directly to the organism immediately after the performance of the behavior for learning to occur. Although this paradigm accurately explains the acquisition of some behaviors, it does not explain why learning often occurs in the absence of a direct and immediate consequence. In an attempt to explain learning that does not involve direct and immediate consequences, several researchers independently began to search for alternative explanations. The resulting research showed that humans and other organisms can in fact learn new behaviors from others they encounter in their social environments.

Miller and Dollard

Miller and Dollard (1941) contended that humans can learn through imitation and described three forms of imitation. The first form of imitation, same behavior, occurs when two people independently engage in the same behavior in response to the same stimulus. Miller and Dollard used the example of two people riding the same bus to the same destination. One person did not necessarily learn to ride the bus to the desired destination by imitating the behavior of the other person. Instead, they may have separately read the bus schedule and selected the same bus and route. The second form of imitation, copying behavior, occurs when one person learns a new behavior by copying the behavior of another person. Learning through copying often occurs when an external judge provides the person with positive feedback for successfully copying the behavior of a model and negative feedback for unsuccessfully copying the behavior of a model. It is the final form of imitation, matched-dependent behavior, that provides the basis for social learning.

Matched-dependent behavior occurs in situations where there is a more experienced model and a less experienced observer. The experience of the model may be related to age, education, or skill level. Miller and Dollard (1941) posited that learning matched-dependent behavior occurs when a less experienced observer imitates the behavior of a more experienced model in order to obtain a similar consequence. To illustrate, a young boy may imitate the behavior of his older sister because he has observed that she receives a bowl of ice cream for dessert when she carries her dinner dishes to the sink. Because the boy has observed his sister receiving a reward, he is cued to perform the same behavior. In this example, the boy does not immediately or directly receive a reward. Instead, he is motivated to perform the behavior because he first observed his sister receiving a direct and immediate reward.

Miller and Dollard (1941) tested their model of social learning in a series of experiments using both children and animals, and concluded that learning through matched-dependent behavior is a special form of operant conditioning. Observers use the behavior of the model as a discriminative stimulus to determine when they also should do the behavior. A discriminative stimulus is a specific cue that an organism learns to associate with a specific outcome, and was originally identified as part of the operant conditioning paradigm. A pigeon, for example, may learn that the presence of a green light means that pecking a key will result in a food reward and that a red light means that pecking a key will not result in a food reward. In our example, the sister’s behavior becomes the stimulus that elicits the same behavior in her young brother because he has learned the association between the action (i.e., carrying the dishes) and the outcome (i.e., ice cream).

Rotter

Rotter (1954) was interested in the process of learning through observation and imitation, and how it relates to the development of personality. His social learning theory of personality is based on the premise that people acquire knowledge about how to behave through significant interactions with their environments and with other people. Further, Rotter viewed social learning as a dynamic process that is driven by past experience, present circumstances, and individual needs.

According to Rotter (1954), there are two factors that determine whether a person is likely to perform a specific behavior in a certain situation: expectancy and value. Expectancy is the degree to which a person believes he or she will be reinforced for the performance of a behavior. Using our prior example, Rotter would predict that the young boy would be more likely to carry his dinner dishes to the sink if he believes he will be reinforced with a dessert. Value is the degree to which a person views the rein-forcer as important. Rotter would predict that the young boy would be more likely to carry his dinner dishes to the sink if he places a high value on dessert. Value is related to individual needs, and researchers believe it motivates the performance of a behavior.

The ideas of Miller and Dollard (1941) and Rotter (1954) represent only a small portion of their larger bodies of work on social learning. Their ideas did, however, spark subsequent attempts to understand the process of social learning.

Social Learning Theory

Although Albert Bandura was not the first researcher to recognize the role of observation and imitation in the acquisition of behavior, starting in the early 1960s, he and his colleagues began to challenge prior contentions regarding the nature of social learning (e.g., Bandura, 1962; Bandura, D. Ross, & S. A. Ross, 1961). Recall that many psychologists believed social learning is a form of operant conditioning that occurs when an observer is vicariously reinforced or punished for a behavior (e.g., Miller & Dollard, 1941).

Bandura and his colleagues argued that there are instances in which people learn through observation, even when the model does not receive a reward or punishment as a result of performing the behavior (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Bandura & Walters, 1963). In their classic “Bobo doll” experiment, Bandura and his colleagues (Bandura et al., 1961) individually exposed preschool children to one of two adult models while in a playroom setting. While they were engaged in an age-appropriate activity, approximately half of the children saw an adult model playing quietly with a building set in another part of the playroom. The remaining children saw an adult model who behaved aggressively toward a five-foot inflatable doll (i.e., Bobo) in another part of the playroom. The aggressive adult model hit, kicked, punched, and pounded on the doll. The adult model also struck the doll in the head with a mallet and threw it in the air.

Later, the researchers introduced each child to another playroom setting, where he or she had a number of toys from which to choose (Bandura et al., 1961). The experimenters categorized some of the toys as nonaggressive toys (e.g., a tea set, crayons, dolls, and teddy bears); they categorized the remaining toys as aggressive (e.g., a three-foot version of the Bobo doll, a mallet, two dart guns, and a tether ball suspended from the ceiling). During this play session, a hidden experimenter observed and coded each child’s behavior.

Children who were initially exposed to the aggressive adult model were significantly more likely to engage in the previously modeled aggressive acts toward the Bobo doll during a 20-minute free-choice play session than children who were initially exposed to the nonaggressive adult model (Bandura et al., 1961). Interestingly, the acquisition of aggressive behavior occurred even though the adult model never received any reinforcement for his or her behavior. The results of this experiment provided clear evidence that social learning is not simply a form of operant conditioning, and that it can occur in the absence of any performance incentives.

Over the course of the next decade, Bandura and others worked to understand the factors that influence the process of social learning (e.g., Bandura, D. Ross, & S. A. Ross, 1963; Dubanoski & Parton, 1971; Grusec & Mischel, 1966; Rosekrans & Hartup, 1967). This body of work ultimately contributed to the development of a comprehensive theory to explain when, why, and how social learning occurs (Bandura, 1977).

Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

According to Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, our behavior is influenced by information we gather from models (e.g., other humans) in our environments. In other words, we observe a person or people perform a behavior, and then store relevant information about that behavior in our memories so that we can use it during an appropriate situation sometime in the future.

Take a moment to consider how many behaviors a person learns by first observing other people. Young boys are not born knowing how to shave; instead, they begin the process of learning this common behavior by first attempting to imitate their fathers or other male models they observe. Many people learn numerous sports, such as baseball and golf, by first watching other people perform the actions associated with them. People learn to drive automobiles, prepare scrambled eggs, and perform surgery in much the same way. We frequently avoid injuries and hazards, both minor and major, because we have the opportunity to watch other people perform behaviors before we attempt to do them ourselves.

From a social learning theory perspective, humans and other organisms acquire many new behaviors through observation (Bandura, 1977; Bandura & Walters, 1963). The theory also accounts for social learning that occurs when the observer has prior knowledge of the behavior. Whether the observed behavior is new or has been experienced previously, the model can influence it greatly; we review how models can influence the behavior of observers next.

The Influence of Models

Models can have varying effects on the behavior of observers. The effects, in part, depend on the observer’s prior experience with the behavior and the specific situation in which the behavior will be performed. In the following section, I define each effect, present a real-world example, and discuss supportive, experimental evidence.

Modeling Effect

The modeling effect describes situations in which observers learn to perform a completely new behavior or response (Bandura & Walters, 1963). The first time a young child enrolls in a ballet class, she will probably learn to position her arms and feet in ways that were previously unfamiliar. It is also very likely that the acquisition of these new behaviors will be accomplished through modeling. The instructor will demonstrate each foot and arm position, and the students will attempt to reproduce those positions.

Support for the modeling effect comes from the results of Bandura’s classic “Bobo doll” experiment. Recall that nursery school children were exposed to an aggressive adult model who abused an inflatable doll in unique ways (i.e., sitting on the doll and striking it with a wooden mallet). Later, those same children displayed identical aggressive behaviors toward the doll, thus demonstrating behaviors that were not previously part of their behavioral repertoire. The experimenters reasoned that these children, who had no prior experience with the Bobo doll or the specific aggressive behaviors modeled by the adult, learned those aggressive behaviors through modeling. What about situations in which there is prior experience with a behavior or response?

Disinhibitory Effect

The disinhibitory effect occurs when people perform a previously suppressed behavior after observing a model perform a similar behavior without punishment (Bandura & Walters, 1963). The tendency for normally law-abiding citizens to engage in looting, rioting, or destructive behavior is a primary example of the disinhibitory effect. In the chaotic environment created by a rioting mob, it is unlikely that police officers would be able to arrest every person who smashes a store window or steals a television. As a result, people who normally suppress the urge to engage in punishable offenses such as vandalism and theft engage in those very behaviors because they see others do so without experiencing any negative consequences.

Researchers have observed the disinhibitory effect in a number of empirical investigations. Children in one study, for example, viewed cartoons containing aggressive content, after which researchers compared their play behavior to the play behavior of a control group (Lovaas, 1961). Children who viewed the aggressive cartoons chose to play with an aggressive toy more often than did children in the control group. Bandura and Walters (1963) contended that the results of this study demonstrate the disinhibitory effect because exposure to the aggressive behavior of cartoon characters, which were not punished for their actions, increased the performance of aggressive acts in general.

Inhibitory Effect

There are also situations in which the observation of a model serves to reduce the performance of a behavior. The inhibitory effect occurs when an observer decreases or eliminates a previously learned behavior after observing a model experience negative consequences for engaging in the behavior (Bandura & Walters, 1963). Although many people are prone to driving faster than the posted speed limit, nearly all of them will reduce their speed when they observe a fellow driver receiving a ticket from a police officer. Because observers often decrease their behavior without experiencing the negative consequences directly, researchers also describe this effect as vicarious punishment.

The development of phobias in some young children may result from exposure to models who experience negative consequences when engaging in a behavior (e.g., Bandura & Rosenthal, 1966). For instance, a young child may develop an intense fear of dogs because she observed her mother express fear and anxiety in the presence of dogs. Because it would be highly unethical to intentionally induce such a phobia in a young child, researchers have found more acceptable ways to test for the existence of the inhibitory effect. Berger (1962), for example, used college students and a more innocuous modeling situation (Expt. 2). The basic experimental design included an observer (student), a male model, and an apparatus that some observers were led to believe could deliver a shock. In addition, each observer and model was connected to a device that measured galvanic skin response (GSR). GSR measures changes in the electrical properties of the skin associated with fear or other arousing emotions.

Each student completed the experiment individually, was paired with the same model, and observed 13 condition-specific pairings (Berger, 1962, Expt. 2). Following the presentation of a dimming light some students observed the male model receive a hand shock, after which he jerked his hand away from the apparatus. Other students observed the male model receive a hand shock following the presentation of a dimming light, but he did not remove his hand from the apparatus. Another group of students observed a male model jerk his hand away from the apparatus after the presentation of a dimming light, but no shock was involved. The remaining students were paired with a male model who sat by the apparatus, and was instructed not to touch it after the light dimmed because it would deliver a shock.

Students who observed the male model being shocked and jerking his hand away from the apparatus demonstrated a greater increase in GSR than did students in the other three groups (Berger, 1962, Expt. 2). Berger concluded that repeatedly observing the model’s response to being shocked was sufficient to elicit a fear response in the students, which could explain the development of some phobias.

Eliciting Effect

Finally, there are instances in which the actions of a model can serve to increase the performance of a previously learned but infrequent behavior. The eliciting effect occurs when the observation of a model’s behavior leads an observer to increase the performance of the same behavior. People may, for example, increase the frequency with which they volunteer, donate money, or even exercise after observing a model engage in similar actions. The difference between the eliciting effect and the disinhibitory effect may be found in the type of behavior performed and its associated emotions (Bandura & Walters, 1963). Recall that disinhibited behaviors, such as aggression are typically associated with anxiety or fear of punishment. In other words, most people do not engage in aggressive behavior because the consequences will likely be negative; yet, watching a model engage in aggression without reprisal may lead people to behave more aggressively. In contrast, elicited behaviors such as volunteering or exercising are often considered to be prosocial and unlikely to result in anxiety or punishment.

Rosenbaum and Blake (1955) provided empirical support for the eliciting effect. They hypothesized that observing another student (i.e., model) agree to participate in an experiment would increase the likelihood that the observer would also agree to participate in the experiment. Target students exposed to the model who agreed to volunteer for the experiment were significantly more likely to also volunteer for the experiment than were target students exposed to the model who refused (Rosenbaum & Blake, 1955). It is likely that all of the target students had experience with volunteering in some capacity; however, it is also likely that the majority of these students did not volunteer for experiments regularly. In other words, volunteering was a low probability behavior that increased in the presence of a positive model. Bandura and Walters (1963) therefore contended that the results of this study provide support for the eliciting effect.

Summary

Social learning theory identifies four different effects that a model can have on the behavior of an observer. The modeling effect occurs when individuals learn a new behavior by observing the behavior of another. The disinhibitory effect occurs when individuals perform a previously suppressed behavior because they have observed a model engaging in the behavior without experiencing any negative consequence. The inhibitory effect, in contrast, occurs when individuals decrease the performance of a behavior because they have observed a model experience negative consequences when engaging in the behavior. Finally, the eliciting effect occurs when the behavior of a model increases the performance of a low-frequency behavior.

Although each of the preceding effects may occur independently, there are also situations in which they may occur simultaneously and in different combinations. Our behavior as humans is often complex, and changes as a result of interactions with our environments. In some instances, we also adapt our behavior as a result of experience. The process of social learning is also highly complex and dynamic. Consequently, Bandura’s (1977) theory also addresses the influence that other factors have on the process of social learning, and the degree to which it is successful. The following section outlines those factors.

Processes Influencing Social Learning

Models play an important role in social learning; however, there are other processes that also have a great deal of influence. These processes involve the cognitive and physical aspects of social learning that influence the degree to which it is successful. The four processes are attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation (Bandura, 1977).

Attention

Social learning theory is based on the premise that people cannot successfully learn through observation if they do not pay close attention to the important features of a model’s behavior (Bandura, 1977). Imagine how difficult it would be to learn a complicated dance step, or how to parallel park an automobile, if you were not paying attention when another person demonstrated the proper technique. Research by Bandura and others identified several factors that influence the degree to which people are likely to attend to, and recall, the relevant elements of a model’s behavior. Children are more likely to pay attention to models who can exert some form of control or power over them such as a teacher or parent (e.g., Grusec & Mischel, 1966). People are also more likely to attend to the behavior of models who are more rather than less attractive (e.g., Bandura & Huston, 1961). Attention may also vary based on the reinforcing nature of the model. Children are more apt, for example, to model the behaviors of adults who are warm and nurturing than those of adults who are cold and nonnurturing (Bandura & Huston, 1961). The perceived value of the behavior, and individual differences in the processing of information (Bandura, 1977), can also influence social learning. Attending to the model’s behavior, nonetheless, is only the first step in successful observational learning.

Retention

Once individuals have successfully paid attention to the important elements of a model’s behavior, they must have the ability to remember the behavior accurately enough to perform it during some future situation (Bandura, 1977). In other words, paying close attention to the details of a model’s behavior is futile unless it can be accurately remembered and retrieved from memory. Bandura argued that when people gather information about the behavior of another person through observation, they do not necessarily store an exact replica of the behavior or action in their memories. Instead, individuals store a symbolic representation of the information, which they may then use as a guideline for similar situations in the future.

From the perspective of social learning theory, there are two different representational systems used during the course of observational learning (Bandura, 1977). The first representational system is imaginal. When attempting to recall the behavior of a model, Bandura contended that we are often able to bring to mind an image of that behavior. The image of a modeled behavior becomes especially embedded in memory after an individual is exposed to the behavior repeatedly, and is easily recalled when memories of that behavior are activated. If experienced golfers read or hear the phrase “teeing off,” a majority of them would likely report that they could immediately imagine themselves standing with their feet at shoulder’s width, gripping the club with one hand above the other, lining up the head of the club with the golf ball, pulling the club back over the shoulder, and then swinging through to strike the ball with the club. The imaginal representational system is particularly valuable in the early stages of development, when children have not yet acquired the necessary language skills. It is also quite useful when attempting to perform behaviors that are not easily learned via verbal or written instructions, such as riding a bicycle or knitting a scarf.

The second representational system used in the process of observational learning is verbal. Bandura (1977) contended that many behaviors we learn observationally are stored in our memories as a series of verbal codes. Rather than drawing on the image of oneself hitting a golf ball each time, for example, one could store the procedure as a verbal code: “feet, grip, align, pull back, swing!” Verbally coding the memory of a behavior is comparable to using a form of cognitive “short hand,” which allows us to store and retrieve information quickly and easily.

Evidence suggests that the use of symbolic imagery and verbal codes associated with behaviors enhances the process of observational learning for both children and adults (e.g., Bandura, Grusec, & Menlove, 1966; Bandura & Jeffery, 1973). Additionally, mental or actual rehearsal aids in the retention and retrieval of observationally learned behaviors because the opportunity to perform such behaviors is not always available or appropriate. To illustrate, people may learn the Heimlich maneuver by watching a model perform it during a film or video; however, it would most certainly be inappropriate for people to practice the technique, and therefore strengthen their memories for the task, by grabbing an unsuspecting victim around the midsection while thrusting clenched fists into his or her diaphragm. Instead, people could either rehearse the actions mentally, or they could enroll in a class and practice with their classmates. In either case, they would increase the probability of accurately recalling the proper technique during an emergency.

Motor Reproduction

Once an individual has attended to the important aspects of a model’s behavior, and developed an accurate, retrievable symbolic representation of the behavior, he or she may then attempt to perform the behavior. In order to perform an observationally learned behavior successfully, the individual must possess the necessary motor skills and physical capabilities (Bandura, 1977). Some motor skills and physical capabilities are simply the result of development and maturation. For example, young children must first be physically capable of standing, balancing, and coordinating motor movements before they can successfully ride a two-wheeled bicycle. Other motor skills are the result of experience or practice. Elite figure skaters must first master the basics of ice-skating such as balancing, turning, and stopping before they can successfully learn jumps, spins, or complicated tricks. Consequently, it is possible to pay attention to, and accurately recall, a model’s behavior and yet fail when attempting to do the behavior because one lacks physical ability.

Motivation

The final process that influences observational learning is motivation. There are two issues related to motivation in the process of social learning. First, people are more likely to reproduce the actions of a model if they perceive that they will enjoy a similar outcome or gain a similar reward (Bandura, 1977). If people do not believe that learning the behavior is important, or they do not find the potential reward appealing, then they will not likely be motivated sufficiently to learn the behavior. Thus, a lack of interest could lead to poor attention or retention, which could translate into an intentional failure to learn the modeled behavior.

Second, there are instances in which social learning has occurred, but the observer was not sufficiently motivated to perform the behavior. A child, for example, could learn how to open a complicated cabinet latch by watching his mother. During these observations, the cabinet might contain items that are of little interest to the child such as cans of pet food. Consequently, the child never attempts to open the cabinet and his mother likely believes that he is unable to do so. What if, however, the mother decides to begin storing the child’s favorite candy in the cabinet? He may then decide to open the cabinet latch and help himself to the candy. Bandura (1977) would argue that although the child was capable of opening the cabinet, he was not motivated to do so until it contained an incentive that he desired. The classic work of Tolman and Honzik (1930) and subsequent researchers (e.g., Colwill & Rescorla, 1985), who demonstrated that performance of a newly learned behavior did not occur until the organism was sufficiently motivated to act, supports this contention. Researchers have described this type of learning as latent learning because there is a delay between learning and performance.

Summary

Social learning theory identifies four different processes that affect learning through observation (Bandura, 1977). Attending to the relevant details of a model’s behavior is a critical first step in the process of social learning. It is also important to store those details in memory and have the ability to recall them accurately at an appropriate time in the future. Next, one must possess the physical ability and motor skills to reproduce the behavior. Finally, individual levels of motivation can affect the process of social learning, both in the acquisition of behaviors and their subsequent performance.

The Role of Cognition in Social Learning Theory

Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory and its predecessors (e.g., Miller & Dollard, 1941; Rotter, 1954) share an important feature that sets them apart from the early theories of learning that were based on the principles of operant and classical conditioning. What made these early theories of social learning different is that they considered the role of cognition in the acquisition of new behaviors.

Recall that classical conditioning explains the acquisition of involuntary or reflexive conditioned responses. Pavlov’s dogs did not likely make a conscious effort to begin salivating after hearing the metronome, nor did they have the ability to prevent salivation at will. Instead, salivation became a conditioned reflex after repeated pairings of the buzzer and food. In short, researchers believed that there were no thought processes involved in learning classically conditioned responses.

Also recall that operant conditioning explains the acquisition of voluntary responses, and that changes in behavior result from the delivery of rewards and punishments. In its purest form, researchers originally thought that only external factors influenced operant conditioning (see Skinner, 1953); thinking had no role in learning. Researchers such as Skinner argued that our thoughts are unreliable, subjective, and highly inaccurate; consequently, he believed that a comprehensive explanation of learning should focus only on how environmental factors influence behavior. From this perspective, a child who is repeatedly rewarded with money for cleaning his or her room forms a direct association between the money and the action, without any thoughts about the causal relation between the two variables.

When Bandura began developing his theory of social learning, he was especially interested in the role that thoughts play in the process of learning (e.g., Bandura & Walters, 1963). He disagreed with Skinner’s (1953) view that thought has no role in the process of learning, instead arguing that our thoughts are a critical component in the regulation of our actions (Bandura, 1977). In the previous example, Bandura would argue that after repeatedly rewarding a child for cleaning his or her room, the child does acquire knowledge about the causal relation between the variables. Specifically, the child is able to reliably predict that a clean room will result in a monetary reward. Bandura contended that we think about our past behavior and its consequences, which in turn instructs our future behavior.

More recently, theorists have referred to Bandura’s social learning theory as social cognitive theory, which better reflects the importance of cognitions in the learning process (Bandura, 1986, 1992). Further, researchers have expanded and applied his original work to a diverse range of topics. The final section highlights some of those applications.

Applications of Social Learning Theory

By using a social learning framework, researchers have explained a great number of psychological and social phenomena. Rather than reviewing each of these explanations, the following section includes three diverse examples of how learning through observation can potentially change behavior.

Aggression

Aggression is one of the most widely researched topics in the field of psychology. Many researchers, including Bandura, believe that aggression is a socially learned behavior. Recall that Bandura et al. (1961) demonstrated that young children learned to behave aggressively toward the Bobo doll after watching an adult model punch, kick, and generally abuse the inflatable doll. In a subsequent study, the same researchers demonstrated that young children also learned to behave aggressively toward Bobo after watching a film of an adult modeling aggressive behavior (Bandura et al., 1963). The results of these studies were highly controversial and sparked a debate about the influence of television, films, and other media on children’s development and related behavior that continues today. Researchers, for example, expanded the scope of this original research by demonstrating that viewing violence on television and in films increases violent and aggressive behavior in children (e.g., Josephson, 1987; Leyens, Camino, Parke, & Berkowitz, 1975). More recently, there is also evidence that playing violent video games affects aggressive and delinquent behavior in children (e.g., Irwin & Gross, 1995) and college students (e.g., Anderson & Dill, 2000).

Gender Roles

Gender roles are the patterns of behavior considered appropriate for male and female members of a given culture. In other words, they provide descriptions of how boys and girls are supposed to act. The types of occupations that men and women typically pursue are defined by gender roles. For example, a common gender role for women in our society is “secretary” or “nurse,” whereas a common gender role for men is “construction worker” or “doctor.” As an adult, you may believe that such stereotypes are no longer accurate representations of our culture; but research indicates that children tend to endorse the same gender roles today as they did in the past (e.g., Reid, 1995). Further, these gender-specific occupations often continue to be dominated by the gender with which they are associated. Gender roles also provide information about the characteristics that men and women typically possess. For instance, society typically expects men to be tough and less emotional than women. How do children acquire information about gender roles?

Social learning provides one of the most logical explanations for the acquisition of gender roles. We learn to “act like a man” or “be a lady” from models in our environments, such as our parents, siblings, relatives, and peers (Bandura, 1986; Mischel, 1966). Little boys often mimic their fathers by pretending to shave, pushing a toy lawn mower, or using a plastic hammer. Little girls often mimic their mothers by pretending to apply makeup, pushing a toy baby buggy, or playing dress up. These descriptions may certainly seem stereotypic and outdated, and you can probably come up with a number of examples that dispute them. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence to suggest that young children continue to engage in and endorse many of the same gender roles that were prevalent in the past (e.g., Franken, 1983; Helwig, 1998; Reid, 1995).

Parents or other primary caregivers are some of the first models that young children observe. It is therefore likely that the transmission of gender roles begins early in a child’s life. Research indicates that parents play with male and female children in a different way (Smith & Lloyd, 1978), and that by the age of three most children show distinct preferences for “gender-appropriate” toys, which are most likely provided by parents, among others (e.g., girls prefer dolls, boys prefer toy cars; Huston, 1983). Older siblings may also serve as models for gender roles. In one study, researchers examined the relation between gender role qualities in firstborn and second-born siblings during a three-year period (McHale, Updegraff, Helms-Erikson, & Crouter, 2001). Interestingly, second-born children reported gender role attitudes that were similar to those reported by their firstborn siblings, and these attitudes increased in similarity over time.

The Treatment of Phobias

Recall that some researchers believe that the development of some phobias results from social learning. It occurs when an individual observes another person experience negative consequences after an encounter with a specific object, such as a dog or a spider (e.g., Bandura & Rosenthal, 1966; Berger, 1962). Using the principles of social learning, many researchers have demonstrated that modeling can also reduce or eliminate phobias.

In one study, dog-phobic children between the ages of three and five were assigned to one of three treatment conditions (Bandura & Menlove, 1968). Some children watched a film in which a single peer model interacted with a dog in progressively more intimate ways. Other children watched a film in which various models interacted with many different dogs in progressively more intimate ways. The remaining children watched movies that did not feature any animals. After watching their respective films, children interacted with an actual dog in a series of progressively more intimate tasks. The researchers designed the tasks so that each increase in intimacy was related to an increase in their aversive-ness. In the least intimate task, for example, children approached a playpen in which the dog was confined and simply looked at the dog. In the most intimate task, children climbed into the playpen with the dog and petted its stomach. Children in both modeling conditions demonstrated significant decreases in their dog-avoidance behavior when compared to children in the control condition. Similar studies have also used modeling to reduce phobias related to snakes (e.g., Ritter, 1968), water activities, spiders (e.g., Denney, Sullivan, & Thiry, 1977), and needle injections (e.g., Trijsburg, Jelicic, van den Broek, & Plekker, 1996).

Summary

Social learning occurs when we acquire new behaviors, or increase the performance of previously learned behaviors, after observing the actions of a model. Although Bandura (1977) started developing his theory of social learning more than 35 years ago, his work continues to influence psychologists and their research. Further, he and his colleagues have expanded the original theory to address some of today’s most important issues such as health promotion (Bandura, 2004) and recovery from trauma (Benight & Bandura, 2004).

One of the most important contributions that Bandura made to the field of learning was acknowledging the role of cognition in acquisition and performance of behavior. It seems impossible to understand the process of human learning without taking into consideration the complex nature of our experiences. Our thoughts about an observed behavior largely determine whether we will learn it, or choose to perform the behavior in the future. If we do perform the behavior, our experience with it will then determine whether we choose to do it again.

Researchers have used the principles of social learning theory to explain a variety of psychological and behavioral phenomena, and to improve the quality of human life. Learning through observation pervades nearly every aspect of our existence, and is an integral part of our development and socialization.

References:

1. Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-791.
2. Bandura, A. (1962). Social learning and imitation. In M. R. Jones(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 211-274). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
3. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5. Bandura, A. (1992). Social cognitive theory. In V. Ross (Ed.), Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 1-60). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
6. Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by a social cognitive means. Health Education and Behavior, 31, 143-164.
7. Bandura, A., Blanchard, E. B., & Ritter, B. (1969). Relative efficacy of desensitization and modeling approaches for inducing behavioral, affective, and attitudinal changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 173-199.
8. Bandura, A., Grusec, J. E., & Menlove, F. L. (1966). Observational learning as a function of symbolization and incentive set. Child Development, 26, 499-506.
9. Bandura, A., & Huston, A. C. (1961). Identification as a process of incidental learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 311-318.
10. Bandura, A., & Jeffrey, R. W. (1973). Role of symbolic coding and rehearsal processes in observational learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 122-130.
11. Bandura, A., & Menlove, F. L. (1968). Factors determining vicarious extinction of avoidance behavior through symbolic modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 99-108.
12. Bandura, A., & Rosenthal, T. L. (1966). Vicarious classical conditioning as a function of arousal level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 54-62.
13. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.
14. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3-11.
15. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
16. Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1129-1148.
17. Berger, S. M. (1962). Conditioning through vicarious instigation. Psychological Review, 69, 450-466.
18. Colwill, R. M., & Rescorla, R. A. (1985). Postconditioning devaluation of a reinforcer affects instrumental conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 120-132.
19. Denney, D. R., Sullivan, B. J., & Thiry, M. R. (1977). Participant modeling and self verbalization training in the reduction of spider fears. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 8, 247-253.
20. Dubanoski, R. A., & Parton, D. A. (1971). Effect of the presence of a human model on imitative behavior in children. Developmental Psychology, 4, 463-468.
21. Franken, M. W. (1983). Sex role expectations in children’s vocational aspirations and perceptions of occupations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 59-68.
22. Grusec, J., & Mischel, W. (1966). Model’s characteristics as determinants of social learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 211-215.
23. Helwig, A. A. (1998). Gender-role stereotyping: Testing theory with a longitudinal sample. Sex Roles, 38, 403-423.
24. Irwin, A. R., & Gross, A. M. (1995). Cognitive tempo, violent video games, and aggressive behavior in young boys. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 337-350.
25. Josephson, W. L. (1987). Television violence and children’s aggression: Testing the priming, social script, and disinhibition predictions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 882-890.
26. Leyens, J. P., Camino, L., Parke, R. D., & Berkowitz, L. (1975). Effects of movie violence on aggression in a field setting as a function of group dominance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 346-360.
27. Lovaas, O. I. (1961). Effect of exposure to symbolic aggression on aggressive behavior. Child Development, 32, 37-44.
28. McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Helms-Erikson, H., & Crouter,A. C. (2001). Sibling influences on gender development in middle childhood and early adolescence: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 37, 115-125.
29. Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30. Mischel, W. (1966). A social learning view of sex differences in behavior. In E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
31. Reid, G. M. (1995). Children’s occupational sex-role stereotyping in 1994. Psychological Reports, 76, 1155-1165.
32. Ritter, B. (1968). The group desensitization of children’s snake phobias using vicarious and contact desensitization procedures. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 6, 1-6.
33. Rosekrans, M. A., & Hartup, W. W. (1967). Imitative influences of consistent and inconsistent response consequences to a model on aggressive behavior in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 429-434.
34. Rosenbaum, M., & Blake, R. R. (1955). Volunteering as a function of field structure. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 50, 193-196.
35. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
37. Smith, C., & Lloyd, B. (1978). Maternal behavior and perceived sex of infant: Revisited. Child Development, 49, 1263-1265.
38. Tolman, E. C., & Honzik, C. H. (1930). Introduction and removal of reward, and maze performance in rats. University of California Publications in Psychology, 4, 257-275.
39. Trijsburg, R. W., Jelicic, M., van den Broek, W. W., & Plekker, A. E. M. (1996). Exposure and participant modeling in a case of injection phobia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65, 57-61.

See also:

• Psychology Research Paper Topics
•  Psychology Research Paper Examples

Free research papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to order a custom research paper on any topic and get your high quality paper at affordable price.