Social learning theory

Assumptions

• Bridge between behaviourist & cognitive approach

• People are shaped by their environment through observational learning processes

• We observe the behaviour of role models, identify with them & imitate their behaviour

• Whether we imitate an observed behaviour depends on the observed consequences (vicarious reinforcement)

• Meditational processes stimulate between stimulus & response & play a role in learning

Identification

When an observer associates themselves with a role model & wants to be like them

Imitation

Copying the behaviours of others

Vicarious reinforcement

Process where an individuals behaviour is influenced by observing the consequences of another person’s actions

Modelling (from observer’s POV)

Imitating the behaviour of a role model

Modelling (from role model’s POV)

Precise demonstration of a specific behaviour that may be imitated by observer

Live model

Role model physically present in the environment eg mother, teacher

Symbolic model

Role models that aren’t physically present in the environment eg tv/book character

When are we more likely to imitate a role model’s behaviour?

• If they’re the same sex as us

• If they’re the same age/similar in age to us

• If they’re likeable/attractive

• If they’re of high status/fame

Mediational processes

Mental processes that occur between stimulus & response that influence our behaviour (ARMM)

Attention

Noticing the behaviour when it’s modelled

Retention

Storing the observed behaviour in long-term memory

Motor reproduction

Imitating the behaviour

Motivation

Considering whether we want to reproduce the behaviour depending on vicarious reinforcement

Who carried out the Bobo Doll Experiment?

Albert Bandura

Bobo Doll aim AO1

To demonstrate observational or imitative learning in young children

Bobo Doll method AO1

• One group of children put in a room with an adult acting aggressively towards bobo doll (hitting it with hammer & shouting abuse)

• Second group of children put in a room with an adult acting non-aggressively towards bobo doll

• Each child then put into playroom containing bobo doll & hammer & recorded number of aggressive behaviours made towards doll

Bobo Doll findings AO1

• Children who observed aggressive model behaved more aggressively than the children who observed the non-aggressive model

• Boys showed more aggression particularly when observing same-sex model

What was the conclusion of the Bobo Doll Experiment?

• Agression can be observationally learned from others

Strength of the Bobo Doll Experiment

• P - high control over variables due to lab setting

• E - allows more insight as we can manipulate environment & see its impact

• T - can be sure of causation & replicable

Limitations of the Bobo Doll Experiment

• P - lacks ecologhical validity

• E - took place in a lab setting

• T - not reflective of everyday life so children may not react like this outside of experiment

• P - ethical issues due to exposure of aggression at a young age

• P - questions if it was actual aggression or harmless play as dolls were designed to be hit

Strengths of the social learning approach

• P - lab setting

• E - Bandura’s Bobo doll study used standardised procedures to investigate imitation and observational learning in children. All participants were exposed to the same model behaviour, either aggressive or non-aggressive, and were observed in similar conditions. Variables such as the behaviour of the model and the toys available were carefully controlled. In addition, the children’s aggressive behaviours were systematically recorded using behavioural categories, increasing objectivity. These controlled procedures reduced extraneous variables and increased internal validity because researchers could be more confident that differences in aggression were caused by observing the model rather than outside influences. The standardised methods also improve reliability because the studies can be replicated to check for consistent findings.

• T - reliance on lab settings increases the validity of findings and the scientific credibility of the social learning approach

• P - less deterministic 

• E - unlike strict behaviourist theories, which assume individuals automatically respond to environmental stimuli through conditioning, SLT acknowledges the role of mediational processes such as attention, retention, motivation, and decision-making. Bandura emphasised reciprocal determinism, where behaviour is influenced by both environmental factors and personal agency. This means individuals are not passive recipients of observed behaviour; instead, they actively choose whether to imitate a model depending on factors like expected rewards or identification with the model.

• T - more interactionist form of determinism as it acknowledges some degree of free will. This contrast other hard deterministic approaches such as the behaviorist and biological approach

• P - practical applications

• E - watershed is where content unsuitable for children is restricted before 9pm. It uses the SLT theory that behaviour is learnt through observation & imitation of others as it aims to limit children’s exposure to potentially harmful content, such as violence or explicit material, which could be imitated and negatively affect behaviour. Furthermore, a new watershed has been introduced to restrict adverts for unhealthy food/drink before 9pm, which aims to reduce obesity as 1/3 children are obese in the UK by the time they leave primary school.

• T - economic implications such as reducing obesity, which reduces the strain on the NHS for conditions like type 2 diabetes and heart diseases.

Limitations of the social learning approach

• P - arguably reductionist

• E - reduces complex phenomenon of human behaviour down to simple processes of observing and imitating role models. While Bandura’s Bobo doll study demonstrated that children who observed aggressive adult models were more likely to imitate that aggression, the study focused almost exclusively on environmental influences, ignoring important biological, emotional, and cognitive factors that also contribute to aggressive behaviour. For example, in Bandura’s findings, boys imitated more aggression than girls, even when they observed the same model. This sex difference suggests that biological factors such as testosterone may play a significant role, yet SLT does not account for this. SLT oversimplifies behaviour and fails to consider how innate predispositions, emotional regulation, temperament, or genetic influences might interact with observational learning.

• T - SLT offers only a partial explanation of human behaviour - perhaps a more holistic approach that integrates biological, cognitive, and environmental factors would provide a more complete and realistic understanding of how behaviours occur.