Social Cognitive Theory

When writing about social cognitive theory, the following concepts should be explained:

Attention, retention, motivation, potential:  The cognitive "mediating processes" that Bandura argued play a role in whether we will imitate a model or not. The individual needs to pay attention to the behavior and its consequences and form a mental representation of the behavior. It is important that a memory of the behavior is formed to be performed later by the observer. There has to be the desire to imitate the behaviour - as well as the ability to do so.

Factors influencing imitation: In addition to the four key mediating processes, there are other factors that may affect whether we imitate a model.  These include whether the model is a member of our in-group, whether we like the model, whether we like the reward that the model received, and whether the model's behaviour is consistent over time.

Self-efficacy: a person's belief in his or her ability to succeed in a particular situation.

Social learning:  Learning through the observation of the behaviours of others.

Vicarious reinforcement: When a learner observes someone they identify with and the role model receives a reward, the learner is motivated to imitate the behaviour as if they had been rewarded themselves.  This is also the case with vicarious punishment.

Bandura Et al

Aim: To investigate whether children will imitate aggressive behaviour in settings other than the one in which they witnessed aggression

Procedure:

Phase 1: \n Children taken to a room and encouraged to play \n The model was then escorted to the opposite side of the room \n \n Aggressive condition: model started to behave aggressively towards the bobo doll, saying aggressive phrases such as "Kick him" \n Non-aggressive condition: model ignored bobo doll and played with tinker toys \n \n Phase 2: \n Children subjected to mild aggression arousal. Could only play with toys for 2 minutes, room reserved for other children. This measured pre-requisites for aggression \n \n Phase 3: \n Children were led to a room with aggressive and non-aggressive toys. For 20 minutes, observers recorded: \n Imitative behaviour of aggressive model: \n (physical and verbal aggression, and non-aggressive speech) \n Partially imitated behaviour: participant hit other things, laid bobo on its side but wasn't aggressive towards it \n Non-imitative aggressive behaviour: physical and verbal aggressive behaviour that wasn't done by the model

Findings:Boys most likely to imitate physical aggression with male model (mean score 25.8) \n Girls most likely to imitate verbal aggression with female model (mean score 13.7) \n Children in the aggressive model groups made more imitative aggressive responses than those in the non-aggressive and control groups \n Same-sex model effect \n Aggression shown in the control group despite not having a model

Strengths:Reliable \n Valid \n Useful real world applications

Findings:Ethical issues \n Ecological validity

Kimball 1986

Aim: if exposure to "normal television viewing" would lead to a change in the level of gender stereotyping in a Northern Canadian community.

Procedure:

  • Conducted in three small towns (all of the similar socioeconomic standing, similar population, culture, etc) in British Columbia, Canada, first in 1973
  • One town called No=tel did not yet have a television reception   Studied before and after No-tel got TV channels
  • They measured children's aggression levels in all three groups
  • Teachers and peer ratings of aggressive behavior and information about television viewing habits were collected
  • Two years later the children retook the same measures of aggression & The researchers also took measures of aggression from new 2nd graders

Findings: Significant increase in aggression with both the 2nd and 4th-grade students in No-Tel. Whereas, the aggressive behavior did not change significantly for the two towns. The ratings supported the findings. \n It is likely to be caused by heightened arousal, resulting from No-tel children's lack of familiarity with television. \n Resulting in greater likelihood of aggression.

Strengths: high ecological validity; applicable in real-life

Limitations:

  1. lack of control over the time each child watches
  2. potential research bias through participant observation during recess
  3. ethics; questionable whether parents actually gave consent

When evaluating Social Cognitive Theory, you may consider the following points:

  • The theory can be applied to explain a lot of different behaviours. The theory has high heuristic validity.
  • The theory is difficult to test under naturalistic conditions where it is difficult to control for extraneous variables.
  • There are several constructs that are difficult to measure - for example, motivation, self-efficacy, and one's level of attention.
  • The theory has a strong bias toward the "nurture" side of the argument.  Today psychologists would argue that social learning interacts with our physiology, leading to behaviour.  On its own, social learning cannot explain individual differences.
  • Bandura proposed several variables that may increase the likelihood that a behaviour will be imitated.  This increases the predictive power of the theory.
  • There is biological support for the theory. Modern biological research indicates that mirror neurons may play an important role in learning.