The individual and the group—social cognitive theory

Social cognitive learning theory was developed by Albert Bandura. It suggests that behavior is learned from the environment through the processes of modeling and reinforcement. Modeling involves learning through the observation of other people, which may lead to imitation if the behaviour is to be imitated and leads to desirable consequences. Sometimes the model is trying to have a direct effect on the learner, but often models serve as indirect models, in that they are not trying to influence behaviour. We do not need positive reinforcement to continue the behaviour. There are several factors that affect the overall potential for social learning such as the model stands out in contrast to other models, the model's behaviour must be consistent, the model is liked and respected by the observer; and the observer perceives a similarity between themself and the model (member of in-group) and that the model’s behaviour is reinforced. According to Bandura, social cognitive learning involves cognitive factors such as attention, retention, motivation, and potential. Motivation depends on other factors, such as consistency, identification with the model, and liking the model.

 Bandura et al. conducted a study that supported modeling and the factors that affect modeling in the Social Cognitive Theory. The study was an experiment that had two aims. First, the researchers wanted to see if children would imitate aggression modeled by an adult; and second, they wanted to know if children were more likely to imitate same-sex models. Children were divided into groups that were matched regarding aggression based on an evaluation by their nursery school teachers. One group was exposed to adult models who showed aggression by either bashing an inflatable “Bobo” doll or using verbal aggression toward the Bobo; a second group observed a non-aggressive adult who assembled toys, and a third group served as a control and did not see any model. In the first and second groups, some children watched same-sex models, and some watched opposite-sex models. After watching the models, the children were placed in a room with toys.

The results showed that the children who had observed the aggressive models were significantly more aggressive—both physically and verbally. Concerning the second aim, Bandura observed that girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression, whereas boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression. The children also were more likely to imitate the same-sex adult. The study concluded that it seems there is a behavioral effect from observing aggressive behavior and that this behavior continues after a delay. Hence, the study showed support for the SCT, as the children imitated the model’s behaviour when they related to the model and perceived that they were part of the in-group of the same sex. The children also copied modeled behavior, and hence the results show the existence of the SCT.

However, the study lacked ecological validity, as it was conducted in a laboratory. The aggression modeled by the adult was not completely standardized, meaning that the children may have observed slight differences in the aggression displayed. Also, despite the attempt to match the participants with regard to aggression, it was based on observations from teachers and parents, and this may not have been completely accurate. There is also the question of demand characteristics: the children may have acted aggressively because they thought it would please the researcher. The sample size was tiny. In addition, these were all children of people working at Stanford University. It is difficult to generalize from such a sample. There is the ethical consideration of using young children in such an experiment. Observing adult strangers act in such a violent manner might frighten children. The children were subjected to undue stress, and they could continue on with their aggressive behaviour in other situations as well.

Another study that provided support for the SCT was conducted by Joy, Kimball, and Zabrack. They conducted an experiment that aimed to investigate the impact of television on children’s aggressive behaviour. The psychologists observed both physical and verbally aggressive behaviour displayed by elementary school children in three different towns on the playground. One town had received television recently, but the other two had it for a longer time. In addition, teacher and peer ratings of aggressive behaviour and information about television viewing habits were obtained.

The results showed that the aggressive behavior of children in the town with the newly introduced TV increased significantly, whereas the aggressive behavior of children in the other two towns did not change significantly over the same period. Males were more physically aggressive than females. The most probable explanation for the increased aggression in children was heightened arousal, resulting from the children's lack of familiarity with television. Heightened arousal would cause a greater likelihood of aggression.

Thus, this reflects social cognitive theory. The children appear to have developed aggressive behaviors by watching television.  As the researchers noted, part of this was the thrill of having a television‌. They were aroused by watching the television. Hence, the study provided support for the SCT, as the children were aroused into aggression by the models that they watched on television.

Another study conducted by Charlton et al used an experiment to investigate the effect of introducing television on aggression in children as well. The behavior of children was observed before and after introducing television.

There was no increase in antisocial behavior among the children of St Helena. The good behavior clear before the arrival of television had been maintained even after five years of exposure to violent television.

The difference in the results of the two studies could be because the British television station may have presented models which the children could not identify with. The people on television were white, middle/upper class, and British. A second potential explanation is that the children did not have a feeling of self-efficacy, they did not feel that they could behave in the same way as they saw on television. Although the behaviors ended up being different in the two studies, the social cognitive theory explains why the children behaved as they did. Television does not lead to violence - but there are a set of factors that play an important role in whether a child will imitate what they see. Hence, both these studies though having different results, provide evidence for modeling being a part of the SCT.

Both these studies shared similar limitations and advantages. Both were natural experiments. This means that they had high ecological validity - carried out under natural conditions.  However, it also means that internal validity was low.  There are several uncontrolled variables in these studies. Levels of aggression were measured by the researchers by using a checklist.  The researchers worked in teams - using researched triangulation - in order to improve the reliability of the ratings. The comments given by parents and teachers were also used to confirm the level of aggression - in other words; they used data triangulation. One problem with natural experiments is that they are difficult to replicate - making it difficult to establish the reliability of the findings. It also makes it difficult to generalize the findings. Both studies used a pretest/posttest design, allowing researchers to observe change.  As the studies were poorly controlled, it is not really possible to determine a cause-and-effect relationship.