Social Cognitive theory- Discover 4 Insightful Process in Observational Learning

Introduction

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), originally known as Social Learning Theory (SLT), was developed by Albert Bandura in the 1960s. Bandura, born in Alberta, Canada, made important contributions to psychology, including being elected president of the American Psychological Association and receiving the American Psychological Foundation’s Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement.

His theory provides a comprehensive understanding of how people acquire knowledge, beliefs, and behaviours through the observation of others, and it stresses the importance of cognitive processes in shaping human functioning.

Read More- Observational Learning

Modelling

Central to Bandura’s theory is the concept of modelling, which refers to the process of learning through observing and imitating the behaviour of others. Modelling serves as the foundation of observational learning, where individuals observe models (other people) performing certain actions, process the information cognitively, and later replicate the observed behaviour.

Modelling is a behaviour modification technique that relies on participants observing and then participating in the desired behaviours. Bandura’s theory challenged traditional behaviourist views that learning only occurs through direct reinforcement, demonstrating that observational learning plays a significant role in shaping human behaviour.

The Bobo Doll Experiment

The Bobo doll experiment was designed with a sample of 72 children (36 boys and 36 girls) aged between 3 and 6 years, all from the Stanford University Nursery School. The children were divided into three groups-

1. The Aggressive Model Group– This group observed an adult (the model) acting aggressively toward a 5-foot inflatable clown doll called Bobo. The model hit, punched, kicked, and even used a mallet to strike the doll. The model also made verbal statements of aggression, such as “Sock him in the nose!” and “Kick him!”
2. The Non-Aggressive Model Group– In this condition, the children observed the same adult model interacting peacefully with toys and ignoring Bobo. The model played quietly with toys, showing no aggressive behaviour whatsoever.
3. The Control Group– This group of children had no exposure to any models or adult behaviour prior to being left in the room with the Bobo doll. They simply played with the toys in the room without observing any adult behaviour.

Observing the Aggressive Behaviour

Each child from the experimental groups was first brought into a room to observe the behaviour of the adult model. The adult either demonstrated aggressive behaviour toward the Bobo doll (in the aggressive model group) or non-aggressive behaviour (in the non-aggressive model group). The children were seated in a corner of the room, observing the model’s interactions, but were not encouraged to interact with the adult or the doll at that stage.

Afterward, the children were moved to a new room filled with an array of toys, including the same Bobo doll, as well as other objects such as a mallet, toy guns, and other non-aggressive toys like a tea set and dolls. However, to induce mild frustration (which is often believed to provoke aggression), the children were told they could not play with the “best” toys, which were quickly taken away.

Then, the experimenters observed the children through a one-way mirror to see how they interacted with the remaining toys, including the Bobo doll.

Findings- Aggressive Behaviour Mimicked

The results of the Bobo doll experiment were striking and supported Bandura’s hypothesis:

• Imitation of Aggression– The children who observed the aggressive model were significantly more likely to imitate the specific aggressive behaviours they had witnessed. Some children even verbalized the same aggressive statements, like “Sock him in the nose!”
• Novel Aggressive Acts– Interestingly, the children who had observed the aggressive model also demonstrated new forms of aggression that were not directly observed in the model’s actions. For instance, children used toy guns to shoot the doll, even though the adult model did not use a gun during the demonstration.
• Non-Aggressive and Control Group Results– Children in the non-aggressive model group and the control group were significantly less aggressive than the children in the aggressive model group.

Finding of the Experiment

Impact of Gender on Aggression

Another key aspect of the study was the role of gender in modelling behaviour. Bandura and his colleagues found that the children were more likely to imitate same-sex models. Boys, for instance, were more likely to imitate aggressive behaviours exhibited by male models, while girls were somewhat more likely to imitate female models. However, both boys and girls exhibited aggressive behaviours after watching an aggressive model, though boys generally showed higher levels of physical aggression than girls.

Significance and Implications of the Findings

The findings of the Bobo doll experiment were groundbreaking for several reasons:

1. Observational Learning– The experiment provided robust evidence that learning could occur purely through observation, without the need for reinforcement or punishment. This was a significant departure from the behaviourist models of learning dominant at the time, which posited that behaviours were shaped solely through direct interactions with the environment.
2. Learning Aggression Without Reinforcement– Children not only imitated aggressive behaviours, but they did so without being rewarded or reinforced for those behaviours. This demonstrated that individuals can learn complex social behaviours like aggression through indirect experience, simply by observing others.
3. Impact of Media and Violence– The results raised concerns about the impact of media on children’s behaviour, particularly the portrayal of violence on television and in films. Since children in the experiment were just as likely to mimic aggression from filmed and cartoon models, Bandura’s research has had a lasting influence on the debate over how violent content in the media affects children and adolescents. This issue remains highly relevant in today’s discussions about violent video games, films, and online content.
4. Gender and Social Influence:-The gender differences observed in the experiment offered insights into how societal norms about gender roles influence the way children learn and express aggression. The finding that boys were more likely to imitate male models and engage in physical aggression, while girls were somewhat more restrained in their aggression, pointed to the role of cultural and gender expectations in shaping behaviour.

Characteristics of the Models

The model’s characteristics can significantly affect whether an observer chooses to imitate their behaviour. Bandura’s research demonstrated that observers are more likely to imitate models who share similarities with them or possess certain qualities that make them influential or admirable.

1. Models Who Are Like Us– Individuals are more likely to imitate someone who they perceive to be similar to them in important ways. In real life, this might manifest as children imitating parents, siblings, or peers.
2. Age and Sex of Models– People are generally more inclined to imitate individuals who are of the same sex or similar in age.
3. Status of Models– Models who are perceived as having high social or professional status, or who possess traits associated with prestige, are more likely to be imitated.
4. Type of Behaviour Displayed by Models– Simple behaviours are more readily imitated than complex ones, as they are easier to replicate. However, hostile and aggressive behaviours have been shown to be particularly potent in eliciting imitation.

Characteristics of the Observers

In addition to the model’s characteristics, the attributes of the observers themselves are crucial in determining whether or not they will imitate the observed behaviours.

1. Age of Observers– In infancy, the capacity to imitate is limited to immediate imitation. By the age of two they imitate behaviours after a delay. As children grow older, their motivations for imitation become more complex. For example, younger children are more likely to imitate behaviours that result in physical rewards, such as food or affection, whereas older children begin to associate social rewards—such as approval from peers or adults—with behaviours, and these social rewards become increasingly important in guiding imitation.
2. Self-Confidence and Self-Esteem– People who are low in self-confidence or self-esteem are more likely to imitate others. Conversely, people who are high in self-confidence are less likely to rely on models. For example, a child who has been praised for imitating an older sibling is more likely to continue modelling their sibling’s behaviour.

The Processes of Observational Learning

Process of Observational Learning

Bandura’s four processes of observational learning are-

1. Attentional Processes– Learning through observation cannot occur unless the observer pays attention to the model. The observer’s cognitive abilities, perceptual skills, and motivation influence the extent to which attention is focused on the model. Bandura (1986) emphasized that observers tend to pay greater attention to models when the modelled behaviour is personally relevant or if it yields significant consequences. Additionally, models that are perceived as competent, attractive, or similar to the observer tend to capture more attention.
2. Retention Processes– To learn through observation, the observer must retain information about the model’s behaviour. This involves encoding the behaviour symbolically in memory. Bandura identified two primary systems for retaining observed behaviour- the imaginal system (creating vivid mental images of the behaviour) and the verbal system (mentally rehearsing verbal descriptions of the behaviour). The retention process ensures that the observed behaviour can be recalled and imitated at a later time.
3. Production Processes– Observing and retaining information about a behaviour does not guarantee the ability to perform it. The observer must translate the retained symbols (images or verbal codes) into overt behaviour. This process often involves practice and feedback. For example, a person learning to drive may observe a model, encode the actions mentally, but still require considerable practice to translate these mental images into skilled driving behaviours.
4. Incentive and Motivational Processes– Finally, observational learning is influenced by the motivation to perform the behaviour. Even if a person has attended to and retained the behaviour, they will not necessarily imitate it without the proper incentives. Incentives can be external (e.g., rewards, praise) or internal (e.g., self-satisfaction, self-reinforcement). Bandura (1977) emphasized that reinforcement, while not necessary for learning, plays a crucial role in motivating individuals to act.

Self-Reinforcement and Self-Efficacy

Two important concepts in SCT are self-reinforcement and self-efficacy. Self-reinforcement refers to an individual’s ability to reward themselves after achieving a goal or meeting a standard. For example, a person might reward themselves with a treat after completing a challenging task. This ability to self-reinforce fosters independence and self-regulation.

Research on Self Efficacy

Self-efficacy, perhaps one of the most central ideas in Bandura’s theory, refers to an individual’s belief in their capacity to succeed in specific situations. People with high self-efficacy are more likely to take on difficult tasks and persevere in the face of challenges. In contrast, those with low self-efficacy are more likely to give up when confronted with adversity.

Bandura (1997) identified four sources of self-efficacy-

1. Mastery Experiences– Successes build self-efficacy, while repeated failures undermine it.
2. Vicarious Experiences– Observing others succeed at a task can strengthen belief in one’s own abilities.
3. Verbal Persuasion– Encouragement from others can boost self-efficacy, particularly when combined with performance feedback.
4. Emotional Arousal– Positive emotions and a calm mental state are conducive to building self-efficacy, while anxiety and stress can weaken it.

Bandura’s Perspective on Personality

Albert Bandura’s perspective on personality, central to his social cognitive theory, emphasizes the dynamic interplay between cognitive processes, social influences, and behaviour. Rather than focusing solely on external reinforcement, as behaviourists like B.F. Skinner did, Bandura argued that people learn and shape their personalities through observational learning, self-efficacy, and reciprocal determinism.

• Reciprocal Determinism– personality is shaped through the continuous interaction between behaviour, personal factors (such as cognitive processes), and environmental influences. Bandura argued that personal beliefs and behaviours also influence the environment. For example, a student’s belief in their academic abilities can affect their performance, which then influences how others, like teachers, interact with them.






• Self-Efficacy– People with high self-efficacy are more likely to take on challenges, persist through difficulties, and ultimately shape more adaptive personality traits. In contrast, those with low self-efficacy may avoid difficult tasks and experience feelings of helplessness, which can lead to more negative personality patterns. For instance, a student with high self-efficacy in math is likely to study more, persist through challenges, and succeed, reinforcing their belief in their abilities and contributing to a more resilient personality.
• Observational Learning– This concept underscores the importance of social influence in personality development, suggesting that individuals, especially children, model behaviours from those around them—whether parents, peers, or media figures. Over time, these observed behaviours become integrated into an individual’s personality.

Research on Bandura’s Theory

Research on Bandura’s Theory

Criticism to the Social Cognitive Perspective

While Bandura’s social cognitive theory has been highly influential, it has also been criticized for certain limitations.

1. Overemphasis on Cognitive Processes– overemphasize cognitive processes, downplaying the role of emotions and unconscious influences on behaviour. Critics from psychoanalytic traditions, for example, argue that personality is significantly shaped by unconscious drives and deep emotional experiences, which are not adequately addressed in Bandura’s focus on cognitive factors.
2. Neglect of Biological Factors– Research in behavioural genetics suggests that many personality traits, such as extraversion or neuroticism, have a genetic basis. Bandura’s focus on observational learning and environmental factors may limit the theory’s ability to explain inherent predispositions or temperament traits.
3. Limited Explanation of Psychopathology– Critics argue that it does not fully explain the emotional and unconscious factors that contribute to mental health issues, which theories like psychoanalysis or cognitive-behavioural models often explore in more depth.
4. Underestimation of Emotional Forces– Bandura’s theory also tends to downplay the influence of emotions and motivational drives in personality development. Emotional experiences, such as trauma or intense stress, can have lasting effects on personality that are not fully accounted for by cognitive or observational learning alone.

Conclusion

Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory remains one of the most influential frameworks in psychology. His research on observational learning, modelling, and self-efficacy has deepened our understanding of how individuals acquire behaviours and how personal beliefs shape behaviour. Bandura’s work has not only had a significant impact on theoretical psychology but has also informed practical applications in therapy, education, and media literacy. As technology and media continue to evolve, Bandura’s insights into the power of modelling and media influence remain profoundly relevant.

References

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behaviour: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12(5), 353-359.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575-582.

DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Self-efficacy and the addictive behaviours. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 302-315.

Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Social cognitive theory. In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behaviour (pp. 127-169). Open University Press.

Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behaviour modification: An integrative approach. Springer Publishing.

Rushton, J. P., & Teachman, G. (1978). The effects of positive modelling and self-criticism on children’s generosity. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17(4), 329-331.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. Springer-Verlag.

Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1978). Theories of Personality (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2017). Theories of Personality (11th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.