You are on page 1of 18

Social Learning Theory (A.

Bandura)
Overview:
The social learning theory of Bandura emphasizes the importance of observing and
modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others. Bandura (1977)
states: "Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people
had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do.
Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from
observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later
occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action." (p22). Social learning
theory explains human behavior in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between
cognitive, behavioral, an environmental influences. The component processes underlying
observational learning are: (1) Attention, including modeled events (distinctiveness,
affective valence, complexity, prevalence, functional value) and observer characteristics
(sensory capacities, arousal level, perceptual set, past reinforcement), (2) Retention,
including symbolic coding, cognitive organization, symbolic rehearsal, motor rehearsal),
(3) Motor Reproduction, including physical capabilities, self-observation of reproduction,
accuracy of feedback, and (4) Motivation, including external, vicarious and self
reinforcement.
Because it encompasses attention, memory and motivation, social learning theory spans
both cognitive and behavioral frameworks. Bandura's theory improves upon the strictly
behavioral interpretation of modeling provided by Miller & Dollard (1941). Banduras
work is related to the theories of Vygotsky and Lave which also emphasize the central
role of social learning.
Scope/Application:
Social learning theory has been applied extensively to the understanding of aggression
(Bandura, 1973) and psychological disorders, particularly in the context of behavior
modification (Bandura, 1969). It is also the theoretical foundation for the technique of
behavior modeling which is widely used in training programs. In recent years, Bandura
has focused his work on the concept of self-efficacy in a variety of contexts (e.g.,
Bandura, 1997).
Example:
The most common (and pervasive) examples of social learning situations are television
commercials. Commercials suggest that drinking a certain beverage or using a particular
hair shampoo will make us popular and win the admiration of attractive people.
Depending upon the component processes involved (such as attention or motivation), we
may model the behavior shown in the commercial and buy the product being advertised.

Principles:

1. The highest level of observational learning is achieved by first organizing and


rehearsing the modeled behavior symbolically and then enacting it overtly. Coding
modeled behavior into words, labels or images results in better retention than simply
observing.
2. Individuals are more likely to adopt a modeled behavior if it results in outcomes they
value.
3. Individuals are more likely to adopt a modeled behavior if the model is similar to the
observer and has admired status and the behavior has functional value.
References:
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Bandura, A. & Walters, R. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Miller, N. & Dollard, J. (1941). Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven, NJ: Yale
University Press.
Other
descriptions
of
Banduras
work
can
be
http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/bandura.htm
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/bandura.html

ALBERT BANDURA
1925 - present
Dr. C. George Boeree

Biography

found

at:

Albert Bandura was born December 4, 1925, in the small town of Mundare in northern
Alberta, Canada. He was educated in a small elementary school and high school in one,
with minimal resources, yet a remarkable success rate. After high school, he worked for
one summer filling holes on the Alaska Highway in the Yukon.
He received his bachelors degree in Psychology from the
University of British Columbia in 1949. He went on to the
University of Iowa, where he received his Ph.D. in 1952. It was
there that he came under the influence of the behaviorist tradition
and learning theory.
While at Iowa, he met Virginia Varns, an instructor in the nursing
school. They married and later had two daughters. After
graduating, he took a postdoctoral position at the Wichita
Guidance Center in Wichita, Kansas.
In 1953, he started teaching at Stanford University. While there,
he collaborated with his first graduate student, Richard Walters,
resulting in their first book, Adolescent Aggression, in 1959.
Bandura was president of the APA in 1973, and received the APAs Award for
Distinguished Scientific Contributions in 1980. He continues to work at Stanford to this
day.

Theory
Behaviorism, with its emphasis on experimental methods, focuses on variables we can
observe, measure, and manipulate, and avoids whatever is subjective, internal, and
unavailable -- i.e. mental. In the experimental method, the standard procedure is to
manipulate one variable, and then measure its effects on another. All this boils down to a
theory of personality that says that ones environment causes ones behavior.
Bandura found this a bit too simplistic for the phenomena he was observing -- aggression
in adolescents -- and so decided to add a little something to the formula: He suggested
that environment causes behavior, true; but behavior causes environment as well. He
labeled this concept reciprocal determinism: The world and a persons behavior cause
each other.
Later, he went a step further. He began to look at personality as an interaction among
three things: the environment, behavior, and the persons psychological processes.
These psychological processes consist of our ability to entertain images in our minds, and
language. At the point where he introduces imagery, in particular, he ceases to be a strict
behaviorist, and begins to join the ranks of the cognitivists. In fact, he is often considered
a father of the cognitivist movement!

Adding imagery and language to the mix allows Bandura to theorize much more
effectively than someone like, say, B. F. Skinner, about two things that many people
would consider the strong suit of the human species: observational learning (modeling)
and self-regulation.
Observational learning or modeling
Of the hundreds of studies Bandura was responsible for, one group stands out above the
others -- the bobo doll studies. He made of film of one of his students, a young woman,
essentially beating up a bobo doll. In case you dont know, a bobo doll is an inflatable,
egg-shape balloon creature with a weight in the bottom that makes it bob back up when
you knock him down. Nowadays, it might have Darth Vader painted on it, but back then
it was simply Bobo the clown.
The woman punched the clown, shouting sockeroo! She kicked it, sat on it, hit with a
little hammer, and so on, shouting various aggressive phrases. Bandura showed his film
to groups of kindergartners who, as you might predict, liked it a lot. They then were let
out to play. In the play room, of course, were several observers with pens and clipboards
in hand, a brand new bobo doll, and a few little hammers.
And you might predict as well what the observers recorded: A lot of little kids beating
the daylights out of the bobo doll. They punched it and shouted sockeroo, kicked it, sat
on it, hit it with the little hammers, and so on. In other words, they imitated the young
lady in the film, and quite precisely at that.
This might seem like a real nothing of an experiment at first, but consider: These
children changed their behavior without first being rewarded for approximations to that
behavior! And while that may not seem extraordinary to the average parent, teacher, or
casual observer of children, it didnt fit so well with standard behavioristic learning
theory. He called the phenomenon observational learning or modeling, and his theory is
usually called social learning theory.
Bandura did a large number of variations on the study: The model was rewarded or
punished in a variety of ways, the kids were rewarded for their imitations, the model was
changed to be less attractive or less prestigious, and so on. Responding to criticism that
bobo dolls were supposed to be hit, he even did a film of the young woman beating up a
live clown. When the children went into the other room, what should they find there but
-- the live clown! They proceeded to punch him, kick him, hit him with little hammers,
and so on.
All these variations allowed Bandura to establish that there were certain steps involved in
the modeling process:
1. Attention. If you are going to learn anything, you have to be paying attention.
Likewise, anything that puts a damper on attention is going to decrease learning,
including observational learning. If, for example, you are sleepy, groggy, drugged, sick,
nervous, or hyper, you will learn less well. Likewise, if you are being distracted by
competing stimuli.

Some of the things that influence attention involve characteristics of the model. If the
model is colorful and dramatic, for example, we pay more attention. If the model is
attractive, or prestigious, or appears to be particularly competent, you will pay more
attention. And if the model seems more like yourself, you pay more attention. These
kinds of variables directed Bandura towards an examination of television and its effects
on kids!
2. Retention. Second, you must be able to retain -- remember -- what you have paid
attention to. This is where imagery and language come in: we store what we have seen
the model doing in the form of mental images or verbal descriptions. When so stored,
you can later bring up the image or description, so that you can reproduce it with your
own behavior.
3. Reproduction. At this point, youre just sitting there daydreaming. You have to
translate the images or descriptions into actual behavior. So you have to have the ability
to reproduce the behavior in the first place. I can watch Olympic ice skaters all day long,
yet not be able to reproduce their jumps, because I cant ice skate at all! On the other
hand, if I could skate, my performance would in fact improve if I watch skaters who are
better than I am.
Another important tidbit about reproduction is that our ability to imitate improves with
practice at the behaviors involved. And one more tidbit: Our abilities improve even
when we just imagine ourselves performing! Many athletes, for example, imagine their
performance in their minds eye prior to actually performing.
4. Motivation. And yet, with all this, youre still not going to do anything unless you are
motivated to imitate, i.e. until you have some reason for doing it. Bandura mentions a
number of motives:
a. past reinforcement, ala traditional behaviorism.
b. promised reinforcements (incentives) that we can imagine.
c. vicarious reinforcement -- seeing and recalling the model being reinforced.
Notice that these are, traditionally, considered to be the things that cause learning.
Bandura is saying that they dont so much cause learning as cause us to demonstrate what
we have learned. That is, he sees them as motives.
Of course, the negative motivations are there as well, giving you reasons not to imitate
someone:
d. past punishment.
e. promised punishment (threats).
d. vicarious punishment.
Like most traditional behaviorists, Bandura says that punishment in whatever form does
not work as well as reinforcement and, in fact, has a tendency to backfire on us.
Self-regulation

Self-regulation -- controlling our own behavior -- is the other workhorse of human


personality. Here Bandura suggests three steps:
1. Self-observation. We look at ourselves, our behavior, and keep tabs on it.
2. Judgment. We compare what we see with a standard. For example, we can compare
our performance with traditional standards, such as rules of etiquette. Or we can create
arbitrary ones, like Ill read a book a week. Or we can compete with others, or with
ourselves.
3. Self-response. If you did well in comparison with your standard, you give yourself
rewarding self-responses. If you did poorly, you give yourself punishing self-responses.
These self-responses can range from the obvious (treating yourself to a sundae or
working late) to the more covert (feelings of pride or shame).
A very important concept in psychology that can be understood well with self-regulation
is self-concept (better known as self-esteem). If, over the years, you find yourself
meeting your standards and life loaded with self-praise and self-reward, you will have a
pleasant self-concept (high self-esteem). If, on the other hand, you find yourself forever
failing to meet your standards and punishing yourself, you will have a poor self-concept
(low self-esteem).
Recall that behaviorists generally view reinforcement as effective, and punishment as
fraught with problems. The same goes for self-punishment. Bandura sees three likely
results of excessive self-punishment:
a. compensation -- a superiority complex, for example, and delusions of grandeur.
b. inactivity -- apathy, boredom, depression.
c. escape -- drugs and alcohol, television fantasies, or even the ultimate escape, suicide.
These have some resemblance to the unhealthy personalities Adler and Horney talk
about: an aggressive type, a compliant type, and an avoidant type respectively.
Banduras recommendations to those who suffer from poor self-concepts come straight
from the three steps of self-regulation:
1. Regarding self-observation -- know thyself! Make sure you have an accurate picture
of your behavior.
2. Regarding standards -- make sure your standards arent set too high. Dont set
yourself up for failure! Standards that are too low, on the other hand, are meaningless.
3. Regarding self-response -- use self-rewards, not self-punishments. Celebrate your
victories, dont dwell on your failures.

Therapy

Self-control therapy
The ideas behind self-regulation have been incorporated into a therapy technique called
self-control therapy. It has been quite successful with relatively simple problems of
habit, such as smoking, overeating, and study habits.
1. Behavioral charts. Self-observation requires that you keep close tabs on your
behavior, both before you begin changes and after. This can involve something as simple
as counting how many cigarettes you smoke in a day to complex behavioral diaries.
With the diary approach, you keep track of the details, the when and where of your habit.
This lets you get a grip on what kinds of cues are associated with the habit: Do you
smoke more after meals, with coffee, with certain friends, in certain locations...?
2. Environmental planning. Taking your lead from your behavioral charts and diaries,
you can begin to alter your environment. For example, you can remove or avoid some of
those cues that lead to your bad behaviors: Put away the ashtrays, drink tea instead of
coffee, divorce that smoking partner.... You can find the time and place best suited for the
good alternative behaviors: When and where do you find you study best? And so on.
3. Self-contracts. Finally, you arrange to reward yourself when you adhere to your plan,
and possibly punish yourself when you do not. These contracts should be written down
and witnessed (by your therapist, for example), and the details should be spelled out very
explicitly: I will go out to dinner on Saturday night if I smoke fewer cigarettes this
week than last week. I will do paperwork instead if I do not.
You may involve other people and have them control your rewards and punishments, if
you arent strict enough with yourself. Beware, however: This can be murder on your
relationships, as you bite their heads off for trying to do what you told them to do!
Modeling therapy
The therapy Bandura is most famous for, however, is modeling therapy. The theory is
that, if you can get someone with a psychological disorder to observe someone dealing
with the same issues in a more productive fashion, the first person will learn by modeling
the second.
Banduras original research on this involved herpephobics -- people with a neurotic fear
of snakes. The client would be lead to a window looking in on a lab room. In that room
is nothing but a chair, a table, a cage on the table with a locked latch, and a snake clearly
visible in the cage. The client then watches another person -- an actor -- go through a
slow and painful approach to the snake. He acts terrified at first, but shakes himself out
of it, tells himself to relax and breathe normally and take one step at a time towards the
snake. He may stop in the middle, retreat in panic, and start all over. Ultimately, he gets
to the point where he opens the cage, removes the snake, sits down on the chair, and
drapes it over his neck, all the while giving himself calming instructions.
After the client has seen all this (no doubt with his mouth hanging open the whole time),
he is invited to try it himself. Mind you, he knows that the other person is an actor --

there is no deception involved here, only modeling! And yet, many clients -- lifelong
phobics -- can go through the entire routine first time around, even after only one viewing
of the actor! This is a powerful therapy.
One drawback to the therapy is that it isnt easy to get the rooms, the snakes, the actors,
etc., together. So Bandura and his students have tested versions of the therapy using
recordings of actors and even just imagining the process under the therapists direction.
These methods work nearly as well.

Discussion
Albert Bandura has had an enormous impact on personality theory and therapy. His
straightforward, behaviorist-like style makes good sense to most people. His actionoriented, problem-solving approach likewise appeals to those who want to get things
done, rather than philosophize about ids, archetypes, actualization, freedom, and all the
many other mentalistic constructs personologists tend to dwell on.
Among academic psychologists, research is crucial, and behaviorism has been the
preferred approach. Since the late 1960s, behaviorism has given way to the cognitive
revolution, of which Bandura is considered a part. Cognitive psychology retains the
experimentally-oriented flavor of behaviorism, without artificially restraining the
researcher to external behaviors, when the mental life of clients and subjects is so
obviously important.
This is a powerful movement, and the contributors include some of the most important
people in psychology today: Julian Rotter, Walter Mischel, Michael Mahoney, and David
Meichenbaum spring to my mind. Also involved are such theorists of therapy as Aaron
Beck (cognitive therapy) and Albert Ellis (rational emotive therapy). The followers of
George Kelly also find themselves in this camp. And the many people working on
personality trait research -- such as Buss and Plomin (temperament theory) and McCrae
and Costa (five factor theory) -- are essentially cognitive behaviorists like Bandura.
My gut feeling is that the field of competitors in personality theory will eventually boil
down to the cognitivists on the one side and existentialists on the other. Stay tuned!

MODELING THEORY

Here's an interesting study that was done many years ago to make a point. I'll set it up,
then you guess what happened.
A teacher made a special video to show her class of third graders. The video was shot in a
school playroom with lots of toys that 5 year olds really like. One of the toys was an
inflated Bobo doll that stood about as tall as a first grader. Near Mr. Bobo was a large
plastic baseball bat.

What the teacher did is this. She filmed one little boy in the playroom having fun with
Mr. Bobo. She specifically instructed the little boy to pick up the large plastic bat and to
knock the beejeebers out of Mr. Bobo. And, being a good little boy, the kid whacked Mr.
Bobo like it was two out in the bottom of the ninth with the home team trailing by one.
Whack, wham, and bash.
Now, here's the interesting part of the study. The teacher took this video and brought it to
another first grade class one day. Just before the children went to their playroom for a
little recreation, the teacher played the video for them. It showed many kids playing the
playroom, but it also featured our home run hitter knocking Mr. Bobo into orbit.
Okay, class, the $64,000 question. What happened when this audience of first grade kids
went to the playroom after watching the video?
Of course. They went hunting for Mr. Bobo and the Louisville slugger. And when they
found them, well, it wasn't a pretty sight.
This study seems so obvious that one wonders why it was ever done. Of course those kids
observed the videotape, then when they got the chance, they applied what they had seen.
Every parent knows all about monkey see, monkey do. So what's the big deal with
Modeling Theory?
Three points. First, it is surprising that people can be influenced so easily. Just by
watching what other people do, we can acquire new ideas and behaviors. Second,
modeling seems to be a dominant way that people get new behaviors. Whenever we are
in a new situation, we almost always look around to see what others are doing. Third, the
whole process requires very little thinking on the part of the observer. Indeed, modeling is
faster is you simply copy the model rather than try to figure out everything that is going
on.

PROCESS OF THE THEORY


Modeling Theory operates in three simple steps. Here they are in overview.
1. You observe a model.
2. You imitate the model's actions.
3. You get a consequence.
The marvel of this theory is that people are influenced simply as a result of observing
other people (monkey see, monkey do). From the observation of others, we learn what to
do, what not to do, when to do it, and what to expect when we do it. Very simple, very
direct, and very easy.
After we observe the model, we then imitate. That is, when we get in a similar situation
that we had observed earlier, we now produce the same behaviors we saw the model
produce. We observe someone put a plastic card in a machine, press some buttons, then
get money. So, we walk over to the machine, look for a place to put our card, look for
some directions about those buttons, press a few, and viola, money.

Now, our imitation should lead to the desired consequence. We saw the model get the
money, right? If our imitation produces money for us, too, we got the desired
consequence and now we have truly been influenced. (I watch you do it, and when I do it,
I get what I want.) If our imitation fails, then we will drop the model.

INSTRUCTIONAL APPLICATIONS
Among the many uses of modeling, I want you to consider three very practical
implications.
1. You have to know what is being modeled.
Do you remember Mrs. Reinforcer and her student, Bad Bill? Bad Bill broke a Rule and
Mrs. Reinforcer used punishment to influence Bill's behavior. (Except Bad Bill really
wanted the punishment to escape the classroom and so he kept doing the bad thing, which
confused Mrs. Reinforcer.) Something else was also going on in Mrs. Reinforcer's
classroom. Every other kid was watching the event and because of the principles of
modeling, every kid was being influenced. Each one of them learned, simply through
observation, several important lessons.
Many students learned that bad kids do get punished. That's good. When you enforce a
Rule as a teacher, everybody in the room, not just the target, is influenced because of
modeling. But bad things are learned, too. Some of the kids learned that if they act like
Bad Bill they can escape Mrs. Reinforcer's room. Others learned (by seeing what
happened before Bill got thrown out) all the things they can do and still not get in trouble.
Finally, some learned how to pull Mrs. Reinforcer's chain.
The point of this example is direct. When things happen, people may be modeling.
2. Use modeling to change behavior.
Modeling Theory is designed primarily to explain behavioral influence. It is less useful in
creating or understanding changes in thinking or feeling. Therefore, whenever you want
to influence behaviors, consider modeling. For other types of changes, use other
persuasion tools.
3. Show modeling. (Don't tell.)
As noted at point 2, Modeling Theory works well at influencing behavior. The best way
to implement modeling is to do it rather than to say it. Here's a really good example.

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS


Bandura, A. (1962). Social learning through imitation. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation (pp. 211-269). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ch 9 - Bandura's Social Learning Theory


Biographical Introduction
1925 primary interest in the notion of imitation in social learning situations
Basic Concepts
Observational Learning
behaviorists do not consider internal processes in learning
many children learn simply by observation
o e.g. Bandura, 1965 - "no-trial learning" associated with proper
performance after watching a model perform
vicarious reinforcement - cognitive process in which people anticipate what will
happen in a particular situation, after watching others
Bandura, 1962: importance of models
o e.g. parents, siblings
o e.g. symbolic models - TV, books, instruction
The Four Components of Observational Learning
1. Attentional Processes
Bandura, 1971: learning is not possible without attention
o there are many sources of models, which we imitate
o TV is a good source of models
needs and interests of the viewer is also important
2. Retention Processes
Bandura, 1965: stimulus contiguity of a number of stimuli help us to remember
o one stimulus can cue others
primary mode is via visual memory, but we add verbal cues to the visual cues
o not that common for younger children to use verbal cues ... need to be
reminded to use verbal cues
o this ability develops as children approach puberty
3. Motor Reproduction Processes
Bandura, 1977: it is not sufficient to simply watch someone doing something, and
then attempt to reproduce the behavior
the motor system of the individual must be able to actually produce what was
observed (e.g. strength, flexibility, practice, etc.)
4. Reinforcement and Motivational Processes
Bandura, 1971: difference between learning a new behavior and actually using it
use depends on reinforcement:
o direct reinforcement - e.g. of similar behaviors -> performance of the new
behavior

o
o

vicarious reinforcement - e.g. seeing someone else being reinforced for the
behavior -> performance of the new behavior
self-reinforcement - e.g. our own evaluation of the behavior and our
personal reinforcement of it -> performance of the new behavior

Conclusion
need to attend, retain and be able to perform the new behavior
o but will not perform it without reinforcement (hence, importance of
reinforcement history)
above four components are related:
o e.g. reinforcement affects attention
Socialization Studies
Bandura's work is directly related to process of socialization
o e.g. Hetherington & Parke, 1977: aggression and cooperative behavior
(both important social skills)
Aggression
aggression learned through a combination of operant conditioning and modeling
o e.g. we are rewarded after "good" aggression (standing up for yourself
against a bully) and punished after "bad" aggression (picking on smaller
children)
o e.g. we watch aggressive behavior and learn about it without having to
actually do it ourselves
Bandura, 1965: aggressive modeling study using three groups of children and an
adult model
o aggression-rewarded group: watch model being rewarded after being
aggressive to a rubber doll
o aggression-punished group: watch model being punished after being
aggressive to a rubber doll
o no-consequences group: watch model have no consequences after being
aggressive to a rubber doll
o when measured for aggression in a play situation with a rubber doll,
aggression-rewarded or no-consequences > aggression-punished
o when promised reward for aggression in a play situation with a rubber
doll, children from all three groups = same behavior
o ... therefore, vicarious punishment affects only what we do - not what we
learn
Liebert et al, 1977: similar argument can be made with regard to violence watched
on TV
o e.g. TV violence might lead to violent behavior being disinhibited (i.e. we
become more likely to do something which we know how to do, but have
inhibited it earlier)
Gender Roles
much gender-appropriate behavior probably learned from social situations

i.e. both genders observe adults' behavior, but through reward eventually
focus on gender-related behavior which complies with social norms in the
society
e.g. Mead, 1964: both Eskimo boys and girls can hunt, but hunting
is practiced more by boys
Grusec & Brinker, 1972: interesting question as to whether selective social
reinforcements could actually affect how we observe
o e.g. paying attention only to behaviors which are the "right" ones for our
gender
o

Prosocial Behavior
prosocial behavior = any act which is cooperative, altruistic, etc.
o e.g. Rushton, 1975: donation of bowling winnings to charity
7-11 year-old children more likely to donate to children's charity
when exposed to altruistic adult model
more donating behavior than control group
effects lasted up to 2 months following the modeling exposure
o e.g. Bryan, 1975: same effect seen in tendency to help someone in trouble
Practicing and Preaching
actual prosocial behavior is better source of modeling than talking about good
behavior
Mussen & Eisenberg-Berg, 1977: preaching is effective only when forceful and
emotional
White, 1972: coercion sometimes has negative results
o e.g. effect of forcing children to give bowling winnings to needy children
was only temporary, followed by increasing possibility of stealing
behavior
Self-Regulation
external reinforcement -> internal reinforcement
assuming that we set personal standards for our own behavior, how do we
determine the level of the standards?
o rewards and punishments (operant model)
o models
e.g. Bandura, 1986: we rise (or fall) to the level of our friends
usually use peers as models instead of adults as models
(behavior easier to attain)
strategies which can be used by adults:
o choose your children's friends for them
o direct children to the model achievements of high achieving people (e.g.
read them stories about excellent people)
in order to keep motivation high, break big goals down into
smaller, more achievable ones
Self-Efficacy
self-observation -> self estimation (i.e. self efficacy)

a personal judgment of one's ability to do something


self efficacy is related to how hard we will try to accomplish something
(e.g. Danielson's comment: The Little Engine That Could)
Bandura, 1998: better to err in being over-optimistic of one's abilities than underoptimistic
o
o

Sources of Self-Efficacy Appraisals


Bandura, 1986: four sources
o actual performance - success leads to increased self-efficacy; failure to
lowered self-efficacy
o vicarious experiences - e.g. what our friends and families do, we believe
that we can do
o verbal persuasion - psyching ourselves up (or being psyched up by
someone else) helps
o physiological cues - our personal interpretation of the meaning of various
bodily signs (e.g. pulse rate)
naturally, the same cue can be interpreted differently by two
different people
Bandura, 1994: life span development of self-efficacy
o from infants (narrowly defined) to teenagers (importance of peers) to
adults (ability to work and raise children)
o strong self-efficacy necessary for health
Abstract Modeling and Piaget's Stages
Bandura, 1971: exact imitation = perfect duplication of a model's behavior
abstract modeling = generalizing a principle into other similar situations (e.g.
using the addition of the letter "s" to make a word plural)
Bandura vs. Piaget:
o similar - both view child as actively interacting with the world
o different - Bandura - environmental (model) control; Piaget - individual
control
Bandura and Piaget
Piagetian approach:
o children learn when they are interested in something - novelty is the key
o as they learn, they progress through stages
o Kuhn, 1974: children use models, but they choose the models themselves,
based on their current stage
essentially, the stage creates the behavior and the modeling used
Bandura's approach:
o since children do not learn all of the time, much learning is probably
controlled by the environment
...therefore there is a need for external variables like rewards and
punishments (and models)
o learning is from specific to general - not general stage to specific instance
o Bandura, 1977: self-efficacy comes before intrinsic interest - not the other
way around

Piaget's stages are probably artifacts


everyone solves easier problems before moving on to more
difficult ones
stage approach ignores the specific skills which are involved in
thinking in many areas
it is too general, and does not help explain specific skills

Moral Reasoning
Piaget's explanation of moral development:
o younger children: concerned about the effects of actions as opposed to the
intentions involved
o older children: concerned about the intentions of the person as opposed to
the effects of his/her actions
Bandura & Walters, 1963: introduction of an adult model using an orientation
opposite to that of the child (i.e. consequences orientation applied to a child who
is at an intention orientation thinking style)
o effect: "new" moral style used almost half of the time compared with
about 20% of the time before modeling - this effect was also lasting
o implication: adult modeling may have an effect on children's moral
thinking
Conservation
some evidence that conservation can be affected by modeling
o e.g. Zimmerman & Rosenthal, 1974: liquid, number and weight
conservation improvements found after use of an adult model
problem: effect was age-dependent (successful for 5-6 year-olds,
unsuccessful for 4 year-olds)
Piagetian explanation - the younger children were at a
lower developmental level
Zimmerman/Rosenthal explanation - modeling effects were
the primary factor in conservation ability
Practical Applications
impact of modeling has many potential applications in life:
o e.g. Bandura, 1967: spanking as a cause of fighting in children
types of modeling:
o behavioral - what we see, we do
o verbal - e.g. White, 1972: forcing a child to share can result in rebellious
behavior after initial compliance ... probably better to use behavioral
modeling
o media models - e.g. Cole & Cole, 1965: impact of TV violence on
children's aggressiveness
social movement calling for more positive models in the media
(e.g. women, African Americans)
modeling as therapy:
o e.g. Bandura, Grusec & Menlove, 1967: used to reduce 4-year-olds' fear of
dogs

e.g. Bandura, 1986: modeling should be used with self-efficacy so that


client believes in their own ability to control their therapy
Bandura, 1994: society should be aware of institutionalized strategies affecting
self-efficacy
o e.g. standardized testing and ranking in education
o

Evaluation
initial focus - modeling; later focus - self-efficacy
modeling vs. developmental perspectives:
o Bandura, 1986: downplays the effects of novelty (everything is related to
learning how to acquire reinforcements)
e.g. children internalize external standards and enjoy learning only
after they achieve the internalized standards which they set
o developmentalists argue that intrinsic curiosity of children is gradually
killed by expectations of the adult world
e.g. Liebert, Odom, Hill & Huff, 1969: imitation of a grammatical
rule was only possible by 14-year-olds - not 6-8 year-olds ...
suggests that there is some difference in abstract thinking ability of
younger children
possible that Bandura's approach does not adequately explain developmental
effects

MODELING THEORY
Here's an interesting study that was done many years ago to make a point. I'll set it up,
then you guess what happened.
A teacher made a special video to show her class of third graders. The video was shot in a
school playroom with lots of toys that 5 year olds really like. One of the toys was an
inflated Bobo doll that stood about as tall as a first grader. Near Mr. Bobo was a large
plastic baseball bat.
What the teacher did is this. She filmed one little boy in the playroom having fun with
Mr. Bobo. She specifically instructed the little boy to pick up the large plastic bat and to
knock the beejeebers out of Mr. Bobo. And, being a good little boy, the kid whacked Mr.
Bobo like it was two out in the bottom of the ninth with the home team trailing by one.
Whack, wham, and bash.
Now, here's the interesting part of the study. The teacher took this video and brought it to
another first grade class one day. Just before the children went to their playroom for a

little recreation, the teacher played the video for them. It showed many kids playing the
playroom, but it also featured our home run hitter knocking Mr. Bobo into orbit.
Okay, class, the $64,000 question. What happened when this audience of first grade kids
went to the playroom after watching the video?
Of course. They went hunting for Mr. Bobo and the Louisville slugger. And when they
found them, well, it wasn't a pretty sight.
This study seems so obvious that one wonders why it was ever done. Of course those kids
observed the videotape, then when they got the chance, they applied what they had seen.
Every parent knows all about monkey see, monkey do. So what's the big deal with
Modeling Theory?
Three points. First, it is surprising that people can be influenced so easily. Just by
watching what other people do, we can acquire new ideas and behaviors. Second,
modeling seems to be a dominant way that people get new behaviors. Whenever we are
in a new situation, we almost always look around to see what others are doing. Third, the
whole process requires very little thinking on the part of the observer. Indeed, modeling is
faster is you simply copy the model rather than try to figure out everything that is going
on.
PROCESS OF THE THEORY
Modeling Theory operates in three simple steps. Here they are in overview.
1. You observe a model.
2. You imitate the model's actions.
3. You get a consequence.
The marvel of this theory is that people are influenced simply as a result of observing
other people (monkey see, monkey do). From the observation of others, we learn what to
do, what not to do, when to do it, and what to expect when we do it. Very simple, very
direct, and very easy.
After we observe the model, we then imitate. That is, when we get in a similar situation
that we had observed earlier, we now produce the same behaviors we saw the model
produce. We observe someone put a plastic card in a machine, press some buttons, then
get money. So, we walk over to the machine, look for a place to put our card, look for
some directions about those buttons, press a few, and viola, money.
Now, our imitation should lead to the desired consequence. We saw the model get the
money, right? If our imitation produces money for us, too, we got the desired
consequence and now we have truly been influenced. (I watch you do it, and when I do it,
I get what I want.) If our imitation fails, then we will drop the model.
INSTRUCTIONAL APPLICATIONS
Among the many uses of modeling, I want you to consider three very practical
implications.

1. You have to know what is being modeled.


Do you remember Mrs. Reinforcer and her student, Bad Bill? Bad Bill broke a Rule and
Mrs. Reinforcer used punishment to influence Bill's behavior. (Except Bad Bill really
wanted the punishment to escape the classroom and so he kept doing the bad thing, which
confused Mrs. Reinforcer.) Something else was also going on in Mrs. Reinforcer's
classroom. Every other kid was watching the event and because of the principles of
modeling, every kid was being influenced. Each one of them learned, simply through
observation, several important lessons.
Many students learned that bad kids do get punished. That's good. When you enforce a
Rule as a teacher, everybody in the room, not just the target, is influenced because of
modeling. But bad things are learned, too. Some of the kids learned that if they act like
Bad Bill they can escape Mrs. Reinforcer's room. Others learned (by seeing what
happened before Bill got thrown out) all the things they can do and still not get in trouble.
Finally, some learned how to pull Mrs. Reinforcer's chain.
The point of this example is direct. When things happen, people may be modeling.
2. Use modeling to change behavior.
Modeling Theory is designed primarily to explain behavioral influence. It is less useful in
creating or understanding changes in thinking or feeling. Therefore, whenever you want
to influence behaviors, consider modeling. For other types of changes, use other
persuasion tools.
3. Show modeling. (Don't tell.)

You might also like