Social learning theory 16 marker
The social learning theory suggests that behaviour is learned via imitation and observation
of others and is influenced if a model a person identifies with receives praise or punishment
(vicarious reinforcement). As they believe that if they were to complete a similar action
through copying the model by imitation, they would receive a similar outcome, where
meditational processes are used to weigh up pros and cons depending on the models
outcome.
Research in support of the social learning theory (SLT) was conducted by Bandura in 1961
where children half the group observed an aggressive role model saying POW and hitting
the bobo doll with a mallet and the other half witnessed a non-aggressive model in the
same situation. Then the children were taken to the room and 1/3 of the children who
witnessed the aggressive model repeated the behaviour to the bobo doll but none of the
non-aggressive groups did so. This supports SLT by showing imitation of models.
A criticism of research in support of the SLT was the methodology used. This was because
research was conducted in highly artificial controlled laboratory observing children’s
behaviour in these circumstances. Which means that it lacks ecological validity and suffers
from demand characteristics. For example, the children may have hit the doll as they may
believe that this was expected of them and not actually learnt and imitation of the model.
Therefore, the experiment cannot be generalised to real life as tells us little about how
children learn behaviour in everyday settings.
Another limitation of SLT is the issue of causality where people actively seek out models
which produce an already favoured behaviour and associate with them. Research conducted
by Siegel and McCormick supports this view that young deviant people are more likely to
associate with similar people as they are deemed as more fun. This is an example of soft
determinism as people may possess inappropriate mental processes leading to deviance
before seeking out models with similar mental processes. This shows that deviant behaviour
(such as displayed in bandura experiment) may be the result of a two-way process of
behaviour not actually the SLT itself.
A strength of the SLT is that unlike behaviourism it considers cognitive processes. For
example, behaviourism describes human behaviour as rigid and mechanical, but we are
much more complex individuals, and this is addresses by the SLT. As it uses meditational
processes to show how thinking and emotions influence our behaviour which isn’t
considered in the behaviourist approach. Therefore, the SLT offers a more complex better
explanation for human behaviour.
The social learning theory suggests that behaviour is learned via imitation and observation
of others and is influenced if a model a person identifies with receives praise or punishment
(vicarious reinforcement). As they believe that if they were to complete a similar action
through copying the model by imitation, they would receive a similar outcome, where
meditational processes are used to weigh up pros and cons depending on the models
outcome.
Research in support of the social learning theory (SLT) was conducted by Bandura in 1961
where children half the group observed an aggressive role model saying POW and hitting
the bobo doll with a mallet and the other half witnessed a non-aggressive model in the
same situation. Then the children were taken to the room and 1/3 of the children who
witnessed the aggressive model repeated the behaviour to the bobo doll but none of the
non-aggressive groups did so. This supports SLT by showing imitation of models.
A criticism of research in support of the SLT was the methodology used. This was because
research was conducted in highly artificial controlled laboratory observing children’s
behaviour in these circumstances. Which means that it lacks ecological validity and suffers
from demand characteristics. For example, the children may have hit the doll as they may
believe that this was expected of them and not actually learnt and imitation of the model.
Therefore, the experiment cannot be generalised to real life as tells us little about how
children learn behaviour in everyday settings.
Another limitation of SLT is the issue of causality where people actively seek out models
which produce an already favoured behaviour and associate with them. Research conducted
by Siegel and McCormick supports this view that young deviant people are more likely to
associate with similar people as they are deemed as more fun. This is an example of soft
determinism as people may possess inappropriate mental processes leading to deviance
before seeking out models with similar mental processes. This shows that deviant behaviour
(such as displayed in bandura experiment) may be the result of a two-way process of
behaviour not actually the SLT itself.
A strength of the SLT is that unlike behaviourism it considers cognitive processes. For
example, behaviourism describes human behaviour as rigid and mechanical, but we are
much more complex individuals, and this is addresses by the SLT. As it uses meditational
processes to show how thinking and emotions influence our behaviour which isn’t
considered in the behaviourist approach. Therefore, the SLT offers a more complex better
explanation for human behaviour.
