References

Ananda, M. (2006). Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Retrieved from http://ananda.mahto.info/albert-banduras-social-cognitive-theory/

Awkins, J. (2011). Are we products of our environment?. Retrieved from http://jaeawkins.com/are-we-products-of-our-environment/

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Retrieved from http://www.jku.at/org/content/e54521/e54528/e54529/e178059/Bandura_SocialLearningTheory_ger.pdf

Criticisms. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://bdrum.com/Bandura/Criticisms.htm

McLeod, S. (2014). Bobo doll experiment. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-doll.html

Shuttleworth, M. (2008). Bobo doll experiment. Retrieved from https://explorable.com/bobo-doll-experiment.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 11 (Conclusion)

            The social cognitive theory believes in the combination of the environmental, social, and cognitive factors in the development of the behavior; however, it is still unclear as to what extent these three influences the behavior of men.  Nevertheless, this theory received both good and bad reactions over the years, which means that, although imperfect, this theory has its importance.

The social cognitive theory has its truth; however, accepting it as a whole truth is not possible because of some reasons.  First, Bandura believes that people does not just respond to the stimulus presented in the environment, but uses their cognitive skills in reacting to their environment.  I agree that people does not impulsively react to their environment.  People think whether they like it or not.  But then again the extent on which people use their cognitive skills in reacting to their environment has yet to be clarified.  Second, people are different, and as they grow old, their differences become greater; thus, it becomes harder to generalize the manner of learning of all people.  For instance, Kaye is a child, who came from a family of painters, raised in a way that she was exposed to the nature of work of her family members, provided that her family persuaded her to be a painter all her life.  Even though it seems that the circumstances have conspired to make Kaye the same as her family, it does not follow that Kaye would really be a painter when she grows up.  The reason is just obvious—people change.  Our way of thinking becomes different as we grow old.  Moreover, as we grow old, we tend to think beyond our environmental and social circumstances.  Even if Kaye has been home-schooled and has been taught only to paint, it is not an assurance that she would copy the behavior of her family members (e.g. passion for painting), because chances are, she might form an opinion, a judgment, or a belief of her own, guided by her own reasons, which are independent of the outside factors, such as her family.  Third, people have their free will.  We can choose for ourselves.  Otherwise, if we held our environment and our models solely responsible for our deeds, then the law would be meaningless.  For instance, a man, who beats his child just because his father also beats him when he was a child, does not make this man innocent as far as the law is concerned.  This is because we have the power to think and to choose which is good, at least according to one’s conscience and what is required of us in the law of the country we lived in. 

To summarize, the social cognitive theory should not be generalized; it is only true in some cases. Nonetheless, it is still useful to teachers and students.  It is just important to note that more than giving importance on the technical aspect of the teaching process, the teachers need to make sure that they also teach the students how to be conscious about their surroundings including the people they interact with in order to weigh the good and bad sides of the situations around them and how it affects others.  It is also important to emphasize that regardless of the situation, we can form our own decisions.  Bandura was right in this part.  The cognitive factor has a very important role to play in learning a behavior; therefore, people need to take advantage of it.  At the end of the day, neither Bandura nor his theory would tell us how we ought to live our lives, it is still up to us through our choices and decisions on how we will make this world a better place for us and for the others.   

References

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 10

http://social.rollins.edu/wpsites/mclaren/files/2013/04/oppression.png

            In the mentioned quote by Bandura, it is affirmed that he believed that people reflect and gain control of their behaviors; however, it also recognized that our standards of behavior were all copied—something that sounded contradictory to the first statement.  If we use our own brains to think, then how did it become that how we think is just a product of how our model thinks?  Assuming this is true, these questions become necessary to ask:  How sure are we that how we reflect is not influenced by anyone? Whose standards of behavior are we subscribing to?  Have we been in chains with someone else’s identity all our life? Do the models, or rather people with prestige and power, have the right to influence the behavior of their followers?  Is our freedom of thought being compromised?  The social cognitive theory tells us something—that oppression can easily find its way to the road of learning.  If oppression is present at the starting point of learning, how can we stop it when it is already there in the first place?  The best thing that we can do, if this happens, is to unlearn what we have learned, and reflect in order to find the things that we could stand up for—something that truly defines us, at least as we perceive it, in order to have our own truth.  Doing this, however, is just difficult and somewhat unrealistic.

Doing a thing frequently makes up our truth.  If we mostly learn by following a model, we tend to make some, if not all, beliefs and actions of our model, our own beliefs and actions, which when we repeatedly do, whether or not we get rewards, for as long as we are able to convince ourselves that we are good with those beliefs and actions, these things become our realities and truths.  Other person’s truth becomes our truth, and once we made up our truths, it becomes hard to dismantle.  For instance, Rodrigo Duterte, a presidential candidate, is undeniably charismatic to the masses (at least to my belief). He has prestige and power—someone who could be looked up to by the youngsters because of his audacity, humor, and undaunted actions against the law offenders.  If a Jose, a teenager, admires Duterte so much and makes him his model, he consciously and unconsciously, over the days, will probably adopt Duterte’s behavior, such as his ill justification of extrajudicial killings and the latter’s profane words.  Over time, Jose will make Duterte’s justifications his own until these become his truth.  It is hard to say whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, because we all have our own perceptions of what is good and what is bad.  Nevertheless, it is still important to note that modeling can be a medium for something that might be bad for other people.  

Conclusion

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 9

https://cuevaseds103.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/bobo-experiment.jpg

            To prove that that all human behavior was learned through social imitation and copying, rather than inherited through genetic factors, Bandura performed the Bobo Doll Experiment in 1961(Shuttleworth, 2008).  This gave Bandura several ways to prove his hypothesis that watching violence causes aggressive behavior.  This conclusion, however, has been argued because the children, who are used as the subjects of the experiment, were said to be manipulated into responding aggressively according to what they have observed (“Criticisms”, n.d.).  If observing an aggressive behavior and being rewarded for it produces similar aggression, then would observing and watching a well-recognized diligent student produce the same attitude for everyone in the class? Perhaps, some students would not imbibe the same attitude.  In the real-world, adopting a behavior, whether good or bad, is subject to numerous factors.  Moreover, we cannot generalize how the majority, or even everyone, in the class would react, because each student has his/her own values, experiences, beliefs, and traditions.  People are different from each other.  Hence, if we say that people tend to have different reactions when it comes to what they observe, can we affirm that the Bobo doll experiment has been suggestive?  Yes, it is.  The children used in the experiment are aged between 3 to 6 years old (Bandura, Ross & Ross as cited by McLeod, 2014).  Since these children are very young and so they might not have any idea on how to play with the Bobo doll, they have to observe what others are doing with it.  It is not that the children were not using their thinking skills, but when the children are given with an unfamiliar thing without any instructions on how to use it, they would ask verbally or nonverbally: “What am I supposed to do with this thing?”.  The children, who were expose to a model with an aggressive behavior, in the Bobo doll experiment might have thought that the observed aggressive acts are the things that they were supposed to do in the experiment, and so they did. Although they did show an aggressive behavior, this does not mean that they would do the aggressive acts to other children.  Similarly, in teaching Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao in the early grades, we tend to ask the pupils questions that are somewhat suggestive. For instance, when we ask the students similar questions like: “Nag-iingay ang iyong mga mga kamag-aral habang nagkaklaklase kayo, ano ang iyong gagawin?”.  The children would most probably think of an answer that would not make the teacher angry, so most likely, they would answer: “Sasawayin ko po ang aking mga kamag-aral”, even though in real life situation, they would not really do so.  Therefore, we cannot generalize that modeling and reinforcement does assure the replication of behavior at least with the children because, as mentioned earlier, there are a lot of things to consider before imbibing the behavior of the model, and people are just different from each other.  In addition, the manner of how we learn and behave changes as we grow up, because we tend to form deeper thoughts as our brains develop (generally speaking).  Bandura surprisingly agree with this statement.  In fact, he wrote in 1991:

  

            People possess self-reflective and self-reactive capabilities that enable them [to] exercise some control over their thoughts, feelings, motivations and actions.  In the exercise of self-directedness, people adopt certain standards of behavior that serve as guides and motivators and regulate their actions anticipatorily through self-reactive influence.  Human functioning is, therefore, regulated by an interplay of self-generated and external sources of influence (Ananda, 2006, para. 2).

Continuation

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 8

            So, are we really just as helpless as the plants which have nothing to do but to keep adapting and reacting to the environment? If the weather gets too hot, the plants will wilt; it does not really matter whether a plant is able to see what the other plants are doing because it is natural for the plant to wilt in the mentioned situation.  If the soil is well-fertilized, the plant will be healthier; there is no need for the plant to have a brain to know that it has to grow better because of the fertilizer, because growing better is the natural reaction of plants to the fertilizer. Nonetheless, people and plants are still way different, because people have the power and choice of reasoning out. 

            Human beings react to the environment, and are products of it, but only for some extent. It cannot be generalized that environment solely dictates who we are and how we behave.  Ideally, the causes of our behavior must be rooted from deeper and better reasons.  Even though a well-admired relative of ours gets mad at any visitor coming inside the house, we may not feel the same though the relative, as the model, got our attention, retention, motoric reproduction, and reinforcement processes working.  Thus, even if our relative forces us to act similarly towards any visitor and rewards us for doing so, we still may not adopt that kind of behavior.  This is because we have the power to reason consciously and unconsciously.  If a person is well-guided by good reasoning (at least in his/her own perception of good reasoning), then learning through reflection becomes more powerful than learning through the environment.  Our intelligence gives us the ability to adapt to whatever we are exposed to; and unlike the animals of the earth, we have the power of reason to make moral choices based on our thought given to the possible outcome (Awkins, 2011).  Although there is some truth that reasons might also be acquired from a model, it can also be said that there is also truth in saying that individuals can also innovate their own reasons without using any vicarious experience or observing some models.

Continuation

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 7

Analysis of the Social Cognitive Theory

Though there are some good points mentioned about the social cognitive theory, it is still not far from the traditional behaviorist theories, which, somehow, Bandura is against to.  Even though Bandura included modeling, as one of the determinants of behavior, it can still be included in the environmental causes of behavior, simply because it is still an influence outside of a person.  The only difference is that the social cognitive theory recognizes the role of the cognitive factor in the production of a behavior.  Despite this, the results of the social cognitive theory still depend largely on the environment.  To illustrate, the traditional behaviorist and social cognitive theories can be compared to a mimosa plant (also called makahiya in Filipino).  Assuming the mentioned theories are absolute truths, whether or not we know that a mimosa plant has the pulvinus, its part that reacts to touch (assuming that part is their brain), or, whether or not we think that mimosa just merely reacts to touch regardless of its inner system, the causes of the resulting behavior will still be based on the things happening in their environment.  If this situation will just be the same with human beings, then what is the point of knowing that we use our brains when, we just solely behave based on our own human nature and the stimulus from our environment?  If we believe both theories completely, then we are accepting the fact that we mostly learn through our environment; therefore, it meant that even if we think, learn from other people’s experiences, find a model, or just plainly react to a stimulus, the behaviors and actions manifested are just the consequences of our exposure to the given environment.  For example, if a house is on fire, it does not matter if a person needs to think, find a model, remember an article about fire, or just go out of the house, because in the end, he will not be able to bear the heat of fire and will eventually move far from it.  If all of the mentioned illustrations in this paragraph are true, then it makes the social cognitive theory as hard to swallow as the traditional behaviorist theories, for they largely, if not wholly, rely on the environment, neglecting a lot of other factors that cause our behavior, such as our own beliefs and the results of our reflective thinking.

Continuation

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 6

http://career.iresearchnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Self-Efficacy.jpg

            Central to the social cognitive theory is the concept of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to the level of a person's confidence in his/ her ability to successfully perform a behavior.  It is the idea that people decide how to behave based more on their belief in their own capabilities of accomplishment rather than in their knowledge and skills (Pajares as cited by Ananda, 2006).   Having mentioned that a person’s capacity is different from their actual knowledge and skills, we can infer that a person who is much knowledgeable and skillful might have low self-efficacy, and a person who lacks knowledge and is less skillful might have high self-efficacy. Therefore, self-efficacy cannot be used as the lone determinant whether or not a person can achieve future successes, because there are other determinants of success to consider.  Nevertheless, having varied levels of self-efficacy among individuals can help explain why two individuals with very similar skills and knowledge can end up exhibiting extremely different behaviors (Ananda, 2006).

Analysis

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 5

https://bibliobulimica.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/classroom.jpg?w=723

            Modeling becomes a crucial cause of learning and behaving for a multitude of reasons.  By relying on the action of knowledgeable models, a novice can behave appropriately in a given situation without having to discover the acceptable conduct through shocked or pleased reactions to his unguided performance (Bandura, 1971).  Assuming this is absolutely true, a child would not become rowdy if he/she sees that every child in his/her class is very quiet and is sitting in their chairs properly.  Similarly, a shy child can become outspoken if he/she becomes used to a class with outspoken students.  Because people tend to follow an example (model), they are able to produce more acceptable modes of behavior (as far as their immediate environment is concerned), which is much more reinforcing than tedious trial and error (Bandura, 1971).

Next Page

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 4

http://www.nakedheart.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_6983-e1418744146764.jpg

            Modeling is governed by four interrelated subprocesses, namely: attention, retention, motoric reproduction, and reinforcement (Bandura, 1971).  First, the model must grab the attention of the subject.  The subject should recognize the essential features of the model's behavior (Bandura, 1971).  For instance, if a celebrity is to model a caring behavior, the child as the subject, must identify what makes up his caring behavior, such as the smile, sweet voice, friendly gestures, etc.  Second, the child should retain the essential features of the model’s behavior.  Third, the remembered features must produce actions. Lastly, the actions must be rewarded in order to be strengthened and repeated.

Next Page

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 3

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/01/article-2408397-1B90A440000005DC-767_634x383.jpg

            Another important element of the social cognitive theory is modeling.  Modeling is an essential form of learning (Bandura, 1971).  Under most circumstances, a good example is therefore a much better teacher than the results of unguided actions, especially when mistakes can be costly or dangerous (Bandura, 1971).  An example is when pupils are being taught on how to use the microscope in observing the microorganisms in dingy water.  If the pupils will just rely on the consequences of their actions in order to learn how to use the said equipment, they might damage the costly equipment.  Thus, it becomes more advantageous for everyone in the class if the teacher will just demonstrate the appropriate procedure on how to properly do the activity.  Another example is when the teacher tries to teach a sport, for instance, swimming.  If the students will just rely on the consequences of their swimming gestures, then the students might end up drowning themselves.  This is something that could be prevented if the teacher would model the proper way to do the different swimming techniques.  Teaching the child how to speak is also a situation wherein parents as teachers cannot rely on the consequences alone for the child to learn. Therefore, if learning proceeded solely by rewarding and punishing consequences, it would be more laborious, more costly, and more dangerous both for the teachers and the students (Bandura, 1971).  Therefore, the socialization processes, in which the language, morals, vocational activities, familial customs, and the educational, religious, and political practices of a culture, are difficult to be taught without the benefit of models who exemplify the cultural patterns of their own behavior (Bandura, 1971). 

Next Page

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 2

http://images.says.com/uploads/story_source/source_image/422500/410c.jpg

            One of the important elements of the social cognitive theory is the role of the vicarious experiences in the production of behavior.  Direct experiences are governed by the rewarding and punishing consequences, which are assumed to strengthen one’s behavior (Bandura, 1971).  However, if learning will solely be acquired through our own experiences and their consequences, then it would take a long time and would make it a lot difficult for us to learn the things, which are expected of us.  For example, if a Christian attended a Muslim wedding of a friend, and he/she is the only Christian in that event, given that he/she has no idea of a Muslim wedding, then it would be so impractical for him/her to act, solely relying on the consequences and reactions of the other guests to his/her actions.  In this situation, the Christian attendee needs to use his/her cognitive skills and to observe and be sensitive about the actions of Muslim guests in that wedding event to make it more beneficial for him/her.  In this way, undesirable experiences can be avoided rather than the person act as if he/she is an unthinking organism (because he/she will just react to the stimulus presented in that environment).  Therefore, learning becomes more efficient because of the use of vicarious experiences on top of our own experiences.

Next page

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Analysis part 1

            by 

May Anne Joy Romanes

University of the Philippines Diliman

May 24, 2016

https://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20Clusters/Health%20Communication/Social_cognitive_theory/Social_cognitive_theory-1.png

         For many years, a lot of scientists have tried to find an explanation as to why people behave as they do.  Earlier behaviorists have reduced human beings into helpless reactors to their environment, dismissing the role of cognition in forming their behaviors (Bandura, 1971).  The traditional behaviorist theories did not satisfy Albert Bandura.  He challenged these earlier theories through the development of the social learning theory, which later evolved as the social cognitive theory.  This theory asserts that the cognitive capacity of men determines their behavior and posits that learning results from vicarious experiences that occur through the observation of other people’s behavior and its consequences for them (Bandura, 1971).  The social cognitive theory is much more palatable than the traditional behaviorist theories; however, it does not address the variations of people due to their genetic, brain, and learning differences (“Criticisms”, n.d.).  Furthermore, it does not mention the role of free will in the behavior outcomes of men.  Nonetheless, it is undeniable that there is some truth to the social cognitive theory; however, as teachers, we need to look closer and critically examine this theory to make it more relevant to the teaching-learning process for us and more importantly, for our students.

Next Page