Transcript Learning

PSY 432: Personality
Behavior & Learning Theories
Julian Rotter
(1916-2014)
Albert Bandura
88 years old
Chapter 9: Social learning Theories
Walter Mischel
84 years old
ALBERT BANDURA
Biographical Background
 Was born in in Alberta, Canada in 1925; youngest
child, and only son, in a family of six
 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
ALBERT BANDURA
Biographical Background
 During grad school, he would occasionally play golf
with friends
 Met wife in sand trap; Virginia Varns, who was a
teacher at the College of Nursing
 Married in 1952 and have two daughters
Bandura and children 
ALBERT BANDURA
Biographical Background
 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 APA’s Award for
Distinguished Scientific Contributions in
1980
 In 2006, he received the Gold Medal Award
for Life Achievement in the Science of
Psychology
 He continues to work at Stanford to this day
SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
 Bandura does not consider himself a Social
Learning Theorist, but prefers Social Cognitive
Theory
 Comprehensive theory that includes motivational
and self regulatory mechanisms
 Emphasizes the social origins of human thought
process and behavior
 Emphasizes cognitive influence on behavior,
rather than conditioning influences from the
environment
AN AGENTIC PERSPECTIVE
Bandura (2001)
 Views people as agents (originators) of experience;
not just reactive
 Human agency
 Intentionality
 Enables us to behave with purpose
 Forethought
 Allows us to anticipate outcomes
 Self-reactiveness
 We can be motivated to regulate our actions
 Self-reflectiveness
 We can reflect on our thoughts and behaviors and make
needed modifications
TRIADIC RECIPROCAL CAUSATION MODEL
Bandura (1978)
Behavior is the result of interactions
among personal characteristics, behavior,
environmental factors
Learning results from interactions among
three factors:
1. Personal characteristics
2. Behavioral patterns
3. Environmental stimuli
TRIADIC RECIPROCAL CAUSATION MODEL
TRIADIC RECIPROCAL CAUSATION MODEL
Bandura (1978)
Self-system
Cognitive structures that provide reference
mechanisms
Self
A group of cognitive processes and structures by
which people relate to the environment and that
shape their behavior
LEARNING THROUGH OBSERVATION
Learning that occurs by observing and imitating others
(the person being observed is referred to as the model)
 Bandura et al. (1977)
 Major factors that influence modeling
1. Characteristics of the model
 Influenced more by those who are similar to
ourselves; simpler actions; aggressive actions
2. Attributes of the observer
 Low self-esteem; dependent personality types;
motivated individuals
3. Reward consequences associated with a behavior

Self-efficacy
LEARNING THROUGH OBSERVATION
Process of Observational Learning
 Attentional processes
 More noticeable, more easily copied
 Retention processes
 Verbal; images
 Motor production processes
 Successful motor production requires cognitive
organization of the response, monitoring of the response,
and refinement of the response
 Motivational processes
 We must value the response
LEARNING THROUGH OBSERVATION
Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1961)
Procedure
Phase 1
 Pre-schoolers were divided into two groups and put into
two separate rooms and allowed to play with
"attractive" toys while “Bobo” an unattractive
inflatable, adult-sized, egg-shaped balloon creature sat
by itself at the far end of the rooms
Bobo 
LEARNING THROUGH OBSERVATION
Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1961)
Phase 2
 Group 1: While playing with the attractive toys the
children witnessed adults enter the room and start
beating the daylights out of the clown
 Group 2: While playing with the attractive toys the
children witnessed adults enter the room and play
nicely with Bobo
Phase 3
 Both groups brought into the same room
 The attractive toys were taken away from each group
LEARNING THROUGH OBSERVATION
Results
• Experimental group: These kids modeled the behavior;
Even added aggressive acts that had not been modeled
Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1961)
LEARNING THROUGH OBSERVATION
Criticisms
Bobo doll is unrealistic set-up; no external
validity
Bias towards the production of aggression
TYPES OF REINFORCEMENT IN
OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING
Bandura (1977)
 Extrinsic reinforcement
 Intrinsic reinforcement
 Vicarious reinforcement
 Self-reinforcement
FROM REINFORCEMENT TO SELF -REGULATION
Bandura (1991)
 Posits that human behavior is motivated by
self-regulation
 Self-monitoring
 Self-judgment
 Affective self-reaction
AGGRESSION, INHUMANE BEHAVIOR, & MORAL
DISENGAGEMENT
Bandura (1973)
 Exposure to violence in media leads to
aggressive acts by children
 Aggressive filmed model just as effective as
live model
 Real clown just as effective as Bobo clown
AGGRESSION, INHUMANE BEHAVIOR, & MORAL
DISENGAGEMENT
 Modeling is apparent with copycat acts of aggression;
dangerous behavior
 Doomsday Flight 1966 TV movie is a classic example
 The Program (1993 screen film) and Money Train (1995
screen film) are others
Click on picture for
news report
Click on picture for
video clip 
MODELING’S POSITIVE EFFECT…
Friedrich & Stein (1972)
The Mister Rogers Study
Showed a preschool group Mister Rogers
every weekday for four weeks
During the viewing period, children from less
educated homes became more cooperative,
helpful, and more likely to state their
feelings
SESAME STREET IS DOING ITS PART…
Social Cognitive Theory applied here…
Maybe a new name?
Kudos to Cookie Monster and his friends
Cookie Monster making healthier choices
SPONGEBOB MAY CAUSE
PRESCHOOLERS TO ACT “HURRIED”
 Lillard & Peterson (2011)
 Frantic pace can cause
preschoolers to act “frantically”
Bad news for SpongeBob and friends 
AGGRESSION, INHUMANE BEHAVIOR, & MORAL
DISENGAGEMENT
Bandura (1986)
 Moral Disengagement
 The process of convincing oneself that ethical
standards do not apply to them in a particular
context



The process seems to permit individuals and
institutions to take part in violence and other
inhumane activities
Their behavior is justified or exonerated
Rationalization, minimizing, displacement, etc. are
used to help in this respect
SELF-EFFICACY
Bandura (1977)
 The belief that we can perform an action
successfully
 A judgment of personal capacity
PSYCHOTHERAPY & BEHAVIOR
MODIFICATION
Modeling has been used to reduce fears in
children and adults
Increase self-efficacy
BANDURA’S THEORY
Strengths
 Strong emphasis on experimental research
 Clinical application; using modeling as a form of
psychotherapy
 Blend of internal and external variables add holistic
value to his ideas; allows for analysis of a wide range
of behaviors
 Appreciated that his experiments were based on
philosophical assumptions; yet he avoided elevating
his empirical conclusions into philosophical ones
 Not guilty of overextending his findings
BANDURA’S THEORY
Weaknesses
 Ethical issues of using aggressive models
 In order to develop self-regulation and self-efficacy in
the classroom, there must be enough time to create a
sense of mastery in each subject
 Unfortunately, that time may not always be available
 Unconscious mind not considered
JULIAN ROTTER
Biographical Background
 Born in Brooklyn in 1916
 In high school, he became familiar with
the writings of Freud and Adler
 Undergrad: Majored in chemistry at
Brooklyn College
 Got MA at University of Iowa
 In 1941, received a PhD in clinical
psychology from Indiana University
 Published Social Learning and Clinical
Psychology in 1954
 Moved to the University of Connecticut in
1963 and remained there after retirement
 Died in 2014
INTERNAL VS. EXTERNAL CONTROL OF
REINFORCEMENT
Rotter's devised the most famous scale for measuring
generalized expectancies (1966)
Internal-External Control Scale (I-E Scale)
 Attempts to measure our locus of control
 The degree to which people perceive a causal relationship
between their own efforts and environmental consequences
LOCUS OF CONTROL
Gender
Males tend to be more internal than females
when it comes to personal successes
Rotter attributed this to cultural norms that
emphasize aggressive behavior in males and
submissive behavior in females
However, he predicted that as societal
structures change, this difference will be
minimized
LOCUS OF CONTROL
Age
As people get older, they tend to become more
internal
This may be due to the fact that as children,
individuals do not have much control over their
lives
Additionally, people higher up in organizational
structures tend to be more internal
LOCUS OF CONTROL
Moderation is best
Rotter felt that an extreme belief in either
internal or external locus of control is
unrealistic and unhealthy
PREDICTING BEHAVIOR
Rotter suggested four variables that must be
analyzed in order to make accurate
predictions in any specific situation
Behavior potential
Expectancy
Reinforcement value
Psychological situation
PREDICTING SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS
Behavior Potential
 Behavior potential is the possibility that a particular
response will occur at a given time and place in
relation to its likely reinforcement
Expectancy
 People's expectancy in any given situation is their
confidence that a particular reinforcement will follow
a specific behavior in a specific situation or
situations
 Expectancies can be either general or specific, and
the overall likelihood of success is a function of both
generalized and specific expectancies
PREDICTING SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS
Reinforcement Value
 Reinforcement value is a person's preference for any
particular reinforcement over other reinforcements if
all are equally likely to occur
Psychological Situation
 The psychological situation is that part of the
external and internal world to which a person is
responding
 Behavior is a function of the interaction of people
with their meaningful environment
WALTER MISCHEL
Biographical Background
 Mischel was born in 1930 in Vienna,
Austria, fleeing with his family to the
United States after the Nazi occupation in
1938
 He grew up in Brooklyn, New York and
studied under George Kelly and Julian
Rotter at Ohio State University, where he
received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology in
1956
 Mischel taught at the University of
Colorado from 1956 to 1958, at Harvard
University from 1958 to 1962, and at
Stanford University from 1962 to 1983
 Since 1983, Mischel has been in the
Department of Psychology at Columbia
University
BEHAVIORAL SPECIFICITY
Mischel (1968)
 Posits that individual behavior is influenced
by the specific situation
 We behave consistently in the same manner
in different situations only to the extent that
these situations lead to similar consequences
and have similar meaning for the person
 Traits can be helpful in describing behavior,
they should not be seen as the sole
determinants of behavior
A COGNITIVE-AFFECTIVE
PERSONALITY SYSTEM
Mischel & Shoda (1995)
Mischel does not believe that inconsistencies in
behavior are due solely to the situation; he
recognizes that inconsistent behaviors reflect
stable patterns of variation within a person
People's pattern of variability is their behavioral
signature, or their unique and stable pattern of
behaving differently in different situations
A COGNITIVE-AFFECTIVE
PERSONALITY SYSTEM
Mischel & Shoda (1995)
The personality dispositions that a person
values very highly or those that are integral to
his or her goals in life will influence his or her
behavior more markedly than other dispositions
The situation won’t affect behavior if its dealing
with an important disposition
CREDITS
Some slides prepared with the help of the following websites :
 cepd410102.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch /.../social%20cognition. pptx
 psycdweeb.weebly.com/uploads/3/5/2/0/3520924/ alber t_bandura.ppt
 www.tarleton.edu/.../Learning Bandura.ppt
 rinaldipsych.synthasite.com/.../feist7e_ ppt_ch17_Rotter_Mischel.ppt
 www.uky.edu/.../Social%20Cognitive%20com ...
 faculty.caldwell.edu/ Jpedoto/Big%20Five-trait%20Controversy%202. ppt
 http://www.emor y.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/bandurabio.html
 http://itcdland.csumb.edu/~ mdrolet/MISTPor tfolio/ePor tfolio/Delivera
bles/Drolet_Paper2.pdf
 https://www.boundless.com/psychology/personality/the -socialcognitive-perspective/bandura -and-rotter-s-per spectives/