© 1972 Genet Leaning ‘Al gh roe No prof Female nei om Manaactaed inthe Ute Sit of dence tary of Cong Catalog Card Nomi Spep98 GENERAL LEARNING PRESS Gl fetome ety roo Social Learning Theory AUBERT BANDURA ‘Stanford Uniersty Moss ties have boon advanced over the years to explsin why people behave as they do, Unt reestly the most common sicw, popularized by various personality doctrines, depicted. be havior at impaled by tne fores inthe form of need, drives, and impulses, afen operating below the level of conssousness Since the Brncpal eases of behavior resided sn forces within the individual. that is where oe looked for explanations of mans scons. Althowgh this view enjoyed widespread profesional and poplar acceptance, Sid not go unchallenged. ‘Theories ofthis sm were cited os both conceptual and en pirical grounds, The inner determinants were tpealy inferred frm the behavior they supporedy caused, resulting in peeudo explana tions. Ths for example. « hone tnpule was deduced om 4 person's uaicbe behavior, sthich we thn atibuted tothe action Of the underlying impulre. Diflerent personality theories proposed aiverse lists of mtivatos, sme conning few al punpote dives, ‘thers embracing varied assortment of specie dives ‘The conceptual structure of psveodyaumie theres wat forther ccted for duregrding the tremendous complenty of human Fesponsvenes. An internal rotator cannot posibly account for the marked varation in the incidence and Srengih of = given bbchavior sn diferent tuations toward diferent persons. at difer nt times, and in diferent socal roles When diverse social inf noes price corespondingly dverse behaviors. the inner cause limplioated in the relationship cant be ess comple than is ess, ‘Wale the conoeptual adequacy of prychodynamic formulations was debatable, their empirical liittons could not be ignored indefnitely. They provide insiguing interpretations of evens that had already happened, but they lacked power to predic how people‘Albert Bandura ould behave io given stuatins (Mishel 1965) Moreover it was df to demongtne at peo who had’ 1pychodynamiealyapeted treatment benetied ‘mare than nonreted cues (Bandura 1065, Bergin Ie]. Acquting insight nie {he anderying inputes though which tekecsed changes were supposely scheved toned ov te sepreest more of a toc conversion Gan sacle Alsovery proces. At Marc 1068) any st, ined ot each psychodamie approach tad fe ten eo st fea an ‘brand of night The prac of thee deters could be early canine though sugsee poe lng sad selective renoreent of ‘het vecel ‘eports in selbvaldating interviews. For ese ie, som advocates of diflring there oceaten repeatedly discovered tht fave prychatvonmie ‘a bt ly fn ee ee Sita causes emphasized by proponents of eortng views. The content of a parcur cen feign nd emergent “unconsclou” could therfore be bet ter predicted from lnowledge ofthe therapists beet ‘ten than rom the eens actual Sock legate eventually became apparent that progres in ndertanding human behavior war to eee ‘ate, mote singentrequvementy would have he applied 1a evaluating the adequacy of eras ‘Symons. “Theories must demmnstate Eechowe power, snd dhy must accurately Wently eat, fos a shown by the facta ving the posse ‘eteminants produces rested changes in babvon ‘The atbution of behavior to lane fore ton ethops be likened to ey explanatory sche Serine of ence oe cae tal reactions were supposedly caused by mosesrens of 4 sata substan cl phogiton phe kjects were internally propel by inane sence, end physiological funconing was seeped {he scion Of tum. Devapala (heary dafted the focu of ena! ‘analyse Iypothesizad inner determinants to detaod eager tation of ‘external. in enon on sespnaiveney Human behavior was extensively analyte tes of the simul evens that eshe Kandi tsi {ng comequeces that aher't Researchers epee eooatrated that response potters gens ae teibuted to underying forces ould e iadoced, but in environmental fore ‘The idea that man's actions are under external contol, though amply decanted, wat oot cathe Sastialy recived for a va‘ety of rao, TS ne ‘rope i uaforsmatelyimplid «oneway infuses rose tt elced tan ee hecs teases Yaris of extra] rewards at ponshments The ‘ew that bchavio: Is envtonmetlly dated slo appeared to contradia frm, but iNfowi belief that people poste generat posal tele leading them fo behave ns conden ane es, hosvever variable the sec isons ‘A more valid eitcism ofthe extreme bebavioristic osion (stat, ina vgoros efoto echo spe ous inner nse t meglel determinate of me Ihave aig thm hie copie ang. Ma 154 thinking organism ponesting capa ct [ovide him sith some power of cede, at fhe estet that taditonal bao thes sould be fate, was for providing x namics rt than an inacurte acount c human boss nthe soil learning view man Westy even by nner ferees nor uieted belles by eee rental infuenoes Rather, priinlgea! factor i best undarod tn tera c's eobcems ene G2 iteration between behavior aad contallgg ‘nitions. The socal learsing tery ted this paper plies special emptasis on te impatace ‘lt plaved by vicarious, symbolic und selteogele tory proceses which receive relive te Sees ten een in met contemporary tenes of snag, These difernces in goveming proce easy ok tun implctins forthe ay one wows the Patsy of human beter Traditional theories of leaming generally dept bebavior at the product of dell epeneed response coneyuence In sctaiy, self a leaming peomens resulting fo dict ape tvces can osur ona vcr tas thigh obec ‘atom of other peoples Behave ands cenequ. {es for them. Mans eapacty te lam by abeenttioy ceables him to acoute large intend it of Bebavior by ample without havge to bald se the pattems padully "by tedouy land cre? Simialy emotional responses, canbe developed scrvatinally by wining the ufone soon of thers undegsing punto pemuniie eons ences. Fearal and defensive chaver cea” be ftiguished veaously by obsersing ober engage In te fered acter whtout ay aden eee queres. And behavior! ishbiuons can be indeed by seeing othe nied forthe nou, Man's Supe copiive capacty is ante factor {hat determines, aot oly how he wl be aflaced bp Is experince, but the Future deca is setory my take, Pope an represent era nBocnees symbolically and later ie such representation teSoci Learning Theory uid their actions; they ca salve probleme symbol: feally wast ving f enact te varus era. tive, and they can forse the probe consequences of diferent sions and alter the bebaiortsord ingly. Thaw higher mental roeres pert both fosighal and foresight bear ‘Athi itinguising feature of man stat bei capable of creang.slereguatve nfucos By ‘managing the smulor deta of gen stv {Ser tnd. producing contequnces fer their own ction, perl are abt eel he ova bebo to some degre. Ae ilkstrated late, copaive and felézegltve inBvences often sere inportant fone Sons i cou sequences The emader of this paper is devoted to 4 detald scl Inning soalyie [Sf ow patems of bebavior ae soqured aad how ‘Be expsion Is continuo opted by the tmaplsy of selgenerted and ther sores ‘steer ‘Learning by Direct Experience In he soil learning system, new havior ean be aequied tg dite expenence or by observing the behavior a ther. The woe me entry form of iaming. ote in Gree per fee, lngely governed by the rwrding ond ppnishog consequences that fllw sty given son People are repeatedly confronted with son with ‘shh they must deal inne way ot another Some the ripnses That thoy ty prove unsuecesl While others produce more frvore cece. Though this procs of diferent) senforcement seco trode of bevior sre evetuly sleed tom fxportory actin, while nettles are diearded TT commonly believed that responses ate auto ‘matically and unconsciously seengtoened by thet {immediate consequences Simple peformaacts ean bbe altered to some degree though reinforcement without awareness ofthe relationup between ones factions and their outoomes, Honever, mans cog tive skill enable him to prot more extensively fon experince tan if he were an unnking organism Within the framework of social learning theory, reinforcement primary serves informative and fentive funions, although it alias response Strengthening epabilits. Informative Function of Reinforcement During the course of leaming, people not only psf rapnss, But they ai dere tile fntial consequences accompanying. thir various factions. On the basis of thi informative feedback, they develop thoughts or hypotheses about the types of behavior mort Ikely! to aucosed. ‘There Hypotheses then serve as guides for future actions {Dolany & O'Connell 1963]. Accurate hypotheses five nie suocesful performances, whereas er eour one Jed to IneBective courts of action. The opntive events are this selectively strengthened ot ‘scoured by the diferental consequences at cempmyng the mare distally occuring overt be- havck inthis analysis of learning by experience, seinorcing consequences partly rere az an uinytes lated way of informing performers what they mast do in order to gain bends outcomes or t9 avid unui one. Motiational Function of Reinforcement Because of man's anticipatory capacity, conditions of reaforcoment alo have rong ineensive otis onal eects. Most human behavior ie not controlled by immediate external reinforcement. Ax a result of Prior experiences, people come to expect that cota ‘ction wll gain them outcomes they value, others Wl have no appreciable eects, and esi othere wll produce underred reste Action are. therefore ‘egulated to «large extent by antcpatedconsequen es Homeowners, fr estance, donot wait wn they fxpeiene the misery of + burning house to uy Gre {evuranes, people who venture outdoors do. aot rdinanly wait unth dacomnforted bys torrential fain oF biting snowstonm to decide what to ween nor do motonats usualy watt ntl inconvenienced tyr aalled automobile to replenish gueline ‘Though the capacity to reperent actual oatoomes symbolially,foture consequeness can be converted {ato corent motivators tat inGuence behavior i ‘much the same way af actual consequences, Mant Copative sills thar provide him with the espaily for both insightful and foresighful behavoe CCopnitoe Mediation of Reinforcement Egects A reat deal of research has been conducted on whether bebavior i lerned though the automatic Action of consequences or whether the effects of enforcement are cogaitvey mediated, ‘Most of these studies have employed verbal conditions “tutions im which subjests converse freely or coo struct sentences and the experimenter rewatde Ce fain eases of words but igoorr all other. Changer tn the incidence of reinforced verbalizations ae then amined ar « funtion of whether the partepaats ‘were aware that thei verbal utterances Were Sloe tively renforced and whether they recognized the type of words that produced reinforcement.