1874 SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
methods as the social learning approach, but it focuses on
teaching problem-solving strategies and verbally mediated
self-control (e.g., self-instruction). Music therapy has also
been used successfully (Gourgey, 1998).
The evidence to date suggests that interventions have
demonstrated modest to moderate effects in teaching social
skills to socially isolated children. Also, there are problems
in establishing training effects that generalize beyond the
treatment setting and maintain over time. Given the impor-
tance of positive social relationships with peers, efforts need
to be continued to overcome conceptual, methodological, and
assessment problems. Advances in these areas may further
improve intervention efforts with children for whom peer
relationships are problematic.
REFERENCES
Asher, S. R., Oden, S. C., & Gottman, J. M. (1977). Childrenís friend-
ship in the school setting. In L. G. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in
early education (Vol. 1). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bronson, W. C. (1968). Stable patterns of behaviors: The signiÝ-
cance of enduring orientations for personality development. In
J. P. Hill (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol.
2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Conger, J. C., & Keane, P. (1981). Social skills intervention in the
treatment of isolated or withdrawn children. Psychological Bul-
letin, 90(3), 478ñ495.
Coombs, M. L., & Slaby, D. (1977). Social skills training with chil-
dren. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical
child psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Academic.
Gottman, J. M. (1977). Toward a deÝnition of social isolation in
children. Child Development, 48, 513ñ517.
Gourgey, C. (1998). Music therapy in the treatment of social isola-
tion in visually impaired children. REView, 29(4), 157ñ162.
Gronlund, N. E. (1959). Sociometry in the classroom. New York:
Harper.
Hops, H. (1983). Social skills training for socially withdrawn / isolate
children. In P. Karoly & J. J. Steffen (Eds.), Improving children’s
competence. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Hops, H., Walker, H. M., & Greenwood, C. R. (1979). PEERS: A pro-
gram for remediating withdrawal in school. In L. A. Hamerlynck
(Ed.), Behavioral systems for the developmentally disabled: In
school and family environments. New York: Brunner / Mazel.
Strain, P. S., Cooke, T. P., & Apolloni, T. (1976). Teaching excep-
tional children: Assessing and modifying social behavior. New
York: Academic.
Urbain, E. S., & Kendall, P. C. (1980). Review of social-cognitive
problem-solving interventions with children. Psychological Bul-
letin, 88(1), 109ñ143.
HAROLD HANSON
PAUL BATES
Southern Illinois University
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
SOCIOGRAM
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
Social learning theory is one of the most well known and
most inÐuential models for understanding human behavior.
In explaining this theory, it is helpful to describe what it is
not, because social learning theory grew out of a reaction to
other theoretical orientations. First, social learning theory
does not view human behavior as purely a result of internal
cognitive thoughts or feelings. Freud, for example, viewed
human behavior as mediated by thoughts, wishes, self-
concepts, impulses, etc. Neither does social learning theory
view behavior as strictly a function of environmental events.
Thus social learning theory is not a model of human behav-
ior based strictly on the principles of operant conditioning
developed by B. F. Skinner. Skinner and others believe that
behavior is purely a function of environmental events.
Social learning theory does, however, provide an integra-
tion of previous theories such as Freudís and Skinnerís. Al-
though social learning theory is closely related to Skinnerís
principles of operant conditioning, the major difference is the
incorporation of internal events as controlling stimuli. Social
learning theorists recognize that an individualís thoughts
and feelings have a signiÝcant impact on behavior.
Social learning theory is a term that has been applied
to the views of a relatively wide range of theorists and
researchers. Without question, the theorist who has done
the most to conceptualize and advance the ideas of social
learning theory is Albert Bandura of Stanford University.
His more recent work has moved away from the early en-
vironmental determinism that characterized behavioristic
social learning theory. His most comprehensive presenta-
tion is in his 1986 book in which he extensively details
his social cognitive theory. No socialization theory has as
much careful empirical support as social cognitive theory.
Bandura has added signiÝcant arguments for why internal
evaluative processes must be included in any behavioral
theory. At the core of Banduraís theory is the concept of
reciprocal determinism. Similar to but more limited than
Bronfenbrennerís ecological model, reciprocal determinism
conceptualizes behavior as a continuous reciprocal inter-
action between an individualís thoughts, behaviors, and
environmental factors.
This triadic model views human functioning as a three-
way interaction among behavior (B), cognitions and other
internal events that affect perceptions and actions (P), and a
personís external environment (E). An interesting aspect of
this view is that each element of the triad affects the other
two elements. Thus, not only do internal and environmental
events affect behavior, but behavior also affects internal
events and the environment in reciprocal fashion.
Banduraís (1986) emphasis on internal mediators can be
seen in work on observational learning, enactive learning,
predictive knowledge and forethought, interpretations of
incentives, vicarious motivators, self-regulatory mecha-
nisms, self-efÝcacy, and cognitive regulators. Bandura dem-
 SOCIAL MALADJUSTMENT
onstrates how cognitive factors determine what we observe,
how we evaluate our observations, and how we use this
information in the future. For example when students take
tests, they read the questions, answer according to their
interpretations of what the teacher wants, receive feedback
in the form of grades, and then adjust depending on how suc-
cessfully they believe they answered the questions graded
by the teacher. No behavior occurs in a vacuum without
prior internal processes and external effects.
A key component in most social learning theories is obser-
vational learning, which is based on the process of modeling.
Through modeling, children learn a wide array of compli-
cated skills, such as language and social interaction. More-
over, these skills are learned without reinforcement. This is
in stark contrast to radical behavioral theory, which posits
that complex behaviors are learned through the reinforce-
ment of gradual changes in molecular response patterns.
Teachers make use of observational learning many times
a day. For example, some teachers will verbally reinforce a
child who is behaving appropriately just so other children
will be encouraged to imitate the modeled behavior. Most
socialization is the result of observational learning, because
it is much more efÝcient and realistic than the step-by-step
shaping advocated by radical behaviorists.
Another key component that has received considerable
research attention is the concept of self-efÝcacy. Self-efÝcacy
is a complex process in which persons assess the likelihood
of successfully performing a task based upon their previous
mastery (e.g., training), vicarious experience (e.g., modeling
of others), verbal persuasion (e.g., encouragement), physi-
ological condition (e.g., health), and affective state (e.g.,
happy). Persons high in self-efÝcacy will make realistic judg-
ments of their abilities to perform tasks, will tend to seek
appropriately difÝcult tasks, and will persist in them until
completed (Bandura, 1997). Teachers with high teacher
self-efÝcacy will be more likely to believe they can teach a
classroom of difÝcult children. In special education classes,
high teacher self-efÝcacy will result in greater progress and
competence in the students.
Social learning theory has also emphasized the concept
of internal dialogues. These dialogues, or internal speeches,
are used by people to learn information (e.g., to rehearse
a phone number), for self-instruction (e.g., ìNow what do
I do next?î), and for self- reinforcement (e.g., ìWay to go!î).
These internal dialogues Ýt in nicely with Vygotskyís de-
velopmental theory postulating a cognitive self-guidance
system in which these dialogues eventually become silent or
inner speech. Teaching internal dialogues to children with
learning disabilities may help them become better problem
solvers (Berk, 1992).
Because social learning theory has incorporated internal
variables (e.g., thoughts and feelings) that are not directly
observable, it has been criticized by radical behaviorists.
Similarly, the emphasis within social learning theory on
environmental factors and the lack of emphasis on cognitive
1875
development has caused it to be questioned by developmen-
talists. Freudian psychologists are dissatisÝed with the lack
of strong emotional components. Despite these detractors,
social learning theory has enormous appeal to a wide variety
of professionals. The reason for this appeal is the testability
of the theory and the broad coverage of internal and external
factors. Social learning theory is seen by many as being
very comprehensive in its ability to handle a diverse range
of human experiences and problems.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Berk, L. E. (1992). Childrenís private speech: An overview of theory
and the status of research. In R. M. Diaz & L. E. Berk (Eds.),
Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation. Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
SPENCER THOMPSON
The University of Texas of the
Permian Basin
BANDURA, ALBERT
IMPULSE CONTROL
MEDIATIONAL DEFICIENCY
MEDIATION
OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING
RECIPROCAL DETERMINISM
SOCIAL MALADJUSTMENT
Social Maladjustment (SM) is, at best, a vaguely deÝned and
intensely debated construct. It emerged approximately 30
years ago in an exclusionary clause to the federal deÝnition
of students with Emotional Disturbance (ED): ìThe term [ED]
does not apply to children who are socially maladjusted, un-
less it is determined that they have an emotional disturbanceî
(34 CFR Part 300.7(c)(4); OSERS, 1997). Although the deÝni-
tion of ED was based on Eli Bowerís research in the 1960s,
the exclusionary clause for students considered SM seemed
to appear with no basis in the empirical literature (Merrell &
Walker, 2004). Since that time, researchers and practitioners
have struggled to (a) deÝne social maladjustment, (b) identify
students who are SM and differentiate them from students
who are ED, and (c) serve students who are SM.
Definition and Etiology
Attempts to deÝne social maladjustment range from liberal,
or inclusive, to more conservative, or exclusive, deÝnitions.
Each interpretation suggests a different etiology.