ALBERT BANDURA

SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF PERSONALITY

Basics

Behaviour guided by inner forces (drives, impulses, needs) is not empirically verifiable. Also, psychodynamic
approaches explain behaviour that has happened, but they lack power to predict how people WILL behave in a
given situation. At the same time Skinners behaviorism treats humans as automation.

As per Bandura persons are neither autonomous agent not simply controlled by environmental influences.
Rather, they posse’s superior capabilities that enable them to predict the occurrence of events and to create
the means to exercise control over those that affect their daily lives.

Causes of human behaviour are to be understood in terms of reciprocal interactions of behavioral, cognitive,
& environmental experiences. This is known as reciprocal determinism. It indicates that while behaviour is
influenced by environment, the environment is also product of person’s own making.

OVERT BEHAVIOUR ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES (reward, punishment)

PERSONAL FACTORS (belief, expectation, self-perception)

Learning of behaviors

Bandura accepts importance of external reinforcement but that is not the only way behaviors are acquired,
maintained, or altered. People can also learn by observing, reading, or hearing about other people’s
behaviour. Our behaviour is regulated to a large extent by anticipated consequences. Precautionary steps or
preparation is done in anticipation. Through our mental capacity to represent actual outcomes symbolically,
future consequences can be translated to influence behaviour.

At the heart of social cognitive theory is the notion that new patterns of behaviour can be acquired in the
absence of external reinforcement. “Learning by observation” is distinctive feature of Bandura’s theory.

Another important feature is, “human capacity for self-regulation”. By arranging their immediate
environment, by creating cognitive supports, and by producing consequences for their own actions, people are
able to control their behaviour to some extent. Bandura maintains that our superior intellectual capacity to
engage in symbolic thought gives us powerful means to deal with environment. Through verbal & imagery we
preserve & process past experiences that acts as guide towards future.
“Learning through modeling” is observing the behaviour & its consequences of another person. Though “skill
learning” needs direct practice & adjusting the response, social behaviour can be well learned this way.

Basic process of observational learning

Attention -> Retention -> Motor reproduction -> Motivational process

Attentional process-

[1] Attending the model with sufficient perceptual accuracy (Factors related to observer, modeled activity etc
influence this) [2] What will be observed (The people with whom we interact regularly restrict the type of
behaviour that will be observed & learned most) [3] Charismatic quality of models [4] Observer’s pre-existing
capacities & motives

Retention process

[1] Formation of mental image – main way of retention when verbal capacity has not developed [2] verbal
coding – while observing person may recite to himself what model is doing. These codes may be rehearsed
internally. Bandura maintains that these verbal coding are very useful as lot of information can be stored &
retrieved this way.

Motor reproduction process

Some practice is needed for translating stored memory into action. Motor skills need more practice than social
skills.

Motivational process

Bandura points out that no matter how well people attend, retain, and have the ability to perform, they will
not do so without sufficient incentive or there is negative outcome for it.

Reinforcement will facilitate observational learning but is not NECESSARY. He points out that, human beings
are not weather-wane. He rather mentions vicarious reinforcement, & self- reinforcement. Vicarious
reinforcement refers to observing the consequences of same action done by another person. Self-
reinforcement is evident when people set standards of performance for achievement and proceed to reward,
punish themselves for attaining it or falling short.
Self-regulation

Self-regulated incentives increase performance by making self-gratification / tangible rewards upon

accomplishing certain accomplishments. Components of Self-regulation are self-observation, judgmental
process & evaluation. Bandura maintains that wide spectrum of human behaviour is regulated through
consequences of self-evaluation. They are self-satisfaction, self-pride, self-dissatisfaction, and self-criticism.

Self-punishment

People engage in self-deprecatory thoughts when they function inadequately. This follows the process:
transgression-internal distress-punishment-relief. Punishment not only terminates anguish and possible social
repercussion, it also tends to restore approval of others. Self-administered punishment can provide relief from
though produced distress, but this may last longer than actual punishment.

Chronic feeling of self-criticism may induce depression, apathy, and feeling of worthlessness, and other forms
of pathology. This self-devaluation can be observed in elderly people who continue to adhere to the original
standard of performance.

Bandura believes that most maladaptive behaviour is the result of stringent internal standards of self-
evaluation.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy relates to judgment of people concerning their ability to execute behaviours relevant to specific
tasks or situation. It is the perceived ability to cope with the situation. People with high self-efficacy exert
greater effort to master challenging tasks than people with self-doubt. Those with high self-efficacy visualize
success scenarios that provide positive guide for performance and they cognitive rehearse good solutions to
potential problems. Self-efficacy is acquired through performance –accomplishments, vicarious experiences,
verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal; people are like to succeed more when they are not tense.

Theory (Bandura) -- BOERE

Behaviorism, with its emphasis on experimental methods, focuses on variables we can observe, measure, and manipulate,
and avoids whatever is subjective, internal, and unavailable – i.e. mental. In the experimental method, the standard
procedure is to manipulate one variable, and then measure its effects on another. All this boils down to a theory of
personality that says that one’s environment causes one’s behavior.
Bandura found this a bit too simplistic for the phenomena he was observing – aggression in adolescents –
and so decided to add a little something to the formula: He suggested that environment causes behavior, true; but behavior
causes environment as well. He labeled this concept reciprocal determinism: The world and a person’s behavior cause
each other.
Later, he went a step further. He began to look at personality as an interaction among three "things:" the
environment, behavior, and the person’s psychological processes. These psychological processes consist of our ability to
entertain images in our minds, and language. At the point where he introduces imagery, in particular, he ceases to be a
strict behaviorist, and begins to join the ranks of the cognitivists. In fact, he is often considered a "father" of the
cognitivist movement!
Adding imagery and language to the mix allows Bandura to theorize much more effectively than someone
like, say, B. F. Skinner, about two things that many people would consider the "strong suit" of the human
species: observational learning (modeling) and self-regulation.

Observational learning, or modeling

Of the hundreds of studies Bandura was responsible for, one group stands out above the others – the bobo
doll studies. He made of film of one of his students, a young woman, essentially beating up a bobo doll. In case you don’t
know, a bobo doll is an inflatable, egg-shape balloon creature with a weight in the bottom that makes it bob back up when
you knock him down. Nowadays, it might have Darth Vader painted on it, but back then it was simply "Bobo" the clown.
The woman punched the clown, shouting "sockeroo!" She kicked it, sat on it, hit with a little hammer, and so on, shouting
various aggressive phrases. Bandura showed his film to groups of kindergartners who, as you might predict, liked it a lot.
They then were let out to play. In the play room, of course, were several observers with pens and clipboards in hand, a
brand new bobo doll, and a few little hammers. And you might predict as well what the observers recorded: A lot of little
kids beating the daylights out of the bobo doll. They punched it and shouted "sockeroo," kicked it, sat on it, hit it with the
little hammers, and so on. In other words, they imitated the young lady in the film, and quite precisely at that. This might
seem like a real nothing of an experiment at first, but consider: These children changed their behavior without first being
rewarded for approximations to that behavior! And while that may not seem extraordinary to the average parent, teacher,
or casual observer of children, it didn’t fit so well with standard behavioristic learning theory. He called the phenomenon
observational learning or modeling, and his theory is usually called social learning theory.
Bandura did a large number of variations on the study: The model was rewarded or punished in a variety of ways, the
kids were rewarded for their imitations, the model was changed to be less attractive or less prestigious, and so on.
Responding to criticism that bobo dolls were supposed to be hit, he even did a film of the young woman beating up a live
clown. When the children went into the other room, what should they find there but – the live clown! They proceeded to
punch him, kick him, hit him with little hammers, and so on.
All these variations allowed Bandura to establish that there were certain steps involved in the modeling
process:

1. Attention. If you are going to learn anything, you have to be paying attention. Likewise, anything that
puts a damper on attention is going to decrease learning, including observational learning. If, for example,
you are sleepy, groggy, drugged, sick, nervous, or "hyper," you will learn less well. Likewise, if you are
being distracted by competing stimuli.
Some of the things that influence attention involve characteristics of the model. If the model is colorful and dramatic, for
example, we pay more attention. If the model is attractive, or prestigious, or appears to be particularly competent, you
will pay more attention. And if the model seems more like yourself, you pay more attention. These kinds of variables
directed Bandura towards an examination of television and its effects on kids!
2. Retention. Second, you must be able to retain – remember – what you have paid attention to. This is
where imagery and language come in: we store what we have seen the model doing in the form of mental
images or verbal descriptions. When so stored, you can later "bring up" the image or description, so that you can
reproduce it with your own behavior.
3. Reproduction. At this point, you’re just sitting there daydreaming. You have to translate the images or descriptions
into actual behavior. So you have to have the ability to reproduce the behavior in the first place. I can watch Olympic ice
skaters all day long, yet not be able to reproduce their jumps, because I can’t ice skate at all! On the other hand, if I could
skate, my performance would in fact improve if I watch skaters who are better than I am. Another important tidbit about
reproduction is that our ability to imitate improves with practice at the behaviors involved. And one more tidbit:
Our abilities improve even when we just imagine ourselves performing! Many athletes, for example, imagine their
performance in their mind’s eye prior to actually performing.
4. Motivation. And yet, with all this, you’re still not going to do anything unless you are motivated to
imitate, i.e. until you have some reason for doing it. Bandura mentions a number of motives:
a. past reinforcement, ala traditional behaviorism.
b. promised reinforcements (incentives) that we can imagine.
c. vicarious reinforcement – seeing and recalling the model being reinforced.
Notice that these are, traditionally, considered to be the things that "cause" learning. Bandura is saying that they don’t so
much cause learning as cause us to demonstrate what we have learned. That is, he sees them as motives.
Of course, the negative motivations are there as well, giving you reasons not to imitate someone:
d. past punishment.
e. promised punishment (threats).
d. vicarious punishment.
Like most traditional behaviorists, Bandura says that punishment in whatever form does not work as well as reinforcement
and, in fact, has a tendency to "backfire" on us.
Self-regulation
Self-regulation – controlling our own behavior – is the other "workhorse" of human personality. Here
Bandura suggests three steps:
1. Self-observation. We look at ourselves, our behavior, and keep tabs on it.
2. Judgment. We compare what we see with a standard. For example, we can compare our performance with
traditional standards, such as "rules of etiquette." Or we can create arbitrary ones, like "I’ll read a book a
week." Or we can compete with others, or with ourselves.
3. Self-response. If you did well in comparison with your standard, you give yourself rewarding selfresponses.
If you did poorly, you give yourself punishing self-responses. These self-responses can range
from the obvious (treating yourself to a sundae or working late) to the more covert (feelings of pride or
shame).
A very important concept in psychology that can be understood well with self-regulation is self-concept
(better known as self-esteem). If, over the years, you find yourself meeting your standards and life loaded
with self-praise and self-reward, you will have a pleasant self-concept (high self-esteem). If, on the other
hand, you find yourself forever failing to meet your standards and punishing yourself, you will have a poor self-concept
(low self-esteem).
Recall that behaviorists generally view reinforcement as effective, and punishment as fraught with problems.
The same goes for self-punishment. Bandura sees three likely results of excessive self-punishment:
a. compensation – a superiority complex, for example, and delusions of grandeur.
b. Inactivity – apathy, boredom, depression.
c. Escape – drugs and alcohol, television fantasies, or even the ultimate escape, suicide.
These have some resemblance to the unhealthy personalities Adler and Horney talk about: an aggressive
type, a compliant type, and an avoidant type respectively. Bandura’s recommendations to those who suffer from poor self-
concepts come straight from the three steps
of self-regulation:
1. Regarding self-observation – know thyself! Make sure you have an accurate picture of your behavior.
2. Regarding standards – make sure your standards aren’t set too high. Don’t set yourself up for failure!
Standards that are too low, on the other hand, are meaningless.
3. Regarding self-response – use self-rewards, not self-punishments. Celebrate your victories, don’t dwell on your
failures. Therapy
Self-control therapy
The ideas behind self-regulation have been incorporated into a therapy technique called self-control therapy. It has been
quite successful with relatively simple problems of habit, such as smoking, overeating, and study habits.
1. Behavioral charts. Self-observation requires that you keep close tabs on your behavior, both before you begin changes
and after. This can involve something as simple as counting how many cigarettes you smoke in a day to complex
behavioral diaries. With the diary approach, you keep track of the details, the when and where of your habit. This lets
you get a grip on what kinds of cues are associated with the habit: Do you smoke more after meals, with coffee, with
certain friends, in certain locations...?
2. Environmental planning. Taking your lead from your behavioral charts and diaries, you can begin to
alter your environment. For example, you can remove or avoid some of those cues that lead to your bad
behaviors: Put away the ashtrays, drink tea instead of coffee, divorce that smoking partner.... You can find
the time and place best suited for the good alternative behaviors: When and where do you find you study
best? And so on.
3. Self-contracts. Finally, you arrange to reward yourself when you adhere to your plan, and possibly punish yourself
when you do not. These contracts should be written down and witnessed (by your therapist, for example), and the details
should be spelled out very explicitly: "I will go out to dinner on Saturday night if I smoke fewer cigarettes this week than
last week. I will do paperwork instead if I do not." You may involve other people and have them control your rewards and
punishments, if you aren’t strict enough with yourself. Beware, however: This can be murder on your relationships, as
you bite their heads off for trying to do what you told them to do!
Modeling therapy
The therapy Bandura is most famous for, however, is modeling therapy. The theory is that, if you can get
someone with a psychological disorder to observe someone dealing with the same issues in a more productive
fashion, the first person will learn by modeling the second.
Bandura’s original research on this involved herpephobics – people with a neurotic fear of snakes. The
client would be lead to a window looking in on a lab room. In that room is nothing but a chair, a table, a cage on the table
with a locked latch, and a snake clearly visible in the cage. The client then watches another person – an actor – go through
a slow and painful approach to the snake. He acts terrified at first, but shakes himself out of it, tells himself to relax and
breathe normally and take one step at a time towards the snake. He may stop in the middle, retreat in panic, and start all
over. Ultimately, he gets to the point where he opens the cage, removes the snake, sits down on the chair, and drapes it
over his neck, all the while giving himself calming instructions.
After the client has seen all this (no doubt with his mouth hanging open the whole time), he is invited to try it himself.
Mind you, he knows that the other person is an actor – there is no deception involved here, only modeling! And yet, many
clients – lifelong phobics – can go through the entire routine first time round, even after only one viewing of the actor!
This is a powerful therapy. One drawback to the therapy is that it isn’t easy to get the rooms, the snakes, the actors, etc.,
together. So
Bandura and his students have tested versions of the therapy using recordings of actors and even just
imagining the process under the therapist’s direction. These methods work nearly as well.
Discussion
Albert Bandura has had an enormous impact on personality theory and therapy. His straightforward, behaviorist-
like style makes good sense to most people. His action-oriented, problem-solving approach likewise appeals to those
who want to get things done, rather than philosophize about ids, archetypes, actualization, freedom, and all the many
other mentalistic constructs personologists tend to dwell on. Among academic psychologists, research is crucial, and
behaviorism has been the preferred approach. Since the late 1960’s, behaviorism has given way to the "cognitive
revolution," of which Bandura is considered a part. Cognitive psychology retains the experimentally-oriented flavor of
behaviorism, without artificially restraining the researcher to external behaviors, when the mental life of clients and
subjects is so obviously important.
This is a powerful movement, and the contributors include some of the most important people in psychology today: Julian
Rotter, Walter Mischel, Michael Mahoney, and David Meichenbaum spring to my mind. Also involved are such theorists
of therapy as Aaron Beck (cognitive therapy) and Albert Ellis (rational emotive therapy). The followers of George Kelly
also find themselves in this camp. And the many people working on personality trait research – such as Buss and Plomin
(temperament theory) and McCrae and Costa (five factor theory) – are essentially "cognitive behaviorists" like Bandura.
My gut feeling is that the field of competitors in personality theory will eventually boil down to the
cognitivists on the one side and existentialists on the other. Stay tuned!