ALBERT BANDURA

Born: December 4, 1925, in Mundare, Alberta, Canada

psychologist and the David Starr Jordan Professor Emeritus of Social Science in Psychology at Stanford University.

originator of social learning theory and the theory of self-efficacy

responsible for the influential 1961 Bobo Doll experiment

fourth most-frequently cited psychologist of all time and as the most cited living one(2002 survey)

In 2008, he won Grawemeyer Award in Psychology

Personal History

Writings: Adolescent aggression (1959), a detailed report of a field

study in which social learning principles were used to analyze the personality development of a group of middle-class delinquent boys.

Social Learning and Personality Development, a volume in which he and Walters presented the social learning principles they had developed and the evidence on which the theory was based.

Principles of behavior modification(1969), in which he outlined the application of behavioral techniques based on learning principles to the modification of behavior.

Reconceptualization of reinforcement

Behavioral consequences alter subsequent behavior by providing information.

Accurate hypotheses produce successful performance

Inaccurate hypotheses lead to inactive behavior.

Reinforcers provide information about what a person must do in order to secure desired outcomes and to avoid punishing outcomes.

As a consequence, reinforcement can only occur when a person is aware of the contingencies and anticipates that they will apply to future behavior.

Reinforcers functions primarily as an informative and motivational operation rather than as a mechanical response strengthener.

In observational learning, reinforcement serves as an antecedent rather than a consequent influence.

Skinnerian learning theory suggests that reinforcement acts backward to strengthen an imitative response and its connection to surrounding stimuli.

From Bandura’s point of view, a reinforcement facilitates learning in an anticipatory manner by encouraging the observer to pay attention and to rehearse the observed behavior..

Two other types of reinforcement (“direct reinforcement”):Direct reinforcement- stimulus whose presence increases the frequency of occurrence for behavior with which it is paired.

1) Self-reinforcement- occurs when an individual compares his or her own behavior to internal standards.

2) Vicarious reinforcement- occurs when an individual witnesses someone else experience reinforcing or punishing consequences for a behavior; and that individual anticipates similar consequences that she or he produces the same behavior.

Two sets of consequences:

1) Self-evaluations2) External outcomes

External consequences have greatest effect on behavior when they are compatible with self-generated consequences

Principles of Observational Learning

Bandura proposes that a fundamental way humans acquire skills and behaviors is by observing the behavior of others.

Governed by four constituent processes:1) Attention

2) Retention

3) Production

4) Motivation

Attentional processes

People cannot learn anything unless they pay attention to and accurately perceive significant features of the to-be-modeled behavior.

Retention processes

The learner must be able to reproduce the behavior that has been observed.

The problem stems from a lack of the requisite cognitive or motor skills, but often reflects the performer’s lack of feedback about what he or she is doing.

Trials, error, practice and feedback all contribute to what is often a gradual process of translating knowledge into action.

Motivational Processes Performance for observed behavior is influenced by

3 kinds of incentives:

1) DIRECT

2) VICARIOUS

3) SELF-ADMINISTERED

A learned behavior will be enacted if it leads directly to a desired outcome, if it has been observed to be effective for the model, or it is self-satisfying.

In human cultures, novel behavior is very frequently acquired by observing the behaviors of others.

Pictorial presentations, such as those in movies and television, are highly influential sources of model.

Exposure to models has two other types of effects:1) a model’s behavior may simply serve to elicit

the performance of similar responses already in the observer’s repertoire.

2) a model may influence an observer when the model is performing socially proscribed or deviant behavior.

Classically conditioned emotional responses Not only may observers exposed to the emotional reactions of a

model experience similar reactions, but they may also begin to respond emotionally to the stimuli that produced these reactions in the model.

Reciprocal Determinism:Personal influencesEnvironmental forcesBehavior

Learning theorist suggest that behavior is controlled by situational forces

Skinner’s environment serves as an “autonomous force that automatically shapes, orchestrates and control behavior.

Interaction processes have been conceptualized in three different ways:

1) Unidirectional interaction- persons and situations are regarded as independent entities that combine to generate behavior

2) Bidirectional interaction- persons and situation are regarded as interdependent causes, but behavior is seen only as a consequence that does not figure in the causal process.

3) Social learning view- behavior, environmental forces, and personal characteristics all function as interlocking determinants of each other.

Reciprocal determinism requires that we dispense with the fiction that any event can only be understood as a stimulus or a response or a reinforcer

Requires consideration of how all three sets of factors influence one another:CognitiveBehavioralEnvironmental

Self Observation

We continually observe our own behavior, noting such factors as the quality, quantity and originality of what we do.

Temporary mood states that motivation for change also can influence how one’s performances are monitored and processed

Judgmental Processes

Behavior generates a self-reaction through judgments about the correspondence between that behavior and knowledge of norms or by social comparison processes.

Self-judgments are enhanced when others of lesser ability are chosen for the comparison.

Judgments also vary depending on the importance of the activity being judges as well as individual contributions as to the determinants of the behavior.

Self-reaction

Favorable appraisals generate rewarding self-reactions

Unfavorable judgments activate punishing self-responses.

Behaviors that are viewed as having no personal significance do not generate any reaction.

The components of the self-system do not function as autonomous regulators of behavior, rather, they play a role in the reciprocal determination of behavior.

External factors affect these self-regulatory processes in at least three ways:

-Internal standards against which behavior is judged are extracted from our experiences.

-Environmental influences may alter the manner in which we judged our behavior.

-External factors promote the selective activation and disengagement of self-reactive influences.

Applications to therapy

Direct and vicarious experience with traumatic events under the proper circumstances can be both directly and vicariously extinguished.

Persons with unrealistic or exaggerated fears should be able to reduce their defensive and emotional reactions by watching a model interact fearlessly with the anxiety-provoking objector event and reduce them still further by practicing the model’s behavior in a nonthreatening situation.

Self-efficacy

The expectation that one can, by personal effort, master a situation and bring about a desired outcome.

An efficacy expectation is the conviction that the person himself or herself can successfully produce the behavior required to generate the outcome.

Four major sources of information: performance accomplishments – provide the most effective

method to induce mastery because they are based on actual mastery experience.

Vicarious experience- observing someone else perform a threatening activity without negative consequences can contribute to an expectation in the observer that he or she can improve through persistence.

Verbal persuasion- encouraging a person to believe that he or she can cope effectively.

Emotional arousal- elicited by stressful situations - cue to trigger a perception of low efficacy.

A video showing the “Bobo Doll Experiment” of Albert Bandura

OverviewMini-BioPersonalityAggregationMischel’s Position on PersonalityPersonality vs. Situation Debate

Walter Mischel Biography Born 1930 Vienna, Austria Raised in Brooklyn, New York Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Ohio State in 1956 Taught at

University of Colorado 1956-1958 Harvard University 1958-1962 Stanford University 1962-1983 Columbia University 1983-Present

Proponent of Situational Personality

PersonalityTraits determine how individuals react in

everyday occurrencesPersonality assumes people are

characterized by distinctive qualities that are invariant across situations and timeResearch is counter to this claim

AggregationAcknowledge the importance of situationsAggregate the individual’s behavior over

many different situations to give a “true score”

Aggregation Example

Another ViewpointMischel argues

Traits lack internal consistency and cross-situational generality

Low agreement in trait structure of individuals described by raters and other methods

Low correlations between traits and behaviorsBehaviors are predicted better by other methods

Situational PersonalityMischel proposes a cognitive-affective

system theory of personalitySituational Personality: Situation

Determines Behavior

A video showing the “The Marshmallow Test” of Walter Mischel

If…Then…People are characterized by stable

individual differences in their overall behavior, but also by distinctive and stable patterns of situation-behavior relationsFor example, Amy does X when A occurs, but Y

when B occurs

How Behavior Varies Across Situations

Summer CampExamined children’s interactions over the

summerTwo main features examined:

Valence (positive or negative)Type of person involved in interaction (adult

counselor or child peer)

Situation-Behavior Profiles for Verbal Aggression for Two Children at Two Different Time Samples

Results Frequencies of behavior were standardized so that

any remaining variance would be attributable to the individual’s distinctive personal qualities

Found meaningful stable situation-behavior profiles Indicates there are characteristics intraindividual

patterns in how individuals relate to different psychological conditions and that these patterns form a behavioral signature that reflects personality coherence

Enduring CharacteristicsEncodings or construal (of self, others, situations,

etc.)Expectancies and beliefs (about outcomes and

one’s own efficacy)Competencies (for the construction and

generation of social behavior)Subjective valuesSelf-regulatory plans and strategies in the pursuit

of goals

Personality vs. Situation DebatePersonality Determines Behavior

OR

Situation Determines Behavior

Situationist ViewSmall Correlation Between Personality and

BehaviorRichard Nisbett (1980): Revised

Personality-behavior CorrelationStill Small

Personality ArgumentsChoosing Situations Reflects PersonalityPersonality Traits Useful Psychological

Tools Improvements in Personality Research

Personality ViewEmotional Personality Traits Affect BehaviorExpressions of Behaviors ChangeExample: Display Different Behaviors in

Different SituationsPersonality: Enduring Genotypes Expressed in

Diverse PhenotypesSituationist: Behavior Dependent on Situation

ExampleAggression

(Personality Variable)

Social Approval (Personality Variable)

Home

Party (Situational Variable)

VS

Example

High AggressionHigh Social Approval

Low AggressionHigh Social Approval

High AggressionLow Social Approval

Low AggressionLow Social Approval