Social Cognitive Learning Perspective

To understand the vary nature and components involved in Learning a behavior pattern especially ‘human complex mode of response’ is a hard task to grasp, and it has become critically important to explore phenomena that causes a person to act in its own unique way and constitute a distinctive pattern of PERSONALITY. Social Cognitive perspective contributes to Personality theories by concentrating on key components in determining behavior. i.e.Personal variables.Environmental or situational variables.

We can say that, the contemporary version of social learning theory stresses the importance of cognition, behavior and environment in determining personality.(santrock,1996).

Origin of Cognitive Social Learning Theory

Social Learning Theory was spawned in the early 1940’s when John Dollard and Neal Miller(1950) tried to couple behaviorism and psychoanalytic theory. The coupling was not successful, because the fuzziness of many psychoanalytic concepts made it virtually impossible to anchor them in the empirical observational methodology of behaviorism.

George Kelly(1955) also introduced ”Personal Construct theory”. Where as Arthur Staats(1975,1981,1996)gave his theory of “social behaviorism”. He was among the first to describe how internal concepts ,and self concepts could be developed and changed through same conditioning principles.

Contemporary approaches

More contemporary approaches in cognitive social learning theory are proposed by

Albert Bandura; Social Cognitive learning Theory(Self Efficacy theory)Walter Mischel; Cognitive Social Learning Theory(Reconceptualization)Julian Rotter; Cognitive Social Learning Theory(Expectancy/Locus of

Control Theory).

Walter Mischel’s Cognitive Social Learning Theory

Biographical sketchWalter Mischel was ,the second son of upper middle class parents,was

born on February 22,1930, in Vienna. He grew up in a pleasant environment only a short distance from Freud’s home.The tranquility was shattered when

Nazis invaded Austria in 1938.Mischel’s family fled to united States, eventually settled in Brooklyn in 1940,where he completed his school and college years. later he studied under George Kelly and Julian Rotter at Ohio State University, and received his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology in 1956. Mischel taught at the University of Colorado from 1956 to 1958, then at Harvard University from 1958 to 1962, and also at Stanford University from 1962 to 1983. Since 1983, Mischel has been in the Department of Psychology at Columbia University, where he is currently the Robert Johnston Niven Professor of Humane Letters.

Contribution in Personality Psychology

Consistency paradox

Walter Mischel(1968) in his classic monograph”Personality and assessment” Criticized “trait theory” explanation of behavior and explained that empirical data suggests much variability in behavior.He argued that traits are weak predictors of performance in a variety of situations. He called his” Re conceptualized” view as META theory,which has bridged competing approaches as two sides of one system.

Trait situation interaction

This view suggests that behavior is not caused by global personal traits but by people’s perception of themselves in a particular situation. Mischel said that personality often changes according to a given situation. For example suppose we want to assess the happiness of Jamal ,an introvert, and Maria ,an extrovert. According to trait-situation interaction ,we can not predict who will be happier unless we know some thing about the situations they are in.Jamal may become happy while in the Library where as Maria is happier in the Party.

Mischel view was called situationism.Today ,most psychologists in the field of personality including Mischel are,Interactionists.i.e behavior is the out come of both Trait and situation.

Cognitive-affective Personality System ( CAPS)Mischel dealt with ‘Personality Paradox” by devising a reconciliation

Unified approach to personality theory. He integrated dispositions and processing dynamics with in ‘cognitive affective processing system’. He gave the idea that a person’s behavior will change from situation to situation but in a meaningful manner.(Mischel,1999;Mischel& Shoda,1995,1998,1999).

Behavioral Signatures

Mischel’s analysis revealed that the individual’s behavior, when closely examined, was highly dependent upon situational cues,and the consistencies that characterize an individual are found in distinctive, stable, contextualized psychologically meaningful and informative IF ~THEN ,relationships called to be Behavioral Signatures of that person.(Mischel,2004).

She does A when X

B when Y

In a re analysis by Mischel and shoda (1995) “Self Perceived consistency” behavioral signatures in personality were studied.

Cognitive Affective UnitsMischel proposed a set of five overlapping personal variables that interact

with the situation to determine behavior. These units include all those psychological, social, and physiological aspects of people that cause them to interact with their environment with a relatively stable pattern of variation.

These units include people’s

1-Encoding strategies People’s ways of categorizing information received from external stimuli. Different people encode the same events in different ways. For example, one person may react angrily when insulted, whereas another may choose to ignore the same insult.

2-Competencies and Self regulatory Strategies People’s beliefs in what they can do. People acquire a set of beliefs about their performance and ,capabilities, often in the absence of actual performance. For example, an out standing student may believe that he has competence to do well on th Graduate Record Exam(Gre) even though he has never taken that test.

Mischel holds the view that, People use self Regularity Strategies to control their own behavior through self imposed goals and self produced consequences. However, inappropriate goals and ineffective strategies increase anxiety and lead to failure.

3-Expectancies and Beliefs the perceived consequences of their actions.

Stimulus –outcome expectancy refer to predict, what event are likely to occur following certain stimuli.Expectencies are not constant and keep on changing.

4-Goals an Values People do not react passively to situations but are active and goal directed.Values ,Goals, and Interests,along with competencies are among the most stable Cognitive affective Units. For example Patriotic values may last a life time, because they are associated with positive emotions such as security,attachment to one’s mother,and home.

5-Affective Responses includes feelings and emotions as well as the affects that accompany physiological reactions.

All these Cognitive Affective representations interact dynamically and influence each other reciprocally.(Mischel and shoda,1995,p 253).

Demonstration with related Research

The Marsh Mallow Experiments

An Analysis of Reaction to the O.J Simpson Verdict

The Marsh Mallow experimentsMischel(1960-1970’s) pioneered work to study the ability of pre-schoolers

to defer immediate gratification and exert self control for a delayed reward,in the face of strong situational pressures and emotionally hot temptations. Continuing research with these original participants has examined how pre-schoolers delay of gratification ability links to development over life course.Those kids who were able to exert “self control” showed better , Sat scores, social cognitive competence, educational attainment, and had significant protective effects against a variety of potential vulnerabilities in latter life.

An Analysis of Reactions to the O.J Simpson verdictInvestigators selected 113 culturally diverse participants, nearly all of

whom were students of Columbia University ,NewYork , about one third of them were African American,30% were European Americans,10% Latinos,22% either Asians or Asian Americans,and the reminder holds no specific ethnic back ground. Participants were asked to listen to 18 short clips from TV reports,about the trial. After watching clips ,participants were asked to write down their

reactions to the verdict, and to specify whether they agree, disagree, or ambivalent about the verdict. Judges then identified 22 cognitive affective units and 7 emotional reactions. The results of this study suggest that a system that considers a set of cognitive affective units is a better predictor of people’s reactions to racially sensitive issues than is ethnic back ground.(Rodolfo Mendoza Denton,Ozlem Ayduk,yuichi Shoda,and walter Mischel,1997).

Julian Rotter; Cognitive Social Learning Theory (Expectancy/Locus of Control Theory)

Biographical sketch Julian Rotter was born in Brooklyn,New york, on October 22,1916, third

among siblings. Rotter's father ran a successful business until the Great Depression. The Depression powerfully influenced Rotter to be aware of social injustice and the effects of the situational environment on people. Rotter's interest in psychology began when he was in high school and read books by Freud and Adler. Rotter attended Brooklyn College, where he began attending seminars given by Adler and meetings of his Society of Individual Psychology in Adler's home. In 1939, Rotter became one of the very first clinical psychologists trained in what is now the traditional mode started his Ph.D. work at Indiana University in 1963, Rotter left Ohio State to become the director of the clinical psychology training program at the University of Connecticut.He has won various prestigious awards, and positions from various organizations.Introduction to Rotter’s Social Learning Theory

Social Learning Theory rests on five basic assumptions.It assumes that humans interact with their meaningful environment..Human personality is learned..Personality has a basic unity..Motivation is goal directed..People are capable of anticipating events. He suggested four variables that must be analyzed in order to make accurate predictions in any specific situation.Behavior Potential (BP)

 Behavior potential is the likelihood of engaging in a particular behavior in a specific situation. In other words, what is the probability that the person will exhibit a particular behavior in a situation? In any given situation, there are multiple behaviors one can engage in. For each possible behavior, there is a behavior potential. The individual will exhibit whichever behavior has the highest potential.Expectancy(E)

 Expectancy is the subjective probability that a given behavior will lead to a particular outcome. Expectancies may be general or specific, total expectancy of success is a function of both one’s generalized expectancy and one’s specific expectancy. Reinforcement Value (RV)

Reinforcement value refers to the desirability of these outcomes. Things we don't want to happen, that we wish to avoid, have a low reinforcement value. If the likelihood of achieving reinforcement is the same, we will exhibit the behavior with the greatest reinforcement value (i.e., the one directed toward the outcome we prefer most).Reinforcement may be either Internal or External which can either be in harmony or at variance with each other. Our needs and goals also anticipate our reinforcement value.

The least amount of reinforcement that still has a positive value is known as the minimal goal. If people achieve an outcome that equals or exceeds their minimal goal, they will feel that they have succeeded. When the level of reinforcement falls below an individual's minimal goal, that reinforcement feels like failure. People differ in their minimal goals. Thus, the same outcome may represent success to one person (with a lower minimal goal) while it feels like failure to another person (with a higher minimal goal).

Predictive Formula. Behavior Potential (BP), Expectancy (E) and Reinforcement Value (RV) can be combined into a predictive formula for behavior:

BP = f(E & RV)

This formula can be read as follows: behavior potential is a function of expectancy and reinforcement value. Or, in other words, the likelihood of a person's exhibiting a particular behavior is a function of the probability that behavior will lead to a given outcome and the desirability of that outcome. If expectancy and reinforcement value are both high, then behavior potential will be high. If either expectancy or reinforcement value is low, then behavior potential will be lower.

Psychological Situation. , Rotter believes that it is always important to keep in mind that different

people interpret the same situation differently. Again, it is people's subjective interpretation of the environment, rather than an objective array of stimuli, that is meaningful to them and that determines how they behave.

For example, knowing that someone is a generally hostile person allows us to make predictions that this individual will be hostile toward a range of people. Across situations, this person is likely to be more hostile to others than someone who is low in hostility. On the other hand, if we know that this person hates Jane, we can predict with a high level of accuracy that this person will be hostile toward Jane. But, we will not be able to predict how this person will treat other people.

Concept of Need

Rotter and Hochreich(1975) listed six broad categories of needs, with each category representing a group of functionally related behaviors,that lead to same or similar reinforcement.Recognition-Status The need to be recognized by others and to achieve status .It also include socioeconomic status and personal prestige.

Dominance The need to control the behavior of others. For example, talking to colleagues into accepting your ideas.Independence The need to be free of the domination of others.Protection-dependency The need to have others taking care of you.For example, asking your spouse to stay in home while you are sick.Love and Affection The need for securing friendly regards,interest and devotion from others.Physical comfort The need for securing food, good health, and physical security.Need Components

A need complex has three essential componentsNeed potential (NP)

Freedom of Movement(FM)Need Value(NV)

Need potential (NP) is analogous to Behavior Potential,The difference is that , need potential refers to a group of functionally related behaviors.For example, people eating in a fancy restaurant,one person may be satisfying the need for physical comfort i.e Food, where as another for recognition of status.Freedom of Movement(FM)is analogous to Expectency.It is overall expectations of being reinforced for performing those behaviors that are directed towards satisfying some general needs.Need Value(NV) is the degree to which a person prefers one set of reinforcements to another.To make a generalized prediction regarding a set of behavior,Rotter introduced the general prediction formula

NP=f(FM&NV)

Locus of control ( locus Latin for "place" or "location")

Locus of control  refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. Understanding of the concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an important aspect of personality studies.

Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from their own behavior and actions. Those with a low internal locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance primarily determine events.

Internal Locus of Control ;Typical expectancy shifts, believing that a success or failure would be followed by a similar outcome; and

External Locus of Control ; Atypical expectancy shifts, believing that a success or failure would be followed by a dissimilar outcome.

Locus of control personality orientationsRotter (1975) cautioned that internality and externality represent two ends

of a continuum, not an either/or typology. Internals tend to attribute outcomes of

events to their own control. Externals attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances. For example, college students with a strong internal locus of control may believe that their grades were achieved through their own abilities and efforts, whereas those with a strong external locus of control may believe that their grades are the result of good or bad luck, or to a professor who designs bad tests or grades capriciously; hence, they are less likely to expect that their own efforts will result in success and are therefore less likely to work hard for high grades.

Scales to measure locus of control

Rotter developed the Internal/ External(I-E) Control scale to assess the extent to which people believe that chance, luck or powerful others control their lives. The most famous questionnaire to measure locus of control are

1-Rotter’s interpersonal trust Scale.(1967).the 23-item forced choice items and six filler items scale of Rotter (1966).

2-Rotter's work by five years is Bialer's (1961) 23-item scale for children.3-Crandall Intellectual Ascription of Responsibility Scale (Crandall, 1965), and the Nowicki-Strickland Scale.[3]

4-Stanford Preschool Internal-External Control Index,[5] which is used for three- to six-year-olds.5-Rotter’s Internal External Control Scale.(1966). (A hand book of personality;Theory and Research .By Oliver P. John, Richard W. Robins, Lawrence A. Pervin. )Usefulness of Theory in Public Health

The SCT has been used to study a wide range of health problems, from medical therapy compliance, to alcohol abuse, to immunizations. One particularly fruitful area of investigation to which the SCT has been employed is the study of moral and value internalization among children. In fact, it has been argued that the greatest contribution of the SCT is its aid in understanding how children are socialized to accept the standards and values of their society (Johnston et.al, 1997). Indeed, this is a topic to which Bandura himself devoted extensive research efforts (Bandura and McDonald, 1963; Bandura, 1989;1991; Bandura and Jordan, 1991). A number of SCT techniques are currently used in interventions:

Modeling Skill Training (reasoning) - psycho motor and social skills (refusal skills)

- behavioral rehearsal Self-Monitoring - a contract with oneself Contracting - contracting with others; a reward may be involved; specific

behaviors; goals; signatures

Rotter’therapy aims at bringing Freedom of Movement and Need Value in to harmony,thus reducing defensive and avoidance behavior

Rotter focused on High or Low expectancies,that are Maladaptive.

Demonstration with related Research1-In one study participants were classified in to one of fourgroups(a)neither they nor their parents were alcoholics.(b)only a parent was alcoholic(c)they were alcoholic but neither parent was.(d)both they and a parent were alcoholic.A strong Linear relationship between external scores on the DRIE and degree of self and/or parental alcoholism was found,suggesting some usefulness of the DRIE in predicting people’s control over their drinking behavior.(Lisa Clements,ReginaldYork,and Glenn Rohrer 1995).

2-Some researchers have looked at the usefulness of habit specific locus of control scales for drinking, smoking, eating and then administered these scales along with Rotter’s I-E Scale to a group of under graduate students. Participants with high internal locus also had high scores on measures of coping and adjustments. Where as those with high External scores had more habit disorders. Lowest correlations were for the drinking scale suggesting that these students believed that they had more control over their drinking habit (H.A.Ludtke and H.G.Schneider 1996).

3-In a study involving nearly 12,000 participants in the Health in Wales survey found support for hypothesis that scores on a multidimensional health locus of control scale is significantly related to various health behaviors.Thier findings support the notion that people who have internal locus of control tend to have higher levels of health than do people who believe that their own health is dependent on chance or the actions of other people.(Paul Norman,Paul Bennett,Christopher Smith,and simon Murphy 1998).

Critical Evaluation of Cognitive Social Learning Theory

1-Cognitive Social Learning is attractive to those who Value that people are forward looking,Cognitive beings.

2-These theories have generated a large amount of reseach topics in psychological Literature.

3-The empirical nature of theory makes it expose to falsification or verification.

4-The theory's comprehensiveness and complexity make it difficult to operationalize

5-Many applications of the SCT focus on one or two constructs, such as self-efficacy, while ignoring the others.

6-Bandura’s SCT carefully fullfil criteria of a sound theory,by internally consistent ,parsimonious,

(Mischel W. (1968) Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley.

Mischel W. (1973) Towards a cognitive, social learning reconception of personality. Psychological Review, 80: 252-283).