The Social Learning Theory of Bandura emphasises the importance of detecting and patterning the behavior. attitudes and emotional reactions of others. The Social Learning Theory explains human behavior in footings of uninterrupted mutual interaction between cognitive. behavioural. an environmental influences. proposing that behavior can be learned at the cognitive degree through detecting other people’s actions. ( Blackburn. 1993 ) This suggests that people are capable of conceive ofing themselves in similar state of affairss. and of incurring similar results. Once the behavior is learned it may be reinforced or punished by the effects it generates. Bandura subscribed to several of the indispensable constructs of the Operant Conditioning Theory: support. penalty. and motive. ( Ewen. 1980 ) Each of these constructs can be used to explicate Paul’s initial and drawn-out condemnable activities.
Based on Social Learning Theory. condemnable behavior is maintained through a complex agenda of support and penalty throughout the life of the person. The support for condemnable behavior comes from both internal and external beginnings. Support can be in the signifier of touchable wagess stemming from the condemnable activity itself such as an spending of money. or from a societal position like an addition in equal position. ( Blackburn. 1993 ; Hollin. 1989 )
Due to Paul’s dysfunctional childhood and strong negative influences in his life he found himself tempted by condemnable activities in his early teens. He was sent to a boy’s place when he was 14 for stealing. and has been in and out of juvenile and grownup establishments of all time since. In relation to the Social Learning Theory. Paul was motivated by direct external support. by the touchable and societal position wagess. Due to his upbringing and deficiency of parental subject these Paul thought these wagess easy outweighed the effects of this condemnable actions.
The clip Paul served in juvenile establishments did non deter him from condemnable activities. alternatively it had the opposite consequence. Contact with other people who have favorable condemnable jokes and perceptual experiences leads to an single acquisition similar manners of action. ( Hollin. 1989 ) The theory does non bespeak that these people are needfully associated with offense or condemnable activities ; they merely have to show favorable attitudes towards offense. ( Hollin. 1989 ) However. while Paul was in juvenile establishments he did blend with other felons which did beef up the likeliness of him go oning in his condemnable behavior.
Bandura besides believed that there was another facet to motive. he called it self-reinforcement. ( Ewen. 1980 ) Self-reinforcement refers to ones’ sense of pride. or as meeting of criterions in ones’ ain behavior. ( Ewen. 1980 ) Paul’s belief that he was a felon was reinforced while in these juvenile establishments. He was happy to be a portion of this group of felons and he continued to move reprehensively to some grade in order to stay a portion of the group and as to keep a sense of pride and societal individuality.
A survey in which immature kids were shown grownups interacting with a character called “Bobo Doll” was conducted in order to turn out that observation is a primary signifier of larning. In one movie. the grownups attacked Bobo. and in another they were friendly to it. One group of kids were shown one movie another group shown the other.
The grownups attacked Bobo in a typical mode. they used a cock as a arm in some cases and in others threw the doll in the air and shouted “Pow. Boom! ” . As a consequence of this violent version of the movie. the research workers claimed that if the kids repeated such behaviors. they learnt it instead than it being acted out spontaneously.
Subsequently in 1965. Bandura carried out the same experiment. but showed the grownups who behaved sharply either being punished or rewarded for their actions. Those kids. who had seen the grownups rewarded. and those who had seen the grownup neither rewarded nor punished. behaved more sharply than those who had seen the grownups receive a signifier of penalty.
This suggests that the kids who had seen the grownups being punished merely could non retrieve how the grownups had behaved. However. when Bandura rewarded all of the kids for copying the behavior of the grownups. this was shown non to be the instance. Thus. all three groups of kids had comparable degrees of experimental acquisition. but those who had seen the grownups punished did non emulate the behavior.
The prevailing factor that is stressed in Bandura’s theory is that observation is the procedure of attending. He states that the single notices something in the environment ( keeping ) . the single remembers what was noticed ( reproduction ) . the single produces an action that is a transcript of what was noticed ( motive ) and the environment delivers a effect that changes the chance the behavior will be emitted once more ( support and penalty ) . Therefore. Paul’s learned condemnable features were reinforced by detecting his father’s and brother’s condemnable activities and the changeless repeat of this behavior enabled Paul to scaffold long permanent condemnable inclinations.
Criminalism is a map of single socialization. how persons have been influenced by their experiences or relationships with household. equal groups. instructors. authorization figures and other agents of socialization. Therefore. Paul’s immediate household had a significant impact on his behavior. Paul came from a dysfunctional household environment. He did non hold a male authorization figure in his male parent and his male parent was frequently absent from the household place. functioning his many prison sentences.
Furthermore. when his male parent was place he drank to a great extent and was on a regular basis violent towards his married woman and the kids. Paul and his siblings grew up in a household where subject was nonexistent or grossly inordinate and did non hold a opportunity to larn what behavior was tolerable and what was wholly inappropriate. Paul learnt condemnable features such as violent and aggressive behavior through detecting his male parent and how this behavior was reinforced and repeated by his older brothers.
Paul’s female parent had limited rational and societal resources which resulted in a hapless instruction for her kids. which subsequently on had a significant consequence on their employment opportunities. Paul was born into a life of poorness. he grew up in a lower category vicinity with a condemnable subculture or condemnable manner of life was common. Paul was exposed to condemnable subcultures where condemnable behavior was simply a societal aberrance and was influenced by this was of life.
There are two chief issues which Paul uses to warrant his initial actions. Paul justifies his actions through higher rules ; believing that stealing from a commercial mill is non incorrect because they are insured. He besides believes that he was besides capable to legalities which increased his sentence. If he committed the same offense on a private place. alternatively of a commercial mill. he would hold received a shorter sentence. The other is being a victim of equal force per unit area or societal psychological science. Social psychological science involves the behavior of an person when they are within a group. One such relationship is the Conformity Effect which explains that behavior is dictated by societal bonds ; Paul pluming himself that he is non a ‘dog’ ( he does non state on others ) . Besides. there is a inclination for an person to follow group norms even if they contradict their ain values. Paul stated that he had no purpose of perpetrating the act prior to traveling to the local saloon. but was capable to peer force per unit area or ‘conformity’ when he ran into old prison friends. ( Study Asch. 1995 )
However. there is some hope for Paul. it is possible to train a individual utilizing the Social Learning Theory to extinguish or cut down certain behaviors. The procedure is drawn-out and the success rate is dependent on factors that differentiate from individual to individual. When utilizing the Social Learning Model the topic must come on through the modeling procedure. First. Attention – through the observation of positive behaviors and responses that involvement the person and captures their undivided attending. Second. Retention – Paul must be able to retrieve. or hive away the new information.
Third. Reproduction – through patterning the desired behavior and coaching. Paul must be able to show the new accomplishment or behavior. The following measure is Motivation – Paul must hold a motivation inducement for larning or altering his behavior ; and so eventually Self-regulation – which involves altering the unwanted behavior. Paul must self observe and judge his ain behavior. ( Boeree. 2003 ) Using this theory as a comparative theoretical account it is rather possible to train Paul to cut down or extinguish his condemnable impulses. he does experience ashamed of himself for perpetrating condemnable Acts of the Apostless and the presence of his household may be the paramount implicit in motive.
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory examines the manner a individual behaves is dependent on how the personal. behavioral. experimental and environmental factors interact and how they affect the acquisition procedure. Paul’s features have been chiefly instigated through observation of his household. his equals and his societal environments.
Mentions:
Asch. S. E. ( 1966 ) . Opinions and societal force per unit area. In A. P. Hare. E. F. Borgatta and R. F. Bales ( explosive detection systems. ) . Small groups: Surveies in societal interaction. ( pp. 318-324 ) . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Blackburn. R. ( 1993 ) . The psychological science of condemnable behavior: Theory. research and pattern. Toronto: John Wiley & A ; Sons.
Boeree. G. C. ( 1998 ) . Personality theories. Albert Bandura 1925 – nowadays. [ Article online ] ; available from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ship. edu/~cgboeree/bandura. hypertext markup language. Internet Accessed 2nd October 2004.
Clark. R. A. and Delia. J. G. ( 1976 ) . The development of functional persuasive accomplishments in childhood and early adolescence. Child Development. Volume 47. pp. 1008-1014.
Ewen. R. ( 1980 ) . An debut to theories of personality. New York: Academic Press.
Hollin. C. ( 1989 ) . Psychology and offense: An debut to criminological psychological science. New York: Routledge.
