Social Cognitive Theories Flashcards
LEARNING THEORY
- rejects idea that beh = directed by inner motives/personality traits
- instead suggests ALL beh = learned
- individual beh/attitude difs towards situations (ie. parties) -> from dif learning experiences across dif situations people find themselves in
- to understand difs we need to examine situation person is in then explore past experiences in similar situations
LEARNING THEORY: BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
- all beh = learned via experience/environment interaction
- personality (individual difs) arises from learning experiences received in environment aka. beh patterns shaped by experience
- draws upon behaviourism/social psych traditions
- concepts relating to perspectives include:
LEARNING THEORY: PERSPECTIVE CONCEPTS
MODELING
SOCIAL NORMS
REINFORCEMENT
SELF-EFFICACY
LOCUS OF CONTROL
BEHAVIOURISM: BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
- personality = sum of actions NOT thoughts/feelings
- classical/Pavlovian conditioning
- instrumental/operant conditioning
- learned associations = learning basis
JOHN B. WATSON (1878-1958)
- classical/Pavlovian conditioning
- stimulus-response theory
- learned associations provide building blocks of beh/personality (not “inner personality”)
B.F. SKINNER (1904-1990)
- instrumental/operant conditioning
- animal modelling approach (ignores human language/thinking/self-reflection capabilities)
- people act on environment (E) -> beh (B) shaped via response beh provokes
- personality results from interaction between operants/reinforcement schedules (beh responses)
- radical behaviourism = no need to hypothesis about “unobservable”
EMOTIONAL CONDITIONING
- neutral stimuli conditioned to bring about good/bad feelings aka. conditioned responses/emotional reactions
- we start building personality this way; behaving/responding +/- to people/situations/surroundings
- conditioning processes contributed importantly to human experience/development
- BUT beh learning theories = too simplistic for human beh
- also requires social learning/cognition integration
LEARNING THEORY: COGNITIVE PROCESSES
DOLLARD & MILLER (1950)
- 1st who allowed cognitive processing in LT
- 1st demonstrated observational learning played important learning role; role models observed/imitated
- integrated psychoanalytic concepts; allowed conscious/unconscious influences (inner drives) on motivation
- beh NOT just responding to environmental stimuli; also responds to inner stimuli ie. thoughts
COGNITIVE THEORIES OF PERSONALITY
- place human thinking processes at personality/individual dif centre
- you are who you are because of how you perceive the world ie:
1. what you think/attend to/analyse/interpret/encode/retrieve
2. mental organisation (ie. cognitive patterns)
3. personality difs = info processing difs
COGNITIVE APPROACH: ORIGINS
- draws on:
1. Freud’s consciousness levels
2. phenomenological approach aka. all have dif subjective life experiences
3. social-learning perspectives of Rotter/Mischel/Bandura (parallel development)
GEORGE A. KELLY (1955)
- 1st major theorist to adopt cognitive personality perspective
- Personal Construct Theory = highlights uniquely human capacity to reflect on oneself/the world/future
- focuses on specific cognitive processes via which people categorise/construct meaning from life events ie. repertory grid (still used) assesses individual’s constructs
- personality = how people dif in how they read/perceive/interpret/conceptualise social world
- personality/emotion/action individual difs = product of these
PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY: COMPARISON
- crucial dif between Kelley/other theories -> Kelley = acting motivation comes from future goals NOT past learning/experiences/innate drives
- Kelley = cognitive personality theory/cognitive therapy foundation
- Kelley = phenomenological (recognises subjective reality)/cognitive
PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY
- way of perceiving/construing/interpreting events
- ideas/categories used by people to interpret world
- some categories = universal (ie. tree)
- others vary
- bipolar paired-opposite dimensions (ie. good-bad/weak-strong)
- some ^ important > others in reality framing
- chronically accessible constructs; similar to personality trait theories where some = ^ influential on beh > others
WHERE DO PERSONAL CONSTRUCTS COME FROM?
- experience BUT not determined by it
- personal construct systems = freely chosen past experience interpretations NOT determined by past experience BUT can always change
PERSON-AS-SCIENTIST METAPHOR
- scientists/laypersons = engaged in same task
- both use constructs to predict/describe/explain events
- dif experiences test personal constructs
- explains why individual dif in beh
- allows for flexibility/creativity in beh; individuals free at any time to take alternative interpretations/behs
KELLEY: CRITICISM
- complex cognitive processes emphasis ahead of its time
- behaviourism dominated 1950s academic psych
- Kelley anticipated subsequent contemporary cognitive psych developments
- grand cognitive theories aka. Kelley no longer fashionable
CONTEMPORARY COGNITIVE APPROACHES
- explains beh via schema/prototype concepts
- schemas = general ways to view/make sense of world
- self-schemas = cognitive structures about self
KUIPER & ROGERS (1979) - asked if adjective describes themselves/experimenter
- pps faster if describes themselves indicating well-defined self-construct/less defined experimenter schema
SOCIAL LEARNING/COGNITIVE THEORIES
- view internal/cognitive processes/social events = important to learning/beh
- personality = ALL learned tendencies incl. cognitive processes/social influences/observed beh
- social-cognitive theories consider non-observable concepts (ie. thoughts/values/expectancies)
- emphasise learning via observing others
- behaviourism VS cognitivism = cognitivism hypothesises mental structures that influence how individual processes info
SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY EVOLUTION
- Kelley - 1st of its kind BUT not only cognitive
- 1950s; behaviourists abandoned analyses; introduced cognitive constructs
- learning accounting issue w/o direct reinforcement experience (ie. inability to completely explain language) -> cognitive SLT development
SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY
BANDURA (2006)
- build on beh theories via emphasising how cognitive processes influence/are influenced by beh associations
- fundamentally human agency theory (how people play active part in own development)
- relates to Piaget’s developmental theory (personal actions assist development)
- rejects basic behaviourism tenets depicting organisms = controlled by environmental rewards/punishments
- emphasises social/observational learning/thinking abilities importance to motivate/direct actions
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY (SLT)
- builds on beh theories via emphasising learning via social reward/punishment including vicarious reinforcement/modeling
SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORIES X SLT
- BOTH include studies of:
1. motivation
2. emotion
3. cognitions
4. rule-based learning
5. vicarious emotional arousal/reinforcement
6. social-reinforcement (praise/approval/acceptance)
7. self-reinforcement (internal states ie. self reward/punishment)
SCT: RESEARCHERS
- Bandura/Rotter developed social/observational learning concepts in personality theories
- Bandura/Rotter/Kelly/Mischel worked together at various points; influenced each other/shared ideas
- SLT builds directly on Rotter BUT some difs
ROTTER: LOCUS OF CONTROL (LOC)
- expectancy (LOC) = perceived prob that doing something -> attained goal
- emphasises how subjective reward expectancies (future positive outcomes) can be ^ important beh determinants > reward itself
BANDURA: SELF-EFFICACY
- self-efficacy = perceived prob that you can achieve something in 1st place
- individuals’ expectancies about own capabilities affect what they’ll attempt
- goes beyond Rotter in emphasis on social learning nature
JULIAN ROTTER (1916-2014)
- psychological motivating factor = empirical law of effect aka. people motivated to seek out positive stimulation/reinforcement; avoid unpleasant stimulation
- personality = interaction of individual w/his/her environment; cannot be seperate
ROTTER’S SLT: EXPECTANCY VALUE THEORY
- beh decisions driven not just by reinforcement presence/value but also beliefs/expectancies about likely outcome/beh reinforcement
- key dif between classic behaviourism = classic view focuses on actual reward/punishments BUT Rotter focuses on beliefs ABOUT reward/punishment ->
- beliefs shape beh even when inaccurate
- beliefs about reality = ^ important beh guides > reality itself
ROTTER’S SLT: EVT PREDICTIVE FORMULA
- 3 main components:
BP = RV x Expectancy - BP = engaging in particular beh prob in specific situation
- RV = depends on subjective desirability of beh outcomes to prefs among possible available reinforcements
- E = subjective estimate that given beh -> to particular outcome
- expectancies = specific/generalised
EVT: SPECIFIC EXPECTANCY
- beliefs based on past experiences/reinforcement history
- belief that certain beh -> specific outcome
- high/low expectancy
EVT: GENERALISED EXPECTANCIES (LOC)
- we rely on generalised expectancies in novel situations
- general beliefs about whether anything we can do (from available beh repertoire) = likely to make dif
- ^ generalised expectancies = ^ LOC
- low generalised expectancies = low LOC
- BUT expectancy = subjective prob; irrational/unrealistic expectancies = common pathology source
INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL
- people feel in control of lives
- empowered to change things
- believe that outcomes/reinforcers depend largely on own efforts
- “I can make it happen”
EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL
- people feel helpless/powerless to change things
- dependent on others
- ^ expectancy personal effort will make little dif to outcomes
- “If it happens, it happens”
EXPECTANCIES: SPECIFIC VS GENERALISED
- beh = goal-directed; future outcomes/reinforcements anticipated based on expectancies
- expectancies = subjective/may not align w/objective prob/w/subjective expectancies of others
- Rotter distinguished specific VS generalised; highlighted dif applicable situations
- entering unfamiliar situations = generalised expectancies concerning outcomes; refined into specific expectancies on actual experience basis
- repeated encounters w/unfamiliar situation series generalise/form future beh basis in new situations
LOCUS OF CONTROL
- relatively stable over time BUT can change
- internality ^ w/age/life experience; becomes stable middle age onwards
COLLINS (1974) - changes w/context ie. might have internal LOC w/relationships BUT external w/overall life
DE MANN ET AL (1992) - warm supportive parenting supports internal LOC in kids
EXTERNAL LOC: CORRELATES
- ^ external LOC correlates positively w/:
1. depression
2. mental health problems
3. suicide ideation/attempts (in Chinese adolescents)
INTERNAL LOC: CORRELATES
- ^ internal LOC correlates positively w/:
1. better life quality in people suffering from chronic physical health issues ie: - epilepsy
- diabetes
- migraines
KESAVAYUTH ET AL (2022)
- life satisfaction/mental health explained by direct/indirect LOC effects
- direct effect = positive; indicates individuals w/internal LOC = ^ life satisfaction/mental health
- physical activity/social interaction = 2 pathways linking internal LOC to ^ well-being levels
MORI ET AL (2022)
- ^ external LOC significantly + associated w/impaired physical/mental health post lifestyle habits/change adjustment post pandemic
BANDURA: SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY
- Rotter = little to say about how expectancies/values/beh choices acquired other than via learning
- Bandura added to concept via explicit SCT theory
- big step from behaviourist tradition; 1st fully cognitive social learning theory
- stressed imitation role in social learning; emphasised:
1. cognitive processes > reinforcement
2. observation > direct experience
3. self-regulation > environmental control
SCT: RECIPROCAL DETERMINISM
- drives beh; people influenced by environmental forces BUT also choose how to beh
- people select situations -> shaped by them
- individual/environment/mental structures mediating them interact complexly to determine individual behs
- unlike animals people use symbols/forethought (planning) as future action guides
- imagining possible outcomes/calculating prob > simple reward/punishment maze for people
RECIPROCAL DETERMINISM INTERACTING FACTORS
PERSON FACTORS (P)
- cognitive abilities
- beliefs/attitudes
- physical characteristics
BEH FACTORS
- verbal/motor responses
- social interactions
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
- physical surroundings
- family/friends
- other social influences
SCT: OBSERVATIONAL/VICARIOUS LEARNING
- ie. Bobo doll experiment
- watching/imitating others aka. modelling
- not just passive info but active learning process
- observers make judgements
- constructs symbolic representations of observed beh
- beh DOESN’T need to be performed by observer to be learned
THE BOBO DOLL STUDY
BANDURA (1965)
- nursery kids watched adult on TV perform 4 novel/aggressive acts to plastic doll
- either rewarded/punished/ignored
- all kids performed beh if asked
- BUT reward condition = ^ likely to beh aggressively alone
- aka. vicarious conditioning
THE BOBO DOLL STUDY: CRUCIAL
- observed reinforcement of adults beh influenced child’s performance of beh BUT not child’s learning of beh as all kids could repeat it if asked
- we perform some vicariously learned beh but not others because of:
1. expectations about performance consequences
2. expectations learnt via observing outcomes
SCT: SELF-REGULATION
- if we choose not to perform actions despite opportunities to do so since we observed negative consequences = entails self-regulation
- most beh performed in external reinforcements/punishments absence so most daily actions = controlled by self-regulation
SCT: INTERNAL SELF-REGULATION PROCESSES
SELF-PRAISE
SELF-CRITICISM
SELF-EVALUATION
SELF-PERSUASION
SELF-EFFICACY
- most powerful of self-regulatory processes
SCT: SELF-EFFICACY
- self-regulation example; performing certain beh -> desired outcome
- efficacy expectation = belief extent that someone’s actions can -> certain outcome (aka. is it in my power to do this?)
- outcome expectation = belief extent that one’s actions WILL bring certain outcome (aka. is it likely to happen?
- AKA. dif between believing that something CAN happen (outcome expectation) VS believing you can MAKE it happen (efficacy expectation)
SELF-EFFICACY: SUCCESS
BANDURA (1977)
- ^ self-efficacy significantly ^ success likelihood
- self-efficacy influences:
1. if task is attempted
2. how much effort is put in
3. persistence pursuit despite obstacles
SEGAN ET AL (2006)
- factors affecting smoking relapse in cessation programme; low self-efficacy = significant relapse predictor
- low self-efficacy can -> “learned helplessness”
MEASURE OF GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY
SCHWARZER & MATTHIAS
- 1-4 scale (not true-exactly me)
1. Solves difficult issues w/hard work.
2. Gets what they want despite opposition.
3. Easy to stick to aims/goals.
4. Confident in unexpected events.
5. Resourceful in unforseen situations.
6. Solves most issues w/effort.
7. Calm in difficult situations; uses coping abilities.
8. Finds several solutions.
9. Can find solution when in trouble.
10. Handles whatever comes their way.
SELF-EFFICACY: EVALUATION
BANDURA (2007)
- debated if stable personality trait
- critical of global self-efficacy measurement attempts; few confident in all life areas so SE best measured w/specific tasks (ie. quite smoking)
- research = better predictive outcome power
- can be modified via various methods
SELF-EFFICACY: MODIFICATION METHODS
PRACTICING
- performance of tasks causing concern
SEEING
- vicarious experience
- seeing others succeed
SHADOWING
- participant modelling
- shadowing someone successful
WALTER MISCHEL (1973)
- Kelly/Rotter protégé; Bandura’s colleague
- challenged traditional psychometric/psychodynamic approaches
- embraced SLC as viable alternative to traditional viewpoints; emphasised subjective situations meaning importance
- broadened conceptualisation of personality to include dif constructs
LEARNING/COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES: STRENGTHS
- rely on mental constructs when explaining human beh in contrast w/behaviourism (ie. thinking/cognitive processes/social learning)
- SCT provided systematic research framework
- concepts clearly defined/tested; considerable evidence found
- environment importance emphasis
- useful for explaining some emotional reactions ie. phobias
- important therapeutic applications in CBT
LEARNING/COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES: LIMITATIONS
- not yet unified systematic theory
- overlooks biology; important challenge to relate socio-cognitive structure development to bio qualities contributing to individual difs
-lots of lab research; applicability issue - focus on few important variables (ie. aggressive beh/LOC/self-efficacy); plays down richness
- not wholly comprehensive; personhood/subjective qualities (human experience) = missing
- too mechanistic; can’t account for ^ human motivations/free will (we aren’t computers)
MODERN RELEVANCE
HAGGER & HAMILTON (2022)
- social cognition theories may assist in predicting COVID-19 preventive behs
- may inform development of interventions to promote this beh
- augmenting theories w/new constructs (ie. moral norms/anticipated regret)/processes (ie. automatic processes/multiple action phases) provide ^ comprehensive prediction
- future research should adopt experimental/longitudinal designs
