Social Cognitive Theories Flashcards

1
Q

LEARNING THEORY

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

LEARNING THEORY: BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

A
  • 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:
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

LEARNING THEORY: PERSPECTIVE CONCEPTS

A

MODELING
SOCIAL NORMS
REINFORCEMENT
SELF-EFFICACY
LOCUS OF CONTROL

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

BEHAVIOURISM: BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

A
  • personality = sum of actions NOT thoughts/feelings
  • classical/Pavlovian conditioning
  • instrumental/operant conditioning
  • learned associations = learning basis
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

JOHN B. WATSON (1878-1958)

A
  • classical/Pavlovian conditioning
  • stimulus-response theory
  • learned associations provide building blocks of beh/personality (not “inner personality”)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

B.F. SKINNER (1904-1990)

A
  • 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”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

EMOTIONAL CONDITIONING

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

LEARNING THEORY: COGNITIVE PROCESSES

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

COGNITIVE THEORIES OF PERSONALITY

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

COGNITIVE APPROACH: ORIGINS

A
  • 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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

GEORGE A. KELLY (1955)

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY: COMPARISON

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

WHERE DO PERSONAL CONSTRUCTS COME FROM?

A
  • experience BUT not determined by it
  • personal construct systems = freely chosen past experience interpretations NOT determined by past experience BUT can always change
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

PERSON-AS-SCIENTIST METAPHOR

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

KELLEY: CRITICISM

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

CONTEMPORARY COGNITIVE APPROACHES

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

SOCIAL LEARNING/COGNITIVE THEORIES

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY EVOLUTION

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY (SLT)

A
  • builds on beh theories via emphasising learning via social reward/punishment including vicarious reinforcement/modeling
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORIES X SLT

A
  • 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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

SCT: RESEARCHERS

A
  • 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
24
Q

ROTTER: LOCUS OF CONTROL (LOC)

A
  • expectancy (LOC) = perceived prob that doing something -> attained goal
  • emphasises how subjective reward expectancies (future positive outcomes) can be ^ important beh determinants > reward itself
25
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
26
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
27
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
28
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
29
EVT: SPECIFIC EXPECTANCY
- beliefs based on past experiences/reinforcement history - belief that certain beh -> specific outcome - high/low expectancy
30
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
31
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"
32
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"
33
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
34
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
35
EXTERNAL LOC: CORRELATES
- ^ external LOC correlates positively w/: 1. depression 2. mental health problems 3. suicide ideation/attempts (in Chinese adolescents)
36
INTERNAL LOC: CORRELATES
- ^ internal LOC correlates positively w/: 1. better life quality in people suffering from chronic physical health issues ie: - epilepsy - diabetes - migraines
37
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
38
MORI ET AL (2022)
- ^ external LOC significantly + associated w/impaired physical/mental health post lifestyle habits/change adjustment post pandemic
39
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
40
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
41
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
42
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
43
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
44
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
45
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
46
SCT: INTERNAL SELF-REGULATION PROCESSES
SELF-PRAISE SELF-CRITICISM SELF-EVALUATION SELF-PERSUASION SELF-EFFICACY - most powerful of self-regulatory processes
47
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)
48
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"
49
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.
50
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
51
SELF-EFFICACY: MODIFICATION METHODS
PRACTICING - performance of tasks causing concern SEEING - vicarious experience - seeing others succeed SHADOWING - participant modelling - shadowing someone successful
52
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
53
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
54
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)
55
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