The Impact of Social Learning Theory

Theoretical Analysis: Julian Rotter Social Learning Theory Including Locust Control

Background: Historical Overview

Julian Rotter was born in 1916 in Brooklyn, New York as the third son of Jewish immigrant parents (Walker, 1991). Rotter’s father had a successful business that was negatively impacted by the great depression. It was due to the great depression that Rotter became aware of social injustice and the impact of the situation environment on individuals. Rotter’s interest in psychology started in high school when he began reading Adler and Freud books. While in Brooklyn College, Rotter attended seminars given by Adler and attended meetings of Adler’s Society of Individual Psychology held in Adler’s home. Rotter attended the University of Iowa after graduating from Brooklyn College. He took classes together with Kurt Lewin and minored in speech pathology. Rotter studied with the semanticist Wendell Johnson whose ideas had a lasting impact on Rotter’s thinking regarding the necessity for careful definitions in psychology and the innumerable pitfalls involved in poorly operationalized and defined constructs. Rotter took a clinical psychology internship at Worcester State Hospital in Massachusetts after finishing his master’s degree. Rotter started his PhD at Indian University in 1939 (Walker, 1991). It was one of the few programs offering a doctorate in clinical psychology. By earning a PhD in clinical psychology, Rotter became one of the first clinical psychologists trained in what is currently considered the traditional mode.

After serving in the Army and Air Force in World War II, Rotter accepted an academic position at Ohio State University. Rotter started his major accomplishment of social learning theory at Ohio State University. The theory incorporated learning theory with personality theory. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology was published in 1954. Holding strong beliefs on how clinical psychologists should be educated, Rotter became an active participant in the 1949 Boulder Conference, which defined a training model for clinical psychologists. Rotter pushed for the training of psychologists to be done in the psychology department and not by psychiatrists. Rotter’s ideas are still influential to this date. Rotter was awarded the American Psychological Association’s Distinguished Scientific Contribution award in 1989. He died at the age of 97 on January 6, 2014.

Background: Historical Development

The development of social learning theory was done as an attempt to combine the best elements of behaviorism and gestalt psychology. Rotter liked the theoretical and methodological rigor of behaviorists, but the mechanistic learning theories were too limited to apply to human social behavior. The gestalt theories appealed to him, especially the work of Kurt Lewin, his former professor. However, he became disturbed by their failure and imprecision to generate particular predictions. Social learning theory was seen as an alternative to behaviorism and psychoanalysis that had the potential to become useful for clinicians and researchers. Before Rotter developed his social learning theory, psychoanalysis was the dominant perspective in clinical psychology, focusing on an individual’s deep-seated instinctual motives are behavior determinants. People were seen as naïve to their unconscious impulses and needed long-term analysis of their childhood experiences during treatment. Drive theory was dominant in learning approaches of the time. Drive theory holds that individuals are motivated by physiologically based impulses that push the person to satisfy them.

The development of social learning theory departed from drive-based behaviorism and instinct-based psychoanalysis. Rotter believed there should be a psychological motivational principle in a psychological theory. The motivating factor chosen by Rotter for his social learning theory was the empirical law of effect. According to the law of effect, individuals are motivated to search for positive stimulation or reinforcement and avoid unpleasant stimuli. Rotter’s main idea in his social learning theory is that personality represents the individual’s interaction with their environment. It is impossible to speak of a personality that is internal to the person independent of their environment. Also, we cannot focus on behavior as constituting an automatic response to some objective set of environmental stimuli. Therefore, we should consider the individual and their environment to understand behavior. Rotter saw personality and behavior as always changing. Changing how a person thinks or changing the environment they are responding to will cause a behavior change. Rotter believed people are optimistic and drawn forward by their goals to maximize their reinforcement and not merely avoid punishment.

Background: Key Concepts

Rotter’s social learning theory model has four main components that predict behavior. These are behavior potential, expectancy, reinforcement value, and psychological situation. Behavior potential refers to various behaviors a person likely engages in. The concept indicates that people will act in certain ways, and if there are no changes, their most habitual behaviors will emerge in certain situations. Rotter looked at the probability of a person engaging in a certain behavior when faced with a certain situation. In any given situation, there will be multiple behaviors a person can engage in, and for each possible behavior, there is a likely behavior potential (Sue, 1978). According to Rotter, there is a potential behavior for any behavior (Rotter, 1990). A person will react based on their environment.

Expectancy refers to the subjective probability that a given behavior will result in a particular outcome or reinforcer (Rotter et al., 1954). The focus here is on the likelihood of a behavior leading to the desired outcome. When a person has a high or strong expectancy, they are confident their behavior will lead to the desired outcome. However, when they have low expectancies, it indicates they do not believe their behavior will lead to reinforcement. When the outcomes are equally desirable, the individual will engage in behavior with the highest expectancy. Past experience forms a person’s expectancies. When a particular behavior has led to reinforcement in the past, a person is more likely to have a high expectancy of the behavior achieving the outcome now (Williams, 2010). Rotter noted that observation of the outcomes of others’ behaviors has the potential to impact our expectancies. For example, when we see someone being punished for a certain behavior, we formulate an expectancy that the behavior will be punished even though we have not experienced the punishment. Expectancy is a subjective probability since one source of pathology is irrational expectancies. There is a possibility that there is no relationship between the individual’s subjective assessment of the likelihood of how a reinforcer will be and how it is. A person can either overestimate or underestimate the likelihood, and either can be potentially problematic (Rotter, 1960).

Reinforcement value pertains to the desirability of the outcomes of our behavior. We tend to give the things we want and desire a high reinforcement value and a low reinforcement value to the things we wish to avoid (Rotter, 1990). When the possibility of achieving reinforcement is equal, a person will exhibit the behavior with the desired outcome. The social environment plays a key role in shaping a person’s behavior. Social outcomes like love, rejection, or approval have a powerful influence on a person’s behavior. Reinforcement value is subjective, meaning there is a possibility that the same event can have vastly different desirability based on the person’s life experience. For example, punishment is a negative reinforcement for most children and should be avoided. However, a neglected child could give punishment a high reinforcement value since it is better than neglect.

The psychological situation is not a predictor of behavior since it refers to a variable that psychologists must keep in mind. Psychological situation posits that people will view and interpret similar situations differently. Therefore, people will view the environment depending on their subjective interpretation, not stimuli. The subjective view of the situation will determine other factors in the person’s behavior.

Background: Theory Used Today

The theory of social learning theory that Rotter developed is used today in cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT focuses on modifying cognitive distortions and their associated behaviors. Social learning theory identified that people learn how to behave based on their environment (McCullough Chavis, 2011). The analogy developed by Rotter is applied in CBT, where the goal is to modify and challenge an individual’s thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs so they can change how they react to certain behaviors in their environment. CBT combines behavioral and cognitive psychology to treat various mental health conditions (McCullough Chavis, 2011). Rotter believed that all behavior is learned. Therefore, treatment should focus on teaching new adaptive behaviors to replace the existing maladaptive behaviors. Social learning theory saw the therapist-client relationship as similar to the teacher-student relationship. When there is a warm relationship between therapist and client, the therapist has more reinforcement value. The therapist can influence the client’s behavior through praise and encouragement, similar to CBT.

Rotter noted that behavior is maladaptive because a person did not learn healthy behaviors (Proctor & Niemeyer, 2020). Therefore, the therapist tries to suggest new behaviors to assist the client in developing more effective coping skills. CBT uses the same strategy when treating patients, where the therapist teaches the client new behaviors to replace the negative or unhealthy behaviors they hold. Social learning theory posits that personality constitutes a person’s interaction with their environment. Therefore, if there is a change in how a person thinks or an environmental change, there will be a behavior change. The same is true for CBT, where the goal of treatment is to modify the thoughts and beliefs held by a person to alter their behavior.

Evaluation: Position Statement

According to Julian Rotter’s social learning theory, all behaviors are learned. The social environment, family environment, and culture a person is born into and develop determine a person’s behavior. The social learning theory posits that behavior is oriented towards searching for positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement comes through the responses of the people in the environment with whom the person interacts with in the form of rewards or approval (Jensen, 2018). The individual will be motivated to positive behaviors since they are seeking to avoid punishment. Therefore, behavior is set up from the learning a person has built throughout their life. In essence, we tend to repeat the behavior that generates reinforcement and eliminate behaviors that provoke punishment. We can also learn positive and negative reinforcement by visualizing the consequences of others’ behaviors. People will learn from their experiences and those of others.

There is a reason we do things the way we do them or act the way we do. It is interesting to note that people will, by default, choose one option over another even if the other option offers better rewards theoretically. Rotter’s social learning theory explains human behavior in that our behavior results from how we perceive others and the responses we receive from the environment based on our actions. Personality is learned, and it is not innate to humans. The environment plays a critical role in forming a person’s character. Rotter posited that personality results from a person’s interaction with their environment (Jensen, 2018).

The locus of control is learned, and it is possible to modify it. People with an external locus of control will see their life as being controlled by chance, luck, or others with more power than them. When they fail to succeed, they believe their failure is due to forces beyond their control (Tsuda et al., 2020). When a person has an internal locus of control, they believe their actions determine their rewards in life. When they fail, they think it is because they did not put in enough effort. Culture plays a vital role in determining the locus of control, where we see more males having a more internal locus of control over females. Cultural norms emphasize aggressive behavior in males and submissive behavior in females.

Social learning is relevant in personality psychology because it is used to modify individual behaviors. In cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), social learning is used to understand why a person behaves or acts the way they do. The therapist can use it to modify the individual’s behavior. The analogy developed by Rotter is applied in CBT, where the goal is to alter and challenge an individual’s thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs so they can change how they react to certain behaviors in their environment. CBT combines behavioral and cognitive psychology to treat various mental health conditions (McCullough Chavis, 2011). Rotter believed that all behavior is learned. Therefore, treatment should focus on teaching new adaptive behaviors to replace the existing maladaptive behaviors. CBT teaches clients how to cope and modify how they react to certain situations, enabling them to learn new behaviors and reactions.

Rotter noted that behavior is maladaptive because a person did not learn healthy behaviors (Proctor & Niemeyer, 2020). Therefore, the therapist tries to suggest new behaviors to assist the client in developing more effective coping skills. CBT uses the same strategy when treating patients, where the therapist teaches the client new behaviors to replace the negative or unhealthy behaviors they hold. Social learning theory posits that personality constitutes a person’s interaction with their environment. Therefore, if there is a change in how a person thinks or an environmental change, there will be a behavior change. The same is true for CBT, where the goal of treatment is to modify the thoughts and beliefs held by a person to alter their behavior.

Evaluation: Validity and Accuracy

The Rotter Scale is the scale developed by Julian Rotter for the measurement of personality. The scale was rigid in that it only allowed the respondent to choose between pairs of external and internal items. There was never an option to pick something different, limiting the scale’s potential. The locus of control scale has been one of the most studied personality variables in the social sciences, continuing to confirm its validity. With consistent results from different researchers, the scale’s validity continues to be established even if it only measures two variables. The scores attained have been correlated with other scores on personality characteristics, and there is confirmation of the test scores. Accuracy is established in that a person will achieve the same results provided they do not cheat on the test. In the scale development, Rotter compared responses from two groups of medical patients. One group showed determination towards recovering from tuberculosis, and the other was relatively passive toward the disease. Rotter managed to establish construct validity in developing the internal-external scale.

From the test scores, researchers established that depression is associated with high externality scores, and internality is associated with positive adjustment to a physical disability. The scale measures to whom a person assigns the decisive role in their actions and the consequences that follow. Internal people will assign decisive action to themselves, while external people will assign it to others. The scale effectively determines when there have been changes in a person’s life. After a divorce, both spouses might likely tend towards externalism, even though they were internalists before. However, as they adapt to the divorce and become more aware of their responsibilities and how they facilitate success, they will start moving towards an internal locus of control.

The scale’s accuracy is seen in children and how they transition to adulthood. The belief held by a child that the course of events depends on external or themselves tends to remain even as they grow into adulthood. Even after numerous decisions and life changes, certain aspects will always remain. These aspects demonstrate the environment’s impact on an individual from when they were little to adulthood. Therefore, we can be confident that the results of the score are valid and can be relied on when there is a need to modify behavior.

Improvements have been made to the locus of control scale, eliminating the forced-choice format and offering a Likert-type scale where the respondents would indicate whether they would rarely, sometimes, occasionally, frequently, or usually behave as shown in the 28 statements presented. The accuracy of the locus of control scale is determined through the methodology employed and the conclusions drawn from the data collected.

Evaluation: Cultural Perspectives

Rotter’s social learning theory applies to a range of cultural perspectives. Studies have been carried out using the theory that attempted to determine how race and ethnicity affect a person’s fear of crime. Race is critical in determining a person’s fear of crime. Regardless of culture, individuals have different backgrounds and environments they grew up in, which play a vital role in their locus of control. The social learning theory measures equally the locus of control without considering culture, making it effective in determining the different reinforcements people have based on their environment. Battle and Rotter (1963) discovered that middle-class Blacks had a higher external locus of control than middle-class Whites. They also found that middle-class Blacks were closer to middle-class Whites than lower-class Whites to middle-class Whites. The results indicate that social class was the primary factor, not race or ethnicity. These results demonstrate that locus of control can determine a person’s internalist and externalist locus, regardless of race or ethnicity.

The theory does make similar observations across cultures because it does not pay attention to culture. Instead, it looks at the person’s behavior and their reinforcements. According to Rotter, the environment a person grows up in plays a crucial role in determining their behavior and reinforcements. While culture will play a role, a person’s culture can be seen as their environment, and since they grew up in that culture, they are more likely to adhere to the reinforcements they were taught. Since behavior is learned, cultural perspectives can be measured easily using the theory because different cultures will have different reinforcements. However, what will matter the most is how the cultures reinforce internal and external locus of control. It is already well known that males have a higher internal locus of control across cultures because they are considered as aggressive and not submissive as females. Therefore, the theory aims to determine an individual’s internal or external locus of control to determine their motivators.

To modify a person’s behavior, we must first determine their locus of control to establish their reinforcements. Locus of control looks at how individuals view their relationship with their environment. Looking at the beliefs a person holds about their power over their life is the focus of locus of control. The theory can be used in various cultural perspectives to determine the difference between cultures. The behaviors of one culture can be explained better once we understand the role played by the environment. Human behavior can differ across races and cultures, but internal and external locus can be similar. Reinforcements are what determine the level of the locus in person.

Evaluation: Alternative Theoretical Positions

Social learning theory, also known as Julian Rotter’s theory of personality and social learning theory, posits that an individual’s behavior is a product of the interplay between personal factors and environmental influences. According to Rotter, personal factors include both internal (e.g., thoughts, emotions) and external (e.g., reinforcement) variables, while environmental influences refer to the situational or contextual factors in which a person acts.

One’s locus of control is another important concept in social learning theory; it refers to how individuals believe they can control their destiny. Those with an internal locus of control believe that they can influence their outcomes through their actions, while those with an external locus of control believe that forces beyond their control determine their outcomes.

Social learning theory concepts apply in various settings, from education to clinical psychology. Social learning theory provides a useful framework for understanding how personal and environmental factors contribute to human behavior.

There are several alternative theoretical positions to social learning theory and locus of control. One such position is cognitive dissonance theory, which posits that people are motivated to reduce inconsistency between their beliefs and behaviors. For example, someone who smokes cigarettes despite believing they are harmful may experience cognitive dissonance. To reduce this inconsistency, the individual may change their belief about cigarettes (e.g., “they’re not really that bad for me”) or their behavior (e.g., quitting smoking) (Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2012).

Another alternative position is self-efficacy theory, which suggests that people’s beliefs about their ability to perform certain tasks affect their motivation to engage in those tasks (Maddox, 1995). For instance, someone who believes they are not good at math may be less likely to put effort into studying for a math test. These are just a few of the many alternative theoretical positions to social learning theory and locus of control.

The cognitive dissonance theory posits that people naturally tend to seek consistency between their thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors. A discrepancy between these three elements creates a state of cognitive dissonance, which can lead people to change their thoughts, beliefs, or behaviors to reduce the dissonance. The self-efficacy theory states that people’s beliefs about their ability to carry out certain actions affect their subsequent performance. People who believe they can successfully complete a task are more likely actually to do so than those who doubt their abilities. Both of these theories have been supported by a great deal of research. In general, the cognitive dissonance theory seems to be more applicable to situations in which people are trying to reduce inconsistency within themselves, while the self-efficacy theory is more relevant when considering how people’s beliefs affect their behavior. However, both theories offer valuable insights into human psychology. One issue, especially with self-efficacy theory, is that it does not explain why some people believe in their abilities despite facing difficult challenges. Another concern is that the theory may overestimate the role of beliefs in determining behavior.

Evaluation: Challenge

Social learning theory and locus of control are two constructs that challenge cognitive dissonance and self-efficacy theories. Social learning theory posits that individuals learn by observing the behavior of others, while locus of control refers to an individual's beliefs about who is responsible for their own outcomes. These concepts undermine cognitive dissonance and self-efficacy theories, which assume that individuals are solely responsible for their own thoughts and actions. The cognitive dissonance theory suggests that individuals will seek to reduce the discrepancy between their thoughts and actions by changing their thoughts or actions, while the self-efficacy theory states that individuals will only engage in activities they believe they can successfully complete. However, social learning and locus of control suggest that individuals do not always have full control over their thoughts and actions. As a result, these theories provide a more accurate explanation for human behavior.

Evaluation: Defend Against the Challenges

On the other hand, there are several ways in which cognitive dissonance and self-efficacy theories challenge social learning and locus of control. For instance, according to cognitive dissonance theory, individuals are motivated to reduce inconsistency between their beliefs and actions (Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2007). This means they may be more likely to change their behavior to minimize cognitive dissonance rather than simply learning from observing others.

Similarly, self-efficacy theory suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in a behavior if they believe they can perform it successfully. This challenges the idea that individuals will automatically imitate the behavior of others simply because they have observed it (Bandura & Adams, 1977).

Finally, cognitive dissonance and self-efficacy theories suggest that individuals are more likely to be influenced by their own experiences and perceptions than by outside sources such as social norms. This challenges the notion of locus of control, which suggests that factors outside of their control primarily influence individuals. In sum, cognitive dissonance and self-efficacy theories provide several challenges to social learning and locus of control. That is food for thought on how these theories can impact society.

Evaluation: Apply

Cognitive dissonance suggests that when people are presented with information that contradicts their existing beliefs, they will experience a state of mental discomfort. This discomfort can motivate them to either change their beliefs to align with the new information or to rationalize their beliefs and convince themselves that the new information is wrong. The theory has been extensively studied and has been found to have several important real-world applications. For example, it can help explain why people may resist changing their opinions even in the face of evidence that contradicts them. It can also help explain why people may be more likely to believe information that reinforces their beliefs. However, the theory has its Critics too. Some argue that it does not adequately explain why people sometimes change their beliefs in response to new information. Others say that it overestimates the role of mental discomfort in influencing people's beliefs. Overall, cognitive dissonance theory is valuable for understanding how people process new information and make decisions about their beliefs. However, like all psychological theories, it has its limitations and should be used in conjunction with other theories to get a complete picture of human behavior.

Evaluation: Solutions

While cognitive dissonance and self-efficacy theories are useful in explaining human behavior, they each have limitations. Social learning theory and locus of control address some of the shortcomings of these other theories. Social learning theory emphasizes the role of observation and imitation in human behavior, while locus of control focuses on an individual's belief about their ability to control their environment. These perspectives provide a more comprehensive explanation of human behavior than cognitive dissonance or self-efficacy theory alone.