This paper examines two foundational learning theories in cognitive psychology: Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory and B.F. Skinner's operant conditioning. It traces the origins of social learning theory from Miller and Dollard (1941) through Bandura's expansion of the model, and contrasts Bandura's emphasis on internal thought processes and observational learning with Skinner's behaviorist focus on environmental reinforcement histories. Key concepts discussed include positive and negative reinforcement, punishment, extinction, and Bandura's concept of reciprocal determinism — a dynamic, three-way interaction among individual characteristics, environmental factors, and human behavior.
In the field of cognitive psychology, learning theories are significant in both their variety and the different ways in which researchers approach "knowing." Within the sphere of cognitive psychology, the cognitive learning theory is among the most popular areas of study. The cognitive learning theory suggests that learning is a behavioral change based on the acquisition of information about the environment. Bandura (1986) suggested that what individuals think and feel about themselves necessarily impacts subsequent individual behaviors. As a theory of learning, social cognitive theory is based on the notion that individuals learn by watching others perform and that the internal thought processes people have are critical for a proper understanding of the individual (Santrock, 2008).
The two theories examined here are Albert Bandura's observational learning theory and B.F. Skinner's theory of operant conditioning. While both involve theories of learning, the differences between them are significant. Skinner's traditional behaviorist theory does not consider internal, cognitive processes; instead, Skinner and other behaviorists conceived of personality as completely caused and influenced by learned associations and, therefore, considered it a continuous, lifelong process.
Radical behaviorism seeks to understand behavior as a function of environmental histories of reinforcing consequences. Reinforcement processes were emphasized by Skinner and were seen as primary in the shaping of behavior. A common misconception is that negative reinforcement is synonymous with punishment. This misconception is rather pervasive and is commonly found even in scholarly accounts of Skinner and his contributions. To be clear, while positive reinforcement is the strengthening of behavior by the application of some event (e.g., praise after a behavior is performed), negative reinforcement is the strengthening of behavior by the removal or avoidance of some aversive event (e.g., opening an umbrella on a rainy day is reinforced by the cessation of rain falling on you). Skinner also sought to understand the application of his theory in the broadest behavioral context as it applies to living organisms, namely natural selection.
Both types of reinforcement strengthen behavior, or increase the probability of a behavior recurring. The difference lies in whether the reinforcing event is something applied (positive reinforcement) or something removed or avoided (negative reinforcement). Punishment and extinction, by contrast, have the effect of weakening behavior — decreasing the future probability of a behavior's occurrence — through one of three mechanisms: the application of an aversive stimulus or event (positive punishment, or punishment by contingent stimulation); the removal of a desirable stimulus (negative punishment, or punishment by contingent withdrawal); or the absence of a rewarding stimulus, which causes the behavior to cease (extinction).
"Miller, Dollard, and early social learning models"
"Bandura's triadic model and observational knowledge acquisition"
You’re 67% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.