Bandura's Social Learning Theory: Key Concepts Explained

Introduction and Theoretical Background

The dominant models of human behavior by the late 1950s and early 1960s were based on Neo-Freudian models and B.F. Skinner's brand of operant behaviorism. However, there were theorists who rejected the mechanistic views of behaviorism and Freudian instinct-drive-based models. Perhaps the most influential of these theorists was Albert Bandura. Bandura had received his Ph.D. from the University of Iowa and had been exposed to the work of Robert Spears, who was studying familial influences on social behavior and identification in children. Bandura was also heavily influenced by other theorists at Iowa such as James Dollard and Neal Miller, who had merged Freudian and Hullian learning principles.

Bandura believed that learning principles were sufficient to explain and predict behavior, but he also believed that humans thought and regulated their own behavior and were not at the mercy of environmental stimuli as in Skinnerian models. Furthermore, he believed that many functions of personality and learning involve interactions with other people, and therefore any theory of personality or learning should take interpersonal factors into account.

Bandura's social learning theory is based heavily on the groundbreaking notions of Kurt Lewin (1943) and his Field Theory. Lewin's Field Theory was radical for its time given the Freudian notions of behavior that dominated the era, but by today's standards his ideas seem almost obvious. Lewin developed the famous formula B = f(P, E), which states that behavior is a function of the person and the environment. Bandura's notion of reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1978) improves on Lewin's concept by maintaining the three factors of B, P, and E while adding reciprocal lines of influence. Thus, the person has direct influences on the environment and his or her behavior, and both can directly influence the person. Likewise, the environment and the person's behavior also directly and reciprocally influence one another (see Figure 1).

Reciprocal Determinism and the Self-System

Bandura believed that reciprocal determinism — the idea that people influence their fate by controlling environmental forces while also being influenced by them — was the basic principle of his social learning theory (Bandura, 1997b). Moreover, Bandura departed from the traditional views of behaviorists by asserting that learning could occur without a change in one's behavior and without direct reinforcement.

Despite the reciprocal influences of behavior, environment, and personal factors, Bandura understood that there must be a center to the process. He termed this center the self-system (Bandura, 1978). The self-system refers to a set of cognitive structures that affect the perception and evaluation of the person, the environment, and the actions of the self and others, as well as the regulation of one's behavior. In a sense, there are reciprocating factors within the self-system itself. The self-system engages in constant monitoring of the self and the environment. People evaluate themselves, their actions, and their goals based on their experience, and these evaluations lead to important expectations.

Bandura defined outcome expectations as estimates that one's actions will lead to specific outcomes, which are often learned. These outcome expectations are heavily influenced by internal notions of self-efficacy — one's perception of how well or poorly one can function in a given situation (Bandura, 1977a). The concepts of self-efficacy and outcome expectations are key components of behavioral change and learning. The other important expectation in Bandura's social learning theory is the belief that a person can effectively perform the behavior required to produce the desired outcome, referred to as efficacy expectations.

Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations

Bandura viewed efficacy expectations as an important part of adaptation and coping. For example, Bandura (1982) compared group and individual performances on tasks at different levels of perceived self-efficacy and found a direct relationship between self-efficacy and performance: higher levels of perceived self-efficacy were associated with higher levels of performance. This relationship could be interpreted in either direction — self-efficacy could lead to higher performance, or better performers may simply have greater levels of perceived self-efficacy. However, when self-efficacy of the individual or the group was experimentally increased, performance subsequently increased at both the group and individual levels, indicating that perceived self-efficacy causally affects performance.

Bandura, Adams, Hardy, and Howells (1980) provided clinical support for the value of increasing self-efficacy in the treatment of anxiety. People with agoraphobia were subjected to cognitive-behavioral treatment that increased their perceptions of being able to leave their homes safely. This was associated with a significant increase in their actually leaving their homes alone and performing daily activities such as shopping.

Bandura saw reinforcement as a causal mechanism of learning; however, he also maintained that learning can occur by being directly reinforced, by observing someone else perform, through vicarious reinforcement (by observing a model being reinforced), or without reinforcement at all (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977). Bandura believed that much learning occurs through the expectation of reinforcement by noting how others are or are not reinforced for their actions. These observations lead to cognitive expectations about the results of one's own behavior. Reinforcement guides learning and behavior based on anticipated outcomes, and learning is not always accomplished by direct reinforcement in the Skinnerian sense.

These expectations can lead to further expectations about the consequences of future actions based on past actions. Through interactions with socializing agents such as parents, peers, and teachers, people develop internalized behavioral standards and learn to reward themselves through self-approval or to reproach themselves through self-criticism. These anticipatory and internal self-reinforcing mechanisms guide behavior, foster new learning, and maintain consistency with established behaviors.

Bandura's social learning theory thus expanded the boundaries of what constitutes or defines reinforcement. Observers can be reinforced by a model, such as when we adopt the attitudes and behaviors of peers. Observers can be reinforced by a third party, as when we model the behavior of an older sibling and receive praise from a parent. Modeled behavior can also result in intrinsically reinforcing consequences — for example, a person could observe that bike riding is enjoyable and begin riding a bike to experience that enjoyment directly.