Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

 Media Violence

• Children observe violent behavior in media and tend to mimic or imitate it. This imitation occurs through social learning processes and is likely mediated by “mirror neurons” that activate when actions are observed or performed (Huesmann, 2005).
• Extensive observation of violence can bias children’s world schemas toward attributing hostility or negative intentions to others’ actions. These hostile attributions increase the likelihood of behaving aggressively (Huesmann & Kirwil, 2007).
• Children acquire social scripts for behaviors they observe around them, including in the media. Once learned, these scripts can automatically control social behavior. Exposure to media violence provides aggressive scripts.
• Normative beliefs about acceptable social behaviors crystallize as children mature. These beliefs act as filters limiting inappropriate behaviors. Observing violence in media can influence which behaviors children see as normative or acceptable.
• Repeated exposure to media violence can lead to desensitization – the diminishing of emotional responses to violence. This makes it easier for children to think about and plan aggressive acts without negative affect.
• Playing violent video games allows for enactive learning of aggression, as players actively participate and are rewarded for violent actions in the game. This should strengthen the learning of aggression beyond passive media observation.

In classrooms, students learn not only from direct instruction but also by watching peers and teachers.

Health Behaviors

• Smoking and Substance Use: Adolescents are more likely to start (or quit) smoking based on the models in their social circle – if friends and family smoke, that behavior is seen as normal and is often imitated, whereas seeing peers successfully quit can encourage one to try quitting.

  Interventions based on Bandura’s theory often include peer modeling – for example, teens in a cessation program might hear stories of slightly older students who quit smoking, which raises the observers’ self-efficacy to quit (Peterson et al., 2009).

• Physical Activity: Social learning processes also influence exercise habits. People are more likely to engage in physical activity when they have active role models or workout partners.

  For instance, a person may start jogging because they observe neighbors or friends regularly doing so and enjoying it.

  According to social cognitive theory, observing others succeed in exercise (e.g., a co-worker loses weight through a gym class) can increase one’s belief in the ability to exercise and achieve fitness goals (Bandura, 1997).

  Research finds that interventions which include group exercise or buddy systems (where participants see peers exercising) lead to higher exercise adherence than solo efforts, underscoring the power of observational learning in this domain (Smith & Biddle, 1999).

• Diet and Nutrition: Eating habits are often learned through observation, especially within families. Children typically model the dietary choices of their parents; studies have shown strong correlations between parent and child eating behaviors (Brown & Ogden, 2004).

  Bandura (2004) emphasizes that seeing others practice healthy behaviors – and succeed (e.g., weight loss, improved health) – motivates observers to initiate those behaviors themselves. 

Workplace Training

• Learning by Observation on the Job: In work settings, employees often acquire skills by shadowing and imitating experienced colleagues.

  New hires frequently learn how to handle tasks and workplace norms by watching mentors or peers, reflecting Bandura’s (1977) idea that much learning is vicarious​.

  This on-the-job observational learning can build employees’ confidence (self-efficacy) as they see effective techniques modeled and realize “if I observe how it’s done, I can do it” (Bandura, 1977).

• Behavior Modeling Improves Performance: Formal training programs use modeling to enhance professional development.

  A meta-analysis by Taylor et al. (2005) found that behavior modeling training – where trainees watch someone perform a skill and then practice it – leads to significant gains in learning and job performance​.

  Trainees who observe both positive and negative examples of work behaviors develop better skills and are more likely to transfer those skills to the job.

  These findings reinforce that seeing a behavior effectively demonstrated (or corrected) helps employees adopt those behaviors themselves.​

Reciprocal Determinism

Reciprocal determinism is Albert Bandura’s principle that personal factors (such as thoughts, emotions, or motivations), an individual’s behavior, and the environment actively shape each other in a dynamic, bidirectional cycle.

This framework, often referred to as triadic reciprocal determinism, goes beyond the notion of linear causation by illustrating that each component influences and is influenced by the others.

In this model, the environment includes not only physical surroundings but also social and cultural contexts.

Behavior entails both observable actions and more subtle expressions, such as nonverbal cues or immediate choices.

Personal factors encompass beliefs, self-efficacy, attitudes, and emotional states, all of which determine how an individual interprets and responds to external events.

For example:

For example, a student who speaks confidently during class discussions (behavior) might receive supportive responses from peers and teachers (environment), reinforcing the student’s sense of competence and self-belief (personal factor).

This positive reinforcement motivates the student to participate more frequently, shaping the overall classroom dynamic and prompting even stronger social support.

In turn, this newly supportive environment further encourages proactive engagement.

Thus, each element – behavior, environment, and personal factors – forms part of a continuous feedback loop that drives ongoing personal development and interpersonal influence.

Social Learning Theory Evaluation

The social learning approach takes thought processes into account and acknowledges the role that they play in deciding if a behavior is to be imitated or not.

As such, social learning theory provides a more comprehensive explanation of human learning by recognizing the role of mediational processes.

For example, it can explain many more complex social behaviors (such as gender roles and moral behavior) than models of learning based on simple reinforcement.

Lack of Clarity about Cognitive Processes

Some critics argue that social learning theory does not fully explain the cognitive processes involved in learning or how they interact with environmental and individual factors.

However, although it can explain some quite complex behavior, it cannot adequately account for how we develop a range of behavior, including thoughts and feelings.

We have a lot of cognitive control over our behavior, and just because we have had experiences of violence does not mean we have to reproduce such behavior.

For this reason, Bandura modified his theory and, in 1986, renamed his Social Learning Theory, Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), as a better description of how we learn from our social experiences.

Overemphasis on Observation

Critics suggest that the theory might overstate the role of observational learning while undervaluing other forms of learning, such as operant conditioning or individual exploration and discovery.

Some criticisms of social learning theory arise from their commitment to the environment as the chief influence on behavior.

Describing behavior solely in terms of either nature or nurture is limiting, and attempts to do this underestimate the complexity of human behavior.

It is more likely that behavior is due to an interaction between nature (biology) and nurture (environment).

Finally, observational learning does not happen in isolation. Each individual brings their unique personal characteristics, prior experiences, and current circumstances to the learning process.

These factors can all influence what is learned, how it is interpreted, and whether and when it is acted upon.

Difficulty in Predicting Behavior

Social learning theory provides a valuable framework for understanding how learning occurs. However, predicting behavior in real-world contexts can be challenging, given the many potential models and reinforcements in a person’s environment.

The complexity of predicting behavior based on the social learning theory stems from the number of potential influencing factors in a person’s environment.

In real-world contexts, an individual is exposed to countless potential role models across various settings, including family, friends, teachers, and media figures.

Moreover, these models’ behaviors are often rewarded or punished inconsistently, further complicating the learning process.

Neglect of Biological Factors

Social learning theory has been critiqued for not adequately addressing biological factors, such as genetic predispositions, which can also impact behavior.

Social learning theory is not a full explanation for all behavior. This is particularly the case when there is no apparent role model in the person’s life to imitate for a given behavior.

The discovery of mirror neurons has lent biological support to the social learning theory. Although research is in its infancy, the recent discovery of “mirror neurons” in primates may constitute a neurological basis for imitation.

These are neurons that fire if the animal does something itself and if it observes the action being done by another.

Freud vs. Bandura

Freud’s psychoanalytic theory and Bandura’s social learning theory both acknowledge the importance of identification, but their perspectives differ significantly.

While both theories acknowledge the importance of identification, they conceptualize it differently and have distinct views on human behavior, learning, and the potential for change.

1. Focus: Freud’s theory focuses heavily on the unconscious mind, instinctual drives, and early childhood experiences.

   On the other hand, Bandura’s social learning theory emphasizes learning through observation and modeling, taking into account cognitive and environmental factors.

2. Identification: Freud’s concept of identification in the Oedipus complex involves a child identifying with the same-sex parent and internalizing their characteristics.

   This process is driven by psychosexual development and often results in the development of gender roles. In contrast, social learning theory sees identification as a more flexible process.

   Regardless of age, individuals can identify with and learn from anyone around them, not necessarily limited to parents or same-sex individuals.

3. Determinism vs. Agency: Freud’s theory leans toward psychic determinism, suggesting that unconscious desires largely shape our behaviors and feelings.

   Social learning theory, while acknowledging the influence of environment, also stresses personal agency – our capacity to influence our own behavior and the environment in a purposeful, goal-directed way.

4. Change: In Freudian theory, personality is largely formed by age 5, making change difficult. Social learning theory suggests that because learning is a lifelong process, individuals can change their behaviors and attitudes throughout life.

Future Research

The motor reproduction process, where observers externally mimic modeled behaviors based on their internalized symbols, is also significant but less explored.

Most research showcases role model successes instead of the actionable steps taken to achieve them (Bandura, 1972).

Detailed behavioral scripts, outlining step-by-step actions, are crucial for observational learning but are often overlooked.

Current role model studies in education don’t emphasize the observer’s cognitive and motivational processes as much as Bandura did, indicating a research gap that needs bridging.

FAQs