Social cognitive theory - A full summary and evaluation

>> Good day and welcome IB psychologists to
another video tutorial with me, Travis Dixon.

Today, we're going to look
at social cognitive theory.

We're going to do a full summary.

It's probably going to take
about 27 minutes I think

because I made this video
yesterday, but my mic was turned off.

So, anyway, it'll take about 30 minutes.

We're going do a full summary here
so you've got everything you need

for your IB psychology exams.

By the end of this video, you're
going to be able to do a full summary

of Bandura's social cognitive theory.

This is a core part of the
IB psychology curriculum,

so you must know about social cognitive theory.

And you'll be able to evaluate
SCT using the D.E.A.L. structure.

I've used this in my other videos about
schema theory and social identity theory,

and it's a pretty good framework to
remember how to evaluate theories.

First of all, we're going to describe it, what
is the theory, how does it explain behavior.

Then, we'll look at some studies that support
it, applications, followed by limitations.

Your studies and your applications
are really the strengths of the theory

and your limitations there, so
you've got the full evaluation.

Just a note, this is also
covered in my revision guide.

Where is my copy?

It's buried down here somewhere.

So, if you've got the revision guide, then
this is all in there, but if you don't have it

and maybe it's too close to your exams to
get it, everything's in this video for you.

So, first of all, the description
of social cognitive theory.

So, this is Albert Bandura.

This was his theory.

We're going to look at it
in four major parts really.

First, we'll have a little bit of background.

And then, there's three major
concepts that you should know about.

At least the first two are really
key, observational learning

and triadic reciprocal determinism.

These are the two most important factors I
think of SCT, and there's also the concept

of self-efficacy, which we'll look at as well.

So, a little bit of background on the theory.

So, this is as I said proposed by Bandura.

The original theory was called
social learning theory,

and this was first proposed in the 1960s.

The core claim of social learning
theory was that we can learn behavior,

behavior can be explained by looking at how
we learn from others, we learn by observation.

And it's important I think whenever we
look at a theory to look at the context.

So, what was that theory in relation to?

The theory of evolution was in
contrast to the theory of creation.

Social learning theory was in contrast
to behaviorism saying that we learn

by either being rewarded or
punished for our behavior.

So, it's our direct actions, which we then
get rewarded for, we'll keep doing it,

if we get punished, we'll stop doing it.

And Bandura said that's not
actually the only way we can learn.

And also, this is Watson here for behaviorism.

And also, Freud's idea was that our behavior
comes from these deep internal motivations,

maybe childhood experiences that would repressed
and they're coming out in our behavior.

And again, Bandura was saying maybe that's
not the only explanation for behavior.

That might not always be the case.

Anyway, we have Freud as well who we don't
actually study much in IB psychology.

So, let's break down observational learning.

This is the core part of social learning theory.

Observational learning is one of the
key concepts of social cognitive theory.

He renamed in social cognitive theory.

He renamed it to social cognitive
theory in about the 1980s.

So, in the original SLT, Bandura said we
can learn from two ways, direct experience.

I put my hand on a fire, that's
hot, I learn not to do that.

But I can also learn by observing others.

And Bandura said we don't actually always have
to have direct experience to learn something.

This going to be dangerous.

I don't always have to be putting my hand
on hot fires to learn that they're hot.

I can see someone else put their hand on a hot
fire and go, "Wow, they got burned from that.

Now I know not to do it."

It's the old monkey see, monkey do.

And so, observational learning
we can break down.

There are four process is involved.

And this is the key part of this concept in
social cognitive theory, that there's attention.

We're paying attention to the model.

So, there's the observer and there's the model.

The model is the person performing the action.

So, the learner has to pay attention.

If they don't, they're not going to remember it.

And they have to remember it.

They have to retain it.

This is what retention refers to.

Mode of reproduction, we have to
physically be able to reproduce the skill.

If we can't physically do it, then the
chances of us copying it and imitating it

and later learning it aren't
going to be very high.

For example, this happens a lot in sports.

Many years ago as a basketball
player, I learned how to dribble

and put the ball behind my back
by watching someone else do it.

And I was like, "Man, that's cool."

And so, then I went off and tried and
tried and tried until I could do it.

Now, I also watched someone put the ball
between their legs and slam dunk it.

I couldn't do that.

I never learned how to do that.

I don't have the motor skills.

Reinforcement and motivation, the final
process involved here, and this can be broken

down a little bit further as well.

But reinforcement, if we are watching someone
and they are getting rewarded or punished

for their behavior, we're
more likely to copy it.

And if we identify with their model,
if we find some sort of similarity,

we're probably more likely to be
motivated to copy their learning.

And this becomes really important
when we look at --

it's not just in-person modeling
that we're looking at.

We're also looking at media and the
effects of how we can see models

and imitate behavior we see
on TV and other places.

So, that's observational learning.

So, a good summary of social
cognitive theory would include saying

that behavior can be explained by
how we learn it by observing others

and include these four processes
in that summary.

Now, the key concept is triadic
reciprocal determinism.

This is also called triadic
reciprocal causation.

And what this simply means is -- this
is a pretty fancy and complicated term

for I think a pretty straightforward
concept that our environment,

our physical external environment influences our
individual internal factors like our cognition

and our biology and that
can affect our behavior.

And actually, all these three
things can influence one another.

It's triadic.

There's three.

It's reciprocal meaning it goes both ways.

And they can determine one another.

They can cause one another.

So, that's essentially it.

So, if we think of one example of
neuroplasticity, we know if we grow

up in a low socioeconomic environment,

we're going to have possibly
smaller brain development.

There's correlational studies that showed this.

So, possibly growing up in poverty we're
going to have a smaller hippocampus.

That's our internal factor.

That might affect another
internal factor, our memory,

because hippocampus is part of our memory.

Now, that could affect our behavior.

If you don't have very good memory, it means
you're going to be maybe not good at learning.

You might not do very well at school.

So, then, you'll start having behavior
problems and behavior issues, acting out.

And this is what happens a lot.

But we can actually also reverse this trend.

You can do lots of things.

For example, playing some
kinds of video games we've seen

in studies can help boost the
development in your hippocampus.

And maybe that might make
your classroom a better place.

I mean, going from the individual
to the environment,

this link here is a little bit harder to make.

And going this direction and
this direction is a bit tricky.

But anyway, you can see they can
possibly influence one another.

Another example, we look at the
warrior gene and aggression.

So, we know that adverse childhood experiences
-- so, growing up if you're abused --

is one example that can influence
the expression of your genes,

your biological development,
and your brain development.

It might also influence the warrior
gene, and that can affect our behavior.

It might make you more likely to be antisocial.

And this can be seen in Caspi, et al.'s
study, which we'll look at a little bit later.

So, triadic reciprocal determinism
I think is a key --

most students I think will write when
they talk about social cognitive theory,

they'll focus on observational learning
and they'll forget this key detail.

But if you add this core concept to
a summary of social cognitive theory,

I really think it's going to
separate your answer from the rest

and including this diagram here
would be a very good idea as well.

Finally, we get to self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy means your belief
in your ability to do something.

And so, it's kind of like self-confidence
and how well you think you can do something.

And Bandura said that this is an
important internal factor over here.

They can moderate this relationship.

Take one example, for example,
your academic self-efficacy.

How well do you think that
you can do well in school?

And this is often correlated with achievement.

Those students who have a high self-efficacy
in terms of academics and think they are good

at learning and good at studying,
they tend to do better at school.

And that makes sense.

You think about it with your IB psych exam.

How confident are you in your ability
to learn social cognitive theory?

How well do you think you're going to be able
to learn and remember this lecture and then

that my influence how well you can summarize it.

So, this is self-efficacy.

There's not a lot to say.

I didn't include it in my original book just
because I think with the first two concepts,

triadic reciprocal determinism and observational
learning, you've got more than enough

for social cognitive theory, but
I thought I would edit it here

and I did also put it in
the revision book as well.

It's pretty straightforward.

So, that's the description,
those three concepts.

Now, the evidence, the supporting studies.

First of all, we can't go past the
Bobo doll studies I don't think

because these are very famous
and we'd be remiss if we went

through an introductory IB psych course
and we didn't cover the Bobo doll studies.

And for observational learning,
I think they work really well.

So, I'm not going to go into heaps of detail
about the methodology because I'll put a link

in the description where you can find a
summary on my blog of one of these studies.

And also, there's just so much out there and
you've probably already seen the videos anyway.

But anyway, in the first study in 1961,
they had two independent variables.

One was the gender of the model and the other
was what type of observation the kids did.

So, I'm sure you know about it.

The kids came in.

They either watched an adult playing
aggressively with the Bobo doll

or they watched them playing passively.

And the model was either the
same gender or different gender.

And then, they were put in a room and
there was a couple of researchers.

They stood behind the two-way mirror

and they counted every 5 seconds was the
kid making an aggressive action or not,

and they recorded that, and
then they compared their notes.

Just a couple of details
here taken from the original.

If you can put some specific
details in your exam answers,

it will show that you really know your stuff
and it will separate your answers from the rest.

So, 36 boys, 36 girls.

So, what's that?

About 3 to 5 years old from Stanford University.

And two adults.

So, male, one female were in the male position.

I've never seen videos of the male.

I've only ever seen videos of the female.

But anyway, now, we have the original
results here taken from the original study.

And we're just looking over here.

This is one of the important results.

So, this is physical aggression.

So, if we just compare this, the aggressive
conditions over here we see quite high compared

to the non-aggressive and the control groups.

It's much lower over here.

And you might want to get a pen and paper.

Excuse me.

I'm losing my voice.

You might want to get a pen and paper
and just jot down a couple of these notes

so you've got some specifics to refer to.

But if we just look here, let's just
look at the males to begin with.

Well, one interesting trend is generally
speaking the boys were more aggressive

than the females.

And also, if we look here, this first
result shows observational learning,

that if we view aggressive behavior,
we're more likely to copy it.

Straightforward.

This is evidence to support
observational learning.

There's also some evidence here to support
the fact that we might be more motivated

to copy the learning if we
identify with the model.

We see here especially with verbal
aggression the females were far more likely

to copy the verbal aggression
than if they watched a male,

when they watched a female,
and opposite for the males.

If they watched a male, far more likely
to copy it than if they watched a female.

So, there's some evidence.

This here is observational learning in general.

And then, this here we can see the identifying
with the model we might be more motivated.

Now, second study in 1963.

This is one I have the full
summary for on the blog,

and I'll work at getting the
1961 version up there as well.

They wanted to see does it have to be
real life observation of aggression

or can it be by seeing a televised version?

And so, they used the same procedures as the
first study, but it was a little bit different

in how the kids actually viewed the model.

So, they had one in-person live model, so the
kids actually are in the same room watching.

They had one where they video recorded
the model beating up the Bobo doll

and then they put that on the TV.

Or they had the televised fantasy model.

This was a really interesting one where they
wanted to make it appear like a cartoon,

but I guess they probably couldn't afford
to create a cartoon just for these purposes.

This is 50 or 60 years ago, so it would
have been a bit expensive back then.

So, they had the researcher dress as a cat.

And then, they tried to make the scenery like
with artificial grass and make it kind of appear

like a fantasy land and they had a
control group that didn't watch anything.

Again, this is summarized on my blog there.

You can check it out and I'll
put the link in the description.

So, what do we see?

Again, here are the original
results taken from the first study.

The real life aggressive condition, so
when they actually saw the real person,

this is the filmed, this is the cartoon,

although it wasn't really
cartoon, and the control group.

What we can see again, the control
group much lower than the other three.

More evidence to suggest and to support
the idea of observational learning,

that we can learn aggressive
behavior through observation.

And I just want to point out here that
social cognitive theory can be used

to explain many behaviors.

I think using it to explain aggression can
really help you write a good focused explanation

of this theory.

And that was one of its first applications.

So, when you're thinking about how
to explain a theory, think about,

"What is this theory explaining?"

Aggression.

So, back to it.

So, again, observational learning here as well.

And what's interesting is generally
speaking again, the boys more aggressive

than the females, which is an
interesting trend and something we'll talk

about later when we get to the evaluation.

And so, they didn't actually notice that
this was that much higher than, for example,

watching it in real life, but it does
actually mean that it's comparable

and it's much higher watching the cartoon
and the film version than the control group.

So, this is evidence to suggest that it's
not just watching someone in real life,

but we can also be influenced and we can learn

by watching filmed televised
models of aggression.

Now, this might seem just everyday
knowledge to us, but this is 1963.

This is when TV was first becoming
introduced to many households in America.

And so, that becomes a very important
finding when we put it in that context,

that we don't actually have to go visit
and see a boxing match, for example,

to copy that aggressive behavior, but we can be
seeing it every day in our living rooms on TV.

And so, in terms of developmental psychology
with kids and how much TV we watch,

this becomes a very important
finding especially at this time.

So, those studies I think are really good to
show the first concept, observational learning.

Now, we need some examples to show
triadic reciprocal determinism.

Now, you're not going to find I don't think
many studies that show all three interactions

and I think you can actually do a good job of
just explaining it and giving some examples

like maybe with a couple of studies
like I did with neuroplasticity

and showing the environment affecting the brain.

Like [inaudible] is a good one to show that
and then links between the brain and behavior,

any study that shows links between
hippocampus and memory like maybe HM.

But sometimes, you get a study
like Caspi's study that we can use

to show those three interacting elements.

So, this was also called the Dunedin study.

It followed 1,000 people for 25 years,
and they were looking at links between --

in this particular report, they looked at links
between the type of warrior gene or the type

of MAOA gene that people had
with antisocial behavior.

And they compared two groups of people.

One group had the low-expression
variant, which means the gene,

this variant is not sending
many signals from the cell.

This is what gene expression is.

And the other was the high-expression variant.

Now, what they found was that the having the
MAOA-L variant or one of those variants --

and this is the type of the
warrior gene that is most associated

with antisocial and aggressive behavior.

They found that that alone doesn't necessarily
have an effect on antisocial behavior.

But if you combine that with childhood
abuse, we can see the result here.

So, this is the low activity in
black and high activity of the gene.

Now, just as biological factor by
itself, not much of a difference

if there's no childhood maltreatment.

But if we get severe childhood maltreatment,
we'll see this low-expression variant,

the levels of antisocial behavior,
which is over here, skyrockets.

And this is showing that that effect of the
environment might be influencing the expression

of our genetics or some internal factors and
then that's having a result in our behavior.

And we can talk about one area of uncertainty
here is what is it actually doing to our brain

or our genetics or why is this difference
occurring, but we can see here the effect

of environment is influencing internal
factors in some way, which is resulting

in this massive increase in behavior.

So, finally, self-efficacy and GPA.

So, one basic study to look at
the third concept, self-efficacy,

and this is often studied in correlational
studies where you take two factors

like academics and you measure
people's self-efficacy on their beliefs

and their abilities to do or to be good
at academics and their achievement.

And then, you see how strongly
they're correlated.

And this is what they did.

In this study, 60 students studying sports
science in Malaysia and they took their GPAs

for the university scores and then they
also measured their academic self-efficacy.

They found very high correlations here.

Males 0.67.

Females 0.85.

We think a plus one is a perfect correlation.

Zero is no correlation.

So, anything with a 0.6 or 0.7 is pretty strong.

So, 0.8, that's a really strong
correlation seen here in females.

So, evidence to suggest that higher
self-efficacy is going to influence behavior.

Again, this could be further evidence maybe
for at least two of those interactions

in triadic reciprocal determinism.

So, there are studies.

Now, we get to the A and D.E.A.L. applications.

This can explain violence in the media.

There's been lots of studies that have shown
the more aggressive violent media you watch

as a kid the more likely you
are to act out and be aggressive

and end up in court yourself later in life.

And so, social cognitive theory
can be used to explain that,

that the idea of observational
learning we can learn through the media.

But with that, we can also apply
this to learning in a couple of ways.

One is use of modeling as
an instructional strategy.

You want to teach someone how to do
something, you show them how to do it first.

I've got a son who's three years old.

We do this all the time.

I'm trying to teach him how to do
something, tie his shoelaces, I'll do it,

he sees it, and then he tries to copy it.

He's not learning that yet, but I couldn't
think of a better example off top of my head.

I'll think of one in a couple of minutes.

The other way, if we can use the
idea of self-efficacy and if we know

that that might be linked to
improved performance and achievement,

then maybe we can develop strategies
and there have been strategies developed

to increase self-efficacy
especially in the likes of academics.

Also, if we can use social cognitive theory
and the idea of observational learning

to explain how we can learn negative behaviors
through the media, we could also use that

and it has been used to help develop positive
behaviors, and this is called the Sabido method

where there's been scripts and stories that are
designed to teach some kind of life lessons.

This was done a lot in South and Central
America with tackling social issues

by having it play out with the characters.

But also if you're familiar
with, for example, Sesame Street,

nearly every episode they are
teaching kids about sharing

or learning and using puppets to do that.

And so, we can actually apply these
concepts of observation learning

to promote positive behavior
as well in television shows.

So, there are some applications
of social cognitive theory.

Remember, you wouldn't put this in a
short answer response in your exams,

but you would put this in the essay.

Finally, we get to some limitations.

Evaluating theories is really, really
tricky, so let's do our best here.

First of all, are there alternative
explanations?

So, if we're applying social
cognitive theory to explain aggression,

are there alternative explanations
for aggression

or are there other factors
that might be involved here?

Can we say that aggressive behavior is 100%
learned or like I said are there other factors

like our hormones, our genetics,
our culture, things like this?

Are there other factors that might influence --

actually, I'm just thinking of
this off the top of my head now.

Observational learning, what
other factors might influence?

Are some people more likely to copy than others?

Are there some internal factors that
might make some people more likely

to replicate and copy other people?

But I guess he also covered that in his
motivation like identifying with the model.

Anyway. Ecological validity
of the Bobo doll studies.

Now, ideally, you want to evaluate the
theory before you evaluate the studies,

but I think here because the Bobo studies are so
prominent, I think it's okay to evaluate these.

And if we think about the Bobo doll
studies, is it really the case in real life

where a kid's watching television and they're
watching an adult play with or perform some sort

of aggressive violent act and then the kid
turns off the TV and turns around and voila,

everything that they just saw on the
television is there in front of them to copy?

That's what happened in the Bobo doll study.

There's a big inflatable doll
they're watching with a hammer.

And then, they turn around
and that same doll is there.

This is not what happens in real life.

We watch cartoons and there's big anvils,
metal things drop on people's heads

or there's guns or there's cowboys and Indians.

But then, we turn around and they're not there.

So, that transfer, could this really
explain that learning to be aggressive

and then transferring it in a different context?

Questionable.

We saw throughout that there was a higher
increase from the boys in aggression

and can social cognitive theory explain this?

Is this just because maybe boys
are taught more to be aggressive

or is there some biological factors?

It's the old nature versus nurture here.

Why are men generally more aggressive?

And then, we come back to, for
example, maybe testosterone.

Is this a factor or is this just because
boys are raised to be more aggressive?

Evaluating the concept of TRD,
isn't this just common knowledge?

We now just know in psychology after years --

I mean, in the 1980s when this idea was
first added into social cognitive theory,

it might have been groundbreaking, like the
idea that our environment can affect our genes.

But now, we just know that.

We know from epigenetic studies and we
know that environment affects our brain.

It seems like a redundant point in this day
and age I think at least because it's just

so well known that the nature or
nurture debate is largely dead

and we know that it's nature or nurture.

Sometimes, it's nature via
nurture and vice versa.

So, I think that's one limitation of that idea.

Self-efficacy.

Now, maybe I'm showing my ignorance on this,

but I'm wondering how we could really
genuinely test this experimentally.

I think mostly it's going
to be correlational studies

because I mean how can we
ethically manipulate people's levels

of self-efficacy unless we
did it in their self-efficacy

in a field that doesn't really matter?

But then, why would we care about that?

So, for example, do you want to take one
group and reduce yourself in academics

and see if it has an effect or maybe
we could take one group and improve it

and boost your self-efficacy and
see if that has an effect as well,

but there's maybe an ethical
-- possibly it could be done.

Anyway. For self-efficacy, you could
I think evaluate the studies that show

that this is correlational and it might
be tricky to study experimentally.

But if you know of any experiments
on self-efficacy,

true experiments where you manipulate levels
of self-efficacy, post it in the comments.

I'd love to learn about them.

That's it.

Full on. I reckon I've probably
gone over 30 minutes.

I don't have a timer.

So, hopefully, you can describe
social cognitive theory,

you can provide the studies
as evidence to support it.

Remember, a short answer response you would
just summarize the theory and have one study.

If you are going into an essay, you'd
want to have two or three studies.

And hopefully, you can explain at
least one or two of those applications.

I think it's a pretty easy one to explain,

especially things like Sesame Street
observation learning on television.

And then, at least a couple
of limitations as well.

So, a couple of exam tips before we leave.

Short answer questions, describe
social cognitive theory

as a possible question you might get,
and it's one that's been asked before.

In order to do this and answer this properly,
explain at least two of those core claims,

maybe all three, but you want to
give as much detail as possible.

A common mistake students make is they'll have
one sentence or two sentences about the theory.

Any question about a theory whether it's a model
of memory or if it's social identity theory,

schema theory, a really, really common mistake
that students make is they'll spend one

or two sentences mentioning the theory and
then the rest of the answer is about the study.

You'll never get full marks doing that.

You have to have a full description,
a full summary of the theory.

Make it nice and concise.

It should be about 150 words of a
summary using all the right terminology

and then get into the study.

Use one study in depth.

And most importantly, show how that
study supports an aspect of the theory.

So, if you're using the Bobo doll study,
you'll take a couple of specific results

and explain how that demonstrates
observational learning.

If you're talking about Caspi's study,
you'll look at those specific results

and how that supports the idea of
triadic reciprocal determinism.

So, it's important that you link the specific
result to one of the claims of the theory,

and that's another common thing
that's missing in student answers.

If you're writing an essay,
discuss equals evaluate.

I haven't yet been convinced
that this means otherwise.

So, if you're asked to discuss social
cognitive theory, it means to evaluate.

Follow the D.E.A.L. structure.

Describe it.

Give the studies, the applications,
the limitations,

and the evaluation is the same thing.

Evaluate social cognitive theory,
discuss social cognitive theory,

exact same answers would
both get excellent marks.

Now, again, just a reminder, try to have
limitations of the theory to begin with,

at least one or two, and then if you've
got more time evaluate the studies.

But be careful with how you
evaluate the studies.

Methodology of the studies, yes.

But ethics, like if you're going to
evaluate social cognitive theory and you talk

about ethical limitations of the Bobo doll
studies with teaching kids to be aggressive,

it's a pretty loose point to make.

So, you really want to be
evaluating the theory first

and then maybe the validity of the studies.

Ethicality is not so relevant.

So, hopefully, you can use social cognitive
theory to explain behavior like aggression,

you can use at least one
key study that supports it,

and you can explain strengths and limitations.

I really hope that was helpful.

Leave comments if it was or if it
wasn't if you got ways I can improve.

Subscribe to our blog.

Heaps of stuff over there, and
I keep trying to update it.

I've just finished uploading
all the exam banks that I have,

so you can see some possible
exam questions there.

I'm new to Twitter, but I'm trying
to get out one exam tip every day.

So, the link to that is in
the description as well.

That might help.

And we've got Facebook groups
and everything else.

Everything is in the description
that you need including our books.

So, good luck.

If you've made it this far, well done.

And if you're a student and you made it this
far, I can tell that you've very motivated

to do well in your exams, so
best of luck and let me know

if there's anything I can do to help you out.

Cheers.