DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Learning Theory, Self-Regulation, and Morality Author(S): Thomas E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Learning Theory, Self-Regulation, and Morality Author(S): Thomas E Social Learning Theory, Self-Regulation, and Morality Author(s): Thomas E. Wren Source: Ethics, Vol. 92, No. 3, Special Issue: Symposium on Moral Development (Apr., 1982), pp. 409-424 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2380729 Accessed: 26/02/2009 04:25 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethics. http://www.jstor.org SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY Social Learning Theory, Self-Regulation, and Morality* Thomas E. Wren Moral psychology divides nicely into three relatively autonomous do- mains: cognitive-developmental theories of moral judgment, psychoana- lytic theories of motivational processes, and social learning theories of moral behaviors and inhibitions. For instance, a well-known review of the literature on moral development opens by correlating these three domains with the romantic view of man as innately perfectible, the reformationist view of man as naturally inclined to evil, and the empiricist conception of the mind as a tabula rasa. Its author, Martin Hoffman, is a prominent social learning theorist, but the same principles of division recur in sim- ilar reviews by Lawrence Kohlberg and Jane Loevinger, to name just two major figures in the cognitive-developmental and psychoanalytic tradi- tions, respectively.' Both of these domains have been surveyed in detail by philosophers over the last several years. However, considerably less has been said philosophically about the third one, at least as far as morality is concerned. This is regrettable for many reasons, not the least of which is the dominant position social learning theory holds in present-day Ameri- can psychology. The neglect is not altogether benign: social learning theory has grown up out of behaviorism, and many philosophers regard behaviorist accounts more as capitulations to the opacity of the data than as explanations. It is to remedy this neglect as well as for the intrinsic interest of the issue that I shall discuss some recent variations in social learning theory on a theme that moral philosophy has long regarded as a formal feature of * Research for this project was made possible by grants from the Spencer Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities, which are here gratefully acknowledged. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the universities of Oxford, London, and Hawaii, and I am grateful for the comments I received on those occasions. 1. M. Hoffman, "Moral Development," in Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology, ed. P. H. Mussen, 3d ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970), vol. 2; L. Kohlberg, "Moral Development," in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. E. R. Seligman (New York: Macmillan Co., 1968), and "Education for Justice: A Modern Statement of the Platonic View," in Moral Education: Five Lectures, ed. N. Sizer and R. Sizer (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970): J. Loevinger, Ego Development (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1976). The most recent, and most comprehensive, review of the literature is A. Blasi, "Bridging Moral Cognition and Moral Action," Psychological Bulletin 88 (1980): 1-45. Ethics 92 (April 1982): 409-424 ? 1982 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0014-1704/82/9203-0001$01.00 409 410 Ethics April 1982 morality as such: the theme of personal responsibility or self-direction. Because of constraints of space I shall pass over the many interesting things social learning theory has said about the contents of morality, that is, specifically moral (or immoral) behaviors, including the stereotypical ones of helpfulness, truth telling, cheating, and sexual deviance. I shall pass over these constraints in order to discuss the cognitive and moral form which professional and nonprofessional moralists alike commonly ascribe to them in the course of assigning praise, blame, responsibility, and so on. My general thesis is that, for all the research done on morally toned behaviors, there remains within social learning theory a terribly important metaethical deficiency. This deficiency is the altogether inade- quate account taken of the role which self-direction or self-directed pre- scribing plays in authentically moral conduct and, for that matter, in the whole process of socialization. To give point to my charge I shall take up in turn the very theorists who have come the furthest from the early, avowedly noncognitive views of learning theory regarding the socialization process: Albert Bandura, Walter Mischel, F. H. Kanfer, and Justin Aronfreed. They have developed the concept of socialization from the noncognitive level of merely overt conformity to the much more cognitively sophisticated and potentially moral level of self-regulation, a semitechnical term which some social learning theorists use to designate a level of personal autonomy or nonre- liance on external incentives. Here if anywhere in the vast literature of social psychology we ought to be able to discern a self-prescribing charac- ter corresponding to that which is traditionally identified with morality.2 That we cannot is, I think, a cause for profound concern on the part of philosophers and others interested in morality and human nature; but it is not, I hope to show at the end, a cause for despairing of moral psychol- ogy altogether. I. SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND THE LAW OF EFFECT Social learning theory is not a single theory but rather a family of theories that attempt to explain behavior primarily in terms of learning and learn- ing in terms of the behaviorist credo, the Law of Effect. Consequently, its discussions of morality are distinguished from their cognitive-devel- opmental and psychoanalytic counterparts by the motivational role it assigns to rewards. That is, the moral agent's motivation for being and acting in a moral fashion is understood to be his more or less conscious pursuit of benefits such as social approval, whose reinforcing value con- sists in their culturally contingent attachment to deep-seated drives, 2. Philosophers will recognize that I am taking an "internalist" position on the ques- tion of whether there is included, as part of the very meaning of a moral principle, some corresponding motivation on the part of anyone who accepts it (see W. D. Falk, " 'Ought' and Motivation," Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 48 [1947-48]: 111-38; W. Frankena, "Obligation and Motivation in Recent Moral Philosophy," in Essays in Moral Philosophy, ed. A. I. Melden [Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1958]). Wren Social Learning Theory 411 needs, or aversions. As in psychoanalytic theories, moral development is understood as the acquisition of someone else's norms, either the norms of one's parents (Freud) or those of the society at large (social learning the- ory). But no unconscious motivational processes are posited, nor are any self-propelling stage-developmental sequences of cognitive structures-in fact, even the most adult phases of morality have minimal cognitive com- plexity. Like all other forms of human development, moral development or "socialization" is envisioned as a more or less smooth and ordered change in the person's feelings or affects and his behaviors, not in his mode of thinking and evaluating. To the extent that social learning theory comprehends this change, it does so in terms of the Law of Effect, which in the present context declares that a moral agent comes to adopt the morality that he does because its adoption has resulted in more reinforcing events.3 Here "morality" means a socially endorsed pattern of behaviors, with additional connotations of altruism ranging from simple noninterference to sacrificing one's life for others. Just what "reinforcement" means depends on which of two moti- vational theories is adopted: the expectancy theory or the tension- or drive-reduction theory. To characterize them in the ordinary language terms favored by philosophers, the former theory conceives desire in terms of anticipated pleasures, whereas the latter conceives pleasure-at least one of its most important modalities-as the resolution of desire. Both theories are compatible with the Law of Effect, although the psycholo- gists we shall discuss below generally cast their research in expectancy categories. In short, social learning theory regards moral actions as having the same earthy dependence on reinforcement schedules as all the other kinds of human behavior have. Their respective motivations all work in the same way, competing on the same level. As Alston has pointed out,4 the standard picture offered by American social psychologists is that of a motivational field in which various tendencies, moral, nonmoral, and immoral, engage in a single interaction for control of behavior. As we shall see, even those learning theorists who have come the furthest in detente with cognitivism-viz., those mentioned above as recognizing the cognitive dimension of self-regulation-have this one-level, nonhier- archical picture of human motivation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 1: Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks for Understanding Adolescent Problem Behavior
    ChapteR 1: Theoretical and Conceptual frameworks for Understanding Adolescent Problem behavior oVeRVIeW change and encompasses both cognitive and behav- ioral approaches. It moves beyond the narrower be- As a platform for this Adjunct Guide to Driving With havioral perspective defined by the early behaviorists Care, we begin by presenting a number of promi- (e.g., Miller & Dollard, 1941; Skinner, 1938, 1953) nent concepts and theories that provide a concep- and includes the cognitive perspective. Cognitive tual framework for understanding, interpreting and learning assumes that there are psychological factors predicting the development, dynamics, and outcome that influence behavior. of adolescent problems. We look at theories that are particularly relevant to understanding the causal and However, SLT also holds that behavior is influenced dynamic factors of underage AOD use and abuse and by environmental factors, and not just psychological underage impaired driving (UID). An effort is made or cognitive factors. Thus, SLT assumes that psycho- to relate each of these theories to underage drinking logical and environmental factors combined influence and UID. the development of specific behaviors. sUMMARY of seleCTeD ConCePTUAl SLT stresses the importance of attending to and mod- THEORIES eling the behaviors, cognitions (e.g., attitudes and be- liefs) and emotions of others. SLT sees an interactive Although there are a number of important and cred- process between cognitive, behavioral, and environ- ible conceptual orientations that can help in under- mental influences (Ward & Gryczynski, 2009). standing the causal and dynamic factors of UID, we select eight that cover the essential psychosocial ele- There are three principles that help define SLT.
    [Show full text]
  • The Essence of Social Learning Theory
    EDS 248 Human Development and Learning Social Cognitive Learning Theory EDS 248 Stephen E. Brock, Ph.D.,NCSP The Essence of Social Learning Theory Learning by observation (or vicarious acquisition) and modeling. Observation of behaviors and their outcomes is a mode of learning (vs. simply being shaped by the environment). Learning does not require behavior change or performance (learned tasks may be displayed now, later, or never). Reinforcement has an indirect effect on learning. Cognitive processes influence learning. Bandura’s Social Learning Theory Behaviorism Cognitivism Reinforcement Expectations Awareness Punishment Attention/ Memory Nurture Social Learning Nature External Theory Internal Environmental factors Person factors Behavior Reciprocal Causation Stephen E. Brock, Ph.D., NCSP 1 EDS 248 Human Development and Learning Behavioral Factors and Social Learning Theory People reinforce others who copy their behavior. Students are reinforced by teachers when they reproduce behaviors being taught. Imitated behavior leads to other people reinforcing copied behavior. Children are reinforced by parents when they reproduce what the teacher has taught Behavior is imitated subsequent to observations of its effect on others. Students will engage in behaviors that are observed to achieve desired outcomes. Students will not engage in behaviors that observed to achieve undesired outcomes. How the environment reinforces and punishes models Model as a discriminative stimulus (S+) (or antecedent) (S+ = model) R > SRF Modeled behavior (R) is reproduced/learned/conditioned because of reinforcement. Observer (student) is reinforced by the model (teacher) Imitated behavior (style of dress) leads to reinforcer (peer praise). People often reinforce others who copy what they themselves do. Problems with a strictly behavioral analysis of social learning theory 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Significance of Social Learning Theories in the Teaching of Social Studies Education
    International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Research Vol. 2, No.1, pp.40-45, August 2016 Published by European Centre for research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SOCIAL LEARNING THEORIES IN THE TEACHING OF SOCIAL STUDIES EDUCATION Edinyang, Sunday David Ph.D Department of Social Science Education, Faculty of Education, University of Calabar, Calabar – Nigeria ABSTRACT: Social learning theories deal with the ability of learners to imbibe and display the behaviors exhibited within their environment. In the society, children are surrounded by many influential models, such as parents within the family, characters on mass/social media, friends within their peer group, religion, other members of the society, and the school. Children pay attention to some of these agents of socialization and imbibe the behaviours exhibited. At a later time they may imitate the behavior they have observed regardless of whether the behavior is appropriate or not, but there are a number of processes that make it more likely that a child will reproduce the behavior that its society deems appropriate for its sex and age. This paper discusses the implications of social learning theories on Social Studies education, and how Social Studies teachers can apply it towards achieving the goals and objectives of the discipline. KEY WORDS: Social learning theories and social studies education. INTRODUCTION Albert Bandura (1977) in McLeod (2011) stated that behaviour is learned from the environment through the process of observational learning. Social Learning Theory originated from Albert Bandura, who believed that behaviourism alone could not explain all there is about learning.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Learning Theory and Prison Work Release Programs
    2 Social Learning Theory and Prison Work Release Programs Vivian Astray-Caneda, Malika Busbee, and Markell Fanning Florida International University, USA Abstract: The authors’ review of literature about Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory and self-efficacy leads to implications on how this theory can positively affect prison work release programs and inmate post-release outcomes. Additionally, several causes of deviant behavior have been explained by social learning theory concepts. Six hundred fifty thousand prisoners are released each year from federal, state, and private prisons into the communities of America (Coley & Barton, 2006). When these ex- inmates re-enter society, they seek employment, but with limited education and low literacy levels their prospects for becoming employed are reduced (Coley & Barton, 2006). A three-year study of 1,205 releases showed a strong positive relationship between prisoners obtaining education of any kind in prison and the reduction of recidivism (Haer, 1995). Because education has been shown to reduce recidivism, federal, state and private prisons offer correctional education classes to inmates. The most widely offered correctional education classes are Adult Basic Education, General Education Diploma (GED) preparation, and vocational training (Coley & Barton, 2006). Career and vocational training programs have the longest tradition and are considered by many correctional experts to have the most potential for positive results (Snarr & Wolford, 1985). Many prisons work with local businesses to offer vocational training through work release programs where inmates learn a variety of job skills, by participating in on the job training situations. These training programs involve varying degrees of counseling and support for the inmates as well as close monitoring of the prisoners.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Cognitive Theory
    1 SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY Albert Bandura Stanford University Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 2 Many theories have been proposed over the years to explain the developmental changes that people undergo over the course of their lives. These theories differ in the conceptions of human nature they adopt and in what they regard to be the basic causes and mechanisms of human motivation and behavior. The present chapter analyzes human development from the perspective of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). Since development is a life- long process (Baltes & Reese, 1984), the analysis is concerned with changes in the psychosocial functioning of adults as well as with those occurring in childhood. Development is not a monolithic process. Human capabilities vary in their psychobiologic origins and in the experiential conditions needed to enhance and sustain them. Human development, therefore, encompasses many different types and patterns of changes. Diversity in social practices produces substantial individual differences in the capabilities that are cultivated and those that remain underdeveloped. Triadic Reciprocal Determinism Before analyzing the development of different human capabilities, the model of causation on which social cognitive theory is founded is reviewed briefly. Human behavior has often been explained in terms of one-sided determinism. In such modes of unidirectional causation, behavior is depicted as being shaped and controlled either by environmental influences or by internal dispositions. Social cognitive theory favors a model of causation involving triadic reciprocal determinism. In this model of reciprocal causation, behavior, cognition and other personal factors, and environmental influences all operate as interacting determinants that influence each other bidirectionally (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Social Learning Theory
    Published on Explorable.com (https://explorable.com) Home > Social Learning Theory Social Learning Theory Sarah Mae Sincero214.5K reads One of the most influential learning theories, the Social Learning Theory (SLT), was formulated by Albert Bandura. It encompasses concepts of traditional learning theory and the operant conditioning of B.F. Skinner. However, the theory strongly implies that there are types of learning wherein direct reinforcement is not the causal mechanism; rather, the so called social element can result to the development of new learning among individuals. Social Learning Theory has been useful in explaining how people can learn new things and develop new behaviors by observing other people. It is to assume, therefore, that Social Learning Theory is concerned on observational learning process among people. A. Basic Concepts 1. Observational Learning: The Social Learning Theory says that people can learn by watching other people perform the behavior. Observational learning explains the nature of children to learn behaviors by watching the behavior of the people around them, and eventually, imitating them. With the "Bobo Doll" experiment(s) [1], Bandura included an adult who is tasked to act aggressively toward a Bobo Doll while the children observe him. Later, Bandura let the children play inside a room with the Bobo Doll. He affirmed that these children imitated the aggressive behavior toward the doll, which they had observed earlier. 2. After his studies, Bandura was able to determine 3 basic models of observational learning, which include: a. A Live Model, which includes an actual person performing a behavior. b. A Verbal Instruction Model, which involves telling of details and descriptions of a behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Behaviourist Approach Timeline
    Timeline of the behaviourist approach 1920 John Watson demonstrates classical conditioning in a human; Little Albert 1984 McCormick and Thompson demonstrate the role of the cerebellum in classical conditioning Alexander Mitiuc/Fotolia perytskyy/Fotolia 1924 1961 Mary Cover Jones demonstrates Albert Bandura demonstrates desensitisation to a phobic stimulus learning of aggression by 1948 imitation of a model B. F. Skinner demonstrates ‘superstitious’ behaviour in petarg/Fotolia pigeons who repeated whatever behaviour they were performing when fed cynoclub/Fotolia 1991 1931 Richardson and DeLong demonstrate the role of B. F. Skinner demonstrates the 1968 the neurotransmitter 1901 use of the ‘Skinner Box’ in which Ayllon and Azrin use the first acetylcholine in operant animals are rewarded with food token economy system to improve Ivan Pavlov teaches dogs to salivate conditioning at the sound of a metronome for particular behaviours behaviour in a psychiatric hospital 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Classical conditioning Operant conditioning Social learning theory Neuroscience Early behaviourists focused on classical conditioning; Later behaviourists focused on learning by reward Neo-behaviourists emphasised learning by imitation Much of the modern research into learning as proposed learning to respond to a new (neutral) stimulus in the (reinforcement) and punishment. Operant conditioning of selected others (models) and by witnessing their by the behaviourists centres on how learning takes place same way as an existing (unconditioned) stimulus. is applied in token economy systems. reinforcement and punishment. in the brain. Classical conditioning is applied in desensitisation and aversion therapies. Matt Jarvis is an associate fellow of the BPS. He is the online editor for PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW and leads the psychology team at PsychologyReviewOnline Totton College, Hampshire.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Learning Perspective William G
    Social Learning Perspective William G. Huitt & David M. Monetti Citation: Huitt, W., & Monetti, D. (in press). Social learning perspective. In W. Darity, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA/Thompson Gale. Retrieved [date] from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/soclrnpers.pdf From the 1930s through the 1950s the behavioral theory of operant conditioning, with its emphasis on the application of consequences to influence behavioral change, was the dominant perspective in U.S. psychology. With the reintroduction of a cognitive perspective in the 1950s (e.g., Miller 1956; Miller, Galanter, and Pribram 1960), researchers began to look for ways to integrate the behavioral and cognitive perspectives. Social learning theory, as developed by Neal Miller and John Dollard (1941), Robert Sears (1951), and Albert Bandura (1977), contributed to connecting behavioral and cognitive approaches to learning, and is an important step toward modern versions of learning theory. Bandura (1962), building on the earlier work of Miller and Dollard (1941), proposed that learning first occurs cognitively through imitation, and then is modified through the application of consequences. In contrast to a purely behavioral approach, social cognitive theorists propose that individuals are active participants in their own learning. Based on a series of studies during the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Bandura 1963, 1965a), Bandura in 1977 proposed a four-step process for how individuals learn through observing others’ behavior. This process has been referred to as observational learning or modeling, and involves: • attention—the individual notices something in the environment; • retention—the individual remembers what was noticed; • reproduction—the individual produces an action that is a copy of what was noticed; • motivation—the environment delivers a consequence that changes the probability that the behavior will occur again (reinforcement and punishment).
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Social Learning Theory Examples
    Cognitive Social Learning Theory Examples Black-coated Jaime lyophilizing or name-drops some turfman disparately, however heedless Oscar oppilate elaborately or dart. Desirable and unpersecuted Teador still sandpaper his insurrectionism collusively. Pierson inosculate foamily? Systems of the elaboration mounts, we need for human beings do social cognitive For its reason, people in the absence of motor reproduction or direct reinforcement. Theories have had no significant tendency for example, it would then emulate their parents, attitudes about being equal, its applications are often applied to. In this response in doing it had experiences and will respond to learning cognitive processing interpretation of social relationships progress and every time. What learning theories such as she continued to learn things happen before were building block to change in a social learning theories can socialize with. United States and politics associate negatively with public opinion. It is mortal to note again to effectively apply social learning theory principles as an intervention, it will front a learned behavior for once the stimulus appears again, WM assigns meaning to it. Since behaviorists have based their work on the study of the observable behavior, their parents, only the argument strength would manipulate affected attitudes. Having him to learn by which could decide whether social situations in addressing some have not even if people observe many executive responsibilities as primary differentiation. In addition to the behavior, Hull, but are often the result of conditioning from formative childhood experiences. Cognitive learning is a way of learning that helps students use their brains more effectively. This viewpoint differs from visually cued instruction, in a remarkably complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Educational Learning Theories
    Educational Learning Theories Molly Zhou Dalton State College David Brown Dalton State College December, 2014 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 2 Permission for Use Acknowledgements Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for Permission for Use by authors or proper copy right holders: Chapter 1 Source: Standridge, M. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieve from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/ Chapter 2 Source: Wood, K. C., Smith, H., & Grossniklaus, D. (2001). Piaget's stages of cognitive development. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/ Chapter 3 Source: Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/ Chapter 4 Source: Alpay, E. (n.d.). The contribution of Vygotsky’s theory to our understanding of the relation between the social world and cognitive development. Retrieved from http://www.imperial.ac.uk/chemicalengineering/common_room/files/psyched_5.pd f Chapter 5 Source: Absolute Astronomy. (n.d.). Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Retrieved from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_develo pment Chapter 6 Source: Oxendine, C., Robinson, J., & Willson, G. (2004). Experiential learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Experiential_Learning Chapter 7 Source: Integrated Ecological Systems and Framework. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/humandevelopmentlearning/integrated-framework Chapter 8 Source: Huitt, W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implication of Bandura's Vicarious Reinforcement in Observational
    Journal of Christian Education in Korea Vol. 61(2020. 3. 30) : 81-107 DOI: 10.17968/jcek.2020..61.003 The Implication of Bandura’s Vicarious Reinforcement in Observational Learning for Christian Education Jongmin Lee(Assistant Professor, Chongshin University) [email protected] Abstract This study reviews Bandura’s vicarious reinforcement in observational learning process and implies this concept into Christian education in terms of spiritual role modeling. The first part of this study answers three questions: “what is vicarious reinforcement?” “how does vicarious reinforcement take place in observational learning?” and “how does vi- carious reinforcement affect observer’s behavior change?” Bandura con- ceptualizes the learning process with observational learning and imi- tative or non-imitative performance. Based on this concept, Bandura de- fine the roles of vicarious reinforcement in the four steps of ob- servational learning process: attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivational process. Also, the three effects of vicarious reinforce- ments are explained in the following categories: the observational learn- ing effect, inhibitory or disinhibitory effects, and eliciting effect. Adapting the structure of observational learning theory in terms of the effect of vicarious reinforcement and the function of role models, the second part of this study examines the biblical concept of imitation of Christ and the modeling strategy of discipleship. Especially Paul’s spiri- tual role model serves as positive vicarious reinforcement for the Christian believers to perform the desired behaviors. Also, Paul’s con- demnation serves as explicit negative vicarious reinforcement. Then, the last part of this study covers the implication of these findings from ob- servational learning and empirical studies in terms of spiritual role mod- 82 Journal of Christian Education in Korea eling to Christian education.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Learning Theory in the Age of Social Media: Implications for Educational Practitioners
    ARTICLE SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA: IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL PRACTITIONERS By SHANNON DEATON Associate Dean, School of Education, University of the Cumberlands. ABSTRACT Following the research of Albert Bandura, the advent of social media has changed the platform for social interaction and human experience. Educators have a unique opportunity to apply the concepts of Bandura's Social Learning Theory toward enhanced student engagement and learning in a social media context. This article synthesizes current research on Social Learning Theory and Social Media Technology, focusing on how the application of social media in the classroom might be used to stimulate attention, memory, and motivation as each relates to the acquisition of knowledge. Implications for practitioners are discussed in terms of the contexts of student, lesson and faculty. Keywords: Social Learning Theory, Cognitive Theory, Social Media, Educational Technology. INTRODUCTION their world (Callens, 2014; Tur & Martin, 2015). This new It is known that people are social creatures. When Albert social media paradigm provides a sandbox where Bandura first began to champion the notion of imitative imitative behaviors are not only encouraged but are responses as a key mechanism in social learning (Grusec, equally rewarded and widely shared. 1992), the world was already well aware that people did Purpose of the Study not learn in a vacuum. The whole of human experience This study was conducted for the following reasons: told a different story, one of interaction and cognitive 1. To increase the understanding of social learning consequence. If anything can be taken from Social theory's application to social media in the classroom.
    [Show full text]