Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory in Action

Most Americans will agree that proper diet and exercise is good, smoking is bad, and flossing daily keeps teeth healthy. However, at least one of every two Americans is overweight, approximately 25.7 percent of men and 21 percent of women in the US are smokers, and over 150 million Americans suffer from some form of gum disease preventable by daily flossing. So what’s keeping us from doing what we know is beneficial to our health?

Certainly, issues of time, motivation, and inconvenience play a role in preventing us from doing what we know; but more than this, most of us attempt behavior change in a way that doesn’t fit our personal learning style.

Accordingly, behavior change is more than just “changing” the specific behavior in question, but rather it is a process of “learning” better behaviors. Obviously, we cringe at the thought of having to starve ourselves to lose those extra pounds or at the idea of going “cold turkey” on our smoking habit. It seems sometimes as though eliminating the habit is the only way, but we may not understand our true options. Although cutting back on calories is essentially what weight loss means, learning to eat healthier does not mean starvation. Likewise, with smoking, although the ultimate goal is to stop completely, smaller steps can be taken. Thus, you may be going about behavior change incorrectly if you do not pay attention to the specifics of your behavior; there may be easier ways that are less painful.

But don’t let anyone tell you behavior change doesn’t require effort or uncomfortable stretching of our abilities. Undoubtedly, advertising constantly bombards us with quick solutions. A pill is guaranteed to take inches off your waist, the miracle patch will help you to quit smoking, and exercising equipment will, through minimal effort, give you rock-hard abs. Many of these products sport slogans such as “No dieting weight loss” or “Quit smoking today.” Thus, most of these products seek to find a short cut to the normally required behaviors that lead to a specific goal. Although it’s rather appealing to achieve a goal with no real effort on our part, this perception is inconsistent with the reality.

In fact, our lives are lead by behaviors, as what we learn and believe translate into action. Nike promotes the terse slogan “Just do it,” and “No pain, no gain” is a frequently presented phrase. Thus, we cannot overlook the role of our actions as contributing to our present knowledge. If we desire to change an overt behavior, such as our diet or exercise, we generally expect a certain amount of effort and perhaps “pain” to be attached to these goals. But is it necessary and effective to focus merely on the behavior?

Apparently, Self-help books suggest otherwise, often presenting “positive thinking” as the key, rather than a “pain-gain” approach. Along with positive thinking, support groups such as dieting organizations, are available, working to keep self-esteem high; members of these organizations often share personal stories regarding what doesn’t work for them and express strategies that have worked to give others a sense of how to stumble through the process of learning what will work for them.

But even amid these types of organizations, personal stories make it clear that everyone has their own ideas about behavior modification. From the recovering nail-biting friend who claims all she needed was a horrible tasting nail polish to quit her habit, to our recently turned vegetarian brother who attests to his improved health under tofu entr�©es, changes in habits have personal implications. Since there are many ways to achieve alterations in conduct, is there a foundational structure to follow? Is there an approach with sure results?

It is interesting that underlying the “gimmicks” of the various products out there to improve habits are a number of learning theories. Thus, even those in the marketing sector are aware that learning theories appeal to our natural way of functioning; this emphasizes our need to know about these theories to analyze what plans available toward behavior change are valid models.

Among the current learning theories, four primary categories of study have surfaced: Behaviorist, Cognitivist, Humanist, and Socialist. Particularly, Social Learning Theory incorporates many of the necessary elements needed to produce a practical system of change. Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) is by far the most useful model in present use, as a literature review cited Bandura’s theory as the most frequently used Social learning theory for behavior modification in public health (Stone).

But as every theory is composed of portions of previous study and is ever evolving, Social Learning Theory (SLT) was initially influenced by the other three categories of learning theory. The behaviorist theories in particular, emphasizing what is learned from observable behaviors, seem to create a basis for the more complex theories found in Bandura’s SCT, which incorporates the best portions of these theories into a superior plan for behavioral adjustment.

The early portion of the 1900’s swarmed with ideas about learning theory, beginning with behaviorism. Behaviorists focus on the observable behaviors of a learner, rather than the internal workings. They consider learning only valid when it is manifested in behavior, and they believe environment plays a central role in molding individual behavior.

Classical conditioning was one theory foundational to behaviorist studies that materialized from the famous Pavlov’s dogs experiment. Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, was interested in the digestion processes of animals (Kentridge). In this study, the association of a bell as the conditioned stimulus, with meat as the unconditioned stimulus, gradually elicited the conditioned response of salivation, even in the absence of the meat. ** Thus, it seems that the pairing of two stimuli causes a “learned response.”* Pavlov’s initial observations in which his dogs began to salivate at the mere sound of the bell were not recorded as being particularly notable until nearly twenty years later in 1897 (Kentridge). Pavlov recognized that physiological methods could be used to study psychological phenomena; in other words, the inner processes of learning could be studied and described in terms of physical responses and behaviors (Kentridge). However, Pavlov rejected the idea that the learned responses of his dogs were rooted in the animals’ ‘expectations or desires;’ as a trained physiologist his focus was understandably on the neural basis of the conditioning rather than psychological explanations (Kentridge).
Thus, under behaviorist models, behavior change methods can be assessed in terms of overt behaviors, the role of the environment in shaping an individual, and physiological elements. Clearly, smokers are faced with physiological addictions that make it difficult to quit the habit and those with special dietary needs such as diabetics will need to take these needs into consideration when attempting to lose weight. Observing behaviors, likewise, seems necessary to promote awareness of the habit in question and certainly the environment has its own role in the matter (i.e. grew up with parents who were smokers).

Although this seems cut and dried, human behaviors are hardly just a construction of what is seen or what results from physical responses. This theory leaves no room for how psychological workings can override physical responses, such as those who are successful recovering alcoholics or drug addicts; thus, we are composed of other characteristics that should be accounted for.

Furthermore, just because a behavior, such as biting your nails in class, takes place in an environment, does not mean it is due to the environment; it may be a habit that occurs due to boredom. Clearly, psychological components are unseen, yet no less important.

In the classical conditioning model, obviously it is not practical to ask a dog what he is thinking and thus this component was eliminated. However, this is not because it is not relevant to the study, but because it isn’t feasible in current understandings. But people can be questioned about their thinking, feelings, and reactions. Doesn’t it make sense then to use this additional insight?

Accordingly, Pavlov’s finding evoked more questions than it provided answers. What about the mind? How does simply observing behavior account for the complexity of the internal workings of the mind? Can’t learning occur intrinsically and behaviors be altered in the mind first?

An offshoot of learning theory began under cognitive study, moving into socialist theory. Apparently from the onset, behaviorism and its focus on how the environment solely influenced learning left many psychologists unsatisfied. Seeking to explain the vast gap between internal and external functions, cognitive learning began to take shape mainly in an effort to acknowledge the role of cognition and processes between individuals. A prominent division of cognitivism, Gestalt theory, in particular found the behaviorist studies to ignore the active role an individual takes in learning as processors of their environment (Smith, Theories�). Essentially, behaviorist studies presented learning as a product, while Cognitivists viewed learning as a process. Therefore, to the cognitivists, the tight structure of merely studying overt behavior of the behaviorist focus seemed a very narrow approach to a complex issue.

While not casting aside the environment completely, cognitivists concerned their focus on individual mental processes. Cognition as “the act or process of knowing,” is the root of these studies (Smith, Cognitive). The Gestalt theory composes the primary Cognitivist assumptions-an individual’s discernment of the stimuli in their environment affects their response; Gestaltists are prone to understand learning as a process using prior experiences to steer future responses to stimuli (Clark). That is, we learn to use what we have gained from experience to react and learn from new situations that are presented to us.

Many slogans that introduce a “be smart” or “know your problem” approach to behavior change carry Cognitivist notions. Because Cognitivists see learning as a composite of prior understanding and current mental analysis, they promote a “thoughtful plan” to behavior change. For example, under this theory, overeaters would need to consider the ‘why’ of their behavior, before changes can be assessed appropriately.

Apparently, Cognitivist study brings additional insights into the process, but there are still many other components at work that seem to be ignored. The socialist approach, although agreeing with the behaviorist theories regarding the importance of environment, also incorporated cognitive elements. However, in social theory, participation in social frameworks, featuring the interplay of the environment and personal thoughts are key constructions.

Albert Bandura, considered the “father” of socialist theory, breathes life into this field of study. Bandura received his BA at the University of the British Columbia in 1949 and began to develop his social learning theory while obtaining his PhD from the University of Iowa (Isom). Just as Pavlov discovered that psychological research should be conducted in a laboratory situation to control factors that determine human behavior, so also does Bandura cling to this notion (Isom).
Bandura was unconvinced by behaviorist principles that assert the environment is key to causing behavior; he noted that this doesn’t account for or even begin to describe the complexity of human functioning (Simon). He condemned the thought, saying, “A theory that denies that thoughts can regulate actions does not lend itself readily to the explanation of complex human behavior (Bandura 15).” Instead, he offers the idea of human functioning as a cause and effect relationship between the environment and the outcomes of behaviors (Simon). Thus, cause and effect are constantly working simultaneously toward the goals of knowledge.

The structure Bandura presents in Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) embodies the essential components that we need to be aware of when undergoing the process of behavior modifications. His approach is well rounded and supports a personalized system. The clear emphasis of Bandura’s SCT presents a flexible skeleton for improving a variety of working situations and personal habits. His approach is straightforward, uses common understandings, and is action-oriented, ignoring abstractions for workability.

Mainly, SCT takes in consideration personal, environmental, and behavioral factors, making it a useful model for therapeutic and counseling procedures (Pajares). On an individual level, Bandura presents self-regulation as key to growth and learning; this feature involves controlling our own behaviors (Boeree). This is the very way we, as logical beings, deal with self-improvement. However, we don’t often pause to understand ourselves in these terms, as the process is rather thorough; but you may find that knowing about this structure will help refine your abilities to change, using what you already know and laying it out to achieve your personal goals.

Bandura provides at least three steps toward effective use of this self-regulatory function. First, we practice self-observation, which is the ability to notice our behaviors and keep track of patterns. For an overeater the self-observation stage would include noticing when you are likely to overeat, which times of the day, and so on.

Second, we must compare what we observe of ourselves with a standard; this stage is known as judgment where we may use traditional standards, create subjective ones, or compete with others. A student trying to improve study habits may have noticed that the A-students read the assigned chapters daily and use this standard to strive for.

The third element is self-response; after making a judgment and creating a standard, you set up a system of reinforcements (White). These reinforcements will be applied to both reward yourself for achieving the daily goals and to punishing yourself for failure to do so. Self-responses can consist of buying an ice cream for a good grade or studying for more hours on Wednesday for missing Tuesday’s readings. Although they may be overt behaviors, self-responses may also come in the form of internal reactions such as feelings of pride or shame.

Nevertheless, too much self-punishment can be detrimental and should be implemented with caution. Bandura has cited three likely results of excessive self-punishment: compensation, inactivity, and escape. Compensation is similar to a superiority complex where one begins to see oneself with delusions of grandeur, altering a sense of reality. Inactivity refers to apathy, boredom, or depression. The most severe result, escape, can include resorting to drug and alcohol use, television fantasies, or even suicide. Clearly, these are all extreme cases of overdoing the concept of self-punishment. However, Bandura cautions that we should always keep in mind a realistic view of ourselves and keep our self-responses at a level that will have an overall positive outcome; this should be sufficient to keep ourselves from falling into a pattern of excess regarding self-punishment.

Working alongside Bandura’s self-regulation is self-efficacy. This is one of the most significant aspects that sets Bandura’s SCT apart from other Social Learning theories.

While Bandura’s theories were first taking root in the 1960s, he continued to feel that something was missing from his system of interaction. The 1970s and 80s produced a great deal of theoretical writing about adult learning, appealing to humanist psychology (Smith, LearningâÂ?¦). Humanists had likewise rejected the behaviorist aspects of reducing human learning as only achieved through behavior. They argued that people are not objects with objective views-we take past experience and beliefs into account as we are faced with new situations. Humanism also advocates that humans are motivated to learn as an act of personal achievement. Thus, the middle portion of the 1970s, lead Bandura to consider these humanist components not only missing from his own theory but from that of the prevalent social theories.
In 1977 he finally located the missing element as self-beliefs, with the publication of Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. * He wrote, “people not only gain understanding through reflection, they evaluate and alter their own thinking (qtd. in Simon).” Bandura’s self-beliefs or self-efficacy “âÂ?¦refers to one’s beliefs about his/her ability to successfully complete a given task (qtd. in Thomas & Harvey).” A person with high amounts of self-efficacy usually tries harder and sticks with a behavior longer than those with low self-efficacy; thus, high self-efficacy amounts to higher achievements (Thomas & Harvey). Bandura emphasizes that individuals have beliefs that enable them to exercise a degree of control over their thoughts, feelings, and reactions; understanding can be altered through reflection and behavior can be directed accordingly. Human behavior, he urges, is found in the interplay between this personal system and the external influences of the environment (Simon).

Consequently, high self-efficacy is the most desirable feature to be effective at change. This is because your perceptions of your own abilities influence your results-you get what you expect. If you believe you are capable of achievement you will be better able than someone who sees themselves as failing before they start; this is often seen in weight management where some may give up merely because they have never been successful at dieting plans before.
Thus, for those that suffer from poor self-efficacy, Bandura recommends some steps that are adapted from his elements of self-regulation. When observing yourself you should make sure your estimations are as accurate as possible. Your established standards shouldn’t be too high they cannot be achieved or too low and thus worthless. But perhaps most importantly, you should focus on self-rewards rather than self-punishments so that you do not dwell on your failures and thus overshadow your victories.

Because Bandura’s SCT continues to develop in its uses, these principles have been combined into what is known as Self-control Therapy. This therapy is successful when focusing on relatively simple problems of habit; however, correcting these simple habits can drastically improve long-term harmful or damaging effects.

There are three main components to his therapy that address Bandura’s emphasis on the roles of self-beliefs, environmental factors, and behavior; these components include: behavioral charts, environmental planning, and self-contracts.

As an initial and ongoing step to this therapy, behavior is charted both at the beginning and during changes in behavior. Behavioral charts can involve the single task of recording the foods you eat daily to more complex reflections in diary form. This task will help you discover where and when you practice the behavior and find the “cues” that trigger the habit (i.e. eating more in social settings).

After establishing the external triggers for the behavior you can begin to alter your environment through environmental planning. Typically, this involves avoiding or removing the cues that lead to your undesired behavior (i.e. not stocking your pantry with fattening foods, sitting in arms reach of the fruit tray rather than the cheesecake etc); this can also help you establish good alternative behaviors (i.e. drinking water when you feel tempted to overeat), as behavior change most effectively comes about through developing better habits rather than merely stopping the old ones.

Once your plan is set in place the last step is to establish a set of rewards for following the plan and penalties for not. This is known as a self-contract and it can be implemented alone, under the direction of a professional, or with the support of a friend. The contract should be written, including detailed and direct information. For example: “I will buy a new novel if I lose a pound by next Saturday. If I do not, I will work out at the gym for an extra hour.” It doesn’t have to be too complex to get the point across.

If you do not feel disciplined enough to carry through with your system of reinforcers, than involve a friend who will be supportive. However, keep in mind this may result in some unnecessary conflict with friends when they are simply doing what you told them to. If you go this route it is best to select a friend that will help you with your interests in mind and not promote negative feelings when you don’t complete your self-contract as you set out to do.

Thus, by the processes of self-regulation and self-efficacy, combined in the principles of Self-control therapy, you can
effectively alter your undesired behaviors. Self-regulation is a unique feature to humanity, allowing us the ability to control ourselves in most every aspect of life. By tapping into this ability we are better able to self-assess our behaviors and work toward learning a healthier lifestyle, not just struggling to eliminate bad habits. Evidently, Bandura’s SCT provides a practical way toward behavior modification, taking in consideration many pertinent aspects of human learning and adapting them for our use. Because behavior change is individual and composed of many complexities that no set plan can accommodate completely, Bandura’s SCT offers the flexibility needed and lays down the directions to success. The way is available and in our grasp. Isn’t it time to now do what we know?

Works Cited

Bandura, Albert. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
1977.

Boeree, George C. Albert Bandura: 1925- present. 1998. 4 April
2003

Clark, Debbie. “Gestalt Theory.” March 1999. 12 February
2003

“Cigarette Smoking Statistics.” 14 May 2003

“Corporate Wellness: Weight Management.” 9 May
2003

“Dental Care Facts.” 2002. 6 May 2003 skinzinc.com/theproducts.cfm?subcat=103&cat=55 >

Isom, Margaret Delores. “The Social Learning Theory.” 30 November 1998. 8
March 2003

Kentridge, Bob. “Comparative Psychology: Lecture 2.” 1995. 8 March
2003

“Learning Theory.” Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology. 2nd ed. 2001.

Pajares. Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. 2002. 24 March
2003

Simon, Scott D. “From Neo-Behaviorism to Social Constructivism?: the Paradigmatic
Non-Evolution of Albert Bandura.”1999.ed 2001. 8 March 2003< http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/simon.PDF>

Smith, Mark K. “Learning theory.” The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. 2002. 8
March 2003

Smith, Mark K. “The Cognitive Orientation to Learning.” The Encyclopedia of
Informal Education. 2002. 12 February 2003

Smith, Mark K. “Theories of Learning.” September 2002. 8 March 2003<
http://www.infed.org/support/handouts/theories_of_learning.htm>

Stone, Danice. “Social Cognitive Theory.” 11 January 1999. 9 March 2003

Thomas, Jennifer L. and Barbara A. Harvey. “Examination of Current Research: Locus of
Control, Self-Monitoring, Student Responsibility, and Academic Motivation.”
2002. 12 March 2003

White, Eugene I. Albert Bandura/ Walter Mischel. 8 April
2003