Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 Grusec 92

    Uploaded by

    mdchinioti
    41 views11 pages
    This article offers an evaluation of social learning theory from a historical perspective. It focuses on the work of two major-exponents of the position: Sears and Bandura. The two overlapped in their published contributions to social developmental psychology.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    35grusec92

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This article offers an evaluation of social learning theory from a historical perspective. It focuses on the work of two major-exponents of the position: Sears and Bandura. The two overlapped in their published contributions to social developmental psychology.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    41 views11 pages

    35 Grusec 92

    Uploaded by

    mdchinioti
    This article offers an evaluation of social learning theory from a historical perspective. It focuses on the work of two major-exponents of the position: Sears and Bandura. The two overlapped in their published contributions to social developmental psychology.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 11
    arersine! Tree opi 1 te Ameri Poche Social Learning Theory and Developmental Psychology: The Legacies of Robert Sears and Albert Bandura Joan E. Grusec University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Social learning theory began asan attempt by Robert Sears and others to meld psychoanalytic and stimulus-response learning theory into @ comprehensive explanation of human behavior, drawing 1 the clinical richness ofthe former and the rigor of the latter. Albert Bandura abandoned the psychoanalyticand drive features ofthe approach, emphasizing instead cognitive and information- processing capacities that mediate social behavior. Both theories were intended asa general frame- work for the understanding of human behavior, and their developmental aspects remain to be worked out in detail. Nevertheless, Bandura has provided a strong theoretical beginning: The theory appears tobe capable of accounting well for existing developmental data as well a guiding new investigation This article offers an evaluation of social learning theory from a historical perspective. It focuses on the work of two ‘major exponents of the position: Robert Sears and Albert Ban- dura, The undertaking is somewhat dificult in the case of Ban- dura, because he continues to be an active contributor to psy- chology. On the other hand, itis probably fair to say that Ban- dura’ “major substantive contributions to developmental psychology were in the work he and his students did during the 1960s and 1970s and that his energies now are directed more toward other fields such as health psychology. Thus the main focus here ison his research and theory in the 1960s and 1970s which, of course, is also more easily sen in its historical con- text. This analysis of social learning theory involves consideration Of the work of two individuals who were very different in their approaches, even though united by acommon theoretical label. Sears and Bandura were not collaborators at any point in their respective careers, although they were colleagues at the same university and had a strong influence cn each other. Bandura is clearly the intellectual heir of Sears, influenced by but also reacting against the tradition that Sears represented. The two ‘overlapped in their published contributions to social develop- mental psychology by approximately 6 years (from Adolescent Aggression in 1959, the first book by Bandura and Richard Walters, to Sears, Rau, and Alpert’ 1965 publication of Identi- Jieation and Child Rearing). However, except for a very brief ‘theoretical overiap in Bandura and Walters (1959), they charted Auite distinct courses for developmental psychology What they did have in common was their use ofa set of learning principles to understand issues in human social development, Hence the label of social learning theorist for each of them, although the form of learning theory was diferent for the two, For Sears it am grateful for very helpful comments made by Kay Bussey and an ‘anonymous reviewer in response to an earlier version of ths article. ‘Correspondence concerning thisarticle should be addrested to Joan, EGrusec, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS 141 76 ‘was stimulus-response theory. For Bandura it began with some influence from Skinner's radical behaviorism, although with added concepts such as modeling. It quickly evolved, however, into a form of learning theory heavily informed by concepts from information-processing theory. The social learning theory of Sears has little direct influence ‘on modern conceptualizations of development. Even Bandura approach is less central asa formalized theory in developmen- tal psychology than it once was. This is probably because itis not a theary that focuses primarily on age-related changes in behavior and thinking, although both Sears and Bandura were obviously developmentalists in the sense of being interested in processes of behavior acquisition and change. Nor do biology or notions of evolutionary adaptiveness figure strongly in Ban- dura’ approach to development. It nevertheless continues to be a strong force in current thinking and provides, among other things, acritical skepticism that guards against oo-ready accep tance of stage theoretical, constructivist, or evolutionary theses, It should also be noted that social learning theory no longer holds center stage simply because its basic concepts, those of observational learning and learning through direct ‘consequences, have become an accepted part of our knowledge base. A brief comment about terminology is in order. As noted earlier, although Sears and Bandura are both social learning theorists, their brands of social learning theory are markedly different. Not only was the learning theory of Sears adapted from Hullian learning theory, but it also had a strong overlay of Psychoanalytic theory. Bandurals social learning theory, some- ‘what more influenced by the operant tradition, completely dis- avowed the influence of psychoanalytic theory in anything other than its content areas. But, in Bandura’ hands, the oper- ant theory of Skinner quickly acquired a most non-Skinnerian cognitive flavor. As he struggled to make theoretical sense of the phenomenon of modeling, Bandura quickly abandoned ‘mechanistic conditioning explanations and turned instead to the concepts of information processing. As his interest in self regulative capacities and self-efficacy grew, he became even ‘APA CENTENNIAL: SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY ™m ‘more distant from the anticognitive stance of the behaviorist tradition. In 1986, in fact, Bandura relabeled his approach “so- cial cognitive theory” as a more suitable and adequate descrip- tion of what he had been advocating since the late 1960s. The relabeling was useful because it made the features of his posi tion clearer. On the other hand, there is nothing in the concept of learning that denies the importance of cognitive mechanisms in behavior change. It is only the historical association of the study of learning with strong anticognitivist views that may have led to misunderstanding or misinterpretation on the part of some of what Bandura was attempting. In this article the major theses of Sears and Bandura are outlined, along with a chronology of their theoretical develop- ‘ments. Then theit contributions are evaluated in the context of current approaches to the study of social development. Social Learning Theory: Sears and His Colleagues Freud provided us with a frst theory of personality develop- ment, one with impressive staying power. Through the work of his disciples as well as his numerous critics who nevertheless remained within the general structure he proposed, a rich and creative insight into human nature evolved over the years. Ithas always been the contention of psychoanalyst however, thatthe hypotheses of psychoanalytic theory are notamenable toscien- tific testing but can be assessed only through use of the psy- choanalytic method, that is, the free associations of patients undergoing analysis or the behavior of children during struc- tured play. Academic psychologists, seriously interested in the development of a theory of personality and impressed by the insightfulness of Freud's, found these limitationsom their scien- tlic activities troublesome. A movement thus arose to make psychoanalytic principles amenable to scientific investigation inspite of objections that it could not be done. It was possible to ‘operationalize psychoanalytic constructs and to make predic- tions, even ithe operationalization was considered inadequate by exponents of the theory But even further rigor could be achieved by joining psychoanalytic theory to theories more amenable to scientific investigation; during the 1930s and 1940s, behaviorism and learning theory provided the ultimate in sciemtfic rigor. “The major formal effort to combine learning and psychoana- Iytic theories in order to understand personality and social de- velopment throughout te lifespan began atthe Yale Institute of Human Relations. The institute’ mission was to construct a unified science of behavior, which it started to do in 1935. The enterprise commenced under the direction of Mark May and ith the intellectual leadership of Clark Hull vho had arrived at Yale in 1929 with an active program of research on hypnosis and a dedication tothe principles of behaviorist psychology), as ‘well as with input from representatives of a variety of related disciplines. From psychoanalytic theory and from “the closely charted regions of rigorous stimulus response theory” (Sears, 1975, p61), Hull Sears, and others including Jobn Dollard and Neal Miller welded together a new approach to the science of human development and behavior. Their frst undertaking was fan account of frustration and aggression (Dollard, Doob, Miller; Mowrer, & Sears, 1939) that included an analysis ofthe socialization of aggression Uroughout childhood, a problem ‘on which Sears continued to work (@g, Sears, 1941). In 1941 Miller and Dollard published Social Learning and Imitation, in ‘which they presented the first major account of social learning theory supported in part by experiments on imitation in young children. The attempt to marry psychoanalytic and stimulus-response (S-R) theories appeared promising. twas, of cours, litle more than a reinterpretation of Freudian hypotheses within the framework of S-R formulations, a translation made relatively straightforward by certain similarities between the two the- ories. Both, for example, viewed the goal of behavior as drive reduction, and reinforcement and the pleasure principle were concepts that could be equated easily. Certainly the individual integrity of each theory was to an extent violated by the marriage, but the exercise did serve to suggest that ideas bated ‘onthe richness of clinical observation and interpretation could be subjected «9 rigorous scientific evaluation and therefore made acceptable to the scientific community. Yarrow and Yarrow (1955) summarized the contributions of social learning theory when they noted that ‘Rather slowly, but very perceptibly, a new point of view is emeng- ing in child psychology. It is not a point of view which isan iere- sponsible, radical departure from the conservativé empiricism ‘which has epitomized this discipline, but it sa reformulation of the problems in terms of a more dynamic conception of behavior and development. (p.1) In fact, the approach was particularly exciting because it wasan attempt to account for developmental phenomena through ‘concepts that formed part of a general theory of human behav- jot. Moreover, it offered a stimulating change from the more descriptive approaches characterizing the field in the 1940sand carly 1950s, enabling the generation of theoretical propositions about social development that could be empirically tested. Some Features of the Approach It. was the focus of Sears on socialization processes that had a particularly strong impact on research and theory in social de- ‘velopmental psychology. Much of his theoretical effort was ex- pended on developing an understanding of the way that chil- Gren come to internalize, or to take on as their own, the values, attitudes, and behavior of the culture in which they are raised. His interest centered on issues having to do with the control of aggression, the growth of resistance to temptation and guilt, and the acquisition of culturally appraved sex-role behaviors. ‘Sears stressed the place of parents in the fosteringofiinternaliza- tion, concentrating on features of parental behavior that either facilitated or hampered the process, features that included both general relationship variables such as parental warmth and per- missiveness and specific behaviors such as punishment in the form of love withdrawal and power assertion, as well as rea- soning. Aggression, Dependency, and Identification Three content arcas, largely dictated by the focus of psy= cchoanalytic theory, attracted the attention of Sears: aggression, dependency, and identification Gubsuming moral and sex-role development). With the exception of altruism, achievement, 78 JOAN E, GRUSEC and peer social competence, they remain the major areas of interest to social developmentalists to this day; although the focus on dependency has been transformed into one on attach ‘ment. ‘The initial efforts of the Yale group had been directed toward an analysis of aggression, The work was influenced by Freud's carly notions of aggression, in which he maintained that the cause of aggression is exposure to frustration. Thus frustration ofan activity inducesa behavior whose goals injury toa person ‘or object. Aggression is attributed to a drive—not the instine- tual drive (Thanatos) of later Freudian theory but one whose strength is linked to experience with frustrating events. Al- though the early social learning view of aggression (Dollard et al, 1939) stated that frustration led inevitably to aggression, Sears (1941) argued that reactions to frustration could be al- tered through learning. Nevertheless, although dependency, re- gression, or increased problem solving could become the pre- dominant response to frustration through learning, aggression ‘was viewed as the dominant one in the hierarchy of responses elicited by frustration. Ageression’s dominance was accounted for either on the basis ofan innate connection between frustra- tion and aggression or because aggression in response to frus- tration has a high probability of being acquired during sociali- zation Several specific hypotheses amenable to empirical test were derived from the general frustration-aggression hypothesis. One example ofthese hypotheses is that the strength of instiga- tion to aggression would be a function of the strength of insti- gation to and the degree of interference with the frustrated response. Another is thatthe extent to which aggressive behav- ior was inhibited would be a function of the amount of punish- ‘mentit elicited, although Dollard et al (1939) also realized that punishment is frustrating and might therefore also increase the instigation to aggression. In the latter case one would expect,

    You might also like