NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW, RANCHI

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY: AN ANALYSIS

Submitted by Submitted to

Yogesh Anand Ms. Charu Kriti

1147 Teaching Assistant
Semester - III NUSRL, Ranchi
SEC - A
 Social learning theory: An Analysis 2

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that this paper titled “Social learning theory : An Analysis”
that is being submitted by Yogesh Anand , 2nd Year students of National
University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi is a record of bonafide work
carried out under my supervision.

The results embodied in this project have not been submitted at any other place

before. Ms. Charu Kriti

Teaching Assistant, NUSRL
Social learning theory : An Analysis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work would not have been possible without the support of Ms. Charu Kriti,
Assistant Professor, National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.
We are very much indebted to her for supporting us in my career goals. She
worked actively to provide me with the protected academic time to pursue those
goals. As our teacher and mentor, she has taught me more than we could ever
give her credit. She has shown me, by her example, what a good researcher
should be.
We are very thankful to our friends who have provided extensive personal and
professional guidance and taught us great about research and life in general.

Nobody has been more important to us in the pursuit of this project than the
members of our family. We would like to thank our parents; whose love and
guidance are with us in whatever we pursue. They are the ultimate role models.
Yogesh Anand (1147)
 Social learning theory: An Analysis

ABSTRACT

Historically, social learning theory has focused on the ways in which people
learn from observing one another, with particular attention to modeling and
imitation. In its early years in the 1960s, its roots were in behaviorism, giving
attention to the potential roles of environmental stimuli and consequences
(reinforcement and punishment) in learning and behavior. But over time, it
has increasingly incorporated cognitive factors into its explanations of how
people learn and why they behave as they do, and it is now sometimes
called social cognitive theory. For example, it has expanded far beyond
learning through observation to include people's interpretations of what they
see, their expectations regarding future events, and their beliefs about their
ability to successfully accomplish challenging tasks. Furthermore, it has
increasingly portrayed learning and behavior as being controlled not by
environmental circumstances but rather by learners themselves.
Social learning theory: An Analysis

SOCIAL LEARNING
THEORY:AN ANALYSIS
 6

INTRODUCTION

Social work theories can be taken from many disciplines such as criminology, law,
education, politics, sociology and psychology. Individually, each discipline attempts to
explain human behavior within its field of study. However, to ensure that you, as a
social worker, are able to explain a particular behavior it is important you find the
appropriate theory, or a combination thereof, regardless of the original discipline. One
theory that may prove helpful for some of your clients is the social learning theory.
While social learning theory comes from psychology, its tenets are very much
applicable to the study of social work. This introduction to social learning theory
addresses its foundation, elements, strengths and weaknesses, along with its
application in social work. Included is a list of books and online resources to learn more.

Social learning theory, proposed by Albert Bandura, emphasizes the importance of

observing, modelling, and imitating the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of
others. Social learning theory considers how both environmental and cognitive factors
interact to influence human learning and behavior.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Social learning theory suggests that social behavior is learned by observing and
imitating the behavior of others. Psychologist Albert Bandura developed the social
learning theory   as an alternative to the earlier work of fellow psychologist B.F.
Skinner, known for his influence on behaviorism. While behavioral psychology focuses
on how the environment and reinforcement affect behavior, Bandura put forth that
individuals can learn behavior through observation.
 7

The social learning theory has four mediational processes that help determine whether
a new behavior is acquired:

Attention: The degree to which we notice the behavior

A behavior must grab our attention before it can be imitated. Considering the number
of behavior we observe and do not imitate daily indicates attention is crucial in
whether a behavior influences imitation.

Retention: How well we remember the behavior.

We cannot perform the behavior if we do not remember the behavior. So, while a
behavior may be noticed, unless a memory is formed, the observer will not perform the
behavior. And, because social learning is not immediate, retention is vital to behavior
modeling.

Reproduction: The ability to perform the behavior.

This is the ability to reproduce a behavior we observe. It influences our decision about
whether to try performing the behavior. Even when we wish to imitate an observed
behavior, we are limited by our physical abilities.

Motivation: The will to emulate the behavior.

This mediational process is referred to as vicarious reinforcement. It involves learning

through observing the consequences of actions for other people, rather than through
direct experience.

In addition to the behavior, rewards and punishment that follow will be studied by the
observer. If the observer perceives the rewards to be greater than the costs
 8

(punishment) then they will most likely imitate the behavior. If, however, the vicarious
reinforcement is not valued enough by the observer, they will not model the behavior.

Pros and cons of Social learning theory

Advantages of Social Learning

1. Natural Way to Learn

The most significant advantage of social learning is that everyone uses it
naturally every day, consciously and unconsciously. You don't have to
plan it separately or set aside time for it because it happens
automatically over time. In the working world, this means that we
observe our colleagues and notice what they do and how they do it.
When a colleague is particularly praised for performance or receives a
bonus, other employees analyse all by themselves what action led to it in
order to work towards the same result.

2. Better skills

These tendencies are great for leverage in organisations. By

encouraging sharing thoughts, ideas, experiences, and best practices,
you strengthen your employees’ productivity and skills.

3. Higher Learning Retention

It is scientifically proven that we only remember 10% from formal

learning sources, while the remaining 90% comes from informal sources
and social learning. By learning something directly from a person, we are
able to remember it better because we remember things like voice pitch,
images, memories, or even a joke during learning that we associate with
 9

learning content.

4. Lower costs

Bringing employees together to share subject matter expertise costs less

than a seminar or learning content on the same topic.

5. Productivity and sustainability

When employees know who to ask about a topic, the information

spreads, and, over time, a mentoring network is created within the
company. This encourages sharing and reduces the need to learn from
other sources.

6. Employee retention

Many employees want to continue their education, and they want to

share ideas with colleagues. Social learning enables them to do both,
creating stronger bonds with each other at the same time. That, and the
awareness that the company allows or even encourages this type of
exchange, increases loyalty.
7. Better informed

The more frequently employees exchange ideas with their colleagues on

a wide range of topics, the more often they look beyond their horizons.
This broadens their perspective and gives them impressions that help
prevent mistakes and increase efficiency.

8. Problem Solving in Real Time

Many employees are looking for learning opportunities in a moment of

actual need. The urge to solve a problem they cannot solve on their own
requires collaboration. Usually, the first thing humans will do in this
situation is asking others for their ideas. This is much faster than
 1
0

searching for answers online.

9. Capture Organisational Knowledge

By sharing knowledge within the organisation, there is a greater chance

of certain pieces of information being saved even after crucial employees
leave the organization

10. Shorter Onboarding Times

Having colleagues showing you around, answering questions, and

providing us with useful tips helps us to get used to a new job and
environment much faster than an online course on company culture or
responsibilities.

Disadvantages of Social Learning

1. Inner conflicts

Since social learning is based on the idea of adapting what is perceived

as successful and positive behaviour in others, you are learning to
behave more like someone else. If you use this tactic too often and too
intensely, it can result in inner conflict if the new behaviours are contrary
to your own views. In the long run, this leads to active internal resistance
and prevents any learning process.

2. Less authenticity

Contrary to what behavioural scientists have feared, social learning

does not necessarily affect a person's personality. In most cases, it
would take long-term, repeated imitation to adopt a new behaviour as
one's own or lose one's connection to one's personality. Moreover,
people often notice it themselves when something doesn't feel
 1
1

authentic.

3. Loss of innovation

Personal thought processes, opinions and views are often neglected,

favouring behaviour that promises the greatest success. However,
since new and unconventional ideas tend to bring progress and
innovation, this learning technique should not be used too much.

4. Unexpected obstacles

Very few people know their limits, strengths and weaknesses really
well. It is often not possible to imitate the behaviour of another
because unknown obstacles can arise. This can result in frustration,
which leads to resignation.

5. Self-doubt

If everyone is a teacher and a student simultaneously, there is

uncertainty about quality standards, and there can be self-doubt

6. Measuring requires modern solutions

There are few ways to measure social learning apart from content
usage unless you use a modern learning platform.

7. Negative assumptions

Social media and videos are considered a waste of time and leisure
time in many minds.

8. Necessary intervention
 1
2

Group discussions need to be led because otherwise, they quickly

digress and turn into random private conversations, losing focus on
the topics at hand.

Social Learning Methods

There are various ways in which social learning can be implemented in
companies. If social learning techniques are naturally integrated into
everyday life, it can be a time-saving way to learn. Social learning can
also be an enormous relief for people who learn well in social settings,
which offers additional benefits to companies who are looking to adopt
this learning concept into their organisation.

In order to use social learning in corporate learning, various options

involve varying degrees of effort.

. Learning Groups

The most obvious method is to form learning groups, as is often the case with
face-to-face seminars. Several people are in the same room, learning about a
new topic. There are different ways to learn more effectively through social
interaction and observation:

1. Questions from individuals improve the understanding of all

participants.
 1
3

2. Group tasks encourage direct exchange.

3. Defending a point of view enhances learning for all present.

4. Instructors can use focused questioning to help learners reach an

understanding of their own and make connections.

Brainstorming Sessions

This is a special form of a learning group. One of the most effective methods to
ignite one's creativity and find innovative approaches to solutions is the so-called
"spitballing". Several people throw ideas and immature thoughts into the room
and thus open a discussion. In later stages, this technique develops into more
specific brainstorming, where well-founded ideas are further thought out in
concrete terms and ultimately develop into strategies, processes or even
products. There is no need to have a specific goal in mind at the outset, just a
topic or problem.

Such sessions can be of any length and scope, with small groups of
knowledgeable people being the most effective. Still, outsiders can often bring
fresh ideas that others can't see because of technical blindness. Even two
colleagues at work can use this technique to reassess acute challenges and
seek solutions. Occasionally, such sessions result in disputes, but if conducted
in a civilised and professional manner, they can be enormously helpful in solving
problems

The point of such sessions is to think and discuss outside of otherwise pervasive
structures and rules, to create space for innovation and creativity, and to learn
from other employees.
 1
4

Benchmarking

Human behaviour is predictable in many areas. This knowledge can be used

positively to promote learning. It is human nature to want to compare oneself
with others, be better than others, or simply keep up.

With the right learning technology, things like gamification and internal
networking can be used to share your learning progress with others.

Benchmarking also creates an internal competition that encourages other

employees to acquire new skills to have a say, see themselves ranked higher
than others, or catch up with colleagues’ progress. It is important to keep the
meaning and rewards of results within reasonable bounds so that motivation to
learn does not turn into competition and envy, affecting morale and ultimately
damages productivity.

Bobo Doll Experiment

The experiment involved exposing children to two different adult models; an aggressive
model and a non-aggressive one. After witnessing the adult's behavior, the children
would then be placed in a room without the model and were observed to see if they
would imitate the behaviors they had witnessed earlier.

Predictions

Bandura made several key predictions about what would occur during the Bobo doll
experiment.
 1
5

1. Boys would behave more aggressively than girls.

2. Children who observed an adult acting aggressively would be likely to act
aggressively even when the adult model was not present
3. Children would be more likely to imitate models of the same-sex rather than
models of the opposite sex.
4. The children who observed the non-aggressive adult model would be less
aggressive than the children who observed the aggressive model; the non-
aggressive exposure group would also be less aggressive than the control
group.

Procedures

Each child was tested individually to ensure that behavior would not be influenced by
other children. The child was first brought into a playroom where there were a number
of different activities to explore. The experimenter then invited an adult model into the
playroom and encouraged the model to sit at a table across the room from the child
that had similar activities.

Over a ten minutes period, the adult models began to play with sets of tinker
toys. In the non-aggressive condition, the adult model simply played with the toys and
ignored the Bobo doll for the entire period. In the aggressive model condition,
however, the adult models would violently attack the Bobo doll.

"The model laid the Bobo on its side, sat on it, and punched it repeatedly in the nose.
The model then raised the Bobo doll, picked up the mallet, and struck the doll in the
head. Following the mallet aggression, the model tossed the doll up in the air
aggressively and kicked it about the room. This sequence of physically aggressive acts
was repeated three times, interspersed with verbally aggressive responses."

In addition to physical aggression, the adult models also used verbally aggressive
phrases such as "Kick him" and "Pow." The models also added two non-aggressive
phrases: "He sure is a tough fella" and "He keeps coming back for more."

After the ten-minute exposure to the adult model, each child was then taken to
 1
6

another room that contained a number of appealing toys including a doll set, fire
engine, and toy airplane. The children were permitted to play for a brief two minutes,
then told they were no longer allowed to play with any of these tempting toys. The
purpose of this was to build up frustration levels among the young participants.

Finally, each child was taken to the last experimental room. This room contained a
number of "aggressive" toys including a mallet, a tether ball with a face painted on it,
dart guns, and, of course, a Bobo doll. The room also included several "non-aggressive"
toys including crayons, paper, dolls, plastic animals, and trucks.

Each child was then allowed to play in this room for a period of 20 minutes. During this
time raters observed the child's behavior from behind a one-way mirror and judged
each child's levels of aggression.

Results
The results of the experiment supported three of the four original predictions.

1. Bandura and his colleagues had predicted that children in the non-aggressive
group would behave less aggressively than those in the control group. The
results indicated that while children of both genders in the non-aggressive
group did tend to exhibit less aggression than the control group, boys who had
observed an opposite-sex model behave non-aggressively were more likely
than those in the control group to engage in violence.

2. Children exposed to the violent model tended to imitate the exact behavior
they had observed when the adult was no longer present.
 1
7

3. Researchers were correct in their prediction that boys would behave more
aggressively than girls. Boys engaged in more than twice as many acts of
physical aggression than the girls.

4. There were important gender differences when it came to whether a same-sex

or opposite-sex model was observed. Boys who observed adult males behaving
violently were more influenced than those who had observed female models
behaving aggressively. Interestingly, the experimenters found in same-sex
aggressive groups, boys were more likely to imitate physical acts of violence
while girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression.

REFERENCES

• Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the

acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of personality and social psychology,
1(6), 589.
• Further content from internet.