Category: Social Learning Theory

Social Learning Theory, theorized by Albert Bandura, is the idea that people learn from one another, via observation, imitation and modelling (Bandura, 1971). It states that learning is a cognitive process that takes place in a social context and can occur purely through observation (Bandura and Walters, 1963). It began as an attempt by Robert Sears and others to merge psychoanalytic and stimulus-response learning theory into a detailed explanation of human behaviour. Albert Bandura, on the other hand, focused on how children and adults operate cognitively on their social experiences and with how the cognitive and information-processing capacities then come to mediate social behaviour (Grusec, 1992).

Bandura proposed his concept of learning through the observation of human models (Grusec, 1992). Observational learning therefore involves observing the behaviour of others (Walker, 1999). An example of this is the Bobo Doll experiment. The experiment comprised of 36 boys and 36 girls with their ages ranging from 37 months to 69 months. Half of the experimental subjects were exposed to aggressive models and the other half were exposed to models that were subdued and non-aggressive. The subjects placed in the aggressive environment showed a lot of physical and verbal aggressive behaviour similar to that of the models, whereas the subjects in the non-aggressive and control groups showed virtually no imitative aggression (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1963). As seen with this example, the environment is one factor that influences behaviour. According to Bandura, environmental influences, behaviour and internal personal factors all operate as interlocking determinants of each other, also known as reciprocal determinism. However, in some cases, the environment can have such powerful constraints on behaviour, that it emerges as the overriding determinant. This may be seen if children are dropped into deep water, where they will promptly engage in swimming activities, regardless of how uniquely varied their cognitive and behavioural skills might be (Bandura, 1978).

On the basis of the Bobo Doll experiment, Banduras social learning theory states that there are four stages involved in observational learning namely; attention, retention, initiation, and motivation (Bandura, 1986). Firstly, the observer must pay attention to what is going on around them. This may be determined by a variety of factors such as the power and attractiveness of the model as well as the conditions under which the behaviour is presented to the child. If the behaviour is being viewed on television, for example, it is likely that the attention of the viewer will be captured and held. After the material has been attended to, the observer must be able to retain and remember the observed behaviour for use at a later time. This process depends on the observer’s ability to code or structure the information in a form that can easily be remembered or to mentally or physically rehearse the model’s actions. In the third stage, the observer must be able to reproduce the actions in a similar way to the originally modelled behaviour. However, at times, the observer may not be able to reproduce the model’s actions simply because they have not acquired the necessary skills to do so, thereby making motoric reproduction of complex actions less successful. The fourth and final process governing observational learning involves inducing motivation. The observer must be given sufficient incentive in order to produce actions from learned behaviour. This motivation can come from external reinforcement. External reinforcement occurs when the child receives approval for their actions. For example, in a formal study of social stimulus control carried out by Redd and Birnbrauer, a group of seclusive children were rewarded by one adult for cooperative play, while another adult rewarded them equally regardless of their behaviour. Later, the appearance of the contingently rewarding adult evoked cooperative play, but the non-contingent adult had no influence on the children’s behaviour (Bandura, 1971).

Alternatively, motivation may also come from vicarious reinforcement based on the observation that models are rewarded (Marston, 1966). Vicarious reinforcement is defined as a change in the behaviour of observers resulting from seeing the response consequences of others (Barnwell & Sechrest, 1965). For example, suppose a shy child at school observes that the teacher praises another student for speaking in class. The student being observed is the model being reinforced. If the shy child wants to be praised by the teacher and therefore speaks up personally in the class in the future, there has been vicarious reinforcement (Ollendick, Dailey & Shapiro, 1983). Vicarious punishment, on the other hand, is indicated when negative effects are observed to reduce the tendency of people to act in similar or related ways. In everyday situations, reinforcement typically occurs within a social context. This means that people will continually observe the actions of others and the occasions on which they are rewarded, ignored or punished (Bandura, 1971).

Apart from reinforcement, Bandura further suggested that the internal mental state of the learner plays a role in determining the willingness to perform the behaviour/actions learnt from the model (Bandura and Schunk, 1981). The learner would perform the action even when he receives no apparent reward except for the activity itself. This is known as intrinsic motivation. The intrinsic motivation might either be innate or learned. Therefore, the learners’ interest in the activity is what encourages them to perform it (Deci, 1971).

While looking at the internal mental state of the learner, Bandura also considered self-regulation and self-efficacy to be important. Self-regulation is the idea that individuals do not shift their behaviour according to momentary influences. Rather, they hold to ideological positions regardless of a changing situation. They can do this because they bring judgmental self-reactions into play whenever they perform an action. Actions that measure up to internal standards are given positive judgement, while those that fall short of these standards are judged negatively (Bandura, 1991).

Modelling and direct tuition are the source of self-regulative function (Bandura, 1991). Adults respond differently to the behaviours of children, and this differential responsiveness is one type of information that children take into account when formulating personal standards or ideas about behaviours worthy of self-blame or self-praise. Children note that individuals prescribe self-assessment standards for themselves as well and take this behaviour into consideration whenever they formulate personal standards (Grusec, 1992).

A major determinant of self-regulation is self-efficacy. By determining what they are trying to achieve and how much effort they put into their performance in that particular situation or domain, people develop domain-specific beliefs about their own abilities and characteristics that guide their behaviour. When people have negative self-perceptions about a situation, believe they are ineffective and do not have the ability to perform well, they become concerned about themselves as well as being emotionally excited, two conditions that distract them from effectively performing (Grusec, 1992). Beliefs about self-efficacy arise from the accomplishment history of the individual in a domain, from observing what others are capable of accomplishing, from attempts by others to shape feelings of self-efficacy through persuasion, and from considering one’s own physiological state during a task as a reflection of personal capabilities (Bandura, 1977).

The theory of self-efficacy has guided research in various fields such as academic achievement, parenting styles and self-concept for children. In the case of infants, Bandura suggests that their highly developed sense of self-efficacy results in the social and cognitive skill observed in infants who are classified as securely attached in the Infant Strange Situation (Grusec, 1992). This sense of self-efficacy is fostered by responsive parents who respond to their babies’ communicative behaviour and provide enriched environments that enable babies to see how effective their environmental actions can be. This will promote accelerated social and cognitive development (Coleman & Karraker, 1998).

Overall, social learning theory brings about sufficient evidence to explain children’s behaviour, but the research in relation to practical day-to-day living needs to be considered. The results of Bandura’s study highlight children’s impressionable nature, and the ability for modelled behaviours to be adopted into a child’s actions via vicarious reinforcement. In other words, children will quickly adopt negative or aggressive behaviours especially when awarded for them. So, when raising children, unwanted behaviours should be punished to avoid the child developing this behaviour with increasing intensity. Parents and also teachers may want to express calm, productive or peaceful behaviours, rather than aggressive or unwanted behaviours, to avoid imprinting the same negative behaviour into their child’s life. Many classroom and teaching strategies also draw on the principles of social learning theory to try and enhance students’ ability to acquire and retain knowledge. For example, using the technique of guided participation whereby a teacher says a phrase and asks the students to repeat the phrase. Thus, students both imitate and reproduce the teacher’s action, aiding retention. Additionally, teachers can shape the classroom behaviour of students by modelling appropriate behaviour and visibly rewarding students for good behaviour. Therefore, Banduras experiments support his hypothesis and his aim to extend knowledge relating to Social learning theory and modelling, as well as contributing to our understanding of children’s behaviour, as seen with the applications above, has been successful.

References

1. Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory.
2. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. American Sociological Review, 31(1), 128. doi: 10.2307/2091312
3. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. The Journal Of Abnormal And Social Psychology, 66(1), 3-11. doi: 10.1037/h0048687
4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
5. Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33(4), 344-358. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.33.4.344
6. Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 41(3), 586-598. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586
7. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-l
8. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191
9. Barnwell, A., & Sechrest, L. (1965). Vicarious reinforcement in children at two age levels. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 56(2), 100-106. doi: 10.1037/h0021781

The Theorist/Theory

Social learning theory was developed by Albert Bandura in 1969. Bandura was born on December 4, 1925. Through Bandura years of work, he has been ranked one of the most prominent psychologists of the twentieth century. (Allan, 2017, pg 12). Bandura’s development of the social learning theory was a “response to the archaic position that aggressive behavior is a product of innate aggressive drives” (Anderson and Kras, 2008 pg 102). Through Bandura’s social learning theory, he uses an experiment known as the Bobo doll experiments. This experiment was used with children and it showed children would show more violent behaviors when they have observed adults who have shown violent behaviors (Allan, 2017, pg 13). “Those experiments have particular relevance today when arguments against violent music videos, movies, and computer games focus on the negative impacts that such things have on children and young people” (Allan, 2017, pg 13).

“Social Learning Theory posits that people learn from one another, via observation, imitation, and modeling. The theory has often been called a bridge between behaviorist and cognitive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation” (David, 2017). The social learning theory relates to two different theories: Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory and Lave’s Situated Learning Theory. Both Vygotsky’s and Lave’s theories focus on the importance of social learning. (David, 2017). Bandura believed individuals learn by observing other people by their behavior, attitudes, and their outcomes that came from those behaviors(David, 2017). “Social learning theory explains human behavior in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences” (David, 2017).

Principles

Bandura focused on four principles of the social learning theory these principles included: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. To break down these principles the first principle is attention, individuals are not able to learn if they are not focused on a particular mission. If they see something as being different or out of the ordinary, it is likely for one to get distracted and will make it the focus of their attention stringing away from the main “mission.” (Wheeler, 2018 para 7). The second principle is retention, individuals learn by storing material in their memories. Individuals remember that information later when they are obligatory to respond to a situation that may be comparable to the situation within which they had learned the information the first time (Wheeler, 2018, para 8). The third principle is a reproduction, individuals repeat past learned information such as behavior, skills, and knowledge when it is mandatory. Though, rehearsal through mental and physical rehearsal often improves individual responses (Wheeler, 2018, para 9). The last and final principle is motivation, individuals need to be motivated to do the things they need or want to do. It is common that motivation is triggered from observation of others that may be given a reward or punished for the things that they have done or said. With only having those two outcomes, it will either motivate one to do it at a later or avoid doing it at all (Wheeler, 2018, para 10).

Strengths

I believe when a social worker decides what theory to use for their client they want to outweigh the strengths and weaknesses of each theory they have on the table that may be a possibility to use for their client. Two strengths for social learning theory would include a change in the environment, change in the child and different ways of learning. Change in the environment, changes in the child is seen as a strength in the social learning theory because “its flexibility to explain differences in a child’s behavior or learning. The environmental — or societal — aspect of social learning theory says that children learn in a social context. This reinforces the idea that when there is a change in the child’s environment, the child’s behavior may change. For example, a child may have trouble following directions in a relaxed home environment, but have no problems with authority in a stricter school setting” (Loop, 2018, para 2). The second strength, different ways of learning is a strength in the social learning theory because there are numerous methods when it comes to learning. (Loop, 2018, para 4). Bandura stated that individuals are able to learn by direct experiences or through observation. (Loop, 2018, para 4). “For instance, a child can learn the social norms of polite communication — such as to give and take within a conversation — by actually talking with others or by watching older children and adults talk to each other” (Loop, 2018, para 4).

Weaknesses

No theory is perfect and I believe with every strength, a weakness follows. Weaknesses in the social learning theory include accountability, and standard milestones are ignored when the social learning theory is used. Accountability is a weakness in the social learning theory because children do not take accountability for his/her own actions. “Putting the focus on how setting influences behavior places more weight on the people and community that the child is part of, and not enough weight on how the child handles and processes new information. It neglects the child’s accountability and may go too far in stating that society directs how the individual behaves and acts”(Loop, 2018, para 3). Ignoring standard milestones is a weakness in social learning theory because, “unlike stage models of child development, social learning theory doesn’t hinge upon a distinct progression of learning and growth that is chronological or age-dependent. The view of this theory as neglecting to consider the child’s development, across all of the domains, is a potential weakness. Although not every child matures at an identical rate, some of the standard milestones and markers may still occur regardless of the environmental setting” (Loop, 2018, para 5).

Social Learning Theory in Social Work Practice

The use of Social Learning Theory in the social work field is important because in every filed a social worker will face complications and challenges that come with trying to understand human behavior. Trying to gain this insight is a difficult and procedure (Tropeano, 2015, para 1). When a social worker better understands the theory they are able to apply practice models to understand behavioral issues in any setting (Tropeano, 2015, para 3). As a social worker can play many roles and have different titles one social worker who could use social learning theory in their work could be a school social worker. Imagine a school social worker that has a student on their caseload that shows behavior that is aggressive and prevents his or her classmates from the ability to learn (Tropeano, 2015, para 5). “The social worker could use the social learning theory, assessing role models and stimuli the student is regularly exposed to that could be reinforcing aggressive, disruptive behavior or discouraging positive, pleasant behavior” (Tropeano, 2015, para 5). After discovering what may be producing the disruptive behavior of the student, the social worker can use social learning theory to discover patterns of dysfunctional thoughts that are persuading the student’s emotions and behaviors (Tropeano, 2015, para 5). It is important for social workers to use the social learning theory to be able to do their best work and achieve the type of development they seek for the different communities they may work with. The social learning theory can help define and treat the distinguishable cause of particular behaviors. Social workers can equip social learning theory in every difficult situation they may face to be able to discover the best solution (Tropeano, 2015, para 11).

I believe social learning has implications of social and economic justice. When using the social learning theory social and economic justice is seen because the theory can be used for anyone. This theory has no limitation; everyone can have equal access to this theory because we all “learn” in some way. This theory can be used from a child to an elder, a black to a white, a heterosexual to a homosexual.

As a social worker, I support using social learning theory because the theory relates to social work values. One social work is dignity and worth of the person (The National Association of Social Workers). I believe social learning theory shows this value because the theory is used to help understand why individuals develop certain behavior. As individuals learn things their behavior may be “different.” When a social worker works with a client and employs the social learning theory they “treat each person in a caring and respectful fashion, mindful of individual differences” (The National Association of Social Workers). Another social work value is service with the ethical principle of “social workers’ primary goal is to help people in need and to address social problems (The National Association of Social Workers). I believe the value of service is mostly seen when using the social learning theory because the goal is to “address” that learned behavior.

Theoretical Writings

Payne believes that the social learning theory emphases on how people in the world learn from social situations by learning how others act successfully (Payne, 2005). I agree with Payne because when I am learning new things I like to reflect off my peers and see how they learned it and if they were successful with the ways they learned.

Allan believes “Understanding Bandura’s work opens avenues into other ideas and theories, too. The American Psychologist B. F Skinner’s* behaviorist* theories, according to which human action is a response to a given stimulus, has significantly influenced social learning, theories. Bandura uses behaviorism as a starting point, and much of his work builds on it. He suggested, however, that ideas about “stimulus-response” according to which behavior is a direct effect of incoming signals (aggression, for example, is a direct result of frustration) underestimated the complexity of cognition. Understanding this can help us resist simplistic and theoretical models of behavior” (Allan, 2017, pg 13).

Crossman believes “social learning theory considers the formation of one’s identity to be a learned response to social stimuli. It emphasizes the societal context of socialization rather than the individual mind. This theory postulates that an individual’s identity is not the product of the unconscious (such as the belief of psychoanalytic theorists), but instead is the result of modeling oneself in response to the expectations of others. Behaviors and attitudes develop in response to reinforcement and encouragement from the people around us. While social learning theorists acknowledge that childhood experience is important, they also believe that the identity people acquire is formed more by the behaviors and attitudes of others”(Crossman, 2019, para 2).

Past Research on Social Learning Theory

Through the research of this paper, it can be assumed that plenty of research has been completed in the past by using the social learning theory. Researches such as Anderson, Kras, Deemin, and Johnson completed research in the past using the social learning theory. These researches used this theory to be able to better understand and assist victims of intimate personal violence, and for deafblind support groups.

Anderson and Kras completed research using the social learning theory to better understand and assist victims of intimate personal violence. “When examining this crime through a social learning theory, it is posited that violence toward an intimate is a learned behavior. Specifically, violence is learned in the context of the home and, unfortunately, is shaped during the early years of one’s childhood. When this factor is combined with exposure to violence, researchers have found this to be a potent combination for future aggressive behavior” (Anderson and Kras, 2008, pg 101). Theorist predicted if a child observes violence from their parents or in a family setting it is likely they will also have violence relationships (Anderson and Kras, 2008, pg 104). “A violent social learning environment is an environment in which one is exposed to violent behaviors either directly or indirectly, as well as to the attitudes and conditions that promote these behaviors. Potentially, one exposed to such an environment may interpret, adapt, or generalize such behaviors, cues and information in order to meet his needs . . . violent social learning environment refers to environments where the acts of pushing, shoving, grabbing, slapping, kicking, choking, scratching, jerking, twisting, biting, hitting, throwing something at someone, threatening or using a gun or knife on someone, or beating someone up occurs” (Anderson and Kras, 2008, pg 105). Anderson and Kras include research in the past in there research and they found research completed by Benda and Coewyn (2002). Benda and Coewyn “found that elements of social learning were significantly related to delinquency among boys aged 13-18. They found that the effects of prior abuse were the best predictor of violence among older youth (aged 16-18). Although they found that older youth were impacted highly by their peer relations, younger adolescents were more influenced by family interactions” (Anderson and Kras, 2008, pg 2008).

Deeming and Johnson completed research using the social learning theory for deafblind support groups. “The social learning theory-based deafblind support group differed from other therapeutic approaches to counseling groups. Some groups function as microcosms of the world-at-large, and group members use the safe environment of that microcosm to try out new ideas and behaviors. The deafblind group did not intend that the group reflect the environment in which they go about their daily activities because none of the members live or socialize exclusively with other deafblind people” (Deeming and Johnson, 2009, pg 205).

These findings of these two different researches simply prove that social learning theory is effective and are able to help the bigger problem. Anderson, Kras, Deeming, and Johnson prove the social learning theory has no limitations as each of their studies were from completely different groups.

Conclusion

I believe this theory is something we should use despite is weaknesses because it can be used to help children, adolescents, and adults. I believe this theory needs to be used so individuals are able to have a promising future. As we all learn differently, the way we learn can be rewarding but there could also be negatives. Peoples learning could possibly cause them trauma and they could develop a phobia. If a social worker works with a client and uses the social learning theory they could possibly help this client get over the phobia. If a client is able to overcome their phobia they may be able to have more opportunities in life. In other words, I believe this theory is important to use because of life matters.

References

1. Allan, J. (2017). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Taylor and Francis, 1-13. https://radforduniversity.worldcat.org/title/aggression-a-social-learning-analysis/oclc/994006230/viewport
2. Anderson, J., and Kras, K. (2008). Revisiting Albert Bandura’s social learning theory to better understand and assist victims of intimate personal violence. Women and Criminal Justice, 17(1), 99-124. https://www-tandfonline-com.lib-proxy.radford.edu/doi/ref/10.1300/J012v17n01_05?scroll=top
3. Benda, B. B., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). The effect of abuse in childhood and in adolescence on violence among adolescents. Youth & Society, 33(3), 339-365.
4. Cooper, D., and Klein, J. (2018). Examining college students’ differential deviance: A partial test of social structure-social learning theory. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 28 (5), 602-622. https://www-tandfonline-com.lib-proxy.radford.edu/doi/full/10.1080/10911359.2018.1443868.
5. Crossman, A. (2019). What is the social learning theory? ThoughtCo, para 1-8. https://www.thoughtco.com/social-learning-theory-definition-3026629
6. David, L. (2017). Learning theories in plain English. https://www.learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html
7. Deeming, P., and Johnson L. (2009). An application of Bandura’s social learning theory: A new approach to deafblind support groups. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 203-209. http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lib-proxy.radford.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=8699c6aa-419f-4ffa-a1dc-a28974c56259%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=47226873.
8. Horsburgh, J., and Ippolito, K. (2018). A sill to be worked at: using social learning theory to explore the process of learning from role models in clinical settings. BMC Medical Education, 18(1), p 1-8. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12909-018-1251-x#Sec3.
9. Loop, E. (2018). Social learning theory strengths and weaknesses. Classroom, para 1-5. https://classroom.synonym.com/social-learning-theory-strengths-weaknesses-6592126.html
10. Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theory (3rd ed.). Chicago: Lyceum.
11. The National Association of Social Workers. (n.d.). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.uaf.edu/socwork/student-information/checklist/(D)-NASW-Code-of-Ethics.pdf.
12. Tropeano, M. (2015). Social learning theory and its importance to social work. Social Work License Map, para 1-11. https://socialworklicensemap.com/social-learning-theory-and-its-importance-to-social-work/
13. Wheeler, S. (2018). Bandura’s 4 principles of social learning theory. TeachThought Staff. Para 1- 11. https://www.teachthought.com/learning/principles-of-social-learning-theory/.

Born in the year 1960 Ramirez was any average extroverted kid, but that changed in his adolescence. When he was 10, Ramirez started to smoke weed which opened the gateway of drugs for him. Richard Ramirez was constantly being exposed to his dysfunctional family. Ramirez’s father would constantly be in anger fits and physically abuse his older brother, Ruben. Ramirez was a loner and only really had his older his cousin as his only real friend to talk to. Ramirez’s cousin would show pictures of him raping a Vietnamese woman and another picture of her decapitated head. Later, he witnessed his cousin murder his own wife at gun point. At this point his only adolescent life experiences were just traumatizing and tainted his brain development, as a result it would lead him down a dark path where sexual deviancy and abuse was not a wrong thing to do.

By 1984 he would start his series of brutally murdering families and raping women in Los Angeles and the bay area, California. He was deemed with the title of Night Stalker by the media at the time even though he rarely ever stalked his victims before killing them. He would brutally murder 13 people and rape 11 women during his time, a lot of his killings were done differently in nature and as a result of that it was difficult to categorize Ramirez on what kind of killer he was. He also never aimed at a specific group of people to kill which made it harder to identify the killer. Ramirez had 14 victims in total, and he was sentenced to death. He would die in prison before being sentenced to death because of complications secondary to B-Cell Lymphoma.

Ramirez was purely influenced by his social surroundings and because of that he fits with cultural deviance theory. Social Learning Theory is a theory that suggests People are influenced by the place, people, and social structure of the community in which they reside. This connects with the fact that low class societies such as where Ramirez lived had sinister living norms that cemented the wrong ideas into his mind, this theory is especially effective in Ramirez’s case because he started experiencing all of these traumatizing events during key points of his brain development.

Ramirez’s social learning started with, Mike, Ramirez’s older cousin. Mike was a Vietnam war veteran and he was a green beret, meaning that Mike had a lot of knowledge about the battlefield. Mike would spend a lot of time around Ramirez and showed him how to defend himself, to use stealth, to kill and to use many different kinds of weapons. Mike would be the primary influence on Ramirez’s social learning and as a result, he would slowly start learning how to act by observing his cousin. Ramirez would even idolize Mike because he was his only real friend despite having 4 other siblings and a group of friends, he was only really around his cousin for the majority of his early adolescence. Mike included to show him some photos of him forcing oral sex onto a Vietnamese women with a followup image of her decapitated head, It is important to note that Ramirez did in fact get turned on and aroused by the sight of these images. He knew it was wrong to feel aroused by those images Mike showed him, but he had to keep it to himself or Mike would get in trouble(Grise, 2000). Ramirez had no deviant or criminal behavior before he started being around Mike, meaning that he had a pretty clear mental state when he was observing Mike. This was the point Ramirez had started to associate sexual interest and violence together, using social learning theory, he learned this way of thinking and behavior from being around Mike. Sometime later he would throw a rock through a neighbor’s window, when Ramirez’s mother was notified of his actions she just shrugged it off and gave it no thought(Linedecker, 2004). This would be another important event that would further reinforce Ramirez’s behavior, he committed vandalism and his mother did not seem to care. This has no direct correlation to observing someone as social learning theory states, since he never observed vandalism. What it shows is violence, this type of behavior is connected to what he learned previously from observing Mike, and his bad friend group. Not too long later after the photos incident Mike would shoot and murder his wife over an argument, all while Ramirez witnesses and observes the whole situation. Mike was arrested as a result. This could be argued to be the breaking for what was left of Ramirez’s innocence. After this ordeal is when Ramirez had to started to heavily use weed, skipping school and he also had started to steal money to support his drug money(‘The Night Stalker: Serial Killer Richard Ramirez,’ 2012). Observing Mike’s behavior had a lot of built up tension welled inside of Ramirez as he was not allowed to talk to anyone about these things. Without the proper guidance, the only kind of guidance left in Ramirez’s life was Mike. Ramirez had slowly started to dissociate violence with the societal norms and his future behavior would show for it. By 1973 he went to Los Angeles for the first time to meet up with his older brother Ruben, During his time there he had started to get into pornography and Ruben would teach Ramirez how to pick locks, open windows from the other side, and alarm systems. After his visit in Los Angeles Ramirez would start to be around with the wrong group of people, they would get into quite a bit of trouble like smoking weed and breaking into houses and stealing valuables. Ramirez did in fact have a sexual partner when he was 17, her name was Nancy Avila. Nancy would describe Ramirez as gentle, considerate, and caring of a sexual partner. Nancy states that by the year 1978 came around he was more invested into sadistic means of sexual pleasure, coincidentally that is around the time Mike gets released from prison and continues to hang out with Ramirez again. The behavior and memories would spark inside Ramirez when he reunited with Mike again.

By 1978 he moved to Los Angeles he got arrested on a few occasions when he started practicing petty crimes like breaking and entering, stealing, and auto theft. Ramirez was getting better at breaking into and burglarizing homes, he eventually would be bold enough to stay a little while longer to look at the inhabitants sleeping and to fantasize about what he could do to them. What Mike had shown Ramirez 6 years ago finally started to solidify his behavior in to the real world, his fantasies about sex and violence would soon become a reality. Ramirez felt compelled to do more, and by 1984 is when Ramirez’s fantasies became a reality. All the things that Ramirez has learned by observing throughout his life, drugs, violence, killing techniques, pick locking, treating women finally all came to play. Simple breaking and entering became more than just hunting for drug money, Ramirez would start with killing and raping women whenever he broke into a house. His whole drive was to sate his hungry for sex and violence, he raped and killed around a total of 11 women. For every victim he had he took a piece of souvenir with him that belonged to the women to relive that experience over and over. This is very familiar with what Mike did when he showed Ramirez the rape photo, it was not necessarily a souvenir that belonged to the Vietnamese woman, but it did hold an important memory of when she was raped. Mike had taught him when he was in his adolescence on how to use various amounts of weapons like a gun or a knife, because of this observant behavior Ramirez was incredibly efficient and unpredictable in his killings. When Ramirez murdered his first victim it was probably easy for him to do as the whole time he grew up he only really associated women with sex and violence. This theory can be backed up with the fact that Ramirez continued to offend and rape because he wanted to experience the rush more. After seeing more than one dead woman in his adolescent age, his observant brain told him that Mike’s behavior is fine because he had also done it in front of him. The motivation that Ramirez had gotten out of violence is sexual pleasure and that was known when he observed the photograph of the Vietnamese woman. He noticed how happy Mike was when Mike shot his wife and when Mike raped and killed a Vietnamese woman, he wanted to feel something similar to what Mike did. In general the social learning theory can be a bit misleading when it comes to why he stole all the cars he did and why he supposedly stopped caring about school because from what is known about Ramirez there is no social learning indicators that would be able to answer the question. However a theory could be argued that he stopped caring about school because it was a byproduct of how his personality changed or because the new and deviant friend group he was with more did not participate in school either meaning he would have observed the behavior, however this was never stated in any piece of information. Regarding why he stole all those cars is because he needed getaway vehicles with the intent of murdering and raping more women.

Overall the majority of what Ramirez did go in hand with the social learning theory, there is just a large amount of evidence that the moment that Ramirez observes socially unacceptable behavior, the way he thinks and acts completely changes. Social learning theory had little to no behavioral evidence at all to explain why Ramirez was suddenly not interested in school. Social learning also fails to explain why Ramirez stole cars by using the master key to all Toyotas and Datsuns. There was never any observant learning to why he stole cars instead of using other means of transportation since he was in Los Angeles after all.

Criminology is a wide range of theories being placed in perspective. Criminologists will use Social Learning theory as a way of explaining crime. We will analyze the theory itself through the positive and negative example.

Social learning theory explains connections teach an individual (Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). Ronald L. Akers claims, much like Edwin H. Sutherland, that crime is more likely due to subjection and portraying the behavior witnessed based on how an individual views the law (Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). Social learning results from an individual teaching another the skills for committing crime completing a crime cycle; Sutherland is credited with differential association with social learning being a more broad explanation of Sutherland’s theory, but Akers gathered more behavioral concepts such as if an individual does something they may receive reward or punishment from another according to the act they committed and repeat the behavior in order to receive reward and view themselves accordingly (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). Learning, however, is not limited to how a behavior comes into light, but the acts committed foundation (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew and Wilcox 2018). Social learning is broken down into four major concepts: differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). Differential association is the course where one gets exposure to definitions of law whether they be in or out of favor of the law; for example, a major definer for an individual is what they see from family and friends and may possibly imitate those individuals (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). So, if an individual comes from a criminal family they are more likely to lead a life of crime upon what they witnessed in their growth process due to the priority, length of time, most often and the relationship closeness (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). Definitions are an individual’s own interpretation that connects to certain behaviors defining sense of right and wrong in a given situation; for example, an individual considers theft wrong, but may consider the concept of consuming marijuana okay even though it is illegal, or if an individual has a loathing of a particular activity they are likely avoiding participation (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox, 2018). There will also sometimes be neutralizing, which is rationalizing behaviors, words, etcetera; in examples from Akers would be ”I am not at fault”, or ”I just blew my top” (1994:82 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). However these may be excuses, they are still neutralizing behaviors needing reinforcement (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). Differential reinforcement is the scale of positive and negative reinforcement of a behavior which possibly may result person continuing or stopping a certain behavior (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). The reinforcements can be nonsocial and social, for example, through social reinforcement an individual learns to react to a stimuli as a quality or terrifying source and learns to act accordingly (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). In a nonsocial reinforcement however, there are limitations to only physical stimuli, and another form is also self-reinforcement which is individual taking control of themselves without another’s supervision (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). And last of the concepts is imitation. Imitation is taking part in behavior after seeing someone else do it and whether or not it will be repeated relies wholly on the character, behavior witnessed, and witnessed punishment (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). However, it is more valuable in the initial acquisition in acting the behavior than there is in continuation or termination behavior was established (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). All of these concepts are related because humans learn from what they get exposed to and begin to adopt the attitudes, behaviors, and defining the law as favorable or not where they picked up during differential association and begin imitating it. Then, the individual will imitate and follow their own definitions of the law and reap or sow their behavior (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018).

Now, we move on to Social Learning critiques and strengths. Beginning with the critiques, Social Learning theory faced opposition due to the testability being tautological, or repetitive; another critique is the temporal sequence of differential association and delinquent behavior; what came first?- delinquent behavior or associating with delinquents?(Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). Research proves interacting with delinquents does not mean the beginning or speeding up the delinquency processes (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). Strengths of this theory include being backed by other researchers confirming validity (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). The findings in each study from others demonstrated all the concepts of Social Learning theory (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018). These include self-reports which had a tie-in to high variance in the factors which are covered by social learning variables, for instance thirty-one to sixty-eight percent of juveniles admitted through self report to substance abuse which was picked up through social learning (Akers 1994 cited in Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox 2018).

In conclusion, Social Learning theory has been used by criminologists in order to explain the causes of crime. Social learning theory broke it down into the why and how. explains delinquency the best with the empirical evidence backing it.

References

1. Akers, Ronald L. 1994.’A Social Learning Theory of Crime.’ Pp. 79-92 in Criminological Theory: Past and Present. 6th ed., edited by F.T. Cullen, R. Agnew, and P. Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press
2. Cullen, Francis T. Robert Agnew, and Pamela Wilcox. 2018. Criminological Theory: Past and Present. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Canadian born American psychologist Albert Bandura theorized the social learning theory in 1977. Bandura agreed with most behaviorist learning theories of classical conditioning and operant conditioning, but wanted to include the importance of behavior being and how it is learned by imitating others through observational learning.

Bandura’s research on observational learning, aggression, and how we imitate others is quite relevant till this day as violence is shown everywhere especially through media.

The social learning theory has been used to understand aggression and psychological disorders more broadly. Bandura’s theory has also been used to explain human behavior in relation to the interactions between cognitive, behavior, and environmental influences. The theory has also been utilized in the understanding of behavior modification, and has also been considered the foundation of the behavior modeling technique which is used in training programs. There are principles to consider in the social learning theory being attention, memory, and motivation. Attention involves a model or modeled events to take place while an individual is observing the behavior that is taking place. Memory is simply retaining what was seen and encoding the behavior and later rehearsing it. Finally, for motivation it is need or desire to use what was learned through the model and reinforcing it. An example of this can be a middle school or high school basketball player losing a basketball game simply because he or she could not pass a defender and shoot a three. This person then sees an article describing different basketball moves to do on tough defenders which would catch the attention of the person who had just lost. They would be attentive and motivated in observing the information and moves that they would be shown and later imitate them in order to improve and to grow as a player. This would be reinforcement as the player is continuously doing the action or behavior and strengthening it for the next game. Also, considering that the basketball moves are legal and don’t go against any of the rules the player would be even more motivated in doing it since it wouldn’t involve any punishment. If a behavior is modeled to an observer and has a punishment the chances of the behavior being imitated are lowered.

Bobo Doll Experiment

The social learning theory is three main principles of observing, imitating, and modeling are shown in one of Bandura’s famous Bobo Doll Experiment (1961). In this experiment Bandura wanted to see if it was possible for young children to imitate aggressive behaviors by observing others. There was a total of 72 children in this experiment between the ages of 3 to 6 years old, which were then separated into three groups and split in half by gender in order to determine any difference. The first group made up of 24 children, 12 being male and the other 12 being female, were separated into individual rooms where an adult or in this case the model enters the room and shows aggressive behavior towards a bobo doll. A non-aggressive model was shown to the second group of 24 where an adult entered rooms and remained quiet while playing with a toy set and ignored the bobo doll. Finally, the last group of 24 were simply a control group and were not presented with any of the other models used in the experiment. In the Bobo Doll experiment adults are used as models in order to see how the children would imitate the behavior, and emotion portrayed in front of them. The aggressive model demonstrates physical aggression towards the bobo doll such as punching, kicking, hitting it with a mallet, and throwing it around alongside with some verbal aggression. Once the model had left the children who were observing responded with similar behaviors, imitating what they had previously seen towards the bobo doll.

Bobo Doll Results

The results that were seen after the experimentation served as great evidence towards Bandura’s theory on behavior and aggression. Children who observed the model who showed aggressive behavior towards the bobo doll showed more aggression than the non-aggressive and control group. Also, a small number of children who were in the model’s aggressive behavior group displayed no aggression. Girls who were in the model’s aggressive behavior group showed more physical aggression if the model was male, and if the model was female they showed more verbal aggression unlike the boys. Boys would imitate the same-sex model’s behavior more than the young girls would. Finally, another result that was noticed is that boys showed more physical aggressive behavior than girls, but there was little to no difference when it came to verbal aggression.

Bobo Doll on Film

Bandura’s experiment impacted views towards observational learning and how aggressive behaviors and behaviors in general, could easily be learned by observing and imitating others. As Bandura’s experiment began to cause this impact the television was also growing in popularity and becoming more affordable for families. This led to televisions being implemented into households which sparked interest in Bandura’s theory on observation. Two years later Bandura continued his experiment but with a new approach which was to compare how children would respond to a model demonstrating aggressive behaviors similar to that of the bobo doll on film rather than in real life. The film was shown on television with two different setups one simply being an adult beating up the bobo doll, and the second with an adult dressed up as a cat doing the same behaviors. Similar to the Bobo Doll Experiment in 1961, the results came out the same with children imitating the model’s aggressive behaviors they had observed on film. This has caused controversy and many debates on whether or not violence on television could be leading to more aggressive behaviors or acts in children and everyone else. Seeing the results and aftermath of Bandura’s experiment it is safe to say that violence that is shown in real life or television lead to more aggressive behaviors being learned and reinforced. However, an important factor to consider that was left out in these experiments was punishment and if it would lead to a decrease in the possibility of children imitating aggressive behaviors. Punishment is the opposite of reinforcement which would attempt to decrease the operant response shown by the children in the experiment. An example of a negative punishment that could have been used in this experiment is taking away the toys from the kids. Giving rules, and yelling at the model for the bad behavior being demonstrated would serve as a positive punishment since it is adding and not taking away anything. If children were to see the model’s violent behavior punished or having consequences would lead to more and different results. Violence is often shown on television without having no punishments such as revenge, only having satisfaction and no consequences. Many movies and tv shows have violence and aggressive behaviors as entertainment which is completely fine as it allows those observing it to enjoy something that isn’t reality. However, this must be considered and needs to be understood especially the possibilities and risk of seeing violence on television.

Effects and Outcomes of Violence and Aggressive Behavior

Television has grown exponentially and has been implemented into the daily lifestyles of many. Wherever and whenever television is found anywhere, whether that be in school, at work, at home or in someone’s household television is everywhere. However, with this happening the amount of violence on television must be considered especially towards those that are not of age and shouldn’t be watching it. There are so many television programs and the majority of them being ⅔ of the programs have some sort of violence implemented into it whether it be verbal or aggressive. There have been studies saying that an average American child will see 200,000 violent acts and 16,000 murders before the age of 18. Before getting into what are the possible effects the number of hours wasted watching television should be considered especially since it can have a great effect on children who are being unmonitored by their parents or guardians. A television channel can be easily changed to a different program by the click of a button and if a children is being unmonitored by their parents or guardians the possibility of the children switching the channel are relatively high if they are uninterested in what they are watching. There has also been studies that television programs that are made for kids tend to have more violent acts and behaviors than those of adult tv. Television viewing begins at an early age of two which could be a possible reason why children become so easily addicted to watching tv. Typically children between the ages of 2 to 5 average about 32 hours spent watching television, and those who are 6 to 8 in average age around 28 hours a week. These numbers are even higher being around 1.5 hours more if the child has a television in his or her bedroom compared to those who don’t. From the age range of 8 to 18 years of age 71% of this group has a television in their bedroom, and it is even said that parents and guardians encourage children to watch television from a young age. This could be because it entertains or educates the child, however these bad habits could be learned by others. According to Nielsen company the average American spends around five hours a day watching television instead of putting this time into something much more productive. The children themselves will simply imitate their parents or guardians and portray the same type of behavior which is watching television for an extensive amount of hours. Now with this high number of hours spent watching television also comes the possibility that children viewing numerous amounts of violent scenes would begin to see it as completely normal in reality or when doing aggressive/violent acts themselves.

Violent behavior in children has caused many problems and incidents for parents, adults, and even teachers at school teaching them. This sort of behavior can be shown in young children as well whether it’s their first day at school or even at their own household. Most of the time these types of behaviors are not thought of and are not even considered possible risks in the near future for the children and others. There are many opinions when it comes to violent behaviors in children suggesting that the child would just simply grow out of it which leads to the parents or guardians not taking the behavior seriously since it is just seen as a phase or bad tantrum. Violent behavior can range from being physical aggression, verbal aggression, threatening, hurting animals, using weapons or tools to cause harm, or even destroying things around them. Watching television for such a high amount of hours could make the children who are doing these sort of violent acts think of them as being normal having no negative effects or any possible punishments and consequences. These sort of violent acts can potentially lead to children bullying others, no sort of self-control of the actions, anger management problems, getting easily frustrated to anything, and simply acting on impulsive behaviors rather than thinking things through when put into any sort of problem. That is why from a young age aggressive behavior should be punished and children should be shown that there are consequences for such actions because if it is left untouched the child would continue to grow with such bad habits, reinforcing it and would never grow out of it. These aggressive acts and behaviors would only be reinforced and will continue to happen because of the results of past experiences.

Research studies have shown that violence on any sort of media has caused an increase in aggressive behavior and has even been evaluated through incidents that have happened in the past. A research study in 2002 reported by U.S. Secret Service and the US Department of Education evaluated 37 incidents of school shootings and attacks between the years 1976 to 2000. What was interestly found is that the majority of the attackers had somewhat of an interested in violence whether that be through playing video games or watching tv shows, movies or any other sort of media. Also, in the year 2009 the American Academy of Pediatrics stated on the subject of media violence that the majority of research relating to the topic, indicated that violence in the media has been a great contribution to aggressive behaviors, acts, and even more. Furthermore, the ISRA also known as the International Society for Research on Aggresssion’s media violence commission reported that for the past 50 years the amount of research studies on violence and media have shown that watching violence on television or playing violent video games, increases a greater chance for aggressive behavior. Aggressive behavior also could cause the observers to feel less emotionally sensitive towards others, not caring or showing any sort of care and actually finding enjoyment and what they do.

Some people still disagree that observing violence on any sort of media will cause for an increase in aggressive behavior they will simply say that it is because of genetics, the environment that they live in or what they were taught. However, television can also be seen as a sort of education and as an environment as well because it is what the child is seeing and learning from due to the amount of hours spent watching television. A vast amount of studies have proven that violence in video games, movies, and tv shows on television have caused an increase in aggressive behavior making it undeniable.

Conclusion

To conclude violence in televised media has caused for an increase in aggressive behavior within children. Albert Bandura’s social learning theory can be used in order to prove this statement and to rationalize why this is. Bandura’s social experiment using the bobo doll amongst children was an eye opener for many and shows how children can imitate the behaviors of those who they are observing. All of this should be taken into consideration and the possibilities/outcomes of children seeing violent acts and aggressive behavior. In order to prevent any possible outcomes parents and guardians should monitor what their children are watching and what they are allowing them to watch. Another thing that should be considered is children watching televised media of their age range as the child would be more capable of watching the media that will be portrayed on television. Also, television programs for children should be inspected in order to prevent any sort of violent scenes being seen by the child watching. In all as the world continues to advance in technology comes the risk of violence and repercussions.

The social learning theory explains how people learn new actions, and perspectives through watching others similar to them. People tend to learn by models that are similar to them; for example, when peoples’ gender, age, economic class, nationality, and/ or race are the same they are more influenced. When a person learns through the social learning theory, they must be aware of the behavior another person is portraying, remember the behavior, and only if the learner is influenced by the action will they replicate it.

This theory starts applying to humans once they are born mimicking behaviors of their family members, and others in their age group. It applies to older people as well, but they are generally more knowledgeable and less influenced by behaviors that go against their morals. This becomes a problem with adolescents because they are more vulnerable to be similar to their peers. During schooling as a kid, I remember being taught about the concept of peer pressure along with the importance of being able to say no, and not copy the actions of others. Often the negative influences of adolescents can result in substance abuse, human trafficking, and gang activity.

The social learning theory provides insight as to why the legal justice system punishes juveniles different from adults, as well as the need for rehabilitation before re-entering society. It is important to remember that during this theory people can still learn from behaviors of others even in the absence of motor replication (needed to learn certain tasks), or reinforcement. Another example of the social learning theory is how a junior varsity high school athlete learns through watching the varsity players. In this case, motor reinforcement can be seen during one on one time with the model, the varsity athlete, and he will gain reinforcement not only from his model but also his team, friends, and family. Therefore, the social learning theory is often referred to in the understanding of why a person acts a certain way

A current event that is related to social learning theory was highlighted in an article published to Fox News Chicago on April 15th, 2019, and is titled “3 dead, 16 wounded in Chicago weekend shootings”. I have a peer who claims false reports about Chicago shootings and others believe his words but being from Chicago, I feel the need to fact check. The headline explains the homicide-related crime violence; a 23-year-old woman was shot in her car, a 24-year-old male in a restaurant, and 23-year-old woman walking down the street. In addition, a thirteen and fourteen years old were injured in Washington Park.

All of these instances were on the south, or west sides of Chicago which are notorious for gang violence. Younger peoples like those mentioned in the article are frequently victims to these shootings since it is easy for them to join a gang at a young age because they are learning from their peers that it is beneficial for money, or protection. Living in poverty increases the chances that people of all ages might choose to follow the actions of others which supports the claims made by the social learning theory. Most people cannot understand why there are shootings reported almost every night in the local Chicago news. In essence, it is due to the social learning theory. As mentioned before the juvenile justice system is important because if a child joins a gang and commits a crime they are often being influenced by other members, and if under eighteen the child should not be charged to the full extent an adult would. Also, most kids in poverty lack a role model. It is essential that a child has someone to model that is law-abiding, and that will teach them how to do right not wrong.

A sociological theory is a concept in which sociologists have created in order to give themselves and others a deeper insight into the world of sociological thinking.

There are three main theories. These theories are functionalism, symbolic interactionism and conflict theory. The functionalism and the conflict theories are macro, which means they look at the big picture of things and use a general consensus to gain information, and Symbolic interactionism is micro, which means the small picture where information can be obtained by going into intricate detail and delving

Functionalism is a theory that states society is a structured complex where parts work in conjunction with each other to build a stable and solid society. Social structures keep our society stable and build a pathway for our future. These include school, college, legal system, workplace, media, political system and family. If there were no social structures in our lives, there would be chaos due to there being no rules or norms in place and everyone would be free to do what they want and not have any repercussions in doing so.

Symbolic interactionism is a theory that states that we perceive things such as not based on what is actually true, but what we believe individually due to social stigmas. An example of this would be the subject of smoking. Why do so many people smoke even though there is scientifically proven evidence that it is harmful? In our society a lot of people still think that smoking will help you fit in and is ‘cool’ so in the end the symbolic meanings override the real consequences of smoking. Media plays a big part in creating these stigmas, especially in today’s world as most young people have some form of social media and can be easily influenced by what they see on their screens. Media including the news, as it is very easy to believe everything you see – even though the headlines can be misleading and misunderstood, also heavily influence our generation.

Conflict theory is a theory which says that there is constant conflict between economic classes over resources and status. This means that social order is acquired from dominance and power rather than harmony and conventionality and that the wealthier you are, the more power you have. This theory stresses that inequality is a huge part of society, as many people define who we are and what we value based on our social status and class.

Our individual social values will all be different so we will all generally believe and stand by whichever theory that is closest to our beliefs. Each theory has good points and theoretically makes sense in our current society. Different factors make up our beliefs and values such as religion, culture, gender, education and family. Every individual will have a different opinion and outlook on a subject/situation so it is always important to include all sides of the story and all beliefs to maximise equality in our world today.

National Geographic conducted an interview with a group of nine-year-old children to discuss how they felt about their respective genders, and what, if anything, would they change. I my initial reaction to the video was, “how could nine-year-old’s possibly have an opinion on this broad and deep topic,” to my surprise a lot of these children were very insightful. I found it very interesting on how the children’s world views seemed to be more complex depending on what culture and part of the world the child was from. It seemed that a lot of the female children felt they could not do certain things, not because they are not physically able, but in my opinion because of their culture, and the way their gender identity is defined.

Gender identity is defined as, “a person’s perception of having a particular gender, which may or may not correspond with their birth sex.” Campaign, Human. Tomee War Bonnet said in her interview, “I can’t be treated like I wanted to,” it is sad and terrifying to see such a negative thought has already been instilled in a nine-year-old’s brain. How did she come to learn this? Zeng Jingwen, was taught that “a girl’s skin is thinner, and it will break and bleed”, instilling in her that women a frail creatures. Zimrat Goldstein said “it makes [her] sad when people treat me like I’m not there”, further perpetuating that women are invisible or have no voice.

On a more positive note, I will say that the girls in the video to seem to have strong voices, and I hope that the grow into women that have the support of the their cultural community, but develop a stronger sense of self, and what women are truly capable of!

Social Media

In the year 2019, we live in an age where social media is not only prevalent in our day to day lives, but digital technology is literally at out fingertips. With access to so much information and connectivity to so many people, one begins to wonder, how, if all does this affect a child’s development? Is there something to be learned from using social media to better communicate with children? I will briefly explore these possibilities through different development theorists; Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, Erik Erikson’s theory on psychological development, and finally, Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory.

Bandura’s Theory

In 1977, Bandura wrote a book titled, Social Learning Theory, he stated “Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do.” Bandura’s theory ties together aspects from both behavioral and cognitive learning through attention, memory, and motivation. To summarize Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, people [children] learn from each other through observations, modeling, and imitation, but this does not necessarily mean the behavior will change, Santrock, J. (n.d.). Children. 14th ed. An easy everyday example of this would be engaging in a sport, lets say basketball, you’ve never physically played this sport, but you know how to play. How? Because you have watched your friends play, the NBA playoffs, and some college basketball. By watching these games you have a general understanding of the game, and the actions you must demonstrate to play the game, i.e. dribbling.

How does Bandura’s theory relate to social media?

In social media, specifically sources like Facebook or Instagram, we consume so many images. When things become wildly popular they “go viral”, or they become their own hashtag challenge, creating a mental image for the consumer. Have you ever heard of the #Icebucketchallenge ? To raise awareness for ALS a celebrity challenged another to dump a bucket of ice-cold water over themselves. To Bandura’s point, the world observed the video, the video caught the world’s attention and the video was modeled, and eventually imitated, by the mainstream masses; motivating, us to make a change or impact by supporting research for ALS.

Erikson’s Theory

Erikson believed that personality develops through eight stages; and in each stage the person would be presented with a problem that would either hinder them or progress them along. If the person became stagnant in any stage it would result in a poor sense of self, but if the person was able to over-come the presented problem and progress through the additional stages the end result would be a well-adjusted personality.

How does this pertain to social media?

Social media suggests that users be at least 13 years of age. That would put users in the Identity vs Role Confusion stage. In this stage individuals are beginning to question who they are and developing a sense of self. If successfully developed an individual will remain true to themselves and their identity, while failure to do so would lead to a weak sense of self and role confusion. Rageliene, T (2019). In the realm of social media we see active users from as young as 9 years old with no age cap, suggesting that individuals are in different stages, and perhaps some more impressionable than others, causing them to be stunted in the identity vs role confusion stage, but also using social media differently.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory

This theory consists of five layers surrounding the individual. The microsystem is the immediate environment in which the child is supported. Mesosystem is built from the relationships of the microsystem and looks at the stability of those relationships. Whereas in the exosystem, the dynamics of those relationships are reviewed. The macrosystem is broad, it corresponds to culture. Lastly, the chronosystem, this system relates to the changes over time.

How does ecological theory relate to social media?

Facebook may have started the popular trend, naming it a “community”, that would correspond as the mesosystem. Other uses, and the content that we consume would then be the exosystem. If we have an unpleasant relationship with those involved in [my] Facebook community, then I may feel rejected and may not want to participate.

Tying it all together

While social media is not always used for its intended use of connectivity, there is a lot to be gained in communicating with the youths in the growing digital age. Parents should speak with their children about the amount of time used on social media, but also encourage them to understand a world outside of their own. If a child is into anime, help them find that community on social media, suggesting they are not the only one. Teachers could use social media to create a community to connect student with their classes. The students could then interface with their peers. Teachers could “hashtag” the assignments using other community hashtags to show how the hashtag relates in the classroom and daily society. Use social media to share fieldtrip experiences. The photo depicts what Bronfenbrenner would call a healthy ecological system. The teacher in the photo clearly has a strong relationship with the individuals, microsystem. Their was evidently a conversation with the parents and teacher to coordinate the costumes, exosystem. The comment posted below the photo is the macrosystem, and lastly the #Blacklivesmatter is the chronosystem. Erikson would say the two children will have a strong sense of self, interacting with peers and their teacher “pretending” they are scientist from history and the film. Bandura would say that this teacher has modeled how to be an involved teacher and that these children have the opportunity to imitate her, as well as the social media community.

References

1. The campaign, Human. ‘Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity Definitions | Human Rights Campaign’. Human Rights Campaign, 2019, https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-terminology-and-definitions.
2. Ragelienė, Tija. ‘Links Of Adolescents Identity Development And Relationship With Peers: A Systematic Literature Review’. Pubmed Central (PMC), 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4879949/. Accessed 7 Nov 2019.
3. Santrock, John W. Children. 14th ed.

The aim of this essay is to write about the most important aspects of and give arguments for and against how effective the learning perspective is as a form of therapy. There are lots of different lines of thinking when it comes to understanding the subject of psychology and one of them is behaviourism. It is also known as ‘Learning Perspective’ or ‘Learning Theory’. This school of thought consists of three main ideas; Classical and Operant Conditioning and Social learning theory (SLT).

A Russian psychologist called Ivan Pavlov conducted a study in the 1927 around the reflex of classical conditioning: when dogs see food, they salivate automatically. He found that when the food was repeatedly served with a bell (this acting as the neutral stimulus) eventually the dog learned to expect his food every time, salivating at the sound of this resulting in the conditioned response. After this when the bell was presented on its own the dog went on to salivate without the presence of the food. Classical conditioning only applies to reflexive response. One of the greatest strengths of this study is that it is highly scientific. With a large majority of Pavlov’s experiments being conducted in labs meaning they can be repeated easily and there are very few chances of extraneous variables. However, following this there is also weaknesses to this experiment, these being ethically. As the dogs where tied up and having their salivary glands connected to test tubes, this would have been very uncomfortable and distressing for them. Another limitation being that humans may not act the same as the dogs.

John B. Watson conducted a conditioned study nicknamed “Little Albert” which shows that humans can be conditioned into such things as fear from a neutral stimulus being the white rat or any white-fluffy-objects like rats being presented to an 18-month-old little boy. These objects then being paired with an uncomfortably loud noise, eventually he started to cry when he saw white fluffy objects in fear of the noise. This gives us insight into learned fear (conditioned response) and phobias, backing that Pavlov’s findings may be relevant to humans. However, this experiment was extremely unethical and could not be repeated today.

When a child presented with an environmental stimulus by receiving lots of positive praise for performing well at school, this will encourage the child to behave well and in a positive manner. This is known as positive reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is if the desired behaviour breaks down leading to the termination of an adverse stimulus for example every time the child shows negative behaviour they will not be rewarded he will eventually alter his behaviour to avoid this undesirable consequence. This is slightly different from punishment as punishment will not necessarily promote positive behaviour as how positive reinforcement could.

In 1938 B.F. Skinner showed this in his study of rats and how animals can learn from the consequences of their actions, showing that it was possible to condition the rat’s behaviour by using positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement and punishment. He placed a rat into a box where he positively reinforced their desired behaviour, switching a leaver releasing their food. The rats learnt that when they switched the leaver themselves when entering the box that it also released their food. The leaver was switched off by Skinner every time the rat pushed it themselves, this being the negative reinforcement.

Although this behaviour is demonstrated by various studies it does not account that different species have different capacities for learning by conditioning, some however may learn by simple observation with no reinforcement involved. And the research is mostly on animals which have been generalised to humans, so it is to an extent assumptive. It’s also does not account for how our genes influence our behaviour we can learn in other ways than conditioning (CGP Ltd, 2015). Wolfgang Kohler’s findings where that primates often problem solve much faster in insight rather than learning through trial and error. Where as Bandura believes that humans can learn through observation through example of his “Bobo doll” experiment.

Moving on from Skinners study there has been many useful therapies invented to help with positive reinforcement such as good behaviour rewards in schools where good behaviour is rewarded with “gold stars” amounting up to school trips and activities. Limitations to this theory can be that this is classed a bribery encouraging us to feel like we must fit into the “norm”. If these aren’t met it can lead to the individual feeling left out, like they are under achieving or further undesired behaviour.

Expanding on conditioning, Bandura developed the Social Learning Theory in the 1960’s. He believed that people also learnt a lot from role models (CGP Ltd, 2015). In one of his studies he called the “bobo doll” in 1961, he investigated the acquisition on behaviours through observation and imitation. A group of preschool children were shown how to be aggressive towards a bounce back blow up toy through observing the behaviour of the adults towards the doll this validating the social learning theory. The results however dismissed the biological approach did not show the main differences between the boys who were being shown to be more aggressive where the girls were being more aggressive verbally. This does not consider any genetic or natural influences, dismissing the biological approach which he had initially suggested validating within the study. Also, observational learning can take place a long time after they have been observed making it more difficult to study. Ethically the small children were exposed to aggressive behaviour from the adults around them, this may have caused them distress or encouragement to carry out the aggressive behaviour outside of the experiment.

The social learning theory combines learning through the association and consequence of classical and operant conditioning with a process of mediation like the cognitive approach which includes an action of being noticed, remembered and reproduced. The conditioning theory can be used as a treatment for psychological disorders such as Phobias, these are known as behavioural therapies.

Another popular form of behavioural therapy is Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). It is widely used to treat depression, addiction and schizophrenia. Being based on encouraging the patient to notice negative thoughts and test how accurate they are resulting in a positive change in behaviour. The individual may be less likely for relapse compared to drug therapy. Arron.T Beck’s cognitive therapy supports the idea that depression is related to cognition with many depression sufferers benefitting. Whereas Albert Ellis in the 1960’s believed that an event can change your beliefs and feelings, causing depression, for example trouble at work or break down of relationships. However, CBT can be less effective when the therapists lack experience and is time and cost-intensive. Looking at how the individual is feeling now placing this solely the root for depression, not taking into consideration the biological factors of depression.

Behavioural therapies can possibly challenge behaviours based on conditioning, this is the case when aversion therapy is used. Aversion therapy is a behavioural therapy which helps treat addiction, by forming negative associations with addictive behaviour. Being a form of classical conditioning Meyer and Chesser (1970) believed that a negative association can be formed with an addiction when paired with an unpleasant stimulus, e.g nausea drugs or previously used electric shock treatments. They prescribed a group of alcoholics a nausea-inducing drug called Antabuse, asking them to test the alcohol when feeling sick. Causing a negative conditioned response to the alcohol. While it is positive in treating addictions and being used in conjunction with biological or cognitive therapies, it does include limitations. These being it having a high relapse rate, depending on the individual’s avoidance to the stimulus and can be time-consuming. Including controversial ethical issues. Previously a form of aversion therapy was used to try and treat Homosexuality, this being with electric shock treatments whenever the individual became aroused by an appropriate stimulus. This would have been very painful and degrading. It could have also caused depression or suicidal thoughts due to being made to believe that homosexuality was an illness and not politically correct to society.

Flooding being a type of classical conditioning which exposes a patient to a phobia for long periods at a time encouraging the patient to realise that the high anxiety can’t be maintained at the initial rate. E.g. a patient would be taken to a high building (the stimulus), whilst climbing up to the top their anxiety would be extremely high, however the longer they are at the top the more they realise that it will be ok, possibly over coming their fear or phobia. This would work well with most phobias and can be done in real life situations. With only a few limitations. One being participation is needed from the patient throughout the course, they would not be able to back out during as this may cause higher amounts of anxiety towards the phobia.

In summary the learning perspective provides a useful range of therapies on their own and combined with other therapies such as drug therapy. However, they do present their own limitations. These being many ethical issues excluding that the theories are reductionist. Many of the theories looked at have disregarded assumptions made from other approaches such as the biological approach towards depression and gender roles.

There are many different variables that come into play when theorists are conducting research. Our text steps in to inform us as to how the use of different imaginations are key factors to understanding different types of theories ranging from crime to victimology. Furthermore, the sociological imagination is one that was introduced by Charles Mills Wrights in 1959 in his book based on the very subject. The sociological imagination is based on the ability to perceive situations and circumstances in a wide social context and observe how interactions and actions are influential upon other individuals and situations. Mills stated in his book, “When, in a city of 100,000, only one is unemployed, that is his personal trouble, and for its relief we properly look to the character of the individual, his skills and his immediate opportunities. But when in a nation of 50 million employees, 15 million people are unemployed, that is an issue, and we may not hope to find its solution within the range of opportunities open to any one individual. The very structure of opportunities has collapsed” (Phillppe, 2014). Mills also believed that we must understand our personal lives as lives that are shaped across three social dimensions.

These social dimensions are structure, history, and varieties of men and women. I can understand and relate to this theory because as people we all have day to day activities or decisions we must make that exhibits the use of sociological imagination. I myself feel the effects of all three because things like my families’ educational background and financial history are things that factor into my decisions at many times. My decision to finish high school was influenced by the fact that neither my father or older brother had completed high school so that helped fuel me to do so. As far as the financial history goes I was brought up in a family who worked for a living but weren’t overachievers who were financially stable. That also fuels me in to wanting my kids to not have to worry and their simple needs being taken care of. For sociological imagination there are sociological theories of criminology which believe that society influences a person to become a criminal. Social learning theory

The criminological like the sociological have the same origins as they both were introduced by Charles Wright Mills in his book The Social Imagination. However, the criminological imagination differs from the sociological imagination because it tells how we obtain our criminal knowledge and how the criminal justice system utilizes the information in its’ policies. Furthermore, the two imaginations can go hand and hand because criminological imaginations can be influenced also by social awareness and knowing what’s going on in the world around us. For instance, if I were a bank robber and wanted to pull off a heist I would need to be enlightened as to how the bank conducted its daily business to put a plan in place to try to get the job done. Without such knowledge and social awareness, it would be complicated to do the heist. With the evolution of the criminological imagination came the evolution of research and scientific theories. Bernard suggested, “Scientific theory and research are like the chicken and the egg-each comes from the other, but neither comes first” (p. 3). To conclude, both Sociological and Criminological imagination deal with understanding individuals by doing research, making theories, and collecting data but they concentrate on different types of individuals and form their theories differently based of the person and imagination warranted.

References

1. Moyer, I. L. (2001). Criminological theories: Traditional amd montraditional voices and themes. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
2. Phillppe, D. (Ed.). (2014). Retrieved from WordPress: https://ddoublep.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/quote-c-wright-mills-on-unemployment/