3.4 Theoretical framework
3.4.1 Social Cognitive Theory
3.4.1.4 Key constructs of Bandura’s Social Cognition Theory
processes involved in the construction of each person’s reality that enables researchers to understand, predict and change human behaviour (Bandura, 1989, Crosbie-Brunett and Lewis, 1993).
Observational Learning
Live model
Verbal instructional model
Symbolic model
Reciprocal Determinism
Cognitive factors
Environmental factors
Behavioural factors
Human Capabilitie
s
SCT Constructs and Influencing Factors
Symbolising capability Vicarious capability
Attention span
Model characteristics
Retention processes:
Motor reproduction processes Motivational processes:
External reinforcement Self-reinforcement
Forethought capability Self- regulatory capability
Motivational standards
Self- efficacy:
Mastery experiences Social models Social persuasion Psychological responses Feedback
Anticipated time to goal achievemen t
Self- reflective capability
Figure 3-3 Key SCT constructs referred to in the study (Source: (Bandura, 1989))
The person-behaviour interaction involves the bi-directional influences of personal factors (such as thoughts, emotions, and biological properties) and behaviour. A person’s knowledge, expectations, attitudes and belief system influence behaviour. However, the interaction is reciprocal in that the behaviours are not without consequence and, in turn, can affect the person’s thoughts and emotions.
In this respect, SCT allows for variations in personal factors, such as gender, ethnicity and temperament and the way in which these influence how different individuals experience the person- behaviour interaction (Bandura, 2002).
The interaction between environment and personal factors is also bi-directional. A person’s knowledge, expectations, attitudes and belief systems are impacted by the environment (social influences, persuasions and structures, for example). In turn, the social environment ‘responds’ to personal factors such as race, age, gender, language grouping and physical attractiveness.
The third bi-directional interaction occurs between behaviour and the environment. Bandura suggests that people are not passive products of their environment, they are also capable of producing their environment in the sense that they can choose who they associate with, where they live and the activities they engage in. They can even create environments through their behaviour, such as when an aggressive person creates a hostile environment. In turn, environments can determine the behaviour of people within them (Bandura, 1989).
Human capabilities
An important notion in SCT (and of ‘reciprocal determinism’ specifically) is the idea that human behaviour is neither entirely shaped by the environment nor the individual. Behaviour is shaped by a reciprocal interaction of influences and humans are capable of influencing their behaviour. Thus, humans are characterised by five basic capabilities that provide the cognitive means to determine their own behaviour: symbolising, vicarious, forethought, self-regulatory and self-reflective capability (Bandura, 1989):
Symbolising capability: Bandura suggests that it is through the formation of symbols (such as images or words) that humans give meaning to their experiences and that it is through these symbols that humans are capable of storing information in their memory that can help guide future behaviour. These stored symbols allow humans to model observed behaviour and engage in cognitive problem solving and what Bandura refers to as ‘foresightful’ action.
Bandura asserts that ‘foresight’ is the ability to think through the consequences (potential
‘punishment’ or ‘reward’) associated with any given potential future behaviour without
actually having to perform that behaviour. Bandura cites research suggesting a that much of human thought is linguistically based and the correlation between cognitive development and language acquisition to support his contention (Bandura, 1989, 1991).
Vicarious capability: ‘Vicarious capability’ refers to the ability of humans to learn, not only by direct experience, but by observation of others (‘observational learning’). Thus, a human is able to develop an idea of how a behaviour is formed and how that behaviour results in consequences for a ‘model’ (the one being observed), without necessarily having to perform the behaviour personally. Since humans are capable of ‘symbolising’, this information can be coed into symbols and stored in memory as a guide to future behaviour. This process allows humans to avoid time-consuming (and potentially dangerous) trial and error and facilitates the quick formation of behaviour patterns (Bandura, 1989, 1991).
Bandura has identified three basic models of observational learning:
1. a live model, which involves an individual demonstrating or acting out a behaviour;
2. a verbal instructional model, which involves descriptions and explanations;
3. a symbolic model, which involves real or fictional characters displaying behaviours in books, films, television programs, or other electronic media (Bandura, 1989).
Thus, Bandura’s ‘observational learning’ is not limited to imitation of demonstrated behaviour or tasks. As per model 2 above, observational learning (and related constructs and influencing factors) can also involve ‘verbal instruction’, or a combination of any of the three learning models described above (Bandura, 1989). In this study, for example, IS&T teaching methods included a combination of demonstration and verbal instruction by a teacher (‘model’).
According to Bandura, observational learning is governed by four processes: attention span, retention processes, motor reproduction processes and motivational processes (Bandura, 1989).
o Attention span: ‘Attention span’ refers to an individual’s ability to observe actions and behaviours in the environment in a selective fashion. Moreover, ‘attention span’
allows the observer to regulate the type and amount of observation that is experienced. Thus, an individual might be more attentive to certain activities based on the complexity or relevance of the actions in terms of the observer’s frame of reference. Similarly, an observer is more likely to be attentive to models with whom
the observer feels affinity or who are similar to the observer in some way. Moreover, characteristics such as attractiveness, trustworthiness and perceived competence have been shown to enhance a model's effectiveness (Bandura, 1977a, 1989).
o Retention processes: Retention is clearly an important concept for observational learning, as observed behaviours can only be modeled if they are retained in memory.
The cognitive tools of cognitive organisation and motor rehearsal are only made possible by the human capability to symbolise and store these symbols in memory.
o Motor reproduction processes: Key to observational learning is the ability to replicate the behaviour that the model has just demonstrated and which has been coded symbolically in the observer’s memory. This means that the observer has to be able to replicate the action, which could be a problem with a learner who is not ready developmentally to replicate the action. Motor reproduction processes include the concepts of physical capabilities, self-observation of reproduction, and accuracy of feedback.
o Motivational processes: The final necessary ingredient for modeling (observational learning) to occur is motivation. Learners must want to demonstrate what they have learned. Motivational processes include external and self-reinforcement and reflect the theory that a modeled behaviour is more likely to be adopted by an observer when the behaviour has a valued outcome.
Forethought capability: SCT posits that human behaviour is purposive and regulated by
‘forethought’ (i.e. the ability to weigh probable consequences of actions, establish goals, and plan courses of action). The ability to symbolise allows humans to cognitively consider the potential outcome of performing behaviours before actually performing them. Previous experiences and observations of outcomes experienced by models who engaged in similar behaviour create expectations of behavioural outcomes and provide the mechanism for foresightful behaviour (Bandura, 1989).
Self-Regulatory capability: Self-regulatory capability refers to the ability of individuals to control their own thoughts, feelings, motivations and actions, rather than be ‘dictated to’ by the environment. Self-regulation, therefore, governs an individual’s behaviour and the self- imposed consequences of that behaviour, and is the result of the interplay between external and self-produced sources of influence. ‘Motivational standards’ and ‘social and moral standards’ are two such sources of influence in self-regulation (Tamir and Mauss, 2011).
Motivational standards involve ‘goal setting’ and ‘working at attaining goals that have been set’ (referred to by Bandura as ‘discrepancy production’ and ‘discrepancy reduction’
respectively (Bandura, 1989)). According to Bandura, people continually set goals for themselves and compare their personal accomplishments at any point in time to those goals, and thus people tend to be ‘motivated’ to change their behaviour with a view to attaining these goals (standards). Such motivation can be ‘external’ (as in the case of monetary reward) or ‘internal’ (as in the case of a personal sense of accomplishment or pride).
Bandura identifies three factors that determine the degree of motivation a person feels (Bandura, 1989):
1. Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy refers to a person’s sense of capability to perform a particular task or engage in specific behaviour. A person who has a high sense of self-efficacy in respect of a particular behaviour or goal is more likely to succeed in performing that behaviour or achieving that goal.
2. Feedback: Feedback is essential as it allows an individual to re-appraise progress toward the attainment of a goal and adjust behaviour, if required.
3. Anticipated time to goal achievement: Simply put, proximal goals are more effective as motivators of behaviour than are distal goals.
Social and moral standards are another key influencer of self-regulation and relate to Bandura’s concept of the ‘exercise of moral agency’ which is seen to mediate the relationship between thought and action (Bandura, 1989). Behaviour is regulated on the basis of ‘self- reactions’, whereby an individual will avoid certain behaviours because the consequence is
‘self-reprimand’, and engage in other behaviours because they result in being rewarded by
‘self-approval’. The moral standards that dictate the self-reactions are formed from a variety of influences, including instruction, feedback from other people, modeling and structured institutions (such as religion, education and political agencies). An important concept in modeling as an influencer of standards of behaviour is that people do not passively absorb every standard of behaviour they are exposed to. The extent to which an observer internalises standards is strongly dependent on factors such as similarity of model to observer, the value of the behaviour and the extent to which the observer has control over the behaviour (Bandura, 1989, 1991).
Self-reflective capability: Self-reflective capability refers to the ability of an individual to
‘meditate’ on, or analyse, one’s own characteristics and thought processes and make adjustments where necessary.
One important concept related to self-reflective capability, and which has become a central focus point in Bandura’s research because of its key role as a determinant of self-regulation, is ‘self-efficacy’. Given the importance of this construct for this study, it is discussed in detail in the following section.