Behaviorist and Social Learning Theory perspectives
Reinforcement refers to “the process by which a stimulus or event strengthens or increases the probability of a behavior or an event that follows” (Santrok, 2003, p. 280). As such, it clearly holds a pivotal role in learning and the acquisition of new knowledge, skills and behaviors. However, behaviorists and social cognitive theorists interpret the influence of reinforcement (and punishment) quite differently.
To the behaviorist, learning is a relatively permanent change in behavior due to the effects of stimuli on that behavior. Behaviorism, with its emphasis on experimental methods, focuses on variables that can be observed, measured, and manipulated, and avoids whatever is subjective, internal, and unavailable - i.e., mental or cognitive. Based on this perspective then, no learning occurs unless and until there is an observable change in behavior (Ormrod, 2004; Santrock).
In contrast, from the cognitive and social learning viewpoint, learning is a relatively permanent change in mental associations due to experience. This definition focuses on a change in mental associations, an internal change that is not easily observable or measurable – i.e., the very thing that behaviorist perspectives avoid. Tolman, an early cognitive theorist, argued specifically that learning could both occur without reinforcement and without a change in behavior. Further, he theorized that intervening states – cognitions and physiological conditions – represented intervening variables that influenced the learning process, and that perceived expectations, rather than the specific reinforcers, reinforce the behavior they precede (Fetsco & McCLure, 2005; Ormrod, 2004).
Operant conditioning focuses upon how consequences – reinforcement and punishment - may be used to promote learning. As noted, in the realm of this behaviorist perspective, the focus of study is limited to observable and measurable behaviors and their equally observable and measurable antecedents and consequences. Thus, the concept of reinforcement in this perspective is limited to the consideration of these concrete events and does not give credence to the effects of any internal musings, perceptions or emotions with regard to their potential influence on the strengthening of a particular behavior pattern, even providing behavioral explanations for a broad range of cognitive phenomena. For example, Skinner explained drive and motivation in terms of deprivation and reinforcement schedules. The resulting conclusion is that one’s environment causes one’s behavior and furthermore, that reinforcers (and punishers) are the direct causes of that behavior (Ormrod, 2004; Santrock, 2003).
Social learning theorist Bandura argued that this conclusion was too simplistic to explain complex human behavior: He agreed that the environment can influence behavior, but posited further that behavior influenced the environment as well. He labeled this concept reciprocal determinism, insisting that the environment and a person’s behavior affect each other (Ormrod, 2004). In this way, social cognitive theories define human behavior as a triadic, dynamic, and reciprocal interaction of personal factors, behavior, and the environment (Bandura, 1986). Accordingly, they posit that an individual's behavior is uniquely determined by each of these three factors. While this perspective upholds the behaviorist notion that response consequences mediate behavior, it contends that behavior is largely regulated antecedently through cognitive processes.
Rather than cause behavior directly, social learning theorists consider that reinforcers cause individuals to form expectations about consequences that are likely to result from various behaviors. These expectations are mental processes occurring within the learners that influence their behavior and indicate that learners are attentive to and aware of behaviors that will be reinforced. It is the ability to form these expectations that give humans the capability to predict the outcomes of their behavior, before the behavior is performed. This distinction represents a crucial departure from the behaviorists, in that social learning theorists contend that reinforcement only changes behavior when learners are cognizant of what behaviors are being reinforced. Thus, learners are not passive responders to the consequences of their behavior, but rather active strategists in their own behavior change (Fetsco & McCLure, 2005; Ormrod, 2004).
Social learning theory’s strong emphasis on one's cognitions suggests that the mind is an active force that constructs one's reality, selectively encodes information, performs behavior on the basis of values and expectations, and imposes structure on its own actions (Sternberg, 2003). Through feedback and reciprocity, a person's own reality is formed by the interaction of the environment and one's cognitions. In addition, cognitions change over time as a function of maturation and experience (i.e. attention span, memory, ability to form symbols, reasoning skills). It is through an understanding of the processes involved in one's construction of reality that enables human behavior to be understood, predicted, and changed (Fetsco & McCLure, 2005; Pajares & Schunk, 2001; Santrock, 2003).
Additionally, the reciprocal interaction between individual and environment manifests in learning and reinforcement thought interaction with and observation of others – through the processes of modeling, imitation and vicarious reinforcement. In general terms, modeling refers to the learning that occurs when an individual observes and imitates another’s behavior. As such, it involves vicarious learning through the observation of the consequences that others (the models) experience as a result of certain behaviors. In terms of the learning process, modeling represents learning whereby the expectancy of reinforcement, or conversely punishment, is formed not by the direct experience of cause and effect (as in operant conditioning), but rather merely by witnessing and cognitively processing another’s behavior and the consequences it produces (Bandura, 1986; Carlson, Martin & Buskist, 2004; Ormrod, 2004; Santrock, 2003).
Social cognitive theory distinguishes between the processes of the acquisition of knowledge (learning) and the observable performance based on that knowledge (behavior). This advanced view developed in reaction to behavioral explanations of learning that were limited and incomplete. By expanding on the firm foundation of behavioral principles social learning theory provided a more comprehensive of the many complex factors involved in human learning and reaction with the environment – both internal and external.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and Action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Carlson, N. R., Martin, G. N. & Buskist, W. (2004). Psychology. New York, NY: Pearson Ed.
Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Santrock, J. W. (2003). Psychology (7th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.