Albert Bandura - Social Learning Theory

By Saul McLeod, updated 2016

In social learning theory, Albert Bandura (1977) agrees with the behaviorist learning theories of classical
conditioning and operant conditioning. However, he adds two important ideas:

1. Mediating processes occur between stimuli & responses.

2. Behavior is learned from the environment through the process of observational learning.

Observational Learning
Children observe the people around them behaving in various ways. This is illustrated during the famous Bobo doll
experiment (Bandura, 1961).
Individuals that are observed are called models. In society, children are surrounded by many influential models, such
as parents within the family, characters on children’s TV, friends within their peer group and teachers at school.
These models provide examples of behavior to observe and imitate, e.g., masculine and feminine, pro and anti-
social, etc.
Children pay attention to some of these people (models) and encode their behavior.  At a later time they may imitate
(i.e., copy) the behavior they have observed.
They may do this regardless of whether the behavior is ‘gender appropriate’ or not, but there are a number of
processes that make it more likely that a child will reproduce the behavior that its society deems appropriate for its
gender.
First, the child is more likely to attend to and imitate those people it perceives as similar to itself. Consequently, it is
more likely to imitate behavior modeled by people of the same gender.
Second, the people around the child will respond to the behavior it imitates with either reinforcement or punishment. 
If a child imitates a model’s behavior and the consequences are rewarding, the child is likely to continue performing
the behavior. 
If a parent sees a little girl consoling her teddy bear and says “what a kind girl you are,” this is rewarding for the child
and makes it more likely that she will repeat the behavior.  Her behavior has been reinforced (i.e., strengthened).
Reinforcement can be external or internal and can be positive or negative.  If a child wants approval from parents or
peers, this approval is an external reinforcement, but feeling happy about being approved of is an internal
reinforcement.  A child will behave in a way which it believes will earn approval because it desires approval. 
Positive (or negative) reinforcement will have little impact if the reinforcement offered externally does not match with
an individual's needs.  Reinforcement can be positive or negative, but the important factor is that it will usually lead to
a change in a person's behavior.
Third, the child will also take into account of what happens to other people when deciding whether or not to copy
someone’s actions.  A person learns by observing the consequences of another person’s (i.e., models) behavior,
e.g., a younger sister observing an older sister being rewarded for a particular behavior is more likely to repeat that
behavior herself.  This is known as vicarious reinforcement.
This relates to an attachment to specific models that possess qualities seen as rewarding. Children will have a
number of models with whom they identify. These may be people in their immediate world, such as parents or older
siblings, or could be fantasy characters or people in the media. The motivation to identify with a particular model is
that they have a quality which the individual would like to possess.
Identification occurs with another person (the model) and involves taking on (or adopting) observed behaviors,
values, beliefs and attitudes of the person with whom you are identifying.
The term identification as used by Social Learning Theory is similar to the Freudian term related to the Oedipus
complex.  For example, they both involve internalizing or adopting another person’s behavior.  However, during the
Oedipus complex, the child can only identify with the same sex parent, whereas with Social Learning Theory the
person (child or adult) can potentially identify with any other person.
Identification is different to imitation as it may involve a number of behaviors being adopted, whereas imitation usually
involves copying a single behavior.

Mediational Processes
SLT is often described as the ‘bridge’ between traditional learning theory (i.e., behaviorism) and the cognitive
approach. This is because it focuses on how mental (cognitive) factors are involved in learning.
Unlike Skinner, Bandura (1977) believes that humans are active information processors and think about the
relationship between their behavior and its consequences.
Observational learning could not occur unless cognitive processes were at work. These mental factors mediate (i.e.,
intervene) in the learning process to determine whether a new response is acquired.
Therefore, individuals do not automatically observe the behavior of a model and imitate it. There is some thought
prior to imitation, and this consideration is called mediational processes. This occurs between observing the behavior
(stimulus) and imitating it or not (response)

There are four mediational processes proposed by Bandura:

1. Attention: The extent to which we are exposed/notice the behavior. For a behavior to be imitated, it has to
grab our attention. We observe many behaviors on a daily basis, and many of these are not noteworthy.
Attention is therefore extremely important in whether a behavior influences others imitating it.
2. Retention: How well the behavior is remembered. The behavior may be noticed but is it not always
remembered which obviously prevents imitation. It is important therefore that a memory of the behavior is
formed to be performed later by the observer.

Much of social learning is not immediate, so this process is especially vital in those cases. Even if the
behavior is reproduced shortly after seeing it, there needs to be a memory to refer to.

3. Reproduction: This is the ability to perform the behavior that the model has just demonstrated. We see
much behavior on a daily basis that we would like to be able to imitate but that this not always possible. We
are limited by our physical ability and for that reason, even if we wish to reproduce the behavior, we cannot.

This influences our decisions whether to try and imitate it or not. Imagine the scenario of a 90-year-old-lady
who struggles to walk watching Dancing on Ice. She may appreciate that the skill is a desirable one, but she
will not attempt to imitate it because she physically cannot do it.

4. Motivation: The will to perform the behavior. The rewards and punishment that follow a behavior will be
considered by the observer. If the perceived rewards outweigh the perceived costs (if there are any), then
the behavior will be more likely to be imitated by the observer. If the vicarious reinforcement is not seen to
be important enough to the observer, then they will not imitate the behavior.

Critical Evaluation
Social learning theory is not a full explanat
The social learning approach takes thought processes into account and acknowledges the role that they play in
deciding if a behavior is to be imitated or not. As such, SLT provides a more comprehensive explanation of human
learning by recognizing the role of mediational processes.
However, although it can explain some quite complex behavior, it cannot adequately account for how we develop a
whole range of behavior including thoughts and feelings. We have a lot of cognitive control over our behavior and just
because we have had experiences of violence does not mean we have to reproduce such behavior.
It is for this reason that Bandura modified his theory and in 1986 renamed his Social Learning Theory, Social
Cognitive Theory (SCT), as a better description of how we learn from our social experiences.
Some criticisms of social learning theory arise from their commitment to the environment as the chief influence on
behavior. It is limiting to describe behavior solely in terms of either nature or nurture and attempts to do this
underestimate the complexity of human behavior. It is more likely that behavior is due to an interaction between
nature (biology) and nurture (environment).
Social learning theory is not a full explanation for all behavior. This is particularly the case when there is no apparent
role model in the person’s life to imitate for a given behavior.
The discovery of mirror neurons has lent biological support to the theory of social learning. Although research is in its
infancy the recent discovery of "mirror neurons" in primates may constitute a neurological basis for imitation. These
are neurons which fire both if the animal does something itself, and if it observes the action being done by another.
  Download this article as a PDF

How to reference this article:

McLeod, S. A. (2016, Febuary 05). Bandura - social learning theory. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html

APA Style References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive
models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582

Social Learning Theory (Albert Bandura)

The social learning theory of Bandura emphasizes the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors,
attitudes, and emotional reactions of others. Bandura (1977) states: “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.
Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an
idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for
action.” (p22). Social learning theory explains human behavior in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between
cognitive, behavioral, an environmental influences. The component processes underlying observational learning are:
(1) Attention, including modeled events (distinctiveness, affective valence, complexity, prevalence, functional value)
and observer characteristics (sensory capacities, arousal level, perceptual set, past reinforcement), (2) Retention,
including symbolic coding, cognitive organization, symbolic rehearsal, motor rehearsal), (3) Motor Reproduction,
including physical capabilities, self-observation of reproduction, accuracy of feedback, and (4) Motivation, including
external, vicarious and self reinforcement.

Because it encompasses attention, memory and motivation, social learning theory spans both cognitive and
behavioral frameworks. Bandura’s theory improves upon the strictly behavioral interpretation of modeling provided by
Miller & Dollard (1941).  Bandura’s work is related to the theories of Vygotsky and Lave which also emphasize the
central role of social learning.
Application
Social learning theory has been applied extensively to the understanding of aggression (Bandura, 1973) and
psychological disorders, particularly in the context of behavior modification (Bandura, 1969). It is also the theoretical
foundation for the technique of behavior modeling which is widely used in training programs. In recent years,
Bandura has focused his work on the concept of self-efficacy in a variety of contexts (e.g., Bandura, 1997).

Example
The most common (and pervasive) examples of social learning situations are television commercials. Commercials
suggest that drinking a certain beverage or using a particular hair shampoo will make us popular and win the
admiration of attractive people. Depending upon the component processes involved (such as attention or motivation),
we may model the behavior shown in the commercial and buy the product being advertised.

Principles
1. The highest level of observational learning is achieved by first organizing and rehearsing the modeled
behavior symbolically and then enacting it overtly. Coding modeled behavior into words, labels or images
results in better retention than simply observing.
 2. Individuals are more likely to adopt a modeled behavior if it results in outcomes they value.
3. Individuals are more likely to adopt a modeled behavior if the model is similar to the observer and has
admired status and the behavior has functional value.
References
 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
 Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
 Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
 Bandura, A. & Walters, R. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
 Miller, N. & Dollard, J. (1941). Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press.

International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 7; April 2012

Evaluating the Efficacy of Focus Group Discussion (FGD) in Qualitative Social

Research

William Boateng, PhD

Department of Sociology
University of Saskatchewan
1019 - 9 Campus Drive, Saskatoon SK., S7N 5A5, Canada.

Abstract

The efficacy of Focus Group Discussion as a qualitative data collection methodology is put on the line by empirically
comparing and contrasting data from two FGD sessions and one-on-one interviews to ascertain the consistency in
terms of data retrieved from respondents using these two data collection methodologies. The study is guided by the
hypothesis that data obtained by FGD may be influenced by groupthink rather than individual respondents'
perspectives. A critical scrutiny of the data that emanated from the two organized focus groups discussion departed
quite significantly from the data that was elicited from the one -on-one qualitative interviews. The difference in
responses confirms that FGDs are not fully insulated from the shackles of groupthink. It is recommended, among
others, that though FGD can stand unilaterally as a research methodology for nonsensitive topics with no direct
personal implications for respondents; researchers should be encouraged to adopt FGD in league with other
methodologies in a form of triangulation or mixed methodological approach for a more quality data, bearing in mind
the central role occupied by data in the scientific research process.

Key Words: Focus Group Discussion, One-on-One Qualitative Interview, Social Research Methodology, Qualitative
Data, and Groupthink.

Introduction

The Focus Group Discussion (FGD), which is also referred to as group interviewing, is essentially a qualitative
research methodology. It is based on structured, semi-structured, or unstructured interviews. It offers qualitative
researchers the opportunity to interview several respondents systematically and simultaneously (Babbie, 2011).
FGD is applauded and widely used in recent times mainly because of its strength of convenience, economic
advantage, high face validity, and speedy results (Krueger, 1988). Many authors also subscribe to the notion that
FGD is advantageous because of its purposeful use of social interaction in generating data (Merton et al., 1990,
Morgan, 1996). It is the use of social interaction which distinguishes it from other qualitative research methodologies
(Merton et al., 1990).

The recent popularity being enjoyed by FGD is not necessarily because it is the best conduit of eliciting quality
qualitative data, but because of its convenient and economic usage. These seem to have been the driving force for
its recent popularity. Despite the popularity of FGD, it is fraught with some flaws including the less control it offers to
researchers in the interview process (Krueger, 1994). Further, it is susceptible to the dangers groupthink may pose
on individual participants responses, which can significantly impact on the outcome of studies. In this paper, the
efficacy of FGD as a data collection methodology is put on the line by empirically comparing and contrasting data
from FGD and one-on-one interviews to ascertain the consistency in terms of data retrieved from respondents. The
study is guided by the hypothesis that data obtained by FGD may be influenced by groupthink rather than individual
respondent’s perspectives.

This paper is critical for a couple of reasons. First, the fact that qualitative social research approach has gained much
momentum recently means that methodologies supporting this research design are constantly evaluated as a critical
step in adding to their qualities. The second reason is to evaluate the quality of FGD in a way different from the
conventional assessment format generally based on its constitution involving group formation, discussion settings,
numerical strength of groups, general motivation, and quality of facilitation/moderation. Granted that no research
methodology is perfect, efforts need to be made periodically in appraising the social methods in order to design
feasible ways of improving upon them. This is critical because the value of social research, no doubt, dwells mainly
on quality data. There is dearth of literature on the evaluation of social research methodologies, hence the need to
contribute in filling this void through this study.
54
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

Potential Impact of Groupthink on the Outcome of Focus Group Discussion

Groupthink is a psychological observable fact that occurs within groups of people. It is the manner of thoughts that
happens when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overshadows a pragmatic appraisal of
alternatives. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of
alternative perspectives (Turner & Pratkanis,1998). Most of the initial research on groupthink was performed by
Irving Janis. In an influential 1972 book, his original definition of the term was "A mode of thinking that people engage
in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their
motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action (Janis, 1972). Following Janis, other studies have
attempted to reformulate the groupthink model. Notable among them include Hart (1998), who developed a concept
of groupthink as premised upon collective optimism and collective avoidance. In looking at the correlation between
social influence and decision-making, McCauley (1989) pointed to the tremendous impact of conformity and
compliance in groups decisions.

The principal social cost of groupthink, however, is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent
thinking (Turner & Pratkanis, 1998). Whether groupthink occurs in a situation is largely a subjective perception
(Schafer and Crichlow, 1996). But it is undeniable the fact that groupthink has the potential to impact on reactions
from individuals in group situations. Groups are, without a doubt, cogent social interaction capable of wielding
significant influence - could be positive or negative - on decision-making. They can sometimes encourage individuals
to conform to behaviours and actions that they would otherwise not engaged in. Famous classical experimentations
by Stanley Milgram (1963, 1965) and Solomon Asch (1952) amply reveal the tremendous impact that a groupthink
can have on individual behaviour and action when in a group situation.

Method of Study

In order to place FGD under the microscope, another social research methodology - social experimentation - was
adopted. Two focus group discussions were organized on relationship between stress, domestic violence, and
health. Two groups composed of six members each were constituted to dilate on the issue. Their responses were
noted in the focus groups discussion. This was followed up with a one-on-one qualitative interview with the same
respondents. The later interview was based on the same theme but couched a little bit differently in a form similar to
the test-retest approach.

The rationale was to ascertain if the responses from the focus groups discussion departed significantly from that of
the one-on one qualitative interview. This was done to check if groupthink had an influence on the responses that
emanated from the two focus group discussions. The problem with this approach, however, was ensuring that the
differences in the responses from the groups and the one-on-one interviews, if any, was attributable to groupthink.
The limitation was how to control for potential sources of spuriousness between the variables groupthink and
individual responses in focus groups discussion. A way of counteracting the spuriousness between the independent
and dependent variables in the study's hypothesis was to ensure a brief period between the focus groups
discussion and the one-on-one interview.

Analysis, Conclusion and Recommendations

A critical scrutiny of the data that emanated from the two organized focus groups discussion departed quite
significantly from the data that was elicited from the one -on-one qualitative interviews. A number of inferences can
be made out of the above revelation. Prominent inference, however, is the confirmation of FGD as not fully insulated
from groupthink.

The case where groupthink offset individual responses may be attributed to many external variables as well,
including the overall organization, constitution, composition, and even the participants motivation during the FGD
session. Consequently, to control for any spuriousness in the correlation between the variables - groupthink and
differences in results outcome - the respondents were made to recall their experiences in the FGD during the one-on-
one qualitative interviews. It was unanimously expressed by the respondents that they never felt pressurized being
part of the FGD. Majority of them, however, felt shy to delve deeper into their experiences because they did not know
the other respondents and for that matter could not entrust them with details about their private lives. It is believed
that the "hold back" attitude of the respondents primarily accounted for the disparity found in the two data sets. At
best, sensitive social topics, like the one used for this study, with direct personal implications for respondents should
not be premised on FGD.
55
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 7; April 2012

Groupthink, thus comes into the equation because the fact that majority of the respondents could not open up with
their experiences in relation to the subject/themes implied that they had to concur and conform with the experiences
of the few who could open up to fit into the group's orientation. Evidently, FGD in spite of its widely acclaimed
popularity as a social research methodology because of its convenience and economical usage, can be fraught with
some limitations. These limitations are rooted in the potential adverse impact that groupthink may have on the
outcome of FGD.

On the contrary, FGD can also provide the necessary enlightening and conceptual tool to educate respondents more
on a non-sensitive subject to enable them relate well to it, and not necessary be swayed or influenced by groupthink.
FGD can spark off one another, suggesting different dimensions and nuances of the original problem that any one
participant might not have thought of. Sometimes a totally different understanding of a problem emerges from the
group discussion (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). It is therefore no surprise the fact that researchers hold different opinions as
to the amount of agreement needed within a group to conclude the occurrence of groupthink in social research
outcome (Schafer and Crichlow, 1996).

That said, caution has to be exercised in ensuring that groupthink does not take away the individuality, uniqueness,
and independent thinking expected of respondents. Such a caution is critical in lieu of the revelation in the literature
that the primary socially negative cost of groupthink may be the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and
independent thinking (Turner & Pratkanis, 1998).

Even though all research methodologies do have some rough edges to it, it is important the respective negativities
rendering them not fully functional are identified and addressed so as to yield quality data, which invariably defines
the outcome of scientific research. Identifying groupthink as a potential danger to the outcome of FGD is therefore a
step in the right direction.

The following recommendations are worth considering in improving the efficacy of FGD as a social research
methodology rooted in social interaction. Though FGD can stand unilaterally as a research methodology for a study,
it is recommended that where researchers have the resources they should be encouraged to adopt FGD in league
with other methodologies in a form of triangulation and mixed methodological approach. For example FGD, which
generates more sociologically-based data can be buttressed by one-on-one qualitative interview to elicit for a more
data on a subject/theme.
Facilitators or moderators should always remind themselves of the potential dangers that groupthink can pose on the
outcome of FGD by ensuring fair distribution of opportunities to all participants to voice out their perspectives. FGD
participants voluntary assumption of leadership roles and overly assertiveness should be professional discouraged.
Individual participants in FGD should be discouraged as much as possible from socially distancing themselves from
the others, in order not to influence or dictate indirectly the outcome of responses.

The constitution and composition of FGD as a homogeneous group, though difficult to be realistically attained always,
should be strived for by FGD organizers to place all participants on the same pedestal. This will aid in counteracting
unnecessary influence other participants may wield on their colleagues and groupthink for that matter. Another way
of minimizing the potential impact of groupthink in FGD is to adopt the extended focus group technique. This entails a
survey administration to participants prior to the FGD itself. The survey basically includes materials to be discussed
at the FGD. Such surveys enable participants to develop a commitment to a stance or perspective prior to the FGD
(Sussman et al., 1991), so they do not easily become swayed by the group.

The extended focus group can also come after the real FGD to minimize the impact the exposure to some of the
discussed questions prior to the real FGD may pose on participants reaction in the group session. In the post FGD
situation, an administration of a brief survey interview is offered to participants to capture their summary or overall
views of on the subject/theme discussed. Such a follow-up survey interviews will also offer respondent another
opportunity to express views they could not expressed in the earlier discussion, or clarify further on points or stance
already expressed. This, surely, can impact positively on the quality of the data. The disadvantage here though is
that some participants who have already been overly influenced by the group may still be stuck to the group's
orientation.

Organizers of FGD as a tool for qualitative field research need to be mindful that not all social qualitative topics lend
themselves for the application of the FGD. Studies on sensitive topics with personal implications for respondents
should not be premised on FGD.
56
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

This is because respondents may struggle or become hesitant to share with a third party for fear of stigmatization,
breaking of confidentiality, and trust. Social research topics to be studied should, therefore, be taken into serious
cognizance in the selection of FGD as a qualitative research methodology.

References

Asch, S. (1958). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In Readings in Social
Psychology, (3rd Edition, Edited by Eleanor E. Maccoby et al.), pp.174-183, New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Babbie, E. (2011). The Basics of Social Research, (5th Edition). WADSWORTH CENGAGE Learning.
Hart, P. (1998). Preventing groupthink revisited: evaluating and reforming groups in government. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73 (2&3): 306–326.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: a Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus Groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, (2nd Edition), Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McCauley, C. (1989). The nature of social influence in groupthink: compliance and internalization". Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 250– 260.
Merton R.K., Fiske M. & Kendall P.L. (1990). The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures, 2nd
edn. Free Press, New York.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 67: 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18: 57-76.
Morgan, D. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review Sociology, 22, 129–152. Annual review inc.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schafer, M.; Crichlow, S. (1996). Antecedents of groupthink: a quantitative study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40
(3): 415–435.
Sussman, S., Burton, D., Dent, C. W., Stacy, A. W., & Flay, B. R. (1991). Use of focus groups in developing an
adolescent tobacco use in cessation program: Collection norm effects. Journal of Applied Social
psychology, 21, 1772- 1782.
Turner, M. E.; Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: Lessons from the
evaluation of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73: 105–115.