Social Cognitive Theory Essay | Essays (university) Social Work

Morris 1

Social Cognitive Theory

Beverly P. Morris

In this essay I will discuss what I have learned about social cognitive theory. I will give an

overview of the main functional components of the theory and discuss how social cognitive

theory can be applied to understanding exigent situations described in various readings on this

topic.

Social cognitive theory accounts for the social origin of human thought and action.

Albert Bandura, Ph.D. developed social cognitive theory (SCT) in the 1980s. In Social

Foundations of Thought & Action: A Social Cognitive Theory” Bandura writes that SCT expands

the scope of its precursor, social learning theory, by encompassing “psychosocial phenomena

that extend beyond issues of learning” (Foundations xii). He distinguishes STC from social

learning theory by explaining the two-part meaning of the new label. “The social portion of the

terminology acknowledges the social origins of much human thought and action; the cognitive

portion recognizes the influential causal contribution of thought processes to human

motivation, affect, and action. The relabeling carries no claim of theoretical parentage”

(Foundations xii).

From the SCT perspective, human functioning is influenced by the reciprocal interaction

of various behavioral determinants, cognitive and other personal factors, and environmental

events (Foundations 18). Humans exercise certain capabilities within this reciprocal framework

to function successfully. The capabilities are symbolizing, forethought, vicarious, self-regulatory,

self-reflective, and inherent.

 Symbolizing capability—the human capacity for symbolizing affords freedom from the

onerous and sometimes dangerous trial-and-error process of learning from experience.

Symbolizing allows abstract thought through which the individual can conceptualize

possible experience and test it out with rational thought.

 Forethought capability—Most human behavior is purposive and therefore “regulated

by forethought” (Foundations 19). Forethought can entail weighing probable

consequences of actions, establishing goals, and planning courses of action (Foundations

19). Symbolizing is a tool for carrying out forethought. It enables the individual to

conceptualize a behavior and its outcome and create motivation or inhibition to guide

the selection of a course of action.

 Vicarious capability—A person can learn a behavior by observing the actions of others

and the consequences of those actions. The human capacity for learning vicariously also

precludes the need for the trial-and-error, learning-by-action approach to achieving

behavior. Humans learn many important activities by modeling observed behavior—

language, for example, or driving a car. The human capability for vicarious experience is

fed by burgeoning mass communications outlets that provide a rich symbolic

environment that expands modeling opportunities.

Partial preview of the text

Download Social Cognitive Theory Essay and more Essays (university) Social Work in PDF only on Docsity!

Social Cognitive Theory

Beverly P. Morris

In this essay I will discuss what I have learned about social cognitive theory. I will give an overview of the main functional components of the theory and discuss how social cognitive theory can be applied to understanding exigent situations described in various readings on this topic.

Social cognitive theory accounts for the social origin of human thought and action. Albert Bandura, Ph.D. developed social cognitive theory (SCT) in the 1980s. In Social Foundations of Thought & Action: A Social Cognitive Theory” Bandura writes that SCT expands the scope of its precursor, social learning theory , by encompassing “psychosocial phenomena that extend beyond issues of learning” ( Foundations xii). He distinguishes STC from social learning theory by explaining the two-part meaning of the new label. “The social portion of the terminology acknowledges the social origins of much human thought and action; the cognitive portion recognizes the influential causal contribution of thought processes to human motivation, affect, and action. The relabeling carries no claim of theoretical parentage” ( Foundations xii).

From the SCT perspective, human functioning is influenced by the reciprocal interaction of various behavioral determinants, cognitive and other personal factors, and environmental events ( Foundations 18). Humans exercise certain capabilities within this reciprocal framework to function successfully. The capabilities are symbolizing, forethought, vicarious, self-regulatory, self-reflective, and inherent.

 Symbolizing capability —the human capacity for symbolizing affords freedom from the onerous and sometimes dangerous trial-and-error process of learning from experience. Symbolizing allows abstract thought through which the individual can conceptualize possible experience and test it out with rational thought.  Forethought capability —Most human behavior is purposive and therefore “regulated by forethought” ( Foundations 19). Forethought can entail weighing probable consequences of actions, establishing goals, and planning courses of action ( Foundations 19). Symbolizing is a tool for carrying out forethought. It enables the individual to conceptualize a behavior and its outcome and create motivation or inhibition to guide the selection of a course of action.  Vicarious capability —A person can learn a behavior by observing the actions of others and the consequences of those actions. The human capacity for learning vicariously also precludes the need for the trial-and-error, learning-by-action approach to achieving behavior. Humans learn many important activities by modeling observed behavior— language, for example, or driving a car. The human capability for vicarious experience is fed by burgeoning mass communications outlets that provide a rich symbolic environment that expands modeling opportunities.

 Self-regulatory capability —Individuals use a combination of personal and societal standards to evaluate their behavior and change it as necessary. This self-monitoring can have a motivational or inhibitory impact when a person is considering action  Self-reflective capability —Through self-reflection, people evaluate their behavior and make adjustments to it according to the consequences of the behavior and its compliance with internal and external (society) standards. This “metacognitive activity” is integral to the individual’s perception of their self-efficacy, or competence. Bandura points out that self-reflection can also produce faulty thought patterns ( Foundations 21).  Human nature — “Genetic factors affect behavioral potentialities” ( Foundations 22). Human action is a combination of learned cognitive abilities and inborn psycho- physiological factors.

Also, key to SCT are the concepts of agency and self-efficacy. In “Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context,” Bandura writes, “Successful functioning requires an agentic blend of individual, proxy, and collective modes (“Cultural”, 269). The individual is an agent who intentionally influences his own life. In some instances, an individual may need to call upon another individual or institution for help if he or she does not have access to certain resources of influence that the other individual or institution does have (proxy mode). Collective agency is achieved when individuals in a society pool their resources to affect a desired result.

Agency implies the ability to conceive of and affect action---cognition and behavior. SCT holds that self-efficacy is a determinant of how well an individual thinks and performs. Self- efficacy is the extent of the individual’s self-confidence in their competence to cope with various levels of challenge. “People tend to avoid tasks and situations they believe exceed their capabilities, but they undertake and perform assuredly activities they judge themselves capable of handling” ( Foundations 393).

STC identifies the determinant variables that influence social cognition and demonstrates how they interact. Bandura writes that “theories are interpreted in different ways depending on the stage of development of the field of study. In advanced disciplines, theories integrate laws; in less advanced fields, theories specify the determinants and mechanisms governing the phenomena of interest. It is in the latter sense that the term theory is used in this book ( Foundations xii).

Understanding the interaction of the determinant variables listed above promotes insight into behavior. In “Speaking Like a Man” in Teamsterville: Culture Patterns or Role Enactment in an Urban Neighborhood,” boys on a field trip, with an adult male leader from a different subcultural structure, experience dissonance because of the leader’s stated preference for talk over violence in responding to a threat to his girlfriend. SCT accounts for the dissonance and the boys’ rejection behavior toward the leader. The boys have modeled the behavior of the adult males in their neighborhood, a model that calls for a violent reaction to a perceived threat to their peers’ perception of their manhood. So, the field trip leader’s role as a leader does not compute. The boys cognitively determined model does not allow for the variable represented by the would-be leader.

Social cognitive theory, which was developed about 20 years ago, still stands as an operational model for studying human behavior, even in today’s rich symbolic mass media environment, which offers myriad opportunities for behavioral modeling.

Works Cited Abrums, Mary. “Jesus will fix it after awhile”: meanings and health.” Social Science & Medicine 50 (2000):89-105. Web. October 2008. Bandura, Albert. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall,

Print. ---. “Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context.” Applied Psychology: An International Review 51.2 (2002) 269-290. Web. 18 October 2008. <www.des.emory.edu/mfp/bandura2002ap.pdf>. ---. “Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication.” Mediapsychology 3 (2001):265-299. Web. October 2008. < http://njit.mrooms.net/mod/resource/view.php?id=5757>. Flower, Linda and John R. Hayes. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 32.4 (1981):365-387. Web. October 2008. http://njit.mrooms.net/mod/resource/view.php?id=5753. Philipsen, Gerry. “Speaking Like a Man” in Teamsterville: Culture Patterns or Role Enactment in an Urban Neighborhood.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 61 (1975):13-22. Web. October
http://njit.mrooms.net/mod/resource/view.php?id=5760.

Social Cognitive Theory Essay, Essays (university) of Social Work

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Social Cognitive Theory Essay and more Essays (university) Social Work in PDF only on Docsity!

Social Cognitive Theory