Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionV. Learning Theories 16. Bandura: Social
Cognitive Theory© The McGraw−Hill^489
Companies, 2009and use it as a guide for future actions. Second, the consequences of our responses
motivate our anticipatory behavior; that is, we are capable of symbolically repre-
senting future outcomes and acting accordingly. We not only possess insight but also
are capable of foresight. We do not have to suffer the discomfort of cold tempera-
tures before deciding to wear a coat when going outside in freezing weather. Instead,
we anticipate the effects of cold, wet weather and dress accordingly. Third, the con-
sequences of responses serve to reinforce behavior, a function that has been firmly
documented by Skinner (Chapter 15) and other reinforcement theorists. Bandura
(1986), however, contends that, although reinforcement may at times be unconscious
and automatic, complex behavioral patterns are greatly facilitated by cognitive in-
tervention. He maintained that learning occurs much more efficiently when the
learner is cognitively involved in the learning situation and understands what behav-
iors precede successful responses.
In summary, Bandura believes that new behaviors are acquired through two
major kinds of learning: observational learning and enactive learning. The core ele-
ment of observational learning is modeling, which is facilitated by observing appro-
priate activities, properly coding these events for representation in memory, actually
performing the behavior, and being sufficiently motivated. Enactive learning allows
people to acquire new patterns of complex behavior through direct experience by
thinking about and evaluating the consequences of their behaviors. The learning
process allows people to have some degree of control over the events that shape the
course of their lives. Control, however, rests with a three-way reciprocal interaction
of person variables, behavior, and environment.
Triadic Reciprocal Causation
In Chapter 15, we saw that Skinner believed that behavior is a function of the envi-
ronment; that is, behavior ultimately can be traced to forces outside the person. As
environmental contingencies change, behavior changes. But what impetus changes
the environment? Skinner acknowledged that human behavior can exercise some
measure of countercontrol over the environment, but he insisted that, in the final
analysis, behavior is environmentally determined. Other theorists, such as Gordon
Allport (Chapter 13) and Hans Eysenck (Chapter 14) emphasized the importance of
traits or personal disposition in shaping behavior. In general, these theorists held that
personal factors interact with environmental conditions to produce behavior.
Albert Bandura (1986, 1999b, 2001, 2002b) adopts quite a different stance.
His social cognitive theory explains psychological functioning in terms of triadic re-
ciprocal causation.This system assumes that human action is a result of an interac-
tion among three variables—environment, behavior, and person. By “person” Ban-
dura means largely, but not exclusively, such cognitive factors as memory,
anticipation, planning, and judging. Because people possess and use these cognitive
capacities, they have some capacity to select or to restructure their environment: That
is, cognition at least partially determines which environmental events people attend
to, what value they place on these events, and how they organize these events for
future use. Although cognition can have a strong causal effect on both environment
and behavior, it is not an autonomous entity, independent of those two variables.
Bandura (1986) criticized those theorists who attribute the cause of human behavior
Chapter 16 Bandura: Social Cognitive Theory 483