Zuckerman conducted research on a limited-domain aspect of personality called:

332 The Behavioral Approach

Inhaltsverzeichnis Show

What did Bandura believe about self reinforcement?
Which of the following is a characteristic of people who have internal locus of control?
Which of the following was evident from the research on Kelly's theory?
Which of the following is true according to research on the effect of the locus of control on mental and physical health quizlet?

punishment The appli- Punishment and Negative Reinforcement
cation of an aversive
stimulus following a Most operant-conditioning applications involve positive reinforcement rather than
response in an effort to punishment. The token-economy patients were not punished for failing to behave
decrease the likelihood appropriately. Instead, they were reinforced when their behavior changed in positive
that the response will ways. Skinner said that punishment was ineffective in changing behavior from undesir-
recur. able to desirable or from abnormal to normal. Positive reinforcement administered for
desirable behaviors is much more effective than punishment.
negative
reinforcement The What’s wrong with punishments is that they work immediately, but give no long-term results.
strengthening of a The responses to punishment are either the urge to escape, to counterattack, or a stubborn apa-
response by the thy. These are the bad effects you get in prisons or schools, or wherever punishments are used.
removal of an aversive (Skinner quoted in Goleman, 1987)
stimulus.
Negative reinforcement is not the same as punishment. A negative reinforcer is an
aversive or noxious stimulus, the removal of which is rewarding. In the laboratory or
classroom, an operant-conditioning situation can be established in which the
unpleasant stimulus (such as a loud noise or an electric shock) will continue until
the subject emits the desired response. As with positive reinforcement, the environ-
ment changes as a consequence of the behavior; in this case, the noxious stimulus will
disappear.

We can see examples of negative reinforcement in everyday situations. A person may
stop smoking to avoid the aversive stimulus of a nagging spouse or colleague. The aver-
sive stimulus (the nagging) should cease when the desirable behavior (not lighting a cig-
arette in the home or office) is displayed. Skinner opposed using noxious stimuli to
modify behavior, noting that the consequences were not as predictable as with positive
reinforcement. Also, negative reinforcement does not always work, whereas positive rein-
forcement is more consistently effective.

Questions about Human Nature

Skinner’s position is clear on the nature–nurture issue. People are primarily products of
learning, shaped more by external variables than genetic factors. We may infer that
childhood experiences are more important in Skinner’s view than are later experiences
because our basic behaviors are formed in childhood. However, this does not mean that
behavior cannot change in adulthood.

What is learned in childhood can be modified, and new behavior patterns can be
acquired at any age. The success of behavior modification programs verifies that assertion.
Skinner’s belief that behavior is shaped by learning also leads us to conclude that each
person is unique. Because we are shaped by experience—and we all have different experi-
ences, particularly in childhood—no two people will behave in precisely the same way.

Skinner did not address the issue of an ultimate and necessary goal. He made no ref-
erence to overcoming inferiority, reducing anxiety, or striving for self-actualization. Such
motives assume internal, subjective states, which Skinner did not accept.

Any indication of a life goal in Skinner’s work seems to be societal, not individual. In
his novel Walden Two and in other writings, he discussed his notion of the ideal human
society. He stated that individual behavior must be directed toward the type of society
that has the greatest chance of survival.

On the issue of free will versus determinism, Skinner believed people function like
machines, in lawful, orderly, predetermined ways. He rejected all suggestions of an
inner being or autonomous self that determines a course of action or chooses to act
freely and spontaneously.

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Chapter 12: B. F. Skinner: Reinforcement Theory 333

From Skinner’s scholarly writings to his popular novel about a utopian society based
on operant conditioning his message is the same: Behavior is controlled by reinforcers. In a
sense, this means that it is pointless to blame or punish people for their actions. In this view,
a dictator who orders the mass killing of thousands of people, or a serial killer who murders
a dozen, can no more be held responsible for their actions than can a driverless car that
plunges down a hill. Both operate in lawful, predictable ways, controlled by external
variables.

Are we left, then, with a pessimistic conception of people as helpless and passive
robots, unable to play any active role in determining their behavior? That is not
Skinner’s complete view. Despite his belief that behavior is controlled by external stimuli
and reinforcers, we are certainly not victims. Although controlled by our environment,
we are responsible for designing that environment.

Our buildings, cities, consumer goods, factories, media, and government institutions
are the result of human fabrication. So, too, are our social systems, languages, laws, cus-
toms, and recreations. We constantly change our environment, often to our advantage.
When we do so, we are acting as both controller and controlled. We design the control-
ling culture, and we are products of that culture. “We may not be free agents,” he wrote,
“but we can do something about our lives, if we would only rearrange the controls that
influence our behavior…. I am not trying to change people. All I want to do is change
the world in which they live” (quoted in Bjork, 1993, pp. 16, 233).

functional analysis An Assessment in Skinner’s Theory
approach to the study
of behavior that Skinner did not use the typical assessment techniques favored by other theorists. There
involves assessing the was no place in his work for free association, dream analysis, or projective techniques.
frequency of a behav- Because he was not dealing directly with personality, he really had no interest in asses-
ior, the situation in sing it. He did, however, assess behavior.
which it occurs, and
the reinforcers associ- In the application of his behavior-modification techniques, it is necessary to first assess
ated with it. specific behaviors, both desirable and undesirable. Also to be assessed are the environmen-
tal factors that serve as reinforcers and that can be manipulated to alter behavior. No
behavior can be modified appropriately without such prior assessment. Skinner’s approach
to assessing behavior is called functional analysis and it involves three aspects of behavior.

1. The frequency of the behavior
2. The situation in which the behavior occurs
3. The reinforcement associated with the behavior

Unless these factors have been evaluated, it is not possible to plan and implement a
behavior modification program.

Consider a functional analysis for cigarette smokers who want to break the smoking
habit. The smokers are asked to keep an accurate record of the number of cigarettes they
smoke each day and the situations in which they smoke. Does smoking occur in a par-
ticular place or at a certain time? In the presence of others or when alone? After meals or
while driving? And what are the reinforcers? Most smokers smoke more frequently in
the presence of certain stimuli. Identifying these stimuli is necessary because modifying
the stimuli should lead to a change in the smoking behavior.

Direct Observation of Behavior

Three approaches to assessing behavior are direct observation, self-reports, and physio-
logical measurements. Many behaviors can be assessed through direct observation. Usu-
ally, two or more people conduct the observation to assure accuracy and reliability. For
example, in a classic report of a behavior modification situation, a woman sought

334 The Behavioral Approach

treatment for her 4-year-old son whose behavior was considered unruly (Hawkins, Peter-
son, Schweid, & Bijou, 1966). Two psychologists observed the mother and child in their
home to evaluate the nature and frequency of the child’s undesirable behaviors, when
and where they occurred, and the reinforcers the child received for the behaviors.

Nine undesirable behaviors were identified, including kicking, throwing things, biting,
and pushing a sibling. The psychologists observed that the mother reinforced the child
by giving him toys or food when he behaved badly. Her intention was to get him to
stop misbehaving. Instead, she was rewarding him and thus reinforcing the misbehavior.
The direct observation assessment lasted 16 hours, but without it the psychologists
would not have known exactly which undesirable behaviors to try to eliminate or what
reinforcers the child expected.

With a comprehensive direct-observation program, it is possible to plan a course of
behavior modification. In this case, the psychologists instructed the mother to use atten-
tion and approval as reinforcers when the child behaved in positive ways and never to
reward him when he displayed one of the nine observed undesirable behaviors. The fre-
quency of the undesirable behaviors, as determined in the direct observation assessment,
provided a baseline against which to compare behavior during and after treatment.

Self-Reports of Behavior

Another approach to assessing behavior is the self-report technique carried out through
interviews and questionnaires. The person observes his or her own behavior and reports
on it. For example, a questionnaire may assess the extent of a person’s fear in situations
such as driving a car, going to the dentist, or speaking in public. Questionnaires for asses-
sing behavior are similar in format to self-report inventories that assess personality.

Physiological Measurements of Behavior

Physiological assessments of behavior include heart rate, muscle tension, and brain
waves. By recording such measurements, it is possible to evaluate the physiological
effects of various stimuli. The measures can also be used to confirm the accuracy of
information obtained by other assessment methods. For example, a person who is too
embarrassed to reveal in an interview or on a questionnaire a fear of being in an elevator
might exhibit a change in heart rate or muscle tension when asked about elevators.

Whatever assessment technique is chosen to assess behavior in different stimulus
situations, the focus remains on what people do, not on what might have motivated
them to do it. The ultimate goal is to modify behavior, not to change personality.

Research on Skinner’s Theory

As you can see, Skinner’s assessment methods differ radically from those used by other
theorists we have discussed. His research methods also diverged from mainstream exper-
imental psychology. The usual procedure is to study large groups of animal or human
subjects and to statistically compare their average responses. In contrast, Skinner pre-
ferred the intensive study of a single subject. He argued that data on the average perfor-
mance of groups is of little value in dealing with a particular case. A science that deals
with averages provides little information to help in understanding the unique individual.

Skinner believed that valid and replicable results could be obtained without statistical
analysis as long as sufficient data were collected from a single subject under well-
controlled experimental conditions. The use of large groups of subjects forced the exper-
imenter to deal with average behavior. The resulting data could not reflect individual
response behavior and individual differences in behavior.

Chapter 12: B. F. Skinner: Reinforcement Theory 335

Skinner and his followers conducted thousands of operant-conditioning experiments
on topics such as reinforcement schedules, language acquisition, behavior shaping, super-
stitious behavior, and behavior modification. The results have been highly supportive of
Skinner’s ideas.

instinctive drift The Reflections on Skinner’s Theory
substitution of instinc-
tive behaviors for Skinner’s approach has been criticized on several points. Those who oppose determinism
behaviors that had find much to dislike in Skinner’s views. The humanistic psychologists, who believe that
been reinforced. people are more complex than machines or rats or pigeons, object to Skinner’s image of
human nature. They argue that the exclusive emphasis on overt behavior ignores
uniquely human qualities such as conscious free will.

There has been criticism of the type of subject and the simplicity of the situations in
Skinner’s experiments. He made broad assertions and predictions about human behavior
and society—about social, economic, religious, and cultural issues—with considerable
confidence. But, some critics ask, can we extrapolate from a pigeon pecking at a disc to
a person functioning in the real world? The gap seems too vast to permit broad general-
izations. Many aspects of human behavior cannot be reduced meaningfully to the level at
which Skinner conducted his research.

Skinner’s belief that all behaviors are learned was challenged by two of his former stu-
dents who conditioned more than 6,000 animals of 38 different species to perform for
television commercials and tourist attractions. The animals included pigs, raccoons,
chickens, hamsters, porpoises, whales, and cows. The animals displayed a tendency
toward instinctive drift by substituting instinctive behaviors for the behaviors that had
been reinforced, even when the instinctive behaviors interfered with receiving food.

In one example, pigs and raccoons were conditioned to pick up a coin, carry it some
distance, and deposit it in a toy bank (a piggy bank, of course). When the animals had
deposited a certain number of coins, they were given food as a reinforcer. They learned
the desired behaviors quickly,

but after having performed the sequence nicely for some time, they began to engage in unde-

sirable behaviors, at least from the viewpoint of the trainers. Pigs would stop on their way [to
the bank], bury the coin in the sand, and take it out with their snout; raccoons would spend a

lot of time handling the coin, with their well-known washing-like movements. This was at first

amusing, but eventually it became time-consuming and would make the whole show appear
very imperfect to the spectator. Commercially, it was a disaster. (Richelle, 1993, p. 68)

What had happened was that instinctive behavior, such as the pigs’ rooting in the dirt
and the raccoons’ rubbing their paws as if washing their hands, came to take precedence
over the learned behavior, even though it meant a delay in receiving the reinforcement
(the food). The trainers published an article on the phenomenon called “The Misbehav-
ior of Organisms” (Breland & Breland, 1961). This was a parody of the title of Skinner’s
groundbreaking book, The Behavior of Organisms (1938), and it reportedly left Skinner
feeling displeased (Gillaspy, 2009).

Skinner ignored most of the criticisms of his work. He told an interviewer about one
critic’s book review, “I read a bit of it and saw that he missed the point…. There are
better things to do with my time than clear up their misunderstandings” (quoted
in Rice, 1968). When asked how he dealt with being misunderstood so frequently, he
said, “I find that I need to be understood only three or four times a year” (quoted in
Blackman, 1995, p. 126).

Skinner was a potent force in 20th-century American psychology. He shaped the field
perhaps more than any other individual. The Journal of the Experimental Analysis of

336 The Behavioral Approach

Behavior, begun in 1958, publishes research on the behavior of individual subjects. In
1968, the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis was established as an outlet for work on
behavior-modification techniques.

The American Psychological Foundation awarded Skinner its Gold Medal, and the
American Psychological Association gave him the Distinguished Scientific Contribu-
tion Award (1958). The citation reads: “Few American psychologists have had so
profound an impact on the development of psychology and on promising younger
psychologists.”

Skinner’s first book on behaviorism, The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental
Analysis (Skinner, 1938), was described as one of the few books to truly change the
nature of the field (Thompson, 1988). Skinner also received the U.S. National Medal
of Science and appeared on the cover of Time, headlined as the world’s most famous
American psychologist. His controversial 1971 book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity,
became a best seller and made him a celebrity.

Skinner was, for a short period, the hottest item on national and big-city talk shows…. Within
a month, millions of Americans had read or heard about B. F. Skinner and Beyond Freedom
and Dignity. He was “completely swamped” by mail, telephone calls, and visits…. Strangers
often asked to shake his hand in restaurants. He had, as one writer noted, “acquired the celeb-
rity of a movie or TV star.” (Bjork, 1993, p. 192)

Current Status
Although Skinner’s radical behaviorist position continues to be applied in laboratory,
clinical, and organizational settings, its dominance has been challenged by the cogni-
tive movement in psychology, which began in the 1960s. Skinner conceded that his
form of psychology lost ground to the cognitive approach. Other psychologists
agreed, noting that Skinnerian behaviorism had “fallen from favor among the major-
ity of active workers in the field [and was] often referred to in the past tense” (Baars,
1986, pp. viii, 1).

Despite the inroads of cognitive psychology, however, Skinner’s position remains influ-
ential in many areas, from classrooms to assembly lines, from Skinner boxes to treatment
programs for behavior disorders. Skinner believed that with operant conditioning he
offered a technique to improve human nature and the societies people design.

HIGHLIGHTS: Research on Skinner’s behaviorism has
found that

• The greater the reinforcement given during training, the more resistant is
the conditioned response to extinction

• Operant conditioning can shape most forms of behavior in humans and
animals

• Even a lobster can be conditioned
• American major league baseball players engage in more superstitious

behaviors than Japanese players do
• College students who measure high in self-control get better grades, are

better adjusted psychologically, and have higher self-esteem
• Token economy programs have reduced aggressive acts by cognitively

impaired patients by as much as 79 percent

Chapter 12: B. F. Skinner: Reinforcement Theory 337

Chapter Summary are positively reinforced; undesirable behaviors are
ignored. The token-economy approach rewards desir-
Skinner denied the existence of an entity called person- able behaviors with tokens that can be used to acquire
ality and did not seek causes of behavior within the objects of value. Behavior modification deals only with
organism. Mental and physiological processes are not overt behavior and uses positive reinforcement, not
overtly observable, so they have no relevance for sci- punishment. Negative reinforcement involves remov-
ence. The causes of behavior are external to the organ- ing an aversive or noxious stimulus. It is less effective
ism. Behavior can be controlled by its consequences, by than positive reinforcement.
the reinforcer that follows the behavior. Respondent
behavior involves a response elicited by specific envi- Skinner’s image of human nature emphasizes deter-
ronmental stimuli. Conditioning (respondent behavior minism, uniqueness, the importance of the environ-
that is learned) involves substituting one stimulus for ment, and the design of a society that maximizes the
another. opportunity for survival. Although people are con-
trolled by the environment, they can exert control by
Conditioning will not occur without reinforcement. designing that environment properly.
Operant behavior is emitted and is determined and
modified by the reinforcer that follows it. Operant Skinner assessed behavior (not personality) using
behavior operates on the environment and changes it. functional analyses to determine the frequency of the
Personality is simply a pattern of operant behaviors. behavior, the situation in which the behavior occurred,
Reinforcement schedules include fixed interval, fixed and the reinforcers associated with the behavior. Three
ratio, variable interval, and variable ratio. Shaping (suc- ways to assess behavior are direct observation, self-
cessive approximation) involves reinforcing the organ- report, and physiological measures.
ism only as its behavior comes to approximate the
behavior desired. Superstitious behavior results when Skinner’s system has considerable empirical support
reinforcement is presented on a fixed- or variable- but has been criticized for its deterministic view, the
interval schedule. Whatever behavior is occurring at simplicity of the experimental situations, the lack of
the moment of reinforcement will come to be displayed interest in behavior other than response rate, and the
more frequently. failure to consider human qualities that set us apart
from rats and pigeons. Skinner’s techniques for the
Self-control of behavior refers to altering or avoiding modification of behavior using operant conditioning
certain external stimuli and reinforcers. Other self- remain popular, but his behavioristic position has
control techniques are satiation, aversive stimulation, been overtaken by the cognitive movement within
and self-reinforcement for displaying desirable behaviors. psychology.

Behavior modification applies operant-conditioning
techniques to real-world problems. Desirable behaviors

Review Questions 6. Distinguish between positive reinforcement, nega-
tive reinforcement, and punishment.
1. In what ways does Skinner’s approach to person-
ality differ from other approaches we have 7. In Skinner’s view, why is positive reinforcement
discussed? more effective than punishment in changing
behavior?
2. How did Skinner justify the use of rats and pigeons
instead of humans as subjects in the study of 8. Explain the difference between the fixed-interval
behavior? and variable-interval schedules of reinforcement.

3. How did Skinner’s childhood experiences 9. Which reinforcement schedule applies to the per-
influence his later approach to studying behavior? son who sells computer software on commission?
Which schedule applies to the child who is allowed
4. Distinguish between operant behavior and to have an ice-cream cone for good behavior only
respondent behavior. Give an example of each. occasionally?

5. Describe Pavlov’s classical-conditioning experi-
ment with dogs. How did Pavlov extinguish con-
ditioned responses?

338 The Behavioral Approach

10. Explain how a complex behavior such as learning 16. Why did Skinner prefer to study the individual
to speak is acquired through successive case rather than groups of subjects?
approximation.
17. What was Skinner’s position on the nature–
11. Describe how you would use the method of suc- nurture issue? On free will versus determinism?
cessive approximation to train a dog to walk in a
circle. 18. What techniques do Skinner’s followers use to
assess human behavior?
12. How does the notion of reinforcement account for
the acquisition of superstitious behaviors? 19. Discuss the impact of cognitive psychology on
Skinnerian behaviorism.
13. Explain the use of self-administered satiation in
getting rid of bad habits. 20. In your opinion, what is the value of Skinnerian
behaviorism compared to the other approaches we
14. What are the techniques for the self-control of have discussed so far?
behavior?

15. Describe the token-economy approach to behavior
modification. Give an example.

Suggested Readings O’Donohue, W., & Ferguson, K. E. (2001). The psy-
chology of B. F. Skinner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Antony, M., & Roemer, L. (2011). Behavior therapy. Presents a clearly written and balanced look at the
Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa- controversies surrounding Skinner’s work on
tion. A readable and concise overview of the history behaviorism, cognition, verbal behavior, and applied
and nature of behavior therapy, focusing on both behavior analysis. Includes Skinner’s ideas for
the theoretical and practical aspects. improving society as a whole, as well as a brief
biography.
Baumeister, R., & Tierney, J. (2012). Willpower: Redis-
covery of the greatest human strength. New York: Pryor, K. (2006). Don’t shoot the dog: The new art of
Penguin. Covers the current status of self-control in teaching and training. (3rd ed.). Lydney, England:
psychology and in daily life—how to achieve and Ringpress Books. Shows the practical value of
strengthen it; reviews the extensive research on the behavior-modification techniques in teaching dogs,
topic as well as real-world applications. children, students, and employees.

Miltenberger, R. (2015). Behavior modification: Princi- Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden Two. New York: Mac-
ples and procedures (6th ed.). San Francisco: millan. Skinner’s novel about human values and
Cengage. A textbook on behavior modification and conduct in a utopian society based on behaviorist
the wide range of applications in everyday situa- principles.
tions; everything you might need to know about
behavior modification and how to use it! Skinner, B. F. (1976). Particulars of my life; (1979). The
shaping of a behaviorist; (1983). A matter of conse-
Nye, R. D. (1992). The legacy of B. F. Skinner: Concepts quences. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Skinner’s
and perspectives, controversies and misunderstand- three-volume autobiography.
ings. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. A primer on
Skinner’s basic concepts and their relevance for Skinner, B. F. (1987). Upon further reflection.
behavior in today’s world. Examines controversies Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Essays on cog-
and misunderstandings surrounding Skinner’s views nitive psychology, verbal behavior, education, and
and compares his system with those of Freud and self-management in old age.
Rogers.

The Social-Learning Approach

The social-learning approach to personality, represented here by the work of
Albert Bandura, is an outgrowth of, and rebellion against, Skinner’s behaviorist
approach. Like Skinner, Bandura focused on overt behavior rather than on inner
needs, traits, drives, or defense mechanisms. Unlike Skinner, Bandura allowed for
internal cognitive variables that mediate between stimulus and response. For
Bandura, the organism is not empty.

Bandura investigated cognitive variables with a high degree of experimental
sophistication and rigor, drawing inferences from careful observations of behav-
ior in the laboratory. He observed the behavior of human subjects in social set-
tings, whereas Skinner dealt with animal subjects in individual settings. Bandura
agreed with Skinner that behavior is learned and that reinforcement is vital to
learning, but he differed from Skinner in his interpretation of the nature of
reinforcement.

Bandura and Skinner both attempted to understand personality through labo-
ratory research rather than clinical work, but their principles have been widely
applied in the clinical setting through behavior-modification techniques. Because
Bandura used cognitive variables, his work reflected and reinforced the cognitive
movement in psychology. His approach has also been called cognitive-behavioral
in recognition of this emphasis.

339

13chapter

Albert Bandura: Fair Use
Modeling Theory
Virtually every
phenomenon that occurs
by direct experience can
occur vicariously as well—
by observing other people
and the consequences for
them.

—Albert Bandura

Vicarious Reinforcement Adolescence
The Role of Cognitive Processes Adulthood
A Less Extreme Form of Behaviorism Old Age

The Life of Bandura (1925–) Behavior Modification

Get Drunk or Go to School Fears and Phobias
Finding Psychology Advantages of Modeling Therapy
Anxiety
Modeling: The Basis of Observational Ethical Issues in Behavior Modification
Learning
Questions about Human Nature
Bobo the Inflatable Doll
Other Modeling Studies Assessment in Bandura’s Theory
Disinhibition
The Effects of Society’s Models Research on Bandura’s Theory
Characteristics of the Modeling Situation
Self-Efficacy
The Processes of Observational Collective Efficacy
Learning Self-Efficacy and the Internet
The Relationship between Aggressive Behavior
Attentional Processes
Retention Processes and Televised and Online Violence
Production Processes
Incentive and Motivational Processes Reflections on Bandura’s Theory

Self-Reinforcement and Self-Efficacy The Widespread Use of Role Models

Self-Reinforcement Chapter Summary
Self-Efficacy, or “Believing You Can”
Review Questions
Developmental Stages of Self-Efficacy
Suggested Readings
Childhood

Bandura agreed with Skinner that behavior is learned, but with that point their sim-
ilarity ends. Bandura criticized Skinner’s emphasis on individual animal subjects
rather than on human subjects interacting with one another. Bandura’s approach
is a social-learning theory that investigates behavior as it is formed and modified
in a social context. He argued that we cannot expect data from experiments that
involve no social interaction to be relevant to the everyday, real world, because
very few people live in social isolation.

341

342 The Social-Learning Approach

observational learning Vicarious Reinforcement
Learning new
responses by observ- Although Bandura agreed with Skinner that much learning takes place as a result of rein-
ing the behavior of forcement, he also stressed that virtually all forms of behavior can be learned without
other people. directly experiencing any reinforcement. Bandura’s approach is also called observational
learning, indicating the importance in the learning process of observing other people’s
vicarious behavior.
reinforcement Learn-
ing or strengthening a Rather than experiencing reinforcement ourselves for each of our actions, we learn
behavior by observing through vicarious reinforcement by observing the behavior of other people and the
the behavior of others, consequences of that behavior. This focus on learning by observation or example,
and the consequences rather than always by direct reinforcement, is a distinctive feature of Bandura’s
of that behavior, rather theory.
than experiencing the
reinforcement or con- The Role of Cognitive Processes
sequences directly.
Another feature of Bandura’s observational-learning approach is its treatment of inter-
nal cognitive or thought processes. Unlike Skinner, Bandura believed that cognitive
processes can influence observational learning. We do not automatically imitate the
behaviors we see other people displaying. Rather, we make a deliberate, conscious
decision to behave in the same way. To learn through example and vicarious rein-
forcement we must be capable of anticipating and appreciating the consequences of
the behaviors we observe.

We can regulate and guide our behavior by visualizing or imagining those conse-
quences, even though we have not experienced them ourselves. No direct link exists
between stimulus and response or between behavior and reinforcer, as Skinner proposed.
Instead, our cognitive processes mediate between the two.

A Less Extreme Form of Behaviorism

Bandura presented a less extreme form of behaviorism than Skinner. He emphasized
the observation of others as a means of learning, and he considered learning to be
mediated by cognitive processes. His theory is based on rigorous laboratory research
with normal people in social interaction rather than a rat in a cage or a neurotic
person on a couch.

The Life of Bandura (1925–)

Get Drunk or Go to School

Bandura was born in the province of Alberta, Canada, in a town so small that his
high school had only two teachers and 20 students. His parents were immigrants
from Poland who emphasized the value of education. “You have a choice,” his
mother told him when he was young. “You can work in the field and get drunk in
the beer parlor, or you might get an education” (quoted in Foster, 2007, p. 3). He
chose an education.

During the summer following his graduation from high school, he took a construction
job in the wilderness of the Yukon Territory, filling holes in the Alaska Highway. It was
a unique experience for a bright, inquisitive young person.

Finding himself in the midst of a curious collection of characters, most of whom had fled cred-
itors, alimony, and probation officers, Bandura quickly developed a keen appreciation for the
psychopathology of everyday life, which seemed to blossom in the austere tundra. (Distin-
guished Scientific Contribution Award, 1981, p. 28)

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 343

Finding Psychology

He went to the University of British Columbia in Vancouver as an undergraduate and
took a course in psychology out of expediency. The carpool in which he commuted to
the campus every day included engineering and pre-med students, all of whom had
early-morning classes. Psychology was also offered in that time period, and so Bandura
enrolled in the course, not out of any real interest, but simply because it was a conve-
nient time. He quickly found the material fascinating and went on to earn his Ph.D. in
1952 from the University of Iowa.

After a year at the Wichita, Kansas, Guidance Center, he joined the faculty of Stan-
ford University, where he began his new approach to psychology. Challenging the lead-
ing position in the field (Skinner’s behaviorism) was a risky undertaking for a young
unknown psychologist. “When I began my career, more than half a century ago,” he
wrote in 2011, “behaviorism had a stranglehold on the field of psychology. . . . It was
in this inhospitable conceptual climate that I launched a program of research on the
determinants of observational learning” (Bandura, 2011).

He quickly became very successful and compiled an extensive record of publications.
In 1973, only 21 years after getting his Ph.D., he was elected president of the American
Psychological Association. In 1980, he received its Distinguished Scientific Contribution
Award and in 2006 was presented with the American Psychological Foundation’s Gold
Medal Award for Life Achievement.

Bandura’s sense of humor has often been directed at himself. When he was once asked
whether he walked to his office every day or drove his car, he said, “Both, sometimes in the
same day.” Having driven to work, he would become so absorbed in his ideas that he would
absentmindedly walk home, leaving his car in the university parking lot.

LOG ON

Albert Bandura

Various sites provide biographical information, discussions of his theory, research on rel-
evant concepts, and links to other resources.

modeling A behavior- Modeling: The Basis of Observational Learning
modification technique
that involves observing Bandura’s basic idea is that learning can occur through observation or example rather
the behavior of others than solely by direct reinforcement. Bandura did not deny the importance of direct rein-
(the models) and par- forcement as a way to influence behavior, but he challenged the notion that behavior can
ticipating with them in be learned or changed only through direct reinforcement. He argued that operant condi-
performing the desired tioning, in which trial-and-error behavior continues until the person happens upon the
behavior. correct response, is an inefficient and potentially dangerous way to learn certain skills
such as swimming or driving.

A person could drown or crash before finding the correct sequence of behaviors that
brings positive reinforcement. To Bandura, most human behavior is learned through
example, either intentionally or accidentally. We learn a wide and varied range of beha-
viors in our daily lives by simply observing other people and patterning our behavior
after theirs (see Gaskins & Paradise, 2010; Oates, 2012).

Bobo the Inflatable Doll

Through modeling, by observing the behavior of a model and repeating the behavior
ourselves, it is possible to acquire responses that we have never performed or displayed

344 The Social-Learning Approach Courtesy of Dr. Albert Bandura, Stanford University

In the Bobo doll studies, children exhibited aggressive behavior after observing an aggressive model.
before and to strengthen or weaken existing responses. Bandura’s now-classic demon-
stration of modeling involves the Bobo doll, an inflatable plastic figure about 4 feet tall
(Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963).
In Bandura’s studies, preschool children watched an adult hit and kick Bobo. While
attacking the doll, the adult model shouted, “Sock him in the nose!” and “Throw him in
the air!” When the children were left alone with the doll, they modeled their behavior
after the example they had just witnessed. Their behavior was compared with that of a
control group of children who had not seen the model attack the Bobo doll. The experi-
mental group was found to be twice as aggressive as the control group.
The intensity of the aggressive behavior remained the same in the experimental sub-
jects whether the model was seen live, on television, or as a cartoon character. The effect
of the model in all three media was to elicit aggressive behavior that was not displayed
with the same strength by children who had not seen the models.

Other Modeling Studies
In his early research on the impact of modeling on learning, Bandura compared the
behavior of parents of two groups of children (Bandura & Walters, 1963). One group
consisted of highly aggressive children, the other of more inhibited children. According
to Bandura’s theory, the children’s behavior should reflect their parents’ behavior. The
research showed that the parents of the inhibited children were inhibited, and the par-
ents of the aggressive children were aggressive. The children had modeled their behavior
on the examples provided by their parents.

Verbal modeling can induce certain behaviors, as long as the activities involved are
fully and adequately explained. Verbal modeling is often used to provide instructions, a
technique applicable to teaching such skills as driving a car. Verbal instructions are usu-
ally supplemented by behavioral demonstrations, such as when a driving instructor
serves as a model performing the behaviors involved in driving.

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 345

disinhibition The Disinhibition
weakening of inhibi-
tions or constraints by Research has shown that behaviors a person usually suppresses or inhibits may be per-
observing the behavior formed more readily under the influence of a model (Bandura, 1973, 1986). This phe-
of a model. nomenon, called disinhibition, refers to the weakening of an inhibition or restraint
through exposure to a model. For example, people in a crowd may start a riot, breaking
windows and shouting, exhibiting physical and verbal behaviors they would never per-
form when alone. They are more likely to discard their inhibitions against aggressive
behavior if they see other people around them doing so.

The disinhibition phenomenon can influence sexual behavior. In an experiment that
demonstrated how sexual responses could be disinhibited by models, a group of male
undergraduate college students was shown a film that contained erotic pictures of nude
males and females (Walters, Bowen, & Parke, 1963). The students were told that a spot
of light would move over the film, indicating the eye movements of a previous subject, to
show what parts of the pictures that subject looked at. Those alleged eye movements of
the previous subject represented the model. For half the subjects, the spot of light con-
centrated on breasts and genitals. For the other half, the light stayed in the background,
as though the model had avoided looking at the naked bodies.

After watching the film, the students were shown stills from the movie while their
eye movements were recorded. Those subjects whose model was considered
uninhibited (who had looked directly at the erotic parts of the bodies) behaved in the
same way. Those whose model had avoided looking at the nudes spent significantly more
time examining the background of the pictures. The researchers concluded that modeling
affected the subjects’ perceptual responses to the stimuli. In other words, modeling deter-
mined not only what the subjects did but also what they looked at and perceived.

Trolling Posting comments online following the example or model of others offers
the same anonymity as being in a large crowd. This can lead to an online form of disin-
hibition known as trolling—the posting of inflammatory, derogatory, or hateful messages
about a person or a group. Some adolescents have been driven to suicide by the cruel
and widespread comments directed at them by name (Zhuo, 2010).

Research on frequent video gamers found that those most into trolling were younger
and male. The reasons they gave for trolling were varied. Some did it for deliberate
revenge on someone else, while others trolled simply because they were bored, and
others out of amusement with no other purpose in mind (Thacker & Griffiths, 2012).

The good news is that the disinhibition effect seems to decline with age. A study of
young Americans ages 18 to 25 showed that disinhibition was strong among the 18- to
19-year-olds but greatly reduced among the 22- to 25-year-olds (Vaidya, Latzman,
Markon, & Watson, 2010).

The Effects of Society’s Models

On the basis of his extensive research, Bandura concluded that much of our behavior—
good and bad, normal and abnormal—is learned by imitating the behavior of other
people. From infancy on, we develop responses to the models our society offers us.
Beginning with parents as models, we learn their language and become socialized by
the culture’s customs and acceptable behaviors. People who deviate from cultural
norms have learned their behavior the same way as everyone else. The difference is that
deviant individuals have followed models the rest of society considers undesirable.

Bad Models Bandura was an outspoken critic of the type of society that provides
the wrong models for its children, particularly the examples of violent behavior that are

346 The Social-Learning Approach

standard fare on television and in movies and video games. His research clearly shows
the effect of models on behavior. If what we see is what we become, then the distance between
watching an aggressive animated character and committing a violent act ourselves is not
very great.

Among the many behaviors children acquire through modeling are non-rational fears.
A child who sees that his or her parents are fearful during thunderstorms or are nervous
around strangers will easily adopt these anxieties and carry them into adulthood with
little awareness of their origin. Of course, positive behaviors such as strength, courage,
and optimism will also be learned from parents and other models. In Skinner’s system,
reinforcers control behavior; for Bandura, it is the models who control behavior.

Characteristics of the Modeling Situation

Bandura and his associates (Bandura, 1977, 1986) investigated three factors found to
influence modeling:

• the characteristics of the models
• the characteristics of the observers
• the reward consequences associated with the behaviors

Characteristics of the models

Models Who Are Like Us The characteristics of the models affect our tendency to imi-
tate them. In real life, we may be more influenced by someone who appears to be similar
to us than by someone who differs from us in obvious and significant ways. In the labo-
ratory, Bandura found that although children imitated the behavior of a child model in
the same room, a child in a film, and a filmed cartoon character, the extent of the
modeling decreased as the similarity between the model and the subject decreased.

The children showed greater imitation of a live model than an animated character,
but even in the latter instance the modeled behavior was significantly greater than that
of the control group that observed no models.

Age and Sex of Models Other characteristics of the model that affect imitation are age
and sex. We are more likely to model our behavior after a person of the same sex than a
person of the opposite sex. Also, we are more likely to be influenced by models our own
age. Peers who appear to have successfully solved the problems we are facing are highly influ-
ential models.

Status of Models Status and prestige are also important factors. For example, pedes-
trians are much more likely to cross a street against a red light if they see a well-
dressed person crossing than if they see a poorly dressed person crossing. Television
commercials make effective use of high-status, high-prestige models with athletes or
celebrities who claim to use a particular product. The expectation is that consumers
will imitate their behavior and buy the advertised product.

Type of Behavior Displayed by Models The type of behavior the model performs
affects the extent of imitation. Highly complex behaviors are not imitated as quickly
and readily as simpler behaviors. Hostile and aggressive behaviors tend to be strongly
imitated, especially by children.

In one study, infants as young as 16 months learned to imitate the behavior of a
model using a tool, but only if they had been previously shown the object or purpose
of using the tool. They successfully imitated the behavior of a model using a rake after
they had been shown the use of the rake in retrieving a toy that was out of their reach
(Esseilly, Rat-Fischer, O’Regan, & Fagard, 2013).

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 347 selimaksan/iStockphoto.com

Research on American college students found that those who had observed a positive
relationship between a caregiver and a child successfully modeled that behavior in their
ongoing romantic relationships (Kuhn & Kinsky, 2013).
Size and Weight of Models The size and weight of a model can also influence behav-
ior. A study of 9th- and 10th-grade students in Canada found that those who attended a
school where the older students tended to be overweight, even obese, gained more weight
than students who attended a school where the older students were not overweight
(Leatherdale & Papadakis, 2011).
Characteristics of the observers
Age of Observers In infancy, modeling is limited to immediate imitation. Infants have
not yet developed the cognitive capacities (the imaginal and verbal representational sys-
tems) needed to imitate a model’s behavior some period of time after observing it. In
infancy, it is necessary for the modeled behavior to be repeated several times after the
infant’s initial attempt to duplicate it. Also, the modeled behavior must be within the
infant’s range of sensorimotor development. By about age 2, children have developed suffi-
cient attentional, retention, and production processes to begin imitating behavior some
time after the observation rather than immediately.

Children tend to imi-
tate the behavior of
an adult model of the
same sex who is
considered high in
status.

348 The Social-Learning Approach

The behaviors we find reinforcing, and thus choose to imitate, will change with age.
Younger children are reinforced primarily by physical stimuli such as food, affection, or
punishment. Older children associate positive physical reinforcers with signs of approval
from significant models and unpleasant reinforcers with signs of disapproval. Eventually
these rewards or punishments become self-administered.

Attributes of the Observers The attributes of the observers also determine the effec-
tiveness of observational learning. People who are low in self-confidence and self-
esteem are much more likely to imitate a model’s behavior than are people high in
self-confidence and self-esteem. A person who has been reinforced for imitating a
behavior—for example, a child rewarded for behaving like an older sibling—is more sus-
ceptible to the influence of models than a child who has not been so reinforced.

The reward consequences associated with the behaviors The reward conse-
quences linked to a particular behavior can affect the extent of the modeling and even over-
ride the impact of the characteristics of the models and the observers. A high-status model
may lead us to imitate a certain behavior, but if the rewards are not meaningful to us, we
will discontinue the behavior and be less likely to be influenced by that model in the future.

Seeing a model being rewarded or punished for displaying a particular behavior affects
imitation. In a Bobo doll study, some of the children watched as the model who hit the Bobo
doll was given praise and a soda and candy. Another group of children saw the model
receive verbal and physical punishment for the same aggressive behavior. The children
who observed the punishment displayed significantly less aggression toward the Bobo doll
than did the children who saw the model being reinforced (Bandura, 1965).

The Processes of Observational Learning

Bandura analyzed the nature of observational learning and found it to be governed by
four related mechanisms: attentional processes, retention processes, production pro-
cesses, and incentive and motivational processes (see Table 13.1).

Attentional Processes

Observational learning or modeling will not occur unless the subject pays attention to
the model. Merely exposing the subject to the model does not guarantee that the subject
will be attentive to the relevant cues and stimulus events or even perceive the situation
accurately. The subject must perceive the model accurately enough to acquire the infor-
mation necessary to imitate the model’s behavior.

Several variables influence attentional processes. In the real world, as in the laboratory,
we are more attentive and responsive to some people and situations than to others. Thus,
the more closely we pay attention to a model’s behavior, the more likely we are to imitate it.

We mentioned such characteristics as age, status, sex, and the degree of similarity
between model and subject. These factors help determine how closely a subject attends
to the model. It has also been found that celebrity models, experts, and those who appear
confident and attractive command greater attention and imitation than models who lack
these attributes. Some of the most effective models in American culture today appear on
television, YouTube, and other online sites. Viewers often focus on them even in the
absence of reinforcement.

Attention to modeled behavior varies as a function of the observers’ cognitive and per-
ceptual skills and the value of the behavior being modeled. The more highly developed are
our cognitive abilities and the more knowledge we have about the behavior being modeled,
the more carefully we will attend to the model and perceive the behavior.

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 349

TABLE 13.1 Observational learning processes

Attentional Developing our cognitive processes and perceptual skills so that we can
processes pay sufficient attention to a model, and perceiving the model accurately
enough, to imitate displayed behavior. Example: Staying awake during
Retention processes driver’s education class.

Production Retaining or remembering the model’s behavior so that we can imitate or
processes repeat it at a later time; for this, we use our cognitive processes to form
mental images and verbal descriptions of the model’s behavior. Example:
Incentive and moti- Taking notes on the lecture material or the video of a person driving a car.
vational processes
Translating the mental images or verbal symbolic representations of the
model’s behavior into our own overt behavior by physically producing
the responses and receiving feedback on the accuracy of our continued
practice. Example: Getting in a car with an instructor to practice shifting
gears and dodging the traffic cones in the school parking lot.

Perceiving that the model’s behavior leads to a reward and thus
expecting that our learning—and successful performance—of the same
behavior will lead to similar consequences. Example: Expecting that
when we have mastered driving skills, we will pass the state test and
receive a driver’s license.

When observers watch a model doing something they expect to do themselves, they
pay greater attention than when the modeled behavior has no personal relevance. Obser-
vers also pay closer attention to modeled behavior that produces positive or negative
consequences rather than neutral outcomes.

Retention Processes

We must be able to remember significant aspects of the model’s behavior in order to
repeat it later. To retain what has been attended to, we must encode it and represent it
symbolically. We can retain information about a model’s behavior in two ways: through
an imaginal internal representational system or through a verbal system. In the imaginal
system, we form vivid, easily retrievable images while we are observing the model.

This common phenomenon accounts for your being able to summon up a picture of
the person you dated last week or the place you visited last summer. In observational
learning, we form a mental picture of the model’s behavior and use it as a basis for imi-
tation at some future time.

The verbal representational system operates similarly and involves a verbal coding of
some behavior we have observed. For example, during observation we might describe to
ourselves what the model is doing. These descriptions or codes can be rehearsed silently,
without overtly displaying the behavior.

For example, we might talk ourselves through the steps in a complicated skill, men-
tally rehearsing the sequence of behaviors we will perform later. When we wish to per-
form the action, the verbal code will provide hints, reminders, and cues. Together, these
images and verbal symbols offer the means by which we store observed situations and
rehearse them for later performance.

Production Processes

Translating imaginal and verbal symbolic representations into overt behavior requires
the production processes, described more simply as practice. Although we may have

350 The Social-Learning Approach

attended to, retained, and rehearsed symbolic representations of a model’s behavior, we
still may not be able to perform the behavior correctly. This is most likely to occur with
highly skilled actions that require the mastery of many component behaviors.

Consider learning how to drive a car. We learn fundamental motions from watching a
model drive. We may consider the symbolic representations of the model’s behavior
many times, but at first our translation of these symbols into actual driving behavior
will be clumsy. We may apply the brakes too soon or too late, or overcorrect the steer-
ing. Our observations may not have been sufficient to ensure immediate and skilled per-
formance of the actions. Practice of the proper physical movements, and feedback on
their accuracy, is needed to produce the smooth performance of the behavior.

Incentive and Motivational Processes

No matter how well we attend to and retain behaviors we observe or how much ability we
have to perform them, we will not do so without the incentive or motivation processes.
When incentives are available, observation is more quickly translated into action. Incentives
also influence the attentional and retention processes. We may not pay as much attention
without an incentive to do so, and when less attention is paid, there is less to retain.

Anticipation of Reinforcement Our incentive to learn is influenced by our antici-
pation of the reinforcement or punishment for doing so. Seeing that a model’s behavior
produces a reward or avoids a punishment can be a strong incentive for us to pay atten-
tion to, remember, and perform that same behavior correctly. The reinforcement is expe-
rienced vicariously during our observation of the model, after which we expect our
performance of the same behavior to lead to the consequences we saw.

Reinforcement Is Not Always Necessary Bandura also pointed out that although
reinforcement can facilitate learning, reinforcement is not always required for learning
to occur. Many factors other than the reward consequences of the behavior determine
what we attend to, retain, and rehearse. For example, loud sounds, bright lights, and
exciting videos may capture our interest even though we may not have received any rein-
forcement for paying attention to them.

Bandura’s research showed that children watching a model on television or in a video
game imitate the model’s behavior regardless of whether they have been promised a
reward. Therefore, reinforcement can assist in modeling but is not vital to it. When rein-
forcement does occur, it can be given by another person, experienced vicariously, or
administered by oneself.

self-reinforcement Self-Reinforcement and Self-Efficacy
Administering rewards
or punishments to In Bandura’s approach to personality, the self is not some psychic agent that determines
oneself for meeting, or causes behavior. Rather, the self is a set of cognitive processes and structures con-
exceeding, or falling cerned with thought and perception. Two important aspects of the self are self-
short of one’s own reinforcement and self-efficacy.
expectations or
standards. Self-Reinforcement

Self-reinforcement is as important as reinforcement administered by others, particularly
for older children and adults. We set personal standards of behavior and achievement.
We reward ourselves for meeting or exceeding these expectations and standards, and
we punish ourselves for our failures. Self-administered reinforcement can be tangible
such as buying yourself a new pair of gym shoes or a car, or it can be emotional such
as pride or satisfaction from a job well done.

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 351

self-efficacy Our Self-administered punishment can be expressed in feelings of shame, guilt, or depression
feeling of adequacy, about not behaving the way we wanted to. Self-reinforcement appears conceptually similar
efficiency, and compe- to what other theorists call conscience or superego, but Bandura denies that it is the same.
tence in coping with
life. A continuing process of self-reinforcement regulates much of our behavior. It requires
internal standards of performance, subjective criteria or reference points against which
we evaluate our behavior. Our past behavior may become a reference point for evaluat-
ing present behavior and an incentive for better performance in the future. When we
reach a certain level of achievement, it may no longer challenge, motivate, or satisfy us,
so we raise the standard and require more of ourselves. Failure to achieve may result in
lowering the standard to a more realistic level.

Unrealistic Performance Standards People who set unrealistic performance
standards—who observed and learned behavioral expectations from unusually talented
and successful models, for example—may continue to try to meet those excessively high
expectations despite repeated failures. Emotionally, they may punish themselves with
feelings of worthlessness and depression. These self-produced feelings can lead to self-
destructive behaviors such as alcohol and drug abuse or a retreat into a fantasy world.

We learn our initial set of internal standards, whether realistic or not, from the behav-
ior of models, typically our parents and teachers. Increasingly, however, we are learning
performance standards from online sources such as celebrity blogs and social media sites.
Once we adopt a given style of behavior, we begin a lifelong process of comparing our
behavior with theirs.

Self-Efficacy, or “Believing You Can”

How well we meet our behavioral standards determines our self-efficacy. In Bandura’s
system, self-efficacy refers to feelings of adequacy, efficiency, and competence in coping
with life. Meeting and maintaining our performance standards enhances self-efficacy;
failure to meet and maintain them reduces it (Bandura, 2012, 2013).

Another way Bandura described self-efficacy was in terms of our perception of the
control we have over our lives.

People strive to exercise control over events that affect their lives. By exerting influence in
spheres over which they can command some control, they are better able to realize desired
futures and to forestall undesired ones. The striving for control over life circumstances perme-
ates almost everything people do. (Bandura, 1995, p. 1)

Another psychologist defined self-efficacy quite simply and effectively as the “power
of believing you can,” and added that “believing that you can accomplish what you
want to accomplish is one of the most important ingredients … in the recipe for success”
(Maddux, 2002, p. 277). Thus, believing that you have the ability to be successful
becomes a powerful asset as you strive for achievement.

Low and High Self-Efficacy People low in self-efficacy feel helpless, unable to exer-
cise control over life events. They believe any effort they make is futile. When they
encounter obstacles, they quickly give up if their initial attempt to deal with a problem
did not work. People who are extremely low in self-efficacy will not even attempt to cope
because they are convinced that nothing they do will make a difference. Why, they ask,
should they even try? Low self-efficacy can destroy motivation, lower aspirations, inter-
fere with cognitive abilities, and adversely affect physical health.

People high in self-efficacy believe they can deal effectively with events and situations.
Because they expect to succeed in overcoming obstacles, they persevere at tasks and often
perform at a high level. These people have greater confidence in their abilities than do

352 The Social-Learning Approach

those who are low in self-efficacy, and they express little self-doubt. They view difficulties
as challenges instead of threats and actively seek novel situations. High self-efficacy
reduces fear of failure, raises aspirations, and improves problem solving and analytical
thinking abilities.

Sources of information about self-efficacy Our judgment about our self-efficacy is
based on the following four sources of information:

• performance attainment
• vicarious experiences
• verbal persuasion
• physiological and emotional arousal

Performance Attainment The most influential source of efficacy judgments is perfor-
mance attainment. Previous success experiences provide direct indications of our level
of mastery and competence. Prior achievements demonstrate our capabilities and
strengthen our feelings of self-efficacy. Prior failures, particularly repeated failures in
childhood, lower self-efficacy.

An important indicator of performance attainment is getting feedback on one’s per-
formance on a task, such as a work assignment or a classroom quiz. One study of college
students performing complicated puzzles found that those who received positive feed-
back on their performance reported higher levels of perceived competence at that task
than did those who received negative feedback (Elliot, Faler, McGregor, Campbell, Sedi-
kides, & Harackiewicz, 2000). Older adults who completed a six-month training program
in the Chinese art of Tai Chi reported significant increases in feelings of self-efficacy as
compared to those who did not undertake the training (Li, McAuley, Harmer, Duncan,
& Chaumeton, 2001).

Female college students who completed a 16-hour physical self-defense training
course showed significantly higher levels of self-efficacy in a variety of areas including
physical competence, general coping skills, and interpersonal assertiveness. A control
group that had not taken the self-defense course showed no change in self-efficacy (Wei-
tlauf, Cervone, Smith, & Wright, 2001). Thus, put simply, the more we achieve, the more
we believe we can achieve, and the more competent and in control we feel.

Vicarious Experiences Vicarious experiences—seeing other people perform
successfully—strengthen self-efficacy, particularly if the people we observe are similar to
us in their abilities. In effect, we are saying, “If they can do it, so can I.” In contrast,
seeing others fail can lower self-efficacy: “If they can’t do it, neither can I.” Therefore,
effective models are vital in influencing our feelings of adequacy and competence.
These models also show us appropriate strategies for dealing with difficult situations.

Verbal Persuasion Verbal persuasion, which involves simply reminding people that
they have the ability to achieve whatever they want to achieve, can enhance self-
efficacy. This may be the most common of the four informational sources and one fre-
quently used by parents, teachers, spouses, coaches, friends, and therapists who say, in
effect, “You can do it.” To be effective, verbal persuasion must be realistic. It is probably
not the best advice to encourage someone 5 feet tall to play professional basketball when
other sports, such as martial arts, might be more appropriate.

Physiological and Emotional Arousal The fourth and final source of information
about self-efficacy is physiological and emotional arousal. How fearful or calm do we
feel in a stressful situation? We often use this type of information as a basis for judging
our ability to cope. We are more likely to believe we will master a problem successfully if

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 353

we are not agitated, tense, or bothered by headaches. The more calm and composed we
feel, the greater our self-efficacy. The higher our level of physiological and emotional
arousal, the lower our self-efficacy. The more fear, anxiety, or tension we experience in
a given situation, the less we feel able to cope.

Ways of Increasing Self-Efficacy Bandura concluded that certain conditions
increase self-efficacy:

1. Exposing people to success experiences by arranging reachable goals increases per-
formance attainment.

2. Exposing people to appropriate models who perform successfully enhances vicarious
success experiences.

3. Providing verbal persuasion encourages people to believe they have the ability to
perform successfully.

4. Strengthening physiological arousal through proper diet, stress reduction, and exer-
cise programs increases strength, stamina, and the ability to cope.

Bandura applied these conditions to enhance self-efficacy in a variety of situations. He
has helped subjects learn to play musical instruments, relate better to people of the oppo-
site sex, master computer skills, give up cigarette smoking, and conquer phobias and
physical pain.

LOG ON

Self Efficacy
Various sites provide definitions, discussions of research results, and self-tests to deter-
mine your level of self-efficacy.

Developmental Stages of Self-Efficacy

Childhood
Self-efficacy develops gradually over time. Infants begin to develop self-efficacy as they
try to exercise greater influence over their physical and social environments. They learn
about the consequences of their own abilities such as their physical prowess, social skills,
and language competence. These abilities are in almost constant use acting on the envi-
ronment, primarily through their effects on parents. Ideally, parents are responsive to
their growing child’s activities and attempts to communicate, and will provide stimulat-
ing surroundings that permit the child the freedom to grow and explore.

These early efficacy-building experiences are centered on the parents. Parental beha-
viors that lead to high self-efficacy in children differ for boys and girls. High self-efficacy
men tend to have had, when they were children, warm relationships with their fathers.
Mothers were more demanding than fathers, expecting higher levels of performance and
achievement. In contrast, high self-efficacy women experienced, as children, pressure
from their fathers for high achievement (Schneewind, 1995).

Reduction of Parental Influence The significance of parental influence diminishes as
the child’s world expands and admits additional models such as siblings, peers, and other
adults. Like Adler, Bandura considered birth order within the family to be important. He
argued that first-born children and only children have different bases for judging their
own abilities than do later-born children.

354 The Social-Learning Approach

Also, siblings of the same sex are likely to be more competitive than are siblings of the
opposite sex, a factor also related to the development of self-efficacy. Among playmates,
children who are the most experienced and successful at tasks and games serve as high-
efficacy models for other children. Peers provide comparative reference points for
appraising one’s own level of achievement.

Teachers influence self-efficacy judgments through their impact on the development
of cognitive abilities and problem-solving skills, which are vital to efficient adult func-
tioning. Children often rate their own competence in terms of their teachers’ evaluations
of them. In Bandura’s view, schools that use ability groupings undermine self-efficacy
and self-confidence in students who are assigned to the lower groups. Competitive prac-
tices such as grading on a curve also doom poor achievers to average or low grades.

Adolescence
The transitional experiences of adolescence involve coping with new demands and pressures,
from a growing awareness of sex to the choice of college and career. Adolescents must estab-
lish new competencies and appraisals of their abilities. Bandura noted that the success of this
stage typically depends on the level of self-efficacy established during the childhood years.

Adulthood

Bandura divided adulthood into two periods: young adulthood and the middle years.
Young adulthood involves new adjustments such as marriage, parenthood, and trying
to establish a career. High self-efficacy is necessary for successful outcomes of these
experiences. People low in self-efficacy will not be able to deal adequately with these
situations and are likely to fail to adjust.

Women who feel high in self-efficacy about their parenting skills are likely to promote
self-efficacy in their children. Women who believe they are good parents are less subject
to despondency and emotional strain in their role as a parent than are women low in
self-efficacy (Olioff & Aboud, 1991; Teti & Gelfand, 1991). High self-efficacy mothers
who worked outside the home experienced significantly less physical and emotional
strain from work–family conflicts than did women low in self-efficacy (Bandura, 1995).

The middle years of adulthood are also stressful as people reevaluate their careers and
their family and social lives. As we confront our limitations and redefine our goals, we
must reassess our skills and find new opportunities for enhancing our self-efficacy.

Old Age

Self-efficacy reassessments in old age are difficult. Declining mental and physical abilities,
retirement from active work, and withdrawal from social life may force a new round of
self-appraisal. A lowering of self-efficacy can further affect physical and mental function-
ing in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, reduced self-confidence about sex-
ual performance can lead to a reduction in sexual activity.

Lower physical efficacy can lead to fatigue and a curtailing of physical activities. If we
no longer believe we can do something we used to enjoy and do well, then we may no
longer even try to do it as we get older. To Bandura, self-efficacy is the single most
important factor in determining success or failure throughout the entire life span.

Behavior Modification

Bandura’s goal in developing his social-cognitive theory was to modify or change those
learned behaviors that society considers undesirable or abnormal. Like Skinner’s
approach to therapy, Bandura focused on external aspects, those inappropriate or

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 355

destructive behaviors, in the belief that they are learned, just as all behaviors are learned.
Bandura did not attempt to deal with any supposed underlying unconscious conflicts. It
is the behavior or symptom, rather than any presumed internal neurosis that is the target
of the social-learning approach.

Bandura developed three forms of behavior therapy: modeling, guided participation,
and covert modeling. We shall see examples of these approaches in dealing with fears,
phobias, and anxieties.

Fears and Phobias

If modeling is the way we learn our behaviors originally, then it should also be an effec-
tive way to relearn or change behavior. Bandura applied modeling techniques to elimi-
nate fears and other intense emotional reactions. In one early study, children who were
afraid of dogs observed a child of the same age playing with a dog (Bandura, Grusec, &
Menlove, 1967). While the subjects watched from a safe distance, the model made pro-
gressively bolder movements toward the dog. The model petted the dog through the bars
of a playpen, then went inside the pen and played with the dog. The observers’ fear of
dogs was considerably reduced as a result of this observational learning situation.

In a classic study of snake phobia, Bandura and his associates eliminated an intense fear
of snakes in adults (Bandura, Blanchard, & Ritter, 1969). The subjects watched a film in
which children, adolescents, and adults made progressively closer contact with a snake. At
first, the filmed models handled plastic snakes, then touched live snakes, and finally let a
large snake crawl over their body. The phobic subjects were allowed to stop the film when-
ever the scenes became too threatening. Gradually, their fear of snakes was overcome.

The technique called guided participation involves watching a live model and then par-
ticipating with the model. For example, to treat a snake phobia, subjects watch through an
observation window while a live model handles a snake. The subjects then enter the room
with the model and observe the handling of the snake at close range. Wearing gloves, sub-
jects are coaxed into touching the middle of the snake while the model holds the head and
tail. Subjects eventually come to touch the snake without gloves.

Modeling has been shown to be effective even in the absence of an observable model.
In covert modeling, subjects are instructed to imagine a model coping with a feared or
threatening situation; they do not actually see a model. Covert modeling has been used
to successfully treat snake phobias and social inhibitions.

You may not think that a fear of snakes is so terrible, but overcoming this fear has
brought about significant changes in many people’s lives, even for those who never
encounter snakes. In addition to bolstering self-esteem and self-efficacy, eliminating a
snake phobia can alter personal and work habits. A woman was able to wear a necklace
for the first time after modeling therapy. Previously she had not been able to do so because
necklaces reminded her of snakes. A realtor treated successfully for snake phobia was able
to increase his income because he no longer feared visiting properties in rural areas. Many
other phobics treated by modeling therapy were freed from nightmares about snakes.

Phobias restrict our daily lives. For example, many people who fear spiders react with
rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath, and vomiting just from seeing a picture of a spider.
Phobics doubt their self-efficacy in these fear-provoking situations and have little confi-
dence in their ability to deal with the source of the phobia. To relieve people of these
fears greatly expands their environment and increases their self-efficacy.

Advantages of Modeling Therapy

Modeling therapy, particularly using online video techniques, offers several practical
advantages. Complex behaviors can be seen as a whole. Extraneous behaviors can be

356 The Social-Learning Approach

edited out so that the subject’s time is spent viewing only relevant behaviors. The same
videos can be repeated with many patients and used by a number of therapists simulta-
neously. Modeling techniques can also be used with groups, saving time and money in
treating people with the same problem.

This approach has been effective with phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorders, and
sexual dysfunction. The positive effects have been reported to last for years. Considerable
research has been conducted on self-efficacy during and after behavior modification
therapy. The results have shown that as the subjects’ self-efficacy improved during treat-
ment, they were increasingly able to deal with the source of the fear. It was the therapeu-
tic procedure itself that enhanced self-efficacy.

Anxiety

We noted that many behaviors can be modified through the modeling approach. We will
consider two instances: fear of medical treatment and test anxiety.

Fear of medical treatment Some people have such an intense fear of medical situa-
tions that they are prevented from seeking treatment. One early study dealt with children
who were scheduled for surgery and had never been in a hospital before. They were
divided into two groups: an experimental group that watched a film about a boy’s expe-
rience in the hospital and a control group that saw a film about a boy taking a trip
(Melamed & Siegel, 1975).

The child in the hospital film was an exemplary model. Despite some initial anxiety,
he coped well with the doctors and the medical procedures. The modeling film was effec-
tive in reducing anxiety. In addition, those who had seen the hospital film had fewer
behavior problems after hospitalization than did those in the control group.

Similar procedures have been used to reduce fear of hospitalization in adults as well
as fear of dental treatment. One study involved a medical procedure considered so stress-
ful that more than 80 percent of patients initially refused to undergo it or quit it prema-
turely (Allen, Danforth, & Drabman, 1989). Those who watched a video of a model
having the procedure and describing how he coped with his distress were more likely
to complete the treatment with less anxiety and a shorter hospital stay.

Test anxiety For some college students, test anxiety is so serious a problem that their
exam scores do not accurately reflect their knowledge of the material being tested. In a clas-
sic research study, a sample of college students was divided into groups based on their per-
sonality test scores: those high in test anxiety and those low in test anxiety (Sarason, 1975).

Some of the students saw a filmed model talking about her anxiety when taking tests
and her ways of dealing with it. Other students saw a film of the same model who talked
about test anxiety but not about coping mechanisms. Under a third condition, students
watched the filmed model talking about other college activities.

Then the subjects were given a list of nonsense syllables to memorize and were tested
on their ability to recall them. The results showed that subjects high in test anxiety were
most strongly affected by the model who talked about coping mechanisms. They per-
formed significantly better on the recall test than did high-anxiety subjects who had
been exposed to the other two conditions.

Ethical Issues in Behavior Modification

Although the results of behavior modification are impressive, the techniques have drawn
criticism from some educators, politicians, and even psychologists. They suggest that
behavior modification exploits people, manipulating and controlling them against their
will. Bandura argued that these charges are misleading. Behavior modification does not

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 357

occur without the client’s awareness. Indeed, self-awareness and self-regulation are vital for
the effectiveness of any program to change or relearn behaviors. In other words, behavior-
modification techniques will not be successful unless the person is able to understand what
behaviors are being reinforced. They are not being treated against their will.

Further, the clients themselves decide what they want to change. They are not being
controlled by anyone else. People come to a therapist to eliminate specific fears and anx-
ieties that inhibit their ability to function or to cope with daily life. Bandura noted that
the client–therapist relationship is a contract between two consenting individuals, not a
relationship between a sinister master-controller and a spineless puppet.

Bandura also explained that far from manipulating or enslaving, modeling techniques
actually increase personal freedom. People who are afraid to leave the house or who have
a compulsion to wash their hands continually are not truly free. They are living within
the constraints imposed by their phobic or compulsive behavior. Those constraints allow
little choice. Removing the constraints through behavior-modification techniques can
increase our feelings of freedom and the opportunity for personal growth.

Many such techniques have derived from Bandura’s work and are popular alternatives
to psychoanalysis and other therapeutic approaches.

reciprocal Questions about Human Nature
determinism The idea
that behavior is con- Bandura’s position is clear on the issue of free will versus determinism. Behavior is con-
trolled or determined trolled by the person through the cognitive processes, and by the environment through
by the individual, external social situations. Bandura calls this view reciprocal determinism. He noted that
through cognitive pro- people are neither “powerless objects controlled by environmental forces nor free agents
cesses, and by the who can become whatever they choose. Both people and their environments are recipro-
environment, through cal determinants of each other” (1977, p. vii).
external social stimulus
events. Assessment in Bandura’s Theory

Like Skinner, Bandura focused on overt behavior rather than on internal motivating vari-
ables. He did not use assessment measures such as free association, dream analysis, or
projective techniques. Unlike Skinner, Bandura accepted the operation of cognitive vari-
ables. It is these cognitive variables, as well as behavior, that can be assessed.

For example, in the modeling study we described involving children about to undergo
surgery, assessment techniques included direct observation of their behavior, self-report
inventories, and physiological measurements. In studies of self-efficacy, behavioral and
cognitive variables were assessed quantitatively. Self-efficacy with regard to phobias was
assessed by the subjects’ self-ratings of the number of tasks on a behavioral-avoidance
test they expected they could complete. College students’ test anxiety was assessed by
personality inventories. Thus, the assessment of behavioral and cognitive variables is
important in the social-learning approach to personality.

Research on Bandura’s Theory

Bandura favored well-controlled laboratory investigations in the rigorous tradition of
experimental psychology. We noted his use of experimental and control groups and the
precise measurement of independent and dependent variables. He studied large subject
groups and compared their average performance by statistical analysis. To illustrate fur-
ther the kind of research that has proceeded from Bandura’s theory, we consider repre-
sentative studies on self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and the effect of televised models on
aggressive behavior.

358 The Social-Learning Approach

Self-Efficacy

Age and gender differences Self-efficacy differs as a function of gender and age. On
the average, men score higher than women in self-efficacy. These gender differences peak
during the 20s and then decline in later years. For both men and women, self-efficacy
increases through childhood and early adulthood, peaks in middle age, and then declines
after age 60 (Gecas, 1989; Lachman, 1985).

However, even though self-efficacy appears to decline with age, there exists a wide
range of individual differences in our beliefs about our capabilities. For example, in a
study of adults in the Netherlands, average age 66, the people who believed that their
memory was getting worse performed significantly less well on tests of memory func-
tioning six years later than did those whose sense of self-efficacy included the belief
that their memory capabilities were high (Valentijn et al., 2006). A large-scale analysis
of more than 100 studies confirms this finding that low memory self-efficacy, that is,
the level of our belief about how good our memory is, can affect performance on tests
of memory (Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2011). This research provides further support for
the proposition that our belief in our own abilities may, indeed, affect those abilities.
The more we believe we can do something, the more likely we will do it.

The role of parental self-efficacy We noted earlier the influence of parents, siblings,
peers, and others in affecting self-efficacy. Research in Italy showed that adolescents
whose parents scored high in parental self-efficacy (who believed they were effective par-
ents) also scored higher in their own self-efficacy beliefs than those whose parents scored
low in parental self-efficacy. And those teens with high self-efficacy parents also had
fewer behavioral problems, less anxiety, performed better in school, and were more
open and honest in communicating with their parents than those with low self-efficacy
parents (Steca, Bassi, Caprara, & Fave, 2011).

A study of African-American teenage boys in a public housing project found that
those with higher levels of parental support, control, and self-efficacy had higher levels of
self-efficacy themselves. Lack of parental support and guidance as well as low parental
self-efficacy led to greater substance abuse and other delinquent behavior (Nebbitt,
2009).

Research on teenagers in Chicago found that having supportive parents was positively
related to the students’ sense of self-efficacy. The more supportive the parents, the higher
their children’s self-efficacy (McCoy & Bowen, 2014). A study of Mexican-American
families showed that high parental self-efficacy was related to higher self-efficacy and
fewer behavioral problems among both male and female adolescents (Dumka, Gonzales,
Wheeler, & Millsap, 2010).

American young adults whose parents had exercised tight control over their upbring-
ing showed lower self-efficacy than those whose parents were less controlling (Givertz &
Segrin, 2014). A study of teenagers in Malaysia showed that involvement in their
upbringing on the part of their fathers was just as important as involvement by their
mothers in their development of self-efficacy and overall happiness (Yap & Baharudin,
2015).

Physical appearance We noted Bandura’s suggestion that physical appearance can
influence the reinforcers people receive from others and, thus, how they feel about them-
selves. A study of adult men and women aged 25 to 76 showed that physical appearance
had a greater effect on their feelings of being in control of their lives than did their level
of self-esteem or their health (Andreoletti, Zebrowitz, & Lachman, 2001).

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 359

For example, having a round face, large eyes, small nose bridge, and small chin
(“baby-faceness”) was found to be strongly related to low control beliefs in young and
middle adulthood. Older baby-faced adults reported stronger feelings of control, perhaps
because people reacted to them differently since they looked younger than thin-faced
people of the same age. The findings were stronger for women. A more youthful appear-
ance later in life was shown to have definite advantages both socially and in the
workplace.

Another major finding in this study was the significant effect of physical attractive-
ness on control beliefs. People who were rated less attractive reported lower feelings of
control in both job and social situations. In addition, shorter people reported lower feel-
ings of control in young adulthood than did taller people or those of average height.

Academic performance There is a significant positive relationship between self-
efficacy and academic performance. Teachers with a high degree of self-efficacy or confi-
dence in their teaching abilities create more opportunities for their students to achieve at
a high level. Self-efficacy in students has also been positively related to motivation, level
of effort, level of aspiration, and persistence in classroom situations (see, for example,
Bassi, Steca, Fave, & Caprara, 2007; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Multon, Brown, & Lent,
1991; Zimmerman, 1995).

Classroom teachers in Germany who were high in self-efficacy were rated by their
students as being more effective teachers than those low in self-efficacy. In addition,
those whose students rated them high in quality of classroom instruction developed
higher levels of self-efficacy. In other words, the positive feedback from their students’
ratings made them feel even surer of themselves (Holzberger, Philipp, & Kunter, 2013).

Bandura also found differences in the ways schools inculcate self-efficacy in their stu-
dents. In high-achieving schools, principals were more concerned with education than
with implementing policies and regulations, and teachers set high expectations and stan-
dards for their students. In low-achieving schools principals functioned more as admin-
istrators and disciplinarians than as educators, and teachers expected little in the way of
academic performance from their students (Bandura, 1997).

Cultural differences have been shown to influence self-efficacy in children. A study
was conducted with elementary school students in grades two to six in East and West
Germany, before those nations were reunified in 1990. Students in the East German
communist-collectivist culture scored lower in self-efficacy than children in the West
German capitalist-individualist culture. The East German children had less confidence
in their ability to perform well in school and considered themselves less intelligent than
West German students (Oettingen & Maier, 1999). High school students in Iran who
had a higher sense of ethnic identity had a higher level of self-efficacy than did those
with a poor sense of ethnic identity (Hejazi & Hasany, 2014).

Career choice and job performance Gender differences in self-efficacy can influ-
ence our choice of career. Research has shown that men perceive themselves to be high
in self-efficacy for so-called traditional “male” as well as traditional “female” occupations.
In contrast, women perceive themselves high in self-efficacy for so-called female occupa-
tions but low in self-efficacy for traditional male occupations.

The male and female subjects in this research performed at comparable levels on stan-
dardized tests of verbal and quantitative skills. Thus, they possessed similar measurable
abilities but perceived these abilities differently. Their feelings about their own compe-
tence for various careers differed as a function of gender (Hackett, 1995).

Self-efficacy can affect the amount of time spent job hunting as well as future job suc-
cess. Employees high in self-efficacy set higher personal goals and are more committed

360 The Social-Learning Approach

to them than employees low in self-efficacy. Those high in self-efficacy tend to focus on
analyzing and solving problems on the job. Those low in self-efficacy focus on personal
deficiencies and the fear of failure, which can undermine their productivity (Locke &
Latham, 1990). In addition, failure in performing a computer-based task was shown to
reduce a person’s level of self-efficacy (Hardy, 2014).

The significant positive relationship between self-efficacy and job performance was
supported by a meta-analysis of 114 research studies involving more than 21,600 sub-
jects. The higher the level of self-efficacy, the better was the performance on the job
(Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). An update of this research found that self-efficacy was a
better predictor of performance for jobs of low complexity than it was for jobs of
medium or high complexity (Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007). Also, those
high in self-efficacy are much more likely to be more fully engaged in their work and
to experience less burnout from their jobs (Ventura, Salanova, & Llorens, 2015).

Those high in self-efficacy perform better when they receive greater feedback about
their job performance. They often do not perform well in situations that provide little
or no feedback. In other words, not knowing how well they are doing can be a negative
factor for people who score high in self-efficacy (Schmidt & DeShon, 2010). Other
research has demonstrated that people high in self-efficacy are more successful in job
training programs and report higher levels of job satisfaction, organizational commit-
ment, and job performance than do people who are low in self-efficacy (Gupta, Ganster,
& Kepes 2013; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).

Physical health Self-efficacy also affects several aspects of physical well-being,
including pain tolerance, living a healthy lifestyle, and recovering from illness.

Pain Tolerance In one study, pregnant women who had been taught relaxation and
breathing exercises to reduce pain during childbirth believed they had greater control
over that pain than did women who had not been taught relaxation techniques. The
higher the women’s self-efficacy and feeling of control, the longer they were able to tol-
erate the discomfort experienced during delivery before requesting pain medication. In
addition, the higher their perceived self-efficacy, the less pain medication they required
(Manning & Wright, 1983).

Other research supports the positive relationship between self-efficacy and pain toler-
ance. One study of more than 15,000 patients in China found that those higher in self-
efficacy suffered less impairment, emotional distress, and severity of pain than those who
were lower in self-efficacy (Jackson, Wang, Wang, & Fan, 2014).

Coping techniques that improve self-efficacy produce substantial increases in endor-
phins, which are the body’s natural painkillers. In a study on chronic pain, patients suf-
fering from low back pain were given a pain-rating scale and a self-efficacy rating scale.
Their progress in a three-week rehabilitation program was monitored. After six months
it was found that patients higher in self-efficacy reported better physical functioning and
less back pain than did patients lower in self-efficacy (Altmaier, Russell, Kao, Lehmann,
& Weinstein, 1993).

Maintaining a Healthy Lifestyle Self-efficacy is also related to the maintenance of
healthy behaviors. Bandura wrote that:

Life-style habits can enhance or impair health. This enables people to exert some behavioral
control over their vitality and quality of health. Efficacy beliefs affect every phase of personal
change—whether people even consider changing their health habits; whether they enlist the
motivation and perseverance needed to succeed should they choose to do so; and how well
they maintain the habit changes they have achieved. (Bandura, 1995, p. 28)

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 361

It has been found, for example, that the use of techniques for enhancing feelings of
self-efficacy among adults 60 years and older led to increased levels of physical activity.
Those whose self-efficacy remained lower led more sedentary, unhealthy lives (French,
Olander, Chrisholm, & McSharry, 2014).

A study of Native American and native Alaskan adults showed a clear relationship
between self-efficacy and alcohol use. The lower the level of self-efficacy, the greater the
alcohol consumption (Taylor, 2000). In the case of cigarette smoking, studies of adoles-
cents show that the higher their self-efficacy, the more resistant they are to peer pressure
to start smoking (Schwarzer & Fuchs, 1995; Stacy, Sussman, Dent, Burton, & Floy, 1992).

Recovering from Illness Self-efficacy can affect recovery from physical illness. For
example, one study found that people high in self-efficacy responded better to cognitive
and behavioral treatment for pulmonary disease than did patients low in self-efficacy.
Men who suffered heart attacks showed a higher rate of return to normal activities and
less fear and depression when both they and their spouses believed in their cardiac
fitness.

The higher the patients’ self-efficacy, the more likely they were to follow prescribed
exercise programs and the more they improved (Kaplan, Atkins, & Reinsch, 1984;
McLeod, 1986). These findings were confirmed in a large-scale study of heart patients
in Italy. Higher levels of self-efficacy eased the impact of their illness and led to higher
overall feelings of health satisfaction (Greco, Steca, Monzani, Malfatto, & Parati, 2015).

Research in Israel on patients with diabetes found that those high in self-efficacy were
far more likely to persist in their self-care treatment programs than were those low in
self-efficacy (Mishali, Omer, & Heymann, 2011).

Adult patients recovering from orthopedic surgery (hip or knee replacement) who
scored high in self-efficacy performed significantly better in rehabilitation therapy pro-
grams than did those low in self-efficacy (Waldrop, Lightsey, Ethington, Woemmel, &
Coke, 2001). And a study of breast cancer patients found that the higher the expectation
of remaining cancer-free in the future, the better the emotional adjustment to the disease
(Carver et al., 2000).

Mental health Self-efficacy has been found to affect several aspects of our mental
health, including depression and anxiety, as well as social interest and self-esteem.

Depression and Anxiety In Italy, a study of boys and girls, average age 11.5 years,
found that children who rated themselves low in social and academic efficacy were signifi-
cantly more likely to experience depression than were children who rated themselves high
in efficacy. Low social efficacy has also been significantly related to depression in a sample
of adolescents in the United States (Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbarelli, & Caprara, 1999).

Research on adolescents in the Netherlands found that low social efficacy was related
to high levels of anxiety, neuroticism, and symptoms of depression (Muris, 2002). Studies
in such diverse cultures as China and Nigeria showed that those high in self-efficacy
experienced less on-the-job stress and less test anxiety than those low in self-efficacy
(Li, 2010; Onyeizugbo, 2010).

A similar relationship was documented with adults. Low social efficacy was found to
contribute to feelings of depression, partly because a lack of coping skills inhibited the
development of a social support network (Holahan & Holahan, 1987). These findings
may indicate a circular relationship rather than simple cause-and-effect.

Low self-efficacy can lead to depression, and depression can further reduce self-
efficacy. People who are depressed believe that they are far less capable than others of
performing effectively in many areas of life and that they have little control over their
situations (Bandura, 1997).

362 The Social-Learning Approach

Social Interest and Self-Esteem A study of American college students related self-
efficacy to several of the characteristics of mental health proposed by Alfred Adler. Stu-
dents who scored high in self-efficacy also scored higher in social interest, the desire to
strive for perfection, and a sense of belonging than did students who scored low in self-
efficacy (Dinter, 2000).

Research in Canada, Iran, and the United States showed that high school students and
adults who scored high on a measure of self-efficacy were likely also to score high in self-
esteem. They were less likely to procrastinate or to give up trying when dealing with an
obstacle than were subjects low in self-efficacy (Hoseinzadah, Azizi, & Tavakoli, 2014;
Lightsey, Burke, Ervin, Henderson, & Yee, 2006; Steel, 2007).

Coping with stress Enhanced self-efficacy and a sense of control over life events are
positively related to the ability to cope with stress and to minimize its harmful effects on
biological functioning. Bandura wrote, “A strong sense of coping efficacy reduces vulner-
ability to stress and depression in taxing situations and strengthens resiliency to adver-
sity” (Bandura, 2001, p. 10). High self-efficacy has been associated with strengthening the
body’s immune system, lowering the release of stress-related hormones, and reducing
susceptibility to respiratory infections.

High self-efficacy has been shown to help women cope with the stress of abortion.
Subjects higher in self-efficacy adjusted more satisfactorily with significantly less depres-
sion and higher mood states than did those lower in self-efficacy (Cozzarelli, 1993).
Another study dealt with stress experienced following the birth of one’s first child.
Women higher in self-efficacy coped better with the demands than did those lower in
self-efficacy (Ozer, 1995).

A study of refugees migrating from East to West Germany after the destruction of the
Berlin Wall in 1990 showed that people higher in self-efficacy adapted significantly better
to the change from an economically disadvantaged lifestyle under a communist system to
an affluent lifestyle under a capitalist system.

Perceived self-efficacy proved to be a powerful personal resource regarding the impact of
migration stress on cognitive appraisals as well as on psychological and physical wellbeing….
Highly self-efficacious migrants perceived the demands in their new life more as challenges
and less as threats. They experienced lower anxiety, better health, and fewer health complaints
than low self-efficacious migrants. (Jerusalem & Mittag, 1995, p. 195)

Among adults in the Netherlands who had suffered facial disfigurement as a result of
treatment for cancers of the head or neck, those who measured lower in self-efficacy
experienced higher levels of stress in response to unpleasant or rejecting behaviors of
other people. Those who scored higher in self-efficacy experienced less stress because
they believed they could exercise some control over how other people reacted to them
(Hagedoorn & Molleman, 2006).

Collective Efficacy

Just as an individual may develop a sense of self-efficacy, a group of people working
together in a common enterprise to achieve specific goals may develop a sense of collec-
tive efficacy (Dithurbide & Feltz, 2012). For example, a sports team, a department within
a large organization, a military combat unit, or a group of neighbors uniting to fight
drug dealers can engender the strong feeling that they will be able to overcome obstacles
and achieve their goals.

The value of collective efficacy has been studied in college basketball teams. It was
demonstrated that a high sense of collective efficacy arose in teams that had highly

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 363

HIGHLIGHTS: Research on Self-Efficacy

Studies on self-efficacy have shown that:

• Men score higher than women in self-efficacy when younger
• Self-efficacy increases into adulthood, peaks in middle age, and declines

after age 60
• Those whose parents scored high in parental self-efficacy were high in

personal self-efficacy
• Those whose parents were high in self-efficacy did better in school and

had less anxiety and fewer behavior problems
• Self-efficacy is higher in individualistic cultures

People high in self-efficacy:

• Earn better grades in school
• Set higher career goals, are more committed to attaining those goals, and

perform better on the job
• Are in better health, are better able to tolerate pain, and recover faster

from illness
• Are less likely to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes
• Are less likely to experience depression, test anxiety, on-the-job stress, or

become neurotic
• Score higher in self-esteem; they feel good about themselves.

competent leaders early in the season and that had won most of their games in the pre-
vious season. Teams with the highest collective efficacy at the beginning of the new sea-
son placed better in end-of-season standings than did teams that scored low in collective
efficacy (Watson, Chemers, & Preiser, 2001).

Collective Efficacy in Family and Schools High levels of collective efficacy in
families have been shown to result in more open family communications, more truthful
disclosures by teenagers to their parents, and a greater sense of satisfaction with family
life by both parents and children (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Regalia, & Scabini,
2011).

High collective efficacy among teachers in the Netherlands led to higher student
achievements and better grades (Moolenaar, Sleegers, & Daly, 2012). Higher collective
efficacy among a large group of 5th-, 8th-, and 11th-grade students in the United States
led to a reduction of bullying (Williams & Guerra, 2011). Among 11- to 14-year-olds in
Greece enrolled in classes shown to be high in collective efficacy displayed and received
far less bullying from classmates than those in classes with low collective efficacy
(Sapouna, 2010).

Collective Efficacy in Neighborhoods and Organizations The feeling of high
collective efficacy in a neighborhood, even a tough inner city one, has been related to
decreases in alcoholism, drug use, violence, and criminal behavior (including murder)
(Ahern, Cerda, Lippnnan, Tardiff, Vlahov, & Galea, 2013; Fagan, Wright, & Pinchevsky,
2014; Maxwell, Garner, & Skogan, 2011).

364 The Social-Learning Approach

The collective efficacy of employing organizations has been shown to increase on-
the-job performance and helping behavior among employees, and to reduce stress in
the workplace. These findings have been found in Western cultures and in China (Du,
Shin, & Choi, 2015; Esnard & Roques, 2014).

In Italy, air force military personnel who showed higher collective efficacy scored
higher in commitment to their organization and satisfaction with their job than those
in units with low collective efficacy (Borgogni, Petitta, & Mastrorilla, 2010).

Self-Efficacy and the Internet

Research on Internet self-efficacy (our feelings of confidence in our ability to effectively
use the Internet) conducted on 8th-grade students in Taiwan found no gender differ-
ences. However, girls ranked higher than boys in level of confidence in communicating
online, whereas boys were higher in level of confidence in exploring online (Tsai & Tsai,
2010). A study of American college students found that men ranked higher in computer
self-efficacy than women (Buse, 2010).

Research with college students in Turkey found that those high in social self-efficacy
(confidence in their ability to initiate social contact and make new friends easily) had
greater self-esteem and emotional well-being, but were far more likely to become
addicted to Internet use than those who scored low in social self-efficacy (Iskender &
Akin, 2010).

Adults in Germany who scored high in self-efficacy regarding their ability to make a
favorable impression on other people tended to post more informal personal photos
(such as at a party) and to present themselves as relaxed, funny, and cool on their Face-
book pages than those low in that aspect of personal self-efficacy (Kramer & Winter,
2008).

The Relationship between Aggressive Behavior
and Televised and Online Violence

Bandura and researchers in many countries have demonstrated convincingly that in lab-
oratory situations and in the real world, seeing violence begets violence whether on a
television or computer screen, movies, video games, or in homes, streets, and schools
(Elson & Ferguson, 2014). The evidence on the effects of the exposure to violence in
the media or in person is so strong that the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Institute
of Mental health, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Asso-
ciation, and the American Psychiatric Association agree that exposure to violence is a
significant risk factor in producing violence in those who witness it (Pozios, Kamban, &
Bender, 2013).

Television A large-scale literature review confirms the relationship between the view-
ing of violent television programs in childhood and later aggressive behavior (Rogoff,
Paradise, Arauz, Correa-Chavez, & Angelillo, 2003). A study of people in their early and
mid-20s found a strong positive correlation between the amount of violence they had
watched on television between the ages of 6 and 10 and their aggressive behavior as
adults.

In other words, the more TV violence to which they had been exposed as children,
the more aggressive they were in their 20s (Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, & Eron,
2003). Research on teenagers in Germany also found that exposure to violence in the
media was highly related to aggressive behavior (Krahe, Busching, & Moller, 2012).

In a different approach to the relationship between observed violence and aggressive
behavior, researchers investigated the incidence of aggressive acts shortly after people

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 365

viewed televised models committing violent acts. One analysis found a brief but
sharp rise in violent actions peaking three to four days following highly publicized riots
(Phillips, 1985).

Murder rates in the United States were found to increase by more than 12 percent
over the expected rate for the three-day period following a televised championship box-
ing match, a phenomenon that was maintained over a 15-year period (Phillips, 1983).
Self-directed violence also appears to increase following exposure to similar violence
widely reported in the news media. The incidence of suicide tends to climb following
the suicide of a movie star or other celebrity (Phillips, 1974).

Video Games Research on large samples of children, teenagers, and college students
in the United States, Japan, and several other countries showed that playing violent video
games resulted in increases in aggressive and hostile behaviors and greater drinking and
drug use than among people who did not play violent video games. Those who played
violent games were more likely to get into fights, argue with teachers, do poorly in
school, and also were less likely to help others. In addition, they were found to have
higher levels of cardiovascular arousal. In general, the more violent the games, the more
violent the resulting behavior (Anderson, et al., 2010; Bartholow, Sestir, & Davis, 2005;
Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004; Holtz & Appel, 2011; Huesmann, 2010; Krahe &
Moller, 2004; Padilla-Walker, Nelson, Carroll, & Jensen, 2010; Uhlmann & Swanson,
2004).

Cyberbullying Studies in the United States, Canada, and Spain concluded that having
a computer without parental control or monitoring can lead to a high level of online
aggression, including cyberbullying, among boys and girls ages 12 to 17 (Calvete, Orue,
Estevez, Villardon, & Padilla, 2010; Law, Shapka, & Olson, 2010; Werner & Bumpus,
2010).

People high in self-efficacy and self-esteem are much less bothered by being targets of
cyberbullying than those who are low on those characteristics (Raskauskas, Rubiano,
Offen, & Wayland, 2015). Those who are high in disinhibition, whose moral constraints
are weakened by watching a model performing a harmful act, are much more given to
cyberbullying (Bussey, Fitzpatrick, & Raman, 2015; Udris, 2014).

HIGHLIGHTS: Research on Bandura’s Ideas

Groups that score high in collective efficacy:

• Win more basketball games and get better grades in school
• Show a higher level of commitment to their organization
• Score high in job satisfaction and job performance
• Engage in less bullying in the classroom
• Experience greater openness and satisfaction with their family

Research on Internet self-efficacy has found that:

• Male college students in the United States score higher than females
• In Taiwan, girls in the 8th grade score higher than boys
• Those high in social self-efficacy (confident in their ability to make new

friends) are more likely to become addicted to the Internet

366 The Social-Learning Approach

• Those who feel sure of their ability to make a good impression on others
use more informal photos such as selfies on their Facebook page

Studies show that aggressive behavior is related to:

• Watching violent behavior on television and online in childhood
• Playing violent video games in childhood, adolescence, and young

adulthood

Cyberbullying

• Is more likely to be practiced by those who are high in disinhibition
• Has fewer effects on those who are high in self-efficacy

Reflections on Bandura’s Theory

Social-learning theory focuses on overt behavior. Critics charge that this emphasis
ignores distinctly human inner aspects of personality such as motivation and emotion.
They draw an analogy with a physician whose patients have stomach pains. The physi-
cian who deals only with overt behavior may treat such patients by asking them to stop
groaning and complaining and clutching their stomachs. What may be required instead
is medication or surgery. The physician must diagnose and treat the afflicted internal
organ, the underlying cause of the pain. If just the symptom is treated and not the
cause, critics say, substitute symptoms may appear.

The social-learning approach has several distinct advantages. First, it is objective and
amenable to laboratory methods of investigation, making it compatible with the empha-
sis in experimental psychology. Most experimental psychologists reject theoretical work
in personality that posits unconscious or other internal driving forces that cannot be
manipulated or measured under laboratory conditions. Therefore, Bandura’s approach
boasts a great amount of empirical support. This is particularly true for his concept of
self-efficacy. Research continues to confirm its usefulness in the laboratory and in real-
world situations.

Second, observational learning and behavior modification are compatible with the
functional, pragmatic spirit of American psychology. More readily than other
approaches, observational-learning techniques can be taken from the laboratory and
applied to practical problems. The techniques also provide more immediate reinforce-
ment for the practitioner than do other approaches. For example, in clinical situations,
dramatic changes can be seen in client behavior within weeks or even days.

The Widespread Use of Role Models
Behavioral changes on a larger scale in some 60 nations have also been demonstrated.
Bandura’s central idea, that people learn behaviors from role models whom they wish
to emulate, has been used in radio and television programs in less well-developed nations
to promote such social issues as population control, improving the status of women, and
decreasing the spread of AIDS (Kaufman, Cornish, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2014).

The stories presented in these media revolve around characters who modeled
behaviors designed to achieve public health goals not only for themselves but for society
as a whole. Studies have demonstrated significant changes in safe sex practices and
family planning among millions of people following exposure to these models,

Chapter 13: Albert Bandura: Modeling Theory 367

reinforcing the notion that Bandura’s ideas can be applied to national as well as individ-
ual problems (Smith, 2002). It is not surprising, then, that many researchers and clini-
cians continue to study and promote Bandura’s social-learning theory. The great
number of books, articles, and research studies still deriving from it attests to its continu-
ing popularity as a way to study behavior in the laboratory and to modify behavior in
the real world.

Chapter Summary Behavior can be modified through observation and
guided participation. In covert modeling, subjects
Behavior can be learned through vicarious reinforce- imagine how a model copes with a feared situation.
ment by observing the behavior of others and anticipat- Bandura’s approach to behavior modification deals
ing the rewards for behaving in the same way. with overt behavior and cognitive variables, particularly
Cognitive processes are the mediating mechanisms self-efficacy. As self-efficacy improves during treat-
between stimulus and response and bring about ment, the client is increasingly able to deal with threat-
control of behavior through self-regulation and self- ening situations. Behavior modification has been
reinforcement. criticized for manipulating people against their will,
but Bandura argues that with self-awareness and self-
In the classic Bobo doll study, children patterned regulation, people undergoing behavior modification
their behavior on the model’s aggressive behavior understand what is being reinforced.
whether the model was observed live, on television, or
in a cartoon. Disinhibition involves weakening an inhi- Behavior is controlled by internal cognitive pro-
bition through exposure to a model. Three factors that cesses and external stimuli; a position Bandura calls
influence modeling are the model’s characteristics, the reciprocal determinism. Most behavior is learned and
observer’s characteristics, and the behavior’s reward genetic factors play only a minor role. Learning in
consequences. Watching violence on television and childhood may be more influential than learning in
online has been shown to lead to aggressive and violent adulthood but adults are not victims of childhood
behavior in children, teenagers, college students, and experiences.
young adults. Playing violent video games also can
result in aggressive behavior toward others. Our ultimate goal is to set realistic performance
standards to maintain an optimal level of self-efficacy.
Observational learning is governed by attentional, Self-efficacy varies with age and gender and can influ-
retention, production, and incentive and motivational ence career choice, school performance, job perfor-
processes. The self is a set of cognitive processes mance, physical and mental health, and the ability to
concerned with thought and perception. Self- cope with stress. In addition, groups have been shown
reinforcement requires internal performance standards to develop collective efficacy. Computer self-efficacy
against which to evaluate behavior. Self-efficacy refers strongly influences our online behavior.
to the ability to control life events. People low in self-
efficacy feel helpless and give up quickly when faced Bandura assesses behavior and cognitive variables
with obstacles. People who score high in self-efficacy through direct observation, self-report inventories,
persevere at tasks and perform at a high level. Judg- and physiological measures. He favors controlled labo-
ments of self-efficacy are based on performance attain- ratory investigations using large groups of subjects and
ment, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and statistical analysis of data. Criticisms of Bandura’s the-
physiological arousal. Using these information sources, ory relate to his focus on overt behavior to the exclu-
it is possible to increase self-efficacy. Infants and chil- sion of emotions and conflicts, his treatment of
dren are reinforced primarily by physical stimuli. Older symptoms rather than possible internal causes, and
children are reinforced more by others’ approval or his failure to state precisely how cognitive variables
disapproval; this is internalized so that reinforcement affect behavior. Social-learning theory and the success-
becomes self-administered. ful use of modeling to change behavior remain
extremely popular.
In behavior therapy, models are used to demon-
strate ways of coping with threatening situations.

368 The Social-Learning Approach

Review Questions 12. How do people high in self-efficacy differ from
people low in self-efficacy in terms of their ability
1. In what ways does the observational-learning to cope with life?
approach to personality differ from the other
approaches we have discussed? 13. On what sources of information do we base our
judgment about our own level of efficacy?
2. How does Bandura deal with internal cognitive, or
thought, processes, and with the unconscious? 14. Describe the developmental changes that occur in
self-efficacy from infancy to old age. How can self-
3. What is Bandura’s position on the role of rein- efficacy be increased?
forcement in learning?
15. Describe the guided participation and the covert
4. Describe a typical experiment in which modeling modeling approaches to behavior modification.
is used to change behavior.
16. Give an example of how modeling can be used to
5. Explain disinhibition. How can the same phe- reduce anxiety.
nomenon of disinhibition explain both the behav-
ior of people in a mob and the behavior of people 17. What is the relationship between self-efficacy and
trolling online? physical health and mental health?

6. How does modeling vary as a function of the 18. What is Bandura’s position on the issue of free will
characteristics of the models, the characteristics of versus determinism? On the relative influences of
the observers, and the reward consequences of the heredity and environment?
behavior?
19. How does self-efficacy differ as a function of gen-
7. What are the four processes of observational der, age, and physical attractiveness?
learning? How are they related?
20. In what ways does self-efficacy influence perfor-
8. Explain how the production processes can be used mance in school and on the job? How does self-
to teach a person to play tennis. efficacy affect our ability to cope with stress?

9. How do the types of behaviors we acquire through 21. Describe how exposure to televised violence and
modeling change with age? video-game violence affects behavior.

10. What is the self in Bandura’s view? How does self- 22. In what ways can collective efficacy influence the
reinforcement operate to change behavior? behavior of members of a group?

11. What does Bandura mean by self-efficacy? Give an 23. What is computer self-efficacy? How might it
example of how we can use self-efficacy to exert influence our behavior online?
control over our lives.

Suggested Readings Discusses the basis of social-cognitive theory as
the capacity to exercise control over the nature
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing and quality of one’s life.
societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (2013). The role of self-efficacy in goal-
Discusses various ways in which self-efficacy beliefs based motivation. In E. Locke & G. Latham (Eds.),
shape lifestyles and goals. Considers these issues New developments in goal setting and task perfor-
from life-span and social-cultural perspectives. mance (pp. 147–157). New York: Routledge/Taylor
& Francis. Bandura’s views, at age 88, of the role of
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. self-efficacy in determining life goals and the stan-
New York: Freeman. Describes 20 years of research dards we set for ourselves.
on the idea that we can accomplish what we truly Evans, R. (1989). Albert Bandura: The man and his
want to accomplish; we are capable of consciously ideas: A dialogue. New York: Praeger. A detailed
directing our actions to achieve success. Extends the interview about many aspects of Bandura’s life
concept of efficacy to society at large—to political and work.
beliefs, social practices, and collective action.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

The Limited-Domain Approach

Personality theorists have generally attempted to deal with all aspects of person-
ality. However, an increasing number of contemporary personality psychologists
have concluded that no single theory can provide a comprehensive explanation
for all aspects of personality 2and behavior.

This has given rise to a newer, limited-domain approach to personality that is
more restricted in scope, focusing on more circumscribed personality factors.
These factors can be experimentally tested more easily than a global theory that
attempts to explain the total personality.

It is easy to see why the global theory approach to personality characterized
the field for so long. The early theorists—such as Freud, Jung, and Adler—
treated individual patients in their clinical practices in an attempt to cure abnor-
mal behavior in order to help people function in the real world. Of necessity,
then, these theorists focused on the total person, not just one or two traits or
characteristics.

The focus began to shift away from the whole person when the study of per-
sonality was brought out of the clinic and into the research laboratory. Experi-
mental psychologists typically study only one variable at a time, controlling or
holding constant all others. In this way, they concentrate on a limited area of
investigation.

They collect large amounts of data from their research on the ways in which
an experimental variable relates to its antecedents and its behavioral conse-
quences. Thus, the newer, more limited-domain theories are distinguished by
supporting data that are different from the data generated in the clinical
approach.

Proponents of these limited-domain theories place less emphasis on the ther-
apeutic value of their ideas. Typically they are researchers, not clinicians, and, as
a result, are more interested in investigating personality than in changing it. This
does not mean that this limited-domain approach offers no treatment applica-
tions. Rather, it says that the theories were not developed specifically for use
with patients, as was the case with many of the earlier personality theories.

In this chapter, we describe some personality variables currently being investi-
gated: locus of control, sensation seeking, learned helplessness, optimism–
pessimism, and the happy personality. They represent two approaches we dis-
cussed earlier—the trait approach and the social-learning (social-cognitive)
approach.

Sensation seeking is one of the traits in Eysenck’s personality dimension E
(extraversion versus introversion). It is primarily an inherited attribute and

369

370 The Limited-Domain Approach

reflects the impact of behavioral genetics on personality. Locus of control and
learned helplessness are learned behaviors. They have a strong cognitive compo-
nent, reflecting the influence of the behaviorist, social learning, and cognitive
movements in personality. The happy personality is an outgrowth of the positive
psychology movement.

These facets of personality are presented as examples of the limited-domain
approach. They are not comprehensive systems, nor are they the only theories
that focus on limited facets of personality. Our aim here is to give you the flavor
of each and acquaint you with the idea of studying personality in this way.

Fair Use
Fair Use
Fair Use

Julian Rotter Marvin Zuckerman Martin E. P. Seligman

14chapter

Facets of Personality: Taking
Control, Taking Chances, and
Finding Happiness

Julian Rotter: Locus of Control Explanatory Style: Optimism and Pessimism
The Development of Learned Helplessness in
Internal versus External Control of
Reinforcement Childhood
Reflections on Learned Helplessness
Assessment of Locus of Control
Age and Gender Differences Martin Seligman: Positive Psychology
Cultural Differences
Behavioral Differences The Life of Seligman (1942–)
Mental Health Differences Characteristics and Causes of Happiness
Physical Health Differences Money
Developing Locus of Control in Childhood Physical Attractiveness
Reflections on Locus of Control Health
Age
Marvin Zuckerman: Sensation Seeking Adolescence
Older People
Assessing Sensation Seeking Marriage and Social Support
Characteristics of Sensation Seekers Culture
Behavioral Differences between High and Low Geography: Where You Live Is Important
Race and Ethnicity
Sensation Seekers Personality
Personality Differences Self-Efficacy and Internal Locus of Control
Cognitive Processes Thinking Positively
Occupational Preferences Goals
Attitudes Happiness and Success
Heredity versus Environment Internet Use
Reflections on Sensation Seeking Different Kinds of Happiness: Meaning and

Martin E. P. Seligman: Learned Help- Flourishing
Comment
lessness and the Optimistic/Pessimistic
Chapter Summary
Explanatory Style
Review Questions
A Shocking Finding
Early Research Suggested Readings
Learned Helplessness as Torture
Learned Helplessness and Emotional Health
Animal Research on Learned Helplessness and

Physical Health

371

372 The Limited-Domain Approach

internal locus of Julian Rotter: Locus of Control
control A belief that
reinforcement is Rotter (1916–2014) was born in Brooklyn, New York, the youngest of three brothers.
brought about by our He said they “fit quite well into Adler’s descriptions of the oldest, the middle, and the
own behavior. ‘fighting’ youngest child” (1993, p. 273). The family lived comfortably until the 1929
economic depression when Rotter’s father lost his business.
external locus of
control A belief that This dramatic change in circumstances was a pivotal event for the teenage boy.
reinforcement is under “It began in me a lifelong concern with social injustice and provided me with a
the control of other powerful lesson on how personality and behavior were affected by situational conditions”
people, fate, or luck. (1993, p. 274).

In high school, Rotter discovered books about psychoanalysis by Freud and Adler. As
a game, he began trying to interpret the dreams of his friends, and decided he wanted to
become a psychologist. Disappointed to learn that there were not many jobs for psychol-
ogists, however, he chose to major in chemistry at Brooklyn College. Once there, he
happened to meet Alfred Adler and switched his major to psychology after all, even
though he knew it was impractical.

He wanted to pursue an academic career but found out about the widespread preju-
dice against hiring Jewish faculty in American colleges and universities at the time. “At
Brooklyn College and again in graduate school,” he wrote, “I had been warned that Jews
simply could not get academic jobs, regardless of their credentials. The warnings seemed
justified” (Rotter, 1982, p. 346).

After Rotter received his Ph.D. from Indiana University in 1951, he went to work at a
state mental hospital in Connecticut. He served as a psychologist with the U.S. Army
during World War II and then accepted a teaching position at Ohio State University,
where George Kelly was director of the clinical psychology program.

At Ohio State, Rotter advanced his social-learning approach to personality. His
research program attracted many outstanding graduate students who went on to produc-
tive careers. One of them later referred to that time at Ohio State as the “glory days,”
with “Rotter and Kelly right in the midst of refining their theoretical positions and
writing their magnum opuses” (Sechrest, 1984, p. 228).

In 1963 Rotter left Ohio State for the University of Connecticut at Storrs. In 1988 he
received the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the American Psycholog-
ical Association. Well into his 80s, he kept up his vigorous tennis and squash games
and his weekly poker sessions (Strickland, 2014). By the time of his death in 2014,
he had become “one of the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century” (Rotter,
2014, p. 1).

Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement

Rotter tried to explain personality and behavior by looking both outside and inside
the organism, considering external reinforcements as well as internal cognitive pro-
cesses. In the course of an extensive research program, he found that some people
believe that their reinforcers depend on their own actions, whereas others believe
their reinforcers are controlled by other people and by outside forces. He called this
concept locus of control.

People who have an internal locus of control believe that the reinforcement
they receive is under the control of their own behaviors and abilities. Those with an external
locus of control believe that other people, fate, or luck control the rewards they receive.
They are convinced that they are powerless with respect to outside forces.

You can see how the source of our locus of control can have a considerable influence
on our behavior. External locus-of-control people, who believe that their own behaviors

Chapter 14: Facets of Personality: Taking Control, Taking Chances, and Finding Happiness 373

and abilities make no difference in the reinforcers they receive, see little value in exerting
any effort to improve their situation. Why should they even try when they have no
expectation of being able to control present or future events?

In contrast, internal locus-of-control people believe they have a firm grip on their
own lives and behave accordingly. They perform at a higher level on their jobs than do
external locus-of-control people. In addition, internals are less susceptible to attempts to
influence them, place a higher value on their skills, and are more alert to environmental
cues that they use to guide behavior. They report lower anxiety, higher self-esteem, and
greater happiness. They enjoy greater mental and physical health than those who are
high in external control (Saric & Pahic, 2013).

Assessment of Locus of Control
Rotter developed self-report inventories to assess locus of control. The Internal-External
(I-E) Scale (Rotter, 1966) consists of 23 forced-choice alternatives. From each pair of
items, subjects select the one that best describes their beliefs (see Table 14.1). It is not
difficult to determine which of each pair of alternatives represents an internal or an
external locus of control.

Another scale to assess locus of control is the Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-
External Scale, a widely used 40-item test that has been translated into two dozen lan-
guages (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973; Strickland, 1989). An adult form of the scale is
available, as well as a cartoon version for use with preschool children (Nowicki &
Duke, 1983). Variants of the I-E Scale measure specific behaviors such as the relationship
between locus of control and factors relating to successful dieting and weight loss as well
as performance in a variety of situations.

Age and Gender Differences
Attempts to control our external environment begin in infancy, becoming more pro-
nounced between ages 8 and 14. A study of 14- and 15-year-olds in Norway found that

TABLE 14-1 Sample items from the I-E Scale

1. a. Many of the unhappy things in people’s lives are partly due to bad luck.
b. People’s misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.

2. a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don’t take enough interest in
politics.

b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.
3. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world.

b. Unfortunately, an individual’s worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he or she
tries.

4. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
b. Most students don’t realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental
happenings.

5. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.
b. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities.

6. a. No matter how hard you try some people just don’t like you.
b. People who can’t get others to like them don’t understand how to get along with others.

Source: Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80, 11.

374 The Limited-Domain Approach

girls scored significantly higher than boys did on internal locus of control (Manger &
Ekeland, 2000). College students generally have been found to show an internal rather
than an external orientation.

People apparently become more internally oriented as they grow older, reaching a
peak in middle age (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995). Also, a study of men and women in
the United States, ages 60 to 75, found that their internal locus of control was signifi-
cantly improved by cognitive training (Wolinsky et al., 2009).

In terms of overall scores on the I-E Scale, no significant differences between
adult men and women in the United States were found (DeBrabander & Boone, 1990).
However, a more recent study of men and women in England, ages 18 to 29, found that
women had more external control than men (Holland, Geraghty, & Shah, 2010). In
China, men have been found to score higher than women in internal control (Tong &
Wang, 2006).

Cultural Differences

Ethnic Group Comparisons Studies conducted in Africa found that native Africans,
like American-born Blacks in general, scored higher in external locus of control than did
American-born Whites (Okeke, Draguns, Sheku, & Allen, 1999). In the African nation of
Botswana, Black male and female adolescents scored higher in external locus of control
than did White adolescents in the United States. In both countries, however, teens who
were higher in socioeconomic status scored higher in internal control than did teens
lower in socioeconomic status (Maqsud & Rouhani, 1991).

A comparison of adolescent Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, and African-American teen-
agers found that having a more internal locus of control was considered to be more
important for the Caucasians but less so for the other groups (Kang, Chang, Chen, &
Greenberger, 2015). A comparison between native-born people in the Netherlands and
immigrants to that country found that the immigrants (in this case from Morocco and
Turkey) scored much higher on external locus of control than the natives (van Dijk,
Dijkshoorn, van Dijk, Cremer, & Agyemang, 2013).

Research on Hispanic immigrants to the United States showed that those with a
higher internal locus of control were more effective in adapting to the demands of
their new culture and in dealing with the effects of discrimination or being marginalized
(Llamas & Consoli, 2014).

Collectivist versus Individualistic Cultural Differences In general, Asians have
been shown to be more externally oriented than Americans, a finding that may be
explained in terms of different cultural beliefs. Whereas American culture traditionally
prizes self-reliance and individualism, Asian culture emphasizes collectivism, community
reliance, and interdependence.

Therefore, for Asians, success is viewed more as a product of external than internal
factors. The more contact Asians have with Americans, however, the more internally ori-
ented they become. For example, Chinese residents of Hong Kong measured higher in
external locus of control than did Americans of Chinese heritage, and Americans of
Chinese heritage were more externally oriented than Americans of European heritage
(Uba, 1994).

A large-scale comparison of 18 cultures confirmed that people in collectivist cultures
such as China scored higher in external control than those in Westernized countries
who placed a greater value on having an internal locus of control (Cheng, Cheung, Chio, &
Chan, 2013).

Chapter 14: Facets of Personality: Taking Control, Taking Chances, and Finding Happiness 375

A study of college students in South Africa and in Lebanon found that the South
African students scored significantly higher in internal locus of control than the
Lebanese students. This provides another example of the difference in locus of control
between an individualistic culture such as South Africa and the more collectivist,
structured culture of Lebanon (Nasser & Abouchedid, 2006).

Behavioral Differences

Studies of workers in China and of athletes in Sweden found that those who measured
high in internal locus of control were more able to adapt and commit to change; they
also scored higher on tests of mental skills than those with a more external locus of con-
trol (Chen & Wang, 2007; Fallby, Hassmen, Kentta, & Durand-Burand, 2006). Other
research concluded that high internal locus of control at work was positively related to
job satisfaction, job commitment, and general satisfaction with life (Wang, Bowling, &
Eschleman, 2010).

Research in Korea found that people high in internal academic locus of control
(believing they would do well in school) were more likely to persist in an online college
program than those who scored low in internal academic locus of control (Joo, Joung, &
Sim, 2011). A study of college students in Turkey found that those high in internal aca-
demic locus of control were far less likely to become addicted to Internet use than those
who scored low in internal academic locus of control (Iskender & Akin, 2010).

Similar to the idea of a collective self-efficacy, there may be a kind of collective locus
of control that defines groups that work or study together. This was demonstrated in
research in Austria on entrepreneurial work teams. The results showed that teams show-
ing the highest internal locus of control performed at a far more efficient and effective
level than teams lower in internal control (Khan, Breitenecker, & Schwarz, 2014).

Mental Health Differences

People high in internal locus of control are less likely to have emotional problems or to
become alcoholics. They also cope better with stress, as was demonstrated in a study of
nurses in Germany. Those who reported higher levels of work-related stress and burnout
scored higher in external locus of control than those less bothered by stress and burnout
(Owen, 2006; Schmitz, Neumann, & Oppermann, 2000).

Other research among diverse populations—including pregnant women, female pris-
oners, and police officers—found that those high in external control are more prone to
fantasies, anxiety, depression, fear of death on the job (police), psychotic episodes, and
hopelessness. They were also more likely to become victims of cyberbullying than those
high in internal control (Ariso & Reyero, 2014; Asberg & Renk, 2014; Hutcheson,
Fleming, & Martin, 2014; Marcano, Michaels, & Pierce, 2014; Ryon & Gleason, 2014;
Samreen & Zubair, 2013).

College students in Greece, a family-oriented and highly protective culture, were
followed as they dealt with the social and emotional challenges of leaving home, many
for the first time. Students who scored high in internal control adjusted more readily
than those high in external control (Leontopoulou, 2006). A study of first-year college
students in Turkey found that those high in external locus of control were far more inde-
cisive in new situations than those high in internal locus of control (Bacanli, 2006).

High external locus of control has been associated with compulsive hoarding behavior
(Benson-Townsend & Silver, 2014). People suffering from various kinds of addiction
have been found to benefit from therapy when they are able to develop a greater internal
locus of control (Amram & Benbenishty, 2014). People high in internal control

376 The Limited-Domain Approach

experience less anxiety and depression, are less likely to be lonely or attempt suicide, and
find greater meaning in life (Castro, Echavarria, & Velasquez, 2010; Keltikangas-Jaruinen
& Raikkonen, 1990; Kulshrestha & Sen, 2006; O’Neal, Vosvick, Catalano, & Logan, 2010;
Petrosky & Birkhimer, 1991; Spann, Molock, Barksdale, Matlin, & Puri, 2006).

A study of teenagers in Israel during the 1990 Persian Gulf War, when frequent
explosions of Scud missiles caused widespread injury and destruction, found that the
adolescents who scored higher on perceived control experienced significantly less anxiety
and fewer stress-related symptoms during the fighting than adolescents who scored
lower in perceived control (Zeidner, 1993). Similarly, people high in internal control
show higher levels of mental health, experience more meaningful lives, and score higher
on measures of subjective well-being than those high in external control (Shojaee &
French, 2014; Singh & Choudhri, 2014).

Physical Health Differences

Internally oriented people tend to be physically healthier than externally oriented people
and to have lower blood pressure and fewer heart attacks. When they do develop cardiac
problems, they cooperate better with the hospital staff and are released earlier than
patients who are externally oriented. A study in Norway found that they also tend to
go back to work sooner than those with a high external locus of control (Bergvik, Sorlie,
& Wynn, 2012).

Research on patients recovering from coronary artery bypass surgery found that those
high in internal control had achieved a higher level of physical functioning at six weeks
and six months after surgery than those low in internal control (Barry, Kasl, Lichtman,
Vaccarino, & Krumholz, 2006). Among older cancer patients in the Netherlands, those
high in internal control experienced less depression than those high in external control
(Aarts, Deckx, Abbema, Tjan-Heijnen, Akker, & Buntinx, 2015).

Some studies show that internals tend to be more cautious about their health and are
more likely to wear seat belts, eat well, exercise regularly, and quit smoking (Cobb-Clark,
Kassenboehmer, & Schurer, 2014; Phares, 1993; Seeman, Seeman, & Sayles, 1985; Segall
& Wynd, 1990). Research in Nigeria found that those high in internal control were more
likely to undergo screening for cervical and breast cancers (Adebimpe & Oladimeji,
2014). Cancer patients in the Netherlands who were high in external control had more
trust in their oncologists than those low in external control (Hillen et al., 2014).

However, studies in France, Germany, and South Africa found that people high in internal
health locus of control took less care of their health in general, but had fewer eating disorders
and undertook fewer behaviors that put them at risk for HIV (Grotz, Hapke, Lampert, &
Baumeister, 2011; Gwandure & Mayekiso, 2010; Scoffier, Paquet, & d’Arripe-Longueville,
2010).

Research in Sweden found that up to one-third of older people, those with little
formal education, and immigrant groups all scored low in internal health locus of con-
trol (Lindstrom, 2011).

Developing Locus of Control in Childhood

Evidence suggests that locus of control is learned in childhood and is directly related to
parental behavior (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2015). External control beliefs are likely to be
expressed by children reared in homes without an adult male role model. Also, external
control beliefs tend to increase with the number of siblings. Children in large single-
parent families headed by women were found to be more likely to develop an external
locus of control (Schneewind, 1995). Later research shows that children whose mothers
are depressed and have little formal education or income are likely to develop an

Chapter 14: Facets of Personality: Taking Control, Taking Chances, and Finding Happiness 377

external locus of control (Freed & Tompson, 2011). Children raised in low-income fami-
lies have a lower sense of control in all aspects of their lives than children from higher-
income families (Mittal & Griskevicius, 2014).

Parents of children who possess an internal locus of control were found to be highly
supportive, to offer praise (positive reinforcement) for achievements, and to be consistent
in their discipline; they were not authoritarian. As their children grew older, these
parents continued to foster an internal orientation by encouraging independence.

HIGHLIGHTS: Research on Rotter’s Ideas

People with high internal locus of control tend to:

• Live in wealthy individualistic cultures
• Perform well in school
• Not become addicted to Internet use
• Score high in job satisfaction and life satisfaction
• Score low in anxiety and depression
• Cope better with stress
• Be physically healthy
• Have parents who score high in internal control

Reflections on Locus of Control
A large-scale research program using both college students and sales representatives as
subjects reported a strong relationship between Rotter’s concept of locus of control and
Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002). Some research-
ers have suggested that both ideas deal with our perception or belief about the degree of
control we have over events in our life and our ability to cope with them. A major
difference between the two concepts is that locus of control can be generalized
over many situations, whereas self-efficacy tends to be specific to a particular situation.
However, Bandura insisted there was little overlap between the concepts of self-efficacy
and locus of control. He wrote,

Beliefs about whether one can produce certain actions (perceived self-efficacy) cannot, by any
stretch of the imagination, be considered the same as beliefs about whether actions affect out-
comes (locus of control). (1997, p. 20)

Nevertheless, Rotter’s research has been highly rigorous and well controlled, and he
used objective measures wherever possible. Studies have provided considerable empirical
support. The I-E Scale has generated a wealth of research and has been applied in clinical
and educational settings. Rotter noted that locus of control has become “one of the most
studied variables in psychology” (1990, p. 489). Well into the second decade of the 21st
century, locus of control continues to be the subject of research.

LOG ON

Julian Rotter
Various sites provide biographical information, discussions of his theory, research on rel-
evant concepts, and links to other resources.

378 The Limited-Domain Approach

sensation seeking The Marvin Zuckerman: Sensation Seeking
need for varied, novel,
and complex sensa- Beginning in the 1970s, psychologist Marvin Zuckerman (1928–), at the University of
tions and experiences. Delaware, has conducted research on a limited-domain aspect of personality he calls sen-
sation seeking. This trait has a large hereditary component initially noted by Eysenck.
Zuckerman describes sensation seeking as a desire for “varied, novel, complex, and
intense sensations and experience, and the willingness to take physical, social, legal, and
financial risks for the sake of such experience” (Zuckerman, 1994a, p. 27). We might call
it simply “taking chances.”

Assessing Sensation Seeking

To measure sensation seeking Zuckerman constructed the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS),
a 40-item paper-and-pencil questionnaire. When developing this test, he administered it
to many people whose behavior corresponded to his definition of sensation seeking.
These included people who volunteered for psychological experiments that exposed
them to novel experiences, people whose jobs involved physical danger (police officers
and race-car drivers), and people who admitted to experimenting with drugs or varied
sexual experiences.

Their SSS scores were compared with the scores of people who deliberately avoided
novel or risky activities. Those who deliberately sought unusual activities scored high
on the SSS, and those who preferred less venturesome activities scored low. Sample
items from the test are shown in Table 14.2. Over the years, the test has been revised
and is now in its fifth version; there is also a scale developed for use with children.

TABLE 14-2 Sample items from the Sensation Seeking Scale, Form V
Choose the statement in each pair that you prefer

1. a. I like wild uninhibited parties.
b. I prefer quiet parties with good conversation.

2. a. I get bored seeing the same old faces.
b. I like the comfortable familiarity of everyday friends.

3. a. A sensible person avoids activities that are dangerous.
b. I sometimes like to do things that are a little frightening.

4. a. I would like to take off on a trip with no preplanned or definite routes or timetables.
b. When I go on a trip I like to plan my route and timetable fairly carefully.

5. a. I would like to try parachute jumping.
b. I would never want to try jumping out of a plane with or without a parachute.

6. a. There is altogether too much portrayal of sex in movies.
b. I enjoy watching many of the sexy scenes in movies.

7. a. I am not interested in experience for its own sake.
b. I like new, exciting experiences and sensations even if they are a bit frightening, unconven-
tional, or illegal.

8. a. People should dress according to some standard of taste, neatness, and style.
b. People should dress in individual ways, even if the effects are sometimes strange.

Source: Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking (pp. 389–392).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 14: Facets of Personality: Taking Control, Taking Chances, and Finding Happiness 379

Components of Sensation Seeking Using the method of factor analysis, Zuckerman
(1983; Zuckerman & Aluja, 2015) identified four components of sensation seeking.

• Thrill and adventure seeking: A desire to engage in physical activities involving
speed, danger, novelty, and defiance of gravity such as parachuting, scuba diving, or
bungee jumping.

• Experience seeking: The search for novel experiences through travel, music, art, or a
nonconformist lifestyle with similarly inclined people.

• Disinhibition: The need to seek release in uninhibited social activities such as risky
sex, impulsiveness, aggressiveness, and antisocial behaviors.

• Boredom susceptibility: An aversion to repetitive experiences, routine work, and
predictable people, and a reaction of restless discontent when exposed to such
situations.

Good and Bad Sensation Seeking Zuckerman later noted a distinction between so-
called good and bad sensation seeking:

• The good type, or non-impulsive socialized sensation seeking, involves the thrill- and
adventure-seeking component.

• The bad type, impulsive unsocialized sensation seeking, consists of high scores on the
disinhibition, experience seeking, and boredom susceptibility components, as well as
high scores on Eysenck’s psychoticism scale (Roberti, 2004; Zuckerman, 1994b).

Other scales for assessing sensation seeking have been developed in the United States
and in other countries. German psychologists published the “Need Inventory of Sensa-
tion Seeking” in both German and English languages (Roth & Hammelstein, 2012).
Later research suggested that it might be an even more reliable and valid test for measur-
ing sensation seeking than the original Zuckerman scale (Marker & Schneider, 2015).

Another sensation seeking scale for use in China is the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale,
which has been proven to be reliable and valid in that culture for predicting reckless
behavior in motorcycle riding, excessive use of alcohol and cigarettes, and risky sexual
behaviors (Chen et al., 2013; Fan, Lin, Bai, Huang, Chiang, & Chiu, 2014).

LOG ON

Sensation Seeking Scale
Various sites offer definitions, research results, and examples of tests to measure the con-
cept of sensation seeking.

Characteristics of Sensation Seekers

Age Differences Zuckerman found that differences in sensation seeking occur at a very
young age. A study of second-grade schoolchildren in the United States showed that those
who scored high in sensation seeking chose to watch a video about scary sharks, whereas
those who scored low selected a video about a funny bunny instead (Trice, 2010).

In general, younger people are more inclined to seek adventure, risk, and novel
experiences than older people. Among high school and college students in the United
States and in Canada, those who scored high in sensation seeking were more likely to
engage in reckless and risky behaviors and uncontrolled gambling than those who scored
low (Collado, Felton, MacPherson, & Lejuez, 2014; George, Baechtold, Frost, & Camp-
bell, 2006; Gupta, Derevensky, & Ellenbogen, 2006).

380 The Limited-Domain Approach Mayo5/iStockphoto.com

Test scores on subjects ranging from adolescents to 60-year-olds showed that sensa-
tion seeking begins to increase during the middle school years and decrease in one’s
twenties (Lynne-Landsman, Graber, Nichols, & Botvin, 2011). No significant differences
were reported as a function of educational level. College students did not score signifi-
cantly higher or lower on the SSS than those who did not attend college.
Zuckerman’s Sensation-Seeking Experiences The research results on the effects of
age on sensation seeking were confirmed by Zuckerman’s own life experiences. He said
that when he was a college student he “reached my full sensation-seeking potential
through drinking, sex, and hitch-hiking around the country.” At age 74, he wrote,

When I was a young sensation seeker I imagined that after I retired I would do all kinds of
adventurous things like hang gliding, parachute jumping, and learning to fly an airplane. But
whereas thrill and adventure seeking and disinhibition fall rapidly with age, experience seeking
does not change. (Zuckerman, 2004, pp. 13, 21)

Zuckerman reports that he continues to seek new experiences, but they are less phys-
ically adventurous than when he was younger.

Gender Differences In countries as diverse as the United States and Iran, men con-
sistently scored higher in sensation seeking and lower in impulse control than women
(Khodarahimi, 2014; Shulman, Harden, Chein, & Steinberg, 2015). Significant gender
differences were also found in the four individual components of sensation seeking.
Men scored higher on thrill and adventure seeking, disinhibition, and boredom suscepti-
bility. Women scored higher on experience seeking. Similar results were obtained from
subjects in the United States, England, Scotland, Japan, and Thailand.

Racial and Cultural Differences Researchers found significant racial and cultural
differences in SSS scores. Asians scored lower on the SSS than people in Western coun-
tries, and white subjects scored higher in sensation seeking than non-Whites.

The need for sensa-
tion seeking manifests
itself in the desire for
varied, novel, and
sometimes dangerous
experiences.

Chapter 14: Facets of Personality: Taking Control, Taking Chances, and Finding Happiness 381

Behavioral Differences between High and Low Sensation Seekers

Physical Risk Taking Physical risk-taking behavior has been related to sensation
seeking. Skydivers, firefighters, riot-control police officers, bungee jumpers, and race-car
drivers score higher on the SSS than groups not engaged in these activities. A study of
American Motocross drivers found that the most experienced (those who participated in
the most races) had the highest scores on a measure of sensation seeking (Smith, Bissett,
& Russo, 2014). Research on male college undergraduates in Israel found that high sen-
sation seekers were more likely than low sensation seekers to participate in risky sports
and to volunteer for military combat units (Hobfoll, Rom, & Segal, 1989).

Different Types of Risk Taking Research has identified three types of risk
takers: antisocial risk takers, adventurous risk takers, and pro-social risk takers. Those
identified as antisocial (such as drug addicts and criminals) or as adventurous (mountain
climbers and sky divers) showed significantly higher SSS scores than pro-social risk
takers (police officers and firefighters). The motives of the pro-social group are related
to factors other than thrill and adventure seeking (Levenson, 1990). High sensation see-
kers also appear more willing than low sensation seekers to relocate from familiar to
unfamiliar surroundings and to travel to exotic places, even when the journey involves
physical hazards.

Drugs, Drinking, Crime, Fast Cars, and Online Poker! High sensation seekers
are more likely than low sensation seekers to use and sell illicit drugs (and to do so at an
earlier age), to drink alcoholic beverages, to shoplift, and to commit delinquent behavior.
The subjects in these studies included Blacks in the United States (9 to 15 years old), univer-
sity students in South Africa (16 to 49 years old), high school students and adults in the
United States, and teens in Norway (12 to 16 years old) (see Bacon, Burak, & Rann, 2014;
Hampson, Tildesley, Andrews, Barckley, & Peterson, 2013; Hansen & Breivik, 2001; Maho-
ney, Thompson-Lake, Cooper, Verrico, Newton, & De la Garza, 2015; Peltzer, Malaka, &
Phaswana, 2001; Stanton, Li, Cottrell, & Kaljee, 2001).

Studies of American high school and college students found that high sensation seekers
were more likely to smoke, use alcohol and drugs, drive fast, have more car accidents and
convictions for reckless or drunk driving, and engage in frequent sex (McAdams & Donnel-
lan, 2009; Ortin, Kleinman, & Gould, 2012; Ravert, Schwartz, Zamboanga, Kim,
Weisskirch, & Bersamin, 2009). Research in Spain and in France confirmed the link
between high sensation seeking and speeding and drunk driving (Delhomme, Chaurand,
& Paran, 2012; Gonzales-Iglesias, Gomez-Fraguela, & Luengo, 2014).

Online poker players in France tended to score higher in sensation seeking and to
experience strong feelings of arousal while doing so than those who did not play poker
online (Barrault & Varesconi, 2013).

Risky Sexual Behaviors A study of young Black women in the United States (ages 15–
21) found that those who scored high on a measure of sexual sensation seeking reported
greater sexual risk-taking behaviors—such as more instances of intercourse with more
partners and less use of condoms—than those who scored low (Spitalnick et al., 2007).

In Zuckerman’s research, 16 percent of the high sensation seekers reported risky
homosexual encounters, as compared with 7 percent of low sensation seekers. Among
college men, high sensation-seeking scores correlated positively with risky sexual behav-
ior which the men knew could expose them to AIDS (Zuckerman, 1994b). These find-
ings were confirmed by research on older subjects.

The correlation between sensation-seeking scores and risky sexual behavior among
gay men (both Blacks and Whites) was so strong that the researchers concluded that

What did Bandura believe about self reinforcement?

For example, Bandura [1] argued that self-reinforcement represents an essential facet of self-regulation in that individuals regulate their behavior by making self-rewards contingent on self-prescribed standards of performance.

Which of the following is a characteristic of people who have internal locus of control?

People with an internal locus of control assume a personal responsibility and influence over what happens to them. When they face a new and unpredictable situation they trust their ability to influence it, and so the unknown appears less threatening (ibid.).

Which of the following was evident from the research on Kelly's theory?

Which of the following was evident from the research on Kelly's theory? Even though the role models changed, the constructs that were important to the subjects remained the same. A person's constructs measured by the REP Test remain stable over time.

Which of the following is true according to research on the effect of the locus of control on mental and physical health quizlet?

Which of the following is true according to research on the effect of the locus of control on mental and physical health? In cases of cardiac problems, internally oriented people tend to get back to work sooner than those with external locus of control.

Zuckerman conducted research on a limited-domain aspect of personality called:

What did Bandura believe about self reinforcement?

Which of the following is a characteristic of people who have internal locus of control?

Which of the following was evident from the research on Kelly's theory?

Which of the following is true according to research on the effect of the locus of control on mental and physical health quizlet?

zusammenhängende Posts

Key gaps in skills exist in information technology, engineering, and research.

Early leadership trait research looked to find characteristics that might ________.

In what way did research universities differ from the best of the mid nineteenth

Which type of data is collected specifically for the research problem at hand?

What descriptive type of research is used to describe the status of a phenomenon at a particular time?

What type of research is if salaries and benefits contribute to job satisfaction?

In experimental research, the researcher tries to keep which variable constant?

Is an entire group under study as specified by the objectives of the research project

Where in a research article would you find a description of how data was collected?

Which of the following are the three principles included in the belmont report?

Werbung

NEUESTEN NACHRICHTEN

Which of the following are website design features that not annoy customers?

Hyperefficient chips of the future may also be made out of carbon nanotubes.

Ab in den Urlaub Login funktioniert nicht

Sibylle berg ein paar leute suchen das glück und lachen sich tot

Nicht schon wieder an die Ostsee text

Indirect methods for determining which evaluative criteria are being used include

What are 4 most important factors influencing consumer purchasing decisions?

When evaluating research material the three primary evaluation criteria are?

Was geht durch eine Tür aber geht niemals rein und kommt niemals raus Lösung

E-bike mit bosch motor 85 nm

Werbung

Populer

Werbung

Um

Legal

Hilfe

Sozial