A Comparison and Contrast of Learning Theories: Albert Bandura and B. F. Skinner Introduction Two prominent researchers, B. F. Skinner and Albert Bandura, have developed theories which provide differing perspectives and explanations regarding the learning behavior of individuals. The purpose of this writing is to explore the theoretical perspectives of Operant Conditioning Theory developed by B. F. Skinner and Social Learning Theory developed by Albert Bandura. An overview of both theories is presented, followed by a discussion of their similarities and differences.
Methods B. F. Skinner: Operant Conditioning Theory B. F. Skinner’s theory of Operant Conditioning has at its foundation a desire to demonstrate a “cause and effect” relationship between behavior and reinforcement and focuses on predicting and controlling behavior in observable ways (Skinner, 1953, p. 23). Unlike many of his predecessors, which delved within the personality of the individual to explain behavior, Skinner believed that behavior was actually external to the individual, being shaped by stimuli and reinforcements.
He argued that it would be illogical to consider personality traits or inner motives as explanations for behavior, because inner causes can involve circular reasoning. (Cloninger, 2008, p. 288). Instead of attempting to examine internal states that cannot be directly observed and measured, Skinner sought to utilize the scientific method, examining observable behavior through analyzing empirical evidence, based on direct observations: “The practice of looking inside the organism for an explanation of behavior has tended to obscure the variables which are immediately available for a scientific analysis.
These variables lie outside the organism, in its immediate environment and in its environmental history. They have a physical status to which the usual techniques of science are adapted, and they make it possible to explain behavior as other subjects are explained in science. ” (Skinner, 1954, p. 31). Operant conditioning can be described as learning behavior in which the frequency of responding (selection of behavior) is influenced consequences. In other words, behavior is determined by environmental outcomes contingent upon the behavior.
In order to analyze this learning process, Skinner desired to track changes in behavior in ways that could be clearly observed, measured, and counted. He measured a subject’s level of learning by monitoring its response rate, and recording changes (either increases or decreases) in its behavior, in response to environmental stimuli. The subject’s rate of responding could then be increased by reinforcement or decreased by punishment or extinction, with changes in the response rate being indicative of learning (Cloninger, 2007, p. 289-290). Reinforcement. Skinner defined reinforcement by giving it positive and negative connotations.
Any stimulus that strengthens desired behaviors were defined as positive reinforcers. Negative reinforcers were defined as an averse stimulus that, when withdrawn, also served to strengthen behavior (Skinner, 1953, p. 185). This is not to be confused with punishment, which is when an averse stimulus is presented following a response, in order to reduce the frequency of an operant behavior. All forms of reinforcers, both positive and negative, will serve to increase the rate of responding, while punishment serves to decrease the response rate (Cloninger, 2007, p. 91). Skinner also devoted a great deal of study to different schedules of reinforcement, such as continuous, partial, fixed ratio, variable ratio, fixed interval and variable interval reinforcement schedules, in an effort to determine the contingency between schedule or reinforcement and behavioral response. If a response rate ceases altogether, the behavior is in extinction. However, a behavior that has undergone extinction can return spontaneously return at a later time (Cloninger, 2007, p. 291-294).
Albert Bandura: Social Learning Theory Bandura recognizes the behaviorist view that environment can influence behavior, but does not believe the environment, in and of itself, is the cause of behavior. He also recognizes that character traits within a person can influence behavior, but does not believe traits alone can explain behavior and learning. Instead, Bandura expanded upon these theories and developed the concept of reciprocal determinism, which posits that the person, their environment, and behavior all influence one another.
Bandura argued that personal factors affect behavior, which alters the environment, and that environment is not only a cause of behavior, but also an effect of behavior, and these all operate “as interlocking determinants of each other” (Bandura, 1978, p. 346). Therefore, if we are going to attempt to understand human behavior, all of these factors and their mutual influences must be recognized. (Cloninger, 2007, p. 353). Self Regulation. Bandura’s theory is essentially an agentic perspective, which views people as self-organizing, proactive, and self-regulating, as opposed to being reactive organisms shaped solely by environmental forces.
His theory posits that human beings have a considerable amount of control over their own behavior, though they may exhibit variations on how effectively they exert it. Bandura believed that individuals can be, essentially, self-directed, at least to the extent that they are able to make goals and then track and evaluate their own progress. Bandura developed these tenets into a model called the self-system, which describes an individual’s cognitive processes for setting goals, specifically relating to the perceiving, evaluating, and regulating of their behavior (Cloninger, 2007, p. 54). Self Efficacy. In order for an individual to successfully deal with a situation, they must first believe they are able to execute the actions necessary to deal with the situation they are facing. Bandura defined this concept as self-efficacy. When an individual has a high degree of self-efficacy, they are confident they will obtain their objectives, will be persistent in obtaining them, and will set higher goals for themselves. In contrast, an individual with a low degree of self-efficacy will not be as confident that they can accomplish their objectives.
Therefore, they will be more prone to feelings of discouragement and to give up on their goals. Bandura also proposed that an individual’s degree of self-efficacy can be specific to a particular domain of behavior (as opposed to being a broadly applied trait) and that individual’s areas which are low in self-efficacy can be changed through learning (Cloninger, 2007, p. 357). Observational Learning and Modeling. Bandura’s model attempts to provide understanding for the events that take place within an individual which produce changes in their behavior.
In this process, learning occurs when an individual observes and imitates behaviors exhibited in others, a process called observational learning. Bandura outlines four component processes which underlie obersavional learning, including the following: (1) Attention – individuals cannot learn from observation unless they attend to and percieve the significant features of the modeled behavior. (2) Retention – in order for the modeled behavior to be reproduced, an individual must encode the information into their long-term memory, in order to be able to retain it and retrieve the information at a later time. 3) Motor Reproduction – the observer must be able to replicate the behavior that the model has demonstrated. (4) Motivation – the observer must want to demonstrate what they have learned. (Cloninger, 2007, p. 359-360). Observational Learning and Modeling. Bandura’s observational learning theory proposes the tenet that individuals learn by observing the behaviors of others and the outcomes of those behaviors. Bandura described the process of learning by observing others with the term modeling, which has also been described as imitative learning, observational learning, or vicarious learning.
Bandura defines vicarious learning as follows: “a vicarious learning event is defined as one in which new responses are acquired or the characteristics of existing response repertoires are modified as a function of observing the behavior of others and its reinforcing consequences, without the modeled responses being overtly performed by the viewer during the exposure period” (Bandura, 1965, p. 3). In other words, Bandura believed that learning could occur in an individual without any evidence being present in an outward change of behavior.
Learning can take place solely through the observation of the modeled behavior, which may not result in any outward behavior change or performance, but learning has still occurred (Cloninger, 2007, p. 361). Discussion Mechanism of Learning For Skinner, behavior is functionally related to positive and negative stimuli present in the environment, and changes in behavior are measured as indicative of learning. For Skinner, learning only takes place through reinforcement and repetition, and is only evidenced by some measureable change being seen in an individual’s outward behavior.
However, Bandura’s theory states that, while reinforcement can play a role in motivating an individual, it is not absolutely necessary for learning to take place. Instead, Bandura believes that learning takes place through observation of behaviors that are modeled by others, but that an individual can still have acquired knowledge, without having any outward change being evidenced in their behavior. Role of Learner Skinner and Bandura also differ on the role of the learner.
For Skinner, the learner’s role is that of an unknowing participant, whose responses are more or less automatic in nature, in reaction to environmental factors. For Bandura, a learner is not an unknowing participant in the learning process, but instead must enact 4 processes (Attention, Retention, Motor Reproduction and Motivation) in order to facilitate learning, and an individual’s ability to employ these four processes serves to improve the learning process. Environment and Locus of Control
One of the largest differences between Skinner’s and Bandura’s theories is their belief regarding the forces that govern learning and behavior, specifically as related to environment and locus of control. For Skinner, the individual has an external locus of control, where factors present in the individual’s outward environment determine their behavior. In contrast, while Bandura agrees that the environment does play a part in influencing behavior, this is not the entire picture.
Instead, Bandura posits that the person, the environment, and the behavior all influence each other and contribute to learning. He believes that an individual has more of an internal locus of control, and that behavior is shaped by observation, as well as by internal codes or representations that serve to guide future actions. In other words, while Skinner viewed individuals as being “pawns” whose behavior is controlled by reactions to environmental factors, Bandura viewed individuals as “princes” reacting with intention, forethought, and self-reflection, being active contributors to their own learning.
References Bandura, Albert. (1965). Vicarious processes: A case of no-trial learning. In L. Berkowitz (Ed. ), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-55). New York: Academic Press. Cloninger, Susan C. (2007). Theories of Personality: Understanding Persons (5th Edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Skinner, Burrhus F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York, New York: Macmillan Company.
