You are on page 1of 12

Behaviorism and Social Learning

The first major world view or theoretical perspective that were going to cover is behaviorism. Youll see that
this theory can apply to any age as well as to humans and animals. Well also look at social learning theory.
By the time we finish the topics in this module,
you will hopefully have attained the objectives
listed at the left.
Think of behaviorism as what people do and how
they act. This does not involve thinking or
emotions. Its as if were machines, which is why
its also referred to as a mechanistic perspective.
Things happen that stimulate us and we respond
to that stimulus, very much like the input-output
metaphor used when we talk about computers.
In behaviorism, people do things for a reason,
meaning that there is a rewarding goal.
Behaviorism is also called conditioning because
its a behavioral control that can be taught. One
can be conditioned to respond to something. Were going to cover the two types of conditioning: classical
conditioning, which deals with controlling involuntary responses, and operant conditioning, which deals with
controlling voluntary responses.
Before we go into the two types of conditioning,
lets look at the principle of cause and effect
behind behaviorism. If animals, and that does
include us humans, are like machines, then our
behavior is based upon cause and effect. That is,
a cause produces an effect, and individuals do
what they do because of some reward. In this
perspective, humans are believed to be
controllable and predictable. Once we know the
cause, we can predict the effect.
Behaviorism is a very reward-based theory.
There is not an interpretation of behavior that
involves intrinsic motivation; behaviorists think
anything we do is to obtain something. Thats
why its a goal-oriented theory, and to behaviorists, the goal is an external reward. In behaviorism, there is no
such thing as an intrinsic motivator.
Behaviorists believe that human behavior (as well as that of other animals) is controllable and predictable. Once
the cause is known, the effect (or behavior) can be predicted. In this theory, all behavior is due to cause and
effect; the cause is referred to as the stimulus, and the effect is referred to as the response. In behaviorism, a
living thing can be programmed to produce a response to a stimulus.

The University of Memphis

Module 3: Behaviorism & Social Learning


EDPR 7117/8117
2013 Vicki S. Murrell and Susan Magun-Jackson
Do not use or re-post without permission of the authors.

p. 1

According to John Locke (the 17th century


philosopher, not the guy on Lost), children are
born with a blank state (tabula rasa), much like an
empty vessel. (You can read about John Locke at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/.) Do not
confuse John Locke as a behaviorist; he was a
philosopher.
According to behaviorism, experiences become
stimulus/response units and they fill the empty
vessel, which is the person. These
stimulus/response units begin to link together to
form lots of stimulus and response chains. It
makes sense that a child has fewer chains of
stimulus/response experiences than adolescents
and adults, so as the child grows and becomes an
adolescent and then an adult, the chains become longer. As you can imagine, the chains of experience increase
as we age, and we have an abundance of stimuli and responses in our memories. These often determine how we
act and react to certain conditions.
Lets start with classical conditioning, which,
again, deals with controlling involuntary
responses. The theorists well be looking at in the
classical conditioning area are Ivan Pavlov and
John Watson. Well be looking at Skinners theory
when we look at operant conditioning.

Classical conditioning is based upon research that


was conducted by Ivan Pavlov
(http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/pavl
ov/readmore.html). Pavlov was a Russian scientist
at the turn of the 20th century who was
researching the digestive systems of dogs. He
noticed that when dogs saw meat, they would
begin to salivate. Pavlov saw that the meat was
acting as a stimulus for salivation, which was the
response. Further, he noticed that the dogs would
begin to salivate when they heard the footsteps of
the lab assistants who were bringing the meat,
which (I guess) made him wonder if he could
program that response.
Salivation is an involuntary or reflexive response;
we dont think about doing it. It just happens. In
Pavlovs experiment, the meat was the
unconditioned stimulus and salivation was
termed the unconditioned response. Pavlov
decided to add a neutral stimulus, which was
ringing a bell. Now, a ringing bell by itself did
nothing for the dog. But Pavlov simultaneously
The University of Memphis

Module 3: Behaviorism & Social Learning


EDPR 7117/8117
2013 Vicki S. Murrell and Susan Magun-Jackson
Do not use or re-post without permission of the authors.

p. 2

presented the meat and rang the bell for the dog. Of course, the dog salivated each time. Pavlov did this many,
many times. After a period of time, Pavlov just rang the bell, without presenting the meat, and the dog salivated.
At last, someone had programmed an involuntary response. The bell had become the conditioned stimulus.
So, why was this experiment important? Well, it was the first time anyone had found this kind of relationship,
and it became the basis for greater interest to other researchers who wanted to control peoples responses. It
was the subsequent work by John Watson, an American behaviorism researcher, whose work probably has
much more relevance to you as educators and counselors.
Lets briefly discuss Watsons famous Baby Albert experiment. Before we begin, keep in mind that this
happened early in the last century, before
ethical considerations were utilized in human
research. Watson would never have been able to
do this kind of work in modern times.
The story goes like this: Baby Albert was an
infant child of a woman who worked at Johns
Hopkins, where Watsons lab was located.
Somehow, Albert ended up being a target of
research in the laboratory, where he loved
playing with the little white mice that were also
in the lab. One day, a large book fell off the table
and made a very loud noise that scared little
Albert. He began to cry and didnt want to play
with the white mice. Watson and his lab
assistant, Rosalie (who was also his mistress),
then began to experiment. Watson would have
Albert play with the mice and then bang on a large, steel pipe, scaring Albert every time he played with the
white mice. After a little while, Baby Albert associated the white mice with the loud noise. He became frightened
of white mice, but his fear spread to anything else that was furry, including stuffed animals. What Watson had
done was to create an involuntary (remember the definition of classical conditioning?), emotional reaction (in
this case, fear) in little Albert. Baby Albert now had a phobiaan irrational and generalized fear of something (in
this case, furry things).
Now that Watson had created this phobia, he needed a treatment to get rid of it. What he planned to do,
according to his records, was to create a program
to eliminate this phobia.
Watsons plan was to make the pathology extinct
(eliminate it) by bringing Albert into in the lab
and keeping him far away from the white mice
and anything else that was small, furry, and
white. Watson would also make sure that there
were no loud noises that would scare Albert.
Over a period of time with no noises, Albert
would not be as scared of the mice. With each
subsequent visit to the lab, Watson would bring
the little white mice closer and closer to Albert,
again making sure there would be no loud noises.
Baby Albert would become comfortable with the
decreased distance between him and the mice,
and over a period of time and much repetition,
The University of Memphis

Module 3: Behaviorism & Social Learning


EDPR 7117/8117
2013 Vicki S. Murrell and Susan Magun-Jackson
Do not use or re-post without permission of the authors.

p. 3

Albert would be cured of his phobia. His fear would be made extinct.
Watson also developed another possible treatment: counter-conditioning, which would involve pairing the
stimulus with something pleasant. In Baby Alberts case, he would be introduced to the stimulus along with
something that would make him happy maybe a fun toy. Over time, Albert would replace his associations of
the loud noise and the furry animals with something more pleasant.
Watson used neither extinction nor counter-conditioning; what happened to Baby Albert after he was removed
from the hospital has been a mystery. However, there are a couple of recent accounts of what happened to
Baby Albert at http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/01/little-albert.aspx and
http:\chronicle.com\blogs\percolator\a-new-twist-in-the-sad-saga-of-little-albert\28423?sid=at&utm_source=at
&utm_medium=en.
This experiment, at the expense of poor little Baby Albert, has been important in psychology because Watson
was the first to discover a scientific basis for phobias and a treatment for them. As a matter of fact, Watson was
the first researcher to also draw attention to incentives, which are positive rewards, associated with correct
modes of conduct. He also highlighted the notion of stimulus generalization, which is when a phobia first starts,
and how, if left untreated, it begins to generalize to related areas.
Lets talk a little about phobias. (You can go to http://phobialist.com/ for a list of phobias.) Many times phobias
are created unintentionally. Are you math phobic? Lots of people are. We know that if a child is told to go to the
front of the room to work a math problem in front of the class and has no idea what to do, the child can become
embarrassed and often made to feel dumb. Sometimes the teacher berates the child in front of the rest of the
class; sometimes the child can be left standing without producing any math work on the board. This child can
develop a fear of going in front of the classroom as well as a fear of doing math. Over a period of time, this fear
becomes a very real phobia that could continue through adolescence and adulthood. The same thing can
happen when a student who is not a good reader is asked to read out loud to the class. This child could develop
a reading phobia.
Do you have a phobia? Can you remember what created it? If not, dont worry; we often forget the cause of the
original phobia, but we know we have it. Sometimes we pick up fears that adults in our lives share with us.
Ultimately, what you need to realize is how you can avoid planting the seeds for a phobia in people, especially
children. If left untreated, it can be very difficult to correct. Its much better to focus on incentiveslots of
them. This keeps things positive and positive is a reaction that needs to be associated with school work.
I get lots of questions from counseling and counseling psych students about using flooding to treat phobias. This
is the if you are afraid of water, we will throw you into the deep end type of therapy. Im not a big fan,
especially when there are so many other methods available which will be less traumatic. Why would you risk
further trauma when you can achieve the same goal another way?
Okay Its time to shift gears to operant conditioning.
The focus of operant conditioning is to control voluntary responses, or behavior, regardless of initial stimulus.
The main theorist here is B.F. Skinner. As youll see, operant conditioning is the major part of behaviorism and
the main representative of the mechanistic world view. What we see now is that the focus changes from what
the original stimulus was, to operating on the response with peoples responses linked to the outcome or what
happens after the response.

The University of Memphis

Module 3: Behaviorism & Social Learning


EDPR 7117/8117
2013 Vicki S. Murrell and Susan Magun-Jackson
Do not use or re-post without permission of the authors.

p. 4

Skinners theory proposes several fundamental


characteristics. These include contingencies, the
role of reinforcement, schedules of
reinforcement, goal setting and task analysis, and
the role of punishment. Well examine each one
of these.
Lets go back to the basic stimulus and response
unit. It becomes linked to other units to form a
long chain. People work for some goal or payoff.
This whole unit (stimulus+response=payoff) is
called the contingency, with the payoff being
contingent upon the response. The contingency
represents the rules as to what to do (responses)
in order to get the payoff (another stimulus).
The payoff is then followed by another response
with the payoff being a consequence of the last response and affecting the next response. This goes on and on
and on.
There are two kinds of payoffs: reinforcement and punishment.
Lets start by looking at reinforcement.
By definition, reinforcement acts to increase the
likelihood that the response that was associated
with it will occur again. Reinforcement reinforces
the behavior that is being rewarded. All
reinforcement is good and acts to strengthen a
response. Keep in mind that reinforcement is
interpreted as a reward (or not) by the individual
who is receiving the reinforcement. It is age- and
person- specific. What appeals to a child may not
be that appealing to an adolescent or adult. That
is, if you look at it as an incentive or reward,
what may be a reward to one person may not be
a reward to another. Also, while you can use
reinforcement for a group, its not as effective as
for an individual.
Reinforcement must be given consistently. If you
say that you are going to give reinforcement (a reward), you have to follow through. Otherwise, the people
whom you are trying to train will catch on that you arent going to do what you said you would do, and they
will not do whatever it is that you are trying to get them to do.
What incentives/rewards do or would you work for? Can you think of a time in your childhood or adolescence
when you were reinforced and motivated to continue a certain behavior? Can you remember being promised a
certain reward and not getting it? If so, do you remember your reaction?

The University of Memphis

Module 3: Behaviorism & Social Learning


EDPR 7117/8117
2013 Vicki S. Murrell and Susan Magun-Jackson
Do not use or re-post without permission of the authors.

p. 5

There are two types of reinforcement: positive


reinforcement and negative reinforcement. The
slide to the left is the famous (?) Goodie/Baddie
matrix. It should help you remember the different
contingencies involved in reinforcement and
punishment.
Think of positive reinforcement as adding a
goodie. This is a reward or incentive that the
person wants and likes. It varies from person to
person. For example, if you offered me ice cream
for cleaning my office, Id eagerly do it because I
love ice cream. On the other hand, if you offered
me some Brussel sprouts, Id pass on the
opportunity because they are disgusting.
Think of what we give small children when they do well on a task. We give them starsbig, shiny stars and
they love them. If I gave you a star for making 100 on a test, it wouldnt be much of a reward or incentive for you
to continue striving for that 100, would it? Rewards have to be appropriate to the person and something that
they want or need. When people receive a bonus for something theyve done, theyre more likely to do it again.
We often use food as a positive reinforcement: candy, desserts, etc. This is a big mistake. Think about how this
may set up an individual for a lifetime of struggling with food. Also, think about how it might impact someone
who already has health issues, such as diabetes. The take-away here: try to use something other than food to
reward.
Negative reinforcement is taking away a baddie, or something that the individual doesnt like or want. What
this means is that by taking away something the individual doesnt like, that person will be motivated to repeat
whatever was done. Again, just like positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement is good because it increases
the likelihood of a response being repeated.
Negative reinforcement is difficult for us, because as a society we have learned that negative reinforcement is
giving something bad to teach the person whose behavior we are trying to change. For example, someone
might say that if a person sticks a screwdriver into an electrical outlet, the resulting zap would be a negative
reinforcement, which would teach him/her not to do that. This interpretation is a misunderstanding of the term
negative reinforcement in Behaviorism, so youll likely need to think really hard to get rid of what you have
been conditioned to think about it.
Here are some examples of negative reinforcement:
If you bring home good grades, you dont have to take out the garbage for the next week (assuming you
dont like taking out the garbage).
If you do well on your first two exams, you dont have to take the third exam (assuming you dont want
to take the exam).
Can you think of other examples?
Remember that only through reinforcement can behavior be shaped and responses strengthened. Also
remember that negative reinforcement is not teaching someone by making them experience something bad;
it is taking away something that they do not like in order to reward them.

The University of Memphis

Module 3: Behaviorism & Social Learning


EDPR 7117/8117
2013 Vicki S. Murrell and Susan Magun-Jackson
Do not use or re-post without permission of the authors.

p. 6

Take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA96Fba-WHk&feature=related. How would you describe


what is going on, based on what you know so far? More importantly, what huge mistake can you spot?
Using reinforcement, lets see what needs to occur when you want to change behavior.
Begin by analyzing the situation. What starts the response that you dont like or when does it occur?
Does this negative behavior persist because its being reinforced (payoff)? What is the reinforcement,
the reward that the person is getting?
As a teacher/counselor/parent/friend, you need to make sure that what youre doing is not the
reinforcement. Many times, what we do when someone is misbehaving causes the behavior to persist.
Sometimes you need to step back and figure out what the individual wants, what the individual needs,
and what is reinforcing the behavior.
Now, you need to figure out what you want that person to do. This brings up the question of whether
the individual knows what he or she is supposed to be doing. You shouldnt assume; make sure that you
communicate your wishes and expectations. A person has a behavioral problem when he or she knows
what theyre supposed to be doing and then doesnt do it. On the other hand, when the person doesnt
know what is supposed to be done, there may be a cognitive (or knowing) problem. We need to make
sure that the person knows what to do. It could be that he has forgotten, or it could mean that he was
not told in the first place. In this case, the link in the contingency between response and reinforcement
is faulty.
You now need time for making new associations for the person. That is, you need to determine
reinforcements so that the person will do what it is you want him to do. And this needs to be repeated,
and repeated consistently.
We know that there are techniques to provide reinforcement that works. While there are several techniques,
were going to focus on two: continuous reinforcement and intermittent reinforcement.
View the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ctJqjlrHA to listen to Skinner talk about schedules of
reinforcement
Continuous reinforcement means that that every time the person does what is expected, she will be rewarded
and reinforced. The response pattern builds up rather quickly, so the desired behavior is adopted quickly. If the
rewards/reinforcement stops, the response pattern will also disintegrate quickly.
If you do not want to have to reinforce every time a behavior is displayed, a better tactic would be to start with
continuous reinforcement and once the behavioral goal is reached, the reinforcement should become more
sporadic and unpredictable. This is called intermittent reinforcement, and is really more like real life. If the
reward/reinforcement stops, the response pattern persists for a much longer period of time.
Go back to the Skinner interview if you need a refresher.
Using reinforcement is the only way to shape behavior. Youre trying to build a response pattern. To do that, you
can utilize task analysis. This is taking the whole task, whether its behavioral or curricular, and breaking it down
into smaller subtasks, which will be rewarded. Or you can utilize goal setting, which is just the reverse of task
analysis. Here you would set up one sub goal at a time, with the sub goal to be rewarded, until the overall goal is
reached. Setting goals or tasks and rewarding each as it is accomplished is an excellent way to shape behavior.
Its very important for people to be aware of the 3 Ps. You need to be persistent. That is, you cant just try to
change behavior one day and not do anything about it the next. You also need to be positive. Lets face it: no
one likes a grumpy, negative person. Your being positive will spread to others. And the hardest P is being
patient. We live in a culture where everyone is in a hurry and wants what they want when they want it. Just take
a look at what goes on when were driving!
The University of Memphis

Module 3: Behaviorism & Social Learning


EDPR 7117/8117
2013 Vicki S. Murrell and Susan Magun-Jackson
Do not use or re-post without permission of the authors.

p. 7

We now need to focus on punishment.


By definition, punishment acts to decrease the
likelihood that an action will occur again, but it
does not change behavior over the long term.
What is likely to happen is that the behavior will
simply not occur in the presence of the punisher.
Punishment pushes behavior underground.
Sometimes thats good enough but dont kid
yourself into thinking that the behavior has been
eliminated across the board.
For example, if you find your middle-school-aged
child watching an R-rated movie at home, you may
decide to punish him (assuming that he knew that
watching R-rated movies was forbidden).
However, you should never be surprised to learn that your child continues to watch these movies just at
someone elses house, or after youve gone to bed, etc. The person who has been punished doesnt want to get
caught. Its not that the behavior has changed; the circumstance in which that behavior is done has changed.
All punishment is unfavorable something the person doesnt like. There are two kinds: punishment I and
punishment II. Notice theyre not called positive or negative, although they were at first. However, the terms
were changed because both kinds of punishment are negative.
Like reinforcement, punishment is individualistic; what may be punishment to one person may be a reward to
another. A child might act out to get attention and any attention is good attention. In this case, getting
punished will not stop the behavior but instead will reinforce it.
Punishment, like reinforcement, is more effective for an individual than a group. And its age specific, etc.
Take another look at the Goodie Baddie matrix.
Punishment I is adding a baddie, something the
person doesnt want or like. There are examples
of punishment I: being yelled at; being physically
hurt like spanking or hitting, also referred to as
corporal punishment; having to do more work; or
having to do something you dont like. If you
choose to use punishment I, you should try not to
use the harshest punishment first.
Punishment II is taking away a goodie, or
something the person likes. Examples of
punishment II include a time-out for a small child
(one minute per year of age), no cell phone use,
no watching TV or playing computer games, no
allowance, no using the car. Another one (my personal un-favorite) is not allowing children to go to recess. This
is a terrible mistake that teachers and administrators make, because not allowing children to expend physical
energy might just perpetuate acting out in the classroom. Please dont keep those kids from recess!
The University of Memphis

Module 3: Behaviorism & Social Learning


EDPR 7117/8117
2013 Vicki S. Murrell and Susan Magun-Jackson
Do not use or re-post without permission of the authors.

p. 8

It is generally better to take away a goodie (punishment II) than to add a baddie (punishment I). Well get to that
a little later.
One of the things you need to realize is that punishment only works to quell a bad response, so you never get to
the good response. In fact, even when you apply the worst punishment you can think of, youve only delayed
the bad response; you have not eliminated it. Its only through reinforcement that you shape a new response,
the good response.
One of the effects of punishment I is avoidance responses and these are not good! An example of an avoidance
response is when a child doesnt do his homework and the teacher, using punishment I, makes the child stay
after school. So the next time the child doesnt do homework, rather than turning nothing in, he resorts to
taking someone elses homework, or telling a lie (the dog ate it ), or cheating. What you see happening with
avoidance responses is that you now have more bad responses than you started out with.
Some of you may think that you cant function unless you use punishment. It could be that you were raised on
punishment and you turned out all right. While that may be true, in most cases, had reinforcement been used,
you would have turned out all right, too, and you wouldnt have had to go through such a negative experience.
Think about a time when you were growing up when an adult in your life used punishment.
1. Was there another alternative for the adult that would have worked without making you angry, scared,
or sad?
2. Did your behavior (whatever it was) really cease completely, or did you just work not to get caught or
not do that behavior in that adults presence?
If you use punishment, go for punishment II, not I, and always explain to the person being punished why youre
doing what youre doing. Tell that person the behavior that you want or expect and why the behavior that you
are punishing was wrong. Do try, however, to use reinforcement whenever possible. Remember, children will
look to you as a model of adulthood. We know that all behavior has consequences and children must
understand this. Positive consequences (reinforcement) make people want to repeat and strengthen the
response while negative consequences (punishment) make people angry or afraid, thus creating avoidance
responses.
Heres the bottom line:
Positive consequences (reinforcement) make people want to repeat the response.
Negative consequences (punishment) make people angry or afraid and can create avoidance behaviors.
Exactly how effective is punishment at changing behaviors?
This brings us to the controversy of using corporal punishment. We know from the research that there isnt a
firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of corporal punishment done by parents in the home. In many states,
corporal punishment is still allowed in the school systems. There are many parents who utilize this punishment
at home but who dont approve of someone else using it on their child. Some people argue that corporal
punishment is all that certain kids know, so its what should be used. These kids may also get slapped, cussed
out by the adults in their lives, or called stupid or useless. Does that mean that we can use those tactics as well?
Also, think about the messages that we are giving children: if we are bigger than you or in a position of power,
its okay for us to hit. However, its not okay for you to use violence.
Take a moment to read this research:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/16/spanking.children.parenting/index.html?test
The University of Memphis

Module 3: Behaviorism & Social Learning


EDPR 7117/8117
2013 Vicki S. Murrell and Susan Magun-Jackson
Do not use or re-post without permission of the authors.

p. 9

There are options to punishment (i.e., reinforcement) that will change the behavior, and there is a lot of
research to show that this is effective more effective than punishment. But its harder much harder to
reinforce good behavior than to react and punish bad behavior. So remember that if youre in a position to use
punishment, work hard to use punishment II (taking away a goodie).
Thinking about what we model when we use
corporal punishment is a good segue to our
discussion of social learning theory.
Social learning theory maintains that we are
influenced greatly by our social environment
and other people. Stimuli now have a social
context: the other people that present you
with contingencies, rewards, and
punishments. As an individual, you are in the
middle of the stimulus response chain. You, as
a human organism, are a link in the chain.
Your brain is like a giant computer. With it,
you learn about the contingencies that are
present in the environment as well as from
the rewards and punishments you receive.
Like behaviorism, there is a reaction for every action. But because you also remember the reactions to the
actions in your past, you can anticipate or build expectancy as to what will happen again if you repeat an action.
You can also learn vicariouslyby observing others and the rewards and punishments they receive.
The focus, as you see, has changed. In our previous discussion of behaviorism, you didnt play any part in the
stimulus-response connection. The rewards and punishments that you received were determined externally and
you reacted to them. On the other hand, with social learning theory, the change is internal, and you can learn to
self-regulate.
This is still a mechanistic world view but the brain serves as an information processing computer.
Lets start by looking at the work of Albert
Bandura. He is most noted for his research on
vicarious learning, the effects of modeling, social
contracts, self-regulation, and self-efficacy.
Take a look at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCETgT_Xfzg
to see the famous Bobo doll experiment. This
illustrates the theory of vicarious learning: that
we learn by watching what others experience.
We dont have to be the direct recipient of
reinforcement to change our behavior; people
can learn about rewards and punishments by
watching others.
People also learn by imitating someone they
identify with. For example, many teachers teach
the same way as their favorite teacher taught
The University of Memphis

Module 3: Behaviorism & Social Learning


EDPR 7117/8117
2013 Vicki S. Murrell and Susan Magun-Jackson
Do not use or re-post without permission of the authors.

p. 10

them, even though they may subsequently learn that the best teaching techniques were not utilized. Modeling
is related to vicarious learning, but the effectiveness of the model is dependent upon how much the observer
identifies with the model, and how long the contact is between the model and observer. Whether good or bad,
the actions that teachers and parents model have a direct and important impact on children. Again considering
corporal punishment, understand that often children learn at home that it is okay to hit someone else.
According to the theory of vicarious learning, it wont really matter if we teach that hitting is bad if we do it. Do
as I say, not as I do just doesnt cut it. So in your world, you have to answer the question: does hitting model
respect for authority or does it model violence? And is this the model that an adult should set?
In addition to studying modeling and vicarious learning, Banduras research also influenced the use of learning
(academic) and behavioral contracts.
The contract is a set of agreements, explicit in
nature, between the individual and someone
else. A rule of thumb is that the contract,
whether its behavioral or academic, should be
kept simple. The individual should have a voice in
what she is to do, so negotiating the contract is a
two-way exercise. The purpose of the contract is
to promote success; if it doesnt, then it was
probably too difficult for the individual. Any
contract should be designed so that its
promoting success rather than failure. The main
purpose for an academic contract is to help the
student become a more self-directed learner,
which is part of the students self-regulation.
Julian Rotter, another theorist in the social
learning area, was responsible for two important theories. He determined that people have histories of success
and failure that are dependent upon their experiences with rewards and punishments. Consequently, they have
built up an expectancy of what will happen in terms of success or failure. He also studied locus of control.
The basic tenet of expectancy theory is that if a
person has had success, perhaps in a specific
venture or possibly in several ventures, the
person will have an expectancy of success in new
ventures. If the person has experienced failure,
the expectancy for new ventures will be one of
failure. This is a fairly simple but important
theory. If people have had successful experiences
in their pasts, they are more likely to expect
success in new endeavors. So, if youve been
successful in your math courses in the past,
youre more likely to expect success in math in
the future. We make assumptions as educators
that when children start a new school year or
college students start a new course, they have
expectancy for success and are ready to begin.
Sometimes this assumption is false.

The University of Memphis

Module 3: Behaviorism & Social Learning


EDPR 7117/8117
2013 Vicki S. Murrell and Susan Magun-Jackson
Do not use or re-post without permission of the authors.

p. 11

On the other hand, if people have experienced


more failure and punishment experiences than
success experiences in their pasts, then theyll
expect to fail in a new endeavor. Many times,
when people expect failure, they dont even
attempt to try a new experience. They give up
quickly or sabotage their efforts in such ways
that failure becomes self-fulfilling. To treat
expectancy for failure, individuals need to build
successful experiences. Goal setting and task
analysis can help so that when the goal is
achieved, success is almost guaranteed. Its
important, too, that the person isnt humiliated
in the process of guaranteeing success
experiences. If that happens, expectancy for
failure will be reinforced.
The other contribution that Rotter made has to
do with locus of control. This is nothing more
than an individual believing that he will have
influence over an outcome. And this depends
upon the individuals belief as to whether he is in
control of the success (internal locus of control)
or whether his success is determined by others
(external locus of control).
An example of this would be whether an
individual feels like things that happen in life are
under the individuals control (i.e., the individual
has control over his or her choices, and takes
responsibility for those choices) or whether they
are under the control of some external force (e.g.,
fate, G-d, etc.). This, in essence, allows the
individual to place blame for occurrences on an
external force. While this may seem to be a natural thing to do, it drains power from the individual and places it
out of the persons control, allowing the individual to become a victim.
How do these theories impact how you do your job as a teacher, counselor, or parent?

The University of Memphis

Module 3: Behaviorism & Social Learning


EDPR 7117/8117
2013 Vicki S. Murrell and Susan Magun-Jackson
Do not use or re-post without permission of the authors.

p. 12

You might also like