Albert Bandura: The Behaviorist that Shaped it All - Term Paper Example

? Albert Bandura: The Behaviorist that Shaped it All Your School of Engineering, Social Sciences, etc Number and of Course Instructor's Name Date of Paper Albert Bandura: The Behaviorist that Shaped it All The field of psychology has roots that started with the ancient Greeks and Romans who experimented with the humors and came up with methods of studying the brain as the result of a combination of archaic science and superstitions. As both the natural sciences and the behavioral sciences developed, the understanding of human behavior greatly increased. The initial studies of psychology from theorists such as Freud and Jung were from a deterministic point of view. Both based their theories of human behavior ultimately as the result of the genetic aspects of their biology and physiology. This then became the focal point for the debate between whether human behavior was grounded from a biological perspective or if it was from an environmental perspective. What eventually became known as the behaviorist school of psychology, researchers of this school believed that human behavior was ultimately the result of interactions within the environment. One of the fundamental contributors to the behaviorist theories behind psychology came from Albert Bandura. Albert Bandura is a Canadian psychologist that was born on December 4, 1925 in Alberta, Canada. He was the youngest of his six sisters. Bandura’s father worked for a railroad company and his mother was the owner of a general store in the town that they lived in. Even though his parents were uneducated, they were highly intelligent and placed a great deal of emphasis on the merits of education to their children. Bandura attended the only school in his town, which was extremely lacking in both staff and resources. During his high school years, Bandura held a great many different types of jobs and it was while he worked these jobs that he gained his appreciation for the study of human behavior and psychopathology. He enrolled at the University of British Colombia in which he had intended to major in the biological sciences. He took psychology as an elective course and this was the start of his psychological career (Bandura, 2006). Bandura achieved much success during the course of his undergraduate years, which resulted in Bandura being awarded the Bolocan award in psychology. He spent his graduate studies in psychology at the University of Iowa, which at the time was the focal point for all the important research and discoveries being made in the field of psychology. It was during this time of his life that he met his wife, Virginia Varns, on a golfing expedition and they were married in 1952. Bandura earned his master’s and PhD in clinical psychology in 1951 and 1952 respectively. After this, he pursued a post-doctoral fellowship at the Witchita Guidance Center. The large start to his professional career occurred in 1953 when he joined the faculty at Stanford University. His research and study of adolescent and child behavior in respect to aggression is what allowed Bandura to form the majority of his theories regarding learning and social psychology. Bandura received many award from the American Psychological Association for his work and contributions to the field of psychology, which have earned him a spot with the most influential researchers in the field and title as the president of the American Psychological Association in 1973.To this day, he still serves as a researcher and as a professor at Stanford University (Pajares, 2004). Albert Bandura was a psychologist that was not bound by theory and textbook like a majority of other psychologists that were grounded on the basis of biological and deterministic aspects. Even during the course of his own education, he remarked that the majority of his learning took place as the result of self-motivation rather than learning from a textbook. In addition, he started out not knowing what psychology was and through a random convergence of events; he found that psychology was the area of study he was interested in. This means that he was not already grounded in a certain way of thinking, but rather was open to many different ways of interpreting the physical world. Because Bandura was a highly motivated individual, he believed that this played an extremely important role in the development of an individual. In comparison to other personality theories, this takes into account aspects of the internal locus of control as well as the external locus of control. Also through his research, Bandura formed many of his theories based on the fact that a majority of our learning and development comes from observing other human behavior as well as external events. Because Albert Bandura was a behaviorist, he theorized that a majority of a person’s development occurred as the result of their interactions with their environment. A majority of his first theories were the result of his study with aggression and adolescents. This became known as social learning theory or modeling. The basis behind this aspect of his theory was that one of the ways in which people learn, in particular children, is through the observation of others. Then, they adapt and mimic the behavior. This became apparent in his hallmark Bobo Doll study. This experimental design involved taking participants and seeing how they would interact with the Bobo doll. First, he showed children videos of different adults interacting with the Bobo doll. In particular, the adults engaged in violent and aggressive behavior with the doll. After the children watched the video and were placed wit the Bobo doll, Bandura witnessed that the children also became aggressive against the doll such as hitting it (Bandura et al, 1986). As a result, Bandura came up with four specific actions, which were required in order for a specific behavior or act to be modeled upon. The first aspect was that attention is key in order for the participant to learn anything. Certain variables in the attentive process can affect the degrees of attentiveness of an individual. The second step involves the way in which the information is processed and stored. It involves the participant incorporating the knowledge or behavior into their memory so that it can be recalled when necessary. Thirdly, the behavior must be reproducible. This occurs through memory recall and then implementation of the knowledge into the said person’s behavior. Lastly and key to all of Albert Bandura’s theories is the role that motivation plays in a person’s behavior. In order to model a specific behavior, there must be a reinforcement, which encourages the behavior or a punishment that inhibits the behavior. In relation to motivation, Bandura looked at the concept of self-regulation. Biologically, this is referred to homeostasis, which is the way in which the human body is able to regulate physiological conditions necessary for an individual’s survival. In psychology, this is the way in which we control our behavior for scenarios in which the behavior is either deemed socially acceptable or socially unacceptable, both serving as the reward and punishment respectively (Baumeister, 2004). There are three main ways in which humans are able to regulate their behavior. The first way is through self-observation. This requires an individual looking at their behavior and forming evaluations of the behavior as a continuous way of personal development. The second way is through judgment. This serves as a social comparison by which people compare themselves and their performance to others in an attempt to conform to a certain set of parameters. As the result of this comparison, a person initiates a self-response. A self-response is an internal way of validating whether the behavior/aspects of the individual have met/surpassed the standard or if they have failed to meet them. These internal rewards/punishments can then translate into their respective behaviors. Important to the field of personality psychology is the idea of the self-concept in personality evaluation and development. The self- concept is the way in which a person views himself or herself as a result of self-regulation (Hjelle & Ziegler, 1992). This can correlate to a person’s self esteem. For example, one that has a high self-esteem feels good about themselves, which decreases the neuroticism within the self-concept, therefore behavior which comes as a result of high self-esteem will benefit the individual. In contrast, one who feels negativity toward themselves exhibits low self-esteem, which increases the neuroticism within the individual. This can lead to behavioral abnormalities in the form of self-punishment in which the individual looks to escape the neuroticism. Sometimes, they will try to compensate in either direction either forming a superiority complex or an inferiority complex. In other cases, they will seek inactivity as a solution, which can translate into depression. Lastly, the most important part of low self-esteem is the person’s desire to escape the situation. The escape can take the form of either the use of drugs, suicide, etc. In relation, the idea of the self-concept also plays a direct role in a person’s motivational values. Thus, if a person is displaying a low self-esteem, they may display high motivation in order to escape it or they might express low motivation because they feel trapped by the inner conflict (Snyder & Lopez, 2002). Lastly, key to a person’s motivation is what Bandura defined as a person’s self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a person’s attitude or belief in their ability to perform and is related to how much control they have over these processes (Shwarzer, 1992). Bandura postulated that there were four processes that primarily impacted a person’s self-efficacy: cognitive processes, motivational processes, affective processes and selection processes. For cognitive processes, this is related to goal setting. The setting of specific goals is directly related to a person’s perceived self-efficacy. Therefore, the higher self-efficacy a person has, the greater the goal setting will be and the more likely it will be that a person will achieve the prescribed goals. In addition, those that have high self-efficacy are more likely to stay on target to completing the goal as well as have greater adaptation skills when something negative occurs which impacts the way in which they are to reach their goal. Motivational processes are directly related to the cognitive processes of what a person believes is within their capabilities. It is also directly related to the expected reward that is to come with the action. Thus a person takes into consideration the amount of resources that it is going to take in order to reach the goal and the reward itself in determining whether or not it is feasible to achieve the desired goal. This directionality is the way in which the motivational processes work in an individual when pursuing a desired goal. In contrast to the logical thinking that comes as a result of the cognitive and motivational processes, affective processes also play a role in self-efficacy. Affective processes are the emotional states and reactions that play their role in the ability to reach a goal. This can be related to how much stress and anxiety can a person endure in response to trying to reach a goal. The greater a person’s hardiness, the greater their ability is in dealing with stress and anxiety in order to reach the objective (Shultz & Shultz, 2002). High hardiness is related to high self-efficacy. A person with low self-efficacy is one who is likely to succumb to anxiety and begin to have thoughts of low self-worth, which can lead to depression. There is also a biological connection of the processes because the physiology of stress response can also have an impact on a person’s self-efficacy, sometimes even more so than the cognitive/psychological aspects. Lastly, the selection process plays a role in a person’s self-efficacy. This can range from the decisions made in daily life to the choices made as far as career direction. This aspect can be influenced by societal norms, culture, etc. All of the processes are important in helping define self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1994). Albert Bandura has and still to this day has run many different experiments in order to gather the qualitative and quantitative data necessary in order to validate his theories. One of the ways that Bandura developed some of his behaviorist counseling techniques was through evaluation of a person’s self-efficacy. In the current climate of our world, the occurrence of stress, especially PTSD, has become apparent. Stress has an effect on the affective processes which guide self-efficacy. In this particular study, Bandura was looking at the ways in which trauma has an effect on the coping resources of one’s self-efficacy. A person’s perceived self-efficacy affects how a person is able to shape problematic situations so that they can overcome them. In addition, traumas of a variety of situations such as environmental disaster, military action, etc. continue to persist within the individual. As a result, this starts to take over and effects how a person feels and behaves. Therefore, in this case the self-regulation process is crucial in that this is the way in which the person overcomes the anxiety caused by the stress, which can lead to stronger coping in those with high self-efficacy and can lead to powerlessness in those with lower levels of self-efficacy. One of the methods that is suggested as far as dealing with trauma is the cognitive challenging of the event that is causing the trauma and making the person re-live the traumatic event. One of the things that was noted in this study was that there are a diverse amount of traumas, all with their different inherent effects as far as stress, anxiety, psychological, and physiological responses. Even though there are multiple types, the one universal factor is that a person’s perceived self-efficacy plays a direct role in leading to the road of recovery. Those with stronger self-efficacy are able to lead to quicker and more successful roads of recovery compared to their lower self-efficacy counterparts. It also shows how this supports social learning theory in that it is a motor for both interpersonal change as well as social change. This way of looking at a way of dealing with therapy in regards to trauma is capable of good results as well as helping provide support for therapeutic techniques of dealing with stress and trauma (Benight & Bandura, 2004). Bandura’s theories have more support than other theories due to the numerous studies that have been conducted in order to support them. They also make sense because they are applicable to human behavior and are parsimonious. His studies on aggression that started in adolescent psychology have become more generalized and in particular have become a topic of popular study in terms of criminal psychology. In addition, his theories are clearly observable not just in the laboratory, but are also directly observable in the natural world. This means that his theories have good external and internal validity when explaining human behavior. As a result, many of his theories have extended past the classroom and textbook. Considered to be one of the foremost psychologists of all time, his theories are put into application in therapy that can be used for treating phobias, trauma, etc. Compared to other psychologists, Bandura based many of his theories off of aspects he noticed in his own life growing up. Being a behaviorist, his theories can cover a broad range of variables because the fundamental component is that motivation and interactions of a person within the environment are going to be ultimately what is going to shape behavior. He was also a self-made psychologist meaning that ne stumbled upon the field as the result of his motivation to take a course that he thought was going to be interesting. As a result, he has become one of the world’s most renowned psychologists and continues to serve in this capacity as an educator, theorist, researcher and therapist. References Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582. doi:10.1037/h0045925 Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998). Bandura, A. (2006). Autobiography. M. G. Lindzey & W. M. Runyan (Eds.) A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. IX). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Baumeister, Robert . (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory, and applications. New York, NY: Guliford Publications. Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(10), 1129-1148. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.008 Hjelle, L, & Ziegler, D. (1992). Personality theories: basic assumptions, research, and applications. Belmont, CA: McGraw-Hill. Pajares, F. (2004). Albert Bandura: Biographical sketch. Retrieved month day, year, from http://des.emory.edu/mfp/bandurabio.html Schultz, Duane P. & Schultz, Sydney Ellen. (2002). Psychology and Work Today. Patparganj, Delhi: Pearson Education (Singapore). Schwarzer, R. (Ed.). (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Snyder, C, & Lopez, S. (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Read More