Social Learning Theory - Essay Example

?Case Study: Social Learning Theory A sixteen year old girl commits the heinous crime of murder, albeit as an accomplice rather than in the first degree. She expresses no remorse over her actions when she is caught, is defiant and unmanageable and is found to have multiple injection marks on her arm indicating extended drug abuse. She also seems to think that the victim was asking for it, so to speak, as he had propositioned her on the street. All of these facts make it very tempting to incriminate and punish the girl without further ado but there are so many anomalies in the case, along with the expression of predictable behavior of an ill tempered, bad behaving teenager that it requires further attention and insight into the mind and psychological state of the girl. An analysis of the event itself concludes a few things: a) the victim was male; b) Mary approached the victim so her claim that he propositioned her without open invitation is made up; c) the girls took his wallet and watch after killing him and without any comment-worthy reaction such as horror or guilt fled the scene d) she was very easily caught. A sixteen year old girl is still young enough to be living with her parents but she is not so young that she is unable to make the correct choice between something so obviously right or wrong. The fact that she did make such a terribly wrong choice obviously indicates that she is either coming for a very bad, twisted past or is stuck in some currently dire circumstance. She could have acted out of self defense – and hence her lack of remorse – but that is ruled out easily by studying the victim. She was actually an active part of a cold blooded murder; she was remorseless and defiant; she obviously seems to be struggling with deep rooted psychological problems. To understand her behavior, the help of the Social Learning Theory is solicited. According to the Albert Bandura (1989), who is one of the founding fathers of this theory, it studies “the prominent roles played by vicarious, symbolic and self-regulatory processes in psychological conditioning”(Jarvis, Holford & Griffin, 2005). It acknowledges the role played by the human will and sense of perception in receiving external stimuli and reacting to them. As such, the SLT explains human behavior as a consequence of cognitive, behavioral and environmental factors and their interaction with each other (Jarvis, Holford & Griffin). The SLT claims that learning occurs throughout the lifespan of a person and all his behavior is exhibited as a result of that learning. It is also displayed at the time of an event such as this one in which quick action is taken. One person’s reaction to certain stimuli will be different compared to another person because humans have the ability to think and perceive and thus react to things based on their own perceptions. These perceptions obviously differ from person to person and therefore their reactions will also. So to shed light on Mary’s case, it is important to understand what kinds of things have influenced her own perceptions and therefore monitor how she will proactively to reactively do things. . The SLT operates on the Stimulus-Organism-Response model of behavior, whereby a response is generated to a stimulus only when it has been tampered with by the cognitive and emotional state of the organism (Lawson, 2008). The outside stimulus or the external environment is only as relevant as the symbolic representations inside the person’s head of it. This internal understanding is actually the reality and it shapes, or produces, behavior. Mary had a very troubled childhood. She was the second eldest of four children. Neither of the parents was attentive or affectionate enough to be termed as a good parent. Mary, or her siblings for that matter, was never given even rudimentary attention that a child naturally seeks from her parents. From a very young age, she had observed distance in relationships, especially mother-daughter and father-daughter ones. That obviously transferred into her other family relationships with her brother and sisters. They only friends she did have were her schools friends and their basis of friendship was collective bad behavior. The natural father was a negligent, abusive man who drank too much but did nothing as work. He continuously failed to perform his familial duties but always took out the time to beat his wife and children. As an observer, Mary saw that it was ok to vent out even in a vicious manner if some apparent harm or injustice has been done to a person; furthermore, this type of catharsis even at the expense of others’ physical well being was acceptable. Mary was also able to conclude that there are no repercussions or consequences to one’s personal self of such actions as her father never suffered. More importantly, it was not important for the victim to provoke an attack; the physical violence did not need an explainable reason but should make ‘sense’ to the perpetrator only. Mary’s father did not work but he had an expensive habit of drinking. This could either mean that the wife was supporting the family, household and the husband’s drinking habit or that he was performing some illegal activities to be able to get access to enough alcohol to sustain a full blown drinking problem. As he had been in prison multiple times for different offences, it would not be incorrect to assume her stole. In either of these circumstances, Mary learnt that it is ok to not work for money or rewards; taking money from others was acceptable. She also learnt that the maximum harm such an activity could result in was some prison time. The father eventually abandoned the family and had not been heard of since. This made an impression on Mary that one could do all of those things and jump scot-free out of them whenever one chose. Her mind dissociated actions from negative reactions or outcomes. Mary’s mother was a self indulgent cold woman. Her first husband never cared for her or her children but she never tried to compensate for the lack of love in the family by being kinder to her own children. In fact, she became even worse. She drank very heavily and was negligent enough to forget everything, including her obligations, in her drunken stupor. She was never a mother, not even a friend to her children. What is worse, she wasn’t even human enough to demand justice for her children when she learnt of the rape taking place at her second husband’s hands. Another very important player in shaping Mary’s life was the relationship she had with her stepfather. He was actually the first person who induced her to commit violence. He was no better than her first father in terms of drinking and uselessness. But he began raping her at 14 when her sister ran away and that marked the imminent downfall of Mary. She tried to fight the assault and even complained to her mother. Neither worked; her mother even refused to believe her because she wanted to keep her own disfigured marriage intact. This taught Mary the utter futility of fighting for what she assumed to be was right; this was when the line between right and wrong became truly blurred for her. The only thing that made sense now was self preservation and self gratification. She was on her way to becoming just like her mother and father. Mary did not have a normal relationship with her parents. She learnt from them indifference, selfishness and brutality. She learnt that no person and no goal were as important as the purpose of Self Indulgence. It is noted from the above that Mary underwent learning through observation, or in more technical terms through modeling (Harvey, 1976). The most important of the determinants of this acquisition of learning was her own home environment and family influences. Her father and her step father were people who had power and the executed that power. They used that force to overpower the wife and the children in the family and got what they wanted. Mary learnt that it is very important to have power and it is equally important to execute it for personal gains including self gratification. Mary also acquired her learning through the vicarious experience (Bandura, 1977) of her sister’s sexual assault. It can be imagined like this: the powerful person can demand anything from you including sex; there is no point in talking about the issue with anybody else e.g. her mother because that would not yield any result and would be an example of behavior headed towards ‘extinction’; the only way to get rid of a problem is by running away as her father did and her sister did also. She had this scenario developed in her mind as soon as her own sexual assault began and she realized just what had happened to her sister. She knew even then that running away was inevitable. The actual incident happened only when the right time came. Her brain formed the association and produced the appropriate response for it as well. This way, she was able to anticipate what would happen as a result of that stimulus. The girl was, negligently and sadly, not subjected to any sort of punishment when she engaged in bad behavior or truancy at school. The punishment would have modified her behavior but was sadly absent. As she had never encountered punishment for corrective behavior, she was unable to anticipate or predict the ramifications of her own actions on the day of the event itself. The intention of the girls was to rob a man and steal his money to fund their own drug habit. However, neither Mary nor her accomplice anticipated a scenario where they would get caught and be held responsible as the concept of punishment for bad behavior was not formed in their minds. If they had, they could have done two things: a) not committed the crime at all; b) committed the crime but instead of going immediately from the crime scene to restock their drugs, they would have spent more time in developing a concrete plan of escape and then to not get caught. The girls were easily captured the next day and had even been filmed by a camera nearby at the scene of the crime. This indicates they never thought they would get caught. Mary had only seen people doing bad things and getting away with it; she never thought she wouldn’t be able to get away herself. The above displays a carefree attitude and complete lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions also. There was high expectancy – the belief that the effort would result in performance (Nelson, 2011) - that they would be able to get the quick cash that they needed for the drugs but the anticipation of getting caught did not even enter their frame of planning. They also practiced selective attention in all likelihood – the process, by which a human sifts through much information and selects only some of it (Pashler 1999, p38) - by noticing only the information that served their own purpose and rejecting the rest, rather than look holistically and consider all angles, as common sense would suggest. After she was caught and questioned, she remained uncooperative and boorish. But the one emotion that displayed excitement was her ‘bravado’ at being sent to an institution. This is indicative of her sense of accomplishment: when she started out with this plan, her goal was to be able to get enough money to buy drugs. She did get the drugs and was heavily drugged when she was found. In her own mind, she has accomplished the goals she had set for herself. That she got caught was an insignificant thought. She probably has very low self esteem also because the idea of being sent to an institution is the only thing that can get her to drop her boorishness. Mary appears to have an internal locus of control (Rotter, 1975). Her childhood had taught her the need to have power and how important it was to wield it. The force and value of that power nestled within herself and that is why, she knew what she had to do and she attributed her successes, however scant they might be, to herself. Internal locus of control is a disastrous combination with people who are short on competence and self confidence. These people also attribute their failures to external factors. Mary also displays cognitive disengagement (Mikulincer, 1994) in different ways: She refuses to accept her personal role in the entire fiasco and takes no responsibility in abetting the crime. She further refuses to acknowledge any negative consequences of her actions, even though she is implicated in murder. That her actions resulted in the death of another human being is of real consequence to her. She further blames the victim for what happened by implying that he asked for it as he propositioned her on the street. She does not acknowledge the fact that she has indulged in prostitution before; also, she approached the victim first and that should be taken to be an invitation. The displacement of responsibility takes place when she says that her accomplice did the actual thing of stabbing the man; she just happened to be standing there at that time. She also stole the stuff on the man and bought illegal drugs with that money. She continues to be unimpressed by her terrifying dilemma. Mary’s brutal past has shaped how she has emerged as a person. It is very easy for a researcher of her case to become easily susceptible to the fundamental attribution error, which is the tendency to attribute a person’s behaviour to his own self rather than taking into account the situation (Nevid & Rathus, 2010) surrounding him even when there is evidence of its significance. What she has done is heinous. She does not have any redeeming qualities about her except for her dreadfully tragic past. It would not be inconclusive to say that Mary does not look forward to a productive life. Her past has made her a psychotic person and her indifference to something as gruesome as murder is very troubling. Even if she were able to be released of this crime due to her psychological condition, she would need intense therapy and sessions before she is able to be termed “normal”. References Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: “Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. Bandura, A. (1989). “Human agency in social cognitive theory”. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184 Lawson, Robert B., Graham, J. & Baker, K., (2007). History of Psychology Globalization, Ideas and Applications. Prentice Hall: New York, NY Jarvis, P, Holford, J & Griffin, C. (2005). The theory & practice of learning. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon Nelson, D, Quick, J, Armstrong, A & Condie, J (2011). ORGB. Nelson Education: Ontario, Canada Pashler, H. E. (1999). The Psychology of Attention. MIT Press: Boston, MA Nevid, J. S. & Rathus, S. (2010). Psychology and the Challenges of Life. John Wiley and Sons: Washington, USA Rotter, Julian B. (1975). “Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 43(1), 56-67. Harvey, J. H. (1976). New directions in attribution research. Routledge: Hillsdale, NJ Mario Mikulincer, M. (1994). Human learned helplessness: a coping perspective. Springer: NY Read More