Which perspective emphasized the importance of rewards and punishments in shaping behavior?

Summing up

Social learning theory as developed by Sears and his colleagues is no longer a guiding force in developmental research. Part of this has to do with advances in techniques for studying cognition and affect, as well as increasing interest in biological processes and their impact on social development. The attempts to explain identification in terms of primary and secondary drives were too convoluted and untestable and it became evident that relying on reinforcement alone as a mechanism underlying development was too limiting. Nevertheless, the impact of Sears and his colleagues on developmental psychology has been substantial. He identified behaviors that continue to be the subject of research. Distinctions between short-term and long-term compliance with parental directives (internalization) are still central as are concerns with the differential socialization of boys and girls. Views of discipline still distinguish between power assertive and psychological approaches and warmth continues to be an important precursor of internalization or conscience development.

Social Learning

Social learning theories suggest that children learn to exhibit aggressive behaviors because they observe others acting aggressively and can see how these behaviors are reinforced over time (Bandura, 1973). Social learning theories emphasize the importance of the social context and posit that individuals can learn by observing others’ actions and whether these individuals are positively or negatively reinforced when exhibiting aggressive behaviors. Research by Bandura has also suggested that young children imitate adults’ aggressive actions that they witness in contrived social settings. Thus, aggressive behavior is thought to occur because it has been either modeled or reinforced over time.

Social learning theories

Social learning theories reject the emphasis on internal mental processes that characterize attachment and psychoanalytic theories of child abuse. Rather, learning theories suggest that behavior, including abuse, is shaped through individual interaction with the environment. In this framework, child abuse results from dysfunctional child-care practices that are modeled by succeeding generations of children. Interventions drawing upon learning theory attempt to change the child-rearing behaviors of maltreating parents through education and behavior modification. However, some studies indicate that these interventions are inadequate without corresponding emphasis on attitudinal and relational changes.

Social learning theory views the course of human development in terms of children's socialization experiences and acquisition of self-regulation. Children's development of personality characteristics, such as dependency and aggression, as well as their skill in academics, sports, arts, or professions are assumed to emerge from learning experiences embedded within the social milieu of their family, peers, gender, and culture. Social learning theory defines children's socialization in terms of specific social learning experiences, such as modeling, tuition, and reinforcement, and the cognitions, emotions, and behavior that emerge from these formative experiences. Children's personal reactions were explained historically using personality constructs, such as identification, conditioning, or drive reduction, but are explained contemporaneously in cognitive terms, such as self-efficacy beliefs and various self-regulatory processes. Self-regulation is essential to children's development because socialization involves giving up immediately pleasurable activities or familiar methods of coping to achieve delayed benefits. A key source of motivation underlying children's self-regulatory development is their perception of self-efficacy. There is evidence that psychosocial influences of families and peers, such as parental goals and peer pressures, affect children's self-efficacy beliefs, aspirations, and levels of self-regulation. Children's self-regulatory processes and beliefs, in turn, causally affect their emotional, moral, and academic development.

Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory proposes that individuals learn by observing the behaviors of others (models). They then evaluate the effect of those behaviors by observing the positive and negative consequences that follow. Social learning theorists assert that members of the adolescent's social network who use substances serve as models for adolescents. If adolescents see role models, such as parents or friends, using substances with positive consequences, they are more likely to develop positive expectations of substance use, which increases the likelihood that the adolescent will use substances. Learning not to use substances occurs in a similar fashion when adolescents who observe negative consequences of use expect negative outcomes and are less likely to use substances. Self-efficacy, an individual's confidence in their own capabilities, is also thought to be learned socially. Self-efficacy to obtain and use or, alternately, to refuse substance use, may also be learned by observing a model. If an individual perceives that he/she can efficaciously obtain and use substances, he/she is more likely to use them.

Social Learning Theory and Social Cognitive Theory

Social Learning Theory applies to several human behavior theories in which the acquisition and maintenance of behaviors such as addictive behaviors depend on the connections between personal factors, environmental factors, and the behavior. Social Learning/Cognitive Theory, to which Albert Bandura greatly contributed, focuses on several key constructs including differential reinforcement, vicarious learning, cognitive processes, and reciprocal determinism.

Differential reinforcement takes place when a behavior results in positive or negative consequences received from the environment or the self. This helps explain why behaviors may change with the environment. Note that consequences to behavior are often social consequences. For example, a teenager using cocaine with peers at a party may receive social approval; however, the same behavior, if observed or discovered by parents or other authorities would likely result in strong disapproval and additional unwanted consequences for the teenager. The likelihood that this teenager will engage in cocaine use is greater if he or she has a positive perception and has less disapproving attitudes toward cocaine use.

Vicarious learning, or modeling, occurs by observation of others' behavior, attitudes, and outcomes of the behavior and can increase the likelihood of the observer engaging in the behavior. Role models such as peers and parents affect expectancies, evaluations, and self-efficacy related to the observed behavior. Thus, even as the consequences we associate with our own behavior shape our future behavior, observing others' consequences associated with their behavior can also shape our behavior (see below for more detail).

Cognitive processes include encoding, organizing, and retrieving information, and these are postulated to regulate behavior and environmental events. An individual cognitively processes information from the environment and determines their behavioral response. Self-regulation can be defined as the ability to arrange environmental incentives and apply consequences. Thus, self-regulation need not be limited to one's ability to choose how to respond in specific situations but can also be applied to one's ability to make choices that affect the degree of exposure to specific influences. For example, if Clyde does not want to smoke marijuana and realizes that he has difficulty saying no to Paul or Mike, he can avoid Paul and Mike as a means of regulating his behavior. A related construct is self-efficacy, which can be defined as the belief that one can engage in a specific behavior and/or produce a specific desired outcome. Self-efficacy can be thought of as context-specific confidence. The extent to which Clyde believes he will be able to resist an offer to smoke marijuana is an example of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy effects and is affected by behavior. The more confidence Clyde has in his ability to resist peer influence, the more successful he will be in doing so. In turn, successful instances of resistance will increase self-efficacy to resist in the future. Furthermore, seeing a peer resist influence can boost one's self-efficacy in resisting peer influence.

Reciprocal determinism describes the associations between behavior and environmental and personal factors, each of which is affected by the other two factors. For example, peers and social environments affect subsequent smoking behaviors, and vice versa.

Parenting Style

Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) posits learning through the observation of others. Not surprisingly, research has established a link between parenting style and internalizing problems in youth (McLeod, Weisz, & Wood, 2007; Rapee, 1997; Wood, McLeod, Sigman, Hwang, & Chu, 2003). Parents not only can serve as powerful models of social behavior for children, but also have a unique opportunity to shape their children's behavior over the course of years through parent–child interactions. Nonanxious toddlers have been shown to display anxious and avoidant behavior to a stranger after observing their mothers react fearfully (Gerull & Rapee, 2002; de Rosnay, Cooper, Tsigaras, & Murray, 2006). Murray et al. (2008) further demonstrated how mothers' anxious interactions with a stranger displayed in front of their 10-month-old children continued to predict the toddlers' avoidant responding at 14 months.

In addition to maladaptive behavioral responses, cognitive biases and catastrophic interpretations of threat are also believed to be subject to parental influence and an important factor in the development of childhood anxiety (Barrett, Rapee, Dadds, & Ryan, 1996; Dix, Ruble, Grusec, & Nixon, 1986; Joiner & Wagner, 1996). The parents of anxious youth often maintain pessimistic expectations about their children's functioning in various domains (Cobham, Dadds, & Spence, 1998; Kortlander, Kendall, & Panichelli-Mindel, 1997). Within this context, anxious children begin to demonstrate threat biases consistent with those observed with anxious adults (Hadwin, Garner, & Perez-Olivas, 2006; Muris et al., 2009), in that ambiguous situations are generally perceived as being more threatening (Barrett, Rapee, Dadds, & Ryan, 1996; Bögels & Zigterman, 2000; Dineen & Hadwin, 2004). A series of studies (Barrett et al., 1996; Chorpita, Albano, & Barlow, 1996; Dadds & Barrett, 1996) further demonstrated how a discussion with parents led anxious youth to endorse more anxious responding and choose more avoidant solutions to hypothetical threatening scenarios than they had prior to the parental influence. As previously mentioned, children with anxiety disorders often have parents who themselves have anxiety disorder diagnoses and there is a growing research base to show that adults with mental health issues demonstrate qualitatively different parenting styles compared to adults without mental health concerns (Reder, McClure, & Jolley, 2000). For example, Turner, Beidel, Roberson-Nay, and Teno (2003) discovered anxious parents to be more physically withdrawn from their children and to experience more subjective anxiety while their children engaged in nonthreatening play. Others have observed anxious parents to demonstrate less emotional warmth, more catastrophic interpretation, and more open criticism of their children (Hirshfeld, Biederman, Brody, Faraone, & Rosenbaum, 1997; Moore, Whaley, & Sigman, 2004; Whaley, Pinto, & Sigman, 1999), which likely does little to foster a sense of social competence or dispel a fear of negative evaluation in children. One final word of caution regarding the examination of the effect of parenting style upon child and adolescent social anxiety is warranted. The research base is almost completely predominated by studies examining the influence of mothers, with the influence of fathers receiving only scant attention to date.

2.2 Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory provides the basis for how social norms are learned and internalized during adolescence. Although this theory was originally developed to describe criminality and deviant behavior, its propositions can also be applied to positive social learning. Akers and colleagues (Akers, 2001, 2011; Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce, & Radosevich; 1979) identified four core constructs of social learning: differential association, differential reinforcement, imitation or modeling, and definitions. Differential association refers to the direct association with groups who express certain norms, values, and attitudes. The groups with whom one is associated provide the social context in which all social learning occurs. The most important groups include family and friends, but can also include more secondary sources such as the media (Akers & Jensen, 2006). According to Sutherland's differential association theory (Sutherland, Cressey, & Luckenbill, 1992), learning takes place according to the frequency, duration, priority, and intensity of adolescents’ social interactions. Adolescents will learn from and internalize social norms if (1) associations occur earlier in development (priority), (2) they associate frequently with others who engage in the behavior (frequency), (3) interactions occur over a long period of time (duration), and (4) interactions involve individuals with whom one is close (e.g., friends and family) as opposed to more casual or superficial interactions (intensity). The more one's patterns of differential association are balanced toward exposure to prosocial, positive behavior and attitudes, the greater the probability that one will also engage in positive behaviors. Association with groups provides the social context in which exposure to differential reinforcement, imitation of models, and definitions for behaviors take place (Akers et al., 1979).

Differential reinforcement refers to the balance of past, present, and anticipated future rewards and punishments for a given behavior (Akers & Jensen, 2006) and includes the reactions and sanctions of all important social groups, especially those of peers and family, but can also include other groups such as schools and churches (Akers et al., 1979; Krohn, Skinner, Massey, & Akers, 1985). In particular, behaviors are strengthened through rewards (i.e., positive reinforcement, e.g., peer acceptance of behaviors) and avoidance of punishments (i.e., negative reinforcement, e.g., peer rejection of behaviors) or weakened though receiving punishments (i.e., positive punishment;, e.g., being grounded by parents) and loss of rewards (i.e., negative punishment, e.g., having the family car taken away; Akers et al., 1979). Behaviors that are reinforced, either through social rewards or through the avoidance of social punishments, are more likely to be repeated, whereas behaviors that elicit social punishments are less likely to be repeated (Akers, 2001). Thus, through differential reinforcement, individuals are conditioned to internalize the social norms that are valued by the group.

Social behavior is also shaped by imitating or modeling others’ behavior. Individuals learn behaviors by observing those around them (Bandura, 1977, 1986), particularly close others such as parents, siblings, or friends. The magnitude of social learning, and imitation in particular, is strengthened the more similar the individuals are (Bandura, 1986, 2001). Social influence has an effect on youth when adolescents are exposed to the behaviors and norms of others (i.e., mere exposure) and observe the positive outcomes others receive from such behaviors (i.e., vicarious learning). Adolescents then internalize such social norms and model the behaviors in future instances.

Finally, definitions are the attitudes, rationalizations, or meanings that one attaches to a given behavior that define the behavior as good or bad, right or wrong, justified or unjustified, and appropriate or inappropriate (Akers & Jensen, 2006). The more individuals have learned that specific attitudes or behaviors are good or desirable (positive definition) or as justified (neutralizing definition) rather than as undesirable (negative definition), the more likely they are to engage in the behavior (Akers et al., 1979). These definitions are learned through imitation and subsequent differential reinforcement by members of their peer and family groups. Although there may be norm conflict in terms of the definitions promoted by one's peers (e.g., positive definition for alcohol) and parents (e.g., negative definition for alcohol), the relative weight of such definitions will determine whether an adolescent endorses the social norm and engages in the behavior. An individual will engage in the behavior when the positive and neutralizing definitions of the behavior offset the negative definitions (Akers et al., 1979).

Social learning theory

According to social learning theories, relationships provide a behavioral guide for navigating the world. Individuals learn how to successfully interact using direct (e.g., reward/punishment responses to new behavior) and indirect (e.g., observation) experiences. Initially proposed by Bandura (1977), social learning theory highlights the importance of learning through trial and error. When entering into unknown situations, individuals employ different techniques and discern which responses are rewarded and punished (Bandura & Walters, 1963). As direct experience does not account for all learned behavior, Bandura (1977) further highlighted the importance of observational learning, noting that individuals’ behavior is also shaped by watching whether others’ behavior is rewarded or punished. As such, social learning theory emphasizes the impact of behavioral social skills on adjustment via learned behavior. Individuals who quickly learn what behavior is rewarded or punished in different situations, and adjust their own behavior accordingly, will, in turn, be better adjusted. Bandura (1977) also suggested a cognitive component to social learning whereby the observer must attend to and retain information or behavior presented. In this, he noted that with development, individuals become capable of understanding which observed behaviors will lead to positive or negative outcomes, as well as whether they have the ability, or self-efficacy, to use those behaviors successfully (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). This attention and feelings of being able to achieve the observed goal then lead to replication. Social learning theory implies that individuals are more likely to focus attention on others who are particularly interesting or display admired qualities.

Exposure to suicidal behavior

According to social learning theory, much of human behavior is learned through modeling. In support of this theory, exposure to suicidal behavior, whether direct or indirect, has been shown to increase risk for adolescent suicidal behavior. For example, evidence of cluster suicides (i.e., a large number of suicides that occur within close timing or geographical proximity) has been found among adolescents. A relationship has also been found between media portrayals of suicide, particularly nonfictional descriptions, and adolescent suicidal behavior. There is also some preliminary evidence for cybersuicide pacts (i.e., suicide pacts between strangers who meet over the Internet).