case study of social learning theory

Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

What is Social Learning Theory?

SLT is often described as the ‘bridge’ between traditional learning theory ( behaviorism)  and the cognitive approach. This is because it focuses on how mental (cognitive) factors are involved in learning.

Unlike Skinner, Bandura (1977) believes humans are active information processors and think about the relationship between their behavior and its consequences.

Albert Bandura’s social learning theory suggests that people learn new behaviors by observing and imitating others.

The theory emphasizes the importance of observational learning, where individuals acquire knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs by watching the actions of others and the consequences that follow, leading to the modeling and adoption of observed behaviors.

Assumptions

Social learning theory, proposed by Albert Bandura, emphasizes the importance of observing, modeling, and imitating the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others.

Social learning theory considers how both environmental and cognitive factors interact to influence human learning and behavior.

In social learning theory, Albert Bandura (1977) agrees with the behaviorist learning theories of classical conditioning and operant conditioning . However, he adds two important ideas:

• Mediating processes occur between stimuli & responses.
• Behavior is learned from the environment through the process of observational learning.

Mediational Processes

Observational learning could not occur unless cognitive processes were at work. These mental factors mediate (i.e., intervene) in the learning process to determine whether a new response is acquired.

Therefore, individuals do not automatically observe the behavior of a model and imitate it. There is some thought prior to imitation, and this consideration is called the mediational process.

This occurs between observing the behavior (stimulus) and imitating it or not (response).

There are four mediational processes proposed by Bandura (1969, 1971, 1977). Each of these components is crucial in determining whether or not imitation occurs upon exposure to a model:

1. Attention

Attentional processes are crucial because mere exposure to a model doesn’t ensure that observers will pay attention (Bandura, 1972).

The model must capture the observer’s interest, and the observer must deem the model’s behavior worth imitating. This decides if the behavior will be modeled.

The individual needs to pay attention to the behavior and its consequences and form a mental representation of the behavior.

For a behavior to be imitated, it has to grab our attention. We observe many behaviors on a daily basis, and many of these are not noteworthy. Attention is, therefore, extremely important in whether a behavior influences others to imitate it.

2. Retention

Bandura highlighted the retention process in imitation, where individuals symbolically store a model’s behavior in their minds.

For successful imitation, observers must save these behaviors in symbolic forms, actively organizing them into easily recalled templates (Bandura, 1972).

How well the behavior is remembered. The behavior may be noticed, but it is not always remembered, which obviously prevents imitation.

It is important, therefore, that a memory of the behavior is formed to be performed later by the observer.

Much of social learning is not immediate, so this process is especially vital in those cases. Even if the behavior is reproduced shortly after seeing it, there needs to be a memory to refer to.

3. Motor Reproduction

This is the ability to perform the behavior that the model has just demonstrated. We see much behavior daily that we would like to be able to imitate, but this is not always possible.

Our physical ability limits us, so even if we wish to reproduce the behavior, we sometimes cannot.

This influences our decisions whether to try and imitate it or not. Imagine the scenario of a 90-year-old lady who struggles to walk while watching Dancing on Ice.

She may appreciate that the skill is desirable, but she will not attempt to imitate it because she physically cannot do it.

Motor reproduction processes use internal symbolic images of observed behaviors to guide actions (Bandura, 1972). An observer internally replicates a behavior using these symbols as a reference, even if it’s not externally shown (Manz & Sims, 1981).

4. Motivation

Lastly, motivational and reinforcement processes refer to the perceived favorable or unfavorable consequences of mimicking the model’s actions that are likely to increase or decrease the likelihood of imitation.

The will to perform the behavior. The observer will consider the rewards and punishments that follow a behavior.

If the perceived rewards outweigh the perceived costs (if any), the observer will more likely imitate the behavior.

If the vicarious reinforcement is unimportant to the observer, they will not imitate the behavior.

What is Observational Learning?

Observational learning is a key aspect of social learning theory, where individuals learn and adopt behaviors by observing others.

This process often involves modeling after those who are similar, high-status, knowledgeable, rewarded, or nurturing figures in our lives.

Children observe the people around them behaving in various ways. This is illustrated during the famous Bobo doll experiment (Bandura, 1961).

What is a model?

Individuals that are observed are called models. In society, children are surrounded by many influential models, such as parents within the family, characters on children’s TV, friends within their peer group, and teachers at school.

These models provide examples of behavior to observe and imitate, e.g., masculine and feminine, pro and anti-social, etc.

Children pay attention to some of these people (models) and encode their behavior.  At a later time, they may imitate (i.e., copy) the behavior they have observed.

They may do this regardless of whether the behavior is ‘gender appropriate’ or not, but there are several processes that make it more likely that a child will reproduce the behavior that society deems appropriate for its gender.

Albert Bandura, through his work on social learning theory, identified three primary models of observational learning:

Live Model : Observing an actual individual perform a behavior.

Verbal Instructional Model : Listening to detailed descriptions of behavior and then acting based on that description.

Symbolic Model : Learning through media, such as books, movies, television, or online media, where behaviors are demonstrated.

Through these models, individuals can vicariously learn by watching others without necessarily undergoing direct firsthand experiences.

Influences on Observational Learning

Based on Bandura’s research, several factors enhance the likelihood of a behavior being imitated. We are more prone to imitate behaviors when the following conditions apply:

Attentional Processes

1. similarity of the model.

We are more likely to model our behaviors after individuals who are similar to us. This is because we are more likely to identify with these individuals, making their behaviors seem more relevant and attainable.

This can include similarity in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, or even shared interests and values (e.g., Lockwood & Kunda, 1997; Marx & Ko, 2012).

2. Identification with the Model

Identification occurs with another person (the model) and involves taking on (or adopting) observed behaviors, values, beliefs, and attitudes of the person you identify with.

The motivation to identify with a particular model is that they have a quality that the individual would like to possess.

The more an individual identifies with the model (for instance, because they are similar or aspire to be like the model), the more likely they are to imitate their behavior.

This relates to an attachment to specific models that possess qualities seen as rewarding. Children will have several models with whom they identify. These may be people in their immediate world, such as parents or older siblings, or they could be fantasy characters or people in the media.

Identification differs from imitation as it may involve adopting several behaviors, whereas imitation usually involves copying a single behavior.

Motivational Processes

3. rewarded behaviors.

Individuals who see that a model is rewarded for their behaviors are likelier to imitate them, while behavior resulting in negative outcomes is less likely to be copied.

This is known as vicarious reinforcement. For instance, if a student sees that another student gets praised by the teacher for asking questions, they are likelier to ask questions themselves.

The way role models achieve success impacts their effectiveness. People benefit more from role models whose success is due to factors they can control, like effort, rather than uncontrollable factors like innate talent (Weiner, 1979, 1985).

Studies showed girls performed better in math when their role model’s success was linked to effort. In contrast, if the success was attributed to natural talent, their performance declined compared to boys (Bàges, Verniers, & Martinot, 2016).

4. Status of the Model

We are likelier to imitate individuals who hold high-status positions, such as leaders, celebrities, or successful people in our field of interest.

High-status individuals are often admired and seen as role models, so their behaviors are likelier to be seen as desirable and worth imitating.

People are also more likely to imitate experts or knowledgeable individuals in a certain area. These individuals’ behaviors are seen as effective and efficient ways of achieving goals in that area.

5. Reinforcement and punishment

The people around the child will respond to the behavior it imitates with either reinforcement or punishment.  If a child imitates a model’s behavior and the consequences are rewarding, the child will likely continue performing the behavior.

If a parent sees a little girl consoling her teddy bear and says, “what a kind girl you are,” this is rewarding for the child and makes it more likely that she will repeat the behavior.  Her behavior has been positively reinforced (i.e., strengthened).

Reinforcement can be external or internal and can be positive or negative.  If a child wants approval from parents or peers, verbal approval is an external reinforcement, but feeling happy about being approved of is an internal reinforcement.  A child will behave in a way that it believes will earn approval because it desires approval.

Positive (or negative) reinforcement will have little impact if the external reinforcement does not match an individual’s needs.  Reinforcement can be positive or negative , but the important factor is that it will usually change a person’s behavior.

Sense of Belonging : Exposure to positive role models in education enhances a sense of belonging, especially for groups subjected to negative stereotypes like women and racial minorities in STEM (Dasgupta, 2011; Rosenthal et al., 2013).

For instance, women who read about successful female physicians in male-dominated careers felt a stronger connection to their own paths (Rosenthal et al., 2013).

Self-Efficacy : Self-efficacy, the belief in one’s abilities, greatly influences whether a person will imitate an observed behavior.

Women in calculus classes reported higher self-efficacy and participation when taught by female professors compared to male professors (Stout et al., 2011).

The women’s identification with their female professors significantly predicted this increased belief in their own abilities. 

Increased Achievement : Students who read about the challenges overcome by famous scientists performed better than those who read only about their achievements (Lin-Siegler et al., 2016). Observing perseverance fosters personal performance.

For example, college freshmen were more motivated by successful seniors than fourth-year students were, likely because the freshmen felt they had more time to achieve similar success (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997).

For example, women were more interested in computer science when interacting with relatable models, like a casually dressed and socially skilled computer scientist, than with stereotypical ones (Cheryan et al., 2011).

 Media Violence

• Children observe violent behavior in media and tend to mimic or imitate it. This imitation occurs through social learning processes and is likely mediated by “mirror neurons” that activate when actions are observed or performed (Huesmann, 2005).
• Extensive observation of violence can bias children’s world schemas toward attributing hostility or negative intentions to others’ actions. These hostile attributions increase the likelihood of behaving aggressively (Huesmann & Kirwil, 2007).
• Children acquire social scripts for behaviors they observe around them, including in the media. Once learned, these scripts can automatically control social behavior. Exposure to media violence provides aggressive scripts.
• Normative beliefs about acceptable social behaviors crystallize as children mature. These beliefs act as filters limiting inappropriate behaviors. Observing violence in media can influence which behaviors children see as normative or acceptable.
• Repeated exposure to media violence can lead to desensitization – the diminishing of emotional responses to violence. This makes it easier for children to think about and plan aggressive acts without negative affect.
• Playing violent video games allows for enactive learning of aggression, as players actively participate and are rewarded for violent actions in the game. This should strengthen the learning of aggression beyond passive media observation.

Social Learning Theory Evaluation

The social learning approach takes thought processes into account and acknowledges the role that they play in deciding if a behavior is to be imitated or not.

As such, SLT provides a more comprehensive explanation of human learning by recognizing the role of mediational processes.

For example, Social Learning Theory can explain many more complex social behaviors (such as gender roles and moral behavior) than models of learning based on simple reinforcement .

Lack of Clarity about Cognitive Processes

Some critics argue that social learning theory does not fully explain the cognitive processes involved in learning or how they interact with environmental and individual factors.

However, although it can explain some quite complex behavior, it cannot adequately account for how we develop a range of behavior, including thoughts and feelings.

We have a lot of cognitive control over our behavior, and just because we have had experiences of violence does not mean we have to reproduce such behavior.

For this reason, Bandura modified his theory and, in 1986, renamed his Social Learning Theory, Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), as a better description of how we learn from our social experiences.

Overemphasis on Observation

Critics suggest that the theory might overstate the role of observational learning while undervaluing other forms of learning, such as operant conditioning or individual exploration and discovery.

Some criticisms of social learning theory arise from their commitment to the environment as the chief influence on behavior.

Describing behavior solely in terms of either nature or nurture is limiting, and attempts to do this underestimate the complexity of human behavior.

It is more likely that behavior is due to an interaction between nature (biology) and nurture (environment).

Finally, observational learning does not happen in isolation. Each individual brings their unique personal characteristics, prior experiences, and current circumstances to the learning process.

These factors can all influence what is learned, how it is interpreted, and whether and when it is acted upon.

Difficulty in Predicting Behavior

Social learning theory provides a valuable framework for understanding how learning occurs. However, predicting behavior in real-world contexts can be challenging, given the many potential models and reinforcements in a person’s environment.

The complexity of predicting behavior based on the social learning theory stems from the number of potential influencing factors in a person’s environment.

In real-world contexts, an individual is exposed to countless potential role models across various settings, including family, friends, teachers, and media figures.

Moreover, these models’ behaviors are often rewarded or punished inconsistently, further complicating the learning process.

Neglect of Biological Factors

Social learning theory has been critiqued for not adequately addressing biological factors, such as genetic predispositions, which can also impact behavior.

Social learning theory is not a full explanation for all behavior. This is particularly the case when there is no apparent role model in the person’s life to imitate for a given behavior.

The discovery of mirror neurons has lent biological support to the social learning theory. Although research is in its infancy, the recent discovery of “mirror neurons” in primates may constitute a neurological basis for imitation.

These are neurons that fire if the animal does something itself and if it observes the action being done by another.

Freud vs. Bandura

Freud’s psychoanalytic theory and Bandura’s social learning theory both acknowledge the importance of identification, but their perspectives differ significantly.

While both theories acknowledge the importance of identification, they conceptualize it differently and have distinct views on human behavior, learning, and the potential for change.

Focus : Freud’s theory focuses heavily on the unconscious mind , instinctual drives, and early childhood experiences.

On the other hand, Bandura’s social learning theory emphasizes learning through observation and modeling, taking into account cognitive and environmental factors.

Identification : Freud’s concept of identification in the Oedipus complex involves a child identifying with the same-sex parent and internalizing their characteristics.

This process is driven by psychosexual development and often results in the development of gender roles. In contrast, social learning theory sees identification as a more flexible process.

Regardless of age, individuals can identify with and learn from anyone around them, not necessarily limited to parents or same-sex individuals.

Determinism vs. Agency : Freud’s theory leans toward psychic determinism, suggesting that unconscious desires largely shape our behaviors and feelings.

Social learning theory, while acknowledging the influence of environment, also stresses personal agency – our capacity to influence our own behavior and the environment in a purposeful, goal-directed way.

Change : In Freudian theory, personality is largely formed by age 5, making change difficult. Social learning theory suggests that because learning is a lifelong process, individuals can change their behaviors and attitudes throughout life.

Future Research

The motor reproduction process, where observers externally mimic modeled behaviors based on their internalized symbols, is also significant but less explored.

Most research showcases role model successes instead of the actionable steps taken to achieve them (Bandura, 1972).

Detailed behavioral scripts, outlining step-by-step actions, are crucial for observational learning but are often overlooked.

Current role model studies in education don’t emphasize the observer’s cognitive and motivational processes as much as Bandura did, indicating a research gap that needs bridging.

What are the 4 stages of social learning theory?

• Attention : In this stage, individuals must first pay attention to the behavior they are observing. This requires focus and concentration on the model’s behavior.
• Retention : In this stage, individuals must remember the behavior they observed. This involves cognitive processing and memory storage.
• Reproduction : In this stage, individuals attempt to reproduce the behavior they observe. This may involve practicing and refining the behavior until it can be performed accurately.
• Motivation : In this stage, individuals must have a reason or motivation to perform the behavior. This may involve reinforcement, punishment, social approval, disapproval, or other incentives.

What is the main idea of social learning theory?

Social Learning Theory, proposed by Albert Bandura, posits that people learn through observing, imitating, and modeling others’ behavior. This theory posits that we can acquire new behaviors and knowledge by watching others, a process known as vicarious learning.

Bandura emphasized the importance of cognitive processes in learning, which set his theory apart from traditional behaviorism.

He proposed that individuals have beliefs and expectations that influence their actions and can think about the links between their behavior and its consequences.

Why is social learning theory important?

Social learning theory helps us understand how our environment and the people around us shape our behavior. It helps explain how individuals develop new skills and behaviors by paying attention to the behavior of others and then trying to reproduce that behavior themselves.

It is an important theory for psychologists, educators, and anyone interested in human behavior and development.

Who is Albert Bandura?

Albert Bandura was a prominent Canadian-American psychologist known for his work in social learning theory and the concept of self-efficacy.

His groundbreaking research on observational learning, through experiments such as the Bobo Doll experiment, shifted the focus of psychological theory from behaviorism to cognitive processes.

Bandura’s work significantly influenced the understanding of how individuals learn within social contexts.

Albert Bandura is best known for his contributions to the field of psychology, particularly in the areas of social learning theory, self-efficacy, and aggression. He is considered one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century.

Bandura’s work has significantly impacted our understanding of human behavior and has informed fields such as education, psychology, and social work.

• Ahn, J. N., Hu, D., & Vega, M. (2020). “Do as I do, not as I say”: Using social learning theory to unpack the impact of role models on students’ outcomes in education.  Social and Personality Psychology Compass ,  14 (2), e12517.
• Bagès, C., Verniers, C., & Martinot, D. (2016). Virtues of a hardworking role model to improve girls’ mathematics performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40 (1), 55–64
• Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63, 575-582
• Bandura, A. (1965). Behavioral modification through modeling procedures. In L. Krasner & L. P. Ullman (Eds.), Research in behavior modification . New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification . New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory . New York: General Learning Press.
• Bandura, A. (1972). Modeling theory: Some traditions, trends, and disputes. In R. D. Parke (Ed.), Recent trends in social learning theory (pp. 35-61). New York: Academic Press.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Bennett, S., Farrington, D. P., & Huesmann, L. R. (2005). Explaining gender differences in crime and violence: The importance of social cognitive skills.  Aggression and Violent Behavior ,  10 (3), 263-288.
• Cheryan, S., Siy, J. O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B. J., & Kim, S. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2 (6), 656–664.
• Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22 (4), 231–246.
• Deaton, S. (2015). Social learning theory in the age of social media: Implications for educational practitioners .  Journal of Educational Technology ,  12 (1), 1-6.
• Fryling, M. J., Johnston, C., & Hayes, L. J. (2011). Understanding observational learning: An interbehavioral approach .  The Analysis of verbal behavior ,  27 , 191-203.
• Grusec, J. E. (1994). Social learning theory and developmental psychology : The legacies of Robert R. Sears and Albert Bandura.
• Huesmann, L. R., & Kirwil, L. (2007). . Cambridge University Press.
• Lin-Siegler, X., Ahn, J. N., Chen, J., Fang, F. F. A., & Luna-Lucero, M. (2016). Even Einstein struggled: Effects of learning about great scientists’ struggles on high school students’ motivation to learn science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 (3), 314–328.
• Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (1), 91–103.
• Marx, D. M., & Ko, S. J. (2012). Superstars “like” me: The effect of role model similarity on performance under threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42 (7), 807–812.
• Nabavi, R. T. (2012). Bandura’s social learning theory & social cognitive learning theory .  Theory of Developmental Psychology ,  1 (1), 1-24.
• Overskeid, G. (2018). Do we need the environment to explain operant behavior?.  Frontiers in Psychology ,  9 , 302037.
• Rosenthal, L., Levy, S. R., London, B., Lobel, M., & Bazile, C. (2013). In pursuit of the MD: The impact of role models, identity compatibility, and belonging among undergraduate women. Sex Roles, 68 (7-8), 464–473.
• Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
• Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (2), 255–270
• Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (1), 3–25.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How Social Learning Theory Works

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Core Concepts of Social Learning Theory

• Key Factors
• Applications

Social learning theory, introduced by psychologist Albert Bandura , proposed that learning occurs through observation, imitation, and modeling and is influenced by factors such as attention, motivation, attitudes, and emotions. The theory accounts for the interaction of environmental and cognitive elements that affect how people learn.

The theory suggests that learning occurs because people observe the consequences of other people's behaviors. Bandura's theory moves beyond behavioral theories , which suggest that all behaviors are learned through conditioning, and cognitive theories, which consider psychological influences such as attention and memory.

According to Bandura, people observe behavior either directly through social interactions with others or indirectly by observing behaviors through media. Actions that are rewarded are more likely to be imitated, while those that are punished are avoided.

Basic Principles of Social Learning Theory

What is social learning theory.

During the first half of the 20th-century, the behavioral school of psychology became a dominant force. The behaviorists proposed that all learning was a result of direct experience with the environment through the processes of association and reinforcement.   Bandura's theory believed that direct reinforcement could not account for all types of learning.

For example, children and adults often exhibit learning for things with which they have no direct experience. Even if you have never swung a baseball bat in your life, you would probably know what to do if someone handed you a bat and told you to try to hit a baseball. This is because you have seen others perform this action either in person or on television. 

While the behavioral theories of learning suggested that all learning was the result of associations formed by conditioning, reinforcement, and punishment, Bandura's social learning theory proposed that learning can also occur simply by observing the actions of others.  

His theory added a social element, arguing that people can learn new information and behaviors by watching other people. Known as observational learning, this type of learning can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviors, including those that often cannot be accounted for by other learning theories.

There are three core concepts at the heart of social learning theory. First is the idea that people can learn through observation. Next is the notion that internal mental states are an essential part of this process. Finally, this theory recognizes that just because something has been learned, it does not mean that it will result in a change in behavior.

"Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do," Bandura explained in his 1977 book Social Learning Theory .  

Bandura goes on to explain that "Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions, this coded information serves as a guide for action."

Let's explore each of these concepts in greater depth.

People Can Learn Through Observation

One of the best-known experiments in the history of psychology involved a doll named Bobo. Bandura demonstrated that children learn and imitate behaviors they have observed in other people.

The children in Bandura’s studies observed an adult acting violently toward a Bobo doll. When the children were later allowed to play in a room with the Bobo doll, they began to imitate the aggressive actions they had previously observed.  

Bandura identified three basic models of observational learning:

• A live model, which involves an actual individual demonstrating or acting out a behavior.
• A symbolic model, which involves real or fictional characters displaying behaviors in books, films, television programs, or online media.
• A verbal instructional model, which involves descriptions and explanations of a behavior.

As you can see, observational learning does not even necessarily require watching another person to engage in an activity. Hearing verbal instructions, such as listening to a podcast, can lead to learning. We can also learn by reading, hearing, or watching the actions of characters in books and films.  

It is this type of observational learning that has become a lightning rod for controversy as parents and psychologists debate the impact that pop culture media has on kids. Many worry that kids can learn bad behaviors such as aggression from violent video games, movies, television programs, and online videos.

Mental States Are Important to Learning

Bandura noted that external, environmental  reinforcement  was not the only factor to influence learning and behavior. And he realized that reinforcement does not always come from outside sources.  Your own mental state and motivation play an important role in determining whether a behavior is learned or not.

He described  intrinsic reinforcement  as a form of internal rewards, such as pride, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishment.   This emphasis on internal thoughts and cognitions helps connect learning theories to cognitive developmental theories. While many textbooks place social learning theory with behavioral theories, Bandura himself describes his approach as a 'social cognitive theory.'

Learning Does Not Necessarily Lead to Change

So how do we determine when something has been learned? In many cases, learning can be seen immediately when the new behavior is displayed. When you teach a child to ride a bicycle, you can quickly determine if learning has occurred by having the child ride his or her bike unassisted.

But sometimes we are able to learn things even though that learning might not be immediately obvious. While behaviorists believed that learning led to a permanent change in behavior, observational learning demonstrates that people can learn new information without demonstrating new behaviors.  

Key Factors for Social Learning Success

It is important to note that not all observed behaviors are effectively learned. Why not? Factors involving both the model and the learner can play a role in whether social learning is successful. Certain requirements and steps must also be followed.

The following steps are involved in the observational learning and modeling process:  

• Attention: In order to learn, you need to be paying  attention . Anything that distracts your attention is going to have a negative effect on observational learning. If the model is interesting or there is a novel aspect of the situation, you are far more likely to dedicate your full attention to learning.
• Retention: The ability to store information is also an important part of the learning process. Retention can be affected by a number of factors, but the ability to pull up information later and act on it is vital to observational learning.
• Reproduction: Once you have paid attention to the model and retained the information, it is time to actually perform the behavior you observed. Further practice of the learned behavior leads to improvement and skill advancement.
• Motivation: Finally, in order for observational learning to be successful, you have to be motivated to imitate the behavior that has been modeled. Reinforcement and  punishment  play an important role in motivation. While experiencing these motivators can be highly effective, so can observing others experiencing some type of reinforcement or punishment. For example, if you see another student rewarded with extra credit for being to class on time, you might start to show up a few minutes early each day.

Real-World Applications for Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory can have a number of real-world applications. For example, it can be used to help researchers understand how aggression and violence might be transmitted through observational learning. By studying media violence, researchers can gain a better understanding of the factors that might lead children to act out the aggressive actions they see portrayed on television and in the movies.

But social learning can also be utilized to teach people positive behaviors. Researchers can use social learning theory to investigate and understand ways that positive role models can be used to encourage desirable behaviors and to facilitate social change.

A Word From Verywell

In addition to influencing other psychologists, Bandura's social learning theory has had important implications in the field of education. Today, both teachers and parents recognize how important it is to model appropriate behaviors. Other classroom strategies such as encouraging children and building  self-efficacy  are also rooted in social learning theory.

As Bandura observed, life would be incredibly difficult and even dangerous if you had to learn everything you know from personal experience. Observing others plays a vital role in acquiring new knowledge and skills. By understanding how social learning theory works, you can gain a greater appreciation for the powerful role that observation plays in shaping the things we know and the things we do.

Hammer TR. Social Learning Theory . In: Goldstein S, Naglieri JA. Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. San Francisco: Springer; 2011. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_2695

Overskeid G. Do We Need the Environment to Explain Operant Behavior ? Front Psychol. 2018;9:373. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00373

Fryling MJ, Johnston C, Hayes LJ. Understanding Observational Learning: An Interbehavioral Approach . Anal Verbal Behav. 2011;27(1):191-203. doi:10.1007/bf03393102

Bandura A. Social Learning Theory . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1977.

Nguyen Do LLT. Bobo Doll Experiment . In: Goldstein S, Naglieri JA. Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. San Francisco: Springer; 2011. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_379

Bajcar EA, Bąbel P. How Does Observational Learning Produce Placebo Effects? A Model Integrating Research Findings . Front Psychol. 2018;9:2041. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02041

Cook DA, Artino AR. Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories . Med Educ. 2016;50(10):997-1014. doi:10.1111/medu.13074

Bajcar EA, Bąbel P. How Does Observational Learning Produce Placebo Effects? A Model Integrating Research Findings. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2041. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02041

Bandura A. Social Learning Theory . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1977

Cook DA, Artino AR. Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories. Med Educ. 2016;50(10):997-1014. doi:10.1111/medu.13074

Fryling MJ, Johnston C, Hayes LJ. Understanding Observational Learning: An Interbehavioral Approach. Anal Verbal Behav. 2011;27(1):191-203. doi:10.1007/bf03393102

Hammer TR. Social Learning Theory. In: Goldstein S, Naglieri JA. Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. San Francisco: Springer; 2011. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9

Overskeid G. Do We Need the Environment to Explain Operant Behavior? . Front Psychol. 2018;9:373. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00373

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Social Learning, Self-Control, and Offending Specialization and Versatility among Friends

John h. boman, iv.

1 Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, 240 Williams Hall, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA

Thomas J. Mowen

George e. higgins.

2 Department of Criminal Justice, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA

While it is generally understood that people tend not to specialize in specific types of deviance, less is understood about offending specialization and versatility in the context of friendships. Using a large sample of persons nested within friendship pairs, this study’s goal is to explore how self-control and social learning theories contribute to an explanation for specialization and versatility in offending among friends. We estimate a series of multilevel, dyadic, mixed-effects models which regress offending versatility onto measures of perceptual peer versatility, self-reported peer versatility, attitudinal self-control, behavioral self-control, and demographic controls. Results indicate that higher amounts of perceptual peer versatility and peer self-reported versatility are both related to increases in versatility among friends. Lower levels of the target respondent’s attitudinal and behavioral self-control are also related to higher amounts of offending versatility. However, the peer’s self-control shares no relationship with offending versatility – a point which both supports and fails to support self-control theory’s expectations about how peer effects should operate. Learning and self-control perspectives both appear to explain offending versatility among friends. However, self-control theory’s propositions about how peer effects should operate are contradictory. The concept of opportunity may help remediate this inconsistency in Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory.

Introduction

Although social learning and self-control theories both explain crime (e.g., Pratt & Cullen, 2000 ; Pratt et al., 2010 ), the theories are fundamentally at odds with each other. Underpinning both theoretical approaches is a fundamentally different understanding of deviant behavior. To the learning perspective, deviance – like all things – is learned. However, according to control theories, deviance is somewhat ingrained and must be restrained by the proper development of self-control. Despite what may be irreconcilable differences between the two theories, their strong and consistent ability to explain crime has led to a newer debate that focuses not on whether the theories explain crime, but instead on which theory explains crime the best. Considering research on this newer learning/control issue yields mixed results (cf. Pratt et al., 2010 ; Vazsonyi, Mikuška, & Kelley, 2017 ), criminologists must continue to develop innovative ways of exploring the predictive ability of the competing theories.

At the heart of the learning/control tension is a theoretical disagreement in the causal pathways that lead to specialization and versatility in offending. Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) perspective suggests that individuals with low self-control should be versatile in offending, meaning that they should commit a wide range of different types of deviant behavior. That is, individuals with low self-control should not ‘specialize’ by repeatedly committing the same type of deviant behavior. Like most issues surrounding control and learning theories, however, Sutherland’s (1947) differential association theory and Burgess and Akers’ (1966 ; also Akers, 2009 ) social learning theory share a quite different prediction regarding the causes of specialization and versatility in offending. To a learning perspective, individuals who specialize in only one type of crime do so because they have learned values, skills, and definitions that promote committing that one type of crime. On the other hand, an individual who is versatile in their offending patterns should have learned definitions favorable to versatility. As such, offending specialization and versatility, like all forms of behavior in a learning context, is the result of a learned process.

Intertwined in the disagreement between learning and control theories is a very different set of assumptions made about friends and friendships. While both theories recognize that friends are of importance, self-control argues that any link between the behavior of friends generally, or versatility and specialization specifically, should be the result of similarity in the friends’ levels of self-control (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990 , pp. 157–159). Social learning theory, on the other hand, would argue that the offending versatility or specialization patterns of friends should directly influence an individual’s patterns of behavior (see Akers, 2009 ; Sutherland, 1947 ; Thomas, 2016 ). As such, the theories expect a much different pathway through which specialization (akin to social learning theory) and versatility (akin to either learning or self-control theory) form.

Although friendships are theoretically intertwined into the larger specialization and versatility issue, researchers have had considerable difficulty in developing a knowledge base that recognizes friendships as central to specialization and versatility. Despite this, we do know from studies on specialization and versality that most people do not specialize in their patterns of deviance (see Farrington, 2003 ; Jennings, Zgoba, Donner, Henderson, & Tewksbury, 2014 ; Mazerolle, Brame, Paternoster, Piquero, & Dean, 2000 ; Piquero, 2000 ; Piquero, Farrington, & Blumstein, 2003 ; Wright, Pratt, & DeLisi, 2008 ; also see Armstrong, 2008 ; Ha & Andresen, 2017 ; Harris, Smallbone, Dennison, & Knight, 2009 ; McGloin, Sullivan, Piquero, & Pratt, 2007 ; Sullivan, McGloin, Pratt, & Piquero, 2006 ). Although this might seem to support self-control on first glance due to the theory’s adamant stance against specialization, this relatively consistent finding could in fact support either the control or learning perspective when viewed from the perspective of friendships. Further developing a theoretical clarity and understanding of the relationship between specialization, versatility, and peer characteristics is the broad goal of this study. Using data from a large study of people nested within friendship pairs (or friendship ‘dyads’), we apply the primary tenets of self-control theory and social learning theory to versatility and specialization in offending among friends. Before discussing the specifics, however, we begin by reviewing each theory’s approach to explaining offending specialization and versatility and discussing research relevant to the competing theories’ expectations.

Self-Control, Specialization, and Versatility

As a general theory of crime, self-control theory posits that the root cause of deviance is an individual’s level of self-control. Developed in early childhood through effective parental punishment ( Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990 ), self-control refers to the ability to restrain one’s behavior. Individuals with low self-control tend to be impulsive, insensitive, risk-taking, and tend to not consider the long-term consequences of their behavior. Gottfredson and Hirschi contend that self-control is not specific to any particular set of offending behaviors and, instead, the theory purports to explain “all crimes, at all times” (p. 117). While research on the efficacy of self-control in explaining all types of crime is mixed (e.g., LaGrange & Silverman, 1999 ; however, see DeLisi, Hochstetler, Higgins, Beaver, & Graeve, 2008 ), studies tend to support the notion that those with low self-control offend more than those with greater levels of self-control (e.g., DeLisi, 2001 ). Highlighting this stance, Pratt and Cullen’s (2000) meta-analysis on the general theory of crime concludes that “self-control [is] one of the strongest known correlates of crime” (p. 952; see also Vazsonyi et al., 2017 for a more recent meta-analysis).

Applying this argument to versatility in offending, self-control theory would posit that low self-control – as the root cause of all deviant and antisocial behaviors – should be predictive of a significant degree of variation in offending. This is due in part to the fact that most crime is highly opportunistic and requires little in the way of planning ( Pratt, Barnes, Cullen, & Turanovic, 2016 ). The result is that individuals with low self-control will engage in a variety of offending behaviors with little consistency or stability in the types of crimes they choose to commit. In this vein, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) hypothesize that low self-control will produce “much versatility among offenders in the criminal acts in which they engage” (p. 91). Summarizing their opinions of offending and specialization, Gottfredson and Hirschi succinctly state that “offenders do not specialize” (p. 94).

Extending this argument into the realm of friendships, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) are clear that people with low self-control should form friendships with one another. That is, people with low self-control tend to befriend individuals who also have low self-control, thus resulting in peer groups containing deviant members who should all have low self-control. While these friendships should be of poor quality, Gottfredson and Hirschi (p. 234) state that self-control levels should nonetheless cause deviant individuals to “flock together”. Self-control, therefore, is the basis for friendship formation and offending alike. Going one step further, self-control is also the basis for offending versatility. As such, those with low self-control should come together and coalesce into friendships which contain members who are 1) marked by low self-control, 2) are highly deviant, and 3) highly versatile in their offending patterns. Accordingly, levels of self-control among friends should be related to, and consequential for, versatility in offending among members of a friendship.

Extant research on self-control and friendship formation has, to an extent, explored Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) expectations about friendships and self-control. While two studies suggest that self-control is not attributing to friendship selection preferences ( Boman, 2017 ; Young, 2011 ), other studies find that selection processes are important and may be linked to self-control ( Baron, 2003 ; Chapple, 2005 ; McGloin & Shermer, 2009 ; Simons, Wu, Conger, & Lorenz, 1994 ). However, the natural complexity of studying friendships has limited the ability of such research to examine how versatility in offending varies across friends’ levels of self-control. Despite this, research does demonstrate that individuals who choose to offend tend not to specialize (e.g., Brame, Bushway, Paternoster, & Apel, 2004 ; see also DeLisi, 2005 ). As Pratt et al. (2016) assert, “The reality is that offenders are not all that picky when it comes to their misbehavior” (p. 838). Supporting this notion, low self-control is related to numerous, versatile antisocial outcomes and offenses (e.g., see Hirtenlehner & Kunz, 2017 ). In exploring the relationship between self-control and versatility in deviance, Pratt et al. (2016) found that individuals with low self-control are likely to experience instability in employment, be held back in school, and drop out of school. They also are much more likely than those with high self-control to report experiencing problems with alcohol dependency. Other research exploring versatility and self-control has established important linkages between self-control and being involved in accidents ( Junger & Tremblay, 1999 ), academic cheating ( Bolin, 2004 ), binge eating ( Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004 ), victimization ( Schreck, 1999 ; Turanovic & Pratt, 2014 ), alcohol-induced sexual assault ( Franklin, 2011 ), and bullying ( Unnever & Cornell, 2003 ). Research has even tied low self-control to ‘drunk dialing’ and the use of profanity in public ( Reisig & Pratt, 2011 ). In short, research using self-control theory demonstrates that “offending is versatile instead of specialized” ( Farrington, 2003 , p. 223; cf. Higgins & Makin, 2004 ).

Social Learning, Specialization, and Versatility

Rooted in Sutherland’s (1947) theory of differential association, Akers’ (e.g., 2009) social learning theory posits that deviance is learned through interactions with one’s differential associates. In these interactions, people develop definitions that are either favorable or unfavorable to crime, and crime occurs when the collective weight of definitions favorable to crime exceeds the weight of definitions unfavorable to crime. Overall, research strongly supports the notion that differential association and social learning explain crime in the manner purported by Sutherland (1947) and Burgess and Akers (1966 ; see Pratt et al., 2010 ).

Applying this argument to versatility in offending, learning perspectives immediately point to a critical factor to the development of definitions – one’s differential associates. Through interactions with differential associates, people learn and model the behavior of those with whom they share meaningful relationships. In the case where a person has meaningful ties to those who are specialized on one type of deviance, one’s definitions are likely to become favorable for that one type of behavior. As such, the theory in this case would expect specialization as there is little reason to believe that this person would be versatile in their offending patterns. On the other hand, if one has meaningful ties to others who commit a wide variety of offenses, then the person will probably be versatile in their offending patterns. The implication, then, is that social learning theory’s element of differential association provides the context through which to understand how social learning theory may explain both versatility and specialization in offending.

The literature on social learning theory and specialization/versatility is surprisingly underdeveloped. Summarizing the lack of research on the topic, Thomas (2016) recently, and correctly, stated that “little is known about the role peers play in promoting offending versatility” (26). Of the research that does exist, we know that peers who are isolated tend to offend less on the whole ( Demuth, 2004 ) and in more specialized patterns ( Thomas, 2016 ), although a small portion of isolates offend extensively and in versatile patterns ( Kreager, 2004 ). For the most part, these findings play into the notion that those with friends tend to offend in versatile ways. Warr (1996 ; also 2002 , pp. 38–39) has also noted that group-level behavior tends to be more specialized than individual-level behavior. That is, offending patterns of people are diverse even though some groups only tend to engage in certain types of behaviors. This premise has received empirical support in the research. Studying egocentric networks (‘send’ networks), McGloin and Piquero (2010) found a strong positive relationship between the extent to which people are integrated into their social networks and specialization at the group, but not individual, level.

Some research also highlights that social learning approaches are consistent when people do learn specialized behaviors, such as in the case of sexual offending against adolescents ( Felson & Lane, 2009 ) and, to a lesser extent, stalking ( Fox, Nobles, & Akers, 2011 ). As such, learning theories have been found to explain both offending versatility and specialization. Since social learning is theoretically equipped to explain both behaviors, the theoretical tenets of the theory appear to be supported. Despite this, there is a need for further research on the topic in the context of friendships. This observation raises attention to the goals of the current study.

Current Study

Using a large dataset consisting of individuals nested within friendship pairs, the current study has three primary research questions. First, drawing on social learning (e.g., Akers, 2009 ) and self-control (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990 ) theories, is versatility in offending more related to a peer’s offending versatility or levels of self-control among members of friendships? Second, does the method of measurement of peer offending versatility change the understanding of the strength of social learning measures on versatility in offending? Specifically, we interchange an indirect, perceptual measure of peer versatility with a measure of self-reported versatility directly from the friend him/herself. Third, and in a similar mindset, does the means through which self-control is measured – through either an attitudinal or behavioral measure – change the understanding of how self-control relates to versatility in deviance? In lieu of offering hypotheses, we employ an exploratory approach to these theoretically-driven research questions and avoid making specific predictions about the relationships we seek to explore.

The data for this project come from a large sample of persons nested within self-identified friendship pairs (dyads). The data, which consists of 2154 undergraduate college students nested within half as many friendships (1077 dyads), was collected in 2009 at a large university in the southeastern United States. To collect the dyadic sample, the lead investigator contacted faculty teaching the 50 highest enrollment classes offered by the university. The instructors were asked whether they would be interested in providing extra credit to students for the completion of a survey that involved dyads. Two dozen instructors said that they would compensate their students with varying amounts of extra credit for participation in the study.

The chief investigator then prepared documentation for each course’s website and made in-class visits to notify potential participants about the opportunity. Respondents were asked to come to a university building where the study was headquartered during set operating hours. Instead of coming to the study alone, however, they were asked to attend with one of their five best friends in undergraduate studies. The procedure of asking for one of the respondent’s five best friends, which drew from precedent developed by the Add Health data (e.g., Haynie, 2002 ; Haynie & Osgood, 2005 ) and the NSCR’s (e.g., Weerman & Smeek, 2005 ) and Kandel’s (e.g., 1978 ) friendship selection procedures, was designed to attract very close friends (i.e., ‘best’ friends) as well as more ‘regular’ friends. Capturing both ‘best’ and ‘regular’ friends aligns with prior research which finds that best friends may exert a stronger behavioral influence on persons than regular friends ( Weerman & Smeek, 2005 ). Upon arrival to the study’s headquarters, dyad members provided informed consent and were then sent to different locations to complete the study.

Once separated, members of the research team provided the friends with identical paper surveys that were pre-coded with a matching dyadic identification number to link them as being members of one dyad. Each survey contained questions about the respondent, the friend, and the friendship. Research team members monitored respondents during survey administration and were instructed to eliminate any potential avenue for communication (e.g., texting) between the friends during the time the survey was being taken. Following completion of the surveys, each dyad member was individually debriefed and exited the study’s headquarters via separate exits.

Many classes in the project were very large, with several classes carrying enrollments of hundreds of students. Although the 24 classes combined to a total enrollment of 5000 persons, the sampling frame’s size cannot be calculated since it is unknown how many of each respondent’s five friends he/she would have considered bringing to the project. Due to the very large number of potential respondents, about one in five ‘friends’ also received extra credit from a selected course. No significant differences were identified between those who did and did not receive extra credit. Despite all demographic characteristics closely matching the target population, females (66% of the sample; 59% of the population) were slightly overrepresented in the sample. The sample is comprised of 1152 women nested within female-only dyads, 444 men nested within male-only dyads, and 558 people nested within split gender dyads. All dyads are independent, meaning that no person was nested within more than one friendship pair. All procedures were approved by the institution’s review board.

Dataset Structure

In the criminological context, dyadic data are unique because models can be estimated that explore how the characteristics of two individual people relate to the target respondent’s behavior. The current project uses a double-entry file (see Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006 ), a type of datafile structure common in dyadic data analysis, to maximize the inferences which can be made. In the double-entry file, the units of analysis are individuals nested within dyads ( n = 2154 persons within 1077 friendships). This creates a situation where each person in the dyad has his/her own line of data and serves as the focal person of interest (called the ‘actor’) whose behavior may be dependent on characteristics of him/herself and another person (the ‘friend’). Stated differently, Person A is the actor who has Person B as a friend, and, inversely, Person B is the actor who has Person A as a friend. For more information on this file structure, see Kenny et al.’ (2006) and Campbell and Kashy’s (2002) work.

Dependent Variable

Self-reported versatility in offending.

The outcome variable in this project, which is designed to capture the extent of versatility in an acto’s offending, required several steps to construct. The data contained 20 different self-reported deviance items that asked the actor about crime over the past twelve months. Each question was worded, “In the past 12 months, how often have you item ” and was measured on the National Youth Survey’s metric of 0 (“never”) to 8 (“two to three times a day”; see Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985 ). These 20 self-reported items load onto five distinct constructs of behavior – theft (4 items), vandalism (4 items), violence (4 items), alcohol use and related behaviors (4 items), and drug use and related behaviors (4 items). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) showing evidence of very close fit (all Confirmatory Fit Indices [CFIs] ≥ .95, Tucker-Lewis Indices [TLIs] ≥ .95, and root mean square errors of approximation [RMSEAs] ≤ .06) confirmed the five-factor solution (unreported).

To construct the measure of self-reported versatility, each item was first collapsed into a binary measure where the actor either indicated that he/she engaged in the behavior or refrained from the behavior altogether (0 = did not commit; 1 = committed). Second, each binary item was then summed into a variety index for each construct of behavior, making the range of all five constructs ‘0’ to ‘4’ since each behavioral construct carries four items. Third, this project’s main goal lies in investigating the relationship between versatility in offending and theoretical predictors. This issue more closely adheres to the commission of a wide range of behaviors rather than the frequency of such behaviors. As such, each construct’s variety index was collapsed into a binary measure where a score of ‘1’ indicates the actor committed a deviant act within the purview of each behavioral construct (a score of ‘0’ means the actor did not engage in that construct of deviance whatsoever). Fourth, and finally, the binary measures of construct-specific deviance were summed into the dependent variable, self-reported offending versatility . This variety index has a range of ‘0’ – indicating that the actor’s behavior was totally non-versatile since he/she committed no deviance whatsoever – to ‘5,’ which indicates the actor’s behavior was extremely versatile since he/she engaged in all five constructs of behavior. Higher scores represent a greater offending versatility. Since the mean of this item (M = 1.834) is greater than one, the average person was at least somewhat versatile in their patterns of deviance (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics).

Summary characteristics of the dyadic sample ( N = 2154 people nested within 1077 friendships)

Descriptive characteristics for the actor and friend are identical due to the structure and nesting within the data

Independent Variables

Perceptual peer versatility in offending.

The actor’s perception of the versatility of the friend’s offending serves as the first independent variable. Created to be conceptually similar to the dependent variable, 20 questions asked the actor “In the past 12 months, how often has the friend you attended this study with item ?” The behaviors are the same as those in the dependent variable. Measured again on the NYS metric of ‘0’ (never) to ‘8’ (two to three times a day), these items also load on a 5-factor structure where each construct (theft, vandalism, violence, alcohol use and related behaviors, and drug use and related behaviors) has four items and shows evidence of close fit (unreported CFA fit statistics: all CFIs and TLIs ≥ .95, all RMSEAs ≤ .06).

To create this independent variable, the 20 base perceptual items were collapsed into binary measures indicating whether the actor thought his/her friend engaged in the behavior (scored ‘1’) or did not engage in the behavior (‘0’). These items were summed together for each construct and re-dichotomized to indicate whether the respondent thought his/her friend engaged in any deviance within the respective construct (scored ‘1’) or refrained entirely from deviance within the construct (‘0’). Finally, the binary items for each construct were summed to capture perceptual peer versatility in offending . This measure captures the number of constructs of deviance which the actor thought his/her friend had engaged in over the past year (M = 1.363, SD = 1.250, range 0–5). Higher scores represent greater versatility.

Self-Reported Peer Versatility in Offending

Due to the way the study was designed and the double-entry datafile structure, we are capable of providing an alternative measure of peer versatility that relies on reports directly from the peer him/herself. In addition to the authors of self-control theory disliking perceptual measures of offending (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990 ), research demonstrates that measures of perceptual peer offending (termed ‘indirect’ peer deviance) operate differently in multivariate models than measures of self-reported offending gathered directly from peers themselves (called ‘direct’ peer deviance; see Meldrum, Young, & Weerman, 2009 ).

Accordingly, we include a measure of direct peer deviance that captures self-reported peer versatility in offending . Although the measure captures the versatility of the friend’s offending, it is constructed in an identical manner to the dependent variable. Due to the double-entry data structure, this measure has the same descriptive statistics as the outcome measure (see Kenny et al., 2006 ), although its nesting in the dataset makes it a unique variable (also see Campbell & Kashy, 2002 ).

Attitudinal Self-Control

Two measures of self-control are used in this project. The first, attitudinal self-control , is captured through the frequently-used scale developed by Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev (1993) . This measure, which contains 24 items, captures the six subdimensions of self-control–impulsivity, a preference for simple tasks, a preference for physical activities, risk-seeking, self-centeredness, and temper – which were defined by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) . This average-item-score scale, which fits the data consistently (Cronbach’s α =.84), is coded so that higher scores measure higher self-control levels (M = 2.878, SD = 0.350, range 1–4). The actor’s and the friend’s attitudinal self-control levels are both utilized as independent variables in the forthcoming analysis.

Behavioral Self-Control

Behavioral measures of self-control are preferred by self-control theory’s original authors (see Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1993 ). To capture behavioral self-control , we use the reduced version of the Retrospective Behavioral Self-Control Scale (the ‘RBS’; see Marcus, 2003 ). The original RBS contained 67 items which inquired about behaviors relevant to self-control during the age ranges of 8–13, 14–18, and 19–25 years of age. The items are measured on a scale of 1, indicating the respondent ‘never’ behaved in that manner, to ‘7,’ indicating that he/she ‘always’ behaved that way.

Despite having the advantage that the scale asks about behaviors rather than attitudes, many of the original items on the RBS were tautological because they directly asked about crime. Using item-response modeling in conjunction with face validity tests, Ward, Gibson, Boman, and Leite (2010) reduced the 67 item RBS to 18 items that showed both face and internal validity. Ward and colleagues’ items were used to construct an average-item-response scale – the RBS reduced version (RBS-r) – in this study. The RBS-r is coded so that higher scores capture higher self-control (M = 5.596, SD = 0.687, range 0–7). The items scale consistently ( α = .82), and actor and friend measures of the RBS-r are used as independent variables in forthcoming analyses. The wording of the items can be seen in Appendix Table 4 .

Models are estimated with demographic controls of the actor and the friend. First, we control for the sex (1 = male [33.6% of the sample]; 0 = female) of the actor and the friend. Second, we control for the race of the actor and friend, which is defined as a dichotomy that compares those who are non-white (coded ‘1’; 36.9% non-white) to those who are white (coded ‘0’). Third, we include a standalone measure of whether the respondent identified as being of Hispanic ethnicity (1 = Hispanic [18.6% of the sample]; 0 = non-Hispanic). Fourth, and finally, we include a measure of the age of the actor and the friend, measured as a count (M = 19.339, SD = 1.433).

Analytical Strategy

With naturally nested data, a multilevel analysis is necessary. Accordingly, this study employs the use of two-level, mixed-effects hierarchical linear models. These models fall under the classification of actor-partner interdependence models, a type of analysis specifically designed for dyadic data (see Kenny et al., 2006 ). In this case, a mixed model is necessary because there is variation both within dyads (friends are different from each other) and between dyads (friendships are different from each other). The level 1 equation will include characteristics of the actor and the partner and is the focal level of interest in this study. Level 2 in the forthcoming models is called a ‘grouping’ level, as it simply groups the level 1 equation around the dyadic friendship identification variable.

Very minor amounts of missing data (less than 1% missing on all variables) were imputed using a Markov-chain Monte Carlo imputation technique (20 draws from 200 burn-in iterations). Models using listwise deletion (not reported) showed similar results. All models were estimated with Stata version 14.2.

Primary Findings: Social Learning, Self-Control, and Versatility

Results relevant to the first research question are presented in a series of mixed models in Table 2 . Model 1 regresses the actor’s versatility in offending onto actor measures of perceptual peer versatility, attitudinal self-control ( Grasmick et al., 1993 ), and controls. The actor’s perception of the peer’s versatility is positive and highly significant (b = .511, SE = .021, p ≤ .001), indicating that actors who perceive their peers are more diverse in offending are more diverse themselves. Additionally, the actor’s attitudinal self-control is negative and also significant (b = −.043, SE = .003, p ≤ .001), suggesting that those who have lower levels of attitudinal self-control tend to have a higher versatility in offending. Although most controls do not approach levels of statistical significance, males (b = .337, SE = .054, p ≤ .001) report significantly more offending versatility than women.

Mixed models regressing the actor’s offending versatility onto characteristics of the actor and the friend (attitudinal self-control results; N = 2154)

Model 2 of Table 2 adds friend measures to the level 1 equation. However, no friend measures reach statistical significance, and the overall patterns of significance in the actor effects from Model 1 remain unchanged. However, results do change in Model 3 of Table 2 , which removes the peer effects but adds a measure of self-reported peer versatility captured directly from the peer’s self-reports. This measure reaches high levels of statistical significance (b = .192, SE = .020, p ≤ .001), and the direction indicates that those who have friends who self-report high levels of versatility in their offending are versatile themselves. However, the coefficient strength of the perceptual measure in Model 2 (b = .514) is much stronger than the coefficient in Model 3 (b = .192) with approximately the same standard error, suggesting that the perceptual measure of peer versatility is more impactful than the peer’s self-report. Finally, white (b = −.206, SE = .059, p ≤ .001) male (b = .425, SE = .060, p ≤ .001) actors report significantly higher versatility in offending than non-whites and females, respectively.

The final model in Table 2 , Model 4, once again adds in the friend effects to examine their relationship on the direct measure of versatility in peer offending. Namely, while attitudinal actor self-control is still significant (b = −.056, SE = .004, p ≤ .001), the peer’s level of self-control is unrelated to the actor’s versatility in offending. Besides the peer’s self-reported offending versatility (b = .186, SE = .022, p ≤ .001), no other peer measures reach significance and the actor effects are similar to those in Model 3.

Table 3 presents a similar set of mixed models as reported in Table 2 , but instead removes the attitudinal measure of actor and friend self-control and replaces it with the behavioral measure (the RBS-r). InModel1 of Table 3 , the actor’s perception of the peer’s versatility is significant and positively related to the actor’s offending versatility (b = .519, SE = .021, p ≤ .001). The actor’s behavioral level of self-control is negative and highly significant (b = −.456, SE = .043, p ≤ .001), suggesting that actors with lower behavioral self-control are much more likely to be versatile in their offending. Additionally, males (b = .398, SE = .054, p ≤ .001) and those of Hispanic descent (b = .133, SE = .065, p ≤ .05) are more likely to be versatile. Non-whites (b = −.121, SE = .053, p ≤ .05) and younger (b = −.049, SE = .018, p ≤ .01) actors are less likely to demonstrate versatility.

Mixed models regressing the actor’s offending versatility onto characteristics of the actor and the friend (behavioral self-control results; N = 2154)

Peer measures are added into Model 2 of Table 3 . No peer measures are significantly related to the actor’s versatility in offending, including the peer’s behavioral self-control. However, the inclusion of these measures does reduce the actor’s race and ethnicity to levels of non-significance, although the actor’s perception of the peer’s versatility (b = .518, SE = .022, p ≤ .001) and behavioral self-control levels (b = −.457, SE = .043, p ≤ .001) remain significant at nearly identical levels as in Model 1.

When the actor’s perception of the peer’s versatility is removed and replaced by the peer’s self-reported offending versatility ( Table 3 ‘s third model), the direct measure reaches high levels of statistical significance (b = .200, SE = .020, p ≤ .001) in a positive direction with the actor’s self-reported versatility. The actor’s behavioral self-control coefficient (b = −.623) also increases substantially in magnitude over the prior model (b = −.457). Finally, when peer covariates are added back into the model (Model 4, Table 3 ), the coefficient of direct peer versatility (b = .184) decreases slightly, but maintains high levels of statistical significance. Additionally, lower levels of the actor’s behavioral self-control (b = −.626, SE = .047, p ≤ .001) remain strongly related to versatility in offending. Male (b = .487, SE = .066) and Hispanic actors (b = .161, SE = .07, p ≤ .05) are more likely to offend in a versatile manner, whereas non-white (b = −.179, SE = .068, p ≤ .01) actors and those with non-white friends (b = −.168, SE = .067, p ≤ .05) are less likely to offend in a versatile manner.

Discussion and Conclusions

Drawing from social learning and self-control theories and using data from a large sample of people nested within friendship pairs, this study explored the relationships between specialization and versatility in offending among friendships. Results from a series of multilevel models demonstrated that versatility in offending is related to the actor’s self-control as well as the actor’s perception of his/her friend’s versatility. When friend effects were entered into the equations, the peer’s self-reported versatility also positively related to the actor’s versatility, although the peer’s self-control did not. This same basic pattern of significant findings was observed when the commonly used attitudinal measure of self-control developed by Grasmick et al. (1993) was interchanged with a behavioral measure of self-control developed by Marcus (2003) and refined by Ward et al. (2010) . Despite the similarities in the significance patterns, the actor’s attitudinal self-control had a substantially weaker relationship with offending versatility than the actor’s behavioral self-control. In this section, we discuss the implications of our findings for social learning, self-control, and the broader context of offending specialization and versatility in the context of friendships.

Results from this study carry important implications for self-control theory. While findings demonstrated that the actor’s self-control related to offending versatility as self-control theory would clearly expect ( Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990 ), the friend’s level of self-control was not significantly associated with the actor’s versatility in offending. There are two ways this can be interpreted. First, the lack of a significant peer effect supports self-control theory because self-control is an intra-individual trait that should seemingly be uninfluenced by external forces. Accordingly, any peer effect should be either inconsequential, spurious, or an artifact of measurement error. As a consequence, the peer’s self-control should not have an effect on actor’s behavior – a theoretical tenet which our results strongly support.

A second interpretation of these results is also possible. The lack of a significant peer self-control effect on the actor’s offending versatility is, in a way, paradoxical. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) clearly outline that individuals with low self-control will form friendships with others who also have low self-control. Due to self-control causing a dual process of both friendship formation and offending versatility, the friend’s self-control should be related to characteristics of the actor’s offending because of a strong correlation that should exist between the friends’ levels of self-control. From this point of view, it is theoretically counterintuitive to expect that peer self-control – which should be virtually identical to the actor’s self-control – to be unrelated to offending. Accordingly, the results regarding peer self-control from the first perspective support self-control theory. However, from the second perspective, support is not provided to the theory. It appears that self-control theory’s hypotheses regarding peer effects compete with one another. Stated differently, the theory appears to contradict itself in regard to the meaning of peer influence.

Interestingly, Gottfredson and Hirschi do offer a potential explanation for the peer effect that is based in the concept of opportunity. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990 , p. 92), any specialized offending that occurs among individuals with low-self-control is “determined by convenience and opportunity.” It could be the case that individuals within friendships do have similar levels of self-control but experience varying levels of opportunity to commit crime and/or specialize in it. Indeed, the variation in opportunity among friends (see Osgood & Anderson, 2004 ) could very well explain the lack of a relationship between friend self-control and the actor’s level of offending versatility – a point which future research should explore. The opportunity construct will be imperative to resolving the contradictory expectations from Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory regarding how the peer’s self-control should relate to an actor’s behavior.

Following prior literature (e.g., Boman, 2017 ; Evans, Cullen, Burton, Dunaway, & Benson, 1997 ), we included a measure of attitudinal self-control derived from Grasmick et al.’ (1993) work as well as a behavioral measure (from Marcus, 2003 and Ward et al., 2010 ; see Appendix Table 4 for more information). Despite similarity in the overall (in)significance patterns of the peer self-control effect for both the attitudinal and behavioral measures, there were differences for the actor’s self-control that were measurement dependent. While both the attitudinal and behavioral measures were significant, the coefficients of the actor’s behavioral self-control were much stronger than the coefficients of attitudinal self-control. As such, our findings demonstrate empirical support to Hirschi and Gottfredson’s (1993) preference for behavioral measures of self-control while also highlighting the utility of different operationalizations of the general theory’s primary construct.

In addition to carrying new and unique findings for how self-control relates to versatility in deviance, our results also carry implications for Burgess and Akers’ (1966 ; also Akers, 2009 ) theory of social learning. Results across all models clearly demonstrated that the construct of differential association is of importance in relation to offending versatility. Specifically, models using a perceptual measure of the versatility of the peer’s offending demonstrated that the differential association-informed construct was positive in direction and highly statistically significant. As such, the models suggest that actors tend to offend in more versatile ways when they think their peers are also versatile and, inversely, that actors tend to be more specialized when they believe their friends to be highly specialized. When the measure of differential association was changed from a perception of the peer’s deviance to the peer’s self-reported deviance, the results were largely the same: The measure was significantly related to offending versatility and positive in direction. Regardless of how the versatility construct is operationalized, differential association and social learning theories are supported (see, generally, Boman, Stogner, Miller, Griffin, & Krohn, 2012 ; Meldrum & Boman, 2013 ; Young, Rebellon, Barnes, & Weerman, 2014 ).

Overall, findings from the perceptual peer and peer’s self-reported versatility measures demonstrate a considerable amount of support for social learning and differential association theories. Despite the measurement technique, the measure of differential association related strongly to the actor’s offending versatility. While social learning theory ( Akers, 2009 ) would expect the perceptual measure of peer versatility to be the most meaningful on the outcome, the theory would also hypothesize that the peer’s self-reported versatility would be influential as well ( Akers, 2009 , pp. 117–120). Differences in the coefficient sizes between the two measurement methods could easily be interpreted as being supportive of this very specific hypothesis from Akers. As such, social learning theory has received strong support as differential association relates to offending versatility regardless of how the construct is measured.

As research on social learning and specialization and versatility moves into the future, an important avenue of inquiry may lie in recognizing that some behaviors are more ‘groupy’ than others. That is, some behaviors are more likely to be committed in groups than other types of behavior. The term ‘groupy’ was developed by Warr (2002) and has become used in conjunction with the related term of ‘non-groupy’ (see Boman & Gibson, 2016 ) that completes Warr’s taxonomy. Examples of groupy behavior include vandalism, substance use, and status crimes. On the other hand, examples of non-groupy behavior include theft, certain types of serious assault, and sexual battery (see Warr, 2002 ). Research on the groupy and non-groupy issue has proven to be imperative in other contexts in criminology (e.g., Boman & Gibson, 2016 ; Boman & Mowen, 2018 ; also see Beaver et al., 2011 for a related study), and there is ample reason to believe that the same issue may also be of importance in the specialization and versatility context. The groupy/non-groupy taxonomy may also help research segue into the notion of friendship-level specialization, an important theoretical and policy-based issue that – unfortunately – has remained largely unexplored by criminologists to date (for the exceptions, see McGloin & Piquero, 2010 ; Thomas, 2016 ; Warr, 1996 ). There are also measurement issues surrounding perceptual peer specialization and versatility that are immediately relevant to the difference in the coefficient magnitude between the perceptual and direct peer specialization measures. Similar in concept to issues surrounding peer deviance, there has been no literature to date investigating how peer specialization could be or should be measured. This literature would be very useful, and it could incorporate Warr’s groupy and non-groupy taxonomy to determine how the nature of specialization impacts our understanding of specialization and versatility in general and in a friendship context specifically.

Despite some valuable findings and necessary future directions regarding how social learning and self-control relate to specialization and versatility in offending among friends, the current study has some notable limitations. First and foremost, the current data come from a cross-section of students attending only one American university. Not only does this limit our ability to determine causal order between our key variables of interest, our findings are likely to be of limited generalizability to those in other populations. An overrepresentation of females may also have limited the variance in our dependent variables. Second, while a strength of the current study is the dyadic design, dyads are an inherently limited unit of analysis. People typically have several friends, meaning they are nested within multiple dyads. Unfortunately, our data contain only one of a person’s potentially many dyadic friendships. A similar analysis using social network data would be valuable as it would build upon recent work by Thomas (2016) and McGloin and Piquero (2010) . Such a study should seek to explore other methods of capturing specialization, including the methods developed by Osgood and Schreck (2007) as well as the method by DeLisi et al. (2011) . Third, our outcome and key predictor measures are constructed from only twenty items spanning five types of offending. We highlight that there are different types of control ( DeLisi & Vaughn, 2014 ) and many more types of offenses, meaning the variability in these measures is limited. Although our study has some limitations, the findings nonetheless further develop the state of knowledge as to how offending versatility relates to constructs derived from two of our field’s most prominent theories.

Findings from this study offer strong support to both self-control ( Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990 ) and social learning ( Akers, 2009 ) perspectives’ expectations on offending specialization and versatility. However, what is most apparent is the many future directions of necessary exploration to which findings from this study raise attention. Future research should seek to explore how self-control and opportunity ( Osgood & Anderson, 2004 ) interact for versatility in the friendship context. Future research on this topic also has the ability to remediate a notable inconsistency regarding how peer effects should operate within the context of self-control theory. This study highlights that the lack of a peer effect supports the theory. But, at the same time, low self-control theoretically causes friendships to form while also causing both offending and versatility in offending, forming a strange paradox in how Gottfredson and Hirschi view friends and friendships. Additionally, certain behaviors are more (or less) likely to be committed in groups than others ( Warr, 2002 ), and the notion of friendship-level specialization is emphasized (see McGloin & Piquero, 2010 ; Warr, 1996 ; 2002 ). Perhaps people engage in specialized behaviors when around only certain friends – that is, a person may only consume alcohol with one friend, and may only use opioids with another friend (see Warr, 2002 , p. 38). If this were the case, then offending may appear versatile overall (e.g., Farrington, 2003 ) even though friendship-level contexts may carry overlooked, but nonetheless important, patterns of specialization. If this were true, the current understanding that people ‘do not specialize’ in offending may be incorrect at worst or misleading at best. Either way, the notion of friendship-level specialization must take precedence in the research on specialization and versatility due to the established importance of peers and the applicability of friendship-level events to many different types of theory.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD050959).

John Boman is an Assistant Professor at Bowling Green State University in the Department of Sociology. His research focuses on the roles of interpersonal influences, and particularly peers and friends, on crime, deviance, and substance use over the life-course. His recent work appears in Criminology , the Journal of Criminal Justice , and the Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

Thomas J. Mowen is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Bowling Green State University. His research broadly examines the consequences of school security and punishment as well as the process of prison reentry. His recent research has appeared in Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.

George E. Higgins is Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Louisville. He received his Ph.D. in Criminology from Indiana University of Pennsylvania in 2001. His most recent publications appear or are forthcoming in Journal of Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Justice Quarterly, Deviant Behavior, and Youth and Society.

Wording of items in the behavioral self-control RBS-r scale

All items measured on a scale of 1–7 (1 = never; 2 = once; 3 = two or three times; 4 = fairly many times; 5 = often; 6 = very often; 7 = always) . For more information, see Marcus (2003) and Ward et al. (2010)

• Akers RL (2009). Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance . New Brunswick: Transaction. [ Google Scholar ]
• Armstrong TA (2008). Are trends in specialization across arrests explained by changes in specialization occurring with age? Justice Quarterly , 25 , 201–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron SW (2003). Self-control, social consequences, and criminal behavior: Street youth and the general theory of crime . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 40 , 403–425. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beaver KM, Gibson CL, Turner MG, DeLisi M, Vaughn MG, & Holand A. (2011). The stability of delinquent peer associations: A biosocial test of Warr’s sticky friends hypothesis . Crime & Delinquency , 57 , 907–927. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolin AU (2004). Self-control, perceived opportunity, and attitudes as predictors of academic dishonesty . The Journal of Psychology , 138 , 101–114. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boman JH IV. (2017). Do birds of a feather really flock together? Friendships, self-control similarity, and deviant behavior . British Journal of Criminology , 57 , 1208–1229. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boman JH IV., & Gibson CL (2016). The implications of using group-based offenses versus non-group-based offenses in peer deviance scales . Deviant Behavior , 37 , 1411–1428. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boman JH IV., & Mowen TJ (2018). Same feathers, different flocks. Breaking down the meaning of ‘behavioral homophily’ in the etiology of crime . Journal of Criminal Justice , 54 , 30–40. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boman JH IV., Stogner JM, Miller BL, Griffin OG III, & Krohn MD (2012). On the operational validity of perceptual peer delinquency: Exploring projection and elements contained in perceptions . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 49 , 601–621. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brame R, Bushway SD, Paternoster R, & Apel R. (2004). Assessing the effect of adolescent employment on involvement in criminal activity . Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 20 , 236–256. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burgess RL, & Akers RL (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior . Social Problems , 14 , 128–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell L, & Kashy DA (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide . Personal Relationships , 9 , 372–342. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapple CL (2005). Self-control, peer relations, and delinquency . Justice Quarterly , 22 , 89–106. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeLisi M. (2001). It’s all in the record: Assessing self-control theory with and offender sample . Criminal Justice Review , 26 , 1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeLisi M. (2005). Career criminals in society . Thousand Oaks: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeLisi M, Beaver KM, Wright KA, Wright JP, Vaughn MG, & Trulson CT (2011). Criminal specialization revisited: A simultaneous quantile regression approach . American Journal of Criminal Justice , 36 , 73–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeLisi M, Hochstetler A, Higgins GE, Beaver KM, & Graeve CM (2008). Toward a general theory of criminal justice: Low self-control and offender noncompliance . Criminal Justice Review , 33 , 141–158. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeLisi M, & Vaughn MG (2014). Foundation for a temperament-based theory of antisocial behavior and criminal justice system involvement . Journal of Criminal Justice , 42 , 10–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Demuth S. (2004). Understanding the delinquency and social relationships of loners . Youth & Society , 35 , 366–392. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliott DS, Huizinga D, & Ageton SS (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use . Beverly Hills: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans TD, Cullen FT, Burton VS Jr., Dunaway RG, & Benson ML (1997). The social consequences of self-control: Testing the general theory of crime . Criminology , 35 , 475–504. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrington DP (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues – The 2002 Sutherland award address . Criminology , 41 , 221–255. [ Google Scholar ]
• Felson RB, & Lane KJ (2009). Social learning, sexual and physical abuse, and adult crime . Aggressive Behavior , 35 , 489–501. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox KA, Nobles MR, & Akers RL (2011). Is stalking learned phenomenon? An empirical test of social learning theory . Journal of Criminal Justice , 39 , 39–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franklin C. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-control and alcohol-induced sexual assault victimization . Criminal Justice & Behavior , 38 , 263–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfredson MR, & Hirschi T. (1990). A general theory of crime . Stanford: Stanford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik RJ, & Arneklev BJ (1993). Testing the Core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 30 , 5–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ha OK, & Andresen MA (2017). Unemployment and the specialization of criminal activity: A neighborhood analysis . Journal of Criminal Justice , 48 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris DA, Smallbone S, Dennison S, & Knight RA (2009). Specialization and versatility in sexual offenders referred for civil commitment . Journal of Criminal Justice , 37 , 37–44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haynie DL (2002). Friendship networks and delinquency: The relative nature of peer delinquency . Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 18 , 99–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haynie DL, & Osgood DW (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter? Social Forces , 84 , 1109–1130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins GE, & Makin DA (2004). Does social learning theory condition the effects of low self-control on students’ software piracy? Journal of Economic Crime Management , 2 , 1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirschi T, & Gottfredson MR (1993). Commentary: Testing the general theory of crime . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 30 , 47–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirtenlehner H, & Kunz F. (2017). Can self-control theory explain offending in late adulthood? Evidence from Germany. Journal of Criminal Justice , 48 , 37–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jennings WG, Zgoba KM, Donner CM, Henderson BB, & Tewksbury R. (2014). Considering specialization/versatility as an unintended consequence of SORN . Journal of Criminal Justice , 42 , 184–192. [ Google Scholar ]
• Junger M, & Tremblay RE (1999). Self-control, accidents, and crime . Criminal Justice & Behavior , 26 , 485–501. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kandel DB (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 36 , 306–312. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Dyadic Data Analysis . New York: Guilford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kreager DA (2004). Strangers in the halls: Isolation and delinquency in school networks . Social Forces , 83 , 351–390. [ Google Scholar ]
• LaGrange TC, & Silverman RA (1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency . Criminology , 37 , 41–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marcus B. (2003). An empirical examination of the construct validity of two alternative self-control measures . Educational and Psychological Measurement , 63 , 674–706. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazerolle P, Brame R, Paternoster R, Piquero AR, & Dean C. (2000). Onset age, persistence, and offending versatility: Comparisons across gender . Criminology , 38 , 1143–1172. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGloin JM, & Piquero AR (2010). On the relationship between co-offending network redundancy and offending versatility . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 47 , 63–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGloin JM, & Shermer LO (2009). Self-control and deviant peer network structure . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 46 , 35–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGloin JM, Sullivan CJ, Piquero AR, & Pratt TC (2007). Local life circumstances and offending specialization/versatility: Comparing opportunity and propensity models . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 44 , 321–346. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meldrum RC, & Boman JH IV. (2013). Similarities and differences between perceptions of peer delinquency, peer self-reported delinquency, and respondent delinquency: An analysis of friendship dyads . Journal of Criminal Justice , 41 , 395–406. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meldrum RC, Young JTN, & Weerman FM (2009). Reconsidering the effect of self-control and delinquent peers: Implications of measurement for theoretical significance . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 46 , 353–376. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osgood DW, & Anderson AL (2004). Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency . Criminology , 42 , 519–550. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osgood DW, & Schreck CJ (2007). A new method for studying the extent, stability, and predictors of individual specialization in violence . Criminology , 45 , 273–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piquero AR (2000). Frequency, specialization, and violence in offending careers . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 37 , 392–418. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piquero AR, Farrington DP, & Blumstein A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm. In Tonry M. (Ed.), Crime and justice (pp. 359–506). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pratt TC, Barnes JC, Cullen FT, & Turanovic JJ (2016). “I suck at everything”: Crime, arrest, and the generality of failure . Deviant Behavior , 37 , 837–851. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pratt TC, & Cullen FT (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis . Criminology , 38 , 932–964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pratt TC, Cullen FT, Sellers CS, Winfree LT, Madensen TD, Daigle LE, Fearn NE, & Gau JM (2010). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis . Justice Quarterly , 27 , 765–802. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reisig MD, & Pratt TC (2011). Low self-control and imprudent behavior revisited . Deviant Behavior , 32 , 589–625. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schreck CJ (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime . Justice Quarterly , 16 , 633–654. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simons RL, Wu C, Conger RD, & Lorenz FO (1994). Two routes to delinquency: Differences between early and late starters in the impact of parenting and deviant peers . Criminology , 32 , 247–276. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan CJ, McGloin JM, Pratt TC, & Piquero AR (2006). Rethinking the “norm” of offender generality: Investigating specialization in the short-term . Criminology , 44 , 199–233. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutherland EH (1947). Principles of criminology . Philadelphia: Lippincott. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, & Boone AL (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success . Journal of Personality , 72 , 271–324. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas KJ (2016). On the relationship between peer isolation and offending specialization: The role of peers in promoting versatile offending . Crime & Delinquency , 62 , 26–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turanovic JJ, & Pratt TC (2014). “Can’t stop, won’t stop”: Self-control, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization . Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 30 , 29–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Unnever JD, & Cornell DG (2003). Bullying, self-control, and ADHD . Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 18 , 129–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vazsonyi AT, Mikuška J, & Kelley EL (2017). It’s time: A meta-analysis on the self-control deviance link . Journal of Criminal Justice , 48 , 48–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward JT, Gibson CL, Boman J, & Leite WL (2010). Assessing the validity of the retrospective behavioral self-control scale: Is the general theory of crime stronger than the evidence suggests? Criminal Justice and Behavior , 37 , 336–357. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warr M. (1996). Organization and instigation in delinquent groups . Criminology , 34 , 11–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warr M. (2002). Companions in crime . New York, NY: Cambridge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weerman FM, & Smeek WH (2005). Peer similarity in delinquency for different types of friends: A comparison using two measurement methods . Criminology , 43 , 499–524. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright KA, Pratt TC, & DeLisi M. (2008). Examining offending specialization in a sample of male multiple homicide offenders . Homicide Studies , 12 , 381–398. [ Google Scholar ]
• Young JTN (2011). How do the ‘end up together’? A social network analysis of self-control, homophily, and adolescent relationships . Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 27 , 251–273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Young JTN, Rebellon CJ, Barnes JC, & Weerman FM (2014). Unpacking the black box of peer similarity in deviance: Understanding the mechanisms linking personal behavior, peer behavior, and perceptions . Criminology , 52 , 60–86. [ Google Scholar ]

Social Learning Theory

Ivan Andreev

Demand Generation & Capture Strategist

ivan.andreev@valamis.com

March 10, 2021 · updated April 5, 2024

30 minute read

In this article, you will learn about Social Learning theory and the advantages and disadvantages of applying this learning technique in your organisation. You will also read examples of ways you can integrate social learning into the workplace to encourage and improve success in your learning environment.

What is social learning?

Main idea of social learning theory, components of social learning, early forms of social learning and social pedagogy, albert bandura (1977), lev vygotsky’s social learning theory, john krumboltz (1976-1996), advantages of social learning, disadvantages of social learning, social learning methods.

Social learning is a concept automatically and instinctively applied by humans throughout their lives, which they implement from childhood in order to find their place in the world and society. Fundamental beliefs and worldviews, such as gender roles, religion, political views, and self-worth, are initially shaped through social learning. This happens by observing how those around us react to different opinions.

Social learning is learning by observing other people with the goal of adapting one’s behaviour in social contexts.

People typically don’t adopt worldviews that make the most logical sense, but we are influenced to adopt behaviour that earns the least amount of criticism in our unique environment.

It is human nature to want to be accepted by others, so we automatically observe how others behave and what the consequences are in order to adapt our behaviour.

With social learning, we use this technique to adopt the behaviours with which another person has been successful in order to achieve the desired result. While social learning is usually associated with learning specific content, it is actually a process that we naturally use subconsciously every day of our lives.

The term social here refers to the fact that one questions and adjusts one’s behaviours based on observation of other people in a social setting to achieve a desired outcome. Motivation, work ethic , and learning techniques are examples of observed behaviours you can imitate to achieve a desired result. Behaviours learned through social environments can have a circular impact and inspire others in the same social setting.

Observation

Social learning works by observing the behaviour of other people. The consequences of specific situational actions are observed, then that behaviour is mirrored depending on the outcome of the consequence.

In this way, people learn which behaviours are socially acceptable and which behaviours are usually criticised. Observational learning allows people to adapt and approach situations more confidently quickly.

Next, we assess whether the observed person’s behaviour fits our personality and whether the results and reactions of others are desirable. If we decide that we would like to be praised and recognised for something, we analyse how the observed person came to this result.

There is often not enough data to know on which factors the desired reaction depends. Therefore, it is often necessary to observe similar situations repeatedly to develop a better understanding.

After observation and assessment of a particular behaviour, imitation follows to achieve the desired consequence. Imitation can only happen within our personal limitations, e.g. physical traits, characteristics, and experiences.

In most cases, the consequences of a behaviour depend on several factors. The views of the other person, place, time, one’s character, the situation, everything can play a role in how others react to something.

Therefore, it usually takes repeated positive feedback for a behaviour to become a habit, but it only takes a little criticism to avoid it in the future.

Identification

A large part of social learning is based on the idea that people want to identify with others and their achievements, or earn the appreciation of those role models. As it is understood in social learning, identification is comparable to the Freudian notion of the Oedipus complex. A part of this concept is about internalising or adopting the behaviours of other people.

While the term imitation refers to only a single aspect, identification is about several learned behaviours coming together. Imitations, such as language use, attitude, habits, or views, help people achieve feeling similar to role models.

It is important to emphasise that while social learning is based on imitating another person’s behaviour, it can have completely different consequences. People are individuals, and so are the results of behaviour. Social learning should serve as a way to help you see if others’ successful behaviours work for you as well. However, it should not become a direct comparison of results. It is about trying new techniques, habits, and behaviours for yourself, but you should not expect to get the exact same results as your role model. Social learning is not about becoming a different person or modifying your personality to be more like someone else. It is about improving your skills and thus becoming better than you were yesterday.

Social learning theories

There are various approaches to social learning that have been formulated and tested as hypotheses by several scientists and experts over time. However, the actual term was coined by Canadian-American psychologist Albert Bandura . Social learning is based on Social Pedagogy, which also focuses heavily on children’s education. The first mention of a children’s character influenced by society’s social environment was by 18th century Genevan philosopher, writer, and composer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau , who claimed that human beings are fundamentally good but are unnaturally altered by society.

Building on this, Social Pedagogy emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries in Germany through the known educationalists and philosophers Karl Mager , Paul Natorp , and Herman Nohl . They took ideas from great philosophers such as Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Plato and studied and defined the influence of the social environment and society on human beings and their development. Social pedagogy is the idea that the upbringing of individuals is the responsibility of both parents and society. It is a relationship-centred approach of using learning, interpersonal connection, and well-being to overcome social inequality, also on a community level.

American psychologist Robert Richardson Sears investigated how children acquire values, views, and beliefs, and the influence parents have in this process. Among other things, he focused on stimulus-response theory – how people react to certain external stimuli. Reactions Sears investigated included aggression, resistance to temptation, and culturally determined values such as traditionally accepted gender roles. The influence of parenting methods, such as reward, warmth, punishment, and power structures, were also considered. This research provided an important foundation for work on social learning theory.

Develop and maintain a strategy-driven learning culture

Upgrade your organization’s learning culture with clear, actionable strategies to address the challenges.

Bandura’s theory emphasises observing, modelling, and imitating other people’s behaviour, attitudes, and emotional reactions. It is about the influence of both environmental and cognitive factors on learning success as well as the overall behaviour of a person.

His theory is based on two concepts of behavioural psychology:

• The American psychologist B.F. Skinner ‘s operant conditioning describes that the consequences of a response or reaction influence the probability of repetition. Put simply; this refers to reward and punishment as controlling human behaviour. This teaching method is commonly found in everything from raising children to training an AI.
• The Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov ‘s classical conditioning deals with linking two stimuli to create an association in the learner’s mind that can even have a physical effect. The most famous example is Pavlov’s dogs. In the 1890s, several dogs were given food whenever a bell rang. Later it could be measured that the sound of the bell already provided for increased saliva production since the dogs associated it with eating. The same principle can be applied to humans and can assist in learning.

Based on these two concepts, Bandura put forward two hypotheses:

1. The mediation process occurs between stimuli and response

In contrast to Skinner, Bandura considers humans to be active information processors who think about the relationship between their behaviour and its consequences.

A person does not constantly observe their environment and learn. It requires an upstream thought process that activates learning through observation. We do not actively observe others in order to learn until we have concluded that our previous behaviour needs to be changed in a particular context. This process of considering whether or not we imitate a behaviour is what Bandura calls the mediation process.

According to Bandura, there are 4 processes that influence learning:

• Awareness For us to imitate behaviour, we must first notice it. It must therefore be something that stands out from the mass of our surroundings. Only then do we decide to observe the consequences of this behaviour more closely.
• Retention We can imitate a behaviour only if we remember it. It is necessary to observe a behaviour often and possibly apply it ourselves in order to form a clear memory. This point is particularly important in social learning.
• Reproduction To imitate a behaviour, we must also be able to perform it. We cannot always physically or mentally imitate every behaviour, even if we would like to. Our knowledge of our limitations influences whether or not we try to imitate something.
• Motivation The expected reward of imitation must be appealing enough and exceed the cost. The more positive and desirable a consequence, the more likely someone will adopt a new behaviour. It should be noted that not all people respond strongly to vicarious reinforcement. Some individuals do not focus on the consequences of other people’s behaviour as much and instead focus on themselves. Such people are less receptive to social learning.

2. Behaviour is learned through the environment and is based on learning by observing

Learning through observation is a fundamental component of the human mind. Young children use this technique to imitate and understand the behaviour of other people, especially their parents. Later in life, children, adolescents and even adults continue to use other people as role models to influence their actions and behaviours. This includes parents, teachers, influencers, or even friends. We observe their behaviour and classify it into learned categories. For example, authority, dominance, and strength are classically masculine attributes, while empathy, gentleness, and subtlety tend to be classified as feminine, even though these are all gender-independent. Nevertheless, children automatically imitate the behaviour that society or their environment considers appropriate for their gender.

Initially, children imitate people who are more similar to them, i.e. initially of the same sex. The reactions of other people are then decisive in determining whether this behaviour is retained or relearned. Humans are always looking for recognition, so they choose their behaviour whenever possible to be praised for it. We also observe the reactions that are triggered by behaviour. The more we want to identify with the other person, the more likely we will imitate their behaviour. In technical jargon, this is called vicarious reinforcement.

However, reward and punishment only work if the type of recognition meets the person’s needs. Otherwise, it does not affect his or her behaviour. In the context of a workplace environment, offering someone the prospect of a promotion will not result in a behaviour change if the person is satisfied in his or her current role.

In 1986, this social learning theory was further developed into the Social Cognitive Theory. It states that learning occurs within a social framework. This social framework involves the constant change of individuals, shared interactions within an individual’s environment, and observing others’ behaviours.

Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky formulated his own theory about social learning. His focus was about how conversation and community are integral parts of learning. He thought that without the input of other human beings, we would not develop. This also includes the importance of the spoken word for learning and thought processes.

Vygotsky’s theories are more known in the field of collaborative learning .

Krumboltz is a known American psychology professor at Stanford University. He is not directly involved in the scientific hypothesis of social learning, but his name is often mentioned concerning professional social learning. He became best known for his work on social learning theory in relation to career development, on which he worked for two decades with other experts. Two hypotheses emerged, one of which is related to social learning.

The social learning theory of career decision making (SLTCDM)

This concept describes the basis on which we make career decisions. According to Krumboltz, there are four factors that we incorporate into decision-making processes. These factors influence each other in thousands of ways in unpredictable ways, shaping our beliefs and how we view the world and ourselves. These four factors are:

• Generalised self-observation Conscious and unconscious consideration of our abilities, strengths, weaknesses, achievements and views, and the resulting conclusions about ourselves. Or to paraphrase: We define ourselves by what we can do and have accomplished. The results of these observations influence our future thoughts and actions – including career decisions.
• Generalised world view Conscious and unconscious observation of the environment and resulting assessment of how it will behave in the future. In other words, we form our view of the world and make assumptions about how the world and our environment are likely to develop.
• Task approach skills The way we approach a task. An interplay of genetic factors, environmental influences, and learning experiences that we understand and incorporate into decision-making processes as our cognitive and behavioural abilities. When we have a task, we use our self-assessment and experiences to define the right approach.
• Actions Learning experiences ultimately lead to career decisions. The more we learn about ourselves and the world over time, the more it affects our decisions, including our careers.

This theory supports and promotes social learning as an important factor in forming one’s own decisions since observing other people makes up a large part of our daily experiences. The point is that people should not commit to a career path, but act, perform, and learn. Based on the resulting experiences, our paths can be adapted and changed. The world, our work, and we, as individuals, are subject to constant change through learning and experience. Our path through work and life must also be able to change flexibly to address this.

Pros and cons of social learning theory

• Natural way to learn The most significant advantage of social learning is that everyone uses it naturally every day, consciously and unconsciously. You don’t have to plan it separately or set aside time for it because it happens automatically over time. In the working world, this means that we observe our colleagues and notice what they do and how they do it. When a colleague is particularly praised for performance or receives a bonus, other employees analyse all by themselves what action led to it in order to work towards the same result.
• Better skills These tendencies are great for leverage in organisations. By encouraging sharing thoughts, ideas, experiences, and best practices, you strengthen your employees’ productivity and skills.
• Higher learning retention It is scientifically proven that we only remember 10% from formal learning sources, while the remaining 90% comes from informal sources and social learning. By learning something directly from a person, we are able to remember it better because we remember things like voice pitch, images, memories, or even a joke during learning that we associate with learning content.
• Lower costs Bringing employees together to share subject matter expertise costs less than a seminar or learning content on the same topic.
• Productivity and sustainability When employees know who to ask about a topic, the information spreads, and, over time, a mentoring network is created within the company. This encourages sharing and reduces the need to learn from other sources.
• Employee retention Many employees want to continue their education, and they want to share ideas with colleagues. Social learning enables them to do both, creating stronger bonds with each other at the same time. That, and the awareness that the company allows or even encourages this type of exchange, increases loyalty.
• Better informed The more frequently employees exchange ideas with their colleagues on a wide range of topics, the more often they look beyond their horizons. This broadens their perspective and gives them impressions that help prevent mistakes and increase efficiency.
• Collaboration Learning is not the only thing that is collaborative in this case. Other factors are naturally included as well. Employees help each other more often, seek advice and help, collaborate better, and learn along the way. The best time to learn is when you need the knowledge.
• Capture organisational knowledge By sharing knowledge within the organisation, there is a greater chance of certain pieces of information being saved even after crucial employees leave the organisation.
• Problem solving in real time Many employees are looking for learning opportunities in a moment of actual need. The urge to solve a problem they cannot solve on their own requires collaboration. Usually, the first thing humans will do in this situation is asking others for their ideas. This is much faster than searching for answers online.
• Inclusion of passive employees There are lots of people that are quiet or even afraid to ask questions. Social learning in a context of learning groups or any other group larger than 2 people makes it easier for introverts to learn by listening to other people discussing their questions.
• Shorter onboarding times Having colleagues showing you around, answering questions, and providing us with useful tips helps us to get used to a new job and environment much faster than an online course on company culture or responsibilities.

Social learning also brings professional and psychological risks, which should be mentioned.

• Inner conflicts Since social learning is based on the idea of adapting what is perceived as successful and positive behaviour in others, you are learning to behave more like someone else. If you use this tactic too often and too intensely, it can result in inner conflict if the new behaviours are contrary to your own views. In the long run, this leads to active internal resistance and prevents any learning process.
• Less authenticity Contrary to what behavioural scientists have feared, social learning does not necessarily affect a person’s personality. In most cases, it would take long-term, repeated imitation to adopt a new behaviour as one’s own or lose one’s connection to one’s personality. Moreover, people often notice it themselves when something doesn’t feel authentic.
• Loss of innovation Personal thought processes, opinions and views are often neglected, favouring behaviour that promises the greatest success. However, since new and unconventional ideas tend to bring progress and innovation, this learning technique should not be used too much.
• Unexpected obstacles Very few people know their limits, strengths and weaknesses really well. It is often not possible to imitate the behaviour of another because unknown obstacles can arise. This can result in frustration, which leads to resignation.
• Consequences for self-esteem Most people cannot tell the difference between observation or imitation and a comparison to themselves. If we compare ourselves with others, we usually compare visible indicators like performance and results. This leads to frustration and disappointment in most cases. We typically compare ourselves to people who can do something better than us in order to learn from them. As a result, such a comparison will always be to our disadvantage. For people without a solid self-esteem, such a thing can have psychological consequences in the long run. Therefore, care should be taken to distinguish social learning from personal comparison clearly and to incorporate positive reinforcement.
• Self-doubt If everyone is a teacher and a student simultaneously, there is uncertainty about quality standards, and there can be self-doubt.
• Measuring requires modern solutions There are few ways to measure social learning apart from content usage unless you use a modern learning platform.
• Negative assumptions Social media and videos are considered a waste of time and leisure time in many minds.
• Necessary intervention Group discussions need to be led because otherwise, they quickly digress and turn into random private conversations, losing focus on the topics at hand.
• Requirements Attention, retention, replicability and motivation must be present in each participant for it to work.

There are various ways in which social learning can be implemented in companies. If social learning techniques are naturally integrated into everyday life, it can be a time-saving way to learn. Social learning can also be an enormous relief for people who learn well in social settings, which offers additional benefits to companies who are looking to adopt this learning concept into their organisation.

In order to use social learning in corporate learning, various options involve varying degrees of effort.

Learning groups

The most obvious method is to form learning groups, as is often the case with face-to-face seminars. Several people are in the same room, learning about a new topic. There are different ways to learn more effectively through social interaction and observation:

• Questions from individuals improve the understanding of all participants.
• Group tasks encourage direct exchange.
• Defending a point of view enhances learning for all present.
• Instructors can use focused questioning to help learners reach an understanding of their own and make connections.

This classic application of social learning is still the basis of schooling in most educational systems for children.

Examples for learning groups

There are various ways to incorporate group learning into an organisation.

• Recurring learning group meetings during or after work for specific topics.
• Focus groups to solve defined problems.
• Online learning groups to improve skills.
• Presentations with discussions.

Brainstorming sessions

This is a special form of a learning group. One of the most effective methods to ignite one’s creativity and find innovative approaches to solutions is the so-called “spitballing”. Several people throw ideas and immature thoughts into the room and thus open a discussion. In later stages, this technique develops into more specific brainstorming, where well-founded ideas are further thought out in concrete terms and ultimately develop into strategies, processes or even products. There is no need to have a specific goal in mind at the outset, just a topic or problem.

Such sessions can be of any length and scope, with small groups of knowledgeable people being the most effective. Still, outsiders can often bring fresh ideas that others can’t see because of technical blindness. Even two colleagues at work can use this technique to reassess acute challenges and seek solutions. Occasionally, such sessions result in disputes, but if conducted in a civilised and professional manner, they can be enormously helpful in solving problems.

The point of such sessions is to think and discuss outside of otherwise pervasive structures and rules, to create space for innovation and creativity, and to learn from other employees.

Benchmarking

Human behaviour is predictable in many areas. This knowledge can be used positively to promote learning. It is human nature to want to compare oneself with others, be better than others, or simply keep up.

With the right learning technology, things like gamification and internal networking can be used to share your learning progress with others.

Benchmarking also creates an internal competition that encourages other employees to acquire new skills to have a say, see themselves ranked higher than others, or catch up with colleagues’ progress. It is important to keep the meaning and rewards of results within reasonable bounds so that motivation to learn does not turn into competition and envy, affecting morale and ultimately damages productivity.

Examples of benchmarking in social learning

Benchmarking is all about comparing things, people, performance, results.

• Learning-based leaderboards can create a healthy competition between colleagues with similar roles, in the same team, department, or subsidiary. This can even become a regular competition between countries or business areas that encourages people to improve.
• Rewards are a common way to commemorate the results of a person or team. Usually, this kind of appraisal is granted based on comparing performance or certain results, which causes other employees to benchmark the winners.
• By sharing best practices or success stories of won customers, awards, or successful projects, employees are motivated and can use the information to learn what was done right, and what needs to be improved.
• Badges are a rising trend in organisations to utilise gamification for enabling internal benchmarking by comparing them with colleagues. This way, people challenge each other and themselves to get more badges.

Leading by example

Leading by example is a unique form of internal benchmarking. It is not a novelty that superiors always have a specific role model function in addition to the distribution of work and leadership tasks. Many employees hope to move up to this or a comparable position themselves one day, so they automatically pay attention to how their supervisor behaves. At this point, social learning takes place quite naturally. The more positive, likeable and popular a superior is, the more likely their employees are to try to analyse and, if possible, imitate their behaviour.

When managers and people in senior positions do something, it is usually observed. Therefore, to motivate colleagues to learn, supervisors should use the available learning opportunities themselves and communicate this openly. Successful people, especially those in a person’s immediate environment, are always copied. To put this idea into practice, if a manager learns for half an hour every day, the employees will also learn more to adapt and strive for success.

Social Media

People often associate social media with social learning. However, social media is not a form of social learning but a tool for facilitation. Because of the ubiquitous presence of technology and the internet, social media and video platforms give us the opportunity to share our experiences and knowledge with the whole world in the form of videos or texts. People from anywhere can learn from our experiences at any time. This concept has become so powerful that younger generations prefer it to the tried and true direct interaction with other people. However, many things are lost in the process, such as interpreting tone of voice, facial expressions or subtle cues.

Even in companies, intranets and chats can stimulate exchanges between colleagues who are otherwise physically distant and unlikely to ever meet in person. This supports and accelerates social learning, as long as it does not become the sole source of learning. Care should be taken to always view social media as a tool, not a universal solution.

Platforms such as YouTube, Facebook or Twitter do not just provide content for diversion. Specialist groups, explanatory videos or forums for solving complex problems enable social learning even beyond the boundaries of the company or entire countries. As long as sensitive information is not shared, this can be incredibly helpful. In addition, sharing one’s own experiences on social media and forums has a practical side effect; it strengthens the company’s reputation as a subject matter expert and also offers new marketing options because it increases reach.

Example: Integration of Social Media

Social media gives us a myriad of ways to interact with other people around the globe on a professional level. Every company and person has to find the most useful options for themselves.

• Internal sharing platforms like intranets can help improve employee loyalty by creating a stronger sense of community and accelerating the exchange of information.
• A perfect example of social learning is participation in forums. Forums can be about every possible topic or area. There are forums hosted by companies, organisations or open forums that allow discussing just about anything. Great examples for general discussions are famous forums like Stackoverflow and Reddit .
• Quite similar is the joining of societies. Many groups are discussing rather specialised topics on a high level, e.g. technology or scientific topics. This can happen online or offline. Societies require registration and usually some proof that a member has a certain level of expertise to participate in the talks. For company experts, such groups can be quite a valuable learning experience.
• For less specialised but still goal-oriented discussions, there are social groups. Such groups usually also require registration but with fewer expectations. Talks are more general, but they can also be helpful for learning about other perspectives.
• Many employees consume videos or other internet content to learn the things they need for completing a task. If those contents are shared or found via social media (internal or external), we call it social learning

Sharing internet resources

Sharing information doesn’t always have to involve social media. Many people spend a lot of time searching the internet for educational opportunities and informative content. There is now more learning content out there than anyone could count, let alone consume. Finding valuable information in this mass of data is not always easy.

So it pays to encourage sharing of such sources within your organisation. Regardless of the form of sharing, motivating employees to consume blogs, technical articles, videos or podcasts on relevant topics and share the best of them with their colleagues can be a great way to share knowledge and encourage skill improvements. An internal library of external knowledge sources can be just as valuable as a collection of eLearning content. If you can measurably incorporate these external sources into your learning platform, it’s even better. This way, you can additionally see which sources are most popular and draw conclusions about your learning content.

Social interactions with others have been an integral part of our being since the Stone Age. It is a constant need to communicate and exchange with others to feel accepted and comfortable and learn. Even completely mundane conversations can contain added values that help us move forward in life. The more companies encourage employees to interact with each other, the happier they will be, and the more often they will learn something from those interactions. When people work physically close together, they automatically talk about it when there are problems. Employees help each other find solutions, improve their work or make processes more efficient. The more opportunities there are for the contact between team members, the better the exchange works in a professional environment.

Examples of social learning through exchange

General exchange doesn’t have a fixed learning goal. Simple conversations between colleagues can benefit learning and increase social skills. Any kind of social activity within an organisation can serve as a starting point for this.

• Coffee breaks bring co-workers together to talk about current tasks, colleagues, managers, the company, or just about life. This improves networking and sympathy, which are both essential for social learning.
• Events like anniversaries, department parties, after-work get-togethers, barbecues, or other opportunities that allow employees to mingle and meet co-workers from other departments or even different locations usually have a significant impact on social learning. Imitation starts with awareness, so the more successful people we meet, the more motivated we become to improve.
• Informal chats between colleagues are traditionally viewed as wasted time or dodging work. Often, co-workers talk about work-related topics to share their views or just release frustration about specific tasks. Instead of telling them to get back to work, leaders can join the chat and steer the conversation in a useful direction.

Social learning through knowledge management

In addition to classic group projects with regular meetings, there are many more ways to collaborate in teams without leaving the workplace in today’s digital age. There are numerous software solutions such as Google for Business, Microsoft 360 or Dropbox that enable teams and workgroups to collaborate on the same documents at the same time, and contribute their knowledge and expertise. This saves time because everyone can work on it simultaneously, and it allows colleagues to work together effectively even if they are working in separate countries.

Using the communication tools included in digital solutions, such as Hangouts, Teams or Slack, spontaneous video chats and meetings on current topics and challenges can be implemented immediately and spontaneously, even if it only takes a few minutes. This type of networking strengthens the sense of community and reduces the inhibition threshold to approach previously unknown colleagues for information exchange.

Examples of knowledge management for social learning purposes

Although Knowledge Management is mainly supposed to make use of internal information as effectively as possible, there are social learning benefits included.

• By utilising comments, suggestions, or even simultaneous editing, social learning can take place by receiving input from others. This can even happen over the course of days or weeks by checking the latest comments from yesterday and responding to them, so the colleague from another time zone can read it the next day.
• Communication tools like Slack or Teams allow employees to easily find subject matter experts and ask questions in the flow of work. Quick communication improves networking between departments and employees, and it also accelerates knowledge sharing even in small bits, similar to microlearning.
• Chat tools also allow for sharing documents and links with team members, turning them into a form of internal social media.
• Although internally created wikis count as knowledge management in the first place, these articles are usually written by experts in the organisation. Unlike external wikis, employees can contact internal authors for more details or specific questions and even add experiences to the article later. This is also a form of social learning.

Interactive learning platforms

Many organisations already have systems and platforms that manage content and report back usage data when it comes to learning. This makes sense for a controlled learning environment, but it usually excludes the interpersonal part. Modern learning platforms or learning ecosystems, like Valamis, enable collaborative content such as digital group work and collaborative learning paths and courses with fixed participants and known colleagues. These platforms allow employees to work together on learning tasks, exchange ideas, and enhance the learning environment.

In addition, platforms such as Valamis enable a social learning network. Employees can recommend content to each other, track their colleagues’ progress, exchange specific information, and even compete against each other in leaderboards. This makes it much easier to follow a colleague’s steps toward a promotion, bonus, or skill. Instead of envy, you give employees a clear path by which they can also achieve their goals. Platforms like Valamis are continually improving to be a one-stop-shop for all possible kinds of social learning in a digital solution.

Combine features like personalisation, analytics, or skills matrices with sharing or integrating external learning sources, using digital collaboration tools for group tasks, incorporating content from other social media, and enabling video or chat sessions for brainstorming. You can have powerful solutions that combine many proven and modern social learning approaches to improve your organisation’s chances for success.

You might be interested in

Enterprise Learning Platform

Discover what an enterprise learning platform is and why you need a new learning solution. Discover the main features every enterprise LMS should have.

Learning Record Store (LRS)

Learn what Learning Record (LRS) is and what it enables. Discover 4 key steps on how to implement it and how to choose the right vendor.

Skills-based talent management 

Discover what a skills-based approach in talent hiring and management is. Learn the key 5 steps on how to implement it in your organization.

Applying Social Learning Theory in Social Work & Education

As it turns out, a lot.

Social learning is a natural approach to acquiring new information relevant to all students and clients and, most of the time, a preferred method of learning.

Social learning presents an alternative avenue for obtaining new knowledge and frequently reinforces social work and education concepts. This type of learning involves observing others and requires four elements:

• Reproduction

Let’s explore this applicable theory further.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free . These science-based exercises explore fundamental aspects of positive psychology, including strengths, values, and self-compassion, and will give you the tools to enhance the wellbeing of your clients, students, or employees.

This Article Contains:

Social learning theory of personality explained, applying social learning theory in social work, 7 social learning interventions & treatments, how to apply social learning theory in education, understanding motivation in the classroom, 4 best books on the topic, resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

Our personality may encourage or limit our capacity for social learning.

A shy individual or someone who has introverted qualities may experience fewer opportunities for social learning than someone who is outgoing and frequently seeks social situations.

Additionally, personality can be molded through the environment via social learning. Curran, Hill, Madigan, and Stornaes (2020) studied perfectionism in adolescents and found that social learning and parent socialization predicted the occurrence of the potentially harmful trait.

With social learning, children also pick up academic, athletic, and artistic skills via society, gender groups, peer groups, and their families (Social Work License Map, 2021).

This new knowledge could include both positive and negative behaviors.

For social work practitioners, this theory can apply to behavioral issues or conflict. Social learning theory can be used to both learn and unlearn certain behaviors. Suppose that an abusive parent raises a child. The child may resort to physical violence in their own household when they are older.

Further, social learning theory can explain other deviant behavior. For example, a drug habit could be rationalized and attributed to copying friends’ habits, being influenced by others, or simply being surrounded by the “wrong” people (Kolodziej, 2015).

The importance of surrounding yourself with people whose qualities you wish to emulate cannot be emphasized enough.

Differential association theory

The differential association theory, one of the most discussed theories of deviance , was developed by Edwin Sutherland (2015).

Similar to the social learning theory, the premise of this theory is that individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior through interaction with others. This is an example of observational learning, but in the most unfavorable way.

Sutherland (2015) asserted that associations with criminal behavior and a lack of association with noncriminal behavior encourage deviant behavior in an individual.

Interestingly, these researchers provide a logical analogy of a Southerner in the United States who does not pronounce the “r” sound when they speak. Because people in the southern United States may not pronounce “r” sounds, other Southerners are inclined to do the same.

As a social worker, it is helpful to understand this theory, as it may sometimes explain the origin and intent of criminal behavior.

Social learning & depression

According to Frey, Frank, and McCabe (2021), there is very little research concerning learning from social outcomes in depression or social learning in depression; however, research by Frey and McCabe (2020) suggests that depression is affiliated with learning deficits.

Not only do people with depression experience impaired learning from social outcomes at the neural and behavioral levels, they often have decreased occasions for social interactions, limiting their opportunities for social learning.

Just as personality affects and is affected by social learning, depression has the same relatedness. People with depression may have a difficult time participating socially and gaining new knowledge from social learning.

Health promotion and social learning theory

Promoting positive and healthy habits is a critical part of an educator’s or social worker’s position.

Parcel et al. (1987) concluded that health instruction alone is ineffective in schools’ health promotion. The health instruction needs to be supported by the school environment. Therefore, expected behavior was modeled in classroom activities, such as in stories and role-play.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Exercises (PDF)

Enhance wellbeing with these free, science-based exercises that draw on the latest insights from positive psychology.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Below is a selection of interventions and treatments where social learning theory has been applied.

Cognitive restructuring

Cognitive therapy is a powerful tool to elicit behavioral change. Cognitive restructuring aims to achieve schematic change through structured, goal-directed, and collaborative intervention strategies (Clark, 2013; Gardner, n.d.).

With collaborative being the keyword, individuals cannot do this work in isolation. Through therapy, clients identify maladaptive thoughts , and with cognitive restructuring, professionals expose individuals to information that contradicts their biased beliefs (Ellis, 2008).

Skill building

Skill building targets and builds upon skill deficits. This type of intervention addresses skill gaps and may include social skills training (including life skills training), social cognitive training, cognitive remediation , and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (Lyman et al., 2014).

The process involves modeling, behavior rehearsal or role-play, feedback, and reinforcement (Gardner, n.d.). Behavioral interventions in adaptive skill building, particularly early intensive behavioral intervention, are the most effective for children (Palmen, Didden, & Lang, 2012).

Culture restructuring

Culture restructuring involves a process of creating a positive culture in which prosocial behaviors are positively reinforced (Gardner, n.d.).

Cultures may include the family unit or school setting. In culture restructuring, there is a change in the messages exchanged within the culture, which is accomplished by persuading people to change how they think. Said another way, it is a paradigm shift.

Process comparison

Similar to cognitive restructuring, the operations are much the same in process comparison (Gardner, n.d.). A common six-step process to teach social skills includes (Gardner, n.d.; McDaniel, Bruhn, & Troughton, 2017):

• Education about prosocial behavior – Engaging cognition
• Stop and think – Activating awareness
• Good choice/bad choice – Evaluating options
• What are the steps? – Identifying steps of the “good choice” and potential consequences
• Action – Implementing the steps
• How did I do? – Reflecting on the action

Humans strive to understand and make sense of their environment through comparison. Consider the structure mapping theory. Comparison involves structured representation, a preference for connected relational structure, and mapping to find a semantic similarity between the relations of the domains (Markman & Gentner, 2000). Comparison can occur between processes or standards.

Develop a healthier network

If you want to lead a healthier lifestyle, surround yourself with like-minded individuals who share the same goals. Developing a network of people who strive for a healthier lifestyle and have the motivation to make health-conscious decisions can encourage us to be healthier and maintain the lifestyle changes necessary to improve our health.

Considering addiction treatment, a healthier network of peers may involve a social circle of people who abstain from drugs (MentalHelp.net, n.d.). Someone who has a goal to lose weight may want to seek peers with healthy eating and exercise habits.

Teach positive coping skills

Positive coping skills are adaptive and constructive ways to deal with stressful situations (Kaplánová, 2020). Observing positive coping skills and surrounding yourself with people who practice positive coping skills can also help you choose to exercise these skills (MentalHelp.net, n.d.).

Positive coping skills may include mindfulness, meditation, yoga, and deep/slow breathing. Your Life, Your Voice from Boys Town provides 99 Coping Skills and is an excellent tool to find the right coping skill for you. Our own Coping Skills Worksheets for Adults and Youth article is also a top-notch resource to explore coping skills.

Refusal skills to combat peer pressure

Although establishing a healthier network is strongly encouraged, some people may have difficulty distancing themselves from peers who may present a negative influence (MentalHelp.net, n.d.).

In this situation, refusal skills are critical. A deficit in refusal skills could result in harmful behavior, including drug, tobacco, or alcohol use (Anuar, 2018). When you cannot avoid a particular situation or influential peer, refusal skills may consist of verbally declining, redirecting, or physically walking away.

Social learning in education is conducive to instructing numerous students in one classroom, as this learning can occur at multiple levels and through various situations.

Children are constantly observing others, making this type of learning both reciprocal and continuous.

Teachers can support students’ learning by framing personal experiences as meaningful content, facilitating community through peer assessment, using group work to develop shared practices, and extending the purpose of subject teaching to influence students’ identities (Restad, 2021).

Teachers can use the following methods in the classroom to help facilitate learning:

• Encouraging connections and facilitating relationships in the classroom
• Providing praise for students who are doing the desired behavior
• Short, student-created skits
• Peer assessments, peer teaching, peer coaching, peer tutoring
• Flipped classroom model
• Technology: Jamboard, Padlet, YouTube videos, monitored social media, PenPal Schools
• Student-created videos or presentations

Bandura and social learning theory – The Curious Classroom

Motivation is a critical element in the classroom. In fact, it is one of the four elements of the social learning theory, in which Bandura asserted that observation alone might not be enough to influence learning; motivation is also necessary (Bandura & Walters, 1977).

To attain long-term assimilation, a student needs to see the benefit of the new behavior. Motivation can be intrinsic (a feeling of accomplishment when finishing a task) or extrinsic (earning a prize from the treasure chest upon completion of a task).

A student can become motivated upon seeing another student rewarded for a behavior. Likewise, a student may also become motivated to refrain from an undesired behavior when observing a student receiving punishment for that behavior. Often, verbal praise can be an effective tool for motivating students.

Besides our selection of social work books every practitioner should read, we selected these four focused on social learning theory.

1. Teach Boldly: Using EdTech for Social Good – Jennifer Williams

While we may assume that students who stare at a computer screen or have their eyes glued to their phone are being antisocial, they may be socializing extensively and actively engaging in social learning.

For encouraging innovative practices and global collaboration through technology, this book delivers a human-centered approach to teaching.

Teach Boldly covers constructing agile classrooms, digital storytelling, communicating across differences, and prioritizing feedback and active listening. This book offers readers the skills to create a quality action plan for encouraging social learning through technology.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. The Social Neuroscience of Education: Optimizing Attachment and Learning in the Classroom – Louis Cozolino

Stimulating the mind and brain to learn is the name of this game.

Holding the brain as discernibly social, Cozolino describes the steps a teacher can take to encourage healthy attachment patterns and resilient psyches. He explores what effective teachers do to motivate the difficult-to-motivate student.

Using social neuroscience and interpersonal neurobiology, Cozolino uncovers methods to maximize student learning and stimulate the brain to grow.

The section on How to Turn Brains Off explores stress, bullying, and “unteachable” students, while How to Turn Brains On probes why emotional attunement, exploration, play, and stories are crucial to learning.

3. Critical Service Learning Toolkit: Social Work Strategies for Promoting Healthy Youth Development –  Annette Johnson, Cassandra McKay-Jackson, and Giesela Grumbach

This comprehensive toolkit encourages interconnectedness and participation in the community while enhancing skill building, self-reflection, and civic engagement.

This user-friendly, step-by-step guide enables readers to plan, carry out, and evaluate critical service learning. This book is an ideal resource for educators and social workers who promote civic responsibility and social agency.

4. Model-Directed Learning: Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Learning Theory and Its Social-Psychological Significance for School and Instruction – Liwia Kolodziej

Using the cognitive learning theory and model-based learning, Kolodziej explains how schools can characterize the relationships between social interactions, social learning, and learning through imitation.

Further, the teacher–student relationship and the teacher’s role as the model are explicitly described. The book concludes with implications of school instruction using the social learning theory.

To gain a clearer understanding of the social learning theory, you may want to review What Is Bandura’s Social Learning Theory? 3 Examples . In this piece, we describe the theory’s stages, provide real-life examples, present fascinating experiments and studies, and establish the strengths and weaknesses of the theory.

The Promoting Positive Behavior worksheet may help a student identify peers’ positive behaviors that should be mirrored. A teacher or counselor may wish to begin a social skills conversation with this worksheet and prompt the student to think of examples of classmates’ positive behaviors that they have witnessed.

Perhaps this Behavior Contract may encourage individuals in a client’s social circle to help them make the lifestyle changes they desire.

As we know, students learn best in an environment where they feel safe. Therefore, social learning may be most likely to occur in an environment where students exhibit trust. Here are a few icebreakers and team-building exercises that may foster a safe environment:

• Getting to Know One Another Exercise
• Making Eye Contact Exercise
• True and False Exercise

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others enhance their wellbeing, this signature collection contains 17 validated positive psychology tools for practitioners. Use them to help others flourish and thrive.

17 Top-Rated Positive Psychology Exercises for Practitioners

Expand your arsenal and impact with these 17 Positive Psychology Exercises [PDF] , scientifically designed to promote human flourishing, meaning, and wellbeing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Just as the children learned to act violently toward the Bobo doll in Bandura et al.’s (1961) landmark study, children and adults generally learn by observing.

Furthermore, kids simply “don’t learn from teachers they don’t like” (Pierson, 2013). If this is the case, the classroom teacher can employ the other students as “the teacher” to help facilitate learning.

Cultivating social learning in your classroom and engaging the social learning theory in your practice as a social worker can benefit students and clients. It can be an effective and efficient method to promote cognitive change.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free .

• Anuar, D. N. B. (2018). The effectiveness of smoking prevention module towards knowledge and smoking refusal skill among secondary school students in Kota Bharu, Kelantan (Doctoral dissertation, University Sains Malaysia). Retrieved August 19, 2021, from http://eprints.usm.my/47033/1/Dr.%20Norlina%20Anuar-24%20pages.pdf
• 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.
• Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (vol. 1). Prentice Hall.
• Clark, D. A. (2013). Cognitive restructuring . In S. G. Hofmann, D. J. A. Dozois, W. Rief, & J. Smits (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of cognitive behavioral therapy.  John Wiley & Sons.
• Cozolino, L. (2013).  The social neuroscience of education: Optimizing attachment and learning in the classroom . W. W. Norton.
• Curran, T., Hill, A. P., Madigan, D. J., & Stornaes, A. V. (2020). A test of social learning and parent socialization perspectives on the development of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences , 160 .
• Ellis, A. (2008). Cognitive restructuring of the disputing of irrational beliefs. In W. T. O’Donohue & J. E. Fisher (Eds.), Cognitive behavior therapy: Applying empirically supported techniques in your practice (pp. 91–95). John Wiley & Sons.
• Frey, A. L., Frank, M. J., & McCabe, C. (2021). Social reinforcement learning as a predictor of real-life experiences in individuals with high and low depressive symptomatology. Psychological Medicine , 51 (3), 408–415.
• Frey, A. L., & McCabe, C. (2020). Impaired social learning predicts reduced real-life motivation in individuals with depression: A computational fMRI study. Journal of Affective Disorders , 263 , 698–706.
• Gardner, J. (n.d.). 10 Social learning interventions . Cognitive Behavior Management. Retrieved August, 15, 2021, from https://cognitivebehaviormanagement.com/practice-concepts/social-learning-interventions/
• Johnson, A., McKay-Jackson, C., & Grumbach, G. (2018). Critical service learning toolkit: Social work strategies for promoting healthy youth development. Oxford University Press.
• Kaplánová, A. (2020). Financial awards and their effect on football players’ anxiety and coping skills. Frontiers in Psychology , 11 .
• Kolodziej, L. (2015). Model-directed learning. Albert Bandura’s social cognitive learning theory and its social-psychological significance for school and instruction . GRIN Verlag.
• Lyman, D. R., Kurtz, M. M., Farkas, M., George, P., Dougherty, R. H., Daniels, A. S., … Delphin-Rittmon, M. E. (2014). Skill building: Assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services , 65 (6), 727–738.
• Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (2000). Structure mapping in the comparison process. American Journal of Psychology , 113 (4), 501–538.
• McDaniel, S. C., Bruhn, A. L. & Troughton, L. (2017). A brief social skills intervention to reduce challenging classroom behavior. Journal of Behavior Education , 26 , 53–74.
• MentalHelp.net. (n.d.). Social learning theory and addiction . Retrieved August, 15, 2021, from https://www.mentalhelp.net/addiction/social-learning-theory/
• Palmen, A., Didden, R., & Lang, R. (2012). A systematic review of behavioral intervention research on adaptive skill building in high-functioning young adults with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders , 6 (2), 602–617.
• Parcel, G. S., Simons-Morton, B. G., O’Hara, N. M., Baranowski, T., Kolbe, L. J., & Bee, D. E. (1987). School promotion of healthful diet and exercise behavior: An integration of organizational change and social learning theory interventions. Journal of School Health , 57 (4), 150–156.
• Pierson, R. (2013, May). Every kid needs a champion (Video) Retrieved August 2, 2021, from https://www.ted.com/talks/rita_pierson_every_kid_needs_a_champion?language=en#t-100042
• Restad, F. (2021). Exploring the problems and potential of curriculum-making for social learning: Implications for policy and practice. The Curriculum Journal.
• Social Work License Map. (2021, June). Theoretical approaches in social work: Social learning theory . Retrieved August 16, 2021, from https://socialworklicensemap.com/social-work-resources/social-learning-theory-and-its-importance-to-social-work/
• Sutherland, E. H. (2015). Differential association. In F. P. Williams & M. D. McShane (Eds.),  Criminology theory: Selected classic readings (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Williams, J. (2019). Teach boldly: Using edtech for social good. International Society for Technology in Education.

Share this article:

Article feedback

Let us know your thoughts cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Hierarchy of Needs: A 2024 Take on Maslow’s Findings

One of the most influential theories in human psychology that addresses our quest for wellbeing is Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. While Maslow’s theory of [...]

Emotional Development in Childhood: 3 Theories Explained

We have all witnessed a sweet smile from a baby. That cute little gummy grin that makes us smile in return. Are babies born with [...]

Using Classical Conditioning for Treating Phobias & Disorders

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell? Classical conditioning, a psychological phenomenon first discovered by Ivan Pavlov in the late 19th century, has proven to [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (48)
• Coaching & Application (57)
• Compassion (26)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (24)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (45)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (20)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (17)
• Positive Parenting (2)
• Positive Psychology (33)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (47)
• Resilience & Coping (35)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (30)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

3 Positive Psychology Tools (PDF)

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 03 July 2018

A skill to be worked at: using social learning theory to explore the process of learning from role models in clinical settings

• Jo Horsburgh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2099-6808 1 , 2 &
• Kate Ippolito 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  18 , Article number:  156 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

114k Accesses

73 Citations

52 Altmetric

Metrics details

Role modelling is widely accepted as being a highly influential teaching and learning method in medical education but little attention is given to understanding how students learn from role models. This study focuses on role modelling as an active, dynamic process, involving observational learning and aims to explore the process involved, including strategies that learners and medical teachers use to support this.

To gain insight into medical students’ and clinical teachers’ understanding of learning through role modelling, a qualitative, interpretative methodology was adopted, using one-to-one semi-structured interviews. Six final year medical students and five clinical teachers were purposefully sampled and interviewed. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. The data were then analysed using open and axial coding before codes were combined to develop broader themes.

Students could identify ways in which they learnt from role models but acknowledged that this was complex and haphazard. They described selectively and consciously paying attention, using retention strategies, reproducing observed behaviour and being motivated to imitate. Students evidenced the powerful impact of direct and vicarious reinforcement. Clinical teachers reported using strategies to help students learn, but these were not always consciously or consistently applied or informed by teachers’ understanding of their students’ cognitive processing.

Findings illustrate in what ways the process of learning from role models in clinical settings is challenging. They also support the relevancy and usefulness of Bandura’s four stage social learning model for understanding this process and informing recommendations to make learning from role modelling more systematic and effective.

Peer Review reports

Learning from role models is widely accepted as being an influential medical educational method, especially during clinical rotations [ 1 , 2 ]. Park et al. argue that of all learning experiences exposure to clinical environments and the role models present there have ‘the greatest impact on professional formation’ ([ 2 ], p.134). Despite this perceived value, we would suggest that the term ‘role model’s’ common but vaguely defined usage [ 3 ], coupled with limited awareness about the process of learning from role models, lessens the value of this construct as a way of explaining how medical students learn in clinical settings. The concept of ‘role model’ draws on two theoretical constructs. First, the tendency of people to identify individuals who hold a social position to which they themselves aspire, in this context a successful senior medical student or well-regarded consultant in a specialty of interest. Second, the concept of modelling, or social learning [ 4 ], which suggests that individuals pay attention to role models because they believe they can learn skills and accepted ways of behaving in a particular context [ 5 ]. Although we see the relevancy of both, our study is framed by the latter because we perceive a need to critically examine the active, dynamic process between role model and observer, or teacher and learner.

Most previous studies in this area have focused on what students learn from role models and there is much consensus on the attributes of positive doctor role models including excellent clinical knowledge and skills, patient-centred approach and humanistic behaviours such as empathy and compassion [ 6 , 7 ]. Our interest lies in further examination of how students learn from role models in order to maximise the conditions for this type of learning. This builds on the work of Cruess et al. [ 8 ] who proposed the idea of making explicit the implicit reasons behind role models’ actions for the benefit of both learners and role models. In addition, the BEME Guide no. 27 [ 9 ] highlighted the importance of recognising the process of learning from role models. In this paper we take an exploratory approach to gain more insight into medical students’ and clinical teachers’ understanding of how individuals learn through behavioural observation and role modelling. Based on this insight we will attempt to suggest ways to improve learners’ and teachers’ understanding and therefore the effectiveness of this method.

Bandura’s theory of social learning

Bandura’s theory of social learning [ 1 ] provides a useful framework for us to consider how students learn via observational learning and modelling. For Bandura, learning takes place in a social setting via observation, but it also involves cognitive processes; that is, learners internalise and make sense of what they see in order to reproduce the behaviour themselves. Gibson argues that this involves ‘the psychological matching of cognitive skills and patterns of behaviour between a person and an observing individual’ [ 3 , 5 ]. Bandura proposed that this type of learning involved four different stages – attention, retention, reproduction and motivation.

The first stage is attention whereby learners need to attend to the behaviour. They need to actually see the behaviour that they want to reproduce or that others want them to reproduce. Secondly they need to internalise and retain what they have seen. This involves cognitive processes in which a learner mentally rehearses the behaviour or actions that are to be reproduced. Thirdly they need opportunity to reproduce the behaviour by converting the information obtained from attention and retention processes into action. Finally learners need to be motivated to enact or imitate the behaviour they have observed. This motivation occurs via reinforcement, of which Bandura proposes three different types – direct reinforcement, vicarious reinforcement and self-reinforcement.

We wanted to better understand to what extent learners and teachers are aware of and consciously make use of the underlying cognitive processes described by Bandura, even though they are unlikely to be aware of his model, to maximise learning from role modelling and what they think creates barriers to this four-stage process. In particular we wanted to investigate:

What are the processes occurring in clinical settings that support learning from role models and what hinders it?

What approaches do learners take to analyse, evaluate and adopt or reject what they learn through observation of and engagement with role models?

What strategies do role models consciously apply to encourage their learners to learn in this way?

A qualitative, interpretative methodology was adopted, with one to one semi structured interviews being conducted. Six final year medical students (Anita, Mark, Pete, Emily, Jason and Liam), and five clinical teachers (Shivani, Melanie, Iris, Stefan and Abigail), identified here by pseudonyms, were purposefully sampled on the basis that they would provide rich insight into teaching and learning in clinical settings [ 10 ] The clinical teachers were from a variety of specialities and had a range of teaching experience. The aim was not to achieve theoretical saturation but to gain in-depth insight into 11 individuals’ unique experiences to better understand how learners and teachers perceive and make sense of learning from role modelling in clinical settings [ 11 ]. The two interview guides varied slightly between students and teachers to take into account their differing roles. Although we were aware of Bandura’s social learning theory and anticipated it would help us to interpret our data his four predetermined categories did not influence the question design, which were deliberately broad, open questions that allowed interviewees to describe the process of learning in a clinical context in their own words (see Additional file 1 ). Interview questions were not validated but were piloted for understanding. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. The data were analysed using open and axial coding [ 12 ] which was completed by both authors independently before codes were combined to develop broader themes. For the purposes of this paper we have adopted a theoretical data analysis approach; identification of themes was guided by our specific research questions and our theoretical interest in the relevancy of Bandura’s four stage model for analysing learning in the clinical setting. This led to more detailed analysis of particular aspects of the data rather than rich description of all data collected [ 13 ] (see Table  1 below). Ethical approval for this study was gained from the Medical Education Ethics Committee at Imperial College, London.

For the sake of clarity and to better explore the process of learning, in this paper we have chosen to emphasise the learner experience and perspective, with data from the clinical teachers used to enhance and further illuminate the students’ viewpoints. Table 1 shows the codes and themes derived from analysis of the interview transcripts, illustrative quotes for each of the themes, and the process from Bandura’s theory that these relate to.

The students interviewed were able to identify ways in which they learnt from role models but acknowledged that this was a complex and haphazard process.

Having presented the codes, themes and illustrative quotes from the interview transcripts, these will now be discussed in further detail.

Being present and involved

Despite needing to be physically present and able to see the action some students reported feeling in the way like ‘lemons’ or ‘ghosts’, suggesting they needed their participation to be legitimised. They described that legitimacy as coming from being given a specific role, such as taking a history from a patient. Anita, for example, described being asked by a consultant to sit and chat with a patient whilst she ate her breakfast. For the student this proved to be a rich and memorable learning experience. This purposeful role gave her an involved perspective from which to observe and maintained her attention. Lave and Wenger [ 14 ] refer to the way that newcomers to a community of practice learn by participating as legitimate peripheral participation . But opportunities for legitimate peripheral participation need to be created for medical students and the value of this should not be underestimated as the quotes from students’ demonstrated.

Teachers were also aware of this need to actively involve students, particularly those less confident ones, but due to time pressures this was not always possible. Most teachers agreed that some role models were easy to identify - what Abigail referred to as ‘superstars’. But there was an acknowledgement that other role models might be more useful, particularly in the early stages. Therefore, as has been found in other research [ 8 ] signposting less obvious behaviours, such as at what point and how junior doctors involve senior colleagues was important.

Continuity of and exposure to role models

Barriers to paying attention included lack of continuous exposure to any one role model or patient, meaning that students could not truly analyse role model’s behaviours or evaluate the impact of that behaviour on others. Attending to patterns in role models’ practice takes time and for some the short phases that tend to characterise medical students’ clinical rotations made this difficult.

Where role models had facilitated more continuous observations of their practice the educational value of this could be recognised by students. For some students, their experience aligned well with Gioia and Manz assertion that “if an observer is to learn effectively from a model it is important for the model to be credible, reasonably successful, clearly display the behaviour to be learned, and otherwise facilitate the attention process.” ([ 15 ]: 528).

Teachers also commented on the fragmented nature of clinical rotations. Difficulty in identifying patterns in behaviour and forming relationships created by lack of continuous exposure to role models seemed to be disruptive and demotivating for both students and teachers. Being aware of these challenges to attendance and opportunities to observe was important. Faculty also needed to be present in order for students to observe their practice, although as Iris pointed out, clinical teachers were still role modelling even if absent.

Aligned values

The students reported paying close attention when they observed a behaviour that aligned with their views of what was important about being a doctor. For Emily, the positive reactions she observed from her role model’s patients were more important than them having a long list of publications.

The artificial separation of scientific and medical knowledge from skills and attitudes within medical curricula can be confusing and students saw clinical rotations as a place to learn how to bring these elements of a doctor’s practice together, although they found it difficult.

There is an enormous amount for a learner to take on board when in a clinical setting and they cannot possibly be expected to retain everything they observe. In order to avoid becoming overwhelmed learners seek cues to work out what is important to retain and develop strategies for doing so.

Learning the language

Students spoke about comprehending and retaining the unfamiliar clinical language that they heard their role models use. This sometimes involved looking it up later or consulting peers.

Particularly useful role models deliberately helped students to learn the language and develop the way they communicated in the clinical setting.

Understanding thought processes

Students talked about how they valued their role models giving insight into their thought processes as this enabled them to understand the reasoning behind the behaviours they were observing, including coping with uncertainty, and helped them to make sense of and retain the particular learning point.

Liam, who like other students talked about the importance of being able to relate to their role models, attributed this relatability, in part, to him and his role models thinking alike. This seems connected to the point made earlier about the attractiveness of aligned values between role models and observers.

Meaningful reflection

Reflection is widely acknowledged as aiding development, but how do learners make use of reflection when learning from their role models? Even though Jason claimed not to be ‘a fan of formal reflection’ he had clearly developed a critically reflective approach to help him extract personal value from what he had observed and imitate aspects of it before deciding what to retain.

Stefan also talked about the importance of authentic reflection and the role of teachers in creating space and support for students to evaluate what has been observed in clinical settings.

Writing it down

Liam described a particularly systematic approach to aid retention and processing of what had been observed, clearly guided by his role model.

Such strategies were encouraged and signposted by teachers, with Melanie referring to use of an advanced organiser [ 16 ] to help students consciously retain what they observed. She described an example in which she asked students who were observing her on a busy labour ward to write down a few things they noticed her doing or questions she asked the patient and then, importantly, got them to reflect on why they noticed these specific things or why they thought them important. Facilitating this metacognitive process, whereby students are required to think about what and how they are learning through observation, may also enable teachers to reinforce or ‘correct’ important take away messages.

Reproduction

Opportunity to practice.

The opportunity for hands-on practice has been reported as lacking from some clinical-based learning experiences [ 17 ] In our study students talked about being given the opportunity to put into practice the behaviours and strategies that they had observed in their role models. Some needed help to recognise opportunities or to be given permission to take advantage of opportunities and to participate in a legitimate and meaningful way.

Giving students opportunity to legitimately participate in the team may involve considering the roles and expectations of the existing clinical team.

Most students recognised the need to be proactive about identifying and creating their own opportunities for practice and some had strategies for arranging these.

Students’ also highlighted the value of being supported by a role model to identify in advance, in a systematic way, tasks and skills that they could learn through modelling and observation with opportunity for practice.

When referring to opportunities to put into practice the techniques that they had observed, students highlighted the value of feedback that both reinforced desired behaviours and suggested aspects for development, especially where it was highly contextualised and immediate.

Shivani talked about making use of the student perspective and adopting a more dialogic approach to feedback [ 18 ] on what has been observed in way that could offer suggestions for development for both teachers and students.

Finally Bandura argued that if students are to learn from and reproduce the behaviours that they observe in their role models they need to be motivated to do so. For many students this was a question of direct reinforcement, whether this was a self-regulated process involving perceptions of ‘wanting to please’ or further reinforced by direct, positive feedback, including more independence.

Observing other’s responses - vicarious reinforcement and punishment

Two further interesting and useful concepts from Bandura’s social learning theory are vicarious reinforcement and vicarious punishment. Bandura proposed that when observing others we not only learn from their behaviour but also from the reactions of other people to the role model’s behaviour. This is potentially a very efficient way to learn as it allows us to learn from others’ mistakes. Our student interviewees identified a number of examples of being vicariously reinforced or punished and described how the reactions of patients, colleagues or fellow students influenced their decisions to reproduce behaviours they observed. For example, Liam, who was vicariously reinforced having closely observed this paediatrician, chose to adopt his communication technique as a result of the calming effect it appeared to have on children.

Conversely an example of vicarious punishment refers to what Jason considered to be brusque treatment of a patient. He was vicariously punished by the interaction between a role model and patient and as a result talked about wanting to deliberately avoid reproducing this behaviour in his own practice because of the patient’s reaction.

Jason also highlighted barriers that interruptions in exposure to patients and clinicians poses for students wanting to convert observation into practice. It appears to be important to create opportunities for students to observe outcomes of interactions (or for them to be discussed), as well as seeing the behaviour that led to them. Students reported receiving mixed messages about appropriate behaviour through vicarious reinforcement. As Iris commented the less desirable behaviours observed in clinical settings can have a powerful influence, a view supported by Gibson [ 5 ], who highlights the value of learning from negative traits as well as positive aspects of role models. Furthermore Bucher and Stelling [ 19 ] found, to their surprise, that rather than identifying complete roles models amongst their senior colleagues, as had been assumed, medical students actively identified specific attributes to emulate and to reject, in a process of creating a vision of their ‘ideal selves’. Clinical teachers recognised that students made decisions about who were useful role models on the basis of vicarious reinforcement. in the form of successful clinical outcomes, and/or positive reactions from patients and colleagues. Stefan spoke about how students might use clinical outcomes to judge the value of a particular behaviour when deciding whether to adopt or adapt them.

Reciprocating

Student also saw satisfaction and reward in being part of the reciprocal role model cycle themselves and referred regularly to the culture of peer support in medical school.

In terms of closing the reciprocal loop Liam, for example, also talked about how he sent a letter, email or card to his role models to thank them.

However, in general it is unclear how aware role models are of the influence they have on those observing them and indeed how they could be more effective. Clinical teachers commented that they seldom received direct feedback on the impact of their role modelling but Shivani recalled that students had commented on how she had interacted with a patient thus highlighting for her the value medical students derived from being able to closely observe a role model in action. Feedback on how role models have influenced those around them is potentially an important of untapped source of evaluation data.

Limitations

Whilst this paper has emphasised the benefits of modelling and observational learning, students also highlighted the limitations. This included that the ability to imitate the actions of others and carry out clinical tasks might not be accompanied by underpinning clinical knowledge or rationale in the mind of the learner.

Another limitation is created by the lack of constructive alignment [ 20 ] between the formal undergraduate medical curricula, often with an emphasis on gaining knowledge and exam-based assessment, and the authentic, skills-based learning in the clinical setting. This resulted in some learners prioritising revision for their exams over taking the opportunity to learn from observation in the clinical setting.

Finally the unfamiliar and haphazard nature of observational learning opportunities in the clinical settings proved challenging for students to identify and follow to their logical conclusion thus limiting the learning process that Bandura describes. Even when student interviewees described successful learning having taken place it became apparent that they were often not in control of, or even conscious of, the process occurring, let alone able to guide themselves through the four stages identified by Bandura.

We acknowledge that the exploratory inquiry presented here is a work in progress that does not does not yet reflect the application of a finished construct to an empirical study. However, this small sample of medical students’ and clinical teachers’ insightful accounts of how observational learning from role models happens, leads us to make the following tentative conclusions.

The way students and clinical teachers described learning in this context can be aligned with the four stage model set out by Bandura. That is, participants clearly illustrated how they benefitted from (and felt motivated by) being able to observe or attend to the behaviours of their clinical teachers, being helped to retain new understanding, opportunities to practise the actions or behaviours observed, as well as how they learnt through vicarious reinforcement from seeing the reactions of others. Barriers to learning identified can also be analysed in terms of where these four stages could not be carried out or were interrupted.

Although when asked student and teacher participants demonstrated good understanding of ways in which individuals learn from role modelling,, all participants illustrated that learning from role models in clinical settings is complex and challenging and the processes they described as supporting that learning were often fragmented and inconsistent. Furthermore there appeared to be limited awareness of underlying cognitive processes supporting observational learning. Whilst some of the clinical teachers interviewed did identify methods that they used to enhance observational learning in clinical settings, it could be argued from these findings that this could be done in a more conscious and consistent way.. Whilst consistency is not the ultimate goal in undergraduate learning during clinical rotations and variety in approaches to role modelling adds richness and authenticity to the experience, we have given insight into how a lack of structure can be problematic for students. We believe that, the process of learning from role models in clinical settings is a skill to be worked at. Students in the study demonstrated different levels of awareness and capacity in this regard, and some suggested it would have been useful to be aware at the beginning of their clinical rotations.

On the basis of our theoretically-informed analysis we would like to suggest the explicit use of Bandura’s model to develop a two pronged approach to supporting students’ learning from role modelling. Firstly, by introducing students to Bandura’s four stage model and strategies outlined above to inform development of their skills for maximising their own learning at each stage and their agency within the unfamiliar learning environment. Secondly, by using it to develop teachers’ understanding of how learning from observation occurs and their ability to maximise opportunities and create the conditions in the environment that enable learners to:

Closely and repeatedly observe role models’ actions and behaviours and patients and colleagues’ responses to these behaviours.

Be given insight into the invisible thought processes behind the behaviours they observe

Be given permission and structured opportunity to reproduce and test out observed behaviours in practice and reflect on this.

By linking our exploration of learners’ and teachers’ understanding of how observational learning happens in clinical settings with Bandura’s four stage model we hope to have provided a feasible and memorable framework to guide teachers and students in making more effective use of modelling and observational learning.

Abbreviations

Best Evidence Medical Education

Irby DM. Clinical teaching and the clinical teacher. Acad Med. 1986;61:35–45.

Article   Google Scholar  

Park J, Woodrow SI, Reznick RK, Beales J, MacRae HM. Observation, reflection and reinforcement. Surgery faculty members; and residents’ perceptions of how they learned professionalism. Acad Med. 2010;85:134–9.

Jung J. How useful is the concept of role model? A critical analysis. J Soc Behav Pers. 1986;1:525–6.

Google Scholar  

Bandura A. Social learning theory. Englewood cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1977.

Gibson DE. Role models in career development: new directions for theory and research. J Voc Behav. 2004;65:134–56.

Wright S, Carrese J. Excellence in role modelling: insight and perspectives from the pros. Can Med Assoc J. 2002;167:638–43.

Althouse L, Stritter F, Steiner BD. Attitudes and approaches of influential role models in clinical education advances. Health Sci Edu. 1999;4:111–22.

Cruess SR, Cruess RL, Steinert Y. Role modelling: making the most of a powerful teaching strategy. BMJ. 2008;336:718–21.

Passi V, Johnson S, Piele E, Wright S, Hafferty F, Johnson N. Doctor role modelling in medical education: BEME guide no. 27. Med Teach. 2013;35:1422–36.

Savin-Baden M, Howell Major C. Qualitative research: the essential guide to theory and practice. London: Routledge; 2013.

O’Reilly M, Parker N. Unsatisfactory saturation a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2013;13:190–7.

Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning . Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press; 1991.

Book   Google Scholar  

Gioia DA, Manz CC. Linking cognition and behaviour: a script processing interpretation of vicarious learning. Acad Manag Rev. 1985;10:527–39.

Ausubel DP. The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. J Edu Psy. 1960;51:267–72.

Bleakley A. Pre-registration house officers & ward-based learning: ‘new apprenticeship model’ model Med Ed36; 2002. p. 9–15.

Nicol D. From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assess Eval Higher Educ. 2010;35:501–17.

Bucher R, Stelling JG. Becoming professional. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1977.

Biggs JB, Tang C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4 th Ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Education and Open University Press; 2011.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Medical Education Research Unit and Educational Development Unit, Imperial College, London. We would also like to thank our staff and student participants for their time and insight.

Availability of data and materials

There is no public availability to the interview transcripts outside of the research team due to reasons of confidentiality.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Educational Development Unit, Imperial College London, Level 5, Sherfield Building, Exhibition Road South Kensington, London, SW7 2AZ, UK

Jo Horsburgh & Kate Ippolito

Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK

Jo Horsburgh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

KI and JH designed the study, conducted the interviews, analysed the data, drafted and revised the manuscript. Both authors approved of the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jo Horsburgh .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval for this study was granted by Imperial College Medical Education Ethics Committee (ref 1314–23), Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (ref C&W 15/079) and was exempt from formal ethical approval by London Northwest Healthcare Trust. All participants provided informed written consent.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional file

Additional file 1:.

Interview schedule – interview questions for both student and clinical teacher participants. (DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Horsburgh, J., Ippolito, K. A skill to be worked at: using social learning theory to explore the process of learning from role models in clinical settings. BMC Med Educ 18 , 156 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1251-x

Download citation

Received : 13 March 2017

Accepted : 01 June 2018

Published : 03 July 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1251-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Role modelling
• Social learning theory
• Clinical teaching
• Observation
• Reinforcement

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Families with Adolescents pp 75–87 Cite as

Social Learning Theory

• Stephen M. Gavazzi 4 &
• Ji-Young Lim   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5090-2609 5  
• First Online: 07 October 2023

466 Accesses

Part of the book series: Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development ((ARAD))

Social learning theory utilizes precise descriptions of dyadic relationships and other larger systems dynamics that are present in families with adolescents. Similar to other theoretical perspectives that claim more individual psychological origins, however, this theoretical approach is not given extensive coverage in the family theory literature. This chapter discusses how social learning theory focuses attention on the ways in which adolescent’s and parent’s behaviors are both learned and reinforced – both positively or negatively – by family members and other socializing agents. The review of empirical evidence supporting the use of this conceptual approach to families with adolescents reveals a literature that is rather well developed and forms the basis for a number of prevention- and intervention-based efforts that are based on the social learning perspective.

• Antisocial behavior
• Social learning
• Social learning theory
• Negative reinforcement
• Temper tantrum

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance . Northeastern University Press.

Google Scholar  

Akers, R. L. (2000). Criminological theories. Introduction, evaluation, and application (3rd ed.). Roxbury.

Akers, R. L., & Lee, G. (1996). A longitudinal test of social learning theory: Adolescent smoking. Journal of Drug Issues, 26 , 317–343.

Article   Google Scholar  

Akers, R. L., & Lee, G. (1999). Age, social learning, and social bonding in adolescent substance use. Deviant Behavior, 20 , 1–25.

Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44 , 636–655.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ardelt, M., & Day, L. (2002). Parents, siblings, and peers: Close social relationships and adolescent deviance. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22 , 310–349.

Åström, T., Bergström, M., Håkansson, K., Jonsson, A. K., Munthe, C., Wirtberg, I., & Sundell, K. (2020). Treatment foster care Oregon for delinquent adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 30 (4), 355–367.

Attila, F. L., Owusu, F., Agyei-Sarpong, K., & Donkoh, H. (2023). Socio-cultural and psycho-theoretical perspectives of adolescence and sex education. Mediterranean Journal of Social & Behavioral Research, 7 (1), 1–7.

Bahr, S. J., Maughan, S. L., Marcos, A. C., & Li, B. (1998). Family, religiosity, and the risk of adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60 , 979–992.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . General Learning Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 , 1–26.

Bank, L., Burraston, B., & Snyder, J. (2004). Sibling conflict and ineffective parenting as predictors of adolescent boys’ antisocial behavior and peer difficulties: Additive and interactional effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14 , 99–125.

Bao, W. N., Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Conger, R. D. (1999). Perceived parental acceptance as a moderator of religious transmission among adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61 , 362–374.

Benda, B. B., & Corwyn, R. F. (1997). Religion and delinquency: The relationship after considering family and peer influences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36 , 81–92.

Berg, M. T., & Mulford, C. F. (2020). Reappraising and redirecting research on the victim–offender overlap. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21 (1), 16–30.

Briggs, H. E., Kim, I., Mowbray, O., Orellana, E. R., & Elkins, J. (2018). Trusting and dependable sibling relationships as social capital among African American youth. Journal of Substance Use, 23 (6), 557–562.

Buehler, C., Franck, K. L., & Cook, E. C. (2009). Adolescents’ triangulation in marital conflict and peer relations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19 , 669–689.

Capaldi, D. M., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Co-occurrence of conduct problems and depressive symptoms in early adolescent boys: III. Prediction to young-adult adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 11 , 59–84.

Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Newcomb, M. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1996). Modeling the etiology of adolescent substance use: A test of the social development model. Journal of Drug Issues, 26 , 429–455.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Catalano, R. F., Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., Bailey, J. A., Oesterle, S., Cambron, C., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). Applying the social development model in middle childhood to promote healthy development: Effects from primary school through the 30s and across generations. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 7 , 66–86.

Catanzaroa, S. J., & Laurent, J. (2004). Perceived family support, negative mood regulation expectancies, coping, and adolescent alcohol use: Evidence of mediation and moderation effects. Addictive Behaviors, 29 , 1779–1797.

Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. (1998). Comparison of two community alternatives to incarceration for chronic juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6 , 624–633.

Chen, Z. Y., & Kaplan, H. B. (2005). Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting. In T. R. Chibucos & R. W. Leite (Eds.), Readings in family theory (pp. 118–136). Sage.

Chibucos, T. R., & Leite, R. W. (2005). Readings in family theory . Sage.

Connell, A. M., Shaw, D., Wilson, M., Danzo, S., Weaver-Krug, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., & Dishion, T. J. (2019). Indirect effects of the early childhood family check-up on adolescent suicide risk: The mediating role of inhibitory control. Development and Psychopathology, 31 (5), 1901–1910.

Crockett, L. J., Bingham, C. R., Chopak, J. S., & Vicary, J. R. (1996). Timing of first sexual intercourse: The role of social control, social learning, and problem behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25 , 89–111.

Crosbie-Burnett, M., & Lewis, E. A. (1993). Theoretical contributions from social and cognitive behavioral psychology. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 531–558). Plenum.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cuartas, J., Ward, K. P., Ma, J., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2020). Physical punishment and Colombian children and adolescents’ cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 68 , 101140.

Cui, M., Conger, R. D., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H. (2002). Parental behavior and the quality of adolescent friendships: A social-contextual perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 , 676–689.

De Goede, I. H. A., Branje, S. J. T., Delsing, M. J. M. H., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009). Linkages over time between adolescents’ relationships with parents and friends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38 , 1304–1315.

Dishion, T. J. (2016). An evolutionary framework for understanding coercion and aggression. In T. J. Dishion & J. J. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics (pp. 53–69). Oxford University Press.

Dishion, T. J., Eddy, J. M., Haas, E., Li, F., & Spracklin, K. M. (1997). Friendships and violent behavior during adolescence. Social Development, 6 , 207–225.

Dishion, T. J., Kavanagh, K., Schneiger, A., Nelson, S., & Kaufman, N. (2002). Preventing early adolescent substance use: A family-centered strategy for the public middle-school ecology. Prevention Science, 3 , 191–201.

Donohue, E., Halgunseth, L. C., Chilenski, S. M., & Perkins, D. F. (2022). Parent–child recurring conflict: A mediator between parental anger management and adolescent behavior. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 51 (1), 6–19.

Eitle, D. (2005). The moderating effects of peer substance use on the family structure–adolescent substance use association: Quantity versus quality of parenting. Addictive Behaviors, 30 , 963–980.

Ettekal, I., & Ladd, G. W. (2020). Development of aggressive-victims from childhood through adolescence: Associations with emotion dysregulation, withdrawn behaviors, moral disengagement, peer rejection, and friendships. Development and Psychopathology, 32 (1), 271–291.

Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., & Linder, G. F. (1999). Family violence and the perpetration of adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61 , 331–342.

Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive Medicine, 32 , 128–141.

Gong, X., Zhang, K. Z., Chen, C., Cheung, C. M., & Lee, M. K. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of excessive online social gaming: A social learning perspective. Information Technology & People, 33 (2), 657–688.

Goodson, P., Evans, A., & Edmunson, E. (1996). Female adolescents and onset of sexual intercourse: A theory-based review of research from 1984 to 1994. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21 , 147–156.

Gosselin, D. K. (2010). Heavy hands: An introduction to the crimes of family violence . Prentice Hall.

Granic, I., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113 , 101–131.

Ha, T., Otten, R., McGill, S., & Dishion, T. J. (2019). The family and peer origins of coercion within adult romantic relationships: A longitudinal multimethod study across relationships contexts. Developmental Psychology, 55 (1), 207–215.

Ha, T., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Elam, K. K. (2023). Socialization processes within adolescents’ relationships with parents and peers predicting couples’ intimate partner violence in adulthood: A social learning perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 35 (1), 204–217.

Haj-Yahia, M., & Dawud-Noursi, S. (1998). Predicting the use of different conflict tactics among Arab siblings in Israel: A study based on social learning theory. Journal of Family Violence, 13 , 81–103.

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R. D., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153 , 226–234.

Henneberger, A. K., Mushonga, D. R., & Preston, A. M. (2021). Peer influence and adolescent substance use: A systematic review of dynamic social network research. Adolescent Research Review, 6 (1), 57–73.

Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Abbott, R. D., & Guo, J. (2005). Family influences on the risk of daily smoking initiation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37 , 202–210.

Hogben, M., & Byrne, D. (1998). Using social learning theory to explain individual differences in human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35 , 58–71.

Huang, B., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., Hawkins, J. D., & Abbot, R. D. (2001). Modeling mediation in the etiology of violent behavior in adolescence: A test of the social development model. Criminology, 39 , 75–108.

Hwang, S., & Akers, R. L. (2017). Substance use by Korean adolescents: A cross-cultural test of social learning, social bonding, and self-control theories. In Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (pp. 39–63). Routledge.

Jensen, A. C., Killoren, S. E., Campione-Barr, N., Padilla, J., & Chen, B. B. (2022). Sibling relationships in adolescence and young adulthood in multiple contexts: A critical review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships . https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221104188

Johnson, M. D., Hank, K., & Yurkiw, J. (2021). Longitudinal associations between adult relations with intimate partners and siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 83 (2), 551–562.

Kim, B. K. E., Gilman, A. B., Tan, K. P., Kosterman, R., Bailey, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2020). Identifying and predicting criminal career profiles from adolescence to age 39. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 30 (4), 210–220.

Kornienko, O., Ha, T., & Dishion, T. J. (2020). Dynamic pathways between rejection and antisocial behavior in peer networks: Update and test of confluence model. Development and Psychopathology, 32 (1), 175–188.

Kramer, L., & Kowal, A. K. (2005). Sibling relationship quality from birth to adolescence: The enduring contributions of friends. Journal of Family Psychology, 19 (4), 503–511.

Kruis, N. E., Seo, C., & Kim, B. (2020). Revisiting the empirical status of social learning theory on substance use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Substance Use & Misuse, 55 (4), 666–683.

Kuendig, H., & Kuntsche, E. (2006). Family bonding and adolescent alcohol use: Moderating effect of living with excessive drinking parents. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 41 , 464–471.

Kuntsche, S., & Kuntsche, E. (2016). Parent-based interventions for preventing or reducing adolescent substance use—A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 45 , 89–101.

Kwok, S. Y., Gu, M., Synchaisuksawat, P., & Wong, W. W. (2020). The relationship between parent-child triangulation and early adolescent depression in Hong Kong: The mediating roles of self-acceptance, positive relations and personal growth. Children and Youth Services Review, 109 , 104676.

Lavoie, F., Hebert, M., Tremblay, R., Vitaro, F., Vezina, L., & McDuff, P. (2002). History of family dysfunction and perpetration of dating violence by adolescent boys: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30 , 375–383.

Lee, G., Akers, R. L., & Borg, M. J. (2004). Social learning and structural factors in adolescent substance use. Western Criminology Review, 5 , 17–34.

Markiewicz, D., Doyle, A. B., & Brengdon, M. (2001). The quality of adolescents’ friendships: Associations with mothers’ interpersonal relationships, attachment to parents and friends, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 24 , 429–445.

Masarik, A. S., & Rogers, C. R. (2020). Sibling warmth moderates the intergenerational transmission of romantic relationship hostility. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82 (5), 1431–1443.

McCauley, D. M., Sloan, C. J., Xia, M., & Fosco, G. M. (2021). Same family, divergent realities: How triangulation preserves parents’ illusory harmony while adolescents navigate interparental conflicts. Journal of Family Psychology, 35 (2), 128.

McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Helms-Erikson, H., & Crouter, A. C. (2001). Sibling influences on gender development in middle childhood and early adolescence: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 37 , 115–125.

McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Whiteman, S. D. (2003). The family contexts of gender development in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 12 , 125–148.

McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74 (5), 913–930.

Mihalic, S. W., & Elliott, D. (1997). A social learning theory model of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12 , 21–47.

Miller, K. S., Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B. A. (1999). Adolescent sexual behavior in two ethnic minority samples: The role of family variables. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61 , 85–98.

Miller-Day, M. A. (2002). Parent-adolescent communication about alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17 , 604–616.

Mota, C. P., & Matos, P. M. (2015). Does sibling relationship matter to self-concept and resilience in adolescents under residential care? Children and Youth Services Review, 56 , 97–106.

O’Keefe, M. (1997). Adolescents’ exposure to community and school violence: Prevalence and behavioral correlates. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20 , 368–376.

Pantaleao, A., & Ohannessian, C. M. (2019). Does coping mediate the relationship between adolescent-parent communication and adolescent internalizing symptoms? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28 , 479–489.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process . Castalia.

Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger, K. (1993). Developmental models for delinquent behavior. In S. Hodgins (Ed.), Mental disorder and crime (pp. 140–172). Sage.

Patterson, G. R., Bank, L., & Stoolmiller, M. (1990). The preadolescent’s contributions to disrupted family process. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), From childhood to adolescence (pp. 107–133). Sage.

Pinquart, M., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2005). Influences of parents and siblings on the development of children and adolescents. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 367–382). Sage.

Prather, W., & Golden, J. A. (2009). Learning and thinking: A behavioral treatise on abuse and antisocial behavior in young criminal offenders. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 5 (1), 75–105.

Pusch, N. (2022). A meta-analytic review of social learning theory and teen dating violence perpetration. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency . https://doi.org/10.1177/00224278221130004

Rowe, C. L., Gomez, L., & Liddle, H. A. (2006). Family therapy research: Empirical foundations and practice implications. In M. Nichols & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Family therapy: Concepts and methods (7th ed., pp. 395–445). Allyn & Bacon.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Advances in criminological theory: Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (Vol. 7, pp. 133–161). Transaction Publishers.

Saner, H., & Ellickson, P. (1996). Concurrent risk factors for adolescent violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 19 , 94–103.

Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40 , 85–94.

Simons, R. L., Lin, K. H., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socialization in the family of origin and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60 , 467–478.

Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are learning theories necessary? Psychological Review, 57 , 193–216.

Skinner, B. F. (1989). The origins of cognitive thought. American Psychologist, 44 , 13–18.

Solakoglu, O., & Yuksek, D. A. (2020). Delinquency among Turkish adolescents: Testing Akers’ social structure and social learning theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64 (5), 539–563.

Taylor-Seehafer, M., & Rew, L. (2000). Risky sexual behavior among adolescent women. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 5 , 15–25.

Trucco, E. M. (2020). A review of psychosocial factors linked to adolescent substance use. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 196 , 172969.

Vito, A. G., Schaefer, B., Higgins, G. E., Marcum, C., & Ricketts, M. (2019). Self-control, social learning theory, social bonds and binge drinking: Results from a national sample. Journal of Substance Use, 24 (6), 655–659.

Walters, G. D. (2019). Social control versus social learning: Self-efficacy for future academic success and peer delinquency as mediators of the parental support–delinquency relationship. Criminal Justice Review, 44 (2), 101–118.

Weisner, M., Capaldi, D. M., & Patterson, G. R. (2003). Development of antisocial behavior and crime across the life-span from a social interactional perspective: The coercion model. In R. L. Akers & G. F. Jensen (Eds.), Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (pp. 317–337). Transaction.

Whiteman, S. D., Zeiders, K. H., Killoren, S. E., Rodriguez, S. A., & Updegraff, K. A. (2014). Sibling influence on Mexican-origin adolescents’ deviant and sexual risk behaviors: The role of sibling modeling. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54 (5), 587–592.

Wiesner, M., Capaldi, D. M., Kerr, D. C., & Wu, W. (2022). Bidirectional associations of mental health with self-reported criminal offending over time for at-risk early adult men in the USA. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology , 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-022-00221-y

Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology . Merrill/Pearson.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Stephen M. Gavazzi

Department of Child and Family Studies, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea (Republic of)

Ji-Young Lim

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Gavazzi, S.M., Lim, JY. (2023). Social Learning Theory. In: Families with Adolescents. Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_7

Published : 07 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-43406-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-43407-5

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research