A Social Learning Understanding Of Violence

ACADEMIA Letters
A Social Learning Understanding of Violence
Gallianno Cosme
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
In the 1960s the importance of direct reinforcement as a determinant of learning and behaviour
received significant acceptance within the scientific community of the time (Skinner, 1953).
However, the question remained as to how to explain learned behaviours within the social
context. Bandura (1965) investigated a way of learning that extended beyond Skinner’s tradi-
tional model and postulated that people also learn by observing another’s behaviour. As such,
Bandura was the pioneer of the social learning theory (Bandura, 1971; Baron & Branscombe,
2016) and combined behavioural and cognitive principles to explain human behaviour not
sufficiently explained by conventional theories.
According to an experiment conducted in 1961, Bandura submitted a group of children
to observe two adult models (male and female) kick and punch a doll (called “Bobo”) while
screaming (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961). An experimental group watched aggressive grown
up models, another group watched adult models that inhibited non-aggressive behaviour, and
a third group (the control group) did not observe any model. The results indicated that indi-
viduals faced with aggressive models reproduce aggressive behaviour similar to the models.
This outcome was different to those of people in the non-aggressive and the control groups.
Bandura (1965) affirmed that certain human behaviours are vicariously learnt; learning that
comes from observing the behaviour (and consequences) of others. This informed Bandura’s
theory of social learning.
Bandura’s theory emphasized the importance of norms and social context in the devel-
opment of social behaviour and the related cognitive variables that describe and predict this
behaviour (Cloninger, 1999). For Bandura, humans have flexible forms of learning, namely
Academia Letters, June 2021
Corresponding Author: Gallianno Cosme, gino@ginocosme.eu
Citation: Cosme, G. (2021). A Social Learning Understanding of Violence. Academia Letters, Article 1019.
https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1019.
1
©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

that learning can occur actively or by observation. Active learning occurs through direct exper-
iments with the behaviours that are presented with their respective consequences. Therefore,
learning occurs through reflection and evaluation of the behaviour’s consequences. These
effects inform whether a behaviour is strengthened or not (Feist, 1998). Learning by observa-
tion refers to knowledge that is acquired through witnessing the actions of people who provide
indirect (vicarious) experiences and reinforcements. Reinforcement can also influence people
by watching a third person’s outcomes. In this sense, Bandura points out that direct rein-
forcements are not essential to learning, despite providing motivating factors to enactment
(Cloninger, 1999).
According to Bandura (1971), learning from observation is considered more efficient.
It occurs through a process known as moderation, in which a cognitive process follows the
observation. That is, human behaviour is the result of a dynamic interaction of three prin-
ciples: behaviour, context, and cognitions (Bandura, 1971). This implies that this type of
learning is not a simple imitation since it requires cognitive processing for everyone and sit-
uation. The modelling depends on the behaviour’s consequences, the characteristics of the
observed behaviour, and the observer. As such, this modelling process involves four steps:
(1) Being attentive to and perceiving the relevant aspects of the behaviour; (2) Recollecting
the behaviour, also through words or mental images; (3) Reproducing the observed behaviour,
which can improve with practice through visualization; and (4) Being motivated to adopt the
new behaviour (Bandura, 1971).
Bandura (1973) posits that aggression has many determinants and different purposes and
that the social learning theory aims to provide an explanatory model to aggression. This theory
describes aggression as behaviour that causes damage to a person or property, and that the
damage may take on a psychological or physical form (Bandura, 1973). Bandura explains this
behaviour as the product of the mutual and continuous interaction between the individual and
the environment. Specifically, Bandura says that aggressive tendencies are acquired, either
by observation or direct experience (Bandura, 1973). The biological makeup of a person also
informs the types of aggressive responses and the rate at which learning takes place (Bandura,
1971). Linked to this are the numerous drive theories that suggest that aggression is a result
of externally elicited drives to hurt other people (Baron & Branscombe, 2016).
Observational learning of aggressive models does not occur automatically since some
people do not focus their attention on the essential features of the model, or simply forget
what was observed (Bandura, Grusec, & Menlove, 1966). The observed behaviour must be
represented by words, images, signs, or symbols to achieve some degree of memory (Bandura
et al., 1966). However, even this is not enough to produce aggressive behaviour.
Aggression is mostly controlled by its consequences; if the effects are modified, the be-
2

haviour may be subsequently influenced (Bandura, 1971). Aggressive behaviour has a unique
functional value for everyone and may even vary within the individual depending on the cir-
cumstances. This approach openly rejects the nativist approach of human aggression (Skinner,
1953) and instead suggests that the origins of an individual’s aggression are related to his or
her social environment.
Three important social systems may influence behaviour, including aggressive behaviour.
These are family role models, subcultures, and symbols (Bandura, 1965). The family refers
to interactions between household members. The primary models here are parents, brothers,
cousins, aunts and uncles, and other close relatives. These family systems link to various
styles of attachment in children (Bowlby, 1988). Parents, as an example, are major shapers of
behaviour; from an aggression point of view, children can observe both the verbal language
and attitudes between violent parents.
Subculture entails the shared beliefs, attitudes, customs or other forms of behaviour dom-
inant in a society that people share in groups (Baron & Branscombe, 2016). If these people
demonstrate aggressive or violent belief systems, children in the group may be influenced,
which in turn may lead to the acquisition of aggressive tendencies.
Finally, studies suggest that observation and direct experiences are not the only influences
on violent behaviour. Indirect stimulus, such as media and the Internet, play a major role.
This observed content can generate similar behaviours and beliefs about social life in those
who come across it (Zillmann & Johnson, 1973). Consequently, it is important to recognize
the modelling effect media has as directors and shapers of behaviour, particularly of children
and youth.
Modern Research Supporting Social Learning
One area of Bandura’s theory that has received keen interest is the influence of television
on social behaviour (Paik & Comstock, 1994). The response patterns thereof are graphic
in nature and transmitted orally; in essence, behaviour can be learned simply by watching
social behaviour on television (Bandura & Mischel, 1965; Bandura et al., 1961; Baron &
Branscombe, 2016).
Studies of the effects of models presented by the media on children’s behaviour have pro-
duced some important results for understanding aggressive conduct (Paik & Comstock, 1994).
Bushman and Anderson (2001) highlight the dangers of children and adolescents watching vi-
olent movies. They suggest that children may become less sensitive to other people’s pain,
might feel frightened, and can also behave aggressively after watching television programmes
containing many occurrences of aggressive behaviour. These same researchers further note
3

that children’s programmes often have up to twenty scenes containing aggression, every hour.
Other researchers have shown that exposure to televised violence significantly increases in-
terpersonal aggression (Scanlon et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2017; Patterson & Stouthamer-
Loeber, 1984; Widom, 1989).
While research on social media’s influence on violent behaviour is limited, evidence of
its significant role in promoting violence, including stigmatizing target groups and recruiting
agents of violence, is surfacing. Verbakel (2019) drew attention to many examples of social
media being used to circulate hate and propel violence across many at-risk countries. Pattern
et al. (2014) shone a spotlight on social media’s role in advancing youth violence, including
gang violence, bullying, and self-directed violence. Research by Melovic (2020) concluded
the considerable influence of social media on forging attitudes toward online violence. The
seminal work of Maher (2020) amplifies this concern by constructing a challenging connection
between social media discourse and different forms of virtual and real violence.
Video games have also been found to play a contributing role in violent behaviour. Ander-
son et al. (2010) observed an increase in aggressive behaviour and aggressive affect among
persons exposed to violent video games, along with decreased empathy and prosocial be-
haviour. Ferguson (2009) further suggests that unhealthy family life increases the risk of vio-
lence among children who play violent video games. These findings are supported by Calvert
et al. (2017), who noted in their research that exposure to violent video game content was
linked to increased aggressive behaviour and increased aggressive psychological features.
Beyond media and technology, the sex of an observer and the model are important vari-
ables, with male children usually identifying with adults of the same sex, including those in
groups (Hengartner & Yamanaka-Altenstein, 2017; Cloninger, 1999). Thus, if a male child
observes a father’s aggressive behaviour towards his mother and notices the rewards that the
father has acquired as a result of behaving this way, the boy may begin to act out the same
behaviour towards other females. Note that it is not only the gender of the model but the de-
gree of importance that he or she holds concerning the observer, whether real or imaginary
(Hengartner & Yamanaka-Altenstein, 2017; Cloninger, 1999).
While still considering social learning of children, older brothers and older friends play
an important role. The work of Barr and Hayne (2003) showed that, despite the social contact
with parents and other important adults during a child’s cognitive development, adults are not
the only people responsible for a child’s social learning; young children can learn a broad
array of new behaviours merely by observing and replicating the actions of other people (Barr
& Hayne, 2003). In a study highlighted by Barr and Hayne (2003), children aged 12 to 18
months learned one to two new behaviours a day by simply mimicking the observed behaviour.
Children who had older brothers and sisters also imitated other youngsters more frequently,
4

including those seen during playtime (Barr & Hayne, 2003).
The quest for understanding childhood aggression from family structures and parental
upbringing highlight the role of both the mother and father in the development of aggressive
behaviour in children (Murray et al., 2014; Marler, Trainor, & Davis, 2005). In a comparative
analysis of understanding human behaviour, the importance of the environment created by
both parents is consistently evident (Murray et al., 2014; Marler et al., 2005). This suggests
the high applicability of Bandura’s theory to understanding familial dynamics and aggression.
Finally, Bandura’s work has led researchers to agree that his social learning theory has
positively contributed to helping understand aggression and learning (Dodge, Bates, & Pettit,
1990). This may support the notion that aggressive behaviour is learned and strengthen – per-
haps even encouraged – because of societal observations and the related cognitive processes
and experiences.
Conclusion
The main interest of this article was to understand violence and aggression from the per-
spective of Bandura’s social learning theory. Across both the classic study of social learning
and more recent research, evidence exists to suggest a strong link between social observa-
tion, especially among youth, and aggressive behaviour. The emergence of data supporting
social media and social learning as key contributors to violent behaviour indicates that more
research is needed to understand violent behaviour from this perspective and, perhaps most
importantly, identify preventative interventions to mitigate the problem.
References
Anderson, C.A., Ihori, Nobuko, Bushman, B.J., Rothstein, H.R., Shibuya, A., Swing, E.L.,
Sakamoto, A., & Saleem, M. (2010). Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empa-
thy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review.
Psychological Bulletin, 126(2).
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of
imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 589.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. United States of America: General Learning
Press.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis: Prentice-Hall.
5

Bandura, A., Grusec, J. E., & Menlove, F. L. (1966). Observational learning as a function of
symbolization and incentive set. Child Development, 499-506.
Bandura, A., & Mischel, W. (1965). Modifications of self-imposed delay of reward through
exposure to live and symbolic models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(5),
698.
Baron, R. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2016). Social Psychology (14th ed.). England: Pearson.
Barr, R., & Hayne, H. (2003). It’s not what you know, it’s who you know: Older siblings
facilitate imitation during infancy. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(1),
7-21.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Clinical Applications of Attachment Theory: Routledge.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Sci-
entific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56(6-7), 477.
Calvert, S. L., Appelbaum, M., Dodge, K. A., Graham, S., Nagayama Hall, G. C., Hamby,
S., Fasig-Caldwell, L. G., Citkowicz, M., Galloway, D. P., & Hedges, L. V. (2017). The
American Psychological Association Task Force assessment of violent video games: Sci-
ence in the service of public interest. The American psychologist, 72(2), 126–143.
Cloninger, C. R. (1999). Personality and psychopathology: American Psychiatric Pub.
Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence.
Science, 250(4988), 1678-1683.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309.
Ferguson, C.J. (2011). Video Games and Youth Violence: A Prospective Analysis in Ado-
lescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(4).
Hengartner, MP., & Yamanaka-Altenstein, M. (2017) Personality, Psychopathology, and Psy-
chotherapy: A Pre-specified Analysis Protocol for Confirmatory Research on Personality–
Psychopathology Associations in Psychotherapy Outpatients. Front. Psychiatry 8:9.
Maher, D. (2021). Violence and Trolling on Social Media: History, Effects of Online Vitriol.
The Journal of Social Media in Society, 10(1), 185-187.
6

Marler, C., Trainor, B. C., & Davis, E. (2005). Paternal behavior and offspring aggression.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 163-166.
Melovic, Boban & Jakšić Stojanović, Anđela & Backović, Tamara & Dudic, Branislav a
Zdenka & Kovacicova, Zuzana. (2020). Research of Attitudes Toward Online Violence-
Significance of Online Media and Social Marketing in the Function of Violence Prevention
and Behavior Evaluation. Sustainability. 12(24).
Murray, K. W., Dwyer, K. M., Rubin, K. H., Knighton-Wisor, S., & Booth-LaForce, C.
(2014). Parent-child relationships, parental psychological control, and aggression: ma-
ternal and paternal relationships. Journal of youth and adolescence, 43(8), 1361–1373.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior:
a meta-analysis1. Communication Research, 21(4), 516-546.
Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management
practices and delinquency. Child Development, 1299-1307.
Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Ranney, M., Patel, S., Kelley, C., Eschmann, R., & Washington, T.
(2014). Social media as a vector for youth violence: A review of the literature. Computers
in Human Behavior, 35, 548–553.
Scanlon F, Schatz D, Scheidell JD, Cuddeback GS, Frueh BC, Khan MR. National Study
of Childhood Traumatic Events and Adolescent and Adult Criminal Justice Involvement
Risk: Evaluating the Protective Role of Social Support From Mentors During Adoles-
cence. J Clin Psychiatry. 2019 Aug 20;80(5).
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior: Simon and Schuster.
Verbakel, D. (2019). Peoples Under Threat 2019. Minority Rights Group International.
Widom, C. S. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature.
Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 3.
Williams, J., Phillips, T., Stockdale, L., Holmgren, H., Wong, D., & Peterson, D. (2017).
An Exploratory Study of Violent Media Consumption and Aggression in Black College
Students. Journal of Black Studies, 48(8), 758-774.
Zillmann, D., & Johnson, R. C. (1973). Motivated aggressiveness perpetuated by exposure
to aggressive films and reduced by exposure to nonaggressive films. Journal of Research
7

in Personality, 7(3), 261-276.
8

A Social Learning Understanding Of Violence

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Social Learning Understanding Of Violence

Similar to A Social Learning Understanding Of Violence (20)

More from Amy Cernava

More from Amy Cernava (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Social Learning Understanding Of Violence