Subject : THEORIES OF PERSONALITY

Focus : Behavioral/ Social Learning Theories

Learning Objectives
At the end of the lecture, the participants are expected to:

1. discuss the general heading of the behavioral/ social learning approach which is the
behaviorism theory of John B. Watson; and

2. recognize and differentiate the basic theories of personality under behavioral/ social
learning approach which includes the following:

a. B.F. Skinner’s Behavioral Analysis

b. Ivan Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning
c. Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

Introduction

The Behavioral/ Social learning approach states that behaviors are influenced by
rewards, punishments, and models by means of imitation. According to this approach, we act
the way we do because of our environment, not because of our personal choice or direction.
The behavioral/ social learning approach is considered as the 2nd force/ movement in
psychology next to psychoanalytic approach.
This approach is under the heading of behaviorism which was started by John B.
Watson.

Part I. BEHAVIORISM (John B. Watson)

In 1913 a young psychologist named John B. Watson published an article entitled

“Psychology as the Behaviorist View It ,” which signaled the beginning of a new movement in
psychology- behaviorism. By 1924, with the publication of Behaviorism, Watson had made
significant progress in his effort to redefine the discipline of psychology.

Watson argued that if psychology was to be a science, psychologists must stop their
efforts to examine mental states. He claimed that researchers who concerned themselves with
such things as consciousness, the mind, and thoughts were not engaging in legitimate scientific
study. Watson argued that only the observable could be reasonable subject matter for a
science. Because subjective feelings cannot be objectively observed, they have no place in an
objective science. What, then, was the appropriate subject matter for psychologists? Watson’s
answer was overt behavior- that which can be observed, predicted, and eventually controlled
by the scientist (Burger, 1986).
 To illustrate behaviorism, Watson conducted an experiment using Baby Albert as a
subject. Below is the sequence of Watson’s experiment.

Before Conditioning
Stimulus Response
White Rat No fear
Noise Fear

During Conditioning (Repeated pairing)

White Rat-Noise- FEAR

After Conditioning
White Rat- FEAR

The experiment shows that Baby Albert learned to be afraid of the white rat because it
was repeatedly associated with a noise which is an unpleasant stimulus. Therefore, a behavior
can be learned through the process of conditioning. In other words, the power of conditioning
was so great that if you could control a person’s environment from birth, you could shape that
person however you pleased.

According to Watson, personality was “the end product of our habit system” which
means that over the course of our lives we are conditioned to respond to certain stimuli in more
or less predictable ways.

Let us now take a look on the different theories under the behavioral/ social learning
approach. These theories include Skinner’s operant conditioning, Pavlov’s classical conditioning,
Bandura’s observational learning.

Part II. SKINNER’S BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS

I. Overview of Skinner's Behavioral Analysis

During the early years of the 20th century while Freud, Jung, and Adler were relying on
clinical practice and before Eysenck and Costa and McCrae were using psychometrics to build
theories of human personality, an approach called behaviorism emerged from laboratory
studies of animals and humans. Two of the early pioneers of behaviorism were E. L. Thorndike
and John Watson, but the person most often associated with the behaviorist position is B. F.
Skinner, whose behavioral analysis is a clear departure from the highly speculative
psychodynamic theories.

Skinner’s strict adherence to observable behavior earned his approach the label radical
behaviorism, a doctrine that avoids all hypothetical constructs, such as ego, traits, drives,
needs, hunger, and so forth. In addition to being a radical behaviorist, Skinner can rightfully be
regarded as a determinist and an environmentalist. As a determinist, he rejected the notion of
volition or free will. As an environmentalist, Skinner held that psychology must not explain
behavior on the basis of the physiological or constitutional components of the organism but
rather on the basis of environmental stimuli.

II. Biography of B. F. Skinner

B. F. Skinner was born in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania in 1904, the older of two
brothers. While in college, Skinner wanted to be a writer, but after having little success in this
endeavor, he turned to psychology. After earning a PhD from Harvard, he taught at the
Universities of Minnesota and Indiana before returning to Harvard, where he remained until his
death in 1990.

III. SKINNER’S CONTRIBUTION TO PERSONALITY THEORY

Scientific Behaviorism
Skinner believed that human behavior, like any other natural phenomena, is subject to
the laws of science, and that psychologists should not attribute inner motivations to it. Although
he rejected internal states (thoughts, emotions, desires, etc.) as being outside the realm of
science, Skinner did not deny their existence. He simply insisted that they should not be used to
explain behavior.

A. Philosophy of Science. Because the purpose of science is to predict and control,

Skinner argued that psychologists should be concerned with determining the conditions under
which human behavior occurs. By discovering these conditions, psychologists can predict and
control human behavior.
B. Characteristics of Science. Skinner held that science has three principal
characteristics: (1) its findings are cumulative, (2) it rests on an attitude that values
empirical observation, and (3) it searches for order and reliable relationships.

Operant Conditioning
It is the use of consequence/s to form or modify the occurrence of behavior. To illustrate
the theory of Skinner, he conducted an experiment using rat as a subject. Below is the narration
of his experiment.

B.F. Skinner devised a box which is called “SKINNER’S BOX”. In the box, there is push a button
and food pellets inside a food dispenser. Then, he put hungry rat inside the box and since its
hungry-the rat was restless and was moving around the box. Accidentally, the rat pushed the
button, then food pellet appears from the food dispenser. And since, the rat was hungry he
repeatedly push the button to get food pellets.

The experiment shows that the rat learned to push the button because of the food
pellets coming from the food dispenser. Therefore, the behavior of the rat was formed or
modified because of a specific consequence/ reinforcement. For better understanding of this
theory, let us discuss the four procedures of operant conditioning.
Four Procedures of Operant Conditioning
1. Positive reinforcement- it occurs when the behavior is followed by a favorable
stimulus.
2. Negative reinforcement- it occurs when the behavior is followed by the removal of
aversive/ unfavorable stimulus.
3. Positive punishment- it occurs when the behavior is followed by unfavorable/
aversive stimulus.
4. Negative punishment- it occurs when the behavior is followed by the removal of
favorable stimulus.

Schedules of Reinforcement
A reinforcement schedule is simply a rule that states under what conditions a
reinforcer will be delivered. There are two major schedules of reinforcement.
A. Continuous (CRF)- occurs when reinforcement is given after every single desired
behavior.
B. Intermittent (INT)- occurs when reinforcement is given after some behavior but
never after each one. The following are the schedules of reinforcement under INT.
1. Fixed Ratio- in this schedule, a fixed number of responses must be made before the
reward is administered. For example, a factory worker is paid PhP20.00 for every 12
shirt collars sewed. Thus, he or she is paid on FR12 schedule (Dela Cruz & Lee-Chua,
2008).

2. Variable Ratio- the number of responses determines the delivery of reinforcement; but
the ratio changes from reinforcement to reinforcement. Slot machines are set to pay-off
according to a variable-ratio schedule. A variable-ratio schedule keeps people coming
back and guessing the next pay-off will be.

3. Fixed Interval- in this schedule, the reinforcement will be delivered after a specified
passage of time. For example, salaried employees who receive their paycheck every
week is reinforced on an FI schedule.

4. Variable Interval- in this schedule, the length of time is varied or unspecified before
the delivery of the reinforcement. For example, you are waiting for the bus to arrive.
After 5 minutes the bus does arrive. Then another bus arrives after 10 minutes, then the
next after 15 minutes.

Shaping

One of the problems encountered when working with operant conditioning is that the
desired behavior must be emitted before it can be reinforced. A psychologist could wait a long
time for a rat to press a bar by chance, and just as long again for that rat, even after being
reinforced, to do it again. The psychologist in this case would probably use a technique called
shaping, in which successive approximations of the desired behavior are reinforced.
Conditioned and Generalized Reinforcers

Conditioned reinforcers (sometimes called secondary reinforcers) are those

environmental stimuli that are not by nature satisfying but become so because they are
associated with such unlearned or primary reinforcers as food, water, sex, or physical comfort.

Generalized reinforcer are those associated with more than one primary reinforcer.
Skinner (1953) recognized five important generalized reinforcers that sustain much of human
behavior: attention, approval, affection, submission of others, and tokens (money).

Forces Shaping Human Behavior

Skinner believed that human behavior is shaped by three forces: (1) natural selection,
(2) the evolution of cultures, and (3) the individual's personal history of reinforcement.

A. Natural Selection. As a species, our behavior is shaped by the contingencies of

survival; that is, those Individual behavior that is reinforcing tends to be repeated; that which
is not tends to drop out.
B. Cultural Evolution. Those societies that evolved certain cultural practices (e.g. tool
making and language) tended to survive. Currently, the lives of nearly all people are shaped, in
part, by modern tools (computers, media, various modes of transportation, etc.) and by their
use of language. However, humans do not make cooperative decisions to do what is best for
their society, but those societies whose members behave in a cooperative manner tended to
survive.
C. Individual's Personal history of reinforcement. The reinforcement which
strengthens the behavior and rewards the person.

Skinner’s View on Inner States

Skinner recognized the existence of such inner states as drives, self-awareness, emotions,
and purpose but he rejected the notion that they can explain behavior. To Skinner, drives refer
to the effects of deprivation and satiation and thus are related to the probability of certain
behaviors, but they are not the causes of behavior. Skinner believed that emotions can be
accounted for by the contingencies of survival and the contingencies of reinforcement; but like
drives, they do not cause behavior. Similarly, purpose and intention are not causes of behavior,
although they are felt sensations and exist within the skin.

Complex Behavior
Human behavior is subject to the same principles of operant conditioning as simple animal
behavior, but it is much more complex and difficult to predict or control. Skinner explained
creativity as the result of random or accidental behaviors that happen to be rewarded. Skinner
believed that most of our behavior is unconscious or automatic and that not thinking about
certain experiences is reinforcing. Skinner viewed dreams as covert and symbolic forms of
behavior that are subject to the same contingencies of reinforcement as any other behavior.
Control of Human Behavior
Ultimately, all of a person's behavior is controlled by the environment. Societies exercise
control over their members through laws, rules, and customs that transcend any one person's
means of countercontrol. There are four basic methods of social control:
(1) operant conditioning, including positive and negative reinforcement and punishment;
(2) describing contingencies, or using language to inform people of the consequence of their
behaviors;
(3) deprivation and satiation, techniques that increase the likelihood that people will behave in a
certain way; and
(4) (4) physical restraint, including the jailing of criminals.

Although Skinner denied the existence of free will, he did recognize that people
manipulate variables within their own environment and thus exercise some measure of self-
control, which has several techniques:
(1) physical restraint, (2) physical aids, such as tools; (3) changing environmental stimuli; (4)
arranging the environment to allow escape from aversive stimuli; (5) drugs; and (6) doing
something else.

SKINNER’S VIEW OF THE UNHEALTHY PERSONALITY

Unfortunately, the techniques of social control and self-control sometimes produce

detrimental effects, which result in inappropriate behavior and unhealthy personality
development.

Counteracting Strategies
When social control is excessive, people can use three basic strategies for counteracting
it- they can escape, revolt, or use passive resistance (Skinner, 1953).

Scape- people withdraw from the controlling agent either physically or psychologically.
People who counteract by escape find it difficult to become involved in intimate personal
relationships, tend to be mistrustful of people and prefer to live lonely lives of noninvolvement.
Revolt- people using this strategy behave more actively, counterattacking the
controlling agent. They can rebel through vandalizing public property, tormenting teachers,
verbally abusing other people, and the like.
Passive resistance- the conspicuous feature of this strategy is stubbornness. For
example, a child with homework to do finds a dozen of excuses why it cannot be finished; an
employee slows down progress by undermining the work of others.

Inappropriate Behaviors

Inappropriate behaviors follow from self-defeating techniques of counteracting social

control or from unsuccessful attempts at self-control, especially when either of these failures is
accompanied by strong emotions. These behaviors include excessively vigorous behavior,
which makes no sense in terms of the contemporary situation, but might be reasonable in terms
of past history; and excessively restrained behavior, which people use as a means of avoiding the
aversive stimuli associated with punishment. Another type of inappropriate behaviors is blocking
out reality by simply paying no attention to aversive stimuli.
IV. Psychotherapy
Skinner was not a psychotherapist, and he even criticized psychotherapy as being one of
the major obstacles to a scientific study of human behavior. Nevertheless, others have used
operant conditioning principles to shape behavior in a therapeutic setting. Behavior therapists
play an active role in the treatment process, using behavior modification techniques and pointing
out the positive consequences of some behaviors and the aversive effects of others.

Part III. IVAN PAVLOV’S CLASSICAL CONDITIONING

Classical conditioning is a process in which an unconditioned stimulus is repeatedly
paired with a conditioned stimulus until the conditioned stimulus comes to elicit a response
without the presentation of the unconditioned stimulus.

This theory is also illustrated by an experiment conducted by Ivan Pavlov.

Before Conditioning
Stimulus Response
Bell (CS) No salivation
Meat powder (US) Salivation

During Conditioning (Repeated pairing)

Bell-meat powder- Salivation

After Conditioning
Bell- Salivation (CR)

The dog learned to salivate because of the repeated associations of bell and meat
powder. Therefore, a behavior can also be learned by means of this process called conditioning.
As stated by Burger, we are probably not aware of all the associations we make by pairing
stimuli in our everyday environments. Research suggests that preferences in food, clothing, and
even friends can be influenced through this process.

Extinction: Weakening Conditioned Responses

What happens if the CS repeatedly occurs without the US? What would happen if Pavlov
exposed the dog to the bell without the meat powder? The response would gradually weaken
and be eventually eliminated, and extinction would take place.
For example, as a young child, you might have learned to fear going to the dentist’s
office. You learned this fear (CR) because you associated the dentist’s office (CS) with pain
(UR) when the dentist filled your tooth (US). However, as you grew up, you went to the dentist
on a number of occasions but did not experience pain. Subsequently, your childhood fear of
dental offices was extinguished (Dela Cruz & Lee-Chua, 2008).
Spontaneous Recovery: Recovering Conditioned Responses

Pavlov observed that after extinction was completed and the dog was returned to the
experimental chamber where the CS was presented again, salivation, which was previously
extinguished, reappeared. Pavlov called this reappearance of conditioned behavior
spontaneous recovery and treated it as evidence that the CS-US association is not
permanently destroyed in an extinction procedure. The phenomenon of spontaneous recovery
shows that the CR was not unlearned during extinction, but was being actively inhibited by the
organism.
An example of spontaneous recovery in real life is when a child who has ceased to be
afraid of the dental office in the last few visits becomes afraid again after a new experience.

Generalization and Discrimination

Pavlov found that CRs occur not only when confronted by the CS during training, but
also in the face of similar stimuli. This phenomenon is called stimulus generalization. In the
experiment, for instance, the dog generalized his response to other similar sounds like buzzer.

On the other hand, if you condition a dog to salivate to a conditioned stimulus such as a
circle, and present another stimulus such as a circle, and present another stimulus such as an
ellipse, but never reinforce the response in the presence of an ellipse, the dog will respond to
the circle but not to the ellipse. This phenomenon is called stimulus discrimination, the
learned tendency to respond to the stimulus used in training.

Part IV. ALBERT BANDURA’S SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY

I. Overview of Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory rests on the following basic assumptions.

1. The outstanding characteristic of humans is plasticity; that is, humans have the
flexibility to learn a variety of behaviors in diverse situations.
2. through a triadic reciprocal causation model that includes behavioral, environment,
and personal factors, people have the capacity to regulate their lives.
3. Social cognitive theory takes an agentic perspective, meaning that humans have the
capacity to exercise control over the nature and quality of their lives.
4. People regulate their conduct through both external and internal factors.
5. When people find themselves in morally ambiguous situations, they typically attempt
to regulate their behavior through moral agency.

II. Short Biography of Albert Bandura

Albert Bandura was born in Canada in 1925, but he has spent his entire professional life
in the United States. He completed a PhD in clinical psychology at the University of Iowa in
1951 and since then has worked almost entirely at Stanford University, where he continues to
be an active researcher and speaker.

III. BANDURA’S CONTRIBUTION TO PERSONALITY THEORY

A. BANDURA’S CONCEPT OF LEARNING

Bandura takes a broad view of learning, believing that people learn through observing
others and by attending to the consequences of their own actions. Although he believes that
reinforcement aids learning, he contends that people can learn in the absence of reinforcement
and even of a response.
Bandura believes that new behaviors are acquired through two major kinds of learning:
observational learning and enactive learning.

1. Observational Learning
Bandura believes that observation allows people to learn without performing any
behavior. Bandura (1986, 2003) believes that observational learning is much more efficient than
learning through direct experience. By observing other people, humans are spared countless
responses that might be followed by punishment or by no reinforcement. Children observe
characters on television, for example, and repeat what they hear or see; they need not enact
random behaviors, hoping that some of them will be rewarded.

The heart of observational learning is modeling, which is more than simple imitation,
because it involves adding and subtracting from observed behavior. At least three principles
influence modeling: (1) people are most likely to model high-status people, (2) people who lack
skill or status are most likely to model, and (3) people tend to model behavior that they see as
being rewarding to the model.

To illustrate the theory of Bandura, take a look on the experiment he conducted in the
table below.

Bandura gathered 4-6 year old nursery children in a room with television. He let the
children watch a film, in the film, an adult model is aggressive to the Bobo doll- an
adult-sized plastic doll. The adult model sat, punched, kicked, and threw rubber ball
to the Bobo doll. The film has 3 endings:
1. Model-reward condition- the adult model was given a candy and softdrinks.
2. Model-punish condition- the adult model was slapped with a rolled
newspaper.
3. No consequence condition- the film was ended with the aggressive actions of
the model to the Bobo doll.

In order to determine if the children will imitate the action of the adult model,
Bandura gathered the children in a playroom with Bodo doll like dolls and
instruments that maybe used to hit the Bobo doll. Bandura found-out that most
 children copied the aggressive behavior of the adult model to the Bobo doll.

Bandura recognized four processes that govern observational learning:

a. Attentional processes. The learner must pay attention to the appropriate

features of the model’s behavior for learning to occur.

b. Retentional/ Representation processes. The individual must retain some of

the information gained through observation if imitation is to occur at a later time.
It is at this stage that rehearsal may be important. Observational learning in humans
involves two representational systems- an imaginal and a verbal one.

c. Motor reproductive/ Reproduction processes. The learner must know

cognitively and roughly what are to be done, but may be relatively unskilled at
performing the task itself. The individual must be able to translate some general
knowledge into a coordinated pattern of muscle movements. When a learner already
possesses the required motor skills, the translation of knowledge into action poses no
problem.

d. Incentive and motivational processes. The first three processes are the only
ones necessary for an individual to acquire the capability to perform some new behavior.
Without the appropriate incentive, however, the behavior may not occur. According to
Bandura (1977), the individual must have an expectation that the performance of the new
behavior will result in some type of reinforcement.

2. Enactive Learning
All behavior is followed by some consequence, but whether that consequence reinforces
the behavior depends on the person's cognitive evaluation of the situation.

B. BANDURA’S TRIADIC RECIPROCAL CAUSATION

Bandura’s concept of triadic reciprocal causation assumes that behavior is learned as a
result of a mutual interaction of (1) the person, including cognition and neurophysiological
processes; (2) the environment, including interpersonal relations and socioeconomic
conditions; and (3) behavioral factors, including previous experiences with reinforcement.

Chance Encounters and Fortuitous Events

Bandura (1998a) defined a chance encounter as “an unintended meeting of persons
unfamiliar to each other” . A fortuitous event is an environmental experience that is
unexpected and unintended. The everyday lives of people are affected to a greater or lesser
extent by the people they chance to meet and by random events they could not predict. One’s
marital partner, occupation, and place of residence may largely be the result of a fortuitous
meeting that was unplanned and unexpected.
 Chance encounters and fortuitous events enter the triadic reciprocal causation paradigm
at the environment point, after which they influence behavior in much the same way as do
planned events.

C. SELF-EFFICACY
In an extension of Bandura’s social cognitive theory, he introduces the concept of self-
efficacy- as “people’s beliefs in their capability to exercise some measure of control over their
own functioning and over environmental events.”

Self-efficacy is not the expectation of our action’s outcomes. Bandura (1986, 1997)
distinguished between efficacy expectations and outcome expectations. Efficacy refers to
people’s confidence that they have the ability to perform certain behaviors, whereas an
outcome expectancy refers to one’s prediction of the likely consequences of that behavior.

What Contributes to Self-Efficacy?

Personal efficacy is acquired, enhanced, or decreased through anyone or combination of
the following four sources:
1. mastery experiences;
2. social modeling;
3. social persuasion; and
4. physical and emotional states.

D. SELF-REGULATION- refers to the capacity of man to regulate/control his/her own

behavior. Bandura believes that people use both reactive and proactive strategies for self-
regulation. That is, they reactively attempt to reduce the discrepancies between their
accomplishments and their goal; but after they close those discrepancies, they proactively set
newer and higher goals for themselves.

Self-Regulation through Moral Agency

People also regulate their actions through moral standards of conduct. Bandura sees
moral agency as having two aspects:
1. doing no harm to people
2. proactively helping people

Self-regulatory influences are not automatic but operate only if they are activated, a
concept Bandura calls selective activation. By justifying the morality of actions, people can
separate or disengage themselves from the consequences of their behavior, a concept Bandura
calls disengagement of internal control.
The following are various mechanisms through which self-control is disengaged or
selectively deactivated:
1. redefining the behavior- justifying otherwise reprehensible actions by
cognitively restructuring them. People can use redefinition of behavior to
disengage themselves from reprehensible conduct by:
a. Moral justification- justifying otherwise culpable behavior on moral
grounds
b. Palliative comparisons- making advantageous comparisons between
their behavior and the even more reprehensible behavior of others
 c. Euphemistic labels- using pleasant words to change the moral tone of
their behavior.
2. disregarding or distorting the consequences of behavior through minimizing
the consequences of their behavior , disregarding or ignore the consequences of their
actions, distorting or misconstruing the consequences of their actions.
3. dehumanizing or blaming the victims
4. displacing or diffusing responsibility

E. Bandura’s’ Therapy
The ultimate goal of the social cognitive therapy is self-regulation. To achieve this
end, the therapist introduces strategies designed to induce specific behavioral changes, to
generalize those changes to other situations, and to maintain those changes by
preventing relapse. Bandura (1986) has suggested the following basic treatment approaches:

1. overt or vicarious modeling- requires client to observe live or filmed models

performing threatening activities.
2. covert or cognitive modeling- the therapist trains patients to visualize models
performing fearsome behaviors.
3. enactive mastery- requires patients to perform those behaviors that previously
produced incapacitating fears

Before the enactment, patient typically begin by observing models or by having their
emotional arousal lessened through systematic desensitization, which involves the
extinction of anxiety or fear through self-induced or therapist-induced relaxation.

Common mechanism found in each of these treatment approaches is cognitive

mediation- when people use cognition to increase self-efficacy.

References:

Bischof, L.J. (1970). Interpreting Personality Theories 2 nd Edition. New York: Harper & Rows,
Publishers.

Burger, J.M. (1986). Personality Theory and Research. California: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

Feist, J & Feist, F. (2008). Theories of Personality, Seventh Edition. United States of America:
McGraw-Hill

Teh, L.A. & Macapagal, M.J. (editors) (2008). General Psychology for Filipino Students. Manila,
Philippines: Ateneo De Manila University Press.

Prepared by:
BENNY S. SOLIMAN, RGC.,LPT.,RPm.
Lecturer, Theories of Personality