Cognitive
Social Learning Theory Strengths and Weaknesses
Rotter and Mischel have advanced
learning theories in the areas of thinking, values, and goal-direction for
humans instead of laboratory animals. Even though this is true, the validity of
the cognitive social learning theory depends on the ratings it receives from
the six criteria of a useful theory. Cognitive social learning theory has
generated an excellent abundance of quality research. The locus of control
concept developed by Rotter has been one of the most researched topics in
psychology. Both Rotter and Mischel’s theories are considered internally
consistent. Rotter wisely defines his terms, making sure each term has one
meaning and Mischel’s theory is considered consistent because he developed his
theory from empirical research. Rotter’s theory is considered a helpful guide
to therapists but Mischel’s theory suggests people behave differently in
different situations, which is believed only moderately useful. The cognitive
social learning theory is considered simple because it does not explain all
human personality. One weakness of Rotter and Mischel’s theories is difficulty
verifying or falsifying research. Rotter’s basic prediction formula and general
prediction formula cannot be accurately tested (Feist & Feist, 2009).
Social
Cognitive Theory Strengths and Weaknesses
Albert
Bandura’s social cognitive theory is balanced between innovative speculation
and accurate observation (Feist & Feist, 2009). Bandura’s use of these two
important components of theory building increase the chances of his hypothesis
producing concrete results, and it increases the chances of producing
supplementary hypotheses. The way social cognitive theory is constructed has
generated thousands of research studies rating Bandura’s theory high on its
ability to produce research. In the area of falsifiability social cognitive
theory rates high. According to Theories
of Personality, Bandura states self-efficacy theory suggests “people’s
beliefs in their personal efficacy influence what courses of action they choose
to pursue, how much effort they will invest in activities, how long they will
persevere in the face of obstacles and failure experiences, and their
resiliency following setbacks” (p. 505). His statement opens up the door for
possible research leading to falsification of the theory. Social cognitive
theory organizes knowledge well. The triadic reciprocal causation model
proposes a reasonable description for the learning of many observable
behaviors. The guidelines are specific making the theory easy to use, and the
theory is internally consistent. Furthermore, the social cognitive theory is
simple and straightforward making it parsimonious.
No comments:
Post a Comment