Theory of social learning. Social and cognitive direction in the theory of personality A. Bandura

Introduction

Biography

Learning theory: the role of reinforcement and imitation (A. Bandura.)

A. Bandura's social learning theory

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The man was, is and, perhaps, will be aggressive for a long time. This seems clear and undeniable. But why is he aggressive? What makes it so? This question has always been tried to find an answer. Opposite, sometimes mutually exclusive opinions were expressed regarding the causes of its occurrence, its nature, factors contributing to its formation and manifestation. Today, both theories of aggressive behavior and the identified forms of behavioral activity of animals and humans are diverse. All currently existing theories of aggression, with all their diversity, can be divided into four main categories, considering aggression as: 1) an innate impulse or deposit (theories of attraction); 2) a need activated by external stimuli (frustration theories); 3) cognitive and emotional processes; 4) the actual manifestation of the social.

In the 1940s and 1950s, associated mainly with the studies of Miller and Dollard, and in the 1960s and 1970s, associated with the work of Bandura, the theory of aggression received a new continuation in the theories of aggression and imitation.

Relevance - over the past decades, humanity has received new catalysts for the production of aggression - primarily television, demonstrations, social and economic stratification of society, integration into other cultures, etc. The task of the proposed work is to trace the forms and causes of aggressive behavior by considering the main theories of aggressiveness, in particular, the theories of aggressiveness and imitation developed by Miller, Dollard and Bandura.

1. Biography

Albert Bandura was born December 4, 1925 in Mandela, a small village in northern Canada. He was the only son in a large family, he had five older sisters. Bandura spent his school years in a large school, the entire course of which was taught by only two teachers, very much overloaded with work. The entire responsibility for obtaining knowledge, in fact, lay with the students themselves. This, however, did not prevent many of the school's graduates from entering universities around the world.

After graduating from high school, Bandura worked in Whitehorse in the Yukon on the restoration of the Alaska State Highway. His co-workers were a motley collection of all sorts of delinquent personalities. Here, probably, Bandura received his first knowledge of psychopathology.

After working in this way for one year, Bandura moved to a warmer climate and enrolled at the University of British Columbia. There he received a bachelor's degree in psychology. Bandura continued his education at the University of Iowa. Here in 1951 he defended his master's, and in 1952 - his doctoral dissertation. Bandura then worked as a lecturer at Stanford University, where he received a professorship. While still a student in Iowa, Bandura met Virginia Varnes, after the wedding they had two daughters - Carol and Mary, who gave him grandchildren Andy and Tim.

In the scientific world, Bandura's work on modeling, self-efficacy, and adolescent aggression is well known. He is the author of more than 6 books, the creator of the theory of social learning, the owner of many honorary awards. In 1974, Bandura was elected President of the American Psychological Association and was Honorary President of the Canadian Psychological Association.

Albert Bandura is the author of one of the most popular learning theories. Albert Bandura believed that reward and punishment were not enough to teach new behavior. Children acquire new behavior by imitating the model. One of the manifestations of imitation is identification - a process in which a person borrows thoughts, feelings. Albert Bandura's theory proposes to explain the ways in which people acquire a variety of complex behaviors in a social environment. The main idea of the theory has found expression in the concept of observational learning or learning through observation.

. Learning theory: the role of reinforcement and imitation (A. Bandura)

Bandura calls his approach sociobehavioral and contrasts it with previous applications of learning theory to issues of prosocial and deviant, i.e. deviating from following social norms of behavior. In his opinion, these applications (he means the theories of social learning of Miller and Dollard, Skinner, Rotter) suffer from the fact that they are based "on a limited set of principles established and supported mainly by studies of learning in animals in situations with one person." He believes that "for an adequate consideration of social phenomena, it is necessary to expand and modify these principles, to introduce new principles established and confirmed by studies of the acquisition and modification of human behavior in dyadic and group situations."

In addition, the dissatisfaction of the researcher with previous approaches concerns their inability to solve the problem of the emergence of truly new forms of behavior. In his opinion, instrumental conditioning and reinforcement should be seen as the choice of a response among those already in the individual's behavioral repertoire, rather than its acquisition. This is characteristic, as we have seen, of the positions of Miller and Dollard: the ability of the individual to react exists before she has learned it through imitation. Skinner's procedure for acquiring new patterns of behavior includes positive reinforcement of those elements of, again, present responses that bear a resemblance to the final form of the desired behavior; response components that bear little or no resemblance to this behavior at all remain unreinforced. According to Rotter's theory of social learning, the likelihood that a given behavior will occur in a particular situation is determined by two variables - the subjective expectation that the corresponding behavior will be reinforced, and the value of the reinforcement for the subject. Rotter's approach "assumes the existence of a hierarchy of reactions that tend to occur in different situations with varying degrees of probability; thus, it is completely inadequate to explain the occurrence of a reaction that has not yet been learned and, therefore, has a zero probability value."

Bandura also interprets the role of reinforcement in learning differently. He sees reinforcement more as a factor that promotes learning rather than causing it. From his point of view, firstly, the observer can learn new reactions simply by observing the behavior of the model; secondly, it is not necessary to set the model's response and the observer's response to reinforcement conditions. Numerous studies, including field studies, by Bandura and his colleagues have shown that reinforcing consequences can serve to reinforce behavior acquired under conditions of unreinforced observation. Emphasizing that reinforcement does not play a dominant role in the acquisition of new responses, Bandura assigns it a central role in strengthening and maintaining (preserving) various behavioral tendencies. Behavior patterns can be acquired, according to Bandura, through direct personal experience, as well as through observation of the behavior of others and its consequences for them, i.e. through the influence of the example. Bandura singles out the following possible directions of influence of the model on the observer:

) by observing the behavior of the model, new responses can be acquired;

) through observation of the consequences of the behavior of the model (its reward or punishment), the inhibition of behavior that the observer was previously taught can be strengthened or weakened, i.e. the observer's existing behavior is modified by observing the model;

) observation of the behavior of another (model) can facilitate the implementation of reactions previously acquired by the observer.

Bandura considers the issue of learning through observation to be very important, in particular due to the fact that "the theory must explain not only how response patterns are acquired, but also how their expression is regulated and maintained." From his point of view, the expression of previously learned responses can be socially regulated through the actions of influential models. Thus, the function of learning through observation (observing learning) in Bandura's scheme turns out to be quite wide.

Bandura tried to implement the principles of learning formulated by him, in particular, in the study of aggressive behavior. This problem is devoted to a special work, which is called: "Aggression: an analysis from the standpoint of the theory of social learning" (1973). Bandura believes that the frustration-aggression theory is insufficient to explain aggressive behavior. In his view, the widespread acceptance of the frustration-aggression notion is perhaps more attributable to its simplicity than to its predictive power.

Bandura offers a different approach, containing "a more optimistic view of the human ability to reduce the level of human destructiveness." He singles out the problem of acquiring (through learning) "behavior with destructive potential", on the one hand, and on the other hand, the problem of factors "determining whether a person will implement what he has been taught." Schematically, he contrasts his approach with other approaches as follows:

From Bandura's point of view, frustration is only one and not necessarily the most important factor influencing aggressive behavior. "Frustration is most likely to provoke aggression in people who have been trained to respond to aversive treatment with aggressive attitudes and actions..." Bandura notes. In his view, aggression is generally better explicable in terms of the consequences that reward it than in terms of the frustrating conditions and punishments it incurs. The considered approach allows us to conclude, according to G.M. Andreeva that Bandura's position illustrates, perhaps, the greatest degree of "softening", "liberalization" of the principles of behaviorism, which we are currently facing in social psychology. And, nevertheless, with all the modifications by this author of the traditional paradigm of learning, we are dealing precisely with its modifications, and not with deviations from it.

Thus, reinforcement remains the main determinant, the regulator of behavior. A person can acquire new forms of reactions through observation of the behavior of the model and without reinforcement, however, the readiness to implement these new reactions is ultimately determined by personal past experience of reinforcements or by the experience of reinforcements of the observed model. The limitations and costs that are characteristic of behaviorism in general are only exacerbated when addressing socio-psychological issues. The very development of the actual socio-psychological problems within the framework of the neo-behaviorist orientation remains rather modest. The initial principles of neobehaviorism are by no means conducive to mastering the complex layers of group dynamics. The main area of study is various forms of dyadic interaction, in particular, imitation. Much attention is given to imitation as a factor in the assimilation of aggressive behavior. This plan of analysis is undoubtedly significant, although the studies conducted so far do not give unambiguous results.

Attention is drawn to some interesting methodological findings of the authors in the setting of experiments. However, in many cases these experiments turn out to be "experiments in a vacuum", i.e., in essence, taken out of the social context. This is especially evident in the explicit or implicit disregard for the role of social norms in the regulation of human behavior. This circumstance is rightly pointed out, for example, by representatives of symbolic interactionism. All theories of aggression within learning theory include principles regarding the deterrence or control of such behavior. However, the role of social norms in the regulation of human behavior is rarely recognized. Indeed, some of the research paradigms most commonly used in social psychology to study aggression may not have ecological validity. Thus, it is difficult to resolve the issue of transferring the data obtained in such an experiment to the real situation, which undoubtedly reduces the significance of the obtained results.

. A. Bandura's social learning theory

In 1969, Albert Bandura (1925) - Canadian psychologist put forward his theory of personality, called social learning theory.

A. Bandura criticized radical behaviorism, which denied the determinants of human behavior arising from internal cognitive processes. For Bandura, individuals are neither autonomous systems nor mere mechanical transmitters animating the influences of their environment - they have superior abilities that allow them to predict the occurrence of events and create the means to exercise control over what affects their daily lives. Given that traditional theories of behavior could be wrong, this provided an incomplete rather than an inaccurate explanation of human behavior.

From the point of view of A. Bandura, people are not controlled by intrapsychic forces and do not react to the environment. The causes of human functioning must be understood in terms of the continuous interplay of behavior, cognition, and environment. This approach to the analysis of the causes of behavior, which Bandura called reciprocal determinism, implies that predisposition factors and situational factors are interdependent causes of behavior.

Human functioning is seen as a product of the interaction of behavior, personality factors and the influence of the environment.

Simply put, internal determinants of behavior, such as belief and expectation, and external determinants, such as rewards and punishments, are part of a system of interacting influences that act not only on behavior, but also on various parts of the system.

Bandura's triad model of reciprocal determinism shows that although behavior is influenced by the environment, it is also partly a product of human activity, that is, people can have some influence on their own behavior. For example, a person's rude behavior at a dinner party may cause the actions of the people present to be more of a punishment rather than an encouragement for him. In any case, behavior changes the environment. Bandura also argued that due to their extraordinary ability to use symbols, people can think, create and plan, that is, they are capable of cognitive processes that are constantly manifested through overt actions.

Each of the three variables in the reciprocal determinism model is capable of influencing the other variable. Depending on the strength of each of the variables, then one, then the other, then the third dominates. Sometimes environmental influences are strongest, sometimes inner forces dominate, and sometimes expectations, beliefs, goals, and intentions shape and guide behavior. Ultimately, however, Bandura believes that because of the dual nature of the interaction between overt behavior and environmental circumstances, people are both the product and the producer of their environment. Thus, social-cognitive theory describes a model of mutual causation, in which cognitive, affective and other personal factors and environmental events work as interdependent determinants.

A. Bandura, although he recognizes the importance of external reinforcement, does not consider it as the only way by which our behavior is acquired, maintained or changed. People can learn by watching or reading or hearing about other people's behavior. As a result of previous experience, people may expect certain behaviors to have consequences they value, others to produce an undesirable result, and still others to be ineffective. Our behavior, therefore, is governed to a large extent by foreseeable consequences. In each case, we have the opportunity to imagine in advance the consequences of inadequate preparation for action and take the necessary precautions. Through our ability to represent the actual outcome symbolically, future consequences can be translated into momentary causative factors that influence behavior in much the same way as potential consequences. Our higher mental processes give us the ability to foresee.

At the heart of social-cognitive theory is the proposition that new forms of behavior can be acquired in the absence of external reinforcement. Bandura notes that much of the behavior we display is learned by example: WE simply observe what others are doing and then imitate their actions. This emphasis on learning by observation or by example rather than direct reinforcement is the most characteristic feature of Bandura's theory.

aggressive behavior attraction imitation

Conclusion

Destructive aggression has always been associated with such a philosophical and moral concept as evil. Discussions about whether evil is immanent in man, or whether he is inherently good, have continued throughout the centuries of human history. Researchers working in socio-psychological and pedagogical science have come to the conclusion that; perhaps the most important influence on the formation and development of aggressive behavior is exerted by environmental factors. These include vicious upbringing, including physical punishment, moral humiliation, social and sensory isolation, taboos on emotional manifestations, as well as such megafactors as overcrowding (an unprecedented increase in population density in megacities).

The problem of aggressive behavior remains relevant throughout the existence of mankind due to its prevalence and destabilizing influence. There are ideas that aggressiveness has an exclusively biological origin, and that it is mainly related to the problems of education and culture.

List of used literature

1. Andreeva G.M., Bogomolova N.N., Petrovskaya L.A. Foreign social psychology of the twentieth century. Theoretical approaches. - M.: Aspect-Press, 2001. - 288s.

Bandura A. Theory of social learning. - St. Petersburg: Eurasia, 2000. - 320s.

Bandura A., Walters R. Principles of social learning//Modern foreign social psychology. Texts. M., 1984.

Berkowitz L. Aggression: causes, consequences, control. - St. Petersburg, -2001

Bratus B.S. Personality anomalies. - M., 1988.

Butterworth J., Harris M. Principles of developmental psychology. M.: Kogito-Centre, 2000. 350 p.

Crane W. Secrets of Personality Formation. St. Petersburg: Prime-Eurosign, 2002. 512 p.

Nelson-Jones R. Theory and practice of counseling. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2000. 464 p.

Pervin L., John O. Psychology of personality. Theory and research. M., 2000. 607.

Skinner B. Operant behavior // History of foreign psychology: Texts. M., 1986. S. 60-82.

Zakatova I.N. Social pedagogy at school. - M., 1996.

Miller J., Galanter E., Pribram K. Plans and structure of behavior. - M., 1964.

Bandura's social learning theory proposes that people learn from each other through observation, imitation, and simulation. The theory is often referred to as a bridge between the theories of behaviorism and cognitive learning as it covers the functions of attention, memory and motivation.

Albert Bandura (1925 - present)

KEY IDEAS

People learn through observing the behavior, attitudes, and results of others. “We learn most human behavior through simulation: observing others forms an idea of how this new behavior is performed, and subsequently this encoded information serves as a guide for actions” (Bandura). Social learning theory explains human behavior as something that emerges from a continuous interplay of cognitive, behavioral, and environmental factors.

NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR EFFICIENT SIMULATION

Attention- Various factors increase or decrease the amount of attention. Includes clarity, affective valency, prevalence, complexity, functional value. Attention is influenced by some characteristics (eg, sensory ability, level of arousal, perceptual set, past reinforcement).

Memory- remembering what you paid attention to. Includes symbolic coding, mental imagery, cognitive organization, symbolic repetition, motor repetition.

Playback- Image playback. Includes physical capabilities and self-observation of reproduction.

Motivation Is there a good reason to imitate. Includes motives such as past (such as traditional behaviorism), promised (imaginary stimuli), and vicarious (observing and remembering a reinforced model).

MUTUAL DETERMINISM

Bandura believed in "reciprocal determinism", i.e. that human behavior and environmental factors mutually influence each other, while behaviorism basically claims that human behavior is caused by the environment. Bandura, who studied adolescent aggressiveness, considered this view too simplistic, so he suggested that behavior also affects the environment. Bandura later viewed personality as the interaction of three components: environment, behavior, and psychological processes (the ability to recreate images in the mind and language).

Social learning theory is sometimes referred to as a bridge between the theories of behaviorism and cognitive learning because it covers the functions of attention, memory, and motivation. The theory is related to L. S. Vygotsky's theory of social development and Jean Lave's situational learning theory, which also emphasizes the importance of social learning.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. freeman.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bandura, A. & Walters, R. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

This material (both text and images) is subject to copyright. Any reprints in whole or in part only with an active link to the material.

As a result of mastering this topic, the student must:

know

the concept of a behavior model and its main characteristics;
basic strategies for reinforcing behavior;
the possibility of correcting behavior from the position of A. Bandura;

be able to

analyze the application of the principle of learning through imitation;
consider the aggressive behavior of the child from the position of the theory of A. Bandura;

own

The skills of analysis of the practical application of the theory of A. Bandura.

Introduction to Social Learning Theory by Albert Bandura

The theory of social learning of the Canadian psychologist Λ. Bandura refers to behavioral theories. At the same time, it also takes into account the achievements of cognitive psychology. In this sense, this point of view belongs to theories of a higher level in comparison with classical behaviorism. A. Bandura noted that psychologists who study child development explain the characteristics of a child's behavior by internal factors, i.e. motive forces belonging to the individual (his needs and motives). Such an approach, in his opinion, can explain the child's behavior within certain limits, since it has limitations associated with the difficulty of making predictions.

Learning through imitation

After research by behaviorists, it became clear to many psychologists that a child's behavior is determined by the characteristics of the external environment. As a result, behavior began to be considered as the result of the action of external (environmental) and internal (motivational) factors. From the point of view of the theory of social learning, human behavior does not just depend on the personality characteristics of a person or environmental conditions, but itself acts as one of the factors in child development. In other words, people perform an action not only on the basis of internal forces or external stimuli, but often the action itself becomes the cause of a change in subsequent behavior. Moreover, many learning phenomena are based not on motivation or reinforcement, but on observation of the behavior of others.

Albert Bandura considered the mental activity of children as an activity aimed at obtaining knowledge from various sources surrounding the child. He believed that children not only acquire information, but can also make plans for the future, imagine the possible consequences of their own actions. Classical behaviorists viewed the emergence of new forms of behavior as a result of the encouragement of desired actions on the part of adults. The position of social cognition suggests that new forms of behavior arise from active imitations or modeling what children see around them. From the point of view of A. Bandura, new behavior arises not so much through learning by trial and error, but through learning through observation of the performance of various actions by other people. For example, in the development of speech behavior, learning through imitation plays a decisive role. Indeed, children are born with a limited set of sound activity, which is transformed over time, which makes it possible to build very complex speech structures. It is unlikely that the child himself invents new speech forms, which are then reinforced or not by others. Obviously, he reproduces them by imitation.

The psychologist does not deny the role of reinforcement in the performance of various actions. He notes that after performing an action, a person soon begins to understand whether it leads him to success or not. Due to the consequences that behavior leads to, the repertoire of actions is differentiated, and its ineffective forms are discarded. The consequences of performing actions implement several functions. First of all, they inform the subject about the effectiveness of behavior. In the course of observing the performance of an action, the child not only notices the effect produced by it, but also builds hypotheses about which reactions in a given situation are more preferable. Effective actions later enter the child's behavioral repertoire. However, behavior change occurs only if the child understands what specifically works in this situation. Since understanding is a cognitive process, it largely determines learning through the consequences of actions. If the cognitive sphere of the child is not sufficiently developed, then the child will not be able to receive adequate information, and therefore, evaluate the effectiveness of actions, and behavior change will not occur.

Albert Bandura emphasized that children want to reproduce what they see, and they often do it right on the first try. In some cases, many attempts are required to achieve the correct result. However, the child always, according to Bandura, wants to "do the same", and not gradually approach his ideal.

For many educators, the very fact that children try to imitate someone is quite obvious. For A. Bandura, imitation acts as the main form of learning. In this case, the one who observes the behavior of another does not receive reinforcement, so this learning is called learning without reinforcement. At the same time, children imitate not only socially approved patterns, but also forms of behavior that do not directly satisfy any need. Bandura and other proponents of the social cognition position specifically conducted experiments in which children could imitate various actions. For example, children were shown a film with scenes of aggressive behavior. It turned out that after watching such a film, the number of aggressive actions in children increased. The data obtained indicate that although children were not specifically tasked with learning to act in accordance with the models presented, there was a so-called side learning.

The scientist noted that children observe a variety of behaviors and can reproduce their various combinations. Most often, they turn to previously seen patterns of behavior in new complex situations, in which they simply have no experience of action. According to A. Bandura, with the development of video technologies, the number of models that children can imitate has expanded. They have the opportunity to go beyond their culture. For example, preschoolers can imitate patterns of behavior that are offered in computer games or shown by characters in feature films. Thus, the behavior of the child is the result of a complex combination of patterns that he encounters in everyday life and which are broadcast by the media.

The most significant works in the field of social learning belong to A. Bandure (1925-1988). Bandura was born and educated in Canada, then moved to the United States, where he graduated from the University of Iowa with a doctorate in clinical psychology in 1952. Since 1953, he began work at Stanford University, where he became acquainted with the works of Miller and Dollard, which had a significant impact on him. Early in his career, Bandura focused mainly on the problems of learning as a consequence of direct experience. This interest led to a research program dedicated to the study of learning mechanisms. Starting with the stimulus-response methodology, he came to the conclusion that this model is not fully applicable to human behavior, and proposed his own model, which better explains the observed behavior. Based on numerous studies, he came to the conclusion that people do not always need direct reinforcement for learning, they can learn from someone else's experience. Learning by observation is necessary in situations where mistakes can lead to very unpleasant or even fatal consequences.

This is how the important concept for Bandura's theory appeared. indirect reinforcement, based on observing the behavior of others and the consequences of that behavior. In other words, a significant role in social learning is played by cognitive processes, what a person thinks about the reinforcement scheme given to him, anticipating the consequences of specific actions. Based on this, Bandura paid special attention to the study of imitation. He found that people of the same sex and about the same age are chosen as role models, who successfully solve problems similar to those that confront the subject himself. The imitation of high-ranking people is widespread. At the same time, more accessible, i.e., simpler, samples, as well as those with which the subject is in direct contact, are imitated more often.

Studies have shown that children tend to imitate first adults and then peers whose behavior led to success, i.e. to achieve what the child aspires to. Bandura also found that children often imitate even the behavior that did not lead to success before their eyes, that is, they learn new behaviors as if “in reserve”.

The mass media play a special role in the formation of patterns of behavior, spreading symbolic models in a wide social space.

It is also easy to imitate aggressive behavior, especially in children. Thus, the fathers of over-aggressive teenagers serve as a model for such behavior, encouraging them to display aggression outside the home. Research by Bandura and his first graduate student R. Walters on the causes of aggression in the family demonstrated the role of reward and imitation in the formation of certain behavior patterns in children. At the same time, Walter came to the conclusion that one-time reinforcements are more effective (at least in the development of aggression) than permanent ones.

In the works of Bandura, for the first time, self-reinforcement mechanisms associated with evaluating your own performance ability to solve complex problems. These studies have shown that human behavior is motivated and regulated by internal standards and a sense of their own relevance (or inadequacy) to them. People with a high assessment of their own effectiveness more easily control their behavior and the actions of others, are more successful in their careers and communication. People with a low assessment of personal effectiveness, on the contrary, are passive, cannot overcome obstacles and influence others. Thus, Bandura concludes that the most significant mechanism of personal action is the perceived effectiveness of attempts to control various aspects of human existence.

Of great importance are the works of F. Peterman, A. Bandura and other scientists devoted to correction of deviant behavior. Lesson plans were developed aimed at reducing aggression in children aged 8-12, which consisted of six lessons of 5 minutes each, conducted individually or in a group. In individual lessons, alternatives to aggressive behavior are discussed, video films and problem games are used. In group classes, various behaviors are played through role-playing in situations close to life. In addition, a “model child” who has already acquired a set of well-adjusted social behavior skills participated in the classes, and whose behavior children are beginning to imitate.

Bandura is also the author of a psychotherapeutic method called "systematic desensitization". At the same time, people observe the behavior of the "model" in situations that seem dangerous to them, causing a feeling of tension, anxiety (for example, indoors, in the presence of a snake, an angry dog, etc.). Successful activity causes a desire to imitate and gradually relieves tension in the client. These methods are widely used not only in education or treatment, but also in business, helping to adapt to difficult production situations.

Bandura's contribution to the development and modern modification of behaviorism is undeniable and is recognized by all scientists who consider him the most significant figure in this direction at the end of the 20th century.

Canadian psychologist A. Bandura developed his own theory of personality, which is called the theory of social learning and belongs to behavioral theories, but at the same time takes into account the achievements of cognitive psychology. In this sense, his concept refers to theories of a higher level than classical behaviorism. Bandura said in his works that psychologists who study child development try to determine the characteristics of a child's behavior by internal factors, i.e. motive forces, needs and motives. This approach, in his opinion, can explain the child's behavior within certain limits, since it has limitations associated with the difficulty of making predictions.

Albert Bandura considered the mental activity of children as an activity aimed at obtaining knowledge from various sources surrounding the child. He believed that children not only acquire information, but can also make plans for the future, imagine the possible consequences of their own actions. Classical behaviorists viewed the emergence of new forms of behavior as a result of the encouragement of desired actions on the part of adults. The social cognition position suggests that new forms of behavior arise from actively imitating or modeling what children see around them. From the point of view of A. Bandura, new behavior arises not so much through learning by trial and error, but through learning through observation of the performance of various actions by other people. For example, in the development of speech behavior, learning through imitation plays a decisive role. Indeed, children are born with a limited set of sound activity, which is transformed over time, which makes it possible to build very complex speech structures. It is unlikely that the child himself invents new speech forms, which are then reinforced or not by others. Obviously, he reproduces them by imitation.

In addition to information, the consequences of performing actions perform a motivational function. If a child imagines the consequences that this or that action will lead to, then the anticipation of the results will stimulate or, conversely, inhibit his behavior. Albert Bandura emphasized that children want to reproduce what they see, and they often do it right on the first try. In some cases, many attempts are required to achieve the correct result. However, the child always, according to Bandura, wants to "do the same", and not gradually approach his ideal.

For many educators, the very fact that children try to imitate someone is quite obvious. For A. Bandura, imitation acts as the main form of learning. In this case, the observer himself does not receive reinforcement, so this learning is called learning without reinforcement. At the same time, children imitate not only socially approved patterns, but also forms of behavior that do not directly satisfy any need. Bandura and other proponents of the social cognition position specifically conducted experiments in which children could imitate various actions. For example, children were shown a film with scenes of aggressive behavior. It turned out that after watching such a film, the number of aggressive actions in children increased. The data obtained indicate that although the children were not specifically tasked with learning to act in accordance with the models presented, the so-called side learning occurred.

Summing up, we can conclude that in the middle of the last century, various schools of neobehaviorism played a major role in American academic psychology, even claiming the title of the only objective scientific direction and in this capacity opposing the increasingly growing psychoanalytic tradition. Subsequently, however, the essential limitations of behaviorism as a whole became obvious to everyone. A lot of scientific data obtained began to indicate that many of the mechanisms of behavior and learning described from the standpoint of behaviorism are confirmed only in the artificial environment of the experiment and, in principle, represent only a conditioned reflex developed in laboratory animals. Well, in a natural, natural environment for animals, their behavior is already subject to completely different, obviously more complex mechanisms. And it is no longer possible to extend the action of learning mechanisms to humans.