How to Answer a To What Extent ERQ (DP IB Psychology)

How to Answer a To What Extent ERQ

• Here is an Extended Response Question (ERQ) which uses the command term ‘To what extent’:

  To what degree can social cognitive theory explain individual behaviour? [22 marks]	Commentary
  Social cognitive theory (SCT) was developed by Bandura (1986) from his earlier theories of social learning (1961; 1977) and self-efficacy (the expectation of personal success in a task, based on the view that one is in control of one’s actions and abilities). SCT is to some extent a comprehensive theory of how humans act as agents, i.e. their thoughts, beliefs and actions affect and are affected by their environmental and social systems. There are, however, some limitations and constraints as to how far SCT can go to explain individual behaviour completely.  In his earlier social learning theory, Bandura investigated the process of observational learning via attention, retention, reproduction and motivation. The original study from which SCT was developed was conducted in 1961 and has been modified and replicated many times since. This study aimed to investigate if children observing aggressive acts, committed by adults in one setting, would reproduce those acts in another setting when the adult role model was absent. It was also to examine if children were more likely to imitate same-sex models. Participants were in a mixed-gender group of 36 girls and 36 boys, aged 3 to 6 years. The children were matched for their level of physical and verbal aggression and aggression towards objects. A complex independent measures design was used where children were exposed to same-sex models and opposite-sex models, both aggressive and non-aggressive, and compared to a control group exposed to no model. The experiment demonstrated that children learnt behaviour through observation and imitation of an adult model, even when the model was not physically present. In 1965, Bandura conducted a further study into the effect of vicarious reinforcement on the imitation rate of the children and found that rewarded behaviour was more likely to be imitated than punished behaviour. To this extent, SCT goes beyond a simplistic behaviour operant explanation of behaviour as it introduces an individual cognitive element to observational learning. Bandura (1986) identified outcome expectations, self-efficacy and intentions as interrelated factors that combine to explain how people acquire and maintain behaviours. To this extent, SCT offers a more holistic version of SLT as it includes the relationship between personal factors, the environment and the ability to achieve the desired goal. Someone’s perception of their ability affects both their motivation (intentions) and their outcome expectations; therefore, self-efficacy is a key concept in SCT.  A key concept in SCT is reciprocal determinism: Bandura saw behaviour, internal personal factors (biology and individual cognition) and environmental influences as all interacting, through this triadic process of reciprocal determinism. For example, someone’s preference for a particular sport (behaviour) is based on their thoughts and feelings about how they will perform in that sport. The motivation and talent for the sport will either be enhanced or will falter depending on environmental factors (e.g., access to sports facilities and coaching). To this extent SCT has a real-world application; it could be argued that it has good external validity. At first, it seems as if SCT can successfully explain all human behaviour, but it assumes a rational social cognitive model that ignores factors like, for example,  physical (biological) addiction, or emotion.  Van Zundert et al. (2009) used SCT as a framework within which to investigate lapses (a few puffs) and relapses (one or more cigarettes) in adolescents who were trying to give up smoking. If they had been heavy smokers, those who felt strongly about the advantages of not smoking and felt high self-efficacy had, at follow-up, a relapse rate that was as high as those who felt less self-efficacy at the start of the study. It was concluded that self-efficacy is not a stable trait and varies from day to day during the attempt to give up smoking. To this extent, it seems that SCT cannot explain all behaviours. Culture and social context are also important factors in behaviour. Bandura expanded his theory to try and explain social cognition and behaviour cross-culturally by arguing that it would be a mistake to view self-efficacy as more important in individualistic societies compared to collectivistic societies: self-efficacy is essential for success regardless of whether it is achieved individually or as a member of a group working towards group success. However, this argument lacks any supporting evidence: social learning and cognition cannot always be directly observed, so how can it be known that social cognition in collectivist cultures can be explained individually? This means that the extent to which this is a credible argument is limited. In conclusion, Bandura’s SCT explains children’s learning well, but it ignores biological factors (such as those which govern addiction) that can affect an individual’s behaviour. More evidence of the cross-cultural relevance of SCT is also needed. Therefore, SCT can only explain individual behaviour to some extent. Word count: 806	SCT is introduced with key terminology included. The command term is addressed in the final sentence of the paragraph. Use of research to support the answer: Bandura’s earlier social learning study was introduced as the basis for SCT. The study is described briefly and evidence is provided as to why SCT is a more comprehensive account of behaviour than SLT. Key terms are used effectively, and SCT detail is expanded on. Link to evaluation issue of validity is used to support SCT. A second study is used to demonstrate the limitations of SCT. A cross-cultural consideration of SCT is seen to highlight another flaw in the theory. Link to evaluation issue of supporting evidence is used as a limitation of SCT. The conclusion sums up and forms an overall judgement of the ability of SCT to explain individual behaviour. [22 marks]