Social Learning Theory of Criminality
The theory does not claim that people copy what they see. It claims they copy what they see work, for someone they already want to be like, and both halves have to be there.
Use it, the way the marks are given
Free interactive practice at using the material, which is what the marks are for.
Start revising freeWhat you'll cover
Not what you see, but what you see work
Social learning theory is usually summarised in four words: people copy what they see. If that were the claim, it would be easy to knock down. Everyone watches behaviour they never copy. ⚠️ THE THEORY'S ACTUAL CLAIM IS NARROWER AND MUCH MORE INTERESTING. It proposes that people copy what they see WORK, for someone they already want to be like. Both halves have to be there. Watch a stranger do something and get nothing out of it, and the theory predicts nothing happens at all. Watch someone you admire do the same thing and be rewarded for it, and the theory predicts you are far more likely to try it yourself. ⚠️ So what is being copied is not really the ACTION. It is the CONSEQUENCE - and that single shift explains why the theory needs separate words for observing, for identifying with a model, and for seeing that model rewarded. One thing to be clear about before going further. This is a THEORY about how behaviour may be learned. ⚠️ It is an explanation offered by psychologists, not a statement about what any particular person will do, and questions on it reward you for treating it that way. Your specification also names the debate it is criticised through. That is not optional. Step 6 explains why.
The five words the theory runs on
Five processes, defined and nothing more. What each one looks like in a real case comes next.
Match each case to the process it shows
- A teenager watches an older cousin they look up to being praised by friends after taking something from a shop, and later tries it themselves
- A young child reproduces the exact tone and phrasing a parent uses when speaking to a shopkeeper
- Of two people doing the same thing, someone pays far more attention to the one they see as being like themselves
- Someone continues a behaviour years later, with nobody watching and no reward of any kind
- VICARIOUS REINFORCEMENT, because what was observed was somebody else being rewarded
- OBSERVATION AND IMITATION, because a watched behaviour has simply been reproduced
- IDENTIFICATION, because perceived similarity is what decided who was modelled
- INTERNALISATION, because the behaviour no longer depends on a model or a consequence
Three things that have to line up
The theory proposes that imitation is unlikely unless all three columns are satisfied at once. That is what makes it a theory rather than a description.
Whose reward was it
Two things happen to a young person. In the first, a friend is admired by the group after behaving a certain way. In the second, the young person behaves that way themselves and is admired for it. How does the theory describe the two?
- The first is vicarious reinforcement, because the consequence happened to someone else; the second is direct reinforcement, because it happened to them
- They are two descriptions of the same process, since the outcome is the same either way
- Neither is reinforcement, because no material reward was given
- Only the second counts, because a person cannot be reinforced by something that happens to somebody else
How to write an evaluation this specification credits
Look closely at how your specification lists each theory. It never stops at the theory. Every one ends by naming a particular debate: this theory is criticised via the nature/nurture debate, another via individual differences, another via reductionism and holism, another via free will and determinism. ⚠️ THAT IS NOT A SUGGESTION. THE DEBATE IS PART OF THE CONTENT. A perfect description of a theory with no evaluation has answered half of what was listed. So build an evaluation in three moves. ONE: state what the theory explains WELL, with something specific it accounts for. Evaluation is not only criticism, and an answer that only attacks is as unbalanced as one that only describes. TWO: use the NAMED debate as the angle of attack. Not any criticism you can think of: the one the specification pairs with that theory. It is chosen because it finds the theory's real weak point. THREE: say what the weakness implies, which usually means naming what a different kind of explanation could supply instead. ⚠️ And attribute throughout. Write "the theory proposes" and "this suggests", not "this is why people do it". A theory is a candidate explanation, and writing about it as though it were established fact costs marks in exactly the questions that carry the most.
True about what the theory proposes
Select the TWO statements that are true.
- The theory proposes that observing a consequence, not just a behaviour, is what makes imitation more likely
- The theory proposes that people are more likely to model someone they see as similar to themselves
- The theory shows that anyone who observes a behaviour will go on to perform it
- The theory has been proven, so it fully explains why people behave as they do
The same street, two different lives
Here is the awkward case, and it is the one the specification has in mind when it names the nature/nurture debate. Two people grow up in the same house. Same family, same street, same school, largely the same people to watch. One goes on to offend and one does not. ⚠️ SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY SITS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THE NURTURE SIDE OF THE DEBATE. It explains behaviour by what a person has observed and what consequences they have seen follow. So when the observations were near enough identical and the outcomes were not, the theory is being asked a question it is not well equipped to answer. It can reach for something: perhaps they identified with different models, or noticed different consequences. ⚠️ But notice how that reply works. It explains the difference by ASSUMING a difference in what was observed, which is close to assuming what it set out to explain. That is what the criticism actually amounts to, and it is worth stating precisely. The theory is not wrong that people learn from others. It is that a purely environmental account has no room for anything a person brings WITH them. ⚠️ And this is exactly where the other theory on this topic comes in. A biological account proposes inherited differences in personality and in how the nervous system responds - the nature side of the same debate. Your specification puts the two next to each other on purpose. A strong answer says that neither alone is likely to be sufficient, which is the honest position and the one the debate exists to reach.
Order how the theory says a behaviour is learned
Five stages in the order social learning theory proposes they occur.
- A person encounters someone they see as similar to themselves, or would like to resemble
- They observe that person behaving in a particular way
- They see a consequence follow for that person, such as approval or reward
- They imitate the behaviour themselves, and may be reinforced for it directly
- The behaviour becomes part of their own values and continues without any model or reward
The social learning run
Five questions on the theory and how it is evaluated. Three lives.
Spot the true social learning facts
Tap the TWO statements that are true.
- The theory proposes that seeing a model rewarded makes imitation more likely
- The theory sits largely on the nurture side of the nature and nurture debate
- The theory states that anyone who observes a behaviour will copy it
- Evaluating the theory is optional, since the specification only lists the theory itself
Complete the social learning facts
Seeing a model as similar to yourself, or as someone you would like to resemble, is called _____. Watching their behaviour and then reproducing it is _____. Seeing a consequence happen to THEM rather than to you is _____. When the behaviour eventually becomes part of your own values and continues without any model or reward, the theory calls that _____.
Build the evaluation sentence
Assemble a balanced evaluation of the kind this specification credits: a strength, the named debate as the criticism, and what that implies.
Three explanations to judge
Three pieces of student writing to assess. Each answer has to carry the reasoning, not just the verdict.
- A student writes: "Social learning theory proves that children who see crime will become criminals." What is wrong with the sentence?
- Asked to explain vicarious reinforcement, a student describes a young person being praised after behaving a certain way and repeating it. Is that the right concept?
- A student's evaluation lists four criticisms of the theory and nothing else, and scores in the middle band. Why?
Explain the theory and its limits
A classmate can list the five terms perfectly and still writes evaluations that are pure criticism. Write them an answer that shows what a balanced one looks like.
- Explain what social learning theory proposes about how behaviour is learned, using at least three of its terms
- Explain the difference between vicarious and direct reinforcement, making clear whose consequence each describes
- Explain why identification matters, given that people observe far more behaviour than they ever copy
- Give one thing the theory explains well, with a specific example of the kind of pattern it accounts for
- Finish by criticising it through the nature and nurture debate, and say what that suggests a fuller explanation would need