Writing

SOCIAL COGNITIVE MODELS and: SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY Key Concepts in Health Psychology MEANING Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) is an approach that emphasizes the role social modelling, or vicarious learning, has on human motivation, thinking and behaviour (Bandura, 2000). According to SCT, motivation and behaviour are regulated through volitional pre-action thinking and behavioural change is determined by a sense of personal control over the environment. A number of key cognitive factors are important for understanding behaviour. Self-efficacy describes beliefs in the ability to undertake a particular action in order to realize a wanted or desired outcome. In other words, self-efficacy concerns beliefs that are specific to people's ability to control environmentally based or situationally based demands. Bandura argued that self-efficacy is expectancy-based cognitions about control and as such serves a self-regulatory function. It determines whether certain instrumental actions will be used to attain certain goals, how much effort a person will direct towards the acquisition of a goal and whether the action will be continued in the presence of obstacles to behaviour. In this way beliefs related to self-efficacy provide a major motivational source in the enactment of behaviour, and as such these beliefs predict motivation to act. Self-efficacy beliefs develop through vicarious experience. The observation of another person having successfully completed a given behaviour enhances personal self-efficacy in the observer. These beliefs also develop and change as a result of an individual experiencing the situational demands and acting in an appropriate way (called 'personal mastery'), as well as being the subject of persuasion process related to control by important others or through the influence of affective arousal. For instance, decreased emotional arousal or an optimistic belief set in response to a threatening situation should result in inflated perceptions of control over behavioural enactment (Bandura, 1997). A second key concept inherent in SCT is that of perceived outcome expectancies which are the perceived consequences of planned action. In essence outcome expectancies take the form of if-then associations, such that 'in situation X, if I behave in way Y then outcome(s) X will result'. Anticipated outcome expectancies may be physical, social or self-evaluative in nature (Dijkstra et al., 1997). Physical outcome expectancies reflect changes in symptomology (e.g. a decrease in breathlessness after sustained physical exercise), social outcome expectancies refer to changes in social responses with the enactment of a behaviour (e.g. the response of important others to your behaviour – normative beliefs) and self-evaluative outcome expectancies concern beliefs about the self as a result of behaving in a certain way (e.g. increased feelings of self-esteem, self-worth). Both self-efficacy and outcome expectancies are held to be direct predictors of behaviours, although it has been argued that they have their effects in an indirect way via goal setting mechanisms. Goals (or intentions) are direct predictors of behaviour. For SCT, outcome expectancies are used in the initial formation of the intention to undertake a particular behaviour. Self-efficacy appears to be important at the intentional phase as well as in the post-decisional phase when behavioural intention is translated into action (namely, behaviour) (DeVillis and DeVillis, 2000). ORIGINS SCT has its basis in the 1970s and a paradigm shift away from the study of behaviour as the unit of analysis to one encompassing thinking and cognition as underlying processes governing the enactment of observed behaviour. Until the advent of SCT (Bandura, 1986), psychology had assumed that learning was the result of stimulus-response relationships governed by reinforcement schedules with a particular focus on the consequences of responses. Bandura's (1977) Social Learning Theory argued that learning through trial and error was not the only way in which people learnt to behave in social situations. It was argued that individuals learn through the social modelling of knowledge and competencies by imitating other people, or through vicarious conditioning (or observational learning) such as seeing another person being punished or rewarded for their behaviour in a social situation. To learn in this way demands that observers create and recall a representation of the situation. In other words, Bandura proposed that learning processes were explained by how people cognitively represent the observed learning episode. People learn by initially observing another's behaviour, then represent the learning scene in their minds and subsequently perform the same behaviour. The cognitive representation is the necessary bridge between an individual's observation and their action. CURRENT USAGE As individuals progress from thinking about behaving in a certain way, forming a behavioural intention and setting a behavioural goal to actually enacting the behaviour, they utilize and develop expectations about the outcomes of their behaviour and their ability to perform said behaviour. It is for this reason that many of the models you encounter in the social psychology of health have their basis in SCT and the use of one or more of the core constructs in attempting to understand health-related behavioural intention, action or behavioural change (Conner and Norman, 2005). These include, among others, the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour, the health action process approach, protection motivation theory, the health belief model and the transtheoretical model of behaviour change (see the appropriate key concepts in this chapter). Studies have detailed the contribution of SCT constructs in a number of health behaviours including sexual risk taking behaviours (e.g. Kok et al., 1992), physical exercise (Rodgers et al., 2002), adhering to medication (e.g. Williams and Bond, 2002), and addictive behaviours (e.g. Christiansen et al., 2002). This work has shown outcome expectancies and self-efficacy to have significant explanatory power in intention formation and behavioural enactment (see Luszczynska and Schwarzer, 2005). For instance, Dijkstra et al. (1999) showed that self-evaluative expectancies, like shame and regret, and positive outcome expectancies were important for predicting smokers' attempts to quit. Manipulating key factors in social cognitive theory: the percentage of participants making forward change stage transitions in a stage of change matched intervention study among smokers (Source: adapted from Dijkstra et al., 2006) Stage of change Information condition Precontemplation Pros of quitting 34.1% Cons of not quitting 18.9% Increase efficacy 10.8% Contemplation 20.4% 37.2% 14.3% Preparation 44.4% 39.1% 23.8% Action 50% 61.1% 72.7% Note: Italicized figures are the matched interventions for the stage of change. Information conditions were as follows. Pros of quitting – the intervention booklet provided for participants contained information to increase the negative outcome expectancies of smoking and the positive outcome expectancies of quitting. Cons of not quitting – the intervention was designed to decrease the negative outcome expectancies of quitting and the positive outcome expectancies of smoking. Increase efficacy – the intervention was designed to increase efficacy by preparing individuals with coping skills to deal with situations in which they would be at a high risk of relapse. In addition, recent research has demonstrated the role of SCT constructs in the development and implementation of matched interventions. Dijkstra et al. (2006) studied the effectiveness of a matched intervention for smokers who were not thinking about changing their behaviour (precontemplation stage), those who were thinking about changing (contemplation stage), those preparing to change and as such forming a decision to do so (preparation stage), as well as a group of ex-smokers (action stage). Each of these groups received an intervention containing information that was matched to an individual's stage in the change process. Matched interventions involved the manipulation of the positive expectancies (namely, increase them) of stopping smoking for those in the precontemplation group, a decrease of the negative expectancies associated with stopping smoking for those in the contemplation stage group, or an increase in self-efficacy for those in the preparation and action stages. Results showed that after a two month period those who had received a stage matched intervention based on SCT were more likely to have made a forward transition in the change process. For example, a significant number of those who were originally thinking about stopping smoking formed an intention over time to stop or had actually managed to quit (see Table 3.1). In addition, precontemplators benefitted most from increased expectancies related to the advantages of stopping smoking, contemplators benefitted from information designed to overcome the cons of stopping smoking, and those in the action stage benefitted most from information designed to increase self-efficacy. Those in the preparation stage appeared to benefit from changing positive and negative expectancies about quitting as well as from self-efficacy enhancement. SIGNIFICANCE TO HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY SCT is of fundamental importance for health psychology because it has formed the basis from which models of health behaviour (e.g. the health belief model, protection motivation theory), health behaviour change (e.g. the transtheoretcial model, health action process approach) and general social cognition models applied to health-related decision making (e.g. the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour) have been derived. There is no single model which has been applied or developed for the study of health behaviour that does not make reference to the core constructs of self-efficacy or outcome expectancies in their schemes. Further reading A classic text that provides the reader with a detailed exploration of the key components of social cognitive theory. Provides a useful theoretical and applied review of how components of social cognitive theory have been utilized, tested and applied in the context of health-related decision making and health behaviour. Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Luszczynska, A. and Schwarzer, R. (2005) Social cognitive theory. In Conner, M. and Norman, P. (eds), Predicting Health Behaviour (2nd edition). Buckingham: Open University Press. pp. 127-169. See also social cognitive models and theory of planned behaviour; social cognitive models and health belief model; social cognitive models and protection motivation theory; social cognitive models and implementation intentions; social cognitive models and health action process approach; social cognitive models and precaution adoption process model; social cognitive models and transtheoretical model of behaviour change; individual differences and habit and self-efficacy © Ian P. Albery and Marcus Munafo 2008 APA citation: SOCIAL COGNITIVE MODELS and: SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY. (2008). In I. P. Albery, & M. Munafo, Key concepts in health psychology. Sage UK. Credo Reference: https://ezproxy.gardner-webb.edu/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageukhp/social_cognitive_models_and_social_cognitive_theory/0?institutionId=5562 Need a different citation style? Find it on Credo Online Reference Service