Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
Student one
Based on the cognitive-affective personality theory, the character is predicted best from understanding the situation, the individuals and the interaction between the situation and the individual. Behavior not only because of global personality character, but it comes from someone’s assumption of themselves in a particular situation (Cavicchioli & Maffei, 2019). The theory is essential sometimes because, through evaluation, someone decides about the outcomes which come with the decision after accepting to encounter the experience. However, there are numerous ways of understanding someone’s behavior not only based on the assumptions people might have from themselves (Cavicchioli & Maffei, 2019). Some of the actions are inherited not from any experience. In reflection to theEysenck’s Personality Theory, behaviours can be driven from the biological factors not just through thinking and deciding on evaluation.
References
Cavicchioli, M., & Maffei, C. (2019). Rejection sensitivity in borderline personality disorder and the cognitive–affective personality system: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, And Treatment. doi: 10.1037/per0000359
Student two The theory is based on the opinion that learning is a concept of alteration in overt character. People change behaviour based on the individual’s feedback to stimuli and what happens within their surroundings (Fedorov, 2017). Feedback can be negative or positive, depending on the situation. For example, positive reinforcement can empower a character by offering a consequence someone feels motivating. For instance, if a teacher rewards a student who performed better, then that students can be motivated to work harder. Trait Approach to Personality can be applied to oppose the theory. Despite the positive reinforcement, people should know that people that differ in their characters because of genetic variations.
References
Fedorov, A. (2017). Freedom and radical behaviourism: A reception of B.F. Skinner’s “Beyond Freedom and Dignity”. Reflexion, 10(1), 203-209. doi: 10.25205/2658-4506-2017-10-1-203-209