Analysis of Bandura’s Cognitive Theory and Beck’s Cognitive Theory

The study of human reflexion or behaviorism focuses on attributes of creation that ar discernible, measurable and which can be manipulated. The emphasis of behaviorism is on experimental methods and avoids attributes that are subjective, internal or unavailable.The experimental method involves the manipulation of ane variable and measurement of its effect on another variable. It is from the study of variable and do that a Canadian psychologist, Albert Bandura found the cognitive possibleness (or mixer cognitive scheme) (Bandura, 2006).Bandura for instance observed aggressive behavior in adolescents and opined that the aggressiveness is caused by the environment in which the adolescents grow. On the other hand, he also know that behavior causes an environment as well.Thus, since behavior and environment are causes and effects of each other, Bandura referred to the concept as reciprocal determinism (Bandura1986). In short, Banduras surmisal was based on the fact that the wo rld and a persons character (behavior) affect each other (Bandura, 1986).While it would appear that the environment was the cause of behavior and personality, Bandura also realized that personality is an interaction of a persons mental responses in relation to the environment (Bandura, 2006).The mental processes consist of the human creations top executive to entertain different images and oral communications. Thus, the cognitive guess is built on two essential principles. The first hotshot is a cloth for explaining how different personalities function, whereas the other one addresses the type of variables (that is the elements of analysis) on which the personality theory should be centred (Bandura, 2006).In analysis of the influence of reciprocal determinism, Bandura categorically uses the word determinism to imply the thought in which effects are produced by events (Bandura, 2006). However, this opinion does not mean that a human beings actions arise from straightforward and predictable chains of cause and consequence.Rather, it implies that events produce effects by chance. As a result, the prob qualification or chance of an event producing an effect is emphasized in Banduras cognitive theory (Bandura, 2006). Perhaps the intimately significant conniption of Banduras theory is the way in which the theory treats behavior.Unlike many other theoretical frameworks, this theory has equal action on two(prenominal) the input of the personality and the output of personality (Bandura, 1986). In essence, Banduras opinion is that a persons actions and the resultant effects shape the persons aptitude, feelings and belief in one self (Bandura, 2006).For example, many behaviorist theories depict scant curiosity in self-process because the theorists assume that human functioning is caused by impertinent stimulus rather than the internal stimulus which is only considered as transmitting rather than causing behavior (Bandura, 1986).This paper critically evaluat es the notable features of Banduras cognitive theory and discusses in detail the view commit of the Bandura at the cadence of formulation of the theory and the theorys subsequent modification.The paper will also respect the strengths and weaknesses of the theory based on the discussion. Analysis of the salient features of Banduras cognitive theory The most notable feature of Banduras loving cognitive theory is the concept of reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1986).Reciprocal determinism is a phenomenon that implies the causes and effects of different actions on behavior and environment and how they affect each other. Thus, Banduras theory was based on the point that personal factors in the form of cognition, biological events and affect, behavior and environmental factors create interfaces that result in a triadic reciprocality as illustrated in Figure 1. Bandura limited the label of his theory from the joint perspective of affectionate tuition to social cognitive in order to d istance it from the common social learning theories of his time (Bandura, 1986).He also wanted to lay emphasis on the idea that cognition plays a significant role in flocks potency to innovation reality, regulate their personality, encode information and display other kinds of behavior. According to Bandura (1971), the reciprocal form of the determinants of individual human functioning in social cognitive theory enables services such as therapeutic and counseling efforts to be rendered with focus on personal environment or behavioral factors as illustrated in the plat above.Based on this, strategies to improve a persons well-being can be aimed at ameliorating the emotional, cognitive and motivational process of the human being (Bandura, 1986). The focus can also be on improving behavioral capabilities or changing the communal conditions under which volume live and work.As an example, teachers in schools brook a role to not only improve their students academic learning and confi dence, but also boost their (students) self-beliefs and habits of thinking. Hence, teachers and students have to embrace all the components of Banduras triadic expression of cognitive theory.As earlier mentioned, Banduras social cognitive theory sets itself aside from other theories that overemphasize the role played by environmental factors in the culture of human behavior (Bandura, 1986 Bandura, 2006).These theories are often dismissed since they have the redundant factor of cause and effect that is unworthy in the context of evaluating the psychological aspect of human beings. Thus according to Bandura, psychology per se without a clear self-examination cannot purport to explain the complexities of human intricacies of human functioning.Bandura (1986) further noted it is by evaluating their own conscious minds that people discern their own psychological processes. Therefore, in order to predict how the human behavior is touch on by environmental outcomes, it is authoritative that the individuals cognitive process and how he or she interprets the outcomes be understood.Personal determinants An important factor in addressing how a person interprets the outcomes is recognition of the personal determinants. This is affected by the choice of variables to be used in the evaluation process.Banduras choice for such variable depicts what may be the most distinctive aspect of human feel, that is, people have abilities to adapt to different environments (Bandura, 1986). For instance, people are able to live in a variety of physical environments such as deserts, rainforests, Polar Regions and so on.They are also able to live and engage in a variety of social environments such as nomadic systems, divers(a) religious beliefs, different socio economic and socio cultural activities and so on. People also exhibit a variety of unique capabilities that cannot be attributed to the occurrence of evolution over time (Bandura, 1971).In fact, the list of human beings unique capabilities relative to animals cannot be exhausted in a single book. Hence, in order to perform an analysis of psychological functioning, one must specify the psychological mechanisms that facilitate the unique capabilities. Banduras (1986) theory has a focal point on the cognitive methods that enable people to learn about the world around them (environment) and also about themselves, and use the knowledge gained to control their behavior and mental bes.In particular, Bandura (1986) enlisted five basic capabilities that facilitate the learning process, as described below. Symbolizing content implies the ability of people to represent their knowledge symbolically. The most common symbolic representation or conveyance of messages is language (Bandura, 1971). The ability to use symbols in terms of language is perhaps the most fundamental capability in human beings as it serves as a valuation account for the other capabilities.Vicarious capability is the ability to acquire skills, knowledge and other emotional tendencies through observation or a similar approach (Bandura, 1971). Banduras (2006) sedulous analysis of vicarious processes that are involved in acquiring skills makes the cognitive theory not only realistic but also unusually comfortable to comprehend and interpret. In addition, it clears most of the issues that are usually overlooked by psychological theories such how people acquire knowledge and skills that enable them to act efficiently.According to Bandura (1997), vicarious capability enables people to keep away from risky or costly undertakings that could lead to fatal outcomes. This is because the people ideally have a sense of experience by observing their own characters relative to the characters or behavior of others.Bandura (1986) referred to the ability to anticipate future contingencies as the forethought capability of human beings. Forethought capability is vital for both emotional and motivational perspectives of life.For instance, c ontrary to popular belief, psychological distress arises from peoples anticipated dreadful experiences and not the present or actual experiences. It is because of the ability to derive alternative approaches that one can foresee the consequences of an action without actually being involved in it.According to Bandura (1986), the fourth unique human capability is the self-regulatory capability. This is the electrical capacity of an individual to set goals. In addition, this capability allows individuals to evaluate their performance in relation to their own (internal) standards of performance.Bandura (1986) further noted that the ability of people to evaluate their self-concept, look upon and values enables them have a sense of self-direction and ability to lead life without much reliance on others. Much similar to the above capability is the self-reflective capability.According to Bandura (1997), this is the capacity of human beings to have personal thoughts. In this context, perso nal reflections lay a course for action and formulation of ideas by individuals based on self-efficacy. The aforesaid(prenominal) capabilities do not work in isolation but in concert.In particular, according to Bandura (1997), the aspects of self-reflection, self-regulation and forethought act in synergy to form a self-system, which comprises the framework of personality. Furthermore, people are able to control their emotions and social lives by integrating the constituents of the self-system (Bandura, 1986).Self-reflection in particular is distinctly human and forms a prominent feature of the social cognitive theory. Through self-reflection, individuals derive sense from their experiences and embrace their cognitions and self-beliefs.Consequently, they are able to engage in self-evaluation and are able to shift their thinking and behavior thence (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy When the capabilities so far described are integrated effectively, the self-system acquires a state of sel f-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).Perceived self-efficacy refers to peoples ability to evaluate their own efficiencies in solving problems and attaining certain levels of performance (Bandura, 1997). The relevance of perceived self-efficacy to the social cognitive theory postulated by Bandura is that self-efficacy judgments have a pervasive role in human affairs.In the scope of both achievements and interpersonal relationships, peoples stances are calculated by how effectively (and wisely) they can make decisions and how efficiently they can act in fulfilling the decisions taken. From the above perspective, it is ostensible that evaluation between an individuals skills and the requirements of the environment is pertinent in determining the courses of action that are viewed as being the determinants of ones personality. strength beliefs are vital in that not only do they act on overt behavior but they also address the internal psychological affairs of individuals.This is an important asp ect of the social cognition theory with respect to the triadic scheme. This is because an individuals personality is judged from acts that are done both overtly and covertly. In view of Banduras (1997) ideas, people with robust perceptions of their efficacy envisage more positive futures, experience less distressing emotions, and are capable of planning for their life programs more effectively. In addition, such people are able to deal with demanding tasks more efficiently than people who have lower opinion of their efficacy. How personal determinants furbish up with individual differences and dispositionsWith reference to Bandura (1999), the basic capacities of the social cognitive theory are dissimilar in three ways from the units of measurement employed in the character-related theories of personality. To bring down with, the capabilities are not single variable differences with reference to personality.For instance, Bandura (1999) accentuated that a single-difference analysis may hinder the realization of other vital capabilities possessed by an individual. such an instance would occur if the ability in an individual is rare and is therefore not detected as an important factor in analysis (Bandura, 1999).As is common with many forms of analysis, there is usually an investigation for a small number of primary units of variation, or for capabilities that are common but possessed to uniformly spicy level by many individuals.The fact that almost everyone possesses a unique capability (for example the ability to use symbols of the ability to be self-reflective and selfconscious) does not necessarily make the capabilities less important in the context of the functioning of personality. These capabilities are still important in spite of the fact that they may not be identified as the primary dimensions of individual dissimilarity.The second difference in the context of the capabilities in the social cognitive theory is related to number tendencies. For insta nce, Banduras (1999) category of cognitive capabilities does not just mention the average tendencies.Rather, Bandura opines that self-reflection and self-regulation contribute to both constancy and variability of actions among individuals. Along this line, it is important to note that peoples goals, choices and cognitive abilities are displayed in the manner in which they act and handle different circumstances that they come across in their lives.This point is of splendour in describing an individuals personality (Bandura, 1999). It implies that dispositional characteristics per se cannot suffice the description of personality as they refer to the average tendencies in behavior and are innocent(p) of reference to particular individuals (Bandura, 1999).In addition, a single individuals social cognitive may not contribute significantly to the distinct patterns of behavior that are not in line with the contemporary descriptive characteristics that are used in the analysis of standard individual difference categories.The third point is that the social cognitive theorys definition of personality and the role personality factors play in contribution to social behavior is significantly different from the dispositional approach. The social cognitive theory does not view dispositional tendencies as personality structures. Instead, the theory realizes personality structures as consisting of cognitive and affective systems, which contribute to the patterns of individuals behavior in a much informal way. These, according to Bandura (1999), are the dispositional tendencies.In this context therefore, dispositions are effects and not causes. Bandura opposed the proponents of personality description based on behavior as being mistaken since the aspects of behavioral description locate the personality structure in the wrong place (Bandura, 1999, p 200).Therefore, the Banduras social cognitive theory views the standard dispositional units of personality description as being i nadequate to fully describe an individual or to explain his or her personality functioning. Strengths and weaknesses of the theoryAs discussed, Banduras theory has many points of strength, notable of which being that it describes the relationship between behavior and the environment. In addition, the theory gives a clear picture of how behaviors are learned and developed.On the other hand, it is limpid that the theory puts too much emphasis on what happens to people rather than what the people do. Along the same line, the theory does not address consistent differences among individuals as they go through different developmental stages. a