Social Learning Theory, Generation Y, and the Situational Leadership Model

University Degree Business and Administrative studies

Matt Neuhaus

November 2008

Table of Contents

Social Learning Theory III

Generation Y (Millennial Generation) VIII

Situational Leadership Model X

Relationships XV

Social Learning Theory & Generation Y XV

Social Learning Theory & Situational Leadership Model XVII

Generation Y & The Situational Leadership Model XVIII

Appendix I – SLT, by: Kendra Van Wagner XX

About the Author (Van Wagner) XXI

Bibliography XXIII

Social Learning Theory

The social learning theory, researched in depth by Albert Bandura in 1977, suggests that learning among individuals occurs within a social context. Social context being any behavior or action another individual performs that is observed by the learning individual. As observed, the action or behavior exhibited by the individual will result in a specific reinforcement, or punishment that is either desirable or not in the eyes of the observer. The action will be learned and imitated if the result is desirable and avoided if the consequence is not desired. Essentially the social learning theory says that people are able to learn new information and behaviors by observing the actions of other people, also known as observational learning (Van Wagner, 1-2)

The work of Gabriel Tarde, in and around 1844-1905, led to the concept of social learning. Tarde suggested that social learning could occur and does through four stages: Close proximity, imitation of one’s superiors, understanding of concepts, and behavior (Rotter, 56-78.) Tarde’s four stages are very similar to the framework of the conditions necessary for social learning to occur as suggested by Albert Bandura. Although Bandura is one of the most recognizable figures in researching and developing the Social Learning Theory, Tarde was one of the original. In 1954, however, Julian Rotter released information in a book called Social Learning and Clinical Psychology, that was one of the first to suggest that social learning occurred because an individual would be looking for positive results or looking to avoid negative consequences. Rotter said that if a behavior netted positive consequences that an individual would repeat the behavior and vice versa if the results were negative and so social learning has occurred because of environmental factors (Rotter, 34-59.) Bandura built on these concepts in his “Bobo Doll Studies.”

Albert Bandura conducted studies on adolescent aggression using observational learning. The study consisted of a doll called ‘Bobo.’ The doll was a blow up clown doll that was video taped being hit and hammered by a model, the model was an adult. The video tape of the model hitting and hammering the adult was shown to a group of kindergartners. At recess time the students proceeded to the playground to find similar Bobo Dolls and hammers on the playground. As Bandura expected, the children began hitting and hammering the doll just as they saw in the video (Bandura A., Ross D., Ross S.A., 575-577).

From this Bobo Doll experiment and others, Bandura developed basic models for observational learning. The first is a live model, in which an actual individual is present and displaying or demonstrating a certain behavior. The second is a verbal instructional model, in which the model verbally explains the actions or behaviors. The third is a symbolic model, the model used in Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment. The symbolic model involves either actual or fictional characters displaying the behaviors and actions through print, video, or online media among others.

Bandura also suggested, among observation, that the environment and mental cognitive ability of the observer are very important factors as well. The observer (the observer being the one who learns the behavior by observing another’s behavior)

must expect and be aware of possible reinforcements or punishments, future or current that are associated with the behavior. The observed behavior has reinforcements or punishments that are associated with it. The observer will identify these through the observation of the behavior by the model. The environment the observer is in will usually provide these reinforcements or punishments. A reinforcement provided by the model occurs when an observed behavior results in the acceptance of the observer by the model. For example, when an observer begins acting like a specific group or clique, there becomes a strong likelihood that the clique will accept this observer as one of them, this is a positive reinforcement, or a favorable outcome is the consequence of the behavior. The observer may also be reinforced by a third party. Third party reinforcement occurs when the observer sees another individual’s behavior being reinforced by someone else so the observer begins imitating the behavior to gain the reinforcement from this third party. An example would be when an individual witnesses a co-worker being praised for his work ethic by a superior and the observer begins acting as his co-worker does to receive the same praise from his superior. The same would go for an individual witnessing a colleague acting inappropriately and being reprimanded by a superior, the expected behavior would be that the observer would avoid the behavior as to avoid being chastised by a superior (Bandura A., Ross D., Ross S.A., 574-582.) As well as reinforcements emanating from 2nd and 3rd parties, the imitated behavior may also result in reinforcements or consequences. An imitated behavior can result in the reinforcement itself by producing satisfying or happy results for the imitator. This occurs when an imitated behavior is fun for the observer (Ormrod J.E., 27-37.)

A final reinforcement that Bandura recognized is known as a vicarious reinforcement (Bandura A., Ross D., Ross S.A., 4-8) in which the imitator or observer receives no actual reinforcement but imitates the behavior solely based on the fact that the model was praised or reinforced for the behavior. This rings true, as well, for punishments. When the observer sees that the model is being punished for a behavior, the observer need not commit the act to learn that the behavior will result in punishment (Ormrod J.E., 69-84.)

J.E. Ormrod placed a contemporary perspective on Bandura’s results concerning the punishment and reinforcement aspects of the social learning theory. Ormrod concluded that there are various, indirect effects on learning other than punishment and reinforcement. Among these factors are behavioral expectations regardless of consequences, environmental and situational factors that may cause behavior also regardless of consequences, and innate or subconscious qualities and behaviors of a human being. Ormrod explained that certain characteristics of the human psyche can be invoked by the environment or situations that are not learned behaviors such as the flight or fight response. The fight or flight response is the concept that in threatening situations an individual has two options to be made, to fight or to flee. At the basic core of the concept, an individual will make these decisions based not on previously learned or observed behaviors, but on instincts to preserve one’s well being (Friedman H.S., Silver R.C., 77-94.) Of course Ormrod goes on to explain that in today’s society, an individual rarely needs to use the flight or fight response at its full capacity as many of today’s problems require a more thought out plan, these are the problems that we must use learned behaviors to deal with. An example would be an individual who gets a speeding ticket most likely will not try to outrun the police (flight) or try to physically fight an officer (fight.) Today and individual can still fight the ticket in a court system or pay the ticket and be done with it, which could be a considered, a ‘fleeing’ action.

Another contemporary addition to Bandura’s research that Ormrod suggests is that the extent, to which an observed behavior is exhibited, is influenced by the expectations of reinforcements and punishments. This can be an explanation of why certain people commit the same mistakes over and over again even if they are punished for it each time. Once again, the environment or situation can come into play here. An individual may still exhibit a certain behavior even if he or she knows that a punishment may result. Maybe the punishment is not great enough to deter the behavior because of its convenience ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Bandura’s research and studies also suggest that not all observed behaviors will be learned. This occurs because four conditions need to be met before and individual can learn and observed behavior. The conditions that are necessary for a behavior to be learned through observation consist of attention, memory, ability, and motivation.

Obviously, in order for an individual to learn an observed behavior, he or she must first pay attention to the behavior. An individual will not learn anything from another unless, on some level, the observer is paying attention to the behavior and the consequence.

After the individual has paid attention to the behavior and the consequence, he or she must be able to retain the information that he or she observed. It the information is simply forgotten then the behavior will not be learned by the observer. If the information is available for the observer via the memory, then the behavior can be conceptually reproduced in the future.

After attention and retention occur, the observer is able to conceptually reproduce the behavior, meaning, the observer knows the action or behavior as well as the corresponding consequences. In order to imitate the behavior, however, the observer must be able to replicate the behavior. In order to replicate a behavior, one must possess the necessary skills. In some situations this takes some practice for those who are less developed, especially when it comes to children and complex physical behaviors, such as walking for a toddler, or throwing a football for a child in grade school.

Finally, in order for an observer to imitate a behavior, there needs to be a motivation to reproduce that behavior. This motivation will usually come from the behavior yielding satisfying results to the individual.

Another concept that Bandura introduced in his study was self efficacy. Efficacy is the power to produce a result, which is similar to self efficacy, however, self efficacy is an individual’s belief that he or she has the power to cause an effect themselves. Self efficacy is the essentially one’s confidence in one’s self to complete a task (Kwak K., Bandura A.,XX.) Bandura suggests that a person’s self efficacy is a factor in determining what behaviors a person will engage in. If an individual observes a behavior that he believes he can do, or has a high amount of self efficacy, he will be more likely to exhibit this behavior more often. On the other hand, if the person has low self efficacy, the behavior may not take place at all. It is suggested that in order to facilitate a high amount of learning through observation, or social learning, that a high amount of self efficacy for learning must be developed (Ormrod, 17-23.)

To summarize Bandura’s findings, the social learning theory is an individual’s ability to learn behaviors by observing the behavior’s of others along with the associated punishments and/or reinforcements (positive or negative.) Any of the three models, live, model, or symbolic, can be used to teach behaviors. An individuals capacity to learn and imitate these observed behaviors is based on their (the observers) ability to pay attention, ability to retain the information, ability to replicate the behavior, and the individuals motivation to imitate the behavior. Without these four criterion being met, the individual will not imitate an observed behavior.

Generation Y (Millennial Generation)

Generation Y, also know as the Millennial Generation, consists generally of those born between the years of 1978 and 1995, though some suggest that the actual years of beginning and end should be closer to 1981 to 1993 (Alsop, 14-19.) Those individuals belonging to Generation Y consist of over 75 million individuals, the second largest generation by the numbers next to the Baby Boomers (80 million members.)

Generation Y is much different than previous generations notes Rebecca Huntley, author of The World According to Y. Generation Y has more or less developed from a reactionary standpoint to Generation X’s moods and failures (Huntley, 5.) “This is proof that social change is not a progression along letters of the alphabet but more like a pinball machine, reacting to the hits and misses of our (Generation X) society and our culture,” says Huntley ( 5-6.) Those belonging to Generation Y have viewed the past errors of previous generations, in particular, those of their parent’s generation (largely baby boomers) and those of Generation X, and developed an ‘I do not want to be like that’ attitude. Generation Y has been surprisingly optimistic about the future of their lives, after all, with the mistakes of the previous generations recorded, how could Generation Y commit the same mistakes?

Probably one of the biggest factors in the optimism of Generation Y is the fact that Generation ‘Yers’ know that there are many things that they cannot count on anymore, things that in the past, were held to be constant. Things like divorce of parents, suicide, homosexuality, terrorism, and losing a job are viewed by Generation Y as a part of life (Huntley, 15.) It is not that Yers expect to see these events in their everyday life, but they recognize the possibility and therefore put fewer restraints on the possibilities in their lives like previous generations had. Especially in the recent years with the events of September 11, 2001 and the economic crisis looming at the moment, Yers are becoming accustomed to disaster and major life changes.

Another core difference of Generation Y from other generations is the importance Yers place on friendships and the belonging of a group (Huntley, 24-40.) In the past, people sought marriage, a partnership for life. They needed that life long support in good times and bad, someone to share every moment with. Of course, Generation Y still seeks this, but with a group of friends more so than just another single individual. To a Yer, nothing seems more secure and safe than a strong friendship group. “You know when they do those human pyramids? That’s the sort of model for living I’m looking at now… You’re safer as a kid if everyone’s friends. When people pair off . . . I don’t know. It’s more insecure. . . I just don’t think couples are the future,” says Marcus, a 12 year old boy from the book About a Boy, by Nick Hornby, (Hornby, 283-284.) Not to say that Yers are not involved heavily in relationships, because they are, they just place more emphasis and importance on the group relationship rather than the couples relationship. The terms “Chicks before dicks,” and “bro’s before ho’s,” are just a couple of the sayings coined by Yers to express that ‘my friends are more important to me than my relationships’ (Huntley, 24-27.)

Yet another important difference in Generation Y from other generations is the technological advances. Yers grew up in a time of technological advance more so than any other generation, with the introduction of computers, cell phones, and other cutting edge technological devices. Yers grew up knowing how to use a multitude of electronic devices that many baby boomers went to school to learn how to use. The use of technology and Generation Y has been the subject of countless research and studies (Huntley, 17.) Yers have the advantage of growing up with the internet and thinking globally or at least being connected enough to feel that they are connected globally.

Another major difference, especially from Generation X, is Generation Yers need to fit in. Going back to the idea that Yers have a strong urge to be part of a friendship group, Yers feel that it may be necessary to conform to a certain groups standards so that they may belong. Often times these conformities are the results of television and music. Yers seem to have a tendency to place heavy importance on fame and fortune, therefore, those that act famous, or wealthy are often the ones that Yers want to be like or be friends with (Huntley, 17-23.) The importance for a Yer to belong is strong enough that conformity is necessary to fit in. This may be a result of growing up in a time of economic prosperity and an emphasis placed on easily attained comforts (Johnson, 55-78.) The Yers have come to place importance on an intricate social network that allows them to decide what type of group they would like to ‘conform’ to.

Situational Leadership Model

As defined by Oliver Niehouse in 1984, leadership is an individuals attempt to influence behavior of a person or a group in efforts to accomplish a task. Niehouse pointed out that the task in the meaning of leadership is an organizational goal when speaking in terms of a business setting. The specific characteristics that define a leader, however, are not consistent. The reason behind this inconsistency is the fact that no two leadership situations are identical; therefore, the leadership characteristics needed would be different for every situation. A manager or leader must then recognize the situation and adapt his or her leadership style to the situation in order to effectively lead the individual or group to accomplish a task. Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed the Situational Leadership Model to help identify which characteristics of leadership may be needed in a given situation

The Situational Leadership Model is made up of relationships between two factors in order to identify leadership styles. These two factors are relationship behavior and task behavior. Relationship behavior is the degree to which any leader will communicate with a subordinate through supportive actions, psychological strokes, and other facilitating behaviors (Niehouse, 82.) Task behavior is the degree to which the leader is focused through input on completing a specific task, which usually involves the directing, telling the subordinates who is to do what, when, where and how (Niehouse, 82.) Hersey and Blanchard combined the task behavior and the relationship behavior to develop a matrix of four quadrants, with each quadrant representing one of the basic leadership styles that should be used given the type of situation a leader is in (figure 1.1)

Figure 1.1 the Situational Leadership Model

The Situational Leadership Model describes the four quadrants as “S1” high task, low relationship or “directing,” “S2” high task, high relationship or “coaching,” “S3” low task, high relationship or “supporting,” and “S4” low task and low relationship or “delegating” (Blanchard, 82.) “S1” or directing is described as the quadrant when a leader needs to tell the subordinate what to do, where to do it, when to do it and so on. The communication involved is generally one way, from the leader to the subordinate. Decisions are made and implemented by the leader. “S2” or coaching occurs when the leader is still largely in control, similar to telling, however, the leader will allow a minimal amount of two-way communication, or communication between the subordinate and himself to give the subordinate a chance to voice an opinion. In selling, the majority of the decisions are still made by the leader. “S3” or supporting shifts control of day to day operations to the subordinate. The leader’s job becomes essentially a facilitator of problem solving and decision making for the subordinates. “S4” or delegating is when the leader allows the subordinate to have full control over the decision making and problem solving. The leader no longer is involved in the subordinate’s decisions and problem solving (Niehouse, 82-83) (Butler J., Reese R. 37-39.)

In order for this model to be appropriate, an addition must be made. The maturity level of the subordinate must be measured as well. Maturity will be defined as the subordinates’ willingness and ability to focus their behavior on a task or objective (Hambleton, Blanchard, Hersey, 17-34.) The maturity of the subordinate is an important factor in determining what leadership style to use. If a subordinate is not willing to complete a task for any number of reasons, the leader will need to take this into account and make an adjustment in his leadership style to compensate for it. There is also the problem of a subordinate’s level of maturity changing throughout a task. The level of maturity can change upwards or downwards depending on the occurrences while completing or participating in a task. It is important for a leader to recognize the level of maturity of his or her subordinates and whether or not it is possible that the level will change or waver throughout a given task so that he or she (leader) may adjust the style of leadership to compensate.

According to Niehouse (83) there are two important types of maturity that a subordinate possess. The first is job maturity. Niehouse defines job maturity as the level of competence and capacity a subordinate has to set high yet attainable goals for him or her and the willingness to accept responsibility for them. The second is psychological maturity which is defined by Niehouse as the level of self-respect, self-confidence, and self-esteem the subordinate has. A combination of the two types of maturity result in the level of maturity used to help determine the leadership style that will be effective in leading the subordinate. However, Hersey and Blanchard (1988) have replaced the term maturity with ‘readiness’ as a more appropriate term when it comes to the Situational Leadership Model. Figure 1.2 shows the addition of the subordinate’s readiness as it would appear in relation to the Situational Leadership Model (Butler J., Reese R., 39.)

In order for a supervisor or leader to select the appropriate leadership style, the leader must recognize the situational factors, the relationship of the leader to the follower and the task orientation of the follower, and the level of readiness of the follower, high or low. The leader first needs to determine and define the task at hand. What is the task, who should do it, what is involved with this task? The leader needs to know what types of activity will be involved with the task so that the appropriate actions can be taken to complete the task. Next the leader must determine the followers level of readiness. Is the follower or subordinate ready to deal with a task of this caliber? Is this something that the follower is psychologically and physically capable of completing? Then, using the Situational Leadership Model, combined with the readiness of followers diagram, the leader will be able to identify the leadership style that will be most effective in this situation.

Figure 1.2 the Situational Leadership Model and Followers Readiness (Hersey, Blanchard, 171)

Relationships

Social Learning Theory and Generation Y

Bandura suggested that an individual can learn a behavior by observing the behavior and its consequences. This is called the Social Learning Theory and it is apparent that this theory took part in shaping Generation Y. As mentioned earlier, Yers have a keen ability to remain optimistic even after events such as a divorce, suicide, or a friend or family member being homosexual (Huntley, 15.) The reason Yers maintain their optimism is because they see these events occurring in their everyday life. It is not unusual for a Yer to have divorced parent, for example. It happens because Yers have seen these events occur over and over again and see that people can survive the events, the punishments for these events is becoming minimized thereby reducing the problems that begin stemming from such events. This would be the Social Learning Theory at work because as these Yers view these events and see the consequences of the actions, they are no longer seeing people’s lives being ruined over them. They see people remaining happy and living a normal life when tragic or unexpected events occur.

Another important relationship between the Social Learning Theory and Generation Y is that Yers have a strong need to be part of a group (Huntley 24-40.) With this strong need to belong to a group comes a need for Yers to fit in and conform to the groups standards if they want to belong to that group. So essentially, a person will observe the behaviors of a particular group and start imitating those behaviors in order to gain acceptance from the group. This is the Social Learning Theory, the person observes behavior, the person imitates the behavior, and the person experiences the positive reinforcement by being allowed into the group. For example, if person ‘Y’ wants to belong to group ‘X’ person ‘Y’ will observe the behavior of members of group ‘X.’ Person ‘Y’ will then have knowledge of the behaviors and attempt to imitate specific behaviors of the members of group ‘X.’ Once the group notice person ‘Y’s’ behavior, they will accept person ‘Y’ into the group, therefore providing the positive reinforcement for person ‘Y.’

It is Generations Y’s strong need to belong to the group that provides the relationship between them and the Social Learning Theory. The Social Learning Theory provides the methods by which Yers are able to conform to fit into specific groups and why Yers have the ability to remain optimistic through events that were possibly devastating to past generations (Johnson, 1-14.)

Generation Y also has the unique capability of being connected to every part of the world by always being connected to the internet and satellite TV and other forms of global media, all available at their fingertips. This allows Generation Yers to learn from other cultures far more easily than past generations through the internet and TV. It provides a unique advantage to them in this day and age of mass globalization in the workforce. Yers are able to learn through Social Learning, about other cultures and people from across the world easily and quickly through the internet. With the introduction of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube, millions of people are instantly connected to one another and able to show their lives and habits regardless of space constraints.

Social Learning Theory and Situational Leadership Model

The Situational Leadership Model provides 4 basic leadership styles based on the followers readiness and developmental level (Blanchard, 89-95.) As a new hire into an organization he may be ready and willing to learn, he will be optimistic and excited to step into the new world and learn all he can (Blanchard, Zigarmi P., Zigarmi D., 22-23.) In order for this new hire to learn all he can, according to the Situational Leadership Model, a directive approach to leadership should be taken. In this approach, the leader will be heavily involved in developing and teaching the new hire a lot about the job and be very involved in assisting with his tasks and responsibilities (Niehouse, 82.) The enthusiasm of the new hire will allow the leader to focus on the tasks rather than encouraging the young new hire. This new hire will be observing the actions and behaviors of the leader and the other members of the organization for information and cues on how he should act and behave. This is where the Social Learning Theory assists the new hire in learning the ‘tools of the trade.’ As the new hire observes the leader and other members of the organization, he will see what behaviors elicit what responses and what behaviors other people respond well too. In order for the new hire to fit well into the organization, he will learn and behave in the manner that the other members of the organization are.

The other way that the new hire will experience the Social Learning Theory is while the leader is directing this new hire he will also react to certain things that the new hire does. When the new hire does something good, the leader will praise him, when the new hire does something that he should not do, the leader will tell him not to do it. Through this process of directing in the Situational Leadership Model, the new hire will begin to see a pattern between his behaviors and the consequences he gets from his leader, and learn what he can and can not do.

Generation Y and Situational Leadership Model

Generation Y has a special connection with the Situational Leadership Model. This connection occurs in the ‘S1’ quadrant of the Situational Leadership Model matrix called delegating. In this quadrant, the leadership style is delegating because of the followers high enthusiasm and high motivation to learn (Blanchard, 89.) Generation Y is a highly enthusiastic bunch according to Huntley (1-26.) Generation Y has a high optimistic outlook on life and work that translates into an unprecedented enthusiasm for learning and working. According to the Situational Leadership Model quadrant ‘S1,’ this high enthusiasm level of the Yers would lead to a leadership style called delegating. Delegating is the right choice because the follower does not need to be supported as far as his or her motivation to learn, that is already there. What the follower does need is direction. With a Yer entering the work force with such a high level of enthusiasm, the leaders do not need to attempt to motivate the follower to learn, the leader simply needs to direct.

Another possible connection of Generation Y to the Situational Leadership Model is the Yers ability and knowledge of technology and electronics. Generation Y has had the advantage of growing up with sophisticated technology, technology that other generations did not have, and therefore are possibly more apt to learn how to work with technology. Generation Y has the advantage of having a higher readiness and ability which may change the leadership style according to the Situational Leadership Model which is based on the followers’ readiness. The internet provides learning tools that had not been available to past generations at Yers fingertips (Johnson, 42-46, 141-144.)

Appendix I – SLT by: Kendra Van Wagner

"Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action."
-Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory, 1977

What is Social Learning Theory?

The social learning theory proposed by Albert Bandura has become perhaps the most influential theory of learning and development. While rooted in many of the basic concepts of traditional learning theory, Bandura believed that direct reinforcement could not account for all types of learning.

His theory added a social element, arguing that people can learn new information and behaviors by watching other people. Known as observational learning (or modeling), this type of learning can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviors.

Basic Social Learning Concepts

1. People can learn through observation.

Observational Learning

In his famous "Bobo doll" studies, Bandura demonstrated that children learn and imitate behaviors they have observed in other people. The children in Bandura’s studies observed an adult acting violently toward a Bobo doll. When the children were later allowed to play in a room with the Bobo doll, they began to imitate the aggressive actions they had previously observed.

Bandura identified three basic models of observational learning:

A live model, which involves an actual individual demonstrating or acting out a behavior.
A verbal instructional model, which involves descriptions and explanations of a behavior.
A symbolic model, which involves real or fictional characters displaying behaviors in books, films, television programs, or online media.

2. Mental states are important to learning.

Intrinsic Reinforcement

Bandura noted that external, environmental reinforcement was not the only factor to influence learning and behavior. He described intrinsic reinforcement as a form of internal reward, such as pride, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishment. This emphasis on internal thoughts and cognitions helps connect learning theories to cognitive developmental theories. While many textbooks place social learning theory with behavioral theories, Bandura himself describes his approach as a ‘social cognitive theory.’

3. Learning does not necessarily lead to a change in behavior.

While behaviorists believed that learning led to a permanent change in behavior, observational learning demonstrates that people can learn new information without demonstrating new behaviors.

The Modeling Process

Not all observed behaviors are effectively learned. Factors involving both the model and the learner can play a role in whether social learning is successful. Certain requirements and steps must also be followed. The following steps are involved in the observational learning and modeling process:

Attention:
In order to learn, you need to be paying attention. Anything that detracts your attention is going to have a negative effect on observational learning. If the model interesting or there is a novel aspect to the situation, you are far more likely to dedicate your full attention to learning.
Retention:
The ability to store information is also an important part of the learning process. Retention can be affected by a number of factors, but the ability to pull up information later and act on it is vital to observational learning.
Reproduction:
Once you have paid attention to the model and retained the information, it is time to actually perform the behavior you observed. Further practice of the learned behavior leads to improvement and skill advancement.
Motivation:
Finally, in order for observational learning to be successful, you have to be motivated to imitate the behavior that has been modeled. Reinforcement and punishment play an important role in motivation. While experiencing these motivators can be highly effective, so can observing other experience some type of reinforcement or punishment. For example, if you see another student rewarded with extra credit for being to class on time, you might start to show up a few minutes early each day.

About Kendra Van Wagner:

Kendra Van Wagner is a writer specializing in psychology, child development and education. She has written about diverse topics in psychology including personality, social behavior, child therapy, research methods and much more.

Experience:

After completing her degree, Kendra Van Wagner worked as a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist to help children suffering from emotional disturbances overcome maladaptive behaviors. Her work during this time focused on utilizing behavioral, cognitive and socialization strategies to help her young clients cope with family relationships, peer interactions, aggression, social skill functioning and academic difficulties.

Education:

Kendra Van Wagner holds a Bachelor of Science in Psychology from Idaho State University, with additional coursework in chemical addictions and case management. She is currently completing her Master's of Science degree in education with an emphasis in educational technology. Her research interest is in educational psychology.

From Kendra Van Wagner:

Psychology is a rich and varied subject that can stimulate theoretical questions while at the same time offering practical applications in almost all areas of everyday life. Whether you are a psychology major or a student taking an introductory course in the subject, my goal is to provide useful information and resources to further your understanding and appreciation of psychology.

Bibliography:

Alsop, Ron. Trophy Kids Grow Up: How The Millennial Generation is Shaking Up _ the Workplace. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass, 2008.

Bandura, A., D. Ross, and S.A. Ross. "Imitation of Film Mediated Aggressive Models." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66 (1963): 3-11. Business _ Source Premier. 25 Oct. 2008.

Bandura, A., D. Ross, and S.A. Ross. "Transmission of Aggressions Through Imitation of Aggressive Models." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 63.3 (1961): 575-582. Business Source Premier. 25 Oct. 2008.

Bandura, A.. "Social Cognitive Theory." Annual Review of Psychology 52.. (2001): 1-26. Lexis-Nexis. 2 Oct. 2008.

Blanchard, Ken, Patricia Zigarmi, and Drea Zigarmi. Leadership and the One Minute _ Manager. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc, 1985.

Blanchard, Ken, and Mark Miller. The Secret. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2004.

Blanchard, Ken. Leading at a Higher Level. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice-hall, 2007.

Butler, John, and Richard Reese. "Leadership Style and Sales Performance: A Test of the Situational Leadership Model." Journal of Personal Selling and Sales _ Management 11.3 (1991): .. Business Source Primeir. 6 Oct. 2008.

Friedman, H.S., and R.C. Silver. Foundations of Health Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Hambleton, R., Ken Blanchard, and Paul Hersey. "Maturity Scale: Managers Rating Form." Center for Leadership Studies ... (1977): .. Lexis-Nexis. 22 Oct. 2008.

Hayes, Frank. "The How of Y." Computer World , .: 36.

Hornby, Nick. About A Boy. London: Victor Gollancz, 1998.

Huntley, Rebecca. The World According to Y: Inside the New Adult Generation. Crows Nest, AU: Allen & Unwin, 2006.

Johnson, Lisa. Mind Your X's and Y's. New York: Free Press, 2006.

Kwak, K., and A. Bandura. Role of Perceived Self-Efficacy and Moral _ Disengagement in Anti social Conduct. Seoul, South Korea: Manuscript, 1998.

Leahy, Thomas, and Richard Harris. Human Learning. .: Prentice-Hall, 1985.

Michael, Males. The Scapegoat Generation: America's War on Adolescents. monroe, Me: common Courage press, 1996.

Niehouse, Oliver. "Controlling Burnout: A Leadership Guide for Managers." Business Horizons . (1984): .. Lexis-Nexis. 27 Oct. 2008.

Ormrod, J.. Human Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1999.

Ormrod, J.E.. Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. Upper Saddle River: Merrill, 2001.

Rotter, J. B. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Prentice-Hall, 1954.

Schermerhorn, John. Situational Leadership: Conversations With Paul Hersey. .: Center for Leadership Studies, Inc., 2001.

Taylor, S.E., L.C. Klein, B.P. Lewis, T.L Gruenwald, R.A. Gurung, and J.A. Updegraff. "Biobehavioral Responses to Stress in Females: Tend and Befriend, Not Fight or Flight." Psychological Review 107 (2000): 411-429. Lexis-Nexis. 15 Oct. 2008.

Thomas, R. Murray. Human Development Theories: Window on Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1999.

Van Wagner, Kendra. "Social Learning Theory." Social Learning Theory. 27 Feb. 2007. 23 Oct. 2008 <http://about.com>.