Bandura PBE Model [PDF]

Citation preview

Person-Behavior-Environment Model Triadic Reciprocal Determinism by Albert Bandura



Source: Feist, J. and Feist, G. J. (2008). Theories of Personality, 7th ed. Chapter 16: Bandura: social cognitive theory (pp. 483-485)



Albert Bandura (1986, 1999b, 2001, 2002b) adopts quite a different stance. His social cognitive theory explains psychological functioning in terms of triadic reciprocal causation. This system assumes that human action is a result of an interaction among three variables—environment, behavior, and person. By “person” Bandura means largely, but not exclusively, such cognitive factors as memory, anticipation, planning, and judging. Because people possess and use these cognitive capacities, they have some capacity to select or to restructure their environment: That is, cognition at least partially determines which environmental events people attend to, what value they place on these events, and how they organize these events for future use. Although cognition can have a strong causal effect on both environment and behavior, it is not an autonomous entity, independent of those two variables. Bandura (1986) criticized those theorists who attribute the cause of human behavior to internal forces such as instincts, drives, needs, or intentions. Cognition itself is determined, being formed by both behavior and environment. Triadic reciprocal causation is represented schematically in Figure 16.1, where B signifies behavior; E is the external environment; and P represents the person, including that person’s gender, social position, size, and physical attractiveness, but especially cognitive factors such as thought, memory, judgment, foresight, and so on. Bandura uses the term “reciprocal” to indicate a triadic interaction of forces, not a similar or opposite counteraction. The three reciprocal factors do not need to be of equal strength or to make equal contributions. The relative potency of the three varies with the individual and with the situation. At times, behavior might be the most powerful, as when a person plays the piano for her own enjoyment. Other times, the environment exerts the greatest influence, as when a boat overturns and every survivor begins thinking and behaving in a very similar fashion. Although behavior and environment can at times be the most powerful contributors to performance, cognition (person) is usually the strongest contributor to performance. Cognition would likely be activated in the examples of the person playing the piano for her own enjoyment and the survivors of an overturned boat. The relative influence of behavior, environment, and person depends on which of the triadic factors is strongest at a particular moment (Bandura, 1997).



An Example of Triadic Reciprocal Causation Consider this example of triadic reciprocal causation. A child begging her father for a second brownie is, from the father’s viewpoint, an environmental event. If the father automatically (without thought) were to give the child a second brownie, then the two would be conditioning each other’s behavior in the Skinnerian sense. The behavior of the father would be controlled by the environment; but his behavior, in turn, would have a countercontrolling effect on his environment, namely the child. In Bandura’s theory, however, the father is capable of thinking about the consequences of rewarding or ignoring the child’s behavior. He may think, “If I give her another brownie, she will stop crying temporarily, but in future cases, she will be more likely to persist until I give in to her now. Therefore, I will not allow her to have another brownie.” Hence, the father has an effect on both his environment (the child) and his own behavior (rejecting his daughter’s request). The child’s subsequent behavior (father’s environment) helps shape the cognition and the behavior of the father. If the child stops begging, the father may then have other thoughts. For example, he may evaluate his behavior by thinking, “I’m a good father because I did the right thing.” The change in environment also allows the father to pursue



different behaviors. Thus, his subsequent behavior is partially determined by the reciprocal interaction of his environment, cognition, and behavior. This example illustrates the reciprocal interaction of behavioral, environmental, and personal factors from the father’s point of view. First, the child’s pleas affected the father’s behavior (E ⇒ B); they also partially determined the father’s cognition (E ⇒ P); the father’s behavior helped shape the child’s behavior, that is, his own environment (B ⇒ E); his behavior also impinged on his own thoughts (B ⇒ P); and his cognition partially determined his behavior (P ⇒ B). To complete the cycle, P (person) must influence E (environment). How can the father’s cognition directly shape the environment without first being transformed into behavior? It can- not. However, P does not signify cognition alone; it stands for person. Bandura (1999b) hypothesized that “people evoke different reactions from their social environment by their physical characteristics—such as their age, size, race, sex, and physical attractiveness—even before they say or do anything” (p. 158). The father, then, by virtue of his role and status as a father and perhaps in conjunction with his size and strength, has a decided effect on the child. Thus, the final causal link is completed (P ⇒ E).