Title: Case study
Word count: 2,300

Bandura’s (1977) core argument posits that human behaviour can be learnt vicariously by observing and imitating others behaviours, a process which he calls modelling (Wortley, 2011). He argues that social learning does not require only direct experiences as radical behaviourists of operant and classical conditioning suggest (Wortley, 2011). Bandura (1977) supports his argument with three reasons. The first is that behaviour is learned through observation (Cherry, 2013). The second is that cognitive mediation is an essential part of the learning process (Cherry, 2013). The third is that not all learned behaviour is repeated (Cherry, 2013). This is because unlike traditional behavioralists, Bandura (1977) views the internal mental processes as important as the external processes in learning (Moore, 2011). His reasoning for this is that the modelling process requires attention, retention, reproduction and motivation in order to acquire the behaviour and determines whether they instigate it and maintain it (Bahn, 2001). As such, Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, later called social cognitive theory is built upon reciprocal determinism (Moore, 2011). He proposed the triadic SOR model, which shows how interpersonal factors; locus of control, self-efficacy and moral disengagement (organism), interact interchangeably with behaviour (response) and the environment (stimulus) (Simon, 1999/2001). This is an expansion upon the pre-existing behavioralist S-R model, which argues that behaviour is purely the mindless response of the conditioned or unconditioned stimulus acting upon the environment (Parish, 2010). Thus it is clear that Bandura’s social learning theory is built upon reciprocal determinism, which models the soft determinist argument that his behaviour is not entirely controlled by free-will (Parish, 2010). He makes two main assumptions. Firstly, that behaviour is a product of environmental influences and is therefore learned as a result of observation and modelling (Cherry, 2013). Secondly, it assumes people are capable of determining their behaviour despite the effect of the environment by mediating with cognitive reasoning (Cherry, 2013). Within these concepts Bandura (1977) identifies three stages of learning; acquisition, instigation and maintenance (Wortley, 2011). This essay will firstly explore how Ben acquired the behaviour. Secondly, how Ben’s behaviour is instigated. Thirdly, how Ben’s behaviour is maintained. Fourthly, the essay will stress Bandura’s cognitive mitigating factors and how this can determine the response. Fifthly, the essay uses Burton, Miller and Shill’s (2002) ‘the victim to victimizer’ argument, to further enforce how Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory applies to Ben’s case study. To conclude, the essay will effectively show that Ben is not solely responsible for his behaviour as the environment significantly impacted upon his responses and his models cognitively distorted his perceptions on sexual relations.
The first stage of learning is acquisition. Ben’s rape of younger boys is mainly acquired via the familial model (Wortley, 2011). Firstly he observed his alcoholic father rape his mother repeatedly. Secondly he witnessed what can be assumed was abusive and sexualised behaviour towards other women. Finally, Ben was also victim to his father’s deviant behaviour, and suffered both sexual and physical abuse. He then imitated this behaviour after he left home (Felson, & Lane, 2009). Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment found that children mostly modelled people who they viewed as their role models, people they respected (Parish, 2010). Also the study found that the children were more likely model individuals of the same sex (Parish, 2010). In Ben’s case the model is his father (Wortley, 2011). This is impactful on both these levels. Further, the model demonstrated to Ben that this type of behaviour was normative, which is reinforced by his mother’s failure to intervene and stop the abuse (Burton, Miller & Shill, 2002). Also the model teaches Ben the specific strategies and skills required to perform the abuse (Burton et al., 2002). In addition, Ben’s subcultural models introduced him to prostitution (Wortley, 2011). This gave him additional opportunity to acquire sexual skills and taught him that sexualised behaviour resulted in rewards, such as money to support his drug and alcohol addictions, further reinforcing his behaviour (Felson & Lane, 2009). It is also possible in accordance with Bandura’s (1977) argument that Ben had continued exposure to this behaviour through symbolic models (Wortley, 2011). That due to the abusive experiences, and values Ben had developed that he would be attracted to images of violent or coercive pornography depicted in the media which would have also provided him with further learning operandi (Burton et al., 2002). However, like behavioralist theorists Bandura (1977) argues that a trigger is still necessary to instigate the offending (Wortley, 2011).
The second stage of learning is Instigation. This is a form of learning in which the environment triggers the event (Wortley, 2011). Ben’s father’s behaviour appears to be related to alcohol consumption. Similarly, Ben conducted his latest assault of the 15 year old boy after imbuing alcohol and cannabis. Thus the familial model has also acted to teach Ben when the behaviour should be performed (Burton et al., 2002). Although Bandura (1977) stresses unlike operant conditioning, the stimuli alone is unable to trigger the response as the organism interprets and determines how the stimulus is modelled (Wortley, 2011). This means Ben determines through moral reasoning the benefits of offending and uses self talk or imagery to decide whether he will model the behaviour he has acquired or alter it, which can result in changing or generalising the model (Simon, 1999/2001). This accounts for Ben’s earlier attempts at reproducing the behaviour. It is unclear whether his earlier offences resulted because of alcohol. However, the contributing factor in this equation appears to be Ben’s association with younger boys within the institution, which gave him the opportunity to enact the behaviour he had learnt. Further, Ben observed his father receive respect from his mother and fear and a sense of power, which provided him with motivation to offend (Burton et al., 2002). Ben’s removal from the home would have left him feeling powerless, angry and frustrated (Wortley, 2011). It is likely that Ben perceived raping the other boys as a way to control the situation and feel powerful, and then his behaviour was further reinforced by securing his own orgasm (Felson & Lane, 2009). As a result, of his behaviour Ben is punished and is sentenced to prison for 12 months. Arguably this would have reconditioned Ben and moderated the offensive behaviour (Felson & Jane, 2009). However upon his release he is shown through subcultural models that sexual behaviour such as prostitution can result in other incentive inducements, in the form of money, drugs and alcohol and what can be assumed acceptance from his peers (Wortley, 2011). These factors made Ben’s involvement in rape attractive, further providing incentive and motivation. Although, sometimes the behaviour is instigated this is not always the case, as such the behaviour has to be regulated or maintained (Wortley, 2011). This determines whether the behaviour is becomes a pattern.
The third stage of learning is maintenance. Once Ben had his first experience of sexual offending a number of factors increased the probability that he would maintain the behaviour (Bahn, 2001). The behaviour produced immediate tangible rewards in the form of orgasm, and as time went by the value of these tangible rewards increased to include respect, money, alcohol and drugs for sexualised services (Felson & Jane, 2009). Further, it can be assumed Ben received significant social status and rewards in the form of encouragement and support from his new friends who had introduced him to prostitution. Ben also received vicarious reinforcement each time his father raped his mother or himself by seeing his father orgasm during the abuse (Burton et al., 2002). He observed his father getting away with it, without consequence. Similarly, when Ben first reproduces the behaviour he receives no immediate punishments. As a result Bandura would argue that Ben used self efficacy to goad his behaviour and rewarded himself through self-talk such as he had done well not to get caught (Simon, 1999/2001). However when Ben is caught and sentenced his behaviour remains unaffected and the punishment does not seem to re-regulate his behaviour. This is likely due to his peers’ ideas of sex and the inducements that entail with sexualised behaviour which help him to maintain it despite attempts at modification. But ultimately, his behaviour is maintained through moral disengagement (Bandura, 2002). Ben learns from familial models and subcultural models that sexualised behaviour and offending is normative behaviour (Burton et al., 2002). As a consequence Ben does not understand the gravity of the situation, which explains why when arrested he appears unconcerned (Bandura, 2002). Further, Ben reverts to palliative comparisons, insisting that because he didn’t cut or stab the victim that he did nothing wrong (Bandura, 2002). Also he minimises the consequences by stating “in any case ...the victim wasn’t hurt” and finally he misconstrues the consequences by pretending the victim actually enjoyed themselves and wanted it because the victim sat down and started drinking with him (Bandura, 2002).
However despite these mitigating factors, Bandura (1977) argues that cognitive mediation is essential to acquiring and instigating any new behaviour and that once behaviour is learnt it is not always modelled or maintained (Bandura, 1989). This means in order for the learning models to have been influential to Ben and the behaviour successfully acquired the modelling process needs to be considered (Bahn, 2001). The modelling process requires Ben to have been paying attention to the model in order to retain the learning operandi and then reproduce it, which ultimately requires motivation (Bahn, 2001). Thus, the attention Ben attributed to the models is dependent on a number of elements.
Burton, Miller and Shill (2002) argue that in order for a victim to become a victimizer there are several variables to consider (Burton et al., 2002). Ben’s perception would have been a contributing factor (Bandura, 1989). The abuse was conducted by his father, which due to social expectations of gender made Ben’s victimization more shameful (Burton et al., 2002). Further, men are stronger and use considerably more force, which they argue ensures cognitive attentiveness (Burton et al., 2002). Burton, Miller and Shill (2002) argue that assaults of this nature are more impactful upon the victim and result in the victim’s attention to the rape, which means the victim is more likely to retain the learning operandi of the sexually offensive behaviour (Burton et al., 2002). Another contributing factor is the how detrimental the act is in comparison to levels of abuse (Burton et al., 2002). If Ben was penetrated during abuse this would reinforce the learning model and ensure his ability to retain the behaviour which would more likely result in repeating the abuse (Burton et al., 2002). However the most important factor is the duration of the abuse, Ben observed his alcoholic father forcing sex upon his mother and other women from the age of seven and then later became his father’s victim for a year, in which it can be assumed the assault was repetitive. Bandura (1977) argues that the longer the behaviour is modelled and the more often it is repeated increases the level of observation for the victim, which is clearly a factor in Ben’s case and consequently has enforced the behaviour and resulted in him reproducing the model (Burton et al., 2002). A final variable to consider according to Burton, Miller and Shill (2002) is the age of the victim during the offence (Burton et al., 2002). Ben observed his father modelling this behaviour from age seven and then became his victim at age 10. As a result Ben learnt from quite a young age from both his father and mother that the behaviour modelled was normal and shaped his view on normative behaviour, which also contributes to his later instigating the behaviour modelled and offending (Wortley, 2011). Finally, Ben would have observed that his father found sexual release and a sense of power over his helplessness during the abuse (Burton et al., 2002). Thus he learnt that there were rewards for modelling his father’s actions, which provided Ben with motivation to reproduce the behaviour (Bahn, 2001). Also his mother’s failure to stop the assault also taught Ben that there were no consequences when enacting the behaviour. Thus Ben was provided with motivation to reproduce the behaviour and also distorted his perceptions on the abuse (Bahn, 2001; Bandura, 2002).
This evidence supports the soft determinist argument, which argues that victims are not completely responsible for the behaviour and that given the circumstances that Ben’s behaviour is normal as his cognitive perceptions are distorted by his environment. This is clear in the way Ben acquired the behaviour. Firstly, the main stimulus in Ben’s case study appears to be the familial model. Secondly it is clear that the subcultural model impacted Ben’s choice to continue to reproduce the model. His involvement in prostitution appears to have further reinforced his distortions on sex and provided further motivation and incentive to continue responding to the stimulus. Also although not actually present within the case study it is fair to assume in agreement with Bandura (1977) that Ben’s trauma would result in his attraction to violent pornography which would provide further learning operandi. Arguably if Ben has a trigger that instigates the behaviour it is alcohol or cannabis which further distorts his ability to reason cognitively and aids in moral disengagement and self efficacy. Ben’s attitude upon the arrest and the evidence above suggest that his models have effectively distorted his perceptions about sex. This is apparent by his successful moral disengagement of consequences, which appears to help Ben to continue to offend despite incarceration; as such it would be difficult to redirect Ben’s behaviour. Similarly, Ben’s experiences were severe and in accordance with Burton, Miller and Shill’s (2002) research and Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory the harshness of his experience, his age, the fact it was his father and most importantly the duration and repetitiveness of the model acted to ensure Ben’s attention to the model and helped him to retain the stimulus which increased his chances of offending. In this case it was unlikely that Ben would not re-model the abuse at some point in his life and upon learning that there were both vicarious and tangible rewards, such as money, sexual release, respect, fear, control and peer acceptance would have just further reinforced the model and increased the desire to offend and maintain the behaviour.

References
Bahn, D. (2001). Social Learning Theory: its application in the context of nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 21(2), 110-117.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184. doi: 101.1037/0003-0066X44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. The Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101-119. doi: 10.1080/0305724022014322
Burton, D.L., Miller, D.L. & Shill, C.T. (2002). A social learning theory comparison of the sexual victimization of adolescent sexual offenders and nonsexual offending male delinquents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26(9), 893-907. doi: 10.1016/S0145- 2134(02)00360-5.
Cherry, K. (2013). Social learning theory: An overview of Bandura’s social learning theory. Retrieved August 6, 2013 from http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/sociallearning.htm
Felson, R.B. & Lane, K.J. (2009). Social learning, sexual and physical abuse, and adult crime. Aggressive Behavior, 35(1), 489-501. doi: 10.1002/ab.20322.
Moore, M. (2011). Psychology theories of crime and Delinquency. Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, 21(3), 226-239. doi:10.1080/10911359.2011.564552.
Parish, M. (2010). Behaviourism. In Social work perspectives on human behaviour (98-107). Maidenhead, GBR: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.
Parish, M. (2010). Cognition and theories of learning. In Social work perspectives on human behaviour (110-132). Maidenhead, GBR: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.
Simon. S.D. (1999/2001). From Neo-Behaviorism to social constructivism?: The Paradigmatic non-evolution of Albert Bandura (PhD Thesis, Emory University, Atlanta, United States). Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/simon.html
Wortley, R. (2011). Cognition. In Psychology Criminology: An integrative approach (162- 184). NY: Routledge.
Wortley, R. (2011). Learning. In Psychology Criminology: An integrative approach (139- 160). NY: Routledge.