This paper examines social learning theory's explanation of how individuals acquire behaviors by observing and imitating others in their social environment. The author applies the theory to personal experiences—from childhood imitation of siblings to adolescent peer influence—and argues that while social learning provides valuable insights into socialization, it oversimplifies human development by emphasizing nurture over nature. The paper demonstrates that individual personality is shaped by both environmental observation and innate values, particularly when personal convictions override external social pressures.
Social learning theory suggests that behaviors are learned by observing and imitating others, whether they are peers, members of one's social group, role models, family members, celebrities, or television characters. The theory proposes that since behavior is learned through observation, one's actions can be changed by modifying one's surroundings. It asserts that individuals accept as normative the behavior they witness and can rationalize it to themselves, even if the behavior initially seems non-normative.
This theory is used by Grusec (1992) to support the claim that "children are socialized to accept the standards and values of their society" (p. 785). Grusec illustrates the fundamental perspective of the theory: individuals accept and imitate what they perceive to be norms around them, and these observations become the standard values they develop within themselves. The process of social learning, therefore, serves as a primary mechanism for cultural transmission and the development of socially appropriate behavior.
This theory applies to my personality in numerous ways, beginning in early childhood. When I was little, I imitated my older brothers in everything they did. They played baseball when they were younger, so I accepted it as normal that I too should play baseball, even though I could not identify any genuine reason why I should or find any feeling of fondness for the activity. Another example is that they played in the school band, so I accepted it as normal that I too should play in the band, though I did not enjoy this either.
These early experiences demonstrate the power of familial social learning. My brothers served as immediate role models, and their choices became blueprints for my own behavior. I did not question whether baseball or band were activities I actually wanted to pursue; I simply accepted them as things I should do because they were what my older siblings did.
In school, the theory helps explain my personality development even more clearly. At home, I was taught to act a certain way: not to curse, not to listen to certain music or watch particular movies, and not to engage in activities my family considered bad. However, when I entered school, I saw other students doing all of these things that I had been taught not to do. Wanting not only to be accepted by my peers but also to accept them as normal, I began to see value in cursing, listening to music my family discouraged, watching movies my parents would have disapproved of, and engaging in activities my family had explicitly taught me to avoid.
At home, it had been easy to accept my family's teachings as normal because everyone in my family followed them. But outside the home, it was more difficult to maintain those standards. I also imitated the way popular people dressed, buying clothes that were trendy among people I admired. I cultivated a laid-back personality based on certain individuals who embodied this trait. I liked them and wanted to be like them, so I modeled my personality on theirs.
However, there were some persons whom I did not like and who never appealed to me at all. I never wanted to imitate their behavior because it either went directly against what I had been taught at home or contradicted some belief or value I had cultivated within myself based on my own reasoning and an innate sense of justice, right, and wrong. This observation points to a critical limitation of social learning theory.
The theory does not take a "big picture" point of view (Ahrons, 2007) but rather narrows its examination of human development. It focuses more on nurture than on nature. While a significant portion of how individuals behave stems from environmental influence, many behaviors are also rooted in one's inherent nature. For me, I found that my personality was shaped by both factors. At times, I was influenced by my surroundings and learned how to behave by observing others. But as I developed and based my actions less on what others did and more on the sense of justice and right that I cultivated and came to believe in, I realized I did not need to imitate anyone. I only had to follow my convictions and ideals.
This realization manifested clearly when I quit the school band after recognizing I did not have to continue simply because my brothers had participated. I began to pursue art instead, an activity that no one in my family did nor any of my friends engaged in. There was within me an innate desire to be an artist and to express this passion. I did not "learn" it from my surroundings; rather, it emerged from an intrinsic part of my nature. This example demonstrates that human motivation and behavior development involve more than social observation and imitation.
This paper has examined social learning theory and its application to my own personality development. The theory provides valuable insight into how individuals are socialized and how they learn behaviors from their environment. Yet it also reveals significant limitations when confronted with evidence of personal agency, intrinsic values, and innate preferences that resist external social pressures. A comprehensive understanding of personality development must account for both the power of social learning and the reality of individual nature.
You’re 94% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.