Limitations to the Model
It has been said by researchers that in the Social Cognitive Theory, its perspective can ignore the internal and unconscious thought processes and emotions. Since this theory/model focuses greatly on only a portion of an individual and their personality, their own self as a whole can be missed since it isn't taken into correct context. Some other limitations include:
Some examples of these limitations are found in the articles listed on the Evidence on Performance page, with the experiment on students with the RHAP program. (1) Since the RHAP program was in the preliminary stages, there were limitations. The program was not tested along with other methods of HIV/AIDS education, and the long-term impact of this program in terms of future sexual behavior was not assessed. It was also not stated if the students who participated in this program were less likely to engage in any sort of risky behaviors such as early initiation of sexual behavior, use of condoms, or avoidance of drugs and alcohol (1).
Another example was with the experiment on the Management of Organizational Performance. Two groups of business school graduates were used in this experiment, the first group was told that cognitive ability was an acquired skill. Their productivity level was high, their self-efficacy was strong and they were motivated in taking on new challenges. Even thought they were designated to difficult tasks, they stayed focused on setting organizational goals and used analytic strategies that allowed them to set their decision rules. (4)
The second group was told that their cognitive theory was inherent, and their productivity was remarkably lower than the first group, their mindsets on their own self-efficacy was lowered and they expressed doubts about their own performance in organizational management. Instead of staying strong and focused on decision making, they become increasingly erratic and unsure of their decisions. (4) The limitations here show that this experiment is focusing solely on theory, and does not take in personal behavior factors that can either limit or promote an individuals performance.
- Bringing on the assumption that changes in the environment will also lead to changes in the person, which is not always the case.
- Being loose in its organization, based mostly on the dynamic interplay between person, behavior, and environment. It isn't quite clear, the extent to which each of these factors plays into the actual behavior and if one is more influential than another.
- Strongly focusing on the processes of learning and in turn, disregarding the biological and hormonal predispositions that may effect a persons behaviors, with or without past experience and expectations.
- The theory does not necessarily focus on emotion or motivation, besides referencing to past experiences. There is not much attention focused on these factors.
- The theory can be rather vague, causing difficulty to operate in it's entirety.
Some examples of these limitations are found in the articles listed on the Evidence on Performance page, with the experiment on students with the RHAP program. (1) Since the RHAP program was in the preliminary stages, there were limitations. The program was not tested along with other methods of HIV/AIDS education, and the long-term impact of this program in terms of future sexual behavior was not assessed. It was also not stated if the students who participated in this program were less likely to engage in any sort of risky behaviors such as early initiation of sexual behavior, use of condoms, or avoidance of drugs and alcohol (1).
Another example was with the experiment on the Management of Organizational Performance. Two groups of business school graduates were used in this experiment, the first group was told that cognitive ability was an acquired skill. Their productivity level was high, their self-efficacy was strong and they were motivated in taking on new challenges. Even thought they were designated to difficult tasks, they stayed focused on setting organizational goals and used analytic strategies that allowed them to set their decision rules. (4)
The second group was told that their cognitive theory was inherent, and their productivity was remarkably lower than the first group, their mindsets on their own self-efficacy was lowered and they expressed doubts about their own performance in organizational management. Instead of staying strong and focused on decision making, they become increasingly erratic and unsure of their decisions. (4) The limitations here show that this experiment is focusing solely on theory, and does not take in personal behavior factors that can either limit or promote an individuals performance.
Sources
1) Hayden, J. (2009). Introduction to health behavior theory (2nd ed., pp. 173-199). Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett.
2)Boston University School of Public Health (2013, January 22). The Social Cognitive Theory. Retrieved March 23, 2014, from http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/SB721-Models/SB721-Models5.html
3) The Social Cognitive Perspective and Albert Bandura. (2004, March 22). Retrieved March 24, 2014, from http://media.lanecc.edu/users/kime/Ch11Dsoccogtrait.pdf
4) Wood, Albert Bandura, R. (n.d.). Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1989AMR