10.

1177/1523422304263429
Advances for Developing Human Resources
ARTICLE May 2004

Social Learning (Cognitive)

Gibson / SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND HRD

Theory and Implications for

Human Resource Development
Sharon K. Gibson

The problem and the solution. The complexity of the

domains of human resource development (HRD) requires
knowledge of learning theories that can inform the develop-
ment of HRD theory building, research, and practice. Social
learning (cognitive) theory (SLT/SCT) identifies learning as a
dynamic interplay between the person, the environment, and
behavior. This article explores the elements of SLT/SCT that are
most relevant to HRD and identifies theory-building, research,
and practice arenas in HRD that have incorporated one or more
SLT/SCT propositions. Implications for future HRD theory,
research, and practice are proposed. SLT/SCT is shown to have
high potential use for HRD due to the comprehensive nature of
this theory for explaining learning and behavior.

Keywords: social learning theory; social cognitive theory; human

resource development; adult learning; role modeling;
self-efficacy

Social learning theory is identified in the adult learning literature as one of

five traditional theories of adult learning (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999) and
as a metatheory of learning for human resource development (HRD)
(Swanson & Holton, 2001). Although there are a variety of theorists using
the social learning label, Bandura’s (1977, 1986) social learning theory,
later renamed social cognitive theory to more accurately reflect its emphasis
on both learning and cognition, has been predominant in the adult learning
and HRD literature. Bandura’s theory provides a robust set of propositions
that can be useful in informing HRD theory, research, and practice.
Although fields highly related to HRD, such as organizational behavior and
management, have extensively used social learning theory in their
theory-building and research efforts, HRD as a discipline has just begun to
explore the potential breadth of its application to topics and areas of interest

Advances in Developing Human Resources Vol. 6, No. 2 May 2004 193-210

DOI: 10.1177/1523422304263429
Copyright 2004 Sage Publications
194 Advances for Developing Human Resources May 2004

to its constituents. The purpose of this article is to examine the application

of social learning theory to inform HRD and to discuss implications for its
use in HRD theory building, research, and practice.
This article first explores the foundations of social learning theory and
reviews major propositions of this theory within the context of adult learn-
ing. Because Bandura’s (1977, 1986) social learning (cognitive) theory is
viewed as providing a broad explanation of the variables that influence adult
learning (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999), this article will focus on the applica-
tion of Bandura’s theory to HRD theory building, research, and practice.
Recognizing that the term social learning is more commonly used in the
adult learning literature, an acronym representing both terms—social learn-
ing theory and social cognitive theory (SLT/SCT)—is used to reflect the
combined and comprehensive focus on learning processes and cognitive
and social elements in Bandura’s theory as applied to the development of
human resources. Implications for future application of social learning
(cognitive) theory to HRD will then be explored.

Foundations of Social Learning Theory

One can trace the belief that people learn through observation of others to
the early Greeks, such as Plato and Aristotle. At that time, education for the
most part entailed selecting the best models to be presented to students so
that students might observe and emulate the model’s qualities. Observa-
tional learning was explained as a “natural tendency for humans to imitate
what they see others do” (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1997, p. 326). It was not
until the 1940s that this nativistic explanation of observational learning was
challenged as a result of Miller and Dollard’s book Social Learning and Imi-
tation. Miller and Dollard’s beliefs were based on stimulus-response and
reinforcement theory. Their ideas were firmly founded in behaviorism and
they proposed that humans must observe, imitate, and reinforce what has
been observed. Moreover, they believed that learning could not occur unless
there was imitation and reinforcement (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1997;
Merriam & Caffarella, 1999).
Although Miller and Dollard’s work spurred a variety of different versions of
social learning theory, it is Rotter’s (1954, 1982) social learning theory and
Bandura’s (1977, 1986) social learning (cognitive) theory that have been identi-
fied in the adult education literature as those most relevant to adult learning
(Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Rotter’s social learning theory was based in
behaviorism, cognitivism, and personality theory and described four concepts
that were used to predict behavior: (a) behavior potential, (b) expectancy, (c)
reinforcement value, and (d) the psychological situation.

In its most basic form, the general formula for behavior is that the potential for a behavior to occur
in any specific psychological situation is a function of the expectancy that the behavior will lead
 Gibson / SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND HRD 195

to a particular reinforcement in that situation and the value of that reinforcement. (Rotter, 1982,
p. 267)

In this approach, expectancy and reinforcement were proposed to influence the

possibility that any given behavior will occur. Rotter (1954, 1982, 1990) also
introduced the notion of locus of control as related to one’s beliefs with respect
to internal versus external control of reinforcement.
However, it is Albert Bandura who is typically viewed as the most com-
prehensive theorist and researcher in the area of social learning (Hergen-
hahn & Olson, 1997; Sims & Lorenzi, 1992). Bandura’s theory shifted the
focus of observational learning more toward the cognitive processes
involved in the observation. Bandura believed that humans can learn
through observation without the need for imitation; learning could be either
direct or indirect (vicarious) in that one could learn through observing oth-
ers’ behaviors and the consequences of those behaviors (Bandura, 1977). He
also introduced the concept of self-regulation, proposing that by visualizing
self-generated consequences, humans can regulate their own behavior
(Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1991).
In later writings, Bandura (1986) relabeled his approach as social cognitive
theory in recognition of the more comprehensive nature of his theory than what
was traditionally viewed as “learning” at that time. Bandura explains his ratio-
nale for this shift in terminology in his book, Social Foundations of Thought and
Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.

The theoretical approach presented in this volume is usually designated as social learning theory.
However, the scope of this approach has always been much broader than its descriptive label,
which is becoming increasingly ill-fitting as various aspects of the theory are further developed.
From the outset, it encompassed psychosocial phenomena, such as motivational and
self-regulatory mechanisms, that extend beyond issues of learning. Moreover, many readers con-
strue learning theory as a conditioning model of response acquisition, whereas within this theo-
retical framework, learning is conceptualized mainly as knowledge acquisition through cogni-
tive processing of information. The labeling problem is further compounded because several
theories with dissimilar postulates . . . bear the social learning label. In the interests of more fit-
ting and separate labeling, the theoretical approach of this book is designated as social cognitive
theory. (Bandura, 1986, p. xii)

Bandura has most recently focused on the concept of self-efficacy, defined as

a “judgement of one’s capability to accomplish a certain level of performance”
(Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Our perceptions of self-efficacy—how competent we
believe we are likely to be in a given situation—influence the effectiveness of
our interactions with our environment and with others (Lefrancois, 1999). In the
past few years, Bandura’s writings have expanded these concepts in relation to
human agency (i.e., personal, proxy, and collective) and explored this perspec-
tive in cultural contexts (Bandura, 2001, 2002).
SLT/SCT has been considered a synthesis of cognitive and behavioral
learning theories (Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Lefrancois, 1999; Sims &
Lorenzi, 1992). It is both a behaviorist theory that assumes that a great deal
196 Advances for Developing Human Resources May 2004

of learning involves the observation and imitating of models and a cognitive

theory that recognizes “our ability to think, to symbolize, to figure out
cause-effect relationships, to anticipate the outcomes of behavior”
(Lefrancois, 1999, p. 41). As described by Sims and Lorenzi (1992), “Social
cognitive theory seems to offer a path leading away from the zero-sum con-
troversy represented by the notions of behaviorism versus cognitivism; it
seems to capture the best elements of both frameworks” (p. 23). Since the
1960s, components of Bandura’s theory have been subject to extensive
empirical investigation (see, e.g., Bandura, 1982, 1986; Hergenhahn &
Olson, 1997; Holland & Kobasigawa, 1980; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a).
Social learning theory has been broadly applied to learning situations that
occur over an individual’s life span, reflecting real-life situations and prob-
lems, and has been shown to be highly applicable in adult learning contexts.
The major propositions of SLT/SCT are discussed below.

Major Propositions of SLT/SCT

as Related to Adult Learning
Four major elements of Bandura’s theory are most relevant to our discus-
sion of SLT/SCT’s influence on HRD theory, research, and practice. They
are variables affecting observational learning, reciprocal determinism,
self-regulation, and self-efficacy. Each of these elements is briefly
described within the context of adult learning.

Observational Learning Variables

According to Bandura (1977, 1986), observational or “social” learning is

governed by four component processes, which results in a person translat-
ing a modeled event into performance that is matched with the model. A
model can be either an actual person or symbolic, such as a book, television
or film character, a picture, a demonstration, or a set of instructions
(Hergenhahn & Olson, 1997; Lefrancois, 1999). These four pro-
cesses—attention, retention, behavior production, and motivation—are dis-
cussed below (Bandura, 1977, 1986: Hergenhahn & Olson, 1997).
Attention. In order for people to learn from observation, they must first attend
to the important components of the behavior that is being modeled. Attention is
influenced by a number of factors including the person’s sensory capacities, past
reinforcements, the attributes of the modeled activities or the models themselves
(e.g., their attractiveness or status), and the nature of the interactions between
individuals.
Retention. For the information gained from observation to be beneficial, peo-
ple must be able to remember the modeled behavior. Therefore, people must
represent the response patterns in memory in symbolic form—either imaginally
 Gibson / SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND HRD 197

or verbally. Imaginally stored symbols are pictures or mental images of past

experiences, whereas verbal symbols capture the complexities of behavior in
words. Bandura notes that conceptual representations often comprise both
images and verbal symbols. In addition, once the information is stored symboli-
cally, delayed modeling is possible as this information can be retrieved covertly,
rehearsed, and strengthened some time after the observational learning has
occurred.
Behavior production. These processes involve translating the observational
learning into performance. Assuming that individuals have the physical capabil-
ities to respond appropriately, they compare their actions to the symbols retained
from a modeling experience and undergo a rehearsal process whereby they
gradually adjust their behavior based on self-observation and self-correction
until an acceptable match with the model is achieved.
Motivation. Motivational processes influence the observational learning
experience in that people are more likely to adopt the modeled behavior if this
behavior is seen as likely to result in positive outcomes. Reinforcement creates
an expectation in observers that if they act similarly to a model whom they have
observed receiving reinforcement, they will be reinforced as well. In addition,
reinforcement provides an incentive or motive for translating learning into
behavior. Bandura distinguishes between learning and performance in that
information that is gained through observational learning will only be acted on
when there is a perceived need to do so.

In the adult learning context, SLT/SCT highlights the processes necessary for
modeling and provides insights into social role acquisition and mentoring
(Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Observational learning through modeling can
influence behavior acquisition, inhibition, disinhibition, facilitation, and cre-
ativity. One’s moral code (e.g., moral judgments) can also be developed through
one’s interactions with models (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1997). Observational
learning processes are relevant to many organizational learning situations or
relationships in which individuals attempt to model the behaviors or attributes of
others.

Reciprocal Determinism

Bandura (1986) proposed a model of reciprocal determinism in which

“behavior, cognitive and other personal factors, and environmental influ-
ences all operate interactively, as determinants of each other” (p. 23).
Bandura (1986) schematically represented this model as a triangle with
each factor bidirectionally influencing the others. There is mutual interac-
tion between the causal factors; however, the relative influence exerted by
the interacting factors will vary based on the particular situation or
individual.
198 Advances for Developing Human Resources May 2004

From an adult learning perspective, this model is particularly relevant in

that it takes into account the learning, the individual, and the environment in
which the individual operates. Learning is situated firmly in its social con-
text and learning behavior is a function of the interaction of the person and
his or her environment. This reciprocal interaction of environment, behav-
ior, and the person—with each influencing and being influenced by the
other—provides a comprehensive explanation of the factors that influence
adult learning (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999).

Self-Regulation of Behavior

In addition to the learning processes noted earlier, Bandura (1977, 1986,

1991) asserted that human behavior is also partially governed by mechanisms of
self-regulation.

Knowledge, transformational operations, and component skills are necessary but insufficient for
accomplished performances. Indeed, people often do not behave optimally; even though they
know full well what to do. This is because self-referent thought also mediates the relationship
between knowledge and action. (Bandura, 1982, p. 122)

As a result of direct or vicarious experiences, people learn standards of per-

formance, which then become the basis of self-evaluation. Anticipated
self-reactions are determined by a person’s internalized performance standards
and by one’s perceived self-efficacy (further described below). Bandura (1977)
believed that intrinsic reinforcement that comes from one’s self-assessment has
a greater influence than extrinsic (externally administered) reinforcement
(Hergenhahn & Olson, 1997). With respect to adult learning, the observer’s
anticipated self-reactions are fundamental to the learning process that occurs
through imitation.

Self-Efficacy

Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy (1977, 1982, 1986) also has an impor-

tant role in self-regulated behavior. Self-efficacy is the belief that one can
succeed even in the face of challenges and refers to one’s judgments as to
how effective one is likely to be in a particular situation. Self-efficacy
beliefs are influenced by one’s personal accomplishments or failures, obser-
vations of models performing similar tasks, verbal persuasion, and the
intensity of one’s emotional reaction or arousal (Bandura, 1982).
Self-efficacy is a concept that can be directly applied to learning and per-
formance. Self-efficacy assessments influence people’s motivation to pur-
sue learning goals based on their confidence that they have the capacity to
achieve their objectives. Therefore, individuals with high perceived
self-efficacy are likely to persist longer at learning activities and to be able
to overcome obstacles in their path.
 Gibson / SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND HRD 199

SLT/SCT Propositions as Related to Adult Learning

As a metatheory of learning for HRD, SLT/SCT, through its elucidation

of the propositions of observational learning, reciprocal determinism,
self-regulation, and self-efficacy, has a central role in learning in HRD
(Swanson & Holton, 2001). These propositions attempt to describe ele-
ments that influence the learning process, which is viewed as an “interaction
with and observation of others in a social context” (Merriam & Caffarella,
1999, p. 264). SLT/SCT, although applicable to learning in all age groups, is
shown to be especially relevant to adult learning, as it helps to explain the
modeling function of observational learning; emphasizes the interaction of
the person, behavior, and environment; and accounts for motivational
aspects of learning. Its contribution to HRD and its potential to inform
future HRD theory, research, and practice will be described in the following
sections.

Applications of SLT/SCT to
HRD Theory, Research, and Practice

HRD Theory-Building

Perhaps the most compelling argument for the utility of SLT/SCT to

inform HRD theory is the proliferation of recent theory-based articles that
incorporate various components of Bandura’s theory since the inception
of the Academy of Human Resource Development’s theory-building jour-
nal, Human Resource Development Review (first issue, March 2002).
Bandura’s concepts of reciprocal determinism, observational learning,
self-regulation, and self-efficacy have been used by theorists to contribute
to our understanding of various HRD constructs. This section reviews
recent theory-building efforts in HRD and related fields that have integrated
various components of Bandura’s SLT/SCT. This review indicates a consid-
erable diversity in HRD topics to which SLT/SCT has been applied, includ-
ing workplace learning and transfer, employee learning and development,
motivation, cognitive demands of new technologies, and organizational
socialization.
Workplace learning and transfer. Although focusing solely on training
design elements and work environment characteristics (as opposed to individual
characteristics), Russ-Eft (2002) included various elements of SLT/SCT in her
design of a typology of factors affecting workplace learning and transfer. She
referred to Bandura’s concept of symbolic rehearsal in her practice component
of training design elements, positing that “perhaps reproduction can be
enhanced with behavioral practice, whereas retention and generalization can be
200 Advances for Developing Human Resources May 2004

enhanced with symbolic practice” (Russ-Eft, 2002, p. 53). She also included
feedback as a mechanism, consistent with social learning theory, in that infor-
mation is provided to the learner that allows current and desired behavior to be
compared, resulting in some change or adaptation. Self-efficacy is emphasized
under posttraining intervention elements, both in terms of the elements of
self-management and self-talk. Russ-Eft recognized that these areas need fur-
ther investigation in terms of the development of this typology; however, her
middle-range theory incorporated a number of Bandura’s observational learn-
ing principles as well as important elements of self-regulation and self-efficacy.
Employee learning and development orientation. Maurer (2002) proposed a
model of employee learning and development orientation (ELDO) that includes
cognitive, affective, and behavioral constructs integrated with work context and
content variables. In this model, he combined theory from a number of primary
sources including social cognitive literature and the literature on self-efficacy.
Maurer applied self-efficacy from SLT/SCT to develop his concept of
“self-efficacy for development” (p. 12). He defined self-efficacy for develop-
ment as “self-confidence in one’s ability to attain a possible self with enhanced
or increased personal characteristics; bound to a self within a specific situation
or context” (p. 13). He noted that, among other theories, the literature on
self-efficacy has distinct implications for affect and behavior in development
and learning. Consistent with SLT/SCT, he posited a research proposition that
work content and context variables will influence self-efficacy for development
(Maurer, 2002). Although a number of theoretical frameworks are applied in
Maurer’s ELDO model, elements of SLT/SCT can be seen as informing various
constructs in this model.
Motivation research: Instructional design and human performance technol-
ogy. Hardre (2003), in her review of motivation theories, asserted that instruc-
tional design must fully address the motivational needs of learners and give
explicit attention to motivation. She emphasized the potential of self-efficacy,
both individual and collective, as a resource for instructional design and HRD.
Similarly, feedback was identified as a means to promote competence percep-
tions and persistence of performance competence. She further contended that
“cognitive capacity is dependent on the interaction of individual, social, and
contextual factors within the performance environment” (Hardre, 2003, p. 65).
She presented the case for motivation as a complex phenomenon and identified
high self-efficacy as one of four optimal motivational characteristics. She pro-
posed that these elements, along with other theoretical perspectives, be
synthesized into a new model of motivation for instructional design.
Cognitive demands of new technologies. Torraco (2002) examined how well
four learning theories addressed the cognitive demands of tasks involving the
use of new technologies. In reviewing communities of practice as a phenome-
non of Wenger’s (1998) theory of social learning, he noted that, in these commu-
 Gibson / SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND HRD 201

nities, learning mainly occurs as a result of participation in social practice. The

elements of SLT/SCT—reciprocal determinism or the bidirectional interaction
between behavior, cognition, and environment; tenets of observational learning;
and self-efficacy—were identified as foundational qualities in this learning the-
ory. According to Torraco, social learning formed one of the bases of the com-
munities of practice phenomenon and helped to explain the relationships and
expertise that employees gain at work. “This process of social learning helps
meet the cognitive demands of distancing technologies, which require users to
possess the capabilities for inference, imagination, and mental modeling to
understand what is going on elsewhere” (Torraco, 2002, p. 456). The social
context for learning was identified as fundamental to communities of practice.
Organizational socialization. In discussing organizational socialization as a
symbolic response to societal expectations, Fogarty and Dirsmith (2001) inte-
grated Bandura’s (1986) SLT/SCT in their discussion of mimetic isomorphic
forces involved in socialization practices.
At the individual level, new members imitate other members performing their roles in order to fit
in with the work unit and organization. They also are actively and implicitly taught the skills,
behaviors, and values necessary for career advancement in the organization by imitating hierar-
chically superior mentors. This involves a complex interplay of cognitive, behavioral, and envi-
ronmental elements. (p. 257)

In addition, these authors discussed the role of modeling in the adult social-
ization process, noting the relevance of Bandura’s concept of self-regulation in
the context of individuals making judgments about themselves based on stan-
dards determined by the environment.
Theory-building in related fields. SLT/SCT has been used extensively as part
of theory-building efforts in disciplines related to HRD. Although a comprehen-
sive review of theory building in these related fields is beyond the scope of this
article, examples of areas in which SLT/SCT have been applied include organi-
zational behavior and performance (Davis & Luthans, 1980; Kreitner &
Luthans, 1984), modeling (Decker, 1986; Manz & Sims, 1981), career develop-
ment (Hackett & Betz, 1981), self-management (Davis & Luthans, 1980; Manz
& Sims, 1980; Sims & Lorenzi, 1992), and organizational management (Wood
& Bandura, 1989). There is a strong base of research in these related areas utiliz-
ing SLT/SCT as a theoretical foundation, and SLT/SCT is suggested as a frame-
work that can enhance our understanding of the complexities of human
resources in the modern workplace and contribute to more effective manage-
ment of human performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998b).

HRD Research

SLT/SCT has had a considerable influence on research on behavior in

organizations. This can perhaps be attributed to the middle ground offered
202 Advances for Developing Human Resources May 2004

by this theory between behaviorism and cognitivism and the tripartite rec-
ognition of the interactions between environmental, behavioral, and cogni-
tive elements. In addition, SLT/SCT encompasses motivational aspects with
its concept of self-efficacy and addresses how individuals both learn and
apply what they learn (Black & Mendenhall, 1990). This section focuses on
three areas in which there has been considerable interest and application of
SLT/SCT in HRD and related literature: self-efficacy in relation to perfor-
mance, training, and motivation; cross-cultural training; and self-regulation
and self-management.
Self-efficacy in relation to performance, training, and motivation. Bandura’s
concept of self-efficacy appears to be of great interest to HRD researchers, espe-
cially given the emphasis that HRD places on determining the various factors
that influence both learning and performance (Swanson & Holton, 2001). A
number of studies specific to HRD have explored the relationship of
self-efficacy to performance, training outcomes, learning, and motivation. For
example, Bhanthumnavin (2003) researched the predictors of subordinate per-
formance in Thai work units and found that perceived self-efficacy was one psy-
chological characteristic found to be associated with subordinate performance.
Hertenstein (2001) examined the training outcomes for participants in weekly
(spaced) and residential (massed) labor education classes and found that at the
conclusion of training, individuals with high learning goal orientation had more
positive outcomes on task-specific self-efficacy (described as an affective out-
come of individual training) in the massed labor education class than in the
spaced practice course. Ellstrom (2001) discussed conditions that promote inte-
gration of learning and work and identified self-efficacy as a learning resource.
Lim and Chan (2003) found that self-efficacy was one of the factors that were
positively related to motivation for skills upgrading. As these authors noted,
“Presumably, self-efficacy affects an individual choice of activity and the act of
choosing may in turn raise his/her level of motivation” (Lim & Chan, 2003,
p. 222).
There has also been significant research in fields related to HRD that sup-
ports the positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance (see
Stajkovich & Luthans, 1998a, 1998b). A number of researchers have
explored efficacy-performance spirals, in which a high interdependence
between efficacy and performance produces a deviation-amplifying loop
whereby the relationship between perceived efficacy and performance con-
tinues to build on itself over time. This concept is highly applicable to HRD
due to both the cyclical nature and systems aspect of this relationship, in that
efficacy-performance spirals can be both upward and downward and are
affected by a variety of factors that can occur at multiple levels of analy-
sis—individual, group, and organization (Hostager, Neil, Decker, &
Lorentz, 1998; Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995). In addition, variables
such as task feedback and task experience have been found to influence the
 Gibson / SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND HRD 203

occurrence of self-corrections in the efficacy-performance spirals (Shea &

Howell, 2000). Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy has also been examined
as a mediator of motivation, goal setting, and performance (Appelbaum &
Hare, 1996).
In addition, various researchers have discussed the organizational impli-
cations of self-efficacy. Gist (1987) examined self-efficacy in terms of
selection, leadership, training and organization development, vocational
counseling, locus of control interactions, equal employment opportunity,
performance appraisal, goals and incentives, and group and organizational
performance. Appelbaum and Hare (1996) also surfaced various organiza-
tional applications of self-efficacy including selection, performance
appraisal and feedback, training, and absenteeism. In his most recent book,
Bandura (1997) emphasized the role of self-efficacy in relation to career
development and pursuits, mastery of occupational roles, organizational
decision making, and collective organizational efficacy, all of which are
important HRD topics.
Cross-cultural training. There has been a significant amount of recent atten-
tion placed on cross-cultural issues in HRD. Black and Mendenhall (1990) sug-
gested social learning theory as a framework for understanding the literature on
cross-cultural training and as a means for guiding future research in this area due
to the need for a theoretical framework that would also encompass cross-cultural
interaction, considering the differences in domestic and foreign contexts. These
authors presented a model of cross-cultural training and social learning theory
that incorporated Bandura’s four processes of observational learning and the
elements of motivation and incentives. Osman-Gani and Zidan (2001) expanded
this application in their discussion of the cross-cultural implications of planned
on-the-job training and recommended incorporating contextual factors—a par-
adigm shift if you will—in terms of emphasizing culture-specific versus univer-
sal elements in international HRD research. The application of SLT/SCT was
proposed to enhance the theoretical robustness of cross-cultural research given
the globalization of today’s work environments.
Self-regulation and self-management. The internalization of goal setting and
reinforcement mechanisms provides an opportunity to apply Bandura’s
SLT/SCT to the topic of self-management. In an effort to improve work atten-
dance, Frayne and Latham (1987) trained unionized employees in
self-management techniques and found that the higher the perceived
self-efficacy of the worker, the higher the attendance record. Research on strate-
gies such as self-observation, goal specification, cueing, incentive modification,
and rehearsal has been explored with respect to developing self-management
behavior in subordinates (Manz & Sims, 1980). Similarly, training on relapse
prevention strategies, based on self-management techniques, has been proposed
to enhance self-efficacy and the subsequent maintenance of behavior change
(Marx, 1982), and, furthermore, these strategies were noted to interact differ-
204 Advances for Developing Human Resources May 2004

ently depending on the nature of the transfer climate (Burke & Baldwin, 1999).
A number of arenas in which SLT/SCT can offer a significant contribution to
effective management of employee behavior include modeling, self-efficacy,
self-management, and self-managed teams. SLT/SCT is also a useful lens
through which to extrapolate the elements of self-regulation to the group level of
analysis, as would be the case with self-managed teams (Sims & Lorenzi, 1992).

HRD Practice

SLT/SCT is recognized as being highly applicable to classroom learning

in HRD, in which facilitators serve a role-modeling function in their instruc-
tional capacity. Its role in non-classroom-based learning has also been
emphasized, with respect to socializing new employees into organizations
through interactions with experienced organizational members and through
the observational and role-modeling functions of mentoring and on-the-job
training (Swanson & Holton, 2001). These practice applications are further
explored below.
Observational modeling techniques. Behavior modeling techniques, based
on SLT/SCT theory, can be used to help learners form mental models of appro-
priate behavior. This technique involves presenting the skill to be learned, view-
ing an appropriate model or example of how the behavior is accomplished, dis-
cussing the effectiveness of the behavior, practicing the behavior, and providing
corrective feedback. To achieve the most training benefits, behavior modeling
techniques should incorporate practice, simulations, and role-plays. Target
stores have effectively implemented behavior modeling techniques as part of
their customer service training (Milkovich & Boudreau, 1997). In addition,
SLT/SCT modeling principles can be used in managerial leadership training
through applying the elements of observation, behavioral rehearsal, feedback
and social reinforcement, and transfer of training (Sims & Lorenzi, 1992). The
principles of SLT/SCT can also be applied to video-based training to enhance
the effectiveness of this approach (Bell, 1992).
Self-efficacy and training and development. The most extensive application
of self-efficacy has occurred in the area of training, with a focus on training
needs assessment and training methodology (Appelbaum & Hare, 1996). Practi-
tioners should consider integrating methods to increase self-efficacy as part of
their training and development efforts. Self-efficacy can be fostered in employ-
ees through modeling-based training, coaching, job supports, and the applica-
tion of appropriate reinforcements. Self-regulation and self-efficacy can be
applied to develop behavioral self-management strategies (e.g., goal setting,
self-assessment, intrinsic motivation, and self-correction processes) and cogni-
tive self-management strategies (e.g., positive self-talk, converting obstacles
into opportunities, and mental imagery) (Sims & Lorenzi, 1992). In addition,
 Gibson / SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND HRD 205

practitioners engaged in organization development activities within organiza-

tions should be aware that employee perceptions of self-efficacy could affect
their reactions to change initiatives. An integrated instruction design approach
that involves cognitive, social, and behavioral aspects of learning, such as that
suggested by Moisy (2001), can be helpful in situations in which the behavioral
change needs to be integrated into the learner’s lifestyle or in which there is
resistance to change.
Employee socialization and on-the-job (OTJ) training. SLT/SCT principles
can also be incorporated in employee socialization and OTJ training initiatives.
Organizational socialization often occurs through interactions with colleagues,
as people tend to rely on observing others to understand and make sense of a new
environment and in learning how to fit in with the established social norms. For
example, as part of their orientation for newly hired employees, Disney Com-
pany has these new employees spend time with another employee on the job so
that they can be exposed to the various learning experiences that apply to their
new roles (Milkovich & Boudreau, 1997). Practitioners can apply observational
learning principles to enhance the likelihood that these employee socialization
and OTJ training initiatives will achieve successful outcomes. These same prin-
ciples apply to the establishment of mentoring programs in which a less experi-
enced member of an organization is paired with a more seasoned member to
facilitate social learning.

Implications for Future Theory,

Research, and Practice in HRD
A review of the applications of SLT/SCT to HRD theory building,
research, and practice supports the following conclusions. There is a strong
body of knowledge and research on organizational behavior and social
learning theory. The application of SLT/SCT specifically to HRD, although
it has much potential, is less well established. Current theory-building
efforts, however, indicate that many of the concepts of SLT/SCT are seen as
relevant to HRD theory-building and research agendas. The robust and com-
prehensive nature of SLT/SCT, with its combined focus on both learning
and performance and its emphasis on the interaction of person, environ-
ment, and behavior, supports its utility in a variety of HRD arenas. In addi-
tion, SLT/SCT is seen as incorporating both cognitive and behavioral ele-
ments of learning and could, therefore, serve an integrating role with respect
to the complexity of topics that are explored by HRD researchers. SLT/SCT
has a strong body of empirical evidence that could assist in providing a solid
foundation for expansion of future HRD research using this theoretical
framework. Although no single theory can provide a complete explanation
of human learning and development, this article suggests that SLT/SCT
206 Advances for Developing Human Resources May 2004

could be useful as one lens through which to view the multidisciplinary

nature of various phenomena in HRD that require the integration of
theoretical perspectives.
The topics explored above, including the relationship of self-efficacy
with respect to performance, training, motivation, and its organizational
implications; cross-cultural training; self-regulation and self-management;
and classroom and non-classroom-based learning are important HRD areas
that deserve additional attention. However, SLT/SCT has the potential to
address an even broader array of problems including, among others, those
related to motivation, personality, and moral conduct (Hergenhahn &
Olson, 1997). For example, social learning theory has been suggested as a
foundation for the development of mentoring relationships and systems that
could lead to organizational change (Zagumny, 1993). In addition, enhanc-
ing individuals’ self-efficacy has been proposed to facilitate organizational
change (Porras & Hargis, 1982). A common thread of many HRD interven-
tions is the management of organizational change, and SLT/SCT has much
to offer in terms of our understanding of the impact of change on employees,
feedback systems, goal-setting activities, and retraining programs.
Bandura’s (1997) recent writings on how self-efficacy operates within the
broader elements represented by social cognitive theory in influencing
human action, adaptation, and change have particular relevance here. Simi-
larly, concepts of leadership as related to self-management (Sims &
Lorenzi, 1992) and the implications of this theory for human performance in
organizations (Stajkovich & Luthans, 1998b) deserve further attention in
the HRD research and practice literature. HRD researchers should extend
the work that has been done by related disciplines on these and other rele-
vant topics and use SLT/SCT to its fullest advantage, based on the power of
this theory to explain complex behavior in organizations.
In addition, Bandura (1977) has discussed issues of moral conduct as a
component of his theory, proposing that one’s moral code develops through
interactions with models. Currently, there is a high emphasis in the HRD lit-
erature on issues of ethical leadership and corporate governance. There is
also a resurgence of interest in the factors that influence ethical leadership in
our society given the unfortunate examples of Enron and WorldCom today.
As proposed by Sims and Lorenzi (1992), self-management, which has as
its basis the elements of self-regulation, may be the ethical alternative. Con-
sidering the interests of HRD, the topic of ethical development deserves
special attention and SLT/SCT can be used to inform future research and
practice in this area.
In summary, SLT/SCT is particularly important in the development of
adults in our complex society as they must navigate among various and
diverse models, determine which are competent and contextually applica-
ble, and learn appropriate behaviors that are congruent with their self-per-
 Gibson / SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND HRD 207

ceptions and beliefs. SLT/SCT helps to explain the various learning and
cognitive processes that go into the determination of what is learned and
how this learning is translated into behavior. SLT/SCT is offered here as a
conceptually rich perspective that can lend a solid theoretical and empirical
base to support future HRD theory building. A number of HRD researchers
have used SLT/SCT to inform their research efforts, and key practice and
organizational applications of SLT/SCT relevant to HRD have been identi-
fied. There is great potential to apply this theory to other top-priority areas
in HRD, such as change management and the development of ethical lead-
ers, that are of great importance in today’s workplaces and to contemporary
society.

References
Appelbaum, S. H., & Hare, A. (1996). Self-efficacy as a mediator of goal setting and per-
formance: Some human resource applications. Journal of Management Psychology,
11(3), 33-47.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
37(2), 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology: An International Review, 51, 269-290.
Bell, R. (1992). Using video-based behaviour modelling training to improve perfor-
mance at work. Training and Management Development Methods, 6(1-4), 5-10.
Bhanthumnavin, D. (2003). Perceived social support from supervisor and group mem-
bers’psychological and situational characteristics as predictors of subordinate perfor-
mance in Thai work units. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(1), 79-97.
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review of
theoretical framework for future research. Academy of Management Review, 15(1),
113-136.
Burke, L. A., & Baldwin, T. T. (1999). Workforce training transfer: A study of the effect
of relapse prevention training and transfer climate. Human Resource Management,
38(3), 227-241.
Davis, T. R. V., & Luthans, F. (1980). A social learning approach to organizational behav-
ior. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 281-290.
208 Advances for Developing Human Resources May 2004

Decker, P. J. (1986). Social learning theory and leadership. The Journal of Management
Development, 5(3), 46-58.
Ellstrom, P.-E. (2001). Integrating learning and work problems and prospects. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421-435.
Fogarty, T. J., & Dirsmith, M. W. (2001). Organizational socialization: An extended insti-
tutional theory perspective. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(3),
247-266.
Frayne, C. A., & Latham, G. P. (1987). Application of social learning theory to employee
self-management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 387-392.
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human
resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472-485.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of
women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 325-339.
Hardre, P. L. (2003). Beyond two decades of motivation: A review of the research and
practice of instructional design and human performance technology. Human
Resource Development Review, 2(1), 54-81.
Hergenhahn, B. R., & Olson, M. H. (1997). An introduction to theories of learning (5th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hertenstein, E. J. (2001). Goal orientation and practice condition as predictors of training
results. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 403-419.
Holland, C. J., & Kobasigawa, A. (1980). Observational learning: Bandura. In G. M.
Gazda & R. C. Corsini (Eds.), Theories of learning (pp. 370-403). Itasca, IL: F. E.
Peacock.
Hostager, T. J., Neil, T. C., Decker, R. L., & Lorentz, R. D. (1998). Seeing environmental
opportunities: Effects of entrepreneurial ability, efficacy, motivation, and desirability.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(1), 11-25.
Kreitner, R., & Luthans, F. (1984). A social learning approach to behavioral manage-
ment: Radical behaviorists “mellowing out.” Organizational Dynamics, 13(2), 47-66.
Lefrancois, G. (1999). The lifespan (6th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lim, G. S., & Chan, A. (2003). Individual and situational correlates of motivation for
skills upgrading: An empirical study. Human Resource Development International,
6(2), 219-242.
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performance spirals: A
multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 645-678.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A
social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 361-367.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1981). Vicarious learning: The influence of modeling on
organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 105-113.
Marx, R. D. (1982). Relapse prevention for managerial training: A model for mainte-
nance of behavior change. Academy of Management Review, 7(3), 433-441.
Maurer, T. J. (2002). Employee learning and development orientation: Toward an inte-
grative model of involvement in continuous learning. Human Resource Development
Review, 1(1), 9-44.
 Gibson / SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND HRD 209

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive

guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Milkovich, G. T., & Boudreau, J. W. (1997). Human resource management (8th ed.). Burr
Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. C. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Moisy, S. D. (2001, March-April). An integrated instructional design approach for foster-
ing lasting behavioral change. Educational Technology, pp. 60-62.
Osman-Gani, A. M., & Zidan, S. S. (2001). Cross-cultural implications of planned
on-the-job training. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(4), 452-460.
Porras, J. I., & Hargis, K. (1982). Precursors of individual change: Responses to a social
learning theory based on organizational intervention. Human Relations, 35(11),
973-990.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Rotter, J. B. (1982). The development and application of social learning theory: Selected
papers. New York: Praeger.
Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a
variable. American Psychologist, 45(4), 489-493.
Russ-Eft, D. (2002). A typology of training design and work environment factors affect-
ing workplace learning and transfer. Human Resource Development Review, 1(1),
45-65.
Shea, C. M., & Howell, J. M. (2000). Efficacy-performance spirals: An empirical test.
Journal of Management, 26(4), 791-812.
Sims, H. P., Jr., & Lorenzi, P. (1992). The new leadership paradigm: Social learning and
cognition in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998a). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240-261.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998b). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Going
beyond traditional motivational and behavioral approaches. Organizational Dynam-
ics, 26(4), 62-74.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2001). Foundations of human resource development.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Torraco, R. J. (2002). Cognitive demands of new technologies and the implications for
learning theory. Human Resource Development Review, 1(4), 439-467.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management.
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Zagumny, M. J. (1993). Mentoring as a tool for social change: A social learning perspec-
tive. Organization Development Journal, 11(4), 43-48.
210 Advances for Developing Human Resources May 2004

Sharon K. Gibson is an assistant professor of organization learning and develop-

ment at the University of St. Thomas. She is also an instructor for the division of
executive and professional development in the College of Business. She received
her Ph.D. in adult education from the University of Minnesota, and holds an M.S.W
and graduate certificate in labor and industrial relations from the University of
Michigan. Her research interests focus on mentoring, strategic HR, phenome-
nological research methodology, and adult learning. She has more than 20 years of
business, nonprofit, and consulting experience and has held various management
positions in the human resources field.

Gibson, S. K. (2004). Social learning (cognitive) theory and implications for human
resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 193-210.