Transcript Social Learning Theory

Mechanisms of Cultural Exchange and
Influence:
Swedish/US collaboration for more than10
years
March, 2010 Lund
What does it take to transplant ideas and
practices from one culture to another?
• The ability to identify and analyze
opportunities and potential barriers
• The ability to mobilize social networks of
influential people who can make things
happen and solve problems
• The ability to “make sense” of what the work
means in different cultures
In short…
•
•
•
Comprehensibility
Manageability
Meaningfulness
It takes working with
colleagues who have a
strong sense of
coherence to work
across cultures and it
helps to have a great
leader
Hansson, Cederbald, Lichtenstein, Reiss,Pedersen, Belderhiser,
Elthammar, 2008 Family Process, V47
Leadership qualities that can nurture cross
cultural collaborations are valuable
• They are only seen rarely and in a select breed
of individuals
• Kjell is one of these men.
• He is a genuine Swedish family therapy----
Swedish MTFC
• Kjell, Per Schuller, Cissi Green and our other partners
from Familjeform were our first international
collaborators
• They have initiated and nurtured the development of
MTFC in Sweden before we had training protocols
• In collaboration with Pia Kyhle Westermark, Martin
Olsson and Bo Vinnerljung they conducted the first
studies of Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care
(MTFC) outside of the U.S. including:
• Foster parents in Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care: How do they
deal with implementing standardized treatment components?
Pia Kyhle Westermark, Kjell Hansson, Bo Vinnerljung, Children andYouth
Services Review 2006
• Does Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) prevent
breakdown in Foster Care?
Pia Kyhle Westermark, Kje;l Hansson and Bo Vinnerljung
• Blueprints in Sweden. Symptom load in Swedish adolescents in studies
of Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and
Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC)
Lars-Henry Gustle, Kjell Hansson, Knut Sundell, Lars-Gunnar Lundh, Cecilia
Andr,L fholm. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 2007
PLUS the first RCT of MTFC outside of the US
The collaboration has been characterized
by
• Respect
• Trust
• Fun
• Mutual influence
And we are very grateful for the opportunity to
work with this excellent group
Now on to Social Learning Theory----
Social
Learning
Theory
History
• Intra-psychic theories – behavior is the result of
deep-seated instinctual motives
• Behavioral Theory - the environment causes
people to act in particular ways (functionalism)
• Cognitive Theory – psychological factors influence
how one behaves
• Social Learning Theory – a combination of
environmental (social) and psychological factors
influence behavior
Social Learning: General Principles
• People can learn by observing
• Learning can occur without behavior change
• Cognition plays a role in learning; a necessary
but not sufficient condition
• Reciprocal causation – person, behavior and
environment can all influence each other
• Modeling can be live or symbolic
Modeling
• Paths of influence
– Reinforced by the model
– Reinforced by third parties
– Reinforced by the behavior
– Reinforced vicariously
• Reinforcement received by the
model will increase the same
behavior in an observer
• Bobo doll
Conditions for effective modeling
• Attention
• Retention (is the modeled behavior is coded
into words this helps with retention)
• Motor reproduction (the ability to replicate;
similarity of the model)
• Motivation (one is more likely to adopt
behavior that results in valued outcomes)
Self-efficacy
• People are more likely to
engage in certain
behaviors when they
believe they are capable
of executing the
behaviors successfully
• BP = f(E & RV)
Theoretical Implications
• Reinforcement and punishment have (in)direct
effects on learning
• Reinforcement and punishment ‘influence’ to
the extent to which the individual exhibits a
behavior that has been learned
• Expectation and attention influence this
process and can promote learning
When the rubber hits the road:
Social Learning in the real world
• Treatment research at the time
– Everything seems to work and works equally well
– The majority of mothers reported improvement
regardless of what intervention was used
• Shifted to observational data and studies
– Deconstruct complex problems into smaller elements
– New set of problems and logistics
– Found that normal and distressed families could fake
bad, but distressed families had difficulty faking
looking good
– Families acclimate to observation
• Early studies looked at responsiveness to
reinforcement
– Patterson and Fagot (1967) – Boys most responsive to
peer reinforcement were most out of control in the
classroom
• The density of reinforcement in early childhood
classrooms did not predict individual use of
covert behavior
– Need to reinforce positive behavior AND punish
negative behavior
– Even this is not so simple…
Low level punishments are effective
… but the order in which they are
delivered has implications.
The individual variables fit together
Family
break-up
Parent
psychopathology
Socioeconomic
disadvantage
PRENATAL
INFANCY
Mother
Smoking/
substance abuse
Nutrition/
Health care
Caretaker
Home
Coercive
discipline
Disobedient
Child
Temperament
Health status
Reject child
Coercive
behaviors
Withdrawal
Neighborhood
Parenting and other
relationships with
the child/youth
EARLY CHILDHOOD
2 - 5 Years
Parents
Developmentally
inappropriate,
negative, abusive
high stress, low
social support
Marital
relationship
Poor
reinforcement
Low
involvement
Inconsistent
discipline
Extended
family/friends
Workplace
environment
MIDDLE CHILDOOD
Elementary School
6 - 11 Years
School
Child
Deficient school entry skills,
off task, defiant, aggressive,
doesn’t complete homework
Teacher
Rejects, retaliates, low support
of positive behavior, tracking
Parents
Low involvement
Home
Child
Antisocial
behavior
Child
Disobedient, aggressive,
wanters, no role in family
organization
Parent
Eroding discipline and
monitoring, poor problem
solving, little involvement in
school and with peers
ADOLESCENCE
Middle and High School
12 - 18 Years
School
Youth
Fights, bullies, no homework,
academic failure, breaks rules,
truant, aggressive, substance
use, early sex, delinquent
social-cognitive deficits
Young
Adult
Teacher
Gives up, suspends
Parents
Low involvement
Home
Parent-Youth
Combative, no discipline, no
involvement with school or
peer activities, child spends
less time at home
Heavy
involvement in
deviant peer
group,
delinquency,
substance use,
depression,
school drop out,
running away,
other high-risk
behaviors, outof-home
placement
High-Risk Peers
Peers
Child
Low social skill, fights,
aggressive
Youth
Gravitates to delinquent peer
groups, early problems with
police, stealing, fighting
Peers
Reject, retaliate
Parents
Low supervision
Parents
Low supervision
DSM-IV
Disorders
OPPOSITIONAL DEFIANT
ATTENTION DEFICIT/HYPERACTIVITY
CONDUCT
Pregnancy,
STDs