National University of Ireland, Dublin
Master of Science (PT UCD MSc 41)
Intake 41
Group: A
Module:
Organisational Behavior (BMGT4051S)
Essay Title: Topic 1
Critically analyse the difference between Social Learning theory and Operant Learning theory. Provide at least 4 recommendations (no less than one recommendation per page: approximately 300 words) on how manager could utilise these theories to enhance performance of their organisation members.
Submitted by / Student Number:
(1) Lin Hongyi Jerry / 18207121
(2) Low Zhi Ming Jerrall / 18208203
(3) David John Jones / 18204076
(4) Goh Kim Leng Jimmy / 18207089
Lecturer: Dr. Roland Yeow
Submission Date: 27th December 2018
Word Count: 4,000
Critically analyse the differences between Social Learning theory and Operant Learning theory, and recommendations on how managers could utilise these theories to enhance performance of their organizational members.
Abstract: This essay analyses the differences between Social Learning and Operant Learning Theory, including a) differences in definition of theory; b) differences in mode of learning and c) differences in processes to achieve desired behavior.
Also discussed is the application of the two theories in practice with provision of four recommendations on how managers may utilise these theories to enhance performance of employees. Impacts and implications of these recommendations will be further analysed to validate or contradict methodologies prescribed by the respective theories in achieving a desired behavioural outcomes and application in specific situations.
Key words：Social Learning Theory, Operant Learning Theory, Operant Conditioning, Positive Reinforcement, Negative Reinforcement, Organization Management, Modelling, Observation, Self-Efficacy
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT II
1. DIFFERENCES OF SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND OPERANT LEARNING THEORY 2
1.1.1 DIFFERENCE IN DEFINITION 2
1.1.2 DIFFERENCE IN LEARNING MODE 2
1.1.3 DIFFERENCE IN METHODOLOGIES 4
2. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 5
2.1 CASE STUDY (OLT) – I 5
2.1.1 CASE’S SCENARIO 5
2.1.2 RECOMMENDATION THROUGH POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT 6
2.1.3 IMPACT, IMPLICATION AND ENHANCEMENT 8
2.1.4 RECOMMENDATION THROUGH NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT 9
2.1.5 IMPACT, IMPLICATION AND ENHANCEMENT 10
2.2 CASE STUDY (SLT) – II 11
2.2.1 CASE’S SCENARIO 11
2.2.2 RECOMMENDATION THROUGH MODELLING PROCESS 11
2.2.3 IMPACT, IMPLICATION AND ENHANCEMENT 12
2.2.4 RECOMMENDATION THROUGH SELF-EFFICACY 13
2.2.5 IMPACT, IMPLICATION AND ENHANCEMENT 14
3. CONCLUSIONS 15
4. REFERENCES 17
1. Differences of Social Learning Theory and Operant Learning Theory
1.1.1 Difference in definition
Operant Learning Theory (OLT) was established through the work of B.F. Skinner. It is a behaviourist learning theory predicated on environmental determinism and advocates learning is a function of change in overt behavior resulting from an individual’s response to stimuli occurring in the environment (Skinner, 1938).
Social Learning Theory (SLT) was outlined by Albert Bandura and Walters in 1963 then further detailed by Albert Bandura in 1977. The principal difference between the two theories is SLT provides a link between operant conditioning and cognitive learning. In other words, it considers environmental and self-determinism (Bandura, 1977).
1.1.2 Difference in learning mode
The difference in mode of learning between the two theories may be described in terms of approach and how desired behavior is achieved. The two theories explain an individual’s level of understanding in regard to a response (R) to a stimulus (S) in addition to the difference in how the two theories define a behavior is successfully learned.
In terms of learning approach, OLT advocates that behavior can be controlled by manipulating its consequence (Evans, 2008). Based on a Stimulus-Response (S-R) process, a stimulus (S) would trigger a response (R) and a response reinforcer is then applied to (R) which contributes toward an individual’s desired behavior.
SLT emphasized that behavior is acquired via observation or modeling. It is based on a Stimulus-Observation-Response (S-O-R) process whereby stimulus (S) would trigger observation and/or analysis of the situation (O) before the individual provides a response (R). As illustrated in Figure-1 below, there is interaction amongst three factors affecting (R), i.e. person, environment and behavior. This interaction is known as Reciprocal Determinism (Bandura, 1971).
Figure 1 – Social Learning Model (Kreitner and Luthans, 1984)
There is also a difference between the two theories when explaining how desired behavior is acquired based on the individual’s level of understanding. According to the six stages of critical thinking of Elmansy R. (2016), namely knowledge, comprehension, application, analyse, synthesis and take action. In the context of a cleaner’s job, OLT would conceptually lean more towards the second stage relating to “Comprehension” or understanding that a job needs to be performed in order to earn a salary. It may be put, when an area is dirty (S), the cleaner cleans with the understanding that he/she is paid to do so (R).
Alternatively SLT leans toward the fifth stage of critical thinking of “Synthesis” or linking knowledge with situation. Using the example, SLT advocates reciprocal determinism between Person, Environment and Behavior. That is, cognitive process (O) has taken place within the person at the “Synthesis” stage with the cleaner having knowledge of the situation / environment (clean area = salary) and had synthesised it with other information (salary = maintain standard of living) to motivate / self-reinforcement to perform the desired behavior of cleaning (R) the dirty area (S).
Furthermore, in OLT, a learned behavior is explicitly displayed, i.e. consequences model behavior. Based on the four steps of the modelling process, attention, retention, reproduction and motivation (Bandura, 1972), SLT describes a behavior that is learned (retention) and need not be displayed (reproduction).
1.1.3 Difference in methodologies
In terms of processes the two theories differ in level of guidance, difference in processes in achieving behavior, resulting in differences in methodologies used to shape behavior and retention rate of learned behavior as a result of tools applied to shape behavior.
In OLT, learning process is guided by the manager therefore more structured compared to SLT. Under OLT, Neuringer (2002) believes that behavioural variability can be modified with consistent reinforcement, i.e. how desired behavior is achieved.
With SLT, the emphasis is on setting goals (Bandura, 1994), i.e. what desired behavior is to be achieved with how it is achieved being up to the individual. Besides reciprocal determinism, SLT also emphasizes self-efficacy or one’s belief in one’s own ability to achieve a desired behavior.
Given the difference in process of achieving desired behavior from a manager’s point of view, the effectiveness of OLT lies in the positive relationship between consistency and frequency of monitoring with reinforcement vis-a-vis desired behavior.
As SLT focuses more on reciprocal determinism and self-efficacy from a manager’s perspective, building a good culture within the organisation (Conducive environment / peer support) while maintaining the individual’s motivation would have bearing on the effectiveness of SLT in achieving desired behavior.
Methodologies used in OLT (external determinism) to shape behavior include reinforcements which encourages desired behavior and punishment which discourages unwanted behavior. Both positive and negative reinforcement relates to the addition or withdrawal of a consequence in relation to behavior. Another concept used in OLT is extinction, which is the non-reinforcement of behavior. In OLT, these tools are administered by the manager upon the individual.
Methodologies used in SLT to shape behavior include reinforcement (external determinism) and self-efficacy (internal determinism). Social reinforcement relates to acts of acceptance / non-acceptance of an individual within a group such as smiles and praise / frowns and criticism. Self-efficacy focuses on accomplishing performance, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and physiological feedback. As such, behavior is shaped by the group and the individual’s drive to achieve desired behavior.
Finally in OLT as behavior is modelled by consequences, the withdrawal of such could lead to a reduction in or complete abandonment of desired behavior (Staddon and Cerutti, 2003). In SLT behavior is learned, retained and displayed when necessary.
2. Recommendations and Implications
2.1 Case Study (OLT) – I
2.1.1 Case’s Scenario
Instant Feedback Systems (IFS) have played a role modifying employee behavior in business for decades (Schuler, 1991). With improvements in mobile technology, industry is turning to IFS more readily. Changi Airport Group (CAG) is arguably global leaders in this field.
Service Workforce Instant Feedback Transformation (SWIFT) was introduced in 2010 improving feedback management and performance standards. The system collects over 1.8 million feedback inputs from 750 consoles (Linnhoff-Popien, 2018) across 62.22 million passenger annually (Changi Airport Group, 2018) and credited with reducing costs by SGD 2 million with a 5% reduction in labour (TODAY Online, 2013).
Figure 2 – SWIFT work flow
It is clear that SWIFT has made a positive impact on service level at CAG. Its foundation lays in OLT.
Figure 3 – Operant Conditioning Approach SWIFT
There is little information available on how customer feedback is analyzed and used at CAG to modify and reinforce employee behavior only that it has. As such the following recommendations will be made with enhancing performance through behavior modification and reinforcement.
2.1.2 Recommendation through positive reinforcement
Both recommendations will center on reinforcement or the law of effect, proven to play a key role in the learning process.
The first recommendation would be the use of positive reinforcement, implementing a scaled extrinsic reward system, applied to smaller dedicated teams. The rewards will be applied on both a fixed and variable ratio, where desired behavior is achieved with an aim of increasing extrinsic motivation thus maintaining performance.
It is first important to define desired behavior. Desired behavior in the context described – given CAG strives for excellence – would be tasks performed in the restrooms to a high enough standard where customers are motivated to:
1. Select the happy face, indicating ‘excellent’, on the consol.
2. Select the smiling face, indicating ‘very good’, on the consol.
Any alternative customer selections would indicate that:
1. Desired behavior is not achieved, or
2. There is a technical fault in the restroom, i.e. blocked drain.
Now the desired behavior has been defined, the recommended positive reinforcement system may be described.
For demonstration purposes, it is assumed that the labor force totals 100 people, split into crews of 10 covering 10 different sectors across the airport. Each crew has a designated Crew Leader. The group is headed by the Service Team Leader.
Each crew rotates around the 10 sectors on a weekly basis as illustrated below:
MONTHLY SECTOR SCHEDULE
CREW WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 4 WEEK 5
CREW 1 SECTOR 1 SECTOR 5 SECTOR 4 SECTOR 3 SECTOR 2
CREW 2 SECTOR 2 SECTOR 1 SECTOR 5 SECTOR 4 SECTOR 3
CREW 3 SECTOR 3 SECTOR 2 SECTOR 1 SECTOR 5 SECTOR 4
CREW 4 SECTOR 4 SECTOR 3 SECTOR 2 SECTOR 1 SECTOR 5
CREW 5 SECTOR 5 SECTOR 4 SECTOR 3 SECTOR 2 SECTOR 1
Figure 4 – Crew Sector Rota
Rotating crews around sectors provides a ‘level playing field’ maintaining a sense of fairness which is imperative for the maintenance of extrinsic motivation.
The scaled reward system encompasses contrived and natural rewards scheduled as follows:
CREW REWARD SCHEDULE
REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION CONTRIVED/
NATURAL ACHIEVEMENT
RANDOM Unscheduled 'walk around' with praise from Service Team Leader. NATURAL Customer feedback on plan
MONTHLY Recognition and Gold Happy Badges presented by Service Team Leader NATURAL The most 'Excellent' console inputs to top three crews
QUARTERLY Free refreshments/lunch CONTRIVED Most 'excellent' console inputs to the top crew
ANNUALLY Cash bonuses & recognition from CAG CEO CONTRIVED Most 'excellent' console inputs to the top crew
Figure 5 – Reinforcement Schedule
2.1.3 Impact, implication and enhancement
Research and literature are conflicted on the implications of extrinsic rewards on creativity, team work, competition and motivation. Several meta-analysis studies have been completed with differing conclusions. Even the validity of meta-analysis in this discipline itself has been put to question (Lepper, 1999).
In the context described, creativity is not a priority given the lower level of task required in comparison to a R&D company. While there is no consensus on the relationship between creativity and extrinsic reward, it is generally accepted that a lower level of creativity is required with OLT as behavior is being controlled/modified more when compared to SLT.
There is consensus on extrinsic rewards having a positive impact on extrinsic motivation. The relationship between extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation is debated. Eisenberger (1996) concluded that the effect of extrinsic motivation on intrinsic motivation was too small in magnitude to be detected. Kohn (1993) concluded that extrinsic rewards have a detrimental effect on intrinsic motivation. Taking in to consideration comments made in the conclusion of Eisenberger’s evaluation and that of Cerasoli (2014); in the ‘real world’ it is rarely the case that a person is either extrinsically motivated or intrinsically motivated but a combination of both. In our first recommendation as above, we have attempted to mitigate any negative effect, lower intrinsic motivation would have on performance by adding positive verbal input from senior managers at the initial stages of the Reinforcement Schedule – unscheduled walk around and recognition.
Introducing a competitive environment as part of the extrinsic motivation element as suggested by Zhu (2016) may have several detrimental effects. Zhu states that motivation of members is not so much to perform well as it is to perform better than other members of the group. However, Zhu (2016), did go on to state that a highly competitive team climate creates a situation where extrinsic motivation is high but the relationship between competition and intrinsic motivation is stronger when individuals compete to demonstrate their competence, rather than only to obtain extrinsic rewards.
This view has been considered in the recommendations in so far SWIFT itself should positively impact intrinsic motivation providing direct/instant customer feedback with negative feedback requiring resolution within a specified time period. This would provide a strong motivating effect in demonstrating capability outside of the extrinsic reward system. There would also be a mitigator from an extrinsic motivational perspective, where Lin (2005) suggests individual behavior is driven by its perceived values and the benefits of the action.
2.1.4 Recommendation through negative reinforcement
The second recommendation is in the absence of desired behavior implementing negative reinforcement through immediate feedback.
An indicator of undesirable behavior would be a negative console input by a client, i.e. input 1 ‘Very Poor’, input 2 ‘Litter Bin Full’.
This ‘negative input’ would trigger instant messages being sent to both the Crew Supervisor and Crew responsible for the sector. The Crew would then have 30 minutes to resolve the issue, else escalating in an electronic ‘red flag’ raised to the Service Team Leader.
The Service Team Leader would need to assess if the ‘red flag’ was a result of undesirable behavior or an unavoidable technical fault. In the case of an unavoidable technical fault, there would be no adverse consequences for the crew. If the ‘red flag’ was a result of undesirable behavior, the ‘red flag’ would be system noted and if the accumulated ‘red flags’ in any one month reached a pre-determined figure, a performance review would take place for both the Crew and Crew Leader.
In the event the issue is resolved within 30 minutes, the Crew Team Leader would be able to cancel the system input with no adverse effect.
2.1.5 Impact, implication and enhancement
The context of SWIFT gives a very good example to explain how negative reinforcement works to improve the crew’s work quality. However, in practice various factors have to be considered when applying negative reinforcement. Unsuitable application of negative reinforcement will not lead to desired behavior and may even have the opposite effect (Iwata, 1987).
It could be imaged that, if some crews consistently receive negative feedback over a certain period but are insufficiently capable of solving the issue in the short to medium term (such as irremovable dirt stain or urine marks), they would become less confident and display negative emotions to their work. As a result, no improvement would appear in their performance. Miltenberger, R. G (2008), in his book Behavioral Modification: Principles and Procedures, has expressed this very likely outcome of negative reinforcement – The opposite effect would occur if the individual becomes deprived of that stimulus (reward).
Negative reinforcement should not work alone but with accurate adjustment. SWIFT provides a pure digital feedback system but does not perform analysis in the actual situation nor consider crew emotion. The supervisor or manager should play a role in assessing the situation using the SWIFT data as part of the overall equation while also applying experience and judgment when deciding how to approach the crew. In reducing reported negative feedback which would not be of benefit to the crew’s performance, less negative side effects would occur. For example, when an irremovable stain is easily seen leading to customers continuously rating the cleaning service as “poor” or “very poor”, the supervisor may determine that is not due to the crew’s work attitude or insufficient effort thus the negative feedback is omitted from the report to the crew.
The supervisor or manager should be capable of filtering negative feedback as not to create undesired behavior.
2.2 Case Study (SLT) – II
2.2.1 Case’s scenario
Badminton is a sport played between two to four players using rackets and a shuttlecock, which is hit back and forth across a 1.55 metres high net in the middle of a 6.1 metres by 13.4 metres rectangular court.
In Singapore badminton is popular leisure activity where people can spend time exercising and socialising. Some Companies have recreation committees organizing weekly badminton sessions for staff to exercise and enjoy meeting outside office hours. New comers find playing badminton helps with integration, building relationships with colleagues from other departments. They are keen to improve on their skills and seek advice from experienced players.
2.2.2 Recommendation through modelling process
The focus of badminton training is to shape a player’s technique and improve skill. Based on external determinism (Bandura, 1977) of SLT, a good role model and/or playing in a group would have significant positive effect on training outcome. The training manager and coach – in an external context – are recommended to make proper training arrangements focusing on SLT’s modelling process. This consists of four steps: attention, retention, reproduction and motivation (Bandura, 1972).
In observing how the good badminton players are is the first step in the modelling process. In practice, failing to replicate a certain technique or losing a game would trigger the player to observe others applying technique in a game. For example, some beginners cannot serve the shuttlecock. In this case the training manager could arrange for coaching with those players skilled in serving.
The second step termed retention requires the trainee to observe and recall detail. At this stage, the training manager could analyse the actions of the best player and convert those actions into a detailed form which is easily remembered. Video recording is good tool that can be used repeatedly to demonstrate the detail in an action for analysis.
Reproduction is the next stage where repetition imitating the model’s action is required to the point where the desired action is learned. During this process, removal of the model is not advisable as the model continues to serve as an example of the desired action. If the learner forgets some of the actions, there’s an opportunity to return to the observing and remembering stage before moving forward once more to try and reproduce the desired action on court.
Motivation is the last stage. The motivation and expectation of the trainee are key elements in driving reproduction of desired action. A group experiencing more fun and mutual incentives would create a positive environment thus motivation for the trainee. The training manager should also set achievable goals based upon the trainee’s playing level (Bandura, 1994). Unachievable goals may reduce the trainee’s motivation.
2.2.3 Impact, implication and enhancement
The modelling method adopted in SLT for training can offer several benefits but also has many practical challenges.
Firstly, selection of the model (Joanne et al., 1977) requires prudent consideration. According to SLT, an individual learns a certain behavior from his/her own observation rather than other’s instruction (Sorcher and Goldstein, 1972). In other words, the model used has more influence on the learner’s behavior than a verbal guide. Therefore, in the context of badminton, whether the action or technique is applied correctly by the model would affect the trainee’s observation. If the trainee is unknowingly observing a wrong technique being used by the model or the learner missed some of the details, a wrong technique would be imitated and even further reinforced.
The training manager must also take into account the difficulty of the technique being modelled is matched to the level of the trainee. Excessively complex actions performed by the model which is not achievable by trainee is likely to result in negatively affecting motivation of learning, i.e. the trainee would be less motived to continue with the learning when he/she may recognise that such a technique may be unable to be learned.
When facing those issues it recommends the training manager to select the model for the trainee on a “custom-made” basis, i.e. different types or levels of models to be selected depending on different stages, extent and nature of learning. In connection with the player at entry level an advisable approach is to organize a small group collecting the peers or beginners together so that they may learn from each other. In the case of a professional player, selecting model demonstrating a high level of detail thus targeting specific points of weakness is more pertinent. For example, a player being weak in quick movement could opt for Lee Chong Wei (LCW) as learning model; that in absence of offensive flexibility could learn from Lin Dan (LD). Both LCW and LD are badminton legends but differ from each other in skill specialty.
How to maintain the learner’s sufficient motivation falls within the scope of sport psychologist (Weiner, 1972). Great care should be taken by the training manager in noting trainee’s psychological change. When the player is motivated by winning a match, their training contributing is diligent; in contrast, when a player loses a match, they may lack motivation and understanding in their direction on what to do next. Therefore, scheduling time for resting/training could avoid psychological fatigue and a variety of training modes would also keep the game fresh by not over-exerting.
2.2.4 Recommendation through self-efficacy
The second recommendation leverages on self-efficacy, in particular, vicarious experience or in the context of this case, vicarious learning will help to improve the individual’s actual performances (Hoover and Giambatista, 2012).
In an organisation or badminton group this has several benefits. Firstly, it reduces time and effort required by the group to bring the individual up-to-mark. By getting the individual to do some self-learning via instructional videos or books therefore providing a general foundation of the situation / game.
Secondly, when using vicarious experience to improve on the individual’s performance it would force the individual to recognize his current limitations. Providing guidance on goal setting to achieve the desired learning outcome would also be of benefit.
Thirdly, after understanding limitations the individual can start looking for functional role models to replicate badminton tactics, strokes and/ or physical attributes (strength, speed, agility etc.) that have been identified for improvement to perform the required tasks.
As such, vicarious experience makes the whole learning process and task performance more effective (Gupta and Bostrom, 2013). It also saves time and effort required for the group to coach the individual, gets him to recognise his current limitations and provides a success story i.e. functional role model(s) for him to mimic.
The role of the leader is therefore to facilitate goal setting and provision of the necessary support towards achieving an individual’s identified goals, including psychological conditioning like verbal persuasion.
2.2.5 Impact, implication and enhancement
The use of instructional videos and guides has several benefits (Buchanan, 2016). Besides the convenience of learning at one’s own time and pace, it also mitigates against attention lapse or knowledge retention issues as a result of cognitive limitations. Videos / guides can be revisited when required.
In the context of SLT, studies show that explicit strategic instructions from peers provide strong task knowledge. This in turn is a strong factor in predicting performance (Raedts et al, 2017).
From a manager’s / coach’s perspective, monitoring of progress and providing strategic instructions at inflection points would aid performance outcome.
Vicarious experience falls under the scope of observational learning and aids an individual in improving self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) which will spur the individual to perform the required task and provide support to persevere when met with difficulties (Chase, 2001; Feltz and Lirgg, 2001).
Efforts increase when goals harder to achieve are set (Locke and Latham, 2002) and research showed that self-efficacy is enhanced when the individual is successful in attaining these goals. However, repeated failures would lower self-efficacy (Feltz and Magyar, 2006). As such, besides concentrating on performance outcome, learning how to perform, so as to achieve desired learning outcome will provide greater motivation and performance outcome (Schunk, 1996; Bandura, 1986).
Therefore, for a relatively noncomplex and repetitive task, setting higher expectations on oneself would contribute to higher self-efficacy and task performance; however, the same could not be said for relatively more complex tasks which challenge an individual’s abilities.
Under SLT how desired goals are achieved is left to individual motivation and is a major focal point (Buchanan, 2016). With vicarious learning and taking into context the case scenario, the manager / coach should set clear goals and assess the individual’s aptitude to perform them. Learning a better methodology i.e. learning how to perform, will also contribute to increasing motivation in order to achieve the desired performance outcome (Schunk, 1996; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000).
3. Conclusions
At the theoretical level although SLT is an integration of OLT and cognitive learning theory, SLT and OLT have a variety of significant differences in terms of 1) definition, 2) approaches of how desired behaviour is achieved, 3) the pattern to explain an individual’s level of understanding of response to a stimulus, 4) definition on that a behavior is successfully learned, 5) level of guidance provided at theoretical level, 6) methodologies used to shape behaviour and 7) retention rate of learned behaviour.
In the OLT case scenario, positive and negative reinforcements were recommended to enhance members’ performances in an organization. Implications of positive reinforcement like extrinsic reward having detrimental effect on intrinsic motivation are discussed. Research also found that intrinsic motivation can be improved when individuals compete to demonstrate their competence, rather than against one another to obtain extrinsic rewards.
Negative reinforcement was introduced as the second recommendation under OLT and should not be consistently used on a standalone basis as it would result in lower confidence level and negatively impact the emotion of workers in relation to their job. The manager’s intervention to moderate negative feedbacks / reinforcements is required.
In the SLT scenario, modelling method and self-efficacy were recommended to enhance members’ performances in an organization. In the modelling method, the selection of role model is discussed and motivation affects overall performance.
On self-efficacy, vicarious experience / learning had been singled out to improve members’ performances. Research showed that explicit strategic instructions from peers provide strong task knowledge. This is a strong factor in predicting performance. From manager’s / coach’s perspective, monitoring of progress and providing strategic instructions at inflection points would aid performance outcome.
Finally, other findings reflected in the essay include the element of cognitive process being evident in operant conditioning albeit at a lower level vis-a-vis SLT based on six stages of critical thinking, the requirement for consistent monitoring plays a role in effectiveness of learning and performance outcome under the two theories and whether managers should set goals to satisfy or suffice performance standards are also discussed.
4. References
1) Skinner, B. (1938) the Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. Oxford, England: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.
2) Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3) Evans, T. (2008) ‘Going concerns’, HR Monthly, pp.18-21
4) Bandura, A. (1971) Social Learning Theory. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20131024214846/http://www.jku.at/org/content/e54521/e54528/e54529/e178059/Bandura_SocialLearningTheory_ger.pdf (Accessed: 12 November 2018)
5) Kreitner, R. and Luthans, F. (1984) ‘A social learning approach to Behavioral management: radical behaviorists “mellowing out”’, Organizational Dynamics, 13(2), p.55.
6) Elmansy, R. (2016) Designorate. Available at:
https://www.designorate.com/steps-effective-critical-thinking/ (Accessed: 16 December 2018)
7) Bandura, A. (1972) ‘Modeling theory: Some traditions, trends, and disputes’, in Parke, R. (eds.) Recent trends in Social Learning Theory. New York: Academic Press, Inc., pp. 35-61
8) Neuringer, A. (2002) ‘Operant variability: Evidence, functions, and theory’, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 (4), pp. 672–705.
9) Bandura, A. (1994) ‘Self-efficacy’, in Ramachaudran, V. (eds.), Encyclopedia of human behavior. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71-81.
10) Staddon, J. and Cerutti, D. (2003), ‘Operant conditioning’, Annual Review of Psychology, 54 (1), pp. 115-44.
11) Changi Aircraft Group (2018). Changi Aircraft Group. Available at: http://www.changiairport.com/corporate/about-us/traffic-statistics.html (Accessed: 21 November 2018).
12) Linnhoff-Popien, C. et al. 2018. Digital Marketplaces Unleashed. Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
13) Schuler, R., Fulkerson, J. and Dowling, P., (1991) Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Multinational Corporations. Human Resource Management, 30(3), pp. 365-392.
14) Skytrax World Airport Awards (2018). The World's Best Airports of 2018. Available at: http://www.worldairportawards.com/ (Accessed: 21 November 2018).
15) TODAY Online (2013). Faster repairs at Changi Airport, thanks to feedback system. Available at: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/faster-repairs-changi-airport-thanks-feedback-system (Accessed: 11 December 2018).
16) Zhu, Y., Gardner, D. and Chen, H. (2016) ‘Relationships Between Work Team Climate, Individual Motivation, and Creativity’, Journal of Management, 44(5), pp. 2094-2115.
17) Deci, E., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R. (1999). ‘A meta-analytic of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation’, Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), pp. 627-68.
18) Lepper, M. R., Henderlong, J., & Gingras, I. (1999). ‘Understanding the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation—Uses and abuses of meta-analysis: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999)’, Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), pp. 669-676.
19) Lin, H. (2005) ‘Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions’. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), pp. 135-149.
20) Johns, G. and Saks, A. (2017) Organisational Behavior: Understanding and Managing Life at Work. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall.
21) Light, R. (2011) ‘Opening up learning theory to social theory in research on sport and physical education through a focus on practice’, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16(4), pp. 369-382.
22) Sorcher, M. and Goldstein, A. (1972) ‘A behavior modeling approach in training’. Personnel Administration, 35, pp. 35-41.
23) Weiner, B. (1972) Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Oxford, England: Markham.
24) Raedts, M., van Steendam, E., de Grez, L., Hendrickx, J. & Masui, C. (2017) ‘The effects of different types of video modelling on undergraduate students' motivation and learning in an academic writing course’, Journal of Writing Research, 8(3), pp. 399-435.
25) Iwata, B. (1987) ‘Negative Reinforcement in Applied Behavior Analysis: An Emerging Technology’, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20 (4), pp. 361-378.
26) Bandura, A. (1977) ‘Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change’. Psychological Review, 84(2), pp. 191–215.
27) Chase, M.A. (2001) ‘Children’s self-efficacy, motivational intentions, and attributions in physical education and sport’, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72 (1), pp. 47-54.
28) Feltz, D. and Lirgg, C. (2001). ‘Self-efficacy beliefs of athletes, teams, and coaches’, in Singer, R., Hausenblas, H. and Janelle, C. (eds.) Handbook of sport psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp. 340-361.
29) Locke, E. and Latham, G. (2002) ‘Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey’, American Psychologist, 57(9), pp. 705–717.
30) Feltz, D. and Magyar, T. (2006). ‘Self-efficacy and adolescents in sport and physical activity’, in Pajares, F. and Urdan, T. (eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 161-179.
31) Schunk, D. (2003) ‘Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modelling, goal setting, and self-evaluation’, Readingand Writing Quarterly, 19 (2), pp. 159-172.
32) Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33) Schunk, D. (1996) ‘Goal and Self-Evaluative Influences during Children's Cognitive Skill Learning’, American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), pp. 359-382.
34) Schunk, D., Erterm, A. (2000) ‘Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions’, in Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. and Zeidner, M. (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation, San Diego: Academic Press, pp.631-649.
35) Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY, US: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.
36) Joanne M. et al. (1977) ‘Perceived aggression: A re-evaluation of the Bandura modelling paradigm’, The Journal of Social Psychology, 103 (2), pp. 277-289.
37) Buchanan, J. (2016) ‘Albert Bandura: Self Efficacy for Agentic Positive Psychology’, Available at: https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/bandura-self-efficacy/ (Accessed 20 December 2018).
38) Hoover, J., Giambatista, R. and Belkin, L. (2012) ‘Eyes On, Hands on: Vicarious Observational Learning as an Enhancement of Direct Experience’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), pp. 591–608.
39) Gupta, S. and Bostrom, R. (2013) ‘An Investigation of the Appropriation of Technology-Mediated Training Methods Incorporating Enactive and Collaborative Learning’, Information Systems Research, 24(