PSYCHOLOGY: social learning theory and behaviourism

(Original post by lou_100)
In my opinion the two aren't actually easily comparable, because one is a theory and one is a broad approach.

Behaviourism is the general term in psychology that refers to our behaviour as being shaped by the environment. It focuses on observable behaviour that can be objectively measured. Theories that fall under the behaviourist umbrella are commonly classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and the social learning theory.

So, the social learning theory is a behaviourist theory. Because it's a theory, it's more specific about how our behaviour is shaped by the environment, holding that we observe, imitate and learn behaviours from other people, specifically a role model (certain boxes are claimed to have to be ticked for a more likely chance of imitation e.g. someone they look up to and admire). I'm sure you know the details of the SLT if you've studied it, so I won't go on.

So essentially I don't see how you can compare behaviourism and SLT when one is the other. The only thing I can think of is that it wants you to compare the early behaviourist theories (classical and operant conditioning) with the social learning theory, as the SLT is considered a newer extension of the behaviourist approach.

If that's the case, you can compare different things. Skinner's operant conditioning implies a needed reward to encourage imitation whereas Bandura's SLT just requires a role model, for example. If that's what the question means, it's not too hard to look up the 2 other theories and identify the main differences like the example I gave. Similarities would be surrounding the behaviourist ideas of observable behaviour and stimulus input from the environment.