Social Learning: Impact on Decision Making Behavior

Social learning is the notion that individuals acquire beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors through observing and interacting with others. Social learning can influence a decision maker’s behavior. It affects how they allocate attention, store and retrieve information, experience mood and emotions, perceive time horizons, interpret social contexts, form expectations, manage uncertainty, define attitudes and values, set goals and preferences, and develop or leverage competence and power.

This text is part of the series on decision governance. Decision Governance is concerned with how to improve the quality of decisions by changing the context, process, data, and tools (including AI) used to make decisions. Understanding decision governance empowers decision makers and decision stakeholders to improve how they make decisions with others. Start with “What is Decision Governance?” and find all texts on decision governance here.

Below is a brief discussion of how social learning can shape each of these factors in a decision situation. Each section will discuss potential positive and negative influences, along with an illustrative example.

Attention

Observing how peers or role models prioritize tasks can redirect a decision maker’s focus. When a peer highlights certain risks or opportunities, the decision maker is more likely to concentrate on these issues.

Positive Influence

• By observing peers who emphasize key data, the decision maker learns to filter out distractions.
• This leads to more thoughtful allocation of cognitive resources and a clearer focus on pressing problems.

Negative Influence

• Excessive attention to the same details a group focuses on can result in groupthink, causing the decision maker to overlook other relevant issues.

Example

• A newly appointed manager notices that effective project leaders spend time analyzing competitor initiatives. Imitating this, the manager begins reviewing market intelligence. Although beneficial at first, placing too much emphasis on market trends could cause the manager to miss internal process improvements.

Memory

Social groups often develop shared narratives that shape what individuals recall and how they interpret past experiences. Repeated discussion of certain events can reinforce particular memories and diminish others.

Positive Influence

• Collective recollection helps highlight useful practices and lessons learned, improving the decision maker’s capacity to recall constructive experiences.
• Storytelling within a team can bolster institutional memory and reduce repeated mistakes.

Negative Influence

• Shared narratives may become biased over time, perpetuating selective or inaccurate recollections. This can misinform future decisions.

Example

• A product development team frequently describes a past launch as a success, emphasizing specific marketing techniques. The decision maker employs those techniques for a subsequent launch, not realizing that additional contextual factors also contributed to the success.

Mood

Emotional states can be partially transmitted through social interaction, sometimes referred to as emotional contagion. Exposure to colleagues’ optimism or anxiety may shift a decision maker’s mood.

Positive Influence

• Observing a calm, upbeat team culture may encourage the decision maker to remain even-tempered and proactive.
• A supportive group climate often fosters resilience and creative thinking.

Negative Influence

• A stressful environment might heighten the decision maker’s own anxiety, leading to rushed or defensive choices.

Example

• A sales team celebrates meeting quarterly targets. The decision maker, encouraged by the group’s enthusiasm, feels more confident proposing a bold new sales strategy.

Emotions

Observing others’ emotional expressions and the outcomes they receive can reinforce or discourage certain emotional responses. Seeing a trusted peer respond calmly to setbacks may help the decision maker remain composed.

Positive Influence

• By modeling peers who manage emotions effectively, the decision maker can develop better emotional regulation, improving judgment and collaboration.

Negative Influence

• If the observed norm is to suppress or dismiss all emotions, the decision maker may overlook legitimate concerns, possibly undermining morale and creativity.

Example

• At a team meeting, senior leaders praise a colleague who responds empathically to client complaints. The decision maker adopts this empathic style in the next client negotiation, helping build trust and better outcomes.

Temporal Distance

Social learning can affect whether a decision maker views an outcome as imminent or in the distant future. Mentors who stress long-term consequences may encourage an individual to adopt a future-oriented perspective.

Positive Influence

• Emulating those who plan for distant payoffs promotes patience and thorough risk assessment.
• It can encourage longer-term decision making that accounts for sustainable outcomes.

Negative Influence

• Focusing excessively on distant horizons might lead to procrastination or ignoring urgent operational matters.

Example

• A board of directors points out how strategic investments pay off years later, prompting a CEO to invest in research and development. However, short-term cost pressures may go underestimated.

Social Distance

When a decision maker witnesses others bridging hierarchical or cultural gaps, they may feel more comfortable collaborating with diverse stakeholders. Conversely, observing group isolation can widen perceived distance.

Positive Influence

• Seeing inclusive teams teaches the decision maker the value of varied input, reinforcing empathy and cross-functional collaboration.

Negative Influence

• If social norms favor exclusivity or cliques, the decision maker may ignore broader feedback, reducing decision quality.

Example

• A department head observes that top performers regularly ask frontline employees for opinions. Following suit, the head opens communication channels and uncovers overlooked efficiency improvements.

Expectations

Social context often defines what outcomes are considered achievable or likely. Witnessing peers accomplish challenging goals may encourage a decision maker to aim higher.

Positive Influence

• Successful role models can support greater ambition and confidence, motivating more challenging targets.

Negative Influence

• Unrealistic group expectations can create undue pressure, leading to burnout or questionable shortcuts.

Example

• A startup founder observes other businesses expanding quickly into new regions. Following their example, the founder scales aggressively, which can drive growth but also raise operational risks.

Uncertainty

In ambiguous situations, people often rely on others to interpret risk. As social proof builds, uncertainty may lessen.

Positive Influence

• Observing teams that systematically evaluate risk can teach structured decision methods.

Negative Influence

• Blindly accepting group assumptions may lead to complacency if key risks go unnoticed.

Example

• During a market downturn, a CFO sees how respected peers gather data before making financing decisions. Encouraged, the CFO adopts similar due diligence, though it takes more time.

Attitudes

Social norms, conveyed through collective discussion or influential role models, signal which attitudes are deemed rational or acceptable. Decision makers may adapt their own attitudes accordingly.

Positive Influence

• A culture that welcomes diverse perspectives can prompt the decision maker to evaluate new ideas, fostering more flexible and informed attitudes.

Negative Influence

• Social pressure to conform can stifle independent thought, perpetuating biases or outdated views.

Example

• A newly hired executive sees that other leaders welcome constructive criticism. The executive embraces a similarly open-minded approach, drawing on various viewpoints and ultimately improving project outcomes.

Values

Deep-seated beliefs about what is essential or right partly emerge through observing how others distribute resources or reward conduct. Such examples can reinforce or reshape a decision maker’s values.

Positive Influence

• Exposure to leaders who reward ethical practices and long-term social benefits can reinforce socially beneficial values.

Negative Influence

• Noticing unethical behavior rewarded can legitimize shortcuts or indifference to stakeholders, undermining moral standards.

Example

• Observing a CEO allocate funds to community projects motivates a regional manager to devote a portion of their budget to similar initiatives. However, if a later CEO discontinues these programs to boost short-term earnings, the manager may revise those priorities.

Goals

Ambitious or conservative targets can be adopted when influential peers demonstrate that certain aims are attainable—or caution that they are not.

Positive Influence

• Observing peers set challenging but realistic goals can encourage the decision maker to pursue higher achievements.

Negative Influence

• Copying narrow or misaligned goals may overshadow broader organizational objectives.

Example

• A tech firm’s R&D director sees a colleague develop a new prototype in six months. Inspired, the director sets similar deadlines, sparking creativity but potentially straining the team.

Preferences

Preferences for products, strategies, or solutions are influenced by trusted colleagues’ choices, discussion, or imitation.

Positive Influence

• Adopting proven methods from experienced peers can lower search costs and accelerate decision making.

Negative Influence

• Group enthusiasm or trends might distract the decision maker from considering better alternatives.

Example

• A marketing director notes that industry leaders are using a certain analytics platform. Adopting it can improve data insights but could also lead to reliance on one approach.

Competence

Learning from observed best practices, mentorship, or constructive feedback can help decision makers acquire new skills, supporting more accurate self-assessment.

Positive Influence

• Role models who demonstrate problem-solving expertise can inspire the decision maker to prioritize ongoing learning.

Negative Influence

• In an environment that neglects professional development, the decision maker may also ignore skill improvement, leading to outdated capabilities.

Example

• A project manager observes that senior colleagues use data analysis tools to enhance outcomes. Following their example, the manager learns these tools, resulting in improved project performance.

Power

Power can shift as individuals learn from group dynamics how to influence or gain the cooperation of others. Observing effective leaders can teach the decision maker to use authority responsibly.

Positive Influence

• Modeling fair and open leadership styles builds trust and a more accountable use of influence.

Negative Influence

• Seeing manipulative tactics or intimidation rewarded may encourage exploitative power dynamics.

Example

• A department head observes a peer recognizing initiative and open communication. By replicating these behaviors, the head fosters a committed team. However, if the head later witnesses another leader succeed through strict control and punishing small errors, they might adopt more coercive methods.

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
• Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
• Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39–66.
• French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Oxford: University of Michigan.
• Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–24). New York: Guilford Press.
• Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
• Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.
• Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Definitions

• Social learning. Process by which people learn through observation, imitation, and modeling of others (Bandura, 1977).
• Temporal distance. The extent to which a future event is perceived as near or far in time, shaping decision makers’ focus on concrete or abstract aspects (Trope & Liberman, 2010).
• Social distance. The perceived closeness or remoteness between individuals or groups, influencing communication and empathy (Lewin, 1947).
• Attitudes. Evaluative judgments about objects, people, or events, which predispose how individuals respond (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
• Values. Enduring beliefs about desirability or importance, influencing goal setting and decision making (Schwartz, 1994).