Note on “Disinhibition”

Abstract

Use of the term “disinhibition” by social learning theorists is criticized on several grounds. (1) Use of a descriptive term as an explanatory concept is circular. (2) Since the term carries specific explanatory meaning stemming from traditional learning theory, adding another meaning to a single term is likely to cause unnecessary confusion. Altering the name of the term, e.g., “de-inhibition” might help clarify the literature. (3) Where the same term is used to explain seemingly different situations, one is uncertain as to whether the implied underlying process is indeed a single one. (4) The underlying process postulated by Bandura and Walters to account for “disinhibition” is the counterconditioning or extinction of anxiety responses, but the possibly crucial role of E and the experimental arrangements in mediating the effect of the model have been overlooked. Further research regarding the presence of anxiety responses and the effect of the experimental arrangements seems necessary before conclusions can be reached as to the process underlying increments in deviant responses and their generalizability to real life situations.