Bandura et al: Aggression

Psychology being investigated

• Social learning theory: people observe and imitate the behaviors of others, especially those whom they identify (who they find attractive, powerful or popular)

• Aggression: behavior where there is the intention to harm another person or object and is usually forceful or hostile. it can be both physical and verbal. Bandura et al investigated delayed imitation of aggression in terms of both verbal and physical shown towards inanimate objects.

AIM

• To investigate whether children will imitate aggression more when exposed to same-sex model

• To investigate if boys will imitate more aggression than girls if exposed to aggressive modeling.

SAMPLE

• Total sample: 72 kids (36 girls and 36 boys) age range form 3-6 years old, enrolled from the Stanford university Nursery school

• The researcher pre-tested the children of how aggressive they were by observing the children in the nursery and judged their aggressive behavior on four 5-point rating scales

• It was then possible to match the kids with similar levels of aggression into groups → matched pairs design

• To test the inter-rater-reliability, 51 children were observed independently by 2 observes and then they compared the results afterwards. ( r = 0.89)

DESIGN

• laboratory experiment

• independent measure design. Each child experience only one condition among the 3: aggressive, non-aggressive or none (control group)

• matched-pairs design (matched levels of pre-existing aggression)

VARIABLES

• Independent variable: the type of model behavior the child observed (aggressive, nonaggressive or none) with sub-variations of models’ gender.

  • Aggression is shown to 24 children. A female model is shown to 6 boys and 6 girls. A male model is shown to 6 boys and 6 girls.

  • Non-aggression is shown to 24 children. A female model is shown to 6 boys and 6 girls. A male model is shown to 6 boys and 6 girls.

  • No model(control group) is shown to 24 children

• Dependent variable: the amount of aggression behaviour shown by the child in the subsequent test situation, measured through observational counts of specific actions and remarks.

Procedure: Stage 1: Modelling. CONDITION AGGRESSIVE.

In the experimental conditions, children were individually shown into a room containing toys and played with some potato prints and pictures in a corner for 10 minutes

Children were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental group

Condition 1: Aggression model condition

• each child individually observed an adult model (either a man or a woman) behave aggressively toward a large inflatable Bobo doll.

• In a room set up for play, the model first played quietly with the tinker toys for about a minute, then proceeded to physically and verbally attack the bobo doll for the remaining time

• Actions including punching, hitting it with a mallet, tossing it, and kicking it.

• Verbal including sock him in the nose, hit him down, kick him, pow → not common playground behavior

Procedure Stage 1: Modeling. CONDITION NON-AGGRESSIVE

condition 2: non-aggressive

• each child observed an adult model in the same playroom who did not display aggression

• The model simply sat quietly and assembled the tinker toy set, ignoring the bobo doll entirely, for 10 minutes

• no aggression physical or verbal acts were demonstrated in this condition

Procedure Stage 1: Modeling. CONDITION CONTROL

• the child had no adult model to observe

• There was no pre play modeling session in this group - the child did it see any adult behavior with the bobo doll (thus providing a baseline for typical behavior without modeling)

Procedure Stage 2: Aggression Arousal.

• After the modeling phase, each child was subjected to a mild frustration intended to provoke arousal

• Each child was separately taken to a room with relatively attractive toys, e.g. fire engine, doll set

• As soon as the child started to play with the toys, the experimenter told the child that these were the experimenter’s very best toys and she had decided to reserve them for the other children

• This step was included to make sure even typically calm children had some reason to feel frustrated

• Earlier research had shown that of children weren’t frustrated at all, simply watching aggression ,ight not lead them to aggressively themselves

Procedure Stage 3: test for delayed imitation

• finally the child was taken into the third room that contained a variety of both aggressive and non aggressive toys

• Aggressive toys included the bobo doll (identical to the set that the model used), a mallet, and even a toy gun; non- aggressive toys included dolls, tea sets, crayons, three bears and plastic farm animals

• The child was then left to play freely for 20 minutes in this room.

• During this period the observer observed the child’s behavior through one-way mirror, making systematic records

• Observations were made at 5 second intervals, therefore giving 240 responses unit per child

• the experimenter stayed in the room during the play period but occupied themselves in a corner → avoid interaction or interruptions to the child, ensure the child felt free to behave naturally

Results Imitative aggression

Imitative aggression:

• children who watched an aggressive adults were significantly likely to imitate aggression behavior (both physically and verbally)

• Children that were shown to non aggression or no model showed almost no aggression imitation

• ABout 70% of the children in the non aggressive and no model condition showed no imitative aggression at all, while many who observed aggression copied specific actions like hitting the doll or repeating aggressive phrases (e.g. sock him, sock him in the nose, kick him,..”

Result General aggression levels

• Exposure to aggressive models didn’t just encourage copying, it increases overall aggression including new aggression acts not shown by the model

• Children who saw aggressive adults were less inhibited and more likely to show creative forms of aggression

• Example: girls who watched the aggressive adult averaged 18 aggressive acts (like hitting with a mallet), compared to almost non (0.5 average) for those who saw calm adult.

Result Gender difference

• Boys were generally more likely to imitate physical aggression than girls, especially when the model was male

• Girls showed more physical aggression when watching a male model but more verbally aggressive after watching female model

• Boys and girls were both more strongly influenced by male models overall, likely due to societally views of aggression as a masculine behavior at the time.

result qualitative observations

• children closely copied the language used by aggressive models (shouting “pow”, and “sock him” )

• Children’s comments revealed that they actively processed what they saw, for example:

  • Aggression by female was criticized by children as inappropriate( ladies shouldn’t behave in that way)

  • Aggression by a male adult was often praised (he’s strong like daddy)

• These observations show that social expectations (such as gender norms) played significant role in how children interpreted and copied aggression.

Conclusion

• Rather than reducing aggression, watching violence tended to increase aggressive behavior in children

• Suggested that exposure to aggression is not a harmless outlet but can serve as a positive model that children incorporate into their own actions

• Highlight the important influences of role model, such as parents, peers and TV characters who can significantly shape children’s behaviors and attitudes.

• advocate that aggression can be learned observationally , laying the groundwork for his broader social learning theory.