AICE Psychology Paper 1 Exam Studies 1-12 FULL REVIEW

What three studies are in the Social Unit?

Milgram (Obedience)

Piliavin (Subway Samaritans)

Yamamoto (Chimpanzee Helping)

What three studies are in the Learning Unit?

Bandura (Aggression)

Saavedra & Silverman (Button Phobia)

Pepperberg (Parrot Learning)

What three studies are in the Cognitive Unit?

Andrade (Doodling)

Baron-Cohen (Eyes Test)

Laney (False Memories)

What three studies are in the Biological Unit?

Dement & Kleitman (Dreaming)

Schachter & Singer (Two Factors of Emotion)

Canli (Brain Scans)

Assumptions of the Social Approach:

Behavior, cognition, and emotions can be influenced by groups or social contexts

Assumptions of the Learning Approach:

We learn though observation/imitation of behavior

We learn through the consequences of our behavior

We learn through association

Assumptions of the Cognitive Approach:

The main assumption of the cognitive approach is thathow we think is central in explaining how we behave and how we respond to different people and different situations.

Assumptions for the Biological Approach:

Behavior, cognitions, and emotions can be explained in terms of the working brain and the effects of hormones-similarities and differences between people can be understood in terms of the biological factors and their interactions with other factors

Social Approach:

The social approach would say we can only understand people in the context of how they operate in their interactions and perceptions of others.

Learning Approach:

The learning approach is that all behavior is learned (nurture) through experience and nothing is inherited (nature). Another is the view that the subject matter of psychology should have standardized procedures , with the emphasis on the study of observable behavior.

Cognitive Approach:

The cognitive approach is that how we think is central in explaining how we behave and how we respond to different people and different situations. Also, the cognitive approach sees a human rather like a complicated computer - information enters the mind (input), it is processes and stored, and it is sometimes used again later (output) through remembering or responding to a situation.

Biological Approach:

The biological approach concerns the role of genetics, hormones, brain function, and neurotransmitters. It is assumed that all humans and animals function physiologically and that processes, such as hormone release and brain activity, determine behavior.

Strengths & Weaknesses of the Social Approach:

STRENGTHS:

● can help to explain behavior in social situations

● tends to be holistic in looking at different levels of explanations

WEAKNESSES:

● results often lack generalizability depending on culture, race, socio-economic status, etc.

● issues of controlling variables as examining social behavior is complex

Strengths & Weaknesses of the Learning Approach:

STRENGTHS:

● they use experimental and non-experimental data.

WEAKNESSES:

● It does not take into account the effect of biology or genetics in aggression.

● Some of the experiments lack ecological validity.

Strengths & Weaknesses of the Cognitive Approach:

STRENGTHS:

● use of experimental methodology in most cases

● approach centers on the mind, a central aspect in understanding human psychology

WEAKNESSES:

● though advancing, it is still seen to be 'less scientific'- many have simply guessed or

inferred how people think

● idea of the human mind is like a computer is reductionist (leaves out social, emotional, &

behavioral)

● the approach often fails to account for individual differences

Strengths & Weaknesses of the Biological Approach:

STRENGTHS:

● generally, the most scientific (as studies often use machines for measurement)

● uses the experimental method and more controls in trying to determine cause & effect

WEAKNESSES:

● often reductionist- cannot reduce complex behaviors, emotions, etc. to a single aspect

● findings often show correlations, but cannot definitively show cause & effect

Milgram (Obedience @ Yale University 1963)

-

The Psychology Being Investigated in Milgram:

Situational Hypothesis (The idea that we can explain human behavior such as during the Holocaust, through social processes rather than the characteristics of the individual) vs. Dispositional Hypothesis (Idea that it is culture or personality that causes obedience and conformity)

Agency Theory: 2 psychological states

Agentic state - when we give up our free will to serve as an agent to authority

Autonomous state - we act on our own free will and choose whether to obey or not

Milgram's Aims:

Overall: To investigate how obedient people would be to orders from a person in authority that would result in pain and harm to another person.

Specific: To see how large an electric shock a person would give to a helpless subject if ordered by a scientist in a lab to do so.

Milgram's Hypothesis

Milgram does NOT state a specific hypothesis but DOES state what other people thought:

Milgram believed that from a young age we are socialized to be obedient to authority figures. When we experience moral strain we go along with the demands of the authority figure, even if we know it is wrong and do not agree.

Milgram Independent Variable:

Lacks an IV

Milgram Dependent Variable:

Maximum shock given by each subject

Milgram Research Method:

Lab Experiment/Controlled Observation

Milgram Research Design:

Lacks one because there was only one condition

Milgram Sample:

Volunteer Sample:

40 white men from the New Haven, CT area

Age range from 20-50 yrs. old

Were paid $4.50 for participating

Ranging from no education to highly educated

Milgram Procedure:

Greeted by "Jack Williams" a tech in a grey lab coat with clipboard.

A local 31 year old high school biology teacher

Stern throughout the study

Participants introduced to other subject who was a confederate/ stooge (Mr. Wallace); likeable middle aged accountant

Told by Jack Williams the purpose was: "to study the effects of punishment on learning"

Choice of who was to be the teacher and learner was entirely preplanned, stage and scripted.

Done by taking a slip of paper from a hat

"teacher" role always assigned to subject;

"learner" (Mr. Wallace)

The participant watched the Stooge being strapped into a chair in an adjoining room with electrodes attached to his arms

A sample shock of 45 volts was given to the teacher.

Confederate's task was to memorize pairs of words and was then given a recognition test

When tested, the "learner/confederate" would indicate his answer by hitting a button and triggering a system of lights.

If the student was right they moved on to the next pair if the student was wrong the "teacher/subject's" role was to administer a shock

Participants sat in front of shock generator

Participant read out word pairs

For each mistake learner was given shock in 15-volt increasing increments; Teacher was to announce the shock level each time.

looked real because of blue light, sound, dial;

preliminary run of 7 shocks (for 7 wrong answers out of 10);

Since the learner was a stooge, they could follow a pre-set plan of mistakes, deliberately giving the wrong answers at particular times

Participants sat in front of shock generator

Participant read out word pairs

Until 300V were reached, the learner had remained silent when receiving punishment

At 300 volts Wallace pounded on wall, after that, he stopped responding;

At this point the teacher would often pause to question continuing

Teacher was encouraged to continue with 4 prods (always in same order);

"Please continue" or "Please go on"

"The experiment requires you to continue"

"It is absolute essential that you continue"

"You have no choice, you must go on"

At this point the teacher would often pause to question continuing; Special Prods:

If the subject asked if the learner was liable to suffer permanent physical injury:

Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on

If the subject said that the learner did not want to go on:

Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all of the word pairs correctly so please go on

If the Participant refused to continue four times in a row, he would be done with the experiment. However, if he refused and then continued shocking, it would reset.

The experiment continued either until the subject refused to continue or until 450 volts were reached and given four times

Each participant was interviewed and had the deception explained

They were each asked to rate how painful they thought the 450V shock was on a scale of 0-14

Given a chance to meet the learner again, in order to reassure then that they were not injured and to restore the participants well being.

Milgram Data Collection/Data Type:

(Observations & Interviews)

Quantitative & Qualitative:

QT - maximum shock administered by each subject

QL - observations of behaviors and comments of subjects

Milgram Results:

Everyone gave 285 volts

26/40 (65%) of subjects went all the way to the maximum possible

The mean estimate of the pain of the 450V shock was 13.42 (out of 14)

Subjects were convinced that experiment was real (as determined during debriefing interview)

Many subjects showed signs of great distress:

Some started to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, laughing nervously; uncontrollable seizures happened in 3 subjects; visibly stressed

Comments:

"well it's not fair to shock the poor guy

" I don't think this is very humane.

"I'm gonna chicken out

"I can't do that to the man, I'll hurt his heart

Milgram Conclusions:

26 followed the orders from authoritative figure, who actually had no power.

Subjects found the experience of obeying destructive orders very stressful.

Results were not expected. Before experiment, Yale students has predicted that 0-3% of subjects would give maximum shock.

Support of situational hypothesis.

Individuals are much more obedient to authority than we might reasonably expect. This seems to be true for the majority of people

Despite high levels of obedience, people find the experience of carrying out destructive acts under the orders of authority figured triggers feelings of stress. This is due to the conflict between two important social phenomena: the need to obey those in authority and the need to avoid harming people

Milgram Ethics:

STRENGTHS:

Debrief- At end subjects were interviewed and de-hoaxed (de-briefed), asked open-ended questions and were given tests to reveal hidden emotions. Goal was for subjects to leave in a state of well-being.

Right to Withdraw- could argue that after 4 prods participants could leave

WEAKNESSES:

Deception- people believed they were actually harming someone

Right to withdraw- was not clear due to the prods

Protection of participants- participants were visibly distressed

Milgram Generalizability:

Debatable:

Huge sample of 40 people

BUT all male white men from New Haven, Ct

Milgram Reliability:

Increased by:

High standardization allows for replication

Milgram Validity:

Debatable:

Artificial setting lacks ecological validity.

BUT design of shock generators and the example shock convinced subjects that study was real and their actions really mattered.

Subjects from a variety of backgrounds - even educated professionals obeyed)

Milgram Demand Characteristics:

Hard to guess the aim which reduces demand characteristics.

Milgram Mundane Realism:

Lack of mundane realism.

Milgram Ecological Validity:

Artificial setting lacks ecological validity.

Milgram Individual vs. Situational:

SITUATIONAL because of prestigious location & man in white lab coat

Milgram Nature vs. Nurture:

NATURE - because it showed how people willingly obeyed and no one taught them how to

Milgram Application to Real Life:

Explains how humans engage in destructive obedience

Piliavin (Subway Samaritans @ NYC Subway 1969)

-

Piliavin Psychology Being Investigated:

Diffusion of responsibility

The reason people do not help people in need when in a group, is that the responsibility is equally shared among the group members so each person feels less obligated to help ("someone else will do it, why me?").

Piliavin Aims:

TWO MAIN AIMS:

To study bystander behavior outside the lab in a realistic setting where participants would have a clear view of the victim

To see whether helping behavior is affected by 4 variables: victim's responsibility, race, effect of modeling, and group size

Piliavin Hypothesis:

FOUR HYPOTHESIS:

An individual would be more inclined to help someone of their own race

Help would be offered more and in a quicker fashion for the ill victim (cane) than for the drunk victim

This is based on the idea that "people who are responsible for their own plight will receive less help"

Modeling will increase help offered

Group size will not matter when you can see the victim.

Piliavin IV:

Victim's Personal Responsibility (Ill or Drunk)

Victim's Race (White or Black)

Presence of a model

Number of Bystanders

Piliavin DV:

Time taken for the first passenger to help

Total number of passengers who helped

# of helpers

Which victim helped

Comments Made

Piliavin Research Method:

Field Experiment

Piliavin Research Design:

Independent Groups

Piliavin Sample Type/Characteristics:

Opportunity Sample:

4450 people;

45% black 55% white; avg

43 people per carriage

8.5 in critical area

Piliavin Procedure:

A team boarded the train using different doors.

Female confederates sat and recorded data covertly.

Male model and male victim stood. Victim always stood next to the pole in the critical area.

Shortly after the train had passed the first station (after 70 seconds) the victim staggered and collapsed.

Until any help was given, he lay on the floor looking at the ceiling.

If the victim did not receive help by the time the train got to the next station, the model helped him back to his feet, the team got off the train, waited, boarded a train in the opposite direction and repeated. 6-8 trials per day.

On any given day, all victims were the same condition

Piliavin Data Collection/Type of Data:

A team of observers (Two males and two females) Observed all of the data

QT - Who helped, how many helped, which type of victim, after what amount of time

QL - Comments made by passengers

Piliavin Results:

• Overall, in 93% of trials, spontaneous help was given (96/103)

• In 60% (out of 81) of cases more than one person helped

How much help was given?

• Cane victim:

100% help with model (3/3) and without model (62/62)

95% spontaneous help of total trials (62/65)

• Drunk victim:

75% help w/model (12/16)

50% spontaneous help of total trials (19/38)

How quickly was help given?

• Cane victim:

Most got help spontaneously; In only 17% of trials, help was given after 70 sec

It took an avg of 5 seconds to help

• Drunk victim:

Some got help spontaneously; In 83% of trials, help was given after 70 sec

It took an avg of 109 seconds to help (21x longer!)

-

DRUNK:

75% help w/model (12/16)

50% spontaneous help of total trials (19/38)

Over 70 seconds in 83% of trials

avg of 109 seconds to help (21x longer!)

-

ILL CANE VICTIM:

100% help w/model (3/3)

95% spontaneous help of total trials (62/65)

100% of the cane trials had help

Over 70 seconds in 17% of trials

avg of 5 seconds to help

-

• Neither race was more helpful overall

• Black and white cane victims received help equally

• When the victim was white, 68% of first helpers were white (32% black) significantly above 55% white people present

• When the victim was black, only 50% of first helpers where white

• Drunk condition: tendency (not significant) toward same-race helping

• In the ill (cane) condition there was no difference between black and white helper

• Black drunks received less help overall (non-significant difference)

-

• 90% of first helpers were male, even though critical area was 60% male and 40% female

• In 20% (21/103) of the trials, subway riders moved away from the critical area (34 people), with more leaving in the drunk than ill trials.

• More people left the critical area if no one helped after 70 sec during drunk trials

• Mostly females moved away, saying they felt it was up to men to help

• The model intervening after 70 seconds was more likely to get help from other passengers (9 cases) than the one intervening after 150 seconds (3 cases)

• Many more comments were made during drunk trials

-

Piliavin Conclusions:

MAIN CONCLUSIONS;

An individual who appears to be ill is more likely to get help then one that appears drunk

Given a group of both men and women, when a male is the victim, men are more likely to help then women

Given a mixed racial group, same-race helping is more likely, particularly when the victim is drunk as compared to ill

There is no strong relationship between the number of bystanders and the speed of helping: diffusion of responsibility was not found

The longer the emergency continues without help being offered:

The less impact a model has

The more likely it is that individuals will leave the immediate area

Piliavin Ethics:

WEAKNESSES:

Deception: staged event

Informed consent: participants did not know they were part of a study so they could not give permission

Protection: witnessing someone collapse can be distressing (and some people did leave the scene); participants were not protected from experiencing psychological stress

Piliavin Generalizability:

STRENGTH:

Due to large sample and mix of races

Piliavin Reliability:

STRENGTH because of standardized procedures

Piliavin Validity:

STRENGTH:

Large number of trials

Good ecological validity natural behavior

QL data (helps understand behavior)

Piliavin Demand Characteristics:

NO DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS

Piliavin Mundane Realism:

N/A

Piliavin Ecological Validity:

STRENGTH because realistic setting increases ecological Validity

Piliavin Individual vs. Situational:

EITHER OR BECAUSE:

Situational - The types of victim formed the situation, and this caused different behaviors of helping and not helping

Individual - The sample was large and varied, it may have been a certain personality type that was making people help or not

Piliavin Nature vs. Nurture:

EITHER OR:

Nature: We naturally feel inclined to help others

Nurture: We are taught to help those in need

Piliavin Application to Real Life:

To educate people about bystander's intervention. Helping to educate people to help others regardless of who they are.

Yamamoto (Chimpanzee Helping @ Kyoto University 2012)

-

Yamamoto Psychology Being Investigated:

PSYCHOLOGY BEING INVESTIGATED:

Targeted Helping

Altruism - willingness to do for others

Prosocial Behavior - any action or behavior with the intention to help

Empathy - ability to share someone else's emotional state by imagining what it would be like to be in that situation

Yamamoto Aims:

To learn more about helping behavior in chimpanzees, specifically whether chimpanzees can

Understand the needs of conspecifics

Respond to those needs with targeting helping

To investigate whether chimpanzees have the ability and flexibility to help another chimpanzee depending on its specific needs.

Yamamoto Hypothesis:

Chimpanzees in a research lab will offer the needed tool for a task to a related chimpanzee more often when they can see the requirements of the task than when they cannot see it

Yamamoto IV:

Ability of the chimpanzee to give targeted helping to another chimpanzee.

AND

The two conditions - Can see, Cannot see

Yamamoto DV:

Targeted helping behavior

Operationalized as no offer / offer of correct tool / offer of other item

Proportion of trials where the stick or straw(correct tool) was given or not given

Yamamoto Research Method:

Laboratory experiment

Yamamoto Research Design:

Repeated Measures

Yamamoto Sample type/ Characteristics:

Opportunity Sample:

rom the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University;

had all taken part in previous studies;

were familiar with tool-use tasks;

Were paired in mother and child pairs;

were raised there

(Ai & Ayumu) (Pan & Pal) (Chloe & Cleo)

Yamamoto Procedure:

The task consisted of one chimp being in one room with the need for a stick or a straw in order to get a juice drink. The other chimp had to provide the first with the correct tool out of the 7 available from the adjacent room through a hole in the wall.

Helper chimpanzee had to provide the tool that would help in performing a task =solving a problem

Task either required a stick or a straw

Completing the task resulted in a reward for second (recipient) chimp (juice)

Helper chimp gets nothing

7 objects (2 were tools - straw or stick) were placed into one of 2 adjacent booths with the helper chimp

-

Recipient chimp could not reach tools but could ask helper chimp by sticking arms through an open window between the 2 booths

Panel between booths either did or did not allow chimps to see each other (can or cannot see condition)

Trials in same order of see-can't see-see in order to avoid order effect

48 trials for each condition (24 stick, 24 straw) in random order

-

Trial started when tray of 7 objects was presented

Trial ended when recipient received tool and then the juice reward or after 5 minutes of not solving the task

Only the first offer by helper chimp was counted, whether recipient took tool or not

2-4 trials each day

-

Yamamoto Data Collection/ Data Type:

OBSERVATION

Trial started when tray of 7 objects was presented

Trial ended when recipient received tool and then the juice reward or after 5 minutes of not solving the task

Only the first offer by helper chimp was counted, whether recipient took tool or not

2-4 trials each day

Yamamoto Results:

CAN SEE CONDITION:

Chimps are capable of flexible targeted helping based on an understanding of the other's goals

Objects offered 91% of time, mostly following a request (90% of the time); usually the correct tool was offered except for one individual (Pan) who offered brush

Tools (straw or stick) were offered first in majority of trials (except Pan who offered a brush)

CANNOT SEE CONDITION:

t least one tool offered 96% of the time, 72% of time by request (except for Pan offers brush still)

4 of the chimps offered straw or stick first significantly more than any other object (AI 89.4%; Cleo 88.9%; Pal 100%; Ayumu 93%) Pan continued to offer brush first 55.3%

Straw or stick was offered as needed 50% of the time (wrong tool the other 50%)

Yamamoto Conclusions:

Chimps were only able to understand partner's goal when they could see the task themselves. Rely on visual confirmation

Help to conspecifics was offered in majority of cases but usually in response to a request, not a spontaneous act

Chimpanzees require a visual confirmation to understand a conspecifics goal so to offer correct targeted help

Yamamoto Ethics:

STRENTGH:

Use of Animals: no need for consent and right to withdraw

approved by the Animal care and Committee of the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University

tested and cared for in accordance with the guide produced by the committee (basic needs met (food and shelter), humane treatment)

Numbers- 5 pairings used the least number of animals possible

Housing- housed socially

Reward, deprivation and aversive stimuli- none went through any procedures that deprived them of food or used aversive stimuli to train them to complete the given task

Pain and distress - none

Yamamoto Generalizability:

Lack of generalizability - Chimps were raised in the lab and had

Yamamoto Reliability

ncreased By:

Standardized procedure increases reliability and can be replicated.

Control of extraneous variables

Decreased By:

There was a range of number of trials per day (maximum of 4, minimum of 2);

Some chimps may have been more familiar/ less willing as they had had more / less trials;

Yamamoto Validity:

Increased By:

Control of extraneous variables increases validity.

Since these chimps are familiar with the tools and the task the study could be argued to have mundane realism

Chimps participated in all conditions reducing individual differences

Decreased By:

Low ecological validity because this is in a laboratory and participants behavior is unrepresentative

Lack of mundane realism: This task is not real in the wild

Yamamoto Demand Characteristics:

Debatable because as participants see the experimental task more than once, they have greater exposure to demand characteristics.

Yamamoto Mundane Realism:

Lack of mundane realism: This task is not real in the wild

Yamamoto Ecological Validity:

Lack of Ecological Validity:

Yamamoto Individual vs. Situational:

ndividual: Influence of personality on behavior (one chimp tried to look over the partition)

Yamamoto Nature vs. Nurture:

Nature: -not explicitly taught helping behaviour, so could argue it is in the CH's naturalbehaviour.

Yamamoto Application to Real Life:

Generalizable for children in terms of development and education about helping others.

Bandura (Aggression @ Stanford Nursery 1961)

-

Bandura Psychology Being Investigated:

Social learning theory states that learning consists of 4 stages:

• Attention: needs role model who is "attractive"

• Retention: Store observed behavior

• Reproduction: must feel able to imitate observed/stored behavior

•Motivation: will be higher if model was rewarded

Bandura Aims:

Overall: TO investigate observational learning of aggression

Specific: To investigate whether

-Children will learn aggression by observing a model

-Children reproduce this behavior in the absence of the model and a new situation

-Whether the sex of the model is important

-Children will show gender-specific

Bandura Hypothesis:

FOUR HYPOTHESIS:

Observed aggressive behavior will be imitated

Observed non-aggressive behavior will be imitated

Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model

Boys will be more likely to copy aggression than girls

Bandura IV:

THE THREE CONDITIONS:

-Model Behavior (type): Whether the child saw an aggressive model, non aggressive model, or no model

-Model gender: same gender as child (boys watching a male model and girls watching a female model) or different gender (boys watching a female model and girls watching a male model)

-Learner gender: Whether the child was a boy or girl

Bandura DV:

Behavior observed in 8 categories;

1. imitative physical aggression

2. imitative verbal aggression.

3. Imitative non-aggressive verbal response

4. Mallet aggression.

5. Sits on Bobo doll

6. Punches Bobo doll (Strikes, slaps or pushes aggressively)

7. Non-imitative physical or verbal aggression.

8.Aggressive gun play

Bandura Research Method:

Lab Experiment

Bandura Research Design:

Matched Pairs AND Independent Measures

Bandura Sample Type/Characteristics:

Opportunity Sample:

72 children

aged 3-6 (37-59 months avg 52m)

36 Boys, 36 Girls

From Stanford university nursery school

Bandura Procedure:

THREE PHASES:

Phase 1 - Child watches model (10 mins.)

Phase 2 - Aggression Arousal (2 mins.)

Phase 3 - Observation/Data Collection (20 mins.)

-

PHASE ONE:

Bring in each child individually (to the experimental room);

Invite the model to join in a game with the child;

Take the child to the corner of the room which looks like a play area (this will already be set up);

Child sits at the table; demonstrate how the child can make pictures from potato prints/stickers;; leave the child to produce their pictures;

Experimenter stays in the room so the child cannot leave;

Model to the opposite corner of the room (to the child); corner contains a table, chair, mallet, tinker toys and Bobo Doll

Explain that the toys in this corner are for the model to play with/tell them not play with them;

Once the model is seated the experimenter leaves the room for 10 minutes

Returns to room to escort child to phase 2

-

Toys in room for children: potato prints and stickers (high interest)

Toys in room for model: Bobo doll, mallet, Tinker toys

Control group - saw no model and no aggression (skip phase 1)

Control group the IV is absent- there is NO model

Aggressive model group 10 min total; 1st minute, model played with Tinker toys, next model showed 3 times a 3 min sequence of physical and verbal aggression lasting 9 min.)

Distinctively aggressive acts: laid bobo on his side, sat on it and punched it, raised the bobo doll, struck bobo with mallet, tossed in the air and kicked it around the room. Repeated approx. 3 times

Verbally aggressive- sock him in the nose, hit him down, throw him in the air, kick him, pow

Non aggressive comments: he keeps coming back for more, he sure is a tough fella

Non-aggressive model group (model assembled Tinker toys for 10 mins.

-

PHASE TWO:

All of the children were subjected to mild aggression (2 minutes)

After seeing model children were brought into the game room with attractive toys

Fire engine, locomotive, a spinning top, a doll set and a fighter plane.

Told there were for them to play with, children play

Told "actually these are the very best toys, she did not let just anyone play with them and she was going to keep them for other children" told they could play with toys in the other room

Leave to the other room

-

PHASE THREE:

Experimenter: researcher remained in the room as the child might refuse to be alone. She never interacted with the child; instead she busied herself with paperwork in the corner of the room away from the child

20 min observation of child using one-way mirror, in 5-second intervals; resulted in 240 data marks

Was a test of delayed imitation

Imitative physical aggression: child hits the bobo doll with a mallet, sits on the doll, punches the doll on its nose, kicks the doll, tosses doll in the air

Imitative verbal aggression- repeats any phrase, sock him in the nose, hit him down, throw him in the air, kick him, pow

Imitative non aggressive verbal response: he keeps coming back for more, he sure is a tough fella

Mallet aggression- hits an object other than the bobo doll with the mallet

Sits on the bobo doll- lays the bobo doll on its side and sits on it but does not show aggression towards it

Punches the bobo- strikes, slaps, or pushes the bobo doll aggressively

Non imitative physical and verbal aggressive- shows any physical aggression towards objects other than the bobo doll, makes any hostile remarks except those in the imitative verbal aggression category

Aggressive gun play- shoots the darts or aims the gun and fires imaginary shots at objects in the room

Bandura Data Collection/Type of Data:

QT & QL

OBSERVATION

Bandura Results:

Children from the aggressive model group showed significantly more imitation of the model's physical & verbal aggression and non-aggressive verbal responses

Children from the aggressive model group showed more partial imitation & non-imitative physical & verbal aggression (but not to a sig. degree)

Children from the non-aggressive model group showed very little aggression (but not always sig. less than the control) (confirming H2)

In the non-aggressive group, the male model had a significant inhibiting effect on the children (H2)

Boys displayed sig. more imitative physical & verbal aggression with male model

With male model- Mean for imitative physical aggression for male (25.8) is higher than females (7.2). with female model girls imitate less (5.5) and males (12.4)

Girls displayed more verbal imitative aggression & non-imitative aggression with female model (but a not sig. diff.) (H4)

Boys more likely to imitate same-sex model, and so were girls, to a lesser extent

Boys showed much more imitative aggressive behavior than girls

Girls imitated less with a female model than a male model

Gender differences in non-aggressive play

Bandura Conclusions:

-Observed aggressive behaviors are imitated: children who see aggressive models are more likely to be more aggressive than those seeing a non aggressive model or no model

-Observed non aggressive behaviors are imitated: children seeing non aggressive models will be less aggressive than those seeing no model

-Children are more likely to copy a same sex model, although this may depend on the extent to which this behavior is sex typed

-Boys are more likely to copy aggression than girls

Bandura Ethics:

STRENGTH:

Confidentiality

WEAKNESSES:

Protection: Children may have been harmed by becoming more aggressive, this may have continued after the study.

Protection: Psychological distress during "annoying" procedure

Protection: did not leave study in same psychological state in which they entered

Bandura Generalizability:

DEBATABLE:

Increased by: Boys and Girls

Age range of 3-5 years

72 kids is a large sample

Decreased by: mall number

only 6 children per condition

No older children- 8-10 year olds/ teens results may not apply

Children were likely similar- all attended the same nursery school at university. (academically able parents)

biased sample= lower validi