Bandura Et Al. (learning approach)

What is the learning approach

- How humans and animals acquire or change their behaviour, including:
- Learning from others
- Learning by association
- Learning from rewards and punishments
- Learning: permanent changes in behaviour following experience

Main assumptions

1. Each life begins as a "blank slate": observable changes to our behaviour can result from interactions w/ our environment.
2. The processes of social learning, operant conditioning, and classical conditioning are the ways in which humans and animals learn. These processes involve stimulus-response i.e. experiences within our environment (stimuli) shape our behaviour (response).

Classical conditioning

- Process where 2 stimuli become associated w/ one another
- Neutral stimulus becomes paired w/ a stimulus that causes a reflexive behaviour
- Involuntary

Operant conditioning

- Behaviors are learned through the association of stimuli with reinforcement or punishment.
- Positive reinforcement: Encouraging a behavior by adding reward
- Negative reinforcement: Strengthens a behaviour that avoids or removes a negative outcome
- Positive punishment: Discouraging a behaviour by adding an unpleasant consequence
- Negative punishment: Discouraging a behaviour by taking something pleasant away that avoids or removes a negative outcomes

Negatives of using punishment

- Punished behavior is suppressed not forgotten
- Punishment teaches discrimination
- Punishment can teach fear
- Physical punishment may increase aggression

What is social learning

- Learning of a new behaviour that is observed in a role model and imitated later in the absence of the model (person who inspires or encourages others to imitate positive or negative behaviours)
- Prosocial behaviour: actions that benefit others
- Antisocial behaviour: actions that harm/disrupt others

How does Bandura relate to the learning approach

1. The first assumption is that each life begins as a "blank slate" and that changes to our behaviour are from interactions with our environment. Bandura shows this through the kids imitating aggressive behaviours due to the situation of the experiment and them witnessing aggression
2. The second assumption is that the processes of social learning, operant conditioning, and classical conditioning are the ways in which humans and animals learn. These processes involve stimulus-response within our environment. Bandura shows this by showing the results of social learning. As a result of the influence of the model, the children picked up on the models' behaviours and imitated it even when model was not present.

How does Bandura relate to social learning

The social learning approach states that humans and animals acquire or change their behaviour through learning from others, association, or rewards and punishments. Bandura did this through the use of the models. After observing the aggressive and non-aggressive models, the kids were more likely to imitate their behaviour based on what was shown to them.

Psychology being investigated in Bandura

- Social learning: Behavior is learned through a process of observation and imitated later in the absence of the model. The 4 stages of social learning are attention - observe the behaviour, retention - store info in their memory, reproduction - imitate behaviour if they feel capable, and motivation - only do it if they want to. The study investigated this by observing if the child would copy the model's behavior even in the absence of the model.
- Learned aggression: Behaviour that is aimed at harming others either physically or psychologically. The study investigated this through exposing the children to an adult modeling different types of aggressive behavior and studying the kids reactions to it.

What made Bandura different from previous experiments

Previous researches showed that children will imitate behaviour of a model when they are in the presence of the model. The model in Bandura left the kids' sight. This was different since no research existed on imitation if model was no longer present.

Aim

- Investigate whether a child would learn aggression by observing a model
- See if the child would reproduce this behaviour in the absence of the model
-Whether the sex of the role model was important

Hypothesis

Hypothesis #1
- Observed aggressive behavior will be imitated so children seeing aggressive models will be more aggressive than those seeing a non-aggressive or no model.
Hypothesis #2:
- Observed non-aggressive behavior will be imitated, so children who see non-aggressive models will be less aggressive than those seeing no model.
Hypothesis #3:
- Children are more likely to copy the same-sex model.
Hypothesis #4:
- Boys will be more likely to copy aggression than girls.

Research Method and Design

- Laboratory Experiment
1. Independent measures - model type, learner gender
2. Matched pairs - matched for aggression

Independent Variables:
- IV1: Model Type/Aggressive condition
- Aggressive
- Non-aggressive
- Control (no model)
- IV2: Model Gender
- Male or Female model
- IV3: Learner Gender
- Boy or Girl

Dependent Variable: behaviour child displayed
- Imitative aggressive behaviors by kids
- 5-second intervals
- 20 min controlled observations
- Observer behind a one-way mirror
- 1 male researcher rated all 72 kids
- 2 nd researcher observed
- Inter-rater reliability = 0.9

Individual vs situational explannation in Bandura

- Individual: personality type of participant may influence whether they imitate behaviour
- Situational: the situation of witnessing aggression increased likelihood participant would imitate aggressive behaviour

Nature vs nurture in Bandura

- Nature: Boys are more physically aggressive (testosterone)
- Nurture: Situational influence of models on the acquisition of aggressive behaviours

DV: imitative aggression

Physical Aggression
- Hit Bobo w/ mallet
- Lay the doll down, sit on the doll & punch its face
- Toss the doll in the air
Verbal Aggression
- "Sock him"
- "Hit him down"
- "Kick him"
- "Throw him in the air"
- "Pow"
Non-aggressive Verbal
- "He keeps coming back for more"
- "He sure is a tough fella"

DV: partially imitative aggression

- Striking other objects aggressively w/ the mallet
- Sit on the Bobo doll
- Laying the Bobo doll on it's side and sitting on it, but NOT attacking it.

Non-imitative aggression

Physical Aggression
- Punching the Bobo doll (but not using the mallet)
Verbal Aggression (Hostile remarks other than what the model said):
- "Cut him"
- "Stupid ball"
- "Horses fighting, biting"
- "Knock over people"

Sample

- 36 Girls - 36 Boys (n = 72)
- Stanford University Nursery School
- Ages: 3-6
- Matched pairs design
- Experimenter & School teacher rated 51 children independently on prior aggression levels
- Inter-rater reliability = .89
Four scales on 5 point rating
- Physical aggression
- Verbal aggression
- Aggression towards inanimate objects
- Aggression inhibition (anxiety)

Procedures: room 1

- Children told to play w/ sticker pictures or potato prints while seated at table
- Opposite side had 5 foot Bobo doll and mallet plus Tinkertoy set (wooden building kit) and table where model sat
- Experimenter remained in the room so that child would not refuse to be alone or leave early
Model (male/female) conditions
- Aggressive behaviors: played w/ Tinkertoy for 1 minute; Hit Bobo with mallet, "Pow", sat on it, picked up and thrown (sequence for 9 minutes total)
- Non-aggressive behaviors: Ignore Bobo doll; played w/ Tinkertoy for 10 minutes
- Spontaneous verbal expressions of the child were recorded
- "That's not the way for a lady to behave"
- "That man is a strong fighter"

Procedures: room 2

- Children were allowed to play with the very "attractive" toys for around 2 minutes. Experimenter told them the toys were the best toys (fire engine, jet plane, spinning top, doll set, baby crib) that did not just let just anyone play with them, and that it was reserved for others.
Purpose of the room:
- There needs to be some aggressive behavior so that any reduction in aggression in the non-aggressive and control condition could be measured.

Procedures: room 3

- Experimenter was in the corner of the room
- Room contained a lot of new toys, some aggressive and some neutral. (3 foot Bobo doll proportionate to a child size, toys arranged in a fixed location (standardized))
- Play observed behind a one-way mirror for 20 minutes

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
- Children from the non-aggressive model group showed very little aggression
- In the non-aggressive group, the male model had a significant inhibiting effect on the children
- Boys displayed significantly more imitative physical and verbal aggression with male models
- Girls displayed more verbal imitative aggression and non-imitative aggression with female model

Conclusions

- Observed aggressive behaviors are imitated
- Observed non-aggressive behaviors are imitated
- CHILDREN ARE MORE LIKELY TO IMITATE THE SAME SEX MODEL
- BOYS ARE MORE LIKELY TO IMITATE PHYSICAL AGGRESSION AS COMPARED TO GIRLS
- FEMALE AGGRESSION SEEM TO CAUSE CONFUSION AMONGST CHILDREN AS IT WENT AGAINST SOCIAL NORMS ("THAT'S NOT A WAY FOR A LADY TO BEHAVE")

GRAVE: Generalizability

+ M/F ratio per group
- From one nursery (at Stanford University) which may not represent low socioeconomic backgrounds
- Opportunity sample
- Lacks mundane realism/ecological validity (unusual setup with adult attacking toy then giving child opportunity to copy behaviour)

GRAVE: Reliability

+ Standardised procedures (layout of toys in each room, length of time children observed-20 min-, same behavioural checklist)
+ Inter-observer reliability (2 observers independently scored aggressive levels using behavioural checklist at 5 second intervals; r = +0.90)
+ Inter-rater reliability (teacher and researcher independently scored aggressive levels prior to study; correlation = +0.89)

Grave: Applicability

+ Children should be exposed to friendly and prosocial role models...adapt results of the study to educate parents and teachers.
+ TV networks could censor content or provide warnings to prevent children from viewing aggressive content

GRAVE: Validity

+ Matched pairs design - matched aggression scores across groups. Individual differences (participant variables) would then be minimised
+ Demand characteristics minimised (due to one way mirror)
+ Quantitative data - objective comparisons of children's aggression scores
- Only 2 stooges (models) used, so children may have imitated model due to some unique feature about him or her rather than their sex
- Ecological validity

GRAVE: Ethics

+ Confidentiality - no names released. All we know is they were children at a nursery at Stanford (and their age range)
- Deception - children never knew they were being watched
- Protection from harm - could have injured themselves on Bobo doll; children could have left the study more aggressive
- Right to withdraw- experimenter remained w/ child in 1st room so they couldn't leave
- Informed consent? - not clear if the parents knew about the study!

What were the qualitative and quantitative datas

Qualitative: Non-imitative verbal responses ("That's not the way for a lady to behave")
Quantitative: Aggressive behavior (mallet and gun aggression recorded on data chart)

2 Strengths

One strength was reliability. They used standardised procedures by using the same layout of toys in each room, observing children for same amount of time (20 min), and used the same behavioural checklist (imitative aggression, partially imitative aggression, and non-imitative aggression). They also had a good inter-rater reliability (when results are the same no matter who performs it), since teachers and researchers independently scored aggressive levels prior to study.

Another strength was applicability. The experiment can be used to educate parents and teachers on how children should be exposed to friendly and prosocial role models. Its results could also show how TV networks could censor content or provide warnings to prevent children from viewing aggressive content

2 Weaknesses

One weakness is generalizability. The kids were all from one nursery (at Stanford University) which may not represent low socioeconomic backgrounds. It was also an opportunity sample which could have resulted in sample bias. It lacks mundane realism/ecological validity due to the unusual setup with adult attacking toy then giving children opportunity to copy behaviour.

Another weakness is ethics. The kids were deceived, since they never knew they were being watched due to the one-way mirror. Protection from harm might have been violated because they could have injured themselves on Bobo doll, and they could have left the study more aggressive than before. They did not have a right to withdraw since the experimenter remained w/ child in 1st room so they couldn't leave. Informed consent was also violated since not clear if the parents knew about the study.