AICE Psych - Bandura et al (1961)

slay

Aim 1

To investigate whether a child would learn aggression by observing a model, and would then reproduce this behavior in the absence of a model (imitative learning)

Aim 2

To investigate whether the sex of the role model made a difference to what was learned and initiated.

Hypotheses

1. Observed aggressive behaviour will be imitated.
2. Observed non-aggressive behaviour will be imitated.
3. Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model.
4. Boys will be more likely to copy aggression than girls.

Sample

72 children (36 F, 36 M) -- opportunity sample

Age range of the sample

37 to 69 months old (Mean age 52 months)

Where were samples from?

The Stanford University Nursery

Research method

lab w/controlled environment

Research design

matched pairs (groups of 3 rather than just 2s) -- each child only participated in one level of the IV

* learners matched w/2 others with the same aggression to make groups of 3

IVs

1) Model type (aggressive, non-aggressive, no model)

2) Model gender (same gender as the learner viewing it, or different?)

3) Learner gender

DV

The learning displayed by the child -- measured through controlled observations

imitative learning

Learning a new behaviour through observing a role model, and imitating it later, without the model.

How were the IVs set up?

* Before the experiment, children were observed in their nursery by the experimenter and a teacher who knew them well
* 51 learners were observed and rated by both observers on a 5-point scale in 4 categories.

What was the 5-point scale based on?

* Physical aggression
* Verbal aggression
* Aggression towards inanimate objects
* Anxiety/aggressive inhibition (wanted to be aggressive but didn’t due to anxiety)

The inter-rater reliability when setting up the IV was..

r = .89

* Strong positive correlation -- researchers accurately measured aggressive traits
* However, it was a subjective measure of aggression because the teacher could’ve had bias against a child to make their score more aggressive

How were the 72 students divided into 3 groups?

24 students (12 M and 12 F)

One member of each group watched a model behaving non-aggressively with…

a bobo doll (non-aggression group)

One member of each group was in the control group (non-model). They played with…

a wooden-model kit (Tinkertoy) for 10 minutes (control group)

The procedure started with..

all learners being deliberately annoyed. (Aggression Arousal)

Aggression Arousal procedures:

* The child was brought to a room
* It contained toys (for the children) - like a doll and car
* They were told they could play with them
* As soon as they did begin to play/get involved (usually 2 mins), the experimenter stopped them
* The children were told that they were her very best toys

Why did experimenters annoy the learners?

1) To see if watching aggressive behavior might calm learners down (cleansing)

2) To encourage potential aggression in the non-aggressive group, to show evidence of learning from the non-aggressive model

What happened after learners were annoyed?

They were moved to the observation room.

What happened in the observation room?

The experimenter took a child to their play area, where the learner was taken to a table and chair. They were shown to make potato prints and sticker pictures -- previously identified as interesting for children.

What was in the opposite corner of the observation room?

Another table and chair, a Tinkertoy, a mallet, and a 152 cm Bobo doll. (In conditions w/a model this is where they were located)

What happened to the model in the observation room?

* When the child began playing, the experimenter took the model to the opposite corner
* The experimenter explained that the toys were for the model to play with
* The model was seated at their own table

How long did each model condition last?

10 minutes

What happened in the aggression group?

The model played with the Tinkertoy set for 1 minute, then punched, kicked, and hit the doll with a mallet. This sequence was performed 3 times within 9 minutes.

Aggressive comments made by the aggressive model (imitative verbal aggression)

* “Kick him”
* “Pow”
* “Sock him”

Non-aggressive comments made by the aggressive model (Imitative non-aggressive verbal)

“He sure is a tough fella”

“He keeps coming back for more”

What happened in the non-aggressive group?

The model assembled the Tinkertoy for the duration and ignored the doll.

What happened in the control group?

There wasn’t any model at all.

What models did children in both model groups see?

A 50-50 split of models by gender (e.g. 1/2 boy saw a male model)

After 10 minutes…

the subject was taken to separate experimental room

In the separate experimental room…

the experimenter stayed in the room, working quietly at his desk w/o engaging with the child

How long were learners observed in the separate experimental room?

For 20 minutes from a 1-way mirror

Aggressive toys in separate experimental room:

3ft Bobo doll, a mallet and peg board, two dart guns, and a tether ball with a face hung to the ceiling.

Non-aggressive toys in separate experimental room:

Tea set, crayons w/paper, a ball, dolls, and cars + trucks

Each learner’s behavior was recorded every…

5 seconds (240 response units each)

Imitation of physical aggression

* Hitting Bobo with a mallet
* Sitting on the Bobo doll and punching the Bobo doll
* Kicking the Bobo doll
* Tossing the Bobo doll into the air

Partial imitation

* Mallet aggression -- other objects than Bobo
* Sitting on the doll

Aggressive gun play

Shooting darts/aiming the gun and firing imaginary shots

Non-imitative physical and verbal aggression

* Physically aggressive acts not directed at the Bobo doll
* Hostile verbal remarks that weren’t made by the model
* e.g. “Cut him” & “Shoot the Bobo”

Observers also watched for:

non-aggressive play & sitting quietly w/o playing

Who scored the children’s behaviors?

* One male scored all the children’s behaviors except for conditions when he was a model
* A second observer rated children’s behaviors for half of the children
* inter-rater reliability: 0.9

Quantitative results:

* Boys who witnessed an aggressive male model had the highest imitative aggression score (of 25.8)
* Girls scored higher on verbal aggression than boys
* Boys scored higher on physical aggression than girls
* Children exposed to same sex model imitated them more than opposite sex model
* Girls were more verbally aggressive with a female aggressive model compared to the boys
* Both genders imitated physical aggression more from male models

Aggressive group results:

* Children in this group were more likely to show aggressive behavior than other groups
* They imitated more partial-imitative aggression

Aggressive gun play result:

Males showed more aggressive gun play than females.

Non-aggressive group results:

* Less likely to exhibit mallet aggression, non-imitative physical aggression and verbal aggression
* Children in these groups were more likely to play with small dolls than other groups -- spent more time sitting quietly

Conclusions:

* Children will imitate aggressive behaviour even when a model is no longer present
* Children are more likely to imitate aggression observed from a same-sex model
* Children who observe/witness aggressive behaviour are more likely to imitate that behaviour

Bandura was highly standardized because…

* All children watched the same model for the same duration
* Were offered the same toys to play with
* Observation period = 5 second intervals
* Raise validity

Lab experiment = strength because…

It was possible to control extraneous variables.

* e.g. all children were put into a similar, annoyed mental state by preventing them to play with fun toys

Why were demand characteristics low?

Children were unaware they were being watched through a 1-way mirror -- increases validity

High inter-rater reliability is a strength in this study because..

It meant there was accurate data collection and differences observed in aggressive behavior was likely due to modeling

Why are these results unable to be generalised?

* Sample consists of:
* children (inapplicable to other age groups)
* middle class to high income individuals (won’t apply to other social classes)
* each experimental condition was a small sample (6 kids)
* Could possibly result in bias

Why is a longitudinal study better?

The study didn’t examine long-term impact of modeling

Children may have imitated behavior due to..

Social desirability and they might’ve thought they had to imitate the model

Research only measured..

What the children **did;** it would’ve been useful to know about inner emotions of the children (more qualitative data)

Real-world applicability

* The study showed that aggression can be observed and imitated, so TV networks might want to either censor the content of TV programmes.
* The study showed children imitate same-sex models so it might be useful in schools; Women can teach girls/men can teach boys to behave/learn more effectively.

Ethics

* Confidentiality = maintained; All we know is that they were children from a nursery at Stanford University
* Protection from physical harm = broken; The children could have injured themselves when they were playing/hitting/being aggressive with toys
* Protection from psychological harm = broken; The children could have left the study with a different perception of aggression so their way of thinking had been changed before leaving the study.
* Right to withdraw = broken; In the experimental room the experimenter remained with the child so they could not leave the room, so it was broken.
* Deception = broken due to 1-way mirror
* Children didn't have the opportunity to consent nor were they debriefed

Nature v. Nurture

Nature:

* Boys imitated more aggressive behaviour than girls because they have more hormone testosterone.

Nurture:

* Children copied aggression they’d seen

Individual v. Situational

Individual:

* Individual factors explain why the acquisition of behaviours differs between boys and girls, and it may be because they are differently rewarded for sex-typed behaviours.

Situational:

* The situational influence of models had led children to imitate aggressive behaviour.

Supports the learning approach because…

Boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression from a male model. This supports the idea of SLT as the boys paid attention to the role model/imitated them/the behaviour.

Psychology being investigated:

* Social learning in the context of aggression
* People pay attention to the behaviour of a role model
* They then retain that information in their memory
* They will then imitate/reproduce the behaviour if they feel capable
* If they witnessed the model get rewarded (vicarious) then they are more likely to repeat/try to repeat
* The imitation is seen as more probable if the role model is of the same sex (as the observer)

Lacked mundane realism because…

* Ppts watched an adult model play with toys which isn’t an everyday activity
* Lab = low ecological validity
* Children were purposely frustrated → not like real life

How were children allocated to a condition?

Using the aggression ratings given by the teacher/experimenter. Then, they were matched in groups.