Bandura et al Core study:

Psychology Being Investigated

The Learning Approach
Main assumptions:
*Conditioning helps to explain changes in behavior
*Social learning helps to explain changes in behavior
Imitative Learning- The learning of a new behavior which is observed in a role model and
imitated later in the absence of that model
Can be clearly demonstrated if the model performs sufficiently novel patterns of behavior
AIM
Overall: To investigate observational learning of aggression
Specific:
1. learn aggression by observing a model
2. To see whether children would reproduce aggressive behavior when the model was no
longer present (new situation)
3. Whether the sex of the model was important
4. To look for gender differences in learning of aggression
a. Show gender-specific behavior
b. Whether boys were more likely to imitate aggression
Hypothesis
1. Subjects exposed to aggressive models would produce aggressive acts resembling those
of their models
2. Observation of subdued nonaggressive models would have a generalized inhibiting
effect on the subjects subsequent behavior, and its effect would be reflected in a
difference between the non-aggressive and the control group
3. Subjects will imitate the behavior of a same sex model more
4. Boys should be more predisposed than girls toward imitating aggression
Research Method/ Design
Laboratory @ Stanford University Nursery School
Independent Measures- different children were used in each of the levels of the IV
Matched- these children were matched for levels of aggression (in 3’s)
  Observed in their nursery school by the experimenter and a teacher who knew them
well.
 Rated on a 4 point likert scale measuring- physical aggression, verbal aggression,
aggression to inanimate objects and aggression inhibition (anxiety)
 (the accurateness of the ratings were confirmed by high inter-rater reliability)
 They were assigned to 3 groups, ensuring aggression levels in each condition were
matched

Variables (IV & DV)

IV
1. Model Behavior (type): Whether the child saw an aggressive model, non aggressive
model, or no model
2. 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)
3. Learner gender: Whether the child was a boy or girl
DV
1. Learning the child displayed – measured through a controlled observation and
operationalized as response measures (imitation, partially imitative aggression,
aggressive gun play, non-imitative aggression) during 5-second intervals
2. Behavior observed in 8 categories

Sampling Method
Opportunity

Sample
72 children aged 3-6 (37-59 months avg 52m) (36 Boys, 36 Girls),
From Stanford university nursery school

72 children

Aggressive Non Aggressive

Condition (24) condition (24)

Male model Female model male model female model

male children Female Children male children Female Children male children Female Children male children Female Children
(6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6)

Control (24)
 Procedure (Include researchers, experimental groups and 3 phases of the procedure)
Researchers:
1. Models- a male and a female
2. I female experimenter conducted the study for all 72 children (control)
3. Male model was also the observer

Experimental Groups:
1. Control – saw no model and no aggression
 12 girls and 12 boys and they saw no model; NO IV (skip phase 1)
2. Aggressive model group (3 min sequence of physical and verbal aggression performed
by model three times over 9 min.)
3. Half the children with a same-sex model, half with opposite
4. Non-aggressive model group (model assembled Tinkertoys for 10 min)
Half the children with a same-sex model, half with opposite
Procedure: Phase 1
1. 10 minutes
2. children are brought individually to a room and the model who was in the hall was
invited to join
3. child to one corner of the room, their play area, and they were given potato prints and
stickers (previously tested to have high interest)
4. Model in the opposite corner which contained a table, chair, tinker toys, mallet, and
bobo doll
5. Non aggressive condition, model assembled the tinker toys in a quiet and subdued
manner ignoring Bobo
6. Aggressive condition- model began assembling the tinker toys but after 1 minute the
model was aggressive to the Bobo doll
a. 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
b. Verbally aggressive- sock him in the nose, hit him down, throw him in the air,
kick him, pow
c. Non aggressive comments: he keeps coming back for more, he sure is a tough
fella
7. Experimenter tells the child that he would now go to a different room

Procedure Phase 2
1. All of the children were subjected to mild aggression (2 minutes)
2. After seeing model children were brought into the game room with attractive toys
a. Fire engine, locomotive, a spinning top, a doll set and a fighter plane.
3. Told there were for them to play with, children play
 4. 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
5. Leave to the other room

Procedure Phase 3
1. 20 minutes
2. child and experimenter enter the experimental room; 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
3. the room contained toys that would allow for aggressive and non aggressive behavior
a. aggressive: bobo, mallet, peg board, two dart guns, and a tether ball hung from
the celing with a face on it
b. non aggressive toys: tea set, crayons, colouring paper, ball, dolls, toy bear, cars,
trucks, plastic barnyard animals
4. Control: toys were always placed in the same location
Child spent time in the room and behavior was recorded

Data Collection:
1. Behaviors were rated on a pre-determined checklist of categories by judges through a one
way mirror
2. Session was divided into 5 second intervals (240 behaviors recorded)
3. The male model rated the behavior of all 72 children
a. Apart from the children he modeled for he did not know the condition of the child
4. Second scorer independently rated behavior of ½ children and inter-rater reliability was
high (0.9)

Observation Measures:
1. 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
2. Imitative verbal aggression- repeats any phrase, sock him in the nose, hit him down, throw
him in the air, kick him, pow
3. imitative non aggressive verbal response: he keeps coming back for more, he sure is a tough
fella
4. mallet aggression- hits an object other than the bobo doll with the mallet
5. sits on the bobo doll- lays the bobo doll on its side and sits on it but does not show
aggression towards it
6. punches the bobo- strikes, slaps, or pushes the bobo doll aggressively
7. 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
8. aggressive gun play- shoots the darts or aims the gun and fires imaginary shots at objects in
the room
Partial imitation was found and marked where children imitated the essential component of the
models behavior but did not perform the complete act- these were marked as partially
imitative
Qualitative data examples:
Children’s remarks about the situation
Comments about female aggressive model were more disapproving than for males (sex-typed)
Provided some explanation of the reasons why children copied some behaviors and not
others

Results: Imitation of Model

1. Children from the aggressive model group showed significantly more imitation of the
model’s physical & verbal aggression and non-aggressive verbal responses
2. Children from the aggressive model group showed more partial imitation & non-imitative
physical & verbal aggression (but not to a sig. degree)
3. Children from the non-aggressive model group showed very little aggression (but not always
sig. less than the control)(confirming H2)
4. In the non-aggressive group, the male model had a significant inhibiting effect on the
children (H2)
5. Boys displayed sig. more imitative physical & verbal aggression with male model
6. Girls displayed more verbal imitative aggression & non-imitative aggression with female
model (but a not sig. diff.) (H4)

Results: Influence of Gender

 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

Conclusions:
1. 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
2. Observed non aggressive behaviors are imitated: children seeing non aggressive models will
be less aggressive than those seeing no model
3. 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 boys

Evaluation: Generalizability
Not generalizable
Small sample- Only 6 children per condition
Not diverse-Children were probably quite similar (parents work at Stanford university) – biased
sample= lower validity

Evaluation: Reliability
Reliability increased because of: and replication
 Standardization
Interrater Reliability- Of the 51 children rated by both observers similar ratings were generally
produced *.89
Application for every day life:
TV networks should understand that children imitate behavior, so they should demonstrate
pro-social behavior
Parents should carefully choose what children watch

Evaluation Validity:

Validity increased because of: Likelihood that difference in behavior was due to difference between
models

 High inter-rater reliability (for initial aggressiveness rating and for data recording)
 Pretesting of children’s aggressiveness (differences in behavior were not due to individual
differences)

low ecological validity; Artificial setting

 Evaluation: Ethics (see use of children)

Debates: Individual v. Situational

Situational Side supported. Children has been matched on individual levels of aggression already yet
there were differences in imitated behaviors. Therefore the situation that children found themselves in
cause the imitated aggressive behavior

Debates: Nature v. Nurture

Support for nurture side – environment caused aggression

Debate with the use of children: strength and weakness

Weakness: Ethical

 Children may have been distressed while watching the aggressive acts.
 Children may have been harmed by witnessing the acts and by being frustrated with not being
bale to play with the “best” toys.
 Protection: did not leave study in same psychological state in which they entered
Strengths:

 Some psychologists believe that children are less susceptible to demand characteristics than
adults. In this study it was hoped that children were showing their real behaviors when playing
with the Bobo doll as they had not worked out the purpose of the study