Understanding Bandura (aggression)

The psychology being investigated:

1. Social learning theory: This study investigated social learning theory, which proposes that people observe
and imitate the behaviour of others, especially those with whom they identify (e.g. people who are
attractive, powerful or popular). Initially, an individual will pay close attention to the behaviour of a role
model, retaining this information in their memory. They need to feel motivated (and be physically able)
to reproduce the behaviour, as well as be motivated to do so – for example, believing that they will be
rewarded for performing the behaviour. Imitation can be immediate or delayed. Delayed imitation is
when a person observes a behaviour but does not reproduce it until a later point in time.
2. Aggression: Aggression can be both physical (such as punching) or verbal (such as shouting). It is a
behaviour where there is the intention to harm another person or object and is usually forceful or
hostile. Bandura et al.’s study investigated delayed imitation of aggression in terms of both verbal and
physical aggression. The study specifically looked at aggression shown towards inanimate objects.

Background:
Previous research showed that children imitate observed behaviour when models are present. Bandura wanted to
know whether children would imitate observed aggressive acts in new settings when models were absent.

Previous research by Fauls and Smith (1956) suggested that parents have a tendency to reinforce what they
believe to be ‘sex-appropriate’ behaviour in their children. For example, a boy may not be rewarded for looking
after a doll if the parents deem this to be a female-orientated activity, but a girl may be encouraged to continue.
Due to the differing reinforcement histories of boys and girls, they develop a tendency to imitate same-sex models
more frequently. Therefore, Bandura et al. proposed that boys would be more likely to imitate a male model,
while girls would be more likely to imitate a female model. Furthermore, they proposed that, since aggression is
deemed to be a more masculine behaviour, the greatest imitation of aggression would be from boys observing
an aggressive male model.

Aims:
1. To investigate whether children imitate aggression of a model in the absence of the model.
2. To investigate whether children are more likely to imitate the behaviour of a same-sex model.

Hypotheses:
1. Subjects exposed to aggressive models would reproduce aggressive acts resembling those of their
models and would differ in this respect both from subjects who observed nonaggressive models and from
those who had no prior exposure to any models.
2. Children exposed to a non-aggressive model would show even less aggressive behavior than those
exposed to no model.
3. Subjects expected to imitate the behavior of a same-sex model to a greater degree than a model of the
opposite sex.
4. Since aggression is a highly masculine-typed behavior, boys should be more pre- disposed than girls
toward imitating aggression, the difference being most marked for subjects exposed to the male
aggressive model.

Subjects: The subjects were 36 boys and 36 girls enrolled in the Stanford University Nursery School. They
ranged in age from 37 to 69 months, with a mean age of 52 months.
Research Method: laboratory experiment with a controlled observation. All variables and measurements were
controlled for. Participants observed an aggressive model, a non-aggressive model or no model in a controlled
setting. Their subsequent behavior was then observed via a one-way mirror in a covert, structured, controlled
observation.

Two adults, a male and a female, served in the role of model, and one female experimenter conducted the study
for all 72 children.

Experimental design:
- Matched pairs:

It seemed reasonable to expect that the subjects' level of aggressiveness would be positively related to the
readiness with which they imitated aggressive modes of behavior. Therefore, in order to increase the precision of
treatment comparisons, subjects in the experimental and control groups were matched individually on the basis of
ratings of their aggressive behavior in social interactions in the nursery school.

The subjects were rated on four five-point rating scales by the experimenter and a nursery school teacher, both
of whom were well acquainted with the children. These scales measured the extent to which subjects displayed
physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression toward inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition. The
composite score was obtained by summing the ratings on the four aggression scales; on the basis of these scores,
subjects were arranged in triplets and assigned at random to one of two treatment conditions or to the control
group.

The raters’ scores had a correlation at +0.89. This indicates a high level of consistency in how the children were
rated across the aggression scales.

- Independent measures:

Children subjects were distributed into three conditions. There were eight experimental conditions, with six
participants in each condition, as well as a control condition of 24 participants with 12 boys and 12 girls who saw
no model. In the experimental conditions, half of the participants observed an aggressive model, while half
observed a non-aggressive model. Within these groups, half observed a male model, while half observed a female
model. Within these groups, the model was either same-sex or opposite-sex for participants.
Procedure – experimental conditions:
In the first step in the procedure subjects were brought individually by the experimenter to the experimental
room and the model who was in the hallway outside the room, was invited by the experimenter to come and join
in the game.

The experimenter then escorted the subject to one corner of the room, which was structured as the subject's play
area. After seating the child at a small table, the experimenter demonstrated how the subject could design
pictures with potato prints and picture stickers provided. The potato prints included a variety of geometrical
forms; the stickers were attractive multicolor pictures of animals, flowers, and western figures to be pasted on a
pastoral scene. These activities were selected since they had been established, by previous studies in the nursery
school, as having high interest value for the children.

After having settled the subject in his corner, the experimenter escorted the model to the opposite corner of the
room which contained a small table and chair, a tinker toy set, a mallet, and a 5-foot inflated Bobo doll. The
experimenter explained that these were the materials provided for the model to play with and, after the model
was seated, the experimenter left the experimental room.

Non – aggressive condition: With subjects in the nonaggressive condition, the model assembled the tinker toys in
a quiet subdued manner totally ignoring the Bobo doll.

Aggressive condition: In contrast, with subjects in the aggressive condition, the model began by assembling the
tinker toys but after approximately a minute had elapsed, the model turned to the Bobo doll and spent the
remainder of the period aggressing toward it. So that the test would show that the participants may well be
imitating specific aggressive behaviors, the model exhibited distinctive aggressive acts which were to be scored as
imitative responses. The model laid Bobo on its side, sat on it and punched it repeatedly in the nose. The model
then raised the Bobo doll, picked up the mallet and struck the doll on the head. Following the mallet aggression,
the model tossed the doll up in the air aggressively and kicked it about the room. This sequence of physically
aggressive acts was repeated approximately three times, interspersed with verbally aggressive responses such
as, "Sock him in the nose ...." "Hit him down.... "Throw him in the air ..." "Kick him...." "Pow...." and two non-
aggressive comments, "He keeps coming back for more" and "He sure is a tough fella."

Thus in the exposure situation, subjects were provided with a diverting task which occupied their attention while
at the same time insured observation of the model's behavior in the absence of any instructions to observe or to
learn the responses in question. Since subjects could not perform the model's aggressive behavior, any learning
that occurred was purely on an observational or covert basis.

At the end of 10 minutes, the experimenter entered the room, informed the subject that he would now go to
another game room, and bid the model goodbye.

Aggression Arousal
Subjects were tested for the amount of imitative learning in a different experimental room that was set off from
the main nursery school building. The two experimental situations were thus clearly differentiated, in fact, many
subjects were under the impression that they were no longer on the nursery school grounds. Prior to the test for
imitation, however, all subjects, experimental and control, were subjected to mild aggression arousal to insure
that they were under some degree of instigation to aggression.

The arousal experience was included for two main reasons.

- In the first place, observation of aggressive behavior exhibited by others tends to reduce the probability of
aggression on the part of the observer. Consequently, subjects in the aggressive condition, in relation both to
the nonaggressive and control groups, would be under weaker instigation following exposure to the models.
- Second, if subjects in the поп-aggressive condition expressed little aggression in the face of appropriate
instigation, the presence of an inhibitory process would seem to be indicated.

Following the exposure experience, therefore, the experimenter brought the subject to an anteroom that
contained these relatively attractive toys: a fire engine, a locomotive, a jet fighter plane, a cable car, a colorful
spinning top, and a doll set complete with wardrobe, doll carriage, and baby crib. The experimenter explained
that the toys were for the subject to play with but, as soon as the subject became sufficiently involved with the
play material (usually in about 2 minutes), the experimenter remarked that these were her very best toys, that
she did not let just anyone play with them, and that she had decided to reserve these toys for the other
children. However, the subject could play with any of the toys that were in the next room. The experimenter and
the subject then entered the adjoining experimental room.

Test for delayed imitation:

It was necessary for the experimenter to remain in the room during the experimental session; otherwise a number
of the children would either refuse to remain alone or would leave before the termination of the session.
However, in order to minimize any influence her presence might have on the subject's behavior, the experimenter
remained as inconspicuous as possible by busying herself with paper work at a desk in the far corner of the room
and avoiding any interaction with the child.

The experimental room contained a variety of toys including some that could be used in imitative or non- imitative
aggression, and others that tended to elicit predominantly nonaggressive forms of behavior. The aggressive toys
included a 3-foot Bobo doll, a. mallet and peg board, two dart guns, and a tether ball with a face painted on it
which hung from the ceiling. The nonaggressive toys, on the other hand, included a tes set, crayons and coloring
paper, a ball, two dolls, three bears, cars and trucks, and plastic farm animals.

In order to eliminate any variation in behavior due to mere placement of the toys in the room, the play material
was arranged in a fixed order for each of the sessions.

The subject spent 20 minutes in this experimental room during which time his behavior was rated in terms of
predetermined response categories by judges who observed the session through a one-way mirror in an
adjoining observation room. The 20-minute session was divided into 5-second intervals by means of an electric
interval timer, thus yielding a total number of 240 response units for each subject.

The male model scored the experimental sessions for all 72 children. Except for the cases in which he served as
model, he did not have knowledge of the subjects' group assignments. In order to provide an estimate of inter-
scorer agreement, the performances of half the subjects were also scored independently by a second observer.
Thus one or the other of the two observers usually had no knowledge edge of the conditions to which the subjects
were assigned. Since, however, all but two of the subjects in the aggressive condition performed the models
novel aggressive responses while subjects in the other conditions only rarely exhibited such reactions, subjects
who were exposed to the aggressive models could be readily identified through their distinctive behavior. The
responses scored involved highly specific concrete classes of behavior and yielded high inter-scorer reliabilities, the
product-moment coefficients being in the 90s.

Response Measures
Three measures of imitation were obtained:
- Imitation of physical aggression: This category included acts of striking the Bobo doll with the mallet, sitting
on the doll and punching it in the nose, kicking the doll, and tossing it in the air.
- Imitative verbal aggression: Subject repeats the phrases, "Sock him," "Hit him down," "Kick him," "Throw him
in the air," or "Pow."
- Imitative nonaggressive verbal responses: Subject repeats, "He keeps coming back for more," or "He sure is a
tough fella."

During the pretest, a number of the subjects imitated the essential components of the model's behavior but did
not perform the complete act, or they directed the imitative aggressive response to some object other than the
Bobo doll.

Two responses of this type were therefore scored and were interpreted as partially imitative behavior.
- Mallet aggression: Subject strikes objects other than. The Bobo doll aggressively with the mallet.
- Sits on Bobo doll: Subject lays the Bobo doll on its side and sits on it, but does not aggress toward it.

The following additional non-imitative aggressive responses were scored:

- Punches Bobo doll: Subject strikes, slaps, or pushes the doll aggressively.
- Non-imitative physical and verbal aggression: This category included physically aggressive acts directed
toward objects other than the Bobo doll and any hostile remarks except for those in the verbal imitation
category; e.g., "Shoot the Bobo," "Cut him," "Stupid ball," "Knock over people," "Horses fighting, biting"
- Aggressive gun play: Subject shoots darts or aims the guns and fires imaginary shots at objects in the room.

Ratings were also made of the number of behavior units in which subjects played non-aggressively or sat quietly
and did not play with any of the material at all.

Results –
Quantitative data was recorded. This showed significant differences in levels of imitative aggression. Subjects in
the aggression condition reproduced a good deal of physical and verbal aggressive behavior resembling that of the
models, and their mean scores differed markedly from those of subjects in the non-aggressive and control groups
who exhibited virtually no imitative aggression.

Since there were only a few scores for subjects in the non-aggressive and control conditions (approximately 70%
of the subjects had zero scores), and the assumption of homogeneity of variance could not be made, the Friedman
two-way analysis of variance by ranks was employed to test the significance of the obtained differences. These
children also imitated model's non-aggressive verbal responses. This effect was greater for boys than girls although
boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression and girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression.

Significant differences between the groups were seen based solely on the behavior of the model. It clearly shows
that participants who observed an aggressive model performed significantly more aggressive behaviors:

- In six of the eight response categories compared to the non-aggressive model

- In three of the response categories compared to the control
The control group only showed significantly more aggressive behavior for the mallet aggression than the non-
aggressive model. This was mainly due to the girls showing much more of this behavior in the control group.

The researchers also reported that:

- Around one third of the children in the aggressive conditions repeated the model's non- aggressive verbal
responses. No child in the other two conditions did this.

- In the aggressive conditions, boys reproduced more imitative physical aggression than girls. There were no
differences in terms of verbal aggression

- Boys who witnessed a male aggressive model showed significantly more physical imitative aggression, more
verbal imitative aggression, more non-imitative aggression and more gun play than girls who witnessed a
male aggressive model (more same-sex imitation)

- Mean for imitative physical aggression for male subjects (25.8) is much higher than that for female subjects
(7.2). This indicates that boys imitated physical aggression of a male model more than the girls. However, with
a female model, girls imitated less (5.5) than with the male model

- Girls who witnessed a female aggressive model showed more imitative verbal aggression and non-imitative
aggression than boys who witnessed a female aggressive model. However, the results were not significant.

- Apart from the mallet aggression, there were no significant differences between the non- aggressive model
conditions and the control group. However this appeared to be masking some important findings. Compared
to the control group, those who witnessed a non-aggressive male model (irrespective of their sex) performed
less imitative physical aggression, less imitative verbal aggression, less mallet aggression, less non-imitative
physical and verbal aggression and punched the Bobo doll fewer times

- Girls spent significantly more time playing with the dolls and tea set and more time coloring than boys. Boys
spent significantly more time playing with the guns

- Children in the non-aggressive conditions engaged in significantly more non-aggressive play with dolls than
was seen in the other two groups

- Children who had observed non-aggressive models spent more than twice as much time sitting quietly (not
playing with any toys) than children who had observed the aggressive model

- The aggressive model did not appear to affect levels of gun play or punching the Bobo doll, non- imitative
physical and verbal aggression other than these activities were higher following exposure to an aggressive
model compared to the other two conditions

- There were no gender differences in play with farm animals, cars or the tether ball

- In addition to the observations, records of the remarks about the aggressive models revealed differences,
both between reactions to the actions of the male and female models and between boys and girls.

Some comments appeared to be based on previous knowledge of sex-typed behavior, such as 'who is that lady?
That's not the way for a lady to behave. Ladies are supposed to act like ladies... and 'you should have seen what
that girl did in there. She was just acting like a man. I never saw a girl act like that before. She was punching and
fighting but no swearing.
Whereas, comments about the female model's behavior were disapproving, those about the male model were not.
This was more likely to be seen as appropriate and approved by both boys and girls, for example, in comments
such as 'Al's a good socker, he beat up Bobo. I want to sock like Al' and 'that man is a strong fighter, he punched
and punched and he could hit Bobo right down to the floor and if Bobo got up he said, "Punch your nose." He's a
good fighter like Daddy."

The results of the study support all four hypotheses:

1. Observed aggressive behaviors are imitated. Children who had witnessed an aggressive model were
significantly more aggressive than those seeing a non-aggressive model or a no-model

2. Observed non-aggressive behaviors are imitated: children seeing non-aggressive models were less aggressive
than those seeing no model. However, there was very little difference between aggression in the control group
and that in the non-aggressive modelling condition

3. Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model. Boys were significantly more likely to imitate aggressive
male model. The difference for girls was much smaller.

4. Boys were significantly more physically aggressive than girls

Conclusion:
The results strongly suggest that observation and imitation can account for learning of specific acts without
reinforcement of either the model or the observer. Witnessing aggression in a model can be enough to produce
aggression by an observer. Children selectively imitate gender-specific behaviors. Boys are more likely to imitate
physical aggression, while girls are more likely to imitate verbal aggression. As the boys but not girls were more
likely to imitate aggression in a same-sex model, it could be concluded - although only cautiously that children
selectively imitate same-sex models.

Controls:
- Children were matched for pre-existing levels of aggression, meaning that a child rated at 5 (very aggressive)
was matched with a child also rated 5 (very aggressive) with one going to the aggressive group and one going
to the non-aggressive group. This was done to reduce the effects of confounding variables.
- The toys in the rooms 1, 2 and 3 were always the same, kept in the same position and same place when a
child entered the room
- The actions of the models were always the same, in the same order and for the same duration of time
- To check for inter-rater reliability there were 2 independent observers. The 20 minute session was divided
into 5-second intervals, giving 240 responses. The data of the observers were compared and the correlation
was 0.9.

Application to everyday life:

1. Television warnings: As Bandura et al.’s study demonstrated that both physical and verbal aggressive
behaviour can be observed and imitated by children, it is important for television networks to either consider
censoring content or provide warnings when there will be aggressive content on the screen so that parents
have the option to prevent their children from viewing it. Additionally, the producers of children’s television
shows can ensure that characters are either non-aggressive or that aggressive content is reduced to a
minimum.
2. Parents: Bandura et al. demonstrated that children were more likely to imitate a male model, so parents may
wish to proactively expose their children to friendly and prosocial male role models. Additionally, children
were less likely to show aggressive behaviours if they observed a nonaggressive model, so parents can direct
their children to watch television programmes with models who demonstrate prosocial behaviours.
The use of children in psychological research:
This study used young children aged 37 to 69 months, which might make them particularly vulnerable to demand
characteristics. The young children may believe that the adults expect them to copy the behaviour of the stooge
and so act accordingly. This would cause issues with the validity of the results. The children are also at a sensitive
age in their development, which raises ethical issues for those being exposed to an aggressive model, as there
may be a greater risk of psychological harm due to long-term after-effects.

Support for nature side: Imitative physical aggression for boys: 25.8; Imitative physical aggression for girls: 7.2.
Boys bodies naturally contain more testosterone (hormone linked to aggression)

Support for nurture side: Aggression condition imitative aggression > nonaggressive & control (~70% had zero
scores) - Due to the actions of the model (environment). Imitative physical aggression for boys: 25.8; Imitative
physical aggression for girls: 7.2. Boys rewarded for sex typed behaviour.

Support for individual: 2/3 of subjects in aggressive condition did not imitate nonaggressive verbal responses -
Personality is meaningful in how the child reacts to the model (if they imitate aggression or choose not to).
Imitative physical aggression for boys: 25.8; Imitative physical aggression for girls: 7.2 - Boys and girls are treated
differently as individuals based on sex, reinforcing stereotypes and effecting behaviour

Support for situational: Aggression condition imitative aggression > nonaggressive & control (~70% had zero
scores) - Children acted according to how they saw the model acting.
Evaluation:

Ethical issues - Psychological harm

One weakness of Bandura et al.’s study is the risk to the children of psychological harm. One third of the
participants witnessed the aggressive behaviour of a model. This group of children was subsequently more likely to
imitate this aggressive behaviour. Since this reproduction was after a delay, it is possible that the children
continued to demonstrate delayed imitation of the aggressive behaviour even after the study had ended, or to feel
in an aggressive state of mind when they returned home.

Reliability - Standardisation
A strength of Bandura et al.’s study is the standardised procedure and instructions, which increases the reliability
of the study. The layout of the toys in the experimental room was kept the same for participants in the aggressive,
non-aggressive and control conditions. The length of time the children were observed for was also the same, at 20
minutes, and the same behavioural checklist was used to record behaviour every five seconds. This level of
consistency makes the study’s findings about children’s delayed imitation of aggression more reliable.

Inter-observer reliability
A strength of this study is that high levels of inter-observer reliability were found. In one half of the trials, two
observers independently recorded participants’ behaviour using a behavioural checklist in five-second intervals.
Their results were correlated and found to always be in the +0.90s. This ensured that there was a high level of
consistency in the scoring of aggressive and non-aggressive behaviours.

Inter-rater reliability
There was strong inter-rater reliability between the researcher and the nursery teacher for the children’s
aggression scores. The raters’ scores had a correlation at +0.89. This indicates a high level of consistency in how
the children were rated across the aggression scales.

Validity - Matched aggression scores

A strength of this study was that participants were matched on prior aggression levels. They were each rated by
their nursery teacher and the experimenter independently on four five-point rating scales for their: physical
aggression, verbal aggression, aggression towards inanimate objects and aggressive inhibition. Using the total
scores gained, participants were put into triplets, with each being randomly assigned to a different condition. This
increased the validity of the findings, as individual differences in prior aggression levels should not have caused any
differences between conditions.

Only two stooges

A weakness was that only one stooge was used in each male and female condition throughout the experiment.
This means that the children may have imitated the model due to some individual feature that was unique to the
model, rather than their sex. This confounding variable may have affected how frequently a model was imitated
and thus the validity of the results.

Objectivity - Quantitative data

A strength was that quantitative data was collected in this study, which allows for more objective comparisons to
be made between conditions of the independent variables. Data was collected on the number of aggressive acts
shown by each child, using a behavioural checklist. Therefore, it was possible to compare numerical data regarding
the children’s levels of aggression following exposure to different types of model without bias, increasing validity.

Inside information
A weakness of this study was that the main observer for all of the trials was the male model from the experiments.
This meant that he knew which children had been in the male model conditions and may have been more
subjective in his interpretation of their behaviours. This would subsequently reduce the validity of the data for the
male conditions, as he may have expected the children he had previously seen to act in a certain way, depending
on whether they had watched him acting aggressively and interpreted their behaviour accordingly.

Single-blind
On the other hand, a strength is that the main observer did not know which condition each child had been in for
any trials for which he had not been the model, which would increase his objectivity. This means that any
similarities or differences between the female conditions were not due to bias on the part of the researcher, which
increases the validity of the data for these conditions.

Generalising beyond the sample

A weakness is that the findings may not be generalisable to participants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
The children were all from the nursery of a prestigious university, which was for children of staff and students.
Therefore, these children may have had particularly educated parents and their home lives may not be
representative of the rest of the population. Their learning experiences may have differed from other children and
they may have been more or less likely to imitate adult behaviour as a result, reducing the validity of the findings.

Generalising to everyday life

A weakness of this study is that the situation presented to the children lacks mundane realism as it was an unusual
set-up. It is very rare that an adult will be seen to attack a toy, with the child being provided with the opportunity
to imitate this behaviour. Furthermore, the children were seen hitting an inflatable doll rather than a real person.
Bobo dolls are also designed to be hit and bounce back. Therefore, it is not possible to assume that the aggressive
behaviour shown towards the toys would extend to violence towards real people. Bandura et al.’s study did not
distinguish between play fighting and violence in real life.