Bandura, Ross and Ross Paper 1 The Core Studies 1 Oct/Nov 2002 17(a) Outline the main findings

of your chosen studies. [10]

The main findings in the study of the transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models is that the children that were placed in the aggressive model condition made more aggressive responses than the children in the non aggressive model condition, boys generally made more aggressive responses than girls, the boys in the aggressive model conditions showed more aggressive responses if the model was male than if the model was female and the girls in the aggressive model conditions also showed more physical aggressive responses if the model was male but more verbal aggressive responses if the model was female; (However, the exception to this general pattern was the observation of how often they punched Bobo, and on this case the effects of gender were reversed). Bandura also made an interesting report that the aggression of the female model had a confusing effect on the children, perhaps because it did not fit in with their prior learning about what is culturally appropriate behaviour. For example, one of the children said Who is that lady? That s not the way for a lady to behave. Ladies are supposed to act like ladies... and another child said You should have seen what that girl did in there. She was punching and fighting but no swearing . However, the aggressive behaviour of the male model fitted more comfortably into a cultural stereotype of appropriate behaviour. For example, one boy said Al s a good sucker, he beat up Bob. I want to sock like Al. and one of the girls said 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 findings support Bandura s Social Learning Theory (SIT) that is; children learn social behaviour such as aggression through the process of observational learning (through watching the behaviour of another person). Central to SIT is the identification of which types of models are more likely to be imitated. In this study it was found that aggressive male models were more likely to be imitated than aggressive female models. One probable reason for this is to do with sex roles: perhaps it is more acceptable in Western culture for men to be aggressive than women, and even by the age of 3 or 4 children are learning the dominant stereotypes that relate to sex-role difference. So aggressive male models are more likely to be imitated since this is seen by the child as more fitting or appropriate for men to be aggressive (in general) than for women (in general). Bandura found that boys were more likely to imitate the aggressive male model than the female role model. Perhaps the greater relevance of the male model s behaviour for boys lies in the fact that boys perceive the similarity between themselves and the male model. Bandura therefore found that similarity between the model and the child is another important factor. Perception of this similarity is based upon development of the child s gender identity (i.e. the ability to classify itself and others as a girl or a boy, male or a female). The first stage of this ability is not usually reached until two to two and a half years of age. Bandura has carried out many other studies (not just on aggression_ showing that a number of other important characteristics are important for imitation. For example nurturing (warm and friendly) adults are more likely to be imitated than unfriendly ones. Those more powerful models are more readily imitated and that adults who are seen to be rewarded for their behaviour are more likely to be imitated.

(b) Describe the procedure of your chosen study and say whether informed consent was used

[10]

The laboratory based experiment study of imitation had 36 boys and 36 girls (average age of 4 years 4 months) exposed to aggressive and non-aggressive models in order to see how such exposure affects the children s behaviour. The role models consisted of one adult male and one adult female. The design for the experiment has 3 major conditions; the control group, the group exposed to the aggressive model and the group exposed to the passive model. The children who were exposed to the adult models were further sub divided by their gender, and by the gender of the model they were exposed to. The control group had 24 subjects, the 8 experimental groups had 6 subjects each with 24 subjects in the aggressive model condition and 24 subjects in the non-aggressive condition. In the experimental groups, the children were paired up with either the same-sex model or with an opposite sex model. The three independent variables for this experiment was the condition the children were exposed to, the gender of the role model and the gender of the child. Bandura tried to reduce the distortion of the results (since the groups were so small) by pre-testing the children for how aggressive they were. They did this by observing the children in the nursery and judged their aggressive behaviour on four 5-point rating scales checklist (which looked at the child s physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression towards inanimate objects and aggressive inhibition). It was then possible to match the children in each group so that they had similar levels of aggression in their everyday behaviour (this is an example of a matched pairs design). The observers were the experimenter and a nursery teacher who were both well acquainted with the children. Each child s score was added up and to test the inter-rater reliability of the observers, 51 of the children were rated by 2 observers independently and their ratings were compared (they obtained a correlation of r = 0.89 which is very high in reliability). In stage one of the experiment, the child was brought to the experimental room by the experimenter and the model was invited to come in and join in the game. In one corner of the room there was a small table and chair, potato prints and picture stickers arranged as the child s play area and after settling the child in the corner the adult model was escorted to the opposite corner of the room where there was a small table, chair, tinker-toy set, a mallet and a 5 foot inflatable Bobo doll. Once the model was seated the experimenter left the experimental room. In the non aggressive condition, the model ignored Bobo and assembled the tinker-toys in a quiet gentle manner. In the aggressive condition the model began by assembling the tinker-toys, but after one minute turned towards Bob and was aggressive to the doll in a very stylised and distinctive way. An example of physical aggression was raising Bobo and hitting it on the head with the mallet. An example of verbal aggression was the saying Pow! and Sock him in the nose . After 10 minutes the experimenter re-entered the room and took the child to a new room which the child was told was another games room. In stage 2 the child was subjected to mild aggression arousal . The child was taken to a room with relatively attractive toys and as soon as the child started to play with the toys, the experimenter told the child that these were the experimenter s best toys and she had decided to reserve them for the other children. Then the child was taken to the next room for stage 3 of the study where the child was told it could play with any of the toys in there. The experimenter stayed in the room as a number of children would either refuse to stay alone or would leave the room prematurely. There were non-aggressive toys which included a tea set, crayons, 3 bears and plastic farm animals and aggressive toys which included a mallet and peg board, dart guns and a 3 foot Bobo doll. The child was kept in this room for 20 minutes during which time their behaviour was observed by judges through a one way mirror. Observations were made at 5 second intervals therefore giving 240 response units for each child. There were 3 measures of imitation obtained (Imitation of physical aggression, imitation of verbal aggression and imitative non-aggressive verbal responses) and two types of behaviour that were not complete imitations (such as striking other toys with the mallet or sitting on Bobo). They also recorded 3 aggressive behaviours that were not imitations (such as punching Bobo, non-imitative physical and verbal aggression and aggressive gun play). The results enabled the researchers to consider which children imitated the model, which models the children imitate and whether the children showed a general increase in aggressive behaviour or a specific imitation of the adult behaviours. Informed consent was not used because the children were not asked by the researchers to participate in the experiment since they are too young to give informed consent and are unable to understand what informed consent means.

(c) Using your chosen study as an example, what are the advantages and disadvantages of gaining informed consent in psychological studies? [10] An advantage of gaining informed consent in psychological studies is that the person participating in the experiment understands the implication of the experiment and will be more prepared psychologically. For example in Bandura s experiment, the informed consent will allow parents/caretakers of the participants to understand what the experiment is about and what the children will be asked to do in the experiment. When this is done, the parents/caretakers can explain to the child before the experiment starts why they are to follow the experimenter into an unknown laboratory and prepare the children psychologically to prevent them from being psychologically harmed by not understanding the situation they are in. If the child isn t told by their parents/caretakers the situation they are about to be put in, the child may start to panic about the situation they are in and may display demand characteristics or not be focused on the task they are meant to do, rendering the experiment invalid. Another advantage of gaining informed consent is that participants are given ample amount of opportunities to understand the nature, purpose and method of a study. For instance in the study of transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models, the parents/caretakers of the participants will be given plenty of time to understand why their child has been chosen to participate in the experiment and how the experiment is to be carried out. Also, giving informed consent will allow the participant to understand any unforeseen harm, discomfort or misconceptions and arrange for assistance as needed. For instance the caretakers/parents of the children understand that the purpose of the study is to observe whether or not children can learn aggression by observing aggressive models. The parents/caretakers will also understand that their child s behaviour may be permanently affected by what they observe in the study and will be able to fully make a decision as to whether or not they want their child to be a part of the study (given the rights to withdraw). However, informed consent is invalid for a person below the age of 18 thus the individual is barred from legally giving informed consent. This means that the consent needs to be given by the parent/caretaker of the child who is supposed to be participating in the experiment. This could mean that the participants may not want to do the experiment but have no say in whether they are to participate in the experiment or not since the decision is given to their parent/caretaker (this is unethical but it is allowed since the children are too young to make up their own decisions). It could also mean that the child may want to participate in the experiment but if their parents/caretakers does not agree to let them participate, the child will not be able to participate in the experiment. Also, the validity of the results collected from these children will be questionable since they are not allowed to give their consent. Another disadvantage of gaining informed consent is that it will be difficult to find a subject or sample for research, thus making the experiment more complicated and time consuming. For instance, when informed consent is asked, the researcher has to tell the participants what they are meant to do and the purpose of the experiment. However, by doing so, not many people may want to be involved in the experiment, especially if the experiment could be a harmful one (i.e. leaves a long term psychological scar in the participant). In Bandura s experiment, the participants were children which would make it even harder to find subjects as the participants are under age children. This also means that a lot of time will be wasted searching for participants to participate in the experiment.

(d) Suggest changes to your chosen study that would give participants informed consent and say what effect, if any, this would have on the results [10] A change that could be made in order to give participants informed consent was to ask the parents of the children themselves to allow their child to participate in the study. If the parents were asked, the parents will be able to make the decision as to whether they want their child to be a participant in the experiment or not. This may affect the results as the parents may be able to make their child comprehend what they are meant to do in the experiment and thus reduce demand characteristics the child might ve shown. However the parents may decide to disapprove of letting their child participate in the experiment, meaning that fewer children will be in each of the groups that Bandura originally placed them in. With so few participants in each group, the conclusions that can be deduced from the results collected may not be very valid as there is such a restricted sample used to make the conclusions and an abnormal result collected from a subject may throw off the conclusions entirely. Another change that Bandura could have done to give participants informed consent is to ask the teachers of the participants to allow them to use the children in the study. By doing so, the teachers would be able to make the decision as to whether the child was suitable to participate in the experiment or not and because the teacher knows all the children in their class, they would be able to help to researcher match the participants who have similar levels of aggression (making the experiment more accurate and valid). However, the teacher of the participants do not have as much right to decide on behalf of the child so asking them for informed consent is not as valid as asking the parents of the children. On the other hand, the teacher may not be as protective of the children as the parents and thus perhaps would allow more children to participate in the experiment and may be able to find more than the intended 72 children to participate in the experiment. If more children are in the study, there will be more results that Bandura can collect and they would be more reliable especially if they are consistent. Also, Bandura would be able to make more accurate conclusions with a wider range of subjects and thus will be able to make more reliable generalisations. A further change that could be done to give participants informed consent is to use participants that are above the age of 18. If the participants used are above the age of 18, they are able to give consent for themselves rather than having a parent or caretaker give the consent for them and this will mean that the consent is valid since the person participating in the experiment has given the consent themselves and not another person on behalf of them. However, by using participants that are much older than the intended age (4 years old) would mean that the researchers may not be able to see how aggression can be transferred through imitation of aggressive models since the participants are old enough to understand that not all behaviours they see should be imitated and also, the participants are not children, so using the current lab settings may not be appropriate since the participant may get bored or perhaps does not see the relevance of being in a room with the model and may not pay attention to what the model is doing. This will affect the results because when data is collected about how the participants behaved in the 3rd room, they might not act aggressive towards any of the toys and this will disprove the idea that people learn their aggression by observing aggressive behaviour but the reason why they were not aggressive since they were not paying attention to the model. Also, another affect using participants over 18 years of age will have on the results is that since the participants are much older than the children, they would already have learned their behaviour (whether to be aggressive or non-aggressive) and seeing the model s being aggressive may not have a big impact on their behaviour as they are not as gullible as the children and already have a fixed behaviour that is not easy to change by observing aggressive behaviour once.