learning Approach

Bandura, Silverman & Pepperberg

Junaina Junaid
 Bandura,
Ross & Ross
(1961)
 Bandura, Ross & Ross (1961)
AGGRESSION: Feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile
or violent behavior; readiness to attack or confront.

To what extent do children imitate agression?

Background: OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING
Learning behaviour by imitating others.

We want to assess the tendency of children to imitate adult

social behavior, particularly aggression.
Studies have shown that children are influenced by witnessing adult
behavior.

● This study wants to further previous research in assessing whether

children will reproduce observed behavior in a new setting and in
the absence of the model.

● This study is also concerned with gender-specific behaviours

(gender-stereotyped behaviours: “agression is masculine”).
Are boys more likely to imitate aggression.
Are boys more likely to imitate male rather than female models.
The psychology being investigated
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY –
Learning through observation and imitation
● Attention: Observers must pay attention to the behavior of the
model (Must have features that attract the observer)

● Retention: Observers must store the observed behavior in their

long term memory

● Reproduction: Observers must feel capable of imitating the

retained behavior

● Motivation: Observers are more likely to imitate behavior if they

experience “reinforcement” (reward and punishment)
aim
Overall aim: To investigate observational learning of
aggression.

1. To see whether children would reproduce aggressive

behaviour when the model was no longer present.

2. To look for gender differences in learning of aggression.

Sample
● 72 participants

● 36 male & 36 female

● Selected from the nursery school of Stanford University

(Sampling technique?)

● Ages ranged from 37 months (just over 3 years) to 69

months (5 years & 9 months)

Generalizability?
Conditions (9)
● EXPERIMENTAL METHOD: Lab Experiment, Natural (how?)
(Strength & Weakness?)

● Also used Covert, Structured Observations

(Strength & Weakness?)

● SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Opportunity Sample

● EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Independent Measures - Matched Pairs

MATCHED PAIRS DESIGN: The children in each condition were

matched for their aggression levels (Why?)
Prior to the study, 2 people (researcher and nursery school teacher)
independently rated 51 children on a scale of 0 to 5 for aggressive
attributes (Inter-rater reliability)
Independent Variables
● The behavior of the model – Aggressive or non-aggressive

● The sex of the model – Male or Female

● The sex of the children – Male or Female

Dependent Variables
● Amount of behavior observed in the eight categories

Imitative Physical Aggression

Imitative Verbal Aggression
Imitative Verbal Non-Aggressive Responses
Mallet Aggression
Sits on the Bobo Doll
Punches the Bobo Doll
Non-imitative Physical and Verbal Aggression
Aggressive Gun-play
Procedure
● 3 STAGES
1. Modelling the Behaviour:
Each child (individually) met the model in the hallway before being brought to the experiment room
The researcher invited the model in to join in a game (10 mins)
The child was taken to a corner where he could play with potato prints and stickers
The researcher took the model to another corner of the room where there were: A small table and chair, a
five-foot inflatable “Bobo” doll, a mallet and a toy set (researcher then left the room)

NON-AGGRESSIVE CONDITION: The model assembled the toys in a quiet manner

AGGRESSIVE CONDITION: Model began assembling the toys, after one minute s/he started showing aggression
towards the Bobo doll (Repeated thrice)
Verbal aggression:
Physical aggression: - “Sock him in the nose”
- Punched the doll - “Hit him down”
- Kicked it around the room - “Throw him in the air”
- Picked up a mallet and struck the doll on it’s head - “Kick him”
- Tossed the doll in the air - “Pow”

End: Researcher returned in 10 mins and told the child to Non-aggressive verbal comments:
go to the next room and said good bye to the model. - “He keeps coming back for more”
-
2. Aggression Arousal:

All children were subjected to mild aggression arousal (Why?)

(i) Observation of aggression shown by others tends to reduce the probability of
aggression shown by the observer.
(ii) If those in the non-aggressive conditions showed little aggression after being
aroused it would indicate some inhibitory process (deliberately constraining
themselves).

After seeing the model in the previous room, each child entered a new games room
with attractive toys: fire engine, locomotive, spinning top, doll set and a fighter
plane.

After around 2 mins (when the child starts getting involved with the toys) the
researcher explained that these were her best toys and she was going to keep these
toys for the other children after which the researcher and child went back to the
experiment room.
The researcher stayed in this room for phase 3 but did not interact with the child
(busied herself with paperwork in another corner).
3. Testing for delayed imitation:

AGGRESSIVE TOYS: Three-foot Bobo doll, a mallet, a peg board, two dart
guns and a tether ball hung from the ceiling with a face on it.
NON-AGGRESSIVE TOYS: Tea set, crayons, coloring paper, a ball, dolls, toy
bears, cars, trucks and plastic farm animals.

Child spent 20 mins in this room.

Behaviour was rated on a predetermined check list of categories (Structured)
Judges were observing through a one-way mirror (Covert)
Behaviours were recorded in 5 second intervals – 240 behaviours per child (Time
sampling)

2 observers – one of them was the male model who observed all the children and never
knew which condition the child had been in (other than the ones he had been a model
to)
Half the children were observed by a second observer who scored the children
independently (inter-rater reliability)
controls
● All the children were subjected to mild aggression arousal.
● Same toys in each phase.
● Same behavior exhibited by model in all aggressive conditions; and
same behavior in all non-aggressive conditions.
● All the toys were placed in the same location for all the children in
phase 3.
● Structured observation with pre-determined checklist of behaviors for
each child.
● Behaviors were recorded every 5 seconds; 240 behaviors per child.
● Same amount of time spent in each phase.
● Observer never knew which condition the child had been in.
● Second observer rated half the children independently (inter-rater
reliability).
● Children in each condition were matched for their aggression levels
(reduced participant variables).
 Results
Key overall results:

● Children who had witnessed an aggressive model were significantly more

aggressive themselves

● Overall there was little difference between aggression in the control

group and non-aggressive modelling conditions.

● Boys were significantly more likely to imitate aggressive male models.

Difference for girls was much smaller.

● Boys were significantly more physically aggressive than girls.

● Girls were slightly more verbally aggressive.

● In the aggressive conditions, boys showed more imitative physical aggression than girls (no
differences in terms of verbal aggression)

● Of those who witnessed a male aggressive model, boys showed more physical and verbal
imitative aggression, more non-imitative aggression and more gun play than girls

● Of those who witnessed a female aggressive model, girls showed more imitative verbal
aggression and non-imitative aggression than boys (but not significantly)

● Apart from mallet aggression, there were no significant differences between the non-
aggressive model conditions and the control group (control group showed more mallet
aggression)

● Compared to the control group, those who witnessed a non-aggressive male model performed less
imitative physical and 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, the tea set and more time
coloring than boys; while 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 in the other two groups

● Children who had observed non-aggressive models spent twice as much time sitting quietly
Quantitative DAta
● 1/3 (about 70%) of children in the aggressive conditions repeated the
models non-aggressive verbal responses

● Boys’ physical aggression after a male aggressive role model

(average 25.8 acts) to the girls’ after a female aggressive role
model (5.5)

● Girls’ verbal aggression after a female aggressive role model (13.7)

to the boys after a male aggressive role model (12.7)

● Mallet Aggression is high even for the Control group (about 13 acts

on average, regardless of gender), but a non-aggressive role
model reduces it to 0.5 for girls, 6.7 for boys

● Even in the Control group, non-imitative aggression is higher for

boys (24.6) than girls (6.1)
conclusions
● Witnessing aggression in a model can be enough to produce
aggression by an observer.

● Children specifically imitate gender-specific behaviors.

=> Boys are more likely to imitate physical aggression while
girls are more likely to imitate verbal aggression.

● Children selectively imitate same-sex models.

(Behaviors can be learnt by imitation and without reinforcement)

 Strengths
● Lab experiment – high levels of controls (i.e. time spent watching the model;
layout of the room) – standardization of procedure – replication would lead to the
same results - HIGH RELIABILITY
(Inter-rater reliability?)

● Covert observation – less demand characteristics result in natural behaviour being

exhibited - confidence that the IV (model condition) is affecting the DV
(imitative aggression/non-aggression) - HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY.

● Independent Measures – no participants variables as different children in each

condition – less extraneous variables – confidence that the IV (model condition)
is affecting the DV (imitative aggression/non-aggression) – HIGH INTERNAL
VALIDITY.

● Quantitative data – amount of quantitative data gathered allowed for statistical

analysis and clear comparisons between groups – conclusions could easily be drawn.
(Qualitative data?)
 weaknesses
● Lab experiment – artificial/unfamiliar setting for the participants (children) - LOW
ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY.

● Demand characteristics – Bobo dolls are meant to be knocked around/mallets are meant to
hit with – behaved the way they ought to - less confidence that IV (model conditions) are
directly affecting DV (imitative aggression/non-agression) – LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY

● Lab experiment – tasks were unrealistic (i.e. watching an adult play with toys) – LOW
MUNDANE REALISM.

● Recruited from the nursey school of Stanford University - not representative of normal
chidren - LOW GENERALIZABILITY.
(Not generalizable to adults either)

● Independent measures – larger number of participants needed; individual differences may

effect the results of the study (took care of this by using a matched-pairs design)
● CHILDREN ETHICS
Informed consent – nursery school teachers gave consent.

Protection from harm – The children may have been distressed

by the aggressive behavior they witnessed and the aggressive
behavior they learned from the study may have stayed with
them long after the study.

Debriefing – children were not debriefed at the end of the

experiment and were not told that the adults were pretending.

Confidentiality - the identities of the children were kept

anonymous.

Right to withdraw – Children were not gven the right to

withdraw from the study
Usefulness / application to everyday life
● The findings can be applied to parenting and teaching
styles. It suggests children observe and imitate adults,
so if you want your children to grow up calm and well-
behaved, you need to keep your temper and keep them away
from aggressive role models.

● The findings also apply to media censorship. Heroes in TV

shows, films and video games are often rewarded for using
violence; in video games, violence is explicitly rewarded
by “levelling up”; in films the violent hero saves the
day or gets the girl. More media censorship might reduce
violence in society.
Individual vs. situational
Situational: The results clearly show that the model conditions
had an effect on behaviour as children who witnessed an
aggressive model were significantly more aggressive than those
who witnessed a non-aggressive model, in both physical and
verbal aggression.

Individual: Some participants showed levelsof aggression

aggression even in the control group (without being exposed to
any model).
Nature vs. Nurture
Nature: It may be argued that the finding that boys were more
aggressive than girls, has roots in the nature side of the debate as
boys are known to have more testosterone than girls, which naturally
makes them more aggressive.

Nurture: The results may be explained by nurture as stereotypically

boys are taught to be more aggressive while girls are taught to be less
aggressive.
Furthermore, the environment the children found themselves in caused
the imitative behaviors.