CHAPTER 4

LEARNING
APPROACH
4.1
LECTURER: DR. KOYAR SHERKO
LIVE TO LEARN OR LEARN TO LIVE?

• Think about what you have done today? Apart from the basic biological activities like
breathing or blinking, almost everything you have done, you had to learn at some point
in your life.
• You are currently reading this, how did you learn to read?
• How did you come to school?
• How did you realize what time is it and at what time class starts?
LIVE TO LEARN OR LEARN TO LIVE?

• We can learn through different mechanisms and most of these can also be seen in
animals.
• In some respects, however, our learning is different.
• Learning means new, permanent changes in behavior following experience.
• If you have a pet, or if you regularly see wild animals, how do you think your learning is
different from theirs?
A. The way we can learn
B. What we can learn
4.1 CORE STUDY 1:
BANDURA ET AL. 1961 (AGGRESSION)
• Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models.
• What are the aims of the study?
- The aim was to investigate whether:
1- a child would learn aggression by observing a model and
2- whether the child would reproduce this behavior in the absence of the model and
3- whether the sex of the model was important.
HYPOTHESIS

• There were four hypothesis:

• 1- observed aggressive behaviour will be imitated, so children seeing aggressive models
will be more aggressive than those seeing a non-aggressive model or no model.
• 2- observed non-aggressive behavior will be imitated, so 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.
• 4- boys will be more likely to copy aggression than girls.
BACKGROUND

• Children copy adults, this could be because the immediate social setting makes the child
imitate what he or she is watching.
• This is just facilitation of behaviour, making it more likely
that the child will do what other are doing around them.
• Alternatively, the observation of a behaviour could lead the
child to acquire a new response that he or she reproduce
independently.
BACKGROUND

• If that is the case, the new behavior should generalize to new settings and so would be
produced in the absence of an adult model.
• If this imitative learning occurred, it could arise in response to observing either
aggressive or non-aggressive behaviour.
• So whereas watching an aggressive model should lead to a more aggressive behaviours
being demonstrated, observing non-aggressive behaviors lead to more non-aggressive
behavior.
BACKGROUND

• Children are also differentially rewarded for their copying.

• In general (at least in mid-twentieth century when this study took place) boys were
rewarded for behaviors considered to be sex-appropriate and punished for inappropriate
ones, such cooking or playing mother. Similarly for girls.
• Bandura et al. suggested, this would lead to two kinds of differences.
1- boys and girls should be more likely to imitate same-sex models.
2- boys imitating aggressive behavior more, as this is seen as a more masculine type
behavior.
RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN

• It was a lab experiment, the environment was not the normal place where the children
played and the situations was controlled.
• The design was independent measure design as different children were used in each of the
levels of the independent variable (IVs), there were 3 IVs:
• A. model type: whether the child saw an aggressive model, non-aggressive model or no
model.
B. model gender: same gender as child (boys watching a male model and girls watching a
female model) or different gender.
C. learner gender: whether the child was a boy or a girl.
RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN

• The dependent variable (DV) was the learning the child displayed.
• The DV was measured through a controlled observation of the children and measure of
aggressive behaviour were recorded.
SAMPLE

- 72 children age 3-6 years (36 boys and 36 girls) were obtained from Stanford University
nursery school.
PROCEDURE

• Prior to the experimental part of the study, the children were observed in their nursery school
by the experimenter and a teacher who knew them well.
• They were rated on a four five-scale measuring physical aggression, verbal aggression,
aggression on inanimate objects and aggression inhibition (anxiety).
• They were then assigned to three groups, ensuring that the aggression levels of the children
were matched.
• 51 children were observed by two observers and their rating were compared as a measure of
inter-rater reliability and it showed a high correlation (the rest were observed by only one
observer)
PROCEDURE

• 12 boys and 12 girls were allocated to control groups who saw no model.
• The remaining children were divided equally by sex between aggressive and non-
aggressive model groups and within those, between same and opposite sex models.
PROCEDURE

• The experimental procedure started with all participants being deliberately mildly
annoyed. This was done for two reasons:

1- because watching aggression may reduce the production of aggression by the observer
(even if it has been learned) and it was necessary to see evidence of learning.
2- to ensure that even the non-aggressive condition and control participants would be
likely to express aggression, so that any reduction in that tendency could be measured.
PROCEDURE

• Each individual child was shown to a room with attractive toys such as a fire engine and a
baby crib, but after about two minutes of play, they were told that these were the best toys
and were to be kept for other children.
• The experimenter and the child then moved to the observation room, where the
experimenter showed the child to a table and chair in their ‘play area’ where they were
shown how to make potato prints and sticker pictures, activities previously identified as
interesting to children.
PROCEDURE

• The opposite corner of the room also contained a table and chair, a Tinkertoy set, a mallet
and a five foot (152cm) Bobo doll – an inflatable clown like doll which bounced back
when hit. This is where the model sat, in those conditions where there was one,
• The experimenter remained in the room so that the child would not refuse to be alone or
try to leave early but they appeared to be working quietly at their desk.
• The three groups were then treated differently.
TINKER TOY SET
BOBO DOLL
PROCEDURE

• In the non-aggressive condition, the model assembled the Tinkertoys for ten minutes.
• In the aggressive condition this lasted only one minute after which the model attacked the
Bobo doll.
• The doll was laid on its side, sat on and punched in the nose, picked up and hit on the
head with a mallet, tossed in the air and kicked.
• This sequence was performed three times over nine minutes accompanied by aggressive
comments such as ‘kick him’ and two non-aggressive comments such as ‘he sure is a
tough fella.’
PROCEDURE

• Of children in the model groups, half saw a same-sex model, the others saw a model of
the opposite sex.
• A control group did not see any model and therefore saw no aggression.
• A test of the child’s aggression then followed in which the child was observed for 2-
minutes using a one-way mirror.
PROCEDURE

• For the aggressive model group, this was a test of delayed imitation.
• The experimental room contain a three foot (92cm) Bobo doll, a mallet and peg board,
two dart guns and a tether ball with a face painted on in which hung from the ceiling.
• It also included some non-aggressive toys, including a tea set, crayons and coloring
paper, a ball, two dolls, three bears, cars and trucks and plastic farm animals. These toys
were always presented in the same order.
PEGBOARD DART GUNS
TETHER BALL
PROCEDURE

• The children’s behaviour were observed. there were three response measures of the
children’s imitation, with a range of possible activities in each:

- Imitation of physical aggression: striking the Bobo doll with the mallet, sitting on the
doll and punching in the nose, kicking the doll and tossing it in the air
- imitative verbal aggression: repetition of the phrases ‘stock him’, ‘hit him down’,
‘throw him in the air’.
- imitative non-aggressive verbal responses: repetition of ‘he keep coming back for more’
or ’he sure is a tough fella’.
PROCEDURE

• Partially imitative aggression was scored if the child imitated these behaviour
incompletely. The two behaviours there were:

- mallet aggression: striking objects other than the Bobo doll aggressively with the
mallet.
- sits on Bobo doll: laying the Bobo doll on its side and sitting on it without attacking it.
PROCEDURE

• Two-further categories were:

- aggressive gun play: shooting darts or aiming a gun and firing imaginary shots at objects
in the room.
- non-imitative physical and verbal aggression: 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’, ‘horses fighting biting’.)
PROCEDURE

• Finally, behavior units were also counted for non-aggressive play and sitting quietly not
playing at all and records were kept of the children’s remarks about the situation.
• One male scored all the children’s behavior and except for those conditions in which he
was the model, he was unaware of which condition the child has been through. (although
this was obvious in the case of the aggressive model.)
• To test his reliability, a second scorer independently rated the behavior of half of the
children and the reliability was high for different categories of behavior.
RESULTS

• Children exposed to aggressive models imitated their exact behavior and were
significantly more aggressive, both physically and verbally, than those children in the
non-aggressive model or control groups.
• These children also imitated the 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 more likely to imitate verbal aggression (not significantly
so)
RESULTS

• Boys were also more likely to imitate a same-sex model, as to a lesser extent were girls.
• Mean aggression scores (table 4.1, page 88)
• The 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 the 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.
RESULTS

• Children seeing a non-aggressive model were much less likely than either the aggressive
model group or control to exhibit mallet aggression, and this pattern was especially
apparent for girls.
• Although the aggressive model did not appear to affect level 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.
RESULTS

• There were also differences in non-aggressive play.

• Girls played more with dolls, tea sets and colouring.
• Boys engaged in more exploratory play and gun play.
• There were no gender differences in playing with farm animals, cars or the tether ball.
• Both girls and boys seeing the non-aggressive model engaged in more non-aggressive
play with dolls than either of the other groups.
• They also spent more than twice as much time sitting quietly, not playing.
RESULTS

• In addition to the observations, record of the remarks about the aggressive models
revealed differences, both between reactions to the actions of the male and female models
and between girls and boys.
• Some comments appeared to be based on previously 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 the 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.’
RESULTS

• 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 if Bobo got up he said, ‘punch your nose’ he’s a good fighter like
Daddy.’
CONCLUSION

• The results strongly suggest that observation and imitation can account for the learning of
specific acts without reinforcement of either the model or the observer.
• All four hypothesis were supported:

1- observed aggressive behavior are imitated: children who see aggressive models are
likely to be more aggressive than those seeing a non-aggressive model or no model.
CONCLUSION

• 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.
• 4- boys are more likely to copy aggression than girls.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

• The main method was a lab experiment.

• This means it was possible to control extraneous variables. Such as ensuring there was a
possibility that the children in any condition would show aggressive behavior.
• This was done by showing them nice toys but then taking them to another room.
• Also, all children in both experimental groups saw a model for the same length of time,
and in each condition their behavior was standardized.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

• This means that the results were more valid, the researchers could be sure that the
differences in results between conditions were due to the differences between the models.
• And the results were more reliable, because each child within a condition experienced
exactly the same exposure.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

• Inter-observer reliability was also checked for both the initial observation of
aggressiveness and for the data recording, and it was very high.
• The pre-testing of the children’s aggressiveness was another factor that increased validity,
because it ensured that differences between conditions were due to the models and not to
individual differences between the children who happened to be in each group.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

• The main measure of the DV was through observation.

• As the observers were behind one-way mirror, the children were unaware that they were
being watched.
• This increases validity as they were likely to behave naturally rather than respond to
demand characteristics as they might have done had they known they were being
observed.
• The observation period was divided into time intervals (of five seconds) and the
categories were clearly defined. Which increases both validity and reliability.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

• Among the weaknesses of the study is that only six children were used in each
experimental condition and, although they were matched to reduce the risk of participant
variables, But it still is a small sample
• Its also possible that the children are quite similar, as they all attended the same nursery,
this may bias the sample and lower validity.
• The study collected both quantitative data, which was an objective record.
• And qualitative data, with although more subjective, provided some explanations of the
reasons behind the tendency of the children to copy some behaviors and not others.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

• It would also have been helpful if the children were asked about their emotions when they
were observing the model or reacting towards the Bobo doll.
• It would also have been useful to have followed the children up to see how long the
children’s acquired behavior lasted.
• If imitation leads to learning, the change in behavior should be permanent, and this raises
ethical issues.
• the children might have been harmed by becoming more aggressive.
• They were also mildly annoyed which could be psychologically distressing.