Bandura et Al 1961 LA Flashcards
Psychology being investigated-Social Learning Theory
This Study investigates the SLT which proposes that people observe and imitate the behavior of others, especially those with whom they identify (i.e people who are attractive,powerful,popular,ect). Initially, an individual will play close attention to the role models behavior, retaining this info in their memory. They need to feel motivated (and physically able) to reproduce the behavior + motivated to do so-e.g believing they will be rewarded for performing the behavior. Imitation can be immediate or delayed. Delayed imitation is when a person observes a behavior but dies not reproduce it until a later point in time.
Psychology being investigated-Aggression
-Can be both physical (such as punching) and verbal (such as shouting). It is a behavior when there is the intention to harm another person or object and is usually forceful or hostile. Good self-regulation can allow individuals to inhibit any aggression they feel. Bandura et als’ study investigated delayed imitation of aggression in terms of both verbal + physical aggression. The study specifically looked at aggression shown towards inanimate objects.
Background-Previous Research
Previous research into imitation of aggression found that children readily imitated a model’s behavior in the presence of the model. Bandura wanted to see whether children would imitate behavior when the model was no longer present and they were in a new setting. The behavior they chose to investigate was aggression.
Background-Imitation of Aggression
In their study, children were exposed to aggressive + non aggressive models-then moved to a new setting to see whether they imitated the behavior they had previously observed. They predicted that children who had been exposed to an aggressive model would copy aggressive acts and show diff behavior to those who had seen a non-aggressive model-or no model at all. The researchers hypothesized that children learn imitative behaviors through prior reinforcement and to some extent this tendency can also be applied to adults.
Background-“non aggressive model”
They also hypothesized that observing a non-aggressive model would actively inhibit any aggressive behavior, meaning that children exposed to a non-aggressive model would show even less aggressive behavior than exposed to no-model.
Background-“sex of the model”
*Previous research by Fauls and Smith (1956) suggested that parents have a tendency to reinforce what they believe to be “sex-appropriate” behavior in their children. –E.g a boy may not be rewarded for taking care of a doll if parents deem this a female-oriented activity, whilst a girl may be encouraged to continue.
*Due to differing reinforcements of boys and girls, they develop a tendency to imitate same-sex models more frequently.
*Therefore, they proposed that boys would be more likely to imitate a male model and girls a female. Furthermore, they proposed that, since aggression is deemed to be a more masculine behavior, the greatest imitation of aggression would be from boys observing an aggressive male model.
Bandura et al. in brief !
In Bandura et al’s study, children were exposed to either an aggressive or non aggressive model or a no model condition. Both male and female models used in exp.
-Aggressive model would punch and kick a giant inflatable clown called a Bobo doll, while the non-aggressive model would play quietly.
-The children were then all made equally frustrated before being moved to a new setting with toys-where their subsequent behavior was observed.
-As expected, highest level of aggression was seen in boys who had been exposed to an aggressive male model.
-Males were more likely to imitate physical aggression while females verbal. Many of these behaviors were identical to model (aggressive and non aggressive actions imitated).
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 behavior of a same-sex model.
Research Methodology A
- They used an experiment.
*PPs observed an aggressive model , or non aggressive one, or a no model, in a controlled setting. Their subsequent behavior was then observed via a one-way mirror in a covert, structured, controlled observation.
Design and Variables
*8 experimental conditions-with 6 pps in each+ a control condition of 24 pps w 12 boys and girls who saw NO model.
*In the exp conditions, half of the pps observed an aggressive model, while half observed a non aggressive one.
-Within these grps, 22, half observed a male model and half a female. Within these groups, the model was either same sex or different sex for pps.
Research Methodology B
*Pps matched on prior aggression levels. Rated by nursery teacher and experimenter independently on their social aggression on four 5-point scales measuring: physical and verbal aggression, asw as aggression towards inanimate objects and aggression inhabitation. Based on their total scores, pps were put into grps of 3. Each triplet was randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 main conditions.
Research Methodology-Sample
72 children recruited from Standford Uni Nursery. 36 girls and 36 boys , aged 37-69 months , w a mean age of 52months.
Procedure-Experimental conditions
*In the exp conditions involving a model, the pp was brought to a room full of toys and seated at a table in the corner by the experimenter, who showed them how to make pics with potato prints.
*Multi color stickers also provided.
*These 2 activities had been shown by previous research to have high interest value for children. *The experimenter then took the model to another corner of the room which had a table and chair, tinker toy (construction set), mallet, and inflatable bobo doll, before leaving the room…
Procedure-Non-Aggressive Condition
In the non aggressive condition, the model played w the tinker toys in a quiet manner and ignored bobo doll.
Procedure-Aggressive Condition
*In the aggressive condition-after a min of playing w the tinker toys, the model focused on bobo doll + was aggressive towards it for the remaining 9mins.
*Standard actions were performed by model each time in same sequence. The model laid out Bobo doll on its side-sitting on it and punching nose. They then lifted it and hit its head with a mallet, followed by throwing the bobo doll up in the air aggressively and kicking it around room.
*This sequence was repeated x3, along with verbally aggressive comments.
*After 10mins, experimenter returned to room and told the pp he or she was being taken to a game room.
Procedure-Aggression Arousal
*Before the test for imitation, all pps in the exp were taken to a game room to induce mild aggression arousal.
*This was to ensure that all pps were primed to initiate aggressive acts equally, regardless of the situation they had observed. This room had attractive toys, e.g a fire engine, a train, a fighter plane, cable car, colorful spinning top and doll set.
*The pps were told that the toys were for them to play with, but as soon as they became engaged, the experimenter announced that these were her very best toys and were being reserved for other children.
*The pp was then taken to the adjoining exp room in a state of frustration.
Procedure-Test For Delayed Imitation
The experimental room contained a range of toys, including a three-foot Bobo doll, a mallet, a peg board, two dart guns, and other non-aggressive toys, such as two dolls, cars, a tea set, crayons and paper.
The participant was brought to the experimental room by the experimenter. The model was not present. The experimenter left the room, and observation was carried out through a one-way mirror. Behaviour was recorded on a time sampling method at 5-second intervals. Each child was observed for 20 minutes.
The responses were scored by male observers. For half the trials there was a second observer.
Procedure-Response Measures
Response measures
Three categories of imitation were observed:
● Imitation of physical aggression:
– Hitting the Bobo doll
– Sitting on the Bobo doll and punching the Bobo doll in the nose
– Hitting the Bobo doll with a mallet
– Throwing the Bobo doll in the air
● Imitative verbal aggression:
– “Sock him in the nose.”
– “Hit him down.”
– “Throw him in the air.”
– “Kick him.”
– “Pow.”
● Imitative non-aggressive verbal responses:
– “He keeps coming back for more”
– “He sure is a tough fella”
During a pre-test, it had been found that some children might have never seen a Bobo doll before. In addition to the imitative categories, further categories of partially imitative behaviour were included:
● Mallet aggression: striking something other than the Bobo doll with the mallet
● Bobo doll aggression: hitting and kicking the Bobo doll without the specific acts observed in the model
● Sits on Bobo doll: putting the doll on its side and sitting on it, but not hitting it
Three non-imitative aggressive responses were also recorded:
● Punches: striking objects other than the Bobo doll
● Non-imitative physical and verbal aggression: aggressive behaviour not modelled by the model
● Aggressive gun play: shooting darts or aiming the dart gun and firing imaginary shots
The number of times each behaviour was displayed was recorded. The sex of the model and participant was also recorded.
Results- Complete Imitation of Model’s Behaviors
Participants in the aggressive model condition demonstrated more physical and verbal aggression than the non-aggressive and control groups (Table 3.3).
One third of participants in the aggressive model condition also imitated the model’s non-aggressive comments, while none in the other conditions did.
Results-Partial imitation of Model’s Behaviors
Exposure to a non-aggressive model inhibited partially imitative mallet aggression, particularly in girls.
In the aggressive model and control groups, partially imitative mallet aggression was significantly higher for girls (18.0 and 13.1, respectively) than in the non-aggressive model condition (0.5).
Sitting on the Bobo doll was initiated more frequently in the aggressive model condition than the other two conditions.
Results Data !
🟠 Imitative Physical Aggression
*Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 5.5
-Male: 7.2
*Non-Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 2.5
-Male: 0.0
*Control Group:
-Female: 0.0
-Male: 1.2
🟠 Imitative Verbal Aggression
*Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 13.7
-Male: 22.0
*Non-Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 0.3
-Male: 0.0
*Control Group:
-Female: 0.0
-Male: 1.9
🟠 Mallet Aggression
*Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 12.4
-Male: 12.7
*Non-Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 0.5
-Male: 0.0
*Control Group:
-Female: 18.0
-Male: 13.1
🟠 Punches Bobo Doll
*Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 6.3
-Male: 16.5
*Non-Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 1.8
-Male: 5.4
*Control Group:
-Female: 3.2
-Male: 15.7
🟠 Non-Imitative Aggression
*Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 21.3
-Male: 8.4
*Non-Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 9.2
-Male: 2.2
*Control Group:
-Female: 6.1
-Male: 4.2
🟠 Aggressive Gun Play
Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 1.8
-Male: 4.5
*Non-Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 8.9
-Male: 2.6
*Control Group:
-Female: 7.2
-Male: 6.7
🟠 Mean (Overall Aggression Score)
*Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 7.3
-Male: 15.9
*Non-Aggressive Model Group:
-Female: 4.8
-Male: 1.6
*Control Group:
-Female: 7.2
-Male: 14.3
Results-Non-imitative aggression
Being in the aggressive model condition did not increase the incidence of non-imitative aggression, such as aggressive gun play or punching the Bobo doll.
Results-Sex of pp/model
Boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression than girls.
Girls were slightly more likely to imitate verbal aggression than boys, but this difference was not statistically significant.
The male model had a greater effect on participants’ behaviour overall than the female model.
Participants who viewed the non-aggressive male model demonstrated significantly less physical aggression, verbal aggression and mallet aggression, as well as non-imitative aggression overall, than the control group.
Results-Same sex models
Children who viewed a same-sex model imitated them more than an opposite-sex model.
🟥 Boys who witnessed an aggressive male model had the highest imitative aggression scores (25.8). They showed more imitative physical and verbal aggression, as well as non-imitative aggression and aggressive gun play, compared to girls who viewed a male model.
🟥 Girls were more verbally aggressive and showed more non-imitative aggression with a female aggressive model compared to boys.
Results-Non-Aggressive behavior
Only sex differences in time spent playing with certain toys were:
Girls spent more time playing with dolls, the tea set and colouring compared to boys.
Boys spent more time playing with the gun than girls.
The non-aggressive model had some significant effects on participants’ behaviour:
🟩 Participants exposed to the non-aggressive model spent more time playing quietly with dolls than the other two conditions.
🟩 Compared to controls, the non-aggressive model group spent more time colouring and less time playing aggressively.
