Bandura et Al (Aggression) Flashcards
AIM:
• to investigate whether a child would learn aggression by observing a model and would reproduce this behaviour in the absence of the model.
• to find if the model’s gender affected this in any way.
Specifically there were 4 hypotheses:
1. Observed aggressive behaviour will be imitated, so children who see an aggressive model will be more aggressive than those seeing a non-aggressive model or no model.
- Observed non-aggressive behaviour will be imitated, so children seeing non-aggressive models will be less aggressive than those seeing no model.
- Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model.
- Boys will be more likely to copy aggression than girls.
SAMPLE:
72 children aged 3-6 years (36 boys and 36 girls) were recruited from Stanford University nursery school by means of opportunity sampling.
BACKGROUND:
Previous research had shown that children imitated behaviour when in the presence of the model. Bandura et al wanted to investigate whether social learning theory could be used to explain aggression, specifically when the child was no longer in the presence of an aggressive model. It is thought that children have gender based ideas of behaviours implemented by being previously rewarded or punished for specific behaviours based on gender. Therefore, it may be assumed that children would be more likely to imitate the behaviours of a same-sex model as they interpret it more appropriately for themselves. Also, they should differ in the readiness with which they imitate aggression, with boys doing so more readily as this was seen as a more masculine-type behaviour.
PROCEDURE: (1)
Prior to the study, the experimenter and the children’s teacher observed them in their nursery to rate each child’s level of aggression. They were rated on 4 different measures, verbal aggression, physical aggression, aggression to inanimate objects and aggression inhibition (anxiety). The ratings were given on a 5 point scale. There was high inter-rater reliability between the experimenter’s and teacher’s rating - r=0.89
PROCEDURE: (2)
The children were split into 3 main groups: one with an aggressive model (24 children), one with a non-aggressive model (24 children) and a control group (24 children). Within the aggressive model and non-aggressive model group, the children were split into subgroups with a female (12 children) and a male (12
children) role model. Each subgroup consisted of equal numbers of boys (6) and girls (6).
The experimenter and children were in the “play area” where they made potato prints. In the opposite corner of the room there was a table, a chair, tinkertoy set, a mallet and a 5 foot bobo doll. This is where the model sat, in the condition where there was one. The experimenter remained in the room but appeared to be working quietly at their desk.
🔹In the non-aggressive condition, the model assembled the tinkertoy set for 10 minutes.
🔹In the aggressive condition, the model assembled the toy for a minute and then attacked the bobo doll. For 9 minutes the aggressive sequence was repeated 3 times, accompanied by aggressive comments such as kick him and non-aggressive comments such as He sure is a tough fella.
🔹In the control condition, the children didn’t see any model.
The experimental procedure continued when all participants were deliberately mildly annoyed. Children were told that they could play with the toys in the room, but 2 minutes into playing, they were told to stop. They were informed that the toys were reserved for other children and that the toys were the experimenter’s very best.
The children were observed for 20 minutes through a 1-way mirror. The experimental room had a 3-foot Bobo doll, mallet and other toys. Their behaviour was observed in 5-second intervals. The recorded categories were: imitation of physical aggression, imitation of verbal aggression and imitation of non-aggressive verbal responses. Partial imitation was given points if children performed the following actions incompletely: mallet aggression, sitting on the bobo doll, aggressive gun play, non-imitative physical and verbal aggression.
The scores were done by one male except for the condition where he had to act as the model – he was not aware of which condition each child was in. Another scorer rated half of the behaviors and the reliability proved to be high – r=0.9.
RESEARCH METHOD:
It was a laboratory experiment since the environment was not the usual place where children played and the situation was controlled.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:
The design of the experiment was that of Independent measures as different children were used in each level of the IV (experimental condition). There was matched participants design where children were divided into 3 groups based on their initial levels of aggression.
VARIABLES:
The 3 IVs were:
🔹model type :whether the children saw an aggressive model, non-aggressive model or no model.
🔹model sex :same sex as child (boys watching a male model and girls watching a female model) or different sex (boys watching a female model and girls watching a male model)
🔹Learner sex: whether the child was a boy or a girl.
The dependent variable was the behaviour the child displayed. This was measured through a controlled observation of the children and measures of aggressive behaviour were recorded.
RESULTS:
Children exposed to aggressive models imitated their exact behaviour. They were significantly more aggressive, both physically and verbally, than the children in other groups. Imitation was greater for boys than girls. Boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression and girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression. The average imitative physical aggression for boys with male model was 25.8 which is much higher than that for girls which was 7.2. This indicates that the boys imitated the physical aggression of a male model more than the girls did. However, with a female model, girls imitated less (5.5) than with the male model. Boys with female models imitated an average of 12.4.
There were also differences in the non-aggressive play. Girls played more with dolls, tea sets and colouring, and boys engaged more in exploratory play and gun play. There were no sex differences in play with farm animals, cars or tether ball.
Both the boys and girls seeing the non-aggressive model enageged more in non-aggressive play with dolls than either of the other groups, and spent more than twice as much time sitting quietly, not playing.
Additionally, sex-typed behaviour comments were recorded from the children.
CONCLUSION:
The results strongly suggest that observation and imitation can account for the learning of specific acts without reinforcement of either the model or observer.
All 4 hypotheses were supported:
🔹Observed aggressive behaviours are imitated:
Children who see aggressive models are more likely to be aggressive than those seeing a non-aggressive model or no model.
🔹Observed non-aggressive behaviours are imitated:
Children seeing non-aggressive models will be less aggressive than those seeing no model.
🔹Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model, although this may depend on the extent to which this behaviour is sex-typed.
🔹Boys are more likely to copy aggression than girls.
EVALUATION: (Strengths)
🔹high validity
It was a laboratory experiment, so it was possible to control extraneous variables. For example, all children had seen their models for the same length of time. Model behaviour was standardized and the same toys were used in each condition. This makes the research more valid.
🔹High Reliability
There is higher inter-rater reliability, and it leads to accurate data collection (0.90), which in turn increases the reliability of the study, making it easier to replicate it.
EVALUATION: (Weaknesses)
🔹Low generalizability -
Only 6 children were used in each level of the IV (experimental condition) and this is a small sample. Further, they all attended the same nursery and had academically able parents. This could bias the sample and lower the generalizability as well as the validity as you would not find the same results in a more diverse range of people.
🔹Children may have imitated behaviour due to demand characteristics and social desirability, as they might have thought that they had to imitate the model.
EVALUATION: (Ethical Issues)
One ethical issue with the study was some of the children might have been harmed by becoming more aggressive during the research. For example, they could have physically injured themselves with the toys they were given to play with after watching an aggressive model. Even if this were not the case, the children were still deliberately annoyed in the procedure of the study. This could have been psychologically distressing for the children. These aspects of the study go against the ethical guidelines of protecting participants from physical and psychological harm.
