Bandura et al. (aggression) Flashcards
Aim of this study
The aim was to demonstrate that if children were passive witnesses to an aggressive display by an adult, they would imitate this aggressive behavior when given the opportunity.
Background of the study
Identification and incidental learning:
- children readily imitated behaviors exhibited by an adult model in the presence of the model
Observational learning and social influence:
- merely observing the responses of a model could facilitate subjects’ reactions in social settings and this highlights the significant impact of observation on behavior
What are the hypotheses?
- Children exposed to aggressive models will reproduce aggressive acts resembling those of the models
- Children exposed to non-aggressive models will reproduce less aggressive acts.
- Children will imitate the behavior of the same-sex model to a greater degree than model of opposite sex
- Boys will be more predisposed than girls towards imitating aggression
Sample
- 36 boys, 36 girls
- total = 72
- all children
- Stanford University Nursey School
- ages: 37-69 months
- mean ages: 52 months
- two adults: male and female (served as models)
- 1 female experimenter conducted study for all 72 children
Experimental design and sample layout
- 24 aggressive role model
- female model (6 boys, 6 girls)
- male model (6 boys, 6 girls) - 24 non-aggressive role model
- female model (6 boys, 6 girls)
- male model (6 boys, 6 girls) - 24 control group - no model
- 2 experimental grp, 1 control grp (aggressive, non-aggressive)
- independent measures design
- matched pair design
Procedure - Prior to stage 1
- nursery teacher and experimenter match students on aggression levels
5-point rating scale:
- aggregate score
- arranged into triplets
- randomly assigned
Matched pairs design
- nursery teacher and experimenter
5-point rating scale:
a) physical aggression
b) verbal aggression
c) aggression towards inanimate objects
d) aggressive inhibition
- 51 children
- inter-rater reliability = 0.89
- triplets
Stage 1
IV:
- aggressive condition
- non-aggressive condition
- control condition
- controls = 24 (being manipulated)
- 48 pps
Experimental conditions - AGGRESSIVE CONDITION
- Child: small table and chair, potato prints and picture stickers.
- Model: small table, chair, tinker-toy set, mallet, 5-foot inflatable bobo doll.
- Model assembles tinker-toys
- After a min, turned to bobo doll and was aggressive to doll in distinctive way for 9 mins
- physical aggression:
–> raised bobo doll and hit it on head with mallet - verbal aggression:
–> “Pow!” and “Sock him in the nose!” and “Hit him down!” - verbal non-aggressive:
–> “He keeps coming back for more,” “He sure is a tough fella”
Experimental conditions - NON-AGGRESSIVE CONDITION
- Child: small table, chair, potato prints, picture stickers
- Model: small table, chair, tinker-toy set, mallet, 5-foot inflatable bobo doll
- model ignored bobo and assembled tinker-toys in quiet, gentle manner
Control condition
- 24 children (12 boys, 12 girls) used as control group and not exposed to any model at all
Evaluation of procedure stage 1 - methodology
STRENGTHS:
- validity (interest of children’s activities, e.g. potato prints)
- reliability (controls in place, e.g. 5-foot bobo doll used in aggressive condition)
WEAKNESSES:
- low ecological validity (unfamiliar setting for child when in front of a stranger, e.g. model hitting bobo doll)
Ethics
STRENGTHS:
- privacy
- confidentiality
WEAKNESSES:
- psychological harm (exposure to aggressive model)
Stage 2 - aggression arousal
- experimental conditions
–> aggressive (24)
–> non-aggressive (24)
–> controls (24)
–> total = 72
Stage 2 - Toys used
- fire engine, locomotive, a jet fighter plane, cable car, colorful spinning top
- doll set complete with wardrobe, doll carriage, baby crib
What was going to take place in stage 2?
- child was taken to room with relatively attractive toys
- when child become engaged with toys (in 2 mins) the experimenter remarked that these were experimenter’s best toys and decided to reserve them for other children
- but, child could play with any of the toys that were in the next room
Purpose of this happening?
- children who were already exposed to aggression at young age have higher chance of displaying aggressive acts
- children who aren’t exposed to aggressive behaviors at young age are less likely to display aggression
- controls = trying to make children angry by taking toys away for other children
- no right to withdraw:
–> it was important that researcher stayed with children, otherwise children wouldn’t want to stay as their anger was aroused
Evaluation of stage 2 procedure - methodology
STRENGTHS:
- validity (interest of children considered from toys)
- reliability (standardized as all children had same toys)
WEAKNESSES:
-low eco validity (unfamiliar setting for child pp when in front of experimenter)
Ethics
STRENGTHS:
- privacy
- confidentiality
WEAKNESSES:
- psychological harm
Stage 3 - toys used
AGGRESSIVE TOYS:
- 3-foot bobo doll
- mallet and peg board
- 2 dart guns
- tether ball with face painted on it and that hung from ceiling
NON-AGGRESSIVE TOYS:
- tea set
- crayons and coloring paper
- ball
- 2 dolls
- 3 bears
- cars and trucks
- plastic farm animals
Stage 3 - observations
- one-way mirror
- 2 observers use pre-determined response categories
- interrater reliability = 0.9 (very high)
- 20 min session was divided into 5 sec intervals using electric interval timer
- 240 responses
Stage 3 - observations (time sampling)
- in 1 min = 60 secs
——————— = 12
5 sec intervals - in 20 mins = 12x20 = 240 response categories
Why did the experimenter stay in the room? (2 reasons)
- otherwise children would refuse to be alone
- children would leave before the termination of the session
Stage 3 - response measures - (imitative VS non-imitative vs partially imitative)
IMITATIVE:
- imitation of physical aggression
- imitative verbal aggression
- imitative non-aggressive verbal responses
NON-IMITATIVE:
- punches objects other than bobo doll
- non-imitative physical and verbal aggression
- aggression gun play
PARTIALLY IMITATIVE:
- mallet aggression
- sits on bobo
Imitative aggression
Imitation of physical aggression:
- acts of striking bobo doll with mallet
- sitting on doll and punching it in the nose
- kicking doll
- tossing doll in air
Imitative verbal aggression:
- subjects repeat the phrases, “sock him”, “hit him down”, “kick him”, “throw him in the air”, or “pow”
Imitative non-aggressive verbal responses:
- subjects repeat, “he keeps coming back for more”, or “he sure is a tough fella”
Partial imitation
- Mallet aggression:
- subject strikes objects other than bobo doll aggressively with mallet - Sitting on bobo doll:
- subject lays bobo doll on its side and sits on it, but doesn’t aggress towards it
Non-imitative behavior
- Punches bobo doll:
- subject strikes, slaps, pushes doll aggressively - Non-imitative physical and verbal aggression:
- physically aggressive acts directed towards objects other than bobo doll
- any hostile remarks except for those in verbal imitation category
(e.g. “shoot the bobo”, “cut him”, “stupid ball”, knock over people”, “horses fighting, biting” - Aggressive gun play
- subject shoots darts or aims the guns and fires imaginary shots at objects in room
Non-aggressive play/other behavior
- number of behavior units in which subjects played non-aggressively
- sat quietly and didn’t play with any of material at all
Evaluation of stage 3 procedure - methodology
STRENGTHS:
- high validity
- behavior checklist
- electronic timing device
- high reliability
WEAKNESSES:
- low eco validity
Ethics
STRENGTHS:
- privacy
- confidentiality
WEAKNESSES:
- no right to withdraw
- psychological harm
- physical harm (dart guns, mallet)
Results for complete imitation
- pps in aggression condition reproduced higher physical and verbal aggressive behavior resembling that of models, compared to children in non-aggressive and control groups
- for these 2 groups, 70% of subjects had 0 scores
Results for complete imitation
- boys showed more physical aggression than girls when exposed to male models
–> (fem = 7.2)
–> (male = 25.8) - girls showed more verbal aggression than boys, when female model was present
–> (fem = 13.7)
–> (male = 4.3)
Results for complete imitation
- imitation was not confined to the model’s aggressive responses
- 1/3 of subjects in aggressive condition repeated model’s non-aggressive verbal responses
- none of the subjects in either the non-aggressive or control groups made such remarks
Partial imitation - mallet aggression
Mallet aggression:
- subjects strikes other objects than bobo doll aggressively with mallet
- aggressive and control groups produced significantly more mallet aggression relative to subjects in non-aggressive condition (especially female subjects)
Results: Partial imitation - mallet aggression
- Girls who observed aggressive models:
–> mean = 18.0 - Girls who were in control group:
–> mean = 13.1 - Girls who observed non-aggressive models:
–> mean = 0.5
Results: Partial imitation - sitting on bobo doll
- children in aggressive group reproduced this behavior to greater extent than did the non-aggressive or control subjects
What was the qualitative data?
- “Who is that lady? That’s not the way for a lady to behave. Ladies are supposed to act like ladies…”
- “You should have seen what that 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.”
- “AI’s a good socker, he beat up bobo. I want to sock like AI.”
- “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.”
Evaluation for qualitative data
STRENGTHS:
- objective
- easy to compare
WEAKNESSES:
- reductionist
Evaluation for quantitative data
STRENGTHS:
- descriptive
- holistic
WEAKNESSES:
- not comparable
Results: Non-imitative responses
- treatment conditions did not influence the extent to which subjects engaged in aggressive gun play or punched the bobo doll
Results: Non-imitative responses
Subjects in aggressive condition:
- boys produced MORE imitative physical aggression than girls
- groups didn’t differ in imitation for verbal aggression
Sex X Model interaction:
- more pronounced for boys
- male subjects showed more physical and verbal imitative aggression
- also showed more non-imitative aggression
- engaged more in aggressive gun play following exposure to aggressive male model than female subjects
Results: Non-imitative responses
- girls exposed to female model performed considerably more non-imitative aggression than did boys
Control group:
- subjects exposed to non-aggressive male model performed less non-imitative physical and verbal aggression
Results: Non-aggressive play
Female subjects spent more time than boys:
- playing with dolls
- playing more with tea set and coloring
- boys devoted significantly more time than girls to exploratory play with guns
- no sex differences were found in respect to subjects’ use of other stimulus objects (e.g. farm animals, cars, tether ball)
Results: Non-aggressive play
Subjects in non-aggressive condition:
- engaged more in non-aggressive play with dolls than either subject in aggressive group or in control group
Subjects who observed non-aggressive models:
- spent more than TWICE as much time as subjects in aggressive condition in simple sitting quietly without handling any of play material
Evaluation of study - methodology
STRENGTHS:
- reliability (controls, standardized procedure)
- validity (putting pps through aggression arousal stage)
- matched pair design
- quanti and quali data
WEAKNESSES:
- low eco validity
- individual differences in aggression arousal
- low gen
(to fix this, the study should get more kids from different schools and various settings instead of just from Stanford University)
Evaluation of study - ethics
STRENGTHS:
- confidentiality
- consent
- privacy
WEAKNESSES:
- psychological harm (kids could’ve felt distressed when witnessing aggressive behavior)
- physical harm (mallet aggression could’ve potentially brought harm to child themselves or other kids)
- deception (children were given a false reason to move out to another room which brings out aggression in them)
- no right to withdraw
