Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Milgram Study > Bandura et al. (aggression) > Flashcards

Bandura et al. (aggression) Flashcards

1
Q

Aim of this study

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Background of the study

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are the hypotheses?

A
  1. Children exposed to aggressive models will reproduce aggressive acts resembling those of the models
  2. Children exposed to non-aggressive models will reproduce less aggressive acts.
  3. Children will imitate the behavior of the same-sex model to a greater degree than model of opposite sex
  4. Boys will be more predisposed than girls towards imitating aggression
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Sample

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Experimental design and sample layout

A
  1. 24 aggressive role model
    - female model (6 boys, 6 girls)
    - male model (6 boys, 6 girls)
  2. 24 non-aggressive role model
    - female model (6 boys, 6 girls)
    - male model (6 boys, 6 girls)
  3. 24 control group - no model
  • 2 experimental grp, 1 control grp (aggressive, non-aggressive)
  • independent measures design
  • matched pair design
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Procedure - Prior to stage 1

A
  • nursery teacher and experimenter match students on aggression levels

5-point rating scale:
- aggregate score
- arranged into triplets
- randomly assigned

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Matched pairs design

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Stage 1

A

IV:
- aggressive condition
- non-aggressive condition
- control condition

  • controls = 24 (being manipulated)
  • 48 pps
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Experimental conditions - AGGRESSIVE CONDITION

A
  • 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”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Experimental conditions - NON-AGGRESSIVE CONDITION

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Control condition

A
  • 24 children (12 boys, 12 girls) used as control group and not exposed to any model at all
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Evaluation of procedure stage 1 - methodology

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Ethics

A

STRENGTHS:
- privacy
- confidentiality

WEAKNESSES:
- psychological harm (exposure to aggressive model)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Stage 2 - aggression arousal

A
  • experimental conditions
    –> aggressive (24)
    –> non-aggressive (24)
    –> controls (24)
    –> total = 72
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Stage 2 - Toys used

A
  • fire engine, locomotive, a jet fighter plane, cable car, colorful spinning top
  • doll set complete with wardrobe, doll carriage, baby crib
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What was going to take place in stage 2?

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Purpose of this happening?

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Evaluation of stage 2 procedure - methodology

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Ethics

A

STRENGTHS:
- privacy
- confidentiality

WEAKNESSES:
- psychological harm

20
Q

Stage 3 - toys used

A

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

21
Q

Stage 3 - observations

A
  • 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
22
Q

Stage 3 - observations (time sampling)

A
  • in 1 min = 60 secs
    ——————— = 12
    5 sec intervals
  • in 20 mins = 12x20 = 240 response categories
23
Q

Why did the experimenter stay in the room? (2 reasons)

A
  1. otherwise children would refuse to be alone
  2. children would leave before the termination of the session
24
Q

Stage 3 - response measures - (imitative VS non-imitative vs partially imitative)

A

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

25
Q

Imitative aggression

A

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”

26
Q

Partial imitation

A
  1. Mallet aggression:
    - subject strikes objects other than bobo doll aggressively with mallet
  2. Sitting on bobo doll:
    - subject lays bobo doll on its side and sits on it, but doesn’t aggress towards it
27
Q

Non-imitative behavior

A
  1. Punches bobo doll:
    - subject strikes, slaps, pushes doll aggressively
  2. 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”
  3. Aggressive gun play
    - subject shoots darts or aims the guns and fires imaginary shots at objects in room
28
Q

Non-aggressive play/other behavior

A
  • number of behavior units in which subjects played non-aggressively
  • sat quietly and didn’t play with any of material at all
29
Q

Evaluation of stage 3 procedure - methodology

A

STRENGTHS:
- high validity
- behavior checklist
- electronic timing device
- high reliability

WEAKNESSES:
- low eco validity

30
Q

Ethics

A

STRENGTHS:
- privacy
- confidentiality

WEAKNESSES:
- no right to withdraw
- psychological harm
- physical harm (dart guns, mallet)

31
Q

Results for complete imitation

A
  • 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
32
Q

Results for complete imitation

A
  • 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)
33
Q

Results for complete imitation

A
  • 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
34
Q

Partial imitation - mallet aggression

A

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)
35
Q

Results: Partial imitation - mallet aggression

A
  1. Girls who observed aggressive models:
    –> mean = 18.0
  2. Girls who were in control group:
    –> mean = 13.1
  3. Girls who observed non-aggressive models:
    –> mean = 0.5
36
Q

Results: Partial imitation - sitting on bobo doll

A
  • children in aggressive group reproduced this behavior to greater extent than did the non-aggressive or control subjects
37
Q

What was the qualitative data?

A
  • “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.”
38
Q

Evaluation for qualitative data

A

STRENGTHS:
- objective
- easy to compare

WEAKNESSES:
- reductionist

39
Q

Evaluation for quantitative data

A

STRENGTHS:
- descriptive
- holistic

WEAKNESSES:
- not comparable

40
Q

Results: Non-imitative responses

A
  • treatment conditions did not influence the extent to which subjects engaged in aggressive gun play or punched the bobo doll
41
Q

Results: Non-imitative responses

A

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
42
Q

Results: Non-imitative responses

A
  • 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

43
Q

Results: Non-aggressive play

A

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)
44
Q

Results: Non-aggressive play

A

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

45
Q

Evaluation of study - methodology

A

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)

46
Q

Evaluation of study - ethics

A

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

Milgram Study (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions