Está en la página 1de 14

Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology Vol 63

Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961)


Background and justification Behaviourism is a model of psychology that argues that all behaviours can be explained in terms of learning from the environment. There are three main theories of learning which make up the Behavioural model of psychology: 1. Classical conditioning: Classical conditioning is learning by association. This was first demonstrated by Pavlov in his famous experiments with dogs. He showed that lab dogs had learned to associate the sound of a bell with being fed and this association was so strong that the dogs would salivate when they heard a bell ringing, even though they could not smell or see any food. Classical conditioning explanations can be applied to a whole range of human reflex actions. Some advertisers use this by associating pleasant images with their products. 2. Operant/Instrumental conditioning: This is learning through the consequences of actions. There are thee main consequences that behaviourists identify: If we do something and it has a pleasant consequence, we are more likely to produce that behaviour again. The pleasant consequence is a positive reinforcer. If we do something and it had a negative consequence (punishment) we will be less likely to produce that behaviour again. If we do something and it stops/prevents an unpleasant consequence such as pain or being shouted out, this is a negative reinforcer.

These traditional theories focus only on those overt behaviours (responses) that can be directly observed and measured and the environmental stimuli that elicit/modify them. The role of internal mechanisms, such as cognitions, are ignored. Later social learning theorists like Albert Bandura emphasised that there is more to human behaviour than learning via conditioning and reinforcement. Bandura argued that learning cannot be explained ignoring the cognitive process of learning. These cognitive processes cannot be observed but can only be inferred from observing actual behaviour. It is important to note that although social learning theorists take cognitive factors into account it is still, primarily, behaviour which is of interest.
Social learning theory (SLT): Children learn via modelling, i.e. by observing the behaviour of those around them, even when they themselves are not directly being reinforced. Many people can act as role models for children (parents, teachers). To confirm his theory Bandura experimentally demonstrated that children readily imitate behaviour exhibited by an adult model in the presence of the model (Bandura & Huston, 1961). While this and other studies provide convincing evidence that the behaviour of models influences and controls the behaviour of children, a more crucial test of imitative learning involves the generalization of imitative response patterns to new settings in which the model is absent. In the current study children were exposed to aggressive and non-aggressive adult models. The amount of imitative learning was then tested in a new situation in the absence of the model. Hypotheses The researchers made the following 4 predictions: 1. Children exposed to aggressive models will reproduce aggressive acts resembling those of the model 3.

Children have learned imitative habits, most likely from being previously reinforced (rewarded) for imitation by parents etc.
2. 3. Observing non-aggressive models will have a generalised inhibiting effect on the childs subsequent behaviour Children will imitate the behaviour of a same-sex model to a greater degree than a model of the opposite sex

Parents reward imitation of same-sex behaviour, and do not reward/punish opposite sex behaviour, so children may be more likely to imitate same sex models. (e.g., a male child is unlikely to receive much reward for performing female appropriate activities, such as cooking, or for adopting other

aspects of the maternal role, but these same behaviours are typically welcomed if performed by females).
4. Boys will be more predisposed than girls towards imitating aggression

Since aggression is a highly masculine-typed behaviour, boys should be more predisposed than girls toward imitating aggression, the difference being most marked for subjects exposed to the male aggressive model.
Aim To see how exposure to aggressive or non-aggressive models affects the childrens behaviour in a new situation when the model is not there. The researchers were also interested in gender differences in aggressive behaviour and whether children were more likely to imitate same sex models. Method Laboratory Experiment with non-participant observation Sample 72 children, 36 boys and 36 girls, aged between 37-69 months (mean = 52 months) who all attended the Stanford University Nursery School. The children had a mean age of 4 years and 4 months (range 3 years and 1 month to 5 years and 9 months). The study was carried out by a female experimenter, and one male adult and one female adult acted as the models. Design There was a control group of 24 children and 2 experimental groups (aggressive model condition, non-aggressive model condition). The experimental groups were further sub-divided by the gender of the children and the gender of the adult model, making 8 experimental groups altogether: Group No of Children Sex of Sex of Model Aggressive/NonChildren aggressive Model 1 6 M M A 2 6 M M NA 3 6 M F A 4 6 M F NA 5 6 F M A 6 6 F M NA 7 6 F F A 8 6 F F NA Control 24 Table 1: The experimental and control groups Control group (n=24) Aggressive model condition (n=24) Boys with same-sex model (n=6) Boys with opposite-sex model (n=6) Girls with same-sex model (n=6) Girls with opposite-sex model (n=6) Non-aggressive model condition (n=24) Boys with same-sex model (n=6) Boys with opposite-sex model (n=6) Girls with same-sex model (n=6) Girls with opposite-sex model (n=6) This complicated design therefore has three independent variables: Exposure to an aggressive or non-aggressive model (true manipulation) The gender of the role model (quasi) The gender of the child (quasi) The dependent variable was imitative learning (childrens behaviour) in a new situation where the model is not there.

Pre testing Why pre test?


The number of children in each group is quite small (six) and the results could be distorted if one group contained say three children who are normally quite aggressive. For example, if the researchers found that a particular group, such as the 6 boys who were witnesses to an aggressive display by a male, were the most aggressive this could have resulted because this small group of 6 boys were already the most aggressive children. One way of reducing subject variability is to match the children. Matching means pre-testing on important variables and then ensuring that each group is made up of participants who are similar in their scores on these variables. Therefore the researchers pre-tested the children for the important variable of aggression.

How did they pre test?


Two observers well acquainted with the children (the experimenter and a nursery school teacher) observed the children in the nursery and judging their aggressive behaviour on four 5-point rating scales. The rating scales were: physical aggression verbal aggression aggression towards inanimate objects aggressive inhibition Each childs score was obtained by adding the result of the four ratings. To test the inter-rater reliability of the observers, 51 of the children were rated by two observers independently and their ratings compared. These ratings showed a very high reliability correlation, which suggested that the observers had good agreement about the behaviour of the children. It was then possible to match the children in each group so that they had similar levels of aggression in their everyday behaviour. The experiment is therefore an example of a matched pairs design. The children were pre-tested individually. Procedure The experiment consisted of three stages: Stage 1: The children were brought individually to the experimental room by the experimenter, and the model, who was in the hallway outside the room, was invited to come in and join in the game. The room was set out for play and the activities were chosen because they had been noted to have high interest for nursery school children. One corner was arranged as the child's play area, where there was a small table and chair, potato prints and picture stickers. After settling the child in his/her corner the adult model was escorted to the opposite corner of the room where there was a small table, chair, tinker-toy set, a mallet and a five foot inflatable Bobo doll. After the model was seated the experimenter left the experimental room. In the non-aggressive condition, the model ignored Bobo and assembled the tinker-toys in a quiet, gentle manner. In the aggressive condition the model began by assembling the tinker-toys, but after one minute turned to Bobo and was aggressive to the doll in a very stylised and distinctive way. Imitative learning can be clearly demonstrated if a model performs sufficiently novel patterns of responses which are unlikely to occur independently of the observation of the behaviour of a model and if a subject reproduces these behaviours in substantially identical form. For this reason, in addition to punching the Bobo doll, a response that is likely to be performed by children independently of a demonstration, the model exhibited distinctive aggressive acts which were to be scored as imitative responses. The model laid the Bobo doll on its side, sat on it and punched it repeatedly in the nose. The model then raised the Bobo doll, picked up the mallet and struck the doll on the head. Following the mallet aggression, the model tossed the doll up in the air aggressively and kicked it about the room. This sequence of physically aggressive acts was repeated approximately three times, interspersed with verbally aggressive responses such as, "Sock him in the nose," "Hit him down...," "Throw him in the air," "Kick him," "Pow," and two non-aggressive comments, "He keeps coming back for more" and "He sure is a tough fella."

Thus in the exposure situation, subjects were provided with a diverting task which occupied their attention while at the same time ensured observation of the model's behaviour in the absence of any instructions to observe or to learn the responses in question. Since subjects could not perform the model's aggressive behaviour, any learning that occurred was purely on an observational or covert basis. Bandura makes a distinction between learning and performance. Reinforcement he says is unnecessary for the former but plays an important role in the latter. Failure to imitate does not mean that no learning has taken place. The child makes a symbolic representation of the models behaviour (learning) and retrieves it at a later time to guide the childs own attempts at imitation (performance). At the end of 10 minutes, the experimenter entered the room, informed the subject that he would now go to another game room, and bid the model goodbye. Subjects were tested for the amount of imitative learning in a different experimental room that was set off from the main nursery school building, The two experimental situations were thus clearly differentiated; in fact, many subjects were under the impression that they were no longer on the nursery school grounds (generalisation). Stage 2: Prior to the test for imitation, all subjects, experimental and control, were subjected to mild aggression arousal to ensure that they were under some degree of instigation to aggression (to arouse feelings of aggression). Following the exposure experience, therefore, the experimenter brought the subject to an room that contained these relatively attractive toys: a fire engine, a locomotive, a jet fighter plane, a cable car, a colorful spinning top, and a doll set complete with wardrobe, doll carriage, and baby crib. The experimenter explained that the toys were for the subject to play with but, as soon as the subject became sufficiently involved with the play material (usually in about 2 minutes), the experimenter remarked that these were her very best toys, that she did not let just anyone play with them, and that she had decided to reserve these toys for the other children. However, the subject could play with any of the toys that were in the next room. The experimenter and the subject then entered the adjoining experimental room. Stage 3: Then the child was taken to the next room for stage three of the study where the child was told it could play with any of the toys in there. The experimental room contained a variety of toys including some that could be used in imitative or non-imitative aggression, and others that tended to elicit predominantly non-aggressive forms of behaviour. The aggressive toys included a 3-foot Bobo doll, a mallet and peg board, two dart guns, and a leather ball with a face painted on it which hung from the ceiling. The non-aggressive toys, on the other hand, included a tea set, crayons and colouring paper, a ball, two dolls, three bears, cars and trucks, and plastic farm animals. It was necessary for the experimenter to remain in the room during the experimental session; otherwise a number of the children would either refuse to remain alone or would leave before the termination of the session. However, in order to minimize any influence her presence might have on the subject's behaviour, the experimenter remained as inconspicuous as possible by busying herself with paper work at a desk in the far corner of the room and avoiding any interaction with the child. In order to eliminate any variation in behaviour due to mere placement of the toys in the room, the play material was arranged in a fixed order for each of the sessions. The child was kept in this room for 20 minutes during which time their behaviour was observed by judged through a one-way mirror. Observations were made at 5-second intervals therefore giving 240 response units for each child.

The male model scored the experimental sessions for all 72 children. Except for the cases in which he served as the model, he did not have knowledge of the subjects' group assignments (blinding to reduce bias). In order to provide an estimate of inter-rater reliability, the performance of half the subjects were also scored independently by a second observer. Thus one or the other of the two observers usually had no knowledge of the conditions to which the subjects were assigned. The responses scored involved highly specific concrete classes of behaviour and yielded high inter-scorer reliabilities. Response Measures Three measures of imitation (responses from the child that were very similar to the display by the adult model) were obtained: 1. Imitation of physical aggression (punching the doll on the nose, striking the doll with the mallet, sitting on the doll, kicking the doll and tossing it in the air) 2. Imitative verbal aggression (repeating the phrases "Pow!", "Sock him in the nose" "Hit him down", "Kick him", "Throw him in the air") 3. Imitative non-aggressive verbal responses (the child repeats He keeps coming back for more, "He sure is a tough fella.") A number of the subjects imitated the essential components of the model's behaviour but did not perform the complete act, or they directed the imitative aggressive response to some object other than the Bobo doll. Two responses of this type were therefore scored and were interpreted as partially imitative behaviour: 1. Mallet aggression (for example, child strikes toy with mallet rather than Bobo.) 2. Sits on Bobo (for example, child sits on Bobo but is not aggressive towards it) They also recorded three aggressive behaviours that were not imitations. These were all aggressive behaviours which were not carried out by the model. 1. Punches Bobo (strikes, slaps, or pushes the doll aggressively) 2. Non-imitative verbal aggression (e.g., "Shoot the Bobo," "Cut him," "Stupid ball," "Knock over people," "Horses fighting, biting") 3. Aggressive gun play (shoots darts or aims the guns and fires imaginary shots at objects in the room). Ratings were also made of the number of behaviour units in which subjects played nonaggressively or sat quietly and did not play with any of the material at all. Results and Findings Experimental groups Aggressive Non aggressive Female model Male model Female model Male model 5.5 7.2 2.5 0.0 12.4 25.8 0.2 1.5 Table 2: Mean Scores for Imitative Physical Aggression Experimental groups Aggressive Non aggressive Female model Male model Female model Male model 13.7 2.0 0.3 0.0 4.3 12.7 1.1 0.0 Table 3: Mean Scores for Imitative Verbal Aggression Experimental groups Aggressive Non aggressive Female model Male model Female model Male model 21.3 8.4 7.2 1.4 16.2 36.7 26.1 22.3 Table 4: Mean Scores for non-imitative aggression Control group

Girls Boys

1.2 2.0 Control group

Girls Boys

0.7 1.7 Control group

Girls Boys

6.1 24.6

Aggressive and non-aggressive condition


Children in the aggression condition reproduced a good deal of physical and verbal aggressive behaviour resembling that of the models, and their mean scores differed markedly from those of subjects in the non-aggressive and control groups who exhibited virtually no imitative aggression (Table 2 and 3) Imitation was not confined to the model's aggressive responses. Approximately one-third of the children in the aggressive condition also repeated the model's non-aggressive verbal responses while none of the children in the other conditions did (Table 4). Children who observed non-aggressive models produced far less partial imitation than the experimental and control groups and spent far more time simply sitting quietly and not playing with any of the toys.

Gender
Boys performed more imitative physical aggression acts than girls, but there was no difference in imitation of verbal aggression.

Sex of the model


The data provides some evidence that the male model influenced the subjects' behaviour outside the exposure setting to a greater extent than was true for the female model. In the case of a highly masculine-typed behaviour such as physical aggression, there is a tendency for both male and female kids to imitate the male model to a greater degree than the female model. On the other hand, in the case of verbal aggression, which is less clearly sex linked, the greatest amount of imitation occurs in relation to the same-sex model. Kids exposed to the non-aggressive male model performed less aggressive behaviour than the controls. However, there was no difference between the control group and those exposed to the non-aggressive female model.

Qualitative data
Interestingly Bandura reported that the aggression of the female model had a confusing effect on the children, perhaps because it did not fit in with their prior learning about what is culturally appropriate behaviour. For example, one of the children said, "Who is that lady? That's not the way for a lady to behave. Ladies are supposed to act like ladies...", and another child said, "You

should have seen what that girl did in there. She was punching and fighting but no swearing".
However the aggressive behaviour of the male model fitted more comfortably into a cultural stereotype of appropriate behaviour and more likely to be approved. For example, one boy said, "Al's a good sucker, he beat up Bobo. I want to sock like Al", and one of the girls said, "That man

is a strong fighter, he punched and punched and he could hit Bobo right down to the floor and if Bobo got up he said, 'Punch your nose', Hes a good fighter like Daddy."
Discussion of results Children given an opportunity to observe aggressive models later reproduced a good deal of physical and verbal aggression (as well as non-aggressive responses) substantially identical with that of the model. In contrast, children who were exposed to non-aggressive models and those who had no previous exposure to any models only rarely performed such responses. It seems that observation of the behaviour of others is an effective means of eliciting certain forms of responses for which the original probability is very low or zero. Two reasons for the aggressive responses in the children are possible: Observing adults aggress communicates that aggressive behaviour is allowed to a child. This weakens inhibitions against aggression and increase the probability of aggressive reactions to subsequent frustrations. Children learn the aggressive behaviour by imitation (watching the behaviour of another person). The fact that the children expressed their aggression in ways that clearly resembled the novel patterns exhibited by the models provides striking evidence for the occurrence of learning by

imitation. Hence, the findings of this study support Bandura's SLT: children learn social behaviour such as aggression through the process of observation learning. What is unique about this learning is that: Learning occurred without performance. The behaviour was learned without any opportunity to perform the models behaviour in the exposure setting There were no reinforcers delivered either to the models or to the observers It seems that learning does occur via social imitation without the need for reinforcement. Sometimes learning occurs internally, without the desired response being actually performed. If learning was only as a result of responses being rewarded or punished this would not be possible as unless responses are performed, they cannot be rewarded. The finding that subjects exposed to the quiet models were not only less aggressive but also more inhibited and unresponsive than subjects in the aggressive condition, suggests that exposure to inhibited models not only decreases the probability of occurrence of aggressive behaviour but also generally restricts the range of behaviour emitted by the subjects.

How does imitative learning of aggression occur?


Imitation as a form of covert operant conditioning: If learning can occur covertly it is possible that rewards and punishments are also self-administered in a covert fashion. If so imitative learning happens is the same way as operant learning. According to the Freudian perspective the child anxious about the aggression displayed by the model, reduces this anxiety by identification with the aggressor, and taking on the models behaviour. This is seen in the real world where children of aggressively punitive adults become aggressive themselves. These parents also actively encourage and reinforce their childrens aggression toward persons outside the home. This pattern of differential reinforcement of aggressive behaviour served to inhibit the boys' aggression toward the original instigators (the parents) and fostered the displacement of aggression toward objects and situations eliciting much weaker inhibitory responses.

What types of models are more likely to be imitated?


Does the child need to identify with a model to imitate? The results of the present experiment in which subjects readily imitated aggressive models who were more or less neutral figures suggest that mere observation of aggression, regardless of the quality of the model-subject relationship, is a sufficient condition for producing imitative aggression in children. However, the data also suggests the sex of the model had a role to play and was related to the sex of the child. Perhaps the appropriateness of the models behaviour and the relevance and similarity are important variables in determining imitative learning Appropriateness of model: In the study it was found that aggressive male models were more likely to be imitated than aggressive female models. The qualitative data (particularly from boys' spontaneous remarks about the display of aggression by the female model) suggests that some of the children at least were responding in terms of a sex discrimination and their prior learning about what is sex appropriate behaviour (e.g., "Who is that lady. That's not the way for a lady to behave. Ladies are supposed to act like ladies. . ."). Perhaps it is more acceptable in Western culture for men to be aggressive than women, and even by three or four years of age children are learning the dominant stereotypes that relate to sex-role differences? So aggressive male models are more likely to be imitated since this is seen by the child as more fitting or appropriate for men (in general) than for women (in general). Relevance of model: Bandura found that boys were more likely to imitate the aggressive male model than the female role model. Perhaps the greater relevance of the male model's behaviour for boys lies in the fact that boys perceive the similarity between themselves and the model. Similarity of model: Bandura therefore found that similarity between the model and the child is another important factor. Perception of this similarity is based upon development of

the child's gender identity, i.e. the ability to classify itself (and others) as a girl or boy, female or male. Bandura has carried out many other studies (not just on aggression) showing that a number of other important characteristics are important for imitation. For example: Nurturing (warm and friendly) adults are more likely to be imitated than unfriendly ones. More powerful models are more readily imitated Adults who are seen to be rewarded for their behaviour are more likely to be imitated Evaluation of SLT SLT has been widely accepted as a useful theory in psychology. Many complex behaviours (e.g. language) could probably never be acquired unless children were exposed to people who modelled them. Observational learning allows the young child to acquire many novel responses in a large number of settings where the models are simply going about their own business and not trying to teach the child anything. Language again is a good example. This is, of course, a double-edged sword - often the modelled behaviour is not what the parents (or society in general) would approve of (e.g. smoking, swearing and aggression). Children are continually learning a whole range of behaviours (desirable and undesirable) through the basic processes of observation and imitation. In support of SLT the best predictor of whether somebody is likely to smoke is whether or not his or her parents smoke. As Bandura exemplified the appropriateness, relevance and similarity of the model are important variables in determining whether imitative learning will occur, The major criticism of the social learning approach to child development is its oversimplified description of human behaviour. Although it can explain some quite complex behaviour it cannot adequately account for how we develop a whole range of behaviour including thoughts and feelings. We have a lot of cognitive control over our behaviour and simply because we have had experiences of violence does not mean we have to reproduce such behaviour. The SLT fails to take account of the underlying developmental changes that are occurring. For instance, do 3 year olds and 10 year olds typically learn the same amount or the same way from modelling? Cognitive processes play an important role in imitation/social learning. It is also worth noting that the SLT has little room for the role of inherited factors or for the role of maturation in development. Thinking like a Psychologist - Evaluating the Core Study

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the method used in the study?
The method used was a laboratory experiment with observational measures. The advantages of lab experimental method are: 1. It allows for precise control of variables. For e.g. many variables were controlled, such as the gender of the model, the time the children observed the model, the pre-existing level of aggression in the children, the fact that each child was observed in the same room with the same toys, the way that the model produced exactly the same behaviour for each child. This allows the establishment of cause and effect. For instance it could be demonstrated that the model did have an effect on the child's subsequent behaviour because all variables other than the independent variable are controlled. 2. Experiments can be replicated. For e.g. standardised procedures and instructions were used allowing for replicability. In fact the study has been replicated with slight changes, such as using videos and similar results were found. However many psychologists are very critical of laboratory studies of imitation - in particular because they are not ecologically valid and they lead to the possibility of demand characteristics. Even young children participating in lab experiments understand that they are expected to play a particular role. One shrewd little 4 year old was heard to point out Look Mummy, theres the doll we have to hit. The study also leaves room for some observer bias. The children were rated by their nursery teacher and on experimenter for pre-existing levels of aggression and these ratings were used to match the children (this is another example of experimental control). However the ratings may be slightly subjective and the teacher may have

known some children better than others. The children were also observed playing with they toys and the experimenters used a system of categories to code their behaviour, and observer bias may have occurred in this observation and coding. However, the observation was blind to some extent. There is an interesting issue related to these observations pointing to a possible error in recording observations. All the children were observed using the same categories and there are results for imitative aggression recorded for the children in the non-aggressive model condition and the control condition. Even if the children did display the behaviours shown by the aggressive model it cannot be correct to call these behaviours imitative when the children did not see the model performing them. A further criticism of the study is that the demonstrations are measured almost immediately. With such snap shot studies we cannot discover if such a single exposure can have long-term effects. The Bobo doll is a novel toy and children may be more likely to imitate behaviour with an unfamiliar toy as they dont know how to play with it. The study has been criticised for misinterpreting the behaviour towards the Bobo doll as aggression. Since no living being is harmed by such actions (it would not have been ethical to use a living being!), should we really describe the behaviour as aggression at all? Perhaps the children interpreted their own behaviour as play since the Bobo doll is essentially a toy, but ethnocentric adults fail to understand this. This and other methodological difficulties in studying children play a role here.

Was the sample representative?


The sample consisted of 72 children from the same nursery. Although 72 children is a reasonably sized sample, when you look at how many children are in each group this number reducing significantly. There are six children in each of the experimental conditions and it is very hard to argue that generalisable conclusions can be drawn from six children. This may also lead to problems in using statistical tests and drawing valid conclusions from them. There were all from the same nursery and therefore represent a particular group of children who have all had similar educational / play experiences and therefore may not be representative of all children that age.

What type of data was collected in the study?


The main data discussed by the authors is quantitative, that is we are simply given numbers to represent the amount of aggressive / non-aggressive behaviours shown by the children. This data is useful and allows for some straightforward comparisons to be drawn between the groups. Although quantitative data can usually be analysed using inferential statistical tests which permit statements to be made about how likely the results are due to chance, the small number of children in each group would make statistical analysis difficult. Neither does quantitative data give us a clear picture of the childrens actions. Two children may have exhibited the same numbers of aggressive acts but in different ways or to different extents. There is also qualitative data included such as the comments made by the children and these are very useful in illustrating the childrens experiences and feelings although they are difficult to analyse statistically.

Was the study ecologically valid?


Many feel that the situations that the children were put in were highly artificial and do not bear much relation to everyday life. The situation involves the child and an adult model, which is a very limited social situation and there is no interaction between the child and the model at any point; certainly the child has no chance to influence the model in any way. Also the model and the child are strangers. This, of course, is quite unlike 'normal' modelling which often takes place within the family. The behaviour of the model lacks a plot, there is no justification or cause for the models behaviour and the behaviour is deliberately bizarre and hence unrealistic. The situation in which the aggression occurs (i.e. the childs imitation of the model) is very permissive. There is no realistic consequence of aggressive behaviour (peer retaliation, adult punishment). While it is likely that learning can occur without consequence, possibly performance of that learning is dependent on consequence. The exposure time was very brief, but the effects (DV) were demonstrated almost immediately. Can a single exposure have long term effects outside the lab? Bandura does not give data on the aggression in the children after the experiment was concluded.

Was the study ethical?


The answer to this question has to be no. There is no information given in the study about parental consent and it is highly likely that parents would not have consented to their children

being subjected to this experience. Some of the children were upset and distressed by the aggressive models behaviour. All of the children were told that some toys were not for them but for some other children. This aggression arousal stage in particular violates ethical guidelines of deception and harm to participants. Throughout the experiment the children were on their own with an experimenter that they did not know very well. There is the problem of whether or not the children suffered any long-term consequences as a result of the study. Experiments such as this one by Bandura have tended to focus on aggression (negative or hostile behaviour directed towards others or objects), perhaps because compared with, say, pro-social behaviour it is easier to objectively measure. However, the SLT argues that pro-social behaviour can be learnt in the same way as negative behaviour. Similarly since it suggests that aggression is a learned behaviour it should be possible to modify or change (unlearn) such behaviour. It may be more ethical to experimentally study the learning of pro-social behaviour or the unlearning of anti-social behaviour.

What does the study tell us about the nature - nurture debate?
The SLT is essentially a learning theory and hence based on the perspective that behaviour is due to nurture. The study concludes that boys showed more imitative physical aggression than girls and also suggests that children were more upset by the female aggressive models behaviour. Although this suggests that boys may be more inclined to copy aggressive behaviours by nature this does not really allow us to conclude anything about the nature-nurture debate. In fact Bandura suggests that boys have been reinforced for copying adult male behaviour more than the girls have and that boys may have been reinforced for aggressive behaviour (or girls not reinforced) previously.

What does the study tell us about reinforcement?


Although the study considers modelling (or imitation) rather than reinforcement, we can draw some tentative conclusions. There is the suggestion that imitating a same sex model is more acceptable and this is likely to be because this has been reinforced in the past.

Was the study useful? What practical applications does this kind of research have?
The findings from this and similar studies have been used in the argument that media violence might be contributing in some degree to violence in society. More recently there has been concern about thee effects of violence in children caught in the midst of armed conflict and neighborhood gang-fair.The obvious criticism of this argument is that there are many other factors influencing whether or not we are likely to imitate on-screen and off-screen violence. One of the major factors is perhaps the level of aggression we already have, which might have been learned, in our family relationships or elsewhere. In addition, as exemplified by Bandura himself, the model is an important variable in determining imitative learning. As a result celebrities and sports starsts are often criticized for being poor role models, the worst aspects if their behaviour being learned by the next generation. SLT has also been used to explain the so-called 'cycle of violence', or more technically 'the intergenerational transmission of aggression'. The basic idea is that if you have been the victim of (physical) abuse as a child, you are more likely to be an abusing parent than if you haven't. It also increases the chances that you will be a wife - or a husband - batterer. It is also important to note that such early experiences make it more probable that people will become more aggressive but it is never certain, or inevitable. Why? Interestingly, physical punishments are often demonstrations of the very behaviour which parents are trying to eliminate in their child - ironically, the evidence suggests that the child is likely to become more, not less aggressive! It must be understood however, that all we should claim from the Bobo doll experiments is that children can acquire aggressive responses by observing others, the further claim that exposure to filmed and other violence may sometimes produce interpersonal aggression does not seem justified solely on the basis of these studies. For instance there may be many differences between the way children understand the behaviour of real people compared to characters on television. More ecologically valid field experiments or observations are needed in this regard. It may have also been useful to obtain an after the experiment aggression rating of the children in the same way that was done before to explore the permanence of the socially learned behaviour.

Is there an alternate way of achieving Banduaras aim?

10

Banduras aim was to see if children will imitate aggressive behaviour of different role models. An alternative way of achieving this is via a longitudinal study of children who have been exposed to violence in the home and compare against children who havent. This could include self-report, observations and looking at official statistics. Such a method would be more ethical, more ecologically valid while allow the differentiation of cause and effect. However, longitudinal research is expensive, time consuming and difficult to achieve practically. In order to make the study more ecologically valid we can: Use more realistic measures of aggression (the DV) in which behaviour would be directed against other people (Is this ethical?) Expose participant to more realistic material (Real films) Eliminating the similarity between the models behaviour and the context within which the participants themselves could aggress. Although Bandura states that the behaviour learnt in Room 1 was generalised to Room 2, the two rooms were similar. This, the poor ecological validity and the limited sample size limit generalisation from the experimental setting and sample to the real world. Specimen Answer (Paper 1 Section d) One change that could be made to Banduras study could be to conduct a field experiment rather than a laboratory experiment. As part of the school PSHE curriculum concerned with the topic of bullying, children could watch a play involving male and female models being both physically and verbally aggressive. Teachers on duty in the playground at break/lunchtimes could then covertly observe the children and note instances of imitative/non-imitative aggression, using similar behavioural categories as Bandura et al. This would increase the ecological validity of the study as the children would see the play in their own school, as part of a normal days programme and their behaviour would then be observed in the natural environment of their own playground. The children would be unlikely to respond in either a socially desirable way or in a way to please the researcher (demand characteristics) because they would not know they were being observed and therefore their behaviour would be natural. This change would however raise similar ethical concerns to Banduras original study e.g. deception, stress, the moral motive, debriefing but the issue of informed consent to be observed would not arise as the children would be watched in a public place. A difficulty may arise in the recording of behaviour because, on occasions, the view of observers may be interrupted leaving them unable to record precisely every action of aggression though inter-rater reliability could be maximised if more than one teacher acted as an observer. A further problem that may occur is that by using a field experiment to gather data the researcher has little control over extraneous variables: should it be pouring with rain on the day the children watch the play, they will be unable to go outside at break/lunchtimes and so the observation could not take place. Another change that could be made to Banduras study could be to conduct the study at the same time in a number of different nursery schools across America. This could then maintain the controls of using a sample with the same number of boy and girl participants, with the same age range, but would allow the researchers to compare results and identify similarities and differences in childrens behaviour across a wider geographical area. This change should make the sample more representative of the population as a whole so that findings can be generalised to American children between the ages of 3 and 5. It should not be difficult to find appropriate samples from nursery schools across the USA though it may prove difficult to ensure both test reliability and inter-rater reliability because one could not be certain that each experiment was conducted and monitored in exactly the same way in each environment. Ecological validity would still be very low as neither the environment nor the task would be realistic or reflect normal everyday life. It would also prove very expensive to set the study up as researchers would have to buy a tremendous amount of equipment to make sure each school could effect the experiment fairly, and observers would need training in an attempt to ensure consistency. It may also prove problematic trying to find nursery schools with suitable lay-outs and rooms in which to conduct the experiment.

11

Some Aggressive Questions 1. Briefly explain Banduras social learning theory? 1. What was the AIM of this study? What practical applications might there be for the results of this study? 2. What type of method did Bandura use? 3. What type of design did Bandura use and why did he use it? 4. What are the IVs in the study? 5. Who were the participants in this study? 6. How did Bandura match the children? 7. Why were the children exposed to mild aggression arousal? 8. Describe a possible weakness with the sample 9. What problems might there be with research conducted on groups of this size? 10. What were the main controls in the study? 11. Describe how the dependent variables were measured 12. How else could the DV have been measured? 13. Briefly outline the three stages of the experimental procedure: 14. The observers recorded THREE measures of imitation. What were these? 15. What else did they record? 16. Why was both imitative and non-imitative aggression observed? 17. Observers rated the children on each of the four scales. What criticisms can you make of observer ratings? 18. Tests of inter-rater reliability found a high positive correlation between the ratings of two observers. Explain what the terms inter-rater reliability and correlation means. 19. In what ways does Banduras study lack ecological validity? 20. What does this study tell us about aggression? 21. Boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression than girls. Why is this the case according to Bandura? 22. What ethical guidelines did Bandura break? 23. According to Bandura how could we reduce aggression in society? 24. Summarise the results in point form (you dont need to know all the numbers!) CIE Nov 2005 Give two findings from the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on the imitation of aggression. [4] Nov 2004 5 From the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on the imitation of aggression: (a) Give two types of behaviour (the response categories) that the observers looked for when they observed the children. [2] (b) Describe how Bandura, Ross and Ross checked the reliability of their observations. [2] June 2002 5 All studies in psychology raise ethical issues. Outline two ethical issues raised in the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on the imitation of aggression. [4] June 2002 (II) 1 Some psychologists argue that behaviour is learned through imitation. From the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on the imitation of aggression: (a) Give two examples of behaviours that were imitated by the children. [2] (b) Suggest one implication for society if children do learn by imitation. [2]

June 2003 5 All studies in psychology raise ethical issues. Outline two ethical issues raised in the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on the imitation of aggression. [4] June 2004 5 In the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on the imitation of aggression, the research observed imitative aggression (copying the behaviour of the model) and nonimitative aggression. (a) Give one example of imitative aggression.

12

(b) Give one example of non-imitative aggression. Nov 2006 4 The study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on the imitation of aggression used a number of experimental controls. Describe how two variables were controlled. [4] Nov 2005-II In their study on aggression Bandura, Ross and Ross observed children who had witnessed either aggressive or non-aggressive role models. (a) Briefly describe how these observations were carried out. [2] (b) Identify two ways in which the researchers tried to increase the reliability of these observations. [2] June 2007 6 The study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on aggression found a number of differences in the behaviour of participants. (a) Outline one difference in behaviour between the male and the female participants. [2] (b) Suggest one explanation for this difference in behaviour. [2] OCR 1996 In Banduras study on aggression, the researchers observed the imitative aggression (copying behaviour of the model) and the non-imitative aggression of the children. (a) Give one example of imitative aggression and one example of non-imitative aggression in the study. [2] (b) Why did the researchers look at both types of aggression? [2] 1997 The introduction to the study of Bandura, Ross and Ross (transmission of aggression) includes four predictions (hypotheses) Give one of these predictions. [2] Evaluate whether the results of the study support this prediction. [2] 1998 All studies present some ethical issues to consider. Outline two ethical issues raised by the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross into the imitation of aggressive behaviour. [4] 2000 All studies present some ethical issues to consider. Outline two ethical issues raised by the study by Bandura, Ross & Ross into the imitation of aggressive behaviour. [4] Jan 2001 In the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on aggression, the researchers used a matched pairs experimental design (a) How were the children matched in this study? [2] (b) Why were the children matched in this study? [2] Sample 2000 (a) Identify one ethical guideline that was broken in the study by Bandura Ross and Ross [2] (b) What justification can you make for breaking this guideline? [2] Sample 2000 (a) In Banduras study, the boys made more aggressive acts than did the girls. Suggest two possible reasons for this [2] (b) Identify and explain one factor that might affect how far we can generalise the findings of this study [2] June 2001 Some psychologists argue that behaviour is learned through imitation. From the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on the imitation of aggression: (a) Give two examples of behaviours that were imitated by the children [2] (b) Suggest one implication for society if children do learn by imitation [2] May 2002 (a) In stage two of the Bandura, Ross and Ross study on aggression, outline how the children were subjected to mild arousal of aggression. [2] (b) Why was this necessary? [2] Jan 2003

13

From the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on the imitation of aggression: (a) Give two of the types of behaviour (the response categories) that the observers looked for when they observed the children.[ 2] (b) Describe how Bandura, Ross and Ross checked the reliability of their observations. [2] May 2003 Outline one ethical issue raised by Bandura, Ross and Ross's study on aggression [2] Jan 2004 Give two findings from the study on aggression by Bandura, Ross and Ross. [4] May 2004 From the study on aggression by Bandura, Ross and Ross: (a) identify two of the categories of aggression that were measured [2] (b) outline the finding of one of these categories [2] May 2005 Outline how the children's pre-existing levels of aggression were measured in the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross. [2] Jan 2006 (a) Explain how one control was used in the study on aggression by Bandura, Ross and Ross. [2] (b) Suggest one reason why it is difficult to generalise from the findings of this study to aggression outside the laboratory. [2] May 2006 From the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on aggression, explain why a one-way mirror was used to observe the children. [2] Jan 2007 Explain how the evidence from the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross could support the nurture view of aggression. [2]

14

También podría gustarte