Bandura et al. Study on Social Learning PDF

BANDURA ET AL The psychology being investigated Children copy adults. One reason for this is because the immediate social setting encourages the child to imitate what he or she is watching.This helps influences their behaviour, making it more likely that the child will do what others are doing ar...

BANDURA ET AL The psychology being investigated Children copy adults. One reason for this is because the immediate social setting encourages the child to imitate what he or she is watching.This helps influences their behaviour, making it more likely that the child will do what others are doing around them. Alternatively, the observation of a behaviour can lead a child to acquire a new response that he or she could reproduce independently. If this is the case, the new behaviour should generalise to new settings and so would be produced in the absence of an adult model. Albert Bandura had previously conducted experiments on social learning and was interested in studying social learning in the context of aggression. To learn from others, the observer (e.g. a child) must be paying attention to behaviour of a model. They must retain (remember) the behaviour they have observed, in order to reproduce it. When social learning occurs, it could potentially lead to either aggressive or non-aggressive behaviour. Bandura expected then that watching an aggressive model should lead to more aggressive behaviours being demonstrated, and that observing a non-aggressive model should lead to more non-aggressive behaviour being produced, i.e. even less aggressive behaviour than normal. 126 Previous research had shown that children imitated behaviour of a model 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. Children are rewarded in different ways for imitating adults. In general (at least, in the USA in the 1960s when this study took place), boys were rewarded for behaviours considered to be sex-appropriate and punished for inappropriate ones, such as cooking or \'playing mother\'. Similarly for girls, rewards and punishments would be applied to discourage what was considered sex-inappropriate behaviours. This, Bandura et al. suggested, would lead to two kinds of differences. First, boys and girls should be more likely to imitate same-sex models and, second, 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. Aim The aim was to investigate whether a child would learn aggression by observing a model and would reproduce this behaviour in the absence of the model, and whether the sex of the role model was important. Specifically, there were four 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. 2 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. ISSUES AND DEBATES Nature versus nurture describes the importance of the environment, or nurture, can be seen in the role adults take as models for children, as well as in the rewards and punishments adults give to children. Method Research method and design This was a laboratory experiment; the environment was not the normal place where the children played and the situation was controlled. The design of the experiment was that of independent measures as different children were used in each of the levels of the independent variables (IVs) (although these children were matched for aggression in threes; see the Research Methods box). There were three IVs: Background. model type: whether the child 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 (DV) was the behaviour the child displayed. This was measured through a controlled observation of the children and measures of aggressive behaviour were recorded. RESEARCH METHODS In the matched participants design described here, the participants were divided into threes, all with very similar initial aggression levels. One of each of these individuals was placed into each of the three different conditions of model type (aggressive model, non-aggressive model and control). Seventy-two children aged 3-6 years (36 boys and 36 girls) were recruited from Stanford Univer To exit full screen, press Prior to the experimental part of the study, the children were observ measures of physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression to inanimate objects and aggression inhibition (anxiety) each on a five-point scale. They were then assigned to three groups, ensuring that the aggression levels of the children in each group were matched. Of the 51 children rated by both observers (the rest were rated by only one observer), similar ratings were generally produced. Their ratings were compared as a measure of inter-rater reliability, which showed a high correlation between the observers, of r = 0.89. RESEARCH METHODS Inter-rater reliability is the extent to which two researchers rate the same activity that they have observed, heard in an interview, etc., in the same way. This is judged using a correlation (an \'r\' value) between the two ratings, which will be high (close to 1) if they are reliable. Twelve boys and 12 girls were allocated to control groups who saw no model. The remaining children were divided equally by sex between aggressive and non-aggressive model groups and, within those, between same and opposite-sex models. The experimenter and child entered the observation room, where the experimenter showed the child to a table and chair in their \`play area\', where they were shown how to make potato prints and sticker pictures: activities previously identified as interesting for children. The opposite corner of the room also contained a table and chair, a Tinkertoy set (a wooden building kit), a mallet and a five foot (152 cm) Bobo doll: an inflatable clown-like doll that bounced back when hit (Figure 4.2). This is where the model sat, in those conditions where there was one. The experimenter remained in the room so that the child would not refuse to be alone or try to leave early but they appeared to be working quietly at their desk. The three groups were then treated differently. In the non-aggressive condition, the model assembled the Tinkertoys for 10 minutes. In the aggressive condition, this lasted only 1 minute after which the model attacked the Bobo doll. The doll was laid on its side, sat on and punched in the nose, picked up and hit on the head with a mallet, tossed up in the air and kicked. This sequence was performed three times over 9 minutes accompanied by aggressive comments such as \'Kick him\' and two non-aggressive comments such as \'He sure is a tough fella\'. Of children in the model groups, half saw a same-sex model, the others saw a model of the opposite sex. A control group did not see any model, and therefore saw no aggression. The experimental procedure continued with a stage in which all participants were deliberately mildly annoyed. This was done for two reasons:. because watching aggression may reduce the production of aggression by the observer (even if it has been learned) and it was necessary to see evidence of learning. to ensure that even the non-aggressive condition and control participants would be likely to express aggression, so that any reduction in that tendency could be measured. RESEARCH METHODS The non-aggressive model group might appear to be a control group because the key factor of \'aggression\' is missing. However, the important aspect is the presence of a model - and in the non-aggressive group a model was still present. This means the real control group is where the IV is absent: the group where there is no model at all. A test of the child\'s aggression then followed in which the child was observed for 20 minutes using a one-way mirror. The mirror appeared transparent on the researcher\'s side (so they could observe behaviour) but appeared as a normal mirror on the child\'s side (so they could not see that they were being observed from another room). For the aggressive model group, this was a test of delayed imitation. The experimental room contained a three-foot (92 cm) Bobo doll, a mallet and peg board, two dart guns and a tether ball with a face painted on it which hung from the ceiling. It also contained some non-aggressive toys, including a tea set, crayons and colouring paper, a ball, two dolls, three bears, cars and trucks, and plastic farm animals. These toys were always presented in the same order. The children\'s behaviours were observed in 5-second intervals (240 response units per child). There were three \'response measures\' of the children\'s imitation, with a range of possible activities in each:. Imitative physical aggression: striking the Bobo doll with the mallet, sitting on the doll and punching it in the nose, kicking the doll, and tossing it in the air.. Imitative verbal aggression: repetition of the phrases, \'Sock him\', \'Hit him down\', \'Kick him\', \'Throw him in the air\' or \'Pow\'.. Imitative non-aggressive verbal responses: repetition of \'He keeps coming back for more\' or \'He sure is a tough fella\'. Partially imitative aggression was scored if the child imitated these behaviours incompletely. The two behaviours here were:. mallet aggression: striking objects other than the Bobo doll aggressively with the mallet. sits on Bobo doll: laying the Bobo doll on its side and sitting on it, without attacking it. Two further categories were:. aggressive gun play: shooting darts or aiming a gun and firing imaginary shots at objects in the room non-imitative physical and verbal aggression: physically aggressive acts directed toward objects other than the Bobo doll and any hostile remarks except for those in the verbal imitation category (e.g. \'Shoot the Bobo\', \'Cut him\', \'Stupid ball\', \'Horses fighting, biting\' \'Knock over people\'). Finally, behaviour units were also counted for non-aggressive play and sitting quietly not playing at all, and records were kept of the children\'s remarks about the situation. The male model scored all the children\'s behaviours. Except for those conditions in which the male was the model, he was unaware of which condition the child had been in. However, the condition in which the child had been was usually obvious, as in the case of the aggressive model children as they performed the specific behaviours exhibited by the model. To test the reliability of the scorer, a second scorer independently rated the behaviour of half of the children. The reliability score was high at approximately r = 0.9 for different categories of behaviour. Results Children exposed to aggressive models imitated their exact behaviours and were significantly more aggressive, both physically and verbally, than those children in the non-aggressive model or control groups. One-third of the children in the aggressive condition also copied the model\'s non-aggressive verbal responses, but none of the children in either the non- aggressive or control groups made such remarks. The mean aggression scores can be seen in Table 4.1. The mean for imitative physical aggression for boys with a male model (25.8) was much higher than that for girls (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. Girls imitated more verbal aggression of the same-sex model than boys (although not significantly so). Children were also more likely to imitate a same-sex model than an opposite-sex model; this effect was stronger for boys than for girls. Children seeing a non-aggressive model were much less likely than either the aggressive model group or controls to exhibit mallet aggression, and this pattern was especially apparent for girls. Although the aggressive model did not appear to affect levels of gun play or punching the Bobo doll, non-imitative physical and verbal aggression other than these activities were higher following exposure to an aggressive model compared to the other two conditions. There were also differences in non-aggressive play. Girls played more with dolls, tea sets and colouring, and boys engaged in more exploratory play and gun play. There were no sex differences in play with farm animals, cars or the tether ball. Both boys and girls seeing the non-aggressive model engaged in more non-aggressive play with dolls than either of the other groups, and spent more than twice as much time sitting quietly, not playing. ISSUES AND DEBATES In the nature versus nurture debate, we can consider why the boys and girls showed different responses. This could be because they are genetically different; a nature explanation. Boys might be biologically predisposed to be aggressive, so more likely to copy aggressive models. Alternatively, boys might be more likely to copy aggressive models because they have been rewarded for aggressive behaviours more than girls have. This would be a nurture argument. In addition to the observations, records of the remarks about the aggressive models revealed differences, both between reactions to the actions of the male and female models and between boys and girls. Some comments appeared to be based on previous knowledge of sex-typed behaviour , such as \'Who is that lady? That\'s not the way for a lady to behave. Ladies are supposed to act like ladies...\' and \'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.\' Whereas comments about the female model\'s behaviour were disapproving, those about the male model were not. This was more likely to be seen as appropriate and approved by both boys and girls, for example in comments such as \'Al\'s a good socker, he beat up Bobo. I want to sock like Al\' and \'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.\' He\'s a good fighter like Daddy.\' 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 four hypotheses were supported:. Observed aggressive behaviours are imitated: children who see aggressive models are likely to be more 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. Strengths and weaknesses The main method was a laboratory experiment. This means that it was possible to control extraneous variables such as ensuring there was a possibility that the children in any condition would show aggressive behaviour. This was done by showing them nice toys but then taking them to another room. Also, all children in both experimental groups saw a model for the same length of time, and in each condition their behaviours were standardised. This means the research was more valid - the researchers could be sure that the differences in results between conditions were due to the differences between the models - and more reliable, because each child within a condition experienced exactly the same exposure. Inter- observer reliability was also checked for both the initial observations of aggressiveness and for the data recording, and was very high. The pre-testing of the children\'s aggressiveness as part of the matched pairs design was another factor that increased validity, because it ensured that differences between conditions were due to the models and not to individual differences between the children who happened to be in each group. The main measure of the DV was through observation. As the observers were behind a one-way mirror, the children were unaware that they were being watched. This increases validity as they were likely to behave naturally rather than responding to demand characteristics as they might have done had they known they were being observed. The observation period was divided into time intervals (of 5 seconds) and the categories were clearly defined (e.g. imitative and non-imitative behaviours), which also helped to improve both validity and reliability. Among the weaknesses of the study is that only six children were used in each experimental condition and, although they were matched to reduce the risk of participant variables confounding the results, it is still a small sample. Furthermore, it is possible that the children were quite similar, as they all attended the same nursery based at a university, suggesting that they all had academically able parents. This could bias the sample, lowering validity. The study collected both quantitative data and qualitative data. The quantitative data provided an objective record of the number of imitative actions in each category. The qualitative data, although more subjective, provided some explanation of the reasons behind the tendency of the children to copy some behaviours and not others. It could have been useful to have asked the children for self-reports of their emotions when they were observing the model or reacting towards the Bobo doll. This may have helped to further explain differences such as the influence of sex-typing on imitation. It would also have been useful to have followed the children up to see how long the children\'s acquired behaviours lasted. If imitation leads to learning, the change in behaviour should be relatively permanent. 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 guideline of protecting participants from physical and psychological harm. Summary Bandura et al.\'s study used adults being aggressive to a Bobo doll to show that children\'s behaviour can be affected by the behaviour of a model. Exact aggressive behaviours were imitated although the study showed that non-aggressive modelling was also effective. Children were more likely to copy a same-sex model. Additionally, boys engaged in more aggressive imitation than girls. This was a well-controlled laboratory experiment measuring the dependent variable through objective observations that were reliable. Qualitative data suggested that the children recognised sex-typing and were surprised by behaviour that did not fit the pattern. The findings suggest practical applications for protecting children, e.g. through film certification and the use of parental controls on media devices.