Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment PDF

Bandura (Aggression) 1  Based The Bandura et al. study is based on social learning theory. The study looked at whether a child would imitate aggressive behaviour if they witnessed such behaviour in an adult. Backgro...

Bandura (Aggression) 1  Based The Bandura et al. study is based on social learning theory. The study looked at whether a child would imitate aggressive behaviour if they witnessed such behaviour in an adult. Background This study is concerned with the tendency of children to imitate adult social behaviour, specifically aggression. Learning behaviour by imitating others is called observational learning. Several studies had already demonstrated that children are influenced by witnessing adult behaviour. However, previous studies had tended to show children repeating adult behaviour in the same situation and in the presence of the adult who modelled the behaviour. Although this suggests that children identify with adult models, it does not show whether they will go on to repeat the observed behaviour in other situations and without the adult present. One purpose of the study, therefore, was to test whether children will reproduce observed behaviour in a new situation and in the absence of the model. This study is also concerned with the learning of gender-specific behaviours. Previous studies had shown that children are sensitive to gender-specific behaviours. For example, children see their parents as preferring gender-stereotyped behaviours. Aggression is a good example of a gendered social behaviour, being associated with masculinity. A further purpose of this study was to investigate whether boys were more likely to imitate aggression than girls, and whether they would be more likely to imitate male than female models. Psychology being investigated Aggression Aggression is any behaviour that has the intention to harm any other living organism or object. It can be both physical (such as punching) or psychological (verbal such as shouting). Delayed imitation Delayed imitation is when a person observes a behaviour but does not reproduce it until a later point in time. Social Learning Theory (Social Learning or Imitational Learning) Social learning is about learning through observation and imitation. Behaviour is learned by observing and imitating the behaviours of others, especially of those with whom one identifies (role model). It is ‘learning by proxy’, which means learning indirectly through others. 2 Learning is said to have taken place if a behaviour is reproduced in a new setting or in the absence of the role model. Alternatively, the observation of a behaviour could lead the person to acquire a new response that he or she could reproduce independently. Imitation can be immediate or delayed. Brief of Bandura’s study  In Bandura et al.’s study, children were exposed to either an aggressive model, a non- aggressive model or no model. Both male and female models were used in the experiment.  The aggressive model would punch and kick a giant inflatable clown called a Bobo doll, while the non-aggressive model would play quietly.  The children were then all made equally frustrated before being moved to a new setting with toys, where their subsequent behaviour was observed.  As expected, the highest level of aggression seen was in boys who had been exposed to an aggressive male model.  Males were more likely to imitate physical aggression while females were more likely to imitate verbal aggression. Many of these aggressive behaviours were identical to the model.  Furthermore, many non-aggressive actions of the model were also imitated. Aims 1) To investigate whether children would learn aggression by observing a model and would reproduce this behaviour in the absence of the model. 2) To investigate whether children are more likely to imitate the behaviour of a same-sex model. Hypotheses 1) Observed aggressive behaviour will be imitated, so children seeing aggressive models 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. 3) Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model. 4) Boys will be more likely to copy aggression than girls. 3  Method Laboratory experiment (primary) Controlled observation (secondary) Experimental design 1) Independent measures design Different children were used in each of the levels of the IVs. 2) Matched pairs design The children were matched for pre-existing levels of aggression. For example, a child rated as 5 (very aggressive) was matched with a child also rated 5 (very aggressive), with one going to the aggressive group and one to the non-aggressive group. IV & DV IV 1) Model type (Behaviour of the model) Whether the child saw an aggressive model, non-aggressive model or no model. 2) Model gender (Sex of the model) Same gender as child (boys watching a male model and girls watching a female model) OR Different gender (boys watching a female model and girls watching a male model). 3) Learner gender (Sex of the children) Whether the child was a boy or a girl. DV The behaviour/learning the child displayed. This was measured through a controlled observation of the children and measures of aggressive behaviour were recorded. Data Quantitative data was collected through observations. Qualitative data was collected in the form of comments made by the children. Sampling technique Opportunity Sampling 4  Sample  72 participants  36 boys and 36 girls  37 months (just over 3 years) to 69 months (5 years and 9 months)  Mean age of 52 months (4 years and 4 months)  Nursery School of Stanford University Role models 2 adults – a male and a female Experimenter One female experimenter conducted the study for all 72 participants. Experimental & Control groups Experimental groups (model)  6 children in each experimental group  8 experimental groups  4 with an aggressive model  2 with a male model  Model was of same sex  Model was of different sex  2 with a female model  Model was of same sex  Model was of different sex  4 with a non-aggressive model  2 with a male model  Model was of same sex  Model was of different sex  2 with a female model  Model was of same sex  Model was of different sex Control group (no model)  1 control group  24 children (12 boys and 12 girls) 5  Experimental & Control groups (Table) Condition Model Sex of model Sex of children n 1 Male 6 Male 2 Female 6 Aggressive 3 Male 6 Female 4 Female 6 5 Male 6 Male 6 Female 6 Non-aggressive 7 Male 6 Female 8 Female 6 Control None N/A Males & Females 24 Experimental & Control groups (Diagram) Aggression levels  Prior to the experimental part of the study, the children were observed in their nursery school by the experimenter and a teacher who knew them well.  Children in each condition were matched for their aggression levels, so that this did not become a confounding variable.  They were rated on four 0-5 scales measuring  physical aggression  verbal aggression  aggression to inanimate objects  aggression inhibition (anxiety)  Based on their total scores, participants were put into groups of three. Each triplet was randomly assigned to one of the three main conditions, ensuring that the aggression levels of the children in each group were matched. 6  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. Rooms Experimental Room 1 (Observation Room) The first room in which the child sat in a play area and played with potato prints and stickers, and where there was either an aggressive model, a non- aggressive model or no model. Experimental Room 2 (Games Room or Aggression Arousal Room) The second room in which the child started playing with attractive toys but was soon stopped to arouse frustration. Experimental Room 3 (Test Room) The third room in which the behaviour of the child was recorded using a one-way mirror. Apparatus Experimental Room 1 (Observation Room) 1) Potato prints and picture stickers 2) Table and chair 3) Tinker Toy set 4) Mallet 5) Inflatable 5-foot Bobo doll (adult-size) Experimental Room 2 (Games Room or Aggression Arousal Room) 1) Fire engine 2) Locomotive 3) Doll set 4) Spinning top Experimental Room 3 (Test Room) 1) One-way mirror for observations 2) 3-foot Bobo doll (child-size) 3) Mallet and peg board 4) Two dart guns 5) Tetherball with a face 6) Tea set 7) Three bears 8) Cars 9) Farm animals 10) Ball 11) Crayons 12) Colouring paper 7 The play material (toys) were arranged in a fixed order for each of the sessions. This was done to eliminate any variation in behaviour due to mere placement of the toys in the room, Common misconception: Don’t confuse the toys in the Observation Room (1) with the toys in the Aggression Arousal Room (2) and the toys in the Test Room (3). Controls  The toys in Experimental Room 1 and Experimental Room 3 were always the same and always in the same position when a child entered the room.  The actions of the aggressive model were always the same, in the same order and for the same length of time.  The 20-minute session was divided into 5-second intervals, giving 240 response units per child.  Observations were done by two independent observers.  Observer data were compared (to assess inter-rater reliability) and showed correlations in the 0.9 range. Why were all the children deliberately made to be mildly annoyed? 1) 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. 2) 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. Comments made by the model Aggressive comments  Sock him  Hit him down  Kick him  Throw him in the air  Pow Non-aggressive comments  He sure is a tough fella  He keeps coming back for more 8  Procedure The procedure consisted of three stages. Stage 1: Modelling the Behaviour  Each child was brought individually to Experimental Room 1 (Observation Room) by the experimenter.  Just before entering the room, the child met the model who was in the hallway.  The experimenter invited the model to come in Experimental Room 1 (Observation Room).  The child was then led to a corner of the room that looked like a play area.  Once the child was seated, the experimenter showed how the child could design a picture using potato prints and stickers. The potato prints were all geometric shapes and stickers were objects such as flowers and animals. These were chosen as previous studies had shown that children took an interest in them.  Once the child was settled, the experimenter then escorted the model to the opposite corner of the room which contained a small table and chair, a tinker toy set, a mallet and a 5-foot inflated Bobo doll.  The experimenter explained that these were things for the model to play with.  When the model was seated, the experimenter left the room.  Non-aggressive condition  In the non-aggressive condition, the model assembled the tinker toys in a quiet manner and completely ignored the Bobo doll.  Aggressive condition  In the aggressive condition, the model began playing with the tinker toys but this lasted for only a minute.  The model then turned towards the Bobo doll and started being aggressive towards it for the rest of the nine minutes.  Standard actions were performed by the model each time in the same sequence: 1) The model laid the Bobo doll on its side, sat on it and punched its nose. 2) The model then picked up the Bobo doll and hit it on the head with a mallet. 3) The model then tossed the Bobo doll up in the air aggressively and kicked it around the room.  This sequence was performed three times over nine minutes. 9   In addition, the model also shouted verbal aggressive responses such as ‘Kick him’ and ‘Throw him in the air’.  Two non-aggressive comments were also spoken by the model. These were ‘He keeps coming back for more’ and ‘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.  At the end of 10 minutes, the experimenter returned to the room, said goodbye to the model and took the child to an another room known as the Experimental Room 2 (Games Room). Stage 2: Aggression Arousal  In the Experimental Room 2 (Games Room), the child (all the children in all the groups) was subjected to mild aggression arousal. This was to ensure that all children were primed to initiate aggressive acts equally, regardless of the situation they had observed.  The Experimental Room 2 (Games Room) had attractive toys, such as: a fire engine, a train, a fighter plane, a cable car, a colourful spinning top and a doll set.  The child was told that the toys were for him/her to play with, but as soon as he/she became engaged (usually in about 2 minutes), the experimenter announced that these were the 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 child was then taken to an adjoining room (Experimental Room 3) in a state of frustration. 10 Stage 3: Testing for Delayed Imitation  Experimental Room 3 (Test Room) contained aggressive toys and non-aggressive toys. These toys could allow each child to show imitative and non-imitative aggression. There were also additional toys (e.g. dart guns) that could elicit other forms of non- aggressive play.  The experimenter was in the room occupied with paperwork. (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 minimise 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.)  Two observers watched through a one-way mirror in an adjoining observation room. Behaviour was rated in terms of pre-determined response categories. To help eliminate bias, the observers were unaware, while observing, which condition the child was in. One male model scored all the 72 children’s behaviours and, except for those conditions in which he was the model, he was unaware of which condition the child had been in. To test his reliability, a second scorer independently rated the behaviour of half of the children. Thus one or the other of the two observers usually had no knowledge of the conditions to which the subjects were assigned. The observers had an inter-rater reliability of 0.90.  The child was brought and left on his own in Experimental Room 3 (Test Room) to do as he/she pleased and his/her behaviour was observed.  The child was observed playing for the next 20 minutes. The session was divided into 5 seconds intervals via an electronic timer. Behaviour was recorded every 5 seconds. Therefore, the child had 240 behaviours recorded.  The behaviour of the child was rated according to a behavioural checklist that had pre- determined options. 11 Figure: Observing and imitating aggressive behaviours with a Bobo doll. Response categories/measures (Types of aggression recorded by observers) Imitation The following three types of imitation were recorded by the observers.  Hits the Bobo doll with a mallet  Sits on the Bobo doll 1) Imitative physical aggression  Punches the Bobo doll on the nose  Kicks the Bobo doll  Tosses the Bobo doll in the air  Sock him  Hit him down 2) Imitative verbal aggression  Kick him  Throw him in the air  Pow 3) Imitative non-aggressive verbal  He sure is a tough fella responses  He keeps coming back for more Partial imitation During the pre-test,  a number of the children 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 12 so two further categories of partially imitative behaviour were included: Participant strikes objects other than the 4) Mallet aggression Bobo doll aggressively with the mallet. Participant lays the Bobo doll on its side and 5) Sits on the Bobo doll sits on it but does not aggressively attack it Non-imitation The following non-imitative aggressive acts were also recorded. Any acts or words that were aggressive but not performed by the model. For example, physically aggressive acts directed toward objects other than the Bobo doll. 6) Non-imitative physical and verbal aggression For example, making hostile remarks such as:  Shoot the Bobo  Stupid ball  Cut him  Knock over people  Horses fighting, biting Subject strikes, slaps, or pushes the doll 7) Punches Bobo doll: aggressively. Participant shoots darts or aims the guns 8) Aggressive gun play and fires imaginary shots at objects in the room. The number of times a child  was playing non-aggressively or  sat quietly and did not play with any of the play material (toys) was also recorded. Table: Checklist for categories of behaviour. 13  Results  Around 1/3 of the children in the aggressive conditions repeated the model's non- rd aggressive verbal responses. No child in the other two conditions did this.  Children who had witnessed an aggressive model demonstrated significantly more aggression than children in the Non-aggressive group and Control group.  Boys were significantly more likely to imitate physical aggression than girls. Girls were slightly more likely to imitate verbal expression than boys.  Boys who witnessed a male aggressive model showed significantly more o physical imitative aggression o verbal imitative aggression o non-imitative aggression o gun play than girls who witnessed a male aggressive model.  Girls who witnessed a female aggressive model showed more o imitative verbal aggression o non-imitative aggression than boys who witnessed a female aggressive model. However, the results were not significant.  The male model had a greater effect on children behaviour overall than the female model.  Children who viewed the non-aggressive male model demonstrated less aggression than the Control group, especially girls.  Children in the non-aggressive conditions engaged in significantly more non- aggressive play with dolls than was seen in the other two groups.  Children who had observed non-aggressive models spent more than twice as much time sitting quietly (not playing with any toys) than children who had observed the aggressive model.  Children who viewed the same-sex model imitated them more than an opposite-sex model. Boys who witnessed an aggressive male model had the highest imitative aggression score. They showed more aggression than girls who had also viewed a male model. Girls were more aggressive with a female aggressive model compared to boys.  Girls spent more time than boys on colouring and playing with dolls and tea sets. Boys spent more time than girls on playing with guns. There were no gender differences in play with farm animals, cars or the tether ball. 14  Results Experimental groups Response Aggressive Non-aggressive Control Participants category Female Male Female Male groups model model model model Imitative physical Female 5.5 7.2 2.5 0.0 1.2 aggression Male 12.4 25.8 0.2 1.5 2.0 Imitative verbal Female 13.7 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 aggression Male 4.3 12.7 1.1 0.0 1.7 Mallet aggression Female 17.2 18.7 0.5 0.5 13.1 Male 15.5 28.8 18.7 6.7 13.5 Punches Bobo doll Female 6.3 16.5 5.8 4.3 11.7 Male 18.9 11.9 15.6 14.8 15.7 Non-imitative Female 21.3 8.4 7.2 1.4 6.1 aggression Male 16.2 36.7 26.1 22.3 24.6 Aggressive gun Female 1.8 4.5 2.6 2.5 3.7 play Male 7.3 15.9 8.9 16.7 14.3 Table: Mean aggressive scores for all conditions across all categories of behaviour. Results Aggressive Aggressive model compared Non-aggressive model Response category to Non- model compared compared aggressive to Control to Control model Imitation of physical Yes. Aggressive. Yes. No aggression Aggressive. Imitation of verbal aggression Yes. Aggressive. Yes. No Aggressive. Imitation of non-aggressive Yes. Aggressive. Yes. No verbal responses Aggressive. Mallet aggression Yes. Aggressive. No Yes. Control. Sits on the Bobo doll Yes. Aggressive. No No Punches the Bobo doll No No No Physical and verbal non- Yes. Aggressive. No No imitative aggression Aggressive gun play No No No Table: Differences between the groups based solely on the behaviour of the model. 15  Table clearly shows that participants who observed an aggressive model performed significantly more aggressive behaviours: o in six of the eight response categories compared to the non-aggressive model o in three of the eight response categories compared to the control  The control group only showed significantly more aggressive behaviour for mallet aggression than the non-aggressive model. This was mainly due to the girls showing much more of this behaviour in the control group. Results Comments made by the participants  It was clearly evident, particularly from boys' spontaneous remarks about the display of aggression by the female model, that some participants at least were responding in terms of a sex discrimination and their prior learning about what is sex-appropriate behaviour. o 'Who is that lady? That's not the way for a lady to behave. Ladies are supposed to act like ladies...' o '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.'  Aggression by the male model, on the other hand, was more likely to be seen as appropriate and approved by both the boys and girls. o 'Al's a good socker, he beat up Bobo. I want to sock like Al' o '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.' 16  Conclusions 1) Observing an aggressive model can lead to imitative aggression in the observer. Children who see aggressive models are likely to be more aggressive than those seeing a non-aggressive model or no model. 2) Observed non-aggressive behaviours are imitated. Children seeing non-aggressive models will be less aggressive than those seeing no model. 3) Boys are more likely to imitate same-sex models than girls. 4) Boys are more likely to imitate physically aggressive behaviour than girls, while girls are slightly more likely to imitate verbally aggressive behaviour than boys. 5) Behaviour of male models is more likely to be imitated overall than the behaviour of female models. Strengths Controls As the controls were high for both parts of the study (time watching the model, priming before entering the observation room, etc.), the researchers could be confident that it was the actions of the model that caused the children's aggressive and non-aggressive behaviour. Data Quantitative data The study collected quantitative data which was an objective record of the number of imitative actions in each category. This enabled clear comparisons to happen between all groups to see the effect the effect the model was having on behaviour. Therefore, conclusions could easily be drawn. Qualitative data 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. Demand characteristics There was a very low risk of demand characteristics. As the observers were behind a one-way mirror, the children were unaware that they were being watched. Extraneous variables 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 showing them nice toys but then taking them to another room. 17 Inter-observer reliability & Inter-rater reliability Inter-observer reliability Inter-observer reliability was checked for both the initial observations of aggressiveness and data recording, and was very high. In one half of the trials, two observers independently recorded participants’ behaviour using a behavioural checklist in five- second intervals. Their results were correlated and found to always be in the +0.90s. This ensured that there was a high level of consistency in the scoring of aggressive and non- aggressive behaviours Inter-rater reliability There was strong inter-rater reliability between the researcher and the nursery teacher for the children’s aggression scores. The raters’ scores had a correlation at +0.89. This indicates a high level of consistency in how the children were rated across the aggression scales. Standardisation The standardised procedure and instructions increases the reliability of the study. The layout of the toys in the experimental room was kept the same for participants in the aggressive, non-aggressive and control conditions. The length of time the children were observed for was also the same, at 20 minutes, and the same behavioural checklist was used to record behaviour every five seconds. This level of consistency makes the study’s findings about children’s delayed imitation of aggression more reliable. Therefore, other researchers could easily replicate this study to test it for reliability. Validity 1) The research was valid as the researchers could be sure that the differences in results between conditions were due to the differences between the models. 2) The pre-testing of the children’s aggressiveness was another factor that increased validity. This is 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. 3) 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. 4) The observation period was divided into time intervals and the categories were clearly defined, which also helped to improve validity. 5) The main observer did not know which condition each child had been in for any trials for which he had not been the model, which would increase his objectivity. This means any similarities or differences between the female conditions were not due to bias on the part of the researcher, which increases the validity of the data for these conditions. 18  Weaknesses Ecological validity The set-up was artificial because the children (especially the first stage) were in a setting not really familiar to them. As a result, the findings could be argued to be low in ecological validity. Ethics (Informed consent) Children couldn’t give full, informed consent because they are under age. Ethics (Psychological harm)  The children were deliberately annoyed in the procedure of the study. This could have been psychologically distressing for the children.  One third of the participants witnessed the aggressive behaviour of a model. Chances are these children did not leave the study in the same psychological state in which they entered. They are more likely to imitate the aggressive behaviour, which they observed. Since this reproduction was after a delay, it is possible that the children continued to demonstrate delayed imitation of the aggressive behaviour even after the study had ended, or to feel in an aggressive state of mind when they returned home. Generalisation The finding of this study might not be generalisable to children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The children were all from the nursery of a prestigious university, which was for children of staff and students. Therefore, these children may have had particularly educated parents and their home lives may not be representative of the rest of the population. Their learning experiences may have differed from other children and they may have been more or less likely to imitate adult behaviour as a result, reducing the validity of the findings. Mundane realism The situation presented to the children lacks mundane realism as it was an unusual set- up. It is very rare that an adult will be seen to attack a toy, with the child being provided with the opportunity to imitate this behaviour or the child simply sitting there and watching an adult play with some toys and not get involved in the play. Furthermore, the children were seen hitting an inflatable doll rather than a real person. Bobo dolls are also designed to be hit and bounce back. Therefore, it is not possible to assume that the aggressive behaviour shown towards the toys would extend to violence towards real people. Bandura et al.’s study did not distinguish between play fighting and violence in real life. No follow-up 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. 19 Qualitative data We do not know why the children were acting in the ways they did as no qualitative data were collected to explore this. 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. Sample 1) Only six children were used in each experimental condition. Although they were matched to reduce the risk of participant variables confounding the results, it is still a small sample. 2) 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. Stooges Only one stooge was used in each male and female condition throughout the experiment. This means that the children may have imitated the model due to some individual feature that was unique to the model, rather than their sex. This confounding variable may have affected how frequently a model was imitated and thus the validity of the results. Subjective (Validity) The main observer for all of the trials was the main model from the experiments. This meant that he knew which children had been in the male model conditions and may have been more subjective in his interpretation of their behaviours. This would subsequently reduce the validity of the data for the male conditions, as he may have expected the children he had previously seen to act in a certain way, depending on whether they had watched him acting aggressively and interpreted their behaviour accordingly. 20  Issues & Debates Application to everyday life There are clear implications from Bandura et al.'s work on the application of psychology to everyday life. Children all over the world are exposed to aggression. This aggression can be either real, such as domestic violence in the home or violence on the news, or fictional, such as in cartoons, films and computer games. This study shows how such models can influence the behaviour of children, especially of boys. 1) The findings of this study could be used by television networks to ensure that programmes are appropriate for children. This could include ensuring that aggressive acts in a programme are limited or, alternatively, encouraging pro-social behaviour. They could also censor content or provide warnings when there will be aggressive content on the screen so that parents have the option to prevent their children from viewing it. 2) The findings are useful for parents too. They can pick and choose which television programmes their children should watch if they know that children may imitate what they see. Children were more likely to imitate a male model, so parents may wish to proactively expose their children to friendly and prosocial male role models. Individual and Situational explanations The individual and situational explanations debate is relevant to the study by Bandura. Imitation clearly suggests that situational factors matter in that the model is an aspect of the situation, as are differences between male and female models. Children had been matched on individual levels of aggression already yet there were differences in imitated behaviours. Therefore, the situation that children found themselves in caused the imitated aggressive behaviours. However, individual factors could also explain some differences in imitation. Individual factors in operant conditioning can explain why, even when girls and boys are exposed to the same models, their acquisition of behaviours differs because boys and girls may be differently rewarded for sex-typed behaviours. For example, a daughter may be praised for not fighting but a son praised for 'sticking up for himself". Nature versus Nurture In the study by Bandura, the situational influence of models on the acquisition of aggressive behaviours (and the suppression of them by the non-aggressive model) are examples of nurture. Children had already been matched on their levels of aggression, so the environment they found themselves in caused the imitative behaviours. Therefore, the nurture side of the debate is supported here. 21 However, the differences between the responses of boys and girls to the same models could be explained by either nature or nurture. Boys were more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour than girls, possibly because of nature factors which include the influence of hormones (testosterone, the hormone linked to aggressive behaviour) on brain development. Alternatively (or additionally), boys may be more likely to imitate aggression because they have already acquired stereotypes about what is acceptable behaviour for males or have been rewarded for masculine-type behaviours. These would be examples of nurture. The use of children in psychological research Some psychologists have noted that the children may have been distressed by watching the aggressive acts. They may have been psychologically harmed by witnessing the acts and by being frustrated with not being able to play with the best toys. Therefore, they left the experiment in a different psychological state from when they entered it. Some psychologists believe that children are less susceptible to demand characteristics than adults. In this study it was hoped that the children were showing their real behaviours when playing with the Bobo doll as they had not worked out the purpose of the study. The children used in Bandura et al.'s study did not appear to have been given the opportunity to consent to the study, or to withdraw. Since children are particularly vulnerable, the study had the potential to cause distress, which is an ethical concern. Although the head teacher at the nursery school is thanked in the study, as she was clearly aware of the procedure, there is no indication of whether the parents' consent was obtained. When children are used in studies, ethical guidelines typically suggest that parents' or guardians' consent should be obtained in addition to the child's own. On a practical level, the use of children rather than adults in Bandura's study was ideal. Children have been exposed to much less violence than adults and there are likely to be fewer extraneous factors affecting their aggression levels (such as a bad day at work). In general, children are more naive than adults, so the participants would have been less likely to suspect that they were being shown aggressive models to investigate the effects of these on their own behaviour. These considerations all lead to the greater potential for representative effects of the procedure on children than if the same study were conducted with adult participants. Links to Assumptions of the Learning Approach Bandura et al. found that children were likely to imitate the behaviour of an aggressive model, showing that we learn through the process of social learning. Similarities & Differences with Fagen and Saavedra & Silverman Similarities 1) Both Bandura et al. and Fagen et al. investigated how new behaviours can be learnt. 22 2) Both Bandura et al. and Fagen et al. used structured observations. 3) Both Bandura et al. and Saavedra and Silverman used children in their studies. 4) Both Bandura et al. and Saavedra and Silverman collected quantitative data. Differences 1) Bandura et al. used children as participants, while Fagen et al. used animals. 2) Bandura et al. used a laboratory setting, while Fagen et al. studied elephants in their normal environment. 3) Bandura et al. used multiple children in their study, while Saavedra and Silverman only used one. 4) Bandura et al. did not collect self-report data, while Saavedra and Silverman did. 23  Practice Questions 1) In Bandura et al.’s study, one variable was whether children observed a male model or a female model. State whether this was an independent variable or dependent variable. Include a reason for your answer. 2) A researcher proposes the following hypothesis: ‘There will be a difference in the number of aggressive acts performed by children who have observed an aggressive model, compared to those who have observed a non-aggressive model.’ Explain whether this is a directional or non-directional hypothesis. 3) Bandura et al.’s study used the experimental conditions of an aggressive model and a non-aggressive model, as well as a control condition. (a) State what the control condition was. (b) Explain one reason why a control condition is important in an experiment, using this study as an example. 4) (a) Give one example of physically aggressive behaviour recorded by the observers. (b) Outline one result on the physical aggression in this study. You must include data. (c) Outline one prediction made about aggressive behaviour in this study. 5) Explain why the study by Bandura et al. is from the learning approach. 6) Bandura et al. used a controlled observation in their study. Explain what is meant by ‘controlled observation’. 7) Identify one act of physical aggression and one act of verbal aggression demonstrated by the aggressive model in the study by Bandura et al. 8) Describe two sex differences in non-aggressive behaviour found in this study. 9) Describe how Bandura et al. induced mild aggression arousal in participants prior to the test for delayed imitation. 10) Bandura et al. used children as participants in their study. Explain one methodological issue that may have arisen if they had used adults instead. 11) Suggest one advantage of covert observations using Bandura et al.’s study as an example. 24 12) The results of Bandura et al.s' study demonstrate several examples of sex-typed behaviours in the children. Identify two examples of sex-typed behaviour in the children. 13) In their conclusion, Bandura et al. suggest that social imitation can speed up the learning of new behaviours as they can be acquired without the need for reinforcement, that is, without operant conditioning. Suggest why acquiring new behaviours through social imitation would be quicker than through operant conditioning. 14) If Bandura et al.'s study was performed today, the researchers would be required to obtain informed consent from both the children and their parents or guardians. Explain why this would be necessary. 15) Describe ‘social learning theory’. 16) Explain two ways in which the learning approach is different from the cognitive approach. Use the study by Bandura et al. as an example of the learning approach. 17) Explain how two results from the study by Bandura et al. support one or more of the assumptions of the learning approach. 18) Explain the differences between a structured and an unstructured observation, using the study by Bandura et al. as an example. 19) Ellie believes that the findings from Bandura et al.’s study supports the individual side of the debate but Sri believes it supports the situational side of the debate. Outline why you think either Ellie or Sri is correct using evidence from the study. 20) Explain two ethical guidelines that are relevant to Bandura et al.’s study. 21) Explain the nature and nurture debate in psychology, using this study. 22) Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by Bandura et al. and one other core study from the learning approach. 23) Explain what psychologists have learned about the social learning theory using two results from this study. 24) Evaluate the study by Bandura et al. in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the use of children in psychological research. 25  Specimen Papers (2024) Describe the psychology that is being investigated in the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). Award 1 mark for each correct ‘psychology’ point described. Award 1 mark for an example from the study by Bandura et al. Creditworthy ‘psychology’ includes: social learning theory, frustration-aggression, delayed imitation. There are other creditworthy aspects. Example: Social Learning Theory is being investigated which centres around observing and imitating behaviours; People pay attention to a role model; They retain this information in their memory; They must feel like they are capable of imitating the behaviour; They must feel motivated to want to imitate the behaviour/feel they will get rewarded for imitation; Aggression can be physical (hitting) and verbal (shouting); Delayed imitation is when someone witnesses a behaviour at one time point but only reproduces that behaviour at a different time point; In the study by Bandura et al. this was seen when the children imitated behaviours in the final room (1 mark: example). There are no identification marks e.g. social learning theory (0) aggression (0) [repetition of stem]. 26  Past Papers (2024) From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): (a) Outline how ‘mallet aggression’ was defined in this study. 1 mark per point listed below:  Strikes/hits object with mallet  The object was not the Bobo doll. Outline one feature of social learning theory, using an example from this study. 1 mark for identification of a feature 1 mark for outlining the feature (must be generic) 1 mark for example from Bandura et al. Example: Replication (1 mark: identification). This is when the person feels they can replicate an observed behaviour (1 mark: outline). In Bandura, the children replicated hitting the Bobo doll (1 mark: example) Attention/observation (1 mark: identification). This is when a person observes a role model engaged in some behaviour (1 mark: outline). In Bandura, some children observed the adult hitting the Bobo doll (1 mark: example) Imitation/reproduction (1 mark: identification). This is when a person copies the behaviour of a model (1 mark: outline). In Bandura, some children imitated hitting a Bobo doll (1 mark: example) There are other creditworthy responses, include modelling and retention. (a) The first stage of the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) was when the children were rated on four scales by the experimenter and a nursery school teacher. One of these scales was ‘aggressive inhibition’. Identify one of the other scales used in this first stage. 1 mark for correct answer.  Physical aggression.  Verbal aggression.  Aggression towards inanimate objects. 27 (b) Outline how the children were assigned to one of the conditions in this study. 1 mark per correct point.  The scores on the four scales were added together.  Participants were arranged ‘in triplets’/matched on their (initial aggressive) ratings.  Assigned at random to one of the conditions. (c) Identify two features of the final experimental room used in the ‘test for delayed imitation’. 1 mark per correct feature  Variety of toys.  Some were ‘aggressive toys’/Bobo doll (any aggressive toy can be awarded mark).  Some were ‘nonaggressive toys’/tea set (any nonaggressive toy can be awarded mark).  Arranged in a fixed order/always in the same place.  One way mirror. From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): (a) Outline one aim of this study. 2 marks detailed aim 1 mark brief/partial aim Example: To investigate whether children imitate the aggressive behaviour of an aggressive model (2 marks). To investigate whether children are more likely to imitate the behaviour of a same-sex model (2 marks). To investigate whether children would imitate aggression of a model in the absence of the model (2 marks). To investigate how children learn aggression (1 mark). To see if aggression was nature or nurture (1 mark). To investigate social learning theory (1 mark). There are other creditworthy responses. 28 (b) Outline how the response measure of ‘aggressive gun play’ was defined in this study. 1 mark for each point listed below:  Shoots darts  Aims gun at object in room.  Fires imaginary shots. 29  Past Papers (2023 and earlier) In the study by Bandura et al. (aggression), the final part of the procedure was named the ‘test for delayed imitation’. (a) Describe the procedure used to ‘test for delayed imitation’. 1 mark per correct point.  There were a variety of toys in the (experimental) room.  The child spent 20 minutes in the (experimental) room.  Behaviour was observed through a one-way mirror.  Behaviour was rated on predetermined response categories. e.g., imitation of physical aggression, imitative verbal aggression, imitative nonaggressive responses (2 named for 1 mark).  The session was divided into 5 second intervals.  Using an electric interval timer.  A total of 240 response units were recorded per participant.  The male model completed all observations.  Half were then rated by a second observer (for inter-rater reliability). (b) Outline one conclusion from this study. 2 marks detailed conclusion. 1 mark partial/brief. Example:  Witnessing an aggressive act is enough to produce aggression in the person who observed it (2 marks).  Boys are more likely to imitate aggression compared to girls (2 marks).  Children who see aggressive models are more likely to imitate aggression that those seeing a non-aggressive model / no model (2 marks)  Girls are more likely to imitate verbal aggression (1 mark).  People will imitate aggression (1 mark).  Boys are more likely to imitate same-sex models (1 mark). Two friends, Zayn and Danna, are discussing the nature versus nurture debate in relation to the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). Zayn thinks the study supports the nature side of the debate but Danna thinks the study supports the nurture side of the debate. Explain one reason why Zayn is correct and one reason why Danna is correct using evidence from this study. 30 1 mark per correct point. 3 marks for Zayn. 1 mark for defining nature. 3 marks for Danna. 1 mark for defining nurture. Example: Zayn Nature is about behaviours being genetically encoded and with us from birth (1 mark: definition). Boys were more physically aggressive than girls across a range of the conditions irrespective of the sex of the model (1 mark). This could be due to them having higher levels of testosterone which is biological (1 mark). Example: Danna Nurture is about the learning of behaviours through experiences / after birth (1 mark: definition). Participants in all conditions had already been matching on (pre-existing) aggression levels yet, for instance, male participants we much more likely to imitate a physically aggressive male role model (1 mark). Therefore, this imitated behaviour must have been learned (1 mark). Participants had been matched on levels of aggression (1 mark) and there were differences in levels of imitated behaviour depending if a model was aggressive or not so learned (1 mark). They learned to be aggressive by observing/imitating a model (1 mark). From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): (a) Describe the background to this study. Example:  Previous studies had shown that children readily imitate behaviour in the presence of an adult model.  Social Learning theory was being investigated, which centres around observing and imitating behaviours.  People pay attention to a role model.  They retain this information in their memory.  They must feel like they are capable of imitating the behaviour.  They must feel motivated to want to imitate the behaviour / feel will get rewarded for imitation.  This study looked into delayed imitation.  This when someone witnesses a behaviour at one time point but only reproduces that behaviour at a different time point. 31 (b) Explain why this study is from the learning approach. 2 marks = clearly linked to learning approach (either through example or assumption) 1 mark = partially linked to learning approach Example: One assumption of the learning approach is that we learn through Social Learning (1 mark). In this study, participants observed and imitated a model’s aggressive behaviours (1 mark). Evaluate the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about reliability. Strengths: internal validity, reliability, observations, quantitative data. Weaknesses: ethics, external validity, sample size, generalisations. (a) From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): Describe how the participants were allocated into the experimental groups. 1 mark per correct point.  Observed/rated by a teacher/experimenter (on aggression);  Each participant had a composite score on aggression / from four scales;  Participants were arranged in triplets/threes;  Who had similar/same aggression scores / were matched on aggression;  Randomly / equal chance of being in one of the experimental groups; (b) One conclusion was that imitation of aggression in children is influenced by the sex of the model. Outline one other conclusion from this study. 2 marks full conclusion. 1 mark brief/partial conclusion. e.g. Witnessing an aggressive act is enough to produce aggression in the person who observed it (2 marks); Boys are more likely to imitate aggression compared to girls (2 marks); Children can observe an adult and then imitate behaviour in the absence of that adult (2 marks); People will imitate aggression (1 mark); Girls are more likely to imitate verbal aggression (1 mark); 32 (a) In the final part of the study by Bandura et al. (aggression), each participant spent 20 minutes in the experimental room and their behaviour was observed through a one-way mirror. Outline the procedure for this final part of the study.  The room contained a range of toys / had Bobo doll and other toys in it;  Behaviour was rated on (predetermined) response categories;  E.g. imitation of physical aggression, imitative verbal aggression, imitative nonaggressive responses (2 named for 1 mark);  The session was divided into 5 second intervals;  Using an electric interval timer;  A total of 240 response units were recorded per participant;  The male model completed all observations;  Half were then rated by a second observer (for inter-rater reliability); (b) Explain one weakness of this final part of the study. 1 mark for identifying an appropriate weakness. 1 mark for linking to study. e.g. There may have been issues with validity of recording behaviours (1 mark) as the observer could distinguish which group a participant was in as nearly all children replicated novel aggressive responses shown by the model (1 mark). There may have been some issues surrounding reliability of observations (1 mark) as the inter-rater reliability score was 0.9 rather than a perfect 1 so not all behaviours were agreed upon (1 mark). From the Bandura et al. study (aggression): Two friends, Adria and Don, are discussing this study in terms of ethics. Adria believes the study is ethical but Don believes the study is not ethical. Outline why you think either Adria or Don is correct, using evidence from the study. 1 mark per point made, with: Up to 2 marks for any knowledge of relevant ethical guidelines. Up to 3 marks for explanation(s) or consequences(s) of breaking a guideline. e.g. Adria It can be argued that the study followed the confidentiality guideline (1 mark: guideline). All we know is that the children were at Stanford University Nursery and their age ranges (1 mark: explanation). It can be argued that the children were protected from physical harm (1 mark: guideline). 33 This is because the Bobo Doll is designed to be hit and is soft so would not injure a child (1 mark: explanation). e.g. Don It can be argued that the study broke the ethical guideline of protection from psychological harm. (1 mark: guideline). The children witnessed an adult being aggressive so they may have been scared of this and did not leave the study in the same psychological state as they entered (1 mark: explanation). There was a lack of informed consent taken (1 mark: guideline). The children/parents were not asked permission to take part in the study (1 mark: explanation) Omar organises a football team for children but they are sometimes too aggressive during games. He wants to reduce this aggressive behaviour and asks you for advice. Outline the advice you would give to Omar, using your knowledge of the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). 1 mark per piece of evidence clearly based on the study by Bandura et al. e.g.  Omar could bring in a trainer/model that is non-aggressive;  The children could be asked to watch the model as they play football (non- aggressively);  Omar can monitor physical aggression in boys as they are more likely to display it;  Omar could reward the model for their non-aggressive behaviour;  Ask the parents to make the children watch non-aggressive TV / play nonaggressive video games;  Omar could make sure the children are not annoyed/frustrated before a game (of football). (a) Prior to the experimental part of the study by Bandura et al. (aggression), the children were observed and rated for their baseline aggressive behaviour. State where the children were observed in this part of the study. 1 mark for correct answer (Stanford University) Nursery (School). (b) State one person who observed the children in this part of the study. 1 mark for correct answer Experimenter; (Nursery School) Teacher. 34 (c) Outline how the children were rated for their baseline aggressive behaviour in this part of the study. 1 mark per correct point 1 mark available for naming one of the scales used  Rated on four different scales about aggression;  All five point ratings;  Scales = physical aggression / verbal aggression / aggression towards inanimate objects / aggression inhibition (name 2 for 1 mark)  They were rated independently;  A composite score was given to all children / scores for scales were added up for each child; (d) Outline one weakness of how the children were rated for their baseline aggressive behaviour in this part of the study. 1 mark for identifying a weakness 1 mark for relating it to this part of the study e.g. It is a subjective measure of aggression (1 mark); the teacher may already have an incorrect idea about how aggressive a child is making it less valid / may have a bias against one of the children making their score more ‘aggressive’ (1 mark); It is a subjective measure (1 mark); Only a transient measure (1 mark). Other creditworthy weaknesses include: acting nicely at school, extraneous variables, validity. (a) Describe the conclusions from the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). Award 1 mark for each correct answer up to a maximum of 3. Three from: watching a model can produce aggression in the observer boys are more likely to copy same gender models boys are more likely to copy physically aggressive behaviour than girls girls are slightly more likely to copy verbally aggressive behaviour than boys aggression from male models is more likely to be copied than aggression from female models. Other appropriate responses, including elaboration, should also be credited. (b) Explain two ways in which the learning approach is different from the social approach. Use the study by Bandura et al. as an example of the learning approach. For each way: Award 1 mark for identifying an aspect of the learning approach as exemplified by Bandura. Award 1 mark for explaining how this is different in the social approach. 35 For example: 1. The learning approach focuses on the acquisition of behaviours, for example, in Bandura et al. the acquisition of (specific) aggressive responses (1) whereas the social approach focuses on behaviours that are a product of the social situation (1) 2. The learning approach typically uses rigorous laboratory experiments, for example, in Bandura et al. a controlled environment with adult models showing pre-decided behaviours and being observed through a one-way mirror (1) whereas the social approach often studies behaviour in context, i.e. observes social situations/uses field studies (1) 3. The learning approach focuses on studying individuals, for example, Bandura et al. observed each child individually (following their opportunity to observe the adult model) (1) whereas the social approach focuses on the interactions between individuals. (1) Other appropriate responses should also be credited. From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): (a) State the number of participants used in each of the experimental groups in this study. 1 mark for the correct answer 6 or 24 (b) Outline how the participants were allocated to one of the conditions in this study. 1 mark for:  By adding (summing) the scores on the (four) aggression scales OR  Using the aggression ratings given by the teacher/experimenter. Plus 1 mark for either of the following:  Participants were arranged in triplets/matched in groups;  Participants assigned at random (to one of the conditions/groups). (c) Identify one example of imitative verbal aggression shown in this study. 1 mark for a correct example  Sock him;  Hit him down;  Kick him;  Throw him in the air;  Pow. 36 (a) Describe the psychology being investigated in the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). 1 mark for each correct statement. Examples from the study by Bandura et al. can gain credit (max 1). For example:  People pay attention to / observe the behaviour of a role model; They watched a model being aggressive/non-aggressive towards a Bobo Doll (example mark);  They then retain that information in their memory;  They will the imitate/reproduce the behaviour if they feel capable; If they witnessed the model get rewarded (vicarious) then they are more likely to repeat / try to repeat;  The imitation is seen as more probable if the role model is of the same sex (as the observer);  Learned behaviour can be displayed in a situation where the model is not present. There are other creditworthy responses. (b) Explain whether each ethical guideline below was broken in the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). Confidentiality Any data should not be identifiable as a single participants’ responses/ participants’ data must not be named as theirs; The identities of the children were not revealed – all we know is that they attended a Nursery at Stanford (and their age range) (not broken). Deception A participant should not be deceived without a strong justification / only if revealing the deception would not cause discomfort; The children were deceived as they never knew they were being watched in the experimental room (broken). Protection from physical harm Participants should leave the study in the same physical state as they entered; The children witnessed and then repeated aggressive behaviours and these were not ‘reversed’ before leaving the study (broken); The child might have got harmed when hitting the Bobo Doll / playing with other toys like a mallet (broken). Protection from psychological harm Participants should not be potentially distressed/stressed by the procedure of a study; The children may have been scared of watching a model acting aggressively towards the Bobo doll (broken); The children might have had longer term psychological effects of watching aggression/violence (broken). There are other creditworthy responses. 37 Use the following levels marking for each guideline separately. Level Descriptor Marks 2 The answer explicitly describes the ethical guideline and the example is 2 on contextualised from the named study OR The ethical guideline is implicit from the use of a well-argued example contextualised from the named study. 1 The answer explicitly describes the ethical without correct 1 contextualisation/no contextualisation OR The ethical guideline is implicit from the use of a brief example contextualised from the named study OR The ethical guideline is incorrectly described but the contextualised example from the named study is correct. 0 The description of the ethical guideline is incorrect and/or the 0 contextualised example is incorrect OR no answer given. From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): (a) (i) Identify one example of ‘imitative verbal aggression’ said by the participants. 1 mark for correct example given.  Sock him;  Hit him (down);  Kick him;  Throw him (in the air);  Pow. (ii) Identify one example of ‘imitative non-aggressive verbal response’ said by the participants. 1 mark for correct example given.  He keeps coming back (for more);  He sure is (a) tough (fella). (b) Two friends, Arturo and Gloria, are discussing this study in terms of validity. Arturo believes the study does have validity but Gloria believes the study does not have validity. Outline why you think either Arturo or Gloria is correct, using evidence from the study. 38 1 mark per point made, with: Up to 2 marks for any relevant finding(s)/part of study/example from study Up to 3 marks for outlining. Arturo  There were strict controls in the study meaning cause-effect could be established (1 mark).  Pre-aggression levels were matched across conditions to help conclude if the behaviour of the model was affecting (imitative) aggressive behaviours (1 mark).  It was laboratory based so it reduces the effects of extraneous variables (1 mark).  Participants were matched on aggression levels so this participant variable was controlled for (1 mark).  Also, they did not know they were being watched so demand characteristics were low (1 mark). Gloria  The task given to the participants lacked mundane realism (and validity) (1 mark).  This is because they had to sit and watch an adult model playing with toys (and not participate) which is not an everyday activity (1 mark).  It was in a laboratory so low ecological validity / was an artificial environment (1 mark).  The set-up did not reflect a real-life setting as the children were deliberately frustrated / being watched through a one-way mirror (1 mark). There are other creditworthy responses. From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): (a) Describe how the quantitative data was collected in this study. 1 mark for observation 1 mark for how quantitative data was collected (frequency/number) linked to study e.g., Observation of number of times a child copied the model = 2 e.g., ‘Observers scored the total number of aggressive and non-aggressive response categories’ = 2  Aggressive acts were counted = 1 mark (accept as frequency)  Aggression scored prior to testing on (four) five-point rating scales = 1 (b) Suggest one advantage of using quantitative data in this study. 1 mark advantage 1 mark link 1. It can be analysed mathematically / statistically = 1 (advantage) So they could calculate the percentage of children copying aggressive / non aggressive models = 1 (link) 39  They could compare mean aggression of boys and girls = 1 (link) Number of times child hits bobo = 1 (link) 2. It is objective = 1 advantage So objective  statement of more/less / compare in relation to Bandura’s data = 2 Bandura et al. (aggression) calculated the mean number of aggressive acts in each condition. (a) Explain how the mean of a data set is calculated. Award 1 mark for a brief explanation. Award 2 marks for a full explanation. For example: Adding up all the (participants’) numbers/scores etc. in the data set/group (1) and dividing by the number of numbers/scores. (1) Other appropriate responses should also be credited. (b) Identify an alternative measure of central tendency that Bandura et al. could have used. Award 1 mark for the correct answer: Mode/median Describe the procedure from the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) from when a participant entered the experimental room until the model began to assemble tinker toys. 1 mark per correct procedural point The participant was taken to one corner of the room; It was a structured play area; The child was seated (at a table); The experimenter demonstrated to the child how to make pictures/potato prints/use stickers; Once the child began ‘playing’, the experimenter took the model to the opposite corner; A variety of objects were located there (e.g. mallet, Bobo etc.); The experimenter explained that these were for the model to play with; The model was seated at their own table; The experimenter then left the room; 40 From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): (a) Outline what Bandura et al. meant by ‘imitative verbal aggression’. 1 mark for the imitative part 1 mark for the verbal aggression part For example: This is when the children/participant copied/imitated/repeated (1 mark) The things that were said by the model/model’s verbal aggression (1 mark) (b) Identify two examples that were recorded as imitative verbal aggression. 1 mark per example ‘Sock him’; ‘Hit him (down)’; ‘Kick him’; ‘Throw him (in the air)’; ‘Pow’; (c) Describe one result about aggressive gun play in the aggressive experimental groups. 2 marks comparison/full result 1 mark no meaningful comparison/brief result For example:  Males showed more aggressive (gun) play compared to females (2 marks)  Males showed the most aggressive (gun) play in the aggressive male model condition (2 marks)  Girls showed the least aggressive (gun) play when the model was an aggressive female (2 marks)  Males showed more aggressive (gun) play (1 mark)  Females showed the least amount of aggressive (gun) play (1 mark)  More boys than girls showed (gun) play (0 marks as data is about the average and not number of participants). 41 (a) Research has shown that children who watch violent television programmes are less likely to be aggressive. Explain two ways the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) differs from this research. 1 mark for identifying a difference 1 mark for describing the element of the study supporting the difference For example: 1. The children did not watch a violent television programme (1 mark: identify) as they watched a live model being aggressive in a room (1 mark: describe) 2. The children did not become less aggressive in Bandura (1 mark: identify) they became more aggressive especially with a same sex aggressive model (1 mark: describe) (b) Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) and one other core study from the learning approach. 4 marks available for the similarity 4 marks available for the difference Creditworthy points include: modelling, quantitative data, case study, ethics, species, sample size, type of conditioning. Difference 4 marks: The study of Pepperberg and Bandura used different species as the participant(s). The Pepperberg study used one African Grey Parrot (Alex). However, the Bandura study used (72) nursery children from a university nursery. 3 marks: The study of Pepperberg and Bandura used different species as the participant(s). The Pepperberg study used one African Grey Parrot (Alex). 2 marks: The study of Pepperberg and Bandura used different species as the participant(s) namely a bird and children. 1 mark: The studies of Pepperberg and Bandura used different species. The similarity/difference is well explained using both studies as examples. 4 marks The similarity/difference is well explained but only one study is used as an 3 marks example OR both studies used briefly. The similarity/difference is brief with an attempt at using at least one study as 2 marks an example OR The similarity/difference is well explained but there is no study evidence. The similarity/difference is brief with no attempt at using studies as examples. 1 mark No creditworthy material. 0 marks 42 In the study by Bandura et al. (aggression), children were shown a room full of attractive toys to play with but were told they were for other children. Explain one of the two reasons Bandura et al. gave for doing this. 1 mark for a brief muddled explanation 2 marks for a clear/detailed explanation To make them angry/jealous/annoyed/aroused; So they were all equally likely to be aggressive; So they were likely to be aggressive in the next room; To ensure the children in the nonaggressive condition were feeling aggressive = 1 To ensure the low(ered) aggression children could be demonstrated in the nonaggressive condition = 2 To ensure they were likely to be aggressive/aroused = 1 To ensure performance of aggressive behaviour was not reduced by having watched aggression / catharsis = 2 From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): (a) Describe how the children were rated on aggressive behaviour in their nursery school, prior to the study. 1 mark per correct statement 1 mark available for naming two of the scales used  Rated on four different scales about aggression;  All five point scales;  By experimenter and nursery school teacher;  Scales = physical aggression / verbal aggression / aggression towards inanimate objects / aggression inhibition (2 named = 1 mark);  They were rated independently;  A composite score was given to all children / scores for scales were added up for each child. (b) Explain whether each guideline below was broken in the study by Bandura et al.: Confidentiality Any data should not be identifiable as a single participants’ response / participants’ data must not be named as theirs. All we know is that they were children from a nursery at Stanford University / we only know the gender and age (range). Protection from physical harm Participants should leave the study in the same physical state as they entered / Participants should not be potentially harmed by the procedure of a study. The children could have injured themselves when they were playing/hitting / being aggressive with the Bobo doll / toys in the room so this was broken. 43 Protection from psychological harm Participants should leave the study in the same mental/psychological state as they entered / Participants should not be potentially harmed by the procedure of a study. The children could have left the study thinking that aggression was good/frightening so their way of thinking had been changed / not reduced before leaving the study. Right to withdraw Participants should be able to leave the study at any point (without penalty); In the experimental room the experimenter remained with the child so they could not leave the room, so it was broken. Level Descriptor Marks 2 The answer explicitly describes the ethical guideline and the example is 2 contextualised from the named study. OR The ethical guideline is implicit from the use of a well argued example contextualised from the named study. 1 The answer explicitly describes the ethical without correct 1 contextualisation/no contextualisation. OR The ethical guideline is implicit from the use of a brief example contextualised from the named study. OR The ethical guideline is incorrectly described but the contextualised example from the named study is correct. 0 The description of the ethical guideline is incorrect and/or the 0 contextualised example is incorrect OR No answer given. Describe the psychology that is being investigated in the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). 1 mark per ‘psychology’ point made 1 identification mark is available 1 mark available for an explicit example from the study Creditworthy ‘psychology’ includes Social Learning Theory, frustration, aggression, delayed imitation. For example: 1. Aggression can be physical (hitting) and verbal (shouting). 2. Delayed imitation is when someone witnesses a behaviour at one-time point, but only reproduces that behaviour at a different time point. 3. Social Learning theory was being investigated which centres around observing and imitating behaviours; People pay attention to a role model; They retain this information in their memory; They must feel like they are capable of imitating the behaviour; 44  They must feel motivated to want to imitate the behaviour / feel will get rewarded for imitation. Describe the psychology being investigated in the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). 1 mark per correct point  People pay attention to/observe the behaviour of a role model;  They then retain that information in their memory;  They will then imitate/reproduce the behaviour if they feel capable;  If they witnessed the model get rewarded (vicarious) then they are more likely to repeat/try to repeat;  The imitation is seen as more probable if the role model is of the same sex (as the observer); (a) Outline what is meant by individual and situational explanations of behaviour, using any examples. Do not refer to the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) in your answer. 1 mark = defining individual + 1 mark example (non-Bandura) 1 mark = defining situational + 1 mark example (non-Bandura) Individual The individual explanation states that we behave because of our personality (1 mark). For example, a person wants to go snowboarding because they are an extrovert (1 mark); Situational The situational explanation states that we behaviour because of the environment we find ourselves in / our surroundings / other people around us (1 mark). For example, in the Milgram study people were obedient because they were in a (prestigious) university. (b) Explain how one result from the study by Bandura et al. supports the individual explanation of aggression and how one result supports the situational explanation of aggression. Result that supports the individual explanation of aggression: Explain how: Individual Around one-third of participants in the aggressive conditions imitated the nonaggressive remarks/speech made by the model. None of the nonaggressive/control group did. This could indicate that some of the participants (the 1/3) had a personality type, etc., that meant they were more likely to imitate any behaviour. 45 Result that supports the situational explanation of aggression: Explain how: Situational Participants were much more likely to imitate physical/verbal aggression after observing an aggressive model compared to a non-aggressive model. This could indicate that the situation of having to witness aggression increased the likelihood that the participant imitated aggressive acts (physical/verbal). Level Criteria Marks 4 The result presented has a meaningful comparison and the candidate 4 clearly explains how the result supports individual/situational. 3 The result presented has a meaningful comparison and there is a brief 3 attempt at explaining how the result supports individual/situational; The result presented has no meaningful comparison, but the candidate clearly explains how the result supports individual/situational. 2 The result presented has a meaningful comparison, but there is no 2 attempt at explanation or explanation is not about individual/situational; The result presented is not clear, but there is an implicit attempt at explaining how the result supports individual/situational. 1 The result presented has no meaningful comparison or there is a basic 1 attempt at explaining. 0 No creditworthy answer. 0 From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): (a) Identify one example of quantitative data collected in this study. 1 mark for example (can be example of category or example of data) 1. The number of times a child hit a doll with a mallet 2. Number/percentage of boys and girls showing physical aggression 3. The mean number of girls with a female model producing imitative verbal aggression There are many possible correct responses, these are only examples. (b) Explain one advantage of collecting quantitative data in this study. 1 mark for advantage 1 mark for link 1. It can be analysed mathematically/statistically = 1 advantage So they could calculate the mean number of acts of different types of aggression the children did = 1 link 46  2. It is objective = 1 advantage They would be less prejudiced in recording, e.g. if they expected boys to be more aggressive than girls = 1 link Evaluate the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about observations. Level 4 (8–10 marks) Evaluation is comprehensive. Answer demonstrates evidence of careful planning, organisation and selection of material. Analysis (valid conclusions that effectively summarise issues and arguments) is evident throughout.  Answer demonstrates an excellent understanding of the material. Level 3 (6–7 marks) Evaluation is good. Answer demonstrates some planning and is well organised. Analysis is often evident but may not be consistently applied. Answer demonstrates a good understanding of the material. Level 2 (4–5 marks) Evaluation is mostly appropriate but limited. Answer demonstrates limited organisation or lacks clarity. Analysis is limited. Answer lacks consistent levels of detail and demonstrates a limited understanding of the material. Level 1 (1–3 marks) Evaluation is basic. Answer demonstrates little organisation. There is little or no evidence of analysis. Answer does not demonstrate understanding of the material. Level 0 (0 marks) No response worthy of credit. The study by Bandura et al. (aggression) is from the learning approach. (a) Outline two assumptions of the learning approach, using any example for each. 1 mark = appropriate assumption (×2) 1 mark = any relevant example (×2) 1. Conditioning can help to explain our behaviour (1 mark); If we reward someone they are likely to want to repeat that behaviour (1 mark) 2. Social learning can help explain our behaviour (1 mark); Bandura found that children will observe and imitate an aggressive role model (1 mark) 47 (b) Explain how one result from the study by Bandura et al. supports the nature side of the nature–nurture debate and how one result supports the nurture side of the nature–nurture debate. Result that supports the nature side of the nature–nurture debate: Explain how: Result that supports the nurture side of the nature–nurture debate: Explain how: Level Criteria Marks 4 The result presented has a meaningful comparison and the candidate 4 clearly explains how the result supports individual/situational. 3 The result presented has a meaningful comparison and there is a brief 3 attempt at explaining how the result supports individual/situational; The result presented has no meaningful comparison, but the candidate clearly explains how the result supports individual/situational. 2 The result presented has a meaningful comparison, but there is no 2 attempt at explanation or explanation is not about individual/situational; The result presented is not clear, but there is an implicit attempt at explaining how the result supports individual/situational. 1 The result presented has no meaningful comparison or there is a basic 1 attempt at explaining. 0 No creditworthy answer. 0 At the start of the study by Bandura et al. (aggression), the children were scored numerically on their behaviour in the nursery school. Explain one advantage of scoring behavioural data in this way. 1 mark for advantage 1 mark detail (linked or not) 1. Objective = 1 (advantage) the researchers could be confident about the aggression categories = 1 link 2. Could be analysed statistically = 1 (advantage) the data could be used to calculate mean numbers of aggressive acts in each category = 1 link 48 From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): (a) Outline one aim of this study. 1 mark – brief aim 2 marks – detailed aim 1. To investigate how children learn aggression (1 mark); 2. To see if aggression was nature or nurture (1 mark); 3. To investigate whether children imitate the aggressive behaviour of an aggressive model (2 marks); 4. To investigate whether children are more likely to imitate the behaviour of a same- sex model (2 marks); 5. To investigate whether children would imitate aggression of a model in the absence of the model (2 marks); (b) One of the response categories was ‘imitation of physical aggression’. Identify three examples of ‘imitation of physical aggression’ from this study. 1 mark per example  Hitting Bobo with a mallet;  Sitting on the Bobo doll and punching the Bobo doll (on the nose);  Kicking the Bobo doll;  Tossing the Bobo doll into the air; (a) Explain what is meant by ‘covert observation’, using the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) as an example. 1 mark for ‘hidden’ (generic definition) 2 marks for linked detail (1 mark for link, 1 for detail)  The observer is hidden = 1 (generic definition)  The participants do not know the role of the observer (even if they can see them) = 1 generic detail)  Bandura et al. used a one-way mirror = 1 (linked detail) so the children were unaware that they were being watched = 1 (linked detail) (b) Suggest one advantage of covert observations. 1 mark for advantage (may be generic) 1 mark for detail (does not have to be linked) 49   Behaviour will be natural/unaffected by observers = 1 (advantage)  as there will be fewer demand characteristics = 1 (detail) so there will be less social desirability = 1 (detail)  so Bandura et al.’s children wouldn’t be extra good/naughty because they knew they were being watched = 1 (detail – linked) Mandy has learned about the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). She believes that the results support the nurture side of the nature-nurture debate. (a) Outline what is meant by the ‘nature-nurture debate’. 1 mark for the nature side of argument 1 mark for the nurture side of argument The nature side of the debate is about what behaviours etc. we are born with (1 mark) The nurture side of the debate is about what we learn in our lives (1 mark). (b) Outline why Mandy is correct, using evidence in your answer. 1 mark per point made  The children copied the aggression they had seen so it was learnt;  For example, they shouted things like sock him/kick him;  Bandura stated that it was Social Learning Theory causing the aggressive behaviour;  They observed and then imitated what they had seen showing learning;  Children had been matched on levels of aggression so any increased aggression levels they showed in the study had to be learnt;  Children with an aggressive model were more likely to display aggression compared to a non-aggressive model (2 marks: evidence with comparison);  Boys were more likely t