Bandura

looks at observational learning, one of the main learning theories

studies the social learning theory

comprised of attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation; can happen in two different ways - first-hand and by proxy

must be paying attention to role model to learn in the first place

need to store observations in long-term memory

need to imitate the stored behavior

if rewarded for imitation, you want to repeat behavior, if punished, you want to stop behavior

in presence of person completing behavior

watched behavior through some type of media

studied classical conditioning in dogs

applied Pavlovian principles to humans

taught us about learning through consequences

believes early learning theories are reductionistic

• proved children will imitate and copy behaviors

• behavior happened immediately in the same environment with role model still there

• never took gender into account

to investigate if social behaviors, particularly aggression, can be acquired through observation and later imitated

to test if we can learn to imitate a behavior when the role model is no longer present

to observe for any great differences in learning aggression

If a behavior is observed, it will be imitated

If a behavior is not observed, it cannot be imitated

Boys will copy a male model more than a female model, and girls will copy a female model more than a male model

Boys will be more predisposed than girls to imitating aggression

conditions (aggressive model, non-aggressive model, and control group), gender of model, gender of child

number of aggressive behaviors out of a 240 maximum

• laboratory experiment

• independent measures: can’t take out the behavior once it’s been placed there

• data collected in the behavioral direction and direct observation

• matched groups between non-aggressive and aggressive groups for pre-existing levels of aggression

• potato prints and stickers

• tinker toys

• table and chair

• mallet

• 5 foot Bobo doll

• fire engine

• locomotive

• dolls

• top

• potato prints and stickers

• tinker toys

• table and chair

• mallet

• 3 foot Bobo doll

• one-way mirror

• 2 dart guns

72 children (36 male, 36 female) ranging from 37 to 69 months in age, with a mean age of 4.4 years, randomly sampled from Stanford University Nursery School; likely higher on the socioeconomic scale and have at least one college-educated parent

Model will always do the same behaviors in the same sequence for the same amount of time

The toys in rooms 1 and 3 will always be in the same places at the start of the study

The observations will always be done by 2 independent observers for the same duration (20 minutes), and each will take data every 5 seconds

The levels of pre-existing aggression will be assessed by both the researcher and the nursery school teacher

Every child is assessed for their pre-existing levels of aggression, then each child between the aggressive and non-aggressive group will be matched.

Each child will be individually brought by the experimenter into Room 1, where there will be a model for the aggressive and non-aggressive groups. The child will be allowed to settle in, while the model plays in the corner. In the non-aggressive model, everyone continues playing, and in the aggressive model, the model will punch the Bobo doll, hit it with the mallet, throw it, and kick it, vocalizing their actions as they perform them

After 10 minutes in Room 1, the child will be taken into Room 2. The child will be allowed to play with the toys for 2 minutes, and then the child is told the toys are “only for the best children.”

After the child is frustrated, they are brought into Room 3, where they will be left with the toys for 20 minutes, and their behavior will be observed through the one-way mirror. The child is sent back to the nursery school afterward

quantitative - behavioral checklist

qualitative - in Room 1, researchers wrote down comments made by the children

exact reproduction of model’s behavior

similar reproduction of model’s behavior

something the model didn’t do

Children who saw the aggression model were significantly more aggressive than the non-aggressive and control groups

There is very little difference in aggression levels between the non-aggressive and control groups

Boys were significantly more likely to imitate an aggressive male model

Boys were significantly more physically aggressive

Children in all groups played aggressively with the dart guns

Observed behavior is more likely to be imitated

All hypotheses were supported

maintained; pictures of the children were published with the study but it was allowed by parents

Loco parentis would have been required in the use of children, and informed consent was likely given by the nursery school teacher, not the parents. Protection from harm wasn’t upheld; children were exposed to dart guns and the mallet, it is unknown how long the effects of the study last, and positive replacement was not used for the aggressive behavior. Debriefing did not occur

There is high inter-scorer reliability in the pre-existing aggression (0.89) and the observations (0.9)

The use of quota sampling provides comparable data

Matched groups controlled for aggression and as an independent variable

There was a high level of controls, so it is highly likely only the aggressive model made a difference in the outcome of the study

High standardization of the procedure allows for replication

There is low ecological validity in a laboratory setting

The task of a child playing with toys while an adult plays with kids’ toys lacks mundane realism

The children coming from higher socioeconomic backgrounds and having a small age range makes generalization difficult

It is unknown whether the children were compliant to please the adults around them

The aggression was taken out on an inanimate object

The long term effects of the aggression are unknown

It is unknown whether the novelty of the toy made a difference in aggression

• to TV networks limiting aggressive programming and promoting pro-social programming

• helping parents pick appropriate programming for their children

Matched pairs nullified nature affecting the outcome

Positive

• honest/lack of a social filter

• demand characteristics aren’t an issue

Negative

• may have been distressed

• exposed to psychological harm through intentional frustration