Bellringer

•HW DUE: Bandura reading guide, completed “nature vs. nurture” notes

•Late HW: notes on developmental approach

NATURE VS. NURTURESRENGTHS LIMITATIONS

Test Revisions•Due 2 classes from now (by the end of

next week)

Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models

Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1961)AICE Psych- Developmental Psych Unit

Background of the Study•What’s the cause of aggression?•Theorists point to 3 possibilities (not gamma

rays)• 1- biologically pre-programmed• 2- situational factors • 3- aggression is learned

Background & Premise for Study•Bandura believed that conditioning on its

own is inadequate as an explanation of the majority of social behaviour

•To test this idea, he set out to design a study to provide support for his concepts

Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1961)

• Learning occurs through• (a) the interaction with other people• (b) through the use of observation and modeling

▫Observational learning = learning by observing others

▫Modeling = the process of observing and imitating a specific behavior

▫It is believed that this behavior is facilitated by motor neurons that fire both when a person acts and when they observe another acting

•Conditions for effective modeling=▫Need attention, retention, reproduction,

and motivation

Aim of the Study•To demonstrate that learning can occur through mere observation of a model and that imitation can occur in the absence of that model

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZXOp5PopIA&feature=related

Hypotheses (1-2)•H1- Children shown aggressive models will

show significantly more imitative aggressive behaviour than those shown non-aggressive or no models

•H2- Children shown non-aggressive, subdued models will show significantly less aggressive behaviour than those shown aggressive or no models

Hypotheses (3-4)•H3- Children will imitate the behaviour of

same sex models to a greater degree than opposite sex models

•H4-Boys will show significantly more imitative aggression than girls, especially with the male rather than female aggressive model

Methodology-Sample

•Design: lab experiment•Site: Stanford University •Subjects: 72 total- 1:1 M:F, 36 boys and 36 girls

from the University Nursery School

•Age Range: 37-69 months old, x=52 months▫ (3 years to almost 6 years old)

Methodology- Experimentation•3 groups, each with 24 children (12 M &

12 F) ▫ 1- Experimental 1:observed an aggressive

model▫ 2- Experimental 2: observed a non-aggressive

model▫ 3- Control: no exposure to any model

•Groups were subdivided totaling 8 experimental and 2 control groups

▫ Independent measures design compare groups to each other

Methodology-Participant AllocationSubjects No role

modelAggressive Model Non-

Aggressive Model

(Control group)

Male Model

Female Model

Male Model

Female Model

Boys 12 6 6 6 6

Girls 12 6 6 6 6

Methodology- Variables•IV- 1- presence of model• 2-behavior of model (aggressive/non-

aggressive)• 3- gender of model (male or female)• 4- gender of child (natural)

•DV-amount of aggression displayed by the child in a

later situation (both imitative and non-imitative)

Methodology- Variables (continued)

•To control for extraneous variables within the study▫Researcher and teacher rated children on 5-

point scale on: previous displays of physical & verbal

aggression aggression towards objects ability to control their behavior when they

were angry▫This inter-rater reliability allowed ‘equal’

placement of children in terms of aggression level within the groups (helps reliability)

Procedure- Phase 1 Modeling Condition• *Note- there is no report of the control group children in regards to

treatment in the rooms (probably just played with toys)• For both experimental groups: • Phase 1 Setup:

▫ Each child individually taken to an experimental room at the nursery and the model (stooge) was invited to “join in the game”

▫ Child seated at one corner with stickers and potato prints

▫ Model seated at opposite corner with tinker toys, a mallet, and the Bobo doll. Experimenter then left the room.

Procedure- Phase 1- Modeling Condition• Phase 1 Experimentation:• Non-aggressive condition:

▫ Model assembles and plays with the tinker toys and ignores the Bobo doll for the 10 minute duration

Procedure- Phase 1- Modeling Condition• Aggressive condition:

▫ Model started playing by himself/herself w/the tinker toys for a minute…

▫ Then started beating up Bobo with specific acts that could be imitated by the child… Laying Bobo on his side, sitting on it & punching it, hitting

it with the mallet, throwing it in the air, and kicking it around

Said remarks of “pow,” “hit him down,” & “he sure is a tough fella!”

▫ Models were supposed to be identical in their actions (p. 576)

Still footage from a LATER study

Procedure- Phase 2- Aggression Arousal• All children (including control) were taken to the next room

and subjected to ‘mild aggression arousal’.

• Children allowed to play with ‘very attractive toys’ (fire engine, jet plane, spinning top, doll set, baby crib) for 2 minutes, then was told by the experimenter that they were her best toys and that she needed to save them for the other boys and girls to play with.

• Each child was then told that they could play with any toy in the next room and went on to room 3

Procedure- Phase 2- Aggression Arousal• WHY DID THEY DECIDE TO POTENTIALLY UPSET THE KID?

▫ For aggressive group- Other studies showed that watching others acting aggressive often inhibits your aggressiveness

▫ For non-aggressive group- they didn’t experience or have the potential to experience aggression in Phase 1, so Bandura wanted to give them a reason to be aggressive

▫ For control group- to ensure equal treatment and opportunities among participants and possible results

Procedure- Phase 3- Test for Delayed Imitation• Each child was escorted to a room with a one-way

mirror • Child was recorded for 20 minutes by 2 observers (on

the other side of mirror) recording the child’s actions every 5 seconds (240 observations for each child)

• A neutral experimenter sat on one side of the room while the child played with the available toys;▫ Aggressive toys: mallet, dart gun, tether ball, 3 ft. Bobo

doll▫ Non-aggressive toys: tea set, crayons, dolls, cars, animals

• All observers didn’t know which condition the child was in except whether the child had a male or female model

Procedure- Phase 3- Test for Delayed Imitation• Categories of displayed behavior that child may have

exhibited• 1- Imitation behavior of aggressive model

▫ Physical aggression (punching, sitting on, kicking, etc.)▫ Verbal aggression (“pow,” “sock him in the nose,” etc.)▫ Non-aggression speech (“he sure is a tough fella!”)

• 2-Partial imitation behavior of aggressive model▫ Like using the mallet on other toys or just sitting on Bobo

• 3-Non-imitative physical & verbal aggression▫ Just punching or using other toys to beat-up Bobo, “shoot the Bobo,” horseplaying/biting

• 4-Non-aggressive behavior▫ Non-aggressive play with the available toys or just sitting quietly

“Man, that Bobo…” •The video clip below is not from this origi

nal study that AICE covers- this clip is from a follow-up study- but many of the actions are the same

•http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZXOp5PopIA&feature=related

Results (1) • LOOK AT OLIVER BOOK SCAN (pg. 203-204)

• Children from the aggressive model group showed significantly more imitation of the model’s physical & verbal aggression and non-aggressive verbal responses (H1)

• Children from the aggressive model group showed more partial imitation & non-imitative physical & verbal aggression (but not to a sig. degree) (H1)

Results (2)• Children from the non-aggressive model group

showed very little aggression (but not always sig. less than the control)(H2)

• In the non-aggressive group, the male model had a significant inhibiting effect on the children (H2)

• Boys displayed sig. more imitative physical & verbal aggression with male model

• Girls displayed more verbal imitative aggression & non-imitative aggression with female model (but a not sig. diff.) (H4)

Discussion (1)• Study provided support for Bandura’s social learning

theory▫ Learning through social behaviour & modeling▫ Shows identification of which models are likely to be

imitated

• Study shows that children can learn as a result of imitation and without reinforcement▫ This suggests that modeling is a form of observational

learning

Discussion (2)• Study shows that people will produce new

behaviours that they have observed & generalize these behaviours to new situations ▫ Expands operant conditioning by the idea that this

imitative behavior can be rewarded or punished

• Female aggression seemed to cause confusion amongst children as it went against social norms ▫ “That’s not the way for a lady to behave”

Discussion (3)• Aggressive male models more likely to be

imitated as it was seen as normal behaviour within society▫ May help explain results of boys & girls aggression

levels▫ May be due to children’s understanding of sex-

appropriate behaviour like fighting is acceptable for boys but not girls

▫ Comments like “Al’s a good socker, he beat up Bobo”▫ Girls’ higher instances of verbal aggression may be

a result of non-clearly defined sex-roles and thus their outlet while possibly suppressing desire for physical aggression

Discussion (4)• Contributions to Psychology:

• Demonstrated how children can acquire new behaviors simply by observing adults ▫Social learning theorists

believe that most of one’s personality is formed through this modeling process

• Laid the groundwork for decades of research and studies on the effects of children watching (and now playing) violence within the media (or in person)

Strengths of the Study • Lab setting enabled better control of variables,

providing cause & effect of modeled behavior and recorded behavior

• Lab allows for replication of study

• Quantitative data allowed for inferential stats, leading to the probability for results due to chance

• Qualitative data (though very limited) provided better overall picture

Weaknesses of the Study•Low ecological validity/mundane realism•No true standardization of models (videos

used in later trials)•Sample from one middle-class US nursery

school•Criticized as categorizing children’s

actions as aggressive, but children may have seen their behavior as play

•Numerous ethical issues ▫(but this even pre-dated Milgram)

Ecological Validity• Child in a room with a stranger and an inflatable doll is not normally occurring • Lacked adults/peers that the children knew in the

room to see how they would act (as they have more influence)

• Cannot generalize results from beating up a doll to other situations

• A Bobo doll is SUPPOSED to be punched & hit (would it be different if it was a teddy bear or a Perry plush??)

• Bizarre acts of aggressive were shown & imitated against a Bobo doll- not a real person

Ethics• Participants were children

▫ Parental consent acquired? ▫ Guidelines for RTW? ▫ Debriefing not mentioned▫ Possible long-term effects were any children more aggressive

afterwards?• Children were asked to witness aggressive behavior• Children were expected to exhibit aggressive behavior• Children were mildly provoked to feel aggression• Children observed covertly• Some children experienced distress in the study

▫ Phase 2- stopping them from playing with the toys▫ Phase 2 3 - some Ps didn’t want to go to the next room without the experimenter and/or wanted to leave before time was up (again, RTW)