Transcript AICE_Bandura

Bellringer
NATURE VS. NURTURE
SRENGTHS
LIMITATIONS
•HW DUE: Bandura reading guide, completed “nature vs.
nurture” notes
•Late HW: notes on developmental approach
Test Revisions
• Due 2 classes from now (by the end of next
week)
Bandura, Ross, & Ross
(1961)
AICE Psych- Developmental Psych Unit
Transmission of
Aggression through
Imitation of
Aggressive Models
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=8ZXOp5PopI
A&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
MethodologySample
• 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 Allocation
Subjects
No role
model
Aggressive
Model
NonAggressive
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 nonimitative)
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 original
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=8ZXOp5Pop
IA&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 dollnot 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)