Download File

Results (1)
• 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)