Developmental psychology
• The matching was achieved by the experimenter
Core study 5.1
Bandura, Ross & Ross (1961)
Context
Learning behaviour by imitating others is called
observational learning. Several studies before this one
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 that modelled the behaviour.
Tl1is study is also concerned with the learning
of gender-specific behaviour. Previous stud.ies
had shown that children are sensitive to gender-
specific behaviours. For example, children see their
parents as preferring gender-stereotyped behaviour.
Aggression is a good example of a gendered social
behaviour, being associated with masculinity.
Aims
Overall aim: to investigate observational learning
of aggression. Specifically, the study aimed to see
whether children would reproduce aggressive behaviour
when the model was no longer present, and to look for
gender differences in learning of aggression.
Method
Participants
• There were 72 participants in total: 36 male and
36 female.
• All were selected from the nursery school of
Stanford University.
• Ages ranged from 37 months Uust over 3 years)
to 69 months {5 years and 9 montl1s).
• Tt1e mean age was 52 months (4 years and
4 months).
Design
• This was a laboratory experiment, using a
matched pairs design.
• The researchers tested the effects of three IVs:
o the behaviour of the model (aggressive or non-
aggressive)
o the sex of the model
o the sex of the children.
• There were eight conditions In all. The children in
each condition were matched for their aggression
levels.
24
and a nursery teacher independently rating 51 of
the children on a scale of 0-5 .
• Very good agreement between the two raters was
achieved (0.89).
• The conditions were as follows :
1. An aggressive model was shown to 12 boys
and 12 girls . Six boys and six girls saw
aggression modelled by a same-sex model ,
while the rest saw it modelled by an opposite-
sex model.
2 . A non-aggressive model was shown to 12 boys
and 12 girls. Six boys and six girls sa"v non-
aggression modelled by a same-sex model ,
while the rest saw it modelled by an opposite-
sex model.
3. A control group of 12 boys and 12 girls did not
see a model display any behaviour, aggressive
or otl1erwise.
Procedure
The procedure consisted of three stages .
1. Modelling the behaviour. Each child was brought
individually into a play room and invited to join in
a game.
• This tasted for ten minutes.
• In the first two conditions there was also an
additional adult present in the room. In the
aggressive condition , this adult demonstrated
aggression towards a five-foot tall inflatable bobo
doll, kicking and hitting it, including with a hammer.
• Tl1e adult also said aggressive things, such as
''kick him ... pow .. . sock him on the nose" . In
the non-aggressive condition, the adult assembled
toys and did not interact with the doll.
• In the control condition, there was no additional
adult in tt1e roo1TI.
2. Aggression arousal . In order to annoy the
children and increase the chances of aggressive
behaviour, all the children were t t1en taken to a
different play room wit h some very attractive toys.
• After being allowed to play for around two
minut es, participants were told they were not
allowed to play with tl1ese t oys any more as they
were ~he very best" toys and they were going to
be reserved for other children.
3. Testing for delayed i1Tiitation. Children were then
observed playing for the next 20 minutes.
• Two more observers watched. The room contained
a range of toys including a smaller bobo doll. The
observers were unaware, while observing, which
condition the child was fn.
 Participant group Aggressive Aggressive Non-aggressive Non-aggressive No model
male model female model male model female model
Male imitative physical aggression 25.4 12.8 1.5 0.2 2.0
Female imitative physical aggression 7.2 5.5 0.0 2.5 1.2
Male imitative verbal aggression 12.7 4.3 0.0 1.1 1.7
Female imitative verbal aggression 2.0 13.7 0.0 0.3 0.7
Male non-imitative aggression 36.7 17.2 22.3 26.1 24.6
Female non-imitative aggression 8.4 21.3 1.4 7.2 6.1
.& Table 5.1 Mean aggression scores recorded by observers

Three types of aggression were recorded by

observers:
1. imitative aggression - physical and verbal
aggression identical to that modelled in stage 1
2. partially imitative aggression - similar behaviour
to that ca rried out by the model
3. non-irnitative aggression - new aggressive acts
not demonstrated by the model.
Results
• There were significant differences in levels of
imitative aggression between the group that
witnessed aggression and the other two groups.
• There were significant differences in levels of both
physical and verbal aggression . To a lesser extent
this was also true of partial imitation and non-
imitative aggression .
• Significantly more non-aggressive play was
recorded in the non-aggressive model condition.
• Table 5.1 s hows the different acts of aggressive
and non-aggressive behaviours.
The overall results were as follows:
• Children who had witnessed an aggressive model
were significantly more aggressive themselves.
• Overall, there was very little difference between
aggression in the control group and that in the
non-aggressive modelling condition.
• Boys were significantly more likely to imitate
aggressive male models. The difference for girls
was much smaller.
• Boys were significantly more physically aggressive
than girls. Girls were slightly more verbally
aggressive.
Conclusion
• Witnessing aggression in a model can be enough
to produce aggression by an observer.
• Children selectively imitate gender-specific
behaviour. Boys a.re more likely to imitate physical
aggression, while girls are more likely to imit ate
verbal aggression.
• The boys but not girls were more likely to imitate
aggression in a same-sex model; it could be
concluded only cautiously that children selectively
imitate same-sex models.
Evaluation
Evaluation Related to Bandura, Ross & Ross
Strength A number of controls were in place in this
study. For example, the time they watched a
model for, the layout of the room and which
toys were available were the same for all the
children. Therefore, other researchers could
easily replicate this study to test it for reliability.
Strength 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 chi ldren to show aggressive and non-
aggressive behaviour.
Weakness The set up was artificial because the child
(especially the first stage) was in a setting
not rea lly familiar to ch ildren. As a result
the findings cou ld be argued to be low in
ecological validity.
Weakness Some of the tasks expected of the child were
not usual (e.g. simply to sit and watch an
adult play with some toys and not get involved
in the play). Therefore, aspects of the study
could be low in mundane realism.
Other points to consider inc lude the following:
• Quantitative data: this enabled clear comparisons
to happen between all groups to see the effect
the model was having on behaviour. However,
we do not know why the children were acting in
they ways they did as no qualitative data were
collected to explore this.
• Ethics: the issue is this study is protection. The
children displayed aggressive behaviour and this
may have continued after the study had ended. The
children did not leave the study in the same physical
or psychological state in which they entered.

A Figure 5.1 Children in the study imitating the observed 25

behaviour of adults