Core Study IBAPFCE

Psychology being investigated

-Investigating social learining in the context of aggresion
-Social learining theory – children copy adults

Backround of the study

-Previous research showed that children imitated the behaviour of a model when in their
presence. Bandura wanted to know:
1. If they would imitate aggresssion
2. Would they demonstrated that behaviour in the absence of the model
3. Can SLT be used to explain this

Aims
(include hypotheses and research questions if relevant)
-To investigate whether a child would learn aggression by observing a model and would
reproduce this behaviour in their absence and if the sex of the model mattered

1. Observed aggressive behaviour will be imitated, so children who see an aggressive

model will be more aggressive than those seeing a non-aggressive model or no model.
2. Observed non-aggressive behaviour will be imitated so children seeing non-aggressive
models will be less aggressive than those seeing no model.
3. Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model.
4. Boys will be more likely to copy aggression than girls.

Procedure
(include method and sample)

Sample
• 72 children
• Equal numbers of boys and girls
• Aged between 3-6 years
• Attended Stanford University Nursery

Research method: Lab experiment

Experimental design: Matched pairs design ( based on their initial level of aggression, agre
and gender )
Data collection method: Observation

IVs: 1. Model type ( aggressive or non-aggressive )

2. Model sex
3. Learner sex

DV: The childs behaviour

Conditions: 1. Experimental group 1 ( observed aggressive behaviour )

2. Experimental group 2 ( observed a non-aggressive model )
3. Control group
Procedure
1. Stage 1 ( experimental groups )
-The experimenter and child enter the observation room
-The child is shown how to make potato prints ans sticker pictures
-The model sat in the same room with toys like ( a mallet, 5ft bobo doll and tinker toy set )
-The experimenter remained in the room and sat at their desk

2. Stage 1 ( aggressive condition )

-The model assambled the tinker toys for 1 minute
-After the model started attacking the bobo doll; they made comments e.g. „kick him“ & „He
sure is a though fella“

3. Stage 1 ( non.aggressive condition )

-The model assembled the tinker toys for 10 minutes

4. Stage 2 ( all ppts )

-All ppts were annoyed – they were taken to a room full of attractive toys and told they can
play with them, after 2 minutes they were told trhat the toys were reserved for other children
( to ensure ppts in the non-aggressiona nd control group are likely to show aggression )

5. Stage 3 ( all ppts )

-The child was taken to the experimental room with aggressive toys ( bobo doll, mallet, dart
guns, … ) and non-aggressive toys ( tea set, crayons, cars and trucks, dolls, farm animals,..)
Operationalisation of DV:
Imitation (behaviours copied from the model)
• Imitative physical aggression (hitting with a mallet, sitting on the doll and punching
it’s nose, kicking it, tossing it in the air)
• Imitative verbal aggression (‘sock him’, hit him down’ ‘kick him’ ‘throw him in the
air’, ‘pow’)
• Imitative nonaggressive verbal responses (‘he keeps coming back for more’, ‘he sure
is a tough fella’
Partially imitative aggressive behaviour (behaviours copied incompletely)
• Mallet aggression – striking objects other than the bobo doll with the mallet
• Sitting on bobo doll – without attacking it
Aggressive gun play
• Shooting darts or aiming a gun and firing imaginary shots at objects across the room
Non-imitative physical and verbal aggression
• Physically aggressive acts not demonstrated by the model
• Hostile remarks not copied from the model
Non-aggressive play
Not playing at al

Findings
Quantitative Results
Overall findings about social learining
1. Children in the aggressive condition showed significantly more imitation of physical
and verbal aggressive behaviour, than children in the non-aggressive or control
conditions. E.g. boys, male model aggressive condition was 25.8 compared to control
2.0, non-aggressive 1.5 for imitative physical aggression

2. Children in the aggressive condition showed more partial imitation and non-imitative
physical and verbal aggression than those in the non-aggressive or control conditions.

3. Children in the non-aggressive condition showed very little aggression, although

results were not always significantly less than the control group.

Overall findings about differences between males and females

4. Boys were more likely to copy aggression than girls

5. Differences between males and females were seen in non-aggressive play. Girls
played more with dolls, tea-sets and colouring and boys engaged in more exploratory
play and gun play.

6. There were no sex differences in play with farm animals, cars or a tether ball.

Overall findings about the affect of sex of the model

7. Boys imitated male models more than girls for physical and verbal aggression, non-
imitative aggression and gun play . E.g. In the aggressive condition for the male
model, boys' imitative physical aggression was 25.8 compared to girls 7.2. In the
aggressive condition for the male model, boys imitative verbal aggression was 12.7
compared to girls 2.0.

8. The behaviour of the male model exerted greater influence than the female model.
E.g. For mallet aggression, for males who saw the male model, it was 28.8 as
compared to males who saw the female model which was 15.5
Qualitative results
-Some comments were made based on previous knowladge of sexs-typed behaviour:

1. Comments about female models were disaproving e.g. „Thats not how a lady should
behave“
2. Comments about male models were approving the behaviour e.g. „Al is a good
socker, I want to sock like Al“

Conclusions
-The results suggest that:
• Observed aggressive behaviours are imitated: children who see aggressive models are
more likely to be more aggressive than those seeing a non-aggressive model or no
model.
• Observed non-aggressive behaviours are imitated: children seeing non-aggressive
models will be less aggressive than those seeing no model.
• Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model, although this may depend on the
extend to which the behaviour is sex-typed.
• Boys are more likely to copy aggression than girls.

Evaluation (strengths and weaknesses)

Strengths
-Control of confounding variables – lab experiment

-High validity=> the differences between children behaviour was due to the model because
they saw the model for the same time in each condition and the procedure was standardised,
pre-testing of children aggressiveness, no demand characteristics because the children didn’t
know they were being watched

-High reliability=> children saw the model for the same time and their behaviour was
standardised

-Standardisation: all children saw the model for the same amount of time and their behaviour
was the same in each condition every time

-Inter -observer reliability was high

Weaknesses
-Low validity=> Small and not representable sample – same school