Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Bandura et al on Aggression - Coggle Diagram
Bandura et al on Aggression
Background
Behaviourist perspective
Suggests that we learn through conditions (reinforcement, punishments and association)
Social learning theory
Behaviourism suggests that people have to experience the consequence direct in order for it to have an impact on behaviour
SLT suggests that individuals can experience, the consequence indirectly through vicarious reinforcement
Bandura suggested that this happens through:
Observation of role models
Imitation of this behaviour
Aims
To investigate whether children will imitate aggression
Specifically, will they imitate specific acts of aggression and also behave in a generally more aggressive manner
To investigate if there are gender differences in imitated aggression
Whether ppts will be more likely to imitate same-sex models and whether boys will be more likely than girls to imitate aggressive behaviour
Method
Design
Lab experiment
IV 1 - Aggressive or non-aggressive role model
IV 2 - Gender of the model
IV 3 - Gender of the child
DV - Imitation of aggressive acts/behaviour observed in the playroom
Matched pairs design (matched in terms of pre existing levels of aggression)
Used observational techniques (like behaviour categories and time sampling)
Sample
Children selected from the nursery at Stanford University
Opportunity sampling technique
36 boys, 36 girls aged approximately 3-5 years old (mean age was 52 months/4.5 years)
Pre-existing aggressiveness (a possible EV) was controlled through matched pairs design
Aggressiveness ratings before the study were determined by an experimenter who knew the children well and one of the children's teachers
2 adult 'models' (1 male, 1 female), plus a female experimenter
Each child only took part in 1 condition: Aggressive model, non-aggressive model or control group
Materials/apparatus
Children and model played with various toys in a standardised play room
Included a Bobo doll
Inflatable clown doll, approx 5"0 high with a weighted bottom that makes the doll stand back up when knocked down
Procedure
Phase 1 - Modelling
The experimenter sat the child in a chair in one corner of the room and encouraged them to make a picture with stickers and stamps
Once the child was settled, the experimenter escorted the model to the opposite corner whetere there was a table, chair, small construction set, a mallet and a bobo doll
The experimenter then left the room
Children were placed in 3 conditions:
Experimental group 1
Observed an aggressive model who sat on the Bobo doll, punched it, kicked it, shouted as they did so, ect
The model initially spent the first minute playing quietly but then turned to the Bobo doll and spent the rest of the time being aggressive to it
Included:
Laying the bobo doll on its side and sitting on it
Picking the doll back up and hitting it on the head with the mallet
Throwing the doll in the air and kicking it around the room
Included standardised comments such as: "Hit him down", "pow!" and "he keeps coming back for more"
Experimental group 2
Observed a non-aggressive role model who played nicely and in the intended way with toys
The model assembled to construction toys in a subdued manner and ignored the Bobo doll
Control group
No model present while the children played
This group did not see any modelling
For all conditions, the experimenter returned to the room after 10 mins and told the child that it was time to go into another game room
Phase 2 - Aggression arousal
Before the testing, it was necessary to mildly provoke the children
This was partially because observing aggressive behaviour may reduce probability of behaving aggressively, making it less likely that those observing the aggressive model would behave aggressively
It was also done because the children who observed the non-aggressive model may feel inhibited from behaviour aggressively because of what they observed
To provoke the children, they were taken into another room with lots of fun, colourful and interesting toys
They were allows to play with all of the toys initially, but after 2 mins, the experimenter told them they had decided to reserve the fun toys for other children
They would then both move to another room
This intervention was presumed to make the children frustrayed which would make them more likely to be aggressive
Phase 3 - test for Delayed imitation
The 3rd room contained a variety of toys:
'Aggressive toys' that could be used to express aggression: Such as a mallet, dart gun, a ball with a face on it hung from the ceiling, and a 5 foot Bobo doll
'Non-aggressive toys' including a tea set, crayons and paper, a plain ball, dolls, cars and plastic animals
The toys were displayed in a fixed order for each session
The experimenter sat quietly in the corner for 2 mins white the child played quietly
The child was observed through a one-way mirror
A second observer was present for half of the pets and record his observations independently (establishing inter-rater reliability)
Observers did not know which condition the children had participaed in
Observers record what the child was doing every 5 seconds (giving 240 observations in total)
Responses were recorded in the following categories and provided an 'aggression score' for each child:
Imitative aggression responses
Physical: Any specific acts which were imitated
Verbal aggression: Any phrases imitated (like Pow!)
Partially initiative responses
Mallet aggression: Uses mallet on toys other than Bobo
Non-imitative aggression responses
Punches Bobo doll: strikes, slaps, pushes the doll
Non-imitative physical and verbal aggression: Aggressive acts directed at toys other than Bobo doll, saying hostile things not said by the model
Non-aggressive verbal responses
Saying 'he keeps coming back for more'
Imitating things said by the model
Results
Imitation of aggression
Complete imitation
Children who saw the aggressive model imitated many of the model's physical and verbal behaviours, both aggressive and non-aggressive behaviours
Children in the non-aggressive and control groups displayed very little aggressive behaviours
70% of the children shows 0 aggressive behaviours