Bandura 1965

• To find out if a child would be more likely to imitate a role model they see being rewarded (vicarious punishment) and Less likely to imitate a role model they see being punished (vicarious punishment)
• He also wanted to see whether children would be more likely to imitate if they themselves were offered rewards
• To see if the consequences to the model would affect whether the children performed imitarive actsv
• To see if boys showed not just mure agression than girls but more imitarive agression
• 33 boys 33 girls
• 3 1/2 to 6 years
• 3 conditions

  . Model rewarded

  . Model punished

  . No consequences for the model
• 11 boys and 11 girls in each condition
• The children watched TV as they did in the cartoon condition in 1963 study. Again there was a bobo doll in the study
• The acts involved a mallet and verbal agression as well as kicking
• The acts still involved a mallet and verbal agression as well as kicking. It was at the end that the reward, punishment or no consequences part was introduced
• Bandura also studied a naturally varying iv whether the child was male or female
• The model(rocky) went through a scripted routine of aggressive behaviour towards the bobo doll
• In the model rewarded condition another adult came into the room with sweets and soft drinks and told the model he was strong champion with superb agressive performance. The model consumed sweets clearly enjoying them
• In the model punished condition the experimenter called rocky a big bully and shook a finger at the model. The other adult hit the child with a rolled up newspaper
• In the no consequences condition there was no added reinforcement at end of the film
• Immediately after watching television the children were taken into a different room and were watched playing.
• Observation lasted 10 minutes with a behaviour recorded every 5 seconds. Again there were two observers and it was shown that there was inter-observer reliability
• Another part added to study. After 10 minutes the children were brought fruit juices and booklets of sticker pictures. The children had the juice and then were told that they would get A sticker picture and more juice for every verbally agressive of physically agressive acts they reproduced. The researchers were then asked tell me what he said and to show me what Rocky did .
• In the other part of the study if there was an imitative response the child was rewarded straight away. This was the positive incentive condition
• With a positive incentive the number of imitarive responses was higher in all conditions and higher for both boys and girls
• When there was no incentive the highest agression was shown by boys this was in the model rewarded condition and in the no consequences condition
• With no incentive for the boys the lowest mean imitarive acts were in the model punished confiyoon
• In all 3 conditions in the no incentive condition the boys showed more imitative acts
• The girls showed very low imitarive acts in the rewarded and no consequences condition
• For Both boys and girls it was when the model was punished in the no incentive condition that imitarive acts were lowest
• This does suggest that there is vicarious learning in the sense of learning not to do things that someone else is punished for
• The introduction of direct rewards for initiative acts did take away the difference in the model punished condition
• Bandura concludes that children will be less likely to imitate role models they see being punished. However the no consequences condition shoes that behaviour doesn't have to be punished or rewarded for it to be imitated
• Girls are more restrained by the threat of punishment (perhaps due to cultural expectations) but this effect lessens when they are offered positive incentive to imitate the behaviour. Again it shows that behaviour can be learned even when it isn't acted out
• Controlled experiment. Controls means cause and effect conclusions can be drawn. Scientific credibility because of controls. Bandura himself points to variables that weren't controlled for which might have affected the results this confirms careful analysis of the results and how he aims for scientific credibility
• Reliability not only because of the controls and Standardised procedures but because there were two observers and inter-observer reliability was found
• They were variables that weren't controlled for such as which of the acts had been previously observed and individual differences in each child coming from their previous experiences end perhaps their temparent too. Real life aspect wasn't clear if there is no validity then results aren't useful
• The possible lack of generalisability from the sample to the target population. Sample comes from a specific group of children whereas his sample comes from a specific group of children in the US in Stamford universitys nursery. Possible there are differences in his sample, such as particular bias from their culture of the children being used to nursery that leads them to not represent the target population