Bandura et al

• 1. Imitation Influenced by the Sex of the Model – The study aimed to investigate how the sex of the model affects the imitation of behavior. Specifically, it examined whether boys would show more aggression than girls following exposure to a male model, especially in behaviors considered highly masculine-typed.
• 1. Effect of Nonaggressive Models on Subjects – Another aim was to observe the impact of nonaggressive models on the subjects. The study hypothesized that subjects who observed nonaggressive models, particularly subdued male models, would exhibit less aggressive behavior than their controls.
• The subjects were 72 children (36 boys and 36 girls) enrolled in the Stanford University Nursery School, aged between 37 to 69 months, with a mean age of 52 months​​​​.
• • Division of Groups – Subjects were divided into eight experimental groups of six subjects each and a control group consisting of 24 subjects.
• • Exposure to Models – Half the experimental subjects were exposed to aggressive models, and the other half to nonaggressive models.
• • Model’s Role – Two adults, a male and a female, served in the roles of models.
• • Same-Sex vs. Opposite-Sex Models – The study hypothesized that subjects would imitate the behavior of a same-sex model to a greater degree than a model of the opposite sex, with boys more predisposed than girls toward imitating aggression, especially when exposed to the male aggressive model​​​​.
• • Observation of Model’s Behaviour: Children were individually exposed to either aggressive or nonaggressive adult models.
• • Measurement of Imitative Behaviour: Children’s behaviors were observed and recorded following exposure to these models to assess the extent of imitative aggression.
• • Data were collected through observational methods, where the children’s behaviors post-exposure to the models were monitored and recorded.
• • Manipulated Variables: The presence of aggressive versus nonaggressive models and the sex of the models.
• • Measured Variables: The level of imitative aggression displayed by the children after exposure to the models.
• • Children were brought individually to the experimental room.
  • The child was seated at a table with activities (potato prints and picture stickers) to occupy them.
  • The model was placed in the opposite corner of the room with a small table, chair, a tinker toy set, a mallet, and a 5-foot inflated Bobo doll.
  • In the nonaggressive condition, the model quietly played with the tinker toys, ignoring the Bobo doll. In the aggressive condition, after a minute, the model began displaying aggressive behaviors towards the Bobo doll​​.
• • The room contained a mix of toys that could be used for imitative or nonimitative aggression and toys that were predominantly nonaggressive. Aggressive toys included a Bobo doll, a mallet, pegboard, dart guns, and a tether ball with a face. Nonaggressive toys included a tea set, crayons, coloring paper, a ball, dolls, bears, cars, trucks, and plastic farm animals​​.
• • Each child spent 20 minutes in the experimental room.
• • Their behavior was rated in terms of predetermined response categories by judges observing through a one-way mirror.
• • The session was divided into 5-second intervals, yielding a total of 240 response units for each subject​​.
• Complete Imitation of Models’ Behaviour – Subjects exposed to aggressive models showed significantly more physical and verbal aggressive behaviour resembling that of the models, compared to the nonaggressive and control groups, who exhibited virtually no imitative aggression​​.
• Physical and Verbal Imitative Aggression – The effect of treatment conditions was highly significant for both physical and verbal imitative aggression​​, with subjects exposed to aggressive models scoring significantly higher than those in the nonaggressive or control groups​​.
• Nonaggressive Verbal Responses – Approximately one-third of subjects in the aggressive condition also repeated the model’s nonaggressive verbal responses, a behaviour not observed in the nonaggressive or control groups​​.
• Partial Imitation and Nonimitative Aggression – There were significant differences in partial imitation, such as the use of a mallet aggressively towards objects other than the Bobo doll​​, and sitting on the Bobo doll​​. Nonimitative physical and verbal aggression was also significantly more prevalent in subjects exposed to aggressive models compared to nonaggressive ones​​.
• Influence of Sex of Model and Subjects on Imitation – Boys showed more imitative physical aggression than girls in the aggressive condition. Male subjects exposed to male models exhibited more physical and verbal imitative aggression than female subjects. Nonaggressive and control subjects showed differences based on the sex of the model, with male models having a greater influence​​.
• Nonaggressive Behaviour – Significant differences were observed in nonaggressive behaviours as well. Subjects in the nonaggressive condition engaged more in play with dolls and spent more time sitting quietly without engaging in play, compared to those in the aggressive condition​​.
• The study conclusively demonstrated that children could acquire and imitate aggressive behaviors through the process of observational learning. 
• The research provided strong evidence that exposure to aggressive models increased the likelihood of aggressive behaviors in children. These behaviors were not only imitations of the observed actions but also included generalizations of aggression to new settings and objects.
• lab experiment
• hypothesis :

  • children exposed to aggressive models will reproduce aggressive acts resembling these of the models
• hypothesis:

  • children exposed to non aggressive model will reproduce these acts
• hypothesis :

  • children will imitate behavior of same sex model to a greater degree than model of opposite sex
• hypothesis :

  • boys will be more predisposed than girls towards imitating aggression
• aim : the aim was to demonstrate that if children were passive witnesses to an aggressive display by an adult they would imitate the aggressive behavior when given the opportunity
• head teacher provided consent for children
• used opportunity sampling technique
• pps we’re divided into 3 groups of 24 pps. 2 groups of 24 as experimental where 1 group was exposed to aggressive model and the other was exposed to non aggressive model and 1 as control group who had no exposure to any model. the 2 experimental groups were further divided int to 2 groups each of 12 where one is exposed to a female model and the other is exposed to a male
• independent and matched pairs design
• prior to stage 1 :

  • nursery school teacher and experimenter match levels of aggression
  • four 5 point rating scale ( physical / verbal / aggression to inanimate objects / inhibition )
  • inter rather reliability of 0.84
  • assigned to 3 groups - triplets
• stickers were attractive multi colored pictures of animals, flowers and western figures to be pasted on a pastoral scene
• potato prints had a variety of geometrical forms
• model: punched , laid boho doll on its side, sat on it, picked up mallet and struck it, tossed it into air, kicked it
• model verbally aggressive said:

  • “ sock him in the nose”
  • ” hit him down “
  • “ throw him in the air ”
  • ”kick him “
  • “ pow “