Bandura 1965

• What was the aim of Bandura's 1965 study?

  Vicarious reinforcement and punishment
• Children were less likely to imitate a role model they saw being punished
• Bandura manipulated whether the aggressive role model was rewarded, punished, or received no consequences.
• What was the naturally-varying IV in Bandura's study?

  Child's gender
• Match the design type with its description:

  Matched Pairs ↔️ Children matched on aggression

  Repeated Measures ↔️ Children in No Incentive and Positive Incentive conditions
• What types of aggressive actions did Bandura's observers record?

  Verbal, physical, mallet, gun-play
• The sample consisted of 66 children aged 3-5 recruited from Stanford University Nursery School
• In Bandura's study, the aggressive model ("Rocky") followed a scripted routine of behavior towards a Bobo Doll.
• Order the consequences for Rocky's behavior in the Reward, Punishment, and No Consequences conditions:

  1️⃣ Reward: Praised and given sweets

  2️⃣ Punishment: Called "bully" and hit

  3️⃣ No Consequences: Nothing happened
• What was the name of the condition where children were observed without any reward or incentive?

  No Incentive condition
• In the Positive Incentive condition, children were given juice and told they would receive more juice and sticker books if they imitated Rocky
• In the Model Punished condition, girls showed much less imitation than boys.
• What happened to the girls' imitation scores after they were given positive incentives?

  Increased significantly
• Bandura concluded that children were less likely to imitate role models they saw being punished
• Children who watched the model being punished showed they had learned the aggressive behavior when offered incentives.
• What cultural factor may explain why girls are more restrained by the threat of punishment?

  Cultural expectations
• Aims


  To see if consequences to the model would affect whether children imitated the models acts.
• PPs information


  33 boys and 33 girls at Stanford uni nursery school, 42-71 months.

  Randomly assigned.

  11 boys and 11 girls in each condition. A male model and a female model and female experimenter.
• What happened first?

  Children watched a film. Had an adult sized Bobo doll. Model presented mallet and verbal aggression aswell as kicking and the sequence was carried out twice.

  It was at the end that reward, punishment or no consequences part was introduced.
• Model rewarded condition


  Another adult came into the room with sweets and soft drinks and told the model he was a 'strong champion' - model clearly enjoyed them.
• Model punished condition


  Other person came in, shook a finger at model, called him a 'big bully'.

  Other adult hit model with rolled up newspaper.
• No consequences condition


  No added reinforcement at the end of the film
• After the film

  Children taken into different room & were watched and observed playing for 10 mins. They were then told that for every verbal or physical aggressive behaviour they reproduced they'd be given juice and sticker. Rewarded straightaway if there was an imitative response.
• Results


  Boys exhibited more overall aggression than girls.

  Girls were almost as aggressive as boys if offered a reward for their behaviour.

  Children who watched the aggressive model either being reinforced or experienced no consequences showed more aggressive behaviour than those who watched the aggressive behaviour being punished.
• Conclusions

  Children are more likely to imitate a model when they're rewarded for their behaviour.

  Children can learn from watching s model in a film.

  Behaviour doesn't have to be rewarded or punished to be imitated.
• Reliability


  Researchers found same high imitation of aggressive behaviour in males than females as previous experiment 1961

  
  

  Well-documented and standardised ie same video shown to children
• inter-rater reliability


  high level of inter rater reliability was found amongst judges
• generalisability


  limited as 42-71 months and culture of USA

  Children of this age have a particular development of ability to retain and imitate motor and verbal responses. Older or younger children may have different abilities therefore not representative
• ecological validity


  unfamilar semi-darkened room

  experimenter they had never met
• Sample


  Bandura's study consisted of 33 boys and 33 girls from Stanford Nursery School, Age range 42-71 months,

  Mean age 51 months, recruited from Stanford University Nursery School.
• Sample strength


  One strength of B is it has a high generalisability.

  
  

  How does the AO1 support this:

  The sample consists of an equal quantity of both 33 boys and girls as well as a wide range of ages from 42-71 months.

  
  

  
  

  Explain how this is a strength:

  Therefore, the study is not androcentric (33 of each) and representative of different age ranges (24-71), making the sample representative. This means results on how vicarious reinforcement of observed behaviour can be generalized to both girls and boys.
• Sample weakness


  However, there may be a low generalisability due to there being a small age range for the ppts involved

  
  

  
  

  How does the AO1 support this:

  The age range of the children is from 42-71 months, with a mean age of 51 months in total

  
  

  Explain how this is a weakness:

  This makes the sample less representative as it did not included older children and adolescents. Therefore, we are unable to generalise the findings on motivation to imitate behaviour due to vicarious reinforcement to all children.
• Procedure reliability


  The IV was the consequence of the filmed Model's aggression

  1) Aggressive filmed Model is rewarded

  2) Aggressive filmed Model is punished

  3) Aggressive filmed model has no consequences

  
  

  The DV was the behaviour observed after modelling.

  
  

  Stage One: Modelling Phase

  Experimental conditions were standardised for all the groups. The children were individually shown into a room containing toys and played with some potato prints and played in a corner for 10 minutes.

  
  

  Children watched a 10 minute film of an adult male showing aggressive behaviour to a bobo doll and saying aggressive comments.

  
  

  There were three experimental groups

  66 children (11 boys and 11 girls) in each group.

  1) Aggressive filmed model is rewarded with 7Up and sweets and told they are 'a strong champion'

  2) Aggressive filmed model is punished, hit with a rolled up newspaper and told they are a 'big bully'

  3) Aggressive filmed model has no consequences.

  
  

  Stage Two: 10 minute Observation Phase:

  Immediately after watching the video, the children were brought into a playroom containing a range of toys including an inflatable Bobo doll. E.g a wooden mallet and toy gun.

  As before, their behaviour was observed through a one-way mirror by the male model (covert observation). A second observer was present for half of the participants to determine inter rated reliability. They used time sampling so they wouldn't lose focus, they observed for 5 second intervals. They recorded imitative, partially and non-imitative aggression. They were also looking at behaviour with the mallet, the gun and any other aggression not related to the Bobo doll, mallet or gun.

  
  

  Imitative behaviours recorded-Sitting on Bobo doll and behaving aggressively or saying the verbally aggressive words.

  
  

  Stage 3 Positive incentive Condition.

  After the 10 minutes,
• Reliability strength


  State the Strength:

  Bandura's study is high in inter-rater reliability.

  
  

  How does the AO1 support this:

  Bandura's study has high inter-rater reliability as there were two people, a model and one experimenter, observing each child through a one-way mirror. They had a strong correlation coefficient between.

  
  

  
  

  Explain how this is a strength:

  This is a strength as it allows for their observations measurements to be compared to ensure they were consistent in what had been observed regarding the children's behaviour. This increases the reliability of the findings on imitation due to direct and vicarious reinforcement.
• Reliability weakness


  However, the ethics lowers the reliability.

  
  

  How does the AO1 support this:

  The observation was covert, which meant the participants did not know they were being observed. Therefore, the participants were not asked for consent and this means they cannot withdraw from the experiment.

  
  

  
  

  Explain how this is a weakness:

  This means ethical guidelines are not fully adhered to in the experiment, so the experiment on how aggressive behaviour can be observed through SLT cannot be replicated to test for consistency, which in turn lowers the reliability.
• Validity strength


  One strength of B research is that it is high in internal validity.

  
  

  How does the AO1 support this:

  For example, all the children were observed through a one way mirror in stage two - the ten minute observation phase. Where immediately after watching the video, the children were brought into a playroom containing a range of toys including an inflatable Bobo doll. E.g a wooden mallet and toy gun.

  
  

  Explain how this is a strength:

  This means that the children were unaware that they were being observed and therefore the presences of the researchers would not affect their behaviour. If they knew they that they were being watched their behaviour they may demonstrate social desirability bias and not behave aggressively. Meaning Bandura could conclude that the IV of the reward to the role model caused the DV the behaviour of the children because Bandura controlled for participant variables. This is a strength as it increases the internal validity of the findings on imitation of aggression due to vicarious and direct reinforcement.
• Validity weakness


  However, it could be argued that the internal validity is low in B study.

  
  

  How does the AO1 support this:

  This is because of the random allocation of the children to the three groups meaning that individual differences of aggression were not controlled for. This lowers the accuracy of the observed results.

  Explain how this is a weakness:

  Meaning that there may not have been an even allocation to each group in relation to aggression, consequently, one group may have been naturally more aggressive. Suggesting that individual differences may prevent Bandura from concluding the IV of the type of reward the role model received causing the DV of the aggression displayed by the children, making the results less accurate. This lowers the internal validity of the findings on how vicarious and direct reinforcement affect imitation of aggression.
• ARC


  Aims: To see whether children will copy an aggressive model shown in a film clip.

  To see whether the model being punished, rewarded or having no consequences for this behaviour affects the children's desire to imitate the aggressive behaviour.

  To see how many of the aggressive behaviours the child will imitate when given rewards.

  Results: If the model was rewarded the children imitated and showed more aggression than if the model is punished but direct reward for the child wipes out that difference.

  Conclusion. Children do learn through vicarious reinforcement.
• ARC strength


  A strength of Bandura '65 study is that the findings can be to the wider world and society, with a study from Andsager et al (2006) Found that 'identification with a character or example may increase the likelihood that audiences will model behaviour presented in an anti-alcohol message'. Consequently the principles of SLT can be used to provide a positive impact on promotional health campaigns, and indirectly help combat problem behaviours like alcoholism. This is a strength of application as it means we can discourage negative behaviour and promote positive behaviour by using role models to display the positive behaviour.
• ARC weakness


  However this can be used in a negative way to influence people into doing destructive acts. This is because children can be influenced to perform violent or destructive acts due to video games. This is negative for society because it encourages violent behavior meaning that society may become more dangerous.