Essay

• Generalisability strength of Bandura is the large sample size of 72 participants and the equal number of boys and girls reducing risks in anomalies and being representative of a wider range of boys and girls aged 3-6
• Generalisability weakness of Bandura is Cultural bias due to lack of cultural diversity in study done with only American students from Stanford University nursery California means that there is a weakness in generalisability as the study may not be representative of children from multiple cultures
• Strength is realisability of Bandura is due to the standardisation of the procedure with the same amount of time in each phase for each child, same scripted information and same toys eliminating risks in consistency and making the results more reliable 
• A weakness in reliability is that because of ethical issues informed by the British psychology society we would be unable to replicate it today which invalidates Bandura study due to lack of supporting research
• Banduras study has high environmental validity due to construction of a familiar playroom setting built in the laboratory, this setting would’ve increased the validity due to the elimination of the risk that the children would act abnormally in an unusual setting. By making the labs more familiar to the children they are more likely to feel more comfortable and act as they would in a real life situation 
• A weakness in validity was the use of the popular bobo doll toy in the study looking at imitative aggression, this is because the bobo doll was advertised as a doll meant to be punched and hit which invalidates Banduras result as it is not clear if the children imitated the aggressive modelling or the tv advertisement 
• A strength in the results is that the study was used to change social policy understanding how viewing aggressive impacted children and their development. Banduras findings on imitative aggression from model have been beneficially applicated in real life with restrictions on tv content before 9pm to reduce exposure of aggressive, inappropriate or negative models so it is less likely to be imitated by children,
• Bandura’s study had a very good level of experimental control and the researchers built in some clever design features. It is also a good example of a study with important policy implications, such as the effects of parental violence on children’s behaviour.  Like all laboratory experiments, however, Bandura et al’s study is artificial and may not generalise entirely to everyday life.

   
• A01 on sample size Banduras study consisted of 36 boys and 36 girls aged 3-6 from Stanford university nursery school in California 
• The experimental conditions were standardised for each group (24 in each). children were brought into room with toys, shown a table with potato prints, were allowed to play(10 minutes) children in aggressive watched aggressive model, non aggressive watched submissive model, children in control played no model. experimenter with new toys aggravated the children claimed new toys for other children (two minutes). experimenter left, children brought in room containing a more toys. experimenter watched through one sided mirror observing children’s behaviour if it was imitative, partially or not.
• a01 before validity: Banduras study took place at Stanford university where the experimenters constructed a controlled environment that was designed to be a familiar playroom setting for the children. The children were placed into groups of three and matched on aggression determined by observers in the child’s life.
• A01 results: Children exposed to aggressive models were observed to have strong imitative behaviour acting significantly more aggressively than children in control group and non aggressive group, it was also evident that boys were more likely to imitate same sex model than girls
• Social learning A01

  Bandura prosed social learning theory as a way of explaining learning through imitations. This includes both direct and indirect reinforcement. ARRM; attention, retention, reproduction and motivation through reinforcement 
• Vicarious reinforcement: when observed model has a consequence which rewards them, external or direct reinforcement: when individual carries out imitation and pleasant consequence follows like compliment or treat , intrinsic reinforcement; when individual rewards themself such as feeling satisfied or enjoying behaviour
• Strength of SLT Bandura supports SLT. Children payed attention to role model due to high status and older age
• Bandura 1965 children are more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour when there are motivations like rewards. Example of direct reinforcement improving validity of SLT theory.
• Real life application andsager et al 2006 found that identification with character or example may increase the likelihood that audience will model behaviour presented in anti alcoholism message. Can be positive to presenting good societal message 
• Weakness SLT Study that challenges SLT Kindler 2015 showed identical twins are more similar in their aggression than non identical. Suggests that aggression is genetically influenced not just environmentally 
• However generalisability weakness due to lack of cultral diversity, all children from one state means that study wouldn’t be representative of children from other cultures in different countries  
• Limitation in application as theory doesn’t explain all behaviour sop application may bot be relevant where biological explanations are better. SLT cannot explain all behaviour and may not be usefully applied to improve society 
• Supported by research done by skinners who created The Skinner box which was a box dispersing food pellets and electric shocks that essentially taught animals how to achieve a target behaviour like release food
• Supported research for use of partial reinforcement Lanthom and Dorsett 1978 who discovered that   Beaver trappers responded better to  variable-ratio pay schedule in which they received either a fee per beaver of $0 or $4 providing they correctly guessed the colour of a marble, compared with a fixed-ratio schedule of $1 per beaver.  
• A weakness to operant is classical conditioning done by Pavlov who conditioned a salivary response to a metronome this is refuting reserch as it suggest that learning can take place through association of two stimuli to another stimulus 
• Refuting research of little Albert as his continuing was fixed each time with the loud sound and white rat and Watson and rayner still achieved learning through classical conditioning providing a refuting explanation to operant conditioning 
• Types of reinforcement; variable: unpredictable, fixed: constant, ratio: after certain amount of behaviour is shown, interval: after a certain amount of time where behaviour has been shown
• future behaviour is determined by consequence of past behaviour, reinforcement (positive/negative), punishment (positive/negative)
• The probability of behaviour being repeated can be made more likely using reinforcement. Positive reinforcement involves presenting a pleasant consequence, (such as a reward). Negative reinforcement involves taking an unpleasant consequence away when the desired behavior is being displayed.  

  Punishment has the effect of decreasing the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated by using consequences. Positive punishment using consequences that are unpleasant and negative punishment involves removing something pleasant.