Study

• Psych Being Investigated

  social learning in context of aggression

  -retain behavior observed, reproduce it leading to aggresive/non beh
• Background

  investigate whether social learning theory could be used to explain aggression

  -spec when child is no longer in presence of an ag model

  prev research showed child imitated beh model in presence of model
• Aim

  investigate whether a child would learn aggression by observing a model & would reproduce this behavior in absence of the model

  + whether the sex role of model impacted
• Hypothesis

  -observed ag beh will be imitated; children who see an ag model will be more ag than those seeing a non-ag model/no model

  
  

  -observed non-ag beh will be imitated; children who see a non-ag model will be less ag than those seeing no model

  
  

  -children more likely yo copy a same sex-model

  -boys more likely to copy aggression than girls
• Sample

  72 children aged 3-6 (36 boys/girls)

  -recruited from Stanford University nursery school

  observed by exp/teacher who knew them well

  -rated on 4 dif measures of: phys/verbal ag, ag to inanimate objects, ag inhibition (anxiety) on a 5 point scale

  24)12 boys/girls =control

  -rest divided equally by sex between ag/non-ag model groups betw same/op-sex models
• Research Method


  laboratory exp, matched participants

  design: independent measures (dif children used din each of levels IV)
• Conditions

  IV 3:

  model type: whether child saw an agressive model, non-ag, no model

  model sex: same sex as child/dif

  learner sex: whether child was boy/girl

  DV:

  behavior child displayed (controlled observation)
• Procedure

  Play area: table & chair make potato prints, sticker pictures (interesting

  -opposite corner: tinkertoy set, bobo doll

  rem in room, child not refuse to be alone/leave early

  
  

  Non-ag cond: model assembled tinkertoy 10 mins

  Ag cond: lasted only 1 minute, model attacked bobo doll

  -laid on side, sat on and punched in nose, picked up and hit on head with mallet, tossed up in air and kicked

  -seq perf 3 times over 9 mins w/ aggressive comments 2 non-ag

  
  

  -Model groups: half saw same sex, others saw model op sex

  control group: saw no model =no ag
• Procedure Test ag

  deliberately midly annoyed: watching ag may reduce prod of ag, ensure non-ag cond/control likely to exp ag (reduction tendency meas)

  
  

  20 mins, one way mirror

  -ag model: delayed imitation

  
  

  EXP room: 3 ft bobo dall, mallet, peg board, 2 dart guns, tether ball face painted hung

  -non ag toys: tea set, crayons, colour paper, ball, 2 dolls, 3 bears, cars, trucks, plastic farm animals
• Procedure Response

  obs 5 sec intervals 'rsp measures' of imitation; pos activities:

  -imitative phys ag: striking bobo doll w mallet, sitting on doll, punching in nose, kicking doll, tossing in air

  
  

  -imitative verbal ag: repetition phrases 'sock/hit him', 'pow'

  -imitative non-ag verbal response: 'he a tough fella'
• Procedure Partial

  PARTIALLY imitative aggression: (incompletely)

  -mallet aggression: striking obj other than bobo doll

  -sits on bobo doll: laying without attacking

  
  

  further cat:

  -aggressive gun play: shooting darts, aiming/firing imag shots obj

  -non-imitative phys/verb ag: ag acts towards other obj + other hostile remarks 'cut him'

  
  

  non-ag play: sitting quietly
• Results: Aggressive


  children exposed to ag models imitated exact beh, sign more ag phys/verbally than those non-ag model/control

  -1/3 ag cond copied models non-ag verbal rsp

  
  

  mean imit phys ag boys w male model: 25.8; girls 7.2

  -indic boys imitate phys ag of male model more than girls

  
  

  female model: girls imitated less (5.5) than male model (12.4)

  -girls imitated more verbal ag of same-sex model(13.7) than boy (4.3) but with male model only (2.0) and boys (12.7)

  
  

  -children more likely imitate same sex model than op (stronger in boys)
• Results: Non-Ag


  much less likely than ag/control to exhibit mallet aggression (more apparent in girls)

  
  

  differences in non-ag play:

  -girls played more w dolls, tea sets, color while boys engaged in more exploratory and gun play

  -no sex dif in play w farm animals, cars, tether ball

  
  

  both boy/girls seeing non-ag model engaged in more non-ag play w dolls than either of other groups

  -twice much time sitting quitely not playing

  
  

  sex typed beh: seen in society as more appropriate
• Conclusion

  observation/imitation can account for learning specific acts w/o reinforcement of either model or observer

  
  

  4 hyp supported:

  -ob ag beh imitated: children see ag models likely be more ag than those seeing non-ag/no model

  
  

  -ob non-ag beh imitated: children seeing non-ag models less aggressive than those seeing no model

  
  

  -children more likely copy same sex model, may depend to extent beh is sex-typed

  -boys are more likely to copy aggression than girls
• Strengths

  lab exp: control extraneous variables (pos in any cond to show ag)

  standardized: saw model same length of time

  -valid, ensure dif in results betw cond due to dif betw models

  -reliable child exp same exposer

  
  

  inter-observer reliability: checked for initial obs of aggressiveness and for data rec, being high

  
  

  matched pairs design: inc validity ensure dif betw cond due to models and not individual dif betw children in each group

  
  

  measure DV obs: 1 way mirror inc validity, behave naturally than dem char

  -divided into 5 sec, categories clearly defined: imp validity/reliability
• Weakness

  only 6 children used in each exp cond: low generalizability

  -although matched to reduce par variables, small sample

  
  

  -children similar: same nursery, university BIAS sample lower validity

  
  

  Quantitative(obj) + Qualitative(subj) data: could have included self-reports for emotions observing/reacting

  -help further explain dif in influence of sex-typing on imitation
• Ethics

  Violate guidelines of protecting par from phys/psych harm

  
  

  may been harmed by becoming more aggressive during research

  -could have phys injured themselves w toys given

  -delib annoyed in procedure on purp (psych distressing)