developmental area

• background and aims (2 theories & aim)

  learnig theory

  social learning theory

  aims
• learning theory- behaviourist perspective suggests all behaviour is learnt through

  experience
• behaviourist explanations are called 'learning theory' and include:


  classical conditioning

  operant conditioning
• classical conditioning


  born with stimulus response links e.g. salivating when we smell food

  if a noise becomes associated with the likelihood of food, new stimulus response link
• operant conditioning 


  any action which produces positive consequences is likely to be repeated (positive reinforcement)

  any action which produces negative consequences is less likely to be repeated (negatice reinforcement)
• social learning theory


  behaviourists suggest rewards have to be experienced independently; bandura suggested learning can occur where rewards are experienced indirectly
• in social learning theory bandura suggested (1) (2)

  (1) people observe role models

  (2) people imitate their behaviour

  its called social learning because it involves observing other people directly
• previous research suggests children will imitate behaviour they observe, however...

  a test of imitive (social) learning is to see whether a child will generalise imitive response patterns to new settings when model is absent
• aims


  investigate whether children will imitate aggression
• aims- researchers also interested in


  gender differences- same sex models or whether boys are more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour as it is 'highly masculine activity'
• method- design


  laboratory experiment

  independent variabels = aggressive or non aggressive model, gender of model, gender of child

  dependent varibale = imitation of aggressive acts observed in playroom

  study also used matched pairs design- matched by aggressiveness

  observational techniques
• method- sample


  children from university nursery, standord, california

  oppourtunity sample

  36 boys

  36 girls

  mean age 4 1/2 (ages 3-5)

  agressiveness- extraneous variable- controlled by MPD

  2x adult models (M/F)

  female experimenter

  IMD- agressive/non agressive/control condition
• method- materials/aparatus


  various toys, most notably bobo doll
• what is bobo doll


  inflatable doll, 5ft, weighted bottom to bring up when knocked
• proceedue- name 3 phases


  phase 1: modelling

  phase 2: agression arousal

  phase 3: tested for delayed imitation
• phase 1: modelling


  (1) children played in experimental room, watching model play with toys inc, bobo (2) children placed in one of 3 groups (to match 3x IV):

  • experimental group 1; agressive model, sat on bobo, punched bobo, "pow" etc
  • experimental group 2; non agressive model
  • experimental group 3; no model whilst children played

  (3) children watched M/F model
• phase 1: modelling


  (1)children played in experimental room, watching model play with toys inc, bobo

  (2) children placed in one of 3 groups (to match 3x IV):

  • experimental group 1; agressive model, sat on bobo, punched bobo, "pow" etc
  • experimental group 2; non agressive model
  • experimental group 3; no model whilst children played

  (3) children watched M/F model
• phase 2: agression arousal


  (4) children taken to another room to play with attractive toys

  (5) play abruptly stopped to frustrate children
• phase 3: tested for delayed imitation


  (6) chidlren taken to third room where observed playing w toys, inc bobo

  (7) child observed through one-way mirror by male model, second observer present for half participants to dtermine inter-rater reliability

  (8) observations recorded 3x behavioural categories:

  • imitative agression, e.g. sitting on bobo or "pow" (actions of model)
  • partially imitative, e.g using mallet on toys instead bobo
  • non-imitative, e.g. squeezing bobo, saying hostile things not said by model
• results- 2 types


  imitation of agression

  gender effects
• results- imitation of agression

  (ag, nag, cg)


  (1) complete imitaton, children in (ag) imitated many physical and verbal behavious- aggressive and non aggressive

  (2) in contrast, (nag) and (cg) displayed v few aggressive behaviours (70% had 0)

  (3) partial imitation, differences for partial imitation in same direction as those for complete imitation

  (4) non imitative aggression, (ag) displayed more non-imitative behaviour than non agressive- difference was small, not significant

  (5) non agressive behaviour, children in (nag) spent more time playing non agressively with dolls than other groups
• results- gender effects


  (6) same sex imitation, some evidence of 'same sex effect' on boys- not girls

  (7) gender of model, M model had grater influence than F

  (8) gender of child, boys imitated more physical aggression than girls, no differences in veral agression
• conclusions


  study shows people will produce new behaviours they have observed (here, aggression or no aggression towards bobo) and behaviours are generalised to other situations

  study shows males are more likely to be modelled than females- possibly because of higher status
• research methods and techniques strengths- bandura et al


  study was a lab ex

  -manipulation of IV allowe dconclusions ab cause and effect- how watching behaviour only provides limited concusions in exp research

  -controlled conditions meant extraneous variables were reduced- more confidence in conclusions. if ex variables were not controlled, change in DV may be due to variables other than IV (this study children in (ag) may be more aggressive, if not for the rating scale)

  -MPD
• research methods and techniques weaknesses- bandura et al


  -childrens aggressiveness measured through rating by teacher (opinion) rather than subjective judgement ,', lacked accuracy

  -ratings however validated by second rater- an experimenter

  -cildren aware behaviour is studied causing demand characteristics- bobo may have invited children to be aggressive

  -observational techniques also used in study (to measure DV) may cause observer bias though steps taken to reduce (ob did not know cg)
• sampling method strengths- bandura et al


  -ps all children, allowing bandura to show how easily young imitate adult models

  -useful in understanding how videos affect young children

  -oppourtunity sample
• sampling bias weaknesses- bandura et al


  -children more impressionable than adults ,', more likely to be influenced by adult behaviour/behaviour of aggressive model

  -may be unreasonable to generalise results to explain models affects on adults, however, there is evidence adults are equally effected

  ^Phillips (1983) a week after a major boxing match, homocides increase, arguing viewers imitate behaviour and social learning is evident in adults
• ethnocentricism- bandura et al


  -ps from one middle class american nursey school ,', ethnic characteristics only apply to sample

  -e.g. middle class children less exposed in ecological v and were more affected by behaviour as result

  -children who live in less violent society that America, may be less likely to imitate anti-social behaviour ,', cannot assume results apply to children from different cultural groups
• type of data- quantitative data- bandura et al


  quantitative data collected because nu,ber of aggressive behaviours was counted

  easy to compare and analyse the two experimental groups and see that those exposed to aggressive model was more aggressive

  however, no explanation of why (cause and effect) imitation occured
• type of data- qualitative- bandura et al


  qualitative data was types of imitation recorded. showed that imitative acts occured in addition to generally being more aggressive. shows social learning leads to more than specific acts
• validity- bandura et al


  study showed behaviour towards doll- unrepresetnative of everyday low (low ecological validtiy- also in a lab setting) people argued, children may be more willing to hit doll than person- bandura showed video of woman hitting clown, children proceeded to hit w hammers, kick, punch clown (Boeree 2006)

  study also snapshot study, only shpws short term behaviour- aggression only short-lasting, reduces validity because results uncomparable to how behaviour lasts over period of time. modelling effects wear off
• ethical considerations- bandura


  -ps could not give informed consent, when older, some may wish had not participated. though parental consent regarded acceptable- subjective

  -intervention aimed to increase aggression could be ethically quesionable, ps should be protected from psychological harm

  -no attempt to reduce aggression after study- lab experiments died out 1980s due to increased aggressive behaviour in children

  -bevaiour observed covertly, did not know being watched playing at end of study- unethical to do so in public

  -ps should have been debriefed at end of study