In order to demonstrate the importance of modelling in aggressive behaviour Bandura et al carried out a series of experiments involving children exposed to aggressive behaviour of an adult model towards a doll. His study of the ‘Bobo doll’ was to investigate aggressive behaviour through direct and vicarious behaviour. The procedure of the experiment was done by dividing 66 children in 3 groups with 3 different conditions:
Condition 1- aggressive model was neither rewarded or punished
Condition 2- aggressive model was rewarded by second adult
Condition 3- aggressive model was punished by a second adult
After watching the film, each child was watched playing with the doll. Bandura et al found that in condition 2 children behaved most aggressively whereas in condition 3 they behaved least aggressively.
The methodological problem with the study is that social learning theories rely heavily on experimental evidence such as this study. However, questions are raised about aggression towards human beings as Bobo dolls are toys and do not retaliate when hit. The study also contains ethical issues, as questions are raised as to whether children suffered future aggressive behaviour problems as it suggested that they were not debriefed or told what was ‘the right thing.’
Other investigations have cast a doubt on Bandura’s conclusion of children learning aggressive behaviour merely through a film, in one study nursery school children who behaved most violently towards the doll were also rated by their teachers and peers as being most violently generally (Johnston et al 1977).
A particular strength of the social learning theory is its ability to explain differences in levels of aggression in different cultures. ‘The cultural violence theory’ proposes that some cultures emphasise and model aggressive behaviour. For example the ‘Sunni’ Muslim group that display a violent event at a certain time of the year.
The social learning theory represents soft determinism. It assumes that social and environmental factors are important in determining behaviour. However, we also have cognitions that help us to choose between alternatives and allow for a degree of free will.
Zimbardo claims that deindividuation is behaviour which is based on primitive urges and does not conform to society’s norms. In his main study of ‘The Stanford Prison Experiment’ Zimbardo et al investigated how quickly people would adopt to the roles of a prison life. They found that when given roles of either a guard or prisoner, participants were able to quickly conform into them, although guards were found to humiliate and harass prisoners, resulting in prisoners becoming depressed and anxious- some had to be released early from the study.
The study is shown to have many issues with it starting from its deterministic view, giving participants lack of control. The lack of conformed consent resulted in the prisoners experiencing a lot of humiliation and distress. Harm was done to participants physically and psychologically. The lack of ecological validity means that the conditions may not correlate with real prison life. This study is seen to be similar to the Abu Gharib Prison study.
There is much evidence that deindividuation may sometimes produce prosocial behaviour rather than antisocial behaviour. According to the deindividuation perspective when we are submerged in a group, this undermines the influence of social norms. There has also been much evidence of deindividuation in football crowds. The stereotypical images of fans on the rampage suggest aggressive and antisocial behaviour.
Jyotsna Choudrie
