This study shows how the level of exposure to aggression affects behaviour therefore supporting Social Learning Theory. However this experiment does not explain why children are motivated to perform the same behaviour when not exposed to the aggressive model.
Bandura and Walters (1963) carried out another experiment where children were divided into 3 groups each seeing a different ending to a film of an adult behaving aggressively towards a Bobo doll. ‘...the model pummels it on the head with a mallet, hurls it down, sits on it and punches it on the nose repeatedly, kick it across the room, flings it in the air, and bombards it with balls...’ (Bandura, 1973)
The 1st group, the model was rewarded for aggression. The 2nd group, the model was punished for aggression and in the 3rd group, children observed model but there were no consequences of model’s aggression. Afterwards, children were then placed into a room with the same Bobo doll. Children who saw model rewarded showed a high level of aggression. Children who saw model punished showed a low level of aggression. Children in group 3 produced behaviour that fell between these 2 levels of aggression.
This study showed that subsequent behaviour is based on selective reinforcement. Aggressive behaviour is encouraged by rewards and discouraged by punishment. This also showed that the filmed version of Bandura’s experiment is just as effective as the real-life model. However, it is unclear whether the children in group 2 showed low levels of aggression because the punishment prevented learning or whether the punishment prevented performance of the behaviour i.e. behaviour was learned but just not reproduced due to the observing of the punishment.
The above studies have limitations. Children were only being aggressive with a play doll therefore this does not reflect real-life situations with other people. Also these studies lack ecological validity because they were done in a laboratory, so findings cannot be generalised to other societies. Also, the children in the experiments did not evaluate their behaviour as being aggressive. When they were asked, many children said they were just ‘playing’.
Bandura (1965) repeated this study but only rewards were given when children performed model’s behaviour. “In this case all groups performed a similar number of imitative acts. This shows that it was punishment itself, and not learning, that affected performance.” (Cardwell & Flanagan, 2004: p.36.) Hence, observation may lead to learning but performance is related to many other factors. i.e. self efficacy.
Social influence also became a factor. If there were more children in the room, individuals are more likely to be aggressive to avoid social disapproval. Therefore this does not support the fact that behaviour is copied because it is seen, aggression may be a result of informational influence for fear of rejection from others.
Another factor might have been individual differences. Johnston et al (1977) found that nursery children who behaved most violently to the doll were generally seen as the most violent beforehand. This suggests that the model might not have influenced their behaviour and that it was the children’s aggressive traits that triggered the behaviour. However, Bandura did try to overcome this problem. Children were rated beforehand for aggressiveness and participants were matched to ensure groups had equal participant types.
As mentioned before, there are methodological problems with Bandura’s studies, they lack ecological validity because the Bobo doll is not a living person, the child cannot interact with the model and the exposure is brief and done in artificial conditions therefore findings cannot be generalised to all settings. Bandura tried to overcome this by showing children a video of a woman beating up a live clown. Afterwards children were exposed to the live clown and produced the same behaviour as shown on the video. This shows that children were aware of what they were doing as the person being hurt was ‘real’ and therefore were knowingly being aggressive and were not just ‘playing’.
Also, demand characteristics may have played a big part in affecting children’s behaviour. The videos in Bandura and Walters experiment will have allowed children to work out what was expected of them. This relates to the studies only reflecting short-term behaviour, many of the children reproduced the aggressive behaviour during the experiment but if the behaviour is a result of demand characteristics then the children may have learned the behaviour but are unlikely to imitate it weeks later because the children would be in a different context i.e. would no longer be in the laboratory with the model and the video.
This research by Bandura shows that there IS a difference between learning and actual performance. Children imitate behaviour under certain circumstances but always seem to learn it. Differences were apparent between Bandura and Walters study in 1963 and Bandura’s study in 1965 because only rewards were given to the children producing any type of behaviour. This shows inconsistency in research findings making it difficult to be able to draw conclusions. However, the differences between the 2 experiments show that children observing punishment has a larger effect on behaviour than if they see rewards suggesting that production of behaviour depends on how the observed behaviour is responded to by others.
It is found that children are more likely to replicate observed behaviour if model was rewarded, whether other adults approved, whether other children imitated the behaviour, and whether the observer can relate to the model. There are also other factors to account for the findings from Bandura’s experiments especially to do with the family backgrounds the children were from. Hollins and Howells found that children raised by aggressive parents were also likely to be aggressive themselves. This suggests that children have learned the aggression from their family home and repeated it in different social contexts i.e. took aggression out on the Bobo doll. This therefore supports Social Learning Theory. Furthermore, Patterson et al (1989) found that in homes where there was at least one aggressive child, the common factor was a home environment where physical punishment and shouting were often used. This would increase aggression in people as they have learned it from their family and evidently would repeat it in the outside world because that’s how they’ve been brought up. Similarly, if children in a family were brought up in a caring background where you look after one other then you would find that these children are the least aggressive in society.
Social Learning Theory has been largely supported by psychologists which has been shown through Bandura’s research. However his research was based solely on young children’s perception and learning of behaviour and doesn’t account for adults therefore findings cannot be generalised to all of society. Phillips (1986) investigated Social Learning Theory in adults and found that homicide rate in adults was higher following the broadcast of a boxing match suggesting that observing this aggressive behaviour led more people to inflict harm on others. This therefore shows that social learning is present in adults providing empirical support for Social Learning Theory.
Another strength is that Social Learning Theory accounts for a lack of consistency in aggressive behaviour. i.e. aggression in front of peers is different to behaviour shown around parents because behaviour is reinforced differently (context-dependent learning). Social Learning Theory also accounts for cultural differences in aggressive behaviour, i.e. individualistic cultures are more aggressive than collectivistic cultures because individuals learn from others how to look after themselves and how to survive.
However, Bandura was criticised on the grounds that the television programmes he used in his experiments were not representative of the programmes at the time therefore again lacks ecological validity. It is also highly unethical to manipulate child’s behaviour as they probably did not give informed consent even though parents allowed them to participate. Social Learning Theory has also been largely criticised by biological researchers. They argue that the theory completely ignores individual’s biological state. “they state that the social learning theory rejects the differences of individuals due to genetic, brain, and learning differences” (Jeffrey, 1985: p.238)
The effect of the media on aggression has also been widely researched. Aggression ideas shown by the media, influences people to observe, learn and imitate the behaviour. However, evidence for this is inconclusive. Media may simply be a contributing factor, all the other factors like family background and individual differences could account for peoples levels of aggression.
In conclusion, Social Learning Theory as an explanation of aggression ignores that aggression can be innate and the amount of arousal within the person at the time can affect behaviour largely. However, the theory is largely supported in psychology as is demonstrated through Bandura’s work with the Bobo dolls. “These experiments demonstrate conclusively that the acquisition and production of aggression is socially mediated.” (Cardwell and Flanagan, 2004: p.37).
References
Bandura, A. (1962). Social Learning through Imitation. University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, NE.
Bandura, 1973. cited on . Accessed on 1st November 2005. Website used for various information.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R.H. (1959). Adolescent Aggression. Ronald Press: New York.
Cardwell, M.C. and Flanagan, C.L. (2004). Psychology A2: The Complete Companion. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes pages 34-37.
Jeffery, C.R. (1990). Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Prentice Hall, NJ
. Accessed on 1st November 2005. Website used for various information.
A2 Booklet: Social psychology. Book given during A level psychology course, used for various information.
