Bandura believed that aggressive behaviour could be learned through social interaction. He devised The Bobo Doll experiment (1961), which has been one of the most influential studies on observational learning. The participants (young children) watched an adult behave aggressively towards a bobo doll. The results of this study showed that children who observed the adult act aggressively imitated this behaviour, compared with children who had either seen no model or watched an adult who behaved in a non-aggressive way.
In 1965, Bandura carried out further research into aggression using the Bobo doll. His aim was to determine if whether punishment affected the child’s behaviour. He found that the children who saw the adult being rewarded, and the children who saw the adult be NEITHER REWARDED nor PUNISHED, all behaved more aggressively. The children, who observed the adult being punished, were least likely to behave in this way. Flanagan (2003) states, “Other findings and later variations found that imitation was even more likely if:
- The model was rewarded.
- The model had high status, for example, a favourite hero or heroine on TV
- The child identified with the model, for example, same sex.
- Live models were more effective than a film or a cartoon.
- The person had low self-esteem”
The overall findings of this experiment suggest that children can learn aggressive behaviour through direct observation of an adult model. These findings also show the conditions where participants are most likely to imitate and which type of models are most influential. However Bandura’s studies have been widely criticised. Joseph et al. (1977) believed that they were not a good example of aggression as it involved an inflatable doll and not an actual human being. Durkin’s (1995) views echo this point, “Where else in life does a 5 year-old find a powerful adult actually showing you how to knock hell out of a dummy and then giving you the opportunity to try it out yourself?” Bandura was criticised for failing to distinguish between play fighting and aggression. Also, the bobo doll was designed to be hit; this ‘experiment’ in a laboratory setting is very different from aggression in the real world, therefore lacks ecological validity.
Another important point to note is that the children who participated in this study were the children of Bandura’s colleague’s and student’s; therefore it was NOT a representative sample. Also, could ethics be a factor here??
Another aspect to consider is culture. If we believe that aggression is caused by social learning, then we would expect different societies and cultures to have a different take on aggression – depending on their social norms. Eysenck (2003), states, “Culture refers to groups of people who are bound by the same rules, morals and methods of interaction.” This basically means that members of particular society share the same behaviour and social norms.
Different societies have different views on aggression as shown in Margaret Mead’s (1935) classic studies of three New Guinea tribes. Briefly, the 3 tribes: -
1. The Mundugumor - Both men and women were very aggressive and quarrelsome.
2. The Arapesh - Both men and women were non-aggressive and were cooperative
of each other.
3. The Tchambuli - The men carve and painted, the women were relatively
aggressive.
These three tribes differed hugely on their reactions to aggression e.g. Mundugumor tribe were, at times, cannibals. The Arapesh tribe, would hide when they were invaded rather than to fight etc. Mead’s studies support the SLT as they show how aggression can be shaped by culture and may vary from society to society. This cross-cultural evidence does suggest that behaviour is learned and therefore aggression is learned through socialisation. “A cultural approach states that when, where, how and why aggression is expressed is influenced by culture and varies from culture to culture.” (Handout). The Arapesh tribe show how non-aggression can be learned, as in their culture, aggression is not admired (reinforced) or modelled by adults.
Indeed, in our own society our home environment can have a huge impact on learned behaviours. Our parents are probably the most important role models we will have in our life. We generally learn all aspects of our behaviour from them, how we cope with situations (including aggressive ones) usually depend on how our parents would have coped. Therefore we model our behaviour from them. Patterson et al’s (1989) researched involved looking at the factors in a child’s home environment that might be related to the development of aggression. A key feature of his studies was the ‘coercive home environment’. This is when affection is limited and family members use aggressive tactics such as, shouting, nagging, teasing, physical punishment etc to cope with various situations. The children in these kind of families displayed aggressive behaviour and were difficult to discipline, therefore suggesting they have modelled their parents behaviour. This research shows the importance role models play in the development of anti-social behaviour.
Another social psychological explanation of aggression is Deindividuation,. Deindividuation has been defined by Statt, (2003) as; “Losing a sense of personal identity that may occur, e.g., when in a crowd or wearing a mask.” Basically, what this means, is that you don’t feel constrained by social norms; people become less aware of themselves as individuals and can result in increased anti-social behaviour.
Zimbardo (1963) carried out a variation on Milgram’s obedience studies where female participants delivered shocks to a women. He used two groups of participants, one group wore bulky overalls and hoods, and they were never referred to by name and were in a dimly lit room. The second group wore their own clothes, name tags, were referred to by name and were in a brightly lit room. His results showed that the hooded participants delivered shocks twice as severe as those given by the other group. These results suggested that the hooded group (the deindividuated group) felt anonymous and unrestrained.
Zimbardo carried out another study, his prison study. Participants were grouped as ‘prisoners’ and ‘prison guards’. The ‘prisoners’ were deindividuated as they wore uniforms, stockings on their heads and answered to ‘numbers’ rather than their names. The guards were also deindividuated as they too wore uniforms and reflective sunglasses. The results of this study suggested that deindividuation demonstrated higher levels of conformity rather than aggression as both ‘prisoner’ and ‘guards’ conformed to their roles. This study sparked a lot of criticism: -
- Ethical Issues – This study was extremely distressing. The ‘prisoners’ were treated poorly, and this caused them severe emotional upset.
- Artificial Setting – Wasn’t a real prison but a basement in the university
- Role playing – The ‘guards’ later admitted that they were influenced by the film ‘Cool Hand Luke’
Further evidence of deindividuation comes from Mann (1981). He found evidence of deindividuation in his studies on ‘the baiting crowds’. This occurred as potential suicide victims were ‘baited’ by crowds to ‘jump’. Where the anonymity of the crowd had increased (i.e. large numbers, darkness, distance from the victim etc), so did the baiting. These real-life studies also support the suggestion that deindividuation increases aggressive behaviour.
To evaluate deindividuation, this theory suggests that being a member of a large crowd can undermine the influence of social norms and so makes it more likely to behave anti-socially, as people tend to comply with ‘group norms’ rather than ‘social norms’. But it does not account for all aggression, only aggression that occurs when you feel anonymous i.e. part of a large crowd etc. Also being in a crowd does not always result in aggressive behaviour, for example in the audience of a pop concert etc. This suggests that this theory lacks consistency. Another point to consider is that being anonymously dressed i.e. nurses uniform, does not always lead to aggressive behaviour.
In conclusion, there are some similarities and differences between the Social Learning Theory and the Deindividuation Theory. The main difference being that with the SLT, aggression occurs as a result of imitation and observational learning. Whereas with the deindividuation theory, aggression occurs as a result of ‘Losing a sense of personal identity’ i.e. crowds etc. A similarity could be that these theories do not always result in aggression, e.g. SLT -imitation and observational learning does not always result in aggression as good behaviour can be observed, vicariously reinforced and internalised. Deindividuation can also result in pro-social behaviour, i.e. wearing a nurse’s uniform will result in very different behaviour compared to someone wearing a Ku Klux Klan uniform.
Both theories suggest you may comply with ‘group norms’ as opposed to what is normally sociably acceptable, i.e. the bobo doll – children observe and imitate others in a group. Deindividuation, does tend to lean more on ‘conformity’, as this theory suggests you ‘go-with-the-flow’ of the group/crowd etc.
Also, both of these theories can be applied universally. People will observe and learn behaviour which is sociably acceptable in their own society whether that behaviour is aggressive or non-aggressive. Most cultures observe and imitate their elders; most cultures will behave the way the rest of their society behaves. Aggression depends on what is sociably acceptable for each culture.
