Bobo doll experiment

Bobo doll experiment

The Bobo doll experiment (or experiments) is the collective name for a series of experiments performed by psychologist Albert Bandura to test his social learning theory. Between 1961 and 1963, he studied the behavior of children after they watched an adult model act aggressively towards a Bobo doll. The most notable variation of the experiment measured the children's behavior after seeing the adult model rewarded, punished, or experience no consequence for physically abusing the Bobo doll.

The social learning theory proposes that people learn largely through observation, imitation, and modeling. It demonstrates that people learn not only by being rewarded or punished, but they can also learn from watching someone else being rewarded or punished. These studies have practical implications, such as providing evidence of how children can be influenced by watching violent media.

Experiment of 1961

Method

Diagram of a bobo doll

The participants in these experiments consisted of 72 children from the Stanford University nursery school between the ages of 37 months and 69 months. For the experiments, a third of the children were exposed to an aggressive model and another third were exposed to a non-aggressive model. The rest of the participants formed the control group.

For the experiment, each child was exposed to the scenario individually, so as not to be influenced or distracted by classmates. The first part of the experiment involved bringing a child and the adult model into a playroom. In the playroom, the child was seated in one corner filled with appealing activities such as stickers and stamps. The adult model was seated in another corner with a toy set, a mallet, and an inflatable Bobo doll. Before leaving the room, the experimenter explained to the child that the toys in the adult corner were only for the adult to play with.

During the aggressive model scenario, the adult would begin to play with the Bobo doll, then would start to show aggressive behavior towards the doll. Examples of this aggressive behavior include hitting or punching the Bobo doll and using the toy mallet to hit the Bobo doll in the face. The aggressive model would also verbally assault the Bobo doll yelling "Sock him," "Hit him down," "Kick him," "Throw him in the air," or "Pow". After a period of about 10 minutes, the experimenter came back into the room, dismissed the adult model, and took the child into another playroom. The non-aggressive adult model simply played with other toys for the entire 10-minute period. In this situation, the Bobo doll was completely ignored by the model, then the child was taken out of the room.

The next stage of the experiment was performed with the child and experimenter in another room filled with interesting toys such as trucks, dolls, and a spinning top. The child was invited to play with them. After 2 minutes of play time, the child was then told that they were no longer allowed to play with the toys because they were reserved for other children. This was done in order to build frustration. They were told they could instead play with the toys in the experimental room (the aggressive and non-aggressive toys). In the experimental room the child was allowed to play for 20 minutes while an experimenter evaluated the child's play.

The first measure recorded was based on physical aggression such as punching, kicking, sitting on the Bobo doll, hitting it with a mallet, and tossing it around the room. The second measure recorded was verbal aggression. The judges counted each time the children imitated the aggressive adult model and recorded their results. The third measure was the number of times the mallet was used to display other forms of aggression than hitting the doll. The final measure included modes of aggression shown by the child that were not direct imitation of the role-model's behavior.

Results

Bandura found that the children exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to pursue physically aggressive behavior than those who were not exposed to the aggressive model. The results concerning gender differences strongly satisfied Bandura's prediction that children are more influenced by same-sex models. Results also showed that boys exhibited more aggression when exposed to aggressive male models than aggressive female models. While the results for the girls show similar findings, they were less drastic.

Bandura also found that the children exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to act in verbally aggressive ways than those who were not exposed to the aggressive model. The number of imitative verbal aggressions exhibited by the boys was much more than by the girls. Additionally, the results indicated that the boys and girls who observed the non-aggressive model exhibited much less non-imitative aggression than those in the control group, which did not have a model. Lastly, the evidence demonstrates that males tend to be more aggressive than females. When all instances of aggression are tallied, males exhibited 270 aggressive instances compared to 128 aggressive instances exhibited by females.

Experiment of 1963: Live vs. Filmed Models

Introduction

For his 1963 study, Albert Bandura wanted to vary his original 1961 study by seeing if there were any differences in imitated aggressive behavior after witnessing a filmed or cartoon model compared to a live model. He also wished to see if children watching aggressive behavior from a filmed or cartoon model would experience a cathartic effect, or in other words if they would experience a release of aggressive emotions from seeing a model carrying out aggressive behaviors.

Method

For the experiment, 96 children, 48 girls and 48 boys, from the Stanford University nursery were divided into three groups. The first group watched a live model become aggressive towards a Bobo doll. The second group watched a movie version of the human model become aggressive to a Bobo doll, and the third group watched a cartoon version of a cat become aggressive towards a Bobo doll. Each child watched the aggressive acts individually to control for group biases. Data from the original 1961 study was used for the control group where children did not view a model. After being exposed to their respective models, all three groups of children were then placed individually in a room with an experimenter where they were exposed to a mildly frustrating situation to elicit aggression. Next the children were allowed to play freely in an adjoining room, which was full of toys, including the Bobo doll and the "weapons" that were used by the models. The researchers observed the children and noted any interaction with the Bobo doll.

Results

The results of the study show that compared to the control group, all three groups showed similar increases in aggressive behavior. From this, Bandura concluded that children will imitate aggressive behavior they witness from a model regardless of who or how it is presented. He also found that watching aggressive behavior does not cause a cathartic effect. The results of this study are of particular significance because of its contributions to the controversial topic of whether or not violent media can influence children to become more aggressive.

Experiment of 1965: Reinforcement and Punishment

Introduction

For his 1965 study, Albert Bandura wanted to see if children's learned behavior would be influenced by vicarious reinforcement, or the act of imitating a behavior observed in another person after witnessing that person be reinforced for said behavior.

Method

In the experiment, 66 children, 33 boys and 33 girls, were divided into one of three groups. The first group would witness a model display aggressive behaviors towards a Bobo doll followed by a researcher praising the model for his behavior and rewarding him with a candy. The second group would witness the same scripted scenario of aggressive behaviors, but the model was instead reprimanded for his actions and hit with a rolled wooden golf club. The third group served as the control group, and the model was neither rewarded nor punished after his displayed behavior. The children would watch individually to control for group biases. Afterwards, each child would be placed individually in a room structured similarly to the one they saw for 10 minutes, and experimenters would score children based on the number and variation of aggressive behaviors they acted. The experiment would be repeated a second time, and this time the children would be incentivized with various rewards including candy, juice, and stickers to mimic the behavior they just witnessed.

Results

The results of the study showed little difference between the reward group and the control group; however, the punishment group displayed much less aggressive behavior, especially for girls. In all three groups, personal incentives had a substantial effect in increasing aggressive behavior for both boys and girls. An analysis of the study shows that reinforcement and punishment do not influence learned aggressive behavior, only the outward expression of it.

Social Learning Theory

The findings of these experiments support the principles of social learning theory, proposed by Bandura. His research found that, behaviour is influenced by observing the behaviour of others and imitating it. Central to this theory is the idea that, the inclination to imitate behaviour increases with the presence of an admirable model. Models are a key component to the learning of new behaviours and achieving change across different institutions. Unlike behaviourism, in which learning is directly influenced by reinforcement and punishment, social learning theory suggests that watching others be rewarded and punished can indirectly influence behaviour. This is known as vicarious reinforcement. If a model receives validation for exhibiting certain behaviours, someone who looks up to the model will be more likely to imitate those behaviours in order to receive the same validation. The role of vicarious reinforcement is shown through the Bobo Doll Experiment, which demonstrates how children are easily influenced by the behaviour of adults. During the experiment, adults received praise for their aggressive behaviour and as a result, the likelihood of the children striking the doll increased. However, when adults were punished for behaving aggressively towards the doll, the children stopped striking the doll.

Criticisms

• Laboratory studies of imitation often have low ecological validity. In the Bobo doll experiment, the child and the model do not interact with each other, even in the in-person environment, and do not know each other. However, studies have also found the study to be well applied to workplace and institutional aggression, meaning the external validity is somewhat. For example, Bandura's conclusion that aggressive behavior is reinforced through condemnation, showcased how workplace bullying was amplified in contexts where it was not disapproved of. Therefore, although the experiment itself consists of novel situations, it nevertheless still helps understand the dynamics of real-world aggression such as institutional bullying. Consequently, this understanding can help tackle these daily problems by ensuring anti-social behavior is shown to be unacceptable in professional settings.
• When the Bobo Doll experiment was repeated in 1990, the findings showed that children who played with the Bobo Doll for the first time in their lives were up to five times more likely to imitate aggressive behavior compared to children who had been previously exposed to a Bobo Doll before. Upon analyzing this, researchers proposed that the sheer novelty of the Bobo Doll alone, could be a potential third variable that increases the probability that a child will imitate aggressive behavior
• The experiment is based upon the principles of social learning theory, which takes a reductionist approach to explaining aggressive behavior. By focusing solely on the influence of the environment, the theory eliminates the possibility of any biological or evolutionary drives that may underpin aggressive behavior.
• Some psychologists argue that the study would not be in line with modern ethics standards, including those of the APA, Stanford's own HRPP standards, and others. These arguments generally fall into four categories:
  • Informed Consent - since the participants were children, they were unable to give valid consent to take part in the study, although it is assumed that parents did provide consent on behalf of their children.
  • Long-term Wellbeing of the Participants - it may be argued that, by modeling aggressive behaviors, the participants may have learned to act in ways that might be detrimental to their long-term wellbeing
  • Right to Withdraw - there was no opportunity for the children to withdraw from the study
  • Right to a Debriefing - at no point were the participants provided with a debriefing in which the experimenter explained the study, or in particular, the reasoning for the aggression displayed by the adults.
• Bar-on et al. (2001) described the frontal lobe of children younger than the age of 8 as underdeveloped, which contributed to their being unable to separate reality from fantasy; for instance, children up to the age of 12 may believe that "monsters" live in their closets or under their beds. They are also sometimes unable to distinguish dreams from reality.
• An analysis of the 1961 study made note of the fact that children's imitations of aggressive behavior occur almost immediately after observing the model. Due to such a short period of time between observation and imitation, conclusions cannot be made regarding the long-term effects of exposure to violence.
• Furthermore, biological theorists argue that the social learning theory ignores a person's biological state by ignoring the uniqueness of an individual's DNA, brain development, and learning differences.

See also

• Behaviorism
• Developmental psychology
• Imitation
• Observational learning
• Role model
• Social learning theory

Further reading

• A. Bandura & R.H. Walters (1959). Adolescent Aggression, New York, New York, US:Ronald Press.
• A. Bandura, (1962) Social Learning through Imitation, Lincoln, Nebraska, US:University of Nebraska Press.
• Bandura, A., & Walters, R. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
• A. Bandura (1975) Social Learning & Personality Development, New York :Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• A. Bandura (1976) Social Learning Theory. New Jersey, US: Prentice-Hall.
• A. Bandura (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action.

References

• Anderson, Craig A.; Bushman, Brad J. (2001). "Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature" (PDF). Psychological Science. 12 (5): 353–359. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00366. JSTOR 40063648. PMID 11554666. S2CID 14987425. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 24, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
• Anderson, Craig A.; Dill, Karen E. (2000). "Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 (4): 772–790. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.772. PMID 10794380.
• Bandura, A. (1965). "Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1 (6): 589–595. doi:10.1037/h0022070. PMID 14300234. S2CID 13032768.
• Bandura, A.; Ross, D.; Ross, S. A. (1961). "Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 63 (3): 575–582. doi:10.1037/h0045925. PMID 13864605. S2CID 18361226.
• Bandura, A.; Ross, D.; Ross, S. A. (1963). "Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 66 (1): 3–11. doi:10.1037/h0048687. PMID 13966304.
• Bartholow, Bruce D.; Anderson, Craig A. (2002). "Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior: Potential Sex Differences". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 38 (3): 283–290. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1502. S2CID 145770973.
• Bar-on, M. E.; et al. (2001). "Media Violence: Report of the Committee on Public Education". Pediatrics. 108 (5): 1222–1226. doi:10.1542/peds.108.5.1222. PMID 11694708.
• Black, Stephen L.; Bevan, Susan (1992). "At the movies with Buss and Durkee: A natural experiment on film violence". Aggressive Behavior. 18 (1): 37–45. doi:10.1002/1098-2337(1992)18:1<37::aid-ab2480180105>3.0.co;2-3.
• Boeree, C. George (2006). "Personality Theories: Albert Bandura, 1925-present". Retrieved July 16, 2015. Personal website of Prof. emeritus C.G. Boeree, Shippensburg University.
• Ferguson, Christopher J. (2010). "Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can Violent Video Games Be a Force for Good?" (PDF). Review of General Psychology. 14 (2): 68–81. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.360.3176. doi:10.1037/a0018941. S2CID 3053432.
• Gauntlett, David (2005). Moving Experiences: Media Effects and Beyond (Volume 13 of Acamedia research monographs) (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press. ISBN 0861966554. Retrieved July 15, 2015.
• Hart, K.E.; Kritsonis, W.A. (2006). "Critical analysis of an original writing on social learning theory: Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models". National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal. 19 (3): 1–7. Note, per the CV of Prof. Kritsonis, Prairie View A&M University (see [1]), this journal is a forum for publishing mentored doctoral student research.
• Hock, Roger R. (2009). Forty Studies that Changed Psychology (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
• Isom, Margaret Delores (1998). "Albert Bandura: Social learning theory". Archived from the original on February 14, 2003. Retrieved July 16, 2015. Apparently from the discontinued website of Prof. M.D. Isom, formerly of the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, original dead link, [2].
• Loye, David; Gorney, Roderic; Steele, Gary (1977). "An Experimental Field Study". Journal of Communication. 27 (3): 206–216. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.tb02149.x.
• Murray, John P. (1995). "Children and Television Violence" (PDF). Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy. 4 (3): 7–14. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 16, 2015. Retrieved July 16, 2015. See also [3], both accessed 15 July 2015.
• Sharon, Tanya; Woolley, Jacqueline D. (2004). "Do monsters dream? Young children's understanding of the fantasy/reality distinction". British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 22 (2): 293–310. doi:10.1348/026151004323044627. S2CID 2504816.
• Stein, Aletha H.; Friedrich, Lynette Kohn (1972). "Television Content and Young Children's Behavior". In J. P. Murray, E. A. Rubinstein and G. A. Comstock, eds., Television and Social Behavior, Volume 2: Television and Social Learning (pp. 202–317). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
• Wortman, Camille B.; Loftus, Elizabeth F.; Weaver, Charles A. (1998). Psychology (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Yates, Bradford L. "Modeling Strategies for Prosocial Television: A Review". AEJMC Southeast Colloquium, Lexington, KY, USA March 4–6, 1999. Retrieved July 16, 2015. A paper presented by University of Florida doctoral student B.L. Yates to the Open Paper Competition of this regional Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication conference; faculty advisor unknown.

• McGloin, Farrar & Fishlock (2015). "Triple whammy! Violent games and violent controllers". Journal of Communication.