Albert Bandura Research Paper
ALBERT BANDURA
Albert Bandura was born December 4, 1925, in the small town of Mundare in northern Alberta, Canada;as the youngest & only son in a family of eight.
Bandura's introduction to academic psychology came about by a fluke;Bandura graduated in three years, in 1949, with a B.A. from the University of British Columbia, winning the Bolocan Award in psychology, and then moved to the then-epicenter of theoretical psychology, the University of Iowa, from where he obtained his M.A. in 1951 and Ph.D. in 1952. Arthur Benton was his academic adviser at Iowa, giving Bandura a direct academic descent from William James, while Clark Hull and Kenneth Spence were influential collaborators.While at Iowa, he met Virginia Varns, an instructor in the …show more content…
nursing school. They married and later had two daughters. It was there that he came under the influence of the behaviorist tradition and learning theory.
After earning his Ph.D., he was offered a position at Stanford University. Bandura accepted the offer and has continued to work at Stanford University in 1953, which he holds to this day. In 1974 the American Psychological Association elected him as president.
Over almost six decades, he has been responsible for groundbreaking contributions to many fields of psychology, including social cognitive theory, therapy and personality psychology, and was also influential in the transition between behaviorism and cognitive psychology.A 2002 survey ranked Bandura as the fourth most-frequently cited psychologist of all time, behind B.F. Skinner, Sigmund Freud, and Jean Piaget, and as the most cited living one. Bandura is widely described as the greatest living psychologists and as one of the most influential psychologists of all time.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action."
-Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory, 1977
The social learning theory proposed by Albert Bandura has become perhaps the most influential theory of learning and development. While rooted in many of the basic concepts of traditional learning theory, Bandura believed that direct reinforcement could not account for all types of learning.
His theory added a social element, arguing that people can learn new information and behaviors by watching other people. Known as observational learning (or modeling), this type of learning can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviors.
Behaviorism, with its emphasis on experimental methods, focuses on variables we can observe, measure, and manipulate, and avoids whatever is subjective, internal, and unavailable -- i.e. mental. In the experimental method, the standard procedure is to manipulate one variable, and then measure its effects on another. All this boils down to a theory of personality that says that one’s environment causes one’s behavior.
Bandura found this a bit too simplistic for the phenomena he was observing -- aggression in adolescents -- and so decided to add a little something to the formula: He suggested that environment causes behavior, true; but behavior causes environment as well. He labeled this concept reciprocal determinism: The world and a person’s behavior cause each other.
Later, he went a step further. He began to look at personality as an interaction among three “things:” the environment, behavior, and the person’s psychological processes. These psychological processes consist of our ability to entertain images in our minds, and language. At the point where he introduces imagery, in particular, he ceases to be a strict behaviorist, and begins to join the ranks of the cognitivists. In fact, he is often considered a “father” of the cognitivist movement.
Social learning theory posits that there are three regulatory systems that control behavior. First, the antecedent inducements greatly influence the time and response of behavior. The stimulus that occurs before the behavioral response must be appropriate in relationship to social context and performers. Second, response feedback influences also serve an important function. Following a response, the reinforcements, by experience or observation, will greatly impact the occurrence of the behavior in the future. Third, the importance of cognitive functions in social learning. For example, for aggressive behavior to occur some people become easily angered by the sight or thought of individuals with whom they have had hostile encounters, and this memory is acquired through the learning process.
AGGRESSION
During a period dominated by behaviorism in the mold of B.F. Skinner, Bandura believed the sole behavioral modifiers of reward and punishment in classical operant conditioning were inadequate as a framework, and that many human behaviors were learned from other humans. Bandura began to analyze means of treating unduly aggressive children by identifying sources of violence in their lives. Initial research in the area had begun in the 1940s under Neal Miller and John Dollard; his continued work in this line eventually culminated in the Bobo doll experiment-In 1961 Bandura conducted a controversial experiment known as the Bobo doll experiment, Bandura designed it to try and prove that children would copy an adult role model’s behavior. He wanted to show, by using aggressive and non-aggressive actors, that a child would tend to imitate and learn from the behavior of a trusted adult.
The Bobo doll is an inflatable toy about five feet tall, designed to spring back upright when knocked over.
Children were chosen as subjects for the study, because they have less social conditioning; they have also had less instruction and teaching of the rules of society than adult subjects.
HYPOTHESES AND PREDICTIONS
Bandura had a number of predictions about the outcomes of the Bobo Doll Experiment, fitting with his views on the theories of social learning.
Children witnessing an adult role model behaving in an overly aggressive manner would be likely to replicate similar behavior themselves, even if the adult was not present.
Subjects who had observed a non-aggressive adult would be the least likely to show violent tendencies, even if the adult was not present. They would be even less likely to exhibit this type of aggression than the control group of children, who had seen no role model at all.
Bandura believed that children would be much more likely to copy the behavior of a role model of the same sex. He wanted to show that it was much easier for a child to identify and interact with an adult of the same gender.
The final prediction was that male children would tend to be more aggressive than female children, because society has always tolerated and advocated violent behavior in men more than women.
SETTING UP THE EXPERIMENT
For the Bobo Doll Experiment, Bandura selected a number of children from the local Stanford Nursery School, varying in age from 3 to 6 years, with the average age being 4 years and 4 months.
To test the prediction that boys would be more prone to aggression than girls, he picked 36 subjects of each sex.
The control group, which would not see an adult role model at all, consisted of 24 children, 12 boys and 12 girls.
The second group, which would be exposed to an adult showing aggressive tendencies, was similarly made up of 24 children of either sex. Both of the resulting groups of 12 were further divided; half would be tested with a female role model, half with a male role model.
The third group was structured in exactly the same way as the second, the only difference being that they would be exposed to a passive adult.
For the Bobo Doll Experiment, it was necessary to pre-select and sort the children, to try and ensure that there was an even spread of personality types across the test groups; some subjects already known to be more aggressive in personality than others.
For this, one of the teachers from the nursery worked with the experimenter, to rate each child’s personality and attempt to construct well balanced groups.
It must also be noted that each subject was tested alone and individually, to ensure that the effects and reactions of their classmates would bear no influence on the final results or findings of the experiment.
The Bobo Doll Experiment proper began by placing one of the children from the test groups in a room with an adult. The subject sat in one corner of the room, with a few appealing toys to play with, such as potato prints and sticker activities.
The adult sat in the other corner of the room, with a few toys, as well as a Bobo doll and mallet. The child was not permitted to play or interact with these toys.
For the children in group two, after one minute of playing with the toys, the adult would begin to verbally and physically attack the doll for a period of 10 minutes.
For the third group tested, the adult would sit quietly and play peacefully with the toys for ten minutes.
The control group, of course, sat in the room for ten minutes with no adult present.
The next stage of the Bobo Doll Experiment was to take the subject into another room, which was filled with interesting toys. The child was not permitted to play with these toys, being told that they were reserved for other children to play with. This was intended to build up the levels of frustration within the subject.
The child was then taken into yet another room filled with interesting toys, some of an aggressive type, some non-aggressive; the room also contained the Bobo doll and the mallet. The subject was watched through a one-way mirror, and a number of types of behavior were assessed.
The first factor measured was physical aggression, consisting of hitting the doll with the mallet or punching, kicking or sitting on the doll.
Verbal aggression was also assessed, whether it was general abuse or an imitation of phrases used by the adult role-model.
The third measurement was the amount of times the mallet was used to display other forms of aggression than hitting the doll. The final behaviors studied were modes of aggression, shown by the subject, which were not direct imitations of the role-model’s behavior.
RESULTS
The results for the Bobo Doll Experiment showed, as expected by prediction one, that children who were exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to show imitative aggressive behavior themselves.
Prediction four was proved correct in that boys were nearly three times more likely to replicate physically violent behavior than girls.
The measurements for verbally aggressive behavior again showed that children exposed to aggressive role models were more likely to imitate this behavior. The levels of verbal aggression expressed were about the same for boys and girls.
Subjects in the Bobo Doll Experiment exposed to the non-aggressive model, or no model at all, showed little imitative aggressive behavior. This finding partially proved prediction two, with children exposed to a passive role model showing less imitative aggression.
However, the results did not fully prove this prediction, as there was no discernible difference in the imitative aggression levels between groups one and three.
Male subjects exposed to non-aggressive role models were less likely to use the mallet to hit the Bobo doll. Strangely, male subjects placed with non-aggressive female models were more likely to use the mallet than the control group.
CONCLUSION
The findings of the Bobo Doll Experiment proved to be a little inconclusive with most of the predictions not being fully proved.
It is not certain that children learn socially, but it is likely that children observing an adult model utilizing violence are more likely to believe that this type of behavior is normal. They may, therefore, be more likely to use this type of action themselves when confronted by similar situations.
Bandura found that girls were much less likely to be physically violent, but were equally as prone to verbal aggression as boys. This is something often encountered in society, where bullying at school, by boys, is more often of a physical nature; intimidation amongst girls tends to be more verbal and social.
There were a few criticisms of the experiment; the Bobo doll springs back upright when it is hit and there is a strong possibility that the children saw it as a game rather than anything else.
There was a follow up experiment, in 1963, which used the same methodology but showed the subjects violence via video; this had a much less defined response than the initial experiment.
Another refinement of the Bobo Doll Experiment, in 1965, tried to establish the effects of rewarding or punishing bad and violent behavior. Children, who witnessed the model being punished for aggressive behavior, were much less likely to follow suit. Interestingly, there was no change in aggression when the model was rewarded for bad behavior.
Critique
Scholars such as Ferguson (2010) [2] suggest the bo-bo doll studies are not studies of aggression at all, but rather that the children were motivated to imitate the adult in the belief the videos were instructions. In other words children were motivated by the desire to please adults rather than genuine aggression. Furthermore Ferguson has criticized the external validity of the study noting that bo-bo dolls are designed to be …show more content…
hit.
The experiment was also biased in several areas which weakened the internal validity:-
1. Selection bias
Bandura’s subjects were all from the nursery of Stanford University. During the 1960s, the opportunity of studying in a university, especially one as prestigious as Stanford was a privilege that only the upper-middle class whites had. Besides, the racial bias and economic status of the whites and blacks were still very vast at that time. Generally only the upper-middle class and rich whites were able to afford putting their children in a nursery. Thus, the subjects would turn out to be mostly white and of similar backgrounds.
2. Unclear history of subjects
The ethnicities of the subjects were never documented but Bandura and his colleagues made sweeping statements on their findings when explaining the aggression and violence trait among subgroups and lower socioeconomic communities.
3. Ambiguous temporal sequence
As the data of the “real life aggression and control group conditions came from their 1961 study”, parallel ongoing events including the mental maturation of the subjects could have been confused with the observations and results of the 1963 study.
Bar-on, Broughton, Buttross, Corrigan, et al. (2001) explained that the underdeveloped frontal lobe of children below the age of 8 causes them to be unable to separate reality from fantasy. As an example, children up to the age of 12 believe that there are monsters in their closet or under the bed. They are also sometimes unable to distinguish dreams from reality.
Furthermore, biological theorists argue that the social learning theory completely ignores individual’s biological state by ignoring the uniqueness of an individual’s DNA, brain development, and learning differences.
According to Worthman and Loftus (1992), Bandura’s study was unethical and morally wrong as the subjects were manipulated to respond in an aggressive manner. They also find it to be no surprise that long-term implications are apparent due to the methods imposed in this experiment as the subjects were taunted and were not allowed to play with the toys and thus incited agitation and dissatisfaction. Hence, they were trained to be aggressive
SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
By the mid-1980s, Bandura's research had taken a more holistic bent, and his analyses tended towards giving a more comprehensive overview of human cognition in the context of social learning. The theory he expanded from social learning theory soon became known as social cognitive theory.
Social cognitive theory stemmed out of work in the area of social learning theory proposed by N.E. Miller and J. Dollard in 1941. Their proposition posits that if one were motivated to learn a particular behavior, then that particular behavior would be learned through clear observations.
Social cognitive theory is a learning theory based on the ideas that people learn by watching what others do and will not do, these processes are central to understanding personality. While social cognitists agree that there is a fair amount of influence on development generated by learned behavior displayed in the environment in which one grows up, they believe that the individual person (and therefore cognition) is just as important in determining moral development.
People learn by observing others, with the environment, behavior, and cognition all as the chief factors in influencing development. These three factors are not static or independent; rather, they are all reciprocal.
Social cognitive theory is a learning theory based on the ideas that people learn by watching what others do and will not do, these processes are central to understanding personality. While social cognitists agree that there is a fair amount of influence on development generated by learned behavior displayed in the environment in which one grows up, they believe that the individual person (and therefore cognition) is just as important in determining moral development.
People learn by observing others, with the environment, behavior, and cognition all as the chief factors in influencing development. These three factors are not static or independent; rather, they are all reciprocal.
Morality
Social cognitive theory emphasizes a large difference between an individual's ability to be morally competent and morally performing. Moral competence involves having the ability to perform a moral behavior, whereas moral performance indicates actually following one's idea of moral behavior in a specific situation. Moral competencies include:what an individual is capable of ,what an individual knows etc.
As far as an individual's development is concerned, moral competence is the growth of cognitive-sensory processes; simply put, being aware of what is considered right and wrong. By comparison, moral performance is influenced by the possible rewards and incentives to act a certain way. For example, a person's moral competence might tell them that stealing is wrong and frowned upon by society; however, if the reward for stealing is a substantial sum, their moral performance might indicate a different line of thought. Therein lies the core of social cognitive theory.
Observation of models
Social cognitive theory revolves around the process of knowledge acquisition or learning directly correlated to the observation of models. The models can be those of an interpersonal imitation or media sources. Effective modeling teaches general rules and strategies for dealing with different situations
Identification, self-efficacy, and vicarious learning
Albert Bandura also stressed that the easiest way to display moral development would be via the consideration of multiple factors, be they social, cognitive, or environmental. The relationship between the aforementioned three factors provides even more insight into the complex concept that is morality. Further development in social cognitive theory posits that learning will most likely occur if there is a close identification between the observer and the model and if the observer also has a good deal of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs function as an important set of proximal determinants of human motivation, affect, and action which operate on action through motivational, cognitive, and affective intervening processes.Identification allows the observer to feel a one-to-one connection with the individual being imitated and will be more likely to achieve those imitations if the observer feels that they have the ability to follow through with the imitated action.The term identification as used by Social Learning Theory is similar to the Freudian term related to the Oedipus complex. For example, they both involve internalizing or adopting another person’s behavior. However, during the Oedipus complex the child can only identify with the same sex parent, whereas with Social Identity Theory the person (child or adult) can potentially identify with any other person.
Identification is different to imitation as it may involve a number of behaviors being adopted whereas imitation usually involves copying a single behavior
Self-efficacy has also be used to predict behavior in various health related situations such as weight loss, quitting smoking, and recovery from heart attack. In relation to exercise science, self-efficacy has produced some of the most consistent results revealing an increase in participation in exercise as self-efficacy increases.
Vicarious learning, or the process of learning from other people's behavior, is a central idea of social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. This idea asserts that individuals can witness observed behaviors of others and then reproduce the same actions. As a result of this, individuals refrain from making mistakes and can perform behaviors better if they see individuals complete them successfully.
Vicarious learning is a part of social modeling which is one of the four means to increase self-efficacy. Social modeling refers not just observing behavior but also receiving instruction and guidance of how to complete a behavior. The other three methods include, mastery experience, improving physical and emotional states and verbal persuasion. Mastery experience is a process in which the therapist or interventionist facilitates the success of an individual by achieving simple incremental goals. With the achievement of simple tasks, more complex objectives are introduced. The person essentially masters a behavior step by step. Improving physical and emotional states refers to ensuring a person is rested and relaxed prior to attempting a new behavior. The less relaxed, the less patient, the more likely the goal behavior will not be attained. Finally, verbal persuasion is providing encouragement for a person to complete a task or achieve a certain behavior.
Social cognitive theory is applied today in many different arenas. Mass media, public health, education, and marketing are just a very few.
For the most part, social cognitive theory remains the same for various cultures.
Since the concepts of moral behavior did not vary much between cultures (as crimes like murder, theft, and unwarranted violence are illegal in virtually every society), there is not much room for people to have different views on what is morally right or wrong. The main reason that social cognitive theory applies to all nations is because it does not say what is moral and immoral; it simply states that we can acknowledge these two concepts.
Discussion
Albert Bandura has had an enormous impact on personality theory and therapy. His straightforward, behaviorist-like style makes good sense to most people. His action-oriented, problem-solving approach likewise appeals to those who want to get things done, rather than philosophize about ids, archetypes, actualization, freedom, and all the many other mentalistic constructs personologists tend to dwell on.
Among academic psychologists, research is crucial, and behaviorism has been the preferred approach. Since the late 1960’s, behaviorism has given way to the “cognitive revolution,” of which Bandura is considered a part. Cognitive psychology retains the experimentally-oriented flavor of behaviorism, without artificially restraining the researcher to external behaviors, when the mental life of clients and subjects is so obviously
important.
This is a powerful movement, and the contributors include some of the most important people in psychology today: Julian Rotter, Walter Mischel, Michael Mahoney, and David Meichenbaum spring to my mind. Also involved are such theorists of therapy as Aaron Beck (cognitive therapy) and Albert Ellis (rational emotive therapy). The followers of George Kelly also find themselves in this camp.
CONTRIBUTIONS
1)Bandura's social learning theory has had important implication in the field of eduction. Today, both teachers and parents recognize the importance of modeling appropriate behaviors. Other classroom strategies such as encouraging children and building self-efficacy are also rooted in social learning theory.
2)Bee(1992) is that this kind of theory can easily handle inconsistencies in the child’s behaviour (reinforced at school, not at home = well-behaved at school, not at home). This view of behaviour is extremely optimistic: it suggests that given the right environment, any behaviour can be changed.
3) it gives an accurate picture of the way behaviours are learned.
4) The cognitive element of Bandura’s theory because it might offer a way to eventually integrate the learning theory and cognitive development approaches.
5)Bandura’s work is considered part of the cognitive revolution in psychology that began in the late 1960s. His theories have had tremendous impact on personality psychology, cognitive psychology, education and psychotherapy
LIMITATIONS
1)Too much emphasis placed on what happens to the child rather than what the child does with the information s/he has. Secondly, such theories do not take into account the actual development changes (physical and mental) that occur as the child matures.
2)Operational Criticism-Because of the complex structure of social cognitive theory, it is often difficult to implement in total. Thus, one often finds that only the most easily implemented aspects of the theory, such as self-efficacy, are actually institutionalized in practice
3)Environmental Criticism-Because social cognitive theory posits a dynamic interaction between the environment and the individual, it supposes that one is largely determined by one's situation and that changes in that situation will thus change behavior. However, it has been argued that for many people, behavior is much more consistent regardless of situation and that simple changes in environment do not always lead to changes in behavior.
4)Biological Criticism-It has been argued that because social cognitive theory places so much emphasis on cognitive abilities such as modeling and forming expectations, it ignores biological or hormonal determinants. Some psychologists argue that biological or hormonal processes can largely shape the way people reason and make decisions regardless of past experiences or cognition.
5)Innate Criticism-It has been argued that social cognitive theory ignores innate genetic differences and differences in learning ability. For instance, it has been argued that some people may be innately better at learning some skills than others. Additionally, some people with learning deficiencies may not be as good at observing and modeling behavior. Social cognitive theory has been criticized for ignoring these differences.
Albert Bandura was born December 4, 1925, in the small town of Mundare in northern Alberta, Canada;as the youngest & only son in a family of eight.
Bandura's introduction to academic psychology came about by a fluke;Bandura graduated in three years, in 1949, with a B.A. from the University of British Columbia, winning the Bolocan Award in psychology, and then moved to the then-epicenter of theoretical psychology, the University of Iowa, from where he obtained his M.A. in 1951 and Ph.D. in 1952. Arthur Benton was his academic adviser at Iowa, giving Bandura a direct academic descent from William James, while Clark Hull and Kenneth Spence were influential collaborators.While at Iowa, he met Virginia Varns, an instructor in the …show more content…
nursing school. They married and later had two daughters. It was there that he came under the influence of the behaviorist tradition and learning theory.
After earning his Ph.D., he was offered a position at Stanford University. Bandura accepted the offer and has continued to work at Stanford University in 1953, which he holds to this day. In 1974 the American Psychological Association elected him as president.
Over almost six decades, he has been responsible for groundbreaking contributions to many fields of psychology, including social cognitive theory, therapy and personality psychology, and was also influential in the transition between behaviorism and cognitive psychology.A 2002 survey ranked Bandura as the fourth most-frequently cited psychologist of all time, behind B.F. Skinner, Sigmund Freud, and Jean Piaget, and as the most cited living one. Bandura is widely described as the greatest living psychologists and as one of the most influential psychologists of all time.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action."
-Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory, 1977
The social learning theory proposed by Albert Bandura has become perhaps the most influential theory of learning and development. While rooted in many of the basic concepts of traditional learning theory, Bandura believed that direct reinforcement could not account for all types of learning.
His theory added a social element, arguing that people can learn new information and behaviors by watching other people. Known as observational learning (or modeling), this type of learning can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviors.
Behaviorism, with its emphasis on experimental methods, focuses on variables we can observe, measure, and manipulate, and avoids whatever is subjective, internal, and unavailable -- i.e. mental. In the experimental method, the standard procedure is to manipulate one variable, and then measure its effects on another. All this boils down to a theory of personality that says that one’s environment causes one’s behavior.
Bandura found this a bit too simplistic for the phenomena he was observing -- aggression in adolescents -- and so decided to add a little something to the formula: He suggested that environment causes behavior, true; but behavior causes environment as well. He labeled this concept reciprocal determinism: The world and a person’s behavior cause each other.
Later, he went a step further. He began to look at personality as an interaction among three “things:” the environment, behavior, and the person’s psychological processes. These psychological processes consist of our ability to entertain images in our minds, and language. At the point where he introduces imagery, in particular, he ceases to be a strict behaviorist, and begins to join the ranks of the cognitivists. In fact, he is often considered a “father” of the cognitivist movement.
Social learning theory posits that there are three regulatory systems that control behavior. First, the antecedent inducements greatly influence the time and response of behavior. The stimulus that occurs before the behavioral response must be appropriate in relationship to social context and performers. Second, response feedback influences also serve an important function. Following a response, the reinforcements, by experience or observation, will greatly impact the occurrence of the behavior in the future. Third, the importance of cognitive functions in social learning. For example, for aggressive behavior to occur some people become easily angered by the sight or thought of individuals with whom they have had hostile encounters, and this memory is acquired through the learning process.
AGGRESSION
During a period dominated by behaviorism in the mold of B.F. Skinner, Bandura believed the sole behavioral modifiers of reward and punishment in classical operant conditioning were inadequate as a framework, and that many human behaviors were learned from other humans. Bandura began to analyze means of treating unduly aggressive children by identifying sources of violence in their lives. Initial research in the area had begun in the 1940s under Neal Miller and John Dollard; his continued work in this line eventually culminated in the Bobo doll experiment-In 1961 Bandura conducted a controversial experiment known as the Bobo doll experiment, Bandura designed it to try and prove that children would copy an adult role model’s behavior. He wanted to show, by using aggressive and non-aggressive actors, that a child would tend to imitate and learn from the behavior of a trusted adult.
The Bobo doll is an inflatable toy about five feet tall, designed to spring back upright when knocked over.
Children were chosen as subjects for the study, because they have less social conditioning; they have also had less instruction and teaching of the rules of society than adult subjects.
HYPOTHESES AND PREDICTIONS
Bandura had a number of predictions about the outcomes of the Bobo Doll Experiment, fitting with his views on the theories of social learning.
Children witnessing an adult role model behaving in an overly aggressive manner would be likely to replicate similar behavior themselves, even if the adult was not present.
Subjects who had observed a non-aggressive adult would be the least likely to show violent tendencies, even if the adult was not present. They would be even less likely to exhibit this type of aggression than the control group of children, who had seen no role model at all.
Bandura believed that children would be much more likely to copy the behavior of a role model of the same sex. He wanted to show that it was much easier for a child to identify and interact with an adult of the same gender.
The final prediction was that male children would tend to be more aggressive than female children, because society has always tolerated and advocated violent behavior in men more than women.
SETTING UP THE EXPERIMENT
For the Bobo Doll Experiment, Bandura selected a number of children from the local Stanford Nursery School, varying in age from 3 to 6 years, with the average age being 4 years and 4 months.
To test the prediction that boys would be more prone to aggression than girls, he picked 36 subjects of each sex.
The control group, which would not see an adult role model at all, consisted of 24 children, 12 boys and 12 girls.
The second group, which would be exposed to an adult showing aggressive tendencies, was similarly made up of 24 children of either sex. Both of the resulting groups of 12 were further divided; half would be tested with a female role model, half with a male role model.
The third group was structured in exactly the same way as the second, the only difference being that they would be exposed to a passive adult.
For the Bobo Doll Experiment, it was necessary to pre-select and sort the children, to try and ensure that there was an even spread of personality types across the test groups; some subjects already known to be more aggressive in personality than others.
For this, one of the teachers from the nursery worked with the experimenter, to rate each child’s personality and attempt to construct well balanced groups.
It must also be noted that each subject was tested alone and individually, to ensure that the effects and reactions of their classmates would bear no influence on the final results or findings of the experiment.
The Bobo Doll Experiment proper began by placing one of the children from the test groups in a room with an adult. The subject sat in one corner of the room, with a few appealing toys to play with, such as potato prints and sticker activities.
The adult sat in the other corner of the room, with a few toys, as well as a Bobo doll and mallet. The child was not permitted to play or interact with these toys.
For the children in group two, after one minute of playing with the toys, the adult would begin to verbally and physically attack the doll for a period of 10 minutes.
For the third group tested, the adult would sit quietly and play peacefully with the toys for ten minutes.
The control group, of course, sat in the room for ten minutes with no adult present.
The next stage of the Bobo Doll Experiment was to take the subject into another room, which was filled with interesting toys. The child was not permitted to play with these toys, being told that they were reserved for other children to play with. This was intended to build up the levels of frustration within the subject.
The child was then taken into yet another room filled with interesting toys, some of an aggressive type, some non-aggressive; the room also contained the Bobo doll and the mallet. The subject was watched through a one-way mirror, and a number of types of behavior were assessed.
The first factor measured was physical aggression, consisting of hitting the doll with the mallet or punching, kicking or sitting on the doll.
Verbal aggression was also assessed, whether it was general abuse or an imitation of phrases used by the adult role-model.
The third measurement was the amount of times the mallet was used to display other forms of aggression than hitting the doll. The final behaviors studied were modes of aggression, shown by the subject, which were not direct imitations of the role-model’s behavior.
RESULTS
The results for the Bobo Doll Experiment showed, as expected by prediction one, that children who were exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to show imitative aggressive behavior themselves.
Prediction four was proved correct in that boys were nearly three times more likely to replicate physically violent behavior than girls.
The measurements for verbally aggressive behavior again showed that children exposed to aggressive role models were more likely to imitate this behavior. The levels of verbal aggression expressed were about the same for boys and girls.
Subjects in the Bobo Doll Experiment exposed to the non-aggressive model, or no model at all, showed little imitative aggressive behavior. This finding partially proved prediction two, with children exposed to a passive role model showing less imitative aggression.
However, the results did not fully prove this prediction, as there was no discernible difference in the imitative aggression levels between groups one and three.
Male subjects exposed to non-aggressive role models were less likely to use the mallet to hit the Bobo doll. Strangely, male subjects placed with non-aggressive female models were more likely to use the mallet than the control group.
CONCLUSION
The findings of the Bobo Doll Experiment proved to be a little inconclusive with most of the predictions not being fully proved.
It is not certain that children learn socially, but it is likely that children observing an adult model utilizing violence are more likely to believe that this type of behavior is normal. They may, therefore, be more likely to use this type of action themselves when confronted by similar situations.
Bandura found that girls were much less likely to be physically violent, but were equally as prone to verbal aggression as boys. This is something often encountered in society, where bullying at school, by boys, is more often of a physical nature; intimidation amongst girls tends to be more verbal and social.
There were a few criticisms of the experiment; the Bobo doll springs back upright when it is hit and there is a strong possibility that the children saw it as a game rather than anything else.
There was a follow up experiment, in 1963, which used the same methodology but showed the subjects violence via video; this had a much less defined response than the initial experiment.
Another refinement of the Bobo Doll Experiment, in 1965, tried to establish the effects of rewarding or punishing bad and violent behavior. Children, who witnessed the model being punished for aggressive behavior, were much less likely to follow suit. Interestingly, there was no change in aggression when the model was rewarded for bad behavior.
Critique
Scholars such as Ferguson (2010) [2] suggest the bo-bo doll studies are not studies of aggression at all, but rather that the children were motivated to imitate the adult in the belief the videos were instructions. In other words children were motivated by the desire to please adults rather than genuine aggression. Furthermore Ferguson has criticized the external validity of the study noting that bo-bo dolls are designed to be …show more content…
hit.
The experiment was also biased in several areas which weakened the internal validity:-
1. Selection bias
Bandura’s subjects were all from the nursery of Stanford University. During the 1960s, the opportunity of studying in a university, especially one as prestigious as Stanford was a privilege that only the upper-middle class whites had. Besides, the racial bias and economic status of the whites and blacks were still very vast at that time. Generally only the upper-middle class and rich whites were able to afford putting their children in a nursery. Thus, the subjects would turn out to be mostly white and of similar backgrounds.
2. Unclear history of subjects
The ethnicities of the subjects were never documented but Bandura and his colleagues made sweeping statements on their findings when explaining the aggression and violence trait among subgroups and lower socioeconomic communities.
3. Ambiguous temporal sequence
As the data of the “real life aggression and control group conditions came from their 1961 study”, parallel ongoing events including the mental maturation of the subjects could have been confused with the observations and results of the 1963 study.
Bar-on, Broughton, Buttross, Corrigan, et al. (2001) explained that the underdeveloped frontal lobe of children below the age of 8 causes them to be unable to separate reality from fantasy. As an example, children up to the age of 12 believe that there are monsters in their closet or under the bed. They are also sometimes unable to distinguish dreams from reality.
Furthermore, biological theorists argue that the social learning theory completely ignores individual’s biological state by ignoring the uniqueness of an individual’s DNA, brain development, and learning differences.
According to Worthman and Loftus (1992), Bandura’s study was unethical and morally wrong as the subjects were manipulated to respond in an aggressive manner. They also find it to be no surprise that long-term implications are apparent due to the methods imposed in this experiment as the subjects were taunted and were not allowed to play with the toys and thus incited agitation and dissatisfaction. Hence, they were trained to be aggressive
SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
By the mid-1980s, Bandura's research had taken a more holistic bent, and his analyses tended towards giving a more comprehensive overview of human cognition in the context of social learning. The theory he expanded from social learning theory soon became known as social cognitive theory.
Social cognitive theory stemmed out of work in the area of social learning theory proposed by N.E. Miller and J. Dollard in 1941. Their proposition posits that if one were motivated to learn a particular behavior, then that particular behavior would be learned through clear observations.
Social cognitive theory is a learning theory based on the ideas that people learn by watching what others do and will not do, these processes are central to understanding personality. While social cognitists agree that there is a fair amount of influence on development generated by learned behavior displayed in the environment in which one grows up, they believe that the individual person (and therefore cognition) is just as important in determining moral development.
People learn by observing others, with the environment, behavior, and cognition all as the chief factors in influencing development. These three factors are not static or independent; rather, they are all reciprocal.
Social cognitive theory is a learning theory based on the ideas that people learn by watching what others do and will not do, these processes are central to understanding personality. While social cognitists agree that there is a fair amount of influence on development generated by learned behavior displayed in the environment in which one grows up, they believe that the individual person (and therefore cognition) is just as important in determining moral development.
People learn by observing others, with the environment, behavior, and cognition all as the chief factors in influencing development. These three factors are not static or independent; rather, they are all reciprocal.
Morality
Social cognitive theory emphasizes a large difference between an individual's ability to be morally competent and morally performing. Moral competence involves having the ability to perform a moral behavior, whereas moral performance indicates actually following one's idea of moral behavior in a specific situation. Moral competencies include:what an individual is capable of ,what an individual knows etc.
As far as an individual's development is concerned, moral competence is the growth of cognitive-sensory processes; simply put, being aware of what is considered right and wrong. By comparison, moral performance is influenced by the possible rewards and incentives to act a certain way. For example, a person's moral competence might tell them that stealing is wrong and frowned upon by society; however, if the reward for stealing is a substantial sum, their moral performance might indicate a different line of thought. Therein lies the core of social cognitive theory.
Observation of models
Social cognitive theory revolves around the process of knowledge acquisition or learning directly correlated to the observation of models. The models can be those of an interpersonal imitation or media sources. Effective modeling teaches general rules and strategies for dealing with different situations
Identification, self-efficacy, and vicarious learning
Albert Bandura also stressed that the easiest way to display moral development would be via the consideration of multiple factors, be they social, cognitive, or environmental. The relationship between the aforementioned three factors provides even more insight into the complex concept that is morality. Further development in social cognitive theory posits that learning will most likely occur if there is a close identification between the observer and the model and if the observer also has a good deal of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs function as an important set of proximal determinants of human motivation, affect, and action which operate on action through motivational, cognitive, and affective intervening processes.Identification allows the observer to feel a one-to-one connection with the individual being imitated and will be more likely to achieve those imitations if the observer feels that they have the ability to follow through with the imitated action.The term identification as used by Social Learning Theory is similar to the Freudian term related to the Oedipus complex. For example, they both involve internalizing or adopting another person’s behavior. However, during the Oedipus complex the child can only identify with the same sex parent, whereas with Social Identity Theory the person (child or adult) can potentially identify with any other person.
Identification is different to imitation as it may involve a number of behaviors being adopted whereas imitation usually involves copying a single behavior
Self-efficacy has also be used to predict behavior in various health related situations such as weight loss, quitting smoking, and recovery from heart attack. In relation to exercise science, self-efficacy has produced some of the most consistent results revealing an increase in participation in exercise as self-efficacy increases.
Vicarious learning, or the process of learning from other people's behavior, is a central idea of social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. This idea asserts that individuals can witness observed behaviors of others and then reproduce the same actions. As a result of this, individuals refrain from making mistakes and can perform behaviors better if they see individuals complete them successfully.
Vicarious learning is a part of social modeling which is one of the four means to increase self-efficacy. Social modeling refers not just observing behavior but also receiving instruction and guidance of how to complete a behavior. The other three methods include, mastery experience, improving physical and emotional states and verbal persuasion. Mastery experience is a process in which the therapist or interventionist facilitates the success of an individual by achieving simple incremental goals. With the achievement of simple tasks, more complex objectives are introduced. The person essentially masters a behavior step by step. Improving physical and emotional states refers to ensuring a person is rested and relaxed prior to attempting a new behavior. The less relaxed, the less patient, the more likely the goal behavior will not be attained. Finally, verbal persuasion is providing encouragement for a person to complete a task or achieve a certain behavior.
Social cognitive theory is applied today in many different arenas. Mass media, public health, education, and marketing are just a very few.
For the most part, social cognitive theory remains the same for various cultures.
Since the concepts of moral behavior did not vary much between cultures (as crimes like murder, theft, and unwarranted violence are illegal in virtually every society), there is not much room for people to have different views on what is morally right or wrong. The main reason that social cognitive theory applies to all nations is because it does not say what is moral and immoral; it simply states that we can acknowledge these two concepts.
Discussion
Albert Bandura has had an enormous impact on personality theory and therapy. His straightforward, behaviorist-like style makes good sense to most people. His action-oriented, problem-solving approach likewise appeals to those who want to get things done, rather than philosophize about ids, archetypes, actualization, freedom, and all the many other mentalistic constructs personologists tend to dwell on.
Among academic psychologists, research is crucial, and behaviorism has been the preferred approach. Since the late 1960’s, behaviorism has given way to the “cognitive revolution,” of which Bandura is considered a part. Cognitive psychology retains the experimentally-oriented flavor of behaviorism, without artificially restraining the researcher to external behaviors, when the mental life of clients and subjects is so obviously
important.
This is a powerful movement, and the contributors include some of the most important people in psychology today: Julian Rotter, Walter Mischel, Michael Mahoney, and David Meichenbaum spring to my mind. Also involved are such theorists of therapy as Aaron Beck (cognitive therapy) and Albert Ellis (rational emotive therapy). The followers of George Kelly also find themselves in this camp.
CONTRIBUTIONS
1)Bandura's social learning theory has had important implication in the field of eduction. Today, both teachers and parents recognize the importance of modeling appropriate behaviors. Other classroom strategies such as encouraging children and building self-efficacy are also rooted in social learning theory.
2)Bee(1992) is that this kind of theory can easily handle inconsistencies in the child’s behaviour (reinforced at school, not at home = well-behaved at school, not at home). This view of behaviour is extremely optimistic: it suggests that given the right environment, any behaviour can be changed.
3) it gives an accurate picture of the way behaviours are learned.
4) The cognitive element of Bandura’s theory because it might offer a way to eventually integrate the learning theory and cognitive development approaches.
5)Bandura’s work is considered part of the cognitive revolution in psychology that began in the late 1960s. His theories have had tremendous impact on personality psychology, cognitive psychology, education and psychotherapy
LIMITATIONS
1)Too much emphasis placed on what happens to the child rather than what the child does with the information s/he has. Secondly, such theories do not take into account the actual development changes (physical and mental) that occur as the child matures.
2)Operational Criticism-Because of the complex structure of social cognitive theory, it is often difficult to implement in total. Thus, one often finds that only the most easily implemented aspects of the theory, such as self-efficacy, are actually institutionalized in practice
3)Environmental Criticism-Because social cognitive theory posits a dynamic interaction between the environment and the individual, it supposes that one is largely determined by one's situation and that changes in that situation will thus change behavior. However, it has been argued that for many people, behavior is much more consistent regardless of situation and that simple changes in environment do not always lead to changes in behavior.
4)Biological Criticism-It has been argued that because social cognitive theory places so much emphasis on cognitive abilities such as modeling and forming expectations, it ignores biological or hormonal determinants. Some psychologists argue that biological or hormonal processes can largely shape the way people reason and make decisions regardless of past experiences or cognition.
5)Innate Criticism-It has been argued that social cognitive theory ignores innate genetic differences and differences in learning ability. For instance, it has been argued that some people may be innately better at learning some skills than others. Additionally, some people with learning deficiencies may not be as good at observing and modeling behavior. Social cognitive theory has been criticized for ignoring these differences.