UNIT 2:

LEARNING
APPROACH
CHAPTER 4
 THINK!
Jot down 3 things you have
“learned” in your life. Think
beyond subject matter in your
classes—things you have
learned in your life.
WHAT IS THE LEARNING APPROACH?
• Learning – a relatively permanent change in behavioral
potential which accompanies experience
1. Learning results in the acquisition of new responses (the
relatively permanent change)
2. May occur without new behaviors being demonstrated (the
behavioral potential)
3. The environment influences and provides opportunities for
learning (by providing experiences)
WHAT IS THE LEARNING APPROACH?
• Main Assumptions:
1. Each life begins as a “blank slate”:
experiences/interactions with the environment
shape our behavior & these changes are directly
observable.
2. We learn through the processes of operant
conditioning, classical conditioning, & social
learning, and these can be understood using the
stimulus-response model.
CLASSICAL CONDITIONING
OPERANT CONDITIONING
SOCIAL LEARNING (AKA OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING)
 APPLY!
Look back at the three things you wrote
down at the start of class. Try to identify
which of the three processes discussed
apply to each example you wrote down.
• Is learning inherently a good thing?
• Have you acquired any bad habits?
 CORE STUDY:

BANDURA ET AL.
(AGGRESSION)
PSYCHOLOGY BEING INVESTIGATED
• Social learning – the learning of a new behavior
that is observed in a role model and imitated
later in the absence of that model
• Model – a person who inspires/encourages
others to imitate positive or negative behaviors
• Aggression – behavior that is aimed at harming
others either physically or psychologically
PSYCHOLOGY BEING INVESTIGATED

• Learning from others requires:

1. Attention (limited distractions or the action
stands out)
2. Retention (you can remember the action)
3. Reproduction (physical ability and resources
available)
4. Motivation (rewards/punishment, similarity,
social uncertainty, etc.)
BACKGROUND
• Children are rewarded in different ways
for imitating adults
o Boys rewarded for appropriate “male”
behaviors and punished for inappropriate
ones
o Girls rewarded for appropriate “female”
behaviors and punished for inappropriate
ones
AIM
• Whether a child would learn aggression by
observing a model and would reproduce
this behavior in the absence of the model

• Whether the sex of the role model was

important
AIM
• Hypotheses:
1. Observed aggressive behavior will be imitated, so
children who see an aggressive role model will be more
aggressive than those seeing a non-aggressive model or
no model.
2. Observed non-aggressive behavior will be imitated, so
children seeing a non-aggressive model will be less
aggressive than those seeing no model.
3. Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model.
4. Boys will be more likely to copy aggression than girls.
METHODOLOGY
• Research Method: Laboratory experiment (environment
was controlled and NOT the normal place where the
children played)
• IVs:
o Model type (aggressive, non-aggressive, none)
o Model sex (same sex as child or different sex)
o Learner sex (boy or girl)
• DV: aggressive behavior displayed (measured through a
controlled observation)
METHODOLOGY
• Sampling technique: opportunity
• Sample: 72 children (36 boys & 36 girls) aged 3-6 years recruited
from Stanford University nursery school
• Design: independent measures (different children used in each
level of the IV)
• NOTE: Matching was used

• Group Allocation: 3 groups each with 24 children (12 boys & 12 girls)
o Experimental 1: aggressive model
o Experimental 2: non-aggressive model
o Control: no model
o Groups were further subdivided (total of 8 experimental and 2 control)
o See next slide
Subject No model Aggressive Model Non-Aggressive Model
s
(Control) Male Model Female Model Male Model Female Model

Boys 12 6 6 6 6
Girls 12 6 6 6 6
METHODOLOGY
• Control of Variables: reduce impact of varying levels
of participant aggressiveness
o Prior to experiment, children rated by experimenter &
teacher on physical aggression, verbal aggression,
aggression to inanimate objects, and aggression inhibition
(restraint)
o Ratings were compared (for inter-rater reliability) and
showed strong correlation (r=0.89)
o Children were matched in 3s and one of each placed into
each experimental subgroup (boys & girls)
PROCEDURE – SET UP
• A child and the model taken to an experimental
room
• Child seated in one corner with stickers and
potato prints
• Model seated in opposite corner with Tinkertoys,
a mallet, and a 5-foot Bobo doll
PROCEDURES – PHASE 1 (MODELING CONDITION)

• Non-aggressive group:
o Model played with Tinkertoys for 10 minutes
• Aggressive group:
o Model played with Tinkertoys for 1 minute…
o Then model started beating up Bobo doll in specific
ways that could be imitated for 9 minutes
• Lay it on its side, sit on and punch it, throw it in the air,
hit it with mallet, kick it
• Made aggressive comments (ex: Pow! Kick him!) and
non-aggressive comments (ex: He sure is a tough fella!)
PROCEDURES – PHASE 2 (AGGRESSION AROUSAL)

• Each child (including control group) was taken to the

next room and subjected to “mild aggression arousal”
• Told they could play with the “very attractive toys” in
the room, but after 2 minutes told they had to stop
because they were the “best toys” and needed to be
saved for other children to play with.
• Informed they could play with ANY toy in the next
room
PROCEDURES – PHASE 2 (AGGRESSION AROUSAL)

o WHY DID THEY DECIDE TO POTENTIALLY UPSET THE KIDS???

• Aggressive group: other studies have shown that watching
others acting aggressive often inhibits your aggressiveness
• Non-aggressive group: since they didn’t experience
aggression in Phase 1, Bandura wanted to give them a
reason to be aggressive
• Control group: to ensure equal treatment and opportunities
among participants (no special treatment only in regard to
the IVs)
PROCEDURES – PHASE 3 (TEST FOR DELAYED
IMITATION)
• Each child taken to a third room, featuring a one-way mirror
• Child was recorded for 20 minutes by 2 observers (on the
opposite side of the mirror), recording the child’s actions every 5
seconds (240 observations for each child)
• All children had the same toys available to play with
o Aggressive toys: 3ft Bobo doll, mallet and peg board, two
dart guns, tether ball with a face painted on
o Non-aggressive toys: tea set, crayons/coloring paper, ball, 2
dolls, 3 bears, cars/trucks, plastic farm animals
• Observers didn’t know which condition the children were in, only
if male/female model
PROCEDURES – PHASE 3 (TEST FOR DELAYED
IMITATION)
• Used a structured observation with behavioral categories:
o Imitation of aggressive model
• Physical aggression (striking with mallet, sitting on & punching,
kicking, etc.)
• Verbal aggression (“pow,” “kick it”)
• Non-aggressive speech (“he sure is a tough fella”)
o Partial imitation of aggressive model
• Ex: using the mallet on other toys, simply sitting on the Bobo
o Non-imitative physical/verbal aggression
• Ex: using the toy gun, physical aggression shown to other toys, verbal
aggression not included in imitation category
o Non-aggressive play/no play
The video clip below is not from this original study—it is from a
follow-up study, but demonstrates many of the same actions
Q u an
titat
Data iv e
RESULTS
Imitation of Model
• Children from the aggressive model group showed
significantly more imitation of the model’s physical & verbal
aggression and non-aggressive verbal responses
• Children from the aggressive model group showed more
partial imitation and non-imitative physical & verbal
aggression (but not to a significant degree)
• Children from the non-aggressive model group showed very
little aggression (but not always significantly less than the
control)
RESULTS
Imitation of Model
• In the non-aggressive group, the male model had a
significant inhibiting effect on the children
• Boys displayed significantly more imitative physical &
verbal aggression with the male model
• Girls displayed more verbal imitative & non-imitative
aggression with the female model (but not to a
significant degree)
RESULTS
Influence of Gender
• Boys were more likely to imitate a same-sex model; girls
were also more likely to imitate a same-sex model, but to a
lesser extent
• Boys showed much more imitative aggressive behavior
than girls
• Girls imitated less with a female model than a male model
• There were gender differences observed in non-aggressive
play
RESULTS Qualita
tive
Data
In addition to the observations, records of the remarks about the
aggressive models revealed differences between the actions of the
male/female models and between boys/girls (revealing prior knowledge of
sex-typed behaviors):
• The aggressive female model’s behavior was generally seen as disapproving
o “Who is that lady? That’s not the way for a lady to behave.”
o “You should have seen what that girl did in there. She was just acting like a man.
I never saw a girl act like that before.”
• The aggressive male model’s behavior was generally seen as appropriate
o “Al’s a good socker, he beat up Bobo. I want to sock like Al.”
o “That man is a strong fighter, he punched and punched and he could hit Bobo
right down to the floor and if Bobo got up he said ‘Punch your nose.’ He’s a good
fighter like Daddy.”
CONCLUSIONS
• All four hypotheses were supported:
1. Observed aggressive behaviors are imitated: children who see
aggressive models are likely to be more aggressive than those
seeing a non-aggressive model or no model.
2. Observed non-aggressive behaviors are imitated: children
seeing non-aggressive models will be less aggressive than
those seeing no model.
3. Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model, although
this may depend on the extent to which the behavior is sex-
typed.
4. Boys are more likely to copy aggression than girls.
STRENGTHS
• Using a laboratory experiment allowed for greater
control of extraneous variables
• Standardised procedures increased validity (differences
in results between conditions were due to differences
between models) and reliability (each child within a
condition experienced exactly the same exposure)
• Pre-screening participants for aggressiveness increased
validity by reducing the impact of participant variables
STRENGTHS
• One-way mirror reduced demand characteristics since
the children didn’t know they were being observed
• Observations were compared to check inter-rater
reliability, which was very high
• Quantitative data provided an objective record of the
number of imitative actions in each category
• Qualitative data (although limited and more subjective)
provided some explanation of why some behaviors
were copied more than others
WEAKNESSES
• A laboratory setting lowers ecological validity since it’s
not a realistic setting for aggressive behavior
• How often are children truly left alone while playing?
• Can you really generalise beating up a doll to beating up
a person?
• Bobo doll is SUPPOSED to be punched/hit/beat up
• No follow-up to determine if the acquired aggressive
behavior lasted (learning is relatively permanent)
WEAKNESSES
• Small sample size (only 6 children in each
experimental condition) make results less
generalisable
• Opportunity sample makes it possible the
children were quite similar (parents all worked
at Stanford University, likely well-educated)
ETHICAL ISSUES
• Children may have been distressed while watching the
aggressive acts
• Children may have been physically harmed by imitating
aggressive acts
• Children were intentionally annoyed by being told they could
not play with the “best” toys
• Children did not leave the study in the same psychological
state in which they entered
o Were any children more aggressive in the long-term due to this
study??