Observational Learning in Children: Bandura’s Bobo Doll Study
Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment
Aim
To investigate whether a child would learn aggression by observing a model and whether they would reproduce this behavior in the absence of the model, and whether the sex of the model was important.
Participants
A laboratory experiment with matched pairs was used. The participants were 72 children aged 3-6 years (36 boys and 36 girls) from the Stanford University Nursery School.
Procedure
Participants were deliberately mildly annoyed by being shown a room to play with toys, where after 2 minutes they were told the best toys were being withheld from them for the other kids. The experimenter and the child then moved to an observation room, where they sat at a table and made potato prints and sticker pictures. On the opposite side of the room, there was a 5-foot Bobo doll (a deflatable clown), a Tinker Toy set, and a mallet (where the model sat). The experimenter remained in the room but appeared to be working quietly. The children in the model groups; half saw same-sex and the other half saw opposite-sex models.
Results
- Children exposed to aggressive models imitated the exact behavior and were significantly more aggressive.
- Boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression, and girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression.
- Boys were more likely to imitate the same-sex model.
- The mean for physical aggression in boys was 25.8 compared to 7.2 for girls.
- There were no gender differences with the farm animals, tetherball, cars, and trucks.
- Children in the non-aggressive condition played more with non-aggressive toys and sat quietly.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
- Laboratory experiment
- High internal validity and inter-rater reliability
Weaknesses:
- Demand characteristics (one-way mirror)
- Only 6 kids were used in each condition, making the sample small.
- Quantitative and qualitative data were collected, but the data is subjective (more self-reports should have been used).
- Ethical concerns: informed consent, withdrawal, and protection of participants (annoying them).
Saavedra & Silverman: Button Phobia
Aim
To examine the role of classical conditioning in relation to fear and avoidance of a particular stimulus. They wanted to see if using a type of exposure therapy could reduce disgust and distress associated with buttons (koumpounophobia).
This was a clinical case study, collected with self-reports. Results were measured with a 9-point scale of disgust called the “Feelings Thermometer”. The participant was a 9-year-old boy with a button phobia for 4 years.
Procedure
The boy was interviewed, and it was found that the phobia affected his ability to function adequately because of his inability to dress himself. On the 9-point scale, he rated plastic buttons an 8. The first treatment was contingency management (positive reinforcement), which resulted in less fear when handling buttons, plus reinforcement by his mother (20-30 minute sessions). The second form of treatment was imagery exposure, where he imagined buttons falling on him.
Results
Positive reinforcement therapy was successful, and imagery reduced the boy’s distress.
Pepperberg: Parrot Learning
Aim
To see if animals are able to understand the concept of different and the same through categorization.
Alex, an African Grey Parrot, was used in this study. Sessions lasted between 5 minutes and 1 hour, 2-4 times a week.
Procedure
Alex was shown objects that differed in shape, color, and material (e.g., a blue wooden box). He was asked what was similar and what was different. An independent observer was testing him while the primary trainer translated. Alex couldn’t see the experiment. If he got the answer incorrect, he received a timeout. If he got the answer correct, he received the object. There were two types of trials: familiar and novel.
Results
- Familiar: 76.6% correct
- Novel: 85% correct (due to motivation to discover new objects)
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
- Low demand characteristics (Alex didn’t know the people).
- Quantitative data
- Low ethical issues
Weaknesses:
- Low generalizability and ecological validity
- Fatigue effect