Evaluation

Theoretical Issues
The social learning theory explanation of aggression contrasts with:
1. Instinct theories, for example Freud's Catharsis(meaning that aggression is necessary and has to be released from time to time perhaps in a sublimated form such as sport) and Lorenz's evolutionary explanation. 2. Drive Theories, for example Dollard et al's frustration-aggression hypothesis.

Modelling can be either direct or vicarious. There are six regulatory mechanisms that are applicable to vicarious reinforcement (Bandura 1977):
1. 2. 3. 4. informative motivational emotional learning influenceability, which is affected by the Models response to reinforcement; whether the observer likes the reward or not. 5. Modification of Models status, high if rewarded, low if not. 6. Evaluation, unjust punishment will lessen the effect.

Subsequent Research
Bandura Ross and Ross (1963) had four-year-olds watch a film of Johnny and Rocky (adults). Johnny had attractive toys. In one condition Rocky aggresses and wins the toys and in the other condition Rocky aggresses and is beaten up by Johnny. Not surprisingly the children in the first condition, where Rocky is rewarded, imitate the aggression. Bandura (1965) had three conditions:
1. model rewarded 2. model punished 3. model neither rewarded nor punished

Children in condition two did not copy, but did copy when later on they were offered rewards. Therefore behaviour can be produced sometime after modelling and behaviour is learnt even when the model is seen to be punished. This experiment demonstrated vicarious reinforcement.

Our behaviour according to Bandura (1986) is itself regulating, that is self-governing the by self-evaluation. There are three stages of self regulation:
1. self observation 2. Judgemental process or personal standard, based on reactions of others and observation of respected Models 3. self response processes, satisfaction, pride upon reaching or exceeding one's personal standard or self dissatisfaction, self criticism, for not achieving one's personal standard.

Bandura and Kupers (1964) had children observe a model rewarding himself with sweets for either a high or low standard of playing bowling. Children adopted similar standards to the level of reward that they had observed.

Methodology
1. The films in later experiments were only three and half minutes long and lacked plots or justification for the violence portrayed. The experiment thus lacks ecological validity. 2. Children who had not seen a Bobo doll before were five times as likely to aggress towards it (Cumberbatch, 1995). Further, children said that they felt they were expected to perform aggressively towards the doll. The experiment suffered from demand characteristics, but having said that the specific nature of the imitative aggression and the generalised aggression to other toys would suggest that the modelling was effective. 3. Were there any long-term effects? Hicks (1965) found that 40% of the Model's acts could be reproduced six to 8 months after one showing of a film lasting under 10 minutes. 4. Aggression? Or just play? Would the child aggress towards another human? Support for this view comes from Johnson et al. (1977) who found that play aggression correlates with ratings of aggression by peers (0.76) and teachers (0.57). Note that this shows why it was important for Bandura to control for rated aggression. 5. The experiment was conducted in a permissive setting which was not ecologically valid.
The aim of Bandura's study was to demonstrate that if children were passive witnesses to an aggressive display by an adult they would imitate this aggressive behaviour when given the opportunity

CONCLUSIONS: The findings support Bandura's Social Learning Theory and show that not all behaviour is shaped by reward or punishment. The model were not reinforced for their behaviour and yet it was imitated. This supports the idea that children learn social behaviour such as aggression through the process of observation learning - through watching the behaviour of another person. Central to Social Learning Theory is the identification of which types of models are more likely to be imitated. In the study it was found that aggressive male models were more likely to be imitated than aggressive female models. One probable reason for this is to do with sex roles: perhaps it is

more acceptable in Western culture for men to be aggressive than women, and even by 3 or 4 years of age children are learning the dominant stereotypes that relate to sex-role differences. So aggressive male models are more likely to be imitated since this is seen by the child as more fitting or appropriate for men (in general) than for women (in general). Bandura found that boys were more likely to imitate the aggressive male model than the female role model. Perhaps the greater relevance of the male model's behaviour for boys lies in the fact that boys perceive the similarity between themselves and the model.

Evaluation:
There are three main advantages of the experimental method. 1. Experiments are the only means by which cause and effect can be established. Thus it could be demonstrated that the model did have an effect on the child's subsequent behavior because all variables other than the independent variable are controlled. 2. It allows for precise control of variables. Many variables were controlled, such as the gender of the model, the time the children observed the model, the behavior of the model and so on. 3. Experiments can be replicated. Standardized procedures and instructions were used allowing for replicability. In fact the study has been replicated with slight changes, such as using videos and similar results were found. Limitations of the procedure include: Many psychologists are very critical of laboratory studies of imitation - in particular because havelow ecologically validity. The situation involves the child and an adult model, which is a very limited social situation and there is no interaction between the child and the model at any point; certainly the child has no chance to influence the model in any way. Also the model and the child are strangers. This, of course, is quite unlike 'normal' modeling which often takes place within the family. A further criticism of the study is that the demonstrations are measured almost immediately. With such snap shot studies we cannot discover if such a single exposure can have long-term effects. It is possible to argue that the experiment was unethical. For example, there is the problem of whether or not the children suffered any long-term consequences as a result of the study. Although it is unlikely, we can never be certain. CRITICISMS (EVALUATION): As already noted Bandura believed that his findings supported his Social Learning Theory. The study was carefully set up and controlled, using measurable acts that could be recorded. This enables cause-and-effect conclusions could be drawn because the variables were isolated and operationalised. The dependent variable - the various physically and verbally violent actions - were observed by 2 judges and those observations checked for reliability. One judge

did not know to which condition the child under observation had been allocated - ie: a blind procedure was used to avoid bias when recording the childs behaviour. Therefore, the results can be considered reliable. However, the experiment can be criticised for having low ecological validity - how often will children observe adults being either violent towards a Bo-Bo doll or playing quietly with tinker toys? As Kevin Durkin (1995) pointed out: 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? Durkin also accused Bandura of failing to distinguish between play fighting and real violence, arguing that the children would not have been so violent towards another child. The children, after seeing the adults behaviour, may simply have been doing what they were meant to - demand characteristics. G Cumberbatch raised the issue of whether familiarity with Bo-Bo doll influenced behaviour towards it? Cumberbatch found that children who were unfamiliar with the doll were 5x more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour against it than children who had played with it before. As the children were all from a California university nursery, the study may be subject to culture bias - making it dangerous to generalise from it. The study can also be criticised on ethical grounds. The children were shown adults demonstrating violent behaviour and tacitly encouraged to copy their behaviour. While it is reasonably safe to assume Stanfords ethics committee approved the research, Bandura et al omit any mention in their documentation of gaining parental consent for their children to participate. With Richard Walters (1963) and then on his own (1965), Bandura investigated the role of punishment and reward, using similar Bo-Bo doll scenarios, and found that they had a powerful effect on observational learning.

EXTRA
BANDURA'S BOBO DOLL STUDY/INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES. It could be said that Bandura's Bobo doll experiment lacks credibilty because of individual differences. It has not been taken into account that the children in Bandura's study may have different behavioural dispositions. Within the three groups there would have been various different personalities: + Type A; Agressive + Type B; Relaxed + Type C; Those persons who keep their emotions wrapped up + Hardy; Those persons who see every new oppurtunity as something to be conquered. So, perhaps, the reason group three (who witnessed the model being negitvely reinforced) still have a number of children behaving violently, despite it being known that violence is wrong, is because those children have 'Type A' personalities, causing them to still behave agressively.

2) Bandura's Bobo Doll Study is said to have lacked ecological validity, as the study was artificial and cannot therefore be generalised to real life situations, as the task was an unlikely event to be carried out in real life, this shows that the study lacks mudane realism. The study may have suffered from demand effects as the children involved may have not been particularly aggressive at the time, but may have been unsure of the consequences, hence it is possible that they went ahead and acted aggressively as they felt it was expected of them. However the study was helpful for people to understand anti-social behaviour and can explain the effects that imitaion and reinforcement has on others. 3) One theory of aggression is The social learning theory which has been said to have high validity because or empirical support such as Banduras Bobo doll study were children exhibited vicarious learning through vicarious re-enforcement which is a key characteristic of the social learning theory meaning that the children observed a model and imitated their behaviour. In Banduras study this took place when the children imitated the aggressive behaviour of the model and acted the same way when left with the Bobo doll. Although Banduras study lacked ecological validity meaning the results of the study could not be easily extrapolated to everyday life because of its artificial nature, i.e. how can we tell that because the children were aggressive to the doll that they will be aggressive to people. But the social learning theory does have explanatory power in that it can help us understand how role models can affect the behaviour of people, whether the role model is a parent or a media figure. This may also help us to understand youth crime, suggesting that the aggression and anti social behaviour is learnt from role models. Although this theory does not explain individual differences within people, for example; this theory would suggest that if a child is raised in a violent family or abused they will imitate the aggression. But this is not always the case, some children from violent backgrounds may even reject violence altogether. This theory also ignores internal factors such as why some people are more resistant to enculturation. 4) Banduras study of the social learning theory of aggression could be criticised in terms of lacking ecological validity, meaning that you cannot generalise it to a real life situation. This is because the study was done in a controlled, artificial environment and the agression towards a human being with real feelings and emotions would differ from that shown towards an inflatable doll. However this research is good as it brought attention to childrens receptiveness to media input, making people more cautious or what they do and do not allow their children to watch on TV. 5) Bandura's study lacks much ecological validity and mundane realism. Whilst children would be quicker to replicate aggression when the object is a doll, it is very rarely the case with another child. Also another point could be much of the aggression could have bin seen as playfighting, rather than "authentic" aggression as you would say. Bandura's Research could of been far more benificial & intriguing if humans were used instead of blow up dolls. 6) Bandura's Bobo doll study could be said to lack ecological validity, the basis on which may be that it was an artificial experiment that took place under controlled conditions. This would affect the extrapolatibility as it lacks mundane realism. However, some parts of the study demonstrate the Social

Learning Theory of copying role models, which can be applied to real life, for example when a child may imitate aggressive behaviour that has been positively reinforced, although showing a specific video of aggresive behaviour and immediatly placing a child in the same situation in the environment they may identify with as the one they were just shown cannot apply to a real life situation, therefore lessening the ecological validity. 6) Bandura's Bobo Doll study could be said to lack ecological validity because it cannot be generalised to real life and was an artificial situation - in real life children would not be shown a video of a role model beating an inflatable doll and then placed in that same situation, therefore it lacks mundane realism. However, it does support the Social Learning Theory which suggests that we are effected by vicarious reinforcement which can be seen in all aspects of the media. This is proved by each control group of Bandura's study - those who saw positive reinforcement given tended to imitate the role models behaviour, whereas those who saw negative reinforcement did not.
BANDURA'S BOBO DOLL STUDIES could be said to lack crediblilty because individulal differences make it difficlut to generalise from the subjects in the study to other people. Individuals all vary in extent to which they respond to role models making it difficlut to generalise from one group of children included in a lab experiment to the the real world. Some people can be very depenendent on role models whilst others can be very independent they have a higher resistance to enculteration. So it could be said that children of a young age - such as in the study are still very dependent on adults and look to them for how to behave considerably more than adults look to eachother so although the theory itself has intuative appeal it maybe difficult to relate the results to ADULT antisocial behaviour.