The Bobo Doll Experiment

By Albert Bandura

Biography

 He was born on December 4, 1925, in Mundare of northern

Alberta.
Both of his parents had emigrated from eastern European
countries while he was still an adolescents his father from
Poland and his mother from Ukraine.
After he graduated from high school, he spent a summer in the
Yukon working on the Alaska highway.
For Bandura, his decision to become a psychologist was quite
accidental; that is, it was the result of a fortuitous event.
After graduating from University of British Columbia in just 3
years, he looked for a graduate program in clinical psychology
and his advisor recommended the University of Iowa, and so he
left Canada for United States.

Biography

 Most of his early publications were in clinical psychology,

dealing primarily with psychotheraphy and the Rorschach
test.
In 1958, he collaborated with the late Richard H. Walters,
his first doctoral student, to publish a paper on aggressive
delinquents.
In 1958, he collaborated with the late Richard H. Walters,
his first doctoral student, to publish a paper on aggressive
delinquents.
He became the president of the American Psychological
Association (APA) in 1974, president of the Western
Psychological Association in1980, and honorary president
of the Canadian Psychological Association in 1999

Biography

Preparing the Sample:

Bandura, Ross, and Ross gathered 72 children (36 boys
and 36 girls) from the Stanford University Nursery
School aged between 3 to 6 years old.

Background of the Study

 The researchers judged the childrens aggressive behavior on four 5point rating scales.
Hypotheses and Predictions:
1. Children who observed an adult acting aggressively would be likely
to act aggressively even when the adult model was not present
2. Children who observed the non-aggressive adult model would be
less aggressive than the children who observed the aggressive
model; the non-aggressive group would also be less aggressive than
the control group
3. Children would be more likely to imitate models of the same-sex
rather than models of the opposite-sex
4. Boys would behave more aggressively than girls because society
has always tolerated violent behavior in men more than women

Background of the Study

Method of Experiment
The independent variable (type of model) was
manipulated in three conditions:
Aggressive model shown to 24 children (12 boys and 12
girls)
Non-aggressive model shown to 24 children (12 boys and
12 girls)
No model shown (control condition) - 24 children (12
boys and 12 girls)

Background of the Study

I. Stage 1: Modeling
. The experiment began by placing 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 first group of children watched a male or female
model behaving aggressively towards a toy called a
'Bobo doll'. The adult role model attacked the Bobo doll tossed the doll up in the air aggressively and kicked it
about the room, and shouted "Pow, Boom".

Background of the Study

 The next group was exposed to a nonaggressive model that played in a quiet and
subdued manner for 10 minutes (playing
with a tinker toy set and ignoring the bobodoll).
Finally, the control group sat in the room
for ten minutes with no adult model
present.

Background of the Study

II. Stage 2: Aggression Arousal

. All the children (including the control group) were subjected
to 'mild aggression arousal'. Each child was (separately) taken
to a room filled with interesting toys. The experimenter
explained that the toys were for the subject (child) to play
with. As soon as the subject became sufficiently involved
with the play material (usually in about 2 minutes), the
experimenter remarked that these were her very best toys, that
she did not let just anyone play with them, and that she had
decided to reserve these toys for the other children. However,
the subject could play with any of the toys that were in the
next room. The experimenter and the subject then entered the
next experimental room.

Background of the Study

III. Stage 3: Test for Delayed Imitation

. The experimental room contained a variety of toys including
some that could be used in imitative or non-imitative aggression,
and others that tended to stimulate predominantly nonaggressive
forms of behavior. The aggressive toys included a 3-foot Bobo
doll, a mallet and pegboard, two dart guns, and a tether ball with
a face painted on it which hung from the ceiling. The
nonaggressive toys, on the other hand, included a tea set, crayons
and coloring paper, a ball, two dolls, three bears, cars and trucks,
and plastic farm animals.
. The child spent 20 minutes in the room during which time the
observation of his behavior was rated in terms of predetermined
response categories through a one-way mirror.

Background of the Study

Response Measure of the Child:

Three measures of imitation were obtained:
i. Imitation of physical aggression: acts of striking the Bobo
doll with the mallet, sitting on the doll and punching it in
the nose, kicking the doll, and tossing it in the air
ii. Imitative verbal aggression: the child repeats the phrases,
"Sock him," "Hit him down," "Kick him," "Throw him in
the air," or "Pow" (imitation of phrases used by the adult
role-model)
iii. Imitative nonaggressive verbal responses: Subject repeats,
"He keeps coming back for more," or "He sure is a tough
fella."

Background of the Study

 Partially imitative behavior

i. Mallet aggression: Subject strikes objects
other than the Bobo doll aggressively
with the mallet.
ii. Sits on Bobo doll: Subject lays the Bobo
doll on its side and sits on it, but does not
aggress toward it.

Background of the Study

 Non-imitative aggressive responses

i. Punches Bobo doll: Subject strikes, slaps, or pushes the
doll aggressively
ii. Non-imitative physical and verbal aggression:
Physically aggressive acts directed toward objects other
than the Bobo doll and any hostile remarks except for
those in the verbal imitation category; e.g., "Shoot the
Bobo," "Cut him," "Stupid ball," "Knock over people,"
"Horses fighting, biting"
iii. Aggressive gun play: subject shoots darts or aims the
guns and fires imaginary shots at objects in the room

Background of the Study

 Results:
i. Children who were exposed to the aggressive
model were more likely to show imitative
aggressive behavior themselves.
ii. More partial and non-imitative aggression
among those children has observed aggressive
behavior, although the difference for nonimitative aggression was small.

Background of the Study

iii. The girls in the aggressive model condition also

showed more physical aggressive responses if the
model was male, but more verbal aggressive responses
if the model was female. However, the exception to this
general pattern was the observation of how often they
punched Bobo, and in this case the effects of gender
were reversed.
iv. Boys were more likely to imitate same-sex models than
girls. The evidence for girls imitating same-sex models
is not strong.
v. Boys were nearly three times more likely to replicate
physically violent behavior than girls were.

Background of the Study

 Psychological Implications of the Experiment

1. Many people began to question and to argue
that viewing aggressive behavior on television
or media would have an intense effect on
children as well as adults wherein it could
cause them to act more aggressively.
2. People were arguing if releasing of violent
media should be allowed, and Banduras study
on Bobo doll experiment is usually cited in the
debates.

The Bobo Doll Experiment

3. The study by Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963) offered

some of the earliest experimental evidence that TV
violence does not curb aggression, rather, it produces
additional aggressive behaviors.
4. Because the experiment showed that people can learn
from the experiences of others through observing it,
many psychologist began to study what types of
observation had the most impact was observing good
behavior getting rewarded more influential than
watching bad behavior getting punished?

The Bobo Doll Experiment

The Bobo Doll Experiment

By Albert Bandura

Activity

1. Informed consent
Children are considered incapable of giving informed consent.
However, it is possible for the parents or guardians to give on
behalf of their children. Bandura suggests that consent should be
obtained only from the teachers of the children involved.
2. Deception
There was not much deception, although the children were
obviously unaware about the nature of this experiment.
3. Confidentiality
The childrens identities were not publicized. Instead, videos of the
children having the experiment were published and widely
circulated. This violates current ethical standards for both consent
and privacy.

Ethical Consideration

4. Emotional or physical harm

There was no physical harm. However, there is some criticism
that Bandura may have affected the childrens emotional state
in the long-run. This is unlikely but also a point to consider.
5. Right to withdraw
Nobody was forced to stay part of the study. However, it was
not made clear about how the children could withdraw from
the experimental setting.
6. Debriefing
The children were not debriefed, although it is possible that
their parents may have been informed.

Ethical Consideration

 To try and to 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.

Banduras Aim