Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How to implement observational learning
Observational learning
Observational learning
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
For this report, I decided to pick the Bobo doll experiment that was conducted in 1961 by Badura, Ross, and Ross. The reason why I chose this specific experiment was because I have always loved children and I am always fascinated and sometimes a little horrified when I come across experiments that involve them. In 1961, Albert Bandura, Dorothea Ross, and Sheila A.Ross decided to find out “if aggression could be acquired by observation and imitation” (McLeod,2011). 72 children (36 boys and 36 girls) were selected from the Stanford University Nursery School ranging from the age of 3 to 6. The researchers used four rating scales out of which the maximum point you could score was five. They observed the kids in their everyday life to determine …show more content…
A Bobo doll was introduced into a room where the kids were playing and the Bobo doll was subjected to three different kinds of behavior that the children were made to witness. In the aggressive model, the adult role model attacked the Bobo doll. Sometimes they used hammers and sometimes they “threw the doll up in the air and shouted “Pow, Boom”” (McLeod, 2011.) In the non-aggressive model, the adult role model ignored the Bobo doll and played in a restrained manner. In the control group, the children played by themselves and were left to do whatever they wanted. Out of the 24 kids who were shown the aggressive model, 6 boys and 6 girls were shown a female model performing the aggressive action and 6 boys and 6 girls were shown a male model doing the same act. Of the 24 that saw the non-aggressive role model, again 6 boys and 6 girls were exposed to a female model and 6 boys and 6 girls were exposed to a male model. The 24 children of the control group were exposed to neither female nor male models. It is important to note that all the children were induced to a “mild aggression arousal” (McLeod, 2011.) The children were allowed to play with a couple of toys and as soon as they made a selection, it was taken away from them and were told that those toys were meant for the other …show more content…
In my new proposal, I would still try to prove that children learn aggression through observing the behaviors of others. But the first thing I would change is the research participant pool. The fact that all the children were from the same nursery and were from privileged backgrounds did not sit well with me. I would include children from multiple backgrounds and from different schools. Children are exposed to all sorts of things and having a diversification will only make the results more substantial. It is likely that the kids would act differently from the carefully selected initial participants. That could be the result of two things. It could be the fact that these kids would come from different socio-economic backgrounds, but we also have to consider that children these days are exposed to more violence and crimes thanks to media than they ever have been in the past. Also, even though the experiment is aptly named the Bobo doll experiment, I would have used an object that has more of a functional factor as opposed to something that looked like it was designed to be hit. The Bobo doll has no real purpose and I feel that could be confusing for the kids. There is a possibility that when these kids see the adults handling a Bobo doll a certain way, they are not really imitating them but they see that as its objective. So instead of the Bobo doll, I would use something else
One example of the “Social Learning Theory” is the Bobo doll experiment conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961. In this experiment children were either exposed to an adult exhibiting aggressive behavior or non-aggressive behavior towards the doll. When it came time for the children to interact with the doll, the children who were exposed to aggressive behavior were more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior (Nolen, n.d.).
This experiemtn showed kids a video of people acting violenctly toward the doll and then passively toward the doll. The kids how saw the doll actedupon aggressively were more inclined to do the same. Now that the impact of violence has been esstablished. It is important to adress how gender effects children.Tv shows and commercials often steroetype women and men into their roles. Generally in the idea of men being ggressive and dominating over women. Leading to young men thinking that being aggressive over women is ok and shows to young women that if a man is like that toward you it is ok and normal. (Earles, K., Alexander, R., Johnson, M., Liverpool, J., & McGhee,2015) This belief is also supported by an interview with Neil Malamuth from UCLA. in this interview there is one statement that is very relevant to this idea "that violence against women is more accepted and thus the acts of violence are more likely to occur." The easy thing to see is the increase in savage acts that has increased in the last few decades.what is less black a white but just as much a problem is how society as a whole has started
In order to fully comprehend the how gender stereotypes perpetuate children’s toys, one must understand gender socialization. According to Santrock, the term gender refers to the, “characteristics of people as males and females” (p.163). An individual is certainly not brought into the world with pre-existing knowledge of the world. However, what is certain is the belief that the individual has regarding him- or herself and life stems from socialization—the development of gender through social mechanisms. For instance, when a baby is brought into this world, his or her first encounter to gender socialization arises when the nurse places a blue or pink cap on the baby’s head. This act symbolizes the gender of the baby, whether it is a boy (blue cap) or a girl (pink cap). At the age of four, the child becomes acquai...
The participants in this study included a total of 36 boys and 36 girls ranging in age from 3 years to almost 6 years. The average age of the children was 4 years, and 4 months. The control group consisted of 24 children, who would not be exposed to any model. The rest of the 48 children were divided into two groups: one group was exposed to aggressive models and the other group was exposed to nonaggressive models. These groups were then divided again into males and females. They were then further divided so that half of the children were exposed to same-sex models and opposite-sex models. (Leaving 8 experimental groups and 1 control group.)
I went to a Target store at a plaza in Framingham. When I arrived in the toy section of the store I realized that there were separate toy aisles for boys and for girls. The aisles that had girl toys had pink color schemes and the boys’ aisles had a blue color scheme. The boy and girl toy aisles were broken down into age groups. I observed a family of 4 in the toy aisles (a mother, father, boy and girl). The young girl looked 4 years old and the young boy looked around 6 years old. The little kids were walking down the aisles playing with all different kinds of toys. The color of the toy and the type of toy didn’t seem to matter to each either of them. The mother called the daughter into the next aisle over and helped her pick out a Barbie while the father helped the son pick out a toy from the boy aisle.
Francis’s study analyzes three to five-year-old preschool students as well as their parents about their views about toys and viewing materials based on gender. The study showed that parental beliefs shaped their child 's opinions of gender roles based on the toys they played with. The parent 's idea of what is female and what is male is transferred onto the toys their child plays with which in terms developed their child 's stereotype of what is male and female based on their toy selection and color. In the article “How do today 's children play and with which toys?”, by Klemenovic reference that a child 's view on gender stereotypes is developed by their parents who train them on how to use the toys. Klemenovic (2014) states "Adults start training in the first months of a child 's life because knowledge of objects is the outcome of other people 's behavior towards us" (Klemenovic, 2014, p. 184). Young children’s development of gender stereotypes is largely influenced by his or her parent’s actions and view on what they consider male or female. A parent’s color preference and toy selection can influence a child’s gender bias or association to a specific
Examining the criticism of Bandura 's Bobo Doll Experiment, bias and ethics cause interference with the positivists scientific ideology. Hart & Kritsonis (2006) noted experimenter bias in several areas of the study. Selection bias; Bandura 's subjects were all from upper-middle class backgrounds. As well as, an unclear history of subjects; as ethnicity was never documented, yet claims were made based on their findings about lower socioeconomic communities. Moreover, according to Wortman, Loftus & Weaver (1998), Bandura 's experiment was unethical, as the children were manipulated and taunted - agitation was incited, thus they were trained to behave aggressively, possibly, leading to long-term
The store that the research was conducted at was the Wal-Mart Supercenter located on 151 SW 184th Ave, Pembroke Pines, FL. Date visited was on Thursday, March 19, 2014. It was done at approximately 6:45 pm and ended at 8:12pm; so it was approximately two hours long. The research method used to conduct it was by going down each aisle and counting how many different types of toys that is seen that represents the following: weapons, Baby Dolls, Barbie Cooking Accessories, Buildings for Living or Shopping (Houses/RVs/Bakeries), Cash Registers, Clothing Accessories (Shirts, Shoes, Etc.), Hair accessories, Royalty, Remote Control Vehicles or acing Vehicles, Animals portrayed as “scary, mean, or aggressive”, Military and Animals portrayed as “comforting, pretty, or loving.” Then within these categories, a differentiation between girls and boys was accounted for.
“What? A boy playing with Barbie dolls? That’s messed up man. Only girls play with dolls. Everyone knows that!” This is an answer from Cavin, seven years old, when asked what he thought about boys playing with Barbie dolls. Listening to these words can make one realize that even from a young age, children have been strongly impacted by gender through society. According to sociologist James M. Henslin, gender is “the behaviors and attitudes that a society considers proper for its males and females; masculinity or femininity” (280). Throughout time gender has been a way of thinking about what is appropriate of different sex, a term which Henslin defines as “biological characteristics that distinguish females and males, consisting of primary and secondary sex characteristics” (280). Since many years ago society has solidly built characteristics of gender and kept encouraging traditional gender roles to new generations. Toys, a common object which many children play with in the beginning of their lives, is actually an agent of gender socialization that many people take for granted. Through observations at a local toy store, such as Toys R Us, one can recognize how toys reinforce gender roles.
Girls are supposed to play with dolls, wear pink, and grow up to become princesses. Boys are suppose to play with cars, wear blue, and become firefighters and policemen. These are just some of the common gender stereotypes that children grow up to hear. Interactions with toys are one of the entryway to different aspects of cognitive development and socialism in early childhood. As children move through development they begin to develop different gender roles and gender stereotypes that are influenced by their peers and caregivers.
My choice of research was in the play behaviors of children as well as aggression. Breaking the topic down more, behavior relates to the psychology and the psyche of each individual. The definition of psychology is “science of mind and behavior” (Clavijo, 2013). After reading the article by Clavijo, I have realized that psychology can be defined in three ways such as the study of the mind, the study of behavior, and the study of the mind and behavior. In the text “The Developing Person” by Berger, behavior is learned through social learning. Children learn different behaviors through the observation of others, others being children and adults. Different people have affects on a child’s life that can affect their behavior. A child’s behavior is heavily influenced by their parents. A son may speak aggressively and without respect towards his mother because this is the way that his father speaks to her therefore he feels that is how to communicate with his mother (Berger, 200, 2012). Moving into play behaviors, children learn from other children in how to play. Most believe cognitive growth relies on child’s play time. Vygotsky and Piaget both believe that when children play it is beneficial, but according to Vygotsky, playing enables a child to think outside the box and create their own meaning from objects, using their imagination. Piaget believes that child benefit from playing together because children and sharing their knowledge and making it more concrete ideas and thoughts. There are four stages of plays, with the fourth stage being the highest most complicated play which consists of rules and guidelines for the game. The lowest level or play would be functional play being infants shaking rattles, clapping their hands, or blow...
When randomly selecting a child, they were asked to bring an acquaintance within the same age group. There were 14 pairs of friends that were 24 months of age and 12 pairs that were 30 months. Independent variables in the experiment include the age of the children and whether they were owners or non-owners of the toys, such as own toy, friend’s toy, or neutral toy. Dependent variables in the study include duration of physical contact, frequency of verbal and non-verbal claims, and frequency of verbal and non-verbal
When the Santa Claus mask was showed to Albert he stilled showed signs of fear but Albert wasn 't the only tested at the moment, there were other babies tested as well More than one test was completed several times? The child learning level seemed to be higher than any other test that had been done enhancing a provocation with crying. (Watson J. B., & Rayner, R., 2013) .The dog was another test presented to Albert The dog had approached the child but he had a very different reaction from when the first time he was dealing with the rabbit. It 's like Albert didn 't even visualize the dog until it started walking away and that 's when the child started to cry. (Watson J. B., & Rayner, R., 2013). As the rabbit was placed in front of Albert he tried move away from it and started crying so they placed the rabbit in front of once again and he still wasn 't giving a positive feedback Albert cried again. (Watson J. B., & Rayner, R., 2013) Watson & Rayner tested the fur coat as well. When the coat was placed in front of Albert he instantly step away from it. They introduced a second time and Albert stood there & wrinkled his nose still no positive feedback. Albert withdrawal immediately. (Watson J. B., & Rayner, R.,
There will be six experimental groups. Four groups will be the experiment; the group of all girls with “girl toys,” the group of all girls with “boy toys,” the group of all boys with “boy toys,” and the group of all boys with “girl toys.” The other two will be the control groups; the group of all girls with “gender neutral toys,” and the group of all boys with “gender neutral toys.” Since the toys can be manipulated into “boy toys,” “girl toys,” and “gender neutral toys” we can also assume causation of behaviors later in
In this era, males and females both uphold household duties. Children watch and learn from their environment. A boy watching his father care for an infant is going to want to imitate his father. Playing with a doll is simply following what he has seen his father do. Taking away the doll is taking away that child’s future as a nurturing father (Gioia, 2010). Many men feel that their male child playing with a doll is not teaching him to be tough and will negatively impact their future, when in fact the boy will learn how to care and use their imagination by playing with dolls (Epand). Females are often praised when they are gentle and nurturing, while boys are not- causing boys to r...