Learning by observation is a good way to learn about how to behave. Albert Bandura’s social-learning theory explains this. People learn new behaviors through imitation and observing others. They are then rewarded or punished. Bandura’s 1961 study demonstrates the power of observational learning in children. Joy et al. 1986 study shows how television can increase aggression. Charlton et al. 2002 study shows how TV affects remote communities.
Social learning theory refers to learning that is dependent upon the observation of models. Other factors that influence learning include the retention and will to learn, as well as the ability and willingness to repeat the behavior. Social learning theory is basically about learning behavior through imitation and reward or punishment. By imitating role models and learning from them, we can learn new behaviors. You can look up to your parents, older siblings or teacher as role models. While role models can influence how we behave, they do so indirectly and not by intentionally infusing our behavior. Albert Bandura also states that the four key factors in social learning are attention, retention and motor reproduction. To learn, learners need to pay attention to the model in order for them to focus on the desired behavior. Finally, they must retain the information to be able to recall what they learned. Motor reproduction is used to help the learner practice and reproduce the learned behavior. The most important thing is that the learner has the desire and motivation to learn the behavior. The main factors that decide whether or not we choose to watch the model are how much respect we have for them, how similar they are to us, how the model is punished or rewarded, the consistency and self-efficacy of their behaviors. Social learning theory is a good example of how behavior can be passed down through culture and family. One’s most familiar environment will always have models to emulate. The social learning theory also shows that children can learn from observation and not through trial-and-error. The social learning model demonstrates how normative expectations are constructed and how behavior can be internalized. This is especially true after models share their behaviors through observations. However, the social-learning theory cannot be the sole reason why a behavior was learned. The gap between how one observes and performs the behavior leaves some uncertain.
Albert Bandura (1961) was an experimenter who sought to find out if children mimic adult aggression. Another goal was to see if children will imitate behavior from the same-sex model. They collected 36 boys and 36 female children aged 3-6 years. The children were split evenly among three groups. One group saw an adult abuse a Bobo toy, while another group watched a toy being assembled by an adult for 10 minutes. A third group was left with no video. To ensure that aggression was not concentrated in any one group, the teachers and parents interviewed the children to find out the children’s level of aggression. The children were initially put into a room where toys were played. The toys were later removed from the room and the children were instructed to play with the dolls. These experiments showed that the children who saw the adults assemble the Bobo dolls were more likely to suffer similar abuses than those who did not. Bandura’s social learn theory, which suggests that children learn from watching their parents and being punished or rewarded for it, is supported by this experiment. The boys also denounced the aggression towards Bobo dolls that was displayed by women.
This shows how children are more likely to imitate the same-sex models than to follow sociocultural norms based on their own experiences. The study’s most impressive aspect was the manipulation of variables to control the results. In order to limit the aggression of children, and to make sure that same-sex adults are not affected by the study’s results, we used gender diversity to ensure equal distribution. Because the experimental and control groups could compare their results, it was possible to see how the manipulative variables had an effect on the videos of two adults. Despite the fact that this study supports social-learning theory, it has limitations. These include the low ecological value of the experiment in a laboratory environment, and the fact children were interacting with Bobo dolls instead of a person. These results show that children can experience behavioral changes when they are exposed to violent TV. It’s not clear if these results will be applicable in other situations.
Other methodological issues can also limit the effectiveness of the assessment. Teachers and parents may not be 100% correct about the child’s typical behavior, which could cause the aggression balance to be invalidated for all groups. There may also have been variations in aggression between the Bobo dolls and adult violence. The demand characteristics of the researchers can also be a limitation. This could mean that the child might have behaved aggressively to please the researcher. There are ethical concerns about teaching children violence and the possibility of strangers being violent to them. It is concerning because it is possible for violent behavior to become a permanent part of everyday life, or that it will be repeated in other situations.
Joy and colleagues (1986) studied the effects of television on children’s behavior in Canada. They compared aggressive behavior in children who were exposed to television to children from remote towns that had been recently exposed to it to compare the results. Notel, Canada’s first town to get television access in 1973. It wasn’t because of antipathy to television, but because there was insufficient reception. Joy et al. Joy and co. conducted a longitudinal double-blind test over a two-year period on 45 first-grade children. He also had control groups made up of children living in two cities with television. Joy et.al. Joy et al. measured aggression growth and found that the rate of noxious behaviors (e.g. The rate of aggressive behavior (e.g., hitting, biting, shoving) has increased by 160 % in the control group, but not enough to make a significant difference (P.001). The positive correlational relationship between TV exposure and physical aggression was supported by the social-learning theory.
This demonstrates the positive effects of television exposure. It gives children another example to follow and reinforces their behavior with the reward system for aggressive behaviors. The study has many positive aspects. It is ecologically valid because the experimenter did no interfere with the children’s lives in any way that would affect their authentic behavior. Double blind testing eliminates the possibility of demand characteristics being introduced to the child’s lives by the experimenter. The conductors have the opportunity to use control groups as a comparison group and to see how Notel’s growth rate has changed. Even though there were no variables to manipulate, the researchers could not control potential environmental influences that could affect the children’s behavior. The fact that this experiment was not controlled does not mean that aggressive behavior increased due to the Notel television program.
Charlton et al. (2002) conducted a study called “Observation of the Installation of Television on St. Helena”. They looked at the behavior of children and asked them about their reactions to the television. Children aged 3-8 years were observed through the eyes of cameras mounted on playgrounds at two primary schools. A television program showed more aggression than the United Kingdom. Researchers also use triangulation techniques to investigate whether aggressive behavior has increased due to television. The research includes interviews with parents, teachers and older kids. Results showed that there was no increase in aggressive or antisocial behavior despite television being introduced to the same violence as in the United Kingdom.
Even after five years, this was still the case. The children were exposed to the same TV violence as the British children, and they learned aggressive behavior. But the children did not show the aggressive behavior. Joy et.al.’s study showed that St. Helena’s children were not motivated by violent behavior, unlike the Notel, Canada children. While this does not contradict Social Learning Theory, it does show that certain models are more powerful than other. The social cultural influence of family culture and social habits seemed to have established the normative standards. The study was highly valid ecologically because it did not include manipulative variables. This means that there is no way to control the environment or influence children’s behavior. It was also shown that imitation behavior must be encouraged. There may not be any causality because there isn’t enough control. The study was also difficult to replicate because it was not easily generalizable and could not be replicated on other islands. The behavior was not observed in school but throughout the day, leaving the children with a lot of time to display aggressive and anti-social behaviors.
Social learning theory is based on the observation and imitation of others. Reward or punishment can be used to reward or punish people for their behavior. The three studies that tested aggressive behavior and growth have supported the theory. They also showed that people will imitate models from the same sex. This means that people must be motivated to learn from them if they are to develop a particular behavior. Bandura’s research showed that children will learn new behaviors by paying attention to models and mimicking them, especially when the model they are observing is the same gender as them. Joy et. al. found that children can learn new behaviors by simply looking at a new model. Charlton’s study revealed that there is another factor that social learning theory says is important. People who see new models must be motivated to learn.
