bobo doll experiment research design

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Bobo doll experiment

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Academia - Bobo Doll Experiment
• Frontiers - Albert Bandura's experiments on aggression modeling in children: A psychoanalytic critique
• Simply Psychology - Bobo Doll Experiment
• University of Central Florida Pressbooks - Psych in Real Life: The Bobo Doll Experiment
• Verywell Mind - What the Bobo Doll Experiment Reveals About Kids and Aggression

Bobo doll experiment , groundbreaking study on aggression led by psychologist Albert Bandura that demonstrated that children are able to learn through the observation of adult behaviour. The experiment was executed via a team of researchers who physically and verbally abused an inflatable doll in front of preschool-age children, which led the children to later mimic the behaviour of the adults by attacking the doll in the same fashion.

Bandura’s study on aggression—the experiment for which he is perhaps best known—was carried out in 1961 at Stanford University , where Bandura was a professor. For this study he used 3- and 5-foot (1- and 1.5-metre) inflatable plastic toys called Bobo dolls, which were painted to look like cartoon clowns and were bottom-weighted so that they would return to an upright position when knocked down. The subjects were preschoolers at Stanford’s nursery school and were divided into three groups: one group observed aggressive adult behaviour models; another group observed nonaggressive behaviour models; and the third group was not exposed to any behaviour models.

The three groups were then divided by gender into six subgroups in which half of the subgroups would observe a same-sex behaviour model and half would observe an opposite-sex behaviour model. In the first stage of the experiment, the children were individually seated at a table in one corner of an experimental room and presented with diverting activities that had previously been shown to be of high interest to the children (e.g., stickers, pictures, prints) in order to discourage active participation and encourage mere observation. The behaviour model was then taken to the opposite corner—which contained another table and chair, a mallet, a Tinkertoy set, and a 5-foot Bobo doll—and was told he or she could play with these materials. In the aggressive behaviour model groups, the model abused the Bobo doll both physically (e.g., kicked, punched, threw, and assaulted with various objects) and verbally (e.g., made aggressive statements such as “Sock him in the nose” and “Pow” or nonaggressive statements such as “He sure is a tough fella” and “He keeps coming back for more”). In the nonaggressive behaviour model groups, the model ignored the Bobo doll and instead quietly assembled the Tinkertoys. After 10 minutes had elapsed, the behaviour models in both groups left the room.

In the second phase of the experiment, the children were taken individually into a different experimental room, where they were presented with a new group of appealing toys (e.g., train, fire engine, cable car, jet airplane, spinning top , doll with wardrobe, baby crib, and doll carriage). To test the hypothesis that the observation of aggression in others would increase the likelihood of aggression in the observer, the children were subjected to aggression arousal in the form of being told after two minutes that they could no longer play with the toys. The children were then told that they could, however, play with the toys in another room, where they were presented with various toys that were considered both aggressive (e.g., 3-foot Bobo doll, mallet, and dart guns) and nonaggressive (e.g., crayons, paper, farm animals, tea set, ball, and dolls).

In the final stage of the experiment, the children’s behaviour was observed over the course of 20 minutes and rated according to the degree of physically and verbally aggressive behaviour they modeled, the results of which yielded significantly higher scores for children in the aggressive behaviour model groups compared with those in both the nonaggressive behaviour model and control groups. Subsequent experiments in which children were exposed to such violence on videotape yielded similar results, with nearly 90 percent of the children in the aggressive behaviour groups later modeling the adults’ behaviour by attacking the doll in the same fashion and 40 percent of the those children exhibiting the same behaviour after eight months.

Although the study yielded similar results for both genders, it nonetheless suggested at least some difference depending on the degree to which a behaviour is sex-typed—that is, viewed as more common of or appropriate for a specific gender. For example, the data suggest that males are somewhat more prone to imitate physical aggression—a highly masculine-typed behaviour—than are females, with male subjects reproducing more physical aggression than female subjects; there were, however, no differences in the imitation of verbal aggression, which is less sex-typed. Additionally, both male and female subjects were more imitative of the male behaviour models than of the female models in terms of physical aggression but were more imitative of the same-sex models in terms of verbal aggression.

Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment on Social Learning

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

During the 1960s, Albert Bandura conducted a series of experiments on observational learning , collectively known as the Bobo doll experiments. Two of the experiments are described below:

Bandura (1961) conducted a controlled experiment study to investigate if social behaviors (i.e., aggression) can be acquired by observation and imitation.

Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) tested 36 boys and 36 girls from the Stanford University Nursery School aged between 3 to 6 years old.

The researchers pre-tested the children for how aggressive they were by observing the children in the nursery and judged their aggressive behavior on four 5-point rating scales.

It was then possible to match the children in each group so that they had similar levels of aggression in their everyday behavior. The experiment is, therefore, an example of a matched pairs design .

To test the inter-rater reliability of the observers, 51 of the children were rated by two observers independently, and their ratings were compared. These ratings showed a very high-reliability correlation (r = 0.89), which suggested that the observers had a good agreement about the behavior of the children.

A lab experiment was used, in which the independent variable (the type of model) was manipulated in three conditions:

• Aggressive model is shown to 24 children
• Non-aggressive model is shown to 24 children
• No model is shown (control condition) – 24 children

Stage 1: Modeling

In the experimental conditions, children were individually shown into a room containing toys and played with some potato prints and pictures in a corner for 10 minutes while either:

• 24 children (12 boys and 12 girls) watched a male or female model behaving aggressively towards a toy called a “Bobo doll”. The adults attacked the Bobo doll in a distinctive manner – they used a hammer in some cases, and in others threw the doll in the air and shouted “Pow, Boom.”
• Another 24 children (12 boys and 12 girls) were exposed to a non-aggressive model who played in a quiet and subdued manner for 10 minutes (playing with a tinker toy set and ignoring the bobo-doll).
• The final 24 children (12 boys and 12 girls) were used as a control group and not exposed to any model at all.

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 with relatively attractive toys.

As soon as the child started to play with the toys, the experimenter told the child that these were the experimenter’s very best toys and she had decided to reserve them for the other children.

Stage 3: Test for Delayed Imitation

• The next room contained some aggressive toys and some non-aggressive toys. The non-aggressive toys included a tea set, crayons, three bears and plastic farm animals. The aggressive toys included a mallet and peg board, dart guns, and a 3 foot Bobo doll.
• The child was in the room for 20 minutes, and their behavior was observed and rated though a one-way mirror. Observations were made at 5-second intervals, therefore, giving 240 response units for each child.
• Other behaviors that didn’t imitate that of the model were also recorded e.g., punching the Bobo doll on the nose.
• Children who observed the aggressive model made far more imitative aggressive responses than those who were in the non-aggressive or control groups.
• There was more partial and non-imitative aggression among those children who had observed aggressive behavior, although the difference for non-imitative aggression was small.
• The girls in the aggressive model condition also showed more physically aggressive responses if the model was male, but more verbally 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.
• Boys were more likely to imitate same-sex models than girls. The evidence for girls imitating same-sex models is not strong.
• Boys imitated more physically aggressive acts than girls. There was little difference in verbal aggression between boys and girls.

Bobo doll experiment demonstrated that children are able to learn social behavior such as aggression through the process of observation learning, through watching the behavior of another person. The findings support Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory .

This study has important implications for the effects of media violence on children.

There are three main advantages of the experimental method .

• 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.
• 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.
• 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 video, and similar results were found (Bandura, 1963).

Limitations of the procedure include:

• Many psychologists are very critical of laboratory studies of imitation – in particular, because they tend to have low ecological 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.
• Cumberbatch (1990) found that children who had not played with a Bobo Doll before were five times as likely to imitate the aggressive behavior than those who were familiar with it; he claims that the novelty value of the doll makes it more likely that children will imitate the behavior.
• A further criticism of the study is that the demonstrations are measured almost immediately. With such snapshot studies, we cannot discover if such a single exposure can have long-term effects.
• It is possible to argue that the bobo doll 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.

Vicarious Reinforcement Bobo Doll Study

An observer’s behavior can also be affected by the positive or negative consequences of a model’s behavior.

So we not only watch what people do, but we watch what happens when they do things. This is known as vicarious reinforcement. We are more likely to imitate behavior that is rewarded and refrain from behavior that is punished.

Bandura (1965) used a similar experimental set up to the one outlined above to test vicarious reinforcement. The experiment had different consequences for the model’s aggression to the three groups of children.

One group saw the model’s aggression being rewarded (being given sweets and a drink for a “championship performance,” another group saw the model being punished for the aggression (scolded), and the third group saw no specific consequences (control condition).

When allowed to enter the playroom, children in the reward and control conditions imitated more aggressive actions of the model than did the children in the punishment condition.

The children in the model punished group had learned the aggression by observational learning, but did not imitate it because they expected negative consequences.

Reinforcement gained by watching another person is known as vicarious reinforcement.

Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models” reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses . Journal of personality and social psychology, 1(6) , 589.

Bandura, A., Ross, D. & Ross, S.A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models .  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63, 575-82.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models . The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 66(1), 3.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Further Information

• Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
• Bobo Doll Study Summary
• BBC Radio 4 Programme: The Bobo Doll
• Bobo Doll Summary PowerPoint

Related Articles

Famous Experiments , Social Science

Solomon Asch Conformity Line Experiment Study

Learning Theories

Aversion Therapy & Examples of Aversive Conditioning

Learning Theories , Psychology , Social Science

Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

Learning Theories , Psychology

Behaviorism In Psychology

Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning

Child Psychology , Learning Theories

Jerome Bruner’s Theory Of Learning And Cognitive Development

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What the Bobo Doll Experiment Reveals About Kids and Aggression

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

• The Experiment

The question of how children learn to engage in violent behavior has been of great interest to parents and researchers alike. In the 1960s, psychologist Albert Bandura and his colleagues conducted what is now known as the Bobo doll experiment, and they demonstrated that children may learn aggression through observation.

Aggression lies at the root of many social ills ranging from interpersonal violence to war. It is little wonder, then, that the subject is one of the most studied topics within psychology.

This article covers what the Bobo doll experiment is, its findings on childhood aggression, as well as its impact on psychology.

The Bobo Doll Experiment

The participants for the experiment were 36 boys and 36 girls enrolled at the Stanford University Nursery School. The children ranged in age between 3 and almost 6 years.

The experiment involved exposing one group of 24 children to an adult modeling aggressive behavior, and another group of 24 children to an adult modeling non-aggressive behavior. The final group of 24 children acted as the control group that was not exposed to adult models.

These groups were divided again into groups of boys and girls. Each of these subgroups was then divided so that half of the participants would be exposed to a same-sex adult model and the other half would be exposed to an opposite-sex adult model.

Each child was tested individually to ensure that their behavior would not be influenced by other children. The child was first brought into a playroom where there were a number of different activities to explore. The experimenter then invited the adult model into the playroom.

In the non-aggressive condition, the adult model simply played with the toys and ignored the Bobo doll for the entire period. In the aggressive model condition, however, the adult models would violently attack the Bobo doll.

The aggressive models would punch Bobo, strike Bobo with a mallet, toss the doll in the air, and kick it around the room. They would also use " verbally aggressive phrases" such as "Kick him" and "Pow." The models also added two non-aggressive phrases: "He sure is a tough fella" and "He keeps coming back for more."

After the ten-minute exposure to the adult model, each child was then taken to another room that contained a number of appealing toys including a doll set, fire engine, and toy airplane.

The children were permitted to play for a brief two minutes, then told they were no longer allowed to play with any of these tempting toys. The purpose of this was to build up frustration levels among the young participants.

Finally, each child was taken to the last experimental room. This room contained a number of "aggressive" toys including a mallet, a tether ball with a face painted on it, dart guns, and, of course, a Bobo doll. The room also included several "non-aggressive" toys including crayons, paper, dolls, plastic animals, and trucks.

Each child was then allowed to play in this room for a period of 20 minutes. During this time, researchers observed the child's behavior from behind a one-way mirror and judged each child's levels of aggression.

Predictions

Bandura made several key predictions about what would occur during the Bobo doll experiment.

• Boys would behave more aggressively than girls.
• Children who observed an adult acting aggressively would be likely to act aggressively, even when the adult model was not present.
• Children would be more likely to imitate models of the same sex rather than models of the opposite sex.
• The children who observed the non-aggressive adult model would be less aggressive than the children who observed the aggressive model; the non-aggressive exposure group would also be less aggressive than the control group.

The results of the experiment supported some of the original predictions, but also included some unexpected findings:

• Bandura and his colleagues had predicted that children in the non-aggressive group would behave less aggressively than those in the control group. The results indicated that while children of both genders in the non-aggressive group did tend to exhibit less aggression than the control group, boys who had observed a non-aggressive, opposite-sex model were more likely than those in the control group to engage in violence.
• Children exposed to the violent model tended to imitate the exact behavior they had observed when the adult model was no longer present.
• Researchers were correct in their prediction that boys would behave more aggressively than girls. Boys engaged in more than twice as many acts of physical aggression than the girls.
• There were important gender differences when it came to whether a same-sex or opposite-sex model was observed. Boys who observed adult males behaving violently were more influenced than those who had observed female models behaving aggressively.
• Interestingly, the experimenters found in same-sex aggressive groups, boys were more likely to imitate physical acts of violence while girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression.

Impact of the Bobo Doll Experiment

Results of the experiment supported Bandura's social learning theory.

According to Bandura's social learning theory, learning occurs through observations and interactions with other people. Essentially, people learn by watching others and then imitating these actions.

Bandura and his colleagues believed that the Bobo doll experiment demonstrates how specific behaviors can be learned through observation and imitation.

According to Bandura, the violent behavior of the adult models toward the dolls led children to believe that such actions were acceptable.

Bandura also suggested that as a result, children may be more inclined to respond to frustration with aggression in the future.

In a follow-up study conducted in 1965, Bandura found that while children were more likely to imitate aggressive behavior if the adult model was rewarded for his or her actions, they were far less likely to imitate if they saw the adult model being punished or reprimanded for their hostile behavior.

The conclusions drawn from the Bobo doll experiment may help explain human behavior in many areas of life. For instance, the idea that children will imitate the abusive behavior that they witness may provide insight into domestic violence .

Adolescents who grow up witnessing abuse in their homes may be more likely to display violent behavior themselves, and view aggression as an appropriate response to solve interpersonal problems.

Research has found that the Bobo doll experiment and its follow-up study shed light on bullying . For instance, when leadership doesn't give negative consequences for workplace bullying, the bullying is more likely to persist.

Therefore, it's important that aggressive or violent behavior is not tolerated by those with power—whether it's at the workplace, in schools, or at home—or else the aggression is likely to continue and may influence young people who witness it.

Criticism of the Bobo Doll Experiment

Critics point out that acting violently toward a doll is a lot different than displaying aggression or violence against another human being in a real-world setting.

In other words, a child acting violently toward a doll doesn't necessarily indicate they'll act violently toward a person.

Because the experiment took place in a lab setting, some critics suggest that results observed in this type of location may not be indicative of what takes place in the real world.

It has also been suggested that children were not actually motivated to display aggression when they hit the Bobo doll; instead, they may have simply been trying to please the adults. It's worth noting that the children didn't actually hurt the Bobo doll, nor did they think they were hurting it.

In addition, by intentionally frustrating the children, some argue that the experimenters were essentially teaching the children to be aggressive.

It's also not known whether the children were actually aggressive or simply imitating the behavior without aggressive intent (most children will imitate behavior right after they see it, but they don't necessarily continue it in the long term).

Since data was collected immediately, it is also difficult to know what the long-term impact might have been.

Additional criticisms note the biases of the researchers. Since they knew that the children were already frustrated, they may have been more likely to interpret the children's actions as aggressive.

The study may also suffer from selection bias. All participants were drawn from a narrow pool of students who share the same racial and socioeconomic background. This makes it difficult to generalize the results to a larger, more diverse population.

A Word From Verywell

Bandura's experiment remains one of the most well-known studies in psychology. Today, social psychologists continue to study the impact of observed violence on children's behavior. In the decades since the Bobo doll experiment, there have been hundreds of studies on how observing violence impacts children's behavior.

Today, researchers continue to ponder the question of whether the violence children witness on television, in the movies, or through video games translates to aggressive or violent behavior in the real world.

Bandura A. Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1965;1:589-595. doi:10.1037/h0022070

Xia Y, Li S, Liu TH. The interrelationship between family violence, adolescent violence, and adolescent violent victimization: An application and extension of the cultural spillover theory in China . IJERPH. 2018;15(2):371. doi:10.3390/ijerph15020371

Hollis LP. Lessons from Bandura’s Bobo doll experiments: Leadership’s deliberate indifference exacerbates workplace bullying in higher education . JSPTE. 2019;4:085-102. doi:10.28945/4426

Altin D, Jablonski J, Lyke J, et al. Gender difference in perceiving aggression using the Bobo doll studies . Modern Psychological Studies. 2011;16:2.

Bandura A, Ross D, Ross SA. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1961;63:575-82. doi:10.1037/h0045925

Ferguson CJ. Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can violent video games be a force for good? Review of General Psychology. 2010;14(2) : 68-81. doi:10.1037/a0018941

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Albert Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment (Explained)

The Bobo Doll Experiment was a study by Albert Bandura to investigate if social behaviors can be learned by observing others in the action. According to behaviorists, learning occurs only when a behavior results in rewards or punishment. However, Bandura didn't believe the framework of rewards and punishments adequately explained many aspects of everyday human behavior.

According to the Social Learning Theory, people learn most new skills through modeling, imitation, and observation. Bandura believed that people could learn by observing how someone else is rewarded or penalized instead of engaging in the action themselves.

In the hit television show Big Little Lies, tensions run high as an unknown child is accused of choking another student. The child is revealed as Max throughout the series (spoiler alert!). Max has an abusive father, and once Max’s mother realizes that her child is learning behaviors from her husband, she decides to take action. 

This cycle of abuse is sad but extremely common. Many abusers were abused themselves or grew up in an abusive household. These ideas seem obvious, but in the mid-20th century, evidence that supports these ideas was becoming known. 

What is the Bobo Doll Experiment?

In 1961, Albert Bandura conducted the Bobo doll experiment at Stanford University. He placed children in a room with an adult, toys, and a five-foot Bobo Doll. (Bobo Dolls are large inflatable clowns shaped like a bowling ball, so they  roll upward if punched or knocked down.)

Who Conducted the Bobo Doll Experiment?

This experiment made Albert Bandura one of the most renowned psychologists in the history of the world. He is now listed in the ranks of Freud and B.F. Skinner, the psychologist who developed the theory of operant conditioning . 

How Was The Bobo Doll Experiment Conducted?

Let’s start by discussing Bandura’s first Bobo doll experiment from 1961. Bandura conducted the experiment in three parts: modeling, aggression arousal, and a test for delayed imitation. 

Stage 1: Modeling 

The study was separated into three groups, including a control group. An aggressive adult behavior model was shown to one group, a non-aggressive adult behavior model to another, and no behavior models were shown to the third group. In the group with the aggressive adult, some models chose to hit the Bobo doll over the head with a mallet. 

The group with a nonaggressive adult simply observed the model playing with blocks, coloring, or doing non-aggressive activities. 

Stage 2: Aggression Arousal 

After 10 minutes of being in the room with the model, the child was taken into another room. This room had attractive toys; the researchers briefly allowed the children to play with the toys of their choice. Once the child was engaged in play, the researchers removed the toys from the child and took them into yet another room. It’s easy to guess that the children were frustrated, but the researchers wanted to see how they would release that frustration. 

Stage 3: Test For Delayed Imitation 

The third room contained a set of “aggressive” and “non-aggressive toys.” The room also had a Bobo doll. Researchers watched and recorded each child’s behavior through a one-way mirror. 

So what happened?

As you can probably guess, the children who observed the adults hitting the Bobo doll were more likely to take their frustration out on the Bobo doll. They kicked, yelled at, or even used the mallet to hit the doll. The children who observed the non-aggressive adults tended to avoid the Bobo doll and take their frustration out without aggression or violence. 

The Second Bobo Doll Experiment

Albert Bandura did not stop with the 1961 Bobo doll experiment. Two years later, he conducted another experiment with a Bobo doll. This one combined the ideas of modeling with the idea of conditioning. Were people genuinely motivated by consequences, or was there something more to their behavior and attitudes? 

In this experiment, Bandura showed children a video of a model acting aggressively toward the Bobo doll. Three groups of children individually observed a different final scene in the video. The children in the control group did not see any scene other than the model hitting the Bobo doll. In another group, the children observed the model getting rewarded for their actions. The last group saw the model getting punished and warned not to act aggressively toward the Bobo doll. 

All three groups of children were then individually moved to a room with toys and a Bobo doll. Bandura observed that the children who saw the model receiving a punishment were less likely to be aggressive toward the doll. 

A second observation was especially interesting. When researchers asked the children to act aggressively toward the Bobo doll, as they did in the movie, the children did.

This doesn’t sound significant, but it does make an interesting point about learned behaviors. The children learn the behavior by watching the model and observing their actions. Learning (aka remembering) the learning of the model’s actions occurred simply because the children were there to observe them.

Consequences simply influenced whether or not the children decided to perform the learned behaviors. The memory of the aggression was still present, whether or not the child saw that the aggression was rewarded or punished. 

Is The Bobo Doll Experiment An Example of Operant Conditioning or Classical Conditioning?

Neither! Since operant and classical conditioning rely on explicit rewards or penalties to affect behavior repetition, they fall short of capturing the full scope of human learning. Conversely, observational learning is not dependent on these rewards. Albert Bandura's well-known "Bobo Doll" experiment is a striking example.

This experiment proved that without firsthand experience or outside rewards and penalties, people might learn only by watching others. The behaviorist ideas of the time, which were primarily dependent on reinforcement, faced a severe challenge from Bandura's research.

Criticism of the Bobo Doll Experiment

A Reddit user on the TodayILearned subreddit made a good point on how the Bobo Doll Experiment was conducted: 

"A significant criticism of this study is that the Bobo doll is MEANT to be knocked around. It’s an inflatable toy with a weight at the bottom, it rocks back and forth and stands back up after it is hit.

How do we know that the kids didn’t watch the adults knock over the toy and say, 'That looks fun!' and then mimic them? These types of toys are still often sold as punching bag toys for kids. This study would have much more validity if they had used a different type of toy."

Bobo Doll Impact

There’s one more piece of the 1963 study that is worth mentioning. While some children in the experiment watched a movie, others watched a live model. Did this make a huge difference in whether or not the child learned and displayed aggressive behaviors?

Not really.

The Bobo Doll experiment has frequently been cited in discussions among psychologists and researchers, especially when debating the impact of violent media on children. A wealth of research has sought to determine whether children engage with violent video games and consume violent media, does it increase their likelihood to act out violently? Or, as suggested by the Bobo Doll experiment, do children merely internalize these behaviors and still maintain discretion over whether to act on them or not?

Multiple studies have aimed to tackle this question. For instance, research from the American Psychological Association has pointed to a link between violent video games and increased aggression, though not necessarily criminal violence. However, other sources, such as the Oxford Internet Institute , have found limited evidence to support a direct link between game violence and real-world violent actions. Despite the varying findings, the influence of Albert Bandura's introduction of observational learning and social learning theory cannot be understated. His Bobo Doll experiments remain pivotal in psychology's rich history.

Related posts:

• Albert Bandura (Biography + Experiments)
• 3 Theories of Aggression (Psychology Explained)

Observational Learning

• 40+ Famous Psychologists (Images + Biographies)
• Learning (Psychology)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Operant Conditioning

Classical Conditioning

Latent Learning

Experiential Learning

The Little Albert Study

Bobo Doll Experiment

Spacing Effect

Von Restorff Effect

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Bandura and Bobo

• APS 24th Annual Convention (2012)
• APS Fellows
• Experimental Psychology
• History of Psychology
• Personality/Social

But when it was their own turn to play with Bobo, children who witnessed an adult pummeling the doll were likely to show aggression too. Similar to their adult models, the children kicked the doll, hit it with a mallet, and threw it in the air. They even came up with new ways to hurt Bobo, such as throwing darts or aiming a toy gun at him. Children who were exposed to a non-aggressive adult or no model at all had far less aggression toward Bobo.

Bandura’s findings challenged the widely accepted behaviorist view that rewards and punishments are essential to learning. He suggested that people could learn by observing and imitating others’ behavior.

Faye notes that the Bobo doll experiments were also influential outside of the scientific community. “Bandura’s findings were particularly important in 1960s America, when lawmakers, broadcasters, and the general public were engaged in serious debate regarding the effects of television violence on the behavior of children,” she says.

Today, questions about violent media and video games linger, so Bandura’s research on aggression remains relevant. His Bobo-inspired social learning theory also contributed to the development of cognitive-behavioral therapy. Bandura is a member of an elite group who received both APS lifetime achievement awards: the William James and James Mckeen Cattell Fellow Awards. He was also named among the top five most eminent 20 th century psychologists by the Review of General Psychology . It’s an impressive legacy for a project that began with a little creativity and an inflatable clown.

How can the Bobo experiment be a critique of behaviorism? Children cannot learn from watching unless they have experience, can they? And experience, obviously, is gained through behavior. Behaviorism appears to be merely a version of Russell´s knowledge by acquaintance as opposed to knowledge by description. Whilst description can probably substitute for behavior in a virtual world, it is less likely useful in the real world.

We perceive what we see, is that not an experience where acting out is the result of its cognitive beginning? I would say most people learn from watching, hearing, and doing. While the three are a classroom didactic exercise the other is a practical experience.

I agree with Brian, observation/vicarious learning as represented in the Bobo experiment shapes the behavior we assume will be called for in the future. The behavior is acted out immediately or the experience, our perception of the experience, is molded at that time for future enactment of the behavior, cognitive beginning most definitely.

I can imagine what it was like being one of those children watching the adult kicking and punching the crap out of the doll. Here was the exact opposite of what they had been taught their entire life. It must have been liberating and fun to have free license. Just as you or I might enjoy using a big hammer to smash a wall that has to come down. But not for a moment do I think it leads to aggression or violence. More like catharsis. If Bandura’s experiments had involved adults hurting cats, I do not believe those children would have imitated that

I DO AGREE With Albert Bandula’s That Man Tend To Imitate The Behaviours Of The Person He Observes Given That In The Social Learning Theory Man Is Bound To Copy The Behaviour Of Those Frequently With Them Hence Parents Adults And Teacher Need To Be Concious Of Their Actions.

I’m a Profesional Clown for 31 yrs. I grew up with that Clown Toy. I liked it. The problem with this Toy is many adults see a Clown as a Thing, not a Person. The symbolism of the Toy can bring out the Dark Side of some adults. “Pseudo Clown O Phobia” as I call it is fashionable. Some Unethical Media Shrinks actually are telling people that they should be scared. This is not about Clowns or Toys. As the Internet came in Junk Science has grown. I’m concerned about turning Clowns into evil characters & and the so-called Psychologists who are doing a major disservice, not just to Clowns but to the Real Science of Psychology.

Bandura and Bobo, is not about violence, but desensitization, in the manner media desensitizes the power of words, as well as actions. Yes children experiencing actual violence are more prone to participate in violence, but there is a percentage of desensitized children that “act out” what they have seen; “trauma trigger” this then effects the group by direct experience. This continues especially for those children mentioned above with no outlet for trauma; mass psychotherapy without boundaries, guidance, or professional observation; only the consequence of the penal system. It is proven society has had a large hand in creating the very individuals, that then fill the penal system with just this type of personality. Not everyone is effected, certainly not everyone is as sensitive, to the trigger: but the numbers are still alarming.

My friend and I want to do a science expo project on this issue of the Bobo Doll and Albert Bandura. And we think that adults should be conscious of their actions and their words because children will learn to be like them.

Hello all, does anyone know where I can purchase a vintage Bobo Doll or have a one made? I am a Psychology Major at Cedar Crest College and am doing a project for Psi Chi. We would love to purchase one but don’t know where to find one. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Evaluating the Bobo Doll experiment: Since the experiment was made using children and relying on these children’s judgement, in my humble opinion, is not a strong result. Children do not have a strong base of morality, they do not fully know what is right or wrong and merely rely and mimic what they hear and see (feeds)from adults. The experiment used a doll and this is understood by children as a toy (an inanimate object which could be deformed, thrown, etc). I believe that their actions were parts imitation and curiosity and at the same time liberation that they could do what they think they could do with the doll without being judged by the adult (since children’s actions are controlled by adults). Secondly, the experiment was a model of ‘conditioning’ and not free will. I think the result of this experiment would be different if adults were the participants. Even if the doll was substituted with a live cat (apologies-just an example), the children will still act out what adults did but it will not be true with adult participants. My conclusion for this experiment is that behaviour is truly learned from experiences (heard and seen) and the younger one learns an action, the more likely that it will be moulded into his being/behaviour/lifestyle. But an adult’s adaptation of new behaviour is his choice.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Does Psychology Need More Effective Suspicion Probes?

Suspicion probes are meant to inform researchers about how participants’ beliefs may have influenced the outcome of a study, but it remains unclear what these unverified probes are really measuring or how they are currently being used.

Science in Service: Shaping Federal Support of Scientific Research  

Social psychologist Elizabeth Necka shares her experiences as a program officer at the National Institute on Aging.

A Very Human Answer to One of AI’s Deepest Dilemmas

Imagine that we designed a fully intelligent, autonomous robot that acted on the world to accomplish its goals. How could we make sure that it would want the same things we do? Alison Gopnik explores. Read or listen!

Privacy Overview

Learn More Psychology

• Behavioral Psychology

Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment

Albert bandura's influential bobo doll experiments reveal how children imitate tv violence and the behavior of others..

Permalink Print   |  

• Biological Psychology
• Body Language Interpretation
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Dream Interpretation
• Freudian Psychology
• Memory & Memory Techniques
• Role Playing: Stanford Prison Experiment
• Authoritarian Personality
• Memory: Levels of Processing
• Cold Reading: Psychology of Fortune Telling
• Stages of Sleep
• Personality Psychology
• Why Do We Forget?
• Psychology of Influence
• Stress in Psychology
• Body Language: How to Spot a Liar
• Be a Better Communicator
• Eye Reading: Body Language
• Motivation: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
• How to Interpret your Dreams Guide
• How to Remember Your Dreams
• Interpreting Your Dreams
• Superstition in Pigeons
• Altruism in Animals and Humans
• Stimulus-Response Theory
• Conditioned Behavior
• Synesthesia: Mixing the Senses
• Freudian Personality Type Test
• ... and much more
• Unlimited access to analysis of groundbreaking research and studies
• 17+ psychology guides : develop your understanding of the mind
• Self Help Audio : MP3 sessions to stream or download

Best Digital Psychology Magazine - UK

Best online psychology theory resource.

• Bandura, A., Ross, D. and Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63 , 575-582.
• Bandura, A., Ross, D. and Ross, S. A. (1961). Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 66 (1), 3-11.
• Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of Models’ Reinforcement Contingencies on the Acquisition of Imitative Responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1 (6), 589.
• Huessmann, L. R., Lagerspetz, K. And Eron, L. D. (1984). Intervening Variables in the TV Violence-Aggression Relation: Evidence From Two Countries. Developmental Psychology , 20 (5), 746-775.

Which Archetype Are You?

Are You Angry?

Windows to the Soul

Are You Stressed?

Attachment & Relationships

Memory Like A Goldfish?

31 Defense Mechanisms

Slave To Your Role?

Are You Fixated?

Interpret Your Dreams

How to Read Body Language

How to Beat Stress and Succeed in Exams

Psychology Topics

Learn psychology.

• Access 2,200+ insightful pages of psychology explanations & theories
• Insights into the way we think and behave
• Body Language & Dream Interpretation guides
• Self hypnosis MP3 downloads and more
• Behavioral Approach
• Eye Reading
• Stress Test
• Cognitive Approach
• Fight-or-Flight Response
• Neuroticism Test

© 2024 Psychologist World. Home About Contact Us Terms of Use Privacy & Cookies Hypnosis Scripts Sign Up

Psych in Real Life: The Bobo Doll Experiment

Learning objectives.

• Describe the process and results of Albert Bandura’s bobo doll experiment

Bandura studied the impact of an adult’s behavior on the behavior of children who saw them. One of his independent variables was whether or not the adult was hostile or aggressive toward the Bobo doll, so for some children the adults acted aggressively (treatment condition) and for others they did not (control condition 1) and for yet other children there were no adults at all (control condition 2). He was also interested to learn if the sex of the child and/or the sex of the adult model influenced what the child learned.

Phase 1 of the Experiment: The Observation Phase

The observation phase of the experiment is when the children see the behavior of the adults. Each child was shown into a room where an adult was already sitting near the Bobo doll. The child was positioned so he or she could easily see the adult.

Phase 2 of the Experiment: Frustration

Dr. Bandura thought that the children might be a bit more likely to show aggressive behavior if they were frustrated. The second phase of the experiment was designed to produce this frustration. After a child had watched the adult in phase 1, he or she was taken to another room, one that also contained a lot of attractive, fun toys and was told that it was fine to play with the toys. As soon as the child started to enjoy playing with the toys, the experimenter said something.

Phase 3 of the Experiment: The Testing Phase

After the child was told to stop playing with “the very best toys,” the experimenter said that he or she could play with any of the toys in the next room. Then the child was taken to a third room. This room contained a variety of toys. Many of the toys were engaging and interactive, but not the type that encouraged aggressive play. Critically, the Bobo doll and the hammer that the model had used in the first phase were now in this new playroom. The goal of this phase in the experiment was to see how the child would react without a model around.

The child was allowed to play freely for 20 minutes. Note that an adult did stay in the room so the child would not feel abandoned or frightened. However, this adult worked inconspicuously in a corner and interacted with the child as little as possible.

During the 20 minutes that the child played alone in the third room, the experimenters observed his or her behavior from behind a see-through mirror. Using a complex system that we won’t go into here, the experimenters counted the number of various types of behaviors that the child showed during this period. These behaviors included ones directed at the Bobo doll, as well as those involving any of the other toys. They were particularly interested in the number of behaviors the child showed that clearly imitated the actions of the adults that the child had observed earlier, in phase 1.

Below are the results for the number of imitative physically aggressive acts the children showed on average toward the Bobo doll. These acts included hitting and punching the Bobo doll. On the left, you see the two modeling conditions: aggression by the model in phase 1 or no aggression by the model in phase 1. Note: Children in the no-model conditions showed very few physically aggressive acts and their results do not change the interpretation, so we will keep the results simple by leaving them out of the table.

The story is slightly, though not completely, different when we look at imitative verbal aggression, rather than physical aggression. The table below shows the number of verbally aggressive statements by the boys and girls under different conditions in the experiment. Verbally aggressive statements were ones like the models had made: for example, “Sock him” and “Kick him down!”

Note: Just as was true for the physically aggressive acts, children in the no model conditions showed very few verbally aggressive acts either and their results do not change the interpretation, so we will keep the results simple by leaving them out of the table.

CC licensed content, Original

• Authored by : Patrick Carroll for Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

CC licensed content, Shared previously

• Observational Learning. Provided by : Open Learning Initiative. Located at : https://oli.cmu.edu/jcourse/workbook/activity/page?context=df3e71c70a0001dc01587dcb723e2002 . Project : Psychology. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

General Psychology Copyright © by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) – The Imitative Aggressive Experiment 

Table of Contents

Last Updated on August 2, 2021 by Karl Thompson

This classic example of a laboratory experiment suggests that children learn aggressive behaviour through observation – it is relevant to the Crime and Deviance module, and lends support to the idea that exposure to violence at home (or in the media) can increase aggressive and possibly violent behaviour in real life.

Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) aimed to find out if children learnt aggressive behaviour by observing adults acting in an aggressive manner.

Their sample consisted of 36 boys and 36 girls from the Stanford University Nursery School aged between 3 to 6 years old.

Stage one – making some of the children watch violence 

In this stage of the experiment, children were divided into three groups of 24 (12 boys and 12 girls in each group), and then individually put through one of the following three processes. 

Stage two – frustrating the children and observing their reactions

The children were then taken to a room full of nice of toys, but told that they were not allowed to play with them, in order to ‘frustrate them’, and then taken onto another room full of toys which consisted of a number of ‘ordinary toys’, as well as a ‘bobo doll’ and a hammer. Children were given a period of time to play with these toys while being observed through a two way mirror.

The idea here was to see if those children who had witnessed the aggressive behaviour towards the doll were more likely to behave aggressively towards it themselves.

To cut a long story short, the children who had previously seen the adults acting aggressively towards the bobo doll were more likely to behave aggressively towards to the bobo doll in stage two of the experiment.

Strengths of the bobo-doll experiment 

Limitations of this laboratory experiment

Laboratory Experiments – advantages and disadvantages

This post from Simply Psychology offers a much more detailed account of Bandura’s Imitative Aggressive experiment – NB if you’re an A-level sociology student, you don’t really need to know that much detail for this experiment, this link is just for further reading.

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Bobo Doll Experiment

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 30 November 2016
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Jennifer E. Lansford 3  

1960 Accesses

The original Bobo doll experiment was conducted by Bandura et al. ( 1961 ) using a 5-ft inflatable clown (the Bobo doll) to demonstrate that children can learn aggressive behavior in the absence of any rewards and solely by observing the behavior of an adult model.

Introduction

At the time the original Bobo doll experiment was conducted, learning was understood through behaviorism as conceptualized by Skinner ( 1953 ). Individuals were believed to learn through rewards and punishments. Rewards such as money, praise, or other desirable tangible and intangible reinforcements were believed to increase the likelihood that someone would behave in a particular way, whereas punishments were believed to decrease the likelihood that someone would behave in a particular way. For example, a boy who pushed a classmate off a swing and was rewarded by being allowed to swing right away would be more likely in the future to push a classmate off the swing when he wanted a turn. However, if the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . New York: General Learning Press.

Google Scholar  

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 , 575–582.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66 , 3–11.

Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior . New York: Macmillan.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Child and Family Policy, Duke University, Box 90545, Durham, NC, 27708-0545, USA

Jennifer E. Lansford

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer E. Lansford .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Oakland University, Rochester, USA

Virgil Zeigler-Hill

Todd K. Shackelford

Section Editor information

Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Ashton Southard

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Lansford, J.E. (2016). Bobo Doll Experiment. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1214-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1214-1

Received : 02 March 2016

Accepted : 24 June 2016

Published : 30 November 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-28099-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Albert Bandura's experiments on aggression modeling in children: A psychoanalytic critique

Introduction.

In a series of innovative experiments, Bandura (1925–2021), renowned Psychology Professor at Stanford University, USA, and his collaborators (e.g., Bandura and Huston, 1961 ; Bandura et al., 1961 , 1963 ; Bandura, 1965 , 1969 ) showed that young children exposed to adults' aggression tend to behave aggressively. In these experiments, children observed adults, in vivo or in vitro , as well as cartoons, behaving aggressively toward a large, inflated doll (clown) named “Bobo doll”, for about 10 min. The findings of these studies are considered to support modeling, observational learning, or learning by imitation and provide evidence for Bandura's social learning theory, which belongs to the behaviorism paradigm. In this paper, we offer a psychoanalytic critique of these experiments with the aim of shedding light on the unconscious processes of children's imitation of aggression. Although Bandura ( 1986 ) later formulated the so-called social cognitive theory and focused on less observable processes (e.g., self-regulation, self-efficacy, beliefs, expectations), in presenting these early experiments he clearly opposed the existing psychoanalytic interpretations of aggression.

Key findings of Bandura's experiments on aggression in children

The key findings of Bandura's experiments on aggression in children (Bandura and Huston, 1961 ; Bandura et al., 1961 , 1963 ; Bandura, 1965 , 1969 ) are summarized below.

• Observation of an aggressive model is sufficient to elicit aggressive behavior in the young child. The model does not need to be a familiar or nurturant person. Moreover, there is no need to positively reinforce the aggression of either the adult model or the child. Because punishment does not follow the model's aggressive acts, the child receives the message that aggression is acceptable.
• The virtual world has great power. Children who watch a film showing aggressive people or cartoons tend to imitate this behavior.
• Imitation is inferred by the fact that children show verbal and/or physical aggressive acts that are very similar to those of the model.
• Children not only accurately imitate the observed behaviors but also show ingenuity, manifesting different, novice acts of aggression.
• Children transfer, by means of generalization, aggression into new, different contexts, even when the aggressive model is no longer present (delayed imitation).
• If the adult model is punished for his/her aggressive behavior, the probability that the child will show aggressive behavior is reduced. In contrast, positive reinforcement or no reinforcement of the model leads to increased aggression on the part of the child (vicarious/indirect learning).
• After observing the aggressive model, boys tend to exhibit more physical aggression than girls, whereas no gender difference is found for verbal aggression. Independent of gender, children are more likely to imitate a male physically aggressive model. According to gender stereotypes, this form of aggression is more acceptable for men than for women. In contrast, verbal aggression is more likely to be imitated when manifested by a same-sex model.

Taken together, these results imply that children's aggression can be caused—and probably eliminated—by external manipulations. However, are there interpretations other than this omnipotent behavioristic view?

Psychoanalytic views of children's aggression in Bandura's experiments

In the Bobo doll experiments, after presenting the aggressive model and before placing the child in the room with Bobo doll and other toys with the aim of recording the likelihood of imitation, the experimenters instigated the children's aggression. Specifically, an experimenter led children to another room, where she allowed them to enjoy some attractive toys. After a while, she told them that all toys were hers, that she would no longer let anyone play with them, and that she intended to give them to other children. After experiencing this frustration , the children were accompanied to the room where Bobo doll was.

Bandura (Bandura and Huston, 1961 ; Bandura et al., 1961 ) stated that he was seeking a more concise and parsimonious theoretical explanation than the one provided by identification with the aggressor , that is, the ego defense mechanism described by Anna Freud ( 1946 ), and attempted to outline alternative explanations (Bandura, 1969 ). However, if we look closely at specific aspects and manipulations of these experiments, we may discover that this mechanism may have more explanatory power for what happened in the laboratory than Bandura believed.

At first, it is reasonable to hypothesize that, in the eyes of the children, the experimenters were omnipotent adult figures with authority, prestige, and power. The strange laboratory setting may have elicited in children excessive arousal , associated with tension and anxiety. This overflow of excitation, that needed to be released, is likely to have resulted from the unprecedented experience, and, more specifically, from the following: separation from parents; presence in an unknown place with strange adults; alternation of unfamiliar rooms and buildings; many overwhelming stimuli, such as physical and verbal aggression exhibited by adults, in vivo or in vitro (i.e., film), or by cartoons within a colorful frame, full of imaginary stimuli; presence of new and exciting toys; and frustration and anger caused by adults who deliberately disrupted children's pleasurable play activity with the aim of provoking their aggressiveness. All these conditions imply that the experiments were not only about “observation of cues produced by the behavior of others” (Bandura et al., 1961 ; our emphasis). If only “cues” were given to children, then why it was assumed in another paper (Bandura et al., 1963 ) that vicarious learning had such a “cathartic function”? Indeed, Bandura may have aptly used this expression because catharsis implies release of tension caused by overwhelming vicarious experience such as in ancient Greek tragedy.

Second, identification with the aggressor is a defense mechanism that is typical of 3- to 6-year-old children—the participants' age in Bandura's experiments. Anna Freud ( 1946 , p. 113) argued that “by impersonating the aggressor, assuming his attributes or imitating his aggression, the child transforms himself from the person threatened into the person who makes the threat”. Children may have unconsciously experienced the aggressiveness of adults (quasi parental figures) toward a familiar playful object as a threat of punishment , possibly a threat of castration by proxy , for their own oedipal/incestuous and autoerotic/masturbatory phantasies, which usually prevail in this age period—the phallic phase of libidinal development (Freud, 1953 ). This explanation is further supported by the finding that males were more influential models regarding physical aggression. According to Anna Freud ( 1946 ), identification with the aggressor is the preliminary stage of superego formation, during which the aggressive drive is not yet directed against the subject but against the outer world. Projection of guilt, thus, supplements the immature superego and may interpret, at least partly, children's sadomasochistic relation with the doll.

Third, we contend that a seduction process of both caretakers and their children had taken place in the university laboratory. With their caretakers' consent, children were brought into an unknown adult place, where they were captivated by adults' passion, namely overt violence against a doll. The violent acts were exhibited in a ritualistic and self-reinforcing manner and in the context of symbolic play. According to Ferenczi ( 1949 ), who was not mentioned by Bandura but whose ideas on this issue inspired Anna Freud, when an adult becomes sexually seductive or violent against a child, a confusion of tongues between the two emerges, in other words, a confusion between child tenderness and adult passion . In these experiments, children experienced an indirect attack with a mild traumatic character: certain adults intruded and impinged on the territory of children's “innocent” play, and then coerced them to observe other adults having little control over their own instinctual (aggressive) drives toward an attractive object. Therefore, it was very likely that children reacted not just with imitation but with anxious identification with the adult. This introjection of the aggressor resulted in children exhibiting the same violent behavior. They seemed to “subordinate themselves like automata to the will of the aggressor” and “could only react in an autoplastic way by a kind of mimicry ” (Ferenczi, 1949 , p. 228, our emphasis), possibly introjecting the adults' unconscious guilt for their abusive behavior.

It is important to note that, contrary to identification with the aggressor, introjection of the aggressor is initially an automatic, organismic reaction to trauma—a mixture of rage, contempt and omnipotence—and only later becomes a defensive, agentic and purposeful process (Howell, 2014 ). In these experiments, children seemed to exhibit this automatic, procedural identification and mimicry. It has also been argued (Frankel, 2002 ) that identification with the aggressor is a universal and very common tactic used by people in mild traumatic situations and, generally, on several occasions where they are in a weak position relative to more powerful others. Although benign, this power may become a real threat: “If the adult got out of control and attacked the doll, could she attack me too?” Identification with the aggressor, then, serves an evolutionary function: survival is ensured if individuals conform to what others expect of them.

In the laboratory setting, children confronted what Lacan ( 1977 ) has called the enigma of the adults' desire : “Why are they behaving this way?”; “What do they want from me?”; “Why are they doing this to me?”. The laboratory setting and the adults' aggression toward the doll can be conceptualized as enigmatic signifiers , the Lacanian notion further elaborated by Laplanche ( 1999 ). These signifiers were verbal and non-verbal messages, doubly compromised and non-transparent to both sides of the communication because of the existence of the unconscious. The young participants found themselves in an asymmetrical relationship while their developmental abilities to metabolize what adults communicated to them were inadequate. They were somewhat helpless. Aggressive behavior was the way with which children attempted to translate adults' “alien” messages and derive meaning from the enigmatic situation.

The ingenuity and novelty—“creative embellishment” as Bandura said when describing the experiment in a short film 1 —which children showed in the aggressive use of toys may be regarded as proof of the playful character of the imitation. Children attempted to transform passivity into activity , to acquire mastery of new and challenging objects and experience pleasure in this play activity, as Freud ( 1955 ) argued, rather than be the subjects of uncanny, mildly traumatic experimental conditions and the spectators of adults' violence. Therefore, children seemed to compulsively repeat the activity in a ritualistic fashion. This view is in line with the emphasis given on transformation in Freud's ( 1946 ) definition of identification with the aggressor.

Bandura's experiments on aggression in children, après-coup

The aggression modeling experiments were conducted at a time when Psychology was striving, by “objective” measurements and laboratory experiments, to establish itself as a discipline. They have received criticism because they certainly raise the ethical issue of children's exposure to violence, with unknown short- and long-term consequences. Ethical concerns have also been expressed for other groundbreaking, or even notorious, experiments in the history of Psychology (e.g., Watson's Baby Albert experiment, Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority).

Despite the ethical and methodological flaws, these aggression experiments and the short films that depict them continue to have a great allure to the scientific community and the society at large. Besides, a degree of seduction, namely optimal seduction (Potamianou, 2001 ), is needed to awaken desire for scientific exploration and facilitate openness to the unknown. They inspired research and interventions and raised public awareness about the effects of children's exposure to violence (e.g., through media). These experiments are still regarded to provide indisputable evidence, by means of a “rigorous experimental design”, for young children's vulnerability to adults' violence. They also illustrate that, from early on, humans are capable of abusive acts, and that these acts can be easily provoked. Therefore, the work of civilization is to undertake every action to protect children from the transmission of violence.

However, the fact that scientists' reservations were not strong enough to prevent them from “using” children in such laboratory experiments, implies, paradoxically, that they believed in children's resilience to violence or trauma. Only a few years after World War II, Psychology seemed to engage in an unconscious attempt at reparation (Klein, 1975 ), perhaps on behalf of the whole humanity, through handling—at last!—violence within a controlled and protected but regressed-to-the-infantile laboratory setting.

Conclusions

This study aimed to approach Bandura's experiments on aggression modeling in children from the psychoanalytic perspective. A variety of psychoanalytic formulations were used to conceptualize the underlying processes and the phenomenology of children's imitation of aggressive acts. These formulations are not supported by research data, a fact that may be regarded also as a limitation of this study. However, they are based on the multitude and richness of clinical observations in the field of Psychoanalysis, which has an undeniably remarkable contribution to the understanding and treatment of human aggression.

Author contributions

EG conceived the idea and drafted the manuscript. KM reviewed key findings of Bandura's experiments and systematically edited the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqNaLerMNOE

• Bandura A. (1965). Influence of model's reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol . 1 , 589–595. 10.1037/h0022070 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1969). “Social-learning theory of identificatory processes,” in Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research , ed D.A. Goslin (Chicago: Rand McNally; ), 213–262. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A., Huston A. C. (1961). Identification as a process of incidental learning . J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol . 63 , 311–318. 10.1037/h0040351 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A., Ross D., Ross S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models . J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol . 63 , 575–582. 10.1037/h0045925 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A., Ross D., Ross S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models . J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol . 66 , 3–11. 10.1037/h0048687 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferenczi S. (1949). Confusion of the tongues between the adults and the child (The language of tenderness and of passion) . Int. J. Psychoanal . 30 , 225–230. (Original work published 1933). [ Google Scholar ]
• Frankel J. (2002). Exploring Ferenczi's concept of identification with the aggressor: Its role in trauma, everyday life, and the therapeutic relationship . Psychoanal. Dialog. 12 , 101–139. 10.1080/10481881209348657 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud A. (1946). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence . New York, NY: International Universities Press. (Original work published 1936). [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud S. (1953). “Three essays on the theory of sexuality,” in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud , Vol. 7 , ed Strachey J. (London: Hogarth Press; ), 125–243. (Original work published 1905). [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud S. (1955). “Beyond the pleasure principle,” in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud , Vol. 8 , ed J. Strachey (London: Hogarth Press; ), 3–64. (Original work published 1920). [ Google Scholar ]
• Howell E. F. (2014). Ferenczi's concept of identification with the aggressor: understanding dissociative structure with interacting victim and abuser self-states . Am. J. Psychoanal . 74 , 48–59. 10.1057/ajp.2013.40 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein M. (1975). “Love, guilt and reparation,” in Envy and Gratitude and Other Works 1921-1945. The Writings of Melanie Klein, Vol. I , ed M. Klein (New York, NY: Free Press; ) (Original article published 1937), 306–443. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lacan J. (1977). The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-analysis . London: Hogarth. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laplanche J. (1999). Essays on Otherness . New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Potamianou A. (2001). Le Traumatique: Répétition et Élaboration . Paris: Dunod. [ Google Scholar ]

• Sep 24, 2023

From the Bobo Doll Experiment to Modern Psychology

The Social Cognitive Theory, also known as the Social Learning Theory, was introduced by Albert Bandura in 1961. This theory suggests that much of human learning is acquired through the indirect observation of behaviors performed by role models and the consequences of these behaviors. Bandura laid the groundwork for the Social Learning Theory with his renowned Bobo Doll experiment. In this experiment, he categorized 72 children into three groups and closely observed their interactions with the Bobo Doll toy, which he subsequently named the experiment after. This groundbreaking study marked the transition from pure behaviorism to cognitive psychology, laying the foundations for modern psychology.

Over time, however, the Bobo Doll experiment and the Social Learning Theory faced criticism. As a result, Bandura emphasized the cognitive and personal aspects of behavior in his theory and shifted the focus from conditioning to learning through observation. Consequently, he renamed the theory to «Social Cognitive Theory». This shift highlighted the importance of cognitive processes and personal factors in the learning process, distinguishing it from traditional behaviorist perspectives. The following will delve into the fundamentals of learning theory, and how the Bobo Doll revolutionized behaviorism and observational learning.

The Social Learning Theory is a learning theory that suggests learning occurs through interaction, observation, and imitation, involving processes of “operant conditioning“ and “modeling and imitation“. Within the Social Learning Theory, there are three core components (Cherry, 2021). Firstly, individuals can learn through observation. Secondly, the theory acknowledges the significance of internal mental states as an integral part of this process. Lastly, it is emphasized that the mere acquisition of knowledge does not always lead to changes in behavior.

The Bobo Doll experiment, conducted by Albert Bandura, is a seminal study within the framework of the Social Cognitive Theory. This research contributed to the literature on social learning theory and helped define its core elements. The study provided significant evidence that aggression is a learned behavior rather than an instinctual one.

The Bobo Doll Experiment

In this experiment, a sample of 72 children, aged 3 to 6 years, were selected, including both girls and boys in the preschool age group. These children were divided into three groups. The first experimental group was shown a video featuring adults engaging in aggressive behavior with the Bobo Doll plastic toy. The second experimental group also watched adults playing with the Bobo Doll toy, but this time, the adults did not display aggressive behavior. The third (control) group was not shown any videos and was thus not exposed to any models.

Additionally, within the first and the second group, half of the children observed same-sex adult models, while the other half observed opposite-sex adult models. After this phase of the experiment, the children's interactions with the Bobo Doll toy, in an environment without any models, were examined. Subsequently, the initial video was shown to the children again, but this time, the displayed aggressive behavior was either punished, rewarded for gentle behavior, or met with no feedback at all.

As a result, the group that witnessed the punishment of aggressive behavior showed changes in their own behavior. This study concluded that children in the developmental process tend to emulate models they encounter in their social environment (Tatlıoğlu, 2021).

Observational Learning, Memory and Motivation

In his Bobo Doll study, Bandura defined three essential models for learning through observation. According to Bandura (1965), observational learning can occur through three main models: a live model involving a real individual demonstrating or enacting a behavior, a verbal instructional model that provides descriptions and explanations of a behavior, and symbolic models that feature real or fictional characters exhibiting behaviors in books, films, television programs, or online media.

Additionally, Bandura emphasized that external reinforcement is not the sole factor influencing learning and behavior. He highlighted those internal mental states such as pride, satisfaction, and a sense of achievement also play a role in this process, serving as internal reinforcement (Artino, 2007).

However, not all observed behaviors are effectively learned. For effective learning through observation, factors involving both the model and the observer play a crucial role, and these factors entail specific requirements and steps. According to the Social Learning Theory, for observational learning to take place, the first requirement is that the observer must pay attention to the model. If the observer's attention is not focused on the model, it implies that the model has not entered their perceptual field, which can have a negative impact on learning. Therefore, if the model is interesting for various reasons or if there is a novel aspect to the situation, the observer is more likely to allocate their full attention to learning.

Furthermore, the ability to retain information and retrieve it from memory plays a significant role in the observational learning process. Remembering the correct information is vital for subsequently performing the correct behavior. The application of the learned behavior leads to the development of skills in that area.

Lastly, for observational learning to be successful, the observer must have the motivation to imitate the modeled behavior. Motivation is influenced by reinforcement and punishment, which are acquired through experience or observation (Cherry, 2021).

Observational learning is driven by three types of motivators for one's performance. Firstly, when someone successfully imitates a behavior they observed, they are directly motivated by reinforcement. Secondly, when they witness others being rewarded for a behavior, they are indirectly motivated through reinforcement. Lastly, individuals shape their behavior based on their personal preferences, imitating behaviors they find rewarding and avoiding those they dislike.

Moreover, modeling behavior goes beyond mere imitation. People can create new behavior patterns by blending what they've seen with their own actions (Bandura, 1989). In essence, it involves more than straightforward copying (Bandura, 1977, as mentioned in Artino, 2007).

The Influence of Social Factors on Behavior: Insights from Workplace Bullying

Social factors play a significant role in shaping behavior through modeling and motivation in our daily lives. Individuals often experience social pressure, which can motivate them to conform to this pressure. This motivation extends not only to themselves but also to others who, through social learning via observation and imitation, are influenced by the same social pressure. The Social Learning Theory is particularly crucial in understanding the acquisition of aggressive behaviors within the context of fundamental concepts related to the development and alteration of expectations and how individuals interpret the social world. It is also essential in explaining instrumental aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Hermann, 2019, as cited in Sevim, 2021). Social pressure can be observed across various ecological systems, for example, workplaces.

Within this environment, a hierarchical structure exists, with a supervisor or manager at the top, followed by subordinate employees. Drawing a parallel to the Bobo Doll experiment, children imitated aggressive behaviors they witnessed in adults, underlining the central role of models. Adult models influence children's actions, while in workplace bullying, leaders and colleagues can serve as models for aggressive or bullying behavior. Thus, employees may replicate hostile or aggressive conduct they observe within the workplace environment.

As we examine the literature, workplace bullying is observed to occur among colleagues or across organizational levels, with its primary source often attributed to leaders displaying avoidance and indifferent styles (Glambek et al., 2018). From a social cognitive theory perspective, leaders who do not intervene in workplace bullying behaviors contribute to the observation and motivation for such behaviors in the work environment, even if these behaviors are not rewarded. Witnessing a colleague engage in aggressive behaviors without being cautioned or corrected is likely to lead to the repetition of aggressive behavior by other employees (Hollis, 2019).

Simultaneously, when a leader or supervisor in the workplace fails to address and rectify aggressive behaviors, they not only realize that the environment tolerates their aggressive conduct but also teach others within the organizational culture that such behaviors are acceptable. This is because people learn behavior standards through observation, and the observation and application of behavior are closely linked. Especially when leaders fail to intervene in verbal or physical aggressive behaviors, those behaviors become normalized (Bandura, 1961, as cited in Hollis, 2019).

In situations where leaders engage in aggressive behaviors, employees learn which behaviors and language are accepted or rejected by observing the norms. According to the results of a study conducted by Hollis (2019) among higher education faculty on workplace bullying, data collected between 2012 and 2018 revealed that two-thirds of participants claimed to have experienced workplace bullying. They alleged that leaders, human resources, and other individuals in positions of power deliberately remained indifferent and knowingly allowed bullying to persist at the expense of employees. The researcher speculated that long-standing managers and faculty members in higher education, such as a participant who said, “I have never had a healthy workplace experience throughout my career in higher education“. may have succumbed to an accepting indifference regarding the prevalence of bullying culture in higher education.

The researcher emphasized that the only way to curb workplace bullying is through leaders addressing these issues, punishing undesirable behaviors, reinforcing positive behaviors in line with the requirements of social cognitive theory, and potentially changing the culture and norms prevailing in the workplace (Hollis, 2019).

From the Social Learning Theory to the Social Cognitive Theory

The Bobo Doll experiment and the Social Cognitive Theory have significantly contributed to the evolution of modern psychology, marking a shift from pure behaviorism to cognitive psychology and fostering studies on subjects like communication, violence, and gender roles. However, it is essential to acknowledge the criticisms and debates surrounding both the Bobo Doll experiment and the Social Cognitive Theory in the literature.

One key criticism, as pointed out by Bilici (2017), revolves around the interpretation of children directing their anger towards the Bobo Doll in the experiment. It raises questions about whether this behavior should be seen as a means of venting anger or as a way of teaching aggression as a natural response. Furthermore, Cherry (2020) conducted a literature review regarding the Bobo Doll experiment and highlighted various criticisms. One significant argument is that applying violence to a toy differs substantially from displaying aggression or violence towards another human being in the real world. Critics contend that because the experiment occurs in a controlled laboratory setting, the results may not necessarily reflect real-world behaviors. It has also been suggested that when children hit the Bobo Doll, they may not necessarily be motivated by aggression; instead, they might simply be attempting to please the adults present. Additionally, due to the immediate data collection, it is challenging to predict the long-term effects. Some critics argue that the study itself is ethically questionable, as experimenters may manipulate children into behaving aggressively, essentially teaching them aggression. Finally, the fact that all participants were selected from a narrow student pool sharing the same race and socioeconomic background raises concerns about the generalizability of the results to a broader and more diverse population.

In a study conducted by Evdokimov and Garfagnini (2020) that examined the effectiveness of individual learning alongside social learning, individuals in the group supported by social learning did not outperform those in the group where only individual learning took place. The researchers highlighted that the reason behind this could be the inadequacy of the Social Learning Theory in explaining the interaction between social and private information not captured by the model. They further emphasized that when individuals are given the choice to measure how much information they can derive from others' decisions, even in suboptimal situations, they tend to prefer observing social information over private information. This observation aligns with the structural approach, an extension of Grether's (1980) theory, which suggests that, in the presence of social information, private information is asymmetrically updated.

The study conducted by Evdokimov and Garfagnini underscores an interesting aspect of social learning and individual learning. It challenges the notion that social learning always enhances individual performance. Instead, it suggests that individuals may prioritize social information over private information in certain situations, even when it may not lead to optimal outcomes. This finding highlights the complexity of human learning and decision-making processes and how they can be influenced by various factors, including the availability of social and private information.

Moreover, it emphasizes the need for a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between social and individual learning, shedding light on scenarios where social learning might not necessarily result in improved performance. This research contributes to the ongoing discussion surrounding the Social Learning Theory and its applicability in explaining human behavior and learning, demonstrating the importance of considering the limitations and conditions under which social learning operates effectively.

In conclusion, according to the Social Learning Theory, for an individual to learn through observation, they need attention, memory, the ability to apply behavior and motivation. Bandura emphasized motivation as the most crucial step in this process, highlighting the importance of identification with a particular model and possessing a quality the individual desires. Failure to intervene in aggressive behavior, as seen in the Bobo Doll experiment, can also pave the way for the normalization of aggression and social pressure in environments. When examining research in the literature, especially in the realms of social pressure and bullying, unaddressed behaviors determine what is deemed acceptable and correct. Consequently, aggressive behaviors grow like a snowball in social settings, gradually becoming socially accepted and leading most people to behave in that manner. Despite criticisms in the current literature regarding the Bobo Doll experiment and the limitations of the Social Cognitive Theory, Bandura's work still holds a significant place in modern research.

Bibliographical References

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual review of psychology , 53 , 27-51. Artino, A. (2007). Bandura, Ross, and Ross: Observational Learning and the Bobo Doll , 1-16. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED499095 Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 1 (6), 589-595. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022070 Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs . NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory . In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 (3), 575-582. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045925 Bilici, İ. E. (2017). İnformal Öğrenme, Çocuk ve Suç Olgusu. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 37 , 21-31. Cherry, K. (2020). What the Bobo Doll Experiment Reveals About Kids and Aggression . Retrieved 18 May 2022, from https://www.verywellmind.com/bobo-doll-experiment-2794993 Cherry, K. (2021). How Social Learning Theory Works . Retrieved 17 May 2022, from https://www.verywellmind.com/social-learning-theory-2795074 Evdokimov, P., & Garfagnini, U. (2020). Individual vs. Social Learning: An Experiment . SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3521347 Glambek, M., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2018). Workplace bullying, the development of job insecurity and the role of laissez-faire leadership: A two-wave moderated mediation study. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organizations, 32 (3), 297-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1427815 Grether, D. M. (1980). Bayes rule as a descriptive model: The representativeness heuristic. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95 , 537-557. Hermann, H. R. (2019). İnsanlarda ve Hayvanlarda Baskınlık ve Saldırganlık Büyük Yaşam Mücadelesi. Görkem Bir (Çev.) . İstanbul: The Kitap. Hollis, L. (2019). Lessons from Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiments: Leadership’s Deliberate Indifference Exacerbates Workplace Bullying in Higher Education. Journal For The Study Of Postsecondary And Tertiary Education, 4 , 85- 102. Sevim, B. (2021). Erken dönem uyumsuz şemaların ve şema modlarının saldırganlık türleri üzerindeki etkilerinin incelenmesi . Yayınlanmış yüksek lisans tezi. İstanbul kent üni̇versi̇tesi̇. Tatlıoğlu, S. (2021). Öğrenmeye sosyal- bi̇li̇şsel bi̇r bakiş: albert bandura. Sosyoloji Notları, 5 (1), 15-30.

Visual Sources

Arcadia, has many categories starting from Literature to Science. If you liked this article and would like to read more, you can subscribe from below or click the bar and discover unique more  experiences  in our articles in many categories

Let the posts come to you.

Thanks for submitting!

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Bandura’s Research ( AQA A Level Psychology )

Revision note.

Psychology Content Creator

Bandura's 'Bobo Doll' study (1961)

• Social Learning Theory is covered in detail on the previous revision note

The Bobo Doll Study

• To investigate the effect of observed aggression on children's behaviour 
• To investigate the effect of same-sex modelling on children's aggressive behaviour
• 72 participants, 36 girls and 36 boys, aged between 37-69 months 
• The children were taken from Stanford University nursery
• Bandura asked the nursery staff to  rate each child's aggression prior to the experiment
• Bandura used the aggression ratings to devise a  matched pairs experimental design so that none of the conditions would comprise naturally aggressive children
• A male or female model was observed per condition (the models were not known to the children)
• Aggressive model – The model behaved aggressively towards the Bobo doll, using p re-determined, standardised behaviours e.g. hitting Bobo with a toy hammer
• Non‐aggressive model – The model behaved in a non-aggressive way
• Control group - No model was present
• There was an equal number of times in which a same sex model or opposite sex model was used per condition
• The children observed the behaviour of the model for 10 minutes, after this, they were taken down a corridor and to another room
• The children were told that they could not play with the toys in the new room as they were being saved for other children (the aggression arousal phase, to ensure a baseline across conditions)
• The children were then taken to a room containing a Bobo Doll, aggressive toys such as a mallet and dart gun and non-aggressive toys such as farm toys and crayons
• The participants were observed  in the Bobo Doll room using a one-way mirror (a mirror that appears reflective from one side and transparent from the  other) for a duration of 20 minutes
• Children who had observed aggressive behaviour were more likely to be aggressive 
• Boys were more physically aggressive; girls were more  verbally aggressive
• Children were more likely to imitate the behaviour of the same-sex role model  

Aggression can be learned via the mechanisms of SLT

Imitation of aggression can occur after only a single exposure to the aggressive act

• Aggression may be observed in one setting and imitated in a different setting

Evaluation of Bandura's Bobo Doll study (1961)

• This was a controlled observational study with a standardised procedure which means that the study is replicable and thus could be repeated to test for reliability
• Bandura's findings fuelled much debate re: exposing children to television violence hence it has good application
• Asking nursery workers to rate childrens' aggression is intrusive and may have encouraged bias
• Some of the children were exposed to an aggressive adult which may have alarmed and distressed them
• The aggression arousal phase may have upset the children
• The experiment only shows short-term effects of observed aggression, making it difficult to see if there are long-term effects too

You've read 0 of your 0 free revision notes

Get unlimited access.

to absolutely everything:

• Downloadable PDFs
• Unlimited Revision Notes
• Topic Questions
• Past Papers
• Model Answers
• Videos (Maths and Science)

Join the 100,000 + Students that ❤️ Save My Exams

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

Did this page help you?

Author: Claire Neeson

Claire has been teaching for 34 years, in the UK and overseas. She has taught GCSE, A-level and IB Psychology which has been a lot of fun and extremely exhausting! Claire is now a freelance Psychology teacher and content creator, producing textbooks, revision notes and (hopefully) exciting and interactive teaching materials for use in the classroom and for exam prep. Her passion (apart from Psychology of course) is roller skating and when she is not working (or watching 'Coronation Street') she can be found busting some impressive moves on her local roller rink.

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

• Psychology >

Bobo Doll Experiment

The Bobo Doll Experiment was performed in 1961 by Albert Bandura, to try and add credence to his belief that all human behavior was learned, through social imitation and copying, rather than inherited through genetic factors.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Social Psychology Experiments
• Milgram Experiment
• Stanford Prison Experiment
• Asch Experiment
• Milgram Experiment Ethics

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Social Psychology Experiments
• 2.1 Asch Figure
• 3 Bobo Doll Experiment
• 4 Good Samaritan Experiment
• 5 Stanford Prison Experiment
• 6.1 Milgram Experiment Ethics
• 7 Bystander Apathy
• 8 Sherif’s Robbers Cave
• 9 Social Judgment Experiment
• 10 Halo Effect
• 11 Thought-Rebound
• 12 Ross’ False Consensus Effect
• 13 Interpersonal Bargaining
• 14 Understanding and Belief
• 15 Hawthorne Effect
• 16 Self-Deception
• 17 Confirmation Bias
• 18 Overjustification Effect
• 19 Choice Blindness
• 20.1 Cognitive Dissonance
• 21.1 Social Group Prejudice
• 21.2 Intergroup Discrimination
• 21.3 Selective Group Perception

These findings are still debated about over 40 years later.

In the modern world, there are many concerns about the effect of social influences on the development and growth of a child's personality and morality.

Television, computer games, food additives, music and the lack of role models are all cited as reasons for a supposed breakdown in society, and an increased tendency towards violence.

These concerns have existed for many years, even before the media turned these factors into sensationalist stories, to try and sell more newspapers. During the 1960's, there was a lot of concern and debate about whether a child's development was down to genetics, environmental factors or social learning from others around them.

For this purpose, Bandura designed the Bobo Doll Experiment to try and 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.

The Bobo doll is an inflatable toy about five feet tall, designed to spring back upright when knocked over.

Children were chosen as subjects for the study, because they have less social conditioning; they have also had less instruction and teaching of the rules of society than adult subjects.

Hypotheses and Predictions

Bandura had a number of predictions about the outcomes of the Bobo Doll Experiment, fitting with his views on the theories of social learning.

• Children witnessing an adult role model behaving in an overly aggressive manner would be likely to replicate similar behavior themselves, even if the adult was not present.
• Subjects who had observed a non-aggressive adult would be the least likely to show violent tendencies, even if the adult was not present. They would be even less likely to exhibit this type of aggression than the control group of children, who had seen no role model at all.
• Bandura believed that children would be much more likely to copy the behavior of a role model of the same sex. He wanted to show that it was much easier for a child to identify and interact with an adult of the same gender.
• The final prediction was that male children would tend to be more aggressive than female children, because society has always tolerated and advocated violent behavior in men more than women.

Setting Up the Experiment

For the Bobo Doll Experiment, Bandura selected a number of children from the local Stanford Nursery School, varying in age from 3 to 6 years, with the average age being 4 years and 4 months.

To test the prediction that boys would be more prone to aggression than girls, he picked 36 subjects of each sex.

The control group , which would not see an adult role model at all, consisted of 24 children, 12 boys and 12 girls.

The second group, which would be exposed to an adult showing aggressive tendencies, was similarly made up of 24 children of either sex. Both of the resulting groups of 12 were further divided; half would be tested with a female role model, half with a male role model.

The third group was structured in exactly the same way as the second, the only difference being that they would be exposed to a passive adult.

For the Bobo Doll Experiment, it was necessary to pre-select and sort the children, to try and ensure that there was an even spread of personality types across the test groups; some subjects already known to be more aggressive in personality than others.

For this, one of the teachers from the nursery worked with the experimenter, to rate each child's personality and attempt to construct well balanced groups.

It must also be noted that each subject was tested alone and individually, to ensure that the effects and reactions of their classmates would bear no influence on the final results or findings of the experiment.

The Bobo Doll Experiment proper began by placing one of 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 adult sat in the other corner of the room, with a few toys, as well as a Bobo doll and mallet. The child was not permitted to play or interact with these toys.

For the children in group two, after one minute of playing with the toys, the adult would begin to verbally and physically attack the doll for a period of 10 minutes.

For the third group tested, the adult would sit quietly and play peacefully with the toys for ten minutes.

The control group, of course, sat in the room for ten minutes with no adult present.

The next stage of the Bobo Doll Experiment was to take the subject into another room, which was filled with interesting toys. The child was not permitted to play with these toys, being told that they were reserved for other children to play with. This was intended to build up the levels of frustration within the subject.

The child was then taken into yet another room filled with interesting toys, some of an aggressive type, some non-aggressive; the room also contained the Bobo doll and the mallet. The subject was watched through a one-way mirror, and a number of types of behavior were assessed.

The first factor measured was physical aggression, consisting of hitting the doll with the mallet or punching, kicking or sitting on the doll.

Verbal aggression was also assessed, whether it was general abuse or an imitation of phrases used by the adult role-model.

The third measurement was the amount of times the mallet was used to display other forms of aggression than hitting the doll. The final behaviors studied were modes of aggression, shown by the subject, which were not direct imitations of the role-model's behavior.

The results for the Bobo Doll Experiment showed, as expected by prediction one, that children who were exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to show imitative aggressive behavior themselves.

Prediction four was proved correct in that boys were nearly three times more likely to replicate physically violent behavior than girls.

The measurements for verbally aggressive behavior again showed that children exposed to aggressive role models were more likely to imitate this behavior. The levels of verbal aggression expressed were about the same for boys and girls.

Subjects in the Bobo Doll Experiment exposed to the non-aggressive model, or no model at all, showed little imitative aggressive behavior. This finding partially proved prediction two, with children exposed to a passive role model showing less imitative aggression.

However, the results did not fully prove this prediction, as there was no discernible difference in the imitative aggression levels between groups one and three.

Male subjects exposed to non-aggressive role models were less likely to use the mallet to hit the Bobo doll. Strangely, male subjects placed with non-aggressive female models were more likely to use the mallet than the control group.

The findings of the Bobo Doll Experiment proved to be a little inconclusive with most of the predictions not being fully proved.

It is not certain that children learn socially, but it is likely that children observing an adult model utilizing violence are more likely to believe that this type of behavior is normal. They may, therefore, be more likely to use this type of action themselves when confronted by similar situations.

Bandura found that girls were much less likely to be physically violent, but were equally as prone to verbal aggression as boys. This is something often encountered in society, where bullying at school, by boys, is more often of a physical nature; intimidation amongst girls tends to be more verbal and social.

There were a few criticisms of the experiment; the Bobo doll springs back upright when it is hit and there is a strong possibility that the children saw it as a game rather than anything else.

There was a follow up experiment, in 1963, which used the same methodology but showed the subjects violence via video; this had a much less defined response than the initial experiment.

Another refinement of the Bobo Doll Experiment, in 1965, tried to establish the effects of rewarding or punishing bad and violent behavior. Children, who witnessed the model being punished for aggressive behavior, were much less likely to follow suit. Interestingly, there was no change in aggression when the model was rewarded for bad behavior.

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth (Mar 26, 2008). Bobo Doll Experiment. Retrieved Jun 26, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/bobo-doll-experiment

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Related articles

Social Learning Theory

Social Development Theory

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Save this course for later.

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

Bobo Doll Experiment

In this post

This study, carried out by Bandura and his colleagues, is an example of how social learning theory is researched. The study, also known as the ‘ Bobo Doll’ study, has been extremely influential since it was carried out in the 1960s.

Social learning theory is based on the idea that people will learn from watching role models. It is argued, especially with regards to children, that the behaviour of a role model will be repeated if that behaviour is not seen to be punished. Behaviour is thought to be even more likely to be repeated if children identify with the role models that they are observing.

Let’s now consider the research of Bandura in more detail. You are likely to be asked about this or the following research study in the appropriate section in the exam, so it is important that you know how the experiment was carried out, as well as its relative strengths and weaknesses.

Bandura, Ross and Ross aimed to find out if aggressive behaviours could be acquired by observation and imitation.

Thirty-six boys and 36 girls aged between three and five years took part in the experiment. In each of the three groups, half of the participants were boys and half were girls.

Twenty-four of the children were exposed to role models, who interacted with the life-size inflatable Bobo doll clown in an aggressive way. These children witnessed adults kicking the doll, hitting it on the head and shouting at it.

After this, the experimenter deliberately irritated and frustrated the children who had observed the aggressive behaviour by not allowing them to play with new toys that they had seen. Instead they were taken into a room with other older toys, which included the Bobo doll.

Another 24 of the children witnessed adults interacting in a non-aggressive way with the Bobo doll, they saw the adults simply ignore the Bobo doll and play with other toys instead.

The final 24 children acted as the control group and were not exposed to the Bobo doll at all.

• Children who witnessed aggressive adult behaviour were far more likely to imitate this kind of behaviour than in the other two groups

• Children who witnessed non-aggressive behaviour and those who were in the control group showed almost no aggression at all towards the Bobo doll
• Boys imitated more physically aggressive acts than girls, although both sexes were equally likely to use verbal aggression.

The findings support the social learning theory because the results show that children who observed aggressive role models were far more likely to imitate this behaviour than those who did not.

Strengths of the study

• The findings from the study have been very influential in finding out whether media violence has an impact on children’s behaviour
• The experiment took place in a laboratory, therefore all variables were well controlled
• The experiment has proven easy to replicate and has been carried out many times, with similar results since the 1960s.

Weaknesses of the study

• Children may have shown demand characteristics, which means that they displayed the behaviour that they thought the researcher was looking for
• The study lacks ecological validity, as it took part in a laboratory
• The research only looks at short-term behaviour and may not reflect children’s behaviour in the long term
• The study took place with an imitation doll; aggression may have been different with a real person who would likely have retaliated.

Interested in a Psychology GCSE?

We offer the Edexcel GCSE in Psychology through our online campus.

Learn more about our Psychology GCSE courses

Read another one of our posts

A comprehensive guide to health and social care training.

Understanding and Supporting Mental Health Conditions

The Role of Diet in Managing Chronic Diseases

Effective Communication Skills in Health and Social Care

Understanding Animal Training – Positive Reinforcement Techniques

Key Skills for Successful Care Home Management

Understanding Dementia: Types, Symptoms, and Care Needs

How GCSE Business Prepares You for Real-World Entrepreneurship

Save your cart?