2. Social Learning Theory
What do you Learning from others
already know?
Reinforcement
Bandura
- bobo doll
Modelling
Vicarious
Role Model
Imitation
3. SLT - Bandura
Aggression is learned
4 basic processes-
1) Attention – how much the individual
concentrates on the model showing behaviour
2) Retention – storing the behaviour witnessed
3) Reproduction – imitating the behaviour
witnessed
4) Motivation – having good reason for showing
the witnessed behaviour again (real or imaginary)
4. SLT & Aggression
Child learns by observing others
likely to pay attention to a role model
child witnesses many examples of aggressive
behaviour and observes the consequences
children learn whether such behaviour is worth
repeating (gives them a motivation to repeat the
behaviour)
motivation can occur as a result of different types
of reinforcement
5. Types of reinforcement
Direct Vicarious
Self-Efficacy
Reinforcement Reinforcement
Child directly Child sees others Success =
reinforcement being rewarded confidence
or punished
If child is
positively If another is The more
reinforced it will rewarded the successful a child
influence the child is much is in being
likelihood of more likely to aggressive the
them being imitate – reward more confident
aggressive again expectation they‟ll be to act
aggressively again
6. SLT - evaluation
Alternative Approach
Nature Vs. Nurture
The studies have shown a genetic factor in the learning
Twin biological approach criticises aggression levels,
McGue et al, +0.43 for monozygotic twins and +0.30 for
theories:
dyzygotic twins
SLT has been criticised by the biological approach
Aronson includes looking at hormone levels as a
which
Evidence from non-violent societies e.g. Pygmies of Central Africa
causeinof aggression.
who live cooperative friendliness – any biological factors can
Higher levels of the male hormone ‘testosterone’
be overridden by learning
have been cited as the main cause of aggressive
Phillips
behaviour. rates always increased in the week following a
Daily homicide
This casts doubt – viewers were being a conclusive
major boxing match on learning imitating the behaviour
explanation of aggression.
they‟d watched, SLT can still happen in adults!
7. SLT A02 - Bandura
72 children divided into 2 groups
Experimental group
Child entered the playroom where an adult role
model was playing aggressively with a mallet
and Bobo doll (physical and verbal violence)
Control group
Child saw the role model ignoring the Bobo doll
8. How does
this support
SLT?
SLT A02 - Bandura
When led into another play room with aggressive
and non-aggressive toys
Experimental group IDEA‟s
Children were more likely to show aggressive
behaviour themselves – children imitated the
physical and verbal violence they‟d witnessed
It was also more likely that the child would imitate the
aggression if they’d witnessed a male role model
(typically male sex appropriate behaviour).
A03
Control group
70% of children had zero rating for aggression
10. Deindividuation
Process whereby
people lose their
sense of individual
identity and engage Anonymity
in unsociable, often
antisocial behaviour Deindividuated people (e.g. wearing a
uniform) are likely to behave aggressively
because of the loss of a sense of
individuality
Not being seen as an individual can make a
person lose their inhibitions as they are
less identifiable – leading to aggressive
acts.
11. Deindividuation
Zimbardo – distinguished between individuated
behaviour (rational and conforms to social norms)
and deindividuated behaviour (which does not).
People usually avoid aggressive behaviour partly
do to social norms, partly due to being held
accountable for actions.
Being anonymous (and unidentifiable) in a crowd
reduces inner restraints and increases
behaviour that is usually inhibited i.e. aggression
Large crowd = person is faceless and adopts a group identity
12. IDEA‟s Deindividuation
Malamuth & Check (1981)
Questioned male students at an
American University found that almost
1/3 of them admitted there was a chance
they might commit rape if there we no
chance of identification
Moral responsibility shifts from the individual person to the group,
of which they are a member
People behave with a “Collective Consciousness” or “Mob
Mentality”
LeBon “social contagion” may be seen
13. Deindividuation - evaluation
Zimbardo (1969) - Hooded electric shock study
Female undergraduates involved in a „study of learning‟
Similar to Milgram‟s study of obedience
Half of the female participants were assigned to the
experimental group and wore laboratory coats and
hoods that covered their faces. They were also
addressed in groups of 4; never being addressed
individually and never by name (in order to
deindividuate them).
The control group wore normal clothes, were given large
name tags to wear and were introduced to each other
by name. Both sets of students could see the „learner‟
who pretended to be in extreme discomfort.
14. Deindividuation - evaluation
The hooded
participants gave
In addition the strength
twice as much
of the shock given by the
shock as the
hooded participants
control group
(unlike the control
group) didn‟t depend
upon whether the
learner was described as
„honest and warm‟ or
„conceited and critical‟.
15. A03 Deindividuation - evaluation
IDEA‟s
Deiner et al (1976) – Halloween night
Observed 1300 trick or treating
American children at Halloween night.
When the children wore masks and went from
house to house in large groups they were
more likely to steal money and sweets (i.e.
engage in anti-social behaviour)
Supporting the deindividuation theory as when the children
were not identifiable they engaged in antisocial behaviour as
the masks and costumes gave them anonymity
16. Deindividuation - evaluation
Gergen et al (1973) the dark room arousal study
Deindividuation does not always produce anti-social behaviour, in
fact they showed that in some circumstances when people cannot
be identified, more welcoming behaviours can occur.
They put groups of six men and six women (who did not know each
other) in either normally lit rooms (control group) or in a
completely dark room (experimental group) and told them that
there was nothing special that the experimenters wanted them to
do.
The results of this study showed that in the final fifteen minutes, the
participants in the dark room began to get physical, half of them
hugged each other, some of them became quite intimate and 80%
reported feeling sexually aroused - the norms of intimacy no longer
prevailed.
17. Deindividuation - evaluation
Gergen et al‟s research
demonstrates that
deindividuation doesn‟t
always result in antisocial
behaviour and that
sometimes prosocial
behaviour can occur
18. Identify whether the words below are
linked with SLT or Deindividuation
Mundane
Learned Attention Retention Realism
Deiner et al
Self Efficacy Vicarious Direct
Reinforcement (1976)
McGue et al
Zimbardo Bandura Consequences (1992)
Bobo Doll Deterministic Reward Uniform
Demand Dark room
Malamuth & Role Model
Check (1981) Characteristics arousal study
Reductionist Hooded Electric Aronson (1999) Boxing
Shock study
