This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AdreannaRM ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Charosiers. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Makayla.rayne ( article contribs).
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brando009.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Toridel.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it normal that the 41963 results are currently (2010-09-26) exactly the same as the 1961 result, precise to a tenth of a unit? It looks like someone copypasted them instead of putting in actual results... Medinoc ( talk) 09:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
In the "Method" section it says that Bandura used 33 boys and 33 girls, but it also says he divided them into three groups of 24. Obviously, 66 and 72 are not the same number; which one is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.236.4 ( talk) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
apparently resolved? DMacks ( talk) 20:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, I think this is the page we are supposed to be posting on, let me know if anyone sees this! Amyfonicello ( talk) 15:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Perfect I see your post! I'm reading through this Wiki Page and think it would help to go into more detail about the social learning theory and how this experiment really supports that theory. Everyone let me know your thoughts! Kathrynhlywa ( talk) 17:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Katie I think that's a really good place to start! I'll start looking at other sources to find content to add to this page
Amyfonicello (
talk) 21:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Aside from talking about social learning theory, we can also go more in depth about media effects and the role on children. Kathrynhlywa ( talk) 14:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi guys! I apologize for not responding to you sooner, it took me a while to figure out how to use the talk page. I think you both proposed great ideas for our wiki page. I'd be happy to find some information on the role of media and how it affects children. Peckhoff ( talk) 15:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that's too off topic/ far fetched for this Wiki page, otherwise we can stay a little more on topic and say how observational learning can negatively/positively affect children? Kathrynhlywa ( talk) 13:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys! I just figured out how to use this talk page, sorry it took so long I was pretty confused!! I think these are some really good ideas and gives us an opportunity to edit and add our own person thoughts to this page. I will definitely start looking into research on this and I will let you know what I find! Kellybyrouty ( talk) 15:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys! I finally found this. I've been writing in a talk page with myself I'm pretty sure! I think you all have good ideas. I think that we should start making revisions to the wiki page. I have some sources and things that I can add. Kennedyshook ( talk) 16:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Kennedy Shook
I think we all have done a good amount of research. I will create a google doc to communicate and start writing our reflection in there. Kennedyshook ( talk) 17:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Kennedy Shook
Our group created a section on the General Aggression Model and Cultivation theory and how these two influence media effects on children as well as the Bobo doll experiment. Kathrynhlywa ( talk) 23:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm a college student and I've been reading about this experiment in my psychology textbook's section on observational learning. My class' textbook is, Psychology:The Brain, The Person, The World. 2nd ed.
Observational learning is defined as "learning that occurs through watching others, NOT through reinforcement." (page 246) This seems to contradict what this wikipedia entry has to say, "One of the experiment's conclusions was that people can learn through vicarious reinforcement." I've also taken a quick glance at the external link that is provided at the bottom of this article, and I cannot find any reference to reinforcement or punishment that would warrant the conclusions that have been drawn in this wikipedia article.
I'm not a wikipedia member yet. But this article is fairly small and seems to need a bit of a cleanup. I may join wikipedia and make correcting this article my first project.
- signed, interested wikipedia reader
Hi all,
I am Sunil Shrestha from nepal and i am a person formaly known in this thread as "interested wikipedia reader". I have made some rather substancial edits to this article. My edits include: removiing terms such as reinforcement, concentrating more on the original 1961 experiement, and to a small explaining what a Bobo doll is.
As this is my first edit on Wikipedia, I welcome any feedback that the rest of you have to offer. Regards Ycaps123 23:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sunil,
As it happens it isn't necessarily that important to the argument - not to the extent that I will undo all your work! - but reinforcement is present in the experiment. The type of learning that the children experience is often called vicarious learning or vicarious reinforcement. The children learn the appropriate behaviour because of the positive reinforcement/positive punishment that the adults hitting the doll receive. The children are therefore positively reinforced only by observation rather than being directly reinforced. It is for these reasons that the experiment is really seen as a brdige between the cognitive and behaviourist paradigms Kiwifruitrulz ( talk) 13:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, just to confirm that applies more readily to the follow-up study than the original, although Bandura's explanation of gender differences also has behaviourist overtones. Kiwifruitrulz ( talk) 13:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I just added some additional info about the 1963 experiment's conclusions. I also added page numbers to the Kosslyn entry in the bibliography. In addition, I left the behaviour edit despite my preference for the americanized spelling (behavior). Ycaps123 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added this tag. Mainly, the lack of blue in the body of the article - we need some links. John (Jwy) 02:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I miss some criticism on this experiment to balance out the bias. I know there is a lot of it, but I have only few sources on this matter and would like to see a more substantial text than the one I can provide.
SOMEONE PLEASE POST A VIDEO OF THE EXPERIMENT ON THIS PAGE! I NEED ONE!
apparently resolved? DMacks ( talk) 20:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems that this article has significantly deteriorated since this version. Should we just restore that version? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I will be updating this article for my developmental psychology class-- stay tuned!
Amusico2 (
talk) 01:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mara, yes I think we can work together and edit different parts. Amusico2 ( talk) 22:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes! Of course, sorry, just getting the hang of this! Thanks Berean Amusico2 ( talk) 01:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey,
I would like these changes in the next time.
1. Add new reference.
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of a models´ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1.No.6, 589-595.
2. Add a paragraph about the experiments in 1963. 3. Change in the introduction for the article. Is that okay? Thanks :) Mara99 ( talk) 00:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Great to see you working together. Can't wait to see how the article improves. Paul Conway, Instructor, Introduction to Child Development, Fall 2012, King's University College Canada 01:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pauljosephconway (
talk •
contribs)
Albrecht Bandura wanted to test in the [1] if there are differences in learning or just in performing when children see a model being rewarded/punished or experienced no consequences for a special behavior. The procedure of the experiment was almost the same like in 1961. Children watched a film-a mediated model punched and screamed aggressively at a Bobo doll. Depending on the condition the film ended with a scene in which the model was rewarded with candies or punished with the warning “Don´t do it again”. In the neutral condition the film ended right after the punching scene. Then the children stayed in a room with many toys and a bobo doll. The experimenter found out that the children showed less often the same behavior like the model when they have seen the punching end than in the other conditions. Boys showed more imitative aggression than girls. That is the measure of the performance and it supports the results of the experiments in 1961. After that, the experimenter asks the children to show what they have seen in the film. (In an earlier experiment with the same procedure the children were asked to describe the behavior. But imitation could/should be a better index for learning) He didn´t find differences in children´s demonstrating behavior depending on the watched movie. The experiment shows that rewards or punishment don´t influence the learning or remembering process, it just influences if the behavior is performed or not. The differences between girls and boys imitating behavior got smaller. That is a hint that girls inhibit the punished behavior more than boys do.
The Bobo doll experiment was the name of experiments conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961 and 1963 studying children´s behavior after watching a model punching a bobo doll and getting rewarded, punished or no consequences for it. The experiment is the empirical demonstration of Banduras social learning theory. It shows that people not only learn by being rewarded or punished itself (Behaviorism), they can learn from watching somebody being rewarded or punished, too (observational learning). The experiments are important because they sparked many more studies on the effects of observational learning and they have practical implication e.g. how children can be influenced watching violent media.
Okay, that is perfect! Thanks you :)
Mara99 (
talk) 02:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mara, here is my piece on the other experiment in 1963!
Hey, that looks good. I just made my changes on the article and I hope that is okay for you. If you have any other idea or something, just let me know! I am happy about critics :) Thanks Mara99 ( talk) 00:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey again, I have question: Can I post a link to a youtube or is it against the wikipedia rules? I think that video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06fTnszze_Q&feature=fvwrel explains the methods really well and would help to improve the article. Thanks for your help Mara99 ( talk) 22:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I worked on the description of the experiment and made it a little less word-y. I also was able to read it aloud and edit it so the sentences flow better. - Toridel ( talk) 17:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello All. Although the information included in the synthesis seems like an accurate account, it is unclear where the information in this synthesis is being derived from. Does anyone have a source that they can add to this section to further support the information presented? -- Dustin Dyke ( talk) 21:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that this section needed a source. I added a reference to this section and revised a sentence. Shawna Echols ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi folks. The section on theories is not very good. For one thing it appears to repeat some stuff about the 1963 experiment already covered. Also a lot of it seems to be opinion and primary research. The theories covered, the GAM and Cultivation are both very controversial. And there are many nuances in movie violence research including studies that don't find effects. I could attempt some changes, but figured I'd tag and discuss first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:D06:AF00:F092:1AAA:6B62:61D ( talk) 14:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
The article incorrectly fuses the 1963 and 1965 studies into one, saying Bandura tested the effects of watching violence modeled by a filmed model that was later punished or rewarded by the end of the film. Bandura's 1963 study examined the effects of viewing aggressive behavior portrayed by a filmed model, and his 1965 study examined the effects of watching a live model display aggressive behavior followed by a reinforcement or punishment. I plan on dissecting the information in the 1963 study section, separating out certain parts into a 1965 study section, and filling the gaps where needed. Brando009 ( talk) 03:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@ EKFRANCK: I noticed in this edit that you mentioned you couldn't find a copy of the BPS code of research ethics. Here it is from internet archive: [1]. I think it's okay for organisations from other countries to posthumously criticise experiments under their own code of ethics, so long as the criticism itself is substantive and notable. I will agree though that the uncited claim of violating BPS code of research ethics seemed to be original research. In general it seems most of the ethical analyses seem to be essays or blog posts which is not great for supporting the article.
I'll also mention I'm planning to make some more substantial edits to this article sometime soon. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 02:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at King's University College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 15:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anonymous viki, Littleprincess03, Agaba02 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Treeluver20 ( talk) 18:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Adding more information in the Social Learning Theory section.
We added new sentences: "The Bobo doll experiment enhanced people's understanding of the factors and issues that contributes to aggression" and "The Bobo doll experiment provides a template for understanding various aspects of human behavioral development." Then we provided citations for the two sentences added. We also added on to a sentence "...they drive individuals to shape their own behavior after the actions of models."
We are wondering if the edit is relevant. We are having difficulty citing, could somebody help out.
These are the references we will add:
--
Anonymous viki (
talk) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aivenrd ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Aivenrd ( talk) 20:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe that using a primary source for this wiki page is necessarily wrong as the page specifically discusses the process of this singular study. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be secondary sources. There should be greater discussion of secondary sources discussing the importance of the research and what it could mean for future research and how the results play a role in social learning theory. SV066 ( talk) 05:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC) SV066 ( talk) 05:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) SV066 ( talk) 05:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)