Understanding the Social Cognitive Theory

PAPER 1: SOCIOCULTURAL APPROACH Learning objective: To understand the Social Cognitive Theory Short Answer Question (SAQ): Describe the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Refer to one study in your response Observational learning is the behaviour of role models that is then internalised by the individual and then reproduced ( by them). Define the terms social norms Social norms are shared standards of acceptable behaviour by groups. Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behaviour of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws Outline the Social Cognitive Theory including -features of the learner/role model -cognitive processes attention, retention, motivation, potential SCT PROCESSES A- attention R- retention R- reproduction M- motivation- expectancies P/s- potential/self efficacy Self efficacy is one’s belief in one’s ability to successfully accomplish a task * Individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to believe they can master challenging problems and are able to revolver quickly from setbacks and disappointments * Those who have low levels of self-efficacy will fear failure and are less likely to attempt to imitate the behaviour of the model. Factors that influence SCT * Consistency- if they behaviour you are observing is consistent you are more likely to learn the behaviour * Identification - you have to see them as a role model * reward/punishment (vicarious reinforcement) motivation to reproduce the behaviour * Liking the model: Warm and friendly models are more likely to be imitated than cold, uncaring models. Study 1: Bandura (1961) Bobo Doll experiment Aim: To see if children would imitate aggression that was role-played by an observed adult. The researchers were specifically interested in whether the sex of the role model and sex of the child would be an important factor in whether a child would imitate aggression or not. As aggression is considered to be a male behaviour rather than a female one, they were interested to see whether sex influenced the likelihood of aggression being imitated. Participants: 72 children from stanford university nursery school * 36 boys and girls * 37 to 69 months * The control group of 24 watched no role model behaviour. Research method: Lab experiment IV1: aggressive model or not IV2: gender of the model DV: whether or not there was imitation of physical aggression seen from the model by kids Procedure: The participants were all rated for aggression before the study based on their interactions in the nursery school, thus the groups were also matched to make sure that one did not have more aggressive children in it than another. In the experimental conditions, the participants were taken into a room individually and the role model was invited by the researcher to play a game. The participant played with familiar toys (similar to the nursery school toys) in a separate part of the room to the role model. The role model in the non-aggressive condition ‘played’ with the other toys and did not play with the Bobo doll. The role model in the aggressive condition then spent their time ‘playing’ by being aggressive towards a Bobo doll. In order to enable observers of the participants to identify imitated behaviour, the role model was aggressive in specific ways that would be suitably novel so they could be identifiable as imitative behaviour; for example, hitting the Bobo doll with a mallet, pushing it down and sitting on it, punching it in the nose or throwing it in the air. These were accompanied with verbally aggressive comments such as ‘kick him’. After 10 minutes, the experimenter entered the room to take the participant to another room to play. Prior to playing elsewhere, the participant was subjected to mild aggression arousal and then went to the room with more toys in which they were told not to play with the toys that were more to their liking/ more attractive. The participant played in this room for 20 minutes. Their behaviour was observed through a one-way mirror at 5-second intervals and rated in terms of imitative aggression; for example, hitting the Bobo doll with the mallet. Findings: 1.Children who were exposed to the aggressive role model, whether male or female, displayed more aggression than the control group or children exposed to the non-aggressive role model (Table 6.2). This suggests that children imitate aggression. This was true for both physical and verbal aggression. Children also displayed non-imitative aggression, suggesting that they were devising new ways of being aggressive. 2.It was also found that boys were far more likely to copy the same-sex aggressive role model in terms of imitating physical aggression than girls. However, girls were equally as likely as boys to imitate verbal aggression of a same-sex role model. 3.In terms of the non-aggressive behaviour that the researchers scored, they found that girls spent significantly more time playing with dolls and the tea set, while boys spent more time with a toy gun. Final Conclusion(s): What conclusions can be made about SCT from the results Exposure to aggressive adult role models may serve to weaken inhibitory responses in children and increase the likelihood that they will give aggressive reactions. Children appear to learn by imitation and this seems more likely if the adult role model is male, regardless of whether the child is male or female. Extended Response Question (ERQ): Evaluate Social-Cognitive Theory (22) Introduction * Define keywords in the question * Describe a theory or model * State your thesis statement (outline your argument & counter argument) * State your conclusion Support-What research evidence is there to support the claim Question- What are the problems or questions? What is still left unanswered? 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 behaviour because all variables other than the independent variable are controlled Brief encounter with model- 10 minutes is not enough time to learn a behaviour as it had to be repetitive incidents over time which through observational learning per the theory allow kids to internalise and reproduce the behaviour 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 behaviour of the model, and so on, allowing for us the be able to clearly understand how and which IVs have in which way impacted the DV Children are made intentionally frustrated- meaning that they may have just been acting out of anger of not being able to play with the toys that they want than actually learning and reproducing the behaviour displayed by the (role) model Using kids is an easy way to get honest action as they would not be cognitively developed enough to question or assume the intentions of the researcher - were too young to understand they were being studied In a lab - not applicable to other real-life situations and locations Experiments can be replicated. Standardised 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) - Correlating to a strong reliability Bobo doll is meant to be hit- which may be why the kids hit it and not because of them learning form the model’s behaviour Low generalizability - children are from the same nursery - brought up in an unusual environment and may have educationally superior and so may not be applicable to kids brought up in different environments Unethical- kids were young and exposed to aggressive behaviour which may have long term effects Wider issues with trying to study social behaviour * There are other explanations as to why we develop our behaviours and ideas. How does it link to SCT?(evaluation of SCT) * Does not explain why some behaviours are and aren’t learned and doesn’t define how long the behaviour needs to be observed before it can be learned and reproduced( not long enough - kids only saw model(aggressive) for 10 minutes) * Done in a lab experiment- don’t know SCT is supported as whether environments make a difference to whether or not kids reproduce and learn the behaviour. * Bobo dolls are designed to be hit- which means that the behaviour displayed by the kids may not have been because of observational learning but rather their knowledge and understanding about/ of how to play with that specific toy. Which lowers the validity and may no longer support the SCT * In a lab experiment-n demand characteristics may have been invoked does to the environment- the kids may have consciously acted a certain way to the perceived aims of the laboratory experiment lowering the application to support the theory but also lowers the validity of the experiment * Stage 2 of the experiment in which they brought them into another room, was necessary to invoke negative emotions as the SCT states that we need motivation to reproduce the behaviours that we have learned through observation. Since the kids once motivated displayed similar aggressive behaviour similar the the aggressive role models we can deduce that lab experiment supports the SCT * Due to the high levels of control the kids were able to focus on the role models behaviour and due to the kids reproduction of behaviour similar to the model we can see that they have learned this from observing the model, therefore supporting the SCT * If we assume that we can learn bead behaviour that also means that we can learn good behaviours and reproduce and demonstrate them as well. * ETHICS all are breached we it cam to using children * Using children is good as they are at the stage where they are constantly learning and development Study 2: Charltoon et al (2000) Aims: To investigate the effects of television on children’s behaviour. The researchers were particularly interested to see whether television would cause the children to become more aggressive. Sample: The children, aged between 3 and 8 years old, over a 2-week period in two different primary schools. Research method:Natural experiment IV: Introduction of television on the island St.Helena Procedure: The study was a natural experiment because the researchers did not directly manipulate the independent variable – the introduction of television. The dependent variable was the behaviour of the children before and after television was introduced. This was measured in terms of prosocial and antisocial acts that were displayed in the playground. The researchers went to the island in 1994 and recorded the behaviour of children 4 months before satellite television was introduced. They set up video cameras in two primary schools to observe the playground behaviour of the children, aged between 3 and 8 years old, over a 2-week period. The researchers recorded 256 minutes of children’s free play and used the Playground Behaviour Observation Schedule (PBOS) to code prosocial and antisocial acts (see Table 6.3). Five years after television was introduced, the researchers returned to the island and filmed similar-aged children at the primary schools once more. Over a 2-week period, the researchers gathered 344 minutes of footage that they coded using the same PBOS. The researchers also noted whether the act was displayed by a single girl/boy, pairs of girls/boys, groups of more than three girls/boys or mixed groupings. The researchers analysed the recordings using the PBOS and made a tally of the acts displayed by the children in 60-second intervals. They then averaged the mean number of acts displayed by children in every 30-minute period. Other researchers have pointed out that the television programmes watched on the island were not the same as on mainland television, and could have contained less violence. For example, the popular children’s television programme Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which has a high level of violence, was not broadcast on the island. Findings: Of the 64 pre- and post-television comparisons made, only nine significant differences were found (see Table 6.4). Overall, the researchers found five declines in prosocial behaviour of both boys and girls in single gender pairs/ groups and mixed groups/pairs. They also found two increases in prosocial behaviour of boys playing alone, and two decreases in antisocial behaviour of boys and girls.Interestingly, there was no change in antisocial behaviour observed in children’s playgrounds, such as fighting, hitting, kicking and pushing, after television was introduced. Further analysis revealed that boys had a tendency to display more antisocial acts than girls (around four times more), and girls were slightly more likely to show prosocial behaviour, although this was not significant. Both boys and girls displayed twice as much prosocial behaviour compared to antisocial behaviour, and this changed very little between the observations. Final conclusion(s) The researchers concluded that television had little influence on the behaviour of the children studied, and that the children were not copying the aggression that they had witnessed on television. The researchers pointed out that there might be environmental conditions specific to the island that could explain why the children did not imitate television aggression. In particular, the close-knit nature of the community and the high levels of adult surveillance over the children may have explained why television had little effect on the children’s behaviour. This goes against the social learning theory as it disproves that we learn through observational learning. Introduction * Define keywords in the question * Describe a theory or model * State your thesis statement (outline your argument & counter argument) * State your conclusion Support-What research evidence is there to support the claim Question- What are the problems or questions? What is still left unanswered? One strength of the study was that the same primary schools were used in both the before and after television observations. Although different children were observed, the fact that the same environments were studied minimised differences that could have occurred if different schools had been used. Other researchers have pointed out that the TV programmes were different on the island as they contained lower levels of aggression.By doing this they have not measures what they were supposed to accurately not to mention it links to a problem with generalizability to those who watch television outside of the island Since the footage was observed / taken from a playground there are less chances of kids displaying demand characteristics Tannis Williams (1981) conducted a similar study on three communities in Canada and found that television did increase aggression in children. Due to this conflicting evidence we don’t know if the experiment was reliable They used a table to clearly identify aggressive behaviour, leading to accurate results that were later analysed to form a conclusion Also minimise observer bias as information they tabled had to be clearly seen (objective) Results may specific to the unique location (1) very few places without TV (cannot validate results) also close-knit community with high levels of adult surveillance- limited application Researchers observed very young children (3-8 years) cannot apply the findings to explain the behaviour of teenagers as they were not studied. The reason for aggression in older children may be different The show that kids were watching wasn’t standardised - less able to say that it relates to / supports SCT Wider issues with trying to study social behaviour * There are other explanations as to why we develop our behaviours and ideas. Final conclusion- how does it link to SCT?(evaluation of SCT) * Using the same school is a strength in their methodology as the environment was kept constant, this minimises the differences in student aggression between schools and shows that No social learning took place. T As the kids did not display change in behaviour after the introduction of television we implicitly receive form the information that observation learning and reproduction may not have occurred. * The kids may not have had motivation to reproduce the behaviour and the close-knit community has strict controls over their behaviour which may have acted as a stronger motivator stopping them from reproducing and violent behaviour. This means That we don’t know for sure whether social learning was taking place and Operant conditioning may have played a role in the kids decision making as consequence of punishment may have driven them to not be as aggressive as they may be by nature. * We can see how Charlton does not support the SCT as the observers of the kids' behaviour has to follow a table which specneified which behaviour could be considered aggressive. Thai means that the data collected was less impacted by observer bias. The results showed no difference in levels of aggression displayed by kids and therefore shows that social learning may not have occurred. This shows that SCt cannot explain why some do reproduce the aggressive behaviour they’ve observed and why others do not * This study highlights that the SCT may be limited in application to all ages of people. The study used very young kids and may have meant that the results were specific to the ages group of the sample. Furthermore it may mean that if social learning did occur, it may not have been applicable to older age groups such as teenagers. * However a similar study investigating social learning theory found that kids in Canada did show higher levels of aggression when exposed to more aggressive shows. This may show that the study is not 100% indicative of social learning not occurring in kids. ________________

PAPER 1: SOCIOCULTURAL APPROACH
Learning objective: To understand the Social Cognitive Theory

Short Answer Question (SAQ): Describe the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Refer to one study in your response

Observational learning is the behaviour of role models that is then internalised by the individual and then reproduced ( by them).

Define the terms social norms

Social norms are shared standards of acceptable behaviour by groups. Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behaviour of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws
	Outline the Social Cognitive Theory including
-features of the learner/role model
-cognitive processes attention, retention, motivation, potential

SCT PROCESSES
A- attention
R- retention 
R- reproduction
M- motivation- expectancies 
P/s- potential/self efficacy

Self efficacy is one’s belief in one’s ability to successfully accomplish a task 
* Individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to believe they can master challenging problems and are able to revolver quickly from setbacks and disappointments
* Those who have low levels of self-efficacy will fear failure and are less likely to attempt to imitate the behaviour of the model.

Factors that influence SCT
* Consistency- if they behaviour you are observing is consistent you are more likely to learn the behaviour
* Identification - you have to see them as a role model
* reward/punishment (vicarious reinforcement) motivation to reproduce the behaviour
* Liking the model: Warm and friendly models are more likely to be imitated than cold, uncaring models.
	Study 1: Bandura (1961) Bobo Doll experiment

Aim:
To see if children would imitate aggression that was
role-played by an observed adult. The researchers were
specifically interested in whether the sex of the role
model and sex of the child would be an important factor
in whether a child would imitate aggression or not. As
aggression is considered to be a male behaviour rather
than a female one, they were interested to see whether
sex influenced the likelihood of aggression being imitated.

Participants: 72 children from stanford university nursery school
* 36 boys and girls
* 37 to 69 months
* The control group of 24 watched no role model behaviour.

Research method: Lab experiment

IV1:    aggressive model or not                IV2: gender of the model

DV: whether or not there was imitation of physical aggression seen from the model by kids

Procedure:

The participants were all rated for aggression before the study based on their interactions in the nursery school, thus the groups were also matched to make sure that one did not have more aggressive children in it than another.

In the experimental conditions, the participants were taken into a room individually and
the role model was invited by the researcher to play a game. The participant played with
familiar toys (similar to the nursery school toys) in a separate part of the room to the
role model. The role model in the non-aggressive condition ‘played’ with the other toys and did not play with the Bobo doll. The role model in the aggressive condition then spent their time ‘playing’ by being aggressive towards a Bobo doll.

In order to enable observers of the participants to identify imitated behaviour, the role model was aggressive in specific ways that would be suitably novel so they could be identifiable as imitative behaviour; for example, hitting the Bobo doll with a mallet, pushing it down and sitting on it, punching it in the nose or throwing it in the air. These were accompanied with verbally aggressive comments such as ‘kick him’.

After 10 minutes, the experimenter entered the room to take the participant to another
room to play. Prior to playing elsewhere, the participant was subjected to mild aggression arousal and then went to the room with more toys in which they were told not to play with the toys that were more to their liking/ more attractive.

The participant played in this room for 20 minutes. Their behaviour was observed through a one-way mirror at 5-second intervals and rated in terms of imitative aggression; for example, hitting the Bobo doll with the mallet.

Findings:

1.Children who were exposed to the aggressive role model, whether male or female, displayed more aggression than the control group or children exposed to the non-aggressive role model (Table 6.2). This suggests that children imitate aggression. This was true for both physical and verbal aggression. Children also displayed non-imitative aggression, suggesting that they were devising new ways of being aggressive.

2.It was also found that boys were far more likely to copy the same-sex aggressive role model in terms of imitating physical aggression than girls. However, girls were equally as likely as boys to imitate verbal aggression of a same-sex role model.

3.In terms of the non-aggressive behaviour that the researchers scored, they
found that girls spent significantly more time playing with dolls and the tea set,
while boys spent more time with a toy gun.

Final Conclusion(s): What conclusions can be made about SCT from the results
	Exposure to aggressive adult role models may serve to weaken inhibitory responses in children and increase the likelihood that they will give aggressive reactions. Children appear to learn by imitation and this seems more likely if the adult role model is male, regardless of whether the child is male or female.

Extended Response Question (ERQ): Evaluate Social-Cognitive Theory (22)

Introduction
* Define keywords in the question
* Describe a theory or model
* State your thesis statement (outline your argument & counter argument)
* State your conclusion
	Support-What research evidence is there to support the claim
	Question- What are the problems or questions? What is still left unanswered?
	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 behaviour because all variables other than the independent variable are controlled
	Brief encounter with model- 10 minutes is not enough time to learn a behaviour as it had to be repetitive incidents over time which through observational learning per the theory allow kids to internalise and reproduce the behaviour
	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 behaviour of the model, and so on, allowing for us the be able to clearly understand how and which IVs have in which way impacted the DV
	Children are made intentionally frustrated- meaning that they may have just been acting out of anger of not being able to play with the toys that they want than actually learning and reproducing the behaviour displayed by the (role) model
	Using kids is an easy way to get honest action as they would not be cognitively developed enough to question or assume the intentions of the researcher - were too young to understand they were being studied
	In a lab - not applicable to other real-life situations and locations
	Experiments can be replicated. Standardised 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) - Correlating to a strong reliability
	Bobo doll is meant to be hit- which may be why the kids hit it and not because of them learning form the model’s behaviour
	Low generalizability - children are from the same nursery - brought up in an unusual environment and may have educationally superior and so may not be applicable to kids brought up in different environments
	Unethical- kids were young and exposed to aggressive behaviour which may have long term effects
	Wider issues with trying to study social behaviour
* There are other explanations as to why we develop our behaviours and ideas.
	How does it link to SCT?(evaluation of SCT)
* Does not explain why some behaviours are and aren’t learned and doesn’t define how long the behaviour needs to be observed before  it can be learned and reproduced( not long enough - kids only saw model(aggressive) for 10 minutes)
* Done in a lab experiment-  don’t know SCT  is supported as whether environments make a difference to whether or not kids reproduce and learn the behaviour.
* Bobo dolls are designed to be hit- which means that the behaviour displayed by the kids may not have been because of observational learning but rather their knowledge and understanding about/ of how to play with that specific toy. Which lowers the validity and may no longer support the SCT
* In a lab experiment-n demand characteristics may have been invoked does to the environment- the kids may have consciously acted a certain way to the perceived aims of the laboratory experiment lowering the application to support the theory but also lowers the validity of the experiment
* Stage 2 of the experiment in which they brought them into another room, was necessary to invoke negative emotions as the SCT states that we need motivation to reproduce the behaviours that we have learned through observation. Since the kids once motivated displayed similar aggressive behaviour similar the the aggressive role models we can deduce that lab experiment supports the SCT
* Due to the high levels of control the kids were able to focus on the role models behaviour and due to the kids reproduction of behaviour similar to the model we can see that they have learned this from observing the model, therefore supporting the SCT 
* If we assume that we can learn bead behaviour that also means that we can learn good behaviours and reproduce and demonstrate them as well.
* ETHICS all are breached we it cam to using children
* Using children is good as they are at the stage where they are constantly learning and development

Study 2:  Charltoon et al (2000)

Aims: 
To investigate the effects of television on children’s
behaviour. The researchers were particularly interested
to see whether television would cause the children to
become more aggressive.

Sample: 
The children, aged between 3 and 8 years old, over a 2-week period in two different primary schools.

Research method:Natural experiment

IV:  Introduction of television on the island St.Helena

Procedure:

The study was a natural experiment because the
researchers did not directly manipulate the independent
variable – the introduction of television. The dependent
variable was the behaviour of the children before and after
television was introduced. This was measured in terms of
prosocial and antisocial acts that were displayed in the
playground.

The researchers went to the island in 1994 and recorded
the behaviour of children 4 months before satellite
television was introduced. They set up video cameras in
two primary schools to observe the playground behaviour
of the children, aged between 3 and 8 years old, over a
2-week period. The researchers recorded 256 minutes of
children’s free play and used the Playground Behaviour
Observation Schedule (PBOS) to code prosocial and
antisocial acts (see Table 6.3).

Five years after television was introduced, the researchers
returned to the island and filmed similar-aged children at
the primary schools once more. Over a 2-week period, the
researchers gathered 344 minutes of footage that they
coded using the same PBOS. The researchers also noted
whether the act was displayed by a single girl/boy, pairs
of girls/boys, groups of more than three girls/boys or
mixed groupings.

The researchers analysed the recordings using the PBOS
and made a tally of the acts displayed by the children in
60-second intervals. They then averaged the mean number
of acts displayed by children in every 30-minute period.

Other researchers have pointed out that the television
programmes watched on the island were not the same
as on mainland television, and could have contained less
violence. For example, the popular children’s television
programme Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which has a high
level of violence, was not broadcast on the island.

Findings:

Of the 64 pre- and post-television comparisons made, only
nine significant differences were found (see Table 6.4).
Overall, the researchers found five declines in prosocial
behaviour of both boys and girls in single gender pairs/
groups and mixed groups/pairs.

They also found two increases in prosocial behaviour of boys playing alone, and two decreases in antisocial behaviour of boys and girls.Interestingly, there was no change in antisocial
behaviour observed in children’s playgrounds, such
as fighting, hitting, kicking and pushing, after television
was introduced.

Further analysis revealed that boys had a tendency to
display more antisocial acts than girls (around four times
more), and girls were slightly more likely to show prosocial
behaviour, although this was not significant.

Both boys and girls displayed twice as much prosocial behaviour
compared to antisocial behaviour, and this changed very
little between the observations.

Final conclusion(s)

The researchers concluded that television had little influence on the behaviour of the children studied, and that the children were not copying the aggression that they had witnessed on television.

The researchers pointed out that there might be environmental conditions specific to the island that could explain why the children did not imitate television aggression. In particular, the close-knit
nature of the community and the high levels of adult surveillance over the children may have explained why television had little effect on the children’s behaviour.

This goes against the social learning theory as it disproves that we learn through observational learning.

Other researchers have pointed out that the TV programmes were different on the island as they contained lower levels of aggression.By doing this they have not measures what they were supposed to accurately not to mention it links to a problem with generalizability to  those who watch television outside of the island

Since the footage was observed / taken from a playground there are less chances of kids displaying demand characteristics
	Tannis Williams (1981) conducted a similar study on three communities in Canada and found that television did increase aggression in children. Due to this conflicting evidence we don’t know if the experiment was reliable

They used a table to clearly identify aggressive behaviour, leading to accurate results  that were later analysed to form a conclusion

Also minimise observer bias as information they tabled had to be  clearly seen (objective)
	Results may specific to the unique location (1) very few places without TV (cannot validate results) also close-knit community with  high levels of adult surveillance- limited application

Researchers observed very young children (3-8 years) cannot apply the findings to explain the behaviour of teenagers as they were not studied. The reason for aggression in older children may be different

The show that kids were watching wasn’t standardised - less able to say that it relates to / supports SCT
	Wider issues with trying to study social behaviour
* There are other explanations as to why we develop our behaviours and ideas.
	Final conclusion- how does it link to SCT?(evaluation of SCT)
* Using the same school is a strength in their methodology as the environment was kept constant, this minimises the differences in student aggression between schools and shows that No social learning took place. T As the kids did not display change in behaviour after the introduction of television we implicitly receive form the information that observation learning and reproduction may not have occurred.
* The kids may not have had motivation to reproduce the behaviour and the close-knit community has strict controls over their behaviour which may have acted as a stronger motivator stopping them from reproducing and violent behaviour. This means That we don’t know for sure whether  social learning was taking place and  Operant conditioning may have played a role in the kids decision making as consequence of punishment may have driven them to not be as aggressive as they may be by nature.
* We can see how Charlton does not support the SCT as the observers of the kids' behaviour has to follow a table which specneified which behaviour could  be considered aggressive. Thai means that the data collected was less impacted by observer bias. The results showed no difference in levels of aggression displayed by kids and therefore shows that social learning may not have occurred. This shows that SCt cannot explain why some do reproduce the aggressive behaviour they’ve observed and why others do not 
* This study highlights that the SCT may be limited in application to all ages of people. The study used very young kids and may have meant that the results were specific to the ages group of the sample. Furthermore it may mean that if social learning did occur, it may not have been applicable to older age groups such as teenagers.
* However a similar study investigating social learning theory found that kids in Canada did show higher levels of aggression when exposed to more aggressive shows. This may show that the study is not 100% indicative of social learning not occurring in kids.

________________

Transcript for:Understanding the Social Cognitive Theory

Transcript for:
Understanding the Social Cognitive Theory