Accept Punch on Nose Alone but Not Sitting on Doll Alone

In the study by Bandura et al. (aggression), most results were obtained by observation.

(a)Give an example of one behaviour that was recorded as ‘imitative aggression’ and onebehaviour that was recorded as ‘non-imitative aggression’. [2]

Imitative aggression:

Imitation of physical aggression: This category included acts of striking the Bobo doll with themallet, “sitting on the doll and punching it in the nose”, kicking the doll, and tossing it in theair.

(accept ‘punch on nose’ alone but not ‘sitting on doll’ alone)

Imitative verbal aggression: Subject repeats the phrases, "Sock him," "Hit him down," "Kickhim," "Throw him in the air," or "Pow."

Mallet aggression: Subject strikes objects other than the Bobo doll aggressively with themallet.

Non-imitative aggression:

Punches Bobo doll: Subject strikes, slaps, or pushes the doll aggressively. [N.B. first pointabove]

Non-imitative physical and verbal aggression: This category included physically aggressiveacts directed toward objects other than the Bobo doll

Hostile remarks except for those in the verbal imitation category; e.g. "Shoot the Bobo," "Cuthim," "Stupid ball," "Knock over people," "Horses fighting, biting"

Aggressive gun play: Subject shoots darts or aims the guns and fires imaginary shots atobjects in the room.

Imitative = 1 mark

Non-imitative = 1 mark

To earn mark must be a behaviour, not a category name (N.B. ‘punching’ is both categoryname and behaviour).

N.B. the following are imitative but non-aggressive so are irrelevant: Imitativenonaggressive verbal responses: Subject repeats, "He keeps coming back for more," or "Hesure is a tough fella."

Sits on Bobo doll: Subject lays the Bobo doll on its side and sits on it, but does not aggresstoward it.

(b)Describe the results for ‘imitative aggression’. [2]

Accept any data for male and/or female models and/or participants or totals as expansion, orother ways to expand

1 mark partial (no data or simple description), 2 marks full (some approximately accuratedata, relative data or detailed description)

e.g. Physical imitative aggression generally higher for male model = 1 mark

Imitative aggression lower than non-imitative aggression = 1 mark

Physical imitation higher in boys but verbal imitation higher in girls = 2 marks, because notjust an ‘opposite’

In the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) the data were collected by observation.

(a)In the preliminary rating of aggressive behaviour, who were the observers? [2]

the experimenter and a nursery school teacher

1 mark experimenter

1 mark (nursery school) teacher

[accept ‘another person who was familiar with the children’]

(b)In the experimental part of the study, where were the observers and why was thisimportant? [2]

The observers were behind a one-way mirror [accept one-way glass but not two-way mirror]

So that they could see the children but the children couldn’t see them

So that the children (the children’s behaviour) were not affected by being observed

To avoid demand characteristics caused by the children knowing they were being observed

To reduce bias

To increase validity

1 mark partial (brief description)

2 marks full (expanded description, must relate to study – so ‘demand characteristics’ alone

would not be sufficient)

NB ‘screen’ alone insufficient (in a different room)

From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression):

(a)Explain why they expected to find a sex difference in the behaviour of the children. [2]

previous research evidence: parents perceived to have distinct sex-appropriate behaviouralpreferences for children

informal observation: parents reward sex-appropriate behaviour

e.g. girls playing cooking parents punish sex-inappropriate behaviour (= differences in upbringing)

e.g. boy playing female games/cooking differential reinforcement leads to ‘differential habit strength’: more likely to do previously rewarded behaviours/not do punished ones aggression highly masculine-type behaviour (predisposed males have more testosterone)

1 mark partial (brief description),

2 marks full (elaborated description)

NB ‘because they believed they copied same-sex models’ does not explain, so earns

0 marks

NB Because pre-existing levels of aggression observed by nursery teachers showed boys

more aggressive = 1 mark.

(b)Describe one piece of qualitative data which supports this expectation. [2]

1 mark partial (brief description),

2 marks full (elaborated description)

More girls copied verbal aggression, like ‘sock him on the nose’ = 2 marks

The study by Bandura, Ross and Ross on the imitation of aggression used a number ofexperimental controls. Describe how two variables were controlled. [4]

Most likely answer: children matched for levels of aggression; room same; items on table same;model has 10 mins; model does same behaviours in same order; etc.

1 mark identification of control, 2 marks description.

2+2

The study by Bandura et al. (aggression) used a matched pairs design.

(a)What is meant by a ‘matched pairs design’? [2]

• participants are paired up on the basis of key characteristics which are important to the

study

• e.g. pre-existing aggression levels

• then one of each pair are allocated to each condition

1 mark partial, 2 marks full

(b)Describe one advantage of using a matched pairs design in this study. [2]

Matching increases the likelihood that differences in the DV / aggressive behaviour are due

to the IV/exposure to model / gender not individual differences in aggression (advantage over

independent groups)

Matched pairs avoids order effects which could be present in a repeated measures design.

1 mark partial (advantage of matched pairs), 2 marks full (related to Bandura)

The study by Bandura et al on aggression involved observation.Outline two strengths of the way in which the observation was conducted. [4]

Most likely:

• observation conducted for 20 minutes divided into 5 second intervals via a timer; so had 240responses for each child/so lots of repetitions make it reliable

• one-way glass/so child couldn’t see observer; so less likely to show demand characteristics;

• involved two observers; so results could be checked for inter-rater reliability;

• children in one room and observers in another, so children not influenced.

1 mark partial, 2 marks full ×2.

N.B. simply having two observers does not, of itself, increase reliability (but having 2 observers is an advantage, so 1 mark for this)

N.B. Must be an advantage of observation. Do not credit general advantages of the research method/design, such as that the children were matched

The study by Bandura et al (aggression) was an experiment.

(a)What is meant by an ‘experiment’. [2]

• IV and DV (only if not next 2 points)

• IV manipulated

• DV measured

• comparison between groups

• looking for differences

• investigates causal relationships

• controls employed

1 mark partial, 2 marks full (any two points, well explained or several weakly).

N.B.No credit for just listing types of experiments (lab, field, natural) as this does not explain

what an experiment is.

(b)Identify and outline the experimental design used. [2]

most likely

independent groups

different participants in each level of the IV

matched participants

participants in each level of the IV matched on some aspect(s)/for aggressiveness

1 mark partial, 2 marks full.

N.B. Identification of design and explanation of it must match for 2 marks.

Describe two findings from the study by Bandura et al on the imitation of aggression. [4]

Most likely:

• more likely to imitate same-sex model

• females more likely to imitate verbal aggression than males

• males more likely to imitate physical aggression than females.

Also:

• children also imitated non-aggressive behaviour

• non-imitative aggression was higher for same-sex models.

Many other possible answers.

1 mark partial (statement of direction of difference), 2 marks full (numbers) × 2.

Describe two ethical issues raised in the study by Bandura et al on the imitation ofaggression. [4]

Most likely:

• consent: having enough information to decide to participate – children themselves didn’t (NB

paper provides no indication of parents giving consent)

• confidentiality: keeping identify of participants secure (although location – Stanford University

Nursery School – is known, individuals’ names are not)

• deception: being lied to about aims or procedures (children not deceived about aim because

not told/children deceived in the arousal procedure by telling them the very best toys were for

the other children).

1 mark for general description of ethical issue, however elaborated.

2 marks for description or identification of ethical issue related to study (as above), however

briefly.

1 mark partial, 2 marks full × 2.

In their study of aggression, Bandura et al found several differences in behaviour betweengroups of participants.

(a)Outline one difference in behaviour between male and female participants. [2]

Most likely:

• males were more aggressive in general than females

• females more likely to imitate verbal aggression than males

• males more likely to imitate physical aggression than females.

Section B

Use one of the studies listed below to evaluate the use of snapshot studies in psychology.

Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans)

Bandura et al. (aggression)

Schachter and Singer (emotion) [10]

No marks for description of study.

Max 5 if only consider strengths or weaknesses.

Comment Mark

No answer or incorrect answer. 0

Anecdotal discussion, brief detail, minimal focus. Very limited range. Discussion may beinaccurate, incomplete or muddled.1–3
Either points are limited to illustrating strengths or weaknesses of snapshot studieswithout reference to the study OR lack of depth and/or breadth. The answer showssome understanding.4–5
Strengths and weaknesses of snapshot studies are considered and are focused on thestudy although they may be imbalanced in terms of quality or quantity. The answershows good discussion with reasonable understanding.6–7
Balance of detail between strengths and weaknesses of snapshot studies and both arefocused on the study. Discussion is detailed with good understanding and clearexpression.8–10

Examples of possible discussion points:

Piliavin et al.

• strengths of snapshot studies illustrated by being able to collect data in just a few subway journeys, so each one is very similar, reducing extraneous variables between sessions

• also because participants are likely to be similar unlike studies which take a long time when daily/seasonal/generational/cultural differences may influence findings whereas this study’s participants were all weekday subway travellers

• weaknesses of snapshot studies illustrated by potential lack of generalisibility because situations all similar therefore don’t reflect real variability, e.g. if subway was more crowded at the weekend/less so late at night

• or over longer periods of time when attitudes might change, e.g. just after news reports of muggings people might be even less likely to help the ‘drunk’ victim

• only one moment in each traveller’s day. Some people might have been influenced by internal factors such as being fed up so not helped for that reason.

Bandura et al.

• strengths of snapshot studies illustrated by being able to collect data in just a few hours, so each child’s reactions would be very similar, e.g. no differences like wet playtimes making them more aggressive, reducing extraneous variables between observations

• also because participants are likely to be similar unlike studies which take a long time when seasonal/generational/cultural differences may influence findings whereas this study’s participants are likely to have all had similar cultural influence, e.g. from trends in violence in TV programmes

• weaknesses of snapshot studies illustrated by potential lack of generalisibility because situations all similar therefore don’t reflect real variability, e.g. sometimes adults are aggressive so act as models but generally they tell children off for aggression

• only one moment in each child’s behavioural stream. Even though they controlled for ‘typical’ aggressiveness by prescreening, some children might have had a “bad morning”.

Schachter and Singer

• strengths of snapshot studies illustrated by being able to collect data in just a few hours, so each person’s reactions would be very similar, e.g. no differences like how things were going on their university course making them more aggressive, reducing extraneous variables between sessions with the stooge

• weaknesses of snapshot studies illustrated by potential lack of generalisibility because situation is time limited so doesn’t reflect real variability, e.g. generally anger ‘mounts up’ over time – sometimes a lot more than the approx. 20 minute exposure to the stooge

• only one moment in each individual’s behavioural stream. Even though they were comparing manipulation by the two types of stooge, some participants might have been having a “bad day”.

Evaluate one of the studies listed below in terms of its contribution to the debate aboutreductionism in psychology.

Bandura et al. (aggression)

Maguire et al. (taxi drivers)

Demattè et al. (smells and facial attractiveness) [10]

No marks for description of study.

Comment Mark

No answer or incorrect answer. 0

Anecdotal evaluation, brief detail, minimal focus. Very limited range. Evaluation may beinaccurate, incomplete or muddled. 1–3
Points illustrating the contribution of the study to the reductionism debate lack depthand/or breadth. The answer may be general rather than focused on study. Shows someunderstanding.4–5
Points illustrating the contribution of the study to the reductionism debate are focusedon the study although the evaluation may be imbalanced in terms of quality and/ordepth. The answer shows reasonable understanding.6–7
Balance of points illustrating the contribution of the study to the reductionism debateand these are focused on the study. Evaluation is detailed with good understanding andclear expression.8–10

Examples of possible evaluation points:

Bandura et al.

• reductionist because focus is on single cause (imitation)

• so excludes other factors both social (e.g. reinforcement, punishment by peers/adults) and nonsocial (e.g. personality, genes)

• because experiment was so controlled, e.g. assessing prior levels of aggression and allocating to reduce influence

• not reductionist because assessing prior levels of aggression recognises that other factors are at work

• cannot conclude whether effects of same sex models are inherently biological or social

Maguire et al.

• reductionist because looking at activation of individual brain areas

• so limiting differences to those observable at a biochemical level

• and minute structural level when mapped onto MRIs

• not looking at real world navigation so perhaps not able to draw holistic conclusions about actual navigation

• not reductionist because deliberately considering navigation in relation to other tasks similarin a range of ways (sequential or not, topographical or not)

• looking at activation caused by talking, which we do actually do when we are navigating

Demattè et al.

• reductionist because focus is just a few smells and in the real world there are lots

• and they are in combination, not isolated or separated by puffs of clean air

• and smell is not the only thing that determines attractiveness

• considering only attraction of females to males, not vice versa or same-sex attraction

• and only faces not whole body / person

• not reductionist because both nice and nasty smells were considered, and more than one of each

• not aiming to explain all of attractiveness but extent to which odour modulates other attractiveness factors

Use one of the studies listed below to discuss the advantages and disadvantages ofcollecting qualitative data.

Bandura et al. (aggression)

Rosenhan (sane in insane places)

Veale and Riley (mirror gazing) [10]

No marks for description of study.

Comment Mark

No answer or incorrect answer 0

Anecdotal discussion, brief detail, minimal focus. Very limited range. Discussion may beinaccurate, incomplete or muddled. May evaluate the study itself, making only indirect orserendipitous reference to the qualitative data in general.1–3
Either points are limited to illustrating advantages or disadvantages of qualitative datawithout reference to the study or lack of depth and/or breadth. The answer shows someunderstanding.4–5
Both advantages and disadvantages of qualitative data are considered and arefocused on the study although they may be imbalanced in terms of quality or quantity.The answer shows good discussion with reasonable understanding. 6–7
Balance of detail between advantages and disadvantages of qualitative data and bothare focused on the study. Discussion is detailed with good understanding and clearexpression.8–10

Bandura et al.

• advantages of qualitative data: e.g. detail/depth e.g. understanding what children thought of aggressive females

• don’t miss critical information: e.g. video gives precise record of imitation allowing for analysis of verbal and visual information which might not all be recorded otherwise, so differences between boys and girls should not have been missed

• disadvantages of qualitative data: gives a narrow view rather than an average one. If only data about, for example, boys’ responses to female aggressive models, were qualitative it would suggest a very gender stereotyped bias against imitating opposite-sex models and although they were less effective, it still happened

• hard to quantify therefore compare – this is the case when only qualitative data is recorded or when qualitative data cannot be reduced to quantitative data. This wasn’t the case in Bandura et al.

Discuss the relative strengths of using animals versus human participants to investigatedevelopment. Use one of the studies listed below as an example.

Held and Hein (kitten carousel)

Bandura et al. (aggression)

Langlois et al. (infant facial preference) [10]

No marks for description of study.

Comment mark

No answer or incorrect answer 0

Anecdotal evaluation, brief detail, minimal focus. Very limited range. Evaluation maybe inaccurate, incomplete or muddled.1–3
Either points illustrating human/animal strengths lack depth and/or breadth or onlyhumans or animals are considered. The answer is general rather than focused onstudy but shows some understanding.4–5
Both human and animal points are considered and argument is focused on the studyalthough the evaluation may be imbalanced in terms of quality and/or depth. Theanswer shows reasonable understanding.6–7
Balance of detail between human and animal points and both are focused on thestudy. Evaluation is detailed with good understanding and clear expression.8–10

Examples of possible evaluation points: