bobo doll experiment unethical

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

Ethical Issues in Bobo Doll Study

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.

Any subject. Any type of essay. We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.

writers online

Moral standards are principles guiding how researchers conduct their research. According to the American Psychological Association, adhering to ethical standards is an indicator of research competency. Bandura conducted a study to investigate how behaviors are acquired. His experiment is one of the most recognized and praised researches in psychology. However, his analysis has a lot of ethical issues that raise significant concerns.

It was unethical for Bandura to exhibit aggressive behaviors on children. In his hypothesis, Bandura suggested that new behaviors can be acquired through observation. Therefore, when he exposed children to the experiment, he knew that children will learn the seen behavior. In this case, Bandura failed to recognize the long term effect of the violent images on children. Many studies have shown that visual images are stored in the brain longer than audio images. What the children saw in the experiment may have a long-lasting effect on their future life. Also, there are other non-effect experiments that Bandura could have used to investigate the same hypothesis. For example, he could have to study how children learn to play instruments or how they learn to mimic adult’s voices. Using aggression was a malicious act. Lastly, Bandura failed to consider what he would have felt if his child was subjected to such a study. Very few parents, including Bandura, would want their children to be exposed to such violence.

Bobo doll experiment could not have been conducted without breaking the APA ethical standards. Bandura prevented the children from withdrawing from the study. The APA guidelines require an individual to be allowed to withdraw from the study at any time.  During the study, someone stood at the door to prevent the children from going out of the room. The children were underage and, therefore, could not give consent. It is an assumption that parents were aware of the experiment since the nursery school teacher gave permission. One of the statements included in the consent form is the effect of an analysis on the participant. If the parents were given the consent forms, they could have seen the long-lasting impact of the research on their children. Therefore, they could not have given the consent form. The code of conduct requires an individual to come out of an experiment in the same state they were before the test. The violence images that the children saw may have affected their behavior.

Various ethical principles need to be added. Children should not be allowed to participate in any experiment that may harm them no matter how famous the test is. The policy will protect children from psychological trauma. Utilitarianism should not be used in research. The theory suggests that an action is considered good or bad, depending on its effects on the majority. Bandura may have argued that his work was beneficial to the majority, and therefore it was not wrong. Such a theory fails to cater for the well-being of the minority.

In conclusion, Bandura’s experiments still raise questions on how well researchers are following ethical standards. His analysis posed a psychological pain to the individual, and there is no evidence of the children going for counseling. Bandura failed to adhere to the ethical standards when he denied the children their right to withdraw from the experiment. His choice of research was misguided because there were other safe experiments that he could have done to test the same hypothesis. Lastly, there is a need for the revision of ethical principles to include those ideas that will ensure the minority are protected.

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers.

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Automated page speed optimizations for fast site performance

• 20 Most Unethical Experiments in Psychology

Humanity often pays a high price for progress and understanding — at least, that seems to be the case in many famous psychological experiments. Human experimentation is a very interesting topic in the world of human psychology. While some famous experiments in psychology have left test subjects temporarily distressed, others have left their participants with life-long psychological issues . In either case, it’s easy to ask the question: “What’s ethical when it comes to science?” Then there are the experiments that involve children, animals, and test subjects who are unaware they’re being experimented on. How far is too far, if the result means a better understanding of the human mind and behavior ? We think we’ve found 20 answers to that question with our list of the most unethical experiments in psychology .

Emma Eckstein

Electroshock Therapy on Children

Operation Midnight Climax

The Monster Study

Project MKUltra

The Aversion Project

Unnecessary Sexual Reassignment

Stanford Prison Experiment

Milgram Experiment

The Monkey Drug Trials

Featured Programs

Facial expressions experiment.

Little Albert

Bobo Doll Experiment

The Pit of Despair

The Bystander Effect

Learned Helplessness Experiment

Racism Among Elementary School Students

UCLA Schizophrenia Experiments

The Good Samaritan Experiment

Robbers Cave Experiment

Related Resources:

• What Careers are in Experimental Psychology?
• What is Experimental Psychology?
• The 25 Most Influential Psychological Experiments in History
• 5 Best Online Ph.D. Marriage and Family Counseling Programs
• Top 5 Online Doctorate in Educational Psychology
• 5 Best Online Ph.D. in Industrial and Organizational Psychology Programs
• Top 10 Online Master’s in Forensic Psychology
• 10 Most Affordable Counseling Psychology Online Programs
• 10 Most Affordable Online Industrial Organizational Psychology Programs
• 10 Most Affordable Online Developmental Psychology Online Programs
• 15 Most Affordable Online Sport Psychology Programs
• 10 Most Affordable School Psychology Online Degree Programs
• Top 50 Online Psychology Master’s Degree Programs
• Top 25 Online Master’s in Educational Psychology
• Top 25 Online Master’s in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
• Top 10 Most Affordable Online Master’s in Clinical Psychology Degree Programs
• Top 6 Most Affordable Online PhD/PsyD Programs in Clinical Psychology
• 50 Great Small Colleges for a Bachelor’s in Psychology
• 50 Most Innovative University Psychology Departments
• The 30 Most Influential Cognitive Psychologists Alive Today
• Top 30 Affordable Online Psychology Degree Programs
• 30 Most Influential Neuroscientists
• Top 40 Websites for Psychology Students and Professionals
• Top 30 Psychology Blogs
• 25 Celebrities With Animal Phobias
• Your Phobias Illustrated (Infographic)
• 15 Inspiring TED Talks on Overcoming Challenges
• 10 Fascinating Facts About the Psychology of Color
• 15 Scariest Mental Disorders of All Time
• 15 Things to Know About Mental Disorders in Animals
• 13 Most Deranged Serial Killers of All Time

Site Information

• About Online Psychology Degree Guide

• Abnormal Psychology
• Assessment (IB)
• Biological Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminology
• Developmental Psychology
• Extended Essay
• General Interest
• Health Psychology
• Human Relationships
• IB Psychology
• IB Psychology HL Extensions
• Internal Assessment (IB)
• Love and Marriage
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Prejudice and Discrimination
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Research Methodology
• Revision and Exam Preparation
• Social and Cultural Psychology
• Studies and Theories
• Teaching Ideas

So you want to assess ethical considerations?

Travis Dixon May 21, 2018 Research Methodology , Teaching Ideas

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

One way of evaluating studies in psychology is to consider whether or not the study might have ethical issue s. When evaluating ethics, many students want to jump straight to condemning studies by saying something like, “This study was unethical because…” 

I would refrain from making such condemnations and using this definitive language because it’s often very hard to completely write-off a study as being “unethical.” A more accurate and appropriate way to say it, is that the study might have “ethical concerns,” “ethical issues” or “ethical considerations.”

Avoid making judgements about a study based on its ethics, because ethics are rarely black and white. For example, we can’t just say that because a study caused or could have caused psychological or physical harm, that it is unethical. What if that harm could reduce suffering and improve the lives of others?

Let’s look at the following questions and see when you start saying “No.”

• Is it OK to kill an ant if that will help find a cure for cancer?
• What about a rabbit?
• What about 1,000 rabbits?
• What about a chimpanzee?
• What about 1,000 chimpanzees?
• What about making 1 chimp suffer for years to find the cure?
• Would you kill a human to cure cancer?
• What about just running a 50% risk of killing them?
• A 0.000001% risk?

Studies on animals often make for good discussions about ethical considerations, which is why they’re now a requirement for the HL extensions.

You see, the “rules” surrounding what is ethical and unethical are not black and white. Moreover, not everyone will agree on what is ethical and what is unethical. We have to appreciate that there are grey areas and this is why we use phrases like issues, concerns or considerations.

You can also see that sometimes a level of harm or suffering can be justified, if it has the potential to benefit others. This is one of the key “issues” that researchers, review boards and psychologists have to consider.

How to explain an ethical concern/issue

If you’re explaining that one limitation of a study is that it has ethical issues, what you’re probably saying is that there is the study caused harm or suffering for others, whether it’s human or non-human animals (e.g. laboratory rats). Or, that there is (or was) the  potential  for harm or suffering. so in your explanation you need to make it clear  how the study caused harm and/or has the potential to cause harm.

Many students make the mistake of being too vague and brief when they explain the ethical issue. For example, here’s a common type of evaluation of Bandura’s Bobo Doll studies:

• One limitation of Bandura’s Bobo Doll experiment is that it’s unethical because it used very young children as subjects.

So what? Lots of studies use young children. The Marshmallow test is a famous experimental paradigm that uses kids. Using kids is not inherently unethical, so this point needs explaining – what’s the reason why in this study it’s an ethical issue to use young kids? And that requires explaining the harm or potential for harm. So here’s what a better explanation would look like:

• One limitation of Bandura’s Bobo Doll experiment is that it’s unethical  it has ethical issues because it used very young children as subjects. Bandura hypothesized that learning could happen through observation, and the results supported this. But who’s to say that the learned aggressive behaviour did not continue after the study? The experiment might have caused lasting beliefs in the children about aggression, which raises some concerns about ethics. It would be interesting to know if the parents signed informed consent forms, or if this study happened before this was a requirement. 

In the explanation above, the potential for harm is explained – the lasting impact of the research on the kids. It also doesn’t overstate the possible effects (e.g. maybe the kids could grow up to hate clowns and try to beat them up whenever they saw them).

The Belmont Report

The Bandura experiments also raise an interesting point about studies conducted before the Belmont Report (1978) , which outlines three core components of ethical research:

• Respect for persons
• Beneficence

Studies before this report, such as Bandura’s experiments, Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment or Milgram’s experiments on compliance with authority, could be judged to be unethical by today’s standards , based on the ethical guidelines set forth by psychological institutions (e.g. APA, BPS,  etc.). Even with these famously unethical studies, the phrase “by today’s standards” is still an important qualifier.

But it’s quite unlikely you’ll be using these old studies in your responses. It’s far more probable that you’ll be using more modern studies. These studies would have been approved by an ethics review committee before being conducted, so it’s unlikely that there will be the same obvious ethical issues as there are in the old studies. This is why I encourage you to get the judgement mentality out of your head and refer to ethical issues rather than declaring if a study was unethical or not.

You can actually lose marks by evaluating ethics

The problem with many students’ evaluations of ethical issues in studies is that  they are irrelevant to the question being asked.  Let’s look at this with a few example essay questions in IB Psychology:

• Evaluate social identity theory.
• Discuss the effect of one hormone on human behaviour.
• Discuss the use of one research method used to study cultural origins of behaviour.
• Discuss one bias in thinking and decision making.

Evaluating ethics in studies is not something I actively encourage my students to do for essays, because it’s often not relevant.

Evaluating the ethical issues raised in a particular study is of little or no relevance to any of these questions. Why not? Well let’s take a look:

• This question wants you to evaluate  the theory – evaluating the evidence is one way of evaluating the theory, but the ethics of the evidence (i.e. study) is of marginal relevance to its effect on the validity of the theory.
• You should be discussing the effect of the hormone, not the ethics of the supporting evidence – this would be of marginal relevance and there are much better points to make.
• For this question, you could explain common ethical issues  with the method , but explaining issues in the supporting study would once again be of marginal relevance.
• Similar to the answers above – you are discussing the bias, not the supporting evidence.

If you start explaining ethical issues about the study when the study is not the focus of the question, something else is, you run the risk of losing marks for not being “focused on the question.” 

When is it a good idea to assess ethics?

The only time I would strongly encourage you to explain ethical issues relevant to a particular study is when you’re asked a “One study related to…” type question in an essay – not in a SAQ.

For example:

• Discuss one study related to neuroplasticity.
• Evaluate one study related to prosocial behaviour.
• Evaluate research (theories or studies) related to genes and behaviour.

When you are explicitly asked to evaluate or discuss a study in relation to a particular topic, then it’s a good idea to explain ethical issues. But even then, you can still write excellent answers without worrying about ethics.

This video explains the five types of IB Psychology exam questions…

The last word…

Evaluating a study by explaining it has limitations because of its ethical issues requires you to carefully consider how the study caused harm or had (or has) the potential to cause harm. This is often very difficult, especially when discussing modern studies because they have to pass strict ethics review boards.

I don’t discourage my own students from assessing ethics in essays, but I also don’t actively encourage it either. Like anything, if it’s relevant to the question and you think you have a good point to make, then go for it. But also remember that you are showing your  critical thinking  – don’t just write the first thing that comes to mind or go to the easy default of saying a study was unethical. Think carefully and explain concisely.

Feel free to leave any questions in the comments.

Travis Dixon is an IB Psychology teacher, author, workshop leader, examiner and IA moderator.

Briefly outline two of the ethical issues around Bandura's (1961) study on imitation of models.

An ethical issue can be a positive or a negative feature of the research which takes into account or goes against ethical guidelines 

Consent: the children cannot give informed consent and the parents weren't asked to give it on their behalf

Deception: the children were not given any indication of what the study was about or debriefed 

Withdrawal from the investigation: there was a researcher at the door stopping the children from leaving at each stage

Confidentiality: some video footage of the experiment was released however this was with the consent from the children's parents 

Protection of participants: the children were not followed up upon or offered counselling, may have become more violent in the future after being exposed to these role models 

15320 Views

Related Psychology A Level answers

Outline the main features of the multi store model of memory. (6 marks), outline two cognitive explanations for depression (6 marks)., what is a strength of the multi store model of memory, outline one criticism of research into reciprocity (4 marks), we're here to help, company information, popular requests, © mytutorweb ltd 2013– 2024.

Internet Safety

Payment Security

• How It Works
• Our Discounts
• Free essays

Ethical Dilemma: Bobo Doll Experiment

• Speech analysis

The psychological experiments on people always present ethical dilemmas. Many of them might be avoided. However, in some cases, it is not possible. One of such examples is the Bobo doll experiment that was meant to study the development of aggression in children. Despite the fact that it has provided psychologists with invaluable data, the ethical concerns it has presented allow questioning its feasibility. Therefore, the following research focuses on providing insight into the Bobo doll experiment, defining its outcome and ethical issues, as well as the ways of solving them. Additionally, the work reviews the possibility of conducting the similar study in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Description of the Experiment

The outline of the experiment was as following. The children at the age of three to six with an average level of aggression were divided into groups. Each child was tested individually in order to eliminate the influence of other participants. Depending on the group they were in, the children were shown one of the two following scenes. In the first one, an adult was battering Bobo (an inflatable doll of about one meter in height), beating it with hands and a hammer, throwing and kicking it, as well as verbally assaulting it. In the second one, an adult ignored the doll completely (Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2010).

Need custom written paper? We'll write an essay from scratch according to your instructions! Plagiarism and AI Free Price from only 10.99$/page Call Now Start Chat Order Now

After watching the scene, the children were placed in a room where there were plenty of attractive toys. However, they were allowed to play with them only for a short time. Next, the upset kids were transferred to a room with the Bobo doll as well as both usual and aggressive toys, such as a hammer, rope, and guns. The children were allowed to play there for 20 minutes, while the experimenter watched their actions through a bilateral mirror, noting the level of aggression of every kid (Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2010).

The original conductor of the experiment was Albert Bandura, i.e. a Canadian and American psychologist known for his work on the theory of social learning (social cognitivism). By doing the experiment, he was seeking to study the aggression in children, suggesting that its formation and development occurs through observation and interaction with other people. The test was executed in the United States in 1961, on the base of Stanford University in Stanford, California (Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2010).

The importance of the study is supported by the fact that there is still no single opinion regarding the violence observed by children in movies, on television, and in video games as a trigger for the formation of their aggressive behavior. This question is hotly debated today since the aggression is at the root of most social evils, violence, and wars. Thus, it is not surprising that it has become one of the most profound studies of social psychology (Davies, 2010).

The research has confirmed most of the assumptions of Bandura. In particular, he agreed that with the theory of behaviorism, according to which learning happens through encouragement (e.g. dolphin did a trick and received a fish). However, he also proposed a hypothesis stating that the people, namely children, learn not only through the method of a carrot and stick. However, they can do this by using their ability to emulate and imitate the behavior of others. Indeed, the children that participated in the experiment demonstrated an ability to imitate a pattern of behavior of adults in their absence. Additionally, Bandura and his colleagues predicted that the children from a non-aggressive group would behave more calmly than the others. The results have also showed the importance of gender differences to the development of aggression. In particular, the boys demonstrated the desire to imitate the model of physical violence while the girls preferred verbal aggression. The researchers also proved to be right in their assumption that the boys would be much more insistent than girls. The boys showed two or more acts of aggression while the girls were confined to its single manifestation (Pastorino & Doyle-Portillo, 2015).

In general, the results of Bobo doll experiment have confirmed the theory of Bandura. The study has demonstrated how certain models of behavior may be learned by observation and imitation, as well as the fact that social imitation may accelerate the acquisition of new behaviors. According to the conclusions of Bandura, the aggressive behavior of adults towards the doll allowed children to assume that such action is acceptable. As a result, the children entrenched the aggressive pattern of behavior in response to any problem (Shaffer, 2009).

Ethical Concerns

The Bobo doll experiment had a significant impact both on children that took part in it and psychology, as a whole. In the first case, many kids demonstrated the ability to reproduce the aggressive behavior patterns several months after the end of the study. However, it has also made a revolution in psychology by demonstrating that the children can use the models of behavior as a means of acquiring new behaviors that would not have developed otherwise. For the scientific community of the time, which was dominated by behaviorism and did not consider modeling as something significant, such statement was a novelty. Theorists of the old school believed that children produced the new types of behavior only by chance and only in the case of encouragement that these types of behavior are memorized. The study has shown that kidscan learn new behavioral patterns by watching other people and are able to demonstrate them without any encouragement. Thus, the Bobo doll experiment has laid the foundations of the social learning theory (Shaffer, 2009).

As it has been mentioned before, one of the outcomes of the Bobo doll experiment was the children’s reproduction of aggressive behavior. As a result, it presents an ethical issue of permissibility of involving children in such study. The issue is exacerbated by the young age of participants (3-6 years).It means they are quite susceptible to both positive and negative external influence (Banyard & Flanagan, 2011). It should be noted that the frontal lobe of a human brain, which is often considered the source of morality and serves as a regulator of complex forms of human behavior. It is underdeveloped at this age. As a result, kids are unable to separate fiction from reality, meaning that they are likely to reproduce the aggressive patterns they have acquired during the experiment in the everyday life. Moreover, it is impossible to predict how long the aggressive tendencies acquired during the experiment will remain in the ranks of behavioral models of kids. They may disappear after several days, weeks or, as it has been mentioned before, months. However, there is no guarantee that the learned patterns of aggression will not last for the participant’s lifetime, thus making him/her potentially dangerous for the society (Kellett, 2010).

Considering the young age of the children that took part in the study, it is possible to say as follows. Such concepts as the informed consent are applicable not to them but rather to their parents or guardians. Given the fact that the first experiment was conducted on the basis of Stanford University nursery school, and, most importantly, had been carried out several times, it is possible to assume the following fact. The participation of children in it was a matter of personal choice of their parents and guardians. As a result, one may say that no cases of coercion, deception, or lack of the informed consent were taking place during the course of study (Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2010).

The study has been replicated many times by Bandura, with changes in the looks of the doll, the outline of the experiment, etc. In particular, in 1963, Bandura repeated the experiment while making several adjustments. In this case, the children were shown not only the act of violence towards the Bobo doll but also its consequences (the adult model was either punished or encouraged for its actions). As a result, the kids received an additional motivation for their further actions. Those that watched the adult model being punished for beating the doll were less likely to show the aggressive behavior (Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2010).

It is clear that the involvement of such highly perceptive participants as children in psychological studies such as the Bobo doll experiment is highly undesirable. It is due to various ethical concerns. As it has been mentioned above, the kids that were engaged in it demonstrated increased levels of aggression in a short-term period (i.e. several months). However, there is no denying that in order for people to understand and control the impact of potentially dangerous phenomena of the surrounding reality (i.e. aggression) on a person, it is required to conduct psychological experiments on people. As it has been mentioned before, the Bobo doll experiment had a significant impact on psychology in a long-term perspective, laying the foundations for the social learning theory. It is often perceived as the most significant trend in the study of development of kids. Indeed, according to the point of view that was dominant in psychology at that time, the behavior of an individual depended only on personal or situational factors, excluding cognitive structures and processes. However, a man is not completely free of his own nature, which has been demonstrated by the experiment (Shaffer, 2009). Therefore, it is possible to say that the value of the study conducted by Bandura makes the following fact clear. Despite all the ethical concerns presented it still should have taken place.

Any psychological experiment involving living people presents various ethical issues (especially the one that focuses on the research of aggression). Thus, it is clear that these concerns cannot be eliminated completely. However, it is possible to reduce their significance by minimizing the potential adverse effects of the study. In other words, in case there is a possibility of harming participants, the research activities should include the protection from the harmful effects. In case of the Bobo doll experiment, it is possible to change the age of the children, by raising it to 8-12 years. The primary reason for such a change is the fact that at this age, the kids are already capable of distinguishing reality from fiction. In turn, the risk of the long-term prevalence of aggressive behavioral patterns they have acquired during the study will be lower. It will, thus, reduce the described ethical concern (Martin, 2008).

The participation in the study similar to the Bobo doll experiment as a member of the research team presents a chance to observe the mechanism of social learning directly. Considering that nowadays, learning models are constantly provided by the media, the additional knowledge of this matter may allow mitigating their potential negative impact on oneself. Thus, the participation in such experiment is quite feasible. At the same time, the outline of study must be adjusted to provide the maximum level of comfort both for participants and observers. In particular, some replicas of the research involved female adult models performing the acts of violence. However, the presence of aggression in women is not expected. It may put the participants (especially children) in the state of shock. Therefore, it would be best if only the male models were used to imitate aggression (Kellett, 2010).

In case the similar study has been conducted in the UAE, the outline of the experiment and its outcomes will be different due to the cultural peculiarities regarding the process of upbringing of children. First of all, in this country, it is believed that one must pay for everything. This statement is applicable to any sphere of life, including the process of upbringing. Any event is perceived by the Arabs as a good opportunity to teach a lesson to their children. The same one can be said about the described study, meaning that it is unlikely that there will be any obstacles to its organization. However, its results will differ from the original ones in the terms of non-aggression. The reason for that is the indisputable authority of the head of the family in the UAE. This cultural relevance is important for the younger generation, especially boys. Moreover, the strict hierarchy between a son and a father requires no fewer efforts from the latter ones. The head of a family must ensure that every step of his offspring will bring him nothing but pride (Valassopoulos, 2013). Thus, it is unlikely that the male half of participants will resort to violence during the experiment and, therefore, dishonor their fathers.

Get a Price Quote

First Order Discount 15% For New Client

As a conclusion, it is possible to say that despite all the ethical issues it presents, the Bobo doll experiment has allowed to bring the study of the children’s development to a new level. Of course, it would be better to involve the older participants in it to reduce the concerns, as well as to refrain from the use of female models. Still, the fact that it was replicated many times contributes to its relevance for psychology. At the same time, the conduction of this research in the countries different from those of the Western world (e.g. the UAE) may lead to a significant change in its results due to cultural issues and peculiarities.

Ethics Free Samples

Ethical Considerations in the Oil Industry

Ethics: Enactment of Sox

Aristotle’s philosophical theory on ethics

10 Bizarre Psychology Experiments That Completely Crossed the Line

• Published Apr 11, 2014
• Updated Nov 22, 2023
• In Psychology & Pop Culture

Experimental psychology and psychological experiments can be key to understanding what makes people tick. Cognitive dissonance, false consensus effect, and classical conditioning are important parts of psychological experiments. However, some individuals have gone about their research and famous psychology experiments in rather unusual, and sometimes morally dubious, ways. These researchers’ findings may increase the sum of knowledge on human behavior; however, the methods that a number of psychologists have used in order to test theories have at times overstepped ethical boundaries. Some might even appear somewhat sadistic. Those taking part in such studies have not always escaped unscathed. In fact, as a result some have suffered lasting emotional damage, or worse. Here are ten bizarre psychology experiments that totally crossed the line.

10. Milgram Experiment (1961)

The Milgram Experiment is one of the controversial experiments. Yale University social psychology professor Stanley Milgram embarked on his now infamous series of experiments in 1961. Prompted by the trial of high-ranking Nazi and Holocaust-coordinator Adolf Eichmann, Milgram wished to assess whether people really would carry out acts that clashed with their conscience if so directed by an authority figure. For each test, Milgram lined up three people, who were split into the roles of “experimenter” (or authority figure), “teacher” and “learner” (actually an actor). After that, the teacher was separated from the learner. They were then told to comply with the experimenter. The teacher would attempt to tutor the learner in sets of word pairs. The penalty for wrong answers by the learner was shocking in more ways than one. The learner pretended to receive painful and increasingly strong jolts of electricity that the teacher thought they were delivering. Even though no real shocks were inflicted, the ethics of the experiment came under close scrutiny owing to the severe psychological stress placed on its volunteer subjects.

9. Little Albert Experiment (1920)

The Little Albert Experiment is one of the psychological experiments gone wrong . Things were different in 1920. Back then, you could take a healthy baby and scare it silly in the name of science. That is exactly what American social psychologist John B. Watson did at Johns Hopkins University. Watson was interested to learn if he would be able to condition a child to fear something ordinary. He coupled it with something else that he supposed triggered inborn fear. Watson borrowed eight-month-old baby Albert for an unethical psychological experiment. First, Watson introduced the child to a white rat. Observing that it didn’t scare Albert, Watson then reintroduced the rat, only this time together with a sudden loud noise. Naturally, the noise frightened Albert. Watson then deliberately got Albert to associate the rat with the noise, until the baby couldn’t even see the rat without bursting into tears. Essentially, the psychologist gave Albert a pretty unpleasant phobia. Moreover, Watson went on to make the infant distressed when seeing a rabbit, a dog, and even the furry white beard of Santa Claus. By the end of the experiment, Albert might well have been traumatized for life!

8. Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)

In August 1971 Stanford University psychology professor Philip Zimbardo decided to test the theory that conflict and ill-treatment involving prisoners and prison guards is chiefly down to individuals’ personality traits. This experiment came to be known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo and his team set up a simulated prison in the Stanford psychology building and gave 24 volunteers the roles of either prisoner or guard. The participants were then dressed according to their assigned roles. Zimbardo gave himself the part of superintendent. While Zimbardo had steered the guards towards creating “a sense of powerlessness” among the mock prisoners, what happened was pretty disturbing. Around four of the dozen prison guards became actively sadistic. Prisoners were stripped and humiliated, left in unsanitary conditions and forced to sleep on concrete floors. One was shut in a cupboard. Zimbardo himself was so immersed in his role that he did not notice the severity of what was going on. After six days, his girlfriend’s protests persuaded him to halt the experiment; but, that was not before at least five of the prisoners had suffered emotional trauma.

7. Monkey Drug Trials (1969)

The Monkey Drug Trials is a psychology experiment gone wrong . While their findings may have shed light on the psychological aspect of drug addiction, three researchers at the University of Michigan Medical School arguably completely overstepped the mark in 1969 by getting macaque monkeys hooked on illegal substances. G.A. Deneau, T. Yanagita and M.H. Seevers injected the primates with drugs. These drugs included cocaine, amphetamines, morphine, LSD, and alcohol. Why? In order to see if the animals would then go on to freely administer doses of the psychoactive and, in some cases, potentially deadly substances themselves. Many of the monkeys did, which the researchers claimed established a link between drug abuse and psychological dependence. Still, given the fact that the conclusions cannot necessarily be applied to humans, the experiment may have had questionable scientific value. Moreover, even if a link was determined, the method was quite possibly unethical and undoubtedly cruel, especially since some of the monkeys became a danger to themselves and died.

6. Bobo Doll Experiment (1961, 1963)

In the early 1960s, Stanford University psychologist Albert Bandura attempted to demonstrate that human behavior can be learned through observation of reward and punishment. To do this, he acquired 72 nursery-age children together with a large, inflatable toy known as a Bobo doll. He then made a subset of the children watch an aggressive model of behavior. An adult violently beat and verbally abused the toy for around ten minutes. Alarmingly, Bandura found that out of the two-dozen children who witnessed this display, in many cases the behavior was imitated. Left alone in the room with the Bobo doll once the adult had gone, the children exposed to the violence became verbally and physically aggressive towards the doll, attacking it with an intensity arguably frightening to see in ones so young. In 1963 Bandura carried out another Bobo doll experiment that yielded similar results. Nevertheless, the psychology research has since come under fire on ethical grounds, seeing as its subjects were basically trained to act aggressively with possible longer-term consequences and not healthy childhood development.

5. Homosexual Aversion Therapy (1967)

Aversion therapy to “cure” homosexuality was once a prominent subject of research at various universities. A study detailing attempts at “treating” one group of 43 homosexual men was published in the British Medical Journal in 1967. The study recounted researchers M.J. MacCulloch and M.P. Feldman’s experiments in aversion therapy at Manchester, U.K.’s Crumpsall Hospital. The participants watched slides of men that they were told to keep looking at for as long as they considered it appealing. After eight seconds of such a slide being shown, however, the test subjects were given an electric shock. Slides showing women were also presented, and the volunteers were able to look at them without any punishment involved. Although the researchers suggested that the trials had some success in “curing” their participants, in 1994 the American Psychological Association deemed homosexual aversion therapy dangerous and ineffective.

4. The Third Wave (1967)

“How was the Holocaust allowed to happen?” It’s one of history’s burning questions. And when Ron Jones, a teacher at Palo Alto’s Cubberley High School, was struggling to answer it for his sophomore students in 1967, he resolved to show them instead. On the first day of his social experiment, Jones created an authoritarian atmosphere in his class, positioning himself as a sort of World War II-style supreme leader. But as the week progressed, Jones’ one-man brand of fascism turned into a school-wide club. Students came up with their own insignia and adopted a Nazi-like salute. They were taught to firmly obey Jones’ commands and become anti-democratic to the core, even “informing” on one another. Jones’ new ideology was dubbed “The Third Wave” and spread like wildfire. By the fourth day, the teacher was concerned that the movement he had unleashed was getting out of hand. He brought the experiment to a halt. On the fifth day, he told the students that they had invoked a similar feeling of supremacy to that of the German people under the Nazi regime. Thankfully, there were no repercussions.

3. UCLA Schizophrenia Medication Experiment (1983–1994)

UCLA Schizophrenia Medication Experiment is another of the famous psychological studies . From 1983 psychologist Keith H. Nuechterlein and psychiatrist Michael Gitlin from the UCLA Medical Center commenced a now controversial study into the mental processes of schizophrenia. Specifically, they were looking into the ways in which sufferers of the mental disorder relapse. They were trying to find out if there are any predictors of psychosis. To achieve this, they had schizophrenics, from a group of hundreds involved in the program, taken off their medication. Such medication is not without its nasty side effect. The research may hold important findings about the condition. Nevertheless, the experiment has been criticized for not sufficiently protecting the patients in the event of schizophrenic symptoms returning; nor did it clearly determine the point at which the patients should be treated again. What is more, this had tragic consequences in 1991 when former program participant Antonio Lamadrid killed himself by jumping from nine floors up despite having been open about his suicidal state of mind and supposedly under the study’s watch.

2. The Monster Study (1939)

Appropriately branded the “Monster Study” by its contemporaries, psychologist Dr. Wendell Johnson’s speech therapy experiment was at first kept a secret in case it damaged his professional reputation. It is now one of the famous experiments . The University of Iowa’s Johnson drafted in graduate student Mary Tudor to carry out the 1939 experiment for her master’s thesis, whilst Johnson himself supervised. Twenty-two orphaned children, ten of whom had issues with stuttering, were put into two groups, each containing a mix of those with and without speech disorders. One of the two groups was given positive, encouraging feedback about their verbal communication, while the other was utterly disparaged for their (sometimes-non-existent) speech problems. The findings were recorded. This six-month study had a major impact on the human subjects. It even had impact on those who had no prior talking difficulties, making some insecure and withdrawn. In 2007 half a dozen of the former subjects were given a large payout by the state of Iowa for what they had endured, with the claimants reporting “lifelong psychological and emotional scars.”

1. David Reimer (1967–1977)

Canadian David Reimer’s life was changed drastically on account of one Johns Hopkins University professor and one of these famous psychology studies . After a botched circumcision procedure left Reimer with disfiguring genital damage at six months old, his parents took him to be seen by John Money. Money was a professor of medical psychology and pediatrics who advocated the theory of gender neutrality. He argued that gender identity is first and foremost learned socially from a young age. Money suggested that although Reiner’s penis could not be repaired, he could and should undergo sex reassignment surgery and be raised as a female. In 1967 Reimer began the treatment that would turn him into “Brenda.” However, despite further visits to Money over the next ten years, Reimer was never really able to identify himself as female and lived as a male from the age of 14. He would go on to have treatment to undo the sex reassignment, but the ongoing experiment had prompted extreme depression in him – an underlying factor that contributed to his 2004 suicide. John Money, meanwhile, was mired in controversy.

These shocking psychological experiments were quite bizarre and damaging. Psychological research studies examine possible cause-and-effect relationships between variables. Experimental research involves careful manipulation of one variable (the independent variable) and measuring changes in another variable (the dependent variable). The most simple experimental design uses a control group and an experimental group. The experimental group experiences whatever treatment or condition that’s under investigation while the control group does not. Even with these guidelines followed, we can see that ethics still needs to be part of interesting psychology studies as well.

Related Resources:

• 20 Famous People with Schizophrenia
• Ranking Top 25 Graduate Programs in Experimental Psychology
• What Are The Best Experimental Psychology Programs in the Country?
• Tips For Designing Psychology Experiments
• What Are The Top 10 Unethical Psychology Experiments?
• The Most Groundbreaking Psychology Experiments of All Time

Trending now

• Protons, Neutrons and Electrons
• Atomic/Mass Number/Isotopes
• Relative Atomic/Molecular Mass
• How it Works
• Calculating Relative Atomic Mass
• Deducing Relative Molecular Mass
• Energy Levels, Orbitals, Sub-Levels and Shells
• Electrons and their Arrangement in Orbitals and in Ions
• Effects of Electronic Configurations on Chemical Properties
• The Periodic Table
• 1st Ionisation Energy
• Trends along Period 1
• Trends along Period 2
• Trends down a Group
• Successive Ionisation Energy
• Atomic Size
• Relative Atomic Mass of Common Elements
• Significant Figures
• Chemical Names and Formulae
• Balancing Equations
• Relative Atomic Mass and the Mole
• Actual Masses and Avogadro's Constant
• Empirical Formula
• Molecular Formula
• Percentage By Mass
• Concentration
• Balanced Equations
• Calculations Involving Balanced Equations
• Reacting Masses and Concentration
• Acid-Base Titrations
• Acid Base Back-Titrations
• Ionic Equations
• Ideal Gas Equation
• Reacting Volumes of Gas
• Percentage Yield
• Percentage Atom Economy
• Powers of X - Table
• Factorising/Solving
• Completing the Square
• Quadratic Formula/The Discriminant
• Sketching Quadratic Graphs
• Transformations
• Inequalities
• Simultaneous Equations
• Length of a Line
• Equation of a Line
• Intersection Point of Two Lines
• The Nth Term - Un
• Sigma Notation
• Arithmetic Sequences - Un and Sn
• The Sn Formula
• Gradient of a Curve
• Tangents and Normals
• Indices and Powers
• Integrating Functions
• Finding the Equation of a Curve
• Binomial Theorems
• Properties of a Circle
• Equations of a Circle
• Geometric Series
• Trigonometry
• Exponential and Logarithms
• Differentiation
• Integration
• Why We Use Them?
• Key Points/Steps
• Disadvantages
• Continuous Data
• Discrete Data
• Qualitative Data
• Combining Means
• Psychology - COLOUR KEY
• Glossary - Origins of Psychology
• Evaluation of Introspection
• Evaluation of Psychology as a Science
• Exam Practise
• Glossary - The Behaviourist Approach
• Evaluation of Pavlov and Classical Conditioning
• Skinner's Research
• Evaluation of Skinner and Operant Conditioning
• Glossary - Social Learning Theory
• Bandura - The Bobo Doll Experment
• Evaluation of SLT and Bandura's Bobo Doll Research
• Glossary - Cognitive Approach
• The Role of Theoretical and Computer Models
• The Role of Schemas
• Evaluation of the Cognitive Approach
• Glossary - Cognitive Neuroscience
• Evaluation of Cognitive Neuroscience
• Glossary - The Biological Approach
• The Influence of Genes on Behaviour
• The Influence of Biological Structures on Behaviour
• The Influence of Neurochemistry on Behaviour
• Glossary - Evolution and Behaviour
• Glossary - Biopsychology
• The Central Nervous System
• The Peripheral Nervous System
• Neurotransmitters
• Pituitary Gland
• The Adrenal Glands
• Reproductive Glands
• The Fight-or-Flight Response
• Localisation of Function - Evaluation
• Split Brain Research - Evaluation
• Brain Plasticity - Evaluation
• Functional Recovery of the Brain - Evaluation
• Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) - Evaluation
• Electroencephalogram (EEG) - Evaluation
• Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) - Evaluation
• Post-Mortem Examinations - Evaluation
• Glossary - Psychopathology
• Evaluation of Statistical Infrequency
• Evaluation of Deviation from Social Norms
• Evaluation of Failure to Function Adequately
• Evaluation of Deviation from Ideal Mental Health
• Characteristics of Phobias
• Evaluation of the Behavioural Approach to Explaining Phobias
• Evaluation of the Behavioural Approach to Treating Phobias
• Characteristics of Depression
• Evaluation of the Cognitive Approach to Explaining Depression
• Evaluation of the Cognitive Approach to Treating Depression
• Characteristics of OCD
• Evaluation of the Biological Approach to Explaining OCD
• Evaluation of the Biological Approach to Treating OCD

​Evaluation of SLT and Bandura's Bobo Doll Research

Study & theory, strengths - slt & bandura's bobo doll research:.

• Supporting Evidence for Bandura is provided by Patterson et al (1989): He demonstrated that role models are important influences in the development of anti-social behaviour. Through the use of self-report methods, they found that very aggressive children are raised in homes of high levels of aggression and low levels of affection. Parents and other significant adults are therefore important role models. Therefore, this research not only supports Bandura, but it also provides useful applications for the real world. Many government health campaigns have used SLT concepts in adverts in reucing anti-social behaviours such as smoking and littering.
• Bandura's research has high replicability : Bandura's research was carried out in the laboratory when he had manipulated the IV (whether there was a positive/negative reinforcement) and measrued the DV (the behaviour displayed by the child) and used a standardised procedure. This high level of control suggested that if the research was carried out again then the same results could be achieved.
• Bandura and SLT have supporting cross-cultural evidence: Mead (1935) Studied aggression in different cultures and found that the Arapesh is a non-aggressive culture in which aggression is not admired (reinforced) or modelled by adults. The Mundugmor show the opposite pattern, in which violence is the norm and status is determined by the amount of aggression shown. This suggests that behaviour can be learned via observation, imitation and reinforcement as stated by SLT and may suggest that these concepts can be applied universally. ​

Limitations - SLT & Bandura's Bobo Doll Research:

• Bandura's research holds ethical issues: The experiment conductued was unethical in terms of protection from harm as it exposes the children to frightening and possibly novel aggression. It can be considered morally wrong because the children were encouraged to be aggressive, which is clearly not appropriate. Thus, the children did not leave the experiment as they entered it.
• Bandura used a controlled laboratory setting which makes the conditions and procedures artificial and contrived. The children may respond to demand characteristics, and behave in ways they believe to be expected. The Bobo Doll is not a real living person and it's main purpose is to be hit. There was no long-term follow up to see whether learning persists over time, thus reducing validity and limits the support for his theory.
• Underestimates the role of biological factors which have been shown to influence aggression EG: Testosterone may explain why males are more aggressive than females.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples 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 Swaim is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, and Vox.

• 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."