what was albert bandura's experiment

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Early life and work

The bobo doll experiment, testimony on the effects of televised violence, later life and work.

Albert Bandura

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• University of Alberta - Department of Physics - Biography of Dr. Albert Bandura
• Verywell Mind - Albert Bandura's Biography (1925-2021)
• GoodTherapy - Albert Bandura
• Academia - Biography of Albert Bandura
• British Psychological Society - Albert Bandura
• Social Science LibreTexts - Albert Bandura and Social Learning Theory
• Simply Psychology - Albert Bandura's Social Learning Theory
• Table Of Contents

Albert Bandura (born December 4, 1925, Mundare, Alberta , Canada—died July 26, 2021, Stanford, California , U.S.) was a Canadian-born American psychologist and originator of social cognitive theory who is probably best known for his modeling study on aggression , referred to as the “Bobo doll” experiment , which demonstrated that children can learn behaviours through the observation of adults.

Bandura was the youngest of six children born to parents of eastern European descent. His father was from Kraków, Poland, and his mother from Ukraine; both immigrated to Canada as adolescents. After marrying, they settled in Mundare, Alberta, where Bandura’s father worked laying track for the trans-Canada railroad.

After graduating from high school in 1946, Bandura pursued a bachelor’s degree at the University of British Columbia and in 1949 graduated with the Bolocan Award in psychology , annually awarded to the outstanding student in psychology. He then did graduate work at the University of Iowa , where he received a master’s degree in psychology (1951) and a doctorate in clinical psychology (1952).

In 1953 Bandura accepted a one-year instructorship at Stanford University , where he quickly secured a professorship. In 1974 he was named the David Starr Jordan Professor of Social Science in Psychology, and two years later he became chairman of the psychology department. He remained at Stanford, becoming professor emeritus in 2010.

In 1961 Bandura carried out his famous Bobo doll experiment , a study in which researchers physically and verbally abused a clown-faced inflatable toy in front of preschool-age children, which led the children to later mimic the behaviour of the adults by attacking the doll in the same fashion. Subsequent experiments in which children were exposed to such violence on videotape yielded similar results.

In the late 1960s, prompted by the media’s graphic coverage of the assassination of U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy together with increased reports of children incurring serious injuries during attempted replications of dangerous behaviours depicted in television advertisements, the potential effects of television violence on children became a growing public concern. Because of his related research, Bandura was invited to testify before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Eisenhower Commission , and several congressional committees as to the evidence that televised violence affects aggressive behaviour . His testimony played a role in the FTC’s decision to render as unacceptable portrayals of children engaging in risky activities—such as pounding one another in the head with mallets in an advertisement for headache medication—and subsequently to pass new advertising standards.

Bandura was the first to demonstrate (1977) that self-efficacy, the belief in one’s own capabilities, has an effect on what individuals choose to do, the amount of effort they put into doing it, and the way they feel as they are doing it. Bandura also discovered that learning occurs both through those beliefs and through social modeling—thereby originating social cognitive theory (1986), which holds that a person’s environment , cognition, and behaviour all interact to determine how that person functions, as opposed to one of those factors playing a dominant role.

Bandura received numerous awards for his contributions to the field of psychology, including the American Psychological Association (APA) Award for Outstanding Lifetime Contribution to Psychology (2004), the American Psychological Foundation’s Gold Medal Award for distinguished lifetime contribution to psychological science (2006), and the University of Louisville Grawemeyer Award for Psychology (2008; carrying a $200,000 prize) for his groundbreaking work in self-efficacy and cognitive theory. In 2016 he received the National Medal of Science. Bandura also held many organizational memberships and positions, including APA president (1974) and American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS) fellow (1980).

Bandura was associated for many years with a variety of academic journals, including the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , Applied Psychology , Media Psychology , Cognitive Therapy and Research , Behavior Research and Therapy , and Social Behavior and Personality . He also authored, coauthored, or edited a number of books, including Adolescent Aggression (1959), Principles of Behavior Modification (1969), Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis (1973), Social Learning Theory (1977), and Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves (2016). In 2002 the Review of General Psychology ranked Bandura as the fourth most eminent psychologist of the 20th century, following B.F. Skinner , Jean Piaget , and Sigmund Freud .

Learn More Psychology

• Behavioral Psychology

Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment

Albert bandura's influential bobo doll experiments reveal how children imitate tv violence and the behavior of others..

Permalink Print   |  

• Biological Psychology
• Body Language Interpretation
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Dream Interpretation
• Freudian Psychology
• Memory & Memory Techniques
• Role Playing: Stanford Prison Experiment
• Authoritarian Personality
• Memory: Levels of Processing
• Cold Reading: Psychology of Fortune Telling
• Stages of Sleep
• Personality Psychology
• Why Do We Forget?
• Psychology of Influence
• Stress in Psychology
• Body Language: How to Spot a Liar
• Be a Better Communicator
• Eye Reading: Body Language
• Motivation: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
• How to Interpret your Dreams Guide
• How to Remember Your Dreams
• Interpreting Your Dreams
• Superstition in Pigeons
• Altruism in Animals and Humans
• Stimulus-Response Theory
• Conditioned Behavior
• Synesthesia: Mixing the Senses
• Freudian Personality Type Test
• ... and much more
• Unlimited access to analysis of groundbreaking research and studies
• 17+ psychology guides : develop your understanding of the mind
• Self Help Audio : MP3 sessions to stream or download

Best Digital Psychology Magazine - UK

Best online psychology theory resource.

• Bandura, A., Ross, D. and Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63 , 575-582.
• Bandura, A., Ross, D. and Ross, S. A. (1961). Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 66 (1), 3-11.
• Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of Models’ Reinforcement Contingencies on the Acquisition of Imitative Responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1 (6), 589.
• Huessmann, L. R., Lagerspetz, K. And Eron, L. D. (1984). Intervening Variables in the TV Violence-Aggression Relation: Evidence From Two Countries. Developmental Psychology , 20 (5), 746-775.

Which Archetype Are You?

Are You Angry?

Windows to the Soul

Are You Stressed?

Attachment & Relationships

Memory Like A Goldfish?

31 Defense Mechanisms

Slave To Your Role?

Are You Fixated?

Interpret Your Dreams

How to Read Body Language

How to Beat Stress and Succeed in Exams

Psychology Topics

Learn psychology.

• Access 2,200+ insightful pages of psychology explanations & theories
• Insights into the way we think and behave
• Body Language & Dream Interpretation guides
• Self hypnosis MP3 downloads and more
• Behavioral Approach
• Eye Reading
• Stress Test
• Cognitive Approach
• Fight-or-Flight Response
• Neuroticism Test

© 2024 Psychologist World. Home About Contact Us Terms of Use Privacy & Cookies Hypnosis Scripts Sign Up

Bandura and Bobo

• APS 24th Annual Convention (2012)
• APS Fellows
• Experimental Psychology
• History of Psychology
• Personality/Social

But when it was their own turn to play with Bobo, children who witnessed an adult pummeling the doll were likely to show aggression too. Similar to their adult models, the children kicked the doll, hit it with a mallet, and threw it in the air. They even came up with new ways to hurt Bobo, such as throwing darts or aiming a toy gun at him. Children who were exposed to a non-aggressive adult or no model at all had far less aggression toward Bobo.

Bandura’s findings challenged the widely accepted behaviorist view that rewards and punishments are essential to learning. He suggested that people could learn by observing and imitating others’ behavior.

Faye notes that the Bobo doll experiments were also influential outside of the scientific community. “Bandura’s findings were particularly important in 1960s America, when lawmakers, broadcasters, and the general public were engaged in serious debate regarding the effects of television violence on the behavior of children,” she says.

Today, questions about violent media and video games linger, so Bandura’s research on aggression remains relevant. His Bobo-inspired social learning theory also contributed to the development of cognitive-behavioral therapy. Bandura is a member of an elite group who received both APS lifetime achievement awards: the William James and James Mckeen Cattell Fellow Awards. He was also named among the top five most eminent 20 th century psychologists by the Review of General Psychology . It’s an impressive legacy for a project that began with a little creativity and an inflatable clown.

How can the Bobo experiment be a critique of behaviorism? Children cannot learn from watching unless they have experience, can they? And experience, obviously, is gained through behavior. Behaviorism appears to be merely a version of Russell´s knowledge by acquaintance as opposed to knowledge by description. Whilst description can probably substitute for behavior in a virtual world, it is less likely useful in the real world.

We perceive what we see, is that not an experience where acting out is the result of its cognitive beginning? I would say most people learn from watching, hearing, and doing. While the three are a classroom didactic exercise the other is a practical experience.

I agree with Brian, observation/vicarious learning as represented in the Bobo experiment shapes the behavior we assume will be called for in the future. The behavior is acted out immediately or the experience, our perception of the experience, is molded at that time for future enactment of the behavior, cognitive beginning most definitely.

I can imagine what it was like being one of those children watching the adult kicking and punching the crap out of the doll. Here was the exact opposite of what they had been taught their entire life. It must have been liberating and fun to have free license. Just as you or I might enjoy using a big hammer to smash a wall that has to come down. But not for a moment do I think it leads to aggression or violence. More like catharsis. If Bandura’s experiments had involved adults hurting cats, I do not believe those children would have imitated that

I DO AGREE With Albert Bandula’s That Man Tend To Imitate The Behaviours Of The Person He Observes Given That In The Social Learning Theory Man Is Bound To Copy The Behaviour Of Those Frequently With Them Hence Parents Adults And Teacher Need To Be Concious Of Their Actions.

I’m a Profesional Clown for 31 yrs. I grew up with that Clown Toy. I liked it. The problem with this Toy is many adults see a Clown as a Thing, not a Person. The symbolism of the Toy can bring out the Dark Side of some adults. “Pseudo Clown O Phobia” as I call it is fashionable. Some Unethical Media Shrinks actually are telling people that they should be scared. This is not about Clowns or Toys. As the Internet came in Junk Science has grown. I’m concerned about turning Clowns into evil characters & and the so-called Psychologists who are doing a major disservice, not just to Clowns but to the Real Science of Psychology.

Bandura and Bobo, is not about violence, but desensitization, in the manner media desensitizes the power of words, as well as actions. Yes children experiencing actual violence are more prone to participate in violence, but there is a percentage of desensitized children that “act out” what they have seen; “trauma trigger” this then effects the group by direct experience. This continues especially for those children mentioned above with no outlet for trauma; mass psychotherapy without boundaries, guidance, or professional observation; only the consequence of the penal system. It is proven society has had a large hand in creating the very individuals, that then fill the penal system with just this type of personality. Not everyone is effected, certainly not everyone is as sensitive, to the trigger: but the numbers are still alarming.

My friend and I want to do a science expo project on this issue of the Bobo Doll and Albert Bandura. And we think that adults should be conscious of their actions and their words because children will learn to be like them.

Hello all, does anyone know where I can purchase a vintage Bobo Doll or have a one made? I am a Psychology Major at Cedar Crest College and am doing a project for Psi Chi. We would love to purchase one but don’t know where to find one. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Evaluating the Bobo Doll experiment: Since the experiment was made using children and relying on these children’s judgement, in my humble opinion, is not a strong result. Children do not have a strong base of morality, they do not fully know what is right or wrong and merely rely and mimic what they hear and see (feeds)from adults. The experiment used a doll and this is understood by children as a toy (an inanimate object which could be deformed, thrown, etc). I believe that their actions were parts imitation and curiosity and at the same time liberation that they could do what they think they could do with the doll without being judged by the adult (since children’s actions are controlled by adults). Secondly, the experiment was a model of ‘conditioning’ and not free will. I think the result of this experiment would be different if adults were the participants. Even if the doll was substituted with a live cat (apologies-just an example), the children will still act out what adults did but it will not be true with adult participants. My conclusion for this experiment is that behaviour is truly learned from experiences (heard and seen) and the younger one learns an action, the more likely that it will be moulded into his being/behaviour/lifestyle. But an adult’s adaptation of new behaviour is his choice.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Does Psychology Need More Effective Suspicion Probes?

Suspicion probes are meant to inform researchers about how participants’ beliefs may have influenced the outcome of a study, but it remains unclear what these unverified probes are really measuring or how they are currently being used.

Science in Service: Shaping Federal Support of Scientific Research  

Social psychologist Elizabeth Necka shares her experiences as a program officer at the National Institute on Aging.

A Very Human Answer to One of AI’s Deepest Dilemmas

Imagine that we designed a fully intelligent, autonomous robot that acted on the world to accomplish its goals. How could we make sure that it would want the same things we do? Alison Gopnik explores. Read or listen!

Privacy Overview

Psych in Real Life: The Bobo Doll Experiment

Learning objectives.

• Describe the process and results of Albert Bandura’s bobo doll experiment

Bandura studied the impact of an adult’s behavior on the behavior of children who saw them. One of his independent variables was whether or not the adult was hostile or aggressive toward the Bobo doll, so for some children the adults acted aggressively (treatment condition) and for others they did not (control condition 1) and for yet other children there were no adults at all (control condition 2). He was also interested to learn if the sex of the child and/or the sex of the adult model influenced what the child learned.

Phase 1 of the Experiment: The Observation Phase

The observation phase of the experiment is when the children see the behavior of the adults. Each child was shown into a room where an adult was already sitting near the Bobo doll. The child was positioned so they could easily see the adult.

Figure 1 . Set-up of the Bobo Doll experiment.

Phase 2 of the Experiment: Frustration

Dr. Bandura thought that the children might be a bit more likely to show aggressive behavior if they were frustrated. The second phase of the experiment was designed to produce this frustration. After a child had watched the adult in phase 1, they were taken to another room, one that also contained a lot of attractive, fun toys and was told that it was fine to play with the toys. As soon as the child started to enjoy playing with the toys, the experimenter said something.

Phase 3 of the Experiment: The Testing Phase

After the child was told to stop playing with “the very best toys,” the experimenter said that they could play with any of the toys in the next room. Then the child was taken to a third room. This room contained a variety of toys. Many of the toys were engaging and interactive, but not the type that encouraged aggressive play. Critically, the Bobo doll and the hammer that the model had used in the first phase were now in this new playroom. The goal of this phase in the experiment was to see how the child would react without a model around.

The child was allowed to play freely for 20 minutes. Note that an adult did stay in the room so the child would not feel abandoned or frightened. However, this adult worked inconspicuously in a corner and interacted with the child as little as possible.

During the 20 minutes that the child played alone in the third room, the experimenters observed their behavior from behind a see-through mirror. Using a complex system that we won’t go into here, the experimenters counted the number of various types of behaviors that the child showed during this period. These behaviors included ones directed at the Bobo doll, as well as those involving any of the other toys. They were particularly interested in the number of behaviors the child showed that clearly imitated the actions of the adults that the child had observed earlier, in phase 1.

Below are the results for the number of imitative physically aggressive acts the children showed on average toward the Bobo doll. These acts included hitting and punching the Bobo doll. On the left, you see the two modeling conditions: aggression by the model in phase 1 or no aggression by the model in phase 1. Note: Children in the no-model conditions showed very few physically aggressive acts and their results do not change the interpretation, so we will keep the results simple by leaving them out of the table.

Table 1. Physical aggression results from Bandura’s experiment

The story is slightly, though not completely, different when we look at imitative verbal aggression, rather than physical aggression. The table below shows the number of verbally aggressive statements by the boys and girls under different conditions in the experiment. Verbally aggressive statements were ones like the models had made: for example, “Sock him” and “Kick him down!”

Note: Just as was true for the physically aggressive acts, children in the no model conditions showed very few verbally aggressive acts either and their results do not change the interpretation, so we will keep the results simple by leaving them out of the table.

Table 2 . Verbal aggression results from Bandura’s experiment

• Authored by : Patrick Carroll for Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Observational Learning. Provided by : Open Learning Initiative. Located at : https://oli.cmu.edu/jcourse/workbook/activity/page?context=df3e71c70a0001dc01587dcb723e2002 . Project : Psychology. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

Albert Bandura (Biography + Experiments)

Albert Bandura is perhaps one of the greatest psychologists of all time. He spent most of his career studying and teaching social psychology at Stanford University.

Who is Albert Bandura?

Albert Bandura is best known for developing social learning theory (later called social cognitive theory), his in-depth research on self-efficacy, the Bobo doll experiments, and his groundbreaking books. He is also widely regarded as one of the most influential psychologists of all time.

Bandura’s Early Years

Albert Bandura was born on December 4, 1925, in Mundare, Alberta. Bandura’s father was from Poland and his mother was from Ukraine. He also had five sisters who were all older than him.

Bandura’s parents came to Canada when they were teenagers. His father worked for the local railroad company and his mother was employed at the town’s general store. Once the couple had saved enough money, they bought a homestead on a heavily wooded piece of land. In time, they developed a workable farm after removing enough trees and boulders from the property.

Neither Bandura’s father nor his mother received formal schooling. Nevertheless, they both viewed education as very important. In addition to English, Bandura’s father taught himself to read Polish, German, and Russian. He also played the violin and served on the district school board.

Although Bandura’s family faced many financial struggles during his childhood, they had a very positive outlook on life. They were known to be hardworking, helpful, and festive people.

Bandura’s Educational Background

During Bandura’s early years, there was only one school in town—the Mundare Public School. This single institution provided him with both his elementary and high school education. As you may expect, the school had very limited resources. Nevertheless, Bandura made the most of his circumstances until he graduated in 1946.

At the Mundare Public School, there were a total of eight classrooms that served all the students from grades 1 to 12. The lack of space meant some teachers had to teach two different grades in one room. The high school math syllabus was taught from the school’s single math textbook. The entire high school curriculum was taught by just two teachers.

Although the lack of books and teachers may not have been ideal, it did lead to some positive developments. The students at the Mundare Public School were required to take charge of their own education. For Bandura and many of the other students, the situation actually served them quite well. Bandura himself stated, “very often we developed a better grasp of the subjects than the overworked teachers."

Bandura was often encouraged by his parents to travel outside their small town in the summertime so that he could learn new things. During one summer holiday, he developed carpentry skills after working in a furniture factory in Edmonton. After completing their high school education, almost all of the students from the Mundare Public School were accepted at various universities around the world. Looking back on his school days in Mundare, Bandura was moved to say "the content of most textbooks is perishable, but the tools of self-directedness serve one well over time."

The summer after Bandura left high school, he flew north to the city of Whitehorse in Canada’s Yukon territory. He went there to fill holes in the Alaska Highway, which at the time, was slowly sinking into the surrounding swamp. During his time in the Yukon, Bandura worked alongside many men who had issues with the law. They exposed him to drinking, gambling and new life perspectives. As time went by, Bandura developed a keen interest in the mental health issues that affected the men who were working up north.

After Bandura went home, his parents again encouraged him to broaden his experiences. They gave him two options: (1) stay home, work the farm, and drink at the local bar, or (2) get a higher level of education. After the summer of 1946, Bandura enrolled at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He supported himself through school by using his carpentry skills at a woodwork plant in the afternoons.

Bandura’s interest in psychology was sparked by accident. When he first arrived at the university, his intention was to major in one of the biological sciences. While wasting time in the library one morning, he casually flipped through a course catalog to find a class to fill his early morning time slot. He chose a course in psychology and after going to his first class, was immediately enthralled by the field.

Where Did Albert Bandura Receive His Bachelor's Degree?

In 1949, just three years after he arrived, Bandura graduated from the University of British Columbia. At his graduation, he was presented with the Bolocan Award in Psychology. As Bandura was eager to pursue graduate studies in psychology, he asked his academic advisor what his next step should be. His advisor encouraged him to enroll at the University of Iowa, which at the time, was considered the epicenter of theoretical psychology.

Before Bandura departed for the University of Iowa, his advisor warned him that many previous candidates had found the doctoral program to be difficult. He encouraged Bandura to show toughness and resilience. At the time, the Department of Psychology was under the direction of Kenneth Spence, a protege of Clark Hull. When Bandura enrolled, he found the Department of Psychology to be challenging, but also hospitable and supportive.

Bandura was interested in social learning. But although the psychology program was focused on social learning, he thought it was too heavily influenced by behaviorism . Bandura completed his Master’s Degree in 1951. He earned his Ph.D in clinical psychology in 1952.

After he received his doctoral degree, Bandura was offered a teaching position at Stanford University in 1953. He accepted the offer, although it meant he had to resign from another position he had previously agreed to fill. Much of his early work on social learning theory and aggression was conducted with the help of Richard Walters—his first doctoral student. Bandura continued to work at Stanford University until his death.

Social Learning Theory

Social Learning Theory was developed by Albert Bandura during his years at Stanford University. It refers to the idea that people learn from each other in three ways: (1) observation, (2) imitation, and (3) modeling. Social Learning Theory is often considered as a bridge between behaviorist learning theories and cognitive learning theories because it involves observable behaviors as well as cognitive processes such as attention, motivation, and memory.

Social Learning Theory suggests that individuals learn by observing other people’s behaviors, attitudes, and the consequences of those behaviors. In fact, Bandura believes most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling. This involves watching another person to get an idea of how to do a particular behavior. The information is then coded and stored by the observer as a guide for future action.

There are three basic types of modeling stimuli—live models, verbal instructions, and symbolic models. Live models involve real people doing the desired behavior. Verbal instructions are detailed descriptions of the desired behavior with steps explaining how to do it. Symbolic modeling uses the media and includes the internet, movies, television, books, or radio.

Modeling is dependent on four factors: (1) attention, (2) retention, (3) reproduction, and (4) motivation. All four factors need to be at a high level for modeling to be effective. This means an individual is more likely to learn if he or she:

• Pays more attention to the model
• Retains or remembers most or all of what was learned
• Is able to reproduce what was learned, depending on his or her cognitive and physical limitations
• Has a good reason to imitate the behavior

When Bandura first began his research, the dominant learning theories at the time were based on a form of psychology called behaviorism. Behaviorists believe all human behaviors are influenced by the environment. However, Bandura claimed this explanation was too simplistic. He agreed that the environment can affect behavior, but behavior can also affect the environment.

Bandura eventually developed a concept called “reciprocal determinism.” This theory suggests there are three factors that influence behavior: (1) the environment, (2) the individual’s cognitive processes, and (3) the behavior itself. These three factors are always interacting with each other. So while it is true that society can influence behavior, a person’s actions, thoughts, feelings, and personal characteristics can also impact the way he or she interacts with society.

To get a better idea of what reciprocal determinism means, it may be helpful to think of a young boy who loves to play soccer. He plays because he believes the sport is fun or soccer may be a popular sport in his community. After a while, he asks his close friends and family members to play soccer and have fun with him. This in turn, encourages him to play soccer even more.

Bandura refined the concept of Social Learning Theory over the course of many years. An important part of his research on Social Learning Theory were the Bobo Doll Experiments (outlined below). By 1977, Bandura had settled on five key principles of Social Learning Theory:

• Learning involves behavioral and cognitive processes in a social context.
• Learning can occur by observing a behavior and the consequences of the behavior.
• Learning involves observation, data processing, and making decisions about the behavior (modeling). This means people can learn new things quite well without ever changing their observable behaviors.
• While reinforcement is important, it is not the only factor that causes learning.
• People are not passive during the learning process. Their environment, cognitions, and behaviors all interact and influence each other (reciprocal determinism).

The Bobo Doll Experiments

Behaviorists claim people learn only after being rewarded or punished for a behavior. However, Bandura did not believe the reward and punishment framework was a good explanation for many common human behaviors. Social Learning Theory suggests people learn mainly from observing, imitating, and modeling. Rather than perform a behavior themselves, Bandura thought people can learn by simply watching someone else get rewarded or punished.

In 1961 and 1963, Bandura conducted a series of studies called the Bobo Doll Experiments to test his Social Learning Theory. He noted how children responded after they watched an adult punch, kick, throw, hit, and scream at a Bobo doll. A Bobo doll is a large, light-weight toy with a round bottom that gets back up after it is knocked down. One notable version of the experiment measured the children’s behavior after they saw the adult get rewarded, get punished, or experience no consequence for abusing the Bobo doll.

Bandura and Walters worked with a total of 72 children—36 boys and 36 girls between the ages of 3 to 6 years old.  Twenty-four children were paired with an aggressive adult; the second group of 24 children was paired with a non-aggressive adult, and the remaining 24 children served as the control group. Each group was made up of 12 boys and 12 girls. However, each child was studied individually so that he or she would not be distracted or influenced by the other children in the group.

Results of the Bobo Doll Experiment

What did Bandura’s Bobo doll experiments reveal? Children who observed an aggressive model were more likely to show aggressive behavior toward the Bobo doll. Boys were much more likely to imitate physical aggressive behaviors such as punching and kicking than girls. Children were more strongly influenced by models of the same gender. The kids who were exposed to an aggressive model were more likely to show verbal aggression than those who were not paired with an aggressive model.

The experiments clearly highlighted that the behavior of young children is strongly influenced by the actions of adults. They also showed that young children are able to learn by observing the behavior of other people and the consequences of those behaviors. When the aggressive models were rewarded, the children were more likely to abuse the Bobo doll. But when the aggressive models were punished, the children stopped hitting the doll immediately.

Criticism and Praise of Bobo Doll Experiment

Of course, a number of criticisms have been aimed at the Bobo Doll Experiments. Some people question its validity because the majority of the children were from high-class, white families. Other people questioned the ethics of intentionally exposing young children to violence. But despite these controversies, most people laud the Bobo Doll Experiments as one of the most important psychological studies in history. Albert Bandura was awarded the National Medal of Science from President Barack Obama in 2016 for the experiment.

Social Cognitive Theory and Bandura’s Impact on Education

At 60 years old, Bandura was still heavily involved in groundbreaking research. By the mid-1980s he had begun to focus more on the role of human cognition in social learning. In 1986, he changed the name of the Social Learning Theory to Social Cognitive Theory. By applying some of the principles of Social Cognitive Theory, Bandura was able to help many people in the field of education.

A few of the key elements of Social Cognitive Theory that are applied in education include self-efficacy, observational learning, self-regulation, and reciprocal determinism. In an educational or school setting, self-efficacy is the confidence a teacher or student has to do what it takes to reach his or her academic goals. Bandura believes that seeing other people work hard to complete a task raises self-efficacy. According to Bandura, observers will reason if these other people can work hard and find success, I can work hard and be successful too.

Applications of Social Cognitive Theory

Bandura’s work on Social Cognitive Theory has been applied to many other fields besides education. Some of the more popular applications include:

• Psychotherapy - to increase confidence and treat anxiety issues
• Management - to increase motivation in employees
• Criminology - to explain the emergence of aggressive and deviant behaviors
• Media - to influence viewers to perform a desired behavior or to explain how certain types of entertainment may contribute to problem behaviors.
• Developmental Psychology - to help children with gender-role development
• Technology - to optimize computer learning algorithms

Albert Bandura’s Awards and Achievements

Albert Bandura has accomplished much in his long and distinguished career in psychology. In addition to the doctoral degree he earned at the University of Iowa, he has also been awarded more than sixteen honorary degrees from institutions around the world. These institutions include:

• The University of British Columbia
• Alfred University
• The University of Ottawa
• The University of Athens
• The University of Rome
• The University of New Brunswick
• Leiden University
• The University of Alberta
• The Graduate Center of the City University of New York
• Freie Universität Berlin
• The University of Lethbridge
• University of Catania
• Universitat Jaume I
• Penn State University
• The University of Salamanca
• Indiana University

Other notable awards and accomplishments include:

• 1974 - Elected president of the American Psychological Association
• 1980 - Elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
• 1980 - Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions from the American Psychological Association
• 1980 - Distinguished Contribution Award from the International Society for Research on Aggression
• 1986 - Scientific Achievement Award in the Field of Behavioral Medicine from the Society of Behavioral Medicine
• 1989 - William James Award from the American Psychological Society
• 1989 - Elected to the National Academy of Medicine
• 1998 - Distinguished Lifetime Contributions Award from the California Psychological Association
• 1999 - Thorndike Award for Distinguished Contributions of Psychology to Education from the American Psychological Association
• 2001 - Lifetime Achievement Award from the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy
• 2002 - Healthtrac Award for Distinguished Contributions to Health Promotion
• 2003 - Lifetime Achievement Award from the Western Psychological Association
• 2004 - Outstanding Lifetime Contribution to Psychology Award from the American Psychological Association
• 2004 - James McKeen Cattell Award for Distinguished Achievements in Psychological Science from the American Psychological Society
• 2004 - McGovern Medal for Distinguished Contribution to Health Promotion Science
• 2004 - Honorary Fellow of the World Innovation Foundation
• 2005 - Distinguished Achievement Alumni Award from the University of Iowa
• 2005 - Award for Distinguished Health Behavior Research from the American Academy of Health Behavior
• 2006 - Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to Psychological Science from the American Psychological Foundation
• 2006 - Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award for Advancement of Health Promotion through Health Promotion Research from the American Academy of Health Behavior
• 2007 - Everett M. Rogers Award from the Norman Lear Center for Entertainment and Society
• 2008 - Grawemeyer Award from the Grawemeyer Foundation
• 2009 - Interamerican Psychology Award from the Interamerican Society of Psychology
• 2012 - Lifetime Career Award from the International Union of Psychological Science
• 2015 - Order of Canada from the Governor-General of Canada
• 2015 - Sustained Distinguished Contributions Award from the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies
• 2016 - National Medal of Science, bestowed by President Barack Obama

Albert Bandura's Books and Publications

Albert Bandura was a prolific author of books and articles throughout his career. His first paper  was published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology in 1953. It was titled "'Primary' and 'Secondary' Suggestibility." Many of his publications are considered as classics in the field psychology. Some of his most impactful books and articles are listed below:

Social Learning Theory (1977) - This book has been credited as changing the direction of psychology from a behavioral focus to a cognitive focus. It highlighted how people learn through observation and modeling.

Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change (1977) - This article introduced the concept of self-efficacy. It was published in Psychological Review and became an instant classic.

Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (1986) - A landmark book that expands upon Social Learning Theory and introduces Social Cognitive Theory.

Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. (1997) - This book has been published in English, French, Chinese, Italian and Korean. It is widely cited in the professional literature of sociology, psychology, medicine, and management.

Bandura’s other books include:

• Adolescent Aggression (1959)
• Social Learning through Imitation (1962)
• Social Learning and Personality Development (1963)
• Principles of Behavior Modification (1969)
• Psychological Modeling: Conflicting Theories (1971)
• Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis (1973)
• Analysis of Delinquency and Aggression (1976)
• Moral Disengagement : How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves (2015)

Albert Bandura is the most cited psychologist alive today. He is also the fourth most cited psychologist of all time, behind only B.F. Skinner, Sigmund Freud, and Jean Piaget.

Personal Life

Albert Bandura married his wife, Virginia, in 1952. They first met at the University of Iowa, where Virginia was an instructor at the College of Nursing. They have two daughters, Carol and Mary, and identical twin grandsons named Timmy and Andy. In 2011, Virginia Bandura passed away peacefully at the age of 89.

Is Albert Bandura Alive Today?

Albert Bandura died from congestive heart failure in 2021 at the age of 95. Up until his death, Bandura enjoyed hiking in the Sierra Mountains, walking through the coastal regions of California, dining at restaurants, going to the San Francisco Opera, and drinking a good bottle of wine.

Related posts:

• Albert Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment (Explained)
• 40+ Famous Psychologists (Images + Biographies)
• Observational Learning
• Albert Ellis Biography - Contributions To Psychology
• The Little Albert Experiment

Reference this article:

About The Author

Famous Psychologists:

Abraham Maslow

Albert Bandura

Albert Ellis

Alfred Adler

Beth Thomas

Carl Rogers

Carol Dweck

Daniel Kahneman

David Dunning

David Mcclelland

Edward Thorndike

Elizabeth Loftus

Erik Erikson

G. Stanley Hall

George Kelly

Gordon Allport

Howard Gardner

Hugo Munsterberg

Ivan Pavlov

Jerome Bruner

John B Watson

John Bowlby

Konrad Lorenz

Lawrence Kohlberg

Leon Festinger

Lev Vygotsky

Martin Seligman

Mary Ainsworth

Philip Zimbardo

Rensis Likert

Robert Cialdini

Robert Hare

Sigmund Freud

Solomon Asch

Stanley Milgram

Ulric Neisser

Urie Bronfenbrenner

Wilhelm Wundt

William Glasser

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Albert Bandura's experiments on aggression modeling in children: A psychoanalytic critique

Introduction.

In a series of innovative experiments, Bandura (1925–2021), renowned Psychology Professor at Stanford University, USA, and his collaborators (e.g., Bandura and Huston, 1961 ; Bandura et al., 1961 , 1963 ; Bandura, 1965 , 1969 ) showed that young children exposed to adults' aggression tend to behave aggressively. In these experiments, children observed adults, in vivo or in vitro , as well as cartoons, behaving aggressively toward a large, inflated doll (clown) named “Bobo doll”, for about 10 min. The findings of these studies are considered to support modeling, observational learning, or learning by imitation and provide evidence for Bandura's social learning theory, which belongs to the behaviorism paradigm. In this paper, we offer a psychoanalytic critique of these experiments with the aim of shedding light on the unconscious processes of children's imitation of aggression. Although Bandura ( 1986 ) later formulated the so-called social cognitive theory and focused on less observable processes (e.g., self-regulation, self-efficacy, beliefs, expectations), in presenting these early experiments he clearly opposed the existing psychoanalytic interpretations of aggression.

Key findings of Bandura's experiments on aggression in children

The key findings of Bandura's experiments on aggression in children (Bandura and Huston, 1961 ; Bandura et al., 1961 , 1963 ; Bandura, 1965 , 1969 ) are summarized below.

• Observation of an aggressive model is sufficient to elicit aggressive behavior in the young child. The model does not need to be a familiar or nurturant person. Moreover, there is no need to positively reinforce the aggression of either the adult model or the child. Because punishment does not follow the model's aggressive acts, the child receives the message that aggression is acceptable.
• The virtual world has great power. Children who watch a film showing aggressive people or cartoons tend to imitate this behavior.
• Imitation is inferred by the fact that children show verbal and/or physical aggressive acts that are very similar to those of the model.
• Children not only accurately imitate the observed behaviors but also show ingenuity, manifesting different, novice acts of aggression.
• Children transfer, by means of generalization, aggression into new, different contexts, even when the aggressive model is no longer present (delayed imitation).
• If the adult model is punished for his/her aggressive behavior, the probability that the child will show aggressive behavior is reduced. In contrast, positive reinforcement or no reinforcement of the model leads to increased aggression on the part of the child (vicarious/indirect learning).
• After observing the aggressive model, boys tend to exhibit more physical aggression than girls, whereas no gender difference is found for verbal aggression. Independent of gender, children are more likely to imitate a male physically aggressive model. According to gender stereotypes, this form of aggression is more acceptable for men than for women. In contrast, verbal aggression is more likely to be imitated when manifested by a same-sex model.

Taken together, these results imply that children's aggression can be caused—and probably eliminated—by external manipulations. However, are there interpretations other than this omnipotent behavioristic view?

Psychoanalytic views of children's aggression in Bandura's experiments

In the Bobo doll experiments, after presenting the aggressive model and before placing the child in the room with Bobo doll and other toys with the aim of recording the likelihood of imitation, the experimenters instigated the children's aggression. Specifically, an experimenter led children to another room, where she allowed them to enjoy some attractive toys. After a while, she told them that all toys were hers, that she would no longer let anyone play with them, and that she intended to give them to other children. After experiencing this frustration , the children were accompanied to the room where Bobo doll was.

Bandura (Bandura and Huston, 1961 ; Bandura et al., 1961 ) stated that he was seeking a more concise and parsimonious theoretical explanation than the one provided by identification with the aggressor , that is, the ego defense mechanism described by Anna Freud ( 1946 ), and attempted to outline alternative explanations (Bandura, 1969 ). However, if we look closely at specific aspects and manipulations of these experiments, we may discover that this mechanism may have more explanatory power for what happened in the laboratory than Bandura believed.

At first, it is reasonable to hypothesize that, in the eyes of the children, the experimenters were omnipotent adult figures with authority, prestige, and power. The strange laboratory setting may have elicited in children excessive arousal , associated with tension and anxiety. This overflow of excitation, that needed to be released, is likely to have resulted from the unprecedented experience, and, more specifically, from the following: separation from parents; presence in an unknown place with strange adults; alternation of unfamiliar rooms and buildings; many overwhelming stimuli, such as physical and verbal aggression exhibited by adults, in vivo or in vitro (i.e., film), or by cartoons within a colorful frame, full of imaginary stimuli; presence of new and exciting toys; and frustration and anger caused by adults who deliberately disrupted children's pleasurable play activity with the aim of provoking their aggressiveness. All these conditions imply that the experiments were not only about “observation of cues produced by the behavior of others” (Bandura et al., 1961 ; our emphasis). If only “cues” were given to children, then why it was assumed in another paper (Bandura et al., 1963 ) that vicarious learning had such a “cathartic function”? Indeed, Bandura may have aptly used this expression because catharsis implies release of tension caused by overwhelming vicarious experience such as in ancient Greek tragedy.

Second, identification with the aggressor is a defense mechanism that is typical of 3- to 6-year-old children—the participants' age in Bandura's experiments. Anna Freud ( 1946 , p. 113) argued that “by impersonating the aggressor, assuming his attributes or imitating his aggression, the child transforms himself from the person threatened into the person who makes the threat”. Children may have unconsciously experienced the aggressiveness of adults (quasi parental figures) toward a familiar playful object as a threat of punishment , possibly a threat of castration by proxy , for their own oedipal/incestuous and autoerotic/masturbatory phantasies, which usually prevail in this age period—the phallic phase of libidinal development (Freud, 1953 ). This explanation is further supported by the finding that males were more influential models regarding physical aggression. According to Anna Freud ( 1946 ), identification with the aggressor is the preliminary stage of superego formation, during which the aggressive drive is not yet directed against the subject but against the outer world. Projection of guilt, thus, supplements the immature superego and may interpret, at least partly, children's sadomasochistic relation with the doll.

Third, we contend that a seduction process of both caretakers and their children had taken place in the university laboratory. With their caretakers' consent, children were brought into an unknown adult place, where they were captivated by adults' passion, namely overt violence against a doll. The violent acts were exhibited in a ritualistic and self-reinforcing manner and in the context of symbolic play. According to Ferenczi ( 1949 ), who was not mentioned by Bandura but whose ideas on this issue inspired Anna Freud, when an adult becomes sexually seductive or violent against a child, a confusion of tongues between the two emerges, in other words, a confusion between child tenderness and adult passion . In these experiments, children experienced an indirect attack with a mild traumatic character: certain adults intruded and impinged on the territory of children's “innocent” play, and then coerced them to observe other adults having little control over their own instinctual (aggressive) drives toward an attractive object. Therefore, it was very likely that children reacted not just with imitation but with anxious identification with the adult. This introjection of the aggressor resulted in children exhibiting the same violent behavior. They seemed to “subordinate themselves like automata to the will of the aggressor” and “could only react in an autoplastic way by a kind of mimicry ” (Ferenczi, 1949 , p. 228, our emphasis), possibly introjecting the adults' unconscious guilt for their abusive behavior.

It is important to note that, contrary to identification with the aggressor, introjection of the aggressor is initially an automatic, organismic reaction to trauma—a mixture of rage, contempt and omnipotence—and only later becomes a defensive, agentic and purposeful process (Howell, 2014 ). In these experiments, children seemed to exhibit this automatic, procedural identification and mimicry. It has also been argued (Frankel, 2002 ) that identification with the aggressor is a universal and very common tactic used by people in mild traumatic situations and, generally, on several occasions where they are in a weak position relative to more powerful others. Although benign, this power may become a real threat: “If the adult got out of control and attacked the doll, could she attack me too?” Identification with the aggressor, then, serves an evolutionary function: survival is ensured if individuals conform to what others expect of them.

In the laboratory setting, children confronted what Lacan ( 1977 ) has called the enigma of the adults' desire : “Why are they behaving this way?”; “What do they want from me?”; “Why are they doing this to me?”. The laboratory setting and the adults' aggression toward the doll can be conceptualized as enigmatic signifiers , the Lacanian notion further elaborated by Laplanche ( 1999 ). These signifiers were verbal and non-verbal messages, doubly compromised and non-transparent to both sides of the communication because of the existence of the unconscious. The young participants found themselves in an asymmetrical relationship while their developmental abilities to metabolize what adults communicated to them were inadequate. They were somewhat helpless. Aggressive behavior was the way with which children attempted to translate adults' “alien” messages and derive meaning from the enigmatic situation.

The ingenuity and novelty—“creative embellishment” as Bandura said when describing the experiment in a short film 1 —which children showed in the aggressive use of toys may be regarded as proof of the playful character of the imitation. Children attempted to transform passivity into activity , to acquire mastery of new and challenging objects and experience pleasure in this play activity, as Freud ( 1955 ) argued, rather than be the subjects of uncanny, mildly traumatic experimental conditions and the spectators of adults' violence. Therefore, children seemed to compulsively repeat the activity in a ritualistic fashion. This view is in line with the emphasis given on transformation in Freud's ( 1946 ) definition of identification with the aggressor.

Bandura's experiments on aggression in children, après-coup

The aggression modeling experiments were conducted at a time when Psychology was striving, by “objective” measurements and laboratory experiments, to establish itself as a discipline. They have received criticism because they certainly raise the ethical issue of children's exposure to violence, with unknown short- and long-term consequences. Ethical concerns have also been expressed for other groundbreaking, or even notorious, experiments in the history of Psychology (e.g., Watson's Baby Albert experiment, Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority).

Despite the ethical and methodological flaws, these aggression experiments and the short films that depict them continue to have a great allure to the scientific community and the society at large. Besides, a degree of seduction, namely optimal seduction (Potamianou, 2001 ), is needed to awaken desire for scientific exploration and facilitate openness to the unknown. They inspired research and interventions and raised public awareness about the effects of children's exposure to violence (e.g., through media). These experiments are still regarded to provide indisputable evidence, by means of a “rigorous experimental design”, for young children's vulnerability to adults' violence. They also illustrate that, from early on, humans are capable of abusive acts, and that these acts can be easily provoked. Therefore, the work of civilization is to undertake every action to protect children from the transmission of violence.

However, the fact that scientists' reservations were not strong enough to prevent them from “using” children in such laboratory experiments, implies, paradoxically, that they believed in children's resilience to violence or trauma. Only a few years after World War II, Psychology seemed to engage in an unconscious attempt at reparation (Klein, 1975 ), perhaps on behalf of the whole humanity, through handling—at last!—violence within a controlled and protected but regressed-to-the-infantile laboratory setting.

Conclusions

This study aimed to approach Bandura's experiments on aggression modeling in children from the psychoanalytic perspective. A variety of psychoanalytic formulations were used to conceptualize the underlying processes and the phenomenology of children's imitation of aggressive acts. These formulations are not supported by research data, a fact that may be regarded also as a limitation of this study. However, they are based on the multitude and richness of clinical observations in the field of Psychoanalysis, which has an undeniably remarkable contribution to the understanding and treatment of human aggression.

Author contributions

EG conceived the idea and drafted the manuscript. KM reviewed key findings of Bandura's experiments and systematically edited the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqNaLerMNOE

• Bandura A. (1965). Influence of model's reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol . 1 , 589–595. 10.1037/h0022070 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1969). “Social-learning theory of identificatory processes,” in Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research , ed D.A. Goslin (Chicago: Rand McNally; ), 213–262. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A., Huston A. C. (1961). Identification as a process of incidental learning . J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol . 63 , 311–318. 10.1037/h0040351 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A., Ross D., Ross S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models . J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol . 63 , 575–582. 10.1037/h0045925 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A., Ross D., Ross S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models . J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol . 66 , 3–11. 10.1037/h0048687 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferenczi S. (1949). Confusion of the tongues between the adults and the child (The language of tenderness and of passion) . Int. J. Psychoanal . 30 , 225–230. (Original work published 1933). [ Google Scholar ]
• Frankel J. (2002). Exploring Ferenczi's concept of identification with the aggressor: Its role in trauma, everyday life, and the therapeutic relationship . Psychoanal. Dialog. 12 , 101–139. 10.1080/10481881209348657 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud A. (1946). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence . New York, NY: International Universities Press. (Original work published 1936). [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud S. (1953). “Three essays on the theory of sexuality,” in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud , Vol. 7 , ed Strachey J. (London: Hogarth Press; ), 125–243. (Original work published 1905). [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud S. (1955). “Beyond the pleasure principle,” in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud , Vol. 8 , ed J. Strachey (London: Hogarth Press; ), 3–64. (Original work published 1920). [ Google Scholar ]
• Howell E. F. (2014). Ferenczi's concept of identification with the aggressor: understanding dissociative structure with interacting victim and abuser self-states . Am. J. Psychoanal . 74 , 48–59. 10.1057/ajp.2013.40 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein M. (1975). “Love, guilt and reparation,” in Envy and Gratitude and Other Works 1921-1945. The Writings of Melanie Klein, Vol. I , ed M. Klein (New York, NY: Free Press; ) (Original article published 1937), 306–443. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lacan J. (1977). The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-analysis . London: Hogarth. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laplanche J. (1999). Essays on Otherness . New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Potamianou A. (2001). Le Traumatique: Répétition et Élaboration . Paris: Dunod. [ Google Scholar ]

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family 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

How Social Learning Theory Works

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Core Concepts of Social Learning Theory

• Key Factors
• Applications

Social learning theory, introduced by psychologist Albert Bandura , proposed that learning occurs through observation, imitation, and modeling and is influenced by factors such as attention, motivation, attitudes, and emotions. The theory accounts for the interaction of environmental and cognitive elements that affect how people learn.

The theory suggests that learning occurs because people observe the consequences of other people's behaviors. Bandura's theory moves beyond behavioral theories , which suggest that all behaviors are learned through conditioning, and cognitive theories, which consider psychological influences such as attention and memory.

According to Bandura, people observe behavior either directly through social interactions with others or indirectly by observing behaviors through media. Actions that are rewarded are more likely to be imitated, while those that are punished are avoided.

Basic Principles of Social Learning Theory

What is social learning theory.

During the first half of the 20th-century, the behavioral school of psychology became a dominant force. The behaviorists proposed that all learning was a result of direct experience with the environment through the processes of association and reinforcement.   Bandura's theory believed that direct reinforcement could not account for all types of learning.

For example, children and adults often exhibit learning for things with which they have no direct experience. Even if you have never swung a baseball bat in your life, you would probably know what to do if someone handed you a bat and told you to try to hit a baseball. This is because you have seen others perform this action either in person or on television. 

While the behavioral theories of learning suggested that all learning was the result of associations formed by conditioning, reinforcement, and punishment, Bandura's social learning theory proposed that learning can also occur simply by observing the actions of others.  

His theory added a social element, arguing that people can learn new information and behaviors by watching other people. Known as observational learning, this type of learning can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviors, including those that often cannot be accounted for by other learning theories.

There are three core concepts at the heart of social learning theory. First is the idea that people can learn through observation. Next is the notion that internal mental states are an essential part of this process. Finally, this theory recognizes that just because something has been learned, it does not mean that it will result in a change in behavior.

"Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do," Bandura explained in his 1977 book Social Learning Theory .  

Bandura goes on to explain that "Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions, this coded information serves as a guide for action."

Let's explore each of these concepts in greater depth.

People Can Learn Through Observation

One of the best-known experiments in the history of psychology involved a doll named Bobo. Bandura demonstrated that children learn and imitate behaviors they have observed in other people.

The children in Bandura’s studies observed an adult acting violently toward a Bobo doll. When the children were later allowed to play in a room with the Bobo doll, they began to imitate the aggressive actions they had previously observed.  

Bandura identified three basic models of observational learning:

• A live model, which involves an actual individual demonstrating or acting out a behavior.
• A symbolic model, which involves real or fictional characters displaying behaviors in books, films, television programs, or online media.
• A verbal instructional model, which involves descriptions and explanations of a behavior.

As you can see, observational learning does not even necessarily require watching another person to engage in an activity. Hearing verbal instructions, such as listening to a podcast, can lead to learning. We can also learn by reading, hearing, or watching the actions of characters in books and films.  

It is this type of observational learning that has become a lightning rod for controversy as parents and psychologists debate the impact that pop culture media has on kids. Many worry that kids can learn bad behaviors such as aggression from violent video games, movies, television programs, and online videos.

Mental States Are Important to Learning

Bandura noted that external, environmental  reinforcement  was not the only factor to influence learning and behavior. And he realized that reinforcement does not always come from outside sources.  Your own mental state and motivation play an important role in determining whether a behavior is learned or not.

He described  intrinsic reinforcement  as a form of internal rewards, such as pride, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishment.   This emphasis on internal thoughts and cognitions helps connect learning theories to cognitive developmental theories. While many textbooks place social learning theory with behavioral theories, Bandura himself describes his approach as a 'social cognitive theory.'

Learning Does Not Necessarily Lead to Change

So how do we determine when something has been learned? In many cases, learning can be seen immediately when the new behavior is displayed. When you teach a child to ride a bicycle, you can quickly determine if learning has occurred by having the child ride his or her bike unassisted.

But sometimes we are able to learn things even though that learning might not be immediately obvious. While behaviorists believed that learning led to a permanent change in behavior, observational learning demonstrates that people can learn new information without demonstrating new behaviors.  

Key Factors for Social Learning Success

It is important to note that not all observed behaviors are effectively learned. Why not? Factors involving both the model and the learner can play a role in whether social learning is successful. Certain requirements and steps must also be followed.

The following steps are involved in the observational learning and modeling process:  

• Attention: In order to learn, you need to be paying  attention . Anything that distracts your attention is going to have a negative effect on observational learning. If the model is interesting or there is a novel aspect of the situation, you are far more likely to dedicate your full attention to learning.
• Retention: The ability to store information is also an important part of the learning process. Retention can be affected by a number of factors, but the ability to pull up information later and act on it is vital to observational learning.
• Reproduction: Once you have paid attention to the model and retained the information, it is time to actually perform the behavior you observed. Further practice of the learned behavior leads to improvement and skill advancement.
• Motivation: Finally, in order for observational learning to be successful, you have to be motivated to imitate the behavior that has been modeled. Reinforcement and  punishment  play an important role in motivation. While experiencing these motivators can be highly effective, so can observing others experiencing some type of reinforcement or punishment. For example, if you see another student rewarded with extra credit for being to class on time, you might start to show up a few minutes early each day.

Real-World Applications for Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory can have a number of real-world applications. For example, it can be used to help researchers understand how aggression and violence might be transmitted through observational learning. By studying media violence, researchers can gain a better understanding of the factors that might lead children to act out the aggressive actions they see portrayed on television and in the movies.

But social learning can also be utilized to teach people positive behaviors. Researchers can use social learning theory to investigate and understand ways that positive role models can be used to encourage desirable behaviors and to facilitate social change.

A Word From Verywell

In addition to influencing other psychologists, Bandura's social learning theory has had important implications in the field of education. Today, both teachers and parents recognize how important it is to model appropriate behaviors. Other classroom strategies such as encouraging children and building  self-efficacy  are also rooted in social learning theory.

As Bandura observed, life would be incredibly difficult and even dangerous if you had to learn everything you know from personal experience. Observing others plays a vital role in acquiring new knowledge and skills. By understanding how social learning theory works, you can gain a greater appreciation for the powerful role that observation plays in shaping the things we know and the things we do.

Hammer TR. Social Learning Theory . In: Goldstein S, Naglieri JA. Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. San Francisco: Springer; 2011. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_2695

Overskeid G. Do We Need the Environment to Explain Operant Behavior ? Front Psychol. 2018;9:373. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00373

Fryling MJ, Johnston C, Hayes LJ. Understanding Observational Learning: An Interbehavioral Approach . Anal Verbal Behav. 2011;27(1):191-203. doi:10.1007/bf03393102

Bandura A. Social Learning Theory . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1977.

Nguyen Do LLT. Bobo Doll Experiment . In: Goldstein S, Naglieri JA. Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. San Francisco: Springer; 2011. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_379

Bajcar EA, Bąbel P. How Does Observational Learning Produce Placebo Effects? A Model Integrating Research Findings . Front Psychol. 2018;9:2041. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02041

Cook DA, Artino AR. Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories . Med Educ. 2016;50(10):997-1014. doi:10.1111/medu.13074

Bajcar EA, Bąbel P. How Does Observational Learning Produce Placebo Effects? A Model Integrating Research Findings. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2041. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02041

Bandura A. Social Learning Theory . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1977

Cook DA, Artino AR. Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories. Med Educ. 2016;50(10):997-1014. doi:10.1111/medu.13074

Fryling MJ, Johnston C, Hayes LJ. Understanding Observational Learning: An Interbehavioral Approach. Anal Verbal Behav. 2011;27(1):191-203. doi:10.1007/bf03393102

Hammer TR. Social Learning Theory. In: Goldstein S, Naglieri JA. Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. San Francisco: Springer; 2011. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9

Overskeid G. Do We Need the Environment to Explain Operant Behavior? . Front Psychol. 2018;9:373. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00373

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Bobo Doll Experiment

• Reference work entry
• Cite this reference work entry

• Lynna Lan Tien Nguyen Do 3  

3969 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Description

The Bobo doll experiment was conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961 [ 1 ] and studied patterns of behavior associated with aggression. Additional studies of this type were conducted by Bandura in 1963 [ 2 ] and 1965. A Bobo doll is an inflatable toy that is approximately the same size as a prepubescent child.

The aim of Bandura’s experiment was to demonstrate that if children were witnesses to an aggressive display by an adult they would imitate this aggressive behavior when given the opportunity.

Bandura et al. tested 36 boys and 36 girls from a Stanford nursery school – aged between 37 and 69 months (mean = 4 years and 4 months). Their role models were one male adult and one female adult.

The children were matched on the basis of their pre-existing aggressiveness. They did this by observing the children in the nursery school 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...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggressions through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 (3), 575–582.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66 , 3–11.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Clinical Psychology, Walden University, 3128 Isherwood Way, Fremont, CA, 94536, USA

Lynna Lan Tien Nguyen Do

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lynna Lan Tien Nguyen Do .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Neurology, Learning and Behavior Center, 230 South 500 East, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, USA

Sam Goldstein Ph.D.

Department of Psychology MS 2C6, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

Jack A. Naglieri Ph.D. ( Professor of Psychology ) ( Professor of Psychology )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Do, L.L.T.N. (2011). Bobo Doll Experiment. In: Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_379

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_379

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-77579-1

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-79061-9

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

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.

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.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• Social cognitive theory emphasizes the learning that occurs within a social context. In this view, people are active agents who can both influence and are influenced by their environment.
• The theory was founded most prominently by Albert Bandura, who is also known for his work on observational learning, self-efficacy, and reciprocal determinism.
• One assumption of social learning is that we learn new behaviors by observing the behavior of others and the consequences of their behavior.
• If the behavior is rewarded (positive or negative reinforcement), we are likely to imitate it; however, if the behavior is punished, imitation is less likely. For example, in Bandura and Walters’ experiment,  the children imitated more the aggressive behavior of the model who was praised for being aggressive to the Bobo doll.
• Social cognitive theory has been used to explain a wide range of human behavior, ranging from positive to negative social behaviors such as aggression, substance abuse, and mental health problems.

How We Learn From the Behavior of Others

Social cognitive theory views people as active agents who can both influence and are influenced by their environment.

The theory is an extension of social learning that includes the effects of cognitive processes — such as conceptions, judgment, and motivation — on an individual’s behavior and on the environment that influences them.

Rather than passively absorbing knowledge from environmental inputs, social cognitive theory argues that people actively influence their learning by interpreting the outcomes of their actions, which, in turn, affects their environments and personal factors, informing and altering subsequent behavior (Schunk, 2012).

By including thought processes in human psychology, social cognitive theory is able to avoid the assumption made by radical behaviorism that all human behavior is learned through trial and error. Instead, Bandura highlights the role of observational learning and imitation in human behavior.

Numerous psychologists, such as Julian Rotter and the American personality psychologist Walter Mischel, have proposed different social-cognitive perspectives.

Albert Bandura (1989) introduced the most prominent perspective on social cognitive theory.

Bandura’s perspective has been applied to a wide range of topics, such as personality development and functioning, the understanding and treatment of psychological disorders, organizational training programs, education, health promotion strategies, advertising and marketing, and more.

The central tenet of Bandura’s social-cognitive theory is that people seek to develop a sense of agency and exert control over the important events in their lives.

This sense of agency and control is affected by factors such as self-efficacy, outcome expectations, goals, and self-evaluation (Schunk, 2012).

Origins: The Bobo Doll Experiments

Social cognitive theory can trace its origins to Bandura and his colleagues, in particular, a series of well-known studies on observational learning known as the Bobo Doll experiments .

In these experiments, researchers exposed young, preschool-aged children to videos of an adult acting violently toward a large, inflatable doll.

This aggressive behavior included verbal insults and physical violence, such as slapping and punching. At the end of the video, the children either witnessed the aggressor being rewarded, or punished or received no consequences for his behavior (Schunk, 2012).

After being exposed to this model, the children were placed in a room where they were given the same inflatable Bobo doll.

The researchers found that those who had watched the model either received positive reinforcement or no consequences for attacking the doll were more likely to show aggressive behavior toward the doll (Schunk, 2012).

This experiment was notable for being one that introduced the concept of observational learning to humans.

Bandura’s ideas about observational learning were in stark contrast to those of previous behaviorists, such as B.F. Skinner.

According to Skinner (1950), learning can only be achieved through individual action.

However, Bandura claimed that people and animals can also learn by watching and imitating the models they encounter in their environment, enabling them to acquire information more quickly.

Observational Learning

Bandura agreed with the behaviorists that behavior is learned through experience. However, he proposed a different mechanism than conditioning.

He argued that we learn through observation and imitation of others’ behavior.

This theory focuses not only on the behavior itself but also on the mental processes involved in learning, so it is not a pure behaviorist theory.

Stages of the Social Learning Theory (SLT)

Not all observed behaviors are learned effectively. There are several factors involving both the model and the observer that determine whether or not a behavior is learned. These include attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation (Bandura & Walters, 1963).

The individual needs to pay attention to the behavior and its consequences and form a mental representation of the behavior. Some of the things that influence attention involve characteristics of the model.

This means that the model must be salient or noticeable. If the model is attractive, prestigious, or appears to be particularly competent, you will pay more attention. And if the model seems more like yourself, you pay more attention.

Storing the observed behavior in LTM where it can stay for a long period of time. Imitation is not always immediate. This process is often mediated by symbols. Symbols are “anything that stands for something else” (Bandura, 1998).

They can be words, pictures, or even gestures. For symbols to be effective, they must be related to the behavior being learned and must be understood by the observer.

Motor Reproduction

The individual must be able (have the ability and skills) to physically reproduce the observed behavior. This means that the behavior must be within their capability. If it is not, they will not be able to learn it (Bandura, 1998).

The observer must be motivated to perform the behavior. This motivation can come from a variety of sources, such as a desire to achieve a goal or avoid punishment.

Bandura (1977) proposed that motivation has three main components: expectancy, value, and affective reaction. Firstly, expectancy refers to the belief that one can successfully perform the behavior. Secondly, value refers to the importance of the goal that the behavior is meant to achieve.

The last of these, Affective reaction, refers to the emotions associated with the behavior.

If behavior is associated with positive emotions, it is more likely to be learned than a behavior associated with negative emotions. Reinforcement and punishment each play an important role in motivation.

Individuals must expect to receive the same positive reinforcement (vicarious reinforcement) for imitating the observed behavior that they have seen the model receiving.

Imitation is more likely to occur if the model (the person who performs the behavior) is positively reinforced. This is called vicarious reinforcement.

Imitation is also more likely if we identify with the model. We see them as sharing some characteristics with us, i.e., similar age, gender, and social status, as we identify with them.

Features of Social Cognitive Theory

The goal of social cognitive theory is to explain how people regulate their behavior through control and reinforcement in order to achieve goal-directed behavior that can be maintained over time.

Bandura, in his original formulation of the related social learning theory, included five constructs, adding self-efficacy to his final social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986).

Reciprocal Determinism

Reciprocal determinism is the central concept of social cognitive theory and refers to the dynamic and reciprocal interaction of people — individuals with a set of learned experiences — the environment, external social context, and behavior — the response to stimuli to achieve goals.

Its main tenet is that people seek to develop a sense of agency and exert control over the important events in their lives.

This sense of agency and control is affected by factors such as self-efficacy, outcome expectations, goals, and self-evaluation (Bandura, 1989).

To illustrate the concept of reciprocal determinism, Consider A student who believes they have the ability to succeed on an exam (self-efficacy) is more likely to put forth the necessary effort to study (behavior).

If they do not believe they can pass the exam, they are less likely to study. As a result, their beliefs about their abilities (self-efficacy) will be affirmed or disconfirmed by their actual performance on the exam (outcome).

This, in turn, will affect future beliefs and behavior. If the student passes the exam, they are likely to believe they can do well on future exams and put forth the effort to study.

If they fail, they may doubt their abilities (Bandura, 1989).

Behavioral Capability

Behavioral capability, meanwhile, refers to a person’s ability to perform a behavior by means of using their own knowledge and skills.

That is to say, in order to carry out any behavior, a person must know what to do and how to do it. People learn from the consequences of their behavior, further affecting the environment in which they live (Bandura, 1989).

Reinforcements

Reinforcements refer to the internal or external responses to a person’s behavior that affect the likelihood of continuing or discontinuing the behavior.

These reinforcements can be self-initiated or in one’s environment either positive or negative. Positive reinforcements increase the likelihood of a behavior being repeated, while negative reinforcers decrease the likelihood of a behavior being repeated.

Reinforcements can also be either direct or indirect. Direct reinforcements are an immediate consequence of a behavior that affects its likelihood, such as getting a paycheck for working (positive reinforcement).

Indirect reinforcements are not immediate consequences of behavior but may affect its likelihood in the future, such as studying hard in school to get into a good college (positive reinforcement) (Bandura, 1989).

Expectations

Expectations, meanwhile, refer to the anticipated consequences that a person has of their behavior.

Outcome expectations, for example, could relate to the consequences that someone foresees an action having on their health.

As people anticipate the consequences of their actions before engaging in a behavior, these expectations can influence whether or not someone completes the behavior successfully (Bandura, 1989).

Expectations largely come from someone’s previous experience. Nonetheless, expectancies also focus on the value that is placed on the outcome, something that is subjective from individual to individual.

For example, a student who may not be motivated to achieve high grades may place a lower value on taking the steps necessary to achieve them than someone who strives to be a high performer.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to the level of a person’s confidence in their ability to successfully perform a behavior.

Self-efficacy is influenced by a person’s own capabilities as well as other individual and environmental factors.

These factors are called barriers and facilitators (Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy is often said to be task-specific, meaning that people can feel confident in their ability to perform one task but not another.

For example, a student may feel confident in their ability to do well on an exam but not feel as confident in their ability to make friends.

This is because self-efficacy is based on past experience and beliefs. If a student has never made friends before, they are less likely to believe that they will do so in the future.

Modeling Media and Social Cognitive Theory

Learning would be both laborious and hazardous in a world that relied exclusively on direct experience.

Social modeling provides a way for people to observe the successes and failures of others with little or no risk.

This modeling can take place on a massive scale. Modeling media is defined as “any type of mass communication—television, movies, magazines, music, etc.—that serves as a model for observing and imitating behavior” (Bandura, 1998).

In other words, it is a means by which people can learn new behaviors. Modeling media is often used in the fashion and taste industries to influence the behavior of consumers.

This is because modeling provides a reference point for observers to imitate. When done effectively, modeling can prompt individuals to adopt certain behaviors that they may not have otherwise engaged in.

Additionally, modeling media can provide reinforcement for desired behaviors.

For example, if someone sees a model wearing a certain type of clothing and receives compliments for doing so themselves, they may be more likely to purchase clothing like that of the model.

Observational Learning Examples

There are numerous examples of observational learning in everyday life for people of all ages.

Nonetheless, observational learning is especially prevalent in the socialization of children. For example:

• A newer employee avoids being late to work after seeing a colleague be fired for being late.
• A new store customer learns the process of lining up and checking out by watching other customers.
• A traveler to a foreign country learning how to buy a ticket for a train and enter the gates by witnessing others do the same.
• A customer in a clothing store learns the procedure for trying on clothes by watching others.
• A person in a coffee shop learns where to find cream and sugar by watching other coffee drinkers locate the area.
•  A new car salesperson learning how to approach potential customers by watching others.
•  Someone moving to a new climate and learning how to properly remove snow from his car and driveway by seeing his neighbors do the same.
•  A tenant learning to pay rent on time as a result of seeing a neighbor evicted for late payment.
•  An inexperienced salesperson becomes successful at a sales meeting or in giving a presentation after observing the behaviors and statements of other salespeople.
•  A viewer watches an online video to learn how to contour and shape their eyebrows and then goes to the store to do so themselves.
•  Drivers slow down after seeing that another driver has been pulled over by a police officer.
•  A bank teller watches their more efficient colleague in order to learn a more efficient way of counting money.
•  A shy party guest watching someone more popular talk to different people in the crowd, later allowing them to do the same thing.
• Adult children behave in the same way that their parents did when they were young.
• A lost student navigating a school campus after seeing others do it on their own.

Social Learning vs. Social Cognitive Theory

Social learning theory and Social Cognitive Theory are both theories of learning that place an emphasis on the role of observational learning.

However, there are several key differences between the two theories. Social learning theory focuses on the idea of reinforcement, while Social Cognitive Theory emphasizes the role of cognitive processes.

Additionally, social learning theory posits that all behavior is learned through observation, while Social Cognitive Theory allows for the possibility of learning through other means, such as direct experience.

Finally, social learning theory focuses on individualistic learning, while Social Cognitive Theory takes a more holistic view, acknowledging the importance of environmental factors.

Though they are similar in many ways, the differences between social learning theory and Social Cognitive Theory are important to understand. These theories provide different frameworks for understanding how learning takes place.

As such, they have different implications in all facets of their applications (Reed et al., 2010).

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191.

 Bandura, A. (1986). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived self-inefficacy.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist, 44 (9), 1175.

Bandura, A. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychology and health, 13 (4), 623-649.

Bandura, A. (2003). Social cognitive theory for personal and social change by enabling media. In Entertainment-education and social change (pp. 97-118). Routledge.

Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63, 575-582.

LaMort, W. (2019). The Social Cognitive Theory. Boston University.

Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., … & Stringer, L. C. (2010). What is social learning?. Ecology and society, 15 (4).

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory .

Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary?. Psychological Review, 57 (4), 193.

Related Articles

Learning Theories

Aversion Therapy & Examples of Aversive Conditioning

Learning Theories , Psychology , Social Science

Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

Learning Theories , Psychology

Behaviorism In Psychology

Famous Experiments , Learning Theories

Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment on Social Learning

Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning

Child Psychology , Learning Theories

Jerome Bruner’s Theory Of Learning And Cognitive Development

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

• Psychology >

Bobo Doll Experiment

The Bobo Doll Experiment was performed in 1961 by Albert Bandura, to try and add credence to his belief that all human behavior was learned, through social imitation and copying, rather than inherited through genetic factors.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Social Psychology Experiments
• Milgram Experiment
• Stanford Prison Experiment
• Asch Experiment
• Milgram Experiment Ethics

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Social Psychology Experiments
• 2.1 Asch Figure
• 3 Bobo Doll Experiment
• 4 Good Samaritan Experiment
• 5 Stanford Prison Experiment
• 6.1 Milgram Experiment Ethics
• 7 Bystander Apathy
• 8 Sherif’s Robbers Cave
• 9 Social Judgment Experiment
• 10 Halo Effect
• 11 Thought-Rebound
• 12 Ross’ False Consensus Effect
• 13 Interpersonal Bargaining
• 14 Understanding and Belief
• 15 Hawthorne Effect
• 16 Self-Deception
• 17 Confirmation Bias
• 18 Overjustification Effect
• 19 Choice Blindness
• 20.1 Cognitive Dissonance
• 21.1 Social Group Prejudice
• 21.2 Intergroup Discrimination
• 21.3 Selective Group Perception

These findings are still debated about over 40 years later.

In the modern world, there are many concerns about the effect of social influences on the development and growth of a child's personality and morality.

Television, computer games, food additives, music and the lack of role models are all cited as reasons for a supposed breakdown in society, and an increased tendency towards violence.

These concerns have existed for many years, even before the media turned these factors into sensationalist stories, to try and sell more newspapers. During the 1960's, there was a lot of concern and debate about whether a child's development was down to genetics, environmental factors or social learning from others around them.

For this purpose, Bandura designed the Bobo Doll Experiment to try and prove that children would copy an adult role model's behavior. He wanted to show, by using aggressive and non-aggressive actors, that a child would tend to imitate and learn from the behavior of a trusted adult.

The Bobo doll is an inflatable toy about five feet tall, designed to spring back upright when knocked over.

Children were chosen as subjects for the study, because they have less social conditioning; they have also had less instruction and teaching of the rules of society than adult subjects.

Hypotheses and Predictions

Bandura had a number of predictions about the outcomes of the Bobo Doll Experiment, fitting with his views on the theories of social learning.

• Children witnessing an adult role model behaving in an overly aggressive manner would be likely to replicate similar behavior themselves, even if the adult was not present.
• Subjects who had observed a non-aggressive adult would be the least likely to show violent tendencies, even if the adult was not present. They would be even less likely to exhibit this type of aggression than the control group of children, who had seen no role model at all.
• Bandura believed that children would be much more likely to copy the behavior of a role model of the same sex. He wanted to show that it was much easier for a child to identify and interact with an adult of the same gender.
• The final prediction was that male children would tend to be more aggressive than female children, because society has always tolerated and advocated violent behavior in men more than women.

Setting Up the Experiment

For the Bobo Doll Experiment, Bandura selected a number of children from the local Stanford Nursery School, varying in age from 3 to 6 years, with the average age being 4 years and 4 months.

To test the prediction that boys would be more prone to aggression than girls, he picked 36 subjects of each sex.

The control group , which would not see an adult role model at all, consisted of 24 children, 12 boys and 12 girls.

The second group, which would be exposed to an adult showing aggressive tendencies, was similarly made up of 24 children of either sex. Both of the resulting groups of 12 were further divided; half would be tested with a female role model, half with a male role model.

The third group was structured in exactly the same way as the second, the only difference being that they would be exposed to a passive adult.

For the Bobo Doll Experiment, it was necessary to pre-select and sort the children, to try and ensure that there was an even spread of personality types across the test groups; some subjects already known to be more aggressive in personality than others.

For this, one of the teachers from the nursery worked with the experimenter, to rate each child's personality and attempt to construct well balanced groups.

It must also be noted that each subject was tested alone and individually, to ensure that the effects and reactions of their classmates would bear no influence on the final results or findings of the experiment.

The Bobo Doll Experiment proper began by placing one of the children from the test groups in a room with an adult. The subject sat in one corner of the room, with a few appealing toys to play with, such as potato prints and sticker activities.

The adult sat in the other corner of the room, with a few toys, as well as a Bobo doll and mallet. The child was not permitted to play or interact with these toys.

For the children in group two, after one minute of playing with the toys, the adult would begin to verbally and physically attack the doll for a period of 10 minutes.

For the third group tested, the adult would sit quietly and play peacefully with the toys for ten minutes.

The control group, of course, sat in the room for ten minutes with no adult present.

The next stage of the Bobo Doll Experiment was to take the subject into another room, which was filled with interesting toys. The child was not permitted to play with these toys, being told that they were reserved for other children to play with. This was intended to build up the levels of frustration within the subject.

The child was then taken into yet another room filled with interesting toys, some of an aggressive type, some non-aggressive; the room also contained the Bobo doll and the mallet. The subject was watched through a one-way mirror, and a number of types of behavior were assessed.

The first factor measured was physical aggression, consisting of hitting the doll with the mallet or punching, kicking or sitting on the doll.

Verbal aggression was also assessed, whether it was general abuse or an imitation of phrases used by the adult role-model.

The third measurement was the amount of times the mallet was used to display other forms of aggression than hitting the doll. The final behaviors studied were modes of aggression, shown by the subject, which were not direct imitations of the role-model's behavior.

The results for the Bobo Doll Experiment showed, as expected by prediction one, that children who were exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to show imitative aggressive behavior themselves.

Prediction four was proved correct in that boys were nearly three times more likely to replicate physically violent behavior than girls.

The measurements for verbally aggressive behavior again showed that children exposed to aggressive role models were more likely to imitate this behavior. The levels of verbal aggression expressed were about the same for boys and girls.

Subjects in the Bobo Doll Experiment exposed to the non-aggressive model, or no model at all, showed little imitative aggressive behavior. This finding partially proved prediction two, with children exposed to a passive role model showing less imitative aggression.

However, the results did not fully prove this prediction, as there was no discernible difference in the imitative aggression levels between groups one and three.

Male subjects exposed to non-aggressive role models were less likely to use the mallet to hit the Bobo doll. Strangely, male subjects placed with non-aggressive female models were more likely to use the mallet than the control group.

The findings of the Bobo Doll Experiment proved to be a little inconclusive with most of the predictions not being fully proved.

It is not certain that children learn socially, but it is likely that children observing an adult model utilizing violence are more likely to believe that this type of behavior is normal. They may, therefore, be more likely to use this type of action themselves when confronted by similar situations.

Bandura found that girls were much less likely to be physically violent, but were equally as prone to verbal aggression as boys. This is something often encountered in society, where bullying at school, by boys, is more often of a physical nature; intimidation amongst girls tends to be more verbal and social.

There were a few criticisms of the experiment; the Bobo doll springs back upright when it is hit and there is a strong possibility that the children saw it as a game rather than anything else.

There was a follow up experiment, in 1963, which used the same methodology but showed the subjects violence via video; this had a much less defined response than the initial experiment.

Another refinement of the Bobo Doll Experiment, in 1965, tried to establish the effects of rewarding or punishing bad and violent behavior. Children, who witnessed the model being punished for aggressive behavior, were much less likely to follow suit. Interestingly, there was no change in aggression when the model was rewarded for bad behavior.

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth (Mar 26, 2008). Bobo Doll Experiment. Retrieved Jun 30, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/bobo-doll-experiment

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Related articles

Social Learning Theory

Social Development Theory

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Save this course for later.

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

Albert Bandura Biography, Theories, and Impact

Categories History

Albert Bandura was an influential Canadian-American psychologist known for his social learning theory, the Bobo doll experiment, observational learning, and self-efficacy. Throughout his long career, he left an indelible mark on the field of psychology and influenced other areas such as education and psychotherapy.

In this article, learn more about Albert Bandura, including his early life, research, and impact on psychology.

Table of Contents

Albert Bandura Biography

Albert Bandura was born in Mundare, Canada, a small town in Alberta, on December 4, 1925. He was the youngest of six siblings born to his parents, who immigrated to Canada as teens, his father was from Poland, and his mother was from Ukraine. Two of his older siblings died in childhood—one due to the flu and the other in a hunting accident.

While his parents were not formally educated, they instilled in him a love for learning. He attended a tiny school with only two teachers and few educational materials. As a result, he found that he had to direct much of his own educational pursuits through his own efforts and curiosity.

It was when he started school at the University of British Columbia that he became fascinated with psychology. He had started taking electives to fill extra time, which was how he started with his first psychology course.

After completing his degree in 1949, he went to the University of Iowa for graduate school. He completed his master’s degree in 1951 and his doctorate in clinical psychology in 1952. In 1953, he began teaching at Stanford University, where he would continue to teach for the rest of his career.

Albert Bandura’s Theories

No Albert Bandura biography would be complete without taking a closer look at his influential theories. He developed a social learning theory that emphasized the importance of social learning theory as part of the learning process. During much of the first half of the 20th century, behaviorism dominated the field of psychology.

Bandura believed that conditioning processes, including association and reinforcement , were important, but they couldn’t account for all learning on their own, as behaviorists such as B. F. Skinner suggested.

Among Bandura’s most influential theories, ideas, and research include:

Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiments

These experiments involved children observing adults behaving aggressively toward a toy Bobo doll. When the children later played with the same doll, they imitated the violent actions the adults previously modeled.

Observational Learning

Observational learning describes the process of observing and imitating others as a way of learning. As Bandura’s experiments demonstrated, this can involve direct and indirect demonstrations.

Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory describes how people learn by observing and imitating others. Bandura later renamed his approach social cognitive theory to emphasize the cognitive factors, including attention and memory, that play a role in social learning.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in their own ability to succeed. Bandura was the first to demonstrate that a person’s self-belief influenced what people are close to doing, how they feel about what they do, and how much effort they put in.

His work on self-efficacy had notable parallels to his own life.

“Self-directedness has really served me very well throughout my whole career,” he suggested in a 2012 episode of Inside the Psychologist’s Studio .

“In a way, my psychological theory is founded on human agency, which means that people have a hand in determining the course their lives take, and in many respects, my theory is really a reflection of my life path.”

Albert Bandura’s Impact 

Bandura is widely regarded as one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century. In a 2002 survey published in the General Review of Psychology , Bandura was named the fourth most influential psychologist of the 20th century.

The other psychologists who ranked ahead of him were Sigmund Freud, Jean Piaget, and B.F. Skinner. 

Throughout his almost 60-year career, Bandura wrote hundreds of scientific papers, and several books, and influenced thousands of students.

His many awards and honors included:

• The Outstanding Lifetime Contribution to Psychology Award from the American Psychological Association
• The James McKeen Cattell Award from the American Psychological Society 
• The Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to Psychological Science from the American Psychological Foundation

He was also made an Officer of the Order of Canada in 2014. In 2016, President Barack Obama presented Bandura with the National Medal of Science.

Bandura died on July 26, 2021, at the age of 95. 

Haggbloom SJ. The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the Twentieth Century . PsycEXTRA Dataset. 2001. doi:10.1037/e413802005-787

Maccormick HA. Stanford psychology professor Albert Bandura has died . Published July 30, 2021.

UK Edition Change

• UK Politics
• News Videos
• Paris 2024 Olympics
• Rugby Union
• Sport Videos
• John Rentoul
• Mary Dejevsky
• Andrew Grice
• Sean O’Grady
• Photography
• Theatre & Dance
• Culture Videos
• Fitness & Wellbeing
• Food & Drink
• Health & Families
• Royal Family
• Electric Vehicles
• Car Insurance Deals
• Lifestyle Videos
• UK Hotel Reviews
• News & Advice
• Simon Calder
• Australia & New Zealand
• South America
• C. America & Caribbean
• Middle East
• Politics Explained
• News Analysis
• Today’s Edition
• Home & Garden
• Broadband deals
• Fashion & Beauty
• Travel & Outdoors
• Sports & Fitness
• Sustainable Living
• Climate Videos
• Solar Panels
• Behind The Headlines
• On The Ground
• Decomplicated
• You Ask The Questions
• Binge Watch
• Travel Smart
• Watch on your TV
• Crosswords & Puzzles
• Most Commented
• Newsletters
• Ask Me Anything
• Virtual Events
• Betting Sites
• Online Casinos
• Wine Offers

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in Please refresh your browser to be logged in

Albert Bandura: Leading psychologist behind the Bobo doll experiment

The researcher’s work in regard to children’s behaviour helped reshape our understanding of humans, article bookmarked.

Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile

Albert Bandura, a psychologist who reshaped modern understanding of human behaviour, has died aged 95. He will be remembered for his insights into such questions as how people interact and learn, how they develop (and in some cases violate) moral codes, and how belief in one’s ability helps determine personal success.

Bandura, who spent his entire academic career at Stanford University, was known to generations of psychology students as the author of the seminal “Bobo doll” studies. The substance of those studies, if not Bandura’s name itself, is common knowledge to anyone acquainted with the folly of asking a child to “do as I say, not as I do”.

In experiments conducted in the early 1960s, Bandura presented preschool-age children with film footage of adults striking, kicking and otherwise abusing an inflatable clown called Bobo. Compared to children who did not see the footage, the children exposed to the violent example were more likely to abuse Bobo dolls when given the opportunity to play with them.

To modern psychologists, and to educators and parents coached in the importance of modelling behaviour, these results might seem predictable, even obvious. But at the time, Bandura’s findings were regarded as revolutionary.

“It makes a lot of sense to people today because Al Bandura made it make sense,” says Laura Carstensen, a fellow professor of psychology at Stanford.

Under BF Skinner’s long-prevailing theory of behaviourism, human behaviour was regarded as the result of conditioning through positive and negative reinforcement. With the Bobo doll experiments, Bandura showed behaviour such as aggression to be the product of a more complex, observational learning process, in which an adult example was enough to produce a given behaviour in children.

The Bobo studies – one of Bandura’s many contributions to psychology over his decades-long career – helped inform his overarching theory of social learning. He was also known for his theory of self-efficacy, which identified the belief in one’s own skills as a key factor in achievement, and for the concept of moral disengagement, which he offered as a way of explaining how people commit and justify harmful acts.

Taken together, his work influenced fields including clinical treatment for phobias, educational models in schools, child-rearing techniques, and areas of psychology from emotion to human development. By the end of his career, Bandura was one of the most frequently cited psychologists of all time, often compared in his significance to Skinner, developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.

“Albert Bandura was not only one of the most influential leaders in psychology, but also one of the most important social scientists in history,” Arthur C Evans Jr, chief executive of the American Psychological Association, said in a statement. “His contributions have substantially influenced our understanding of human behaviour today.”

In 2016, president Barack Obama awarded Bandura a National Medal of Science. The citation noted the many everyday experiences explained by his theories:

“A child blurts out a swear word after hearing a parent do the same. A teenager acts out a scene from a violent videogame. A partygoer clutches a beer, because everyone else is drinking. This act of learning through observation, called ‘social learning theory’, was conceptualised by [Bandura] in his famed Bobo doll experiment.”

Albert Bandura was born on 4 December 1925, in Mundare, a town of 400 inhabitants in the Canadian province of Alberta. He was the youngest of and the only boy among six siblings, one of whom died in the 1918 flu pandemic. Another was killed in a hunting accident.

Bandura’s father, a Polish immigrant, laid railway tracks. His mother, who was from Ukraine, ran a delivery service. They lived what Bandura described as a pioneer life, hoarding their savings to eventually purchase a piece of wooded land that they transformed into a working farm. Such were the challenges of their existence that they once had to sacrifice a layer of their thatched roof to feed the cattle.

Although his parents had little if any formal education, they cultivated in their children academic ambition as well as self-reliance. “The content of most textbooks is perishable,” Bandura once observed, according to a biography on his website, “but the tools of self-directedness serve one well over time.”

During high school, Bandura learned carpentry skills, which he used to support himself as a student at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. On a whim, he enrolled in a psychology class.

“One morning, I was wasting time in the library,” he recalled. “Someone had forgotten to return a course catalogue and I thumbed through it attempting to find a filler course to occupy the early time-slot. I noticed a course in psychology that would serve as an excellent filler. It sparked my interest and I found my career.”

Bandura received a bachelor’s degree in 1949, then moved to the United States to pursue postgraduate studies. He received a master’s degree in 1951 and a PhD the next year, both in psychology, from the University of Iowa. In 1953, he joined the faculty at Stanford, where he remained for the rest of his career.

Bandura was married in 1952 to Virginia Varns. She died in 2011. Survivors include two daughters and two grandsons.

Bandura had already studied aggression in adolescents when he embarked on the Bobo doll studies. To some observers of his work, the experiments assumed urgent importance as young people encountered increasing amounts of violence on television, in videogames and on social media.

Bandura elaborated on his social cognitive theory in the volume Social Foundations of Thought and Action (1986). His other noted books included Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (1997), in which he laid out his findings on what might be described in layman’s terms as confidence, and Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves (2016).

These two concepts converged in his deep concern over the climate crisis, Elissa Epel, a professor of psychology at the University of California at San Francisco, said, noting yet another application of Bandura’s work.

“In the climate-change area, our most important tools remain building [an] individual’s personal efficacy – that their behaviours matter – and even more so, building group efficacy: that group change is influential,” Epel wrote, noting what she said Bandura regarded as moral disengagement among businesses that employ practices damaging to the environment.

Albert Bandura, psychologist, born 4 December 1925, died 26 July 2021

© The Washington Post

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article

Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.

New to The Independent?

Or if you would prefer:

Want an ad-free experience?

Hi {{indy.fullName}}

• My Independent Premium
• Account details
• Help centre