Posted: September 26th, 2022

What hypothesized cause of aggression did Albert Bandura’s

Answer the test questions thoroughly, substantively and in narrative format (in paragraphs and complete sentences; lists, sentence fragments and bulleted items are not permitted). Base each answer on an assigned reading from the weekly course Lessons. Answers may range from 300 to 500 words with some requiring more detail and longer lengths and some requiring less. Quoting is not permitted. All answers must be paraphrased (which means restating what you read in your own words).

1) What hypothesized cause of aggression did Albert Bandura’s famous Bobo doll experiment investigate and how?

2) How does the military battle commitment to “leave no man behind” exemplify the vested interest model of human helping behavior.

Social Psychology

1) What hypothesized cause of aggression did Albert Bandura’s famous Bobo doll experiment investigate and how?
Albert Bandura’s hypothesis in the famous Bobo doll experiment was that human behavior is learned via social imitation and copying instead of being inherited via genetic factors (Shuttleworth, 2008). Bandura would make several predictions of what would arise from the experiment, which included: that boys would be more aggressive than girls, children that watched an adult being aggressive were more likely to behave aggressively even in the absence of the adult model, children are more likely to imitate same-sex models compared to those of the opposite sex and the children that watched an anon-aggressive adult model would be less aggressive than those that observed the aggressive adult model (Swaim, 2020). This non-aggressive group was also expected to be less aggressive than the control group.
For the experiment. Bandura chose several children from a local school whose ages ranged from 3 to 6 with an average age of 4 years four months. In testing the prediction of boys being susceptible to aggression than girls, 36 subjects of both boys and girls were selected. A control group that would not observe the adult role model consisted of 12 boys and 12 girls (Shuttleworth, 2008). With 24 children of both sexes, the second group got exposed to an adult demonstrating aggressive tendencies. The resultant groups of 12 were subsequently divided, with one set having a female adult role model and a male adult role model. The third group had the same structure as the same group, but they were exposed to the passive adult (Shuttleworth, 2008). The experiment also required a pre-selection and sorting of children to ensure that all personality types were represented in the test groups. It was a requirement that subjects were also tested alone and individually to ensure that the group’s effects and reactions did not affect the experiment’s final findings (Shuttleworth, 2008).
First, a child would be brought to a playroom with several activities to be explored. An adult model would then be brought into the playroom and encouraged to sit across the room from the child with similar activities (Swaim, 2020). For ten minutes, the adult model started playing with the set of tinker toys. The non-aggressive condition entails the adult model playing with the toys and ignoring the Bobo doll entirely. In contrast, the aggressive model entailed the adult model violently attacking the Bobo doll (Swaim, 2020). A sequence of physically aggressive acts was done against the doll and repeated three times in conjunction with verbally aggressive responses.
After the exposure within the ten-minute duration, each child was taken to another room containing several appealing toys and was allowed to play with them briefly; they played with them for two minutes and were told to stop immediately when the brief period was over (Swaim, 2020). The reason for this was to develop frustration levels among the young participants. Finally, each child was taken to the final experimental room with several aggressive toys and non-aggressive toys. Harem, the child got to play for 20 minutes. The experimenters observed the subject’s behavior from behind using a one-way-mirror and judged their aggression levels.
Bandura’s findings from the experiment included that while the children from both genders within the non-aggressive group demonstrated less aggression than the control group. These boys observed an opposite-sex model conducted in a non-aggressive manner than those within the control group in engaging in violence. The children exposed to the violent model were also inclined to act in similar behavior as they had watched when the adult was absent. Their prediction of boys acting more aggressive than girls was affirmed as the former acted in more than twice the physical aggression action than the latter. They also noted fundamental gender differences when it comes to same-sex and opposite models. The boys that observed adult males behave violently were affected more than those that watched female models; the experimenters also found that in the aggressive same-sex groups, boys were more inclined to copying the physical acts of violence as the girls were more likely to copy the verbal aggression.
2) How does the military battle commitment to “leave no man behind” exemplify the vested interest model of human helping behavior.
The military’s commitment to the “leave no man behind” mantra in their operations has meant that the military has been taught to never leave any soldier behind, whether wounded or killed, in the hands of the enemy regardless of the status of the war. One surety that a soldier gets before entering the military is that his colleagues will do everything they can to get him back (Bausman, 2017). The wounded or fallen soldiers’ families value the opportunity to bury their own, and the military will want to fulfill that for them.
The relation for this commitment to the exemplary human behavior model demonstrates how each human being should be committed to fulfilling others’ needs regardless of what is going through. While many human beings will not be willing to enter a dangerous place to save another individual, especially since they are not family, this notion teaches that one should not look into the danger they are facing. They should be willing to have their safety compromised and be prone to doing good for others. They will be risking it all for themselves.
Human helping behavior should all be inclined to what this notion teaches. Many times human beings help with the mindset of what they get in return. However, the notion of “leave no man behind” should be the guiding notion in whatever people do in their aid to others. People must be willing to give their all, including their lives, to help others if possible. Human helping should be actions that are done wholeheartedly as long as one can help.
References
Bausman, C. (2017, August 10). Leave no man behind- Implications, criticisms, and rationale. Mountain Tactical Institute. https://mtntactical.com/knowledge/leave-no-man-behind-implications-criticisms-rationale/
Shuttleworth, M. (2008). Bobo doll experiment. Explorable – Think Outside The Box – Research, Experiments, Psychology, Self-Help. https://explorable.com/bobo-doll-experiment
Swaim, E. (2020). What the Bobo doll experiment reveals about kids and aggression. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/bobo-doll-experiment-2794993#

Order | Check Discount

Tags: 150-200 words discussion with a scholarly reference, 200-300 words response to classmate discussion question, 250 word analysis essay, bachelor of nursing assignments, case study, essay bishops website