# data[].attributes.body
Quantitative: objective record of the number of imitative actions in each category .
Qualitative: though it was subjective, provided some explanation of the reasons behind the tendency  of the children to copy some behaviours and not others.

# data[].attributes.body
1- Only six children were used in each experimental condition which is a small sample.
2- Biased sample: the children could be similar as they all attended the same nursery based at the university, suggesting they all had academically able parents.
3- The children were not followed so it's difficult to state that the change in the behaviour was relatively permanent and due to learning.
4- But if it were so then the study would have raised ethical issue as some of the children might have been harmed  by becoming more aggressive.
5- The children were had been made mildly annoyed which could be psychologically distressing.
6- Self reports about their emotions at the time of children observing or reacting towards the model would have been useful for stating the influence of of sex-typing on imitation.

# data[].attributes.body
1- Extraneous variables were possible to control as it was a laboratory experiment.
2- All children in both experimental groups saw a model for the same length of time, and in each condition their behaviour was standardized.
3- The research was valid: as the reseachers could be sure that the differences in results between conditions were due to the differences between the models.
4- The pre-testing of the children's aggressiveness was another factor that increased the validity.
5- The DV was measured through observation through a one-way mirror. This increased the validity further as the children were likely to behave naturally rather than responding to demand characteristics.
6- It was reliable: beacuse each child within a condition experienced exactly the same exposure.
7- Inter-observer reliability was also checked for both the initial observations of aggressiveness and for the data recording- and was very high.
8- The observation period was divided into time intervals (of five seconds) and the categories were clearly defined (eg. imitative and non-imitative behaviours), which improved both validity and reliability.

# data[].attributes.body
- The results strongly suggest that observation and imitation can account for the learning of specific acts without reinforcement of either the model or observer.
- All four hypotheses were supported :
- Observed aggressive behaviours are imitated: children who see aggressive models are likely to be more aggressive than those seeing a non-aggressive model or no model.
- Observed non-aggressive behaviours are imitated:children seeing non-aggressive models will be less aggressive than those seeing no model.
- Children are more likely to copy a same sex model, although this may depend on the extent to which this behaviour is sex typed.
- Boys are more likely to copy aggression than girls.

# data[].attributes.body
10- The levels of gun play or punching the bobo doll did not appear to be affected by the exposure to a aggressive model.
11-Non-imitative and physical aggression were higher following exposure to an aggressive model compared to other two conditions.
12- In the non-aggressive play girls played more with dolls, tea sets and colouring.
13- Boys engaged in more exploratory play and gun play.
14- There were no differences in play with farm animals, cars or the tether ball.
15- Both boys and girls seeing the non-aggressive model engaged in more non-aggressive play with dolls than either of the other groups and spent more than twice as much time sitting quietly, not playing.
16- Records of the remarks about the aggressive models revealed differences, both between reactions to the actions of the male and female models and between boys and girls.
17- Comments appeared to be based on previous knowledge of sex-typed behaviour.

# data[].attributes.body
1- Children exposed to aggresive models imitated their exact behaviours and were significantly more aggressive, both physically and verbally than other two groups.
2- The children also imitated the model's non-aggressive verbal responses.
3- This effect was greater for boys than girls.
4- Boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression and girls more likely to imitate verbal aggression.
5- Boys were also more likely to imitate a same sex model as to a lesser extent, were girls.
6- Mean for imitative physical aggression for male subjects (25.8) is much higher than that for female subjects (7.2).
7- This indicated that the boys imitated the physical aggression of a male model than the girls.
8- With female model, girls imitated less  (5.5) than with the male model.
9- Children seeing a non-aggressive model exhibited less mallet aggression other than the 2 groups and it was apparent for girls.

# data[].attributes.body
25 - 3 RESPONSE MEASURES of children's imitation were measured :
a) imitation of physical aggression.
b) imitation of verbal aggression
c) imitative non-aggressive verbal response

PARTIALLY IMITATIVE AGGRESSION was scored if the child imitated:
a) mallet aggression
b) sits on the Bobo doll.

Two further categories were:
a) aggressive gun play
b) non-imitative physical and verbal aggression.

26- Behaviour units for non-aggressive play was also counted.
27- Records for childrens remark was also kept.
28- 1 male scored all the children's behaviours and, except for those conditions in which he was the model.
29- To test the reliability of the scorer a second scorer independently rated the behaviour of half of the children and the reliability was high, around r=0.9 for different categories of behaviour.

# data[].attributes.body
13- After 2 minutes of play they were told that these were the best toys and were to be kept for other children.
14- Experimenter and child then moved to the observation room, where the experimenter showed the child to a table and chair in their 'play area' where they were shown how to make potato prints and stickers- activities previously identified as interesting.
15- The other corner of the room contained a table and chair, tinkertoy set, mallet and a five foot(152cm) Bobo doll. This is where the model sat.
16- The experimenter remained in the room so that the children doesn't leave.
17- The three groups were then treated differently.
18- Non-Aggressive condition - the model assembled the Tinkertoy for ten minutes.
19- Aggressive condition - The model attacked the Bobo doll. Both verbal and physical abuse was administered on the doll.
20- Children in the model groups, half saw a same sex model, the others saw a model of the opposite sex.
21- Control group did not see any model, and therefore saw no aggression.
22- A test of child's aggression followed in which the child was observed for 20 minutes using a one-way mirror.
23- This was test of delayed imitation for the aggressive model.
24- The children's behaviour were observed in 5 second interval (240 response units per child).

# data[].attributes.body
1- Prior to the study children were observed in their nursery school by the experimenter and their teacher.
2- Rating scale- four 5 point scales were used.
3- They were rated on physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression to inanimate objects & aggression inhibitions (anxiety).
4- The children were assigned to three groups based on their aggression levels. (Matched)
5- 51 children were rated by both the teacher and experimenter.
6- 21 children were rated by only 1 observer.
7- Similar ratings were generally produced.
8- Inter-rater reliability showed high correlation between observers of r=0.89.
9- 12 boys and 12 girls were allocated to control groups who saw no model.
10- 48 children were divided equally by sex between aggression and non-aggressive models groups and within those, between same and opposite sex models.
11- The experimental procedure started with all participants being delibrately mildly annoyed. This was done for 2 reasons :
a) because watching aggression may reduce production of aggression by the observer and it was necessary to see the evidence of learning.
b) to ensure that even the non-aggressive and control participants would be likely to express aggression, so that any reduction in that tendency could be measured.
12- Each individual child was shown to a room with attractive toys such as a fire engine and a baby crib.

# data[].attributes.body
- 72 children aged 3-6 years (36 boys & 36 girls) were obtained from Standard University nursery school.

# data[].attributes.body
-LABORATORY EXPERIMENT
- INDEPENDENT MEASURE DESIGN
- MATCHED PAIR DESIGN

IV:
- Model Type- whether the child saw an aggressive model, non-aggressive model or no model.
- Model gender - same gender as child(boys watching a male model and girls watching a female model) or different gender (boys watching a female model and girls watching a male model).
- Learner gender- whether the child was a boy or a girl.

DV :
- Learning the child dispalyed and this was measured through a controlled observation of the children and measures of aggressive behaviour were recorded.

# data[].attributes.body
-Observed aggressive behaviour will be imitated, so children seeing aggressive models will be more aggressive than those seeing non-aggressive model or no model.
- Observed non-aggressive behaviour will be imitated, so children seeing non-aggressive models will be less aggressive than those seeing no model.
- Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model.
- Boys will be more likely to copy aggression than girls.

# data[].attributes.body
To investigate whether a child would learn aggression by observing a model and would reproduce this behaviour in the absence of the model, and whether the sex of the role model was important.