# data[].attributes.body
Why is this theory of personality important to the study of psychology?  How do you know? What makes you say that?
This theory of personality is important to the study of psychology because it describes how the four distinctively human cognitive processes influence our personalities development, growth, and change. We know based on the case studying evidence consulted in class.  What makes us say that is the case studying how Fathers treat their sons and daughters differently.

# data[].attributes.body
This article connects to Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory because it references a case that studies how Fathers treat their sons and daughters differently. The theory suggests that parents usually have clear gender stereotypes on how their children should behave. While this study is difficult to conduct because parents are resistant to admitting that they treat their sons and daughters differently, the experiment used a new technique to gather data as they studied brain physiology. There tends to be a distinction between how parents respond to their sons and daughters emotional outbursts. According to an article from Psychology Today titled Do Fathers Treat Their Sons and Daughters Differently, “fathers were found to be more receptive to daughters when they showed submissive emotions or prosocial behavior, while they were more likely to respond to boys when they acted out or showed temper tantrums”. This connects to Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory because it shows that through observational learning parents learn how they are “supposed” to parent girls and boys. Through parents experiences of noticing how girls and boys are treated differently, they pick up on these notions and apply them to how they parent.
Vitelli, Romeo. “Do Fathers Treat Their Sons and Daughters Differently?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 8 June 2017, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-spotlight/201706/do-fathers-treat-their-sons-and-daughters-differently.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Child-rearing practices vary widely across different cultures, and views about gender differences change over time, but there do seem to be some clear consistencies in the way boys and girls are treated, especially during the first few years of life. According to Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory of gender development, parents often have clear gender stereotypes about "appropriate" behavior for different genders and rely on punishment and rewards to ensure that their children abide by these expectations. Boys are often discouraged from playing with dolls or acting "effeminately," while girls are often prevented from doing any physically risky activities.

Some studies suggest that mothers talk more with their daughters and actively prevent them from any activity that might lead to their being injured. On the other hand, both mothers and fathers appear more prone to engage in "rough and tumble" play (RTP) with boys rather than girls. There also appear to be gender differences in how parents respond to emotional outbursts. In a 2005 research study, fathers were found to be more receptive to daughters when they showed submissive emotions or prosocial behavior, while they were more likely to respond to boys when they acted out or showed temper tantrums.

It is often difficult to do this kind of research, considering that most studies looking at how parents interact with their young children have focused on mothers rather than fathers. Also, parents tend to be reluctant to admit that they treat their sons and daughters differently, especially in an era of greater gender equality. For this reason, depending on self-report alone tends to provide a distorted view of the way parents actually raise their children and instill gender roles and values.

A new study published in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience provides one of the first in-depth analyses of how fathers interact with their children and what this might mean in terms of brain physiology. A team of researchers led by James K. Rilling of Emory University's Center for Translational Social Neuroscience recruited 69 men (average age: 33) who were parents of children aged one to two years; 34 of the fathers had a daughter and 35 had a son, with no significant demographic differences between the two groups.

The study began with naturalistic photographs being taken of each of the children showing a variety of facial expressions corresponding to different emotions. The fathers were then given a mobile recording device, the Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR), that intermittently records snippets of conversations and other ambient sounds while the participants wearing them go about their lives. Essentially, the EAR is meant to produce an audio log of the wearer's day.

For the purpose of the research, the fathers were asked to wear the EAR on a weekend day and a weekday. The EAR devices were set to record in 50-second bursts every nine minutes, from 8 a.m. Sunday morning to 8 a.m. Tuesday morning and, when not being worn, were kept charged in the child's bedroom. On average, each participant produced 158 audio files that could be used for the purpose of the study.

Each 50-second audio file was independently rated by two research assistants, whose ratings were correlated to determine adequate validity. Coders were instructed to record all words spoken by the fathers in the files and a special coding system was developed to rate each file. Along with recording whether the father was talking to a child, friend, or spouse, each recorded expression was rated on whether it corresponded to one of the following categories:

Father affective expression (laughing, singing, complaining)

Toddler affective expression (laughing/giggling, fussing/crying)

Father-toddler activities (reading, nonphysical play, physical play)

Paternal caregiving behaviors (engaged attending to the child, showing empathy or affection, expressing praise and encouragement)

For fathers with more than one child (the average number of children per family was two), only those expressions directed at the target child were rated.

Along with wearing the EAR on the designated days, the fathers also completed a self-report questionnaire on parenting. In a third laboratory session, the fathers provided blood and saliva samples and underwent structural and functional MRIs of their brains. During the fMRI sessions, each father was shown a series of photographs of their children with different facial expressions, interspersed with photographs of unknown adults and children.

Results of the auditory file analyses showed significant difference in language and behavior patterns between fathers depending on whether they were interacting with sons or daughters. As expected, fathers were more likely to engage in rough and tumble play with sons rather than daughters. This included tickling, poking, and tumbling behavior that was often aggressive in nature. When interacting with daughters, however, fathers were more likely to engage in singing or whistling, and were also more emotionally and socially responsive.

There were also significant differences in the kind of language fathers used with sons and daughters. Fathers were more likely to use achievement-related words with their sons-"top," "win," "proud"-while using more emotion-laden and analytical words with their daughters. This included words relating to sadness or words relating to the body. Based on behavioral results alone, fathers appear to be reinforcing gender expectations by encouraging girls to be more empathetic while encouraging boys to be more competitive.

In looking at the MRI findings, there appeared to be significant differences in brain response between fathers of daughters and fathers of sons. Fathers of daughters showed much higher activation in visual processing areas of the brain than fathers of sons when shown happy facial pictures of their children. They also showed greater activation in the orbitofrontal cortex linked to emotional regulation. Fathers of sons also showed significant brain activation when presented with neutral facial expressions which are often associated with rough and tumble play, though the exact reason for this is still unclear. On the other hand, fathers showed identical responding when presented with pictures of either their sons or daughters with sad facial expressions.

Overall, these results highlight many of the differences seen in how fathers interact with their male and female children, and what it might mean for gender role development in children. It also demonstrates the value of EAR technology in exploring how parents play with their children, something that is often difficult to do without making parents and children feel self-conscious. Using the EAR also avoids problems with self-report data, which many parents might be unwilling to answer honestly.

Still, while these results are consistent with previous studies looking at paternal behavior and gender roles, they also raise interesting questions about cause and effect: Do fathers treat sons and daughters differently because of their own gender expectations? Or are fathers simply responding to social and behavioral cues linked to biological differences between boys and girls? As James Rilling and his colleagues point out, males are exposed to higher levels of fetal testosterone, which has been shown to be linked to a preference for rough and tumble play. It also influences playmate selection so that both boys and girls high in fetal testosterone are more likely to prefer a more aggressive play style, something that may influence how fathers interact with them. More research is definitely needed to explore these questions further.

While most early childhood research has focused on how mothers interact with their children, this study yields some intriguing findings. Not only is there clear evidence of neural systems in the brains of fathers that respond in different ways depending on the gender of their children, but research using the EAR demonstrates differences in how fathers interact with their children and what it could mean to their later social and intellectual development. More studies such as this one may provide important clues about gender differences and the general well-being of children as they grow older.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Fathers Treat Their Sons and Daughters Differently?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Child-rearing practices vary widely across different cultures, and views about gender differences change over time, but there do seem to be some clear consistencies in the way boys and girls are treated, especially during the first few years of life.

# data[].attributes.body
During Class we would take a quiz to show what traits shaped everybody.

1. The class will take a google docs quiz?

2. From taking this quiz the people should be able to see that their traits are from their environment and not naturally born with it.

3. It would work well on google docs because once everybody took the quiz we could instantly look at everybody's results.

4. This activity would work well because it would make people realize the

**Kahoot! and Quizzes don't count**

# data[].attributes.body
8 questions please!

# data[].attributes.body
Attached are my notes from the textbook about Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this video because it thoroughly explains Bandura's thinking and his theory. This video describes all of the factors that relate to his theory including Reciprocal Causation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Do you have a fear of snakes or perhaps other animals? Do you think that you could get over this fear by observing other people that had snake phobias? This is exactly the experiment that was conducted years ago to help the psychologist Albert Bandura understand the importance of behavioral models.

Social Cognitive Theory and Bandura

The psychologist Albert Bandura discovered the importance of behavioral models when he was working with patients with snake phobias. He found that the patients' observation of former patients handling snakes was an effective therapy. The patients in treatment abstracted the information that others who were like them handled snakes with no ill effects. These patients considered that information in reflecting on their own behavior. Bandura found that these observations were more effective in treating their phobias than persuasion and observing the psychologist handle the snakes.

Bandura's social learning theory stresses the importance of observational learning, imitation and modeling. His theory integrates a continuous interaction between behaviors, personal factors - including cognition - and the environment referred to as reciprocal causation model.

However, Bandura does not suggest that the three factors in the triadic model make equal contributions to behavior. The influence of behavior, environment and person depends on which factor is strongest at any particular moment.

In the model, B, or behavior, refers to things like complexity, duration, skill, etc. The E stands for environment, and it's comprised of the situation, roles, models and relationships. P, or person, is comprised mainly of cognition but also other personal factors such as self-efficacy, motives and personality.

Here's a classroom example to help make this point more clear. In the classroom as a teacher presents a lesson to the class, students reflect on what the teacher is saying. This is where the environment influences cognition, a personal factor. Students who don't understand a point raise their hands to ask a question. This is where personal factors influence behavior. So, the teacher reviews the point (behavior influences environment).

Bandura's most famous experiment was the 1961 Bobo Doll study. Briefly, he made a video in which an adult woman was shown being aggressive to a Bobo doll, hitting and shouting aggressive words.

The film was shown to groups of children. Afterwards, the children were allowed to play in the room with the same doll. The children began imitating the model by beating up the doll and using similar, aggressive words. The study was significant because it departed from behaviorism's insistences that all behavior is directed by reinforcement or rewards. The children received no encouragement or incentives to beat up the doll; they were simply imitating the behavior they had observed.

Through the Bobo doll experiment and others, Bandura grounded his understanding of a model's primary function, which is to transmit information to the observer. This function occurs in any of three ways:

1. Modeled behaviors serve as cues to initiate similar behaviors in others.

2. They also serve to strengthen or weaken the learner's existing restraints against the performance of a modeled behavior.

3. They're used to demonstrate new patterns of behavior.

An example of behavior serving as a social prompt is the hostess at an elaborate dinner party. A guest, unfamiliar with the array of silverware, observes the hostess to select the correct utensil appropriate for each course.

Another example for strengthening or weakening behavior is when an observer's restraints against imitating a behavior are strengthened when the model is punished. For example, if a classmate violates a school rule and is punished, this will make the observer think twice before attempting to break the rule. In contrast, observers' restraints are weakened in one of two ways. One is lack of punishment for reprehensible behaviors. The other is the modeling of defensible violence, which adds legitimacy to the use of violence as a solution to a problem. Unfortunately, we see violence daily on TV and in media, which may lead to weaken the observer's behavioral restraints toward violent behavior.

The third influence of modeling is to demonstrate new patterns of behavior. Models are particularly important in the socialization of both children and adults. Language, social values and family customs, as well as educational, social and political practices, are modeled in countless situations. Examples for children of symbolic models that portray both socially appropriate behaviors and sensitivity to others are Sesame Street and Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.

The Role of Consequences in Learning from Models

Although Bandura believed that learning is not facilitated by reinforcement, behaviors enacted by others often do either reinforce or punish. These outcomes of the modeled behavior are referred to as vicarious because they arouse emotional reactions in the observer. For example, a teacher acknowledges a child who shares her crayons with others at a table, and a child who observed the situation experiences positive feelings.

The two components of vicarious reinforcement are: the behavior of a model produces reinforcement for a particular behavior, and second, positive emotional reactions are aroused in the observer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
albert bandura: social-cognitive theory and vicarious learning - video & lesson transcript | study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Albert Bandura: Social-Cognitive Theory and Vicarious Learning - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you have a fear of snakes or perhaps other animals? Do you think that you could get over this fear by observing other people that had snake phobias? This is exactly the experiment that was conducted years ago to help the psychologist Albert Bandura understand the importance of behavioral models.