Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionV. Learning Theories 16. Bandura: Social
Cognitive Theory(^506) © The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2009
behavior is produced and maintained by the mutual interaction of people’s expectan-
cies(belief that they will be mugged), the external environment (the city park), and
behavioral factors (their prior experiences with fear).
Aggression
Aggressive behaviors, when carried to extremes, can also be dysfunctional. Bandura
(1986) contended that aggressive behavior is acquired through observation of others,
direct experiences with positive and negative reinforcements, training, or instruction,
and bizarre beliefs.
Once established, people continue to aggress for at least five reasons: (1) They
enjoy inflicting injury on the victim (positive reinforcement); (2) they avoid or
counter the aversive consequences of aggression by others (negative reinforcement);
(3) they receive injury or harm for not behaving aggressively (punishment); (4) they
live up to their personal standards of conduct by their aggressive behavior (self-
reinforcement); and (5) they observe others receiving rewards for aggressive acts or
punishment for nonaggressive behavior.
Bandura believes that aggressive actions ordinarily lead to further aggression.
This belief is based on the now classic study of Bandura, Dorrie Ross, and Sheila
Ross (1963), which found that children who observed others behaving aggressively
displayed more aggression than a control group of children who did not view ag-
gressive acts. In this study, the experimenters divided Stanford University nursery
school boys and girls into three matched experimental groups and one control
group.
Children in the first experimental group observed a live model behaving with
both verbal and physical aggression toward a number of toys, including a large in-
flated Bobo doll; the second experimental group observed a film showing the same
model behaving in an identical manner; the third experimental group saw a fantasy
film in which a model, dressed as a black cat, behaved equally aggressively against
the Bobo doll. Children in the control group were matched with those in the experi-
mental groups on previous ratings of aggression, but they were not subjected to an
aggressive model.
After children in the three experimental groups observed a model scolding,
kicking, punching, and hitting the Bobo doll with a mallet, they proceeded into an-
other room where they were mildly frustrated. Immediately following this frustra-
tion, each child went into the experimental room, which contained some toys (such
as a smaller version of the Bobo doll) that could be played with aggressively. In ad-
dition, some nonaggressive toys (such as a tea set and coloring materials) were pres-
ent. Observers watched the children’s aggressive or nonaggressive response to the
toys through a one-way mirror.
As hypothesized, children exposed to an aggressive model displayed more ag-
gressive responses than those who had not been exposed. But contrary to expecta-
tions, the researchers found no differences in the amount of total aggression shown
by children in the three experimental groups. Children who had observed the cartoon
character were at least as aggressive as those exposed to a live model or to a filmed
model. In general, children in each experimental group exhibited about twice as
500 Part V Learning Theories