Bandura and the Bobo Doll 1

Running head: BANDURA AND THE BOBO DOLL

Bandura, Ross, and Ross:

Observational Learning and the Bobo Doll

Anthony R. Artino, Jr.

University of Connecticut

January 1, 2007
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 2

Bandura, Ross, and Ross:

Observational Learning and the Bobo Doll

Since the publication of their seminal article entitled, “Transmission of Aggression

Through Imitation of Aggressive Models” (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961), the work of Albert

Bandura and his co-authors has had an immeasurable impact on the field of psychology, in

general, and educational psychology, more specifically. The purpose of this report is to describe,

in brief, Albert Bandura’s major contributions to the field of educational psychology. Although

Bandura’s contributions are vast by any measure, this paper focuses on his work with social

modeling and observational learning. The report includes a short biography of Bandura’s

academic life, followed by an overview of the research article that launched his prolific career

and a review of his social learning theory. The paper ends with a discussion of Bandura’s

enduring legacy, including a summary of his major contributions to the field of educational

psychology and an abbreviated list of the doctoral students he has trained and colleagues he has

influenced.

Albert Bandura’s Abridged Biography

Albert Bandura was born on December 4, 1925, in Mundare, a village in northern

Alberta, Canada. He was the youngest child, and only boy, among six children of immigrant

parents from Eastern Europe (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003). As a young student, Bandura’s

primary and secondary education took place at the one and only school in town, with very

limited resources. As a result of this meager academic environment, Bandura realized early on

that learning is largely a social and self-directed endeavor. In his words, “the content of most

textbooks is perishable, but the tools of self-directedness serve one well over time” (Bandura, as
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 3

cited in Pajares, 2004a, ¶ 3). Interestingly, this sentiment would reappear in Bandura’s later

research into self-regulation and its influence on lifelong learning.

Following high school, Bandura moved west to attend the University of British Columbia

in Vancouver, Canada. Stumbling upon psychology more by chance than by choice (Pajares,

2004a), Bandura excelled in college and, after only three years of study, received his B.A. degree

in psychology in 1949. On the advice of his undergraduate adviser, Bandura then decided to head

south to the United States for his graduate studies at the University of Iowa. At the time, as is

still the case today, the psychology program at the University of Iowa was considered one of the

best in North America (Kendler, 1991). While at Iowa, Bandura was mentored by numerous

acclaimed faculty, including Kenneth Spence, Kurt Lewin, and Arthur Benton, his academic

adviser (see Table 1 for summary of Bandura’s professional genealogy).

Table 1

Albert Bandura's Professional Genealogy (adapted from Pajares, 2004a)

Adviser Advisee University Year

*William James James Rowland Angell Harvard University 1893

James Rowland Angell John Watson University of Chicago 1903

John Watson Karl Spencer Lashley Johns Hopkins University 1914

Karl Spencer Lashley Carney Landis University of Minnesota 1924

Carney Landis Arthur Benton Columbia University 1935

Arthur Benton Albert Bandura University of Iowa 1952

*Note. William James is considered by many to be the Father of American psychology (Pajares, 2003).
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 4

After only a few years at Iowa, Bandura received his M.A. degree in 1951 and his Ph.D.

degree in clinical psychology in 1952. Following a postdoctoral internship at the Wichita

Guidance Center, Bandura joined the faculty of the Department of Psychology at Stanford

University in 1953, where he still resides today after more than 50 years of productive scholarly

activity (Pajares, 2004a; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003).

Bandura, Ross, and Ross and the Legendary Bobo Doll

Challenging Prominent Theories of the Day

When Bandura first arrived at Stanford, Robert Sears, the Chair of the Department, was

exploring the familial antecedents of social behavior in children. Influenced by this work,

Bandura began a program of research on social learning and aggression in collaboration with

Richard Walters, his first doctoral student (Pajares, 2004a). At that time, ideas about aggression

in young children were dominated by “the Freudian view that such behavior was the product of

intrapsychic forces operating largely unconsciously. Students’ aggression on the playground or

in school was seen as a recurring expression of underlying impulses requiring release in

minimally detrimental ways” (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003, p. 440). Furthermore, the Freudian

theory of catharsis stated that modeled violence would drain observers’ aggressive drives and

reduce subsequent aggressive behavior. Citing this Freudian view, television executives at the

time were defending increasingly violent programming as socially beneficial since, in theory,

violent programs would help drain viewers’ aggressive drives thereby reducing aggressive

tendencies (Pajares, 2004a; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003).

The Bobo Doll Experiment

With this scholarly and political landscape as a backdrop, Bandura began a program of

research with Dorrie and Sheila Ross on social modeling involving the now legendary inflatable
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 5

plastic Bobo doll. In their 1961 experiment – the first of many using the Bobo doll paradigm –

24 preschool children were assigned to one of three conditions. One experimental group

observed adult models playing aggressively with an inflatable plastic Bobo doll; a second group

observed adult models playing non-aggressively with a Bobo doll; and subjects in the control

group had no exposure to the models (Bandura et al., 1961). Additionally, half the children in the

experimental conditions observed same-sex models and half viewed models of the opposite sex.

Subjects were then assessed for the amount of imitative as well as nonimitative aggression

performed in a new, generalized situation in the absence of the models (Bandura et al., 1961).

Results revealed that children exposed to aggressive models reproduced considerably

more aggressive behaviors resembling that of the models, and that their mean aggression scores

were significantly higher than subjects in the nonaggressive and control groups. Furthermore,

children in the aggressive condition exhibited significantly more “partially imitative and

nonimitative aggressive behavior and were generally less inhibited in their behavior than subjects

in the nonaggressive condition” (Bandura el al., 1961, p. 582). Finally, the extent to which

children imitated the model was differentially influenced by the sex of the model, with boys

showing more aggression than girls following exposure to the male model.

Based on these results, Bandura and his co-authors questioned much of the existing

research on social learning which was focused on the shaping of new behaviors through rewards

and punishments. While these strict behaviorist views necessitated the reinforcement of emitted

behaviors, Bandura’s findings suggested that “observation of cues produced by the behavior of

others is one effective means of eliciting certain forms of responses for which the original

probability is very low or zero” (Bandura et al., 1961, p. 580). In other words, observational

learning can occur in the absence of reinforcements to the observers, thereby speeding up the
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 6

acquisition of new behaviors. At the time of their experiment, these ideas were in express

disagreement with accepted views, which stated that learning is a result of direct reinforcement

(Skinner, 1938; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003).

Following their initial Bobo doll experiment, Bandura, Ross, and Ross conducted a

similar study which sought to determine the extent to which film-mediated aggressive models

could serve as sources of imitative behavior (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963). This follow-up

study, entitled “Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models,” provided additional evidence to

support their theoretical account of observational learning. In general, their results revealed that

filmed aggression increased aggressive reactions in children. In the words of the authors,

“subjects who viewed the aggressive human and cartoon models on film exhibited nearly twice

as much aggression than did subjects in the control group who were not exposed to the

aggressive film content” (Bandura et al., 1963, p. 9).

Taken together, results from the two Bobo doll experiments provided strong evidence

that learning can occur vicariously and “without any reinforcers delivered either to the model or

to the observer” (Bandura et al., 1963, p. 11). Furthermore, the experimental findings helped

debunk the Freudian concept of catharsis; revealing instead the power of modeled aggression

(both live and through television or film) on children’s aggressive tendencies (Zimmerman &

Schunk, 2003).

Theoretical Contributions

Based, in part, on findings from the classic Bobo doll experiments, Bandura began

developing the theoretical underpinnings of his social learning theory, to include the prominent

role of observational learning and social modeling in human learning and motivation. As

Bandura (1989) noted, “observational learning is governed by four component subfunctions” (p.
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 7

23). These subfunctions, or processes, are necessary before an individual can successfully model

another. The processes include attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation.

Attentional processes determine what aspects of modeled behavior individuals observe

and what information they extract from that behavior. Students cannot learn a new skill if they

do not pay close attention to the critical features of the modeled behavior and less attention to the

irrelevant parts. For teachers, this point becomes critical because often times they must modify or

alter the behavior they model to compensate for the attentional limitations of their students

(Bandura, 1989). Furthermore, teachers can improve the likelihood that students will attend to

critical features of a lesson by making presented information clear and highlighting important

points (Woolfolk, 2007).

People cannot be influenced by observed events if they cannot remember them (Bandura,

1989). Thus, the second process in learning from a model is to remember the behavior that has

been observed. According to Bandura (1989), “retention involves an active process of

transforming and restructuring the information conveyed by modeled events into rules and

conceptions for memory representation” (p. 24). Teachers can help students remember modeled

behaviors by encouraging them to use various learning strategies. Examples of effective learning

strategies include rehearsal techniques (repeating what needs to be learned over and over again);

organizational methods (imposing structure on newly learned material); and elaboration

strategies (connecting information to prior knowledge, making assumptions, and drawing

inferences; Ormrod, 2004).

The third process necessary for observational learning is motor reproduction, also known

as behavioral production. Motor reproduction requires that the learner be able to replicate the

behavior demonstrated by the model. If the observer cannot reproduce the modeled behavior, due
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 8

to inadequate physical ability, lack of strength, or even physical disability, then behavioral

production will not occur (Ormrod, 2004). It is possible, then, that a learner could comprehend

the information being modeled but not be able to actually perform the behavior (Bandura, 1989).

Teachers can assist their students with motor reproduction by giving them opportunities for

guided practice and feedback (Woolfolk, 2007).

The final process necessary for observational learning is motivation. Students must want

to demonstrate what has been learned, and thus Bandura (1989) has distinguished between

acquisition and performance, since people do not perform everything they learn. Moreover,

Bandura (1989) has demonstrated how performance of observational learning can be influenced

by three types of incentive motivators, or reinforcers – direct, vicarious, and self-produced.

Certainly, learners may receive direct reinforcement when they correctly perform a modeled

behavior, but reinforcement may also be indirect (i.e., vicarious reinforcement). Vicarious

reinforcement occurs when observers see others reinforced for the particular behavior and then

increase their production of that behavior (Bandura, 1977). This type of reinforcement is

particularly effective if students witness successes of individuals who are similar to themselves

(Bandura, 1986). Finally, personal standards of conduct provide another source of incentive

motivation or reinforcement. People tend to reproduce behaviors that they see as valuable or self-

satisfying and reject what they personally dislike (Bandura, 1989).

Measuring Impact on Theory, Research, and Practice

Prior to Bandura’s pioneering Bobo doll experiments, psychologists had focused almost

exclusively on learning through reinforcers and punishments (Skinner, 1938; Zimmerman &

Schunk, 2003). Based on results from his early program of research, Bandura showed that “the

tedious and hazardous process of trial and error learning can be shortcut through social modeling
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 9

of knowledge and competencies exhibited by the rich variety of models” (Pajares, 2004a, ¶ 16).

Additionally, Bandura and his collaborators revealed that modeling is not simply response

imitation. Instead, they showed that by observing others, individuals can actually generate new

behavior patterns that go far beyond what they have observed (Bandura, 1977). Finally, Bandura

et al. (1961, 1963) demonstrated that modeled behavior will vary considerably depending on

whom the models are and how they perform.

One need not look far to gauge the impact of Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) on

American psychology. The researchers’ innovative experimental methods and novel findings

were incredibly important at a time when Freudian notions of catharsis and Hullian and

Skinnerian assumptions about the need for direct reinforcement ruled the day (Pajares, 2004a;

Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003). Results from their original Bobo doll study spawned numerous

follow-on studies (e.g., Bandura, 1965; Bandura & Mischel, 1965; Bandura & Rosenthal, 1966;

Bandura & Whalen, 1966) and led to the refinement of Bandura’s social learning theory

(Bandura, 1977) and later, his social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), which emphasized the

importance of personal factors (i.e., cognitive, motivational, and affective characteristics) on

subsequent learning.

Moreover, from a recognition perspective, the Bobo doll studies have achieved

unimaginable fame. It is virtually impossible to find an introductory psychology or educational

psychology textbook that does not discuss the Bobo doll experiments (Zimmerman & Schunk,

2003). Additionally, a Google™ search of the phrase “bobo doll study” resulted in 66,600 hits,

while a Google™ Scholar search of the phrase “bobo doll” resulted in 483 hits.1 These Internet

results are consistent with those that can be found by conducting a search of Bandura et al.

(1961) and Bandura et al. (1963) within the online Social Sciences Citation Index® database.
1
The Google searches were conducted on December 24, 2006.
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 10

Search results revealed that the two articles have been cited a total of 845 times within the

journal literature of the social sciences from 1994 to 2006.2

In terms of educational practice, the impact of Bandura’s Bobo doll studies has been

equally impressive. There is now widespread consensus by educators that observational learning

processes “greatly influence children’s coping with conflict, frustration, academic stressors, and

failure” (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003, p. 442). Furthermore, because most teacher education

programs include at least one introductory course in educational psychology, teachers-in-training

around the country are exposed to the Bobo doll experiments and, more importantly, to the

instructional implications of those experiments (i.e., the power of observational learning and the

characteristics of effective models; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Woolfolk, 2007). Certainly, the

inclusion of the Bobo doll studies within teacher education textbooks will help to ensure that

Bandura’s classic experiments continue to impact educational practice for years to come.

Albert Bandura’s Enduring Legacy

Bandura’s influence on educational psychology has been remarkably widespread. And

while his scholarly contributions are vast, his research on social learning theory and, more

specifically, the modeling and vicarious learning components of that theory, are believed by

many to represent one of his most enduring gifts to the study of learning and motivation

(Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003). Additionally, it is worth noting that Bandura was not trained as

an educational psychologist and did not initially publish in educational psychology journals

(Hahn & Husman, 2005). However, it is fair to say that his research has crossed disciplinary

boundaries and is now widely known in educational circles (see, for example, Gordon et al.,

2
Because the two articles are so old, and the online Social Sciences Citation Index® only covers 1994 to the present,
these 845 citations represent just a fraction of the total number times the articles have been cited in the social
sciences literature since their publication in the early 1960s.
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 11

1984). As Zimmerman and Schunk (2003) stated, “the broad scope of Bandura’s theory stems

from his diverse scientific interests and his theory’s ready applicability” (p. 448).

Scholarly Accomplishments

Bandura is one of the most well-known and widely cited scholars in both psychology and

education (Gordon et al., 1984; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003). In fact, in their study of the most

eminent psychologists of the 20th century, Haggbloom et al. (2002) ranked Bandura as fourth

overall, behind Sigmund Freud (third), Jean Piaget (second), and B. F. Skinner (first). The study

used six criteria to measure eminence, including: (1) journal citation frequency, (2) introductory

psychology textbook citation frequency, (3) survey response frequency, (4) National Academy of

Sciences membership, (5) election as American Psychological Association (APA) president or

receipt of the APA Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award, and (6) surname used as an

eponym. Bandura was ranked fifth or better on all three quantitative frequency measures and met

two of the three qualitative criteria.

In terms of accomplishments and contributions, Bandura’s 26-page vita has few peers. He

was elected president of APA in 1974, and throughout his career has held offices in more than a

dozen scientific societies. In 1998, he was honored with the E. L. Thorndike Award from

Division 15 of APA for his research influence on educational psychology; research that has

contributed significantly to knowledge, theory, and practice in the field. More recently, in 2004,

Bandura was honored by APA with the Award for Outstanding Lifetime Contribution to

Psychology. Additionally, his vita includes eight other prestigious awards from institutions such

as the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Institute of Medicine of the National

Academy of Sciences. In terms of publications and service, Bandura has authored or edited nine

books and more than 230 articles and chapters; he has sat on the editorial board of more than 30
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 12

journals or serial volumes; and he has received 14 honorary degrees from universities around the

world.

As amazing as his resume may seem, Bandura’s contributions to educational psychology

go far beyond his own research activities and service. As Zimmerman and Schunk (2003) so

aptly noted in their edited volume on the most influential educational psychologists of the 20th

century:

It should come as no surprise to readers to learn that the impact of Bandura’s own

program of research represents only a small part of his enormous influence in psychology

and education. Apart from his own program of research, he had major impact through his

modeling and writing on the work of his many colleagues, students, and followers. (p.

440)

And thus, one might say that Bandura’s most enduring influence on educational psychology may

have come from his impact on a long list of prominent psychologists (see Table 2 for an

abbreviated list of psychologists directly and indirectly influenced by Bandura).

Conclusions

Albert Bandura’s academic career has been nothing short of remarkable. At more than 80

years of age, he is still an active teacher and researcher at Stanford University. Although it is

difficult to pinpoint a single accomplishment that stands above all others, his early research using

the Bobo doll paradigm certainly ranks near the top of the list. In fact, APA recognized the

significance of this work in the opening paragraphs of his lifetime achievement award citation. It

stated, in part, that Bandura’s “analysis of the importance of observational learning and social

modeling moved psychological thinking away from previously limited conceptions in which

learning required overt actions....You have made "Bobo" a doll for all times” (Pajares, 2004b, ¶
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 13

2). Thus, as incredible as it may sound, it seems that an inflatable plastic Bobo doll helped

stimulate an entire theoretical movement and, in the process, effectively launched the academic

career of one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century.

Table 2

Abbreviated List of Prominent Psychologists Influenced by Bandura

Name Academic Training Current University Association

University at Albany,
Doctoral student and co-
Blanchard, E. B. Stanford University State University of New
author
York

Graduate School and

Brooklyn College of the
University Center of the Co-author and disciple of
Martinez-Pons, M. City University of New
City University of New social cognitive theory
York
York

Mischel, W. Ohio State University Columbia University Co-author

Disciple of social
Pajares, F. University of Florida Emory University
cognitive theory
Doctoral student and co-
Rosenthal, T. Stanford University Unknown
author
Doctoral student, co-
University of North
Schunk, D. H. Stanford University author, and disciple of
Carolina at Greensboro
social cognitive theory

First ever doctoral student

Walters, R. H. Stanford University Deceased
and co-author

Graduate School and

University Center of the Co-author and disciple of
Zimmerman, B. J. University of Arizona
City University of New social cognitive theory
York
 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 14

References

Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of model’s reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of

imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589-595.

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

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

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Vol.

6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bandura, A., & Mischel, W. (1965). Modification of self-imposed delay of reward through

exposure to live and symbolic models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2,

698-705.

Bandura, A., & Rosenthal, T. L. (1966). Vicarious classical conditioning as a function of arousal

level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 54-62.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & 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., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3-11.

Bandura, A., & Whalen, C. K. (1966). The influence of antecedent reinforcement and divergent

modeling cues on patterns of self-reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

3, 373-382.

Gordon, N. J., Nucci, L. P., West, C. K., Hoerr W. A., Uguroglu, M. E., Vukosavich, P., et al.

(1984). Productivity and citations of educational research: Using educational psychology

as the data base. Educational Researcher, 13(7), 14-20.

 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 15

Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. K., Yarbrough, G. L., Russell, T. M., et

al., (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General

Psychology, 6, 139-152.

Hahn, D., & Husman, J. (2005). An interview with Barry Zimmerman. Newsletter for

Educational Psychologists/15, 28(1), 8-11.

Kendler, H. H. (1991). The Iowa tradition. In J. H. Cantor (Ed.), Psychology at Iowa: Centennial

essays (pp. 1-17). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Pajares, F. (2003). William James: Our father who begat us. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.

Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 41-64). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pajares, F. (2004a). Albert Bandura: Biographical sketch. Retrieved March 13, 2006 from

http://des.emory.edu/mfp/bandurabio.html

Pajares, F. (2004b). Albert Bandura receives APA's award for outstanding lifetime contribution

to psychology. Retrieved November 22, 2006 from http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/

BanduraAPA2004.html

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Woolfolk, A. (2007). Educational psychology (10th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2003). Albert Bandura: The scholar and his contributions to

educational psychology. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational

 Bandura and the Bobo Doll 16

psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 431-457). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.