Talk:Bobo doll experiment

message: Is it normal that the 41963 results are currently (2010-09-26) exactly the same as the 1961 result, precise to a tenth of a unit? It looks like someone copypasted them instead of putting in actual results... Medinoc (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 1963 results

message: In the "Method" section it says that Bandura used 33 boys and 33 girls, but it also says he divided them into three groups of 24. Obviously, 66 and 72 are not the same number; which one is wrong?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.236.4 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematics??

message: Hi guys, I think this is the page we are supposed to be posting on, let me know if anyone sees this!Amyfonicello (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Epsy Group

message: Hi all,
I am Sunil Shrestha from nepal and i am a person formaly known in this thread as "interested wikipedia reader".  I have made some rather substancial edits to this article.  My edits include: removiing terms such as reinforcement, concentrating more on the original 1961 experiement, and to a small explaining what a Bobo doll is.
As this is my first edit on Wikipedia, I welcome any feedback that the rest of you have to offer.  Regards Ycaps123 23:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the edits. Keep them up! I've just done some slight grammar tweaks. Graham/pianoman87 talk 04:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all of the positive encouragement!  On e quick question... was it your intention to have a link to the 1961 study in both the references section and the external links section?  If not then I'll remove the duplicate it when I add some final touches to the article next week.  Thanks again. :~) Ycaps123 04:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it wasn't, I didn't notice it. Thanks, I'll remove the duplicate in the external links section. Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  major edit 

message: I just added some additional info about the 1963 experiment's conclusions.  I also added page numbers to the Kosslyn entry in the bibliography.  In addition, I left the behaviour edit despite my preference for the americanized spelling (behavior). Ycaps123 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've changed that heading title to "The 1963 experiment", as that is what it contains, and a trivia section usually implies *extremely* trivial details in wikipedia like "the standard deviation of the weights of the children was 4.0 kg". A bit exaggerated but you get my point. I've removed the criticisms section, as it's quite shallow and doesn't give much information. Taking the wikipedia:Manual of Style literally, American spellings should be used, because they were used by the first major contributor to the article. However, Albert Bandura was Canadian, and in Canadian English, the spelling of "behaviour would still be used. But I don't see the experiment as having strong ties to Canada, as it was conducted in Stanford University. I don't personally care what spelling is used, though. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional trivia and bibliography 

message: I've added this tag.  Mainly, the lack of blue in the body of the article - we need some links. John (Jwy) 02:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wikify

message: I miss some criticism on this experiment to balance out the bias. I know there is a lot of it, but I have only few sources on this matter and would like to see a more substantial text than the one I can provide.
SOMEONE PLEASE POST A VIDEO OF THE EXPERIMENT ON THIS PAGE!  I NEED ONE!
apparently resolved? DMacks (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: It seems that this article has significantly deteriorated since this version. Should we just restore that version? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gutted content 

message: The Bobo doll experiment was the name of experiments conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961 and 1963 studying children´s behavior after watching a model punching a bobo doll and getting rewarded, punished or no consequences for it.
The experiment is the empirical demonstration of Banduras social learning theory. It shows that people not only learn by being rewarded or punished itself (Behaviorism), they can learn from watching somebody being rewarded or punished, too (observational learning).
The experiments are important because they sparked many more studies on the effects of observational learning and they have practical implication e.g. how children can be influenced watching violent media.
::Hi Mara, looks good! You were right, the experiments are different, so they will both be great additions to this article. Looks like we are all set! Amusico2 (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: ::For many years media violence has been a hot topic concerning the influence over children and their aggressive behavior.  In one study, Bandura, A. Ross, D. Ross, S. (1963). Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.66, No.1,3-11  in 1963, Bandura, using children between the ages 3 and 6, tested the extent to which film-mediated aggressive models influenced imitative behavior.  48 girls and 48 boys were divided into 3 experimental groups and 1 control group. Group 1, watched a live model aggress the bobo doll.  Group 2, watched a film version of the human model aggressing the bobo doll and group 3 watched a cartoon version of a cat aggress the bobo doll.  Each child watched the aggressive acts individually. Following the exposure to the models all fours groups of children were then individually placed in a room with an experimenter where they were exposed to mildly frustrating situation to elicit aggression. Next the children were allowed to play freely in an adjoining room, which was full of toys, including the bobo doll and the “weapons” that were used by the models. The researchers observed the children and noted any interaction with the bobo doll.  Results showed that the children who had been exposed to the aggressive behavior, whether real-life, on film or cartoon, exhibited nearly twice as much aggressive behavior than the control group. It was also found that boys exhibited more total aggression than girls. The results of this experiment shed light on how influential media can be on children and their behavior.  Amusico2 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Experiment in 1963, Are children influenced by film-mediated aggressive models? 

message: Hey, that looks good. I just made my changes on the article and I hope that is okay for you. If you have any other idea or something, just let me know! I am happy about critics :) Thanks Mara99 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to get the rights to use the actually pictures of the bobo doll experiment but have not heard back yet from their source.  Therefore I am going to modify my second improvement; I am going to add a little section to the article explaining what a bobo doll is. I have also found a picture/diagram that I will add to this section.  I have also gone through the Methods section and corrected the grammar and expanded upon it. Amusico2 (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Hi Mara99, I checked for you at WP:YOUTUBE and it said: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content." I hope this helps? Lova Falk talk 08:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference:

message: I worked on the description of the experiment and made it a little less word-y. I also was able to read it aloud and edit it so the sentences flow better. -Toridel (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit to the description of the experiment 

message: Hello All. Although the information included in the synthesis seems like an accurate account, it is unclear where the information in this synthesis is being derived from. Does anyone have a source that they can add to this section to further support the information presented? --Dustin Dyke (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis Section 

message: Hi folks.  The section on theories is not very good.  For one thing it appears to repeat some stuff about the 1963 experiment already covered.  Also a lot of it seems to be opinion and primary research.  The theories covered, the GAM and Cultivation are both very controversial.  And there are many nuances in movie violence research including studies that don't find effects.  I could attempt some changes, but figured I'd tag and discuss first.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:D06:AF00:F092:1AAA:6B62:61D (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed as WP:SYNTH. None of the sources dscussed the bobo doll experiment in detail. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories of Movie Violence Effects 

message: The article incorrectly fuses the 1963 and 1965 studies into one, saying Bandura tested the effects of watching violence modeled by a filmed model that was later punished or rewarded by the end of the film. Bandura's 1963 study examined the effects of viewing aggressive behavior portrayed by a filmed model, and his 1965 study examined the effects of watching a live model display aggressive behavior followed by a reinforcement or punishment. I plan on dissecting the information in the 1963 study section, separating out certain parts into a 1965 study section, and filling the gaps where needed. Brando009 (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bandura's 1963 and 1965 Studies 

message: I noticed in this edit that you mentioned you couldn't find a copy of the BPS code of research ethics. Here it is from internet archive: . I think it's okay for organisations from other countries to posthumously criticise experiments under their own code of ethics, so long as the criticism itself is substantive and notable. I will agree though that the uncited claim of violating BPS code of research ethics seemed to be original research. In general it seems most of the ethical analyses seem to be essays or blog posts which is not great for supporting the article. 
I'll also mention I'm planning to make some more substantial edits to this article sometime soon. Darcyisverycute (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  BPS code of ethics 

message: — Assignment last updated by Treeluver20 (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: PSYC 115 General Psychology

message: Adding more information in the Social Learning Theory section.
We added new sentences: "The Bobo doll experiment enhanced people's understanding of the factors and issues that contributes to aggression" and 
"The Bobo doll experiment provides a template for understanding various aspects of human behavioral development." Then we provided citations for the two sentences added.
We also added on to a sentence "...they drive individuals to shape their own behavior after the actions of models." 
We are wondering if the edit is relevant. We are having difficulty citing, could somebody help out. 
These are the references we will add:
Edinyang, S. D. (2016).
Graham et al
--Anonymous viki (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a new sentence for the social learning theory 

message: — Assignment last updated by Aivenrd (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Mass Media and Society

message: I do not believe that using a primary source for this wiki page is necessarily wrong as the page specifically discusses the process of this singular study. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be secondary sources. There should be greater discussion of secondary sources discussing the importance of the research and what it could mean for future research and how the results play a role in social learning theory. SV066 (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Issue" with the Article