Introduction to External Influences on Children's Behaviour
Welcome to your revision guide for the Developmental Psychology theme: External influences on children's behaviour. This topic is part of Component 02: Psychological themes through core studies in the OCR A Level Psychology (H567) specification.
Have you ever wondered why children copy what they see on television, or why adding a fun game can encourage a toddler to take their medicine? In this chapter, we explore how factors in the outside world shape how young people act. We will examine two essential studies:
• The Classic Study: Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) — Learning aggression through observation and imitation (Social Learning Theory).
• The Contemporary Study: Chaney et al. (2004) — Improving medical compliance using positive reinforcement (Operant Conditioning).
Don't worry if learning theories feel confusing at first! We will break down every aim, procedure, result, and evaluation point into simple, digestible steps.
---Core Concept 1: The Classic Study — Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961)
Full Title & Background
Full Title: Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models.
Before this study, many psychologists debated whether watching someone else be violent would release a child's aggressive urges (catharsis) or encourage them to act violently. Bandura proposed Social Learning Theory, suggesting that children learn social behaviours like aggression through observation and imitation of adult role models, even without any direct reward.
Aim
To investigate whether children would learn aggressive behaviour by observing an adult role model, and whether they would reproduce this behaviour in a new setting when the model was no longer present.
Sample
• Total: 72 children (36 boys and 36 girls).
• Source: Stanford University Nursery School.
• Age Range: 37 to 69 months (mean age: 4 years and 4 months, or approximately 52 months).
Experimental Design & Control
• Method: Laboratory experiment.
• Design: Independent Measures Design with Matched Pairs.
• Matching Process: To make sure that one group didn't randomly have naturally more aggressive children, participants were rated on four 5-point scales measuring pre-existing aggression (physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression towards inanimate objects, and aggression inhibition) by an experimenter and a nursery teacher. Children with similar ratings were then split across the experimental conditions.
Experimental Conditions
The 72 children were divided into three main groups of 24:
1. Aggressive Model Condition (24 children): 12 watched a same-sex model (6 boys, 6 girls) and 12 watched an opposite-sex model (6 boys, 6 girls).
2. Non-Aggressive Model Condition (24 children): 12 watched a same-sex model and 12 watched an opposite-sex model.
3. Control Condition (24 children): Did not observe any adult model.
Step-by-Step Procedure (The Three Phases)
Phase 1: Modeling (10 minutes)
The child was brought into an experimental room and seated at a table with engaging activities (e.g., potato prints, picture stickers). The adult model sat in another corner with a tinker toy set, a mallet, and a 5-foot inflatable Bobo doll.
• In the non-aggressive condition, the model assembled the tinker toys quietly and ignored the Bobo doll.
• In the aggressive condition, the model played with tinker toys for 1 minute, then turned to the Bobo doll: punching it in the nose, hitting it on the head with the mallet, tossing it into the air, and kicking it around the room while repeating distinct verbal statements such as "Sock him in the nose", "Hit him down", "Pow", and non-aggressive comments like "He keeps coming back for more."
Phase 2: Aggression Arousal (Mild Frustration) (2 minutes)
The child was taken into a separate room filled with attractive toys (e.g., a fire engine, a beautiful doll set). As soon as the child began to play, the experimenter stopped them, explaining that these were her "best" toys and were being reserved for other children. This created an equal baseline of mild frustration for every child.
Phase 3: Test for Delayed Imitation (20 minutes)
The child was taken to a third room containing a mixture of aggressive toys (a 3-foot Bobo doll, a mallet, a dart gun) and non-aggressive toys (a tea set, crayons, plastic farm animals). The child was observed through a one-way mirror for 20 minutes using time sampling (recording behaviour every 5 seconds).
Key Findings
• Imitative Aggression: Children who observed the aggressive model showed significantly more imitative physical and verbal aggression than children in the non-aggressive or control groups.
• Quantitative Fact: The mean imitative physical aggression score for boys with an aggressive male model was 25.8, compared to just 1.5 for boys who had observed a non-aggressive male model.
• Gender Differences: Boys were overall more likely to imitate physical aggression than girls. Children showed a greater tendency to imitate a same-sex model, especially boys observing aggressive male models. Girls were more influenced by female models for verbal aggression.
Contextualized Conclusion
Children can learn specific social behaviours (such as aggressive acts toward an inflatable Bobo doll) purely through the observation and delayed imitation of adult role models, without receiving any direct reinforcement.
Key Takeaways & Quick Review: Bandura et al. (1961)
• Theoretical Base: Social Learning Theory (Observation \(\rightarrow\) Imitation).
• Key Statistic to Memorise: Boys with aggressive male model = 25.8 vs. boys with non-aggressive male model = 1.5 imitative physical aggression.
• Exam Warning: In the exam, never just state "children imitate aggression." Always contextualize your answer: "children imitate aggressive acts toward a Bobo doll."
Core Concept 2: The Contemporary Study — Chaney et al. (2004)
Full Title & Background
Full Title: A new asthma spacer device to improve compliance in children: a pilot study.
Many young children with asthma fail to take their prescribed medication correctly because standard spacer devices are boring, uncomfortable, or distressing. Chaney et al. wanted to see whether principles of Operant Conditioning—specifically positive reinforcement—could be used to make treatment enjoyable and improve adherence (compliance).
Aim
To investigate whether a novel asthma spacer device (the "Funhaler") incorporating incentive toys would improve medical compliance in young asthmatic children compared to a standard spacer.
Sample
• Total: 32 children (22 boys, 10 girls).
• Location: Perth, Western Australia.
• Age Range: 1.5 to 6 years (mean age: 3.2 years).
• Background: All children had been diagnosed with asthma and were currently using a standard breath-a-tech or aerochamber spacer device.
Method & Design
• Method: Field experiment (conducted in the participants' natural home setting).
• Design: Repeated Measures Design (every child used both the standard device and the Funhaler, allowing direct comparison).
The Apparatus: The Funhaler
The Funhaler was specially engineered with functional incentive features:
• It included a whistle and a spinning disk.
• How it works: The toy attachments only spun and sounded when the child inhaled with the correct deep, steady breathing technique required for effective drug delivery.
• Common Mistake Alert: The Funhaler did not use lights, music, or video screens—only a physical spinning disk and whistle!
Step-by-Step Procedure
1. Parents were given an initial structured questionnaire about their current asthma spacer use, adherence rates, and their child's emotional attitudes towards medication.
2. Participants used their standard spacer for 1 week.
3. Families were then provided with the Funhaler to use for 2 weeks in place of their standard inhaler.
4. Parents completed a second matched questionnaire at the end of the 2-week Funhaler period.
5. Random Phone Calls: Researchers conducted random, unannounced telephone checks during the study to verify whether parents had actually medicated their child on the previous day.
Key Findings (Quantitative Data)
• Overall Compliance: 81% of parents were found to have successfully medicated their child the previous day when using the Funhaler, compared to only 59% when using the standard spacer.
• Parental Success: 22 out of 30 parents reported they were "always" successful in medicating their child with the Funhaler, compared to just 3 out of 30 with the standard spacer.
• Breathing Cycles: 60% of children achieved the clinically recommended 4 or more breathing cycles with the Funhaler, compared to only 10% with the standard spacer.
Contextualized Conclusion
The use of positive reinforcement and operant conditioning principles via the Funhaler significantly improved medical compliance and correct device usage in young children with asthma, leading to better management of their condition.
Key Takeaways & Quick Review: Chaney et al. (2004)
• Theoretical Base: Operant Conditioning (Positive Reinforcement via the whistle and spinner).
• Key Statistics to Memorise: Compliance jumped from 59% to 81%; full breathing cycles jumped from 10% to 60%.
• Exam Warning: Do not confuse this with Social Learning Theory! Children are not copying an adult using an inhaler; they are repeating a behaviour because they receive an immediate sensory reward (the toy spinning/whistling).
Theme Comparison: External Influences on Children's Behaviour
In Paper 2, Section A, you will often be asked to compare these two core studies and explain how they relate to the central developmental theme.
1. How Both Studies Link to the Theme
Both studies demonstrate that children's behaviour is heavily modified and shaped by external factors in their environment rather than purely innate, internal biological drives:
• Bandura et al. (1961) shows the influence of external social role models (observing aggressive adults leading to imitation).
• Chaney et al. (2004) shows the influence of external positive reinforcers (the rewarding features of the Funhaler increasing medical compliance).
2. Key Similarities Between Bandura and Chaney
• Experimental Method: Both used an experimental design to test a clear independent variable on dependent measures of child behaviour.
• Target Population: Both studies tested young children (Bandura: 3 to 5 years / 37–69 months; Chaney: 1.5 to 6 years).
• Quantitative Data: Both gathered objective, numerical data (e.g., mean aggression tallies in Bandura; percentages of parental compliance in Chaney).
3. Key Differences Between Bandura and Chaney
• Setting: Bandura was a tightly controlled laboratory experiment (Stanford nursery room), whereas Chaney was a field experiment conducted in the participants' everyday home environments.
• Experimental Design: Bandura used an Independent Measures / Matched Pairs design (children were in only one condition), while Chaney used a Repeated Measures design (children used both the standard inhaler and the Funhaler).
• Underlying Learning Theory: Bandura investigated Social Learning Theory (imitation), while Chaney investigated Operant Conditioning (reinforcement).
Exam Pitfalls to Avoid
1. Mistaking the Learning Mechanism in Chaney:
Students often write that children "copied their parents" using the Funhaler. This is incorrect. The Funhaler works through Operant Conditioning: the enjoyable reward (reinforcer) of the whistle and spinning disk strengthens the likelihood of the child repeating the correct breathing technique.
2. Confusing Sample Numbers and Locations:
• Bandura = 72 children from Stanford University Nursery School.
• Chaney = 32 children from Perth, Australia.
3. Vague Ethical Criticisms:
Do not simply write "Bandura was unethical." Be specific: Bandura deliberately subjected children to mild frustration (Phase 2) and encouraged aggressive behaviours that could potentially persist, raising concerns regarding protection from psychological harm. Furthermore, nursery-aged children were unable to provide informed consent or easily exercise the right to withdraw.
4. Incomplete Conclusions:
Always anchor your conclusions in the specific context of the study. State that Bandura proved children learn imitative physical and verbal aggression directed at a Bobo doll, and that Chaney proved positive reinforcement enhances compliance with prescribed paediatric asthma medication.
Chapter Summary Checklist
Before sitting your exam, check that you can confidently answer each of these questions:
• Can you describe the 3 phases of Bandura's procedure?
• Can you explain how Bandura matched the children before the experiment?
• Can you recall the mean aggression score for boys with an aggressive male model (\(25.8\)) versus a non-aggressive male model (\(1.5\))?
• Can you name the two incentive features of the Funhaler (whistle and spinning disk)?
• Can you cite the compliance increase from \(59\%\) to \(81\%\) in Chaney et al.?
• Can you explain the difference between Social Learning Theory (Bandura) and Operant Conditioning (Chaney)?