Bandura et al. (1961): Bobo doll

When a question says use the study by Bandura, Ross and Ross, role models, vicarious reinforcement and identification on their own are the theory (6.1.1), not the study, and such answers can score zero. Anchor each point in what happened in 1961 — the three conditions, the Bobo doll, the 20-minute test, a named result. Test: could my sentence only come from this study?

The creditworthy process is that the behaviour was observed and then imitated — both halves. Writing the child modelled the adult, or just naming Bandura, is AO1 at best and often scores nothing. Say what was observed (the adult's set attacks on the doll) and that the child then reproduced those same acts. The mark sits in the two-step process, not the label.

Two findings means two different findings — the children copied the adult and the aggressive-model group was more aggressive is one finding twice, and scores once. Learn three that are handled well and pick any two: a same-sex model was copied most; boys were more physically aggressive; girls more verbally. A fourth: the calm-model group was least aggressive.

A result is what was observed; a conclusion is what the researcher infers. Aggressive-model children reproduced the model's own acts is a result; aggression can be learned by observing a model, with no reward is the conclusion. Recycling the behaviour or numbers is not a conclusion; a result given when a conclusion was asked scores nothing.

A weakness is that it used a Bobo doll identifies but does not justify. Add the consequence: the doll is a toy built to be hit and to bounce back, unlike a person who would be hurt, so what was scored may be rough play rather than aggression, which weakens the validity of the measure. Use point, why, consequence on every strength or weakness.

The finding is not boys were aggressive and girls were not. Girls imitated too — the difference is in the form: boys produced more physical aggression, girls relatively more verbal. Dropping the girls' half, or turning a difference of form into one of amount, loses the precision the mark scheme rewards. A same-sex model was also copied most.

It did not prove watching violence makes children violent: only copying of set acts on an inflatable toy, minutes after, was scored. No child was rewarded, so this shows observational learning, not conditioning. Frustration cannot explain the gap — every condition, the control included, met it. A Bobo doll sat in the test room for every child, not just the aggressive group.