Bandura’s Bobo doll research | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
- Revision Notes
- Aug 3
- 18 min read
Updated: 7 days ago
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 55 minutes
These Bandura’s research A-Level Psychology revision notes explore how the Bobo doll studies investigated whether children learn behaviour by observing adult models. You will examine the procedure, findings and conclusions before considering how the research supports imitation, identification, vicarious reinforcement and mediational processes. The lesson builds directly on observational learning and modelling and develops the evaluation skills needed to compare learning, cognitive and biological explanations of behaviour. Bandura’s research is named within the learning approaches section of the AQA specification.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Describe the aims, procedure, findings and conclusions of Bandura’s research.
Explain how the findings support imitation and observational learning.
Explain how identification and vicarious reinforcement influence behaviour.
Analyse the role of mediational processes in Bandura’s findings.
Evaluate the scientific strengths and methodological limitations of the research.
Evaluate social learning theory as an explanation of behaviour.
Revision Notes 📚
Bandura’s research A-Level Psychology revision overview
Bandura’s research investigated whether children could learn behaviour by observing another person.
The studies are commonly known as the Bobo doll studies because the children were observed while playing with a large inflatable doll that returned to an upright position after being struck.
The research examined central ideas within social learning theory:
Modelling, observing another person’s behaviour.
Imitation, reproducing the model’s behaviour.
Identification, relating to or wanting to be like the model.
Vicarious reinforcement, being influenced by the consequences received by a model.
Mediational processes, the mental processes between observation and imitation.
Bandura’s research was important because it suggested that behaviour could be learned without the observer receiving direct reinforcement.
The aim of Bandura’s Bobo doll research
Bandura and his colleagues aimed to investigate whether children would imitate aggressive behaviour demonstrated by an adult model.
They were interested in whether imitation would be influenced by:
Whether the child observed an aggressive or non-aggressive model.
Whether the model was male or female.
Whether the model was the same sex as the child.
The consequences experienced by the model.
The central prediction was that children who observed an aggressive model would display more imitative aggression than children who observed a non-aggressive model or no model.
Participants
The original Bobo doll study involved 72 children, consisting of:
36 boys
36 girls
The children were aged between approximately three and six years and attended a university nursery school.
Before the experimental procedure, the children’s existing levels of aggression were assessed. This allowed the researchers to place children with similar aggression levels into different conditions.
This was important because differences observed later were less likely to be explained simply by one group containing more naturally aggressive children from the beginning.
The use of matched participants connects with the research skills developed through selecting appropriate experimental designs.
The experimental conditions
The children were placed into one of three main conditions.
Condition | Experience of the child |
Aggressive-model condition | The child observed an adult behaving aggressively towards the Bobo doll. |
Non-aggressive-model condition | The child observed an adult playing quietly and ignoring the Bobo doll. |
Control condition | The child did not observe an adult model. |
Within the model conditions, some children observed a male model and others observed a female model.
This allowed the researchers to investigate both imitation and identification.
The aggressive model
In the aggressive-model condition, the adult behaved aggressively towards the Bobo doll.
The model demonstrated physical and verbal aggression, including behaviours such as:
Striking the doll.
Hitting it with a mallet.
Throwing or kicking it.
Using aggressive phrases.
These behaviours were distinctive enough for researchers to determine whether a child later reproduced the model’s specific actions.
The model did not merely act in a generally energetic way. The adult demonstrated particular behaviours that could later be counted as imitative aggression.
The non-aggressive model
In the non-aggressive condition, the adult model played quietly with other toys and did not behave aggressively towards the Bobo doll.
This condition provided a comparison with the aggressive model.
If children in the aggressive condition later displayed more aggression, this would suggest that the behaviour they observed had influenced them.
The control condition
Children in the control condition did not observe an adult model before entering the later play situation.
The control condition provided a baseline against which the model conditions could be compared.
Without a control group, it would be more difficult to determine whether aggressive behaviour had been learned from the model or would have occurred anyway.
The principles behind this comparison are developed in experimental methods and control groups.
Aggression arousal
After observing the model, the child was taken to another room containing attractive toys.
The child was allowed to begin playing but was then told that the toys were reserved for other children.
This was intended to create mild frustration or aggression arousal.
Each child experienced a similar procedure, so the researchers could observe how they responded after frustration.
The child was then taken into the final playroom.
The test room
The final room contained both aggressive and non-aggressive toys.
These included:
The Bobo doll.
A mallet.
Other toys that could be used aggressively.
Non-aggressive toys.
The child was observed through a one-way screen while playing.
The researchers recorded several types of behaviour, including:
Imitative physical aggression.
Imitative verbal aggression.
Other aggressive behaviour.
Non-aggressive play.
Because the model had demonstrated distinctive actions, the researchers could record whether the child reproduced those particular behaviours.
Bandura’s procedure summarised
The procedure can be organised into four stages.
Assessing existing aggression
Children’s usual aggression levels were assessed so that the experimental groups could be matched.
Observing a model
Children watched an aggressive model, a non-aggressive model or no model.
Creating mild frustration
Children were prevented from continuing to play with attractive toys.
Observing the child’s behaviour
Children entered a room containing the Bobo doll and other toys. Their aggressive and non-aggressive behaviours were recorded.
The findings
Children who observed an aggressive model displayed more aggressive behaviour than children who observed a non-aggressive model or no model.
Importantly, the children reproduced some of the model’s specific actions and phrases. This suggested that they were not merely becoming generally excited or frustrated. They had observed and imitated particular behaviours.
The main findings were:
Children exposed to aggressive models showed more imitative aggression.
Children exposed to non-aggressive models generally showed less aggression.
Boys displayed more physical aggression than girls.
Children were influenced by the sex of the model.
Boys were particularly likely to imitate the physical aggression of a male model.
The findings concerning the model’s sex are relevant to identification because a model who appears similar or personally relevant to an observer may be more likely to be imitated.
The conclusion
Bandura concluded that children can learn behaviour through observation and imitation.
The children did not need to receive direct reinforcement for the aggressive behaviour. They learned by watching an adult model.
The findings therefore support the main principle of social learning theory:
Behaviour may be acquired indirectly by observing a model.
Bandura’s research also suggests that the characteristics of the model matter. Identification may make imitation more likely, particularly when the observer sees the model as similar or relevant to them.
How the findings support imitation
Imitation is the reproduction of behaviour demonstrated by a model.
The children who observed an aggressive adult later reproduced specific aggressive actions.
This supports imitation because:
The behaviour was demonstrated by the model.
The child observed the behaviour.
The child later produced a similar response.
Children who had not observed the aggressive model showed less of this imitative behaviour.
The difference between the experimental conditions suggests that exposure to the model influenced the children’s actions.
A strong examination answer should identify the specific relationship:
Children who watched an aggressive model later reproduced more of the model’s aggressive behaviour than children in the non-aggressive or control conditions.
How the findings support identification
Identification occurs when an observer relates to a model or views the model as someone they want to be like.
Bandura’s findings suggested that the sex of the model influenced imitation.
Children did not respond equally to every model. In particular, boys showed high levels of physical imitation after observing a male model.
This is consistent with identification because a same-sex model may have appeared more relevant to the observer.
However, the research does not allow psychologists to observe identification directly. Identification is inferred from the pattern of imitation.
This distinction is useful in an examination:
Imitation was measured through the child’s behaviour.
Identification was inferred as a possible reason why some models were imitated more than others.
Bandura’s research into vicarious reinforcement
Bandura later investigated how the consequences received by a model affected imitation.
Children observed a filmed model behaving aggressively towards a Bobo doll.
The model then experienced one of several consequences:
The model was rewarded.
The model was punished.
The model received no clear consequence.
The children were later given an opportunity to reproduce the behaviour.
Findings concerning model consequences
Children who observed the model being punished initially displayed less imitation than children who saw the model rewarded or receive no consequence.
This supports vicarious reinforcement because the children’s behaviour was influenced by consequences experienced by someone else.
The children did not personally receive the model’s reward or punishment. They observed what happened and adjusted their own behaviour.
The sequence was:
Observe model → observe consequence → consider likely outcome → decide whether to imitate
Learning and performance
Bandura’s research also helped distinguish between learning and performance.
When children were later offered an incentive to reproduce the model’s actions, children across the different consequence conditions were able to demonstrate the behaviour.
This suggests that children who had seen the model punished may still have learned the actions but were initially less motivated to perform them.
The model’s punishment affected the performance of the behaviour rather than necessarily preventing the behaviour from being learned.
This is an important point:
A person may learn an observed behaviour without displaying it immediately.
How the research supports mediational processes
The distinction between learning and performance supports the role of mediational processes.
The child does not automatically copy every observed action. Mental processes occur between observation and imitation.
Mediational process | Connection with Bandura’s research |
Attention | The child had to notice the model’s actions and consequences. |
Retention | The child had to remember the aggressive actions after the model was no longer present. |
Motor reproduction | The child needed the ability to reproduce the actions. |
Motivation | Expected consequences influenced whether the child chose to imitate. |
The vicarious reinforcement study particularly supports motivation.
Children who observed punishment were initially less likely to perform the aggressive behaviour, but the later incentive showed that they could remember and reproduce it.
This suggests that learning had occurred through attention and retention, while motivation affected whether it was expressed.
A complete social learning explanation of the findings
A complete explanation should connect all parts of the theory.
The adult acted as a model.
The child paid attention to the model’s behaviour.
The child retained a mental representation of the actions.
The child had the ability to reproduce them through motor reproduction.
The child may have identified with the model.
Observed consequences affected motivation through vicarious reinforcement.
The child later imitated the behaviour.
This is stronger than simply stating that “the children copied the adults”.
Scientific strength: controlled research
Bandura’s research was conducted in a controlled environment.
The researchers controlled factors such as:
The behaviour demonstrated by the model.
Whether the model was aggressive or non-aggressive.
The toys available to the child.
The sequence of the procedure.
The conditions in which the child was observed.
This level of control allowed the researchers to isolate the effect of exposure to the model.
Because the children in the aggressive-model condition displayed more imitative aggression, the researchers could make a stronger cause-and-effect conclusion about the influence of observed behaviour.
This is a scientific strength of the research.
Scientific strength: standardised procedures
The children experienced a similar sequence of events within each condition.
The models demonstrated planned behaviours, and the children’s responses were recorded using predefined behavioural categories.
This standardisation makes the research easier to replicate.
If other researchers follow the same procedure and obtain similar findings, confidence in the reliability of the evidence increases.
Bandura’s research therefore shares some of the scientific strengths considered in the scientific investigation of learning.
Scientific strength: observable and measurable behaviour
The researchers recorded observable behaviours rather than relying only on children’s descriptions.
Examples included:
Whether the child struck the Bobo doll.
Whether the child used the mallet.
Whether the child repeated particular phrases.
How frequently behaviours occurred.
This produced quantitative data that could be compared across conditions.
Clearly defined behavioural categories can improve objectivity because observers know what actions should be recorded.
However, objectivity depends on observers applying the categories consistently. Inter-observer reliability would therefore be important.
Supporting evidence for social learning theory
Bandura’s findings provide experimental support for the claim that behaviour can be learned through observation.
The evidence supports social learning theory because:
Children imitated behaviours they had observed.
Children did not need direct reinforcement to learn.
The characteristics of the model influenced imitation.
Consequences received by the model affected performance.
Mental processes appeared to intervene between observation and behaviour.
This gives social learning theory greater explanatory power than an account based solely on direct conditioning.
Strength: social learning theory recognises cognitive processes
Social learning theory includes mediational processes and therefore recognises that learning involves more than an automatic stimulus-response connection.
Attention, retention, motor reproduction and motivation explain why:
Some behaviours are noticed and others are ignored.
Behaviour can be remembered and performed later.
A learned behaviour may not be displayed immediately.
Different observers may respond differently to the same model.
This is a strength because the theory allows individuals to think about observed behaviour and its possible consequences.
It provides a bridge between learning approaches and internal mental processes.
Strength: social learning theory explains indirect learning
The theory explains how people can learn without personally experiencing every possible consequence.
This is useful because direct trial and error would sometimes be dangerous, inefficient or socially costly.
A child can learn that a behaviour is rewarded or discouraged simply by observing another person.
Vicarious learning therefore extends operant conditioning by explaining the influence of consequences received by models rather than only consequences received directly by the observer.
Strength: social learning theory explains individual differences
Social learning theory does not predict that everyone who observes the same behaviour will automatically imitate it.
Differences may result from:
Attention.
Retention.
Physical ability.
Motivation.
Identification with the model.
Expected consequences.
This is a strength because it recognises that the same environment may affect people differently.
For example, two children may observe the same model, but only one may identify strongly with that person or expect the behaviour to be rewarded.
Strength: applications of social learning theory
Social learning theory can be applied to several areas of behaviour.
Within the AQA course, it contributes to explanations of:
Gender development through modelling, reinforcement and identification.
Aggression through the observation of aggressive models.
Eating behaviour through modelling and media influence.
For example, children may observe gender-related behaviour being modelled and rewarded, an application developed in modelling and gender development.
The theory’s ability to explain behaviour across different contexts increases its usefulness.
Limitation: an artificial research setting
Bandura’s study took place in a controlled setting that was unlike most children’s everyday environments.
Children were placed in a room with an unfamiliar adult, an inflatable doll and toys selected by researchers.
This may reduce ecological validity, meaning the findings may not fully represent behaviour in ordinary settings.
Striking a Bobo doll may not be equivalent to directing aggression towards another person. The doll was designed to be hit and return upright, so children may have interpreted the expected use of the toy differently from real interpersonal aggression.
The study demonstrates imitation in a controlled playroom, but this does not automatically prove that observed aggression will produce serious aggressive behaviour in everyday life.
Limitation: demand characteristics
Demand characteristics are cues that lead participants to guess the purpose of a study and alter their behaviour.
Children may have recognised that the adult had demonstrated how the Bobo doll could be used.
They may have believed that the researchers expected them to copy the model.
If children imitated because they thought this was the purpose of the activity, the findings may partly reflect compliance with perceived expectations rather than naturally occurring observational learning.
This could reduce the internal validity of the study.
However, the differences between aggressive, non-aggressive and control conditions still provide evidence that the model influenced behaviour.
Limitation: a restricted sample
The participants were young children from one nursery school.
This limits how confidently the findings can be generalised to:
Older children.
Adolescents.
Adults.
People from different educational settings.
People from different cultural backgrounds.
Adults may be more capable of evaluating the consequences and acceptability of a model’s behaviour.
The research supports observational learning in young children, but additional evidence is needed before assuming that every group will respond in the same way.
Limitation: measuring short-term behaviour
The children’s behaviour was measured soon after observing the model.
This shows that immediate imitation can occur, but it does not establish whether the behaviour would:
Continue over a long period.
Appear outside the laboratory.
Generalise to different situations.
Become part of the child’s usual behaviour.
A child may reproduce an action once without developing a lasting pattern of aggression.
Long-term observations would be needed to determine whether the learned behaviour persisted.
Limitation: ethical issues
Bandura’s research involved exposing young children to aggressive adult behaviour.
This raises ethical concerns because the children may have:
Experienced distress or confusion.
Learned aggressive responses.
Been encouraged to view aggression as acceptable.
Been unable to understand the full nature of the research.
Researchers also had to consider whether any learned aggression continued after the study.
These issues relate to protection from harm and informed consent. Young children could not provide fully informed consent for themselves, so parental permission would have been necessary.
The broader ethical principles are developed in protecting participants in psychological studies.
Limitation: biological factors may also influence behaviour
Social learning theory emphasises experience and the social environment.
However, behaviour may also be influenced by biological factors.
Bandura found differences between boys’ and girls’ aggressive behaviour, particularly in physical aggression.
These differences could reflect:
Different social experiences and expectations.
Identification with different models.
Biological influences.
An interaction between biological and environmental factors.
Social learning theory can explain sex differences through modelling and identification, but the findings do not prove that learning is the only influence.
A more complete explanation may consider how social learning interacts with biological factors.
Is social learning theory deterministic?
Social learning theory is influenced by environmental determinism because models and observed consequences affect behaviour.
However, it is less environmentally deterministic than a strict behaviourist account.
The mediational processes give the observer an active role:
The observer decides what to attend to.
The behaviour is mentally represented.
Possible consequences are considered.
Motivation influences whether the behaviour is performed.
The person is not described as responding automatically to every environmental stimulus.
Nevertheless, the theory still explains behaviour through identifiable causes, including social experience, identification and expected consequences.
Is social learning theory reductionist?
Social learning theory may simplify complex behaviour by focusing on modelling, reinforcement and mediational processes.
Aggression, for example, may also be influenced by:
Biological factors.
Emotions.
Previous relationships.
Cultural expectations.
Immediate social circumstances.
However, social learning theory is less reductionist than an explanation based only on conditioning because it includes both environmental and cognitive influences.
Its position can therefore be viewed as a middle ground between strict behaviourism and a fully cognitive explanation.
Overall evaluation of social learning theory
Social learning theory is supported by Bandura’s controlled research showing that children can imitate observed behaviour.
It offers several important strengths:
It explains learning without direct reinforcement.
It recognises the influence of models.
It includes identification and vicarious reinforcement.
It recognises mediational processes.
It explains why learning may occur without immediate performance.
It can be applied to several areas of behaviour.
However, its evidence also has limitations:
Some research was conducted in artificial settings.
Demand characteristics may have affected behaviour.
Samples were restricted.
Immediate imitation may not represent lasting real-world behaviour.
Ethical issues arise when children observe aggression.
Biological influences may also contribute to behaviour.
A balanced conclusion is that Bandura’s research provides strong evidence that observational learning can occur, but social learning theory should not necessarily be treated as a complete explanation of complex behaviour.
Writing an effective evaluation paragraph
A developed evaluation paragraph should make a clear argument.
For example:
One strength of social learning theory is that Bandura’s research provides controlled experimental support. Children who observed an aggressive model later reproduced more of the model’s aggressive actions than children in the non-aggressive and control conditions. This supports the claim that behaviour can be acquired through observation and imitation. However, hitting an inflatable doll in a laboratory may not represent serious aggression towards another person, so the findings may have limited ecological validity.
This paragraph:
Identifies a strength.
Uses research evidence.
Explains how the evidence supports the theory.
Develops a relevant limitation.
Links the limitation to the conclusion that can be drawn.
⚠️ Avoid simply listing “laboratory study”, “ethical issues” and “small sample”. Explain how each point affects the evidence or the theory.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Bandura’s research | Experimental research examining whether children learn behaviour by observing adult models. | Describe the procedure, findings or conclusions. |
Bobo doll | A large inflatable doll used to measure children’s imitation of aggressive behaviour. | Explain how aggression was observed and recorded. |
Social learning theory | An explanation proposing that behaviour can be learned by observing models and their consequences. | Explain the theoretical importance of Bandura’s findings. |
Model | A person whose behaviour is observed and may be imitated. | Identify the adult observed by the child. |
Imitation | Reproducing behaviour demonstrated by a model. | Explain the aggressive actions shown by children. |
Identification | Relating to a model or seeing the model as someone the observer wants to be like. | Explain why the sex or characteristics of a model may matter. |
Vicarious reinforcement | Becoming more likely to imitate after observing a model receive a desirable consequence. | Explain Bandura’s research into model consequences. |
Mediational processes | Mental processes occurring between observation and imitation. | Explain why learning does not automatically lead to performance. |
Attention | Noticing and focusing on the model’s behaviour. | Explain the first stage of observational learning. |
Retention | Remembering the observed behaviour. | Explain how children reproduced actions after the model left. |
Motor reproduction | Having the ability to perform an observed behaviour. | Explain whether the child can reproduce the model’s actions. |
Motivation | Having a reason or incentive to perform the observed behaviour. | Explain the effect of reward and punishment on imitation. |
Aggression arousal | Mild frustration produced before the child’s behaviour was observed. | Describe Bandura’s experimental procedure. |
Control group | A comparison group that does not experience the experimental manipulation. | Explain how the effect of the model was assessed. |
Matched groups | Groups made similar on a relevant participant characteristic. | Explain how existing aggression was controlled. |
Behavioural category | A clearly defined type of behaviour used when recording observations. | Explain how aggression could be measured objectively. |
Ecological validity | The extent to which findings represent behaviour in everyday settings. | Evaluate the artificial setting and Bobo doll task. |
Demand characteristics | Cues that may reveal the study’s purpose and affect participant behaviour. | Explain why children may have copied the model. |
Generalisability | The extent to which findings apply to other people or settings. | Evaluate the restricted sample of nursery children. |
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying that Bandura proved children will copy everything they observe.
Why this is incorrect:Social learning theory includes mediational processes. Attention, retention, motor reproduction and motivation influence whether behaviour is performed.
How to improve:Explain that observation creates an opportunity for learning, but imitation is not automatic.
Mistake: Describing general aggression without referring to imitation.
Why this is incorrect:Bandura was particularly interested in whether children reproduced behaviours demonstrated by the model.
How to improve:Refer to specific imitative actions and phrases rather than saying only that the children “became aggressive”.
Mistake: Saying that the children were directly reinforced for aggression in the original observation condition.
Why this is incorrect:The children learned by observing a model. They did not need to receive a reward for the model’s aggressive actions.
How to improve:Distinguish direct reinforcement from learning through observation.
Mistake: Claiming that identification was directly measured.
Why this is incorrect:The researchers measured imitation. Identification was inferred from patterns involving the model’s sex and the child’s behaviour.
How to improve:State that the findings are consistent with identification rather than claiming that identification was directly observed.
Mistake: Confusing learning with performance.
Why this is incorrect:A child may remember an observed behaviour but choose not to display it because of expected punishment.
How to improve:Explain that motivation affects performance, while attention and retention may allow learning to occur.
Mistake: Describing punishment of the model as direct punishment of the child.
Why this is incorrect:The child observed what happened to the model. The consequence was experienced vicariously.
How to improve:Identify exactly who received the punishment and who observed it.
Mistake: Stating that laboratory control automatically makes the findings valid.
Why this is incorrect:Control can improve internal validity, but the artificial task may reduce ecological validity.
How to improve:Evaluate internal validity and ecological validity separately.
Mistake: Saying the Bobo doll study measured aggression towards people.
Why this is incorrect:The children’s behaviour was directed towards an inflatable doll and other objects.
How to improve:Avoid assuming that playroom aggression is identical to interpersonal aggression.
Mistake: Listing ethical issues without explaining them.
Why this is incorrect:An evaluation must show why the issue matters.
How to improve:Explain that children were exposed to aggressive models and may have learned behaviour that could continue beyond the study.
Mistake: Evaluating only Bandura’s method when asked to evaluate social learning theory.
Why this is incorrect:A theory question requires broader evaluation, including cognitive processes, indirect learning, applications and alternative explanations.
How to improve:Use Bandura as evidence, then evaluate the wider assumptions and explanatory power of the theory.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which one of the following was the main purpose of Bandura’s Bobo doll research?
A. To investigate whether aggression is inherited
B. To investigate whether children imitate observed behaviour
C. To investigate classical conditioning in children
D. To investigate children’s long-term memory capacity
[1 mark]
Question 2
Define vicarious reinforcement.
[2 marks]
Question 3
Outline how Bandura investigated children’s imitation of aggressive behaviour.
[4 marks]
Question 4
Explain how one finding from Bandura’s research supports the role of identification.
[3 marks]
Question 5
Explain how Bandura’s research distinguishes between learning and performance.
[4 marks]
Question 6
A group of pupils watches a video in which an older student receives praise for calmly resolving a disagreement. A second group watches the same student being ignored after using the same behaviour. Pupils in the first group later use calm conflict-resolution strategies more frequently.
Using social learning theory, explain the difference between the two groups.
[6 marks]
Question 7
A psychologist conducts a replication of observational learning research. Equal numbers of children observe a model experiencing one of three consequences.
Consequence experienced by the model | Number of children who imitate | Total number of children |
Model rewarded | 24 | 30 |
No consequence | 18 | 30 |
Model punished | 9 | 30 |
a) Calculate the percentage of children in the rewarded-model condition who imitated the behaviour.
Use:
Percentage = number who imitated ÷ total number × 100
Show your working.
[2 marks]
b) Calculate the difference between the percentage who imitated in the rewarded-model condition and the punished-model condition.
Show your working.
[2 marks]
c) Explain how the results support vicarious reinforcement.
[3 marks]
Question 8
A researcher claims:
Bandura’s research proves that observing aggressive behaviour always causes lasting aggression.
Explain two reasons why this conclusion is not justified.
[4 marks]
Question 9
Evaluate social learning theory. Refer to Bandura’s research in your answer.
[8 marks]
Question 10
Discuss social learning theory as an explanation of behaviour.
Refer to Bandura’s research, imitation, identification, vicarious reinforcement and mediational processes in your answer.
[16 marks]
Comments