H567/02 Section A - External influences on children's behaviour: comparing the pair
Bandura et al. (1961) and Chaney et al. (2004) both investigated environmental influences on young children. Their different mechanisms, outcomes and methods determine how far their evidence can be combined.
Two routes through external influences
In Bandura's study, children observed an aggressive or calm adult model, then played in another room without that adult. More distinctive aggression after aggressive exposure supported observational learning. The children did not receive rewards for copying during exposure, and the study did not compare rewards versus punishments given to models.
Chaney's Funhaler was designed to give enjoyable spinner and whistle feedback linked to breathing through an asthma spacer. The proposed mechanism was positive reinforcement: a rewarding consequence can make the behaviour more likely. Parents reported improved cooperation and adherence after two weeks, although that report alone could not isolate reinforcement from novelty or practice.
Both therefore show how the environment can influence developing behaviour, but the information received differs. Bandura's child sees what another person does; Chaney's child experiences what follows their own action. This is a mechanism comparison, rather than simply saying one concerns aggression and the other asthma. Both can inform adult management of children's environments: demonstrate a constructive action, or make an appropriate action rewarding. Those strategies have different rationales and neither guarantees an individual outcome.
Comparing methods and measures
| Feature | Bandura | Chaney | Consequence of the comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Setting | Controlled laboratory rooms | Device use at home | Bandura controlled exposure and opportunities; Chaney examined an ordinary treatment routine |
| Design | Different children matched on initial aggression, random allocation within triplets | Same children, conventional device then Funhaler | Bandura reduced a relevant initial difference without cross-condition order; Chaney controlled stable individual differences but retained fixed-order effects |
| Outcome | Observers coded imitative and other behaviour in a short test | Parents reported use, technique, success and attitudes | Bandura measured behaviour directly but in an unusual toy task; Chaney captured everyday experience through potentially biased proxy reports |
| Sample | 72 nursery children, equal boys and girls, one US nursery | 32 preschool children with asthma, 22 boys and 10 girls, Perth clinics | Both concern young children but represent different populations, with restricted generalisation |
Both produced quantitative comparisons and used standardised procedures. Bandura's coding categories and timing supported repeatable observation; Chaney's matched questions and same interviewer supported consistent reporting. The weaknesses differ: an observer can agree on Bobo actions that do not represent everyday violence, while an interviewer can consistently collect inaccurate parent recollections. Reliability does not remove those validity problems.
Bandura supports a clearer causal inference about exposure to a model because relevant groups were matched and randomly allocated. Chaney's before-and-after pattern is consistent with the intervention helping, but device and time/order changed together. Conversely, a laboratory effect does not automatically have greater practical generalisability than a home finding. Evaluate causal control and everyday relevance separately.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account