The Effects of observer age and type of task on the imitation of adult and peer models

PDF ( 2 MBs ) ( .pdf )

THE EFFECTS OF OBSERVER AGE AND

TYPE OF TASK ON THE IMITATION

OF ADULT AND PEER MODELS








By
GERALD CLEMMER MUSSELMAN














A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY











UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


August, 1967




























Copyright by
Gerald Clemmer Musselman
1967





























To the primary sources of this work--my wife, Julie, and
my nephew, Kendall














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The fact that this investigation deals with models provides the

author with the pleasant opportunity to thank four of his own who compose

his doctoral committee--Dr. William D. Wolking, chairman, Dr. Ben Barger,

Dr. Richard J. Anderson, and Dr. Audrey S. Schumacher. The author would

like to first of all express his appreciation for each of them as persons

and for the warm associations experienced with them. Secondly, he would

like to acknowledge his substantial debt to each for the various kinds

of guidance-knowledge-encouragement which made his professional training

as well as this research endeavor an enriching experience. Special

appreciation is offered to Dr. Wolking for his personal interest in the

author and his willingness to endure the author's impatience to assure a

better product.

This writer is also very grateful to his friend and colleague,

Dr. Philip Costanzo, for serving as the adult model in the experiment and

to Timothy Savoy, Jeffrey Grater, and Hugh Davis, Jr.,for serving as the

first, fifth, and seventh grade models, respectively.













TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES


INTRODUCTION .

RESULTS . .

DISCUSSION .

SUMMARY . .




APPENDICES .

Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix

REFERENCES .


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .


Page

. . . . . . . . . . . iv


. . . v ii











LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. Number of Subjects in Each Grade-Treatment Group . . . 18

2. Model Role Behaviors in the Two Experimental Groups . 20

3. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 1: Superstitious-
irrelevant Behavior . . . . . . . .... . 31

4. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 2: Guessing
Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 3: Risk-taking
Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6. Summary of Analysis for Variance for Task 4: Spontaneous
Talking Behavior . . . . . . . .. .. . .. 32

7. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 5: Drawing Be-
havior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

8. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Task Behavior as a
Function of Age, Modeling Situation, and Task . . ... 33

9. Summary of Newman-Keuls' Tests on C Minus El Differences
for Tasks 1 Through 5 . . . . . . . . . 34

10. Summary of Newman-Keuls' Tests on C Minus E2 Differences
for Tasks 1 Through 5 . . . . . . . . . 34

11. Summary of Newman-Keul's Tests on El Minus E2 Model Potency
Differences for Tasks 1 Through 5 . . . . .... .35

12. Usage Across Age of the Finger Oscillation Device . .. .35

13. Number of Responses Identical to Responses of Models
Across Six Tasks . . . . . . . . ... . .. 36

14. Differences in Modeling Situation Potency . . . ... 36

15. Summary of Score-ranks in Treatment Groups Across the
Five Tasks . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. 37










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1. Scores on Task 1 According to Age and Modeling Group . 38

2. Scores on Task 2 According to Age and Modeling Group . 39

3. Scores on Task 3 According to Age and Modeling Group . . 40

4. Scores on Task 4 According to Age and Modeling Group . 41

5. Scores on Task 5 According to Age and Modeling Group . 42

6. Usage Across Age of the Finger Oscillation Device .... 43

7. Responses Identical to Responses of Models Across Six Tasks. 44














INTRODUCTION


Imitation has been a concept in psychology dating back at least

to the turn of the century, when it was discussed by men such as Morgan

and McDougall. However, at that time, due to its association with

instinct, the concept was framed in terms not susceptible to empirical

verification. As a result, the concept of imitation remained suspect

and unscientific, but it experienced revivals of interest under the

guise of different terminology. The operant-reinforcement view of

imitation has been one of the more recent paradigms under which imitation

has been considered, especially in relation to early development and the

learning of language (Miller and Dollard, 1941; Bijou and Baer, 1965;

Skinner, 1953;1957). This point of view has led to important research

(Baer and Sherman, 1964) and clinical applications (Metz, 1965; Risley,

1966), especially with children.

However, the work of Bandura (1962;1965a;1965c), which will be the

basis of this investigation, represents another current, exciting renewal

of interest in the area of imitation under the labels of vicarious learn-

ing and modeling. As Bandura (1965a) points out, a primary source of new

behavior or new combinations of previously learned behaviors for humans

is the behavior of other humans. It is obvious that many complex and

important human behaviors are learned through one person observing the

behavior of another person, the model. It is also obvious that such





2




modeling procedures are a very efficient and, at times, indispensable way

of passing along behavior, even whole repertories of behavior. Modeling

procedures run the gamut of age ranges and become more explicit as age

increases, especially as verbal behavior increases. A combination of

verbal (symbolic) and demonstrative (live) aspects in modeling procedures

is assumed to be optimally effective. While all this is certainly no

new revelation, Bandura correctly stresses that such an emphasis is in

contrast to the emphasis that current learning theories place on operant

conditioning, learning by successive approximations, and reinforcement:

Research and theoretical interpretations of learning processes
have focused almost exclusively on a single mode of response
acquisition which is exemplified by the operant or instrumental
conditioning paradigm. In this procedure the organism is im-
pelled, in one way or another, to perform responses under
specific stimulus conditions and, through differential rein-
forcement of spontaneously emitted variations in behavior, new
patterns are developed or existing repertories are brought under
new discriminative stimulus control. It is generally assumed
that the principles governing the latter mode of response
acquisition account also for social-learning phenomena occurring
under naturalistic conditions.
The continued adherence to a relatively narrow range of learning
principles and procedures stems primarily from the fact that
certain critical conditions that obtain in real-life situations
are rarely, if ever, reproduced in laboratory studies of learning.
Thus, in laboratory investigations experimenters arrange com-
paratively benign environments in which errors will not produce
fatal consequences for the organism. By contrast, naturalistic
environs are loaded with potentially lethal consequences that
unmercifully befall those who happen to perform hazardous errors.
For this reason, it would be exceedingly injudicious to rely
primarily upon trial-and-error and successive approximations
methods in teaching children to swim, adolescents to drive
automobiles, or adults to master complex occupational and social
tasks. If rodents and pigeons toiling in Skinner boxes and various
mazes could likewise get electrocuted, dismembered, or extensively
bruised for errors that inevitably occur during early phases of
learning, it is a reasonably safe prediction that few of these
venturesome subjects would ever survive the shaping process.
Apart from questions of efficiency...and survival, it is doubtful
if many classes of responses would ever be acquired if social
training proceeded solely by the method of approximations through










differential reinforcement of emitted responses..."(Bandura,
1965c, p. 1).

It is also clear that while operant methods are very efficient

for strengthening and maintaining behavior already possessed by individ-

uals, such methods are very often inefficient for developing new be-

havior (Bandura, 1965a). The point is that work on imitative learning

and modeling is generating meaningful, much needed investigations into

the conditions of human learning in social situations. Social situations

represent the settings for a large percentage of human learning, and

there is much yet to be learned about the effects of such settings. The

study of modeling and social interaction effects also represents meaning-

ful work on human learning, especially developmental human learning,

which is more relevant to real life situations than is frequently the

case in other approaches to learning (Epstein, 1962).


Vicarious Learning and Identification

Given the importance of the area of study, the question becomes

one of how learning takes place through modeling--the question of vicar-

ious'learning. Bandura (1965c) has summarized various viewpoints on

vicarious learning and distinguished his position from the others (Bandura

and Walters, 1963). He notes that instead of imitation there are now

many terms used to refer to essentially the same phenomena-- "observational

learning," "copying," "social facilitation," "vicarious learning," "con-

tagion," "identification," and "role playing" (Bandura, 1965c, p. 2).

Because Bandura thinks that the same basic process of learning is involved

regardless of the models, stimulus conditions, content, and generality of










what is learned, he does not concern himself with the above variety of

terms. He uses the terms imitative, observational, and vicarious learn-

ing interchar,. :,bly to refer to the differences in behavior resulting

from modeling stimuli.

His definition and views of vicarious learning are as follows:

...a vicarious learn event is defined as one in which
new responses are acquired or the characteristics of
exist response re rtories are modified as a function
of observii the behavior of others and its reinforci
con Jences, without the modeled res ses beir overtly
performed by the viewer duri-- the exposure period. In
demonstrating vicarious learn phenomena, it is therefore
necessary to employ a nonresponse acquisition procedure in
which a subject simply observes a mode 's behavior, but
otherwise performs no overt instrumental res, -iss, nor is
administered any reinforcing stimuli during the riod of
acquisition. Any learnir- that occurs under these limiting
conditions is purely on an observational or covert basis.
This mode of res ise acquisition is accordir-ly designated
as no-trial learning, since the observer does not e in
any o)v 7 p ",:l; li although. . he may require multiple
&,j\,-; ..- in order to reproduce th-e mod led stimuli
accurately. moreover, the development of ed iat;ona res .-
es, in the form of i final and implicit verbal representations
of the perceived stimulus events, nay play a critical role
in the vicarious learning process (Bandura, 1565c, p. 2).

Unlike nost previous accounts of modelir- effects, which
tend to highlight the reinforcing stimulus control of
matchin- responses, the theory propounded '. the author em-
phasizes the function of representational processes in
observational learn Accordi o this forruat ion,
matching responses are acquired or the ais of stimulus
conti Jity and are mdiaed by cue- reducing s lic re-
sponses wch exercise discriminative stus control over
corres di overt rfor nces. Thu in eis d
re onse acquisition, i in and verb r rse nations
of od ling sti uli con iue the encuri ro uc of
observation-l i rinc ile the perc ta and i t i ve
aspects of vicarious learning are given ei sis, t is
recognized that motivational and reinforce ent variables may
influence indirectly the level of r';':" c :, l ; :'' :' : by
augmenting or reduci the occurrence of requisite observing
responses and facilitative covert rehearsal. There is










considerable research evidence, however, that the performance
of previously learned matching responses is primarily
governed by reinforcement-related variables... The theory
advanced ... suggests that vicarious learning may be analyzed
in the same manner as other associative learning processes
... The fact that vicarious learning experiments employ social
cues rather than nonsense syllables does not result in an
acquisition process that is fundamentally different from
traditional associative learning (Bandura, 1965c, pp. 41-42).

Bandura goes on to contrast his "contiguous sensory stimulation"

position with three other categories of learning positions and indicates

his position better accounts for the phenomena of vicarious learning.

According to Bandura (1965c, pp. 3-8),"associative and classical condition-

ing theories" (Humphrey, Allport, Holt, Piaget) do not account for novel

responses in the observer resulting from the model-observer interaction;

"instrumental conditioning theories" (Miller and Dollard, Skinner) do not

account for novel responses' being acquired through observation prior to

performance and reinforcement and often confuse acquisition and performance;

"sensory feedback theory" (Mowrer) involving classical conditioning cannot

adequately account with peripheral feedback and proprioceptive cues for

imitative responses without reinforcement of either model or observer.

Because the focus of the present work will be primarily on aspects of per-

formance rather than learning,these theoretical differences need not be

pursued further here.

Concerning the allied concept of identification, as compared with

imitation, the following stand is taken (Bandura, 1962, p. 215):

This type of learning is generally labeled "imitation" in
behavior theory, and "identification" in most theories of
personality. These concepts,however, are treated ... as
synonymous since both encompass the same behavioral phenom-
enon, i.e., the tendency for a person to match the behavior
or attitudes as exhibited by actual or symbolized models.










This appears to be the most fruitful position to take and coincides with

the "identification as behavior" viewpoint, one of the three main view-

points on the nature of identification found in a review of the literature

by Bronfenbrenner (1960). The "identification as behavior" position

appeared to be the most useful of the three positions in the opinion of

Bronfenbrenner. As he pointed out, the other two main views of identifi-

cation--"identification as a motive," and "identification as process"--

are less empirical in nature and do not lend themselves to empirical study.

While some investigators do not favor the "identification as behavior"

position (Kagan, 1958), the point is that even identification itself, as

a concept, especially as a concept connoting unconscious processes, seems

to hinder definitive work in the area it is concerned with delineating:

Identification, as nominally defined, tends to preclude
adequate and valid operational definition and empirical test.
Identification is a hypothetical construct, which seems
destined to remain a hypothetical construct. As such, it can
explain nothing. Nor does it seem to lead to a definition of
those variables and the process by which they interact which
would constitute an explanation, subject to experimental
verification (Martin, 1954, p. 214).


Review of Studies

The behavioral effects of exposure to modeling stimuli fall into

three main categories (Bandura, 1965a, pp. 320-321):

(1) ... the observer may acquire new responses that did not
exist in his behavioral repertoire. In demonstrating this
modeling effect experimentally, the model exhibits responses
that the observer has not yet learned to make, and he must
reproduce them in substantially identical form...










(2) Exposure to models may also strengthen or weaken inhibitory
responses in the observer. These inhibitory and disinhibitory
effects are evident when the frequency of imitative and non-
matching responses increases or decreases, often as a function
of rewarding or punishing response consequences to the model...

(3) ... the behavior of models may elicit previously learned
responses that match precisely or bear some resemblance to those
exhibited by the model. This response facilitation effect can
be distinguished from disinhibition when the behavior in question
is not likely to have incurred punishment and, therefore, any
increase in responsivity is not attributable to the reduction of
inhibitory responses.

In more specific terms, some of the experimental results are as

follows. In order to assess the effectiveness of modeling and operant

conditioning, Bandura and McDonald (1963) attempted to change the moral

orientations (Piaget's objective and subjective moral orientations) of

5 to 11 year old children by the following three methods: (1) having

children observe adult models express moral judgements counter to the

group's orientation and be reinforced with approval, reinforcing the

children with approval for adopting the model's responses; (2) having

another group observe the models reinforced but not reinforcing the

children's matching behavior; (3) having a third group receive no exposure

to models but reinforcing the judgements of the children which were counter

to children's judgement tendencies. The children in the modeling groups

were not significantly different from each other but showed significantly

higher modifications in their moral judgements in the direction of the at-

tempted influence than the children in the group using only reinforcement,

who did not change significantly. Also, the groups maintained their altered

positions in a new situation in which the models and social reinforcement

were absent, suggesting modeling effects can be long-lasting.










Perhaps the classic studies were the ones in which the social trans-

mission of novel aggressive responses and film versus live models were

investigated (Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1961; Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1963b).

In the 1961 experiment, children from a nursery school, with an average age

of 52 months, were assigned to three conditions: (1) observation of aggres-

sive adult model; (2) observation of inhibited nonaggressive model; (3) no

exposure to a model. The experimental groups observed an adult model in-

teract physically and verbally with a large plastic doll and then were

frustrated and tested for imitative and nonimitative aggressive behavior.

Approximately the same paradigm was used in the 1963 experiment with same

age subjects from the same school. Three groups were used: (1) observation

of real-life aggressive model; (2) observation of the same aggressive model

on film; (3) observation of a model on film in the costume of a cartoon cat

showing the same aggressive behavior. Children who observed the aggressive

models showed roughly twice as much aggressive behavior as the children in

the nonaggressive and control groups. The nonaggressive group showed sig-

nificantly less aggressive behavior than the controls. Children who observed

the aggressive models showed many precisely matching physical and verbal

aggressive acts. This behavior occurred only rarely in the other groups.

The film-mediated aggressive models and the cartoon character were as ef-

fective as the real-life models in promoting aggressive behavior, although

the modeling effects were not as prominent in the cartoon character group.

In order to investigate whether reinforcement functions more as a

performance or more as a learning variable, Bandura (1965b) had nursery

school subjects observe an aggressive film-mediated model rewarded, punished,










or receive no consequences for his aggressive acts. The results indicated

that children in the model-punished group gave significantly fewer matching

responses than children in the other two groups. However, when the children

in each group were offered rewards if they could reproduce the model's

aggressive behavior,the previous differences among the three groups dis-

appeared, indicating an equal amount of learning in each group. The results

supported Bandura's contiguity theory--reinforcement of the model influenced

the observers' performances but not their acquisition of matching responses

or learning.

The influence of adult and peer models has also been studied, in

relation to aggressive behavior and patterns of self-reinforcement. Bandura

and Kupers (1964) had 7 to 9 year old children in one group observe either

peer or adult models who adopted a high criterion for self-reinforcement

on a bowling game, while those in another group observed models employing

a low criterion for self-reinforcement. It was found that the subjects'

patterns of self-reinforcement were closely related to the models they had

observed, with the adult models having a more powerful influence than the

peer models. The influence of peer models and adult models has been studied

in another situation in an interesting investigation by Hicks (1965). Hicks

looked into the effects of adult and peer film-mediated aggressive models

on imitation and retention of modeled responses. Children from 3 to 6 years

of age viewed either male or female adult or peer aggressive models and then

were tested for imitative behavior two times. The first time was immediately

after the observation of the models and a mild frustration. The second time

was 6 months later, following the same mild frustration but without any re-









observation of the models. It was found that the peer male model group

showed the greatest immediate modeling influence. After 6 months, however,

the adult male model group showed the most matching behavior, although none

of the groups performed even close to the amount of imitative behavior that

they had displayed immediately after exposure to the models. Tests of re-

tention after 6 months also revealed a significantly greater number of

matching responses had been retained than had been performed.

In another investigation of modeling and self-reinforcement, Mischel

and Liebert (1966) found that fourth grade children tended to impose on

younger children, second grade children of the same sex as the subjects,

the identical self-reward criteria they imposed on themselves when playing

a game. The subjects previously played the game with an adult model who

imposed a level of self-reward on the subject which was equal to, higher

than, or lower than the level employed by the model. As predicted, in the

absence of the model the subjects on whom high criteria were imposed and

who also observed their model employ equally high criteria were the most

stringent in applying self-rewards to themselves and younger children. The

subjects who had observed high modeled criteria but had been permitted

self-reward for lower performances were the least stringent. When imposed

and observed criteria were discrepant the least stringent criteria tended

to be employed by the subject. There were no differences between the self-

reward criteria employed by the subject for himself and the criteria imposed

by the subject on younger children if the subject demonstrated the task to

the younger child immediately following his performance of the task alone.

However, if immediately after the modeling situation the subject demonstrated










the task to the younger child before performing it alone, there were some

differences between the self-reward used by the subject and imposed on

the younger child.

Studies by Mussen and Parker (1965) on 5 year old girls and by

Bandura and Huston (1961) on 3 to 5 year old children indicate that

nurturance or positive social interaction displayed by the model to the

subject leads to more imitation of task irrelevant (non-problem-solving)

behavior than to more imitation of task relevant behavior. However, the

opposite of this was found by Henker (1963) with 6 to 10 year old boys in

a study of the effects of rewarding, critical, and neutral models in various

situations. The play behavior of the subjects showed no difference in amount

of imitation, but task relevant behavior on a problem-solving task was re-

lated to the type of model observed and his previously displayed (experiment-

ally manipulated) competence. In this regard, Aronfreed (1964) noted an

absence of any consistent direct relationship between amount of parental

nurturance and extent of internalization.

There have been numerous other studies by Bandura and by other in-

vestigators related to the realm of modeling but not especially relevant or

more elucidating to the purposes of the present study. Surprisingly, how-

ever, there is a great paucity of developmental studies in the area of

modeling, as in many other areas. Most of the older studies in the area

dealt exclusively with a very narrow age group, usually preschool children,

and used criteria and situations such as verbal responses to questions con-

cerning imitation, simple manipulation of dolls, or verbal reports of what

they would do in hypothetical situations, rather than actual behavioral










samples in a "real-life" situation. Some examples are as follows. Hartup

(1964), in doll play situations with 3 to 5 year old children, found that

there was a moderate generalization across situations of same-sex imitation

but not of opposite-sex imitation. When nonimitation could occur as a

response choice it occurred more frequently than imitation. This nonimita-

tion tendency had been previously pointed out by McDavid (1959) in 3 to 5

year old children where imitative behavior seemed to be related to child-

rearing practices and sibling constellation but not to intelligence or

dependency. Brown (1956), studying sex-role preferences in 5 and 6 year

olds, found boys to have a stronger preference for the masculine role than

girls for the feminine role, no differences between upper and lower middle

class groups, and that boys having only sisters or both brothers and sisters

scored more feminine than boys having only brothers. Brown used a sex-role

preference scale called the It Scale for Children (ITSC). Hartup and Zook

(1960), also using the ITSC, studied the sex-role preferences of 3 and 4

year old children and found the 4 year old boys scored more masculine than

the 3 year old boys, and the 4 year old girls scored more feminine than the

3 year old girls. Lynn (1959) reviewed research on the development of

identification and suggested that with increasing age males become more

firmly identified with the masculine role, responding more to a cultural

stereotype of the masculine role. With increasing age females become less

firmly identified with the feminine role, responding more to aspects of

their own mother's role. Gelfand (1962) got results in work with fifth

grade children which indicated that failure on tasks in comparison to a

peer's success on the tasks led to matching of the peer's responses on a










picture preference task. Task performances inconsistent with the child's

self-evaluations led to more verbal conditioning in such children than in

children whose task performances were consistent with their self-attitudes

(performances experimentally manipulated). DeRath (1963) found prohibitive

verbal instructions paired with a film-mediated aggressive model to be

effective in inhibiting the performance of aggressive behavior in nursery

school boys. The inhibition group performed less aggressive responses than

a group which saw the same film but received no prohibitive instructions.


Implications for Future Study

A number of conclusions and suggested areas for further study emerge

from these investigations of imitative behavior. It has been conclusively

shown that modeling procedures can lead to changed behavior in the observer

and that live and filmed models can be equally effective. The primary

relevant variables seem to be the age of the model, the age of the observer,

the sex of the model and the observer, the type of task or the type of

behavior involved, and the performance situation.

The first and most obvious characteristic of the modeling studies

is that most of them have been done with preschool children or with very

limited age ranges. This characteristic has resulted in the inability to

generalize across age levels on significant variables such as the effects

of model age, type of task, or type of performance situation. Second, the

range of modeling tasks or behaviors has been very narrow,also. Aggressive

behavior has been the primary focus in most of the recent studies. Third,

the modeling paradigm has been oversimplified by having the subject observe

only one model. Outside the laboratory a person faced with a task is or










has usually been exposed to more than one model and more than one method

of doing the task, resulting in the necessity for dealing with the various

methods observed. He may combine aspects of different methods, employ

a few or no aspects of any method observed, or follow precisely one of the

observed methods. Such a situation is often made more complex by adult

models being in opposition to peer models and the changes in influence of

each according to the age of the observer. Fourth, the situation in which

the observer performs, following exposure to modeling stimuli, probably

affects what he will perform as opposed to what he learned. For example,

whether the observer performs in the presence of an adult, a peer, an older

person, a younger person, alone, or in a group is a factor relevant to what

is performed.

These four variables have either not been studied at all or have

only been touched on in modeling experiments. This investigation attempts

to study the first three of these variables--age of observer, type of task

or behavior, number and age of models.


Present Investigation

This investigation was an attempt to analyze the effects of observer

age and type of task on the imitation of adult and peer models. The term

imitation, as it is used herein, means "response facilitation effect," as

defined by Bandura. Thus, the emphasis is on performance rather than

learning.

Three different observer age levels and five types of tasks were

used. The situation studied was one in which a subject performed five tasks

following the observation of an adult and a peer performing the tasks









in contrasting ways.

The three different observer age levels were first, fifth, and

seventh graders. These three grade levels, equivalent to ages 6, 10, and

12, were hypothesized as different on a chronological basis and on the

basis of developmental theory. The three age-grade levels can be viewed

as approximating developmental phases III, IV, and V in the scheme result-

ing from Maier's (1965) integration of the developmental sequences of

Erikson, Piaget, and Sears. Apart from intra-personal characteristics of

these children in these three developmental phases there are inter-personal

interactions which seem to be different. At age 6 the child is still

making his entrance into the world of structured inter-personal relation-

ships with those his own age and with adults outside of his family. In

these early stages of schooling, adults, primarily in the form of teachers,

determine many things he does and require specific methods for doing various

tasks. Thus, the child is dependent on adult models at this stage for new

types of behavior and knowledge and must change other types of previously

learned behavior to conform to the school routine. In other words, the

adult is a very potent model for the 6 year old child. This potency of the

adult model, however, apparently declines with age but does not seem to

decline in a linear fashion. As the child grows older the adult model may

remain very potent for certain types of behavior in certain types of situa-

tions but may have very little influence, compared with a peer model, over

other types of behavior in other situations. This set of circumstances

would seem to be characteristic of the 10 year old child, in contrast to

the 6 or 12 year old child. The 12 year old could be seen as representing










the other end of the modeling spectrum, the generalized dominance of the

peer model instead of the adult model. The 12 year old has already ac-

quired much knowledge, many of the basic inter-personal skills, and a

system of social relationships in which conformity to peer cultures and

peer approval are highly reinforcing. It is suggested, therefore, that

these three age-grade ranges may be considered representative of a

model-potency continuum. The 6 year old group would be characterized by

generalized high adult model potency, the 10 year old group by lower, less

generalized adult model potency, and the 12 year old group by low adult

model potency and generalized high peer model potency. The use of these

three age-grade levels should enable one to test the assumption that there

are differences in model potency between adult and peer models as observer

age increases.

Hypotheses

1. Imitation will occur at all 3 age levels and on all 5 tasks,

though not necessarily at each age level on each task.

2. There will be differences in adult versus peer model potency

among the three age levels on each of the five tasks.

3. The adult model will be more potent than the peer model at the

lowest age level, and the peer rodel will be more potent than

the adult model at the highest age level on tasks 2 to 5.

4. There will be differences in modeling situation potency among

the three modeling situations on each of the five tasks.

5. The highest age level will show less superstitious-irrelevant

behavior on the superstitious-irrelevant task than the lowest

age level.










Method


Subjects

Male subjects were used exclusively. The total populations of male

students from the first, fifth, and seventh grades of the P.K. Yonge

Laboratory School, Gainesville, Florida were used.

The P.K. Yonge Laboratory School is a department in the College of

Education of the University of Florida and has an enrollment of approximately

930 students. Sixty pupils are enrolled in each grade from kindergarten

through the seventh grade, with an equal number of males and females in

each grade. Part of the school's enrollment formula is that 50% of the

pupils in each grade are children from the families of the academic faculty

of the University of Florida. The school devotes much attention to the

individual student and provides pre-internship participation and observation

experiences for undergraduate students in various fields. Practicum ex-

periences for graduate students are also provided. The school serves as a

research center for educational and behavioral science endeavors.

There was a total of 79 subjects used, 24 first graders, 28 fifth

graders, and 27 seventh graders. This represented all the males in each

grade except a few who were absent from school and missed the experimental

sessions. The subjects in each age-grade level were randomly assigned to

the three treatment groups--a control group and two experimental groups--

by using a table of random numbers and the procedure suggested by Lindquist

(1956). The number of subjects in each age and treatment group can be seen

in Table 1.










Table 1

Number of Subjects in Each Grade-Treatment Group


Treatment Group

Grade Level C El E2 Total


1 8 8 8 24

5 9 11 8 28

7 9 10 8 27

Total 26 29 24 79




The mean age of the first graders was 6.7 years with a range of

75-85 months. The mean age of the fifth graders was 10.7 years with a

range of 122-133 months. The mean age of the seventh graders was 12.6

years with a range of 144-158 months.

The three peer models were children of colleagues of the experiment-

er. None of the peer models was from P.K. Yonge Laboratory School. The

ages of the first, fifth, and seventh grade models were 6 years 9 months,

10 years 2 months, and 11 years 9 months, respectively. The adult model

was a 25 year old psychology graduate student.

Tasks and Apparatus

There were five tasks or types of behavior under study. These five

tasks were presented to the subjects by way of video tape. Each group at

each age-grade level was presented with a different video tape via closed

circuit television. The control group video tape consisted of the exper-










imenter presenting the task materials and instructions. The video tape

for the first experimental group consisted of the same presentation of

the task materials and instructions as contained in the control group

tape with the addition of a peer and an adult doing each of the tasks in

contrasting ways. The video tape for the second experimental group was

exactly like the first experimental group tape except that the model

roles were reversed. (See Appendix A.) Consequently, seven video tapes

were made. The same tape was used in all three control groups, but each

of the experimental groups had its own separate tape.

The five tasks were as follows:

1. Superstitious-irrelevant task: First, a finger oscillation de-
vice was presented. This device consisted of two 5-digit
counters, mounted on an 11 x 6 piece of wood, which automatic-
ally recorded the number of taps. The experimenter stated
that some people think tapping brings good luck and helps them
perform better on the tasks. He also stated that one could
tap as much as one wanted to, immediately, and at any time while
doing the tasks. One model said, "I think I'll tap." He then
tapped 25 times, initially, and 25 times between each task for
a total of 100 taps. The other model said, "I think I won't
tap." He did not tap at all, initially, nor at any other time
during the tasks.

2. Guessing task: Second, a glass jar containing 500 dried beans
was presented. The experimenter posed the question of how many
beans there were in the jar. One model guessed 300 beans, and
the other model guessed 700 beans.

3. Risk-taking task: Third, a dart board composed of 5 concentric
circles was presented. The experimenter explained that the
closer to the center of the board the darts hit, the higher the
score. The circles scored 10, 25,50, 75, and 100 points. The
experimenter further explained that points could also be scored
depending on how far from the board one stood to throw the darts.
Sixteen marks numbered 0 to 15, each one-half foot apart, were
pointed out on the floor. The closest one could stand was at
line 0, 4 feet from the board, and the farthest away one could
stand was line 15. The number of the line at which one stood
was added to the score of whatever each dart hit on the board.











It was emphasized that the closer one s:ccd to trc orct, t'e
easier it was to hit the hi ,int circ ut the f crt
away one stood, the more points one ot cdlc t ha; t csr
hit on the board. There were five dra s o no. A. n to
be thrown from the same line, whichvcr ie i .s c oscn.
The one model said, "I think .. c re t st
points by throwing from line 15,"and thry. froi ine i5. nc
other model said, "I think you can score the ost points
throwing from line O,"and threw from line 0.

4. "- wztazco,a taking tz I: Fourth, a micro e r.c tape reccrd-
er were presented in order to measure "tone of voice. irsrc-
tions were given to say whatever one wanted to se and s m
or as little as one wanted to say. The one rodl saic ne ;rd,
"hello," and the other model used 75 words, relying on o previous-
ly prepared script.

5. .rcwi-: task: Fifth, paper and 15 different cozor: p:cis
were presented. Instructions were given to draw tw- st cse
one could draw in 5 minutes, using as few or as cay coors as
one wished to use. One model said, "I think i'1 use a 1 5
colors in my drawing," and used all 15 colors. Tae o:her model
said, "I think I'll use just I color in my drawing," and used
just I color.

The role behaviors performed by the adult and peer models in the

two experimental groups are presented in Table 2.


Table 2

Model Role Behaviors in the Two Experimental Groups




Task El E2
Adult Model Peer Model A, cul:'see Peer .Yde1


1. Number of taps 100 0 0 1
2. Number of beans 700 300 303 73-
3. Number of line 15 0 0
4. Number of words 75 1 1 75
5. Number of colors 15 1 1 15










The order of performance for the two models alternated from task to task

in the order stated above in the task descriptions.

Procedure

The experiment took place at P. K. Yonge Laboratory School in

January 1967. The subjects were run in the following grade order,

seventh, first, and fifth. This order was determined by school space

restrictions and commitments. The experiment lasted 6 days, and each

grade was run in 2 days. The three groups per grade were run in the

following order. The C and El groups were run the first day in the

morning and afternoon, respectively. The E2 group was run the morning

of the second day.

The following experimental procedure was used for each group. The

group was called as a group and taken to the experimental room by the

experimenter. At this time no task apparatus was in sight, only the video

tape equipment. The experimenter then introduced himself and the situation,

told the subjects what the procedure was going to be, and gave the instruc-

tions. (See Appendix B.) The situation was presented as an attempt to find

out how well boys of different age and grade levels could do on the tasks.

Following an opportunity to ask questions, the group was shown the appro-

priate video tape and then sent back to their classrooms. The experimenter

then set up the task apparatus, called each of the subjects individually

into the room, had him perform each of the tasks, and sent him back to his

classroom. Each subject was asked the same questions and given the same

instructions during his individual performance. (See Appendix C.)

The length of the control group video tape was 7 minutes. The six










experimental group video tapes were approximately the same length,

ranging from 13 1/2 to 16 minutes. The mean individual subject-running

time was 9.6 minutes and ranged from 8.0 to 11.1 minutes.

Scoring and Analysis

The tasks were scored as follows:

Task Scorin7

1. Superstitious-irrelevant
behavior Number of taps
2. Guessing behavior Number of beans guessed
3. Risk-taking behavior Number of line
4. Spontaneous talking Number of words
5. Drawing behavior Number of colors

The experimenter recorded the subject's estimate on tasks 2 and 3.

The subject's behavior on tasks 1, 4, and 5 was recorded automatically

on the counter, tape, and paper, respectively, and thus required no active

scoring by the experimenter in the presence of the subject.

The scores for each task were analyzed with a 3 x 3 unweighted means

analysis of variance (3 age-grade levels x 3 modeling situations) and New-

man-Keuls' tests on row and column groupings of cell means. The hypotheses

of the investigation are mostly concerned with cell mean differences.

Therefore, row and column cell means were compared even when one of the

two F's was not significant or when both were not significant but the

interaction F was significant (Winer, 1962).

Hypothesis 1, concerning the presence of imitation, was tested by

comparing the three treatment means at each age-grade level. A significant

difference between either of the experimental groups and the control group

was defined as establishing the presence of imitation at that age-grade











level. If such a difference occurred at least once in each of the five

tasks, and if each age-grade level showed a significant difference at

least once, hypothesis 1 would be confirmed.

Hypothesis 2, concerning differences in adult versus peer model

potency at each age-grade level, was tested by the analyses used to test

hypothesis 1. However, for hypothesis 2, attention was focused on signif-

icant differences between the two experimental groups at each age-grade

level. A significant difference between the two experimental groups at

an age-grade level was defined as establishing the presence of a difference

in model potency at that age-grade level. If such a difference occurred

at least once in each of the five tasks, and if each age-grade level showed

a significant difference at least once, hypothesis 2 would be confirmed.

Hypothesis 3, concerning directional differences in model potency

related to observer age, was tested by employing the directional results

of hypothesis 2. A significant difference in the predicted direction at

both the lowest and highest age-grade levels on a task was defined as es-

tablishing the presence of a difference in model potency between the

highest and lowest age-grade levels on that task. If such differences

occurred on tasks 2 through 5, hypothesis 3 would be confirmed.

Hypothesis 4, concerning differences in modeling situation potency

among the 3 age-grade levels, was tested by comparing the 3 age-grade

levels under each of the three modeling situations. A significant differ-

ence between any two of the three age-grade levels under a modeling situa-

tion was defined as establishing the presence of a difference in potency

for that modeling situation. If such a difference occurred at least once










in each of the five tasks, hypothesis 4 would be confirmed.

Hypothesis 5, concerning differences on the superstitious-

irrelevant task related to observer age, was tested by comparing the

main effects for the highest and lowest age-grade levels in the analysis

of variance for task 1. A significantly lower total for the highest age-

grade level than for the lowest age-grade level was defined as establish-

ing the presence of less superstitious-irrelevant behavior in the highest

age-grade level than in the lowest age-grade level. Such a difference

would also confirm hypothesis 5.

For an over-all view, the scores for all five tasks were trans-

formed into standard scores and analyzed in a 3x3x5 analysis of variance

(age x modeling situation x task). Also, a procedural statistical control

in the form of a Kendall coefficient of concordance was run on the five

task scores for each subject in each treatment condition at each age-

grade level to determine if task performance was affected by the amount

of time elapsed between introduction to the tasks and the opportunity to

perform the tasks.

The .05 level of significance was employed in all of the analyses.














RESULTS


Preliminary Findings

A Kendall coefficient of concordance was run on each of the nine

age-treatment group conditions to determine if task performance was re-

lated to the amount of time between introduction to the tasks and the

opportunity to perform. That is, with a mean subject-running time of

approximately 10 minutes, over an hour elapsed between the first and

last subject's chance to perform. The Kendall coefficient of concordance

(W) was significant on only one of the nine groups, the seventh grade

control group. However, even this group did not show a linear increase

or decrease in scores as a function of time. These findings indicate

that when the time period between the modeling stimuli and the opportunity

to perform is short--l to 2 hours--performance is not strongly influenced

by temporal closeness or distance between modeling stimuli and opportunity

to perform.


Main Findings

The main results of the experiment are seen in the six analyses of

variance summaries (Tables 3 to 8) and the four summaries of Newman-Keuls

comparisons of cell means (Tables 9,10,11,14). The cell means for the first

five analyses of variance summaries have been plotted (Figures 1 to 5) to

present a better picture of the location of each group on the various

tasks. The scores for tasks 1, 2, and 4 were transformed to achieve homogen-









eity of variance, following significance at the .05 level on the Cochran

test for homogeneity of variance, by the function: x' = log0 (x + 1)
10
(Winer, 1962).

None of the five hypotheses were confirmed in the form originally

stated. However, some support was found for hypothesis 1, and much

support was found for hypotheses 4 and 5.

Hypothesis 1 predicted imitation, defined as a significant differ-

ence between El and/or E2 and C, would occur at all three age levels and

on all five tasks, though not necessarily at each age level on each task.

The above stated differences were found to be significant at only one age

level, first graders, and on only one task, task 2. (See Tables 9 and 10.)

Here both El and E2 differed significantly from C. However, during the

course of the experiment a behavior was noted on task 1 which obviously

differentiated the experimental groups from the control groups. This

behavior was the number of times the finger oscillation device was used,

as opposed to the number of taps which was scored on task 1. That is, the

experimental video tapes showed the models either using the device multiple

times or not at all. The control tape showed the experimenter explaining

the device and using it one time for demonstration purposes. (See Appen-

dix A.) These differences can be seen in Table 12 and Figure 6. The

differences indicate the presence of imitation on task 1 across the three

age-grade levels. In addition, when imitation in terms of responses ident-

ical to model responses (e.g., 100 or 0 responses on task 1, a guess of

700 or 300 on task 2, etc.) is considered across age and task, one finds

differences between control and experimental groups. (See Table 13 and











Figure 7). This analysis included as a task the behavior discussed im-

mediately above. Consequently, when viewed in terms of number of responses

identical to responses of models and when viewed across age and task in-

stead of separately by age and task, one can see that in an over-all manner

some imitation did occur. Also, imitation occurred more strongly in E2

than in El.

Hypothesis 2 predicted differences in adult versus peer model poten-

cy, defined as significant differences between El and E2, among the three

age levels on each of the five tasks. From Table 11 it can be seen that

such a difference was found at only one age level, first graders, and on

only one task, task 2.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that the adult model would be more potent

than the peer model at the lowest age level and vice versa for the highest

age level. Potency was defined in terms of the direction of the E1-E2

difference. If the E1-E2 difference was positive, this indicated adult

model potency because the adult model displayed high task behaviors in the

El situation and low task behaviors in the E2 situation, while the peer

model displayed low task behaviors in the El situation and high task be-

haviors in the E2 situation. Conversely, a negative E1-E2 difference

indicated peer model potency. Again from Table 11 it can be seen that,

as noted under hypothesis 2, there was only one significant difference in

model potency. This significant difference, however, was in the direction

opposite that predicted in hypothesis 3. At the first grade level the

direction of the difference in model potency was in the predicted direction

on three of the five tasks but not significant. At the seventh grade level










the difference in model potency was in the predicted direction on only one

of the five tasks. It was only on task 4 that both the first and seventh

age-grade levels had differences in model potency in the predicted direct-

ions.

Hypotheses 4 and 5 were not confirmed. However, the data presented

below strongly indicate that these two hypotheses deserve more study.

Hypothesis 4 predicted differences in modeling situation potency on

each of the five tasks. This was defined as differences on a task in the

three age-grade levels among the three treatment groups. Significant

differences were found on four of the five tasks, tasks 2,3,4, and 5, as

can be seen in the three treatment groups under each task in Table 14.

Differences also occurred on task 1, but were significant only at the .10

level. In terms of scoring highest, lowest, and in between the highest

and lowest, Table 15 summarizes the score-ranks of Table 14 for each level

according to treatment group. The summation across treatment groups re-

flects the score placements in the control group. The seventh graders

scored highest most often, the first graders scored lowest most often, and

the fifth graders scored in between most often.

Hypothesis 5 predicted that the highest age-grade level would show

less superstitious-irrelevant behavior than the lowest age-grade level.

This was indeed the case as can be seen from Table 3 and Figure 1. The

seventh graders scored lower in all three treatment groups on task 1 than

did the first graders. However, the seventh and first grade row means in

the task 1 analysis of variance differed less strongly than predicted.

The difference was significant at the .10 level but not at the .05 level.










Finally, from an over-all standpoint, Table 8 represents the

results when the scores for all five tasks were transformed into stand-

ard scores and analyzed in a 3 x 3 x 5 analysis of variance (age x model-

ing situation x task). No significant main effects of age, modeling

situations, or task were found. However, the significant age x task and

age x modeling situation x task interactions indicate that the main effects

were masked. That is, task behavior was dependent on the combination of

age and task as well as the combination of age, modeling situation, and

task presented to the subject, not just on one of the three factors. The

highly significant age x task interaction also emphasizes the importance

of the task in determining the nature of the results at the different age

levels.

Consequently, in terms of differences significant at or beyond the

.05 level, the results of this experiment provide evidence that imitation

occurs across the three age-grade levels considered but in a less power-

ful and less age-related manner than hypothesized. The results also in-

dicate that there is practically no significant differential imitation of

adult and peer models as a function of observer age or type of task. Most

of the differences in task behavior found when the tasks were considered

individually were a function of main effects, primarily age, instead of

the predicted age-treatment group interactions. However, the score-ranks

in Tables 14 and 15 indicate that these age differences were task-related

and affected by treatment group. These interactions are demonstrated in

Table 8 where age, modeling situation, and all five tasks were analyzed in

a 3 x 3 x 5 analysis of variance. The high age-task interaction emphasizes




30





the importance of the task used to study modeling and the need to employ

more than one task in such studies.- This finding confirms the criticism

made earlier concerning the tendency in previous research to use one task

and the lack of valid generalization that results.










Table 3

Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 1: Superstitious-
irrelevant Behav'ora



Source SS ds MS


A (age) 2.67 2 1.34 2.53b

B (models) 2.58 2 1.29 2.43b

AB 4.81 4 1.20 2.26b

Within cell 37.37 70 .53



a Scores transformed by the function: x' = 1og x + 1)
b
p .10






Table 4
a
Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 2: Guessing Behavior


Source SS df MS F


A (age) .27 2 .14 NS

B (models) 1.34 2 .67 6.70**

AB .18 4 .04 NS

Within cell 7.41 70 .10


a Scores transformed
; p < .01


by the function: x' x log10(x + 1)










Table 5

Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 3: Risk-taking
Behavior


Source SS df MS F



A (age) 423.85 2 211.92 10.38**'

B (models) 47.04 2 23.52 NS

AB 73.24 4 18.31 NS

Within cells 1428.87 70 20.41




p < .001







Table 6

Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 4: Spontaneous
Talking Behaviora



Source SS df MS F



A (age) 4.90 2 2.45 12.25

B (models) .18 2 .09 NS

AB .89 4 .22 NS

Within cells 13.90 70 .20


a Scores transformed
*** p < .001


by the function: x' = log (x + 1)









Table 7

Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 5: Drawing Behavior


Source SS df MS F


A (age) 51.41 2 25.70 2.41
B (models) 4.54 2 2.27 NS
AB 113.96 4 28.49 2.67'
Within cells 746.25 70 10.66


b
p < .10

p < .05



Table 8

Summary of Analysis of Variance of Task Behavior as a Function
of Age, Modeling Situation, and Taska


Source SS df MS F


Between subjects
A (age) 348.92 2 174.46
B (modeling
situation) 225.16 2 112.58
AB 1737.81 4 434.45 1.48 NS
Subjects within
groups 20535.14 70 293.36
Within subjects

C (task) 51.41 4 12.85 -
AC 5130.38 8 641.30 9.32""
BC 1043.63 8 130.45 l.D IS
A[0 2751.85 16 171.f" 2.

groups 19259.24 280 68.78


Scores transfo-red into standard scores:


SD = t


p < .01












Table 9

Summary of Newman-Keuls' Tests on C Minus El Differences
for Tasks 1 Through 5


Grade Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5





5 + +

7 + -




p < .05



Table 10

Summary of Newman-Keuls' Tests on C Minus E2 Differences
for Tasks 1 Through 5


Grade Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5



1 + +

5 + + -

7 + + +


p < .01











Table 11

Summary of Newman-Keuls' Tests on El Minus E2 M'odel
Differences for Tasks 1 Thr.ouTh 5


Potency


Grade Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5





5 + -

7 0 + +




p < .01




Table 12

Usage Across Age of the Finger Oscillation Device


Times Used C El X2 E2 X2



1 24 14 ,, 10
10.47 12.47
+1 2 15 14


p < .01

p < .001










Table 13


Number of


Responses Identical to Responses of
Models Across Six Tasks


Responses C El X2 E2 X2


Identical 24 41 40

3.0b 6.1

Dissimilar 132 133 104

Total Responses 156 174 144



b
Sp < .10

p < .02


Table 14

Differences in Modeling Situation Potency


Score-rank of
Anova cell mean Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5

C
-^J-
Highest 5 l7: |7 7 7
Middle 1 55 5** 5
Lowest 7 1 1

El
Highest 1 5 17* 7 1""
Middle 7 7 5 5
Lowest 5 1 1 5

E2
Highest 15 1 5 7 1
Middle 1 5 7 15 5
Lowest 7 7 1 1 7


p < .05
*"P< .01
Scores joined by a common line do not dif
and vice versa.
Differences tested by Newman-Keuls' test.


'fer significantly from each other












Table 15

Summary of Score-ranks in Treatment Groups Across the
Five Tasks


Score-rank of C El E2 Total
Anova Cell mean 1 5 7 1 5 7 1 5 7 1 5 7


Highest 0 1 4 2 1 2 2 2 1 4 4 7

Middle 1 4 0 0 2 3 1 3 1 2 9 4

Lowest 4 0 1 3 2 0 2 0 3 9 2 4







2.70
2.50
2.30
2.10
1.90
1.70
1 .50
1 .30
1.10
.90
.70
.50


C





Li


H'


El
Modeling Group


Grade 1

Grade 5

Grade 7


Figure 1. Scores on Task 1 According to Age and Modeling Group.


p I


I


r m


I
7,7.










































C El E2
Modeling Group


II



D


Grade 1


Grade 5


Grade 7


Figure 2. Scores on Task 2 According to Age and Modeling Group.


4-





l'-
o
E
zE
un
E LU


rL
0
IL



0
-(

s:


2.80

2.70

2.60

2.50

2.40

2.30

2.20

2.10

2.00

1.90

1.80












14.00

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00


El E2
Modeling Group


D

rn


Grade 1


Grade 5


Grade 7


Figure 3. Scores on Task 3 According to Age and Modeling Group.





41






1.70

1.60

1.5o0 -

1.40
O

-. 1 .30
E
z 1.20 -

S 1 .10 -

0 1 .00
0 IO
S .90 1i
P-
o .,,
.80 ,

S .70 -


C El E2
Modeling Group



S Grade 1


D Grade 5

SGrade 7


Figure 4. Scores on Task 4 According to Age and Modeling Group.











7.00
6.50
6.00

5.50
5.00


4.00

3.50

3.00


2.50

2.00


~im

'L i."

-


Modeling Group


[ Grade 1


D] Grade 5

E Grade 7


Figure 5. Scores on Task 5 According to Age and Modeling Group.



























C El E2
Times Used: 1 +1


D'

S+1


Figure 6. Usage Across Age of the Finger Oscillation Device.



































C El


Type of Response:


Identical


E2
Dissimilar


Identical


D Dissimilar







Figure Responses Identical to Responses of Models Across Six Tasks.'













DISCUSSION


Given the indications of imitation when age levels are combined,

the main question arising from these results is why there is a lack of

imitation per se according to age level and of differential adult and

peer imitation according to age level. The following considerations seem

to contain the most relevant issues.

The MuZti-model Choice Situation

A two-model peer-adult situation of the type employed in this study

is unique in the modeling literature, to the knowledge of the experimenter.

Such a situation presents a more complex stimulus and choice situation to

the subject than the one model situation. As Bandura (1965a) points out,

children observing multiple adult models will not necessarily perform as

smaller replicas of a model but may combine components of both models'

performances in their response to produce a "new" response. In other

words, imitation can occur without a subject's response being just like

the response of one of the models. Therefore, the "new" response given

by the subject in this experiment (a response between the response of the

two models) may have represented a constructive attempt to incorporate

aspects of both models' performances and have been truely imitative, but

not of one model only. The assessment of this is discussed later in rela-

tion to dependent variable measures. The concern of this experiment with

the effects of multiple peer-adult models reflects Bandura's statement

(1965a, p. 338): "...learning principles based on a two-person model











[one model, one subject] may be subject to strict limitations, since the

introduction of additional social variables can produce significant changes

in the functional relationships between relevant variables." The lack of

strong imitation and differential imitation according to age (imitation

of one model exclusively) may be one of the effects of observing two models

of different ages perform in contrasting ways.

Effects Related to Reinforcement.

On the other hand, most of the previous experiments have been con-

cerned with the effects on imitation of variables other than age of model.

alone--reinforcing consequences to the model (Bandura, Ross, and Ross,

1963c), response consequences to the model (Bandura, 1965b), model's eval-

uation of responses or standard setting (Bandura and Kupers, 1964; Mischel

and Liebert, 1966; Bee and Colle, 1967), and model's rewarding power and

control of future resources (Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1963z; Mischel and

Grusec, 1966). In the present experiment there were no model response

evaluations, consequences, rewarding powers, controls of future resources,

or reinforcements either by the models themselves or by anyone else. With

no reinforcements, evaluations, etc.,of either model presented to the

subject, model age would seem to be the most outstanding difference between

the two models in the present study. The results indicate that the age

of the model may not be a very potent factor apart from reinforcement.

Effects of Perceived Similarity

However, an alternative answer to the influence of reinforcement

was suggested in a recent study by Rosekrans (1967) on a group of 11 to

14 year old boys. She found evidence that perceived similarity of the










subject to the model (in terms of interests, skills, background, and group

membership) was a factor affecting both frequency of imitation and size of

imitative behavior repertoire. Both the frequency of imitation and the

size of the imitative behavior repertoire were greater when the observer

perceived himself as similar to the model than when the observer perceived

himself as dissimilar. Positive and negative response consequences to the

model had only minimal differential effects on imitation. Evidence was

also found which indicated that the learning as well as the performance of

imitative responses was increased by high perceived similarity. The results

of Rosekrans' study indicate that perceived positive similarity may be a

more influential variable than response consequences in producing imitation.

Special Characteristics of Subject Population

In terms of methodological considerations, it would be important to

replicate this study on another population of first, fifth, and seventh

graders and compare the results with the present findings on the P.K. Yonge

Laboratory School population. This is important because the P. K. Yonge

Laboratory School population is a somewhat atypical student population.

As mentioned previously in the description of the school, one-half of the

students are from families of academic faculty at the University of Florida.

The student population could be described over-all as relatively high in

intelligence and socio-economic status. The students are given individual

attention and encouraged in individual pursuits. Also, the students are

continually participating in experiments and are sophisticated concerning

experimental procedures. In other words, the P.K. Yonge Laboratory School

population could be described as having a nonimitative bias. However, the










fact that even on such a population imitation was found, albeit not as

powerfully as predicted, suggests both that imitation is a factor involved

in determining what behavior a child displays, and that much stronger

imitation might occur in children without the special characteristics of

the children in this population. The effects of intellectual level and

socio-economic status are still to be determined. A study now in progress

(O'Connor, 1967), investigating the relationships of imitation to intel-

lectual level, socio-economic status, and achievement in white and Negro

first grade children, should make the importance of thesevariables clearer.


The Task in Imitation Research

In terms of dependent variables, this experiment shows that the kind

of task one uses has an influence on the results one finds. The difference

between the oldest and youngest subjects on the superstitious-irrelevant

task offers evidence that imitation becomes less obvious as age increases

as a function of increasing ability to discriminate between behaviors rel-

evant and irrelevant to the situation or task. That is, imitation becomes

more focused and "reasoned." This in turn leads to a decreasing need to

respond in exactly the same manner as the model. It follows, therefore,

that the more unfamiliar the task,the more difficult it is to make the

discrimination between the relevant and irrelevant dimensions. Consequently,

it is more necessary to employ such unfamiliar tasks as age increases in

order to reveal the imitation that may be occurring. The tasks employed

in this experiment probably erred on the side of being too familiar and/or

unstimulating--i.e., subjects had previously established response tenden-

cies on the tasks. It could be said that the primary imitation data in the










experiment were found on the task which, in the opinion of the experimenter,

was the most novel and stimulating. This was task 1, the superstitious-

irrelevant task. From the observations of subject behavior, this opinion

seemed to be confirmed. As mentioned above, it is hypothesized that the

more familiar the task the more likely one is to know the relevant and

irrelevant dimensions and feel comfortable in relying only on oneself in

handling the task. This is the case because of having had past experience

with the task and having the consequent response tendencies or repertoire

associated with the task. If this is indeed true, task novelty is a

critical variable in eliciting imitative behavior and assuming, as Bandura

(1965a) points out when speaking of response facilitation effect, that the

behavior in question is not likely to have been previously punished or to

possess some kind of reinforcement history.

Measurement and the Dependent Variables

Concerning the measurement of the dependent variables, it appears

that a reduction in the possible ways of responding on a task would result

in a more precise measure of imitation. In the present study an attempt

was made to provide many alternative responses to a task and to allow imita-

tion to vary in intensity. As a consequence, response continue were provided

for each task with the models' responses representing both ends of the con-

tinuum. This procedure, while seeming to provide a task situation more

comparable with daily encountered task situations, made it more difficult

to know whether or not an individual response was imitative. By employing

task situations with more discrete but previously shown equally attractive

response alternatives, one could achieve a clearer response classification.










For example, one could allow only four discrete responses to a task--

the adult model response, the peer model response, a response incorporating

some aspects of both the adult and peer models' responses, and a response

displaying none of the aspects of the above three responses. This situation

would make a non-imitative attempt by the subject clearer. This situation

would also prevent extremely deviant scores, which were possible and found

on the open ended tasks, tasks 1,2, and 4, where it was possible to respond

higher than the model displaying the high task behavior. The resulting

deviant scores on these tasks necessitated the score transformations as

previously indicated on tasks 1,2, and 4.

Foci for Future Research

It would be important to know whether the finding that filmed models

can be as effective as live models, established with nursery school child-

ren (Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1963b), holds across age. This could be

determined by using live and video-tape models at several age levels. The

characteristics of the observation and performance situations should also

be investigated. In the present study the subject observed the modeling

stimuli in a group of peers. This could be compared with situations in

which the subject observes the modeling stimuli alone or with adults. In

the present study the subject performed in the presence of an adult, the

experimenter. This situation could be compared with one in which the sub-

ject performed alone, in the presence of a peer, or in the presence of a

group.

qutin of se differences which was not addressed in th-is i research, a

question of sex differences which was not addressed in this research, and











the effects resulting from the various combinations of this variable

with the variables previously discussed.

From the modeling literature and the present study, the following

factors and directions seem to be the most salient for future research in

this area:

1. Comparison of multiple versus single model situations;

2. Discrete response categories on tasks in multiple model
situations;

3. Response consequences versus no response consequences to models
in multiple model situations;

4. Task novelty;

5. Effects of perceived similarity in multiple model situations;

6. Filmed versus live models on older children;

7. Manipulations of the performance situation such as individual
versus group observation of stimuli, observation group
composition;

8. Manipulations of sex differences in models and observers.













SUMMARY


This investigation attempted to assess the effects of multiple

observer ages and types of tasks on the imitation of adult and peer

models when both adult and peer models are observed by the subject.

First, fifth, and seventh grade males were randomly divided in each

grade into two experimental groups and one control group. Seventy-nine

subjects were used. The three groups received different modeling

stimuli as a group via video-tape. The control group video-tape con-

sisted of the experimenter presenting the materials and instructions for

the five tasks. The video-tape for the first experimental group consisted

of the same presentation of the task materials and instructions as con-

tained in the control group tape with the addition of a peer and an adult

doing each of the tasks in contrasting ways. The video-tape for the

second experimental group was exactly like the first experimental group

tape, except that the model roles were reversed. The five tasks involved

the following behaviors: tapping a finger oscillation device, guessing

the number of beans in a jar, throwing darts, talking spontaneously, and

drawing. Following the observation of the tape, the subjects were indi-

vidually given the opportunity to perform each of the tasks to see if

imitation per se occurred and whether the peer or adult was imitated.

It was found that with a time period of one to two hours between

the modeling stimuli and the opportunity to perform, performance was not











substantially influenced by temporal closeness or distance from the obser-

vation of the modeling stimuli. Imitation was found to occur across the

three age-grade levels considered but in a less powerful and less age-

related manner than hypothesized. The results also indicated that there

was practically no significant differential imitation of adult and peer

models as a function of observer age or type of task. Most of the differ-

ences in task behavior found when the tasks were considered individually

were a function of main effects, primarily age, instead of the predicted

age-treatment group interactions. When all five tasks were considered

together, significant interactions between age and task and among age,

modeling situation, and task were found. Thus, task behavior was de-

pendent on the combination of age and task as well as on the combination

of age, modeling situation, and task presented to the subject, not just

on one of the three factors. The high age-task interaction emphasized the

importance of the task used in modeling research and the need to employ

more than one task to get a good view of the nature of modeling at various

ages.

The results were discussed in terms of the uniqueness of the two-

model peer-adult situation in this study, the assessment of imitation in

a two-versus a one-model situation, lack of response consequences to the

models, the importance of subject variables, importance of task character-

istics, and discreteness of response. Various experimental manipulations

remaining to be studied were noted as well as factors and directions salient

for future research.























APPENDICES














Appendix A

Approximate Transcript of Experimental
Video Tape'*



(Camera opens on experimenter, adult model, and peer model)


Experimenter:

Peer Model:

Experimenter:

Peer Model:

Experimenter:

Peer Model:

Experimenter:

Adult Model:

Experimenter:

Adult Model:

Experimenter:


"Hello. What is your name?"

"My name is John Clemens." (Name assigned to all peer models.)

"How old are you, John?'

"I'm (appropriate number) years old."

"What grade are you in?"

"I'm in (appropriate)grade."

"And what is your name?"

"My name is Mr. Costanzo."

"How old are you, Mr. Costanzo?"

"I'm 25 years old."

"All right. Let's begin." (Camera on experimenter only.)

First of all, I want to show you this finger oscillation

device. All it is, is this little lever which you can push

and a counter that counts the number of times you tap the

lever. Like this. (Experimenter taps 5 times and lays

the device down.) Some people think tapping brings good


* The control group tape is the experimental tape with all model-porticns
deleted. In the El situation Model 1 represents the adult model, and
Model 2 represents the peer model. In the E2 situation Model 1 represents
the peer model, and Model 2 represents the adult model.






















Model 1:





Model 2:

Experimenter:












Model 2:

Model 1:





Experimenter


luck and helps them perform better on the tasks; so I'm

going to give you the chance to tap now, if you want to,

as many times as you want to. Also, you tap at any

time while you are doing the other tasks. Do you w.ant

to tap?"

(Camera on Model 1.) "I think I'll tap. (Taps 25 tires

immediately and 25 times between each task for a total

of 100 taps.)

(Camera on Model 2.) "I think I won't tap." ("ver t .)

(Camera on experimenter and container only.) '"kay. 'ext

I have this jar filled with beans. I know the exact

number of beans in the jar, but you do not. So I want

you to try to guess the best that you can how many beans

there are in the jar. How many beans do -~ think are in

the jar?"

(Camera on Model 2 and jar.) "I'11 guess 300 beans."

(Camera on Model 1 and the jar.) "I'll guess 700 beans."

(Camera on Model 1 as he goes to tp-ing device and t

25 times.)

(Camera on experimenter and dartboard.) '~"Oy. o here

you see a dartboard and darts. You will notice ha he

closer to the center of the board your darts hit,te hi '.r

your score is. The rings score, going from the outside to

the center of the board, 10, 25,50,75, and 100 points.

However, you can also score points according to how far











away from the board you stand. On the floor (Camera

switches to marks on floor) there are 16 marks numbered

zero to 15, each one-half foot apart. (Camera on exper-

imenter and marks.) The closest to the board you may

stand is here at the first mark, and the farthest away

you may stand is here at number 15. You get added to

the score of whatever your dart hits on the board, the

number of the line you stand at to throw. For example,

if you stand at the first line, line 0, and throw a dart

that hits the 25 point circle, you get 25 points. If

you stand at line 15 and throw a dart that hits the 25

point circle, you get 40 points--25 for hitting the 25

point circle plus 15 points for standing at line 15. You

should remember, however, that the closer to the board

you stand the easier it is to hit the high point circles,

but the farther away you stand the more points you get

added to the score of what your dart hits on the board.

You get 5 darts to throw. You must throw all 5 darts

from the same line, whichever line you choose. It is up

to you to choose the spot that you think you can score

the most points from. Where do you want to throw from?"

Model 1: (Camera on Model 1 showing what line he is standing at

and stays on him while he throws. The dartboard and

where his darts hit are not shown.)

"I think you can score the most points by throwing from














Model 2:










Model 1 :



Experimenter:










Model 2:

Model 1:


















Experimenter:


line 15." (Throws from line 15.)

(Camera on Model 2 shower what line he is standing on

and stays on him while he throws. The dartboard and

where his darts hit are not shown.)

"I think you can score the most points by throwing from

line 0." (Throws from line 0.)

(Camera switches to Model 1 and tapping device where Model 1

taps 25 times.)

(Camera on experimenter and tape recorder.) .. t I ant

to get a measure of the tone of your voice by having you

talk into the microphone of this tape recorder. I want

you to say as much or as little as you want to say. What

do you want to say?"

(Camera on Model 2.) "Hello."

(Camera on Model 1.) "Mly name is (appropria t) and I live

here in Gainesville, Floriua. I had a nice Christmas and

New Year vacation. I watched football on TV and

went to visit some of relatives. I have hobbies, like

to go fishing, read, p hbal i to the beach, swim, and

I collect different things and 1ie to go places. i ,;sh

I had more time to do som of t things I like to do."

(Carera on Mode as he goes to apping device and t is

25 times.) I 've t, ed 1- ti s in all !"

(Camera on experimenter and table on which is paper and

two sets of 15 different colored pencils.) 'All right.

























Model 1:

Model 2:









Experimenter:


Here is some paper and 15 different colored pencils.

I want you to draw the best house that you can draw.

You may use as many or as few of the colors as you wish.

You have 5 minutes to work on your drawing. You may go

ahead now and begin to draw.

(Camera on Model I and Model 2 sitting side by side at

the table.)

"I think I'll use all 15 colors in my drawing."

"I think I'll use just I color in my drawing."

(Camera stays on both models for 2 minutes during which

Model 1 changes colors frequently and Model 2 continues

with the same color. At no time are either the drawings

or the kinds of colors visible.)

(Experimenter walks into picture behind the models after

2 minutes, following a brief fade-out and fade-in.) "Five

minutes is up. Stop drawing. That's all the tasks there

are. Thank you very much."

(End of tape.)














Appendix B

Group Instructions


Hello. I'm Mr. Musselman from the University of Florida. I have

asked you to be here today to help me find the answer to the question I

am studying. How well can boys and men of different ages do on the tasks

I am going to show you? I have been giving these tasks to a few boys

from other schools and to a few men, but I want to give them to many boys

of the same age so I can tell how well boys of a certain age and grade

can do on them. Because all of the boys in your grade will do the tasks,

please do not tell them anything about the tasks or instructions so that

the difficulty of the tasks is the same for them as it is for you.

Watch and listen to the instructions of how to do the tasks. I

want you to do the best job you can possibly do on the tasks. Do each

task in the way you think is the best possible way to do it.

This is what you are going to do. I will give you the instructions

for the tasks and show you what the tasks are. Then you will go back to

your classroom. You will be called one at a time to come and do the tasks.

When you finish you will go back to your classroom and another one of you

will come in and do the tasks. Let me again emphasize that you not talk

about the tasks with each other or anyone else. I want you to do the tasks

the way you think you can do them the best.

Okay. Now I want to show you what the tasks are and give you the

instructions. Before we begin do you have any questions?











Control Group: I made a film of the instructions and tasks which I will

show to you now.


Experimental Groups: I thought it would be a good idea to show you some

people doing the tasks in addition to giving the instructions and showing

you the equipment so that everyone would know how to do the tasks. So a

few days ago while I was giving the tasks to some people,! asked if I could

film two of them doing the tasks. They agreed and I filmed them. I will

introduce them to you and then begin.















Appendix C


Individual Performance Procedure for Each
Subject


Experimenter:


Task

Task

Task

Task

Task


(Subject enters room.) "If you have any questions now or

anytime, please ask them."

"Do you want to tap?"

"How many beans do you think are in the jar?"

"Where do you want to throw from?"

"What do you want to say?"

"I want you to draw the best house that you can draw. You

have 5 minutes to work on your drawing. You may go ahead

now and begin to draw."

(After five minutes.) "Five minutes is up. That's all.

Thank you very much."













Appendix D


Summary of Row Scores


Task 1

Modeling Situation


Grade Subject


C

2
147
52
26
18
5
65
11



18
414
650
55
22
18
20
19
51



0
96
31
10
295
33
1
0
259


E
44
208
363
104
0
167
12
48


E
2
0
31
12
15
11
221
13
0


100
50
26
29
20
0
33
39










Task 2


Grade


Subject


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10


100
700
100
300
700
20
400
200


104
4000
300
700
1000
300
1000
500


50
100
100
100
113
20
500
100




400
424
1000
250
105
200
150
150
120




300
150
357
300
275
150
150
175
1400


500
600
400
150
450
270
525
250
250
350
400


350
200
400
300
300
260
250
600
200
300


200
250
500
500
350
150
500
200


400
250
500
150
300
200
500
500










Task 3


Grade


Subject


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11


2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10





66




Task 4


Subject


Grade





67





Task 5


Subject


Grade













REFERENCES


Aronfreed, J. The origin of self-criticism. Psychological Review, 1964,
71, 193-218.

Baer, D., and Sherman, J. Reinforcement control of generalized imitation
in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
1964, 1, 37-49.

Bandura, A. Behavioral modification through modeling procedures. In L.
Krasner and L. Ullmann (Eds.), Research in behavior modification.
New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1965a.

Bandura, A. Influence of model's reinforcement contingencies of the
acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1965b, 1, 589-595.

Bandura, A. Social learning through imitation. In M. Jones (Ed.),
Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: University
of Nebraska Press, 1962.

Bandura, A. Vicarious processes: A case of no-trial learning. In L.
Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology.
Vol. II. New York: Academic Press, 1965c.

Bandura, A. and Huston, Aletha. Identification as a process of incidental
learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63,
311-318.

Bandura, A., and Kupers, Carol. Transmission of patterns of self-
reinforcement through modeling. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1964, 69, 1-9.

Bandura, A., and McDonald, F. Influence of social reinforcement and the
behavior of models in shaping children's moral judgement. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67, 274-281.

Bandura, A., Ross, Dorothea, and Ross, Sheila. A comparative test of the
status envy, social power, and secondary reinforcement theories of
identificatory learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1963a, 67, 527-534.

Bandura, A., Ross, Dorothea, and Ross Sheila. Imitation of film-mediated
aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1963b, 66, 3-11.











Bandura, A., Ross, Dorothea, and Ross, Sheila. Transmission of aggression
through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 575-582.

Bandura, A., Ross, Dorothea, and Ross, Sheila. Vicarious reinforcement
and imitative learning.' Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1963c, 67, 601-607.

Bandura, A., and Walters, R. Social learning and personality development.
New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1963.

Bee, Helen, and Colle, H. The origins of standards of excellence:
Modeling vs. direct reinforcement. Paper presented at the Society
for Research in Child Development meeting, New York, 1967.

Bijou, S., and Baer, D. Child Development. Vol. II. Universal stage of
Infancy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965.

Bronfenbrenner, U. Freudian theories of identification and their
derivatives. Child Development, 1960, 31, 15-40.

Brown, D. Sex-role preferences in young children. Psychological Mono-
graphs, 1956, 70, No. 14 (Whole No. 421).

DeRath, G. The effects of verbal instructions on imitative aggression.
Michigan State University, 1963, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.

Epstein, S. Comments on Dr. Bandura's paper. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska
Press, 1962.

Gelfand, Donna. The influence of self-esteem on rate of verbal conditioning
and social matching behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, 1962, 65, 259-265.

Hartup, W. Patterns of imitative behavior in young children. Child De-
velopment, 1964, 35, 183-191.

Hartup, W., and Zook, E. Sex-role preferences in three and four year old
children. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 420-426.

Henker, Barbara Anne. The effect of adult model relationships on children's
play and task imitation. Ohio State University, 1963, Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation.

Hicks, D. Imitation and retention of film-mediated aggressive peer and
adult models. Journals of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965,
2, 97-100.

Kagan, J. The concept of identification. Psychological Review, 1958, 65,
296-305.










Lindquist, E. Design and anaTc'is of experimr-nts in pal .7' and
education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1953.

Lynn, D. A note on sex differences in the development of masculine and
feminine identification. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 126-135.

Maier, H. Three theories of child development. New York: Harper and
Row, 1965.

Martin, W. Learning theory and identification: IlI. The development of
values in children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1954, 84,
211-217.

McDavid, J. Imitative behavior in preschool children. Psychological
Monographs, 1959, 73, No. 16 (Whole No. 486).

Metz, J. Conditioning generalized imitative in autistic children. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychol7..:- 1965, 2, 389-399.

Miller, N., and Dollard, J. Social learning and imitation. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1941.

Mischel, W., and Grusec, Joan. Determinants of the rehearsal and trans-
mission of neutral and aversive behaviors. Journal of P rsonalit,
and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 197-205.

Mischel, W., and Liebert, R. Effects of discrepancies between observed and
imposed reward criteria on their acquisition and transmission.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 45-53.

Mussen, P., and Parker, Ann. Mother nurturance and girls' incidental
imitative learning. Journal of Personality and Social Ps;c'o. ',
1965, 2, 94-97.

O'Connor, A. h." relationship of vicarious lear arr intiZncc
academic achievement among ,ro and white fi*r p.'ps in
integrated classes. In process, University of Florida, 1967.

Risley, T. The establishment of verbal behavior in deviant children.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1966.

Rosekrans, Mary. Imitation in children as a function of perceived similar-
ity to a social model and vicarious reinforcement. Paper presented
at the Society for Research in Child Development meeting, New York,
1967.

Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1956.






71



Skinner, B. Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1953.

Skinner, B. Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.

Winer, B. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York:
McGraw Hill, 1962.














BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Gerald Clemmer Musselman was born July 15, 1940, in Souderton,

Pennsylvania. In June, 1958, he was graduated from Christopher Dock

High School, Lansdale, Pennsylvania. In June, 1963, he received the

degree of Bachelor of Science from Ursinus College, Collegeville, Penn-

sylvania. In 1963, he enrolled in the Graduate School of the University

of Florida. He worked as a graduate assistant for the Departments of

Psychology and Psychiatry. In August, 1965, he received the degree of

Master of Arts. From September, 1965, to the present he has been pur-

suing work toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. In 1964 he was

awarded a United States Public Health Service Fellowship which he held

for two years. In 1966 he was awarded a Vocational Rehabilitation Ad-

ministration Traineeship, which he still holds. At the present time he

is completing his year of clinical internship at the J. Hillis Miller

Health Center, University of Florida.

Gerald Clemmer Musselman is married to the former Julie Groff

Landis. He is a member of Pi Gamma Mu and Psi Chi.















This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the

chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been

approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the

Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council,

and was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

August, 1967








Dean, College of Arts and Sciences





Dean, Graduate School


Supervisory Committee:



Chairman









,.__J

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EQZRTDDG8_F7MFPL INGEST_TIME 2011-07-15T22:26:27Z PACKAGE UF00097833_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

THE EFFECTS OF OBSERVER AGE AND TYPE OF TASK ON THE IMITATION OF ADULT AND PEER MODELS By GERALD CLEMMER MUSSELMAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PABTIAL FULFILLMEnsT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA August, 1967

PAGE 2

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08552 2315

PAGE 3

Copyright by Gerald Clemmer Musselman 1967

PAGE 4

To the primary sources of this work--my wife, Julie, and my nephew, Kendall

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The fact that this investigation deals with models provides the author with the pleasant opportunity to thank four of his own who compose his doctoral commi ttee--Dr . William D. Wolking, chairman, Dr. Ben Barger, Dr. Richard J. Anderson, and Dr. Audrey S. Schumacher. The author would like to first of all express his appreciation for each of them as persons and for the warm associations experienced with them. Secondly, he would like to acknowledge his substantial debt to each for the various kinds of guidance-knowledge-encouragement which made his professional training as well as this research endeavor an enriching experience. Special appreciation is offered to Dr. Wolking for his personal interest in the author and his willingness to endure the author's impatience to assure a better product. This writer is also very grateful to his friend and colleague. Dr. Philip Costanzo, for serving as the adult model in the experiment and to Timothy Savoy, Jeffrey Grater, and Hugh Davis, Jr., for serving as the first, fifth, and seventh grade models, respectively. IV

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES vi i INTRODUCTION 1 RESULTS 25 DISCUSSION 45 SUMMARY 52 APPENDICES 5h Appendix A 55 Appendix B 60 Appendix C 62 Appendix D 63 REFERENCES 68 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 72

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Number of Subjects in Each Grade-Treatment Group 18 2. Model Role Behaviors in the Two Experimental Groups .... 20 3. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 1: Superstitiousirrelevant Behavior 31 4. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 2: Guessing Behavior 31 5. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 3: Risk-taking Behavior 32 6. Summary of Analysis for Variance for Task h: Spontaneous Talking Behavior 32 7. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 5: Drawing Behavior 33 8. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Task Behavior as a Function of Age, Modeling Situation, and Task 33 9. Summary of Newman-Keul s ' Tests on C Minus El Differences for Tasks 1 Through 5 3^ 10. Summary of Newman-Keul s ' Tests on C Minus E2 Differences for Tasks 1 Through 5 3^ 11. Summary of Newman-Keul 's Tests on El Minus E2 Model Potency Differences for Tasks 1 Through 5 35 12. Usage Across Age of the Finger Oscillation Device 35 13. Number of Responses Identical to Responses of Models Across Six Tasks 36 ]k. Differences in Modeling Situation Potency 3^ 15. Summary of Score-ranks in Treatment Groups Across the Five Tasks 37 VI

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Scores on Task 1 According to Age and Modeling Group . 2. Scores on Task 2 According to Age and Modeling Group . 3. Scores on Task 3 According to Age and Modeling Group . k. Scores on Task 4 According to Age and Modeling Group . 5. Scores on Task 5 According to Age and Modeling Group . 6. Usage Across Age of the Finger Oscillation Device . . 7. Responses Identical to Responses of Models Across Six Tasks Page 38 39 kO k] k2 43 VI I

PAGE 9

INTRODUCTION Imitation has been a concept in psychology dating back at least to the turn of the century, when it was discussed by men such as Morgan and McDougall. However, at that time, due to its association with instinct, the concept was framed in terms not susceptible to empirical verification. As a result, the concept of imitation remained suspect and unscientific, but it experienced revivals of interest under the guise of different terminology. The operant-relnforcement view of Imitation has been one of the more recent paradigms under which imitation has been considered, especially In relation to early development and the learning of language (Miller and Dollard, 19^1; Bijou and Baer, 19^5; Skinner, 1953;1957). This point of view has led to important research (Baer and Sherman, 1964) and clinical applications (Metz, 1965; Risley, 1966), especially with children. However, the work of Bandura (1 962 ; 1965a ; 1965c), which will be the basis of this investigation, represents another current, exciting renewal of interest in the area of Imitation under the labels of vicarious learning and modeling. As Bandura (1965a) points out, a primary source of new behavior or new combinations of previously learned behaviors for humans is the behavior of other humans. It is obvious that many complex and important human behaviors are learned through one person observing the behavior of another person, the model. It is also obvious that such

PAGE 10

modeling procedures are a very efficient and, at times, i ndi spensible way of passing along behavior, even whole repertories of behavior. Modeling procedures run the gamut of age ranges and become more explicit as age Increases, expecially as verbal behavior increases. A combination of verbal (symbolic) and demonstrative (live) aspects in modeling procedures Is assumed to be optimally effective. While all this is certainly no new revelation, Bandura correctly stresses that such an emphasis is in contrast to the emphasis that current learning theories place on operant conditioning, learning by successive approximations, and reinforcement: Research and theoretical interpretations of learning processes have focussed almost exclusively on a single mode of response acquisition which is exemplified by the operant or instrumental conditioning paradigm. In this procedure the organism is impelled, in one way or another, to perform responses under specific stimulus conditions and, through differential reinforcement of spontaneously emitted variations in behavior, new patterns are developed or existing repertories are brought under new discriminative stimulus control. It is generally assumed that the principles governing the latter mode of response acquisition account also for social -learning phenomena occurring under naturalistic conditions. The continued adherence to a relatively narrow range of learning principles and procedures stems primarily from the fact that certain critical conditions that obtain in real-life situations are rarely, if ever, reproduced in laboratory studies of learning. Thus, In laboratory investigations experimenters arrange comparatively benign environments In which errors will not produce fatal consequences for the organism. By contrast, naturalistic environs are loaded with potentially lethal consequences that unmercifully befall those who happen to perform hazardous errors. For this reason. It would be exceedingly injudicious to rely primarily upon trial -and-error and successive approximations methods in teaching children to swim, adolescents to drive automobiles, or adults to master complex occupational and social tasks. If rodents and pigeons toiling in Skinner boxes and various mazes could likewise get electrocuted, dismembered, or extensively bruised for errors that inevitably occur during early phases of learning, It is a reasonably safe prediction that few of these venturesome subjects would ever survive the shaping process. Apart from questions of ef f iciency . . .and survival, It is doubtful if many classes of responses would ever be acquired if social training proceeded solely by the method of approximations through

PAGE 11

differential reinforcement of emitted responses. . ."(Bandura , 1965c, p. 1). It is also clear that while operant methods are very efficient for strengthening and maintaining behavior already possessed by individuals, such methods are very often inefficient for developing new behavior (Bandura, 1965a). The point is that work on imitative learning and modeling is generating meaningful, much needed investigations into the conditions of human learning in social situations. Social situations represent the settings for a large percentage of human learning, and there Is much yet to be learned about the effects of such settings. The study of modeling and social Interaction effects also represents meaningful worI< on human learning, especially developmental human learning, which is more relevant to real life situations than Is frequently the case In other approaches to learning (Epstein, 1962). Vicarious Learning and identification Given the importance of the area of study, the question becomes one of how learning tal
PAGE 12

what Is learned, he does not concern himself with the above variety of terms. He uses the terms imitative, observational, and vicarious learning interchangeably to refer to the differences in behavior resulting from modeling stimuli. His definition and views of vicarious learning are as follows: ...a vicarious learning event is defined as one in which new responses are acquired or the characteristics of existing response repertories are modified as a function of observing the behavior of others and its reinforcing consequences, without the modeled responses being overtly performed by the viewer during the exposure period. In demonstrating vicarious learning phenomena, it is therefore necessary to employ a nonresponse acquisition procedure in which a subject simply observes a model's behavior, but otherwise performs no overt instrumental responses, nor is administered any reinforcing stimuli during the period of acquisition. Any learning that occurs under these limiting conditions is purely on an observational or covert basis. This mode of response acquisition is accordingly designated as no-trial learning, since the observer does not engage in any overt responding trials although... he may require multiple observational trials in order to reproduce the modeled stimuli accurately. Moreover, the development of mediational responses, in the form of Imaglnal and implicit verbal representations of the perceived stimulus events, may play a critical role in the vicarious learning process (Bandura, IS^Sc, p. 2). Unlike most previous accounts of modeling effects, which tend to highlight the reinforcing stimulus control of matching responses, the theory propounded by the author emphasizes the function of representational processes In observational learning. According to this formulation, matching responses are acquired on the basis of stimulus contiguity and are mediated by cue-producing symbolic responses which exercise discriminative stimulus control over corresponding overt performances. Thus, in this mode of response acquisition, imaglnal and verbal representations of modeling stimuli constitute the enduring products of observational experiences. While the perceptual and cognitive aspects of vicarious learning are given emphasis, It Is recognized that motivational and reinforcement variables may influence Indirectly the level of response acquisition by augmenting or reducing the occurrence of requisite observing responses and facilitatlve covert rehearsal. There is

PAGE 13

considerable research evidence, however, that the pevfovmanoe of previously learned matching responses is primarily governed by reinforcement-related variables... The theory advanced ... suggests that vicarious learning may be analyzed in the same manner as other associative learning processes ... The fact that vicarious learning experiments employ social cues rather than nonsense syllables does not result in an acquisition process that Is fundamentally different from traditional associative learning (Bandura, 1965c, pp. 41-^2). Bandura goes on to contrast his "contiguous sensory stimulation" position with three other categories of learning positions and indicates his position better accounts for the phenomena of vicarious learning. According to Bandura (1965c, pp. 3-8) ."associative and classical conditioning theories" (Humphrey, Allport, Holt, Piaget) do not account for novel responses in the observer resulting from the model -observer Interaction; "instrumental conditioning theories" (Miller and Dollard, Skinner) do not account for novel responses' being acquired through observation prior to performance and reinforcement and often confuse acquisition and performance; "sensory feedback theory" (Mowrer) involving classical conditioning cannot adequately account with peripheral feedback and proprioceptive cues for imitative responses without reinforcement of either model or observer. Because the focus of the present work will be primarily on aspects of performance rather than learning, these theoretical differences need not be pursued further here. Concerning the allied concept of Identification, as compared with imitation, the following stand is taken (Bandura, 1962, p. 215): This type of learning is generally labeled "imitation" in behavior theory, and "identification" In most theories of personality. These concepts , however , are treated ... as synonymous since both encompass the same behavioral phenomenon, i.e., the tendency for a person to match the behavior or attitudes as exhibited by actual or symbolized models.

PAGE 14

This appears to be the most fruitful position to take and coincides with the "identification as behavior" viewpoint, one of the three main viewpoints on the nature of identification found in a review of the literature by Bronfenbrenner (I96O). The "identification as behavior" position appeared to be the most useful of the three positions in the opinion of Bronfenbrenner. As he pointed out, the other two main views of identification--"ident i f icat ion as a motive," and "identification as process"-are less empirical in nature and do not lend themselves to empirical study, While some investigators do not favor the "identification as behavior" position (Kagan, 1958), the point is that even identification itself, as a concept, especially as a concept connoting unconscious processes, seems to hinder definitive work in the area it is concerned with delineating: identification, as nominally defined, tends to preclude adequate and valid operational definition and empirical test. Identification is a hypothetical construct, which seems destined to remain a hypothetical construct. As such, it can explain nothing. Nor does it seem to lead to a definition of those variables and the process by which they interact which would constitute an explanation, subject to experimental verification (Martin, 195^, p. 2lA). ' Review of Studies The behavioral effects of exposure to modeling stimuli fall into three main categories (Bandura, 1965a, pp. 320-321): (1) ... the observer may acquire new responses that did not exist in his behavioral repertoire. In demonstrating this modeling effect experimentally, the model exhibits responses that the observer has not yet learned to make, and he must reproduce them in substantially identical form...

PAGE 15

(2) Exposure to models may also strengthen or weaken inhibitory responses in the observer. These inhibitory and disinhibitory effects are evident when the frequency of imitative and nonmatching responses increases or decreases, often as a function of rewarding or punishing response consequences to the model... (3) ... the behavior of models may elicit previously learned responses that match precisely or bear some resemblance to those exhibited by the model. This response facilitation effect can^ be distinguished from d i si nhibi t ion when the behavior In question is not likely to have incurred punishment and, therefore, any increase in responslvity is not attributable to the reduction of inhibitory responses. In more specific terms, some of the experimental results are as follows. In order to assess the effectiveness of modeling and operant conditioning, Bandura and McDonald (I963) attempted to change the moral orientations (Piaget's objective and subjective moral orientations) of 5 to 11 year old children by the following three methods: (1) having children observe adult models express moral judgements counter to the . group's orientation and be reinforced with approval, reinforcing the children with approval for adopting the model's responses; (2) having another group observe the models reinforced but not reinforcing the children's matching behavior; (3) having a third group receive no exposure to models but reinforcing the judgements of the children which were counter to children's judgement tendencies. The children In the modeling groups were not significantly different from each other but showed significantly higher modifications in their moral judgements In the direction of the attempted Influence than the children in the group using only reinforcement, who did not change significantly. Also, the groups maintained their altered positions in a new situation in which the models and social reinforcement were absent, suggesting modeling effects can be long-lasting.

PAGE 16

Perhaps the classic studies were the ones In which the social transmission of novel aggressive responses and film versus live models were investigated (Bandura, Ross, and Ross, I96I; Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1963b). In the 1961 experiment, children from a nursery school, with an average age of 52 months, were assigned to three conditions: (l) observation of aggressive adult model; (2) observation of inhibited nonaggress I ve model; (3) no exposure to a model. The experimental groups observed an adult model interact physically and verbally with a large plastic doll and then \-;ere frustrated and tested for imitative and nonimltative aggressive behavior. Approximately the same paradigm was used in the I963 experiment with same age subjects from the same school. Three groups were used: (l) observation of real-life aggressive model; (2) observation of the same aggressive model on film; (3) observation of a model on film in the costume of a cartoon cat showing the same aggressive behavior. Children who observed the aggressive models showed roughly twice as much aggressive behavior as the children in the nonaggress ive and control groups. The nonaggress Ive group showed significantly less aggressive behavior than the controls. Children who observed the aggressive models showed many precisely matching physical and verbal aggressive acts. This behavior occurred only rarely in the other groups. The film-mediated aggressive models and the cartoon character were as effective as the real-life models In promoting aggressive behavior, although the modeling effects were not as prominent in the cartoon character group. In order to investigate whether reinforcement functions more as a performance or more as a learning variable, Bandura (1965b) had nursery school subjects observe an aggressive film-mediated model rewarded, punished,

PAGE 17

or receive no consequences for his aggressive acts. The results indicated that children in the model -punished group gave significantly fewer matching responses than children in the other two groups. However, when the children in each group were offered rewards if they could reproduce the model's aggressive behavior, the previous differences among the three groups disappeared, indicating an equal amount of learning in each group. The results supported Bandura's contiguity theory-reinforcement of the model influenced the observers' performances but not their acquisition of matching responses or learning. The influence of adult and peer models has also been studied, in relation to aggressive behavior and patterns of self-reinforcement. Bandura and Kupers (1964) had 7 to 9 year old children in one group observe either peer or adult models who adopted a high criterion for self-reinforcement on a bowling game, while those in another group observed models employing a low criterion for self-reinforcement. It was found that the subjects' patterns of self-reinforcement were closely related to the models they had observed, with the adult models having a more powerful influence than the peer models. The influence of peer models and adult models has been studied in another situation in an interesting investigation by Hicks (1965). Hicks looked into the effects of adult and peer film-mediated aggressive models on imitation and retention of modeled responses. Children from 3 to 6 years of age viewed either male or female adult or peer aggressive models and then were tested for imitative behavior two times. The first time was immediately after the observation of the models and a mild frustration. The second time was 6 months later, following the same mild frustration but without any re-

PAGE 18

10 observation of the models. it was found that the peer male model group showed the greatest immediate modeling influence. After 6 months, however, the adult male model group showed the most matching behavior, although none of the groups performed even close to the amount of imitative behavior that they had displayed immediately after exposure to the models. Tests of retention after 6 months also revealed a significantly greater number of matching responses had been retained than had been performed. In another investigation of modeling and self-reinforcement, Mischel and Liebert (1966) found that fourth grade children tended to impose on younger children, second grade children of the same sex as the subjects, the identical self-reward criteria they imposed on themselves when playing a game. The subjects previously played the game with an adult model who imposed a level of self-reward on the subject which was equal to, higher than, or lower than the level employed by the model. As predicted, in the absence of the model the subjects on whom high criteria were imposed and who also observed their model employ equally high criteria were the most stringent in applying self-rewards to themselves and younger children. The subjects who had observed high modeled criteria but had been permitted self-reward for lower performances were the least stringent. When imposed and observed criteria were discrepant the least stringent criteria tended to be employed by the subject. There were no differences between the selfreward criteria employed by the subject for himself and the criteria imposed by the subject on younger children if the subject demonstrated the task to the younger child immediately following his performance of the task alone. However, if immediately after the modeling situation the subject demonstrated

PAGE 19

11 the task to the younger child before performing it alone, there were some differences between the self-reward used by the subject and imposed on the younger chi Id. Studies by Mussen and Parker (1965) on 5 year old girls and by Bandura and Huston (I96I) on 3 to 5 year old children indicate that nurturance or positive social interaction displayed by the model to the subject leads to more imitation of task irrelevant (non-problem-solving) behavior than to more imitation of task relevant behavior. However, the opposite of this was found by Henker (19^3) with 6 to 10 year old boys in a study of the effects of rewarding, critical, and neutral models in various situations. The play behavior of the subjects showed no difference in amount of imitation, but task relevant behavior on a problem-solving task was related to the type of model observed and his previously displayed (experimentally manipulated) competence. In this regard, Aronfreed (19^4) noted an absence of any consistent direct relationship between amount of parental nurturance and extent of internalization. There have been numerous other studies by Bandura and by other investigators related to the realm of modeling but not especially relevant or more elucidating to the purposes of the present study. Surprisingly, however, there is a great paucity of developmental studies in the area of modeling, as in many other areas. Most of the older studies in the area dealt exclusively with a very narrow age group, usually preschool children, and used criteria and situations such as verbal responses to questions concerning Imitation, simple manipulation of dolls, or verbal reports of what they would do in hypothetical situations, rather than actual behavioral

PAGE 20

12 samples in a "real-life" situation. Some examples are as follows. Hartup (I96A), in doll play situations with 3 to 5 year old children, found that there was a moderate generalization across situations of same-sex imitation but not of opposite-sex imitation. When nonimitation could occur as a response choice it occurred more frequently than imitation. This nonimitation tendency had been previously pointed out by McDavid (1959) in 3 to 5 year old children where imitative behavior seemed to be related to childrearing practices and sibling constellation but not to intelligence or dependency. Brown (1956), studying sex-role preferences in 5 and 6 year olds, found boys to have a stronger preference for the masculine role than girls for the feminine role, no differences between upper and lower middle class groups, and that boys having only sisters or both brothers and sisters scored more feminine than boys having only brothers. Brown used a sex-role preference scale called the It Scale for Children (ITSC). Hartup and Zook (i960), also using the ITSC, studied the sex-role preferences of 3 and k year old children and found the k year old boys scored more masculine than the 3 year old boys, and the h year old girls scored more feminine than the 3 year old girls. Lynn (1959) reviewed research on the development of Identification and suggested that with increasing age males become more firmly Identified with the masculine role, responding more to a cultural stereotype of the masculine role. With increasing age females become less firmly identified with the feminine role, responding more to aspects of their own mother's role. Gelfand (19^2) got results in work with fifth grade children which Indicated that failure on tasks in comparison to a peer's success on the tasks led to matching of the peer's responses on a

PAGE 21

13 picture preference task. Task performances Inconsistent with the child's self-evaluations led to more verbal conditioning In such children than in children whose task performances were consistent with their self-attitudes (performances experimentally manipulated). DeRath (I963) found prohibitive verbal Instructions paired with a film-mediated aggressive model to be effective In Inhibiting the performance of aggressive behavior In nursery school boys. The inhibition group performed less aggressive responses than a group which saw the same film but received no prohibitive instructions. Implications for Future Study A number of conclusions and suggested areas for further study emerge from these investigations of imitative behavior. It has been conclusively shown that modeling procedures can lead to changed behavior in the observer and that live and filmed models can be equally effective. The primary relevant variables seem to be the age of the model, the age of the observer, the sex of the model and the observer, the type of task or the type of behavior involved, and the performance situation. The first and most obvious characteristic of the modeling studies Is that most of them have been done with preschool children or with very limited age ranges. This characteristic has resulted in the inability to generalize across age levels on significant variables such as the effects of model age, type of task, or type of performance situation. Second, the range of modeling tasks or behaviors has been very narrow, also. Aggressive behavior has been the primary focus In most of the recent studies. Third, the modeling paradigm has been oversimplified by having the subject observe only one model. Outside the laboratory a person faced with a task is or

PAGE 22

14 has usually been exposed to more than one model and more than one method of doing the task, resulting in the necessity for dealing with the various methods observed. He may combine aspects of different methods, employ a few or no aspects of any method observed, or follow precisely one of the observed methods. Such a situation is often made more complex by adult models being in opposition to peer models and the changes in influence of each according to the age of the observer. Fourth, the situation in which the observer performs, following exposure to modeling stimuli, probably affects what he will perform as opposed to what he learned. For example, whether the observer performs in the presence of an adult, a peer, an older person, a younger person, alone, or in a group is a factor relevant to what is performed. These four variables have either not been studied at all or have only been touched on in modeling experiments. This investigation attempts to study the first three of these var iables--age of observer, type of task or behavior, number and age of models. Present Investigation This investigation was an attempt to analyze the effects of observer age and type of task on the imitation of adult and peer models. The term imitation, as it is used herein, means "response facilitation effect," as defined by Bandura. Thus, the emphasis is on performance rather than learning. Three different observer age levels and five types of tasks were used. The situation studied was one in which a subject performed five tasks following the observation of an adult and a peer performing the tasks

PAGE 23

15 in contrasting ways. The three different observer age levels were first, fifth, and seventh graders. These three grade levels, equivalent to ages 6, 10, and 12, were hypothesized as different on a chronological basis and on the basis of developmental theory. The three age-grade levels can be viewed as approximating developmental phases III, IV, and V in the scheme resulting from Maier's (1965) integration of the developmental sequences of Erikson, Piaget, and Sears. Apart from intra-personal characteristics of these children in these three developmental phases there are inter-personal Interactions which seem to be different. At age 6 the child is still making his entrance into the world of structured inter-personal relationships with those his own age and with adults outside of his family. In these early stages of schooling, adults, primarily In the form of teachers, determine many things he does and require specific methods for doing various tasks. Thus, the child Is dependent on adult models at this stage for new types of behavior and knowledge and must change other types of previously learned behavior to conform to the school routine. In other words, the adult is a very potent model for the 6 year old child. This potency of the adult model, however, apparently declines with age but does not seem to decline in a linear fashion. As the child grows older the adult model may remain very potent for certain types of behavior in certain types of situations but may have very little Influence, compared with a peer model, over other types of behavior in other situations. This set of circumstances would seem to be characteristic of the 10 year old child, in contrast to the 6 or 12 year old child. The 12 year old could be seen as representing

PAGE 24

16 the other end of the modeling spectrum, the generalized dominance of the peer model instead of the adult model. The 12 year old has already acquired much knowledge, many of the basic inter-personal skills, and a system of social relationships in which conformity to peer cultures and peer approval are highly reinforcing. It is suggested, therefore, that these three age-grade ranges may be considered representative of a model -potency continuum. The 6 year old group would be characterized by generalized high adult model potency, the 10 year old group by lower, less generalized adult model potency, and the 12 year old group by low adult model potency and generalized high peer model potency. The use of these three age-grade levels should enable one to test the assumption that there are differences in model potency between adult and peer models as observer age Increases. Hypotheses 1. Imitation will occur at all 3 age levels and on all 5 tasks, though not necessarily at each age level on each task. 2. There will be differences In adult versus peer model potency among the three age levels on each of the five tasks. 3. The adult model will be more potent than the peer model at the lowest age level, and the peer rrcdel will be more potent than the adult model at the highest age level on tasks 2 to 54. There will be differences In modeling situation potency among the three modeling situations on each of the five tasks. 5. The highest age level will show less superstitious-irrelevant behavior on the superstitious-irrelevant task than the lowest age level .

PAGE 25

17 Method Suhgeots Male subjects were used exclusively. The total populations of male students from the first, fifth, and seventh grades of the P.K. Yonge Laboratory School, Gainesville, Florida were used. The P.K. Yonge Laboratory School is a department in the College of Education of the University of Florida and has an enrollment of approximately 930 students. Sixty pupils are enrolled in each grade from kindergarten through the seventh grade, with an equal number of males and females in each grade. Part of the school's enrollment formula is that 50% of the pupils in each grade are children from the families of the academic faculty of the University of Florida. The school devotes much attention to the individual student and provides pre-internshi p participation and observation experiences for undergraduate students in various fields. Practicum experiences for graduate students are also provided. The school serves as a research center for educational and behavioral science endeavors. There was a total of 79 subjects used, Ik first graders, 28 fifth graders, and 27 seventh graders. This represented all the males In each grade except a few who were absent from school and missed the experimental sessions. The subjects in each age-grade level were randomly assigned to the three treatment groups--a control group and two experimental groups-by using a table of random numbers and the procedure suggested by Lindquist (1956). The number of subjects in each age and treatment group can be seen in Table 1 .

PAGE 26

18 Table 1 Number of Subjects in Each Grade-Treatment Group

PAGE 27

19 Imenter presenting the task materials and instructions. The video tape for the first experimental group consisted of the same presentation of the task materials and instructions as contained in the control group tape with the addition of a peer and an adult doing each of the tasks in contrasting ways. The video tape for the second experimental group was exactly like the first experimental group tape except that the model roles were reversed. (See Appendix A.) Consequently, seven video tapes were made. The same tape was used in all three control groups, but each of the experimental groups had its own separate tape. The five tasks were as follows: 1. Superstitious -irrelevant task: First, a finger oscillation device was presented. This device consisted of two 5-digit counters, mounted on an 11 x 6 piece of wood, which automatically recorded the number of taps. The experimenter stated that some people think tapping brings good luck and helps them perform better on the tasks. He also stated that one could tap as much as one wanted to, immediately, and at any time while doing the tasks. One model said, "I think I'll tap." He then tapped 25 times. Initially, and 25 times between each task for a total of 100 taps. The other model said, "I think 1 won't tap." He did not tap at all, initially, nor at any other time during the tasks. 2. Guessing task: Second, a glass jar containing 500 dried beans was presented. The experimenter posed the question of how many beans there were in the jar. One model guessed 300 beans, and the other model guessed 700 beans. 3. Risk-taking task: Third, a dart board composed of 5 concentric circles was presented. The experimenter explained that the closer to the center of the board the darts hit, the higher the score. The circles scored 10, 25,50, 75, and 100 points. The experimenter further explained that points could also be scored depending on how far from the board one stood to throw the darts. Sixteen marks numbered to 15, each one-half foot apart, were pointed out on the floor. The closest one could stand was at line 0, k feet from the board, and the farthest away one could stand was line 15. The number of the line at which one stood was added to the score of whatever each dart hit on the board.

PAGE 28

20 It was emphasized that the closer one stood to the board, the easier it was to hit the high point circles, but the farther away one stood, the more points one got added to v;hat the dart hit on the board. There were five darts to throw. All had to be thrown from the same line, whichever line vjas chosen. The one model said, "i think you can score the most points by throwing from line 15>"and threv; from line 15. The other model said, "1 think you can score the most points by throwing from line 0,"and threw from line 0. Spontaneous talking task: Fourth, a microphone and tape recorder were presented in order to measure "tone of voice." Instructions were given to say whatever one wanted to say and as much or as little as one wanted to say. The one model said one word, "hello," and the other model used 75 words, relying on a previously prepared script. Drauring task: Fifth, paper and 15 different colored pencils were presented. Instructions were given to draw the best house one could draw in 5 minutes, using as few or as many colors as one wished to use. One model said, "1 think I'll use all 15 colors in my drawing," and used all 15 colors. The other model said, "I think I'll just 1 color. use just 1 color in my drav/ing," and used The role behaviors performed by the adult and peer models in the two experimental groups are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Model Role Behaviors in the Two Experimental Groups Task E2 Adult Model Peer Model Adult Model Peer Model 1 . Number of taps 100 2. Number of beans 700 3 . Number of 1 i ne 15 k. Number of words 75 5. Number of colors 15 300 1 1 300 1 1 100 700 15 75 15

PAGE 29

21 The order of performance for the two models alternated from task to task in the order stated above in the task descriptions. Procedure The experiment took place at P. K. Yonge Laboratory School in January I967. The subjects were run in the following grade order, seventh, first, and fifth. This order was determined by school space restrictions and commitments. The experiment lasted 6 days, and each grade was run in 2 days. The three groups per grade were run in the following order. The C and El groups were run the first day in the morning and afternoon, respectively. The E2 group was run the morning of the second day. The following experimental procedure was used for each group. The group was called as a group and taken to the experimental room by the experimenter. At this time no task apparatus was in sight, only the video tape equipment. The experimenter then introduced himself and the situation, told the subjects what the procedure was going to be, and gave the instructions. (See Appendix B.) The situation was presented as an attempt to find out how well boys of different age and grade levels could do on the tasks. Following an opportunity to ask questions, the group was shown the appropriate video tape and then sent back to their classrooms. The experimenter then set up the task apparatus, called each of the subjects individually into the room, had him perform each of the tasks, and sent him back to his classroom. Each subject was asked the same questions and given the same instructions during his individual performance. (See Appendix C.) The length of the control group video tape was 7 minutes. The six

PAGE 30

22 experimental group video tapes were approximately the same length, ranging from 13 1/2 to 16 minutes. The mean individual subject-running time was 9.6 minutes and ranged from 8.0 to 11.1 minutes. Scoring and Analysis The tasks were scored as follows: Task Scorning 1. Superstitious-irrelevant behavior Number of taps 2. Guessing behavior Number of beans guessed 3. Risk-taking behavior Number of line h. Spontaneous talking Number of words 5. Drawing behavior Number of colors The experimenter recorded the subject's estimate on tasks 2 and 3. The subject's behavior on tasks 1, k, and 5 was recorded automatically on the counter, tape, and paper, respectively, and thus required no active scoring by the experimenter In the presence of the subject. The scores for each task were analyzed with a 3 x 3 unweighted means analysis of variance (3 age-grade levels x 3 modeling situations) and Newman-Keuls' tests on row and column groupings of cell means. The hypotheses of the investigation are mostly concerned with cell mean differences. Therefore, row and column cell means were compared even when one of the two F's was not significant or when both were not significant but the interaction F was significant (Winer, 1962). Hypothesis 1, concerning the presence of imitation, was tested by comparing the three treatment means at each age-grade level. A significant difference between either of the experimental groups and the control group was defined as establishing the presence of imitation at that age-grade

PAGE 31

23 level. If such a difference occurred at least once in each of the five tasks, and if each age-grade level showed a significant difference at least once, hypothesis 1 would be confirmed. Hypothesis 2, concerning differences In adult versus peer model potency at each age-grade level, was tested by the analyses used to test hypothesis 1. However, for hypothesis 2, attention was focused on significant differences between the two experimental groups at each age-grade level. A significant difference between the two experimental groups at an age-grade level was defined as establishing the presence of a difference in model potency at that age-grade level. if such a difference occurred at least once in each of the five tasks, and if each age-grade level showed a significant difference at least once, hypothesis 2 would be confirmed. Hypothesis 3, concerning directional differences in model potency related to observer age, was tested by employing the directional results of hypothesis 2. A significant difference in the predicted direction at both the lowest and highest age-grade levels on a task was defined as establishing the presence of a difference in model potency between the highest and lowest age-grade levels on that task. If such differences occurred on tasks 2 through 5, hypothesis 3 would be confirmed. Hypothesis 4, concerning differences in modeling situation potency among the 3 age-grade levels, was tested by comparing the 3 age-grade levels under each of the three modeling situations. A significant difference between any two of the three age-grade levels under a modeling situation was defined as establishing the presence of a difference In potency for that modeling situation. if such a difference occurred at least once

PAGE 32

Ik In each of the five tasks, hypothesis k would be confirmed. Hypothesis 5, concerning differences on the superstitiousirrelevant task related to observer age, was tested by comparing the main effects for the highest and lowest age-grade levels in the analysis of variance for task 1. A significantly lower total for the highest agegrade level than for the lowest age-grade level was defined as establishing the presence of less superstitious-irrelevant behavior in the highest age-grade level than in the lowest age-grade level. Such a difference would also confirm hypothesis 5For an over-all view, the scores for all five tasks were transformed into standard scores and analyzed in a 3x3x5 analysis of variance (age x modeling situation x task). Also, a procedural statistical control in the form of a Kendall coefficient of concordance was run on the five task scores for each subject in each treatment condition at each agegrade level to determine If task performance was affected by the amount of time elapsed between Introduction to the tasks and the opportunity to perform the tasks. The .05 level of significance was employed In all of the analyses.

PAGE 33

RESULTS Preliminary Findings A Kendall coefficient of concordance was run on each of the nine age-treatment group conditions to determine if task performance was related to the amount of time between introduction to the tasks and the opportunity to perform. That is, with a mean subject-running time of approximately 10 minutes, over an hour elapsed between the first and last subject's chance to perform. The Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) was significant on only one of the nine groups, the seventh grade control group. However, even this group did not show a linear increase or decrease in scores as a function of time. These findings indicate that when the time period between the modeling stimuli and the opportunity to perform is short--! to 2 hours--performance is not strongly influenced by temporal closeness or distance between modeling stimuli and opportunity to perform. Main Findings The main results of the experiment are seen in the six analyses of variance summaries (Tables 3 to 8) and the four summaries of Newman-Keuls comparisons of cell means (Tables 9,10,11,14). The cell means for the first five analyses of variance summaries have been plotted (Figures 1 to 5) to present a better picture of the location of each group on the various tasks. The scores for tasks 1, 2, and h were transformed to achieve homogen25

PAGE 34

26 eity of variance, following significance at the .05 level on the Cochran test for homogeneity of variance, by the function: x' = log (x + 1) 10 (Winer, 1962). None of the five hypotheses were confirmed in the form originally stated. However, some support was found for hypothesis 1, and much support was found for hypotheses k and 5. Hypothesis 1 predicted imitation, defined as a significant difference between El and/or E2 and C, would occur at all three age levels and on all five tasks, though not necessarily at each age level on each task. The above stated differences were found to be significant at only one age level, first graders, and on only one task, task 2. (See Tables 9 and 10.) Here both El and E2 differed significantly from C. However, during the course of the experiment a behavior was noted on task 1 which obviously differentiated the experimental groups from the control groups. This behavior was the number of times the finger oscillation device was used, as opposed to the number of taps which was scored on task 1. That is, the experimental video tapes showed the models either using the device multiple times or not at all. The control tape showed the experimenter explaining the device and using it one time for demonstration purposes. (See Appendix A.) These differences can be seen in Table 12 and Figure 6. The differences indicate the presence of imitation on task 1 across the three age-grade levels. In addition, when imitation in terms of responses identical to model responses (e.g., 100 or responses on task 1, a guess of 700 or 300 on task 2, etc.) is considered across age and task, one finds differences between control and experimental groups. (See Table 13 and

PAGE 35

27 Figure 7). This analysis included as a task the behavior discussed Immediately above. Consequently, when viewed in terms of number of responses identical to responses of models and when viewed across age and task instead of separately by age and task, one can see that in an over-all manner some Imitation did occur. Also, imitation occurred more strongly in E2 than in El . Hypothesis 2 predicted differences in adult versus peer model potency, defined as significant differences between El and E2, among the three age levels on each of the five tasks. From Table 11 it can be seen that such a difference was found at only one age level, first graders, and on only one task, task 2. Hypothesis 3 predicted that the adult model would be more potent than the peer model at the lowest age level and vice versa for the highest age level. Potency was defined in terms of the direction of the E1-E2 difference. If the E1-E2 difference was positive, this indicated adult model potency because the adult model displayed high task behaviors in the El situation and low task behaviors in the E2 situation, while the peer model displayed low task behaviors in the El situation and high task behaviors in the E2 situation. Conversely, a negative E1-E2 difference indicated peer model potency. Again from Table 11 it can be seen that, as noted under hypothesis 2, there was only one significant difference in model potency. This significant difference, however, was in the direction opposite that predicted In hypothesis 3. At the first grade level the direction of the difference In model potency was In the predicted direction on three of the five tasks but not significant. At the seventh grade level

PAGE 36

28 the difference in mode] potency was in the predicted direction on only one of the five tasks. It was only on task h that both the first and seventh age-grade levels had differences in model potency in the predicted directions. Hypotheses h and 5 were not confirmed. However, the data presented below strongly indicate that these two hypotheses deserve more study. Hypothesis k predicted differences in modeling situation potency on each of the five tasks. This was defined as differences on a task in the three age-grade levels among the three treatment groups. Significant differences were found on four of the five tasks, tasks 2,3,^, and 5, as can be seen in the three treatment groups under each task In Table 14. Differences also occurred on task 1, but were significant only at the .10 level. in terms of scoring highest, lowest, and in between the highest and lowest, Table 15 summarizes the score-ranks of Table ]k for each level according to treatment group. The summation across treatment groups reflects the score placements in the control group. The seventh graders scored highest most often, the first graders scored lowest most often, and the fifth graders scored in between most often. Hypothesis 5 predicted that the highest age-grade level would show less superstitious-irrelevant behavior than the lowest age-grade level. This was indeed the case as can be seen from Table 3 and Figure 1. The seventh graders scored lower in all three treatment groups on task 1 than did the first graders. However, the seventh and first grade row means In the task 1 analysis of variance differed less strongly than predicted. The difference was significant at the .10 level but not at the .05 level.

PAGE 37

29 Finally, from an over-all standpoint, Table 8 represents the results when the scores for all five tasks were transformed into standard scores and analyzed in a 3 x 3 x 5 analysis of variance (age x modeling situation x task). No significant main effects of age, modeling situations, or task were found. However, the significant age x task and age x modeling situation x task interactions indicate that the main effects were masked. That Is, task behavior was dependent on the combination of age and task as well as the combination of age, modeling situation, and task presented to the subject, not just on one of the three factors. The highly significant age x task interaction also emphasizes the importance of the task In determining the nature of the results at the different age levels . Consequently, In terms of differences significant at or beyond the .05 level, the results of this experiment provide evidence that Imitation occurs across the three age-grade levels considered but In a less powerful and less age-related manner than hypothesized. The results also indicate that there Is practically no significant differential imitation of adult and peer models as a function of observer age or type of task. Most of the differences in task behavior found when the tasks were considered individually were a function of main effects, primarily age. Instead of the predicted age-treatment group interactions. However, the score-ranks in Tables 14 and 15 Indicate that these age differences were task-related and affected by treatment group. These Interactions are demonstrated in Table 8 where age, modeling situation, and all five tasks were analyzed In a 3 X 3 X 5 analysis of variance. The high age-task Interaction emphasizes

PAGE 38

30 the importance of the task used to study modeling and the need to employ more than one task in such studies. This finding confirms the criticism made earlier concerning the tendency in previous research to use one task and the lack of valid generalization that results.

PAGE 39

31 Table 3 Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 1: Superstitiousirrelevant Behavior^ Source SS ds MS A (age)

PAGE 40

32 Table 5 Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 3: Risk-taking Behavior Source SS df MS A (age) B (models) AB 23.85

PAGE 41

33 Table 7 Summary of Analysis of Variance for Task 5: Drawing Behavior Source SS df MS F A (age) 51.^1 B (models) k.5^ AB 113-56 Within cells 7^6.25 b p <_ .10 p < .05 Table 8 Summary of Analysis of Variance of Task Behavior as a Function of Age, Modeling Situation, and Task^ 2

PAGE 42

34 Table 9 Summary of Newman-Keul s ' Tests on C Minus El Differences for Tasks 1 Through 5 Grade Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task k Task 5 1 __" + __ 5 + + + 7 + + + + " P < .05 Table 10 Summary of Newman-Keul s ' Tests on C Minus E2 Differences for Tasks 1 Through 5 Grade Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task h Task 5 5 + + 7 + + " p < .01

PAGE 43

35 Table 11 Summary of Newman-Keul s ' Tests on El Minus E2 Model Potency Differences for Tasks 1 Through 5 Grade Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task k Task 5 1 + 5 + 7 + p < .01 Table 12 Usage Across Age of the Finger Oscillation Device Times Used C El X^ E2 X^ 1 2k +1 2 14

PAGE 44

36 Table 13 Number of Responses Identical to Responses of Models Across Six Tasks Responses El E2 Identical 24 Di ssimi 1 ar 132 Total Responses 156 itl 133 17^ 3.0 ho 104 144 6.1 ** p <_ .10 p < .02 Table 14 Differences in Modeling Situation Potency Score-rank

PAGE 45

37 Table 15 Summary of Score-ranks In Treatment Groups Across the Five Tasks C El E2 Total Score-rank of Anova Cell mean 157 157 157 157 Highest 014 212 221 U k 1 Middle lAO 023 131 13k Lowest 401 320 203 3 1 k

PAGE 46

38 C El Model ing Group Grade 1 E2 D Grade 5 Grade 7 Figure 1. Scores on Task 1 According to Age and Modeling Group,

PAGE 47

39 i/i c (0 ca 0) T3 Z E -O i-i 0) in E UJ c TO O c 03 (U i C El Model ing Group E2 Grade 1 Grade 5 Grade 7 Figure 2. Scores on Task 2 According to Age and Modeling Group.

PAGE 48

40 c 1/1 o c C El Model ing Grouo Grade Grade 5 Grade 7 E2 Figure 3Scores on Task 3 According to Age and Modeling Group.

PAGE 49

41

PAGE 50

42 I/) t_ o "o o u 0) J3 E 3 C El Model i ng G roup E2 Grade 1 Grade 5 [~] Grade 7 Figure 5Scores on Task 5 According to Age and Modeling Group,

PAGE 51

43 o c o u El. Times Used: 1 +1 E2 n 1 Figure 6. Usage Across Age of the Finger Oscillation Device.

PAGE 52

kh 1/1 c o o. c 0) o
PAGE 53

DISCUSSION Given the indications of imitation when age levels are combined, the main question arising from these results Is why there is a lack of imitation per se according to age level and of differential adult and peer imitation according to age level. The following considerations seem to contain the most relevant issues. The Multi-model Choice Situation A two-model peer-adult situation of the type employed in this study is unique In the modeling literature, to the knowledge of the experimenter. Such a situation presents a more complex stimulus and choice situation to the subject than the one model situation. As Bandura (1965a) points out, children observing multiple adult models will not necessarily perform as smaller replicas of a model but may combine components of both models' performances in their response to produce a "new" response. In other words, imitation can occur without a subject's response being just like the response of one of the models. Therefore, the "new" response given by the subject in this experiment (a response between the response of the two models) may have represented a constructive attempt to Incorporate aspects of both models' performances and have been truely imitative, but not of one model only. The assessment of this is discussed later in relation to dependent variable measures. The concern of this experiment with the effects of multiple peer-adult models reflects Bandura's statement (1965a, p. 338): "...learning principles based on a two-person model 45

PAGE 54

k$ [one model, one subject] may be subject to strict limitations, since tine introduction of additional social variables can produce significant changes in the functional relationships between relevant variables." The lack of strong imitation and differential imitation according to age (imitation of one model exclusively) may be one of the effects of observing two models of different ages perform in contrasting ways. Effects Related to Reinforoement On the other hand, most of the previous experiments have been concerned with the effects on imitation of variables other than age of model alone — reinforcing consequences to the model (Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1963c), response consequences to the model (Bandura, 1965b), model's evaluation of responses or standard setting (Bandura and Kupers, 1964; Mischel and Liebert, 1966; Bee and Colle, 196?) , and model's rewarding power and control of future resources (Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1963z; Mischel and Grusec, I966). in the present experiment there were no model response evaluations, consequences, rewarding powers, controls of future resources, or reinforcements either by the models themselves or by anyone else. With no reinforcements, evaluations, etc., of either model presented to the subject, model age would seem to be the most outstanding difference between the two models in the present study. The results indicate that the age of the model may not be a very potent factor apart from reinforcement. Effects of Perceived Similarity However, an alternative answer to the influence of reinforcement was suggested in a recent study by Rosekrans (196?) on a group of 1 1 to \k year old boys. She found evidence that perceived similarity of the

PAGE 55

hi subject to the model (in terms of interests, skills, background, and group membership) was a factor affecting both frequency of imitation and size of imitative behavior repertoire. Both the frequency of imitation and the size of the imitative behavior repertoire were greater when the observer perceived himself as similar to the model than when the observer perceived himself as dissimilar. Positive and negative response consequences to the model had only minimal differential effects on imitation. Evidence was also found which indicated that the learning as well as the performance of imitative responses was increased by high perceived similarity. The results of Rosekrans' study indicate that perceived positive similarity may be a more influential variable than response consequences in producing imitation. Special Charaoteristios of Subject Population in terms of methodological considerations, It would be important to replicate this study on another population of first, fifth, and seventh graders and compare the results with the present findings on the P.K. Yonge Laboratory School population. This is important because the P. K. Yonge Laboratory School population is a somewhat atypical student population. As mentioned previously in the description of the school, one-half of the students are from families of academic faculty at the University of Florida. The student population could be described over-all as relatively high in intelligence and socio-economic status. The students are given individual attention and encouraged In Individual pursuits. Also, the students are continually participating In experiments and are sophisticated concerning experimental procedures. In other words, the P.K. Yonge Laboratory School population could be described as having a nonimitative bias. However, the

PAGE 56

48 fact that even on such a population imitation was found, albeit not as powerfully as predicted, suggests both that imitation is a factor involved In determining what behavior a child displays, and that much stronger imitation might occur in children without the special characteristics of the children in this population. The effects of intellectual level and socio-economic status are still to be determined. A study now in progress (O'Connor, 1967), Investigating the relationships of imitation to intellectual level, socio-economic status, and achievement in white and Negro first grade children, should mai
PAGE 57

^9 experiment were found on the task which, in the opinion of the experimenter, was the most novel and stimulating. This was task 1, the superstitiousirrelevant task. From the observations of subject behavior, this opinion seemed to be confirmed. As mentioned above, it is hypothesized that the more familiar the task the more likely one is to know the relevant and irrelevant dimensions and feel comfortable in relying only on oneself in handling the task. This is the case because of having had past experience with the task and having the consequent response tendencies or repertoire associated with the task. If this is indeed true, task novelty is a critical variable in eliciting imitative behavior and assuming, as Bandura (1965a) points out when speaking of response facilitation effect, that the behavior in question is not likely to have been previously punished or to possess some kind of reinforcement history. Measurement and the Dependent Variables Concerning the measurement of the dependent variables, it appears that a reduction in the possible ways of responding on a task would result in a more precise measure of imitation. In the present study an attempt was made to provide many alternative responses to a task and to allow imitation to vary in Intensity. As a consequence, response continua were provided for each task with the models' responses representing both ends of the continuum. This procedure, while seeming to provide a task situation more comparable with daily encountered task situations, made it more difficult to know whether or not an Individual response was imitative. By employing task situations with more discrete but previously shown equally attractive response alternatives, one could achieve a clearer response classification. .

PAGE 58

50 For example, one could allow only four discrete responses to a task-the adult model response, the peer model response, a response Incorporating some aspects of both the adult and peer models' responses, and a response displaying none of the aspects of the above three responses. This situation would make a non-Imitative attempt by the subject clearer. This situation would also prevent extremely deviant scores, which were possible and found on the open ended tasks, tasks 1,2, and k, where it was possible to respond higher than the model displaying the high task behavior. The resulting deviant scores on these tasks necessitated the score transformations as previously indicated on tasks 1,2, and k. Foci for Future Research It would be Important to know whether the finding that filmed models can be as effective as live models, established with nursery school children (Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1963b), holds across age. This could be determined by using live and video-tape models at several age levels. The characteristics of the observation and performance situations should also be Investigated. In the present study the subject observed the modeling stimuli in a group of peers. This could be compared with situations in which the subject observes the modeling stimuli alone or with adults. In the present study the subject performed in the presence of an adult, the experimenter. This situation could be compared with one in which the subject performed alone, in the presence of a peer, or in the presence of a group. Ir (9da!tl6H to all eif the a^tsvp cons t^Je rot ieRe ghon^ Is still th» question of sex differences which was not addressed in this research, and

PAGE 59

51 the effects resulting from the various combinations of this variable with the variables previously discussed. From the modeling literature and the present study, the following factors and directions seem to be the most salient for future research In this area: 1. Comparison of multiple versus single model situations; 2. Discrete response categories on tasks in multiple model si tuat ions ; 3. Response consequences versus no response consequences to models in multiple model situations; k. Task novelty; 5. Effects of perceived similarity in multiple model situations; 6. Filmed versus live models on older children; 7. Manipulations of the performance situation such as individual versus group observation of stimuli, observation group compos i t ion; 8. Manipulations of sex differences in models and observers.

PAGE 60

SUMMARY This investigation attempted to assess the effects of multiple observer ages and types of tasks on the imitation of adult and peer models when both adult and peer models are observed by the subject. First, fifth, and seventh grade males were randomly divided in each grade into two experimental groups and one control group. Seventy-nine subjects were used. The three groups received different modeling stimuli as a group via video-tape. The control group video-tape consisted of the experimenter presenting the materials and Instructions for the five tasks. The video-tape for the first experimental group consisted of the same presentation of the task materials and instructions as contained In the control group tape with the addition of a peer and an adult doing each of the tasks in contrasting ways. The video-tape for the second experimental group was exactly like the first experimental group tape, except that the model roles were reversed. The five tasks Involved the following behaviors: tapping a finger oscillation device, guessing the number of beans In a jar, throwing darts, talking spontaneously, and drawing. Following the observation of the tape, the subjects were individually given the opportunity to perform each of the tasks to see if imitation per se occurred and whether the peer or adult was imitated. It was found that with a time period of one to two hours between the modeling stimuli and the opportunity to perform, performance was not 52

PAGE 61

5i substantially influenced by temporal closeness or distance from the observation of the modeling stimuli. Imitation was found to occur across the three age-grade levels considered but in a less powerful and less agerelated manner than hypothesized. The results also Indicated that there was practically no significant differential imitation of adult and peer models as a function of observer age or type of task. Most of the diffei — eices in task behavior found when the tasks were considered individually were a function of main effects, primarily age, instead of the predicted age-treatment group Interactions. When all five tasks were considered together, significant interactions between age and task and among age, modeling situation, and task were found. Thus, task behavior was dependent on the combination of age and task as well as on the combination of age, modeling situation, and task presented to the subject, not just on one of the three factors. The high age-task interaction emphasized the importance of the task used in modeling research and the need to employ more than one task to get a good view of the nature of model ing at various ages. The results were discussed In terms of the uniqueness of the twomodel peer-adult situation in this study, the assessment of Imitation in a twoversus a one-model situation, lack of response consequences to the models, the importance of subject variables, importance of task characteristics, and discreteness of response. Various experimental manipulations remaining to be studied were noted as well as factors and directions salient for future research.

PAGE 62

APPENDICES

PAGE 63

Appendix A Approximate Transcript of Experimental Video Tape" (Camera opens Experimenter: Peer Model : Experimenter: Peer Model : Experimenter: Peer Model : Experimenter: Adult Model : Experimenter: Adult Model : Experimenter: on experimenter, adult model, and peer model) "Hello. What is your name?" "My name is Jolnn Clemens." (Name assigned to all peer models,! "How old are you, John?' "I'm (appropriate number) years old." "What grade are you in?" "I'm in (appropriate)grade." "And what is your name?" "My name is Mr. Costanzo." "How old are you, Mr. Costanzo?" "I 'm 25 years old ." "All right. Let's begin." (Camera on experimenter only.) First of all, i want to show you this finger oscillation device. All it is, is this little lever which you can push and a counter that counts the number of times you tap the lever. Like this. (Experimenter taps 5 times and lays the device down.) Some people think tapping brings good " The control group tape is the experimental tape with sll model portions deleted. In the El situation Model 1 represents the adult model, and Model 2 represents the peer model. In the E2 situation Model 1 represents the peer model, and Model 2 represents the adult model. 55

PAGE 64

56 luck and helps them perform better on the tasks; so I'm going to give you the chance to tap novi , if you vjar.t to, as many times as you want to. Also', you may tap at any time while you are doing the other tasks. Do you want to tap?" Model 1: (Camera on Model 1.) "1 think I'll tap. (Taps 25 times immediately and 25 times between each task for a total of 100 taps.) Model 2: (Camera on Model 2.) "1 think 1 won't tap." (Never taps.) Experimenter: (Camera on experimenter and container only.) "Okay. Next I have this jar filled with beans. 1 know the exact number of beans in the jar, but you do not. So 1 v;ant you to try to guess the best that you can how many beans there are in the jar. How many beans do you think are in the jar?" Model 2: (Camera on Model 2 and jar.) "I'll guess 300 beans." Model 1: (Camera on Model 1 and the jar.) "I'll guess 700 beans." (Camera on Model 1 as he goes to tapping device and taps 25 times.) Experimenter (Camera on experimenter and dartboard.) "Okay. Now here you see a dartboard and darts. You will notice that the closer to the center of the board your darts hit, the higher your score is. The rings score, going from the outside to the center of the board, 10, 25,50,75, and 100 points. However, you can also score points according to how far

PAGE 65

57 away from the board you stand. On the floor (Camera switches to marks on floor) there are 16 marks numbered zero to 15, each one-half foot apart. (Camera on experimenter and marks.) The closest to the board you may stand Is here at the first mark, and the farthest away you may stand is here at number 15. You get added to the score of whatever your dart hits on the board, the number of the line you stand at to throw. For example, if you stand at the first line, line 0, and throw a dart that hits the 25 point circle, you get 25 points. if you stand at line 15 and throw a dart that hits the 25 point circle, you get ^0 points--25 for hitting the 25 point circle plus 15 points for standing at line 15. You should remember, however, that the closer to the board you stand the easier It is to hit the high point circles, but the farther away you stand the more points you get added to the score of what your dart hits on the board. I You get 5 darts to throw. You must throw all 5 darts from the same line, whichever line you choose. It Is up to you to choose the spot that you think you can score the most points from. Where do you want to throw from?" Model 1: (Camera on Model 1 showing what line he Is standing at and stays on him while he throws. The dartboard and where his darts hit are not shown.) "I think you can score the most points by throwing from

PAGE 66

58 line 15-" (Throv^s from line 15-) Model 2: (Camera on Model 2 showing vihat line he is standing on and stays on him v/hile he throv;s. The dartboard and where his darts hit are not shown.) "I think you can score the most points by throwing from line 0." (Throws from line 0.) Model 1: (Camera switches to Model 1 and tapping device where Model 1 taps 25 times.) Experimenter: (Camera on experimenter and tape recorder.) "Next I v;ant to get a measure of the tone of your voice by having you talk into the microphone of this tape recorder. 1 want you to say as much or as little as you want to say. What do you want to say?" Model 2: (Camera on Model 2.) "Hello." Model 1: (Camera on Model 1.) "My name Is (appropriate) and I live here in Gainesville, Florida. 1 had a nice Christmas and New Year vacation. I vjatched football games on TV and went to visit some of my relatives. I have hobbies, like to go fishing, read, play b^ll, go to the beach, svylm, and i collect different things and like to go places. I wish 1 had more time to do some of these things I like to do." (Camera on Model 1 as he goes to tapping device and taps 25 times.) "Hey, I've tapped 100 times in all!" Experimenter: (Camera on experimenter and table on which is paper and two sets of 15 different colored pencils.) "All right.

PAGE 67

59 Here is some paper and 15 different colored pencils. 1 want you to draw the best house that you can draw. You may use as many or as few of the colors as you wish. You have 5 minutes to work on your drawing. You may go ahead now and begin to draw. (Camera on Model 1 and Model 2 sitting side by side at the table.) Model 1: "I think I'll use all 15 colors in my drawing." Model 2: "I think I'll use just 1 color In my drawing." (Camera stays on both models for 2 minutes during which Model 1 changes colors frequently and Model 2 continues with the same color. At no time are either the drawings or the kinds of colors visible.) Experimenter: (Experimenter walks into picture behind the models after 2 minutes, following a brief fade-out and fade-In.) "Five minutes is up. Stop drawing. That's all the tasks there are. Thank you very much." (End of tape.)

PAGE 68

Appendix B Group Instructions Hello. I'm Mr. Musselman from the University of Florida. 1 have asked you to be here today to help me find the answer to the question I am studying. How well can boys and men of different ages do on the tasks I am going to show you? I have been giving these tasks to a few boys from other schools and to a few men, but I want to give them to many boys of the same age so I can tell how well boys of a certain age and grade can do on them. Because all of the boys in your grade will do the tasks, please do not tell them anything about the tasks or instructions so that the difficulty of the tasks is the same for them as it Is for you. Watch and listen to the instructions of how to do the tasks. I want you to do the best job you can possibly do on the tasks. Do each task in the way you think Is the best possible way to do it. This is what you are going to do. I will give you the instructions for the tasks and show you what the tasks are. Then you will go back to your classroom. You will be called one at a time to come and do the tasks. When you finish you will go back to your classroom and another one of you will come in and do the tasks. Let me again emphasize that you not talk about the tasks with each other or anyone else. I want you to do the tasks the way you think you can do them the best. Okay. Now I want to show you what the tasks are and give you the instructions. Before we begin do you have any questions? 60

PAGE 69

61 Control Group: I made a film of the instructions and tasks which I will show to you now. Experimental Groups: I thought it would be a good idea to show you some people doing the tasks In addition to giving the instructions and showing you the equipment so that everyone would know how to do the tasks. So a few days ago while I was giving the tasks to some people,! asked if I could film two of them doing the tasks. They agreed and I filmed them. I will introduce them to you and then begin.

PAGE 70

Appendix C Individual Performance Procedure for Each Subject Experimenter: (Subject enters room.) "If you have any questions now or anytime, please ask them." Task 1 : "Do you want to tap?" Task 2: "How many beans do you think are in the jar?" Task 3: "Where do you want to throw from?" Task k: "What do you want to say?" Task 5: "I want you to draw the best house that you can draw. You have 5 minutes to work on your drawing. You may go ahead now and begin to draw." (After five minutes.) "Five minutes is up. That's all. Thank you very much." 62

PAGE 71

Grade

PAGE 72

Grade Subject 64 Task 2 1

PAGE 73

Grade Subject 65 Task 3 1

PAGE 74

66 Task k Grade 1 Subject 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 if 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 A2 1 1 35 1 45 22 37 52 68 1 6 21 1 13 46 29 37 88 148 54 1 58 5 18 16 6 1 11 13 6 5 7 19 80 23 39 7 3 31 10 20 75 14 18 43 5 25 46 38 7 6 5 8 51 1 6 1 2 8 50 42 24 63 25 15 22 20 16 44 27 47 12 17 54 102

PAGE 75

67 Task 5 Grade

PAGE 76

REFERENCES Aronfreed, J. The origin of self-criticism. Psychological Review^ 1964, 71, 193-218. Baer, D., and Sherman, J. Rainforcement control of generalized Imitation In young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1964, 1, 37-49. Bandura, A. Behavioral modification through modeling procedures. In L. Krasner and L. Ullmann (Eds.), Research in bahavior modification. New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1965a. Bandura, A. Influence of model's reinforcement contingencies of the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965b, 1, 589-595. Bandura, A. Social learning through imitation. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1962. Bandura, A. Vicarious processes: A case of no-trial learning. In L. Berkowitz (ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. II. New York: Academic Press, 1965c. Bandura, A. and Huston, Aletha. Identification as a process of incidental learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1961, 63, 311-318. Bandura, A., and Kupers, Carol. Transmission of patterns of selfreinforcement through modeling. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69, 1-9. Bandura, A., and McDonald, F. Influence of social reinforcement and the behavior of models in shaping children's moral judgement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, I963, 67, 274-281. Bandura, A., Ross, Dorothea, and Ross, Sheila. A comparative test of the status envy, social power, and secondary reinforcement theories of ident if icatory learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963a, 67, 527-534. Bandura, A., Ross, Dorothea, and Ross Sheila. Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963b, 66, 3-11. 68

PAGE 77

69 Bandura, A., Ross, Dorothea, and Ross, Sheila. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Joumat of Abnormal and Social Psychology , I96I, 63, 575-582. Bandura, A., Ross, Dorothea, and Ross, Sheila. Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963c, 67, 601-607. Bandura, A., and Walters, R. Social learning and -personality develo-pment , New York: Holt, Relnhart and Winston, I963. Bee, Helen, and Colle, H. The origins of standards of excellence: Modeling vs. direct reinforcement. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development meeting. New York, 1967Bijou, S., and Baer, D. Child Development. Vol. II. Universal stage of Infancy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts , 1965. Bronfenbrenner , U. Freudian theories of identification and their derivatives. Child Development , I960, 31, 15-^0. Brown, D. Sex-role preferences in young children. Psychological Monographs, 1956, 70, No. 14 (Whole No. kl\) . DeRath, G. The effects of verbal Instructions on imitative aggression. Michigan State University, I963, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Epstein, S. Comments on Dr. Bandura 's paper. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1962. Gelfand, Donna. The influence of self-esteem on rate of verbal conditioning and social matching behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 65, 259-265. Hartup, W. Patterns of imitative behavior In young children. Child Development , 196^1, 35, 183-191. Hartup, W. , and Zook, E. Sex-role preferences in three and four year old children. Journal of Consulting Psychology, I960, Ih , klO-kld . Henker, Barbara Anne. The effect of adult model relationships on children's play and task imitation. Ohio State University, 1963, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Hicks, D. Imitation and retention of film-mediated aggressive peer and adult models. Journals of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 97-100. Kagan, J. The concept of identification. Psychological Review, 1958, 65, 296-305.

PAGE 78

70 Lindquist, E. Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1953Lynn, D. A note on sex differences In the development of masculine and feminine identification. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 126-135Maier, H. Three theories of child development. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. I^artin, W. Learning theory and identification: III. The development of values in children. Journal of Genetic Psychology , 195^, 84, 211-217. McDavid, J. Imitative behavior in preschool children. Psychological Monographs, 1959, 73, No. 16 (Whole No. A86) . Metz, J. Conditioning generalized imitative in autistic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 1965, 2, 389-399. Miller, N., and Dollard, J. Social learning and imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 19^1. Mischel, W. , and Grusec, Joan. Determinants of the rehearsal and transmission of neutral and aversive behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1966, 3, 197-205. Mischel, W. , and Liebert, R. Effects of discrepancies between observed and imposed reward criteria on their acquisition and transmission. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1966, 3, ^5-53. Mussen, P., and Parker, Ann. Mother nurturance and girls' Incidental Imitative learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 94-97. O'Connor, A. The relationship of vicarious learning, intelligence, and academic achievement among negro and white first grade pupils in integrated classes. In process. University of Florida, 1967. Risley, T. The establishment of verbal behavior in deviant children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Washington, I966. Rosekrans, Mary. Imitation In children as a function of perceived similarity to a social model and vicarious reinforcement. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development meeting. New York, 1967. Siegel , S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, I956.

PAGE 79

71 Skinner, B. Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1953. Skinner, B. Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts , 1957. Winer, B. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw Hill, 1962.

PAGE 80

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Gerald Clemmer Musselman was born July 15, 19^0, in Souderton, Pennsylvania. In June, 1958, he was graduated from Christopher Dock High School, Lansdale, Pennsylvania. In June, 1963, he received the degree of Bachelor of Science from Ursinus College, Col legevi 1 le, Pennsylvania. In 1963, he enrolled in the Graduate School of the University of Florida. He worked as a graduate assistant for the Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry. In August, 1965, he received the degree of Master of Arts. From September, 19^5, to the present he has been pursuing work toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. In 1964 he was awarded a United States Public Health Service Fellowship which he held for two years. In 1966 he was awarded a Vocational Rehabilitation Administration Traineeship, which he still holds. At the present time he Is completing his year of clinical internship at the J. Hillis Miller Health Center, University of Florida. Gerald Clemmer Musselman is married to the former Julie Groff Landls. He I s a member of PI Gamma Mu and PsI Chi. 72

PAGE 81

This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August, 1967 /K ^ Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Dean, Graduate School Supervisory Committee: JJ fi /A/^ &y^ Y'K (xyv\j\A.ji^ yU^AJAJt^ VJ 4l/kAA^A^^^^ A~

PAGE 82

1? V® k S 3