Evaluate the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about ethics.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Feb/Mar 2019). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. [2.5] (Strength) Standardisation/Reliability: The study's use of a laboratory setting allowed for high control over variables (e.g., consistent aggressive models, fixed toys), enhancing its standardisation and making it easily replicable to check for reliability.
2. [2.5] (Strength) Quantitative Data: The collection of quantitative data (e.g., number of aggressive acts by children) allowed for objective comparisons between groups and facilitated statistical analysis, increasing the scientific rigour of the findings.
3. [2.5] (Weakness) Ethics: The study raised significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding the protection of participants from harm, as children were exposed to and encouraged to imitate aggressive behaviours, potentially teaching them new forms of aggression or causing distress.
4. [2.5] (Weakness) Ecological Validity: Conducted in an artificial laboratory setting with an unusual task (observing an adult attack a Bobo doll and then being placed in a room with specific toys), the study lacked ecological validity, which limits the generalisability of its findings to how children learn and express aggression in real-life, natural environments.