One of the questions that Social Cognitive Theory attempts to answer is: can television or film affect one’s behaviour?  More specifically, does violence on television lead to aggressive, violent behaviour in children?

The social cognitive theory argues that we learn through observing the behaviours of others.  The way that others are rewarded (or punished) influences our motivation to imitate their behaviour.  In addition, when we identify with the model, we are more likely to imitate the behaviour.  Finally, we need to have a sense of self-efficacy – in other words, we need to believe that we are actually able to do the behaviour successfully.

In the late 1970s/early 1980s, many more remote communities were finally getting access to television.  This allowed researchers to carry out natural experiments.  The independent variable – the introduction of television – was not manipulated by the researchers.  They were able to use a pre-test / post-test design, measuring children’s level of aggression before the introduction of television and then sometime after.  

The following two studies are very similar but have very different results.  However, both studies can be used to support the Social Cognitive Theory.

Joy, Kimball & Zabrack (1986) studied the impact of television on children's aggressive behaviour by carrying out a longitudinal natural experiment.

The study was conducted in three small towns in British Columbia, McMurdo. Television was introduced into the Notel community in 1973. In two other communities, they also received the new channel, but already had access to television. The psychologists observed both physical and verbally aggressive behaviour displayed by elementary school children on the playground in 1973 (before Notel received a television channel) and then again in 1975, two years after Notel received one Canadian channel. There were 120 children in the sample. In addition, teacher and peer ratings of aggressive behaviour and information about television viewing habits were obtained.

The aggressive behaviour of children in Notel increased significantly from 1973 to 1975, whereas, the aggressive behaviour of children in the other two towns did not change significantly over the same period. The peer and teacher ratings supported the findings. The researchers also found that males were more physically aggressive than females. The information collected about children's favourite shows showed no differences between aggressive and less aggressive children. The most probable explanation of the increased aggression in Notel children was heightened arousal, resulting from Notel children's lack of familiarity with television. Heightened arousal would result in a greater likelihood of aggression.

The remote island of St Helena in the Atlantic Ocean was the site of an interesting natural experiment carried out by Charlton et al (2002). Television was first introduced to St Helena in 1995. Psychologists from the UK used this unique opportunity to investigate the effect of the introduction of television on aggression in children. Cameras were set up in the playgrounds of two primary schools on the island, and the behaviour of children (between the ages of 3 and 8 years) was observed before (1994) and after (2000) the introduction of television. The researchers observed a total of 160 children.  A content analysis of the television programs showed little difference in the quantity or level of violence watched when compared with children in the UK, so children on St Helena were exposed to a similar level of violence.

Analysis of hundreds of hours of videotape, backed up by interview data from teachers, parents, and some of the older children, showed no increase in antisocial behaviour among the children of St Helena. The good behaviour evident before the arrival of television had been maintained even after five years of exposure to violent television.

So, why the difference between the two studies?  How can it be argued that both studies support social cognitive theory when one study showed that watching television led to aggression and the other said it didn't?

The study by Joy, Kimball & Zabrack (1986) seems to reflect social cognitive theory.  The children appear to have developed aggressive behaviours by watching television.  As the researchers noted, part of this was the thrill of having television - that is, they were aroused by watching the television.  Remember, Bandura also aroused the children in order to get them to be aggressive. 

So, why not the other group of children? There are a few potential answers.  First, the British television station may have presented models which the children could not identify with.  The people on television were white, middle/upper class, and British.  A second potential explanation is that the children did not have a feeling of self-efficacy - that is, they did not feel that they could behave in the same way as they saw on television. In the debriefing, one of the children said:

Because everyone watches you ... everyone knows you ... You've just got to behave.

Although the behaviours ended up being different in the two studies, the social cognitive theory explains why the children behaved as they did.  Television does not lead to violence - but there are a set of factors that play an important role in whether or not a child will imitate what they see.

Both studies were natural experiments.  This means that they had high ecological validity - carried out under natural conditions.  However, it also means that internal validity was low.  There are several uncontrolled variables in these studies.

Levels of aggression were measured by the researchers by using a checklist.  The researchers worked in teams - using researcher triangulation - in order to improve the reliability of the ratings. The comments given by parents and teachers were also used to confirm the level of aggression - in other words, they used data triangulation.

One of the problems of natural experiments is that they are difficult to replicate - making it difficult to establish the reliability of the findings. It is also makes it difficult to generalize the findings.

Both studies used a pre-test/post-test design, allowing researchers to observe change over time.  As the studies were poorly controlled, it is not really possible to determine a cause-and-effect relationship.