This toy was designed to be hit. When hit, it comes back after going down. That in it self is fascinating enough for anyone to keep doing that. In my opinion, it’s not aggression. They are just playing.
This goes to show how far our education systems have come. Everyone today can easily identify the massive problems with this sort of experiment, and how flawed the science behind it is. The best in the field struggled to do the same just 60 years ago. That's a very effective progression.
Same as a punching bag. When I was little a friend had one in their basement and we would play hitting it pretending to box. In no way were we angry, or violent, we were playing. I think even a boxer doing it isn’t necessarily being violent… they’re exercising or playing a sport..
@@dr.krieger6563 obviously not, I don’t mean all boxers, especially not real really competitive ones. I just meant that in essence it’s a sport, an exercise. All sports can have, aggression in the form of competitiveness
I hope poor Bobo got a nice pension from Stanford after all that battering.... Seriously, valid points raised here. The fine line between imitation, playing and aggression is not clear in the findings. Children absolutely will imitate.
Such an obviously flawed study. The whole point of the Bobo toy is to punch it. The fact that the experimental subjects did so, is not a sign of learned aggression. It is a sign of learned, "playing with a toy as it was designed to be played with."
Well, yes, and no. The doll is designed for 'punching play'. The children who were exposed to actors NOT play-aggressing against the Bobo doll engaged in less subsequent play-aggressions. So, while the notion of the Bobo doll is 'asking for it' is not irrational by any means, the data argues that is an insufficient explanation. Furthermore, the actors would play-aggress with the Bobo doll in ways that are not 'by design'. For instance, actors would toss it in the air. The children would imitate that play-aggression specifically.
Doesn't really explain why the control group kids didn't hit the thing as much. Anyway what does it matter if it's "designed" to be hit? To a small child it's just another toy.
@@lagautmd Yeah. No. You are way overthinking this. The toy is *intuitively* made to be rough with it. Even if not shown what others did with it it is automatic what style of play you do with it.
In a way that was a theory of Lego . Meccano even made their instructions deliberately wrong in the 60`s to encourage kids to problem-solve & think more analytically.
Or as these sort of extreme, dramatic studies like to conclude: Imagine playing Minecraft and then suddenly getting the urge to be a racial supremist, because players often abuse villager towns, steal from them and the like because they're villagers and not their friends. I have seen arguments like that before. It's insane.
The way I see it is some scientists left some kids in a room with a toy that is made for being beat up and thought it was weird when the kids started beating it up. What else did they expect
@@gavinabney4023 but that kind of clown doll was meant for punching and kicking...they're just using it how it's meant~ I used to talk to and play with my toys calmly and now I'm the farthest from calm as you can likely get so that's not always true.
Agreed. This is retarded. The toy is very obviously meant to be punched and pushed about for enjoyment and release of frustration. Hitting something designed to be hit, very obviously is enjoyable to hit and has no consequence morally to do so is like screaming in panic that a adult is now insanely violent because he went to the gym and beat up a punching bag. If anything the models should of been punching something uncomfortable, or not safe to hit and then you could at least argue that learning violence is taking place should they follow it because there is now an actual consequence to the violent act and markedly less enjoyable or frustration venting and there go no reason to do other than they saw someone else do it. But then you know...the kid would hit it once. cried, never hit it again and the experiment would of ended there.
Can we also take into consideration that the Bobo doll is a toy and doesn't in any way indicate if children would behave the same way to a living, breathing, being? Kids can tell the difference between what is able to go "ow", and what isn't.
Also, that style of toy is pretty common, even today. So a child is likely to have prier experience, that reinforces the idea “You play with this toy by hitting it”.
Exactly. The kids would have messed with the doll just for the fun of seeing it bounce around harmlessly. Calling their behaviour "aggressive" is like calling a child "brave" for taking out a second mortgage. The kids have no concept of what the heck the adult world is labelling the actions with.
"We put kids in the same room as a terrifying hell clown toy and the kids started beating on it, our top researchers are STILL trying to figure it out"
Crazy thing is when Columbine happened there were a lot of people feeling sorry for the perpetrators saying that they were "brainwashed by violent media" and bullied into their killing spree. I remember around that time there was a twelve year old boy sentenced to prison for killing his dad after he caught the guy raping his sister. When it came to this child, who endured abuse and was trying to protect his siblings, people said "abuse is not an excuse!" for killing his dad.
Columbine was big. Big tragedies are opportunities to push for social change. That can be a good thing, or a bad, but ultimately the effect isn't governed by what is the best way forward, rather what appeases the most loud voices and garners the most praise.
Lets not forget about that devon asshole People was saying he was a victim for shooting at his classmates and that the kid who sacrificed himself was stupid for saving his classmates,humanity is fucked.
*1960's be like:* Media and adult aggression may lead to children imitating the aggression. *Also 1960's:* Has the most realistic toy guns I've ever seen.
its like how they changed the gun moji on iphone to a fake toy gun. oohhh real gun on a text gonna make me shoot up a place. this time its liberals with the moral panic
Now if they did the study with a living creature and the adult killed it in a bloody frenzy. See which children would respond to biting off a live chickens head with anything other then horror and fear. And get that psychopath help. 🐔
Honestly, the bobo doll just took all those kids stress and anger in a fairly healthy manner. It might actually be good to have one for my kids so im thinking of getting one or something similar now lol
@@dankjankings7339 Okay, if there's someone with terrible anger issues and their options for expressing that anger are a) attacking someone or b) attacking a toy meant to be beat up, which would you rather they do?
@@Deadflower019 I would rather someone figure out what the kid is missing or getting too much of that is causing them to think about hurting someone or something as a means of soothing their pain.
@PoisonFlower765 plus that's not the intention of this toy. It's meant as a toy to teach properties of physics and to make them wonder why it springs up. Not as a substitute for living beings. If a kid has anger issues like that they have serious mental issues that may be genetic but most of the time it's from having parents that weren't raised right or workaholics out of necessity or poverty. Not to forget addict parents.
I’m a full grown adult who is literally afraid of confrontation, but I would 100 percent swing on Bobo without hesitation. I think the kids are just fine.
As a person who dislikes confrontation and just wants to have an alternative way to deal with emotions instead of bawling my eyes at a very unlucky day. l'd scream but I dont want to disturb anyone so I'd be meeting Bobo anytime I'm stressed and just go ham on the guy.
It was a different time. Trying to evaluate the ethicality of what some of those early Psychs did from today’s viewpoint is unfair. Without some of the studies we would consider controversial today (such as Milgram, Stanford prison experiment, etc) we’d not have learned about the concepts of authority, obedience and others which I’m sure were covered in your developmental psych classes. These concepts are continuing to be informally (and formally) evaluated in schools, prison settings and the military just to name a few. The conundrum we face in the field of psychology today, in my humble opinion as a psychologist with 20 years experience, is how do we conduct experiments in an ethical manner yet also make them generalizable to the real world. Yes Alex, how we can manipulate the brain can be dangerous but that’s even more clear to us based on the incredible work of some of those early psychologists.
@@militarypsychologist7255 Just use social media, it's all laid out there. You don't have to look for participants, or pay them, or have them sign a waiver first, they do it for free! Every day! But jokes aside, it's interesting what you say about 'not holding old stuff up against todays standard'... That would mean, you are against the 'cancel culture'..? Every normal person knows time change and it was different times back then, but you still have people running around messing shit up, because of what someone did 200 years ago. One thing I would change, if I had the power to do so, would be to wipe the "Chris Colombo 'found' America" shit. It's just ridiculous to keep that going by now.
I like the duality of "playing violent video games and seeing violent media is turning our children violent" while simultaneously showing increasingly graphic and horrific things on the news
It's like hanging a punching bag and leaving an angry adult in the same room and then claiming because he punched a bag he would go ahead to kill people.
the call of duty and mortal kombat franchises have sold hundreds of millions. easy question to pose in response: where's the proportionate rise in murderers?
I mean like, I dont think though being a dumb way to do science they were looking into the "heat of the moment" type of actions, thinking it would teach kids to act violent in a heated situation, but yeah it was kind of a dumb way to get information
Games are the same thing lol. Most people play the violent ones to take out our aggression so we don't take it out on the rest of the world. Or sometimes it just has a really cool story line that piques our interest. It's not a harmful act at all to take your aggression out on inanimate objects or people who don't exist so long as yoy know the line between fantasy and reality.
And I played it the entire time and I still do not want to physically hurt others because I played mortal Kombat. I played Street fighter like breathing air growing up still didn't make me want to beat people up for no reason. There are violent people in this world who wish to do harm to others and there are people who don't and that's all there is to it
I still remember the moral outrage over violent games. I was also young enough to be questioned by a school psychologist due to being a fan of military and fighting games. It wasn't until last year that I learned the ESRB was created by the industry itself to save its own butt. Norm over at video game historian has a thorough documentary on its creation if you're interested.
It would have been created eventually if not in your life time or mine in the next Some games do lead to brain rot, biggest achievement in life was playing call of duty
Look, it IS a bad idea for kids to play grand theft auto and such nonsense. Anyone who thinks all Video games are okay for kids isn’t thinking clearly.
I think they missed a good opportunity by not observing the children's interactions with each other in the nursery for a week or a month afterwards, to see if aggressive acts were ever directed at other people (or even by surveying the parents, to see if the child became more aggressive with siblings or other family). It sounds more as if they taught kids a fun and healthy outlet for frustration is to punch a punching bag... which is hardly controversial.
Yeah. And human interaction is far more complex than interaction with a toy, consciously and unconsciously. A more accurate experiment, although far more unethical, would be exposing children of various ages/developmental stages to aggressive behaviour towards *other people.*
What we actually learned from this study: "When kids are intentionally made frustrated and then exposed to a toy designed to be punched that they saw an adult model punch, they will punch it" Edit: oh wow thanks for all the likes and hilariously sarcastic replies
Another interesting factor that I think may be of influence (I don't have studies or anything, just personal/anecdotal evidence) is that people who have a "proper" way to take out aggression, tend to be a lot less aggressive in real life. For example I do martial arts and drums, both of which I can "beat up" to let anger out, and I feel better and calmer after and can easily separate when I am supposed to or not supposed to be violent. Or like screaming into a pillow, it's a anger move but it calms us down by letting out pent up anger in a non-destructive way.
I was taught to throw a pinecone at the tree and put all that anger into that pinecone an throw it as hard as you can. Sounds hippy af but I'm a pretty calm adult. Violence has its time and place
Ive seen studies saying the exact opposite. Hell, even mythbusters did a study on letting out aggression physically and found that it only increases your aptitude to let it out in inappropriate situations.
Actually research has found hitting and punching properly encourages us to resort to more aggression and increase anger. Almost like it feeds it. Theres no actual catharsis from hitting things
I think the experiment would have been more effective had the models been aggressive with toys you’re supposed to be gentler with, like smashing the toy cars on the ground or throwing dolls against the wall. It just seems like the kids were experiencing a new and interesting toy and had it modelled to them that the best way to play with it is to hit it.
Yeah! And it's different to hit something you saw the adult hit comparing to hitting something after you saw a cartoon do it. Like, show them a cartoon character smash a doll to pieces, and then check if they'll smash a real doll to pieces.
i was a very "peaceful" girl, even when other babies/children bit me i wouldn't attack them back. at the same time, i've always been obsessed with superheroes, loved to make my dolls fight and "get hurt". i used to find my fake stories where dolls died very entertaining, but was friendly with real kids. so yeah, very flawed experiment either way
They should have had a group just experience the toy without ever seeing anybody do anything too it and see what they do. I imagine a childs first instinct would be to try and topple it over.
Huh? I used to break my toys when I was a kid. My toy cars, my sister's dolls, my action figures and I didn't grow up to be a violent killer. I remember blowing up my little green army plastic toys with firecrackers. Never been in a fight in my life... minus the fights with my siblings.
I've heard there was an interesting anomaly with one of the "aggressive" children in the experiment. Apparently there was a girl with a fear of clowns who dragged the Bobo doll out of the room at the first chance she had. This brings up an interesting question; how many subjects were aggressive from observation vs. how many had a fear/aversion to clowns?
I was thinking the same thing! Ever since a coworker said she was afraid of clowns (we were on a training and someone was making a presentation with a clown illustrating the activity) I keep asking myself this. I thought this would be mentioned somewhere in the study (at least, the few psychology’s studies I’ve read states when something wrong happens with the test’s subjects and their data cannot be used)
Well, I pity those afraid of clowns. I've learned to just tolerate them. They are everywhere these days, social engineering has worked wonders in this phenomenon. These days people don't realize the clowns their handlers have turned them into. Guess propaganda from their tv has been very helpful in this. Something to ponder on our next lockdown.
I see a fundamental problem with the this study. That toy is MEANT to be hit, and the toy wasn’t uncommon during the original study. A child in the initial study, could’ve seen hitting the doll as a neutral act, because they could be thinking “Imma hit the toy, because that’s how you play with it” And as for ever study since. While that specific model isn’t too common anymore, dozens of toys have been manufactured, that are played with in the exact same way This is like giving them a toy car, and expecting them not to roll it around on the floor
well, the study was designed to show that exposing children to violent stimuli turns them violent... So they deliberately chose these toys in order to reach the desired outcome...
@@gmann215 this stuff is why the study is so criticized now. It's also why the repeat study made sure the subjects had prior experience with the doll in a neutral setting, it wasn't a new toy to them and they'd already worked out how to play with it and if they liked it or not. As I remember in that study, how the kids acted in the test session had little to do with how the model acted and a lot to do with the prior play session.
I had two degrees in psychology, but *some* of the fundamental cases or experiments were just unethical torture (the Stanford “prison” experiment) and/or incorrect reporting (the Kitty Genovese murder as an example for “the bystander effect“).
The Bobo doll is a toy designed to be “aggressive” towards with no real consequences. Alternatively, video games are “toys” designed to live out fantasies with no real consequences. This is like the Columbine argument all over again, but these are people who have psychosis and are genuinely ill. Video games and media are a scapegoat
@@silverwind9906 He's making a joke about people taking video game influence on people too seriously. Nobody would actually leave their lover for a fictional character(unless they were mentally ill ig).
@@keto4366 Well yeah you can leave someone for that too, but you wouldnt completely depend on a fictional character unless there was something mentally wrong with you. Hence what I was saying 💁🏽♂
I recall reading about this in university in the late 80's. Every generation, it seems, gets into a panic over the latest "thing" the "kids" are doing that they can't relate to, so they assume bad outcomes. As a parent, I feel those same impulses - rational or not. It was comic books for a while. Then it was television. We can't forget the "satanic panic" that manages to pick up both music (heavy metal) and roll playing games (D&D). After that we got video games. I get the sense that this says more about the people doing the study and their fears, than it might say about the subjects being studied.
@A Fels Yep. Kinda my point. I'm watching my kids grow and get involved in things that make little sense to me as a parent. But, I also see that their peers are there with them. Good? Bad? Don't know. But I do think they will figure it out even if I can't. Or, at least, I have to believe that or else make everyone crazy.
@A Fels Cos the access to p3dos and porn. It doesn't mean you keep themselves without a smartphone. But have knowledge of the latest trends and platforms, in order to give them advise
@A Fels You should know why. But maybe you are so addicted to your smartphone that your head is never up? We are a fucking lost society who has thrown out values away.
I remember those dolls, they were fun, you knocked them over and they popped back up. It didn't have anything to do with violence or aggression, it was more like physics.
Ikr. I actually had one of goofy when I was younger, I liked playing with it because I could barely hit it then it would go down and come right back up, I’d usually try to go harder to see how long I could make it stay down or get lower to the ground bc it would bounce back up faster and higher, I do remember sitting on it to slap it once bc I wanted to see if it could hold my weight which I discovered it had water in the bottom to keep it up so then I just got off to watch it pop back up lol, I don’t remember anything more with the toy after that but if I had to guess what I did next then I probably just kept sitting on it or holding it down so I could watch it pop back up, loved doing that stuff as a kid
When I was a baby my parents gave me a Doll similar to the one in the video but It was an elephant and I would always have Fun torturing It physically. My parents even recorded a video of me punching It. Unfortunately, they Lost almost all the Memories we had together :(
To me, the sketchy part is putting a toy meant to literally be a punching bag for children in a room with them and recording whether or not they hit it. Seems like Sht science to me.
Yet, when it wasn't played with that way the children didn't hit it. So, the toy wasn't 'asking for it'. And, when it was demonstrated that the toy could be aggressed against by tossing it in the air (not its design), the children did that, too. No scientific study is perfect, but this was not sht.
@@lagautmd Perhaps that says more about their ability to judge consequences than their aggressive nature. If you are shown there are no consequences to an aggressive act, that makes it more appealing. All they did was explain why violent video games are fun and cathartic, not that they inherently cause people to escalate to actual violence.
I love that all these "violent video games will make kids violent" people use this psychology theory but don't apply it to observing the parents. Like, more kids come out with issues from watching problematic parents than do from playing games or watching movies. And even that isn't really an accurate observation because it's very possible for anyone to view actions and come to the conclusions that those actions are problematic and choose to end cycles of bad behavior within their family.
That’s very true! I would say that exposure to violent media in a households where the parents are absent or model violent behavior themselves might contribute to children acting out violently, but again that boils down to what they’ve seen from their parents. And even then a child might conclude from other models (teachers, peers, etc) that there is a difference between violence in fiction and real life and not be violent at all. And on the other hand, kids with parents who are attentive, or at the very least not very violent or aggressive, probably have a better grasp of the difference earlier on and avoid violence.
As an adult I have played Aerosmith's violent video game and a game that depicted animals being killed on safari. Loved the first, hated the second. The reason I liked the first one and not the second is because in the first bad guys were being shot and in the second innocent beings were being killed
It's because shit parents aren't going to admit their faults. They would rather blame music, gaming, or whatever else for their kid turning out fucked up. Everything but the parenting itself is blamed. But if that kid becomes a big success, those parents would be right there taking all the credit for their success. Basically shit parents are full of shit
Why are you claiming they don't apply it to parents? It used to be people thought kids would do what they were told and ignore their parents' actions. Only the super ignorant still believe that. Now we know that kids absorb even unconscious messages from their parents and often repeat patterns they told themselves they would never do.
"When kids are learning to play with toys, they'll learn from watching others" is what I got out of this. It's like they forgot that empathy/sympathy exists and when it comes to person to person interaction Vs. person to object interaction and chances are they're not going to be nearly as likey to be violent to another actual person, especially if that person is responding to their actions.
Nah, Psychologists are just retarded, mirror neurons have been observed long ago, but they mainly project into the language centers and orbitofrontal ones, where one learns interaction behavior, and their influence weakens and weakens, as the frontal brain becomes more active.
We are only a few 1000 years of evolution from being feral. What did they expect the children to give it a hug and play blocks and tea time with them? Human being are violent by nature, check our stats. If we are afraid of something or do not understand it are instincts take over. As a species were are on 3 hairs removed from baboons! Do the same experiment on apes and see what they do?
I understand that you didn't have this information when this was recorded so I'm not putting that against you. In the recent Kyle Rittenhouse case, ADA Binger asked Kyle if he played Call of Duty. Kyle's response was "yeah but it's just a game, it's not real life." I think that that settles the issue. The main problem with the Bobo experiment is that they dont test if that translates to hitting an actual person. We humans understand if something is real or not. If the kids had then been asked to hit the person the same way with a mallet or with the gun, I highly doubt they would have done so because even kids understand the difference between an inanimate object and a real person. Just my two cents! Great video!
There's also another thing: being agressive towards the doll =/= being agressive period. They wanted to see whether or not agressive media can impact kids behaviour in a context of real life. A strange place with strangers and unknown dolls is not it From my personal experience it's true it can badly impact kids' behaviour. But that's what parents are for. They are the ones who have to explain the difference between fiction and reality. And of course limit the violent media when it's needed. There's no one good way of parenting because every child is different
If you hit a softball harder because you see a pro baseball player hit a ball really hard... does that mean you're going to murder someone with a baseball bat? Ban baseball to stop drive by shootings?
@@bigmac92 Yet that is the comparison people made, "these kids hitting this inanimate object explains the rising crime rates". That is EXACTLY what they're doing. It's just as asinine to equate to hitting a punching toy to hitting people as equating hitting a baseball to hitting people. Any excuse for politicians to ignore how poverty and prejudice drive crime rates.
@@Treblaine i agree with you poverty has a lot to do with violence. I only say that because when you are poor and have children to feed you are willing to do different things than before you were like that.
@@violetdusk1968 I'm saying mainly that blaming tv and video games is obviously a scapegoat, it's so clearly disingenuous to float this idea. Even if people don't 100% buy the idea it just sows the seeds of doubt "is it poverty or cartoons that drive violent crime? It's too hard to pick between them so I won't demand anything on this issue."
What's funny is Joe Lieberman and all his fellow politicians, most likely watched the "violent" Bugs Bunny, Tom and Jerry, Woody woodpecker etc cartoons, and were not prone to acting out what they saw.
But see the difference is that there were no blood squirting in those cartoons and no one died (if they did they just flew to heaven). So violence is okay as long as it isnt MK and DOOM.
I knew as a kid watching them...that it was make believe. Although, I will admit to mimicking WWF moves with my brother, hence resulting in a broken wrist. So, maybe I shouldn't speak on this. 🤣🤣
The exception, clearly, was Lieberman, who decided at some point in his tender childhood that it would be very beneficial to emulate his cartoon idol, Droopy Dog. "Hello, all you happy people. Did you ever contemplate that, in this quiet, unassuming suburb, you might have an evil Satanic coven, engaged in the most obscenely twisted of practices under cover of night, in your neighbourhood? And that they may be ready to lure your children to a life of horrible psychopathy, groomed through the use of imagination and weirdly shaped dice by the literal Hand of Fate, the Dungeon Master? (Agnes, please put those dice examples back in the Crown Royal bag...they disturb me.) Why, perhaps EVEN YOU!, YOURSELF! ALL YOU PARENTS, MOMS AND DADS!, are already setting up the way for loved ones and your own selves to take a terrible one-way descent into the Pit, thanks to all your Dark Arts dabblings, like aspirin-spiked Flavorade for preventing thrombosis, folk rock festivals, Canadian socialism and government-enforced reefer, and Bobo the blow-up punching doll, secretly modeled after...believe it or not...John Waylon of the Gay Scene! Thank you for attending my BudTendies talk. Drive home safely, but if you must, give Jesus the wheel, not Satan! You'll figure out who's who in time soon enough. G'night, folks."
@@alliekattlopez5535 Yeah, wrestling's a weird one, I remember my dad telling me it wasn't real: and I didn't believe him! Then again, I tried making a nail bomb as a kid: can't say I got the idea from t.v, I got it from another kid! Kids are dumb. The male ones especially, it's a miracle no-one I knew was seriously hurt or killed. I mean, we used to climb sheer cliffs! It was only when a friend tried climbing down a waterfall without me, that I thought "never again".
I don’t think as a kid I would have used the bobo doll as an aggressive act, it’s interesting to me now how it doesn’t fall and it would have been more so as a kid
I remember being almost 4 years old & going to my Aunt’s house, she had a Bobo doll. I beat the hell out of that thing until I was worn out & enjoyed every second of it. It was marketed as a toy you could hit & it would get back up & I was happy to finally see one because I remember seeing advertisements for them. Part of me wonders if these kids had seen the advertisements previously & wanted to play with it since they knew they weren’t adult toys anyway. A lot of kids aren’t stupid. On another note, I immediately questioned if the following info was well researched when a few seconds into the video I heard the words, “Senator John Lieberman.” Yep. I remember those candidates for presidency, Hal Gore & his VP candidate John Lieberman...
And ofc conditioning in play is something kids experience almost as soon as they're handed toys. Boys are encouraged to express violence and aggression, whereas girls are heavily discouraged from displaying violence and aggression and instead pushed towards quieter activities. And that was even more the case in the 1960s than today. I grew up around a lot of boys. We play fought with pretend swords and all kinds of stuff like that. A few years ago, some friends and I decided to make a music video for fun and included in it, my friend and I were going to "sword fight." And after the choreographed part, we did a little play fighting with the plastic swords we brought to the park with us. My friend and her sister had absolutely no idea how to actually play sword fight - they never did it as kids. I never did get them to stop flinching back. I'm fairly sure that if I'd been left in that room, I'd have probably played with the Bobo doll. My friends on the other hand? They might have tapped it a bit, but they wouldn't have shown anywhere near the same kind of aggression as me. Not because of any lack of aggression on their part either (my friend in particular gets ridiculous road rage, whereas I usually just roll my eyes at stupid ppl on the road), but simply because they didn't associate fighting with playing like I did. Nurture plays a pretty big role in how we approach things - especially as children. Kids are smart and extremely perceptive. They learn early on from watching adults what they should and shouldn't do in various situations.
I feel like the children were mostly conditioned to attack the doll specifically because that's the interaction they were exposed too, showing them it's ok to do so and that's how you use it. If for instance they showed them the model, then when the children were around to enter the room the doll was replaced with say a large stuffed animal or some other large object to substitute the doll. Then it could be observed whether the children carried over the aggressive acts to something that was not shown to be necessarily ok to attack, to see whether they took the displayed aggression from the models and doll and applied it to something unrelated. Something outside the environment it was shown to be ok to display aggression in
3 года назад+20
That would have made a better study! Go figure the 60s... I think a very big difference is when the model displaying these violence acts is the caregiver the outcomes are completely different. The child is wired to rely on their caregivers and to make them happy and have connection. To be model from a violent one impacts them deeply. I think that's what they should have been studying.
Yeah that's my major problem with this study and the argument that seeing simulated violence makes children violent. Beating up some model or toy is not the same as beating up a human. I feel like the only way this experiment could show a link between simulated violence and real violence is if the kids started attacking real humans after seeing the doll attacked. Put another way willingness to attack a blow up clown doll does not mean you would attack a human person.
@@horntx So, when the military does training using simulators it can't possibly improve in the field performance? We can't have it both ways. Either practicing on 'toys' influences later actual behavior (that is, good for training soldiers) or it does not (video games with aggression are benign).
The children would also aggress with other toys in the room that were NOT demonstrated by the model, something Plainly Difficult didn't mention. "I feel like the children were mostly conditioned to attack the doll specifically because that's the interaction they were exposed too, showing them it's ok to do so and that's how you use it." You have basically defined social learning, which is what was being studied.
@@lagautmd learning to use your equipment properly is useless? okay then your free to go to the back alley doctor with no experience, as for behavior thats not even relevant with this particular example
The cool down period you is a really good point. It would make a lot of sense to actually test different lengths of time between exposure to the aggression, and re-exposure to the doll. Like if some of the kids were brought in a day later, week later, and year later. Perhaps even re-testing each of the kids a year later as well regardless. Cuz I remember similar situations from my own childhood. There were a fair number of times when I was a kid that all I wanted to do was mimic what I saw. Whenever I watched Kung Fu Panda or similar, my siblings and I would be jumping around pretending we knew how to fight. But more than an hour later, and we'd totally moved on. It never really stuck.
I remember doing a paper on the rise of popularity in romance novels in 18th century Germany and scholars crying about how young men and women reading this filth would surely overheat and overstimulate their brains and lead to all sorts of unwanted and neurotic behaviour. It's funny to read in hindsight but it's basically the same behaviour: The older generation not approving of the younger generation's new pastime and predicting the fall of civilisation because of it.
@@TheJuggtron There was always misinformation. Whether it be from old books written by people who didn't know what they were talking about and, improvised half of what they wrote, or hearsay from random strangers telling stories about mermaids. It's just human nature to believe what you want to believe regardless of if it is true. The internet is just the newest form.
Doctor: "Okay, here is toy made to be hit, and here is a hammer to hit it with" Kid: "Then I'm gonna hit it" Doctor: No that isn't what you're supposed to do
Nah not really I mean kids at young age tend to do what they see so thats why they made this experiment Imagine if they did not do this experiment then some kids watched mortal combat or other action games Also there have been a case where a kid watched a gun fight movie then accidentally found a real gun in his father's drawer and accidentallt killed their house keeper
If you want evidence then here ruclips.net/video/DZTOCp3LC28/видео.html Its a tv show where people submit their cases then lawyers (the two host) tell the punishment one recieves
Most are just legitmately curious, others are just plain cruel, and wants something as either a result of sick fascination or fantasy. Especially that one dude who did those monkey experiments using infant monkeys.
I used to work as a programmer at Core Design and we decided Tomb Raider would (mostly) avoid killing humanoid NPCs (non-player characters) to get a lower recommended age thingy. Of course, many have noted how violent it is towards animals.
Albert Bandura is one of the most cited psychologists because university/college students use this to learn about how not to run a study. That is the only meaningful result from the experiments.
I live about an hour and a half from the town he was born. I think the fact that they’re known not for being the birthplace of an early psychologist, but rather for a 42 foot tall statue of a sausage says a lot about his effect
@@MonzennCarloMallari i disagree. the happening was a great end of the world flick. sure they were trying to promote climate change but i simply disregarded that and enjoyed it for what i decided it was. an end of the world flick.
@@fess1of9That the walberg movie where the grass is making people sudoku themselves? (That was what i took from it first time i watched it, though i realize / d it is different from that, the movie kinda creeped me out.)
I remember as a kid having one of these around and I recall vividly that once I found out it bounced back, my only thought in hitting it was because it came back to me. I don't recall ever hitting that toy due to being upset or due to aggression but more so simply having fun with the toy due to the way it was designed. I'm sure most kids most likely experienced the same thing. So were they being aggressive? Or were they simply playing with the toy?
And the doll never screamed or cried. So unlike another person that would show discomfort the doll just bounces around. I guess many of the children during the study would stop once the other side starts yelling stop.
As a psychology major it kind of feels bitter-sweet that this series is called "Dark side of science" while it only covers some of the most infamous psychology experiments
@@professionalcyberbully6410 because his point is irrelevant. the discussion is about psychologists, not doctors. so all splash did is deflect from the discussion at hand, which is not worth responding too.
The bottom line is that the aggression was modelled as 'play' and therefore can't be studied as malicious intent. Kids will wrestle and knock each other over the same way puppies and kittens do. It doesn't mean they're aggressive. Plenty of people grew up with toy soldiers and superhero figurines.
“Here’s a toy clown that’s really fun to be punched, as well as a hammer. Watch this live demo on exactly how you should play with this inanimate object.”
I cry all the time. See something happy, i cry. See something sad, I cry. Oh a little doggo wants a stroke, I cry... but also there is no joy like booting up forest and caving in a Cannibals head 😂
The fact that this guy is cited or respected at all is just mind blowing. Even a dummy layman like me can look at their methodology and throw my hands up going wtf. They think like an alien observing humans, drawing all the wrong conclusions.
The same could be said about a lot of so-called experts. The results of countless studies draw illogical conclusions, and although this should be obvious to anyone with basic common sense the obvious is almost always ignored because it contradicts the wanted result. Studies are hardly ever done to learn anything new, but rather to compile evidence to support an already biased viewpoint.
Bobo doll don't hit back, when something hits back it also trains the brain to not do that anymore or I'll pop you back. Kids and ppl are trained every day, that's what happens when you go to a job, your either trained the right way or told the right way when you do it wrong, parents are to train their kids no matter what behavior they show, so no matter what they see on TV, it's the parents job to let them know, either good or bad, but most games have a age on it, and I see no reason in not training kids when they are young, a mind is what you build to know good or bad, or make believe or real,I can say my son played cod when he was young, gotta say very good at it, as he got older he wanted to serve in the armed forces, he's 17 now and still wants to, and not to go kill, but to feel a fulfillment of helping , being a service to somebody or to the country, that could be from working on the aircrafts that protect the country, to being a desk jockey handling intelligence. Kids pick up on different things from games and if you let them know the right and wrong sides of what they are seeing you won't come out with a killer of a child, but a child that had the understanding of what is right and wrong, Ive got a great son, don't show aggression, like I said he's 17, he don't wanna go out and hang out with friends because he knows there are some out there that wasn't taught right from wrong and don't want to be around anyone with that thought process, but hey, the doll was made to be punched and beat on anyway,I would rather an unruly kid that wasn't taught right from wrong to beat that doll than another kid, you as a parent need to teach your kid right from wrong no matter what they learn, so don't blame it on games and tv when you should let them know real or fake or right and wrong. And in this instance they give a kid some toys to play with them for no reason at all take them from him or her, let a bank give your weekly pay and then a robber come take it, you as an adult after being shaken , you too would be a bit pissed, that's not learned, it's in everybodies genes to get a bit upset when things don't go your way. We don't just laugh it off and say, hey take my chk again next week because it didn't bother me. No you learn to be more secure with your money, as you get older your mind will open to comprehend better. Bug no reason why some can't learn young, I've seen 2 yr old kids that know sign language,. It's what you teach them don't out them in a spot to make them aggressive and if you do you let them know they have a right to be upset but can't act on it if they would be in the wrong.
I believe if the child did permanent damage* to the doll then the results would be more significant. The child knows the doll isn't really being harmed when he's hitting it. If the child actually popped the doll or punctured it/ripped it etc, then I believe the motive would be more concerning.
I honestly think that something like a stuffed animal would've worked better with this. An almost completely neutral toy with at least 3 different groups separated into at least 2 different sub-groups depending on age. The first group could be of children put into a room with a stuffed toy dog and then shown a video of someone petting a similar toy. These groups could be separated into sub-groups of 6-8 years-olds in one and 9-12 year-olds in the other. The next group could again be given a stuffed toy dog but instead, be shown a video of a person hitting a similar toy. Same splitting of age groups as before. The last group could just be left in the room with the toy and just left to their own devices. Again, with the same separating of age groups. I don't know what this would prove, maybe if children will copy the behaviors of people they see on TV? but this feels like a better format.
I drilled holes in a plastic pumba warthog from Timon and Pumba when I was 6 or 7 years old. I became a United States Marine (violent) and later after the corps got a felony assault charge for a public fight. Can confirm.. it all started with Pumba 🤣
I actually agree with some of the conclusions of the study. Children are extremely easy to be influenced, manipulated because of how young and naive they are but it's not their fault. It's so easy to indoctrinate a child. However, that's not the same as saying that a 12 year old will become more violent if they play Call of Duty or whatever.
I think the study was fundamentally flawed. They gave the kids a toy that's designed to be beaten up and then were surprised that the kids then proceeded to do exactly that. Plenty of the kids were probably just playing - I know I would have at that age. It doesn't mean anything more than kids play fighting with plastic lightsabers. Kids who grow up play fighting will naturally engage in play fighting - which is why they saw more "aggression" in boys than girls. Boys were and are much more encouraged to play aggressively by adults whereas girls were and are discouraged from playing aggressively (unless they have a lot of brothers or boys as playmates like I did). But yes, kids are easily influenced, manipulated, and indoctrinated. But that has far more to do with their parents and other authority figures in their lives than anything else. The vast majority of kids can tell the difference between pretend and reality, well, after a certain age anyway. Kids under 5 might struggle a little, but that's cuz their brains aren't yet developed enough to tell the difference (and ofc some kids struggle with it more than others) - that's also around the age that "imaginary friends" start disappearing and kids stop believing in Santa (also cuz they run into other kids that don't believe around the same time frame). The effects of one's peers shouldn't be underestimated as well - humans are social animals, after all.
@@SadisticSenpai61 I honestly agree. I've played with those types of dolls growing up and naturally beat it up because I assumed that was the point. It's not there to hug or look pretty. Yet I agree that children at a young age can be under the right influence easily manipulated. Looking at say a non-violent route, kids of the 50-60 era grew up with commercials that influenced smoking. If you saw a celebrity smoke or even a cartoon character smoking, you would probably want to copy and follow suit. This is why candy cigs became popular. This doesn't mean all them grew up to become smokers, but I do think the more influence a child sees, the more it sticks. It's probably why in the 90s and 2000s we saw a heavy push on smoking TSAs and even programs like D.A.R.E which was meant to inform and persuade children not to smoke or do drugs. I don't think video game violence pushes us to become more violent. If that was the case with say me and Pokemon, then I'd be more out to getting animals and having them fight which isn't the case.
I agree, my nephews was allowed to play gta 5 when he was 7, all he knew how to do was run around and kill people before cop came and killed him, he later started saying how cop were bad guys and he hated them so his parents stopped letting him play
I don't think it deserve to be rated bad because today it is worse than this, because children sees fighting videos in RUclips, or sees japan's kids show (that looks like power-ranger) beating monsters in every episodes. Also, superhero movies & TV shows...
The idea that media make people violent implies that media must have been incredibly violent in the dark ages, compared to today. Good examples are both world wars: there was pro war propaganda, anti war criticism and belittling of both. All three have certainly influenced people, but how much violence have the media caused or prohibited? Media transports information. But the interpretation and application of information is what the consumers do with it. Extreme forms that actually call for violence are not only rather rare but also ineffective (the communist manifest, Mein Kampf and the Anarchist's Cookbook are widely known and inevitably available, but I barely ever hear about them, or about violence they are causing).
Isn't there a big difference between showing "aggression" towards an inanimate object vs. towards other people? Hitting a thing has no direct consequences, so what should have prevented the children from mimicing with nothing else to do?
Mortal Kombat rustled ALL the jimmies. I was a teenager back then I just loved to play the game and show people the fatalities just so I could watch their shocked pearl clutching reactions!
Im slightly judging the fact they put them in a stressful situation. In my experience, toddlers and children rarely have the words or means to express frustration, leading to them lashing out. Wouldn't it be better to place them in a normal situation? To see how they interact normally. And yea, kids are not adults. They don't think like we do. I'd rate it 4 purely because the poor children were repeatedly put under emotional duress. Mainly I just think it's a bad study because it doesn't take into account how kids actually think. Also I do agree with age restrictions because you don't want to traumatise your kids all at once. Gotta ease them into it ya know?
3 года назад+10
Exactly! Kids rights are just out of the window... It breaks my heart to see these kinda of studies. What were parents thinking to let their kids participate in these?
@ “man this extra 50 bucks is nice”. That’s probably about how easy it is to sum up the thinking of these kinds of people. No thoughts or consideration for others just how the situation affects them immediately.
@ these were kids at Stanford’s daycare. I’m not sure their parents allowed it. I know there were other psychological studies done on children in daycares without knowledge of their parents. I didn’t catch on this video if it said they got parental consent.
This scaremongering has been going on for years, videogames, TV, punk music, heavy metal music, dungeons and dragons and films have been blamed for kids 'going out of control' at some point instead of the actual cause - both parents working 40 hour+ weeks and not having enough free time for each other or their children so don't get a chance to raise them correctly. But it's easier to blame than admitting modern working life is what's destroying families, causing unnecessary strain on relationships and making it more difficult to raise children.
I shit you not it is all a result of the government attempting to scapegoat away from the fact that they are 100% DIRECTLY INVOLVED with how violent the public has gotten even today. These politicians literally rile up a bunch of sociopaths and justify their hatred, allow them to obtain weapons, don't do their job within the jobs their assigned to prevent them from using them, these monsters they've created do things and then when the politicians are backed into a corner for support and actively helping create these situations, they have to scapegoat irrelevant ideas and concepts as to not be forced to take responsibility
He has one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard and he looks like he's about to fall asleep anytime he's publicly speaking. He is the definition of a wet blanket.
If you had a bouncy ball or anything like that as a kid. You wanted to make it fly into the air as high as it will go by throwing it or by chucking it at the ground and sending it. Bono doll makes you want to swing on it and that is normal. It’s a toy meant for that or at least should have been used for that. Plus kids can see that it’s not a real person or kid.
All I know is that when I was a kid no matter how many times I wacked old Bobo he always came back for more and eventually tired me out and I gave up. So I guess in the end the sob won. Oh well.
@@jeffreytroublefield4265 No, you gotta give "Bobo" nightmares Freddy style for even showing up.... Then you blow him up, Atomic weapons are customarily festive.... And then you can sleep well knowing you blew that blown up bastard back to hell....
I was a single teen mum. I tried my best though. My son watched horror with me when he was in middle school. Is my son a monster today? No, he works with computers and he is actually also active here on RUclips. We played Tony Hawk video games when he was 9,10 (we also did a lot of skateboarding). and other video games I made the decision that he was emotionally and mentally mature enough to understand what’s fantasy and make believe and what’s not. We also had “an open dialogue”. And that’s what he praise me for to this day: “You we’re always there for me mum.” A parent cannot expect “the society” or school or the media to teach their children what’s what and what’s not, what’s right and what’s wrong. It’s not a pop star’s fault if your kid is getting heartbroken. It’s a parents job to tell their kids about life. Don’t censure it. You can’t shelter them - but not from the truth, but you can prepare them for life and how to take care and responsibility for themselves. How to show respect.
You might not have known it at the time but what you were doing with your son was gaining mutual respect. You did stuff with him, not turned him loose to run with the crowd. I believe that mutual respect is one of the main keys to raising healthy kids.
So do you also mispronounce all words containing “th” when speak with or around your children? Probably not a great example on here when covering academic subject matter or anywhere for that matter.
So do you also mispronounce all words containing “th” when speak with or around your children? Probably not a great example on here when covering academic subject matter or anywhere for that matter.
Children cannot provide informed consent. If such consent was a prerequisite for conducting experiments on children, no such experiments would ever be possible. You ask the parents for informed consent, not the children. The parents ask you what the experiment is, talk to their children to gauge whether those children seem okay with it, then - using their own parental standards and knowledge of their children's specific character - the parents either grant you consent or don't.
9:10 ah the good old days when you devise an experiment to terrify upset or promote violence to children …. Anyone who has children 👶 understand they get angry if you take their toys away and look to significant adults for permission and social rules. If adults do it then it’s fine for me to do it too
Three thing: 1) This is one of several studies that promoted a serious examination within the social sciences on ethics in research. The result was the Belmont Report in 1978 that made sure, for one thing, that parents/guardians had to give consent for children in studies (though many universities started reining in excesses earlier than that). 2) From the 1930s to today, one of the dominant theories of why aggression happens is called the frustration-aggression hypothesis. That is, if a person is frustrated (with details about the nature of the frustration), they become more likely to aggress in some way, as you describe in taking a child's toy away. So, at that time, and even now, if you wanted to promote an aggressive response it would be important to create frustration. 3) "Look to parents for ... social rules"... that's more or less the definition of social learning. So, you can see that determining the limits and consequences of this might be valuable to study.
Horror movies, extra violent video games, eviscerations, sacrifices, cannibalism in books, we're all part of my entertainment, as a kid. I have never been in a fight and a very calm and docile person. My parents taught me the difference between fact and fiction, right and wrong. I guess that is too much to ask today. I never even use curse words.
In my experience, the players of doom eternal are the most calm, peaceful and patient people ever. However, I do agree that extremely young children shouldn't base their vision of reality on gory games. In conclusion, guide the extremely young children but let the older ( appropriate age) people play whatever they want. It's ultimately their decision to either understand game as a work of wonderful imaginative fiction or take them and willfully turn fictional work of gore into real violence.
Yeah a five year old probably shouldn’t play Mortal Kombat or Doom but a 12 year old at least is fine I guess. Different kids react differently to the world around them so its hard to say.
@@Zanemob exactly you as a parent should watch your kids behavior and how it responds to different media and then decide if the kid is ready to play video games that are not meant to be played by them.
@@Manie230 YES ultimately I blame the parents when a minor ends up reaply finding inspiration from games to be violent. I'm about to be a parent myself and it is my job as one to know my child and what they can handle.
The moral panic of video nasties in the 80s was fuelled by the fact crime was going up at that point. They could try to make a connection between the two. But violent crime has been dropping across the Western world since 1995, at the exact time game graphics were getting better and better and games more widely available.
I would like to see some follow-up. How many of those kids actually remember being experimented on? Just being taken into strange rooms, with strange adults doing strange things may be psychologically significant. It definitely seems surreal from the PoV of a child. The line about these being "Adult toys" and being forbade to play with them. There may be some performance expectation there.
I love how they never observed how being "violent" towards a doll impacted how they played and interacted with other children. If they had even a vague idea of what they should be doing then they would have done that. They basically learned nothing from this experiment and I really hope this wasn't funded by the government in any way because a lot of folks should be given a lot of money back. I mean ffs I am not even remotely trained in human analysis and I can punch enough holes in their logic....
They didn't do that because it would have been a different experiment which would need different controls. This experiment answered some of the questions one would have to beg to even do the experiment you described. This, "I don't know shit, but in 5 minutes I must have thought more than the people giving this months of attention," mentality is how you end up with studies like Bandura's.
As a grown adult, I sense something missing on this study. Even though it was supposed to study subjects under a controlled environment, children in real life are never in a situation were there's not a reaction to any individual action. The study should have included several levels of consequences like it always happens in reality, wether those consequences are pro or against the behavior, it would probably show a different learning pattern on those kids. I've got the feeling those kids would have reacted different if the Bobo doll punched back....
But if the jerks at Stanford directly/physically hurt a kid instead of just using them for illogical and unethical experiments, then they'd end up losing funding
My concern about this study is the fact that a bobo doll is more than a toy, it’s a toy with the purpose of getting hit. It’s rebound effect enhances the entertainment of it. A better experiment would have used a random toy/doll to discern if the aggression was mimicked. Since one can’t tell if the aggression against the bobo was aggressive mimicking or just hitting it for for fun.
Love how everyone in the comments realizes a child hitting an inanimate object designed to be hit doesn't indicate the child would ever be aggressive to a living being yet scientists and judges and everyone else have taken this as some super revealing thing.
@@ejedwards1678 Well if they dont beat up something or someone thats alive then the experiement proves that observation of violence doesnt lead to violence. Still incredibly flawed when applied to fictional media violence (and obviously unethical) because the child is observing actual violent behavior.
Kids have always been violent, it's not just the videogames. Kids have been playing with toy guns and swords and stuff long before videogames were a thing
Exactly. And even if they didn’t know how to play with it, *of course* being shown how it bounces around all goofily when an adult punches it would make a kid want to try it out. It falls more in line with curiosity than aggression…
I feel like the biggest issue with the experiment on a scientific front is that judging aggression in situations where empathy isn't a factor (a doll can't feel pain or discomfort) is a pointless affair with no real meaning in terms of social development. Most people wouldn't feel any guilt chopping logs of wood but if there was a body or something in it's place their empathy would prevent them from doing so. Of course doing that experiment, however more accurate the result, would be far far less ethical. So in the end we are left with an experiment that doesn't answer the question and instead asks whether a child will play with a toy the way it's intended to be played with if shown how to play with it. Which if anything proves the lack of integrity behind the politicians who use the experiment in their quest to take focus off actual issues. That said I do think parental guidance on certain media is very important, partly to help kids understand darker subjects but more importantly to discuss ideological effects certain media can leave, whether intended or not. I believe we should be less worried about violence and sex in media children are exposed to and more worried about things like bigotry or toxicity which aren't always as clearly understood by uneducated minds.
One thing that always puzzles me about teenagers is their ability to resolve problems with relationships if any level and how they find certain solutions to them as the logical thing to do in that situation. Sometimes emotions at that age are crazy as we see in this situation sadly.
adults are subject to emotiobality as well Its just that society is morally obsessed with youth. Kids arent allowed to make mistakes or have flaws without being pathologized.
"The results of the experiment would be used as the justification of the anti video game movement" My head : "i can tell they failed,even before i watched the video"
When I was a teenager there was this girl I wanted to boink and she went to this church that was supposed to be kinda hip and had a big youth group. So sometimes I would join my friend when he went to this church so I could hang out with Ole girl. They had this woman come one Wednesday to the youth meeting and she gave this talk about how Konami would perform human sacrifices every time they released a new mortal kombat game. She went on to talk about these out of body experiences she uses to have when she was a witch. I couldn’t stop myself from chuckling at the ridiculousness of it.
Lieberman was a complete tool, it still amazes me anyone ever took the man seriously. Edit: Incidentally, anyone else ever notice how these people always do things that ONLY an ADULT would think of to do? And also how they always inevitably purposely, some might even go so far as to say obsessively, focus on 'aggression' as interpreted by cynical adults?
Dems were trying to make themselves appear more conservative then they were and decided they want to crack down on things like violent vid games and music. al gore and his wife tipper tried to regulate music and it back fired on him .it probably cost him votes in the long term and may have just had been enough votes to stop him from becoming president along with the senator in this vid. There were Correlated with tons of news stories about the evils of heavy metal devil worship and murders like Ricky 666. There was even senate hearings with the likes of John Denver and Dee shynder from twisted sister
@@charlymrivera7236 Yeah. Yeah they are bad when they start projecting their cynical, damaged world view of everything onto innocent children. They skew the data by basically telling kids "This is how you do the thing" when the kid would never think to do that on their own. They. Are. OBSESSED. They WANT to make 8-10 year olds as nihilistic and broken as they are. It takes an adult to do this, and an extremely damaged one at that.
@@robertnussberger6449 Oh yeah, it's always leftists. Leftists have always tried to pass themselves off as more conservative than they are purely for the sake of amassing as much power as they possibly can.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Another Dark side of Science Video: ruclips.net/video/ctagJrR3HKk/видео.html
Noineteen Nointy Ffree or 1963?
This toy was designed to be hit. When hit, it comes back after going down. That in it self is fascinating enough for anyone to keep doing that. In my opinion, it’s not aggression. They are just playing.
This goes to show how far our education systems have come. Everyone today can easily identify the massive problems with this sort of experiment, and how flawed the science behind it is. The best in the field struggled to do the same just 60 years ago. That's a very effective progression.
Same as a punching bag. When I was little a friend had one in their basement and we would play hitting it pretending to box. In no way were we angry, or violent, we were playing. I think even a boxer doing it isn’t necessarily being violent… they’re exercising or playing a sport..
@@beelzemobabbity you haven't seen Mike Tyson in the locker room prefight, have you?
@@dr.krieger6563 obviously not, I don’t mean all boxers, especially not real really competitive ones. I just meant that in essence it’s a sport, an exercise. All sports can have, aggression in the form of competitiveness
I hope poor Bobo got a nice pension from Stanford after all that battering.... Seriously, valid points raised here. The fine line between imitation, playing and aggression is not clear in the findings. Children absolutely will imitate.
Such an obviously flawed study. The whole point of the Bobo toy is to punch it. The fact that the experimental subjects did so, is not a sign of learned aggression. It is a sign of learned, "playing with a toy as it was designed to be played with."
It would be akin to thinking a child playing with a toy power mower pretending to cut the grass has "a neurotic drive to destroy all plant life.
Precisely. Who wouldn't want to throw around that thing? Especially when it makes more exaggerated movements the harder you hit it.
Well, yes, and no. The doll is designed for 'punching play'. The children who were exposed to actors NOT play-aggressing against the Bobo doll engaged in less subsequent play-aggressions. So, while the notion of the Bobo doll is 'asking for it' is not irrational by any means, the data argues that is an insufficient explanation. Furthermore, the actors would play-aggress with the Bobo doll in ways that are not 'by design'. For instance, actors would toss it in the air. The children would imitate that play-aggression specifically.
Doesn't really explain why the control group kids didn't hit the thing as much.
Anyway what does it matter if it's "designed" to be hit? To a small child it's just another toy.
@@lagautmd Yeah. No. You are way overthinking this.
The toy is *intuitively* made to be rough with it. Even if not shown what others did with it it is automatic what style of play you do with it.
Imagine playing Minecraft and then suddenly getting the urge to build a house IRL.
Damn so that's the reason behind my urge to build a dirt shed...
So that's the reason I always collect iron
In a way that was a theory of Lego . Meccano even made their instructions deliberately wrong in the 60`s to encourage kids to problem-solve & think more analytically.
Or as these sort of extreme, dramatic studies like to conclude:
Imagine playing Minecraft and then suddenly getting the urge to be a racial supremist, because players often abuse villager towns, steal from them and the like because they're villagers and not their friends.
I have seen arguments like that before. It's insane.
New research shows playing minecraft increases children’s urges to steal anvils and golden delicious apples from their neighbor’s houses
The way I see it is some scientists left some kids in a room with a toy that is made for being beat up and thought it was weird when the kids started beating it up. What else did they expect
Lmao 🤣 the kid alone kicking the clown 🤡 made me laugh.
But seriously , what the f do they expect ???
true, what were they supposed to do...hold it close and whisper secrets? Then they would have been pinned as having a different psychological problem~
@@DarkenedAuras not at all. Kids who talk to, and play with their toys calmly grow up to be more calm.
@@gavinabney4023 but that kind of clown doll was meant for punching and kicking...they're just using it how it's meant~
I used to talk to and play with my toys calmly and now I'm the farthest from calm as you can likely get so that's not always true.
Seriously. It's like if they left a kid in a room with a teddy bear and got surprised when the kid hugged it.
"These children are obviously aggressive because they hit a toy that was literally designed to be hit."
lmao
Agreed.
This is retarded. The toy is very obviously meant to be punched and pushed about for enjoyment and release of frustration. Hitting something designed to be hit, very obviously is enjoyable to hit and has no consequence morally to do so is like screaming in panic that a adult is now insanely violent because he went to the gym and beat up a punching bag. If anything the models should of been punching something uncomfortable, or not safe to hit and then you could at least argue that learning violence is taking place should they follow it because there is now an actual consequence to the violent act and markedly less enjoyable or frustration venting and there go no reason to do other than they saw someone else do it.
But then you know...the kid would hit it once. cried, never hit it again and the experiment would of ended there.
Yup.... 😂
Its like punching bag dont exist.
This was my thought the whole time. How do you play with the Bobo Doll in a non-aggressive way?
Can we also take into consideration that the Bobo doll is a toy and doesn't in any way indicate if children would behave the same way to a living, breathing, being? Kids can tell the difference between what is able to go "ow", and what isn't.
Can we also recognise that it's a natural human instinct to want to beat the sh*t out of clowns? I want to hit that doll just looking at it!
Also that a fair amount of kids probably know that’s what the bobo doll is made for… punching
Also, that style of toy is pretty common, even today. So a child is likely to have prier experience, that reinforces the idea “You play with this toy by hitting it”.
exactly what i was going to comment
Exactly. The kids would have messed with the doll just for the fun of seeing it bounce around harmlessly. Calling their behaviour "aggressive" is like calling a child "brave" for taking out a second mortgage. The kids have no concept of what the heck the adult world is labelling the actions with.
This feels like giving a kid the crash test dummy playset and being shocked when they inevitably crash the car
The brilliance of your comment *chefs kiss*
That assumes the kid would know what a crash test dummy was for.
@@Cheepchipsable i mean i feel like most kids would know
where could i get a crash test toy set that sounds genuinely interesting
Ohhh i used to have some of those. Nostalgic endorphins
"We put kids in the same room as a terrifying hell clown toy and the kids started beating on it, our top researchers are STILL trying to figure it out"
Crazy thing is when Columbine happened there were a lot of people feeling sorry for the perpetrators saying that they were "brainwashed by violent media" and bullied into their killing spree. I remember around that time there was a twelve year old boy sentenced to prison for killing his dad after he caught the guy raping his sister. When it came to this child, who endured abuse and was trying to protect his siblings, people said "abuse is not an excuse!" for killing his dad.
Welcome to humanity how can we disapoint you today?
so this child killed his dad for raping his sister and he got sent to prison? wtf is wrong with humanity.
Columbine was big. Big tragedies are opportunities to push for social change. That can be a good thing, or a bad, but ultimately the effect isn't governed by what is the best way forward, rather what appeases the most loud voices and garners the most praise.
Lets not forget about that devon asshole
People was saying he was a victim for shooting at his classmates and that the kid who sacrificed himself was stupid for saving his classmates,humanity is fucked.
he should not have got prison but therapy and help I hope he got out on appeal there is no justification for that sentence he was saving his sister
*1960's be like:* Media and adult aggression may lead to children imitating the aggression.
*Also 1960's:* Has the most realistic toy guns I've ever seen.
its like how they changed the gun moji on iphone to a fake toy gun. oohhh real gun on a text gonna make me shoot up a place. this time its liberals with the moral panic
@@TheHikeChoseMe bro what 💀 lmao
🔫
@@TheHikeChoseMe from a liberal gun owner: lol shut up propagandist bot
@@CubeGodd Not all of you are degenerates lol.
(kid punches the one toy meant to be punched)
Researcher: Damn kid, that's fucked up.
😅 Right. I was thinking the same thing
Now if they did the study with a living creature and the adult killed it in a bloody frenzy.
See which children would respond to biting off a live chickens head with anything other then horror and fear.
And get that psychopath help. 🐔
@@totalsieged can a psychopath be helped? The ego and the lack of sympathy makes me think otherwise.
@@totalsieged Are you saying you wouldn't also bite the chicken's head off? Man, my childhood must have been abnormal.
Lmao such a stupid experiment.
Honestly, the bobo doll just took all those kids stress and anger in a fairly healthy manner. It might actually be good to have one for my kids so im thinking of getting one or something similar now lol
this. Adults seem to think kids are supposed to be happy go lucky cartoons with no nuance or stress. God forbid a child is upset or worried
Physically assaulting a person or object in likeness of one is far from a heathy and productive outlet to express feelings
@@dankjankings7339 Okay, if there's someone with terrible anger issues and their options for expressing that anger are a) attacking someone or b) attacking a toy meant to be beat up, which would you rather they do?
@@Deadflower019 I would rather someone figure out what the kid is missing or getting too much of that is causing them to think about hurting someone or something as a means of soothing their pain.
@PoisonFlower765 plus that's not the intention of this toy. It's meant as a toy to teach properties of physics and to make them wonder why it springs up. Not as a substitute for living beings. If a kid has anger issues like that they have serious mental issues that may be genetic but most of the time it's from having parents that weren't raised right or workaholics out of necessity or poverty. Not to forget addict parents.
I’m a full grown adult who is literally afraid of confrontation, but I would 100 percent swing on Bobo without hesitation. I think the kids are just fine.
Well..the Bobo asked for it so *justified*
Not without hesitation 🤣🤣🤣☠☠☠
Bobo been talking trash since day one he needs it lol
As a person who dislikes confrontation and just wants to have an alternative way to deal with emotions instead of bawling my eyes at a very unlucky day. l'd scream but I dont want to disturb anyone so I'd be meeting Bobo anytime I'm stressed and just go ham on the guy.
same
As a psychology major, the power early psychologists had was scary. And the way you can manipulate the brain is dangerous
I like that psychologists could do more controversial experiments. I want to learn things
It was a different time. Trying to evaluate the ethicality of what some of those early Psychs did from today’s viewpoint is unfair. Without some of the studies we would consider controversial today (such as Milgram, Stanford prison experiment, etc) we’d not have learned about the concepts of authority, obedience and others which I’m sure were covered in your developmental psych classes. These concepts are continuing to be informally (and formally) evaluated in schools, prison settings and the military just to name a few. The conundrum we face in the field of psychology today, in my humble opinion as a psychologist with 20 years experience, is how do we conduct experiments in an ethical manner yet also make them generalizable to the real world. Yes Alex, how we can manipulate the brain can be dangerous but that’s even more clear to us based on the incredible work of some of those early psychologists.
*modern psychologist’s ex. puberty blockers
@@militarypsychologist7255
Just use social media, it's all laid out there. You don't have to look for participants, or pay them, or have them sign a waiver first, they do it for free! Every day!
But jokes aside, it's interesting what you say about 'not holding old stuff up against todays standard'...
That would mean, you are against the 'cancel culture'..?
Every normal person knows time change and it was different times back then, but you still have people running around messing shit up, because of what someone did 200 years ago.
One thing I would change, if I had the power to do so, would be to wipe the "Chris Colombo 'found' America" shit. It's just ridiculous to keep that going by now.
Yes and they did their jobs better than psychologists today. Psychology is now a laughing stock
I recall the 1997 experiment in putting foxes' heads on sticks. They determined that the word "cruel" started flashing.
😂😂 I’m looking for an excuse to work the brass moustache into a video some how
@@PlainlyDifficult Where is your self-re-cocking-spect?
Hey, I'm starting to feel a little uncomfortable, guys... :)
@@eadweard. I just found my new most favorite hyphenated word!
@@SFox-if9id same here m8
I like the duality of "playing violent video games and seeing violent media is turning our children violent" while simultaneously showing increasingly graphic and horrific things on the news
Imagine you get a 78 on a test and you come home and your dad says “neutral job Billy!”
Change "Billy" to "Kim", "Wang", or "Sadeep" and that'll sound about right; maybe even too kind.
That would be weird because my names not billy
I mean, 78% is a "C", which is defined as "average" performance, so... literally correct?
Nerdsammich style cold, parents should be supportive, not ice cold fact machines...
@@VincentBourbeau Didn't say it was proper, only that it's accurate.
It's like hanging a punching bag and leaving an angry adult in the same room and then claiming because he punched a bag he would go ahead to kill people.
the call of duty and mortal kombat franchises have sold hundreds of millions. easy question to pose in response: where's the proportionate rise in murderers?
@@EpicWinNoob in Karen's Facebook group 😂
I mean like, I dont think though being a dumb way to do science they were looking into the "heat of the moment" type of actions, thinking it would teach kids to act violent in a heated situation, but yeah it was kind of a dumb way to get information
Games are the same thing lol. Most people play the violent ones to take out our aggression so we don't take it out on the rest of the world. Or sometimes it just has a really cool story line that piques our interest. It's not a harmful act at all to take your aggression out on inanimate objects or people who don't exist so long as yoy know the line between fantasy and reality.
@@EpicWinNoob ok so hot wells is causing car crashes and comments like yours causes problems low iq
Almost 30 years later, Mortal Kombat is still going strong, and even more violent and over-the-top than ever LOL
And I played it the entire time and I still do not want to physically hurt others because I played mortal Kombat. I played Street fighter like breathing air growing up still didn't make me want to beat people up for no reason. There are violent people in this world who wish to do harm to others and there are people who don't and that's all there is to it
Yeah it’s big but nowhere near as big as in the 90’s. Smash Bros is bigger imo and I don’t play neither now. Could be wrong though eh
@@TheDonWallzie bruh you cant compare smash bro to most game because it has many franchise combine
@@Megaman-2407 I can, I will and I have
Doom: am I a joke to you?
I still remember the moral outrage over violent games. I was also young enough to be questioned by a school psychologist due to being a fan of military and fighting games. It wasn't until last year that I learned the ESRB was created by the industry itself to save its own butt. Norm over at video game historian has a thorough documentary on its creation if you're interested.
It would have been created eventually if not in your life time or mine in the next
Some games do lead to brain rot, biggest achievement in life was playing call of duty
Look, it IS a bad idea for kids to play grand theft auto and such nonsense.
Anyone who thinks all Video games are okay for kids isn’t thinking clearly.
Scientists in the 60s:
"Here is a toy hammer and a puppet ment to be punched"
Kid:*uses hammer against puppet*
Scientist 'surprised Pikachu face'
It's not a puppet. It's a Bobble toy
Can anyone construct a sentence any more?
Everything is
This:
That:
pikachu face
It's like the experiment. Bunch of simpletons copying each other.
@@01DOGG01 lol
@@01DOGG01 It's a joke not a dick. Don't take it so hard.
@@vesiusverabis7698 Oh yeah, it's hilarious. He should become a professional comedian with originality like that
I think they missed a good opportunity by not observing the children's interactions with each other in the nursery for a week or a month afterwards, to see if aggressive acts were ever directed at other people (or even by surveying the parents, to see if the child became more aggressive with siblings or other family). It sounds more as if they taught kids a fun and healthy outlet for frustration is to punch a punching bag... which is hardly controversial.
I agree
if they did that then their bullshit would be proven wrong and politicians hate being wrong
Makes sense as for example playing video games, even violent ones, is coincidential with lower violent crime rates.
They wanted to shove any evidence that doesn't support their hypothesis, which is shameful
Yeah. And human interaction is far more complex than interaction with a toy, consciously and unconsciously.
A more accurate experiment, although far more unethical, would be exposing children of various ages/developmental stages to aggressive behaviour towards *other people.*
What we actually learned from this study:
"When kids are intentionally made frustrated and then exposed to a toy designed to be punched that they saw an adult model punch, they will punch it"
Edit: oh wow thanks for all the likes and hilariously sarcastic replies
*Correct*
Shocking scientific breakthrough of the decade right here
I wonder if stress ball usage is related to stress in some way
@@slyseal2091 idk mate, might need a little more research such a stretch! next you'll tell me that teethers are meant for biting?
Kids often do what they are told. And if an authority figure does it they assume it’s ok for them to do.
Another interesting factor that I think may be of influence (I don't have studies or anything, just personal/anecdotal evidence) is that people who have a "proper" way to take out aggression, tend to be a lot less aggressive in real life. For example I do martial arts and drums, both of which I can "beat up" to let anger out, and I feel better and calmer after and can easily separate when I am supposed to or not supposed to be violent. Or like screaming into a pillow, it's a anger move but it calms us down by letting out pent up anger in a non-destructive way.
I was taught to throw a pinecone at the tree and put all that anger into that pinecone an throw it as hard as you can. Sounds hippy af but I'm a pretty calm adult. Violence has its time and place
Ive seen studies saying the exact opposite.
Hell, even mythbusters did a study on letting out aggression physically and found that it only increases your aptitude to let it out in inappropriate situations.
@@SatanSavedMe I would say terrorism is the opposite of "bottling it up."
Actually research has found hitting and punching properly encourages us to resort to more aggression and increase anger. Almost like it feeds it. Theres no actual catharsis from hitting things
I think the experiment would have been more effective had the models been aggressive with toys you’re supposed to be gentler with, like smashing the toy cars on the ground or throwing dolls against the wall. It just seems like the kids were experiencing a new and interesting toy and had it modelled to them that the best way to play with it is to hit it.
Yeah! And it's different to hit something you saw the adult hit comparing to hitting something after you saw a cartoon do it. Like, show them a cartoon character smash a doll to pieces, and then check if they'll smash a real doll to pieces.
i was a very "peaceful" girl, even when other babies/children bit me i wouldn't attack them back. at the same time, i've always been obsessed with superheroes, loved to make my dolls fight and "get hurt". i used to find my fake stories where dolls died very entertaining, but was friendly with real kids. so yeah, very flawed experiment either way
They should have had a group just experience the toy without ever seeing anybody do anything too it and see what they do. I imagine a childs first instinct would be to try and topple it over.
Huh? I used to break my toys when I was a kid. My toy cars, my sister's dolls, my action figures and I didn't grow up to be a violent killer. I remember blowing up my little green army plastic toys with firecrackers. Never been in a fight in my life... minus the fights with my siblings.
I've heard there was an interesting anomaly with one of the "aggressive" children in the experiment. Apparently there was a girl with a fear of clowns who dragged the Bobo doll out of the room at the first chance she had. This brings up an interesting question; how many subjects were aggressive from observation vs. how many had a fear/aversion to clowns?
I was thinking the same thing! Ever since a coworker said she was afraid of clowns (we were on a training and someone was making a presentation with a clown illustrating the activity) I keep asking myself this. I thought this would be mentioned somewhere in the study (at least, the few psychology’s studies I’ve read states when something wrong happens with the test’s subjects and their data cannot be used)
I quite agree. When I was a kid, I would have been freaked out by that thing and would probably try to kill it before it murdered me.
Well, I pity those afraid of clowns. I've learned to just tolerate them. They are everywhere these days, social engineering has worked wonders in this phenomenon. These days people don't realize the clowns their handlers have turned them into. Guess propaganda from their tv has been very helpful in this. Something to ponder on our next lockdown.
@@JamesSmith-jq2jc There are much more interesting things to ponder.
@@JamesSmith-jq2jc Are you implying there is a conspiracy behind phobia of clowns?
I see a fundamental problem with the this study. That toy is MEANT to be hit, and the toy wasn’t uncommon during the original study.
A child in the initial study, could’ve seen hitting the doll as a neutral act, because they could be thinking “Imma hit the toy, because that’s how you play with it”
And as for ever study since. While that specific model isn’t too common anymore, dozens of toys have been manufactured, that are played with in the exact same way
This is like giving them a toy car, and expecting them not to roll it around on the floor
well, the study was designed to show that exposing children to violent stimuli turns them violent...
So they deliberately chose these toys in order to reach the desired outcome...
@@jwenting Which didnt really prove anything, because somebody that has access to no violent stimuli can still naturally turn into a violent person.
I know you lock a kid in a room with punching bag and get surprised when they hit it.
@@jwenting Have you considered that the toy itself is violent stimuli? I mean, it is meant to be hit.
@@gmann215 this stuff is why the study is so criticized now. It's also why the repeat study made sure the subjects had prior experience with the doll in a neutral setting, it wasn't a new toy to them and they'd already worked out how to play with it and if they liked it or not. As I remember in that study, how the kids acted in the test session had little to do with how the model acted and a lot to do with the prior play session.
I had two degrees in psychology, but *some* of the fundamental cases or experiments were just unethical torture (the Stanford “prison” experiment) and/or incorrect reporting (the Kitty Genovese murder as an example for “the bystander effect“).
The Bobo doll is a toy designed to be “aggressive” towards with no real consequences. Alternatively, video games are “toys” designed to live out fantasies with no real consequences. This is like the Columbine argument all over again, but these are people who have psychosis and are genuinely ill. Video games and media are a scapegoat
"Oh sorry babe, i guess we should break up because I'm a married character in this video game."
@@kenz2756? What does have to do-
@@silverwind9906 He's making a joke about people taking video game influence on people too seriously. Nobody would actually leave their lover for a fictional character(unless they were mentally ill ig).
@@Sethoffgrid or if they are sick of that lover because they are to demanding or abusive.
@@keto4366 Well yeah you can leave someone for that too, but you wouldnt completely depend on a fictional character unless there was something mentally wrong with you. Hence what I was saying 💁🏽♂
I recall reading about this in university in the late 80's. Every generation, it seems, gets into a panic over the latest "thing" the "kids" are doing that they can't relate to, so they assume bad outcomes. As a parent, I feel those same impulses - rational or not. It was comic books for a while. Then it was television. We can't forget the "satanic panic" that manages to pick up both music (heavy metal) and roll playing games (D&D). After that we got video games. I get the sense that this says more about the people doing the study and their fears, than it might say about the subjects being studied.
Smartphones and multimedia is NOT good for kids!
@A Fels Yep. Kinda my point. I'm watching my kids grow and get involved in things that make little sense to me as a parent. But, I also see that their peers are there with them. Good? Bad? Don't know. But I do think they will figure it out even if I can't. Or, at least, I have to believe that or else make everyone crazy.
@A Fels Cos the access to p3dos and porn. It doesn't mean you keep themselves without a smartphone. But have knowledge of the latest trends and platforms, in order to give them advise
@A Fels You should know why. But maybe you are so addicted to your smartphone that your head is never up? We are a fucking lost society who has thrown out values away.
Tfw when you play paladin in dnd, and you're like "naw mom I'M PURGING THE HERETICS"
The biggest thing this series taught me is to never enroll my kids in a stanford daycare center
"My son's grown a third arm...how do you explain this?!?"
*best damn comment in this thread*
Scientist: Here's a toy meant to be punched.
Kid: * punches toy *
Scientist:
*H O W D A R E Y O U ? !*
I remember those dolls, they were fun, you knocked them over and they popped back up. It didn't have anything to do with violence or aggression, it was more like physics.
Ikr. I actually had one of goofy when I was younger, I liked playing with it because I could barely hit it then it would go down and come right back up, I’d usually try to go harder to see how long I could make it stay down or get lower to the ground bc it would bounce back up faster and higher, I do remember sitting on it to slap it once bc I wanted to see if it could hold my weight which I discovered it had water in the bottom to keep it up so then I just got off to watch it pop back up lol, I don’t remember anything more with the toy after that but if I had to guess what I did next then I probably just kept sitting on it or holding it down so I could watch it pop back up, loved doing that stuff as a kid
@@ShinySonic d egenerate
Exactly just because someone uses a punching bag doesnt make them aggressive…
Weeboles wobble but they won't fall down
When I was a baby my parents gave me a Doll similar to the one in the video but It was an elephant and I would always have Fun torturing It physically. My parents even recorded a video of me punching It. Unfortunately, they Lost almost all the Memories we had together :(
To me, the sketchy part is putting a toy meant to literally be a punching bag for children in a room with them and recording whether or not they hit it. Seems like Sht science to me.
Yet, when it wasn't played with that way the children didn't hit it. So, the toy wasn't 'asking for it'. And, when it was demonstrated that the toy could be aggressed against by tossing it in the air (not its design), the children did that, too. No scientific study is perfect, but this was not sht.
Of course its shit sience. They didnt know much back then.
@@lagautmd Perhaps that says more about their ability to judge consequences than their aggressive nature. If you are shown there are no consequences to an aggressive act, that makes it more appealing. All they did was explain why violent video games are fun and cathartic, not that they inherently cause people to escalate to actual violence.
And make them really bored an pissed off.
Also the fact that the kids with violent models were pretty much just playing with the toy in the manner they had just been shown.
Why would they use a doll THATS MEANT TO BE PUNCHED to find out if the children would be "agressive"?
Maybe they have an agenda to push. So they design the experiment in such a way that guarantees they get the desired results.
Atleast put some random stuff there (that wont kill a child) and see what happens.
exactly. clearly they’re pushing a political agenda here, and must i say in a very bad method
o yeah, let's use a real person :)
@@XaN_- thats not the point
Children: *punch a punching bag*
Adults: such horrible violence
The Stanford psychology department and questionably ethical experiments, name a more iconic duo
Union Carbide & disasters??
Religion and genocide
The government and oil companies 🙅♂️
I’ll wait
Bread and butter
I love that all these "violent video games will make kids violent" people use this psychology theory but don't apply it to observing the parents. Like, more kids come out with issues from watching problematic parents than do from playing games or watching movies. And even that isn't really an accurate observation because it's very possible for anyone to view actions and come to the conclusions that those actions are problematic and choose to end cycles of bad behavior within their family.
That’s very true! I would say that exposure to violent media in a households where the parents are absent or model violent behavior themselves might contribute to children acting out violently, but again that boils down to what they’ve seen from their parents. And even then a child might conclude from other models (teachers, peers, etc) that there is a difference between violence in fiction and real life and not be violent at all. And on the other hand, kids with parents who are attentive, or at the very least not very violent or aggressive, probably have a better grasp of the difference earlier on and avoid violence.
As an adult I have played Aerosmith's violent video game and a game that depicted animals being killed on safari. Loved the first, hated the second. The reason I liked the first one and not the second is because in the first bad guys were being shot and in the second innocent beings were being killed
It's because shit parents aren't going to admit their faults. They would rather blame music, gaming, or whatever else for their kid turning out fucked up. Everything but the parenting itself is blamed. But if that kid becomes a big success, those parents would be right there taking all the credit for their success. Basically shit parents are full of shit
@@SamsarasArt yeah, exactly
Why are you claiming they don't apply it to parents? It used to be people thought kids would do what they were told and ignore their parents' actions. Only the super ignorant still believe that. Now we know that kids absorb even unconscious messages from their parents and often repeat patterns they told themselves they would never do.
"When kids are learning to play with toys, they'll learn from watching others" is what I got out of this. It's like they forgot that empathy/sympathy exists and when it comes to person to person interaction Vs. person to object interaction and chances are they're not going to be nearly as likey to be violent to another actual person, especially if that person is responding to their actions.
Nah, Psychologists are just retarded, mirror neurons have been observed long ago, but they mainly project into the language centers and orbitofrontal ones, where one learns interaction behavior, and their influence weakens and weakens, as the frontal brain becomes more active.
Perhaps they're a narcissist
We are only a few 1000 years of evolution from being feral. What did they expect the children to give it a hug and play blocks and tea time with them? Human being are violent by nature, check our stats. If we are afraid of something or do not understand it are instincts take over. As a species were are on 3 hairs removed from baboons! Do the same experiment on apes and see what they do?
@@derekbidelman2442 Lol still clinging to that outdated disproved 90s theory??
@@derekbidelman2442 Absolute truth.
I understand that you didn't have this information when this was recorded so I'm not putting that against you.
In the recent Kyle Rittenhouse case, ADA Binger asked Kyle if he played Call of Duty. Kyle's response was "yeah but it's just a game, it's not real life." I think that that settles the issue. The main problem with the Bobo experiment is that they dont test if that translates to hitting an actual person. We humans understand if something is real or not. If the kids had then been asked to hit the person the same way with a mallet or with the gun, I highly doubt they would have done so because even kids understand the difference between an inanimate object and a real person.
Just my two cents! Great video!
kyle is a clown.
All this ""study"" shows is children are easily impressed by clear authority figures who demand they do things, fucking hell
""""""""study""""""""
There's also another thing: being agressive towards the doll =/= being agressive period. They wanted to see whether or not agressive media can impact kids behaviour in a context of real life. A strange place with strangers and unknown dolls is not it
From my personal experience it's true it can badly impact kids' behaviour. But that's what parents are for. They are the ones who have to explain the difference between fiction and reality. And of course limit the violent media when it's needed. There's no one good way of parenting because every child is different
If you hit a softball harder because you see a pro baseball player hit a ball really hard... does that mean you're going to murder someone with a baseball bat?
Ban baseball to stop drive by shootings?
@@Treblaine That is the absolute worst comparison I’ve ever heard
@@bigmac92 Yet that is the comparison people made, "these kids hitting this inanimate object explains the rising crime rates".
That is EXACTLY what they're doing.
It's just as asinine to equate to hitting a punching toy to hitting people as equating hitting a baseball to hitting people.
Any excuse for politicians to ignore how poverty and prejudice drive crime rates.
@@Treblaine i agree with you poverty has a lot to do with violence. I only say that because when you are poor and have children to feed you are willing to do different things than before you were like that.
@@violetdusk1968 I'm saying mainly that blaming tv and video games is obviously a scapegoat, it's so clearly disingenuous to float this idea.
Even if people don't 100% buy the idea it just sows the seeds of doubt "is it poverty or cartoons that drive violent crime? It's too hard to pick between them so I won't demand anything on this issue."
What's funny is Joe Lieberman and all his fellow politicians, most likely watched the "violent" Bugs Bunny, Tom and Jerry, Woody woodpecker etc cartoons, and were not prone to acting out what they saw.
But see the difference is that there were no blood squirting in those cartoons and no one died (if they did they just flew to heaven). So violence is okay as long as it isnt MK and DOOM.
Well, except for that one time Joe Lieberman tricked a duck into claiming it was “Duck Season”. /s
I knew as a kid watching them...that it was make believe. Although, I will admit to mimicking WWF moves with my brother, hence resulting in a broken wrist.
So, maybe I shouldn't speak on this. 🤣🤣
The exception, clearly, was Lieberman, who decided at some point in his tender childhood that it would be very beneficial to emulate his cartoon idol, Droopy Dog.
"Hello, all you happy people. Did you ever contemplate that, in this quiet, unassuming suburb, you might have an evil Satanic coven, engaged in the most obscenely twisted of practices under cover of night, in your neighbourhood?
And that they may be ready to lure your children to a life of horrible psychopathy, groomed through the use of imagination and weirdly shaped dice by the literal Hand of Fate, the Dungeon Master? (Agnes, please put those dice examples back in the Crown Royal bag...they disturb me.)
Why, perhaps EVEN YOU!, YOURSELF! ALL YOU PARENTS, MOMS AND DADS!, are already setting up the way for loved ones and your own selves to take a terrible one-way descent into the Pit, thanks to all your Dark Arts dabblings, like aspirin-spiked Flavorade for preventing thrombosis, folk rock festivals, Canadian socialism and government-enforced reefer, and Bobo the blow-up punching doll, secretly modeled after...believe it or not...John Waylon of the Gay Scene!
Thank you for attending my BudTendies talk. Drive home safely, but if you must, give Jesus the wheel, not Satan! You'll figure out who's who in time soon enough. G'night, folks."
@@alliekattlopez5535 Yeah, wrestling's a weird one, I remember my dad telling me it wasn't real: and I didn't believe him! Then again, I tried making a nail bomb as a kid: can't say I got the idea from t.v, I got it from another kid! Kids are dumb. The male ones especially, it's a miracle no-one I knew was seriously hurt or killed. I mean, we used to climb sheer cliffs! It was only when a friend tried climbing down a waterfall without me, that I thought "never again".
I don’t think as a kid I would have used the bobo doll as an aggressive act, it’s interesting to me now how it doesn’t fall and it would have been more so as a kid
"They punched the punching bag toy? What a monster."
*sees number of likes* nice
Experimenters are monsters. Not the children.
I remember being almost 4 years old & going to my Aunt’s house, she had a Bobo doll. I beat the hell out of that thing until I was worn out & enjoyed every second of it. It was marketed as a toy you could hit & it would get back up & I was happy to finally see one because I remember seeing advertisements for them. Part of me wonders if these kids had seen the advertisements previously & wanted to play with it since they knew they weren’t adult toys anyway. A lot of kids aren’t stupid.
On another note, I immediately questioned if the following info was well researched when a few seconds into the video I heard the words, “Senator John Lieberman.” Yep. I remember those candidates for presidency, Hal Gore & his VP candidate John Lieberman...
And ofc conditioning in play is something kids experience almost as soon as they're handed toys. Boys are encouraged to express violence and aggression, whereas girls are heavily discouraged from displaying violence and aggression and instead pushed towards quieter activities. And that was even more the case in the 1960s than today.
I grew up around a lot of boys. We play fought with pretend swords and all kinds of stuff like that. A few years ago, some friends and I decided to make a music video for fun and included in it, my friend and I were going to "sword fight." And after the choreographed part, we did a little play fighting with the plastic swords we brought to the park with us. My friend and her sister had absolutely no idea how to actually play sword fight - they never did it as kids. I never did get them to stop flinching back.
I'm fairly sure that if I'd been left in that room, I'd have probably played with the Bobo doll. My friends on the other hand? They might have tapped it a bit, but they wouldn't have shown anywhere near the same kind of aggression as me. Not because of any lack of aggression on their part either (my friend in particular gets ridiculous road rage, whereas I usually just roll my eyes at stupid ppl on the road), but simply because they didn't associate fighting with playing like I did. Nurture plays a pretty big role in how we approach things - especially as children. Kids are smart and extremely perceptive. They learn early on from watching adults what they should and shouldn't do in various situations.
LMAO "beat the hell out of that thing"😭
Joe is a great example of the huge problem of dual citizenship and government.
I feel like the children were mostly conditioned to attack the doll specifically because that's the interaction they were exposed too, showing them it's ok to do so and that's how you use it. If for instance they showed them the model, then when the children were around to enter the room the doll was replaced with say a large stuffed animal or some other large object to substitute the doll. Then it could be observed whether the children carried over the aggressive acts to something that was not shown to be necessarily ok to attack, to see whether they took the displayed aggression from the models and doll and applied it to something unrelated. Something outside the environment it was shown to be ok to display aggression in
That would have made a better study! Go figure the 60s... I think a very big difference is when the model displaying these violence acts is the caregiver the outcomes are completely different. The child is wired to rely on their caregivers and to make them happy and have connection. To be model from a violent one impacts them deeply. I think that's what they should have been studying.
Yeah that's my major problem with this study and the argument that seeing simulated violence makes children violent. Beating up some model or toy is not the same as beating up a human. I feel like the only way this experiment could show a link between simulated violence and real violence is if the kids started attacking real humans after seeing the doll attacked. Put another way willingness to attack a blow up clown doll does not mean you would attack a human person.
@@horntx So, when the military does training using simulators it can't possibly improve in the field performance? We can't have it both ways. Either practicing on 'toys' influences later actual behavior (that is, good for training soldiers) or it does not (video games with aggression are benign).
The children would also aggress with other toys in the room that were NOT demonstrated by the model, something Plainly Difficult didn't mention.
"I feel like the children were mostly conditioned to attack the doll specifically because that's the interaction they were exposed too, showing them it's ok to do so and that's how you use it." You have basically defined social learning, which is what was being studied.
@@lagautmd learning to use your equipment properly is useless? okay then your free to go to the back alley doctor with no experience, as for behavior thats not even relevant with this particular example
The cool down period you is a really good point. It would make a lot of sense to actually test different lengths of time between exposure to the aggression, and re-exposure to the doll. Like if some of the kids were brought in a day later, week later, and year later. Perhaps even re-testing each of the kids a year later as well regardless.
Cuz I remember similar situations from my own childhood. There were a fair number of times when I was a kid that all I wanted to do was mimic what I saw. Whenever I watched Kung Fu Panda or similar, my siblings and I would be jumping around pretending we knew how to fight. But more than an hour later, and we'd totally moved on. It never really stuck.
Pretty sure back in the olden days adults thought books would corrupt kids too. There's always something. New technology freaks the older generation.
I remember doing a paper on the rise of popularity in romance novels in 18th century Germany and scholars crying about how young men and women reading this filth would surely overheat and overstimulate their brains and lead to all sorts of unwanted and neurotic behaviour.
It's funny to read in hindsight but it's basically the same behaviour: The older generation not approving of the younger generation's new pastime and predicting the fall of civilisation because of it.
Except now the technology corrupts the older generation with misinformation...
@@TheJuggtron There was always misinformation. Whether it be from old books written by people who didn't know what they were talking about and, improvised half of what they wrote, or hearsay from random strangers telling stories about mermaids. It's just human nature to believe what you want to believe regardless of if it is true. The internet is just the newest form.
I bet holograms will scare us Millenials in the year 2070
@@TheJuggtron and the new...
Doctor: "Okay, here is toy made to be hit, and here is a hammer to hit it with"
Kid: "Then I'm gonna hit it"
Doctor: No that isn't what you're supposed to do
I think the researchers and scientists who think about these kind of things are the ones who need to be studied. Like, are you okay?
Exactly.
Now that I think if it,
It may be actually interesting to see them get studied 🧍
Nah not really I mean kids at young age tend to do what they see so thats why they made this experiment
Imagine if they did not do this experiment then some kids watched mortal combat
or other action games
Also there have been a case where a kid watched a gun fight movie then accidentally found a real gun in his father's drawer and accidentallt killed their house keeper
If you want evidence then here ruclips.net/video/DZTOCp3LC28/видео.html
Its a tv show where people submit their cases then lawyers (the two host) tell the punishment one recieves
Most are just legitmately curious, others are just plain cruel, and wants something as either a result of sick fascination or fantasy. Especially that one dude who did those monkey experiments using infant monkeys.
I used to work as a programmer at Core Design and we decided Tomb Raider would (mostly) avoid killing humanoid NPCs (non-player characters) to get a lower recommended age thingy. Of course, many have noted how violent it is towards animals.
Albert Bandura is one of the most cited psychologists because university/college students use this to learn about how not to run a study. That is the only meaningful result from the experiments.
I live about an hour and a half from the town he was born. I think the fact that they’re known not for being the birthplace of an early psychologist, but rather for a 42 foot tall statue of a sausage says a lot about his effect
I think that counts as influencial still. Much like how The Happening is infleuncial as to how not to make a movie.
@@MonzennCarloMallari i disagree. the happening was a great end of the world flick. sure they were trying to promote climate change but i simply disregarded that and enjoyed it for what i decided it was. an end of the world flick.
@@fess1of9That the walberg movie where the grass is making people sudoku themselves? (That was what i took from it first time i watched it, though i realize / d it is different from that, the movie kinda creeped me out.)
@@MonzennCarloMallariyessssss
I remember as a kid having one of these around and I recall vividly that once I found out it bounced back, my only thought in hitting it was because it came back to me. I don't recall ever hitting that toy due to being upset or due to aggression but more so simply having fun with the toy due to the way it was designed. I'm sure most kids most likely experienced the same thing. So were they being aggressive? Or were they simply playing with the toy?
That Bobo doll taught us more about physics than we ever learned in school.
Yes I remember loving how it came back up!!
And the doll never screamed or cried. So unlike another person that would show discomfort the doll just bounces around.
I guess many of the children during the study would stop once the other side starts yelling stop.
I guess it would depend on the body language of the kid
I guess the kid on the first video seemed aggressive he was on top of the thing smashing it with a hammer but most were probably just playing yes
As a psychology major it kind of feels bitter-sweet that this series is called "Dark side of science" while it only covers some of the most infamous psychology experiments
get a better profession. psychologists have the real disorder of thinking they can understand others. it's egotistical
@@A.Undead.1 guess doctors should get a better profession too, they have a real disorder of believing they can play god and save others lives.
Because its the 'dark side' does what it says on the tin 🙄
@@splash6267 and then the other person was silent lmao
@@professionalcyberbully6410 because his point is irrelevant. the discussion is about psychologists, not doctors. so all splash did is deflect from the discussion at hand, which is not worth responding too.
The bottom line is that the aggression was modelled as 'play' and therefore can't be studied as malicious intent. Kids will wrestle and knock each other over the same way puppies and kittens do. It doesn't mean they're aggressive. Plenty of people grew up with toy soldiers and superhero figurines.
“Here’s a toy clown that’s really fun to be punched, as well as a hammer. Watch this live demo on exactly how you should play with this inanimate object.”
Me: plays shooting games
Also me: has to hold back tears when I see a sad baby
Why do you have to hold back?
@@SunyataManji gets in the way of comforting sad baby u_u
@@AabluedragonAH oh I didn't think about that specific situation
Clean house
I cry all the time. See something happy, i cry. See something sad, I cry. Oh a little doggo wants a stroke, I cry... but also there is no joy like booting up forest and caving in a Cannibals head 😂
The fact that this guy is cited or respected at all is just mind blowing. Even a dummy layman like me can look at their methodology and throw my hands up going wtf. They think like an alien observing humans, drawing all the wrong conclusions.
The same could be said about a lot of so-called experts. The results of countless studies draw illogical conclusions, and although this should be obvious to anyone with basic common sense the obvious is almost always ignored because it contradicts the wanted result. Studies are hardly ever done to learn anything new, but rather to compile evidence to support an already biased viewpoint.
Freud was heralded as a genius for fifty years because he said something about dreams while coked up. Is it really a surprise
@@dr.k8610 Freud is not heralded as a genious anymore just cause modern psychology wants to neuter so bad the concept of unbewusstes
Bobo doll don't hit back, when something hits back it also trains the brain to not do that anymore or I'll pop you back. Kids and ppl are trained every day, that's what happens when you go to a job, your either trained the right way or told the right way when you do it wrong, parents are to train their kids no matter what behavior they show, so no matter what they see on TV, it's the parents job to let them know, either good or bad, but most games have a age on it, and I see no reason in not training kids when they are young, a mind is what you build to know good or bad, or make believe or real,I can say my son played cod when he was young, gotta say very good at it, as he got older he wanted to serve in the armed forces, he's 17 now and still wants to, and not to go kill, but to feel a fulfillment of helping , being a service to somebody or to the country, that could be from working on the aircrafts that protect the country, to being a desk jockey handling intelligence. Kids pick up on different things from games and if you let them know the right and wrong sides of what they are seeing you won't come out with a killer of a child, but a child that had the understanding of what is right and wrong, Ive got a great son, don't show aggression, like I said he's 17, he don't wanna go out and hang out with friends because he knows there are some out there that wasn't taught right from wrong and don't want to be around anyone with that thought process, but hey, the doll was made to be punched and beat on anyway,I would rather an unruly kid that wasn't taught right from wrong to beat that doll than another kid, you as a parent need to teach your kid right from wrong no matter what they learn, so don't blame it on games and tv when you should let them know real or fake or right and wrong. And in this instance they give a kid some toys to play with them for no reason at all take them from him or her, let a bank give your weekly pay and then a robber come take it, you as an adult after being shaken , you too would be a bit pissed, that's not learned, it's in everybodies genes to get a bit upset when things don't go your way. We don't just laugh it off and say, hey take my chk again next week because it didn't bother me. No you learn to be more secure with your money, as you get older your mind will open to comprehend better. Bug no reason why some can't learn young, I've seen 2 yr old kids that know sign language,. It's what you teach them don't out them in a spot to make them aggressive and if you do you let them know they have a right to be upset but can't act on it if they would be in the wrong.
I believe if the child did permanent damage* to the doll then the results would be more significant. The child knows the doll isn't really being harmed when he's hitting it. If the child actually popped the doll or punctured it/ripped it etc, then I believe the motive would be more concerning.
I honestly think that something like a stuffed animal would've worked better with this. An almost completely neutral toy with at least 3 different groups separated into at least 2 different sub-groups depending on age. The first group could be of children put into a room with a stuffed toy dog and then shown a video of someone petting a similar toy. These groups could be separated into sub-groups of 6-8 years-olds in one and 9-12 year-olds in the other. The next group could again be given a stuffed toy dog but instead, be shown a video of a person hitting a similar toy. Same splitting of age groups as before. The last group could just be left in the room with the toy and just left to their own devices. Again, with the same separating of age groups. I don't know what this would prove, maybe if children will copy the behaviors of people they see on TV? but this feels like a better format.
I drilled holes in a plastic pumba warthog from Timon and Pumba when I was 6 or 7 years old. I became a United States Marine (violent) and later after the corps got a felony assault charge for a public fight. Can confirm.. it all started with Pumba 🤣
I actually agree with some of the conclusions of the study. Children are extremely easy to be influenced, manipulated because of how young and naive they are but it's not their fault. It's so easy to indoctrinate a child. However, that's not the same as saying that a 12 year old will become more violent if they play Call of Duty or whatever.
I think the study was fundamentally flawed. They gave the kids a toy that's designed to be beaten up and then were surprised that the kids then proceeded to do exactly that. Plenty of the kids were probably just playing - I know I would have at that age. It doesn't mean anything more than kids play fighting with plastic lightsabers. Kids who grow up play fighting will naturally engage in play fighting - which is why they saw more "aggression" in boys than girls. Boys were and are much more encouraged to play aggressively by adults whereas girls were and are discouraged from playing aggressively (unless they have a lot of brothers or boys as playmates like I did).
But yes, kids are easily influenced, manipulated, and indoctrinated. But that has far more to do with their parents and other authority figures in their lives than anything else. The vast majority of kids can tell the difference between pretend and reality, well, after a certain age anyway. Kids under 5 might struggle a little, but that's cuz their brains aren't yet developed enough to tell the difference (and ofc some kids struggle with it more than others) - that's also around the age that "imaginary friends" start disappearing and kids stop believing in Santa (also cuz they run into other kids that don't believe around the same time frame). The effects of one's peers shouldn't be underestimated as well - humans are social animals, after all.
@@SadisticSenpai61 I honestly agree. I've played with those types of dolls growing up and naturally beat it up because I assumed that was the point. It's not there to hug or look pretty. Yet I agree that children at a young age can be under the right influence easily manipulated. Looking at say a non-violent route, kids of the 50-60 era grew up with commercials that influenced smoking. If you saw a celebrity smoke or even a cartoon character smoking, you would probably want to copy and follow suit. This is why candy cigs became popular. This doesn't mean all them grew up to become smokers, but I do think the more influence a child sees, the more it sticks. It's probably why in the 90s and 2000s we saw a heavy push on smoking TSAs and even programs like D.A.R.E which was meant to inform and persuade children not to smoke or do drugs.
I don't think video game violence pushes us to become more violent. If that was the case with say me and Pokemon, then I'd be more out to getting animals and having them fight which isn't the case.
It's been proven that video games don't make you violent. Because even a child can tell the difference between a video game and real life.
I agree, my nephews was allowed to play gta 5 when he was 7, all he knew how to do was run around and kill people before cop came and killed him, he later started saying how cop were bad guys and he hated them so his parents stopped letting him play
@@brycelinnarz9387 bro 7 year old for gta is too low
7 year olds are imo stupid and learns on their own
How would you rate the experiment?
Would you like to see more dark side of science videos?
I don't think it deserve to be rated bad because today it is worse than this, because children sees fighting videos in RUclips, or sees japan's kids show (that looks like power-ranger) beating monsters in every episodes. Also, superhero movies & TV shows...
If we do not remember history we are doomed to repeat it. These old experiments need to be reminders of what we've learned since then.
The idea that media make people violent implies that media must have been incredibly violent in the dark ages, compared to today.
Good examples are both world wars: there was pro war propaganda, anti war criticism and belittling of both. All three have certainly influenced people, but how much violence have the media caused or prohibited?
Media transports information. But the interpretation and application of information is what the consumers do with it. Extreme forms that actually call for violence are not only rather rare but also ineffective (the communist manifest, Mein Kampf and the Anarchist's Cookbook are widely known and inevitably available, but I barely ever hear about them, or about violence they are causing).
Yes, I would like to see more dark side of science videos. Great channel!
Yes
Isn't there a big difference between showing "aggression" towards an inanimate object vs. towards other people?
Hitting a thing has no direct consequences, so what should have prevented the children from mimicing with nothing else to do?
I love this series. Nice to see a new entry!
Thank you!!
I love when my favorite YTers comment on each other's videos!
Ah our beloved scrapyard repairman is here.
Me too!!!🙏👍😷
It really is good, it’s like a recap of my first year psych degree. So many unethical practices that are just abhorrent by today’s standards
Mortal Kombat rustled ALL the jimmies. I was a teenager back then I just loved to play the game and show people the fatalities just so I could watch their shocked pearl clutching reactions!
Back Back High Punch
they overlooked one crucial thing.
The bobo doll is specifically made for being fun to bonk around
This is like hanging a punching bag, and saying that whoever punch it violent...
Im slightly judging the fact they put them in a stressful situation.
In my experience, toddlers and children rarely have the words or means to express frustration, leading to them lashing out.
Wouldn't it be better to place them in a normal situation? To see how they interact normally.
And yea, kids are not adults. They don't think like we do.
I'd rate it 4 purely because the poor children were repeatedly put under emotional duress.
Mainly I just think it's a bad study because it doesn't take into account how kids actually think.
Also I do agree with age restrictions because you don't want to traumatise your kids all at once. Gotta ease them into it ya know?
Exactly! Kids rights are just out of the window... It breaks my heart to see these kinda of studies.
What were parents thinking to let their kids participate in these?
@ “man this extra 50 bucks is nice”. That’s probably about how easy it is to sum up the thinking of these kinds of people. No thoughts or consideration for others just how the situation affects them immediately.
@ these were kids at Stanford’s daycare. I’m not sure their parents allowed it. I know there were other psychological studies done on children in daycares without knowledge of their parents. I didn’t catch on this video if it said they got parental consent.
@ It was the 60's. They didn't think of matters like "parental consent" so much back then. In fact, they didn't much think that children had rights.
This scaremongering has been going on for years, videogames, TV, punk music, heavy metal music, dungeons and dragons and films have been blamed for kids 'going out of control' at some point instead of the actual cause - both parents working 40 hour+ weeks and not having enough free time for each other or their children so don't get a chance to raise them correctly. But it's easier to blame than admitting modern working life is what's destroying families, causing unnecessary strain on relationships and making it more difficult to raise children.
cave men had a better environment to properly raise their children than modern common man
I shit you not it is all a result of the government attempting to scapegoat away from the fact that they are 100% DIRECTLY INVOLVED with how violent the public has gotten even today.
These politicians literally rile up a bunch of sociopaths and justify their hatred, allow them to obtain weapons, don't do their job within the jobs their assigned to prevent them from using them, these monsters they've created do things and then when the politicians are backed into a corner for support and actively helping create these situations, they have to scapegoat irrelevant ideas and concepts as to not be forced to take responsibility
The instant I saw Lieberman's face, I audibly groaned.
I'm honestly fine with ESRB itself. Its all the other crazy stuff from back then lole trying to ban mortal kombat. Lol
He has one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard and he looks like he's about to fall asleep anytime he's publicly speaking. He is the definition of a wet blanket.
At least Tipper Gore isn't involved in this one.
The Mortal enemy of all 90s kids
@@gustavedelior3683 The way that Dee Snyder and Jello Biafra made Tipper Gore sound like an idiot during those hearings was glorious!
If you had a bouncy ball or anything like that as a kid. You wanted to make it fly into the air as high as it will go by throwing it or by chucking it at the ground and sending it. Bono doll makes you want to swing on it and that is normal. It’s a toy meant for that or at least should have been used for that. Plus kids can see that it’s not a real person or kid.
All I know is that when I was a kid no matter how many times I wacked old Bobo he always came back for more and eventually tired me out and I gave up. So I guess in the end the sob won. Oh well.
Depleting your violent forces while simultaneously training you for more
That's what the shotgun is for. " Get up one more time clown!" 😂
@@jeffreytroublefield4265 No, you gotta give "Bobo" nightmares Freddy style for even showing up....
Then you blow him up,
Atomic weapons are customarily festive....
And then you can sleep well knowing you blew that blown up bastard back to hell....
@@SegaDream131 Alrighty then maybe it's time for a valium. 🤙
@@gonavy1 Go for it towel crier...
experimenter: "put the toys down"
kid: [visibly shaking]
A terrifying sight to have in real life
I was a single teen mum. I tried my best though. My son watched horror with me when he was in middle school. Is my son a monster today? No, he works with computers and he is actually also active here on RUclips. We played Tony Hawk video games when he was 9,10 (we also did a lot of skateboarding). and other video games I made the decision that he was emotionally and mentally mature enough to understand what’s fantasy and make believe and what’s not. We also had “an open dialogue”. And that’s what he praise me for to this day: “You we’re always there for me mum.”
A parent cannot expect “the society” or school or the media to teach their children what’s what and what’s not, what’s right and what’s wrong. It’s not a pop star’s fault if your kid is getting heartbroken. It’s a parents job to tell their kids about life. Don’t censure it. You can’t shelter them - but not from the truth, but you can prepare them for life and how to take care and responsibility for themselves. How to show respect.
@sw4gr1d why would someone ask such a question on purpose?
@sw4gr1d Shes a queen mum, you should know that these type of situations just happen.
You might not have known it at the time but what you were doing with your son was gaining mutual respect. You did stuff with him, not turned him loose to run with the crowd.
I believe that mutual respect is one of the main keys to raising healthy kids.
@sw4gr1d who said I was it on purpose? I became a single parent.
Even if I was. Was is it to you?
@@rrknl5187 🌸 thank you. Have a pleasant weekend.
Another video involving an unethical experiment: ruclips.net/video/kJHJsXJZDLo/видео.html
Monkey see. Monkey do.
So do you also mispronounce all words containing “th” when speak with or around your children? Probably not a great example on here when covering academic subject matter or anywhere for that matter.
So do you also mispronounce all words containing “th” when speak with or around your children? Probably not a great example on here when covering academic subject matter or anywhere for that matter.
Od
Can you please make a video about the unethical experiment of john money?
Children cannot provide informed consent. If such consent was a prerequisite for conducting experiments on children, no such experiments would ever be possible.
You ask the parents for informed consent, not the children. The parents ask you what the experiment is, talk to their children to gauge whether those children seem okay with it, then - using their own parental standards and knowledge of their children's specific character - the parents either grant you consent or don't.
9:10 ah the good old days when you devise an experiment to terrify upset or promote violence to children …. Anyone who has children 👶 understand they get angry if you take their toys away and look to significant adults for permission and social rules. If adults do it then it’s fine for me to do it too
Yep, children learn from their surroundings. The more they experience it, the more they will do it. Especially when not shown right from wrong.
Three thing: 1) This is one of several studies that promoted a serious examination within the social sciences on ethics in research. The result was the Belmont Report in 1978 that made sure, for one thing, that parents/guardians had to give consent for children in studies (though many universities started reining in excesses earlier than that).
2) From the 1930s to today, one of the dominant theories of why aggression happens is called the frustration-aggression hypothesis. That is, if a person is frustrated (with details about the nature of the frustration), they become more likely to aggress in some way, as you describe in taking a child's toy away. So, at that time, and even now, if you wanted to promote an aggressive response it would be important to create frustration.
3) "Look to parents for ... social rules"... that's more or less the definition of social learning. So, you can see that determining the limits and consequences of this might be valuable to study.
I like how the kids vibrate when in a stressful situation
Me irl
Horror movies, extra violent video games, eviscerations, sacrifices, cannibalism in books, we're all part of my entertainment, as a kid. I have never been in a fight and a very calm and docile person. My parents taught me the difference between fact and fiction, right and wrong. I guess that is too much to ask today. I never even use curse words.
In my experience, the players of doom eternal are the most calm, peaceful and patient people ever. However, I do agree that extremely young children shouldn't base their vision of reality on gory games. In conclusion, guide the extremely young children but let the older ( appropriate age) people play whatever they want. It's ultimately their decision to either understand game as a work of wonderful imaginative fiction or take them and willfully turn fictional work of gore into real violence.
Yeah a five year old probably shouldn’t play Mortal Kombat or Doom but a 12 year old at least is fine I guess. Different kids react differently to the world around them so its hard to say.
@@Zanemob exactly you as a parent should watch your kids behavior and how it responds to different media and then decide if the kid is ready to play video games that are not meant to be played by them.
@@Manie230 YES ultimately I blame the parents when a minor ends up reaply finding inspiration from games to be violent. I'm about to be a parent myself and it is my job as one to know my child and what they can handle.
The moral panic of video nasties in the 80s was fuelled by the fact crime was going up at that point. They could try to make a connection between the two.
But violent crime has been dropping across the Western world since 1995, at the exact time game graphics were getting better and better and games more widely available.
Rip and Tear
I would like to see some follow-up. How many of those kids actually remember being experimented on? Just being taken into strange rooms, with strange adults doing strange things may be psychologically significant. It definitely seems surreal from the PoV of a child. The line about these being "Adult toys" and being forbade to play with them. There may be some performance expectation there.
Bobo doll when they see the child slowly walk towards them : *"why so i hear boss music?"*
(Doppio’s theme starts playing)
Very fitting for what the researchers thought the child was doing.
“Oh, you’re approaching me?”
"So, we met again..."
0:33 that stock picture of the TV is the exact TV I have in my room right now.
I love how they never observed how being "violent" towards a doll impacted how they played and interacted with other children. If they had even a vague idea of what they should be doing then they would have done that. They basically learned nothing from this experiment and I really hope this wasn't funded by the government in any way because a lot of folks should be given a lot of money back. I mean ffs I am not even remotely trained in human analysis and I can punch enough holes in their logic....
They didn't do that because it would have been a different experiment which would need different controls. This experiment answered some of the questions one would have to beg to even do the experiment you described. This, "I don't know shit, but in 5 minutes I must have thought more than the people giving this months of attention," mentality is how you end up with studies like Bandura's.
"Neutral job, son. Neutral job."
*sniff* "That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me, dad."
Dad: “Not good, not bad. Very decent, bud.”
Me: “thanks dad 🥺”
As a grown adult, I sense something missing on this study. Even though it was supposed to study subjects under a controlled environment, children in real life are never in a situation were there's not a reaction to any individual action.
The study should have included several levels of consequences like it always happens in reality, wether those consequences are pro or against the behavior, it would probably show a different learning pattern on those kids.
I've got the feeling those kids would have reacted different if the Bobo doll punched back....
But if the jerks at Stanford directly/physically hurt a kid instead of just using them for illogical and unethical experiments, then they'd end up losing funding
My concern about this study is the fact that a bobo doll is more than a toy, it’s a toy with the purpose of getting hit. It’s rebound effect enhances the entertainment of it. A better experiment would have used a random toy/doll to discern if the aggression was mimicked. Since one can’t tell if the aggression against the bobo was aggressive mimicking or just hitting it for for fun.
Love how everyone in the comments realizes a child hitting an inanimate object designed to be hit doesn't indicate the child would ever be aggressive to a living being yet scientists and judges and everyone else have taken this as some super revealing thing.
Now if the Bobo Doll would have screamed in pain every time it was struck....
But its still a doll. This experiment is useless unless the one getting beat up is a real person or animal.
@@ejedwards1678 Well if they dont beat up something or someone thats alive then the experiement proves that observation of violence doesnt lead to violence. Still incredibly flawed when applied to fictional media violence (and obviously unethical) because the child is observing actual violent behavior.
Be me
Play dynasty warriors for years
Still not a Chinese warlord yet.
Great games
Just keep trying, maybe you'll get it one of these days. NEVER GIVE UP!
shamefur dispray
You are not a warlord because you disappoint, not because the game didn't teach you properly
@@toolatetothestory I am a shameful dispray
Kids have always been violent, it's not just the videogames. Kids have been playing with toy guns and swords and stuff long before videogames were a thing
Back then those punching clowns were kind of a regular toy. Naturally these children already knew that punching it is how you play with it.
Exactly. And even if they didn’t know how to play with it, *of course* being shown how it bounces around all goofily when an adult punches it would make a kid want to try it out. It falls more in line with curiosity than aggression…
I feel like the biggest issue with the experiment on a scientific front is that judging aggression in situations where empathy isn't a factor (a doll can't feel pain or discomfort) is a pointless affair with no real meaning in terms of social development. Most people wouldn't feel any guilt chopping logs of wood but if there was a body or something in it's place their empathy would prevent them from doing so.
Of course doing that experiment, however more accurate the result, would be far far less ethical.
So in the end we are left with an experiment that doesn't answer the question and instead asks whether a child will play with a toy the way it's intended to be played with if shown how to play with it. Which if anything proves the lack of integrity behind the politicians who use the experiment in their quest to take focus off actual issues.
That said I do think parental guidance on certain media is very important, partly to help kids understand darker subjects but more importantly to discuss ideological effects certain media can leave, whether intended or not. I believe we should be less worried about violence and sex in media children are exposed to and more worried about things like bigotry or toxicity which aren't always as clearly understood by uneducated minds.
Totally!
Let's give a kid a toy meant to be punched then count them punching it as proof of my theory.
Sounds like 99% of "scientific theories".
One thing that always puzzles me about teenagers is their ability to resolve problems with relationships if any level and how they find certain solutions to them as the logical thing to do in that situation. Sometimes emotions at that age are crazy as we see in this situation sadly.
adults are subject to emotiobality as well Its just that society is morally obsessed with youth. Kids arent allowed to make mistakes or have flaws without being pathologized.
"The results of the experiment would be used as the justification of the anti video game movement"
My head : "i can tell they failed,even before i watched the video"
When I was a teenager there was this girl I wanted to boink and she went to this church that was supposed to be kinda hip and had a big youth group. So sometimes I would join my friend when he went to this church so I could hang out with Ole girl. They had this woman come one Wednesday to the youth meeting and she gave this talk about how Konami would perform human sacrifices every time they released a new mortal kombat game. She went on to talk about these out of body experiences she uses to have when she was a witch. I couldn’t stop myself from chuckling at the ridiculousness of it.
is it in america bcs theyre church were like that
did you ever get to boink the girl?
@@davidroosa4561 eventually I did. But it was after high school when we were adults and she didn’t go to crazy town church any longer.
@@ingreedzz5204 yea I’m from the southern US where churches are just about as crazy as they can be.
Konami had nothing to do with Mortal Kombat.
Lieberman was a complete tool, it still amazes me anyone ever took the man seriously.
Edit: Incidentally, anyone else ever notice how these people always do things that ONLY an ADULT would think of to do? And also how they always inevitably purposely, some might even go so far as to say obsessively, focus on 'aggression' as interpreted by cynical adults?
It amazes me that anyone believed that one doctor who said vaccines cause autism. Much less the general populace.
adults bad uugh bubu, bad adults they wrong, im a kid, so good.. uhg
Dems were trying to make themselves appear more conservative then they were and decided they want to crack down on things like violent vid games and music. al gore and his wife tipper tried to regulate music and it back fired on him .it probably cost him votes in the long term and may have just had been enough votes to stop him from becoming president along with the senator in this vid. There were Correlated with tons of news stories about the evils of heavy metal devil worship and murders like Ricky 666. There was even senate hearings with the likes of John Denver and Dee shynder from twisted sister
@@charlymrivera7236 Yeah. Yeah they are bad when they start projecting their cynical, damaged world view of everything onto innocent children. They skew the data by basically telling kids "This is how you do the thing" when the kid would never think to do that on their own. They. Are. OBSESSED. They WANT to make 8-10 year olds as nihilistic and broken as they are. It takes an adult to do this, and an extremely damaged one at that.
@@robertnussberger6449 Oh yeah, it's always leftists. Leftists have always tried to pass themselves off as more conservative than they are purely for the sake of amassing as much power as they possibly can.