I personally think that while the study had some strengths, in that it showed that children do copy behaviour presented to them, its weaknesses definitely outweighed this. The study was in an artificial environment which meant that there is no way to tell whether or not the same results would occur in a real situation, let alone with a real person being beaten. However, while there are other ways in which the Social Learning Theory could be put to the test, there are ethical issues that may stand in the way of this - psychologists must prioritise this.
Moving on from Bandura's study, the question "why do you think there has never been a way to definitively decide whether media impacts our behaviour or not?" was raised. In my opinion I believe this is because the term 'media' is so broad that it would be significantly difficult to put to the test. Also, if media has always been apart of our lives then how are we meant to know if media effects us, and if it does, how does it? I do however personally think that media effects us in many different ways, but it goes un-noticed because media is already far too integrated into our society.
"How far do you think media regulation should go in terms of 'protecting' vulnerable people?"
Media is everywhere, its so large that its extremely difficult to regulate. I do think that the restrictions that are in place currently are appropriate, but there is only so much that can be done before the question of censorship is raised. However I do think that parents should work together with these regulations for example, there's no point having the 'watershed' if parents aren't going to make sure their children are in bed by 9pm and are therefore not viewing inappropriate content.
No comments:
Post a Comment