bandura and chaney Flashcards
1
Q
what area is bandura and chaney?
A
- developmental,
2
Q
what is the developmental area?
A
- developmental area assumes that behaviour changes over our lifetime, focussing on cognitive processes,
- these changes may be as a result of inherited factors (nature) or lifetime experiences (nurture),
3
Q
key theme in bandura
A
- external influences on children’s behaviour,
4
Q
what did bandura mean by a model?
A
- person who performs specific behaviour as directed by the experimenter,
5
Q
what is SCT?
A
- social cognitive theory,
- a later development fusing behaviourism with cognition,
6
Q
difference between SLT and behaviourism?
A
- SLT = 3rd person learning,
- behaviourism = 1st person leaning,
7
Q
observation and modelling
A
- two processes which underlie SLT, we observe another persons behaviour and model our behaviour based on the observed consequences,
8
Q
vicarious learning
A
- learning through vicarious reinforcement, it is our tendency to repeat our duplicate behaviours which are being rewarded,
9
Q
bobo doll
A
- self-righting doll with low centre of gravity,
10
Q
empirical research
A
- follows scientific methodology,
11
Q
what does social learning theory suggest?
A
- that behaviours can be learned through vicarious learning,
12
Q
when does vicarious learning occur?
A
- through observation of others behaviour,
- we tend to copy positive outcomes and avoid negative outcomes,
13
Q
what has previous research shown about children?
A
- that they will readily imitate behaviour demonstrated by an adult model if the model remains present,
- they are also more likely to copy same sex model if a choice is presented (Bandura and Hudson),
14
Q
aim of Bandura’s study
A
- to demonstrate that learning can occur through simple observations of a model and that imitated behaviour can be observed in the absence of that model,
15
Q
the research method of bandura
A
- experimental laboratory method with matched pairs design,
- the IV is whether the child witnessed an aggressive or non-aggressive adult model,
16
Q
materials in bandura
A
- aggressive toys:
. mallet,
. dart gun, - non aggressive toys:
. tea set,
. toy cars,
. dolls, - 3ft high bobo doll,
17
Q
bandura procedure phase 1
A
- phase 1 (excluding the control group),
- children in the experimental conditions were individually taken into a room and sat at a table to play with prints and picture stickers,
- whilst playing the children could observe the ‘aggressive model’ assembling some toys, after which the ‘model’ began to physically and verbally abuse the bobo doll or the ‘non-aggressive model’ who was assembling the toys quietly and totally ignored the bobo doll,
- each child had the same timed exposure (10 minutes) to model and observed either the same aggressive or the same non-aggressive actions (standardised procedure),
18
Q
bandura procedure phase 2
A
- phase 2 (including the control group),
- all the children were taken individually to an ante room and subject to mild aggressive arousal,
- initially they were allowed to play with some very attractive toys but after about two minutes the experimenter took the toys away saying they were reserved for other children,
- they were then told they could play with any of the toys they liked in the main room,
19
Q
bandura procedure phase 3
A
- phase 3 (including the control group),
- children were then taken individually into a third room, which contained both aggressive and non-aggressive toys, aggressive toys included : a 3ft bobo doll, a mallet, dart guns, and non-aggressive toys which included : a tea set, dolls, cars,
- children were observed through a one way mirror for 20 minutes whilst observers recorded behaviour (with independent inter-scorer reliabilities of +.90 product-moment coefficients) in the following categories:
a) imitative aggression,
b) partially imitative aggression,
c) non-imitative physical and/or verbal aggression,
d) non-aggressive behaviour,
20
Q
results from bandura
A
- children shown the aggressive model show significantly more imitation of physical and verbal aggressive behaviour, than children in the non-aggressive or control conditions,
- children imitated aggressive or non aggressive behaviour depending on which model they had observed,
- this imitative behaviour was in the absence of the model,
- there was no difference in behaviour between the children in the non-aggressive condition and the control group,
- overall, boys are more physically aggressive than girls and girls are more verbally aggressive than boys,
21
Q
conclusions from bandura
A
- children will imitate the aggressive/non-aggressive behaviour of adult models, even if the adult model is not presented,
- children can learn behaviour through imitation and observation,
- both boys and girls are more likely to learn highly masculine-typed behaviour such as physical aggression from a male adult rather than female,
- boys and girls are more likely to learn verbal aggression from a same-sex adult,
22
Q
bandura evaluation method
A
strengths:
- lab exp; controls extraneous variables e.g. children tested individually = stops copying =internal validity,
- matched pairs = reduces individual differences in aggression = valid comparison,
weaknesses:
-lab exp; lacks ecological validity due to demand characteristics “this is the doll were supposed to hit”,
- matched pairs = difficult to match exactly e.g. memory,
23
Q
bandura evaluation ethics
A
strengths:
- assume they were debriefed,
weaknesses:
- informed consent is indirect from parents,
- harm = viewing aggression = stressful, teaching anti-social behaviour,
24
Q
bandura evaluation reliability
A
strengths:
- standardised procedure = replicable,
- all saw the model behave aggressively to the bobo doll for 10 minutes (in aggressive condition),
- model followed script, e.g. ‘pow, hit him down, he’s coming back for more’,
weaknesses:
- 3 -> 6 year old’s may remember and understand behaviour differently, making it a slightly different experience for 3 and 6 year old’s,
25
bandura evaluation validity
strengths:
- standardised procedure in a lab with control = internal validity,
weaknesses:
- bobo doll -is it really a valid test of aggression? Bandura showed children imitated a model beating up a real crime,
- snapshot study = 1 point in time - not valid test of long term aggression,
26
bandura evaluation sample and ethnocentrism
strengths:
- opportunity - easy available children - same university,
weaknesses:
- only children but found with adults too - Philip 1983 found U.S. homicide rates increase after boxing matches on T.V.,
27
bandura evaluation data
strengths:
- quantitative = easy analysis, comparisons, display, e.g. boys copied physical aggression more than girls,
- qualitative data = rich detail, describes how children thought and behaved,
28
key theme in chaney
- external influences on children's behaviour,
29
background on chaney
- to improve medication adherence amongst young asthmatics,
29
what psychology underpins the funhaler?
- operant conditioning,
- the idea positive reinforcement increases a behaviour,
- whilst using the funhaler they received a reward, the flashing and noises which are 'fun',
- this means the child wants to use the funhaler again,
- the funhaler is attractive to the child due to:
. incentive toy,
. toy can be replaced with new and exciting toys,
29
chaney sample
- 36 boys and 36 girls,
- age range 3-5 years,
- opportunity sample,
29
chaney sample
- 32 asthmatic children (22 male, 10 female),
- age range 1.5-6 years,
- random sample,
29
chaney aim
- wanted to compare the correct compliance of a novel asthmatic spacer device against the funhaler,
- chaney wanted to see whether positive reinforcement through the fun incentive of the funhaler would increase compliance to the device, in comparison to a normal asthma device,
30
chaney method
- field experiment,
- conducted in participants home in australia,
- IV = the use of funhaler and standard inhaler,
- DV = level of adherence to the prescribed medical regime,
- repeated measures,
31
chaney procedure
- participants were given two questionnaires, each collected information on:
. how easy each device was to use,
. compliance of parents and children,
. treatment attitudes,
- participants were given their first questionnaire at the beginning of the research, this collected data based on their normal inhaler,
- participants were given a funhaler and told to use this for two weeks, after two weeks, participants were given their second questionnaire,
- throughout the study each parent was called at random to find out whether they had planned to medicate their child the day before,
32
chaney results
- when surveyed at random, 38% more parents were found to have medicated their child the previous day using the funhaler when compared to their normal existing inhaler,
- 60% more children took the recommended dosage correctly when using the funhaler (22/32) compared to the other inhaler (3/32),
- overall, results show the funhaler is associated with improved parental and child compliance,
33
chaney conclusion
- improved adherence, combined with effective delivery characteristics, suggest the funhaler may be useful for management of young asthmatics,
- the use of functional incentive devices such as the funhaler may improve the health of children,
34
chaney evaluation method
strengths:
- field exp = natural environment = good ecological validity,
- repeated measures = no individual differences in breathing capacity = validity,
weaknesses:
- field exp = less control over extraneous variables - lowers validity,
- repeated measures = demand characteristics, trying harder with funhaler = lowers validity,
- no counter balancing done,
35
chaney evaluation ethics
strengths:
- informed consent (from parents),
weaknesses::
- harm - personal feelings recorded = embarassment,
- also at having to use a spacer,
- cost/benefit analysis = life saving benefit outweighs cost,
- watt owned funhaler company = conflict of interest, study may be designed to have positive results, e.g. qs recruiting p's, didn't analyse data but designed study,
36
chaney evaluation reliability
strenghts:
- standardised procedure = all taught to use funhaler in the same way,
- all have same questions = replicable,
weaknesses:
- use at home may be slightly different for each child due to extraneous variables,
- ambiguous q's may be interpreted differently by each parent/child e.g. 'mild dislike' of the funhaler,
37
chaney evaluation sample and ethnocentrism
strengths:
- opportunity = selected from drs list, children living in a 51km radius easily available,
weaknesses:
- only 32 children, all middle class = unrepresentative, cannot generalise,
- ethnocentric = australia = western attitude to medicine = accepting can't generalise to non western cultures = less medicalised,
38
chaney evaluation validity
strengths:
- standardised procedure = internal validity,
weaknesses:
- no long term use tested (only two weeks) = positive attitudes may be just to novelty of funhaler and may wear off,
- should send a check message randomly later on,
39
chaney evaluation data
strengths:
- quantitative = easy to analyse, comparisons, display e.g. boys copied physical agression more than girls,
- qualitative data = rich detail, described how children thought and behaved,
40
similarities between chaney and bandura
area:
- both studies are from the developmental areas as they show how children learn - Bandura by exposure to models and Chaney through exposure to reinforcements,
debates:
- both are deterministic explanations denying that we have free will as our behaviour is shaped by the models we observe (SLT) or by receiving reinforcements,
- both are scientific using controlled procedures, bandura more so as he has a control group and a lab, chaney is a field experiment,
41
differences between chaney and bandura
learning types:
- bandura shows that children learn by observation and will repeat the behaviour without being told so,
- chaney's study is about instructional learning using reinforcements,
42
chaney and bandura, individual influence
- bandura showed that males and females imitate behaviour differently and are affected more by same sex role models,
- chaney furthered the understanding of how males and females learn behaviours but did not differentiate between them as bandura did,
43
chaney and bandura, social influence
- the classic study bandura explained the causes of behaviour and chaney furthered an understanding of how behaviourist theories can be used to improve behaviour,
44
chaney and bandura, cultural influences
- chaney carried out their research with Australian children which furthers bandura's research in america and suggests that all children, regardless of culture, are able to learn and acquire behaviour using the principle of reinforcement,
45
how do bandura and chaney change our understanding?
- chaney's study will have to be replicated to get wider acceptance as he invented, patented and studied the funhaler and so his positive results will be questioned - he needed positive results,
- bandura's study is a well known classic, has many replications and applications e.g. observational learning in explaining phobias Mineka - monkey's learning snake phobia,
