BEHAVE DEBATE

Question 1

AT HOME (FOR)

Answer 1

• supported by supernanny jo frost naughty step which is positively informing are effective at appropriate times
• pocket money controls found to be beneficial as Gill found 20% of household chores completed through pocket money

Question 2

IN SCHOOL (FOR)

Answer 2

• operant condition techniques control behaviour
• mcallister found praise and disapproval led to a decrease in appropriate talking compared to a control group
• lefrancois suggests classical conditioning can help eg increase in nice wall displays smells and laughter and decrease in negative comments means students have more positive feelings and will improve

Question 3

PEERS ( FOR)

Answer 3

• Peter groups should increase positive sanctions as others will imitate these we are conditioned by our peers

Question 4

VULNERABLE CHILDREN (FOR)

Answer 4

• Lovaas created applied behaviour analysis to help autistic kids increase social interactions
• Robinson et al token economies improve performance of hyperactive children in reading and writing
• Chaney et al funhaler

Question 5

AT HOME (AGAINST)

Answer 5

• naughty step criticised
• Morris claims can have long lasting emotional effects
• children cannot reflect on their behaviour in the same way adults can and may have negative effects in the future
• parents cannot always be consistent due to busy life and may slip up and therefore not effective

Question 6

IN SCHOOL (AGAINST)

Answer 6

• rewards and punishments harmful to children as interfere with a child’s internal drive to learn
• Lepper et al found those who were promised a reward spent half time drawing pictures than those who werent
• dweck 1975 tests
• reward systems not evident in other cultures eg japan Lewis 1955 as kids internally motivated

Question 7

PEERS (AGAINST)

Answer 7

• bricker found kids as young as 10 more likely to start liking if there peers did positive reinforcement not always healthy

Question 8

VULNERABLE CHILDREN ( AGAINST)

Answer 8

• Lovaas many issues as supported by own study
• method issues such as not randomly allocating children to conditions therefore invalid
• suggested 40 hours however Anderson found 20 hours were enough
• conditioning only treats symptoms