C2: Developmental Flashcards
Lees: aim
To investigate cross culturel differences in children’s understanding and moral valuations of lying. The study aimed to cooperate the responses of Chinese and Canadian participants of stories that involved lying and truth telling, prosocial and antisocial situations
Lees: participants
120 chinese children, 40 seven year olds, 40 nine year olds, 40 eleven year olds
108 Canadian children, 36 seven year olds, 32 eleven year olds, 40 nine year olds
Lees: how were participants recruited?
Elementary schools in the People’s Republic of China
Elementary schools in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Lees: research method
Lee’s study uses a cross cultural method of both Chinese and Canadian children in different conditions were different age groups
Lees: procedure
- Half participants in each culture given social and the other half physical story
- Children were read aloud four different stories, which were written to be familiar to children in both cultures
- Then 4 social or physical stories were read, with the ‘deed’ section read first
- Once question was asked, to indicate their rating verbally or nonverbally, or both on a rating chart
- Second question asked, participants requested to rate the story characters verbal statement on the chart
- Control two orders of four stories were determined using randomisation table
Lees: qualitative results
- Chinese children differed from Canadian children in their evaluations of truth telling and lying in prosocial situations
- Only significant interaction was the one between age and culture, Canadians gave constant ratings to truth rating through the age, where as Chinese became less positive as age increased
- Chinese rated lying in prosocial situations significantly more positive than Canadian children
Lees: conclusions
Moral reasoning can be influences by our culture and the society in which we live. The influence of socio-cultural factors becomes stronger as we age. Some aspects of moral reasoning such as judging anti-social lying as bad, may be universal
Kohlberg: aim
To investigate the development in moral reasoning through adolescence and early adulthood. A secondary aim was to assess the extent to which these changes hold true in a range of cultural contexts
Kohlberg: participants
The sample consisted of 72 boys from both lower and middle class families in Chicago. They were between the ages of 10 and 16 years old
Kohlberg: research method
Longitudinal self report study, where participants were followed from early adolescence for 12 years to adulthood
Every year participants were interviewed individually, each presented with a moral dilemma
Kohlberg: what was the Heinz dilemma?
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. One drug to help, but too expensive to buy. In desperate need, her husband saves up half but the druggiest refused to sell it to the husband. As a result, the husband has to steal the drug to keep his wife alive
Kohlberg: what is level 1
Pre conventional Morality
Kohlberg: what is stage 1?
Obedience and Punishment orientation
Kohlberg: stage 1- obedience and punishment orientation
Similar to Piaget’s stage of moral thought. Child assumed authorities have set rules which we have to obey, therefore the Heinz dilemma is wrong. Children usually refer to the punishment as a result of not obeying the law. They do not yet speak of members of society, but see morality as something external to themselves
Kohlberg: what is stage 2?
Individualism and Exchange
Kohlberg: stage 2- Individualism and Exchange
Different individuals have different viewpoints, both talk about punishment, but perceive it differently. Punishment is a risk that one naturally wants to avoid. In the Heinz story, they state he should have stole it, but in some cases should give back in the future
Kohlberg: what is stage 3?
Good Interpersonal relationships
Kohlberg: stage 3- Good Interpersonal relationships
People should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in good ways. Good behaviour means having good motives and interpersonal feelings as love empathy, trust and concern for others. They would argue Heinz motives were good and the druggists were bad.
Kohlberg: what is level 2?
Conventional Morality
Kohlberg: what is stage 4?
Maintaining social order
Kohlberg: stage 4- Maintaining social order
Looks at society as a whole, how laws are there for social order. They understand what Heinz did was right but they cannot condone the theft, if everyone did this there would be chaos.
Kohlberg: what is level 3?
Post conventional Morality
Kohlberg: what is stage 5?
Social Contract and Individual Rights
Kohlberg: stage 5- Social Contract and Individual Rights
Think of society in a theoretical way, considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. Society is best conceives as a social contract into which people freely enter work toward benefit all.. Therefore, they do not usually condone law breaking, but Heinz was upholding the moral right of his wife
Kohlberg: what is stage 6?
Universal principles
Kohlberg: stage 6- Universal Principles
Respondents working toward a conception of the good society. We need to protect certain individuals rights and settle disputed through democratic processes. Therefore, all should agree to save the wife, including the druggiest. So, Heinz was wrong to steal.
Kohlberg: Results
Reasoning in different situations did not always fall rigidly into these stages. Each participant was seen as being in a particular stage when 50% of their responses to dilemmas neatly fell into that stage. He was unsure is everyone went through stage 5 to get to 6 and stated ages do not link to stages.
Bandura: aim
To see whether children would imitate aggressive behaviour when given the opportunity, even if they saw these behaviour in a different environment and the original model they observed performing the aggressive acts was no longer present
Bandura: four hypotheses
1) Children who observe an aggressive model will reproduce the aggressive acts of the model. These aggressive acts will not be seen in children who have observed non-aggressive models or are not exposed to a model
2) Observing a non-aggressive model or not being exposed to a model will inhibit aggressive behaviour, observing an aggressive model will cause an increase in general aggressive behaviour
3) Children will imitate same sex models more than opposite sex models
4) Boys will be more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour than girls
Bandura: participants
72 children aged 37 to 69 months from the Stanford University Nursey school
Bandura: controls
- Each child placed in a group of 3 that had a similar score for aggressive behaviour
- Children matched to control for individual differences in the level of aggression so all aggressive children did not end up in the same groups
Bandura: procedure
Stage 1: Modelling
- Agressive condition: model first played quietly before a series of aggressive acts towards the Bobo doll, these were repeated 3 times, also being verbally aggressive
- Non-agressive: model played a subdued manner and ignored the Bobo doll
Stage 2: Aggression Arousal
- Must have desire to be aggressive
- Taken into a room consisting of a number of attractive toys
- After 2 minutes, experimenter took toys away stating they were to be observed for other children, in order to try and make them angry
Stage 3: Test for delayed imitation
- Room containing a number of toys placed in the exact same position for each toy
- Toys considered either aggressive of non aggressive
Bandura: three types of aggressive behaviour shown
1) Imitative agression
2) Imitative verbal aggression
3) Imitative non aggressive verbal/physical responses
Bandura: qualitative results
1) Children who saw an aggressive model imitated the aggressive acts of the model than those who observed non aggressive model or no model at all
2) Children who saw the non-aggressive model showed lower levels of aggression than the control
3) Boys imitated male models more than girls for physical and verbal imitative aggression, non imitative aggression and gun play, girls imitate female models more for verbal aggression
4) Boys showed more imitative physical aggression than girls
Chaney: aim
To test the use of positive reinforcement via the Funhaler could improve medical compliance in young asthmatic compared to use of a conventional inhaler with no additional features
Chaney: participants
Study involved 32 children (22 male, 10 female) ranging from 1.5-6 years old with a mean age of 3.2 years old. They had an average duration of asthma for 2.2 years
Chaney: technique
Gathered by random sampling and were asthmatic children who had been prescribed drugs delivered by pMDI and spacer and were recruited from clinics across a large geographical area
Chaney: independent variables
Device used to administer the asthma drugs, either the standard pMDI inhaler and spare or the Funhaler
Chaney: dependent variables
How well participants complied with their prescribed medical regime, measured through parental responses to a self-report questionnaire
Chaney: research method
Lab experiment
Chaney: experimental design
Repeated measures
Chaney: procedure
- Home study for a 2 week period where there was informed consent to take part and a completed structured closed questionnaire with an interviewer about their child’s current asthma device
- Participants then asked to use Funhaler instead of normal with no further instructions, except the fact it was with parental guidance
- After this, parents completed a matched item questionnaire on the Funhaler to allow direct comparison with the standard device.
- Random checks on Funhaler use from the previous day were also carried out
Chaney: qualitative results
Use of the Funhaler was associated with improved parental and child compliance
- Problems such as screaming when the device was brought to a child’s face unwillingness to brother through the device or unwillingness to breathe for a long period of time were all significantly reduced using the Funhaler
Chaney: quantitative results
- 59% parents found to medicated their child on the previous day when using standard device, 81% using the Funhaler
- 50% children took the four or more cycles per aerosol delivery or ‘puffs’ when they used the standard device compared to 80% with the Funhaler
- 69% of children reportedly pleasure when using the Funhaler, where as only 10% enjoy using a standard device
