Contemporary study two- Lee (Developmental area) Flashcards
Research method
Cross-sectional- When there are different groups of participants at different ages who are all studied at once.
Strengths of cross sectional research
Results are obtained more quickly then longitudinal research
It is likely that there will be less attrition of the sample (participants dropping out).
It is easier to do with a large sample of participants, meaning the researcher can establish if they have got reliable results ( a consistent effect).
Weaknesses of cross-sectional research
There will be participant variable (individual differences) between participants which makes compassion difficult
You only get a snapshot development and do not see change in an individual over a long period of time-it might be that a particular factor is affecting behavior at that time
Background
Culture - a human made part of the environment. It includes the way people do things (like make buildings or music) as well as beliefs, values and norms.
Individualistic- people’s identities are defined by personal choices and achievements; self-reliance and the rights of individuals to ‘do their own thing’ are emphasised.
Collectivist- people’s identities are defined by the groups they seem themselves as a part of (e.g. the extended family, tribe, or nation); group goals take priority over individual goals, and maintaining group harmony is important.
Aims
Culture- To find out if the culture a child grows up in (individualist or collectivist) affects their views about truth-telling and lying.
Age-To find out if the views of children about truth-telling and lying change as they grow older.
Sample
Individualistic- 108 children from Fredericton, Canada aged 7, 9 and 11
Collectivist- 120 children from Hangzhou, China aged 7, 9 and 11
Procedure
Each child was seen individually and had 4 stories read to them (in a random order).
1. A child would behave anti-socially, and then lie to their teacher about what they had done
2. A child would behave anti-socially, and then tell the truth to their teacher about it
3. A child would behave pro-socially, and then lie to their teacher about what they had done
4. A child would behave pro-socially, and then tell the truth to their teacher about what they had done
ollowing each story they were asked 2 questions:
Is what xxx did good or naughty?
Is what xxx said to their teacher [about what they had done] good or naughty?
They responded to these questions on a 7 point scale
Types of stories
Half of the children had social stories and half had physical stories read to them
Social:
The behaviour impacts another child
Giving money to another child for lunch
Giving money to another child for a trip
Pushing a child over because of a skipping rope
Pushing over a new child they didn’t like
Physical:
The behaviour impact on the environment (physical objects)
Picking up litter
Tidying a classroom
Tearing pages in a library book
Scribbling on the pages of a library book
Results
Pro social truth telling- Children in collectivist China came to view this less positively as they got older (seeing this as “begging for” or “wanting” praise)
Pro-social lying- Children in collectivist China came to view this positively as they got older (saying that one should not leave one’s name after doing a good deed)
Anti social truth telling- Children from both collectivist China and individualist Canada rated this very positively.
Anti soical lying- Children from both collectivist China and individualist Canada rated this negatively, and in both cultures ratings became more negative as children got older.
Links to Debates
Nature vs Nuture- Nurture - suggests our morals are influenced by the culture we grow up in
Freewill vs Deterministic- Deterministic - suggests our morals are caused by culture (environmental determinism)
Reductionism vs Holism- Holistic - Investigates both age and culture as influences on moral development
Ethnocentrism
Isn’t ethnocentrism- Studied children from both Canada and China
Is ethnocentrism- Can Canada represent all Individualistic cultures and Cab China represent all Collectivist cultures
Also stories may not have been perceived differently in each culture
Validity
Internal validity- Low risk of demand characteristics as stories were counterbalanced so randomly ordered
Ecological validity- The scenarios resembles real life because they relate to kids but saying something does not that you will actually do that in the real life situation
Population validity-There are not many age ranges, only 7 9 11 which means that sample is not very diverse and only two culture studied which cannot represent all western and eastern cultures as each culture is different
Reliability
Internal- Standardized procedure as the same rating scale and same four stories for all children so the procedure can be repeated if needed to suggest a consistent effect.
External- 40 participants per age which is large enough to establish a consistent effect
Similarities between contemporary and classical studies
One similarity between the two studies is they are both cross-cultural. For example in Kolberg study he studied moral reasoning in the US before Taiwan, Turkey, Mexico, Malaysia, UK and Canada so was able to investigate moral development across cultures. Similarly in Lees study they also studied moral development in relation to truth telling and lying across two different culture (Canada and China).
Another similarity between the two studies is both involved children being given scenarios to comment upon. For example in Kolberg’s study there were several dilemmas given to the boys such as the Hienz dilemma (which included deciding whether a man should steal medication for his dying wife. Similarly in the study by Lee the children were given scenarios which were 2 physical stories that effected the environment and 2 social stories that effected other children.
Differences between contemporary and classical studies
Kolberg study was a longitudinal study and Lee study was cross sectional. For example in Kolberg study it was longitudinal because they studied the same 75 USA boys for 12 years starting at 16-18 years and finishing at 28-30 years, every three years. In contrast Lee studied 3 different age ranges (7,9,11) but at different times so participant were all different.
Another difference is the gender mix of participants. For example in Kolberg study the sample constituent of male participants (75 from the USA) who were given these moral dilemmas to answer. In contrast the study by Lee is that they involved a relativity equal split of male and female children for example 20 boys and 20 girls aged 7,9,11 in the Chinese sample.
