Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PSYCHOLOGY- CASE STUDIES/PERSPECTIVES > DEVELOPMENT PSYCHOLOGY > Flashcards

DEVELOPMENT PSYCHOLOGY Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

For Bandura, what were the meditational processes?

A
  1. Attention (paying attention to the role model)
  2. Retention (remembering that behaviour)
  3. Motor reproduction (physically repeating behaviour)
  4. Motivation (reward acts as motivation)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What was the aim of Bandura’s study?

A

Demonstrate that if children were passive witnesses to an aggressive display by an adult they would imitate this aggressive behaviour when given the opportunity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What was the sample for Bandura?

A
  • 36 boys, 36 girls
  • aged between 37 and 69 months (mean age of 52 months)
  • all attended a local nursery
  • parents age consent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

How did Bandura measure pre-existing levels of aggression?

A

People that ‘knew the children well’ gave them a score on how aggressive they are in the nursery
Inter-rater reliability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

In Banduras study, what did they rate the pre- existing aggression on?

A

a) Physical aggression
b) Verbal aggression
c) Aggression towards inanimate objects
d) Aggression inhibition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What were the independent variables in Banduras study?

A
  • the condition the children were exposed to
  • the gender of the role model
  • the gender of the child
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What was stage one in Banduras study?

A

Observation

-watch role model interact with doll

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What was stage two in Banduras study?

A

Mild arousal

  • separate rooms containing toys (not bobo doll)
  • told they are not allowed to play with the toys
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was stage three in Banduras study?

A

Observation of child

-taken into another room with more toys and bobo doll

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What were the response measures in Banduras study?

A

a) Imitated aggression (verbal or physical)- saying ‘pow’ or hitting it
b) Partially imitated aggression (verbal or physical)
c) Non-imitated aggression (verbal or physical)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What were the results from Banduras study?

A
  • children in aggressive model were more aggressive and aggression was mainly imitated
  • boys made more aggressive responses than girls
  • male model=more aggressive (boy), shows same sex imitation
  • female model=verbal aggression from girls
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What are explanations fo the findings in Banduras study?

A

> Appropriateness of the model- people only imitate behaviour that is seen as appropriate behaviour for the model
Eg: more accepted in Western cultures for men to be more aggressive than women
Similarity of model- boys were more likely to imitate aggressive male than a female role model

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Evaluate Banduras study

A

P- Cause and effect established
E- Models behaviour effected how children behaved, aggressive model= aggressive child (eg: hitting bobo doll)
C- Gather more accurate conclusions, in room with no one else other than model (no ex. variables)

P- Replication
E- Lab experiment, 36 boys and girls, same behaviour checklist
C- Increase in external validity

P- Gather qualitative data
E- Time sample to gather data (5 seconds), same behaviour categories
C- Easy analysis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What was the aim of Chaneys study?

A

Show that the use of a novel asthma device ‘funhaler’, leads to positive reinforcement leading to improved adherence in young asthmatics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What was the method in Chaneys study?

A 
Field experiment (in Australia) which used repeated measures 
IV= whether children used their regular inhaler or the funhaler 
DV= amount of adherence to the prescribed medical regime for asthma
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What was Chaneys sample?

A

22 boys, 10 girls
1.5-6 years old
Parents completed questionnaires and took parting phone interviews

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What was Chaneys procedure?

A

First questionnaire completed at stat, then at end |(2 week duration)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

How was the ‘funhaler’ used to appeal children?

A

-attached to valve
-included a whistle, a ball that spun- can all be exchanged
=positive reinforcement for using the inhaler

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What were the results from Chaneys study?

A

Adherence- 38% more parents successfully mediated their child
Technique of medication- 80% children took recommended four cycles, compared to 50% for normal inhaler
Children’s attitudes- positive, felt ‘happiness’ and ‘pleasure’ taking medication

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What were similarities between Bandura and Chaneys study?

A
  • all children
  • base line test taken
  • opportunity sampling (B- nursery, C- clinic)
21
Q

What were differences between Bandura and Chaney?

A 
B:
-lab experiment
-matched pairs
C:
-field experiment
-repeated measures
22
Q

What were strengths of Chaneys study?

A

P- Field experiment
E- In their homes in Australia
C- Increase ecological validity

P- Asked about adherence at random times
E- Parents unaware when they would receive the questionnaire
C- Decease demand characteristics

23
Q

What were weaknesses of Chaneys study?

A

P- Not a balanced sample between girls and boys
E- 22 boys, 10 girls
C- More representative towards males

P- Didn’t use funhaler for long
E- 2 week duration
C- Unsure whether it is used due to novelty or not

24
Q

According to Freud, what are the three parts of personality?

A
  1. id-selfish (as get older=repressed)
  2. super-ego (develops)
  3. ego (based on reality principle)
25
Q

What are behaviourists beliefs about morality?

A

-learn through consequences
-external forces act and guide our behaviour (eg: parents)
>help understand what’s right and wrong

26
Q

What are cognitive psychologists beliefs about morality?

A

-internal/ mental process

27
Q

What was the aim of Kohlbergs study?

A

Investigate development in moral reasoning throughout adolescence and early adulthood
SECONDARY AIM:
-asses the extent to which these changes hold true in a range of cultural contexts

28
Q

What was the sample for Kohlbergs study?

A

-75 American boys (androcentric)
-aged 10-16 (at the start), followed through three year intervals, until ages 22-28 (at the end of study)
>selected from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds
-moral development studied in boys of other cultures
>eg: Great Britain, Canada, Mexico and Turkey

29
Q

What were strengths of Kohlbergs sample?

A
  • cross cultural

- large sample

30
Q

What were weaknesses of Kohlbergs sample?

A
  • only boys (androcentric)

- no one below aged 10, or above 28

31
Q

Describe the Heinz dilemma

A

-expensive drug needed to save his wife from dying of cancer
-could only afford half of what its worth
-asks drug company owner to sell it for less as wife needs it, owner says no
>options:
-steal and not go to prison= ‘unfair’
-steal and go to prison
-don’t steal it

32
Q

What were conclusions of Kohlbergs study?

A
  • each stage of moral development comes at one time and always in the same order
  • an individual may stop at any given stage and at any age
  • universal
33
Q

What are implications of Kolhbergs study?

A
  • range of settings where ethical behaviour is considered important
  • these range from personal, social and health education at school to military training
34
Q

What was the aim of Lee’s study?

A

To compare cross cultural evaluations of lying and truth telling in situations involving pro-social and anti-social behaviours

35
Q

What was the method for Lee’s study?

A

Quasi experiment, which used independent measures design

The naturally occurring IV was ethnicity

36
Q

What independent variables were there in Lee’s study?

A
  • whether the participant heard the social or physical story
  • whether participants heard stories involving children who intentionally carried out a good deed (pro-social) or storied involving carrying out a bad deed (anti-social)
37
Q

What were the four conditions with social stories and four with physical stories?

A
  1. Pro-social behaviour/ truth telling stories
  2. Pro-social behaviour/ lie telling stories
  3. Anti-social behaviour/ truth
  4. Anti-social behaviour/ lie

Had illustrations as-well, more accessible to lower reading ability

38
Q

What were the dependent variables in Lee’s study?

A
  • rating characters deeds
  • rating what character said
  • very, very good to very, very bad (children)
39
Q

What was the sample for Lee’s study

A

120 Chinese children from elementary school, no info on socio-economic background exist in China
108 Canadian children, elementary, middle class

40
Q

How did they minimise extraneous variables in Lee’s study?

A

Same story teller, read at the same pace and tone

41
Q

What was the rating scale like for Lee?

A 
Very, very good- 3 red stars
Very good- 2 red stars
Good- 1 red star
Neither good not naughty- blue circle
Naughty- 1 black cross
Very naughty- 2 black crosses
Very, very naughty- 3 black crosses
42
Q

What were the results from Lee’s study?

A

-scores converted into numbers
-preliminary analyses of the effects of order and gender showed no significant difference so the data for these two variables were combined for subsequent analyses
-Chinese tended to rate truth-telling as less positive than Canadian Ps
>70% Chinese 11 year olds rated lying positively in prosocial situations, compared to 25% of Chinese 7 year olds

43
Q

What were conclusions from Lee’s study?

A
  • close relationship between socio-cultural practices and moral judgement exists
  • Chinese children rated prosocial situations less positively and lie telling in the same situation less negatively than the Canadian children, Chinese had an emphasis on self-effacement and modesty
  • both showed similar moral evaluation of lie-telling and truth-telling related to anti-social behaviour
44
Q

What was a strength of Lee’s study?

A

P- able to control ex. variables
E- same story teller, so can control pace and tone
C- more reliable results;ts as more consistent, leading to more consistent evaluations

45
Q

What was a weakness from Lee’s study?

A

P- story wasn’t told in a natural setting
E- lab experiment= artificial setting
C- decrease in ecological validity, can’t be generalised to real life situation

46
Q

What is a strength of using quantitative data in Lee’s study?

A

P- one strength= easy to compare across conditions
E- rating scale, 7 point scale made from stars and crosses, converted to numbers
E- statistical analysis compare truth and lie telling between Canadians and Chinese conditions
C- statistics can show significant difference between groups- suggesting moral background has an effect on moral judgement or behaviour

47
Q

What are similarities between Kohlberg and Lee?

A
  • lab experiment
  • children
  • cross-cultural
  • scenarios used
48
Q

What are differences between Kohlberg and Lee?

A 
K:
-androcentric 
-qualitative data 
L:
-male and female 
-cross sectional (done at the same time)
-quasi experiment

PSYCHOLOGY- CASE STUDIES/PERSPECTIVES (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions