Developmental Area Flashcards
What were banduras hypotheses
- children exposed to aggressive model would reproduce aggressive acts resembling those of the models
- observing non-aggressive adults would inhibit children’s behaviour and they would display less aggression than control groups who did not witness any model
- children would imitate behaviour from same sex models more than opposite sex models
- boys would show more aggression than girls, particularly in male aggression role model condition
What was banduras sample
72 children enrolled at Stanford University (even girls and boys)
Aged 37 to 69 months
What was the experimental design bandura
Matched groups
Matched on mean age, gender split, mean aggression rating, plus a control group
How was mean aggression rating of children in banduras obtained
2 observers, watched children in social interactions at nursery Rated on 5 point scales -physical aggression -verbal aggression -aggression towards inanimate objects
Checked for inter rated reliability, 51 scores correlated
-aggression inhibition
What was stage one of banduras study
-individually taken to room, shown high interest toys: potato printing and stickers
-model sat with bobo doll & mallet
-child told those were models toys only
Non aggressive model - ignored bobo
Aggressive model - player with tinker for 1 min, then bobo doll
How long were the children in each stage for in banduras
1-10mins
2-2mins
3-20mins
What happened in stage two of banduras
-arousal
Child taken into small room with lots of attractive toys: fire engine, train, spinning top
Told he/she could play, but once they settled told they were the very best toys saved for the other children but there was other toys in other room
What was stage 3 of banduras
Toys (same as first room ) set up in same place for each child
Aggressive toys-bobo, mallet, dart guns
Non aggressive toys-crayons, farm animals
20min child allowed to play while being observed through one way mirror , every 5 seconds note made of behaviour shown
Some results of banduras study
Imitation of physical aggression with aggressive model-girls-7.2, boys-25.8
Imitation of physical aggression non aggression model-girls-0, boys-1.5
Verbal aggression aggressive model- girls-2.0, boys-12.7
Were any hypothesis of banduras supported
- Reproduce aggression - supported by sig diff between means of 36.7 (boys) compared to 26.1
- Boys more aggression than girls - partially supported, physical aggression boys mean 38.2 girls 12.7
- Influence of sex of model - small group sizes didn’t allow sig diff
What is conclusions of banduras study
Observing behaviour would produce imitative behaviour which would not be expected if that behaviour had not been observed, moves on from skinners idea that behaviour is only shown if rewarded
Discuss ethics of banduras
- children themselves didn’t consent, and weren’t aware of right to withdraw
- teachers give consent in place of parents
- hard to debrief young children wouldn’t understand “don’t be aggressive”
- second arousal stage may be harmful causing anxiety in
- did consequences out weigh benefits brought by the study
Discuss validity of banduras
Controlled so little effect of extraneous variables
Toys in same place so not affected by first toy seen by child
Pre testing for aggression and matching eliminates participant variables
Discuss reliability of banduras
Highly replicable, as it was replicated 72 times
Sample not large enough to establish reliable effects as only 6 children in each condition
Discuss Population validity of banduras
Limited representativeness, may never have seen bobo doll and so just copied as didn’t know what else to do
Restricted sample, all parents may have similar characteristics such as socio economic status therefore children limited in representation of others
Only of children, are adults likely to imitate?
Discuss ethnocentrism of banduras
Only in America, different laws with gun ownership, affect likelihood of learning aggressive behaviour
If cultural norms always influence a child then study isn’t ethnocentric
How does bandura link to nature/nurture
Nature-boys more aggressive due to testosterone
Nurture-encouraging boys to play with trucks and guns not dolls
Nurture-environment influences behaviour
How does bandura link to freewill/determinism
Freewill-Physical aggression imitation of female model lower than male model, some choices by children as to what was acceptable way to behave
Determinism-testosterone predetermining normal levels of aggression in males, so more likely to display aggression
Why is bandura useful
- 1970s watershed, after 9pm classed as adult tv, as society accepted that tv can influence behaviour
- social learning theory used in society to impression behaviour or discourage it
Why does bandura fall into developmental area
Investigating how the environment around a child can influence the behaviour they end up adopting themselves
Why does bandura relate to behaviourst perspective
Believed that all behaviour is learnt, and developed SLT as an alternative to operant and classical conditioning
Why does bandura link to cognitive
SLT has cognitive processes
Attention-have to notice behaviour
Memory-retaining behaviour seen in order to reproduce
How does bandura link to key theme external influences
Demonstrates importance of environment in which child is brought up as the external factors will shape a persons behaviour
What was aim of Chaney
See if rewards could be used to increase health behaviours and if principle of reinforcement could be applied to health setting
What was chaneys procedure
- parents with children using normal inhaler recruited through gp
- parents contacted by phone, then visited at home
- given questionnaire about current inhaler and consent form
- given funhaler for 2 weeks
- at end of two weeks, revisited and given another questionnaire to complete
What did the funhaler look like
Inhaler with whistle and spinning disk, when child exhale the disk spin and whistle sound appears, long steady breath meant the best toy performance
What was chaney sample
32 Australian children, 22 boy, 10 girl
1.5 and 6 years old
Average duration of asthma for 2.2 years
What experimental design was chaney
Repeated measure sfield experiment
What was some quantitative data from chaney
Scream when brought to face- 48% then 3%
Children pleasure-10% then 68%
Parent happy-10% then 61%
Discuss ethics of chaney
All ethical except parents didn’t originally know about funhaler
Discuss validity of chaney
- self report, social desirability lower validity as parents won’t want to admit they don’t use inhaler
- extraneous variables not controlled as can’t know what parents didn’t at home
- high ecological as study completed at home
Discuss reliability of chaney
Many aspects standardised eg time length using funhaler, same design and same instructions
Is chaney ethnocentric
Sample all from Australia
How does chaney link to individual/ situational
Differences in attitude from both parents and child prior to and after use of funhaler show that individual differences influence behaviour
The only thing changing in the study is the type of inhaler, and the resultant behaviour is significantly different therefore situation has impact on behaviour
Why does Chaney fall into developmental
Illustrating a way in which children learn and how parents can help their child acquire desired behaviours namely through positive n negative reinforcement
Why does chaney link to behaviourist perspective
Chaney is set with operant conditioning
Which is a behaviourist theory devised by skinner to explain how behaviour is learned as result of consequence
How is chaney similar to bandura
Use children
Behaviourist principle
Quantitative data
How is chaney different from bandura
Bandura observation, Chaney self report
Bandura controlled setting, Chaney natural setting
Bandura large sample, Chaney small sample
Aim of kohlberg
How how his research supports his stage theory of moral development
What did kohlberg believe about moral development
Stages are invariant
Move from one stage to the next, can’t jump stages
Not every one will reach highest stage of moral development
What are the 6 stages f moral development
1-obedience and punishment orientation (if authority is missing behaviour in immoral way)
2-self interest orientation (behave in self centred way, bring benefit to self)
3-conformity to rules and expectations (seek approval from others begin to consider intention of act)
4-authority and social order (sees right behaviour as duty to show respect and maintain social order)
5-social contact orientation (does what’s right based on law plus personal values and opinions)
6-universal ethical principle (child bases judgement on universal human rights f justice, equality, reciprocity and respect for individual)
Kohlberg conclusions
Moral development occur in same sequence regardless of where child grew up, the sequence is not affected by social, cultural or religious conditions.
evaluate ethics of kohlberg
assumed they consented to the study, ability to withdraw as could refuse or not co-operate
dsicuss kohlberg validity
- dilemmas lack ecological validty as people say how thye think they would act rather than how they actually would act in the situation
- reducde validity as demand characteristics or social desirability due to self report
- socio economic statis or edcation may influence moral upbringing
discuss reliability of kohlberg
- larger sample (75 americans, and samples from other countries like taiwan) results not ‘fluke’
- standardised procedure same moral dilemmas and same questions to be answered
- conducted in 1960s, world is different place now, parenting styles may have changed must be establish test re-test reliability
discuss kohlberg population validity
generalisability restricted to only males, and americans howver layer did studies in other countries
-sample is andocentric (researched males and then generlaised his theory to male and female)
is kohlbergs study ethnocentric
assuming that people have same moral development is ethnocentric bias, yes as original study done in america, however the later research in taiwan and atayal shows its less ethnocentric
how does kohlberg link to nature/nurture
- suggests moral development is an innate predetermined sequence of stages which remain invariant regardless of situation
- however the study conclusions doesnt show how culture affects it (lee et al)
why does kohlberg link to science
- lack of control of extraneous variables and subjective interpretation, however it is falsifiable
- used scientific process of induction
why does kohlberg link to freewill/determinism
-stages are invariant, therefore it is deterministic, cognitive process ensures that you pass through each stage and you cannot choose to skip any stage.
why is kohlberg developmental
aspect of developmental is the idea we change over time, passing through prescribed set of stages, kohlbergs study shows that through a longitudinal study.
whats aim of lee
to see if canadian children and chinese children would rate truth telling and lie telling differently in pro social situations and anti social situations
lee’s sample
120 chinese children
-40 7yr old, 40 9yr old, 40 11yr old all gender equal
108 canadian children
-36 7yrold, 40 9yr old, 32 11yr old, (58 boy 50 girl)
what were the conditions in lee
ethnicity
age
social or physical story
pro social pr antisocial
what was procedure of lee
- children randomly allocated to social or physical
- seen individually
- rating chart explained, told could use words or symbols or both
- child listened to 4 stories (social or physical)
- researcher used counter balancing by randomly allocating stories
results of lee
- no sig diff between order of stories given and gender of child
- higher to score the more child approved, lower the score the more disapproved
- as chinese children got older they saw lie telling as positive thing, and gave it higher rating in truth telling stories but didnt approve of lie telling shown by neg ratings in bad deed situation
- canadian children disapproved of lie telling in all situations
what are the dffierences in the stories lee
- prosocial truth-no sig diff in rating of pro-social behaviours, no sig diff in canadian ages, but as chinese got older rated truth less positvely
- prosocial lie-both canaidan and chinese rated lie as negative but when turned 11 chinese rated it positive
- antisocial truth-no sig diff between cultures
- antisocial lie-sig difff between age groups, neg rating increased as age increased
what are lee conclusions
moral development is different in different cultures as result of socio-cultural norms and practices, and not only as result of cognitive processes
what research methods is lee
quasi, cross cultural, snapshot
discuss ethics of lee
all adhered Lee explicity thanks ‘the participating children … for co operation’
unequal numbers suggest withdrawal?
discuss validity of lee
- increased validity as tried to control as many variables as possible-same age and gender mix, target population from non heavy industry cities.
- standardised procedure with several controls, stories similar, randomly allocated so no bias
discuss reliability of lee
- 8 stories make it possible for replication
- large number of children=consistent established effect
- each child had 4 stories read to them, more data collected allowing for analysis
discuss ehtnocentrism of lee
cross cultural
does canada represent western cultures, does china represent eastern cultures
why does lee link the individual/situational
lee suggests that the situation and culture that a child is brought up in will significantly change their moral thinking
why does lee link to freewill/determinism
culture determines moral thinking, not able to change moral development but have freewill to over-ride our morality and do immoral things
why does lee fall into developmental
looking at changes in childrens moral development not only by age but by culture too
similarities of kohlberg and lee
both use children both look at moral stages of development quantitative data self report presented scenarios
differences between kohlberg and lee
kohlberg male, lee both genders
kohlberg longitudinal, lee snapshot
