developmetal area Flashcards
1
Q
what is the background to banduras study
A
- social learning theory suggest behaviour is learnt through imitation of role models
- research suggests we are more likely to repeat behaviour if we see it rewarded
- bandura wanted to see if children would show more aggressive acts if they had a aggressive model, boys will show more aggressive acts than girls, more likely to imitate same sex
2
Q
what was the design in banduras study
A
- laboratory experiment
- independant/matched participants design
- IV = whether child saw an aggressive or non aggressive model, sex of model, sex of child
- DV = amount of aggressive acts imitated noted through observavtion
- baseline levels of aggression were measured at the start
3
Q
what was the sample in banduras study
A
- 72 children were used from stanford university nursery school
- mean age of 52 months
4
Q
what was the procedure of banduras experiment
A
- children were taken to play for 10 mins, agressive condition saw the model physically and verbally being aggressive to the bobo doll
- in the non aggressive the model played with a tinker toy set for the whole time
-mild aggression arousal by being allowed to play with a toy for 2 minutes then they toy being taken away - children were taken to a room and their behaviour was observed for 20 minutes by experimenters watching through a one way mirror noting the number of imitative and non imitative acts
- observer relaibilty was +0.9
5
Q
what were the findings of banduras study
A
- children in the agressive model showed more imitative verbal and physical acts
- children in non aggressive showed little aggression (1.5 compared to 25.4)
- boys were more aggressive than girls ( 25.4 compared to 7.2)
6
Q
what did bandura conclude
A
- children learn through observation and imitation
- physical aggression is more likely to be learnt from a male model
- boys imitate more physical aggression than girls, maybe because its more acceptable in society
7
Q
what was the background of chaneys study
A
- argued we learn through operant conditioning 9 learning through association)
- study aimed to see if operant conditioning could be used to encourage inhaler usage through positive reinforcement
- increase adherence to medical routine if they used a funhaler
8
Q
what was the design in chaneys study
A
- field experiment
- repeated measures design
- IV = whether the child used breath a tec or funhaler
- DV = amount of adherence to medical routine
9
Q
how many participants were in chaneys study
A
- 32 children
- mean age of 3.2 years
- average duration of asthma was 2.2 years
- randomly selected from a gp
10
Q
what was the procedure of chaneys study
A
- parents were sent a questionnaire to establish existing attitudes and usage
- then asked to use the funhaler for 2 weeks
- after 2 weeks they were sent a second matched questionnaire to indicate usage and attitude
- each parent was called at random and given a phone interview to see if they had medicated their child on the previous day.
11
Q
what were the findings in chaneys study
A
- 60% more children took their dose when using the funhaler in comparison to standard medication
- 22/30 parents said they were always successful with funhaler compared to 3/30 with the standard device
- in the phone interview 38% had medicated there child previous day using the funhaler
12
Q
what were the conclusions in chaneys study
A
- the funhaler may be useful in helping to manage asthma in young children
- positive reinforcement devices can encourage behaviours and improve health in young children
13
Q
what was the background in kolbergs study
A
- kolberg wanted to see if moral development changed over time in a predictable way as children develop, and if this was true for children of all cultures
- level 1 = stage 1, obedience and punishment orientated
Stage 2, self interest orientation - level 2 = stage 3, conformity to expectations and rules
Stage 4, law and order orientation - level 3 = stage 5, social contraction orientation
Stage 6, universal principles orientation
14
Q
what was the design in kolbergs study
A
- longitudinal study following the same group of boys for 12 years
- presented boys with moral dilemmas ( a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between 2 courses of action )
15
Q
what was kolbergs sample
A
- 75 american boys aged 10-16 at the start
- moral development was also studied in other cultures e.g uk. canada, taiwan, mexico and turkey
16
Q
what was kolbergs procedure
A
- participants were presented with hypothetical moral dilemmas in the form of short stories
- the stories were to determine each participants stage of moral reasoning for each of the 25 moral concepts
- when they understood the dilemma they were asked what the character should do in the situation
17
Q
what were the results in kolbergs study
A
- moral development does go through the 6 stages he proposed
- p’s were seen as being at a particular stage when 50% of their responses fitted in that stage
- we pass through one stage at a time in the same order
- people in different cultures go through the same stage
18
Q
what did kolberg conclude
A
- cultural universality to the sequence of stages
- each stage comes at one time in the same order
19
Q
what was the background to lees study
A
- lee aimed to investigate the cross cultural differences in children’s understandings and moral evaluations of lying
- compared individualist ( Canadian) and collectivist ( Chinese)
20
Q
what was lees design
A
- laboratory setting
- independant measures design
- IV = whether the p’s heard a social story or physical story
- whether the p’s heard a prosocial story or antisocial story
- DV = the rating given to the story characters deed, and the rating given to what the character said
21
Q
what was the sample in lees study
A
- 120 chinese children ( 40 7yo, 40 9yo, 40 11yo)
- 108 canadian children ( 36 7yo, 40 9yo, 32 11yo)
22
Q
what was the procedure in lees study
A
- each had 4 different stories read to them, 2 were prosocial, 2 were antisocial. the order was counterbalanced
- after each question children were shown a 7 point rating chart
- after the deed section of the story was read out the children were asked was what they did good or naughty
- the child could respond verbally or non verbally using the scale
23
Q
what was the results in lees study
A
- the chinese and canadian children were very similiar in their negative ratings or lying in antisocial situations and their positive rating of truth telling
- chinese and canadian children differed in their evaluations of truth telling and lying in prosocial situations
- 70% of the Chinese 11 year olds rated lying positively in pro social situations, compared to 25% of Chinese 7 year olds
24
Q
what were the conclusions in lees study
A
- moral reasoning can be influenced by the culture and society in which we live
- chinese children are taught modesty and humility
- moral development is different in different cultures as a result of social norms and practices
- nurture element to moral development
25
Q
What is the developmental explanation
A
- the way we behave changes as we age
- children think differently to adults
- our development is affected by nature and nurture
26
Q
What are the strengths and weaknesses of developmental area
A
+ area has practical applications, we can use this area to assess whether children are developing normally or not
+ area has increased understanding of how children develop
- some of this research is considered unethical as children are often studied
- research can lack scientific features, hard to measure children’s thoughts
27
Q
What is the explanation for the behaviourist perspective
A
- all behaviour is learnt through our environment
- we are born black slate ( tabula Rosa)
- we learn through operant and classical conditioning and SLT
28
Q
What are the strengths and weaknesses of behaviourist perspective
A
+ extraneous variables have been controlled so it’s easier to establish a cause and effect
+ practical applications, understanding the impact of watching aggression has on children has led to media restrictions
- reductionist as it explains all behaviour as learnt ignoring biological factors
- can lack ecological validity
