Theorists and Theories Flashcards
What are Piaget’s 4 stages of cognitive development
The sensorimotor stage (0–2 years)
The preoperational stage (2–7 years)
The concrete operational stage (7–11 years)
The formal operational stage (12 years and up)
Explain the sensorimotor stage (0–2 years)
From 0-2 years
Characterised by:
Object permanence: children learn that even if they can’t see an object, it still exists
Explain the preoperational stage (2–7 years)
children begin to use language and engage in symbolic thinking.
Children at this age to use symbols, gestures and images to mentally represent people, objects and events that may not be present.
Pretend play in children is also when another cognitive characteristic of this stage, called animism, is observed. Animism refers to the tendency of children to believe that any inanimate object possesses lifelike characteristics, such as feelings and emotions.
During this stage, the child is also quite egocentric. Egocentrism refers to the tendency of children to view situations and events only from their own perspective, with the belief that others will see things from the same point of view as themself
Explain the concrete operational stage (7–11 years)
An important development during this stage is the child learning the concept of conservation. This occurs when a child understands that physical properties such as mass, volume, number and length do not change (are conserved) even when their shape or appearance changes Reversibility of thought is another accomplishment in the concrete operational stage. This allows children to recognize that if 4 + 2 = 6, then 2 + 4 does, too.
Explain the formal operational stage (12 years and up)
children begin to break away from concrete objects and specific examples, and develop thinking based more on abstract principles, such as democracy or honor. They also gradually become able to consider hypothetical possibilities. Abstract thinking means thinking in terms of general concepts rather than specific objects, experiences or events. Individuals during this stage can think about things they are yet to experience or things they can’t directly see or touch; for example, concepts such as love, freedom and morality. Hypothetico-deductive reasoning refers to being able to test a logical hypothesis by using abstract thought.
What are criticisms of Piaget’s theory
Piaget may have underestimated children’s abilities and that many accomplishments can be achieved by children before he specified.
»Piaget gave too little credit to the effects of learning. For example, children of pottery-making parents can correctly answer questions about the conservation of clay at an earlier age than Piaget would have predicted (Bransford et al., 1986).
»Piaget used his own children as research participants. He would record observations of their behaviour and cognitive accomplishments. There were also other issues surrounding the recruiting of his research participants (that is, his selection process).
»Piaget did not measure cognitive development throughout adulthood, only during the early stages of the life span.
»More recent research suggests that intellectual growth is not as related to age and stage as Piaget claimed.
»According to other learning theorists, children continuously gain specific knowledge; they do not undergo stage-like leaps in general mental ability.
Identify the three stages of Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment
Stage 1: In-group formation
Stage 2: The friction phase
Stage 3: The integration phase
Expand on Stage 1 of the Robbers Cave experiment
To assist in the formation of in-groups, the boys were allocated to one of two groups. The boys were collected and taken to the campsite on separate buses and were placed at different ends of the campsite, under the impression that they were the only group there. For the next week, the individual groups completed team-building activities such as organizing campfires and preparing meals, which strengthened the bond between the boys. During this stage of the experiment, the boys gave themselves distinct group names: one group was called the ‘Rattlers’ and the other was called the ‘Eagles’. The boys made flags with their group names on them and also stenciled their shirts and hats with their group’s name.
Expand on Stage 2 of the Robbers Cave experiment
By the beginning of Stage 2, the boys in each group had become aware of each other’s existence. Camp staff announced that a tournament of activities would be taking place over the coming days. During this time, the boys played basketball, baseball and tug-of-war against each other, all while trading insults at the opposing team. Tensions reached a tipping point when the Eagles set the Rattlers’ flag on fire. In an attempted act of retribution, the Rattlers hatched a plan to steal the Eagles’ flag, which culminated in a fistfight between members of the two groups.
Expand on Stage 3 of the Robbers Cave experiment
Now that strong in-groups had been formed and negative attitudes established, Sherif planned to use the third stage of the experiment to reduce hostilities by creating scenarios where the Rattlers and Eagles had to work together. Initially, the boys attended a movie together and ate meals in the same location; however, their attitudes did not change. At mealtime, the boys would sit on separate sides of the food hall, often culminating in food-fights. Simply placing the boys in the same location for extended periods of time did not reduce the tensions between the Rattlers and the Eagles. Sherif and his associates now introduced superordinate goals: worthwhile goals that can only be achieved via cooperation. Working together, the boys repaired the camp’s water supply; pulled a broken-down truck carrying food for the camp; and also pooled their money to hold a movie night.
At the end of the three weeks at the camp, the boys suggested that they head back home on the same bus. Sherif noted that on the ride home, the boys intermingled, sang songs and many of the boys exchanged details to meet again in the future. The introduction of superordinate goals greatly reduced the tensions between the two groups. The reliance on each other encouraged the boys to put their differences aside. Additionally, this helped to reduce the prejudice the boys held about the opposing group.
What was the sample of the Muzafer Sherif Study and was it generalizable
Sherif recruited 22 young boys aged 11 to 12 years, they were all white and protestant, who were randomly allocated to one of two groups. The boys were from similar backgrounds, with similar academic abilities, and all had no history of psychological or behavioral issues.
For this reason, the results are not generalizable
What was Phillip Zimbardo’s experiment called
Stanford Prision Experiment
What was the method of the Stanford Prision Experiment
Recruitment: Zimbardo placed an ad in a local newspaper, seeking male university students to participate in a study on prison life.
Participant Selection:
75 people responded to the ad.
24 male participants were chosen, selected for their stable personalities.
Role Assignment:
A coin toss was used to randomly assign participants to the role of either prisoner or guard.
Random assignment aimed to ensure that individual differences were equally distributed across both groups.
Simulated Arrests:
Prisoners were collected from their homes by local police officers in police cars to simulate a real arrest.
Arrival at the “Prison”:
Prisoners were taken to the mock prison, set up in the basement of a Stanford University building.
Upon arrival, prisoners were stripped of personal identity and individuality: they undressed, were sprayed for lice, and wore standardized prison uniforms.
Prisoners were assigned numbers and instructed to respond only to their numbers.
Guards’ Role and Authority:
Guards wore distinct uniforms and reflective sunglasses to establish authority and anonymity.
They were instructed to create and enforce their own rules for the prisoners, which included frequent line-ups and count-downs to assert control.
Escalation of Behavior:
After two days, prisoners grew restless and staged a riot in protest.
Guards responded with aggressive force, brutally suppressing the rebellion.
Psychological Effects:
Guards became increasingly authoritarian, escalating their control tactics with frequent commands, insults, and demeaning tasks for prisoners.
Prisoners became dejected, traumatized, and passive, exhibiting signs of dehumanization.
Four prisoners had to be released due to severe emotional distress, including hysterical crying and confusion.
Premature Termination:
The experiment, initially planned for two weeks, was halted after six days due to the extreme psychological effects on participants.
What was the aim of the Stanford prison experiment?
Examining whether prison guards and prisoners behave the way they do because of their personal characteristics or because of the roles they are given (Zimbardo et al., 1971).
Conclusions of the Stanford Prision experiment
According to Zimbardo, the assigned roles – prisoner and guard – were so powerful that in just a few days the experiment became ‘reality’ for those involved. Afterwards, it was difficult for many of the guards to believe their own behaviour. As one recalls, ‘I was surprised at myself. I made them call each other names and clean toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle’ (Zimbardo et al., 1973).
Criticisms of the Stanford Prision experiment
Guard Behavior: Many guards’ extreme behaviors were influenced by instructions from researchers (Le Texier, 2019).
Role Misunderstanding: Some guards believed they were research assistants rather than study participants.
Pressure to Act: Guards felt pressured to act oppressively for the study’s success, with one saying, “or else the experiment won’t come off right.”
Acting by Guards: Two aggressive guards admitted to “acting” rather than genuinely behaving as guards.
Zimbardo’s Awareness: Zimbardo knew some guards were acting, as one guard expressed this to him during debriefing.
Early Exit Conditions: Prisoners could only leave if sick, experiencing a breakdown, or given experimenter approval.
Fake Illness Attempt: A prisoner who faked a stomachache was denied leave, later exiting by pretending to have a breakdown.
Who conducted the electric shock obedience studies
Stanely Milgrim
What was the aim of Milgrims Study
To see how far a person will proceed in a concrete situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim.
Explain the Method of the obedience study
Participants: 40 men, aged 20-50, from various occupations (e.g., clerks, engineers, teachers).
Role Assignment: Participants drew slips to determine roles; the “teacher” role was always given to the real participant, while the “learner” role went to a confederate.
Task: Teachers read word pairs to the learner, who then had to recall them.
Shock Procedure:
Teachers were instructed to administer an electric shock for each mistake by the learner, increasing the shock by 15 volts each time, from 15 to 450 volts. Learners did not actually receive shocks but acted as if they did, responding with scripted protests.
Experimenter’s Role: An authority figure (experimenter) stood next to the teacher, urging them to continue using prompts if they hesitated.
Learner’s Reactions: As the “shock” levels increased, the learner would protest, complain of pain, and eventually stop responding.
Experimenter’s Instructions: Teachers were told to treat no response from the learner as an incorrect response, requiring a shock.
Debriefing:
At the end, teachers were informed that the learner had not been shocked. Many teachers showed signs of stress (e.g., sweating, trembling, stuttering) but still obeyed the experimenter’s orders to continue.
What were the conclusions of Milgrims study
The experiment was designed to test at what point people would disobey. The results surprised everyone, even Milgram. Few participants withdrew from the experiment before delivering shocks of 300 volts, and 65 per cent of participants delivered the maximum voltage of 450 volts.
Milgram concluded that the participants were influenced by the gradual nature of the situation. Participants took on a task and gradually found that it was more and more inconsistent with their beliefs about what they should and should not do. However, there was no clear cut-off point at which to switch from obeying what seemed to be a reasonable request to disobeying what seemed to be an unreasonable command. The participants became locked into the situation. By obeying the first small command, they felt they had to keep going and obey larger and larger commands.
What theorists studied split brain studies
Roger Sperry (1914–1994) and Michael Gazzaniga (1939–)
What is a split-brain experiment
split-brain operations (called a corpus callosotomy) involved cutting an area of the corpus callosum.
What is the effect to brain functioning of a split-brain procedure
Following split-brain surgery, the areas of the brain are still connected by many other structures that lie below the cerebral cortex, but the flow of information between the left and right hemispheres is interrupted. So, information in one hemisphere is unable to be transferred to the opposite hemisphere for processing. As a result, the brain cannot integrate information registered separately in each hemisphere.
Explain the Method Sperry used
»The patient would sit at a table with a screen with a black dot in the center in front of them. They could fit their hands under the screen to reach objects on the other side, but they could not see the objects or their own hands.
»They were asked to fix their eyes on the black dot in the centre of the screen.
»A projector flashed images or words onto the screen to only one hemisphere. (It is important to note that each hemisphere controls the opposite side of the body.) Information presented to only the left visual field (the left side of the patient’s vision) was sent to the right hemisphere; information presented to only the right visual field (the right side of the patient’s vision) was sent to the left hemisphere.
»To ensure patients could actually see the image or word presented on the left, several items that represented the image or word were hidden and accessible through a hole, and the patient would be able to identify the word or image through feeling the hidden object.
»Patients were asked, ‘What did you see?’ If flashed on the right, the information travelled to the left hemisphere and patients would accurately recall seeing the image or words; if flashed on the left, the information travelled to their right hemisphere. These patients would not be able to accurately recall what they had seen and, in some cases, denied seeing anything.
What were the conclusions from the Split Brain Studies
»The corpus callosum is essential in allowing information to travel between the hemispheres »the two hemispheres have different abilities and functions. The left hemisphere is dominant in speech and language. The right hemisphere is dominant in terms of visual-motor tasks.
