development - studies

Question 1

3 mountains task
researchers, date, name

Answer 1

Piaget and Inhelder (1956)
“Three mountains task”

Question 2

Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Aims

Answer 2

> The extent to which children of different ages were able to take the view of another person

> Children’s overall system of putting together a number of different views of what they see

Question 3

3 mountains: number of participants and age

Answer 3

100 children ages 4-12
4 - 6.5 : 21
6.5 - 8 : 30
8 - 9.5 : 33
9.5 - 12 : 16

Question 4

3 mountains: set up

Answer 4

high mountain: grey and snow top
middle mountain: brown, red cross, stream
low mountain: green, house, path

Question 5

PI3M equipment

Answer 5

• model of 3 mountains
• 10 photos from different angles with clear colours
• 3 pieces of card the same colour as mountains
• wooden doll 3cm

Question 6

PI3M procedure

Answer 6

> Child asked to use the cardboard shapes to show how the mountains looked from different viewpoints (including their view and the doll’s view)

> Child shown ten photos and asked which the doll could see.

> Child chose a picture and had to position the doll so that it could see it.

Question 7

PI3M findings

Answer 7

> pre-operational stage: chooses pictures, places and cardboard to show their own view. A child cannot show the view of someone else (egocentrism)

> concrete operations (7-9): starts to understand that someone has a different view
A child (9-10) can understand that the doll has a different view

Question 8

PI3M conclusion

Answer 8

> Children up to 7 years old are egocentric >towards the end of the pre-operational stage they begin to understand viewpoint

> Older children are non-egocentric
can construct mental images of what others can see

> Provides evidence for the stages of development

Question 9

strengths of PI3M study (x4)

Answer 9

• great detail about what was done and gave qualitative analysis about individual children
• Used experimental methods which meant careful controls were put in place
• high reliability
• findings showed that children develop progressively rather than at distinct stages

Question 10

weaknesses of PI3M study (x4)

Answer 10

• ‘stages’ are not definitive enough even though Piaget acknowledged a period of transition
• children found it too hard
• low generalisability as all children were from Switzerland

Question 11

replications

Answer 11

• Borke (1975): Grover, sesame street and turntable with 3-4 yr olds
• Repacholi and Gopnik (1997): crackers and broccoli

Question 12

praise types study
researchers, date, name

Answer 12

Gunderson et al. (2013)
Parent Praise to children and their affect 5 years later

Question 13

Gunderson et al. (2013) Aims

Answer 13

> to know whether children are affected by different types of praise given in a natural situation
whether Parents give girls more person praise than process praise
whether parent praise type in early childhood affects reasoning 5 years later

Question 14

Gunderson et al. (2013) age, demographic

Answer 14

53 participants
29 boys and 24 girls
64% - White
17% - African-American
11% - Hispanic
8% - Multiracial

Question 15

Gunderson et al. (2013) Procedure

Answer 15

• tracked children over a long period (longitudinal)
• praise type was observed at 14 months, 28 months and 36 months
• double-blind study (told it was about language development)
• home visits and recorded in 90 minute recordings
• At 7-8 years old the same children answered two questionnaires about what they thought led to a persons intelligence and led to their morals
• 18 items on framework and 6 items on socio-moral views

Question 16

Gunderson et al. (2013) Findings

Answer 16

> 3% of parental comments to children were praise
Process praise was 18%, Person praise was 16%
24% of boys praise was process praise whereas was only 10.3% for girls
correlation of 0.35 was found between process praise and children’s later belief
The more process praise there is in early childhood, the more likely children will believe that putting effort in is worthwhile
correlation of -0.05 between person praise and entity motivational framework: no effects later in life

Question 17

Gunderson et al. (2013) Conclusion

Answer 17

> clear relationship found between parents use of process praise and a child’s later use of an incremental motivational framework
partially supported because it did not find the person praise leads to an entity motivational framework
Gender differences in praise
girls tend to attribute failure to ability more than boys do

Question 18

Gunderson et al. (2013) Strengths (x3)

Answer 18

> no bias as they did not know what was being studied (no interference)
confirmed dweck’s findings in a naturalisitc environment as it was in the child’s home
findings in observational and experimental study are close, and theory and study support each other

Question 19

Gunderson et al. (2013) Weaknesses

Answer 19

> ethics: participants were deceived. needed a debrief to make it more acceptable
parents may have changed behaviour because they were being filmed so may lack validity
53 parent child pairs in Chicago, limits generalisability