1
Q
What was the background and aim of Bandura’s study?
A
- Aim: show that observed behaviour is imitated (four hypotheses)
- Subjects exposed to aggressive models will imitate agressive acts
- Nonagressive modelling has an inhibiting effect on agressive behaviour
- Subjects will imitate a model of the same sex to a greater degree
- Boys will display more agressive behaviour than girls
2
Q
What method did Bandura use and who was his sample?
A
- Lab experiment with controlled observation
- IV: model behaviour (aggressive/non-aggressive/no model), sex of model, sex of child
- DV: child’s behaviour
- Controls: participant variables (matched-pair design for aggression level, rated by experimented and teacher), position of toys, actions of models
- Probably opportunity sampling (not specified):
- 36 boys and 36 girls (24 participants for each of 3 model behaviours)
- aged 37-69 months, mean age 52 months
- Standford University Nursery School
3
Q
Describe the procedure in Bandura’s study on agression
A
- Room 1 (10 minutes): subject brought individually by the experimenter to a room, child played with potato prints and stickers to settle in, then observed model
- model was in the opposite corner of the room with a tinker toy set, a mallet and a 5-foot inflated Bobo doll
- non-aggressive: played with tinker toys
- aggressive: played with tinker toys for a minute, rest of the time spent aggressing towards the Bobo doll
- Room 2: aggression arousal
- room contained fairly attractive toys
- once child became sufficiently involved with toys, experimenter said these were her very best toys and that she had decided to reserve them for other children
- Room 3: observation
- aggressive toys: 3-foot Bobo doll, mallet, peg board, dart guns, tether ball
- non-aggressive toys: tea set, crayons and colouring paper, ball, two dolls, bears, cars, trucks, plastic farm animals
- aggression rated every 5 seconds for 20 minutes by the male model and an independent observer through a one-way mirror
4
Q
What is ‘imitative learning’ and how is it different from the effect of the presence of a model on immediate behaviour?
How was imitative learning proved in Bandura’s experiment?
A
- Imitative learning: the reproduction of the new, learned behaviour in a new setting without the model (proved by collecting behavioural data when the subjects were moved to a new room without the model)
- The presence of the model affecting immediate behaviour is social facilitation, and not learned behaviour
5
Q
List the behaviours and comments made by the aggressive model in Bandura’s study
A
Aggressive behaviour sequence (approx. x3):
- laid doll on side, sat on it and punched its nose
- struck with mallet on the head
- tossed up in the air and kicked about the room
Verbally agressive comments:
- “Sock him in the nose”
- “Hit him down”
- “Throw him in the air”
- “Kick him”
- “Pow”
Non-aggressive comments:
- “He keeps coming back for more”
- “He sure is a tough fella”
6
Q
Describe the results obtained in Bandura’s study and what can be concluded from them
A
- All four hypotheses supported
- Girls showed more imitative verbal aggression and less physical aggression
- Girls imitated the male aggressive model more for physical aggression (possibly as it wasn’t ‘ladylike’ for the female model to behave aggressively)
- Boys showed more physical aggression, with more same-sex imitation
- Boys were overall more aggressive (even those in the control or non-aggressive groups)(proves that boys are naturally more aggressive - testosterone)
- Non-agressive modelling had an inhibiting effect on aggressive behaviour
- Therefore, children learn by imitation
7
Q
Evaluate Bandura’s study
A
- Generalisation: low, all subjects from the same nursery
- Reliability: high, inter-rater reliability tested
- Validity: high, at least one observer didn’t know the group the child was in when rating them, so no bias; one-way mirror so no demand characteristics
- Ecological validity: low, lab experiment, not common for an adult to hit a doll
- Ethics: low, psychological harm as children exposed to aggression, deliberately upsetting children during aggression arousal, parental consent not mentioned
- Usefulness: high, supports both nature and nurture arguments, supports social learning theory, environmental determinism
8
Q
Describe Freud’s method and sample
A
- longitudinal case study
- action research
- Hans’ father wrote to Freud describing Hans’ horse phobia
- father was a friend and supporter of Freud and his theories
- Little Hans: 3-5 year old boy
9
Q
Outline Freud’s theory of psychosexual development
A
Five stages, where the focus of the libido (pleasure principle) is in a different area:
- oral
- anal
- phallic
- latency
- genital
10
Q
Describe the evidence for Hans being in the phallic stage of psychosexual development
A
- interest in ‘widdler’
- assumed all animate objects had widdlers
- mother found him touching in at 3.5years old; threatened to have it cut off (developing castration anxiety)
- asked mother to touch it
11
Q
Define
Oedipus complex
A
A desire for sexual involvement with the parent of the opposite sex and a sense of rivalry with the parent of the same sex.
12
Q
Describe the evidence for Hans having the Oedipus complex
A
Giraffe fantasy:
- big giraffe and crumpled giraffe
- Hans took the crumpled one away
- big one cried out
- Hans sat on the crumpled one
13
Q
Describe the feelings little Hans had towards his sister
A
- Jealousy and hostility
- “her widddler’s still quite small”
- wished his mother would drop her when bathing her, but became afraid his mother would drop him instead
14
Q
How did Freud explain Hans’ phobia for horses and heavily loaded carts, furniture vans and buses?
A
- Horses - looked like his father (moustache and glasses); Hans thought a fallen horse was dead and was anxious over the death wish he had for his father
- “Daddy, don’t trot away from me!”
- also linked to his widdler: “Don’t put your finger to the white horse or it’ll bite you”
- Heavily loaded carts/vans/buses - represented pregnancy; did not want to share his mother
15
Q
What fantasies did little Hans have that showed he had overcome his phobia and Oedipus complex?
A
Plumber fantasy:
- “The plumber came; and first he took away my behind with a pair of pincers, and then gave me another, and then the same with my widdler”
- dad suggested “he gave you a bigger widdler and a bigger behind”
Children fantasy:
- Hans had been thier mummy but now was their daddy
- Hans’ father was the grandfather, his mother the grandmother
16
Q
Describe the weaknesses of Freud’s study
A
- Not generalisable: The case study revolved around Hans, one five-year-old boy; cannot be applied to other people like adults, young girls and people from other countries. (Freud says this only limits the value of the study, not nullifying it)
- Demand characteristics & leading questions: Hans may have kept certain information hidden because he thought his father might not approve or because his father unintentionally influenced him. Hans may have even said things simply because he thought it was the ‘correct’ answer for the situation. (Freud says we can distinguish between when Hans spoke freely and when he was falsifying facts)
- Researcher bias: The father was basically the ‘messenger’ between Hans and Freud. He may have interpreted things very differently to reality. Also, he was Hans’ father which brings an emotional aspect into the situation and lessens the objectivity of the study. Since Hans’ father was already a supporter of Freudian theories, that may have also been an extraneous factor in the interpretation process.
- Not replicable: The reliability of these results cannot be checked because there is no way to replicate the case study.
17
Q
What was the background and aims of Langlois’ study?
A
- Fantz (1961) showed children preferred ‘normal’ faces over ‘scrambled’ faces
- Previous studies by Langlois showed infants prefer attractive white female faces over unattractive ones
- Aims:
- replicate previous work; extend this to white male faces; investigate if female faces somehow ‘primed’ the preferences to male faces; investigate effect of mother’s attractiveness
- extend this to black female faces; investigate effect of mother’s attractiveness
- extend this to infant faces
18
Q
What method did Langlois use?
A
Lab experiment
- Study 1 IVs: attractive/unattractive white male and female faces, presentation grouped/alternate
- Study 2 IV: attractive/unattractive black female faces
- Study 3 IV: attractive/unattractive male and female infant faces
- DV: fixation time
19
Q
What samples were used in Langlois’ study?
A
Study 1: 110 infants, 50 excluded
samples from University of Texas subject pool
- exclusions: 41 for fussing, 3 for computer/equipment failure, 3 for experimenter error, 2 as mother looked at pictures, 1 as infant was 1 month premature
- 35 boys & 25 girls used, mean age 6 months, 6 days
- 53 white, 5 Hispanic, 1 black, 1 Asian
- All tested within 3 weeks of 6 month birthday
20
Q
Describe the sample for Langlois’ second study
A
Study 2: 43 infants, 3 excluded
samples from University of Texas subject pool
- exclusions: 2 for fussing, 1 equipment failure
- 15 boys & 25 girls used, mean age 6 month, 5 days
- 36 white, 2 black, 2 Hispanic
21
Q
Describe the sample for Langlois’ third study
A
Study 3: 52 infants, 13 excluded
samples from University of Texas subject pool
- exclusions: 11 for fussing, 2 not tested within 3 weeks of 6 month birthday
- 19 boys & 20 girls used, mean age 6 months, 15 days
- 37 Caucasian, 2 Hispanic
22
Q
Describe the stimuli shown to the infants in Langlois’ study
A
- Faces chosen so facial expression, hair length and hair colour were equally distributed
- All men were clean shaven
- Clothing cues were masked
- Study 1: 32 faces
- 16 adult women and 16 adult men
- rated on Likert scale by ≈40 undergraduates
- Study 2: 16 black adult women
- rated on Liert scale by 98 white and 41 black undergraduates (reduced same-race bias)
- Study 3: 16 3-month-old male and female infants
- rated on Likert scale by ≈40 undergraduates
23
Q
Describe the procedure that was used in Langlois’ study
A
- infant seated on parent’s lap 35cm from a screen
- parent wore occluded glasses so infant would not be influenced by parent’s preferences
- light and buzzing noise used to capture the infant’s attention to the center of the screen
- pair of slides (attractive & unattractive, randomly paired) displayed for 10 seconds
- left-right switched and displayed for another 10 seconds to remove infant side-bias
- filtered light displayed between trials to keep light level constant
- experimenter observed through camera mounted under projection screen
- direction and duration of looks typed and recorded on computer
- experimenter could not see displayed slides so no bias
- Study 1: alternating condition - infants viewed male and female pairs alternately; grouped condition - infants viewed all women then all men; two sets of 16 slides; 5-10 min break after 8 trial blocks
- Study 1 & 2: photographs taken of the mothers
- Study 2: only 4 trial blocks to lessen fatigue/attrition
24
Q
Describe the results obtained in Langlois’ study
A
- Study 1 & 2: no significant relationships found between maternal attractiveness and infants’ preference
- Study 1: boys looked longer at male faces; girls looked longer at female faces, but no significant difference
mean fixation times:
25
Describe the conclusions from Langlois' study, and the explanations given for these conclusions
1. Infants can discriminate between attractive/unattractive faces, and prefer attractive faces
2. Judged regardless of sex, race and age of faces
* exposure to cultural media doesn't account for preferences
* cognitive explanation: prefer prototypic, 'average' faces - similar facial features associated with attractiveness across racial groups
* evolutionary explanation: individuals close to the mean of the population are less likely to carry harmfulu genetic mutations
26
Evaluate Langlois' study
* **Generalisation:** **yes;** large sample, **low;** all from Texas
* **Reliability: high;** many controls (glasses), no order effect or infant side-bias, same age
* **Validity: low;** not good operalisation; **validity of data high;** checked via correlating the observations of experimenters on a data sample (stats), no demand characteristics
* **Ecological validity: low;** static images, lab
* **Ethics: questionable;** using children
* **Usefulness: high;** suggests affects of culture on judgement of attractiveness are 2ndary
27
What were the background and hypothesis of Nelson's study?
* Jean Piaget found no clear preference for motive as the basis for judgements in children under 9-19 years old
* **Hypothesis:** a mode of presentation which makes both motives and outcomes explicit, salient and available ata the time of judgement would allow children as young as 3 years old to demonstrate sensitivity to both motive and outcome in moral judgements
28
Describe the sample for Nelson's studies
Study 1
* 60 preschoolers aged 3-4 (mean 3.4)
* 30 2nd-graders aged 6-8 (mean 7.4)
* approx. half in each were male, half female
* mostly white, middle-class, urban area
* participated with parental consent
Study 2
* 27 preschoolers (mean 3.8)
29
What was Nelson's method and design?
* **Lab, quasi experiment**
* ****Age group (cannot be controlled)
* Outcome & motive combo
* Mode of presentation:
* verbal only
* picture - motive implicit (facial expressions)
* picture - motive explicit (thought bubble)
* DV: Judgement of boy; recall of stories
* **Independent measures design:** age and random allocation to mode of presentation
* **Repeated measures design:** each child presented with all four stories
30
Describe the stories used in Nelson's study
The stories were all four combinations between motive and outcome:
1. Good motive - This boy was playing with a ball; his friend did not have anything to play with. (wanted to play catch)
2. Bad motive: he was very mad at his friend that day. (wanted to hit him on purpose)
3. Good outcome: His friend caught the ball and was happy to play with it.
4. Bad outcome: the ball hit his friend on the head and made him cry.
31
How did Nelson collect data for her study?
* Judgement of boy: 7-point Likert scale
* 4.5cm diameter face - netural 'just okay'
* good/bad increased in size from 5.5 - 7.5cm
* Recall: children had to tell the story aloud exactly as they had heard it
* accuracy was coded
* independent observer coded responses for approx. 1/3rd of sample
32
Describe the procedure for each of Nelson's studies
Study 1:
* randomly assigned to presentation mode (20 each for preschoolers, 10 each for 2nd graders)
* familiarised with point scale and given 2 practice stories
* told to listen to story very carefully as they would have to tell it aloud; pictures introduced at appropiate points of the story, placed side by side in front of child
* judgement made
* pictures removed, asked to tell story as they heard it (questions asked to elicit any missed information)
Study 2
* identical as study 1, but with outcome preceeding motive
33
Describe the results of Nelson's study
* bad motive - lower rating
* good outcomes - higher rating
* for verbal-only, good outcome cannot overcome bad motive
* preschoolers made more errors recalling (less developed; distorted incongruent stories)
* congruency/incongruency of valence information had no effect on the pattern of recall errors made by 7yr olds
* whenever motive/outcome is bad, other cue had diminised effect on judgement (good motive-bad outcome negatively judged)
* more errors in good motive-bad outcome than bad motive-good outcome
34
What did Nelson conclude about children's moral judgements?
* 3 years olds made judgements based on one cue:
* verbal-only: first negative cue encountered
* picture: negative valence, motive or outcome
* consistent with Piaget 1932 - sometimes judge by outcome, sometimes by motive
* effect of motive not less than that of outcome
* young children assume logical connection between motive and outcome (think child 'changed his mind')
35
Evaluate Nelson's study
* **Generalisation: yes;** not all white, **no;** all middle class & urban area
* **Reliability: high;** supported by other studies, inter-rater reliability checked, analysis of quantitative data
* **Validity: high;** children taught to use response scale, order effect avoided by using Study 2; however may have been demand characterisitics
* **Ecological validity: high;** natural factors e.g. age cannot be changed; **however;** static pictures and fictional stories
* **Ethics: yes;** parental consent; **however;** children exposed to bad motives
* **Usefulness: high;** parenting, early education, making decisions
