Developmental Psychology

Front 1

Aim/hypothesis in Bandura

Back 1

1) Observed behaviour will be imitated (vice versa)

2) Children will copy same sex model more

3) Boys more predisposed towards showing aggression

Front 2

Method in Bandura

Back 2

Lab experiment with controlled observation

Front 3

Variables in Bandura

Back 3

IV1) Three conditions of model

IV2) Sex of model

IV3) Sex of Child

DV) Number of behaviours shown

Front 4

Design in Bandura

Back 4

Matched pairs

Front 5

Participants in Bandura

Back 5

72 children (32 boys/girls), 37-69 months

Stanford University Nursery

Opportunistic Sample

Front 6

Model Conditions in Bandura

Back 6

1) Aggressive

2) Non-Aggressive

3) No model (control)

Front 7

Rooms in Bandura

Back 7

Room 1- Potato Prints and picture stickers, Tinker toy set, mallet and inflatable 5 ft. bobo doll.

Room 2- Fire engine, locomotive, doll set, spinning top

Room 3- One way mirror, 3 ft. bobo doll, mallet, peg-board, 2 dart guns, tetherball, tea set, 3 bears, cars, crayons and colouring paper.

Front 8

Controls in Bandura

Back 8

1) Children were matched for aggression. (rating out of 5)

2) Same Toys and same positioning

3) Aggressive models actions are the same

4) Observation made by two independent observers. Same criteria and high inter-rated reliability

Front 9

Procedure in Bandura

Back 9

1) Divided into groups.

2) Child taken to Room 1. Settled in. Shown to model condition.

3) Child taken to Room 2. Frustration-aggression experienced via denial of children being able to play with toys

4) Child taken to Room 3. Left alone and observed for 20 mins

Front 10

Aggressive Model actions in Bandura

Back 10

Sits on bobo doll and punches on nose. Hits on head with mallet. Throws up in the air. Kicks bobo doll

'Sock it in the nose!', 'hit him down', 'kick him'

Front 11

Data collection in Bandura

Back 11

1) Quantitive Data

2) Response categories- imitative physical aggression, imitative verbal aggression, partial imitation (mallet aggression, sits on bobo doll),

non-imitatives (punches bobo doll, aggressive gun play)

Front 12

Findings/Conclusions in Bandura

Back 12

All 4 hypotheses were supported.

Behaviour observed likely to be supported

Front 13

Method in Freud

Back 13

Case Study

Front 14

Freud's criticisms of case study

Back 14

Little Hans is not a normal boy

Analysis and observation done by father

Leading questions

Front 15

Evidence for Hans being in phallic stage in Freud

Back 15

1) Interest in widdler (assumed everyone had one)

2) Hans asking questions about widdler to parents - no reply

3) Hans touching widdler when 3.5 yrs. old - mum threatening with castration.

Front 16

Evidence of Oedipus complex in Freud

Back 16

1) Powerding scene. Hans asking mother to powder widdle but mother refused

2) Girrafe dream. Big giraffe and crumpled giraffe - analysed to represent Hans want for father to be removed

Front 17

Hans's phobia in Freud.

Back 17

Had panic attack. Scared black horse would bite him. Due to horse bus falling

His father suggested that when horse fell, he wished father would fall.

Mr A looked like a white horse. Father looked like black horse.

Afraid of carts, furniture vans, heavy loaded buses. Showed disgust with anything associated with faeces.

Front 18

Hans's final fantasy in Freud

Back 18

Hans having imaginary children. Hans bring the father and his parents being the grandparents

Hans moving towards normal sexual development

Phobias and castration anxiety resolved.

Front 19

Aim in Langlois

Back 19

To test nature vs nurture debate with attractiveness.

Repeating original experiment from adult female faces to adult male faces and testing method of presentation

Front 20

Method in Langlois

Back 20

Laboratory Experiment

Front 21

Variables in Langlois

Back 21

IV1) attractive/unattractive white female faces

IV2) " " male faces

DV) fixation time

Front 22

Judging faces in Langlois

Back 22

People being judges using a 5 point Likert scale.

40 undergrads. Relaible results

Front 23

Design in Langlois

Back 23

Repeated Measures

Front 24

Participants in Langlois

Back 24

110 6 month infants from the Uni. of Texas nursery.

50 were excluded (mainly for fussing)

60 were used in the end. (35 boys, 25 girls)

Front 25

Apparatus in Langlois

Back 25

Screen and projector

Camera behind projector for observation

Colour slides of 32 faces (16 male and female)

Front 26

Controls in Langlois

Back 26

1) No facial expression

2) Hair length controlled

3) Clean shaven

4) Same distance from screen

5) Same duration of slides

6) Parent blindfolded to prevent influence

7) Inter rater reliability high

Front 27

Procedure in Langlois

Back 27

1) Infant on mother's lap 35 cm away from screen, light and buzz for attention

2) Stimulus presented and gaze direction and length recorded

Front 28

Findings in Langlois

Back 28

1) infants looked at attractive faces longer (7.82s)

than unattractive (7.36s)

2) Boys looked at male faces for longer (7.95), than female (7.36)

3) Girls looked at female faces more than makes

4) No relationship between attractiveness of mother, sex of both parties or order of presentation

Front 29

Studies 2 & 3 in Langlois

Back 29

2) Non white faces

3) baby's faces

Front 30

Conclusions in Langlois

Back 30

1) All three studies proven 6 month infants can discriminate against attractive and unattractive.

2) Sex, age or race doesn't play a role

3) Exposure to media doesn't play a role, proved by using 6 month babies

Front 31

Piaget's 3 stages of moral development

Back 31

1) Pre-moral stage (0-6)

2) Hetreonomous morality (6-10, society based)

3) Autonomous morality (10+, own's morals)

Front 32

Hypothesis in Nelson

Back 32

Young children do take into account both motive and outcome when making a moral judgement

Front 33

Method in Nelson

Back 33

Field Experiment, involving an interview.

Front 34

Variables in Nelson

Back 34

IV1) Age (3-4, 6-8)

IV2) Motive and outcome (good or bad)

IV3) Method of presentation (verbal, motive implicit, and motive explicit)

DV) child's judgement out of 7

Front 35

Design in Nelson

Back 35

Age was independent

Motive and outcome were repeated measures

Front 36

Apparatus in Nelson

Back 36

4 stories of cartoon pictures.

Implicit cartoons (facial expression)

Explicit cartoons (thought bubble)

Front 37

Controls in Nelson

Back 37

1) Same story regardless of format

2) Same experimenter

3) Same instructions

Front 38

Procedure in Nelson

Back 38

1) Childen in each age group randomly out into groups (method of presentation)

2) Children interview and shown "smileys"

3) Children listened to story and made judgement

Front 39

Results for 3 year olds in Nelson

Back 39

Outcome/motive

GG- 6.6

GB- 2.3

BG- 4.2

BB- 1.6

Front 40

Results for 7 year olds in Nelson

Back 40

Outcome/motive

GG- 6.2

GB- 3.5

BG- 4.5

BB- 1.6

Front 41

Mode of presentation Findings in Nelson

Back 41

Only outcome varied

With explicit, outcomes had greater effect

Front 42

Age findings in Nelson

Back 42

40% of 3 year olds rated negatively with one mention of 'bad'

28% ignored outcome

Front 43

Conclusion in Nelson

Back 43

Young children make valence of high importance rather than motive or outcome

Front 44

Study 2 in Nelson

Back 44

27 3-4 year olds.

Same procedure

Outcome presented before motive

Backs up first study