Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
65 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the definition of pro-social behaviour? |
Voluntary actions intended to help/benefit snore individual/group of individuals |
|
|
What are the two explanations of media influences on pro-social behaviour? |
1. Social modelling 2. Parental mediation |
|
|
What does Bandura's social learning theory suggest about social modelling?
|
Children learn things through observing behaviour around them Children then model that behaviour Thus children could watch modelled pro-social behaviour in the media (like TV) and copy it irl |
|
|
What is are the three research studies into social modelling? |
Sprafkin et al (1975) Hearold (1986) Ruston (1975) |
|
|
Describe the procedure of the Sprafkin et al (1975) study |
Three groups of 6 year olds shown different TV shows Group 1 saw Lassie scene showing Lassie rescuing a puppy Group 2 saw Lassie scene w/no rescue Group 3 saw an episode of Brady Bunch After, all children played competitive games and encountered distressed, whining puppies |
|
|
What are the findings of Sprafkin et al (1975)? |
Those who watched the Lassie rescue spent more time comforting the puppies than the other kinds Even though it interfered w/winning the games This demonstrates that experiencing helpful media models can create a social norm encouraging pro-social behaviour |
|
|
What are the findings of Hearold (1986)? |
Meta analysis on over 1000 studies on effect of TV on social behaviour Found: pro-social TV affected pro-social behaviour more than anti-social TV on anti-social behaviour This suggests the power of TV to influence pro-soc behaviour is stronger |
|
|
What are the findings of Rushton (1975)? |
Ruston found the effect was only short term In his study - effects of watching pro-social TV only lasted 2 weeks (counter with this against Hearold) |
|
|
What does the explanation of Parental Mediation suggest about media influences on pro-social behaviour? |
Media may influence pro-soc behaviour in children if parents watch with them This is bc they have the ability to enhance +ve messages in programmes Significance of PM was recognised by the BBC with early kids programmes (e.g. Watch with Mother) |
|
|
What does Singer (1998) suggest about parental mediation?
|
Parents watching w/kinds can enhance their understanding by explaining and discussing moral content with them (reinforcing pro-social messages) |
|
|
Why is parental mediation important? |
Particularly important in influencing very young kids bc pro-social messages are much harder to understand than violent acts This is because pro-soc situations typically have more dialogue + less action, and plots are more challenging to follow and understand |
|
|
What are the three research studies into Parental Mediation? |
1. McKenna and Ossoff (1998) 2. Valkenburg et al (1999) 3. Mares |
|
|
What did McKenna and Ossof (1998) find? |
Asked 4-10 y/o about moral messages in Power Rangers Found: - Most understood there was a lesson to be learned from the programme - HWVR only 8-10 y/o could identify it - Younger children tended to focus on fighting more than message |
|
|
What did McKenna and Ossof's study demonstrate? |
That young children can't decipher pro-social messages alone, hence parental mediation is important process in the way the media can influence pro-social behaviour |
|
|
What did Valkenburg et al (1999) find? |
Suggests only some forms of parental mediation are effective Social co-viewing (watching and no discussion) is largely ineffective Instructive mediation (discussion and explanation) is effective mediation This demonstrates parental mediation is limited in its effect on children |
|
|
Describe the outline of Mares' study |
Meta-analysis of all published research on media influence on pro-social behaviour (1966-1995) - 4 main pro-social behaviours studied were altruism, self-control, +ve interaction and anti-stereotyping |
|
|
What did Mares look at in the altruism branch of his study? |
Poulous et al (1975) found that young children who'd watch an episode of 'Lassie were more helpful to puppies: Therefore Mares: children who saw pro-social behaviour were more altruistic |
|
|
What did Mares look at in the self control branch of his study? |
Friedrich and Stein (1973): 4 year olds who watched Mr Rogers' Neighbourhood had higher task persistence than neutral programmes of aggressive cartoons (e.g. Batman over same period Therefore Mares: self control on TV results in more self control in children |
|
|
What did Mares look at in the positive interaction branch of his study? |
Friedrich and Stein: observed more +ve acts in those who watched the pro-social programme than those who watched the neutral programme |
|
|
What did Mares look at in the anti-stereotyping branch of his study? |
Johnston and Ettema (1982): large scale study on 1000s of 9-12 y/os; watched programme designed to reduce sex-role stereotypes called 'Freestyle' once a week for 13 weeks Found moderate +ve effects |
|
|
What is the strength of the explanations of media influences on pro-social behaviour? |
1. Research evidence suggesting media may influence pro-social behaviour - Sprafkin et al (1975) found when children watched scene where puppy was rescued in Lassie, spent more time comforting whining puppies encountered than those who didn't; even though this interfered with winning This suggests media does influence pro-social behaviour as children modelled similar behaviour to the pro-soc TV scene they just watched, revealing media plays a role in influencing behaviour. |
|
|
Name three weaknesses of explanations of media influence on pro-soc behaviour |
1. Much research into media influences on pro-social behaviour are lab experiments and controlled observations 2. An issue with these is that media may not have as strong an effect as exposure to real life models 3. Influences on pro-social behaviour may be minimal |
|
|
What is a weakness of the explanations of media influences on pro-social behaviour (methodological)? |
Much of the research into media influence on pro-soc behaviour are lab experiments and controlled observations - This increases chance of demand characteristics occurring; issue bc it reduces the internal validity of the study and tells us nothing about how media influences behaviour - Also limits the external validity of the study (ecological validity) |
|
|
What is a weakness of the explanations of media influences on pro-social behaviour (real life models)? |
Issue = media may not have as strong an effect as exposure to real life models - Pro-soc programming does seem to have an effect but may be short-lived - + may not generalise to new settings *HWVR Eisenberg (1983) suggested prolonged viewing of pro-soc programming could result in substantial and enduring increases in children pro-soc behaviour |
|
|
What is a weakness of the explanations of media influences on pro-social behaviour (limited influence)? |
Influences of media on pro-soc behaviour may be minimal - Mares (1996) meta analysis showed kids watching aggressive acts = more likely to generalise aggression to new situations - BUT that pro-soc acts only imitated directly w/evidence of generalisation to other forms of pro-soc behaviour |
|
|
What is the counter argument against the limited influences weakness of media influences on pro-soc behaviour? |
Hearold (1970) conducted review of previous pro-soc reseach studied and: - concluded although fewer studies on pro-soc behaviour existed, the effect size was so much larger, - holds up better under more stringent exp conditions - consistently higher for both boys and girls This potential for pro-social influence overrides small but persistent negative effects of anti-social behaviour |
|
|
What is the definition of anti-social behaviour?
|
Behaviours which violate rules or conventions (norms) of society and/or personal rights |
|
|
What are the two named explanations of the influence of media on anti-social behaviour? |
1. Observational learning 2. Cognitive priming |
|
|
What does Bandura suggest about how anti-social behaviour is learned through observation? |
Suggests children learn through observation of parents, peers and media Since number of hrs children watch TV has dramatically increased in past 20 years; its like that much of this observational learning takes place in front of TV |
|
|
What does the SLT suggest? |
Whilst people learn from whoever they observe; likelihood of individual acquiring observed behaviour themselves is increased if: 1. Model is similar or attractive to observer 2. Observer identifies w/model 3. Context of observation is realistic 4. If model is rewarded for behaviour - therefore if child observes adult model they identify with being anti-social and is being rewarded for this, they're v likely to immitate |
|
|
What are the named research studies into observational learning as an influence on anti-social behaviour? |
1. Bandura's classic bobo study 2. Steuer et al (1971) 3. Noble (1975) |
|
|
What did Bandura's classic study find? |
Showed that wen children watched filmed sequence of an adult hitting a bobo doll, children would imitate adults behaviour when left in a room with toys including the bobo doll This demonstrates that SLT of anti-social behaviour bears validity as the findings show a direct relationship between observational learning and subsequent anti-social behaviour |
|
|
What did Steuer et al (1971) find? |
Showed nursery children watched either violent of non-violent TV programmes during school break - then observed later playground behaviour Found more aggressiveness in children who viewed violent TV |
|
|
What did Noble (1975) find? |
Conducted research into area and commented 'in my own studies, where children watch media violence in small groups, i have rarely found more than 5% imitation after viewing'
(use this to counter Steuer et al (1971)) |
|
|
What is cognitive priming?
|
Where regressive ideas in violent films can activate other aggressive thoughts in viewers through association in memory pathways |
|
|
How does Cognitive Priming explain media influences on anti-social behaviour? |
Explains why children observe one kind of aggression on TV but commit another type of aggressive act after Immediately after watching violent film - viewer is primed to respond aggressively bc of a network of memories involving aggression is retrieved |
|
|
What does Huesmann (1982) suggest about cognitive priming? |
If kids are frequently expose to scenes of violence - they store scripts for aggressive behaviour in memories - these may be recalled in later situation if any aspect of original situation is present |
|
|
What are the two named research studies into cognitive priming? |
1. Josephson (1987) 2. Anderson et al (2003) |
|
|
What did Josephson (1987) suggest? |
Exposed 7-9 y/os to either violent or non-violent film Later - impartial observers asked to rate instances of aggressive behaviours in boys during games of hocker Found that more aggressive behaviour is observed in boys who watched violent film This demonstrates the effect of cognitive priming bc the boys had shown aggression in another form after initial exposure - making it an effective explanation |
|
|
What did Anderson (2003) find? |
Found songs w/violent lyrics increase aggression-related thoughts This demonstrates cognitive priming can occur in various forms of media thus making it a good explanation |
|
|
What is the strength of the explanations of media influences on anti-social behaviour? |
1. Wide variety of evidence suggesting media does influence anti-social behaviour; - Paik and Comstock (1991) meta analysis examined 217 studies into relationship between media violence and aggressive acts Findings; - Highly significant relationship between TV violence and aggressive behaviour - Greatest effect is evident in pre-school children -Slightly higher in men |
|
|
What are the three named weaknesses of explanations of media influences on anti-social behaviour? |
1. Research evidence suggests both don't fully explain effects of media on anti-sod behaviour 2. Research isn't conclusive 3. Much research involves lab exps and controlled observations |
|
|
What is a weakness of explanations of media influences on anti-social behaviour (research)? |
Evidence showing cognitive priming/observational learning may not fully explain effects of media on anti-social behaviour Layens et al (1975) showed groups of boys who watched either violent or non-violent films each night for 5 nights - Those who watched violent films engaged in more aggressive acts But the effects weren't evenly spread and greatest influence seen in boys rated as initially more aggressive This suggests that it may not be watching of media violence causing anti-social behaviour, but a pre-existing tendency (genetics/childrearing) |
|
|
What is a weakness of explanations of media influences on anti-social behaviour (inconclusive)? |
Research isn't conclusive 1. Hagell and Newburn (1994) showed young offenders watched less TV and video than non offending counterparts 2. Research studies have consistently produced contradictory findings about effects of media violence on kids: - St Helena study found no difference in either type of social behaviour |
|
|
What is a weakness of explanations of media influences on anti-social behaviour (methodology)? |
Much of the research into media influence on anti-social behaviour are lab experiments and controlled observations - This increases chance of demand characteristics occurring; issue bc it reduces the internal validity of the study and tells us nothing about how media influences behaviour - Also limits the external validity of the study (ecological validity) |
|
|
What are the two positive effects of video games and computers on social behaviour? |
1. Encouraging pro-social behaviour 2. Tackling obesity |
|
|
What does the first explanation (encouraging prosocial behaviour) suggest about the effects of video games and computers? |
Gee (2003) sees benefits that empower learners, develop problem solving, help understanding - For example games with interactive components encourage players to create and customise, w/their decisions impacting on all aspects of the game Also suggests they give the user a sense of control and allow independent thinking, perseverance and commitment |
|
|
What are the named research studies into encouraging pro-social behaviour as an effect of video games and computers? |
Durkin and Barber (2002) Gentile et al (2009) |
|
|
What did Durkin and Barber (2002) find? |
They found evidence of positive outcomes in 16 year olds playing computer games - Measures of family closeness, activity involvement, school engagement, mental health and friendship networks all superior in game players |
|
|
What did Gentile (2009) test and find? |
3 studies with 3 age groups - tested whether video games where characters help each other increased short term and long term pro-social behaviour Findings; those randomly assigned to play pro-soc game behaved more helpfully towards another student in later task |
|
|
What does the second explanation (tackling obesity) suggest about the effects of video games and computers?
|
In US: 15% of kids aged 6-11 years are chronically overweight Low activity levels + lots of screen time are major contributors to this Children and parents highly resistant to relinquishing screen entertainment Thus, some video games promote physical activity |
|
|
What are the two main research studies into tackling obesity as a positive effect of video games and computers? |
Lanningham-Foster et al (2006) Mellecker et al (2008) |
|
|
What did Lanningham-Foster et al (2006) find? |
Whilst watching TV and playing traditional computer games expended similar amounts of energy - energy expenditure trebled with active video games |
|
|
What did Mellecker et al (2008) test and find? |
Compared heart rates and calorie expenditure in kids While playing either an active bowling game, active running game, seated bowling game and during rest Findings: - Compared to rest = 39% more calories burned during seating game - 98% more calories burned during active bowling game - 451% more calories burned in running game |
|
|
What are the two negative effects of video games and computers on social behaviour?
|
1. Increasing aggression 2. Desensitisation |
|
|
What does the first explanation (increasing aggression) suggest about the effects of video games and computers? |
According to SLT - kids will readily imitate aggression they witness, especially if its rewarded Many computer games reward aggressive behaviour with points + progression throughout the game |
|
|
What are the three research studies into increasing aggression as a negative effect of video games and computers? |
1. Anderson and Bushman (2001) 2. Silverman and Williamson (1987) 3. Peng et al (2008) (you can also include Anderson and Dill) |
|
|
What did Anderson and Bushman (2001) test and find? |
Meta-analysis of studies into video games and aggression Found that short term exposure to video games violence is associated with temporary increases in aggression among all participants |
|
|
What did Silvern and Williamson (1987) find? |
Found children playing violent video games exhibited more verbal and physical aggression Compared to those who watched violent cartoons Suggesting video games have a more powerful negative effect than other forms of media |
|
|
What did Peng et al (2008) test and find? |
Weeks before the study, participants were given a questionnaire to measure levels of aggression During study - violent video games played involving characters in violent acts (i.e. kicking, punching and weapons) Findings: - Higher physical aggressive personality scores engaged in more frequent violence Suggesting a combo of personality + media factors causing higher levels of aggression |
|
|
What does the second explanation (desensitisation) suggest about the effects of video games and computers? |
Funk (1993): Suggested people repeatedly exposed to violent video games become desensitised, therefore less likely to show an aversive response towards violence in real life May lead to greater propensity to violent behaviour |
|
|
What are the two research studies into desensitisation as a negative effect of video games? |
1. Matthews et al (2006) 2. Strasburger and Wilson (2002) |
|
|
What did Matthews et al (2006) find? |
Found adolescents randomly assigned to play violent video games had increased activity in the amygdala Also had decreased activity in the prefrontal lobe (which regulates inhibition, self-control and concentration), illustrating specific physical effect on brain function This indicates desensitisation and less control over aggressive tendencies |
|
|
What did Strasburger and Wilson (2002) find? |
Found playing video games desensitises user to consequences of violence, giving them increased pro-violence attitudes Also alters cognitive processing Demonstrates video games having a significant negative consequences with key role identified in desensitisation |
|
|
What are the evaluation points for the positive and negative effects of video games and computes? |
1. Most of the research into this area uses experimental procedures hence it cannot give an accurate measure of real life aggression (e.g. anderson and dill) 2. Findings may be unsubstantiated Cumberbatch explains blasts were just 2% longer than control group in Anderson and Dill 3. Most research uses correlational analysis 4. Much of this research relies on data from questionnaires 5. Research may involve extremely subjective interpretations |
