The conservation task shows comprehension of the principle of invariance of quantity. It was learnt that one of the reasons why young children fail problems of conservation is because their thinking is not governed by the principle of invariance of quantity i.e. they treat a perceptual change as a real one. Simply changing the length of a row of counters or squashing balls of plasticine seems to change the child’s judgements about their number or their volume.
Samuel and Bryant support the cognitive approach to child development (this approach states that as children grow older they will adopt new strategies with which to process information). Therefore, it was learnt that children who do not display the ability to conserve have just not attained strategies such as the principle of invariance of quantity necessary for portraying the skill of conservation or another reason is that they may be not be applying the skill correctly.
It was also learnt that children change their method of processing information as they get older. This is one of the reasons why the older children seemed to be better at the conservation tasks. 8 year olds did significantly better than 7 year olds, who, did significantly better than 6 year olds and so on, and this perhaps, supports Piaget’s stage approach to cognitive development.
In addition, it was also learnt that children did better in the number task than in the mass and volume tasks. This is probably because the child learns to count faster than he/ she would learn to appreciate matter and/or volume. Thus, as the child grows older, he/she would become better at conserving mass, volume and number. Hence, it was learnt that children have different thought processes than adults-this can be seen in the mistakes that they make.
Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) ~ Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models
Albert Bandura is renowned for his role in establishing the social learning theory. The social learning theory is an approach to child development. It states that children develop through learning from other people present in their surroundings. Social learning theorists pay particular attention to the roles of observation and imitation of role models. Generally, social development is viewed as a continuous learning process, rather than as occurring in stages.
The aim of Bandura’s study was to illustrate that if children were passive witnesses to an aggressive display by an adult, they would imitate this aggressive behaviour when they are given the chance. The researchers of this study generated 4 hypotheses:
- “…subjects exposed to aggressive models will reproduce aggressive acts resembling those of the models…”
- “…the observation of non-aggressive models will have a generalized inhibiting effect on the subject’s subsequent behaviour…”
- “…subjects will imitate the behaviour of a same-sex model to a greater degree than a model of the opposite sex…”
- “…boys will be more predisposed than girls towards imitating aggression…”
The sample of this study consisted of 36 boys and 36 girls aged between 37 to 69 months. The mean age of the participants was 52 months. The role models were one male adult and one female adult.
The design of the experiment had 3 major conditions; the control group, the group exposed to the aggressive model and the group exposed to the passive model. The children who were exposed to the adult models were further categorized by their gender and by the gender of the model they were exposed to. The following is a summary of these groups.
- Control group – 24 persons
- 8 experimental groups (each with 6 subjects)
- Aggressive model condition – 24 subjects
- Non-aggressive model condition – 24 subjects
Aggressive Model Condition
Non-Aggressive Model Condition
In stage one of the experiment, the children were placed in the experimental room and the model soon joined them in this room. In the room, there was a small table, chair, tinker-toy set, a mallet and a 5 foot inflatable Bobo doll. In the non-aggressive condition, the model ignored Bobo and assembled the tinker-toys in a quiet manner. On the other hand, in the aggressive condition, the model commenced by assembling the tinker-toys but one minute afterwards, he/she adopted a very aggressive approach to Bobo, in a very stylized and distinctive way. An example of verbal aggression exhibited by the model was: “Pow!” and “Sock him in the nose”. An example of physical aggression demonstrated was: “raised the Bobo doll and pummeled it on the head with a mallet”.
In stage two of the experiment, the child was exposed to ‘mild aggression arousal’. The child was taken into another room which consisted of reasonably eye-catching toys. When the children started to play with the toys, the children were told that the toys were the experimenter’s best toys and that they were reserved for the other children.
Afterwards, the child was taken to another room for stage three of the experiment where it was told that it was permitted to play with any of the toys in there. This room comprised several aggressive toys (for example, a mallet and peg board, dart guns and a 3 foot Bobo doll) and non aggressive toys (for example, tea sets, crayons, three bears and plastic farm animals). The child spent a total duration of 20 minutes in this room whereby their behaviour was observed through a one-way mirror by judges.
It was learnt that:
-
The children in the aggressive model condition yielded more aggressive behaviour than the children in the non-aggressive condition~ The finding that subjects exposed to the quiet models were more inhibited and unresponsive than subjects in the aggressive condition suggests that exposure to inhibited models not only decreases the probability of occurrence of aggressive behaviour but also generally restricts the range of behaviour emitted by the subjects.
-
Boys were more aggressive than girls~ The study concludes that boys showed more imitative physical aggression than girls. Although this suggests that boys may be more inclined to copy aggressive behaviours, this does not really allow us to conclude anything about the nature-nurture debate. It is equally possible that the boys have been reinforced for copying adult male behaviour more than girls and that boys have been reinforced for aggressive behaviour (or girls not reinforced) previously. Social learning is completely environmentalist. The ‘nurture’ theory suggests that children learn aggression as a result of their experiences. However, the finding that boys were more aggressive than girls could have a ‘nature’ explanation.
-
The boys in the aggressive model conditions displayed more aggressive responses if the model was male than if the model was female.
-
The girls in the aggressive model conditions also showed more physical aggression if the model was male but a greater degree of verbal aggression if the model was female. The exception to this general pattern was the observation of how many times they hit Bobo and in this case, the effects of gender were reversed.
Furthermore, it was learnt that the children found the aggression exhibited by the female model confusing. It was learnt that most persons think that a particular sex has to behave in a particular manner and if the particular gender deviates from its prescribed and expected manner of behaviour, this is viewed by others in society as confusing and abnormal. An example of this is seen in the study when one of the children commented on the behaviour of the female model. One of the children said: “who is that lady? That’s not the way for a lady to behave. Ladies are supposed to act like ladies…” and another child said: “You should have seen what that girl did in there. She was punching and fighting but no swearing”. Hence, the subjects were responding in terms of sex discrimination and their prior learning about what is sex appropriate behaviour for each gender. Perhaps, the children found the behaviour of the female model confusing because it was not similar with their prior learning of what culturally appropriate behaviour is. On the other hand, it was learnt that aggression on the part of the male model was viewed as more appropriate by both boys and girls. An example of this can be seen when one boy said: “Al’s a good socker, he beat up Bobo. I want to sock like Al”, and one of the girls remarked: “That man is a strong fighter, he punched and punched and he could hit Bobo right down to the floor and if Bobo got up, he said: ‘Punch your nose’, He’s a good fighter like Daddy.”
In addition, it was also learnt that the findings of the study support Bandura’s Social Learning Theory i.e. children learn social behaviour such as aggression through the process of observation learning – through watching the behaviour of another individual.
It was also revealed in the study that the behaviour of aggressive male models had a greater degree of being imitated than the behaviour exhibited by aggressive female models. In a study of learning by imitation, Rosenblith (1959) has likewise found that male experimenters are more effective than females in influencing children’s behaviour. In Bandura’s study, one of the likely reasons why the behaviour of the aggressive males was imitated to a greater extent than the behaviour of the females is that, it has something to do with sex roles. Maybe it is more tolerable in Western culture that for men to be aggressive than women, and even at the ages of 3 years and 4 years, children are enforced with these prevailing stereo-types that relate to sex role differences. It was shown that aggressive male models are more likely to be imitated since this is seen by the child as more suitable and appropriate for men (as a group) than for women (as a group).
Additionally, it was learnt that social imitation may hasten or short cut the acquisition of new bevaviours. By observing and imitating the aggression, the children may develop aggression at a faster rate and also develop aggressive behaviours different from that displayed by the model. For example, the reaserchers obtained two types of behaviours that were not complete imitations of the model:
- Mallet aggression (for example, the child strikes the toys with the mallet rather than Bobo)
- Sits on Bobo (for example, the child sits on Bobo but is not aggressive towards it)
Moreover, it was learnt that boys were more likely to copy the aggressive behaviour of the male model than the female role model. One reason for this may be that the boys perceive a similarity and relation between themselves and the male model and, therefore, find the behaviour of the male model of more relevance to them.
Bandura’s study also revealed that the similarity of the model and the child is another key factor in determining the rate of aggression. The recognisation of this similarity has its roots in the development of the child’s self identification of its gender identity, i.e. the ability of the child to categorise itself and others as a girl or a boy. The first stage of this ability is usually achieved until 2 and 2.5 years.
Bandura also conducted many other studies (not just on aggression) and these studies revealed that there are a lot of other significant features that are important for imitation. For instance, nurturant (warm and friendly) adults are more likely to be imitated than unfriendly ones. The models that hold more authority and models that are seen to be rewarded for their behaviour are more likely to be imitated.
Hraba and Grant (1970)~Black is beautiful: A re-examination of Racial Preference and Identification.
The study by Hraba and Grant (1970) replicates a study conducted by Clark and Clark in 1947. Clark and Clark established a simple test using black and white dolls. Their study revealed that black children preferred white dolls when asked to choose which were nice, which they would play with and which were a nice colour and they chose black dolls when asked which dolls looked bad. Clark and Clark, therefore, suggested that black children possessed negative attitudes towards themselves and their culture.
Hraba and Grant were curious to discover if the children’s preference for white dolls had changed due to changes (especially with the presence of the civil rights movements of the 1960s which in part, contributed to less segregation between blacks and whites) that had happened in the USA since the Clark and Clark study had been conducted.
The aim of Hraba and Grant’s study was to replicate Clark and Clark’s study in order to re-examine the racial preferences of black children present in an inter-racial environment. The study was based on 160 participants, aged between 4 and 8 years, all attending primary schools in Lincoln, Nebraska. 89 of the children were black (60% of the black children attending school on Lincoln). 71 of the children were white. These children were selected at random from classrooms containing black respondents.
The children were interviewed one at a time using a set of 4 dolls: two black and two white, but they were identical in all other respects. The children were asked the exact questions used by the Clarks i.e. questions on racial preference, questions based on awareness or knowledge and questions focusing on racial self identification. The children and their teachers were also asked to name the race of the child’s best friends so as to evaluate the behavioural consequences of racial preference and identification. The race of the interviewer was also controlled by Hraba and Grant since the children were assigned to both black and white interviewers.
It was learnt from the study that both black and white children were ethnocentric, in the sense that, they were more likely to choose a doll of their own race as the ‘nice doll’ and as the doll they would ‘play with’. They were more likely to choose the doll of the other race as the ‘bad doll’. The black children were seen as more ethnocentric since when asked which doll possessed a nicer colour, they chose the doll of their own race. In fact, the study perhaps reveals more about the white children’s ethnocentric attitudes than the black child’s racial preference.
The earlier study of the Clarks (before the civil rights movement) found that black children preferred white dolls at all ages-although this preference decreased with age. Hraba and Grant found that black children of all ages were in favour of black dolls and this preference increased with age. In addition, the Clarks also categorised their subjects by skin colour into 3 groups: light (practically white), medium (light brown to dark brown) and dark (dark brown to black). Hraba and Grant, therefore replicated the same criteria but found no pattern whereas the Clarks’ study showed that children who possessed a light skin colour showed the greatest preference for the white doll and the dark children the least. Clark and Clark’s study was carried out towards the end of the 1930s when most states had policies on segregation, and black people were excluded from white areas and denied access to education, housing, welfare, politics and jobs. Hraba and Grant’s study was conducted in 1969. The 1960s saw the growth of the civil rights movement and the growth of black religious and political organizations and figures. These changes led to some improvement in the opportunities and expectations for black people in the USA. Hence, the study strongly suggests that attitudes are social in nature and will change in response to social changes.
It was also learnt that the race of the interviewer had no effect on the choices made by either black and white children.
From the study, it was also learnt that our racial preferences and attitudes are shaped by the social and political context as well as the culture and way of life that surrounds us. In the early 1930s, in America, the dominant culture was the whites whereas black people were considered to be second class citizens subjected segregation laws in many states. This reinforces the prevalence of the contribution of the social and political contexts in shaping racial preferences and attitudes. For example, in the Clark and Clark study, before the civil rights movement and the empowerment of blacks, the black children preferred the white dolls which probably meant that they desired themselves to be white instead of black since they probably desired the way of life of the whites. Hence, their racial preference was shaped by the social and political contexts present as well as the culture and way of life in the society that surrounded them during that time period. However, in the time of Hraba and Grant’s study, the growth of organizations might have enhanced black pride, black culture and way of life and this may have also redefined social and political contexts. Therefore, the preference for dolls of their own race by the black children may have been a result of them being proud of their culture and way of life. Thus, their racial preference and attitude towards their race was shaped by the culture and way of life including the social and political contexts that surrounded them.
Furthermore, it was also learnt that there was no relationship between races of friends for both black and white children on their doll preference.
The research also suggests that racial preferences are learnt and this might lead to suggestions about how negative attitudes can be ‘unlearned’. An example of this can be seen if a comparison is made between the racial preferences of the black children in the Clark and Clark study and the racial preference of the black children in the Hraba and Grant study. One will find that the racial preferences of the black children differ in the two respective time periods in which the studies were conducted.
3.What is the point of studying child development? Give reasons for your answer. (10 marks)
Reasons for studying child development
-
It provides practical guidance for parents, teachers, child-care providers, and others who care for children. ~ The Samuel and Bryant study has important implications for teaching children and for psychologists who question children. The study clearly demonstrates that repeating questions when talking to children makes them think that they need to give a different answer. This has been demonstrated by several other researchers who have tested children’s eye witness testimony. If children are asked the same questions repeatedly they will offer different answers to subsequent questions. An example of this can be seen in the Samuel and Bryant study when the child was questioned about the volume of beakers and then saw the experimenter put the liquid from one beaker into another. Afterwards, the child asked the same question again. The child might believe that the experimenter must have done this because he wanted a different answer to the question. Another example is seen when the child was first shown two rows of counters alongside each other and then he was asked if they were quantitatively the same. Afterwards, one of the rows of counters was either lengthened or shortened and then the child was asked the same question once again. The problem with asking the same question twice is that the child may think that the experimenter wants him to change his answer.
In the study carried out by Bandura, Ross and Ross on aggression, it can be concluded that children can easily imitate what they observe. The persons they are around portray a great influence on how they behave. By conducting this study, parents, for instance, may now realize that their actions are capable of being imitated by their children and thus, they should reflect a positive behaviour for the betterment of the child. The Bandura, Ross and Ross study has its practical applications for those people who consider that violence on television will be imitated by children. Hence it provides support and practical guidance for these people so that they can aid in the proper development of children.
The Hraba and Grant study enables parents, teachers, child-care providers, and others who care for children to understand the attitudes of black children in an inter-racial setting. For example, if a black child spends more time with peers who are also black in school, this does not necessarily mean that the black child is racial, it could suggest that the black child is proud of his race and that the child can relate similarities between him and other members of his race. This supports the awareness or knowledge of one’s own race and racial-self identification aspects of Hraba and Grant’s study. It was found in the Hraba and Grant study that inter-racial contact such as in nursery school might create black pride. Hence, the Hraba and Grant study provides guidance as to why children act the way they do in inter-racial settings instead of the typical assumption that the children may be racial. Therefore, with this guidance and knowledge gained, the persons that care for children will be able to nurture and up bring the children properly.
-
It helps us to gain a better understanding into human behaviour.~ The study of Samuel and Bryant is a replication of the previous research conducted by Piaget although Samuel and Bryant added the fixed array and one judgement conditions to the original design. The study of Hraba and Grant was also a replication of Clark and Clark’s study which was conducted in 1947. These replications are very useful in psychological research for confirming previous findings or where slight changes in methodology are used to investigate the effects of these changes. If these studies were never carried out, there would have been little knowledge about racial preferences of children in inter-racial settings and the interpretation of conservation in children. In the Hraba and Grant study, a better understanding of human behaviour was attained since the results gained in this study varied significantly from the results gained in the earlier Clark and Clark study. It was learnt that children in 1969 were more proud of their race than they were in 1939. Thus, more insight was gained into the racial preferences of black children in inter-racial settings. The Samuel and Bryant study revealed that the ability to conserve (or to understand the principle of invariance) marks the end of pre—operational thought and the beginning of operational thought (at about age 7). Therefore, the study reveals that children do think about the world qualitatively different than adults and this supports Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Moreover, a better understanding about human behaviour and experience was achieved when Samuel and Bryant conducted their study. If the Bandura, Ross and Ross study was never conducted there would have been no insight into the transmission of aggression in children through imitation of aggressive models. The findings from this study and from similar studies have been used in the argument that media violence might be a contributor to the violence present in society. The social learning theory which Bandura’s study supports has been used to explain the so-called ‘cycle of violence’, or more precisely: ‘the inter-generational transmission of aggression. The main idea is that if you have been the victim of (physical) abuse as a child, you are more likely to become an abusive parent. It also increases the chances that a person might be a wife or husband batterer. Hence, Bandura’s study helps us to better understand aggression in human beings particularly in children.
-
It helps us to document, account and be aware of changes in the cognitive developmental processes of children ~ This point can be demonstrated in the Hraba and Grant study. In the earlier study conducted by Clark and Clark in 1947 it was revealed that black children preferred white dolls when asked to choose which were nice, which they would like to play with and which were a nice colour and they chose black dolls when asked which dolls looked bad. However, in Hraba and Grant’s study in 1969, it was found that black children were more proud of their race since they showed a preference for dolls of their race instead of the contrasting race. This study was also useful as it demonstrates the fact that the results of psychological research have a ‘lifespan’. Findings from the 1930s may not have anything to tell about behaviours today. This suggests that we should be aware of the social and political context, as well as the culture, in which a piece of research is conducted. The research also suggests that racial preferences are learnt and this might lead to suggestions about how negative attitudes can be ‘unlearned’. In the Samuel and Bryant study changes in the cognitive processes of children were also documented. In Piaget’s earlier study, different results were gained from that of the Samuel and Bryant study. Before, Samuel and Bryant’s experiment was carried out, it was argued that young children made more mistakes on conservation tasks, but when the conservation task was restructured into the one judgement task, lesser errors were made on the part of the children. This means that the children found the one judgement task simpler than the traditional conservation task since the traditional task was forcing the children to unwittingly provide the wrong answer. Hence, these changes in the way children conserve were made aware and taken into account.
-
It enables society to support healthy growth. Understanding early brain development, for example, means that parents can provide better opportunities for intellectual stimulation, and society can reduce or eliminate obstacles to healthy brain growth ~ Since Bandura’s study emphasized the transmission of aggression in children when they were exposed to aggressive models, society can promote healthy growth, for instance, by displaying positive attitudes in the presence of children. Hence, this would eliminate the obstacles to healthy brain development. Also, in the Samuel and Bryant study, it was learnt that the ability to conserve and to understand the principle of invariance marks the end of pre-operational thought (at about 7 years). Therefore, with this knowledge gained from the Bryant study into child development, society can help to promote the ability to conserve in children at a faster rate, for example, by reinforcing in children how to conserve mass, volume and number at an earlier age. This will provide better intellectual stimulation in children, help to promote healthy brain development and at the same time, reduce obstacles to healthy brain growth.
-
Understanding child development contributes to self-understanding. We know ourselves better by recognizing the influences that have made us into the people we are today. ~ In the Samuel and Bryant study, one of the main points learnt was that young children lack the ability to conserve because they cannot employ the principle of invariance (it will be developed at a later age). In Hraba and Grant’s study, one of the main points learnt was that children were more proud of their race than they were in 1947, since by the 1970s they were influenced by the growth of the civil rights movement, black religious and political organizations and figures. In the Bandura study, it was demonstrated that children imitate aggressive behaviour when exposed to persons displaying aggression. Thus, by understanding child development, we as humans, learn to know ourselves better by understanding and taking into account the influences that have shaped our behaviour in the past and present. Hence, if we understand ourselves better by using the knowledge gained from child development studies to facilitate this understanding of ourselves, then this means that we will also understand others better. Therefore, it is also crucial that one studies child development since it will be easier for adults to predict and interpret the wants of children. It will allow individuals to gain a better understanding of the child’s mind and have a basic outline of how a particular child may develop and contribute to society.
2. What problems may psychologists have when they use children in their research? (10 marks)
The following are some problems that psychologists may have when they use children in their research:
-
Children used in psychological studies may have limited attention spans. Hence, once that attention span is finished, the child may not pay any more attention to what is going on in the study. For example, in the Bandura study, when the child was taken into the room for stage 3 of the experiment, the experimenter had to stay in the room “otherwise a number of children would either refuse to stay alone, or would leave before termination of the session.” This demonstrates that children have limited attention spans. Thus, this implies another problem in using children in conducting research – a lot of time may be consumed during these studies due to the active nature of small children. Also, in the Samuel and Bryant study, the child’s attention may have already been diverted by the time the experimenter reached the final task in the experiment.
-
The children may feel intimidated by the experimenters. For example, in the Samuel and Bryant study and in the Hraba and Grant study, the children may have felt nervous doing tasks especially the younger children and, therefore, this may have resulted in the answers being spontaneous rather than thought out. The children may have felt intimidated by the experimenters since they were not acquainted with the experimenters.
-
The children’s responses may be influenced by demand characteristics. For example, in the Samuel and Bryant study the children suffered from demand characteristics since it was learnt that in the standard conservation task, the pre-transformation question is pressuring the child to respond incorrectly since it is asking the same question twice. An example of this can be illustrated when the child was questioned about the volume of beakers and then saw the experimenter put the liquid from one beaker into another and then asked the same question again. The child may think that the experimenter is demanding a different response from the first response that they provided. In addition, the children suffered from demand characteristics in the Hraba and Grant study. An illustration is this is seen in the 8 questions that the children were asked. They may have made the assumption that they needed to choose a different doll in response to each of the questions. The children may have also provided responses that the experimenter wanted to hear in the Samuel and Bryant study as well as in the Hraba and Grant study if he/she felt intimidated or scared of the experimenter. Another example of demand characteristics in the Hraba and Grant study involves the question which states: “Give me the doll that looks bad”. This question could be interpreted differently. Does the question mean, does it look horrible or does it look naughty? This also raises the question that perhaps some of the results may have been due to demand characteristics since the children would be trying to work out what the experimenters wanted them to say.
-
Experiments involving children may violate ethical guidelines. For example, in the Samuel and Bryant study, the study used children under 16 as participants. Parental consent can only be assumed as the researchers do not provide this information. The task does not however raise any serious ethical concerns as it is unlikely to have distressed the children in any way and no deception was used. However, parental consent can only be assumed. In addition, Bandura’s study also breaches ethical guidelines. In this study, there is no information given about parental consent and it is highly likely that the parents would not have consented to their children being subjected to the experience of the study. This study also violates the protection of participants guideline since some of the children were upset and distressed by the aggressive model’s behaviour, all of the children were told that some toys were not for them but for other children and throughout the experiment, the children were on their own with an experimenter that they did not know very well. The protection of participant guideline was also violated as there is the problem of whether or not the children suffered any long term consequences as a result of participating in the study.
-
The child may not understand the tasks the way the experimenter intended them to i.e. they may misinterpret the experimental task and may be unable to communicate their thoughts effectively, thus, providing inaccurate results. For example in the Hraba and Grant study, there are some difficulties in evaluating, the actual question used as the researchers do not tell us the exact wording of the question. Asking a child: “Are they the same?” may be a slightly ambiguous question. There are many ways in which this question might have been asked and it is possible that the children may have interpreted the question differently. Another example of misinterpretation in the Hraba and Grant study involves the question which states: “Give me the doll that looks bad,” being interpreted differently. Does the question mean, does it look horrible or does it look naughty? In Bandura’s study, it can be argued that the children interpreted their behaviour towards Bobo as play. Hence, in all of these cases of misinterpretation mentioned above, this reinforces the problem that because of the child’s misinterpretation, he/she may not be able to communicate his/her thoughts effectively, therefore, giving inaccurate responses.
Bibliography
- AS Psychology by Dr. Brian O’Toole
- Key Studies in Psychology by R. Gross
- Introducing Psychological Research; Seventy Studies that shape Psychology by P Banyard and A. Grayson
- Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2001
Why is the study of child development important? One reason is that it provides practical guidance for parents, teachers, child-care providers, and others who care for children. A second reason is that it enables society to support healthy growth. Understanding early brain development, for example, means that parents can provide better opportunities for intellectual stimulation, and society can reduce or eliminate obstacles to healthy brain growth. Third, the study of child development helps therapists and educators better assist children with special needs, such as those with emotional or learning difficulties. Finally, understanding child development contributes to self-understanding. We know ourselves better by recognizing the influences that have made us into the people we are today.
In relation to the study, the placement of water into the small container can be reversed (reversibility), a decrease in the height of the new container is compensated by an increase in its width (compensation) and the fact that no amount of liquid has been added or taken away demonstrated identity
What is the point of studying child development? Give reasons for your answer. (10 marks)
