Flashcards in Developmental area - chaney et al and Lee et al Deck (11):
What was the background for chaney et al's study into asthma?
Research into operant conditioning which used rewards and punishment to modify behaviour inspired Chaney's study.
What was the aim of chaney et al's study?
To test the use of a fun haler to provide positive reinforcement for young asthmatics and modify behaviour.
What was the sample in chaney et al's study?
.32 asthmatic children (22 male, 10 female).
.Age range 1.5 – 6 years, mean age 3.2 years.
.Average duration of asthma 2.2 years.
What was the Method in chaney et al's study?
.Participant given questionnaire on existing use of inhaler.
.Then they were give the Funhaler for two weeks and reported over the phone on an ad hoc basis to take snapshots of whether they had used the Funhaler the previous day.
.Matched questionnaires were competed (by parents) after sequential use of the Breath-a-Tech inhaler and the Funhaler.
.After sequential use of the Breath-a-Tech inhaler and the Funhaler they were then visited again by the researcher and parents were interviewed and completed the matched questionnaires.
What where the characteristics of the fun haler?
It isolates incentive toys, such as the spinner and whistle in a separate branch to the standard inhalation circuit, placing them outside the expiratory valve of the spacer to avoid problems of contamination and interference of drug delivery.
The design of the toys themselves ensures sufficient inspiratory resistance to minimise entrainment of inspired air through the toy circuit.
The design attempts to link the optimal function of the toys to deep breathing pattern conducive to effective medication.
The design anticipates the potential for boredom of children with particular incentive toys in its modular arrangement which would allow the replacement of the incentive toy module with a range of different toys.
What was the results in chaney et al's study?
When surveyed at random, 38% more parents were found to have medicated their children the previous day when using the Funhaler, compared to their existing small volume spacer device:
Small volume spacer (breath-a-tech): 16/27
60% more children took the recommended four or more cycles per aerosol delivery when using the Funhaler compared with the standard/small volume spacer:
Small volume spacer (breath-a-tech): 15/30
Significantly more parents reported they were ‘always’ successful in medicating their child using the Funhaler, compared to their existing device:
Existing Inhaler: 3/30
What was the background of Lee et al's study?
Limited research into child moral development especially across cultures.
What was the aim of Lee et al's study?
Test effect of culture on children’s moral evaluations of lying and truth telling by comparing the moral judgements of Canadian children and Chinese children.
What was the sample of Lee et al's study?
The participants in the study were 120 Chinese children, with an equal number of 7, 9 and 11 year olds; half were boys and half were girls. There were also 108 Canadian children, 36 of which were 7 years old, 40 were 9 years old and 32 were 11-year-olds.In total there were 58 Canadian boys and 50 Canadian girls.
What was the Method of Lee et al's study?
It was a laboratory experiment which used an independent measures design. The IVs were: 1. whether the participant heard the social story or the physical story, 2. whether the participant heard a pro-social or anti-social story, 3. the age of the children, 4. the ethnicity of the children. The DVs in the study were: 1. the rating given to the story character’s deed 2. the rating given to what the character said – both ratings ranged from very, very good to very, very naughty. Half of the Chinese children participated in the social story condition and the other half in the physical story condition. For the Canadian sample 19 7-year-olds, 20 9-year-olds and 17 11-year-olds were assigned to the social story condition and the others to the physical story condition. Allocation to the conditions was random.
Children were read four scenarios with illustrations: two were prosocial and two were antisocial. An example (a prosocial story with lie-telling is below):
Here is Alex. Alex’s class had to stay inside at recess time because of bad weather, so Alex decided to tidy up the classroom for his teacher.
Question 1: Is what Alex did good or naughty?
So Alex cleaned the classroom, and when the teacher returned after recess, she said to her students, “Oh, I see that someone has cleaned the classroom for me.” The teacher then asked Alex, “Do you know who cleaned the classroom?” Alex said to his teacher, “I did not do it.”
Question 2: Is what Alex did good or naughty?
Children were tested individually and the meaning of the words and the symbols were explained and were repeated every time a question was asked. Ratings of the deeds and verbal statements were on a 7-point rating chart: very, very good - 3 red stars, very good -2 red stars, good - 1 red star, neither good not naughty - blue circle), naughty - 1 black cross, very naughty -2 black crosses, very, very naughty -3 black crosses.
The story’s ‘deed’ section was read first and a rating was then given by the child, followed by the second part of the story. As a way of counterbalancing, the words good and naughty in the questions were alternated, as were the orders of the stories; this reduces order effects. At the end of the study participants were then involved in post-experimental discussions.