Introduction Flashcards
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
SLATER & BREMNER (2017)
- “… a discipline that aims to understand the changes that occur over time in the thought/behaviour/reasoning/functioning of a person due to biological/individual/environmental influences…”
DP: HISTORY
- FOLK/THEORY: “…he that spareth his rod hateth his son…”
- VIEWS: world (paradigm/philosophy/hypothetical model); organismic (constructivist/qualitative stages); mechanistic (passive until stimulated)
- BEHAVIOURISM: Freud (passive kids); Piaget (paradigm shift/interactive kids)
- TODAY: longitudinal life-course research
DP: AIMS
- the examination of human behaviour across the life-course (conception to death)
- adopting a range of perspectives
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES
CONTINUOUS INCREASE CONTINUOUS DECREASE STEP/STAGE LIKE INVERTED U UPRIGHT U
DT: CONTINUOUS INCREASE
LYALL et al. (2015)
- longitudinal brain imaging
- cortical thickness is 97% of adult values by 2y
- surface area is 69% of adult values by 2y
DT: STEP/STAGE LIKE
PIAGET'S THEORY: 0-2 = SENSORI-MOTOR - thought in action - basic problem solving 2-7 = PRE-OPERATIONAL - advanced problem solving - egocentrism - animism 7-11 = CONCRETE OPERATIONS - conservation tasks 11+ = FORMAL OPERATIONS - abstract/philosophical thought - scientific reasoning
DT: INVERTED U
SHU-CHEN et al. (2004)
- intelligence in some aspects dips into inverted U with age (ie. memory, reasoning, etc.)
DT: UPRIGHT U
THE STEPPING REFLEX:
- new-born infants make stepping movements to mimic walking
- disappear at 2m; reappear at 11m when actually walking
- disappearance also aligned w/body fat accumulation aka. infant can only walk when when legs are strong enough to carry their weight
DT: CONTINUOUS DECREASE
JANET WERKER:
- native language
- infants discriminate between all world languages from birth aka. phonetic contrasts
- declines after 1y; phenomes not in own language lost
OBSERVATIONS
BABY BIOGRAPHIES TIME & EVENT SAMPLING - multiple observations over time - frequent, brief intervals CLINICAL STUDIES INTERVIEWS - time consuming - rich data - arguably more valid - associated w/earliest recollections of memory SURVEYS CASE STUDIES PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS
EXPERIMENTATIONS
- manipulating IV
- experimental/control group
- randomisation
- measuring DV/outcome
- controlling for extraneous/confounding variables
O: BABY BIOGRAPHY EXAMPLES
DARWIN & ERASMUS (1839)
- Charles Darwin accounts firstborn son
HEARING:
- generally sensitive but incapable of directing head to source or comprehending it at 4m
VISION:
- fixed on candle at 9d; nothing else did at 6w until a bright tassel did at 49d
O: TIME & EVENT SAMPLING EXAMPLE
LEE & LARSON (2000)
- 56 17-18y HS seniors; South Korea
- 62 17y seniors; USA
- timer beeped 7p/d; student recorded what they were doing p/beep
- Korean = more school work/distress/depression; less leisure activities
O: INTERVIEW EXAMPLES
MILES (1893 (started long ago)
- questions include: earliest memory/age at time/happy/sad/neutral/people involved (if any)
MULLEN (1994)
- mean earliest memory = 3y4m; girls/firstborns earlier than boys; hypothesis generating (parents talk more w/firstborn/girls?)
PETERSON, SMORTI, TANI (2008)
- Italian males; more parentally involved/warm = earlier/positive/episodic memories <6y; females = maternally involved/warm
FRAGILITY OF MEMORY
PIAGET (1951)
- clear/detailed early kidnapping memory; turned out made up by nurse for reward
- just because a memory is real doesn’t mean it actually happened
FALSE MEMORIES
LINDSAY et al (2004)
- adults remembered 3 childhood events (2 true; 1 false)
- 65% recalled false event
WADE & LANEY (2008)
- false memories can be detailed/vivid/emotional/consequential; doesn’t guarantee its validity
O: REACTIVITY
DIRECT/INDIRECT
- IRL (non-pp) VS secondary sources (ie. videos/text)
PP OBS/NON-PP OBS
- intimate group familiarity VS observer objectivity
O: TASK TYPE
OBTRUSIVE/UNOBTRUSIVE
- pp acknowledgement VS no pp acknowledgement
STRUCTURED/UNSTRUCTURED
- systematic (predefined coding) VS maximum data w/o predefined codes
O: LOCATION
NATURALISTIC/CONTROLLED
- home/school/hospital VS lab
O: +
- hypothesis generating (ideal for new child development qs)
- micro processes/mechanisms targeted/chosen/defined
- vast child repertoire of natural beh and easy
- IRL data for processes/situations
- useful when alternates = inapp (ie. interviews)
- child expression = difficult
- accurate info on beh in common settings
O: -
- expensive
- uncontrolled
- extensive training requirement
- observer influence
- unforeseen variables may threaten validity
- time consuming; events only occur one by one
- unsure causation
O: EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE
BJORK et al (2006)
- aimed to describe needs of children w/cancer <7y during initial hospitalisation
- obs made on beh/body language/verbal expression; of many activities throughout day
- results showed needs to: have parents close/play/joy/pp in care/good staff relationship/physical and emotional satisfaction
E: NATURAL EXAMPLE
TALWAR & LEE (2011)
- aimed to compare lying beh of 84 3/4y West Africans from punitive/nonpunitive schools
- kids told not to peek at toy when left in room
- most couldn’t resist temptation; more punitives lied (93%>50%) = punitive environments “teach” lying
O + E: COMPARISON
- can be used together
- OBS = helps w/new hypotheses/exploration
- EXP = tightly controlled
