Lee - Developmental Area

Question 1

aim

Answer 1

to compare cross-cultural evaluations of lying and truth-telling in situations involving prosocial and antisocial behaviours

Question 2

method

Answer 2

• research method: cross-cultural study using a cross-sectional design
• laboratory experiment

Question 3

sample/participants

Answer 3

• study consisted of 120 chinese children and 108 canadian children
• chinese children: 7yrs (20 male, 20 female), 9yrs (20 male, 20 female), 11yrs (20 male, 20 female)
• canadian children: 7yrs (20 male, 16 female), 9yrs (24 male, 16 female), 11yrs (14 male, 18 female)
• recorded from ages 7, 9, 11

Question 4

procedure

Answer 4

• 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. 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

Question 5

results

Answer 5

• Both cultures rated truth-telling in antisocial situations very positively and also gave similar ratings to lie-telling in antisocial behaviours
  Chinese children rated truth-telling in prosocial situations less positively and lie-telling more positively in prosocial situations than canadian children
  The difference in canada and chinese children became greater with age and the comments of the chinese children reflected their beliefs about being modest about one’s good deeds and qualities

Question 6

conclusions

Answer 6

Moral reasoning is shaped to an extent by cultural and social norms. The influence of these factors on moral evaluations increase with age

Question 7

The strengths and weaknesses of the different research methods and techniques

Answer 7

• Lab experiment
• Less of a chance of extraneous variables - Maybe a child could tell the other child the question in advance so the child would have more time and maybe already have an idea of what to say. However there is only a small chance that interference would occur during the question answering.
• Cross sectional research (snapshot)
• Because the children only get asked the question once
  This can be bad as may not show development over time

Question 8

The strengths and weaknesses of different types of data

Answer 8

• Study had questionable ecological validity as the main task was judging behaviours in a story
• Study was designed for it to be easy for children to understand as they were easy and familiar with the scenarios, increasing ecological validity
• Researchers were careful to alternate use of good/naughty increasing internal validity
• Researchers randomised order of 4 stories were presented reducing order effect
• Might interpret the difference between being naughty and very naughty (may not know the difference)

Question 9

ethical considerations

Answer 9

• Assumed that parents would have given informed consent
• Debriefing - participants were involved in post-experimental discussions
• Right to withdraw would be ensured by an ethics committee
• Children may feel distress during questioning - possible psychological harm
• Children could of felt pressured, anxious and experience reduced confidence Informed consent from parents →Children may find that in the future they wished to of not been involved in the study

Question 10

validity

Answer 10

• Study had questionable ecological validity as the main task was judging behaviours in a story
• Study was designed for it to be easy for children to understand as they were easy and familiar with the scenarios, increasing ecological validity
• Researchers were careful to alternate use of good/naughty increasing internal validity
• Researchers randomised order of 4 stories were presented reducing order effect

Question 11

reliability

Answer 11

• Because it is a Lab experiment can be repeated and proven wrong (falsified) and therefore - - Increasing internal reliability
• Internal reliability: high internal reliability because relatively large sample, standard rating scale, instructions given to children were identical so it can be standardised and generalised
• external reliability: previous studies have replicated results - very similar

Question 12

sampling bias

Answer 12

• only 2 groups of people from only two places
• larger sample size for china (makes study more reliable) and a smaller size of sample size for canada
• sample can be seen as not representing all of the communities
• The study only includes Chinese and Canadian children. This might lead to results that are not generalizable to children of other cultural backgrounds.
• different age groups (7, 9, and 11 years old), the number of children in each age group is not equal across the two nationalities.
• The study has an equal gender representation in the Chinese sample, but the Canadian sample has a slight imbalance (58 boys and 50 girls). This could introduce bias related to gender that might affect the generalizability of the findings.

Question 13

ethnocentrism

Answer 13

• is ethnocentric as it is only done is 2 countries and canada does not represent all of the western cultures and the same for china as china does not represent all of the non-western countries
• is not ethnocentric as canada is more diverse in comparison to china in schools so could argue that is it not ethnocentric
• canada’s sample size was slightly smaller than china so canada has an even smaller diversity so it is ethnocentric