Sharon A Nelson's Case Study (1980)

2,059 views

Published on

Factors influencing young childrens use of motives

Published in: Real Estate
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,059
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
45
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sharon A Nelson's Case Study (1980)

  1. 1. Factors influencing young children’s use of motives and outcomes as moral criteria Sharon A Nelson (1980)
  2. 2. Subjects  60 pre-school children between the ages of 3 to 4 years (mean 3.4)  30 second-grade children between the ages of 6 and 8 years (mean 7.4)  Approx 50/50 male/female  Mostly white, middle class, urban area  Participated with parental consent
  3. 3. IV: Story presentation conditions Verbal only Verbal plus pictures, motive implied Verbal plus pictures, motive made explicit
  4. 4. Story type Good motive Good outcome Bad outcome Bad motive Good outcome Bad outcome
  5. 5. Motive statements  Good motive: This boy was playing with a ball; his friend did not have anything to play with. He wanted to throw the ball to his friend so that they could play catch together with the ball.  Bad motive: This boy was playing with a ball; he was mad at his friend that day. He wanted to throw the ball at his friend so that he could hit him on purpose.
  6. 6. Outcome statements  Good outcome: The boy threw the ball. His friend caught the ball and was happy to play with it.  Bad outcome: The boy threw the ball. His friend did not catch the ball; the ball hit his friend on the head and made him cry.
  7. 7. Story example  Good motive; bad outcome  This boy was playing with a ball; his friend did not have anything to play with. He wanted to throw the ball to his friend so that they could play catch together with the ball. The boy threw the ball. His friend did not catch the ball; the ball hit his friend on the head and made him cry.
  8. 8. Pictures  Two sets of black and white line drawings were prepared.  In one set, motive is shown only by facial expression (implied motive) and in the other set the motive is additionally explained by a ‘thought bubble’ which made the motive explicit.  Each drawing 23 x 25 cm  Showed motive, action, outcome
  9. 9. Pictures  In the two conditions where pictures were used in the story telling,the drawings would be introduced one by one as the experimenter told the story; laid side by side, and left on the table for the child to refer to.  In the “explicit” condition, a “thought bubble” was added to make the motive clear. (Bad) motive made explicit (Bad) outcome – boy cries
  10. 10. Response scale
  11. 11. Very good (7) Bad (2) A little bit good (5) Very bad (1) A little bit bad (3) Good (6) Just OK (4)
  12. 12. Design  Independent measures  Children were randomly assigned to one of three story-presentation conditions (verbal only, verbal plus pictures (implied); verbal plus pictures (explicit))  20 children per group at the 3 year-old level, and 10 children per group at the 7 year old level.  Children in each groups heard all 4 versions of the story.
  13. 13. Procedure 1  Children were interviewed individually by the experimenter.  Children were familiarised with each point on the rating scale (7 point scale using smiley faces of increasing /decreasing size).  Children in the picture-explicit group given practice to familiarise themselves with the cartoons used to illustrate motive.
  14. 14. Procedure 2  Children were told to listen very carefully to the stories as later they would have to re-tell them aloud themselves.  After each story, the children were asked whether the little boy in the story was a good boy or a bad boy or ‘just OK’.  They were asked how good or how bad by pointing to one of the faces.
  15. 15. Procedure 3  After their judgement, drawings were removed and children were asked to tell the story aloud exactly as they had heard it.  If motive or outcome information was omitted, experimenter would ask specific questions – “Why did the boy throw the ball?” to elicit the information.
  16. 16. Results  Mean rating of the main character in the good motive conditions was 5.35, and 2.27 in the bad motive conditions.  Mean rating of the main character in the good outcome conditions 4.70 and in the bad outcome conditions was 2.92
  17. 17. So . . . Motive is a more decisive factor in moral judgements than outcome (p<0.001)
  18. 18. 3 year-old Good outcome Bad outcome 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good motive Bad motive 6.65 2.27 4.17 1.6 Good outcome Bad outcome
  19. 19. 7 year-old Good outcome Bad outcome 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good motive Bad motive 6.2 3.46 Good outcome Bad outcome
  20. 20. So . . . Compared to 7-y/o children, 3-y/o children judge the actor (the main boy in the story) worse after one negative cue (whether motive or outcome)
  21. 21. Effect of style of presentation Motive made little difference Outcome had a greater effect on moral judgements in the ‘explicit motive’ condition (p<0.01) Outcome information was used more (i.e. made more difference to judgements) in ‘bad motive’ stories in the two picture conditions than verbal only (p<0.01)
  22. 22. Results of recall  Inter-coder reliability 97%  3-y/o children made more errors (0.41) than 7-y/o (0.16)  More recall errors in motive than outcome  Fewer recall errors in picture presentations
  23. 23.  The authors suggest that younger children will assume that good motive = good outcome (and vice versa).  They call this congruence.  If the younger children have to deal with incongruent stories (eg good motive=bad outcome) they tend to make more errors, as they will change the story to help make it make ‘sense’.  This effect was not observed in the 7 year olds.
  24. 24. Discussion 1  Pre-school children give more emphasis to the goodness – or especially the badness of the cue, rather than its source – motive or outcome.  It has been suggested that young children develop the concept of bad before the concept of good.  When they make a judgement, children may pay attention to ‘bad’ information of any kind.  Children may define good as the absence of bad – so positive judgements will only be made in the absence of negative information.
  25. 25. So . . . “Thus it may be that the first negative cue – motive or outcome – encountered by the pre-schooler in the story situation will be sufficient to establish a negative outcome.”  [p 827]
  26. 26. Study 2  Is it possible that motive may have been used as a basis for judgement simply because it was always the first cue encountered?  In this second study, the outcome was presented first, the motive second.
  27. 27. Subjects etc  27 pre-schol boys and girls  Mean age 3.8 years  Same IV as previously  Materials identical to first study  Description of the outcome preceded description of the motive.
  28. 28. Results 1. Good outcomes rated more positively than bad outcomes (and good motives rated more positively than bad motives). 2. If either cue is negative, then judgement is biased to towards negative. 3. In verbal presentations it is the first cue encountered. 4. Children make more errors when the story is incongruent.
  29. 29. So . . .  When stories are presented verbally, information following a negative cue has less impact than the first thing they hear.  When stories are accompanied by pictures, judgements are more likely to be influenced by both good and bad motives and outcomes.  3 year olds make judgements that consistently rely on one cue.
  30. 30. And finally . . . almost  Motive is influential in its own right as a source of relevant information for pre- schoolers.  Many children’s judgements reflected the use of motive alone.  The data from the children’s recall of the stories strongly suggests they expect a logical connection between motive and outcome – they try to make the story congruent.
  31. 31. Finally (really) “The fact that these children sought to justify their evaluations by the actor’s motive as well as by the outcome indicates an awareness that the motivation for behaviour should be considered.” [p 829]

×