Welcome to the Developmental Area: How We Grow, Learn, and Change
Welcome to your complete revision guide for the Developmental Area of OCR A Level Psychology (H569 / H567)! Don't worry if psychological studies feel heavy or full of tiny details at first. We are going to break down every concept, experiment, and result into clear, bite-sized steps so you can walk into your exam with complete confidence.
What is the Developmental Area all about?
The developmental area explores how human behaviour, thoughts, emotions, and moral understanding develop and change over time across the lifespan, especially during childhood and adolescence.
Core Assumptions of the Developmental Area
Assumption 1: Behaviour changes over time. Human behaviour develops in distinct, predictable stages or along continuous pathways influenced by biological maturation (growing older), environmental experiences, and socialisation.
Assumption 2: Early experiences matter. Early childhood experiences, social reinforcement from our surroundings, and cultural context play a massive role in shaping how we think, feel, and act later in life.
Analogy to keep in mind: Think of child development like building a house. Biological maturation provides the foundation, but environmental experiences, parents, peers, and culture are the builders who shape the final structure!
Key Takeaway: The developmental area investigates changes across time, highlighting the powerful combination of biological growth, environmental learning, and cultural influence.
---Theme 1: External Influences on Children’s Behaviour
Classic Study: Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) — Transmission of Aggression
Background & Theoretical Framework:
Albert Bandura proposed Social Learning Theory (SLT). He argued that people learn novel behaviours not just through direct trial-and-error, but by observing others (modelling), identifying with them, and imitating what they see without needing immediate direct rewards.
Aims and Hypotheses:
Bandura and his team wanted to test whether children would imitate aggressive behaviours shown by an adult role model. They specifically predicted:
• Children exposed to an aggressive model would display significantly more imitative aggressive acts than children exposed to a non-aggressive model or no model at all.
• Children exposed to a non-aggressive model would show inhibited aggression (be even less aggressive than controls).
• Children would imitate same-sex models more readily than opposite-sex models (due to gender identification).
• Boys would show overall higher levels of physical aggression than girls.
The Sample:
• Sample size: \(N = 72\) children (36 boys and 36 girls).
• Origin: Stanford University Nursery School.
• Age range: \(37\) to \(69\) months (mean age: \(52\) months, which is approximately 4 years and 4 months).
Research Design & Variables:
• Method: Laboratory experiment with controlled covert observation via a one-way mirror.
• Design: Matched pairs design. Children were pre-rated on four 5-point scales by an experimenter and a nursery teacher for physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression towards inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition (inter-rater reliability \(r = 0.89\)). Children were then matched into triplets based on baseline aggression.
• Independent Variables (IVs):
1. Model condition (Aggressive model, Non-aggressive model, or Control / No model).
2. Gender of the model (Male model vs. Female model).
3. Gender of the child (Boy vs. Girl).
(This created 8 experimental groups of 6 children each + 1 control group of 24 children).
• Dependent Variable (DV): The amount of imitative physical and verbal aggression, non-imitative aggression, and aggressive gun play displayed by the child.
The 3-Phase Procedure (Memory Trick: Remember M-A-T — Modelling, Arousal, Test):
Phase 1: Modelling (Room 1):
The child was brought into a playroom and invited to play with potato prints and stickers at a table. In the opposite corner stood a tinker toy set, a mallet, and a 5-foot inflatable Bobo doll.
• Aggressive condition: The adult model played with tinker toys for 1 minute, then turned to the Bobo doll. The model punched it, sat on it, hit it with a mallet, threw it in the air, and shouted standardised phrases: "Sock him in the nose", "Hit him down", "Throw him in the air", and "Pow".
• Non-aggressive condition: The adult model quietly played with tinker toys for 10 minutes, completely ignoring the Bobo doll.
• Control condition: No model was present in Room 1.
Phase 2: Aggression Arousal (Room 2):
To ensure all children started the final test with the same baseline level of emotional arousal/frustration, the child was taken to Room 2 containing attractive toys (fire engine, spinning top, doll set). After \(2\text{ minutes}\) of play, the experimenter told the child that these were her "very best toys" and had to be reserved for other children, but the child could play with toys in the next room.
Phase 3: Test for Delayed Imitation (Room 3):
The child was placed in Room 3 for \(20\text{ minutes}\). The room contained both aggressive toys (3-foot Bobo doll, mallet, peg board, dart guns) and non-aggressive toys (tea set, crayons, colouring paper, farm animals).
• The child's behaviour was recorded through a one-way mirror using time sampling: observers recorded behaviour every \(5\text{ seconds}\) (\(240\text{ response units}\) in total).
Key Findings:
• Children in the aggressive condition showed significantly more imitative physical and verbal aggressive acts than those in the non-aggressive or control conditions.
• Boys imitated significantly more physical aggression than girls, especially after watching an aggressive male model.
• Girls showed higher imitative verbal aggression when observing a female model.
• Children in the non-aggressive condition spent significantly more time quietly playing and displayed lower aggression levels than control children.
Conclusions:
Children can learn novel social behaviours (like physical and verbal aggression) purely through observation and imitation of adult models, without any prior reinforcement or practice.
Key Takeaway for Bandura: Aggression is socially learned through observation and imitation. Children identify more strongly with same-sex models, and direct reward is not necessary for observational learning to take place.
---Contemporary Study: Chaney et al. (2004) — The Funhaler Study
Background & Theoretical Framework:
Many children with asthma fail to take their preventative inhaler medication properly because standard spacer devices are boring, uncomfortable, or scary. Chaney et al. applied Operant Conditioning (Behaviourism) to solve this problem. If correct inhaler use is rewarded with positive reinforcement (fun sounds and visual stimulation), children will be more compliant with their medical regime.
Aims:
To investigate whether positive reinforcement via a novel paediatric asthma spacer device, the Funhaler, could improve medical compliance and health behaviour in young asthmatic children compared to a standard spacer device.
The Sample:
• Sample size: \(N = 32\) Australian children (22 boys and 10 girls).
• Age range: \(1.5\) to \(6\) years old (mean age: \(3.2\) years; average asthma duration: \(2.2\) years).
• Recruitment: Opportunistic / random sample from paediatric clinics in Perth, Western Australia.
Research Design & Variables:
• Method: Field experiment conducted in the participants' natural home environments.
• Design: Repeated measures design (every child was assessed using both devices).
• Independent Variable (IV): The type of spacer device used (Standard Spacer: Breath-a-Tech / AeroChamber vs. Novelty Incentive Spacer: Funhaler).
• Dependent Variables (DVs): Parental and child compliance with the prescribed medical regime, frequency of medication, and parental/child attitudes (measured via structured questionnaires and random telephone checks).
Features of the Funhaler:
• Attached to the inhaler circuit was a spinning toy disc and a whistle.
• It acted as a self-reinforcer: when the child inhaled deeply and exhaled correctly through the valve, the whistle sounded and the disc spun rapidly, providing immediate sensory reward and feedback for correct technique.
Procedure:
1. Parents completed an initial structured questionnaire assessing compliance and attitudes while using their existing standard spacer.
2. Families were provided with the Funhaler to use at home for a \(2\text{-week period}\) instead of their standard inhaler.
3. During this 2-week period, parents received an unannounced, random telephone check asking whether their child was medicated on the previous day.
4. After 2 weeks, parents completed a matched follow-up questionnaire assessing compliance, medication technique, and satisfaction.
Key Findings:
• Compliance on random checks: \(81\%\) of children using the Funhaler were successfully medicated on the previous day compared to only \(59\%\) when using the standard spacer (an increase of \(38\%\)).
• Correct delivery cycles: \(80\%\) of children achieved the recommended 4 or more breath cycles using the Funhaler compared to \(50\%\) with the standard spacer (a \(60\%\) relative improvement).
• Attitudes: \(61\%\) of parents were "completely happy" with the Funhaler compared to only \(10\%\) with the standard spacer. Furthermore, \(68\%\) of children reported "pleasure/enjoyment" using the Funhaler compared to \(10\%\) for the standard spacer.
Conclusions:
Operant conditioning and positive reinforcement can be incorporated into medical devices to improve health compliance and reduce resistance in young children without needing parental coercion.
Key Takeaway for Chaney: Positive reinforcement (spinning toy + whistle) significantly increases medical compliance and parental satisfaction by turning a stressful chore into an enjoyable game.
---Theme 2: Moral Development
Cross-Cultural Study: Lee et al. (1997) — Evaluations of Lying and Truth-Telling
Background:
Do children everywhere develop moral ideas in the exact same way? Piaget and Kohlberg suggested moral development is universal and driven by biological maturation. Lee et al. wanted to test whether cultural socialisation (living in an individualist vs. collectivist society) changes how children judge honesty and lying.
Aims:
To investigate cross-cultural differences and age-related developmental patterns in Chinese and Canadian children's moral evaluations of lying and truth-telling in pro-social (good deed) and anti-social (bad deed) situations.
The Sample:
• Chinese Sample: \(N = 120\) children from elementary schools in Hangzhou, China (divided into 3 age groups: 7, 9, and 11 years old; equal boys and girls).
• Canadian Sample: \(N = 108\) children from elementary schools in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada (divided into 3 age groups: 7, 9, and 11 years old; equal boys and girls).
Research Design & Variables:
• Method: Cross-sectional quasi-experiment using a laboratory interview format.
• Design: Independent measures / mixed factorial design.
• Independent Variables (IVs):
1. Culture of the child (Chinese vs. Canadian).
2. Age group (7-year-olds, 9-year-olds, 11-year-olds).
3. Type of scenario (Social condition vs. Physical condition).
4. Moral behaviour: Pro-social deed + truth/lie vs. Anti-social deed + truth/lie.
• Dependent Variable (DV): Moral evaluation rating given to the deed and the verbal statement on a 7-point scale ranging from \(+3\) (Very, Very Good) through \(0\) (Neither Good nor Bad) to \(-3\) (Very, Very Bad), accompanied by qualitative explanations.
Procedure:
Children were presented with 4 short, illustrated stories read aloud in their native language:
1. Pro-social deed + Truth-telling: Character does a good deed (e.g. cleans the classroom) and admits doing it.
2. Pro-social deed + Lie-telling: Character does a good deed and denies doing it (modesty lie).
3. Anti-social deed + Truth-telling: Character does something bad (e.g. damages property) and confesses.
4. Anti-social deed + Lie-telling: Character does something bad and denies doing it.
Children rated both the deed and the character's verbal statement using the 7-point smiley/sad face scale and explained their reasoning.
Key Findings:
• Anti-social situations (Universal agreement): Both Chinese and Canadian children across all age groups rated bad deeds as bad, confessing to a bad deed as good, and lying about a bad deed as bad.
• Pro-social situations (Cultural difference):
• Canadian children: Consistently rated truth-telling about a good deed as positive, and lying about a good deed as negative, across all age groups.
• Chinese children: As they got older (from 7 to 9 to 11 years old), Chinese children rated lying about a good deed (modesty) significantly more positively, and rated truth-telling about one's own good deed less positively because self-promotion is viewed as boastful.
Conclusions:
Moral evaluations of truth and lying are not purely universal or biological. They are heavily shaped by cultural socialisation (collectivist values promoting modesty vs. individualist values promoting personal honesty) and these cultural rules become more prominent as children grow older.
Key Takeaway for Lee: While all children agree that lying about bad deeds is wrong, cultural values dramatically alter moral judgments about good deeds: Chinese children learn that modesty lies are good, whereas Canadian children view all lying as bad.
---Exam Pitfalls and Common Mistakes to Avoid
Mistake 1: Calling Lee et al. a longitudinal study.
Exam Alert: Lee et al. tested three separate groups of children aged 7, 9, and 11 at the exact same point in time. This is a cross-sectional design, NOT a longitudinal design. (Do not confuse it with Kohlberg's longitudinal study!).
Mistake 2: Confusing sample characteristics with sampling methods in Chaney.
Exam Alert: If an exam question asks for features/characteristics of the sample in Chaney et al., write: 32 children (22 boys, 10 girls), aged 1.5 to 6 years, diagnosed with asthma in Australia. Do NOT write how they were recruited (opportunity/clinic sampling)!
Mistake 3: Giving vague SLT explanations for Bandura.
Exam Alert: Avoid writing just "children copy adults." To get full marks, reference the exact actions and phrases from the study: Children observed an adult model hit the Bobo doll with a mallet and say "Pow" and "Sock him in the nose", and subsequently imitated these specific physical and verbal actions without external reward in Phase 3.
Mistake 4: Overlooking social desirability in Chaney et al.
Exam Alert: Remember that compliance in Chaney et al. was measured by parental self-reports and phone checks. Parents might have lied or exaggerated compliance to look like responsible caregivers (social desirability bias), as there was no objective biological/chemical test.
Mistake 5: Assuming Developmental Psychology only studies children.
Exam Alert: Developmental psychology covers the entire lifespan. Studies focus on childhood because this is the formative period when rapid learning, socialisation, and cognitive growth occur.
Quick Comparison Table of the Core Studies
1. Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961)
• Theme: External influences on children's behaviour (Classic)
• Key Theory: Social Learning Theory (Modelling, Imitation, Identification)
• Method: Lab experiment with matched pairs (\(N = 72\))
• Core Finding: Exposure to aggressive models causes imitative physical and verbal aggression in young children.
2. Chaney et al. (2004)
• Theme: External influences on children's behaviour (Contemporary)
• Key Theory: Operant Conditioning (Positive Reinforcement)
• Method: Field experiment with repeated measures (\(N = 32\))
• Core Finding: Funhaler incentive features significantly increase medication compliance and positive attitudes in asthmatic children.
3. Lee et al. (1997)
• Theme: Moral development (Contemporary / Cross-Cultural)
• Key Theory: Moral Socialisation & Cultural Influence
• Method: Cross-sectional quasi-experiment / interview (\(N = 120\text{ Chinese}\), \(N = 108\text{ Canadian}\))
• Core Finding: Moral judgments are shaped by culture: older Chinese children praise modesty lies, whereas Canadian children condemn all lies.
Final Tip for Success: Whenever an evaluation question asks how a study links to the Developmental Area, always refer to change over time, the impact of environmental/social experiences, or the role of cultural learning in childhood!