2. 1 Psychology 3260: Personality & Social Development Don Hartmann Spring 2006 Lecture 4b: ©Methods IV

3. 2 Overview Developmental Methods of Study (continued) The FAT variables: Age, Cohort, & Time of Assessment The simple designs, their advantages and disadvantages, including confounding introduction to sequential designs Current Events Discussion

4. 3 Why are they NOT Causal? AGE: Age itself is NOT a causal variable—but something correlated with age may be (e.g., such as being smarter)! So once we know that age is implicated or involved, we only have begun to answer the question about causes. COHORT: Cohort is not causal—but something associated with cohort may be (e.g., born in a year in which the influenza is epidemic. TIME OF ASSESSMENT: Time of assessment is causal—but something occurring in time, or changing in time may be causal (e.g., climatic or economic factors). X→Y

5. 4 A Simple Developmental Design: The Longitudinal Design Longitudinal: The same cohort repeatedly assessed over time

6. 5 Illustration of a Longitudinal Design Note: Age at testing is given in table TABLE SHOWING COHORT X AGE X TIME OF TESTING _______________________________ TIME OF TESTING COHORT 1978 1980 1982 1970 8 10 12 1972 6 8 10 1974 4 6 8

7. 6 “Results” of our Longitudinal Investigation Mean Aggressive Responses Age in Years (T of T)

8. 7 Evaluation of The Longitudinal Design Advantages: Provides a direct measure of age changes Disadvantages: Costly Subject loss or attrition results in non- representative samples, and non-equivalent samples across time Measures become obsolescent & questionably equivalent Repeated testing effects; and most importantly Results may be limited to cohort assessed (cross generational problem) Confounds age with time of testing

9. 8 More about Confounding Note: Age at testing is given in table TABLE SHOWING COHORT X AGE X TIME OF TESTING _______________________________ TIME OF TESTING COHORT 1978 1980 1982 1970 8 10 12 1972 6 8 10 1974 4 6 8 Or is it Age? Is it T of T?

10. 9 How do I get out of here?

11. 10 Another Simple Developmental Design: The Cross-Sectional Design Cross-sectional: Different cohorts assessed at the same time—thus they are of different ages

12. 11 Illustration of the Cross-Sectional Design TABLE SHOWING COHORT X AGE X TIME OF TESTING _______________________________ TIME OF TESTING COHORT 1978 1980 1982 1970 8 10 12 1972 6 8 10 1974 4 6 8 Note: Age at testing is given in table

13. 12 “Results” of our Cross-Sectional Investigation Mean Aggressive Responses Age in Years (Cohort)

14. 13 Evaluation of the Cross-Sectional Design Advantages:  Inexpensive (relatively) Disadvantages  No direct measure of age changes ‑‑ only age differences  Difficulty in establishing the equivalence of measures  Are the results limited to the particular time of assessment?  Confounds age differences with cohort differences

15. 14 Confounding in the Cross- Sectional Design TABLE SHOWING COHORT X AGE X TIME OF TESTING _______________________________ TIME OF TESTING COHORT 1978 1980 1982 1970 8 10 12 1972 6 8 10 1974 4 6 8 Note: Age at testing is given in table Is it Cohort? Or is it Age?

16. 15 They come in all types...

17. 16 An Attempt at Clarification: The Sequential Designs Combinations of Longitudinal & Cross-Sectional Designs Attempt to Clarify meaning of results obtained from simple developmental designs

18. 17 Illustration of a Sequential Design TABLE SHOWING COHORT X AGE X TIME OF TESTING _______________________________ TIME OF TESTING COHORT 1978 1980 1982 1970 8 10 12 1972 6 8 10 1974 4 6 8 Note: Age at testing is given in table

19. 18 “Results” of our Sequential Investigation Mean Aggressive Responses Age in Years 1978 T of T 1980 T of T

20. 19 ‘Improvements’ Produced by the Sequential Design Results appear to be a function of age rather than time of testing or cohort because the performance of the two groups of 6-year-olds is the same even though they were tested at different times (1978 & 1980) and they belonged to different cohorts (1974 & 1972).

21. 20 Summary Developmental Designs Age, cohort, & time of testing—the fat & non-causal variables in developmental investigations The simple, building block designs & their confounds The sequential designs that hopefully clarify Next: Lect. #07: Skinner Go in Peace!

22. 21 Current Events & Social Development Topic: The effect of the Iraqi war on children Our approach Clarifying the issue (question) How to address the issue Resources

23. 22 CED: Clarifying the Issue  Observing children or experiencing children?  Are we attempting to relate social development to the war as a background event in our life? (E.g., it’s there, but mom and dad don’t say anything about it.)  To observing scenes of the war? What scenes? (E.g., heroism, destruction, dead children?)  And in what context? (E.g., mom and dad saying how sad it is that people deal with issues that way.)

24. 23 CED: Looking for an Answer Does psychological theory or research data speak to the issues? Does theory and/or data speak to the issues directly or indirectly? Indirectly only: Effects of war on participants Effects of viewing violence Effects of parental socialization

25. 24 CED: References A formal search Text: War; Nothing Violence: See under TV Socialization by parents: See under parents and parenting. Other texts on social development & abnormal psychology WEB—some winners!

26. 25 CED: References More WEB: http://www.warchild.org/ !PsychInfo: 99 entries under war & children !Card catalogue

27. 26 Current Events Discussion: Children & War on TV (a) Children observe TV about 20+ hours/weekly Exposed to about 25 violent act/viewing hour Findings indicate the following effects: Desensitization Acceptance of violence Fearfulness & confusion

28. 27 Current Events Discussion: Children & War on TV (b) Parents can (see http://www.lionlamb.org/) Co-watch TV and comment on the content; use as socialization opportunity Reinforce humanitarian values—e.g., respect for people, religious differences Teach geography Monitor and set limits on viewing Offer alternatives to TV