Category Archives

24 Articles

Factors Influencing Jury Decision-Making

6.1.8 – Factors influencing jury decision-making, including characteristics of the defendant and pre-trial publicity, including studies in this area.

Twelve adults serve on the jury for a criminal case. They must follow strict rules to ensure that the case is handled fairly. The judge relies on them to make the decision.

There are a number of factors which have been shown to affect jury decision-making.

Pre-Trial

Publicity

The way in which the case is portrayed in the media can affect the court process. This could lead to perceptions, which are hard to change after the fact, being formed about the defendant or other parties involved.

Steblay et al (1999) – Jurors exposed to negative pretrial publicit more likely to find defendant guilty.

Competence

Jurors are expected to understand technical legal information. This can affect the trial.
Foster Lee et al (1993) – Giving instructions to jury before, instead of after presenting them with technical information increased their ability to focus on relevant information to the trial. Instructions let them filter out irrelevent information and make sense of the evidence.
Leverett and Kovera (2003) – jururs find it difficult to know what scientific data is inaccurate.
Severance and Loftus (1982) – when the jurors are explained legal terminology, the tend to understand the ones they’ve heard before and not new ones.

During the Trial

Defendant characteristics

Race

White jurors in mock trials demonstrate negative bias to black defendants during sentence decisions.
More black defendents are found guilty than white.
court.
Pfeifer and Ogloff (1991) found that white university students were more likely to rate black defendants
as more guilty than white defendants.
Eberhardt et al – The more stereotypically black a defendant appears, the more likely they are to receive the death penalty.

Attractiveness

Generally the more attractive the defendent, the more likely they are to receive a non-guilty verdict. The one exception to this is crimes in which they may have used their good looks to their advantage, such as fraud, sees more attractive defendants more likely to be found guilty.
Michelini and Snodgrass (1980) – Attractive defendants were more likely to be acquitted.
Sigall and Ostrove (1975) – Attractiveness affected length of sentence which pp’s felt was appropriate. For crimes such as fraud, she was sentenced to longer when there was a picture, whereas burglary led to shorter sentences. Not generalisable to real trials because jurors don’t choose how long the sentence is.

Accent

Dixon and Mahoney – Birmingham accent seen as more guilty. Repeated and found same results.

Expert Witness Testimony

Despite warning jurors about inaccuracy of EWT, they tend to believe it anyway.
Cutler et al (1989) – use of simple language by the expert witness led to more guilty verdicts. Language can influence jury decision-making.

Story Models

The order in which the story is told can effect jury decision-making.
Pennington and Hastie (1990)  – Easy to understand order increases guilty verdicts.

Post-Trial

Conformity

When an individual gives up their personal views due to group pressure.
Normative conformity  – To avoid rejection by the group.
Informational conformity – They don’t know and look to the group for guidance.

Asch (1951) – Most influential group size to gain conformity was 7:1.

Minority Influence

One person or a small minority can influence the majority’s opinion.

Moscovici(1976) – If they’re consistent, committed to their opinions, acting on principle (not self-gain) and not unreasonable, they can influence the majority.

Social Loafing

Reduction in individual effort in a group task. Unmotivated individuals may leave the decision to the group,

Foreperson Influence

The person who is selected to deliver the verdict to the judge may influence the group as they are seen as a leader and therefore their opinion may be more valued.

Factors Influencing Eye-Witness Testimony (EWT)

6.1.7 – Factors influencing eye-witness testimony, including consideration of reliability (including post-event information and weapon focus).

Stress (Arousal)

Yerkes-Dodson Law

Yerkes-Dodson Law

Description

When witnessing a crime, eye-witnesses are often under a lot of stress. The Yerkes-Dodson Law (1908) states that we reach an optimal point of stress in terms of recalling information. No stress means we won’t remember well, but too much stress will have the same effect. Often when witnessing a crime, we are under too much stress which reduces recall.

Evaluation

(+) Valentine and Mesout (2009)
(-) Recall in articifial situations can also be accurate, despite the low arousal.
(-) There is contradicting evidence to suggest that it applies in field studies of eye-witness testimony of realistic events. (Yuille and Cutshall (1986) – the greater the arousal, the more accurate the recall)

Post-Event Information

Description

Experiences after the event can impact the memory of the event. This is common because they often have lots of time between witnessing the event and recalling it in an interview or in a trial. For example, they may see information on the news, from other people, etc.

Reconstructive memory states that when we recall information, we mix our knowledge of what happened and our expectations of the event (Schemas built from cultural norms, for example). Therefore, we usually recall the main facts of the situation but the rest of the recall is influenced by our reconstruction.

Lots of the evidence for this comes from Loftus. It has been found that exposure to misleading post-event information leads to inaccurate recall (accuracy often falling below levels of chance (Loftus et al., 1978)).

Leading questions are a source of post-event information and can affect accuracy of recall. They can be asked at police interviews and trials. They may be unintentional or intentional, as they can be used to influence the answer and may be used by lawyers in an attempt to get a non-guilty verdict for their defendent.

Evaluation

(+) Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Leading questions do affect eye witness testimony.
(-) Yuille and Cutshall (1986) – Leading question do not affect eye witness testimony.

  • However, only a small sample was used, so participant variables could have had an impact.
  • Field study –> higher ecological validity.

(-) Most of the research focuses on specific facts and very little exists with open ended questions, which is a more ecologically valid way of researching this.
(-) Most of the research is lab-based and therefore lacks ecological validity. This means that it doesn’t consider stress levels whch seem to have a large impact.

Weapon Focus

Description

If there is a weapon present during the crime, this tends to decrease the accuracy of eye-witness testimony. This could be explained in two ways:

Stress

The presence of a weapon increases the stress of the situation. This could lead to them reaching the optimum stress level for recall (Yerkes-Dodson Law). This could, however, lead to them remembering a lot about the weapon. If the weapon causes them to stress too much, it could lead them to not remember much about the situation

Attention

In most parts of the world (The notable exception being some parts of the USA), seeing a weapon is unusual. This means you will draw your attention and focus on the weapon more than the surroundings. This can lead to less accurate recall because you might not focus as much on the perpetrators’ face, for example.

Evaluation

(+) Loftus et al (1987) – Weapon focus occurs because it draws the witness’ attention away from other important details.
(+) Pickel (1998) – It’s the unusualness of the gun which causes the decrease in accuracy, as it makes you pay more attention to it. It’s not the threat.
(+) Pickel (2006) – With correct training, they found that it is possible to overcome weapon focus.
(-) Wagstaff et al. (2003) – The presence of a weapon had no effect on accuracy of recall.

Psychological Formulations

6.1.4 – The use of psychological formulations to understand the function of offending behaviour in the individual.

Understanding the offender

Description

Psychological formulations are defined as a way of looking back into a person’s history of relationships, biology, social circumstances, life events and how they have interpreted all of this.
It draws upon all available psychological theories.
Any psychological treatment is based on a formulation.
Forumations are not standardised, they can vary depending on the case and who is doing them. However, the BPS have released guidelines and the HCPC approve of these guidelines.
By looking into all of the factors leading up to the event, we can better understand its cause and this can be the first step towards prevention.

Evaluation

(+) Especially when in diagram form, they can help reduce complex information into an easy-to-understand format. This can greatly help with the decision making of the consequence for the individual, including the danger they pose.
(+) Very useful way of explaining exactly why someone commited an offense, which can help the person understand how to prevent similar situations in the future.
(-) It can be very difficult to gain all of the relevent information about the person. It relies on them remembering lots of information and also being willing to speak about it all.
(-) A formulation can include known medical illnesses, but if the person has an unknown illness which is influencing their behaviour, it wouldn’t be included.
(-) When using psychological formulations, we run the risk of being reductionist if we focus too much on one particular aspect, such as family history. We need to make sure to be holistic and consider all factors, (+) which a psychological formulation encourages.

Grounded Theory

5.2.5 – Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory

Description

Research is gathered about an area of interest and the theory emerges from this research as it is gathered and analysed. This is an inductive method.

(1) Identify an area of interest and find out where data for this can be gathered from.
(2) As the data is gathered, ‘codes’ and ‘categories’ can be identified.
(3) Patterns are identified from the codes and categories.
(4) The theory will develop around these patterns.
(5) Once the theory has developed, they begin to only code the relevent information for the theory
(6) Finally, they review the literature and develop the theory further.

For example Nathaniel (2007) was interested in nursing practice and used grounded theory to do this.

Evaluation

(+) Evidence is integrated into the theory, which increases the validity.
(-) If data is flawed or misinterpreted, this could reduce the validity. For example, they may have been biased when gathering the data and disregarded relevent, contradicting evidence. They may be forcing the data to fit with the theory.
(-) Reliability –> With the same evidence, other people may come to completely different conclusions.
(-) Takes a very long time to gather the data, especially in the beginning when the theory isn’t clear.

Vallentine et al (2010) (Interviews in Clinical Psychology)

5.2.3 – The use of interviews in clinical psychology, to include an example study (Vallentine et al., 2010)

The Use of Interviews

Interviews involve verbal questions between the psychologist and the patient. They can be structuredsemi-structured, and unstructured.

Vallentine et al. (2010)

Description

Aim

To investigate the usefulness of psychoeducation (teaching the patient and their family about their illness) in a high security setting (Broadmoor Hospital).

Procedure

Participants – 42 male patients at Broadmoor Hospital, all with schizophrenia or related disorders who have been identified as being likely to benefit from psychoeducation.

They were all given a semi-structured interview to be able to understand their experiences better and to improve the psychoeducational group, that they are a part of, in the future.

Following the interviews, a content analysis was carried out on their responses. The themes were: ‘what participants valued and why‘, ‘what was helpful about the group’, ‘clinical implications’ and ‘what was difficult/unhelpful’.

Results

Participants valued knowing and understanding their illness. The group allowed them to understand their illness and to understand other people’s experiences with the illness.
Increased confidence in dealing with their illness.

Conclusion

Psychoeducation group was useful for the participants. It helped them understand their illness, which they valued, and understand other people’s experience with the illness and finally increased their confidence with the illness.

Evaluation

Generalisability

(-) 42 male patients at Broadmoor Hospital. These are a specific group with unique qualities (considered dangerous) so it can’t be generalised to all schizophrenia sufferers. Additionally, it can’t be generalised to people suffering from other illnesses because schizophrenia sufferes might be different – they might benefit particularly well from the group. They were also patients which had been identified as being able to benefit from psychoeducation and therefore might not reflect other patients.

Reliability

(+) Inter-rater reliability –> interviews were recorded and can therefore be checked by other researchers, and can be coded again.

(-) Questions were not standardised for everybody –> lack of reliability because they received different questions.

(-) Content analysis –> Not reliable because not replicable. Each time it is done, different results will probably be found.

Applications

(+) Could help to identify how to improve psychoeducation and indicates that psychoeducation is useful.

Validity

(+) Use of a semi structured interview allowed detailed knowledge to be gained. Allows them to fully explain their opinions which allows the research to be better able to reflect the participants.

Ethics

N/A.

Lavarenne et al. (2013) (Example Case Study)

5.2.3 – The use of case studies, to include an example study (Lavarenne et al (2013)

The Use of Case Studies

Case studies involve studying a single person, or a small group, of individuals in depth. They often involve using a variety of methods and triangulating the results to form a conclusion.  In clinical psychology, these are often people with unique characteristics or experiences, or rare illnesses. The data gathered is often qualitative and detailed, allowing a detailed understanding to be gained.

This means that a full understanding of the patient can be gained (their condition, symptoms, life events, genetics, and a variety of other contributing factors), which can be useful to further our knowledge.

Lavarenne et al (2013)

Description

Aim

To investigate how people from the group form firm ego boundaries.

To investigate whether those with psychosis have weak ego boundaries.

Procedure

‘Thursday Group’ with 6 patients present, with fragile ego boundaries (schizophrenia / schizoaffective disorders).
The study describes one of these 45 minute sessions.
After the session, group leaders noted down key points about behaviour, expression, participation, emotions and comments.

Results
  • One member gave out cards to the other members.
    • Helped his ego boundary and the group’s.
    • One member couldn’t accept as he felt he was selling himself.
      • This member had delusions, thinkign he worked on a multinational
      • The member giving out took this rejection to heart. Weak ego boundary –> Can’t distinguish himself from the card.
    • One of them had an out of body experience and could not get the spirits back in his body – his boundary was extremely fragile.
Conclusion

Each member showed that they suffered from weak ego boundaries.
The group seemed to help strengthen their ego boundaries.

Evaluation

Generalisability

(-) 6 patients, all suffer differently from weak ego boundaries, not generalisable.

Reliability

(-) Gathered qualititative data after the session. This is not very replicable because each time it was done, very different data would be collected.

Applications

N/A

Validity

(+) Qualitative data –> Detailed data gathered about the participants.

(-) Internal validity –> Notes taken after the group and therefore are subject to the memories of the group leaders.

(-) Population validity –> Very unique individuals, all with different experiences and severity of schiziphrenia. Therefore, the results can’t be applied to another population.

Ethics

N/A.

 

Bandura (1965)

4.1.9 – Bandura (1965)

Description

Aim

The aim of Bandura (1965) was:

To investigate whether children would be more likely to imitate a role model they see being rewarded (vicarious reinforcement).
To investigate whether they would be less likely to imitate a role model they see being punished (vicarious punishment)
To investigate whether the children would be more likely to imitate a role model if they themselves were rewarded.

Procedure

Experimental Design – Matched pairs.

Experimental Method – Lab experiment and a naturalistic experiment (because the IV of child’s gender is naturally occurring)

IV –  Whether Rocky (the aggressive model) was rewarded, punished, or there were no consequences
– Whether the model was the same sex or a different sex as the child.
– Whether the child had no incentive or a positive incentive.

DV – The aggression shown by the children.

Sample – 66 children from Stanford University Nursery.

(1) Rocky (Aggressive model) rewarded. (experimental group)

(2) Rocky (Aggressive model) punished. (experimental group)

(3) Rocky (Aggressive model) has no consequences. (control group)

Bandura wanted to control for base levels of aggression and therefore they were all rated on a 5-point scale for all of these characteristics and distributed evenly into the groups, so one group wasn’t full of particularly violent children.

The children went into a room with the researcher and were told that they needed to wait for the researcher to carry out some business before they could go into the ‘surprise playroom’. While they waited, they could watch TV. On the TV was a different version of the programme depending on the condition.

The program showed the model, Rocky, come up to a Bobo doll and tell it to move out the way. He then attacked the Bobo doll (for example, he kicked it out the room while “fly away” could be heard), and then afterwards one of three things happened, depending on the condition:
(1) (Rewarded condition) An adult walked up to him and gave him a soft drink and some sweets, rewarding him for being a “strong champion”.
(2) (Punished condition) An adult shakes his finger at Rocky, calling him a bully. Rocky then falls and the model sits on him and slaps him with a rolled up newspaper. Rocky then runs away.
(3) (No consequence) The same film is shown but he doesn’t receive any consequence at the end.

The child was then taken into another room with a lot of toys (such as a Bobo doll, a mallet, dart guns)

For 10 minutes they were observed by 2 experimenters who recorded the child’s behaviour every 5 seconds. They didn’t know which condition they were in.
They looked for some pre-determined behaviours such as: imitative verbal aggression, imitative physical aggression, imitative non-aggressive verbal statements and also acts of non-imitative physical or verbal aggression.

Finally, the children were all brought juice and sticker books and were told that they’d get more if they imitated Rocky. (Positive incentive condition).

Results

Model punished  condition led to much less imitation (0.5 mean actions for girls)
Model rewarded and no consequence conditions produced very similar results. (for example, boys got a mean of 3.5 actions)

Conclusion

Children more likely to imitate if the model was rewarded.
Boys imitated more than girls.

Evaluation

Generalisability

(+/-) 66 children, large amount, equally boys and girls.
(-) All children of people who work at/go to Stanford University –> Representative? Children of academics might be brought up differently.
(-) Can children be generalised to adults? Children would probably be more quick to pick up new behaviours due to them still learning.

Reliability

(+) Very standardised procedure (same rooms for everybody, same model for everybody in that condition, etc)
(+) Structured observation –> Decided on what to look out for beforehand and decided on behaviours
(+) Inter-rater reliability –> 2 observers.
(+) Used filmed material –> Same for every child.

(-) There is no guarantee that all the children saw all of the actions.

Applications

(+) Can be applied to real life in terms of bringing up children. It shows that if a child’s role models get punished if they’re aggressive, the children are less likely to become aggressive. However this doesn’t apply if they are offered direct rewards for aggression.

Validity

(-) Ecological validity.
(-) Due to this unusual environment, there may have been demand characteristics because they may have done what they thought the experimenters wanted them to do, like hit the Bobo doll.
(-) Doesn’t consider the biological approach – only the learning theories.

Ethics

(+) Could argue that the benefits to society could outweigh the distress caused because it taught us how to reduce aggression.
(-) Harm –> May have caused distress to the participants by seeing the violent behaviour.
(-) “Normalising unhelpful behaviours” (BPS Guidelines) because the children were shown violence and became violent, this may have stayed with them.
(-) No valid consent gained. Presumptive consent given by their teachers.
(-) Could not withdraw.

 

Bandura (1963)

4.1.8 – Bandura (1963)

Description

Aim

The aim of Bandura (1963) was:

To see whether a child would be more aggressive if shown a realistic model in a film,  an unrealistic model in a cartoon or a real person.
To test whether watching violence was really cathartic.

Procedure

Experimental Design – Matched pairs.

Experimental Method – Lab experiment and a naturalistic experiment (because the IV of child’s gender is naturally occurring)

IV – Whether the model shown was a cartoon, realistic model on TV or a real person.
– Whether the model was the same sex or a different sex as the child.

DV – The aggression shown by the children.

Sample – 96 children from Stanford University Nursery.

(1) Real aggressive model.

(2) Filmed aggressive model.

(3) Cartoon aggressive model.

(3) Control group (Saw no model)

Bandura wanted to control for base levels of aggression and therefore they were all rated on a 5-point scale for all of these characteristics and distributed evenly into the groups, so one group wasn’t full of particularly violent children.

Firstly, the children were put in the model room. In this room, there were toys such as finger paints.
The experimental conditions then saw a model enter the room with a Bobo doll.
The aggressive models acted violently with the Bobo dolls (whether the filmed model, cartoon model or real model).
The filmed aggressive model was an adult female dressed as a cat.

Then, the children were placed in the arousal room, where there were some appealing toys. They were told after a few minutes that they weren’t allowed to play with them toys. This was meant to make the children feel frustrated.

Finally, they were brought into the observation room. 
This room contained a mixture of aggressive (Such as a plastic mallet, and a 3 foot Bobo doll) and non-aggressive toys (Such as cars, trucks, crayons and paper).

The control group saw no role model.

For 20 minutes they were observed by 2 experimenters who recorded the child’s behaviour every 5 seconds.
They looked for some pre-determined behaviours such as: imitative verbal aggression, imitative physical aggression, imitative non-aggressive verbal statements and also acts of non-imitative physical or verbal aggression.

Results

Live, filmed and cartoon model experimental conditions saw no significant difference in aggression.
Control group saw half the amount of aggression.
Bandura filmed the study – qualitative and quantitative data. This was the only one of the three he filmed.

Total number of aggressive acts for cartoon model: 99
Total number of aggressive acts for control group: 54

Conclusion

Children will imitate filmed aggression, cartoon aggression and real aggression the same amount.
Watching violence is not cathartic, it encourages more violence.

Evaluation

Generalisability

(+/-) 96 children, large amount, equally boys and girls.
(-) All children of people who work at/go to Stanford University –> Representative? Children of academics might be brought up differently.
(-) Can children be generalised to adults? Children would probably be more quick to pick up new behaviours due to them still learning.

Reliability

(+) Very standardised procedure (same rooms for everybody, same model for everybody in that condition, etc)
(+) Structured observation –> Decided on what to look out for beforehand and decided on behaviours
(+) Inter-rater reliability –> 2 observers.
(+) Used filmed material –> Same for every child.
(+) Filmed study.

(-) There is no guarantee that all the children saw all of the actions.

Applications

(+) Can be applied to real life in terms of bringing up children. It shows that if a child’s role models are not aggressive, they are also less likely to be aggressive. Especially shows that cartoon violence is just as effective as real life violence in encouraging kids to be violent.

Validity

(-) Ecological validity – unusual environment watching an adult stranger playing with toys.
(-) Due to this unusual environment, there may have been demand characteristics because they may have done what they thought the experimenters wanted them to do, like hit the Bobo doll.
(-) Doesn’t consider the biological approach – only the learning theories.

Ethics

(+) Could argue that the benefits to society could outweigh the distress caused because it taught us how to reduce aggression.
(-) Harm –> May have caused distress to the participants by seeing the violent behaviour.
(-) “Normalising unhelpful behaviours” (BPS Guidelines) because the children were shown violence and became violent, this may have stayed with them.
(-) No valid consent gained. Presumptive consent given by their teachers.
(-) Could not withdraw.

 

Bandura (1961)

4.1.8 – Bandura (1961)

Description

Aim

The aim of Bandura (1961) was:

To investigate whether children would imitate aggression if shown an aggressive aggressive role model, compared to children not shown this aggressive role model.

To investigate whether the gender of this role model (compared to the child) had an effect.

Procedure

Experimental Design – Matched pairs.

Experimental Method – Lab experiment and a naturalistic experiment (because the IV of child’s gender is naturally occurring)

IV – Whether the child is shown an aggressive role model or a non-aggressive role model.
– The gender of the role model in comparison to their gender

DV – The aggression shown by the children.

Sample – 72 children from Stanford University Nursery.

(1) 24 – Aggressive model (Of which, 6 boys and 6 girls saw a male model, and 6 boys and 6 girls saw a female model)

(2) 24 – Non-aggressive model (Of which, 6 boys and 6 girls saw a male model, and 6 boys and 6 girls saw a female model)

(3) 24 – Control group (All 24 saw no model)

Bandura wanted to control for base levels of aggression and therefore they were all rated on a 5-point scale for all of these characteristics and distributed evenly into the groups, so one group wasn’t full of particularly violent children.

Firstly, the children were put in the model room. In this room, there were toys such as finger paints.
The experimental conditions then saw a model enter the room with a Bobo doll.
The non-aggressive model ignored the Bobo doll and played quietly next to the children.
The aggressive model pushed the doll over, punched it, hit it with a plastic mallet and shouted aggressive phrases such as “Hit him down”

Then, the children were placed in the arousal room, where there were some appealing toys. They were told after a few minutes that they weren’t allowed to play with them toys. This was meant to make the children feel frustrated.

Finally, they were brought into the observation room. 
This room contained a mixture of aggressive (Such as a plastic mallet, and a 3 foot Bobo doll) and non-aggressive toys (Such as cars, trucks, crayons and paper).

The control group saw no role model.

For 20 minutes they were observed by 2 experimenters who recorded the child’s behaviour every 5 seconds.
They looked for some pre-determined behaviours such as: imitative verbal aggression, imitative physical aggression, imitative non-aggressive verbal statements and also acts of non-imitative physical or verbal aggression.

Results

Those who observed an aggressive role model were more aggressive.

Male role models seem to have more of an impact.

Boys watching a male aggressive role model showed an average of 25.8 acts of violence, compared to girls watching a female aggressive role model who showed 5.5 acts of violence on average.

Conclusion

Behaviours can be learnt by imitation even if not reinforced.
Male role model more influential
Boys more likely to be physically aggressive.
Verbal aggression –> boys imitated the male role model more, girls imitate the female model more. (The model they identify more with)

Evaluation

Generalisability

(+/-) 72 children, large amount. But only 6 in each experimental condition
(-) All children of people who work at/go to Stanford University –> Representative? Children of academics might be brought up differently.
(-) Can children be generalised to adults? Children would probably be more quick to pick up new behaviours due to them still learning.

Reliability

(+) Very standardised procedure (same rooms for everybody, same model for everybody in that condition, etc)
(+) Structured observation –> Decided on what to look out for beforehand and decided on behaviours
(+) Inter-rater reliability –> 2 observers.

(-) Each time the model performed the action, they might have done things slightly differently which might have affected what the children saw.
(-) There is no guarantee that all the children saw all of the actions.

Applications

(+) Can be applied to real life in terms of bringing up children. It shows that if a child’s role models are not aggressive, they are also less likely to be aggressive. Especially shows that models of the same gender can be more effective at times, for things like verbal aggression.

Validity

(-) Ecological validity – unusual environment watching an adult stranger playing with toys.
(-) Due to this unusual environment, there may have been demand characteristics because they may have done what they thought the experimenters wanted them to do, like hit the Bobo doll.
(-) Doesn’t consider the biological approach – only the learning theories.

Ethics

(+) Could argue that the benefits to society could outweigh the distress caused because it taught us how to reduce aggression.
(-) Harm –> May have caused distress to the participants by seeing the violent behaviour.
(-) “Normalising unhelpful behaviours” (BPS Guidelines) because the children were shown violence and became violent, this may have stayed with them.
(-) No valid consent gained. Presumptive consent given by their teachers.
(-) Could not withdraw.

 

Schedules of Reinforcement

4.1.4 – (Properties of reinforcement, including primary and secondary reinforcement and) schedules of reinforcement. 

Continuous reinforcement – a behaviour is reinforced every time it occurs

Partial reinforcement – a behaviour is reinforced sometimes, but not every time it occurs.

Schedules of partial reinforcement

Fixed Variable
Interval First instance of behaviour is
rewarded after a set period of
time.
First instance of behaviour is rewarded
after a set period of time, but the set period
changes every time.
Ratio Behaviour is reinforced after a
specified number of times shown.
Behaviour is reinforced after a set number
of times, but this number of times changes
every time.