Gunderson (Development)
Gunderson et al. (2013) Parent Praise to 1 to 3 Year Olds Predicts Children’s Motivational Frameworks 5 Years Later (textbook pg.20-23)
“Understand the aims, procedures and findings (results and conclusions), strengths and weaknesses of”
Background: Research has shown that the way parents praise their children impacts the child’s later ideas about reasons for behaviours/beliefs, e.g. if praising a child on their effort rather than their ability, this can lead to a framework that working hard can cause success. Gunderson wanted to see if this was the case in natural settings, as well as in experiments.
Whereas Dweck uses the phrases effort praise and ability praise, Gunderson referred to similar concepts but used the phrases process praise and person praise instead.
Person/process praise:
Parents can praise children’s personality (person praise) or behaviour (process praise), amongst other forms of praise. Person praise leads to children having frameworks that they are born with or without an ability – a fixed mindset. This is known as entity theory/motivational framework. Process praise leads to children having frameworks that ability is changeable, and they are more likely to keep trying to do better – a growth mindset. This is known as incremental theory/motivational framework.
Past research has shown us that boys tend to have incremental motivational frameworks, suggesting they receive more process praise and see behaviour as changeable, whereas girls tend to have entity motivational frameworks, suggesting they receive more person praise and see abilities as fixed. Gunderson was interested in this apparent gender difference.
These ideas about praise and motivational frameworks were based upon Dweck’s mindset theory. However, Dweck’s theory was based upon experimental evidence which can lack ecological validity due to the artificial settings. Therefore, Gunderson wanted to investigate this in a more natural environment.
| A | Gunderson aimed to investigate whether children are affected by different types of parental praise in a natural situation. Gunderson aimed to investigate whether parents give girls more person praise and boys more process praise. Gunderson aimed to investigate whether parents’ use of process/person praise in early childhood affects children’s reasoning five years later about causes of behaviour (due to effort or ability). |
| P | SAMPLE: A sample of 29 boys and 24 girls was used from Chicago, USA, from a variety of cultural backgrounds. LONGITUDINAL STUDY: The researchers followed the sample over a long period of time. They looked at parental praise at home when the child was: 14 months, 26 months and 38 months old. Five years later, they measured the children’s ideas about causes of behaviour. |
| OBSERVATIONS: At each visit, parent-child interactions were videotaped in 90 minute sessions, in the child’s own home. The parents were told to “go about a typical day” in their home. Researchers analysed their use of process and person praise. The participants were told the study was about language development, not use of praise, to avoid demand characteristics (changing behaviours). LATER BELIEFS: When the children were 7-8 years old (5 years after the observations), they were given two questionnaires about what they thought had led someone to act morally (or not morally) and what they thought had led to their own intelligence levels. 18 questions were about the children’s motivational frameworks of intelligence and 6 questions were about what causes “good” or “bad” behaviour. | |
| R | Of the praise used, 18% was process praise and 16% was person praise. (The other 66% was other types of praise). 24.4% of praise for boys was process praise whereas 10.3% of praise for girls was process praise, meaning boys get praised on process more than girls. The more process praise given in early childhood, the more likely the child was to have an incremental motivational framework when 7-8. |
| C | Parents’ use of process praise positively correlates with a child’s later use of an incremental motivational framework (ability being changeable: growth mindset). They did NOT find evidence that parents’ use of person praise led to a child’s later use of an entity motivational framework (ability being fixed: fixed mindset). |
| G | (-) The sample size of 53 parent-child pairs all from Chicago is quite small, limiting the generalisability of results to the target population. (+) Gunderson used a range of children from different ethnicities/backgrounds in the sample, improving the generalisability of results to the target population. |
| R | (+) The two questionnaires given to the children about intelligence and moral frameworks was standardised (e.g. 18 questions about intelligence), which could easily be replicated to see if the results were consistent over time and therefore reliable. |
| A | (+) The results indicate that parental use of process praise leads to an incremental motivational framework. This is useful for society as parents can be encouraged to use this type of praise when talking to their children. |
| V | (-) Parents knew they were being observed (overt observation) by videotape, therefore they may have changed their behaviours. For example, they may have given their child a lot of praise to try to be seen as a “good parent” – showing social desirability. This means the observational data may lack ecological validity, it may not represent praise in the children’s everyday lives. (+) The participants were deceived as the parents were told the study was about language development, rather than effects of parental praise. This ensured valid behaviour was seen from the parents and avoided demand characteristics or effects of social desirability. |
| E | (-) The participants were deceived as the parents were told the study was about language development, rather than effects of parental praise. However, this was needed to ensure valid behaviour was seen from the parents and to avoid demand characteristics or effects of social desirability. |
Piaget and Inhelder and Gunderson Studies Key Term Glossary
| Quantitative data | Data that is numerical e.g. total number of correct answers |
| Qualitative data | Data that is worded and descriptive, not numerical, e.g. observed signs of stress and nervousness |
| Ecological validity | The extent to which a study represents behaviours seen in everyday life (is it realistic?) |
| Egocentrism | Only seeing the world from your own perspective |
| Centration | Only being able to understand one aspect of a situation |
| Decentration | Being able to take multiple aspects of a situation into account; understanding other viewpoints |
| Pre operational | Piaget’s second stage of development, from the ages of 2 to 7, in this stage, children are still egocentric |
| Concrete operational | Piaget’s third stage of development, from the ages of 7 to 12, in this stage, children begin to decentre and consider other viewpoints |
| Person praise | Praise to do with personality, e.g. “you are intelligent” |
| Process praise | Praise to do with the behaviour itself, e.g. “you did well on this test” |
| Longitudinal study | A study over a long period of time that studies the same participants multiple times to track development or changes |
| Entity motivational framework | Believing abilities are fixed and unchangeable (like a fixed mindset) |
| Incremental motivational framework | Believing abilities are flexible and changeable (like a growth mindset) |
| Need more help? Want to stretch your understanding? Need a video example? |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_mountain_problem https://applyingpiaget.wordpress.com/piagets-stages-of-development-theory/supporting studies/the-three-mountain-task-piaget-and-inhelder-1956/ https://tuxfordpsychology91.wordpress.com/5-development/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130212075109.htm |
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4oYOjVDgo0 (replication of Piaget and Inhelder’s procedure) |
Still got a question? Leave a comment
Leave a comment