What Is The Benefits Of Expressing In The Toys?

After some research the experimenter obtained opinions about the outcome of the experiment from psychiatrists, college sophomores,

When conducting an experiment to test this hypothesis, it must first begin with gaining the informed consent of the children’s parents to have their children to be able to participate. After obtaining their consent, each child would be randomly assigned to play with either a set of dolls or a set of action figures for an hour. Afterwards

The types of toys children play with can affect how they develop. Toys can help or hinder a child’s development in intelligence, social skills and personality. Certain characteristics may be genetically entwined in a human being, but some characteristics and behaviors can be learned, from parents, surroundings, and the toys with which a youngster plays. Elise Moore, author of “How Do Toys Aid Development”, stated “if play is the work of the child, toys are the child’s tools” (Moore, 2).

When the experiment was conducted at this orphanage none of the children were told about the intent of the research. In fact, they believed that they were to going to receive speech therapy and were promised incentives such as Christmas parties. These children did not give consent, were lied to, and were mentally and emotionally harmed. The speech of all subjects was reduced, their rate of speaking decreased, the length of their replies was shorter, and they were more aware and embarrassed of their speech

In the first few years of life cognitive development is how we learn construction of thought processes. What better way to ensure a stimulating experience than using toys to teach these simple skills! When you walk into any child’s room what is the thing you are 100% guaranteed to see? TOYS! Living with my two nieces I have seen the toys range from birth up to seven years old now, and my sister being a teacher, they've always been educational I just didn't always realize it. From the annoying stacking toysMost infants toys help build the skills they need to be able to go onto the next stage of thier life.

The research question of the experiment was if there was an effect of a discredited eyewitness on jurors’ verdicts. During this study, we were replicating and testing the participants that were asked to assume the role of a juror as they read three scenarios and if there was effects of a discredited eyewitness on a juror’s verdicts. For suspicious individuals, they are discredited eyewitness jurors and may react as well as being less likely to convict. For naive people, it didn’t matter, the jurors were still convicting, as well as ignoring the fact that it is very powerful to say “I saw this”. The results of this experimental study were almost exact to what the class as well as myself

The researchers hypothesize that a "higher percentage of participants will obey the experimenter than in Milgram's baseline condition" (Bocchairo, Zimbardo, and Van Lange, 2012) because of their substitution for a softer form of psychological aggression. The researchers also predict that there will be "a relatively lower level of whistle-blowing than disobedience because whistle-blowing involves the possibility of direct confrontation with the authority figure" (Bocchairo, Zimbardo, and Van Lange, 2012). In a second study conducted by Bocchiaro, Zimbardo, and Van Lange they wanted to explore "to what extent respondents estimated reactions differ from actual experienced reactions" (Bocchairo, Zimbardo, Van Lange, 2012). The respondents "were asked to predict the behavior of themselves and that of others when faced with the setting they had designed for the laboratory investigation" (Bocchairo, Zimbardo, Van Lange, 2012). In this study the researchers predict that in both cases there will be a large overestimation of the likelihood to disobey by blowing the whistle. They hypothesize that one of two things will happen, either "obedient participants will be considerably different from defiants or that certain behavioral contexts like their designed study will at best anticipate week

Despite the legal protection of the Gillick test, most children would not pass the Gillick test in this type of invasive research as this research in concerned with the negative aspects of their parental hoarding and the threptic treatment possible for it, nor would an ethics committee grant an informed consent framework to enable more children to use their own autonomy (Walter, 2013; Alston & Bowles, 2012; AASW, 2010). There is also the concern that parental shame and secrecy in their hoarding would prevent the parental consent of a child’s participation, which must be up-held by this research as the parental consent is a legal requirement of child participation which cannot be removed to enable the child to participate. This shame and secrecy by the parent brings up another ethical issue creating a dilemma in the child’s health and safety and the researcher’s duty of care and duty to warn, as if the child would to reveal instances of serve neglect or child abuse other authorities are required to intervene for the child’s safety and legal rights. As the trust the researcher creates with the child and parent is paramount to the research’s success, this legal requirement to involve other authorities may cause huge trust issues and result in not only the child’s removal from the home which is known in of itself to cause trauma but also remove the child from the

All 464 participants were given a questionnaire that asked participants to evaluate their experience in research studies and if they had ever felt harm in a study. Based on participant’s answers, participants were separated into groups based on the level of harm they had previously experiences. The results indicate that participants who had previously been in a deception study rated their experience as more positive than participants whom had never participated in a deception study. In response to Smith and Richardson, Rubin (1985) believe that the data presented by Smith and Richardson do not support the conclusions they made in their paper. Harm is demonstrated in their data, but they fail to account for this, instead a split of participant’s data is done to eliminate the role of

This toy would facilitate a child with a great deal of muscle tone development. Muscle tone is the amount tension in a muscle during rest.This toy stimulates the child to develop muscle tone though the actions of sitting on the floor in front of the toy, sitting upright on top of the toy, keeping their hands on the handlebars or the lid of the compartment to keep it open and keeping their legs down and on the ground when sitting on the car. To play with this toy while in sitting, either in the front of the car or to the side to play with the buttons on the dashboard, the child needs to maintain an upright posture. This upright posture allows the child to be at the proper eye level and also allows their hands to be at toy level as well. This also applies to when the child is sitting on the toy; for the child to get the most benefit out of the buttons, keys, knob, lever and handlebars, the child needs to be sitting in the upright position on the toy. The child’s muscle tone development can also be encouraged by maintaining a gross grasp on the handlebars as well as extended shoulders to maintain the proper arm position. This also applies when the child must hold the lid of the seat open to place objects inside or to look inside. Lastly, the child must be able to keep their legs stable on either side of the car while sitting on it. Tone is needed for this skill so that the child can maintain their position as well as stabilize themselves. The child could be stabilizing

Ross, Lepper & Hubbard performed an experiment designed to showcase the perseverance phenomenon by having 60 high school females read suicide notes and judge whether they were real or fictitious. Whether or not the girls would perform above average (24 out of 25 correct), average (17 out of 25 correct) or below average (around 10 out of 25 correct) was decided by the researchers prior to the actual experiment. When the girls were informed how they did, they were then debriefed and told it actually had nothing to do with ability. The researchers apologized but asked the women to fill out a survey rating how well they did compared to the outcome the researcher assigned them to, how many answers they thought an average student would get right on this and then how well they would do if they were given an equal task a second time around. They found that the girls who were told they did exceptionally well still rated themselves as capable of performing to those standards and their overall satisfaction was higher on the questionnaire. Opposite of that, the women who were told they did poorly continued to rate their abilities as poorer even after debriefing took place. Their assessment of performance or ability on the self survey showed the perseverance effect taking place: though they were told they were given false information, they still continued to behave in a manner parallel to that original claim. This is seen when Michael becomes frustrated at numerous attempts from the office employees and Martin to disprove his stereotype of prison and its inmates. Michael leaves the conference room following his prison Mike skit and locks the door from the outside, shouting at everyone in there, “There! Now sit there and think about your freedom!” Though he is told his idea of what prison is like is inaccurate

Protection of the participants was not followed. The BPS ethical guidelines, as Anderson’s (2017) summary points out, investigators have a responsibility to be sure all participants are protected from psychological harm. It is clear from this research that the participants were in distress and were not willing to proceed with the experiment.

In a study of this magnitude, with the possibilities it holds, and the children and families it has the potential to affect, the most serious care has to be taken with its participants. The study would be designed to include children ages 8 to 16. The purpose of this age group would be to determine where during child and adolescent development, education such as this would be most effective. Due to the involvement of children, a much stricter set of guidelines must be followed. There will be checks and balances at every level of participation from the research assistant all the way to the facility administrator where the study will take place.

Scientific studies have consistently shown that people are influenced in their decision-making processes according to social psychology. For example, a psychologist named Stanley Milgram conducted a study to test the affects of obedience to authority. He selected a group of male volunteers and told them that they were randomly selected to be “teachers” and “learners,” though every volunteer in the study was given the role of the teacher. The volunteers were instructed to teach the learners a series of words under supervision of an experimenter and give them a “shock” whenever they failed. The shocks were gradually increased until the learners began to exhibit signs of fear and pain – this is when the experimenter would tell the volunteers to continue with the experiment despite the obvious discomfort that both the teacher and learner were experiencing. 65% of the volunteers continued with the experiment until a fatal “shock” was given due to the social influence of the experimenter! This study proved that an individual's obedience to authority can directly bypass their morals and consequently affect their behavior.

Consistently, the experimenters lied to the subjects about the reasons of the research, the role they will play, and received monetary compensation to perform during the study. The results were astonishing and prove that American people are easily manipulated by authority figures. The most incredible parts was that this study was performed little after the trial of A. Eichmann, the Holocaust’s serial killer, whose defense was that he was only following orders when he ordered the assassination of millions of Jews. At this point, one should infer that certain individuals are prone to violence and they just need any reason to inflict pain on others. Finally, the experiment will be completely different, if it is performed to day considering that researching rules are stricter today. For instance, the participants have to sign an informed consent. However, as sad as it is the results could be the same or more disastrous for the reason mentioned