2498675
| Question | Answer |
| Criteria for the causation of A and B | 1. Covariation -> When A is present so is B (and vice versa), obvious association 2. Temporal precedence -> A should come before B in time 3. Nonspuriousness -> association between A and B w/o play from C |
| Research Designs | 1. Cross-sectional research -> measures covariation 2. Longitudinal research -> measures temporal precedence 3. Experimental research -> measures nonspuriousness |
| Cross-sectional research | Research in which information is collected once in a specific group of people. |
| Longitudinal research | Research in which all information is collected in at least two different points in time with a specific group of people. Can be short or long term. |
| Experimental research | Research in which the potential causal variable is manipulated. Can be short or long term. |
| The Coercive Spiral | - Studies involving observing daily interactions between parent and child - Undesirable behaviour = parental hostility = non compliance from child = further hostility until giving up - Teaches child that aggressive behaviour is okay |
| Protective vs. Facilitative influence | Levels of protective influence are positive in nature whereas levels of facilitative influence are negative in nature. Ex) family, peers, school, neighborhood |
| How is influence additive? | As risk factors accumulate, the chances of adhering to delinquent behaviour increases as well. |
| How is influence non-additive? | When the combination, and not the accumulation, of certain risk factors contribute to a breaking point causing delinquency. |
| Risk factor | Any factor that is associated with an increased probability of a negative outcome (ex: smoking) |
| Direct protective factor | Any factor that is associated with a decreased probability of a negative outcome (ex: hanging out with a group of prosocial friends). |
| Buffering protective factor | Any factor that is associated with a decreased probability of a negative outcome despite risk (ex: hanging with a group of prosocial friends that prevent the at-risk individual from being delinquent) |
| Wermer's study in Maui, Hawaii | - Longitudinal study on children - 1/3 of cohort were at risk kids - risk kids divided into two groups - 2/3 had significant problems & 1/3 ended up okay - The ones who desisted had a more positive upcoming |
| Protective factors at the individual level | - Above average intelligence - Positive attitudes toward family & school - Low impulsitivity - Easy temperament - High heart rate - High MAO-A activity (serotonin releasing neurotransmitters) |
| Protective factors at the family factors | - Close relationship with one parent - Intensive parental supervision - Low physical punishment - Parental disapproval of aggressive behaviour - Positive parental attitudes toward the child's education |
| Protective factors at school | - Good school achievement - Strong work motivation - Reaching higher education - Support and supervision by teachers - Positive school climate - Bonding to school |
| Protective factors at peers | - Non deviant, good friends - Peer groups who disapprove of aggression - Being socially isolated - Involvement in religious groups |
| Protective factors at neighbourhood | - Non deprived neighbourhood - Non violent neighbourhood - Cohesion and informal social control (small town where everybody knows everybody) |
| Interaction of parental monitoring and genetic susceptibility | - Chromosome (GABRA2) associated with alcohol dependence and conduct disorder - Low family monitoring + genes = increase in chance of externalizing behaviour - High family monitoring had no impact regardless of gene strands |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.