Behaviourist and Cognitive debate

• Conditioning to control children should be used - in home - supernanny, operant conditioning, naughty step, reacting is positive reinforcement, so remove attention so the child doesnt engage in the behaviour.
• Conditioning to control children should be used - in school- Mcallister 1969, teacher praise and disapproval, decrease in bad behaviour such as inappropriate talking, increases quiet focus.
• Conditioning to control children should be used - in home - pocket money, due to chore completion so pocket money or postponing pocket money, successful as children did chores.
• Conditioning to control children should be used - in school - Le Francois, conditioning used to maximise a students performance if maximum pleasant stimulus in environment such as posters etc. Minimising negative stimulus such as shouting, positive association reducing fear and anxiety, better attendance - better grades.
• Conditioning to control children should not be used - in home - naughty step is criticised as claims children can't reflect on own behaviour so it is pointless, lasting effect on development, punishment doesn't educate children and they may act out so negative consequences on child's mental wellbeing, can have a lasting effect.
• Conditioning to control children should not be used - in school - Dweck found that children who were praised from one test did worse on later tests that were more difficult and told that they were lazy, reinforcement had a bad impact, but punishment had positive control.
• Conditioning to control children should not be used - in school - Lepper et al, children draw a nice picture promised reward less time spent drawing, not promised reward spent more time on drawing, conditioning actually destroys child's motivation to do well by expecting a reward.
• Conditioning to control children - implications - destroys the free will of children, unethical to use money as a reward, but can lead to better performance.
• Conditioning to control children -conclusions - valuable for children's behaviour, careful about an overreliance on conditioning techniques.
• Eye witness testimony is unreliable - post event info - loftus and palmer, wording of a question affects the answer.
• Eye witness testimony is unreliable - post event info - ppts asked see 'the' more likely answer yes than see 'a'.
• Eye witness testimony is unreliable - crimes emotive - freud, traumatic memories repressed into unconscious memories forgotten.
• Eye witness testimony is unreliable - weapon focus - loftus et al, focus on the weapon not person, poorer memory of actual incidents, cheque/gun slideshow.
• Eye witness testimony is reliable - post event info - loftus, red purse got told it was brown but 98% still identified it was red.
• Eye witness testimony is reliable - crimes emotive - cahill and mcgaugh, hormones such as adrenaline make memory stronger so, more likely to remember flashbulb memory.
• Eye witness testimony is reliable - weapon focus - yuille and cutshall, eyewitness in canada, armed robber stole guns and fired 4 shots, accurate memory after 4 months even though given 2 misleading questions.
• Eye witness testimony - implications - wrong convictions, real person is let go, free in society, expensive for retrials.
• Eye witness testimony - conclusions - 69% wrongful convictions are due to eyewitness testimonies, can be inaccurate, shouldn't be used exclusively.