langer and rodin (1976) gmg
DESCRIPTION
Powerpoint outlining the main points of the study.TRANSCRIPT
Developmental Psychology
Langer and Rodin (1976)
The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged
ContextBettelheim (1943)
Muselmann was a derogatory term used among inmates of World War II Nazi concentration camps to refer to those suffering from a combination of starvation and exhaustion and who were resigned to their impending death. The Muselmann inmates exhibited severe emaciation and physical weakness, an apathetic listlessness regarding their own fate, and unresponsiveness to their surroundings.
ContextdeCharms (1968) humans strive to be the primary locus of causation for, or the origin of, their own behaviour
Langer et al. (1975) – Hospital patients given more personal control needed fewer pain relievers
✚PersonalControl
=
Needed less pain relief
Ferrare (1962)17 elderely people, forced old age home:4 weeks later = 8 dead10 weeks later = 16 dead
ContextI want to do these tests in my own order. I am sure that would make me feel less anxious…
Stotland and Blumenthal (1964)
ContextSegliman (1975)
Lack of control leads to learned helplessness
Dogs conditioned to receive a shock did not move to relieve themselves from it even though they were free to.
Context
A child who performs poorly on math tests and assignments will quickly begin to feel that nothing he does will have any effect on his math performance. When later faced with any type of math-related task, he may experience a sense of helplessness.
Learned helplessness
Aims
To study the effects of enhanced personal responsibility and choice in a group of nursing home patients.
• Does increased control have general beneficial effects?
• How would physical, mental alertness, activity, sociability and satisfaction be affected?
• Would the sense of responsibility be generalised to other aspects of their lives?
Procedure• Study carried out on two
floors of a top Conneticut nursing home.
• All residents had similar: health, socioeconomic status and length of stay in home.
• 1 floor = Responsibility Induced Group (RIG). This was the experimental condition.
• 2nd Floor = comparison group. This was the control condition.
Responsibility Induced Group (RIG)Experimental condition
Comparison Group (CG)Control condition
They had influence over what happened
They were given options of what happened
They should give their opinions about complaint procedures
All complaints would be handled by staff
They could select their own plant and care for it
They would be given a plant which someone else would care for
They could choose which night was movie night
They would be told which night was movie night.
ProcedureEach group was briefed differently about their stay in the nursing home:
Procedure1 week before the briefing they were given Questionnaire 1 and 2
• This questionnaire assessed how much control residents felt they had over their lives.
• The research assistant scored their level of alertness.
3 weeks after the briefing they were given Questionnaire 1 and 2 again
• Completed by the 2 nurses who worked on each floor.• They rated each resident for:
Happiness, alertness, dependency, sociability and activity levels, eating time, sleeping time.
They also noted whether residents went to the movie night or took part in organised activities
FindingsQuestionnaire 1 (given 1 week before and 3 weeks after the briefing)
• Happiness and Activness increased in the RIG although they didn’t perceive themselves as having greater control .
• RIG were seen as being more alert
Questionnaire 2 – What the nurses thought…
• 93 % of the RIG group had improved and were more active (moving, talking etc) than passive (reading).
In addition:• Movie attendance higher in the RIG• Jelly bean guessing competition – 10 participants from the
RIG, 1 from CG.
Implications:
Personal responsibility = increased well being
But what about the sample?
71% of CG became more debilitated over the 3 weeks
The improvements in the conditions of the RIG group
were quite small – what if you made bigger changes?
What made them go to the movies? Happiness or
control?
Real world application – conditions in a care home?
Conclusions
Method – field experiment
Reliability – refers to whether something is consistent.Consistency of answers on a questionnaire – test-retest
Validity – refers to whether something is legitimate or true. Internal validity concerns the extent to which the researcher has tested what they intended to test.Ecological validity concerns the extent to which the research findings can be generalised beyond the research setting.
Experimenter bias Extraneous variables
Sampling - representative
Ethics – Informed consent? Deception? Lack of right to withdraw? Privacy? Protect from harm? Confidentiality?
Evaluating the methodology
Alternative evidenceRodin and Langer (1977)Returned 18 months later, average mortality 25%RIG group = 15%CG group = 30%
Schulz (1976)Benefit when institutionalized aged given control over their visitors.
Savell (1991)Found no difference between choice and no choice groups in terms of physical well being.
Alternative evidenceWurm et al. (2007)Cognitive schemas surrounding sense of control and the ageing process important in the physical health of elderly.
Suls and Mullen (1981)SRRS (think Rahe et al) controllable life changes had less negative impact on health.
Cohen et al. (1993)Ps given cold virus. Those whose life was unpredictable and stressful more likely to develop cold.