86:I[871206,["$1","$2","$3","$4","$5","$6","$7","$8","$9","$a","$b","$c","$d","$e","$f","$10","$11","$12","$13","$14","$15"],"IconMark"] 87:I[196793,["$1","$2","$3","$4","$5","$6","$7","$8","$9","$a","$b","$c","$d","$e","$f","$10","$11","$12","$13","$14","$15","$3b","$3c","$3d","$3e","$3f","$40","$41","$42","$43","$44","$45","$46","$47","$48","$49","$4a","$51","$52","$53","$54","$55","$56","$57","$58","$59","$5a","$5b","$5c","$5d","$5e","$5f","$60","$61","$62","$63","$64","$65","$66","$67","$68","$69","$6a","$6b","$6c","$6d"],"Gingerbread"] 89:"RecordResourceResume" 8a:I[647935,["$1","$2","$3","$4","$5","$6","$7","$8","$9","$a","$b","$c","$d","$e","$f","$10","$11","$12","$13","$14","$15","$3b","$3c","$3d","$3e","$3f","$40","$41","$42","$43","$44","$45","$46","$47","$48","$49","$4a","$51","$52","$53","$54","$55","$56","$57","$58","$59","$5a","$5b","$5c","$5d","$5e","$5f","$60","$61","$62","$63","$64","$65","$66","$67","$68","$69","$6a","$6b","$6c","$6d"],"$89"] 8b:I[473028,["$1","$2","$3","$4","$5","$6","$7","$8","$9","$a","$b","$c","$d","$e","$f","$10","$11","$12","$13","$14","$15","$3b","$3c","$3d","$3e","$3f","$40","$41","$42","$43","$44","$45","$46","$47","$48","$49","$4a","$51","$52","$53","$54","$55","$56","$57","$58","$59","$5a","$5b","$5c","$5d","$5e","$5f","$60","$61","$62","$63","$64","$65","$66","$67","$68","$69","$6a","$6b","$6c","$6d"],"RecordTopicView"] 8c:"FlashcardAccessBranch" 8d:I[830476,["$1","$2","$3","$4","$5","$6","$7","$8","$9","$a","$b","$c","$d","$e","$f","$10","$11","$12","$13","$14","$15","$3b","$3c","$3d","$3e","$3f","$40","$41","$42","$43","$44","$45","$46","$47","$48","$49","$4a","$51","$52","$53","$54","$55","$56","$57","$58","$59","$5a","$5b","$5c","$5d","$5e","$5f","$60","$61","$62","$63","$64","$65","$66","$67","$68","$69","$6a","$6b","$6c","$6d"],"$8c"] 8e:"TopicFlashcardRunner" 8f:I[315438,["$1","$2","$3","$4","$5","$6","$7","$8","$9","$a","$b","$c","$d","$e","$f","$10","$11","$12","$13","$14","$15","$3b","$3c","$3d","$3e","$3f","$40","$41","$42","$43","$44","$45","$46","$47","$48","$49","$4a","$51","$52","$53","$54","$55","$56","$57","$58","$59","$5a","$5b","$5c","$5d","$5e","$5f","$60","$61","$62","$63","$64","$65","$66","$67","$68","$69","$6a","$6b","$6c","$6d"],"$8e"] 74:null 7a:[["$","title","0",{"children":"1.2.2 Gunderson et al. (2013) - Flashcards | MathsGenie"}],["$","meta","1",{"name":"description","content":"Revise 1.2.2 Gunderson et al. (2013) for Edexcel GCSE Psychology with active-recall flashcards: flip, fill the gaps, and self-test on MathsGenie."}],["$","meta","2",{"name":"application-name","content":"MathsGenie"}],["$","meta","3",{"name":"robots","content":"index, follow"}],["$","link","4",{"rel":"canonical","href":"https://mathsgenie.co.uk/gcse/psychology/edexcel/1-2-2-gunderson-et-al-2013/flashcards"}],["$","meta","5",{"property":"og:title","content":"1.2.2 Gunderson et al. (2013) - Flashcards"}],["$","meta","6",{"property":"og:description","content":"Revise 1.2.2 Gunderson et al. (2013) for Edexcel GCSE Psychology with active-recall flashcards: flip, fill the gaps, and self-test on MathsGenie."}],["$","meta","7",{"property":"og:url","content":"https://mathsgenie.co.uk/gcse/psychology/edexcel/1-2-2-gunderson-et-al-2013/flashcards"}],["$","meta","8",{"property":"og:site_name","content":"MathsGenie"}],["$","meta","9",{"property":"og:locale","content":"en_GB"}],["$","meta","10",{"property":"og:image","content":"https://mathsgenie.co.uk/api/og?title=1.2.2%20Gunderson%20et%20al.%20(2013)%20-%20Flashcards"}],["$","meta","11",{"property":"og:image:width","content":"1200"}],["$","meta","12",{"property":"og:image:height","content":"630"}],["$","meta","13",{"property":"og:image:alt","content":"1.2.2 Gunderson et al. (2013) - Flashcards"}],["$","meta","14",{"property":"og:type","content":"website"}],["$","meta","15",{"name":"twitter:card","content":"summary_large_image"}],["$","meta","16",{"name":"twitter:title","content":"1.2.2 Gunderson et al. (2013) - Flashcards"}],["$","meta","17",{"name":"twitter:description","content":"Revise 1.2.2 Gunderson et al. (2013) for Edexcel GCSE Psychology with active-recall flashcards: flip, fill the gaps, and self-test on MathsGenie."}],["$","meta","18",{"name":"twitter:image","content":"https://mathsgenie.co.uk/api/og?title=1.2.2%20Gunderson%20et%20al.%20(2013)%20-%20Flashcards"}],["$","link","19",{"rel":"icon","href":"/favicon.ico?favicon.2j0dv-gmf2vmi.ico?dpl=nogit-1793629803","sizes":"256x256","type":"image/x-icon"}],["$","link","20",{"rel":"icon","href":"/icon.svg?icon.0odudpcuyu_1t.svg?dpl=nogit-1793629803","sizes":"any","type":"image/svg+xml"}],["$","link","21",{"rel":"apple-touch-icon","href":"/apple-icon.png?apple-icon.3cq-u4n9i7l9o.png?dpl=nogit-1793629803","sizes":"180x180","type":"image/png"}],["$","$L86","22",{}]] 71:[["$","$L87",null,{"feature":"flashcards"}],"$L88",["$","$L8a",null,{"href":"/gcse/psychology/edexcel/1-2-2-gunderson-et-al-2013/flashcards","label":"1.2.2 Gunderson et al. (2013)","subjectCode":"gcse_psychology","surface":"flashcards"}],["$","$L8b",null,{"kind":"flashcards","topicId":"72b9bdd5-ecee-4164-bc27-b3b32c33e2b6"}],["$","$L8d",null,{"runner":["$","div",null,{"className":"min-h-0 flex-1 overflow-hidden bg-background","children":["$","$L8f",null,{"decks":[{"id":"6304511e-37d1-4a42-8f34-0e8ac2481b9b","title":"1.2.2 Gunderson et al. (2013) Flashcards","topicId":"72b9bdd5-ecee-4164-bc27-b3b32c33e2b6","topicSlug":"1-2-2-gunderson-et-al-2013","cards":[{"id":"c7aeaeb2-6f01-43fb-89f9-7d2a3f2ee4c2","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What did Gunderson et al. investigate about parents' praise?","back":"What kind of praise parents naturally gave children aged one to three.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"What kind of praise parents naturally gave children aged one to three.","correct":true,"explanation":"The researchers observed parent-child interactions to identify the types of praise parents naturally used with children between one and three years old."},{"text":"How frequently praise was given by teachers to children aged four to six.","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses the study with classroom research involving teachers. Gunderson et al. investigated what kind of praise parents naturally gave children aged one to three."},{"text":"Whether praise improved children's intelligence between the ages of one and three.","correct":false,"explanation":"The study did not test whether praise directly increased intelligence. It examined what kind of praise parents naturally gave their children between one and three years old."},{"text":"Why some parents praised girls more frequently than boys during early childhood.","correct":false,"explanation":"This incorrectly treats gender differences in praise frequency as the main investigation. The researchers studied what kind of praise parents naturally gave children aged one to three."}]},{"id":"1c282a97-a739-4a0e-90e6-9e95178f13eb","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What later outcome did Gunderson et al. investigate?","back":"Whether early praise predicted the child's motivational framework five years later.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Whether early praise predicted the child's motivational framework five years later.","correct":true,"explanation":"The researchers investigated whether praise received in early childhood predicted the child's later motivational framework, including their beliefs and responses to challenges, five years afterwards."},{"text":"Whether early praise predicted the child's intelligence quotient five years later.","correct":false,"explanation":"This mistakes motivation for measured intelligence. Gunderson et al. investigated whether early praise predicted the child's motivational framework five years later, rather than their intelligence quotient."},{"text":"Whether early praise predicted the child's attachment style five years later.","correct":false,"explanation":"Attachment style concerns children's emotional bonds with caregivers and was not the later outcome measured. The study examined the child's motivational framework five years later."},{"text":"Whether early praise predicted the child's academic attainment five years later.","correct":false,"explanation":"Academic attainment may be influenced by motivation, but it was not the specified later outcome. The researchers tested whether early praise predicted the child's motivational framework."}]},{"id":"161c18b2-4ad8-47fb-bdad-4808bbaff885","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"How many children took part in the study?","back":"53 children.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"53 children.","correct":true,"explanation":"The longitudinal sample consisted of 53 children whose family interactions were recorded in early childhood and whose motivational frameworks were assessed five years later."},{"text":"43 children.","correct":false,"explanation":"This understates the sample by ten, possibly from misremembering the small longitudinal sample. Gunderson et al. studied 53 children in total."},{"text":"63 children.","correct":false,"explanation":"This overstates the sample by ten, a common recall error with study details. The study's sample contained 53 children, not 63."},{"text":"73 children.","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses the sample size with a larger figure not used in this study. Gunderson et al. included 53 children in their sample."}]},{"id":"796b5ecb-90f7-4e64-be3c-459de01081e9","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What was the gender composition of the sample?","back":"

29 boys
24 girls

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

29 boys
24 girls

","correct":true,"explanation":"The sample comprised 29 boys and 24 girls. These figures add to the study's total sample of 53 children."},{"text":"

24 boys
29 girls

","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the gender figures. The sample contained 29 boys and 24 girls, giving the correct total of 53 children."},{"text":"

28 boys
25 girls

","correct":false,"explanation":"These figures preserve the total of 53 but incorrectly redistribute the children by gender. The actual composition was 29 boys and 24 girls."},{"text":"

30 boys
23 girls

","correct":false,"explanation":"This off-by-one error still totals 53 but gives the wrong gender split. The sample actually included 29 boys and 24 girls."}]},{"id":"bb3978fc-63a1-4d22-8e2c-786716b25340","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"At what ages were family interactions recorded?","back":"At 14, 26 and 38 months of age.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"At 14, 26 and 38 months of age.","correct":true,"explanation":"Researchers recorded family interactions when the children were 14, 26 and 38 months old, providing observations at three stages across early childhood."},{"text":"At 12, 24 and 36 months of age.","correct":false,"explanation":"These neat yearly intervals are tempting but do not match the observation schedule. Interactions were recorded at 14, 26 and 38 months of age."},{"text":"At 14, 24 and 36 months of age.","correct":false,"explanation":"This correctly recalls the first observation but shortens the later intervals. The actual recording ages were 14, 26 and 38 months."},{"text":"At 16, 28 and 40 months of age.","correct":false,"explanation":"This shifts every recording point two months too late. Researchers observed the families when the children were 14, 26 and 38 months old."}]},{"id":"b5388a9f-9753-4272-86c2-28d9275d1095","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"How did researchers collect data about parents' praise?","back":"They recorded 90 minutes of ordinary family interaction at home and coded every piece of praise.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"They recorded 90 minutes of ordinary family interaction at home and coded every piece of praise.","correct":true,"explanation":"The naturalistic method involved recording 90 minutes of normal family interaction in each child's home, then systematically coding every instance of parental praise."},{"text":"They recorded 60 minutes of structured parent-child tasks in a laboratory and coded every piece of praise.","correct":false,"explanation":"This wrongly describes a shorter, controlled laboratory procedure. Researchers recorded 90 minutes of ordinary family interaction at home and coded every instance of praise."},{"text":"They observed 90 minutes of ordinary classroom interaction at school and coded every piece of praise.","correct":false,"explanation":"This substitutes teachers and a school setting for parents at home. The data came from 90 minutes of ordinary family interaction recorded in the home."},{"text":"They recorded 120 minutes of guided family interaction at home and counted every piece of praise.","correct":false,"explanation":"This overstates the recording duration and implies that interactions were directed by researchers. They recorded 90 minutes of ordinary family interaction at home and coded the praise."}]},{"id":"a5869d8f-58f9-44f4-a9df-930ff18b7729","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What is process praise?","back":"Praise for a child's effort or strategy, such as “you worked hard at that”.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Praise for a child's effort or strategy, such as “you worked hard at that”.","correct":true,"explanation":"Process praise focuses on controllable actions, such as effort and the strategy used. This encourages children to associate progress with how they approach a task."},{"text":"Praise for a child's intelligence or talent, such as “you are naturally clever”.","correct":false,"explanation":"This is person praise because it attributes success to fixed personal qualities. Process praise instead focuses on controllable effort or strategy, such as working hard."},{"text":"Praise for a child's result or outcome, such as “you got the right answer”.","correct":false,"explanation":"This is outcome-focused praise because it evaluates the result rather than the method. Process praise specifically recognises the child's effort or strategy."},{"text":"Praise for a child's appearance or character, such as “you are such a good child”.","correct":false,"explanation":"This evaluates qualities of the person rather than what they did during the task. Process praise focuses on effort or strategy, such as working hard."}]},{"id":"95800e22-9394-4d81-b040-ebacd2efd718","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What is person praise?","back":"Praise for a child's fixed quality, such as “you are so clever”.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Praise for a child's fixed quality, such as “you are so clever”.","correct":true,"explanation":"Person praise attributes success to a stable characteristic of the child, such as cleverness, rather than to controllable effort or the strategy they used."},{"text":"Praise for a child's sustained effort, such as “you tried really hard”.","correct":false,"explanation":"This is process praise because it focuses on the child's controllable effort. Person praise instead labels a fixed quality, as in telling a child they are clever."},{"text":"Praise for a child's chosen strategy, such as “you found a good method”.","correct":false,"explanation":"Recognising the method used is process praise, not person praise. Person praise focuses on a supposedly fixed personal quality, such as being clever."},{"text":"Praise for a child's successful outcome, such as “you got every answer right”.","correct":false,"explanation":"This praises the result of the task rather than a characteristic of the child. Person praise identifies a fixed quality, such as cleverness."}]},{"id":"59480291-96cb-4579-b6a3-31701b392b67","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What did “other praise” include?","back":"All praise not classified as process or person praise, such as “well done”.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"All praise not classified as process or person praise, such as “well done”.","correct":true,"explanation":"The researchers used “other praise” as a residual category for praise that referred neither to the child’s personal qualities nor to their effort, actions or strategies."},{"text":"All praise highlighting effort rather than personal qualities, such as “you tried hard”.","correct":false,"explanation":"Praise highlighting effort was classified as process praise, not other praise. Other praise included comments that could not be classified as either process or person praise, such as “well done”."},{"text":"All praise describing the child rather than their actions, such as “good girl”.","correct":false,"explanation":"Praise describing a child’s qualities was classified as person praise, not other praise. Other praise covered comments that were neither process nor person praise, such as “well done”."},{"text":"All praise given by strangers rather than parents, such as “good work”.","correct":false,"explanation":"“Other” described the content of the praise, not who delivered it. It included all praise that could not be classified as process or person praise, such as “well done”."}]},{"id":"dbb8ac4e-89a5-48f3-84cc-a4278678219e","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"What proportions of the praise fell into each category?","back":"

18% process praise
16% person praise
66% other praise

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

18% process praise
16% person praise
66% other praise

","correct":true,"explanation":"The large majority was other praise at 66%, while process and person praise made up much smaller and similar proportions, at 18% and 16% respectively."},{"text":"

16% process praise
18% person praise
66% other praise

","correct":false,"explanation":"This swaps the two smaller percentages. Process praise accounted for 18%, person praise for 16%, and the remaining 66% was classified as other praise."},{"text":"

66% process praise
16% person praise
18% other praise

","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses process and other praise, making process praise appear much more common than it was. The actual proportions were 18% process, 16% person and 66% other praise."},{"text":"

18% process praise
66% person praise
16% other praise

","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses person and other praise, greatly overstating person praise. The observed proportions were 18% process praise, 16% person praise and 66% other praise."}]},{"id":"2ca449e3-df6d-4e58-9c5b-17899ec0217b","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"Which praise type significantly predicted a growth framework?","back":"More process praise between 14 and 38 months.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"More process praise between 14 and 38 months.","correct":true,"explanation":"Children who heard more praise focused on effort, actions and strategies between 14 and 38 months were more likely to show a growth framework later."},{"text":"More person praise between 14 and 38 months.","correct":false,"explanation":"Person praise focuses on fixed qualities and did not significantly predict the later framework. More process praise between 14 and 38 months significantly predicted a growth framework."},{"text":"More other praise between 14 and 38 months.","correct":false,"explanation":"General comments such as “well done” did not produce the significant predictive relationship reported. It was process praise between 14 and 38 months that predicted a growth framework."},{"text":"More person criticism between 14 and 38 months.","correct":false,"explanation":"The relevant measure concerned praise rather than criticism. More process praise, which emphasises effort and strategy, between 14 and 38 months significantly predicted a later growth framework."}]},{"id":"124655ac-7935-4089-98ba-4e37593f1b13","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"When was the growth framework measured?","back":"At seven to eight years, around five years after the early praise observations.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"At seven to eight years, around five years after the early praise observations.","correct":true,"explanation":"The children’s motivational frameworks were assessed when they were seven to eight years old, allowing researchers to relate them to praise observed about five years earlier."},{"text":"At three to four years, immediately after the early praise observations.","correct":false,"explanation":"This removes the long follow-up period that made the study longitudinal. The growth framework was measured at seven to eight years, around five years after praise was observed."},{"text":"At four to five years, around two years after the early praise observations.","correct":false,"explanation":"This places the assessment too early and shortens the follow-up. Researchers measured the growth framework at seven to eight years, roughly five years after the early observations."},{"text":"At twelve to thirteen years, around ten years after the early praise observations.","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses the school-age follow-up with an adolescent assessment. The framework was measured at seven to eight years, approximately five years after the early praise observations."}]},{"id":"3b30d8ef-badf-48aa-afde-0bec56d237e7","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What did person praise significantly predict?","back":"It did not significantly predict a fixed, or entity, framework.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It did not significantly predict a fixed, or entity, framework.","correct":true,"explanation":"Although Dweck’s theory might suggest that person praise encourages fixed beliefs, this study found no statistically significant prediction of a fixed, or entity, framework."},{"text":"It did significantly predict a fixed, or entity, framework.","correct":false,"explanation":"This is a tempting theoretical prediction because person praise emphasises stable qualities, but Gunderson et al. found that it did not significantly predict a fixed, or entity, framework."},{"text":"It did significantly predict a growth, or incremental, framework.","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses person praise with process praise. Process praise significantly predicted a growth framework, while person praise did not significantly predict a fixed, or entity, framework."},{"text":"It did not significantly predict a growth, or incremental, framework.","correct":false,"explanation":"This names the wrong outcome and misses the reported comparison. The finding specifically stated that person praise did not significantly predict a fixed, or entity, framework."}]},{"id":"aedeb4aa-38f3-495b-a392-ff8949118383","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What did the findings suggest about praise and motivational frameworks?","back":"Praise heard as a toddler may help shape the motivational framework carried into school.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Praise heard as a toddler may help shape the motivational framework carried into school.","correct":true,"explanation":"The association between praise in toddlerhood and beliefs measured years later suggests that early feedback may contribute to the motivational framework children take into their school years."},{"text":"Praise heard as a toddler may only shape the temporary behaviour displayed at home.","correct":false,"explanation":"The findings concerned a lasting association across several years, not merely immediate home behaviour. Early praise may help shape the motivational framework that children carry into school."},{"text":"Praise heard as a toddler may help shape the level of intelligence inherited at birth.","correct":false,"explanation":"Praise cannot alter intelligence already inherited at birth, and the study measured motivational beliefs rather than inherited ability. It suggested early praise may shape frameworks carried into school."},{"text":"Praise heard as a toddler may only shape the language framework used by parents.","correct":false,"explanation":"The later outcome was the child’s motivational framework, not the parents’ language framework. Toddler praise may help shape motivational beliefs that children subsequently carry into school."}]},{"id":"840ef82d-820a-47a8-833c-befb73c1235a","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why do the findings support Dweck's theory?","back":"Process praise, which highlights effort and strategy, was linked to a growth mindset.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Process praise, which highlights effort and strategy, was linked to a growth mindset.","correct":true,"explanation":"Dweck proposes that emphasising controllable processes such as effort and strategy encourages beliefs that ability can develop, so this observed link supports her theory."},{"text":"Person praise, which highlights fixed ability and talent, was linked to a growth mindset.","correct":false,"explanation":"Dweck associates praise of fixed personal qualities with entity beliefs, not growth beliefs. The supporting result was that process praise highlighting effort and strategy was linked to a growth mindset."},{"text":"Process praise, which highlights effort and strategy, was linked to a fixed mindset.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses Dweck’s predicted relationship. Process praise focuses on controllable ways to improve and was linked to a growth mindset, rather than a fixed mindset."},{"text":"Other praise, which highlights general approval and reward, was linked to a fixed mindset.","correct":false,"explanation":"The significant finding involved process praise and growth beliefs, not general praise and fixed beliefs. Highlighting effort and strategy was linked to a growth mindset, supporting Dweck’s theory."}]},{"id":"0ee2e333-7732-4e50-8edf-c93bf1d0ebcc","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why is the study's longitudinal design a strength?","back":"It followed children over years using real praise in real homes, giving high ecological validity.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It followed children over years using real praise in real homes, giving high ecological validity.","correct":true,"explanation":"Repeatedly observing naturally occurring parent-child interactions and following children to school age produced evidence grounded in everyday life, giving the study high ecological validity."},{"text":"It tested children once using scripted praise in a laboratory, giving high experimental control.","correct":false,"explanation":"This describes a controlled snapshot rather than the study’s longitudinal strength. Researchers followed children over years and observed real praise in real homes, providing high ecological validity."},{"text":"It followed children over weeks using recalled praise in questionnaires, giving high population validity.","correct":false,"explanation":"The researchers directly recorded natural interactions over a period of years rather than relying on short-term parental recall. Real praise in real homes strengthened ecological validity."},{"text":"It compared adults once using artificial praise in school tests, giving high ecological validity.","correct":false,"explanation":"The participants were followed from toddlerhood into childhood, rather than sampled once as adults. Natural praise observed in real homes is what gave the research high ecological validity."}]},{"id":"03c00371-484e-4f4e-b627-5cd069189c12","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why was the study's coding considered objective?","back":"Coders did not know praise was the focus, and inter-rater agreement was high, with kappa = .81.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Coders did not know praise was the focus, and inter-rater agreement was high, with kappa = .81.","correct":true,"explanation":"Coding was objective because coders were unaware that praise was the focus, reducing observer bias, and the high kappa value showed strong agreement between raters."},{"text":"Coders knew praise was the focus, and inter-rater agreement was high, with kappa = .81.","correct":false,"explanation":"Knowing the hypothesis could bias coders towards noticing praise. Objectivity came from coders not knowing praise was the focus, alongside the high inter-rater agreement of kappa = .81."},{"text":"Coders did not know praise was the focus, and inter-rater agreement was high, with kappa = .68.","correct":false,"explanation":"Although blinded coders support objectivity, kappa = .68 indicates lower agreement than reported. The study found strong agreement of kappa = .81, making the coding more reliable."},{"text":"Coders did not know praise was the focus, and inter-rater agreement was high, with kappa = .91.","correct":false,"explanation":"The blinding is correct, but the reported agreement was kappa = .81, not .91. Substituting a higher value misstates the evidence for coding reliability."}]},{"id":"3691eb4f-0a81-43cb-a32a-3aa65f6bb6f5","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why can the study not establish that praise caused the motivational framework?","back":"It was correlational, so another family factor could explain the link.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It was correlational, so another family factor could explain the link.","correct":true,"explanation":"A correlational study identifies an association but does not manipulate praise or control every alternative explanation. Therefore, another family factor could have produced the link with the motivational framework."},{"text":"It was experimental, so another family factor could explain the link.","correct":false,"explanation":"An experimental design can test cause and effect by controlling variables. The study was correlational, so an unmeasured family factor could explain the association instead of praise causing the framework."},{"text":"It was correlational, so praise itself could explain the link.","correct":false,"explanation":"Correlation cannot show that praise itself caused the motivational framework, because other variables may be responsible. The correct explanation is that another family factor could explain the link."},{"text":"It was longitudinal, so another family factor could explain the link.","correct":false,"explanation":"Following participants over time does not by itself establish causation. The key limitation was that the study was correlational, allowing another family factor to explain the association."}]},{"id":"69b5c62a-a1a8-4576-a608-f18a4f02c428","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why is the study's generalisability limited?","back":"The sample contained only 53 children from one American city, so it may not represent children elsewhere.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The sample contained only 53 children from one American city, so it may not represent children elsewhere.","correct":true,"explanation":"Generalisability is limited because only 53 children were studied and they all came from one American city. Their experiences may not reflect those of children in other locations."},{"text":"The sample contained only 53 children from several American cities, so it may not represent children elsewhere.","correct":false,"explanation":"The study used children from one American city, not several cities. A sample drawn from one location may reflect local cultural or social factors and may not represent children elsewhere."},{"text":"The sample contained only 153 children from one American city, so it may not represent children elsewhere.","correct":false,"explanation":"The sample size was 53 children, not 153. The small sample from one American city limits how confidently the findings can be generalised to children in other places."},{"text":"The sample contained only 53 children from one American city, so it represents children elsewhere.","correct":false,"explanation":"A small sample from one city cannot automatically represent children elsewhere. The correct conclusion is that it may not be generalisable beyond the 53 children from that American city."}]},{"id":"c360442a-6306-45a2-b44e-b15718bfa42a","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Praise made up only about [ ] of everything parents said.","back":"Praise made up only about 3 per cent of everything parents said.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"3 per cent","correct":true,"explanation":"Praise accounted for only about 3 per cent of all parental speech, showing that parents praised their children relatively infrequently during the observations."},{"text":"1 per cent","correct":false,"explanation":"The figure was higher than 1 per cent. Praise made up approximately 3 per cent of everything parents said, so 1 per cent underestimates how rarely praise occurred."},{"text":"13 per cent","correct":false,"explanation":"13 per cent is a plausible percentage error but is too high. The study found that praise made up approximately 3 per cent of everything parents said."},{"text":"30 per cent","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the scale of the finding by treating praise as a substantial part of parental speech. The correct figure is approximately 3 per cent, indicating praise was uncommon."}]},{"id":"aed62248-36f0-44ed-8af7-462ed990bb7c","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Of all praise, approximately [ ] was process praise.","back":"Of all praise, approximately 18 per cent was process praise.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"18 per cent","correct":true,"explanation":"Approximately 18 per cent of all praise was process praise, meaning it focused on the child’s effort, strategy, or actions rather than simply on the person."},{"text":"8 per cent","correct":false,"explanation":"8 per cent underestimates the proportion of praise that was process praise. Approximately 18 per cent of all praise focused on the child’s effort or process."},{"text":"28 per cent","correct":false,"explanation":"28 per cent is a near-miss value that overestimates process praise. The reported proportion was approximately 18 per cent of all praise."},{"text":"81 per cent","correct":false,"explanation":"81 per cent confuses the process-praise percentage with a much larger proportion or with the study’s kappa value. Process praise represented approximately 18 per cent of all praise."}]},{"id":"e0eaa5a0-84d9-4e27-b582-5426f1ff2638","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Of all praise, approximately [ ] was person praise.","back":"Of all praise, approximately 16 per cent was person praise.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"16 per cent","correct":true,"explanation":"Approximately 16 per cent of all praise was person praise, which evaluates the child with comments about being clever or good rather than describing effort or strategy."},{"text":"6 per cent","correct":false,"explanation":"6 per cent is too low and may result from confusing person praise with a smaller category. Approximately 16 per cent of all praise was person praise."},{"text":"18 per cent","correct":false,"explanation":"18 per cent was the approximate proportion of process praise, not person praise. Person praise accounted for approximately 16 per cent of all praise."},{"text":"66 per cent","correct":false,"explanation":"66 per cent was the approximate proportion classified as other praise. Person praise was a much smaller category, making up approximately 16 per cent of all praise."}]},{"id":"947ec558-5bbe-41db-9235-b7a3b0e5d8d2","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Of all praise, approximately [ ] was other praise.","back":"Of all praise, approximately 66 per cent was other praise.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"66 per cent","correct":true,"explanation":"Other praise was the largest category, accounting for approximately 66 per cent of all praise. This category included praise that was neither specifically process nor person praise."},{"text":"16 per cent","correct":false,"explanation":"16 per cent was the approximate figure for person praise, not other praise. Other praise was the largest category and accounted for approximately 66 per cent of all praise."},{"text":"18 per cent","correct":false,"explanation":"18 per cent referred to process praise. The much larger other-praise category made up approximately 66 per cent of all praise."},{"text":"63 per cent","correct":false,"explanation":"63 per cent is a plausible near-miss but understates the reported proportion. Approximately 66 per cent of all praise was classified as other praise."}]}]}],"examCountdown":{"examDate":"2027-05-10","paperLabel":"Paper 1"},"heading":"1.2.2 Gunderson et al. (2013)","title":"1.2.2 Gunderson et al. (2013) Flashcards","topbar":{"backHref":"/gcse/psychology/edexcel/flashcards"},"topicSidebar":"$L90"}]}],"topicId":"72b9bdd5-ecee-4164-bc27-b3b32c33e2b6","walled":"$L91"}],"$L92","$L93"]