The critique presented explored the studies:

 Purpose
 Variables
 Hypothesis
 Theoretical Perspectives
 Methodology
 Results
 Strengths and Weaknesses (Limitations)

MEET THE WEBMASTER

BS- Behavioral Science

This section of the critique introduces the study’s purpose, variables, and hypothesis.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Success: is defined as the accomplishment of an aim or purpose. In this study the case of
success can inform others of ones capabilities and garner social and academics accolades, but
children may hide information about successes to avoid being seen as arrogant.

DEPENDENT VARIABLE:
FAILURE:

Failure: is defined as lack of success or the inability to perform a normal function. In this study it
shows children will hide their poor performances from their peers to avoid negative social
judgements and a diminished reputation from their peers.

HYPOTHESIS
In this study, the researchers did two experiments to find out if children would share their
successes or failures whether or not they solved the puzzle and if they could not solve the
puzzles how many would ask for help.
LITERATURE
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this study the it demonstrates goal attachment and motivation. In this framework the young
kids tried to solve the puzzle in which some did and some did not.

In the Self- Evaluating section: this is where the children compare their performance to the
desired performance in order to solve the puzzle to achieve their goals.

Self-Observation: This is the cognitive process where the children were reflecting on
themselves as they work toward achieving their goals of solving the puzzle.
 Self- Reaction: This is where the kids modify their behavior based on their evaluations in
achieving their goals. In this case they would ask the kids who completed their puzzles for help
not the ones that did not.

Self-Efficacy: This is where the kids believe in themselves or their capabilities in order to finish
their tasks of completing the puzzle.

LITERATURE REVIEW
METHODOLOGY
In this study the participants were school age children between the ages of 3- 8 years old. The
research method that was used to perform this study was an experimental study.

PARTICIPANTS
EXPERIMENT ONE:

One hundred and forty-two children participated. There were forty-two 3 years old (21
males, 21 females; M age = 3.6 years, age range: 2.8 years -3.9 years), forty-eight 4 years old
(23 males, 25 females; M age=4.5 years, age range: 4.0-4.9 years), and fifty- two 5-6 years old
(25males, 27 females; M age =5.6 years, age range: 5.0-6.5 years). Children in all age groups
were recruited from schools and museums in a city in Southern California.

EXPERIMENT TWO:

One hundred and six children participated. There were twenty-three 3 year olds(9males, 14
females; M age=3.60 years, page range3.1-3.9 years), twenty-five 4 year olds(11 males, 14
females, M age=4.55 years ,age range 4.0-4.9 years),twenty seven 5 year olds (13 males, 14
females, M age =5.40 years, age range 5.0-5.9 years), and thirty –one 6 to 7 year olds(11males
20 females, Mage=6.88 range6.0- 7.9 years).
RESEARCH METHOD
The researchers conducted an experimental study

RESEARCH DESIGN
The study used an experimental study. Children were told two stories vignettes accompanied
with cartoon drawing. One about a protagonist who failed in solving a puzzle and the other
story was counter balanced. Following each story children were asked three memory questions
about events in the story. Children were then asked the target test question for a prize.

DATA COLLECTION
Children of all different ages were asked to complete puzzles and to observe to see if children
who did not complete their puzzles would more likely asked their friends who did not complete
their puzzles or would if they would more likely asked the ones who did complete it for help.

The instruments measures failure and success. The research did not state how long it took to
solve the puzzles.

RESULTS
For Experiment One:

Children were asked six memory –check questions. Almost all children answered a majority (at
least four) of the memory –checked questions correctly except three children (one I each
group). Therefore these children were excluded from the analyses. For the remaining 139
children in the analysis sample, performance on the memory –check questions did not differ
between the age group.

For Experiment Two:

Across four stories, children were asked six- memory check questions. All children answered at
least four memory-check questions correctly, and therefore, no children were excluded from
this analysis. Performance on memory –check questions did not differ between the age groups
(p=.20) additionally children’s response to the understanding-check question showed that they
understood that a classmate was made to feel sad after being teased by an unsupportive peer.
Across all ages, children reported that the teased classmate felt sad ( M=3.5 on a 4 point scale;
on a four point scale; 73% choose the highest response, ‘really sad’), and their sadness rating
did not differ between the age groups.

Study’s Strengths
In this study the results proved that the expectations of performance in preschool and early
school ages reasoned that people are relatively more reluctant to disclose failures than success.

Preschool age children take into account outcome valence when reasoning about self-
disclosure of performance. Children predicted that performance self- disclosure would be
greater in a supportive versus unsupportive peer environment.

An increased awareness of the social costs of self-disclosure of successes during the early
school year likely contributes to school age-children’s greater recognition of the need to engage
in self-presenting behaviors.

School age children do not expect people to be reluctant about disclosing others successes. In
this study it shows that 6- 7 year olds children become more cognizant of the need to be
modest about one’s own successes, but not necessarily their own.

Study’s Weaknesses
 In preschool years, children believe that negative responses will impact how individuals share
performance information. With this belief it may be a part of children’s developing recognition
of the importance of the social environment on disclosure.

In the early school years, children come to understand the negative social ramifications of
disclosing performance information differently from younger children.

Older children are more sensitive to the socio-emotional experience of shame following failure
or tie these feelings to academic performance more than younger children; previous research
suggest that school-age children have a more complex understanding of shame than younger
children.

Social- Cognitive performance advances may contribute to children’s reasoning about self-
disclosure. In particular developments in children’s understanding of non-shared knowledge
and hidden emotions are associated with their reasoning about their reasoning about self-
deception and self-presentations.

Also in this study it suggest that 3- year olds already have the believe that performance self-
disclosure is less likely for failures and in the context of unsupportive peers, it is potentially
important to intervene on such beliefs in young children as they relate to encouraging students
self- disclosure and help seeking behaviors.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion this study revealed that children who succeeded would rather praise other kid’s
achievement than those who fail. Children don’t usually want to revealed their failures if they
did not achieve what they were supposed to achieve. This is true in life.

People young or old usually discussed or talk about their achievements rather than their
failures. Nobody wants to really brag about things they are not good at or things they did not
achieve.
REFERENCE