Assignment: Roles Within Family System

Assignment: Roles Within Family System
Assignment: Roles Within Family System
Discussion Question
Rosie’s mother has a drug problem and often sleeps well past the time her children need to get up for school. Rosie takes it upon herself to get her siblings up, give them breakfast, and get ready for school. She, being the oldest child, has been assuming more and more responsibility for tasks around the house.
Answer the following:
Which of the four most common roles in family systems do you think Rosie is taking on?
What are the potential long-term consequences for Rosie in taking on these heavy responsibilities?
What message do you think Rosie’s role as “second mom” sends to her siblings about Rosie and their mother?
To compare recognition performance by word-value, signal detection theory (SDT) measures A0 and B00D were used. Sensitivity measure A0 is a relatively non- parametric measure of one’s ability to distinguish old items from new items and ranges from 0.5 (chance guess- ing) to 1.0. This measure is favorable to proportion correct, because unlike proportion correct it is unconfounded with response bias (Stanislaw & Todorov, 1999). B00D is a mea- sure of response bias, with positive values here indicating a bias towards labeling an item as new. Both A0 and B00D were used in place of the traditional measures d0 and c, because they do not require the assumption that old and new distributions have equal variance, which is often sub- stantially violated in recognition memory (Glanzer, Kim, Hilford, & Adams, 1999). For a review of SDT measures and their calculation, see Stanislaw and Todorov (1999).
or tio
High-value Low-value
Results and discussion
Recognition performance Table 1 displays recognition performance from each
experiment. In Experiment 1, recognition sensitivity was significantly higher for high-value words (A0 = .77, SD = .09) than low-value words (A0 = .72, SD = .08), t(45) = 5.28, p < .001, d = 0.79. Likewise, response bias measure B00D was significantly lower for high-value items (M = ?0.23, SD = 0.56) than for low-value items (M = 0.02, SD = 0.58), indicating that participants were more likely to rate high-value items as old, t(45) = ?4.53, p < .001, d = ?0.67. Additionally, RTs for high-value words (M = 1866 ms, SD = 507 ms) were slightly faster than for low-value words (M = 2007 ms, SD = 530 ms), t(45) = ?2.71, p = .009, d = 0.40. Participants were better able to recognize high-value words, suggesting that these Table 1 Sensitivity and recognition bias by word-value for Experiments 1–3. Experiment Measure Word-value High Low Experiment 1 A’ .77 (.09) .72 (.08) B00D -0.23 (0.56) 0.02 (0.58) Experiment 2 Az .75 (.10) .72 (.10) B00D -0.03 (0.48) 0.05 (0.48) Experiment 3 Az .76 (.09) .70 (.08) B00D 0.29 (0.55) 0.41 (0.52) Standard deviations are presented in parentheses. words were encoded more effectively. These results are consistent with the findings of Adcock et al. (2006) who demonstrated an advantage of high-value images on a delayed recognition task similar value effect with images as stimuli. Recollection and familiarity Fig. 1 displays the proportion of high- and low-value items receiving either a remember or know response. The proportion of items receiving a remember response was significantly greater for high-value words (M = .49, SD = .19) than for low-value words (M = .40, SD = .17), t (45) = 3.65, p = .001, d = 0.54. In contrast, the proportion of items receiving a know response was not significantly different for high-value words (M = .27, SD = .14) than for low-value words (M = .27, SD = .12), t(45) = ?0.02, p = .985, d = ?0.003. Performance by response Next, we examined the accuracy of recognition based on remembering and knowing. As expected, remember responses (M = .79, SD = .13) were more likely than know responses (M = .54, SD = .14) to be correctly made for old items, t(45) = 10.29, p < .001, d = 1.52. Additionally, RTs on correct recognition trials were much faster for remem- ber responses (M = 1694 ms, SD = 436 ms) than for know responses (M = 2415 ms, SD = 700 ms), t(45) = ?7.51, p < .001, d = ?1.18. Overall, recognition based on remem- bering was much more accurate and faster than recogni- tion based on familiarity as has been demonstrated in previous studies (Eldridge, Knowlton, Furmanski, Bookheimer, & Engel, 2000; Reder et al., 2000). This study demonstrated that words that had been associated with high value were recognized more accu- rately than low-value words, and that this effect was pri- marily driven by increased recollection. In contrast, familiarity was not significantly affected by value. One lim- itation of Experiment 1 was that accuracy for Know responses was relatively low, perhaps because some sub- jects were operationalizing guesses as Know responses. .00 .20 .40 Remember Know M ea n Pr op Fig. 1. The proportion of high-value and low-value items that were given either a remember or know response at testing. Error bars represent two standard errors from the mean. J.P. Hennessee et al. / Journal of Memory and Language 94 (2017) 195–205 199 In Experiment 2 we used a more structured method of assessing familiarity using a 6-point scale, allowing us to examine the effect of value on high confidence familiarity responses.

Read more
Enjoy affordable prices and lifetime discounts
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Order Now Order in Chat

Ace your finals with our expert-written solutions. Order now at a 20% discount