Skip to main content
EnglandPsychologySyllabus dot point

Can a toy-like reward built into an inhaler improve how reliably children take their asthma medication?

Contemporary study: Chaney et al. (2004), A new asthma spacer device (the Funhaler) to improve compliance in children. Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the developmental area and operant conditioning.

An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to the contemporary developmental study, Chaney et al. (2004) on the Funhaler asthma spacer. Covers the aim, field-experiment method comparing the Funhaler with the standard inhaler, the compliance findings, operant conditioning, evaluation, and links to Bandura and the developmental area.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.814 min answer

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Jump to a section
  1. What this dot point is asking
  2. The answer
  3. Examples in context
  4. Try this

What this dot point is asking

Chaney et al. (2004) is the contemporary study in the developmental area for the theme "external influences on children's behaviour", paired with Bandura. You must know its aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluate it, and explain what it adds to the developmental area and how it compares with Bandura.

The answer

Aim and method

Parents completed self-report questionnaires about medication use and technique with each device, and a random phone call checked whether medication had been used the previous day.

Results and conclusions

Evaluation

  • Ecological validity. High: real families used the device at home, so behaviour was natural.
  • Application. Strong real-world value: an inexpensive design change measurably improved children's health behaviour.
  • Self-report bias. Heavy reliance on parental self-report, which may be inaccurate or socially desirable.
  • Sample and timescale. Small sample (32) and no long-term follow-up, so any novelty effect may fade.
  • Control. No fully controlled concurrent comparison group, weakening internal validity.

Examples in context

Example 1. Why this study fits the developmental area. The developmental area examines how experience shapes children's behaviour. Chaney shows that altering the consequences of a behaviour (making correct inhaler use rewarding) changes how reliably children perform it, so external reinforcement shapes a health behaviour. This is a direct, applied illustration of learning in development.

Example 2. The contrast with Bandura. Bandura shows children learn by observation and imitation (social learning theory), while Chaney shows they can be shaped by reinforcement (operant conditioning). Both are external influences on children's behaviour, but they work by different mechanisms, which is exactly the kind of classic-contemporary comparison OCR asks for, and lets you discuss how applicable each is to real life.

Try this

Q1. Identify the research method used by Chaney et al. [1 mark]

  • Cue. A field experiment (with a repeated measures element), conducted with families at home.

Q2. State the difference in reported previous-day medication use between the Funhaler and the standard inhaler. [2 marks]

  • Cue. About 81 per cent of parents reported using the Funhaler the previous day, versus about 59 per cent for the standard inhaler.

Q3. Explain one weakness of relying on parental self-report in this study. [2 marks]

  • Cue. Parents may give socially desirable answers (overstating compliance) or misremember, so the self-reported figures may not accurately reflect actual medication use.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of OCR exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

OCR 202010 marksDescribe the method and results of Chaney et al.'s (2004) Funhaler study. [10 marks]
Show worked answer →

A description item testing method and results (AO1).

Method: a field experiment (with a repeated measures element) on 32 Australian children (mean age about 3.2 years) who had been prescribed asthma medication via a standard spacer. Families used the existing inhaler, then trialled the Funhaler, a spacer modified with incentive toys (a spinning disc and a whistle) that reward correct, deep breathing. Parents completed self-report questionnaires about medication use and technique with each device, and a random phone call on a chosen day checked whether medication had been used the previous day.

Results: compliance was higher with the Funhaler. More parents reported medicating their child the previous day with the Funhaler (about 8181 per cent) than with the standard inhaler (about 5959 per cent), and significantly more children took the recommended number of breaths (about 8080 per cent achieved the recommended cycles with the Funhaler versus about 5050 per cent with the standard device). Parents also reported less stress at medication time.

Markers reward the field/repeated-measures design, the comparison of standard inhaler and Funhaler, the self-report and phone-check measures, and the key compliance figures (81 per cent versus 59 per cent; improved breathing technique).

OCR 202212 marksDiscuss how Chaney et al.'s (2004) study demonstrates the use of operant conditioning, and evaluate the study. [12 marks]
Show worked answer →

Tests the link to operant conditioning plus evaluation (AO1 and AO3).

Operant conditioning: the Funhaler provides positive reinforcement, because the spinning toy and whistle are rewarding only when the child breathes correctly and deeply, so the desired behaviour (effective inhalation) is strengthened and repeated. This applies learning theory to a real health problem.

Evaluation strengths: high ecological validity because it was used by real families at home; a useful real-world application improving children's health; and standardised self-report and phone-check measures.

Weaknesses: heavy reliance on parental self-report, which may be biased by social desirability or inaccurate memory; a small sample (32) and no long-term follow-up, so novelty effects may fade; and no fully controlled comparison group running concurrently.

A strong answer concludes that the study neatly applies operant conditioning to boost compliance with clear practical value, but self-report bias and the short timescale qualify the findings. Markers reward the operant-conditioning link plus balanced evaluation.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this