1/22
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
Question 1. Discuss one or more techniques used to study the brain in relation to behavior.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging): tracks blood‑oxygen changes as indirect measure of neural activity.
MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) with voxel‑based morphometry (VBM): structural imaging, grey‑matter density.
Localization of function: linking specific brain regions to behaviours.
Research:
Antonova et al. (2011): double‑blind, scopolamine vs placebo injection; fMRI during a virtual “Arena task” showed reduced hippocampal activation under scopolamine .
Maguire (2000): MRI/VBM comparing London taxi drivers vs controls; posterior hippocampal grey matter positively correlated with years driving .
Harris & Fiske (2006): fMRI of undergraduates viewing extreme out‑group images; amygdala and insula activated, medial PFC deactivated when viewing homeless/addicts .
Critical thinking:
Strengths: non‑invasive; high spatial precision; allows brain–behaviour correlations.
Limitations: low ecological validity (scanner constraints); high cost → small N; haemodynamic lag (poor temporal resolution); mostly correlational (no direct causality).
Different command terms:
SAQs:
Outline: name one technique and give a brief description.
Describe: explain how it works (e.g. fMRI measures BOLD signal).
Explain: link technique to a concrete finding (e.g. Antonova’s hippocampal result).
ERQs:
Evaluate: discuss strengths/weaknesses (e.g. spatial vs temporal trade‑off, cost).
Contrast: compare two techniques (e.g. fMRI vs EEG; MRI vs PET).
Question 2. Discuss localization of behaviour.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Localization of function: certain brain areas serve specific functions (e.g. hippocampus → memory encoding).
Case study: in‑depth analysis of individual brains.
Research:
HM (Milner, 1966): bilateral medial temporal lobectomy; anterograde amnesia for episodic/semantic memory, intact procedural memory .
Maguire (2000): taxi‑driver posterior hippocampal enlargement linked to spatial memory retrieval; anterior reduction linked to encoding new layouts .
LeVay (1991): INAH3 nucleus volume twice as large in presumed heterosexual men than homosexual men, suggesting structure–orientation correlation .
Critical thinking:
Strengths: converging methods (case study, quasi‑experiment, histology); clear structure–function links.
Limitations: small, non‑random samples; causality unclear (LeVay); patient consent/ethics in lesion studies; generalizability from atypical brains.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline localization theory plus one study; Describe HM’s memory pattern.
ERQs: Evaluate localization research; Contrast localization vs network‑based or holistic models.
Question 3. Discuss research on neuroplasticity.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Neuroplasticity: brain’s ability to structurally and functionally change with experience.
Long‑term potentiation (LTP): repeated activation strengthens synapses.
Neural pruning: elimination of unused synapses when practice ceases.
Research:
Draganski et al. (2004): jugglers vs non‑jugglers; MRI/VBM showed mid‑temporal grey‑matter increase after learning, followed by decrease three months after stopping .
Rosenzweig, Bennett & Diamond (1972): rats in enriched vs impoverished cages; enrichment increased cortical thickness and acetylcholine activity .
Maguire (2000): environmental demand (navigation) led to hippocampal grey‑matter changes .
Critical thinking:
Strengths: longitudinal designs; control groups; objective imaging; animal models allow causal links.
Limitations: small human samples; home practice compliance (Draganski); translation from animals to humans; ethical issues in animal deprivation.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline LTP and pruning; Describe one key study.
ERQs: Evaluate neuroplasticity evidence; Contrast structural vs functional plasticity methods.
Question 4. Discuss neurotransmitters and their effect on behaviour.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Neurotransmitter: chemical messenger (e.g. acetylcholine, serotonin).
Agonist/antagonist: enhances vs inhibits neurotransmitter action.
Cholinergic system: acetylcholine pathways critical for memory encoding.
Research:
Antonova et al. (2011): scopolamine (acetylcholine antagonist) vs placebo; fMRI showed reduced hippocampal activation and impaired spatial encoding under scopolamine .
Rogers & Kesner (2003): scopolamine‑injected rats in Morris Water Maze took longer to locate platform in early trials, implicating acetylcholine in acquisition .
Cases et al. (1995): MAOA knockout mice (serotonin breakdown enzyme) exhibited heightened aggression, linking serotonin dysregulation to aggressive behaviour .
Critical thinking:
Generalizability: animal results → humans?; drug dosages vs physiological levels.
Causality: experimental manipulation is strong, but route of administration (e.g. nasal spray, injection) differs from natural release.
Reductionism: behaviour arises from multiple factors—neurotransmitters are one variable among genetics, cognition, environment.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline one agonist/antagonist and its effect; Describe scopolamine’s role in memory.
ERQs: Evaluate neurotransmitter research; Contrast animal vs human neurotransmitter studies.
Question 5. Discuss ethical considerations in the study of the brain and behaviour
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Informed consent, confidentiality, protection from harm, debriefing.
3Rs in animal research: Replacement, Reduction, Refinement.
Research:
HM (Milner, 1966): ongoing consent issues, confidentiality in longitudinal case study with a vulnerable patient .
Antonova et al. (2011): scopolamine injections with potential side effects; fMRI stress; need for thorough debrief .
Rosenzweig et al. (1972): environmental manipulation in rats and eventual euthanasia for brain analysis; welfare concerns and justification required .
Critical thinking:
Human studies: balance scientific gain vs drug risks and scanner stress; strict screening and debrief mandatory.
Animal studies: must justify benefits vs harm; apply 3Rs; consider alternatives to invasive or terminal procedures.
Different command terms:
SAQs only: Outline key ethical principles; Describe one ethical issue in a brain study.
Question 6. Discuss the use of one research method in the study of the brain and behaviour
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Experimental method: IV manipulation, control of extraneous variables, random allocation, blinding.
Quasi‑experiment: naturally occurring IV, no random assignment.
Research:
Antonova et al. (2011): double‑blind, repeated‑measures drug experiment with fMRI; controls for individual differences and practice effects .
Newcomer et al. (1999): double‑blind, placebo‑controlled cortisol tablet dosing over four days; matched groups and strict screening .
Draganski et al. (2004): pre‑test/post‑test control group MRI experiment on juggling; clear manipulation but home practice compliance a confound .
Critical thinking:
Strengths: high control, replication possible, strong causal inference.
Weaknesses: artificial settings, demand characteristics, limited ecological validity, ethical constraints on dosing and deprivation.
Quasi‑experiments: useful when IV cannot be manipulated (e.g. taxi driving), but no random allocation → weaker internal validity.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline the method; Describe how Newcomer et al. implemented it.
ERQs: Evaluate the method’s strengths/limitations; Contrast experimental vs quasi‑experimental.
Question 7. Explain the role of one antagonist with reference to one study.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Antagonist: drug that blocks or reduces neurotransmitter activity (e.g. scopolamine).
Research:
Antonova et al. (2011): scopolamine (acetylcholine antagonist) injected before spatial‑memory task; fMRI showed reduced hippocampal activation and slightly impaired performance under scopolamine .
Critical thinking:
scopolamine dosing mimics cholinergic deficits; allows causal inference about acetylcholine’s role—but drug side effects and stress may confound results.
Different command terms (SAQs only):
Outline: identify scopolamine as an antagonist and its basic effect.
Describe: detail how scopolamine was used in Antonova’s fMRI study.
Explain: link scopolamine’s mechanism (blocking acetylcholine receptors) to reduced hippocampal activation and memory impairment.
Question 8. Explain the formation of neural networks with reference to one study.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Neural networks: interconnected neurons forming pathways strengthened by experience (LTP).
Research:
Draganski et al. (2004): grey‑matter increases in mid‑temporal areas after three months of juggling practice—interpreted as dendritic branching and new network formation .
Critical thinking:
VBM changes are indirect measures of network growth; small sample and home‑practice variability limit strength.
Different command terms (SAQs only):
Outline: state that juggling practice formed new neural networks evidenced by grey‑matter increase.
Describe: explain Draganski’s pre‑/post‑practice MRI design and results.
Explain: link repeated sensorimotor practice to LTP and observed structural changes.
Question 9. Explain neural pruning with reference to one study.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Neural pruning: elimination of unused synapses when stimulation ceases.
Research:
Draganski et al. (2004): three months after stopping juggling, previously enlarged mid‑temporal grey matter decreased—evidence of pruning when activity ceased .
Critical thinking:
indicates plasticity is reversible; but lack of direct cellular measures means pruning is inferred, not directly observed.
Different command terms (SAQs only):
Outline: mention that pruning follows cessation of practice.
Describe: detail the post‑practice MRI findings.
Explain: connect loss of use to synaptic elimination.
Question 10. Explain the role of one agonist with reference to one study.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Agonist: substance that enhances neurotransmitter or hormone activity (e.g. oxytocin).
Research:
Baumgartner et al. (2008): oxytocin nasal spray vs placebo before trust game; oxytocin group maintained investment levels after betrayal and showed reduced amygdala and caudate activation .
Critical thinking:
nasal‑spray route differs from endogenous release; fMRI environment artificial; but strong placebo control allows causal claims.
Different command terms (SAQs only):
Outline: identify oxytocin as an agonist that increases trust.
Describe: explain Baumgartner’s nasal‑spray, trust game, and fMRI findings.
Explain: link oxytocin’s receptor action to dampened fear response and sustained trust.
Question 11. Discuss the role of genes in one behaviour.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Gene–environment interaction (G×E): genes predispose, environment triggers.
Polymorphism: variation in DNA sequence.
Research:
Caspi et al. (2003): 5‑HTT short‑allele carriers showed more depressive symptoms after stressful life events vs long‑allele carriers .
Bailey & Pillard (1990): concordance rates for homosexuality: 52% MZ, 22% DZ, 11% adoptive brothers → genetic contribution .
Cases et al. (1995): MAOA knockout mice exhibited heightened aggression, implicating MAOA gene in aggressive behaviour .
Critical thinking:
G×E complexity: genes alone insufficient (e.g. short allele without stress → no depression).
Generalizability: twin and mouse models have limits.
Ethical implications: genetic explanations may stigmatize or absolve responsibility.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline G×E theory and one gene study; Describe Caspi’s design.
ERQs: To what extent do genes influence behaviour?; Evaluate genetic research (e.g. replication issues).
Question 12. Discuss how genetic similarities help psychologists in the study of genes and behaviour.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Twin studies: compare MZ vs DZ concordance.
Adoption studies: separate genetic from environmental effects.
Research:
Bailey & Pillard (1990): MZ vs DZ vs adoptive brothers’ homosexuality concordance .
Weissman et al. (2005): depressed vs non‑depressed twins showed high heritability of MDD, helping isolate genetic risk .
Critical thinking:
Strengths: naturally occurring genetic variance; powerful for heritability estimates.
Limitations: ascertainment bias (volunteer twins); shared environment confounds; assumptions about equal environments.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline twin/adoption designs; Describe findings from Bailey & Pillard.
ERQs: To what extent do genetic similarities aid research? (discuss validity and biases).
Question 13. Discuss one evolutionary explanation of one behaviour.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Evolutionary psychology: behaviours adaptive for survival/reproduction.
Sexual selection: mate preferences shaped by fitness indicators.
Research:
Wedekind (1995): “sweaty T‑shirt” MHC preference study—females preferred dissimilar MHC scents, enhancing offspring immunity .
Ronay & von Hippel (2010): male skateboarders took more risks in presence of an attractive female—showing risk‑taking as mate‑attraction strategy .
Critical thinking:
Strengths: novel predictions; cross‑species parallels.
Limitations: lab tasks low ecological validity; alternative social explanations; difficulty testing evolutionary hypotheses directly.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline one evolutionary theory and its prediction; Describe Wedekind’s T‑shirt method.
ERQs: Evaluate evolutionary explanation (supporting and opposing evidence).
Question 14. Discuss ethical considerations in the study of genes and behaviour.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Genetic privacy, stigma, determinism vs free will.
Research:
Bailey & Pillard (1990): sensitive data on sexual orientation may risk confidentiality breaches and stigma .
Caspi et al. (2003): genetic testing raises issues of informed consent, psychological harm if predisposition revealed .
Critical thinking:
Privacy & discrimination: genetic information can be misused by insurers/employers.
Psychological impact: learning predisposition may increase anxiety or fatalism.
Informed consent: complexity of explaining polygenic risk to participants.
Different command terms (SAQs only):
SAQs: Outline privacy/stigma concerns; Describe how Bailey & Pillard managed confidentiality.
Question 15. Discuss the use of one or more research methods in the study of genes and behaviour.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Correlational design, twin/adoption studies, animal transgenic models.
Research:
Bailey & Pillard (1990): twin/adoption questionnaires on sexual orientation .
Cases et al. (1995): transgenic “knock‑out” mice for MAOA gene; resident‑intruder aggression tests .
Caspi et al. (2003): longitudinal cohort correlational design on 5‑HTT alleles and life‑event stress .
Critical thinking:
Twin/adoption: high ecological validity, but sampling and self‑report biases.
Transgenic animals: causal inference, but ethical concerns and applicability to humans.
Correlational: no causality, but essential when manipulation impossible.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline one method; Describe Cases et al.’s animal model.
ERQs: Evaluate and contrast methods (e.g. twins vs transgenic mice).
Question 16. Explain the use of kinship studies (family studies) in the study of the inheritance of one behaviour, making use of one study.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Kinship studies: compare relatives with varying genetic relatedness.
Research:
Bailey & Pillard (1990): compared MZ twins (52% concordance), DZ twins (22%), adoptive brothers (11%) for homosexuality, illustrating genetic gradient .
Critical thinking:
Ascertainment bias: volunteer sampling of gay publications may skew concordance rates.
Self‑report validity: reliance on participants’ reporting of relatives’ orientation.
Different command terms (SAQs only):
SAQs: Outline kinship logic; Describe Bailey & Pillard’s findings.
Question 17. Discuss one hormone and its effect on human behaviour.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Oxytocin: neuropeptide influencing social bonding and trust.
Cortisol: glucocorticoid stress hormone affecting memory.
Adrenaline: catecholamine triggering emotional memory consolidation.
Research:
Baumgartner et al. (2008): oxytocin nasal spray maintained trust in a trust‑game despite betrayal and reduced amygdala activation .
Newcomer et al. (1999): high vs low cortisol tablets impaired vs spared verbal declarative memory over four days .
McGaugh & Cahill (1995): emotionally arousing story enhanced memory; propranolol (β‑blocker) blocked amygdala activation and eliminated memory benefit .
Critical thinking:
Administration vs endogenous release: non‑physiological routes; dosage issues.
Ecological validity: lab tasks vs real‑world stress or bonding.
Applications: PTSD treatment (β‑blockers), trust in economic contexts.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline one hormone’s role; Describe methodology of one study.
ERQs: Evaluate research on that hormone (strengths, limits, real‑world relevance).
Question 18. Discuss the potential role of pheromones in human behaviour.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Pheromone: chemosignal affecting conspecific behaviour.
MHC (major histocompatibility complex): immune genes linked to mate choice via scent.
Research:
Wedekind (1995): women rated T‑shirts of MHC‑dissimilar men as more pleasant; suggests MHC‑based mate preference .
Zhou (2014): AND and EST chemosignals influenced gender perception in heterosexuals; indicates subconscious pheromone effects .
Critical thinking:
Support: controlled lab evidence of scent preferences.
Limits: artificial T‑shirt exposure; cultural and individual differences; lack of clear human pheromone organ.
Ethical/privacy: collecting and using body odor without full awareness.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline pheromone concept and one study; Describe Wedekind’s T‑shirt protocol.
ERQs: Evaluate evidence for human pheromones (methodological and theoretical issues).
Question 19. Discuss the use of one or more research methods in the study of hormones and/or pheromones.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Experimental design, double‑blind, placebo control, olfactometry.
Research:
Baumgartner et al. (2008): double‑blind nasal‑spray oxytocin vs placebo with fMRI trust game .
Newcomer et al. (1999): double‑blind cortisol tablet dosing vs placebo on verbal memory .
Wedekind (1995): single‑blind T‑shirt scent rating by women, controlling for menstrual cycle .
Critical thinking:
Strengths: placebo controls, blinding reduce bias.
Weaknesses: artificial administration routes; ecological validity; individual variability in absorption.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline one method; Describe Wedekind’s design.
ERQs: Evaluate and contrast methods (e.g. nasal spray vs tablet vs scent rating).
Question 20. Discuss ethical considerations in the study of hormones and/or pheromones.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Informed consent, deception, physiological risk, privacy.
Research:
Baumgartner et al. (2008): oxytocin nasal spray may affect blood pressure/emotion; require medical screening .
Newcomer et al. (1999): high‑dose cortisol carries risk of mood changes and metabolic effects; debrief and monitor required .
Wedekind (1995): collection of body odor raises privacy concerns; participants must know odor used in mate‑choice experiments .
Critical thinking:
Hormone studies: risk–benefit analysis for drug dosing; ensure medical oversight.
Pheromone studies: respect privacy, avoid deception about odor collection/storage.
Different command terms (SAQs only):
SAQs: Outline consent and risk issues; Describe how Newcomer addressed safety.
Question 21. Discuss the value of animal models in the study of the brain and behaviour.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Animal models: non‑human subjects used to infer human processes.
Validity: construct, face, mechanistic, predictive.
Research:
Cases et al. (1995): MAOA knockout mice showed aggression mirroring human “warrior gene” findings .
Meaney et al. (1988): maternal grooming in rats led to epigenetic changes in stress response and cognitive aging .
Rosenzweig, Bennett & Diamond (1972): enriched environment increased cortical thickness and acetylcholine activity .
Critical thinking:
Strengths: causal manipulation of genes/experience; rapid lifespan allows lifespan studies; invasive methods impossible in humans.
Limits: anatomical/physiological differences; anthropomorphism; welfare concerns; translational gaps.
Different command terms (ERQs only):
Evaluate: weigh predictive and construct validity against ethical costs and species differences.
Contrast: compare animal vs human models in validity and applicability.
Question 22. Discuss whether animal research can provide insight into human behaviour.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Cross‑species generalizability, ethological validity.
Research:
Cases et al. (1995): parallels between MAOA deficiency in mice and aggression in humans (McDermott et al., 2009) .
Meaney et al. (1988): rat grooming epigenetics parallels human childhood adversity effects on hippocampal volume in PTSD (Vythilingam et al.) .
Critical thinking:
Support: similar neurochemical mechanisms; replication in human correlational studies.
Caution: behavioural complexity, consciousness differences, environmental context variation.
Different command terms (ERQs only):
Evaluate: discuss evidence for and against translational insight.
Contrast: animal vs human research strengths and limits.
Question 23. Discuss ethical considerations in animal research on the brain and behaviour.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
3Rs: Replacement, Reduction, Refinement; harm vs benefit.
Research:
Cases et al. (1995): genetic “knock‑out” causing suffering; need to justify aggression induction .
Meaney et al. (1988): maternal separation and eventual euthanasia for histology; welfare and humane endpoints required .
Rosenzweig et al. (1972): environmental deprivation as control condition; ethical need to minimize distress .
Critical thinking:
Ethical frameworks: cost–benefit analysis, institutional review boards, licensing, humane housing.
Alternatives: in vitro, computer modelling, non‑invasive human imaging where possible.
Different command terms (ERQs only):
Evaluate: weigh scientific benefits vs animal suffering.
Contrast: ethical considerations in invasive genetic vs environmental studies.