Issues and debates

Ethics

Guidelines

• Consent

• Confidentiality

• Right to withdraw

• Protection from harm

• Debrief

• Deception

Principles

• Integrity

• Responsibility

• Respect

• Competence

Ethics in social

• Consent: milgram - no informed consent, Cohrs - informed consent, sherif - not fully informed

• Deception: milgram - deceived (thought it was on punishment and learning), Cohrs - not deceived, sherif - deceived about purpose of summer camp

• Confidentiality: no issue

• Debrief: milgram - debriefed, Cohrs - unsure but didn’t need to, sherif - unsure

• Withdrawal: milgram - able to withdraw but after 5 prods, Cohrs - able to withdraw by not filling in questions, sherif - able to withdraw but didn’t know they were in a study so technically couldn’t but 3 boys went home due to homesickness

• Protection from harm: milgram - not protected due to real shock and stress, Cohrs - no harm, sherif - causes prejudice, name calling and fighting etc. and gave knives

Ethics in cognitive

• Consent: Schmolck - yes but used brain damaged patients so may be questionable, baddeley - yes

• Deception: shmolck + baddeley - no deception

• Confidentiality: shmolck + baddeley - kept confidentiality

• Debrief: shmolck + baddeley - unknown but no deception so not necessary

• Withdrawal: shmolck + baddeley - most likely yes but studies don’t mention it

• Protection from harm - no harm

Ethics in biological

• Consent: Brendgen - parents gave consent, kety - no consent but it is ok in danish law to use the medical records, Raine - people with brain damage might not be able to consent

• Deception: no deception

• Confidentiality: kept confidentiality

• Debrief: Brendgen + kety - unlikely, Raine - didn’t need to

• Withdrawal: Brendgen + kety - unlikely, Raine - not mentioned but they may be unable to withdraw given their mental state

• Protection from harm: Brendgen - possible harm from students being asked to think about physical and social aggression of people in their class/which could damage relationships, Kety - no issues, Raine - stopped medication for a week and injection of FDG

• Privacy: kety - viewing of medical records (but is legal)

• Animal studies like Beeman could be harmful due to castration and injecting testosterone.

• Olds & Milner and research into Kluver-bucy syndrome - they’d have to make sure they obeyed the rules about caring for animals and having them destroyed but we do this research on animals because it would be unethical on humans

Ethics in learning

• Consent: bandura - got consent from nursery, Becker - got consent from parents and participants, Watson and Rayner - got consent from Albert’s mother but it wasn’t fully informed

• Deception: no deception

• Confidentiality: bandura - not an issue, Watson and Rayner - little Albert was a pseudonym

• Debrief: bandura - not known but unlikely, Watson and Rayner - no but was removed before it could happen

• Withdrawal: bandura - not known but unlikely, Watson and Rayner - clearly wanted to by crawling away, his mother withdrew him from the study

• Protection from harm: bandura - children were exposed to aggressive role models which could’ve been upsetting and increased their aggression, Becker - those who scored high on EAT 26 were not given guidance to where they could receive help for their disordered eating behaviours, Watson and Rayner - Albert was upset

• Pavlov, Skinner’s rats etc could be harmful and they’d have to make sure they obeyed the rules about caring for animals and having them destroyed

Ethics in child

• UNCRC

• Consent: All involved children who cannot consent, however the parents will have given consent., Some studies have extra issues e.g., Genie and studies about Autism where there may be difficulties in understanding

• No deception

• Confidentiality: Identities were protected, e.g., Genie with a Pseudonym and no identifying factors in other studies e.g., Bowlby 44 thieves

• Debrief: Not mentioned but likely in some cases like Ainsworth, Not likely in Van Ijzendoorn because of secondary data (but we’re ok with that), Genie is unlikely, Not possible in Li

• Withdrawal: Children clearly wanted to in Ainsworth (and Van Ijzendoorn) - Parents could withdraw them, Not 100% possible in others like Genie and Bowlby. However, this was retrospective interview so probably not too much of an issue.

• Protection from harm: Ainsworth and Van Ijzendoorn would be upsetting to the children involved (parents could cut each section short in Ainsworth though), Genie’s research could have been stressful and upsetting for her - they were accused of putting research before her wellbeing - she was well cared for and fostered several times, Li was naturally occurring (as are all the privation studies so researcher isn’t responsible), Children with Autism might be easily upset e.g., change in routine etc in the various studies, and therefore this should be a concern

Ethics in rosenhan

• Consent - Doctors, nurses and patients had no informed consent (though the head of the hospital knew in study 2)

• Deception - lied about the symptoms being experienced

• Confidentiality - Identities of the hospitals and staff were protected (and pseudo patients given pseudonyms)

• Debrief - no real debrief

• Withdrawal - Hospitals, doctors, nurses and patients couldn’t withdraw as they were unaware they were in a study

• Protection from harm - Real patients may have lost time, attention and could’ve been distressed, staff could have been upset by the results, pseudo patients took psychoactive medication

Practical issues

• Generalisability - how applicable/ representative the sample is to the wider population

• Reliability - if you can repeat the study and get consistent results

• Validity - accurately measure the correct thing

• Internal validity - not effected by extraneous variables

• Ecological validity - how well the study can be applied to real life situations

Practical issues in sherif

• Field experiment/summer camp: high in ecological validity and mundane realism with tasks such as baseball which the boys would play normally

• Matched on sporting ability and IQ: reduced participant variables which would increase internal validity

• ‘Opportunity sample’: all had similar characteristics which could reduce generalisability of results about prejudice

• Recording, observation, experiments, sociometric data: Triangulation of results will have increased internal validity

• Didn’t know about study reducing demand characteristics and increasing validity, however, some boys when interviewed later claimed they guessed there was something going on. Which could have altered their behaviour and reduced validity of the results about prejudice

• Cost - summer camp for 2 weeks would be expensive

Practical issues in Milgram

• Volunteer sample – all shared similar characteristics so could reduce generalisability of results about obedience

• All male, from America – ethnocentric and androcentric so could reduce generalisability of results about obedience

• Lab experiment with clear control of extraneous variables such as experimenter and confederate – increases reliability and internal validity

• Task of electrocuting someone for incorrect answers does not reflect how obedience usually occurs in real life, reducing ecological validity and mundane realism

Practical issues in Baddeley

• Opportunity sample: all shared similar characteristics (psychology students from applied psychology unit) so could reduce generalisability of results of memory encoding. However, memory is a universal concept so it shouldn’t matter who takes part in the research.

• Independent measures reduced demand characteristics as participants wouldn't have the opportunity to guess what the study was about

• Hearing test given prior to study beginning, removing this extraneous variable increases internal validity

• Standardised procedure, including same interference tasks, increases reliability as the study could be repeated to check the consistency of the results about memory encoding

• Low mundane realism as recalling a word list in order is not representative of how memory works in the real world

• Words in jumbled order removes order effects, increasing internal validity

Practical issues in Schmolck

• Reliable: Since the study is a lab based it can be seen as highly replicable. There were high levels of standardisation in the study such as the pictures that were used, the exact timing of the procedures etc. and so the study could be easily repeated to check the results about semantic memory location for reliability.

• Group design: control group matched for age sex and education to control for participant variables. This makes the results about semantic memory and brain damage more valid because we know the results aren't due to those extraneous variables.

• Checked for inter-rater reliability when scoring the descriptions (using multiple researchers) which makes this part of the experiment more reliable

• The findings match up with other research about semantic dementia making the results more reliable

• Small sample of several unique individuals (6 people with brain damage) and as such the results about Semantic memory location cannot be applied to others because of their unique status.

• Lab experiment: different from everyday life, in real life you wouldn't use line drawings of animals and objects and so the study lacks mundane realism, this means the results about semantic memory can't be applied to real life.

• Cost - cost of doing scans

Practical issues in Raine

• Matched pairs with control group removes participant variables increasing internal validity but can’t match all things

• Small sample meaning the findings about brain differences and aggression might not be generalisable, but largest of its type up to this point which is a strength

• Brain scans are empirical increasing validity

• Brain scans are also replicable so results can be checked for consistency

• Raine identified there was some subjectivity in analysis, which could reduce the internal validity of the findings about brain differences in NGRI murderers

• Low ecological validity because during the murders the participants wouldn't have been in such a controlled setting, doing those tasks

• Cost of scans

Practical issues in Brendgen

• There was a 94% agreement between zygosity based on physical likeness and gene markers showing reliability for testing genetic links to aggression, increasing internal validity

• Large sample for twin studies of 234 twin pairs so is more generalisable meaning results about physical and social aggression are more generalisable to a wider population. However, the sample did not include enough of each type of twin of each gender to effectively study gender differences as initially planned

• Used measures by both the teacher and the students because it allows them to check the scores against each other getting inter-rater reliability

• Children were told not to share their answers which reduces demand characteristics, increasing internal validity
  Standardised method, e.g., questions on the PSBS-T, meaning we could repeat the procedure to check consistency of results about physical and social aggression

• Sometimes, often and never is subjective judgement which might lower the validity as different teachers may interpret these words differently

• Quantitative data doesn't provide lots of depth e.g., reasons for aggression in different situations etc. This means we don't get a lot of understanding on how/why the children demonstrated their aggression, reducing validity

• The cost of running a longitudinal study over 6 years would have been quite significant

Practical issues in Kety

• This study has a fairly large sample for an adoption study on Schizophrenia (as adoptees with Schizophrenia are rare) and covers a range of ages, from teenagers to men and women in their 40s. This makes the results about the nature and nurture of Schizophrenia more generalisable.

• However, ethnocentric: all of the Schizophrenic adoptees and their families from one location and culture (Denmark). This means the results about how genetics influences Schizophrenia might not apply to a wider population from other places

• Reliable procedure (of having the doctors rate the patients) and they replicated it in 1975, 1978 and 1994, adding interviews in as well. Since they got similar findings, this is test-retest reliability about the influence of genetics on Schizophrenia.

• High inter-rater reliability as there were 4 Psychiatrists doing the ratings for Schizophrenia in family medical records.

• “Schizophrenia spectrum" is a catch all category that doesn't measure Schizophrenia directly which reduces the validity of the findings as we might not be really measuring Schizophrenia any more.

Practical issues in Watson and Rayner

• Small sample meaning it may not be representative of the general population in terms of conditioning behaviours

• Also, Albert was descried as 'stoic and unemotional so may not be representative of the normal individual who has a wider range of emotions.

• Lab setting meaning extraneous variables could be controlled, for example, they Checked conditioning in a separate room to try and rule out room as an EV

• Low in mundane realism/ecological validity - this is not the usual way that a phobic response occurs in the real world

• Albert was only 9:11 months during study meaning he wouldn't display demand characteristics, increasing validity of the results about phobic responses

• Replicable methodology, e.g., striking the bar right number of times. This means the method could be repeated to check the consistency of the results about phobic responses

• Tested for phobias before conditioning as well as after so they could establish a clear cause and effect relationship, increasing internal validity

Practical issues in Bandura

• Matched pairs on aggression so individual difference of natural aggression will not impact on the results increasing validity as natural aggression as an extraneous variable will not impact results

• The nursery was a natural setting for the children so the study had ecological validity.

• Standardised as things like the Bobo doll and the model's actions were always kept the same. This is a strength because it can be replicated to see if the results about imitating aggression is reliable

• They used a large sample (of 72) so the results could be generalised to others.

• The sample contained both boys and girls so results apply to both genders.

• There was more than one observer through the mirror and the inter-rater reliability was tested and shown to be high.

• It was carried out in a lab setting with an unusual task of watching an adult attack a toy so this makes it artificial and lacking in ecological validity/mundane realism because it was a new and unusual setting.

• Children may have copied the behaviour outside of the experiment which raises questions about the validity of the scores (e.g., we may have missed stuff they did later on). This means we might not get a true picture of the influence the models had on the children.

Practical issues in Becker

• EAT:26 was a standardised questionnaire and scoring therefore reliable. This means we can repeat the procedure again using the same EAT:26 questionnaire to see if the results about the impact of TV are reliable

• Semi-Structured interviews have some set questions that and some which vary (therefore reliable and you can get more valid data with follow up questions). This means we can repeat the procedure again using the same questions to see if the results about the impact of TV are reliable

• High ecological validity because it took place in their real-world environments in the Fijian girl's normal lives.

• Naturally occurring so no harm caused by the researchers (some possibility of talking about this could be upsetting)

• Small sample of girls in the two years therefore may not be generalisable. This is an issue because we don't know how exposure to TV would impact on the body image/eating behaviour of people from other cultures (but the point was to study that culture).

• One issue is social desirability when answering the EAT26 and interview questions because they might lie to look 'good' about their eating behaviours. This is an issue because the impact of TV on body image etc. might not be valid if it isn't their true experience/feelings.

Practical issues in Pavlov

• Reliable: was standardised e.g. The stimulus being used and was in lab. This means we can repeat the procedure to see if we get the same results about dog's learning through association.

• Classical conditioning is an empirical theory as it is measured directly through behaviour e.g. How much saliva the dog produced, increasing validity of the results

• Research done on animals may not apply directly to humans . This means the evidence like Pavlov gathered on animals might not explain how human's learn reducing generalisability

• This took place in artificial lab settings e.g. The metronome/bell so it is low in mundane realism/ecological validity. The results gained by the process of classical conditioning in this study might not apply to how the dogs would learn behaviour in their everyday settings/lives

Practical issues in van ijzendoorn

• Large sample of 1990 children making it more representative to a wide population’s attachment types around the world

• Not ethnocentric as 8 different cultures including collectivise and individualistic were used making it more representative of worldwide effects of parenting on attachment

• Extraneous variables eliminated from the studies, e.g., age of children, special needs etc to make sure the results are comparable and this makes it more valid about how parenting/culture effects attachment

• Reliable/standardised: All used the same standardised strange situation (including the 3 types of attachment) which makes it more replicable: we can repeat a similar study to see if the results about culture and attachment are still reliable

• Some like China and UK only had one study (anomalies) so we don’t know if their results are really representative (one study might be a fluke): making the results about attachment types and culture less valid

• Ethnocentric procedure: The procedure doesn’t work for Japanese children causing validity issues

Practical issues in Ainsworth

• The behaviour e.g., separation anxiety being measured is controlled in a laboratory setting, so extraneous variables e.g., stranger behaviour that might alter the behaviour of the child are controlled or eliminated increasing validity

• The procedure is highly standardised meaning the results about reactions to strangers can be retested to see if it is reliable

• Multiple observers are used to judge the behaviour of the child during the episodes of the procedure, so there is high inter-rater reliability

• Low chance of demand characteristics from the children since they were being observed covertly (and young children are less likely to understand the study and so change their behaviour) :> more valid in findings about effects of a stranger/separation on child behaviour

• The situation is staged so natural behaviour is not measured in a realistic way meaning low ecological validity

Practical issues in Li

• Large sample of 1364 children from 10 different locations makes it more generalisable and so the results about effects of daycare are representative of a wider population

• Several measures were used e.g., Woodcock Johnson and PLS (triangulation) meaning they can support one another and increases the validity of the results about the effects of daycare

• Lots of EVs were eliminated e.g., maternal age which makes the results about the impact of daycare on cognition of the study more valid as other things which could affect it are eliminated

• Secondary data from NICHD was used which means it wasn’t conducted for the purpose of this study and there may be issues with how it was gathered which Li was not aware of/it was not designed perfectly, reducing validity of the findings

Practical issues in rosenhan

• All USA sample so ethnocentric – might not represent mental health facilities in other countries

• Also, only a small sample of hospitals, so individual factors at those hospitals could skew the results

• Variety of types of hospital though, e.g., private, run down, public adds variety to the sample, increasing generalisability

• High ecological validity because of hospital setting means behaviours would be natural and valid, with no demand characteristics from staff as they were unaware they were in a study.

• Standardised words given during initial phone call could be

• Bias in their notes may be possible which could reduce the validity of the findings about mental health facilities

Social sensitivity

• Refers to research that has negative implications beyond the research situation and may affect individuals or groups within society

• Is upsetting, society stigmatises or treats them differently or because of the negative consequences for them

Social sensitivity in social

• Situational theories like Agency and impact theory might result in the view that obedience isn’t the individual’s fault and therefore this could be social sensitive

• Authoritarian personality is an indicator of obedience which could lead to screening the population for people with those traits so could lead to prejudice.

• The research about culture and prejudice e.g., assimilative, multi-cultural, individual and collectivist could be socially sensitive as it suggests everyone from that culture is more likely to be prejudice

• Looking at situational factors related to prejudice e.g., group existence, competition, superordinate goals could be socially sensitive because they remove blame from people for their own actions

• Cohrs suggests personality factors such as RWA and SDO are indicators of prejudice which could lead to screening the population for people with those traits so could lead to racism.

Social sensitivity in Sherif

• Researching prejudice in general might be socially sensitive as it could become upsetting

• Focused on situational factors such as competition between the boys which causes prejudice. This could be socially sensitive because the research suggests that those who are prejudice are not culpable for their own behaviour.

• Certain groups could introduce competition, separate groups etc to cause prejudice based on the findings of Sherif’s research

• Socially sensitive because of the social control aspects of superordinate goals

• Sample of 11 year old boys in summer camp - might not apply beyond that

Social sensitivity in cognitive

• MSM: Could be influential with how schools are taught to teach/revise with students: which could be seen as socially sensitive

• How much each theory can explain dementia might be socially sensitive and upsetting for the people who have those with dementia in their families

• WMM: Dementia treatments not overloading their CE with many tasks and how family and NHS treat people with dementia

• Reconstructive: We can change people’s memories of events: using stereotypes to restructure schemas: therefore, socially sensitive if this can influence people

• Reconstructive: Rules about who can give testimony, how police can work e.g., questions they can ask (but they could use it to get false confessions etc)

• Influences whether we’re going to have people convicted etc also suggesting people have false memories might be socially sensitive

• HM: socially controlling in the way we treat people with brain damage/amnesia: socially sensitive because it suggests/influences how much these people are provided with help

• Schmolck could similarly said to be socially sensitive by telling us about the capabilities of people with specific brain damage (or semantic dementia)

• IQ - lead to immigrants being turned away

• MSM/ WMM/ Tulving - not socially sensitive because just about memory

Social sensitivity in biological

• Without confidentiality the participants of research into brain functioning or genes may be targeted by the media or public and labelled as violent or extreme, which may lead to little/no future participation and also could put the participant in danger.

• Hormones: we can alter hormones to increase and decrease aggression e.g., chemical castration, this could be socially sensitive for people if we can influence these things

• Evolution/Genetics: eugenics to alter genetic traits: this could be socially sensitive if we try to influence/alter this

• If we look at drug addiction as being biological/environmental or how much a person is responsible is going to be socially sensitive

• Drug treatment: controlled by the doctor/prescriber rather than the patient themselves

• Brendgen: if we figure out what is nature and nurture, we are more likely to alter nurture factors e.g., school programmes to lower social aggression amongst children: this research could be socially sensitive about what the child/parents/teachers are or are not responsible for or how they can be changed

Social sensitivity in Raine

• Socially sensitive if it is seen as influencing the decisions about culpability, guilt and responsibility of criminals which might influence whether they are found guilty or not

• Poor generalisability might mean that the findings don’t apply to a wider group of people and therefore there are less issues with social sensitivity

• However, we can’t scan for brain abnormalities on such a large scale so less likely to be socially sensitive

• We’re unable to influence brain activity (so far) and therefore it will be less socially sensitive

Social sensitivity in psychodynamic

• Can be used in advertising to appeal to unconscious: this could be socially sensitive if people are being sold things they don’t want/are bad for them

• ‘Blames’ parents for their children’s behaviour, relationships etc so is socially sensitive

• Influence of unconscious has impact on culpability for actions/crimes

• Tells parents how to raise children

Social sensitivity in learning

• Classical conditioning:

  • Aversion therapy for homosexuality and alcoholism

  • Could be used to create phobias in people

  • Advertising or public health messages can be considered a form of classical conditioning through association of a product to positive outcomes

  • Aversion therapy is a treatment which uses classical conditioning principles to attempt to socially control: so is a socially sensitive issue

  • People normally opt for these treatments so not socially controlling: not socially sensitive

• Operant conditioning:

  • Reward and punishments can be applied directly to alter the behaviour of people against their will

  • Schools (and prisons and mental health hospitals) can use strategies such as token economy programmes to change the behaviour of pupils in schools which helps society to some extent: but it is a socially sensitive issue if we’re controlling the behaviour of people

  • Treatments of phobias are socially sensitive…but people opt for them so probably fine

• Slt/ bandura/ Becker

  • Watershed/advertising rules/ age restrictions e.g., banning cigarette adverts: socially sensitive for people (for or against doing this)

  • altering role models to change desired behaviours: socially sensitive to suggest people have

    to change their behaviour

Social sensitivity in Watson and Rayner

• Found a child could be conditioned to fear various stimuli, this could be used to condition society to buy products / link to advertising. This is therefore socially sensitive as it can be used to change people's behaviour

• Can also link Watson and Rayner to the points about CC

Social sensitivity in child

Ainsworth:

• Stigma on avoidant children - parents are labelled as ‘neglectful’

Daycare:

• Pressure on parents/ parents feel bad

• Li - effects of poor quality daycare

• Good that the research is being done

Bowlby/ deprivation:

• Mothers shouldn’t work

• Over focus on mothers

Autism:

• ABA - some behaviour they do are ‘unacceptable’/ try to gets them to change

• Characteristics of autism male bias

• Refrigerator parenting

Social sensitivity in clinical

• The Four Ds of mental illness are socially sensitive because who decides what level of dysfunction, distress etc is important

• DSM & ICD: what is and is not a mental health disorder (homosexuality, transgenderism, types of Schizophrenia, Asperger’s, the bereavement clause for depression) is socially sensitive

• Cultural differences in illness are socially sensitive because it influences whether someone is ‘really seen as ill’

• Validity and Reliability of diagnosis are massive issues of social sensitivity because people are being labelled, stigmatized and treated differently based on what doctors say and if this isn’t ‘true’ it is socially sensitive

Social sensitivity in rosenhan

• Rosenhan showed patients admitted wrongly (saying they had symptoms they did not and then acting normally) were not recognised as not having schizophrenia or a mental health disorder.

• Rosenhan's study showed the participants/patient as losing control in not being 'allowed out'.

• Stigma of mental illness could cause social sensitive issues

• Normal behaviours interpreted as mental illness ones shows the issues of social sensitivity which comes with diagnosis

• Times have changed since this study though so perhaps we’d see less social sensitivity

• May only be applicable to US culture so perhaps not socially sensitive

Development of social psychology knowledge

• Agency (strength)→ Social Impact (strength, immediacy, number)

• Authoritarian → Multiple personality theories

• Milgram → Burger – obedience levels have remained consistent

• Realistic conflict theory (competition) → Social Identity theory (not just competition, just having two groups is enough)

Development of sherif

• Repeated multiple times with different results

• Tells us mere contact didn’t work we needed superordinate goals

• Conflict causes prejudice

• RCT → Social identity theory

Development of cognitive psychology knowledge

• MSM (short term memory is one store) →WMM (STM is made up of 3 stores)

• WMM→ WMM (2000) with episodic buffer

• Reconstructive taught us about the importance of reconstruction/introduced concepts of schemas

• Reconstructive (memories are not reliable) → EWT research like Loftus showed language impacts memory recall → Cognitive interviews created to counter issues impacting accuracy of memory

• MSM (LTM is one store) → Tulving (LTM is at least 2 stores)

• HM shows: role of hippocampus, different stores between STM & LTM → MSM

• HM → Schmolck shows where semantic knowledge is in the hippocampus e.g., ALTC

• Tulving suggested LTM had a part which was semantic memory → Schmolck developed our understanding by finding the location of semantic memory - anterolateral temporal cortex

Development of Baddeley

• Showed the encoding of LTM

• Two pilot studies to discover the best way to test LTM

• We still use similar experiments now, eg word lists

• Baddeley went on to look at WMM after this

• HM showed there were two different stores before this

Development of biological psychology development

• Darwin (sexual selection, survival of the fittest) → evolutionary explanation of aggression (all to ensure genetic line is continued)

• Psychodynamic (Id, Ego, Superego) → Biological explanations of aggression

• Evolution → discovery of genes

• Discovery of testosterone (1935)→ hormones and aggression

• NT discovered (1921) → explanation of drug addiction → treatments → rat park

• Phineas Gage → Brain explanations → Raine

• Brendgen: one of the first looking at social aggression concordance

• Kety found concordance of Schizophrenia

• We still use twin studies & adoption studies

• Invention and development of brain scans

Development of Raine

• Phineas Gage → Brain explanations → Raine

• Case studies → brain scans

• Raine's findings (PFC, amygdala etc) were developments

• Phrenology → brain areas being responsible for behaviour

Development of learning psychology

• Pavlov → CC → Watson & Rayner

• Watson & Rayner → Phobia treatments

• Systematic desensitisation → VR therapy

• CC → Aversion therapy

• CC → OC

• Skinner → OC

• OC → ABA/Token economies

• Bandura (1961) → SLT

• Bandura (1965) introduced Vicarious reinforcement

• Bandura 1961 → bandura 1963 → TV violence → Becker

Development of Watson and Rayner

• Pavlov → CC → Watson & Rayner

• Watson & Rayner → Phobia treatments

• Systematic desensitisation → VR therapy

• CC → Aversion therapy

• CC explanation of phobias still a key one

Development of child psychology

• DSM has changed over time, with the most recent DSM-5, by modifying diagnostic features to account for evidence regarding developments in mental health issues → The DSM-5 has consolidated autistic disorder, Asperger's disorder and pervasive developmental disorder into autism spectrum disorder to represent a single continuum of mild to severe impairments, showing understanding of mental health/developmental disorders have changed over time

• Lorenz - critical period + Harlow - secure base → Bowlby built on that and applied to humans

• Bowlby’s critical period → key workers to care for children

• Ainsworth 3 types of attachment (strange situation) → main and Solomon say that there’s 4 types of attachment/ Kagan - child’s temperament

• Ainsworth → van ijzendoorn taught us about cross cultural differences and similarities

• Baron-Cohen - extreme male brain → frazer did brain scans

• Refrigerator parenting caused autism → theory of mind

• Theory of mind → extreme male brain/ genetic

• Bowlby - critical period and separation → Rutter - not separation

• 44 thieves → ASCMI

• PDD → Robertson and Robertson

• Campbell - good quality care rules

• NICHD → Li - shows impact on cognitive development

Development of rosenhan

• Institutions → hospitals/treatment

• DSM updates

• DSM still in use

• ICD → DSM

• Rosenhan → Szasz

• Medical model still in use

• Drug treatment still use

• Still a stigma on mental health

• Still V& R issues in diagnosis

Nature vs nurture

• Nature - effect of biology on our behaviour and characteristics

• Nurture - effect of environment on our behaviour and characteristics

• Interactionist approach - both nature and nurture have an influence on our behaviour

Nature vs nature in social psychology

Nature:

• Blass found little difference between obedience cross-culturally which suggests that a nature explanation underpins obedience to a certain extent.

• Personality factors such as OCEAN can play a role in levels of prejudice or obedience

• According to social psychology we have evolved to be part of groups

• Agency theory claims we have evolved to follow a hierarchical structure

Nurture:

• Culture e.g., individual or collectivist, assimilative and multi-cultural show that nurture is an issue as environment does play a part in whether an individual is prejudice or obedient

• Milgram’s variations show differences in obedience and conformity as a result of proximity and status which can, to an extent, be used to reduce situations result in blind obedience.

• Agency theory shows the environment (presence of an authority figure) are evidence of nurture’s influence

• Social Impact Theory suggests the number of sources and targets can influence obedience in group situations, therefore the environment can play a significant role.

• Social Identity Theory is about how the groups you’re in effect your behaviour (nurture)

• Social psychology explains human behaviour through the influence of groups and personality.

• Humans have evolved to be social beings (which is why social groups/interactions are so influential)

Nature vs nurture in sherif

Nature:

• RCT: scarce resources and zero-sum game etc are displayed in the experiment and shows the effects of nature

• Rivalry, competition etc might come from evolution (fighting over resources)

Nurture:

• Superordinate goals reduced the conflict and this shows the effect of environment

• Males are often more competitive than females but this could be due to factors of nature or nurture

• The results might have been different in another culture: the effect of nurture... or the same (so nature).

• Social identity theory is about how groups you’re in effect your behaviour as we saw in the boys groups

Nature vs nurture in cognitive psychology

Nature:

• The case of HM supports the existence of nature affecting the memory as he was unable to remember new factual information after surgery.

• Schmolck: semantic memory is held in the anterolateral temporal cortex

• Memory is encoded and stored in the brain

• Dementia: plaques and tangles are biological

• Individual differences could be biological e.g., Dyslexia

Nurture:

• Clive Wearing supports nurture to a certain extent because an illness prevented new memories being stored.

• Peterson & Peterson showed the influence of rehearsal on short term memory which is a nurture factor that can be applied to some extent to improving student learning.

• Cognitive psychology attempts to explain how memory works using models such as the multi store model which emphasises nurture in the need for attention and rehearsal.

• Schemas come from the environment/life experience

Nature vs nurture in baddeley

Nature:

• The case of HM supports the existence of nature affecting the memory as he was unable to remember new factual information after surgery e.g.. the two stores of memory which Baddeley then looked at therefore could be nature

• If the encoding is the same for everyone it would indicate the effects of nature (as universal things often are)

Nurture:

• Peterson & Peterson (1959) showed the influence of rehearsal on short term memory which is a nurture factor that can be applied to some extent to improving student learning, that Baddeley stopped with interference tasks

• MSM emphasises nurture in the need for attention and rehearsal.

Nature vs nurture in biological psychology

Nature:

• Evolution shows that many traits are coming from your genetics

• Brain structures and activities effect behaviour e.g., high activity in Amygdala leads to violence therefore nature

• Hormonal influence is due to nature

• Raine matched them on Schizophrenia (a biologically based illness) which takes into account biology

• Euphoria produced when taking recreational drugs could be argued it is due to biological changes in the brain

• Kety showed Schizophrenia is genetic

• Brendgen showed that physical aggression was due to nature (MZ had a higher concordance than DZ)

Nurture:

• Genes are selected for based on the environment you are in (EEA) which means nurture plays an important role

• The strength/activity/size of a person’s brain are affected by environmental factors (brain plasticity/cause and effect argument) which shows the importance of nurture

• Raine identified we don’t necessarily have cause and effect in his study (environment could cause the brain differences)

• Drugs influence Dopamine etc which could be seen as nurture

• ‘Rat Park’ (Alexander) shows that the environment is important for addiction therefore nurture

• Brendgen showed that social aggression is due to nurture (MZ and DZ concordance similar)

Nature vs nurture in Raine

Nature:

• Brain structures and activities effect behaviour e.g., high activity in Amygdala leads to violence therefore nature

• Raine matched them on Schizophrenia (a biologically based illness) which takes into account biology

Nurture:

• Learning approach is an opposing view for aggression and addiction which shows nurture... Which biological obviously ignores

• Raine identified we don't necessarily have cause and effect in his study (environment could cause
  the brain differences)

Nature vs nurture in learning

Nature:

• Pavlov shows that animals learn through CC (like humans do too) therefore nature

• The UCS → UCR relationship is a natural reaction and therefore due to nature

• The reward' gained through reinforcement might be linked to the dopamine in the brain showing nature could be a role

• Evolutionary phobias are naturally occurring phobias designed to aid survival, e.g., fear of heights

• Flooding works because the sympathetic nervous system cannot remain in the alarm state and therefore shows the impact of nature

Nurture:

• Learning theory is all about learning from the environment which shows the effects of nurture

• CC: associating two environmental stimuli (nurture)

• OC: the effect of reinforcement (nurture)

• SLT: the effects of role models and observation (nurture)

• Vicarious reinforcement is nurture from watching others being rewarded

• SLT uses attention (to the environment)

• Flooding and systematic desensitisation work using environmental stimuli

• Becker shows that body image can be learned through media (nurture)

• Bandura & the influence of media are nurture

• Drug addiction: could be nurture reward (OC), role models (SLT) and association (CC)

Nature vs nurture in Watson and Rayner

Nature:

• The UCS → UCR relationship is a natural reaction (e.g., Albert responding with fear and shock to the pipe banging) and therefore due to nature

Nurture:

• Learning theory is all about learning from the environment which shows the effects of nurture

• CC: associating two environmental stimuli (nurture)

Nature vs nurture in child

Nature:

• Bowlby focuses on evolution

• Kagan argues it is due to temperament so nature

• Secure the most common attachment type therefore nature

• We see the same 3 attachment types worldwide and secure most common in all cultures

• Deprivation seems to be universal so could be nature

• Critical periods (Genie for language and Bowlby for attachment) nature: but needs nurture to develop those skills

• Autism EMB is biological

Nurture:

• Bowlby looks at relationships with parents and upbringing= nurture

• IWM is a nurture concept

• Ainsworth looks at the influence of parents on attachment type

• Cultural variations in attachment would suggest nurture

• Deprivation however is clearly caused by environmental factors

• Privation shows the effects of nurture

• Overcoming privation like children in the studies is nurture

• The effects (positive and negative) of Daycare show nurture is important

• Li: cognitive development effected by nurture

• CBT and ABA both use nurture/learning to change the autism behaviours

Nature vs nurture in rosenhan

Nuture:

• Cultural differences in illness are due to nurture e.g., some people in other cultures might not have seen the symptoms reported as being Schizophrenic

• Social norms (e.g., around the typical behaviours of Schizophrenia) are nurture

• The environment and the diagnosis (and how the pseudo-patients were treated) were influenced by the environment (nurture)

Nature:

• Drugs work by altering biology

Culture and gender

• Gender - whether you are male or female, influenced strong by biology and socialisation - this might influence traits/ behaviour

• Ethnocentric - study one culture

• Collectivist - part of a group

• Individualistic - act individually

• Androcentric - study males only

• Gynocentric - study females only

• Alpha bias - differences between men and women are exaggerated

• Beta bias - differences between men and women are minimised

Culture and gender in social

• Milgram: only on males, so androcentric and therefore agency theory might not apply equally to women as it was developed based on his original study and variations, only 1 of which involved females.

• Burger however showed that women had equal levels of obedience

• Burger was looking for differences between the genders and so wasn’t guilty of beta bias

• Milgram and Burger both in the US/individual country and therefore might not apply to a collectivist culture

• Different cultures e.g., collectivist culture, might have different levels of obedience

• OTOH meta-analysis by Blass indicated little cultural difference

• Prejudice also varies across culture e.g., assimilative culture vs multi-cultural ones

• RCT seems to apply in many places around the world e.g., US and middle east therefore might not be affected by culture

• Social Identity theory might apply even more in collectivist cultures since they’re focused on group identity

Culture and gender in sherif

• Sherif used only males in his research which may not apply to females

• Sherif experienced both Turkish and American cultures so may have interpreted the findings with a more varied understanding of cultural differences

• However, Sherif was still likely to have interpreted his findings using an individualist outlook so may be ethnocentric/Eurocentric

• Sherif used cooperative tasks such as collecting beans and tug of war which may be applicable to both individualist and collectivist cultures

• Sherif was carried out in an American state park so implications about reducing prejudice through cooperation may only be representative of US/Western culture

• Prejudice also varies across culture e.g., assimilative culture vs multi-cultural ones

• RCT seems to apply in many places around the world e.g., US and middle east therefore might not be affected by culture

• Social Identity theory might apply even more in collectivist cultures since they're focused on group identity

• Sherit used male focused procedure including tasks like baseball and tug or war, for the reward of a pen knife. He then made generalisations about prejudice and SOGs to everyone, meaning there is beta bias in his work.

Culture and gender in cognitive

• Theories of memory are mostly considered to be universal so shouldn’t be affected too much by culture and gender

• Sebastian Hernandez-Gil however suggests the capacity of STM is different for Spanish people (since their pronunciation of numbers takes longer)

• Reconstructive could be affected by culture and gender because the schemas might be different for different groups which would impact on their memories (but the actual process/theory is probably very similar)

• HM shows hippocampus makes new LTM therefore we wouldn’t expect much difference between gender and culture

• Schmolck shows the same thing about the location of semantic memory…though she didn’t particularly look for gender differences

Culture and gender in baddeley

• Theories of memory are mostly considered to be universal so shouldn't be affected too much by culture and gender

• Sebastian Hernandez-Gil however suggests the capacity of STM is different for Spanish people (since their pronunciation of numbers takes longer) so perhaps encoding could be too

• Procedure shouldn't see too much ethnocentrism/gender bias

• The word lists used might be influenced by language e.g., in non-phonemic written languages like Kanji

• Sample used both males and females so the encoding of STM and LTM should apply to both

• Sample was ethnocentric

• Didn't look for gender differences

Culture and gender in biological

• Biological things shouldn’t be affected by culture too much because they should be biological

• NT research about drug addiction shouldn’t be affected by culture or gender

• Brain activity differences in causing aggression shouldn’t be different between culture and gender because it is biologically based

• Hormones do differ between genders and we look at this in our explanations of aggression (males being more aggressive)

• However, we might be downplaying differences in how hormones work differently in males and females (if it’s more difficult than just testosterone)

• Evolutionary theory acknowledges and tries to explain gender differences

• Evolution ignores cultural differences in aggression assuming that people should be the same around the world e.g., ignoring differences between Kung-San and Yanomamo

• Brendgen tried to look for gender differences but didn’t have enough of a sample to do so

• Brendgen is ethnocentric because only focused in the US

• Brendgen did find differences between males and females (but wasn’t statistically significant)

Culture and gender in Raine

• Brain activity differences in causing aggression shouldn't be different between culture and gender because it is biologically based

• However, Amygdala levels may vary between genders because of testosterone influence

• Tasks in Raine (continuous performance task/visual performance task were neither culturally or gender biased

• Sample of 41 participants and 41 controls was ethnocentric: all from the US therefore what they found might not apply equally in other cultures

• NGRI sample was gender biased however this might have been because men are more likely to be NGRI murderers

Culture and gender in psychodynamic

• Freud does talk about gender differences e.g., Oedipus complex vs Elektra complex, and how that leads to differences in personality e.g., female gender identity being less stringent

• Doesn’t explain gender differences in aggression

Culture and gender in learning

• CC, OC and SLT should all be universal

• Gender and cultural groups might be influenced differently by different types of reinforcers

• •reatments for phobias work well with both genders and in many cultures

• Becker was gender biased only focusing on females so we have little evidence about how the media influences males/if it does in the same way/what it does to their body image

• Becker was ethnocentric (but they were studying the influence of culture so perhaps that is expected)

• Bandura and Becker together show that SLT is applicable in different cultures

• Bandura used both males and females and looked for differences between them so certainly not beta biased

• They did find gender differences e.g., males played with toy gun more

• Males did have higher aggression than females

Culture and gender in Watson and Rayner

• Only used a male sample therefore how we develop phobic responses might not apply to females

• Only from the US therefore how we develop phobic responses might not apply to other cultures

• CC works with animals so it should be fairly universal across genders and cultures

Culture and gender in child

• Bowlby doesn’t talk about gender differences so might show beta-bias

• Attachment being based on evolution (social releasers etc) means it should be universal and not influenced by culture

• Bowlby 44 thieves and Robertson and Robertson both used males and females but didn’t look for gender differences

• Ainsworth used both gender of babies/not gender biased

• Only used mother and baby pairs though so might apply differently to father relationships (same in Van Ijzendoorn)

• Procedure might not apply to other cultures equally (who are less used to be left with strangers/more used to it)

• Ainsworth’s labels and ideas about parental sensitivity might be culture bound e.g., ‘avoidant’ could be labelled differently in Germany

• We see some cultural differences in attachment types (Van Ijzendoorn and other studies) which we need to acknowledge

• Cross-Cultural studies are good because they obviously show influence of culture

• Van Ijzendoorn showed that procedure might not work equally in all cultures e.g., SS in Japan

• However, there was more differences within culture than across so might not be a cultural issue

• Van Ijzendoorn used both collectivist and individualistic cultures so no culture bias

• However, many more individualistic cultures than collectivist (18 were from USA particularly)

• Privation research has been done with both males and females (Genie and Czech twins) so shows the effects impact on both (we could argue about gender differences but it’s more an individual thing e.g., Genie didn’t recover but the girls in Freud & Dann did)

• Li was only in the US so its findings might not apply to daycare situations in other cultures

• Daycare in general is different from culture to culture so we have to acknowledge that before making judgements about the effects of it

• Autism affects males more than females and so that needs to be acknowledged when researching or perhaps females are underdiagnosed and we see that in the research

• ToM explanation doesn’t really explain gender differences

• EMB does acknowledge and explain gender differences (males more likely to be exposed to testosterone in womb)

• ABA and CBT shouldn’t have issues of gender or culture

Culture and gender in ronsehan

• Rosenhan had a mix of males and female participants so may be more representative of both genders

• Rosenhan’s (1973) participants infiltrated 12 hospitals in five American states with a variety of funding and conditions so is representative of American hospitals

• However, American mental hospitals in the 1970s may have been very different to those in collectivist cultures

• Behaviours might have been interpreted differently by the doctors in another culture

• Pseudo-patients in Rosenhan’s (1973) study complained of hearing voices which may not be a symptom of mental illness in some cultures

• Reliability/validity of mental disorders affect both genders so the implications of Rosenhan (1973) may be accurate and useful

• Implications about the reliability/validity of diagnosis from Rosenhan (1973) are relevant to the DSM which is not a universal diagnostic tool

Science

• Reductionism - Simplify/ break down to component parts

• Paradigm - shared view on how the world works

• Controls - get rid of EVs/ other things that effect results

• Empiricism - directly measurable

• Internal validity - accurately measuring the correct thing

• Cause and effect - we know change in IV cause so change in DV

• Falsification - able to be proven wrong

• Reliability - repeat procedure again to see if we get consistent results

• Objectivity - not open to interpretation

• Hypothesis testing - idea → theory → test → support

Science - milgram

• Were objective and empirical (% giving shock)

• Controlled due to artificial setting (lab in Yale University)

• Internal validity: didn’t know the purpose was really about obedience reducing DCs

• Testing hypotheses: about situation and obedience

• Reductionist in what they were measuring (electric shocks % is not all obedience could be seen as)

• Reliable: because of standardisation e.g., same learner, same shock machine

Science - sherif

• Falsifiable: his theories about competition and superordinate goals could have been unsupported showing it is unfalsifiable

• Reductionist: simplifying prejudice down to this situation about similar boys in competition and measuring name calling

• Testing hypotheses about competition and superordinate goals

• Field experiment carried out at Robber’s Cave so less control e.g., EVs could be a factor

• Some things could be objectively measured e.g., bean counting task but others were qualitative in nature e.g., observations and audio analysis of friendships, and so might be subjective

• Behaviour can be measured empirically e.g., name calling, but prejudice and friendship might be harder

• Some tasks/procedures were standardised and therefore replicable e.g., tasks given to all boys

• Was repeated 3 times over the years with different results – lacks reliability

• Boys didn’t know the true purpose to eliminate DCs however some argument the counsellors antagonised/egged them on

• Boys were all very similar (e.g., all protestant, similar IQ) to eliminate EV of pre-existing prejudice

Science - cognitive

• Uses Lab experiments (Baddeley, Schmolck, Miller, Parkin, Robbins etc etc): which meet most of the criteria

• Modern Cognitive Psychology uses brain scanning e.g., Parkin, tests before Schmolck study which are empirical, objective (mostly), test hypotheses, reliable, controlled etc

• Cognitive also uses case studies: which have lots of EVs (due to lack of control and therefore lower internal validity), are less able to be repeated, might be subjective (depending on methods/data gathered), get triangulation (increasing internal validity), May not have a hypothesis to test

• Mental models of memory are not entirely empirical (we rely on lists of words etc rather than testing memory directly): schemas also

• But these sorts of behaviours are objective and empirical (no of words recalled as % etc)

• CE couldn’t be found empirically

Science - baddeley and Schmolck

• Falsifiable: testing theories about encoding and brain location which could be proven wrong

• Reductionist: simplifying memory down to simple lists to be recalled and activities e.g., naming pictures

• Testing hypotheses about encoding/word similarity and location of damage in brain

• Some things could be objectively measured e.g., words recalled but others were qualitative in nature e.g., descriptions of objects and animals (which were turned into a numerical score and IRR to improve objectivity)

• Words recalled/correct and incorrect can be measured empirically

• Standardised: timings, activities etc

• Both highly controlled e.g., hearing test and jumbled word lists, tasks given and matched pairs which gives better internal validity

Science - biological

• Lots of Lab experiments like Raine, Beeman etc means scientific

• Uses correlations (e.g., relationship between aggressions and testosterone levels) which has EVs, problems with cause and effect, internal validity etc

• All empirical and can be measured objectively (hormones, brain activity/glucose level, gene testing, blood tests etc), however it is much harder to test evolution in the same ways since it’s a post hoc theory

• Brendgen used opinion measures on aggression which isn’t objective/empirical

• Falsifiable: again, all theories except evolution (even using twin studies and adoption studies)

• Kety’s blind test helps show it was falsifiable because it was objective

• Reductionist: ignores environment, Brain activity focuses on individual parts not interplay between them, only looking at hormones alone instead of in interaction with other factors

• Testing hypotheses: All studies are doing this Brendgen for example was about social aggression and physical aggression relationship to one another and nature/nurture

• Control: Matched pairs in Raine, blind study in Kety

• Replicability/ Reliability: Raine could repeat brain scans to check for reliability

• Internal validity: You can’t really show DCs with many of these studies like Kety and Raine. Also controls like matched pairs removed EVs

Science - Raine

• Lab experiment and Brain scans are going to meet most of the criteria

• Empirical: testing brain activity/glucose metabolism/radiation therefore empirical

• Objective – scans are an objective measure but Raine identifies that the brain activity in PET scans is interpreted by a specialist and that can be subjective e.g., how do you know why its lighting up?

• Hypothesis testing: yes, about brain activity in NGRI murderers

• Falsifiable: yes, because they could have found no difference in brain activity disproving the hypotheses

• Reductionist: looks at individual brain regions rather than as a whole

• Controls: Matched on various things e.g., age, gender and Schizophrenia but not everything e.g., handedness, race, brain damage

• Reliable/replicable: Yes standardised

• Internal Validity: Can’t really be affected by DCs, EVs eliminated in Lab

Science - psychodynamic

• Uses case studies, interviews, projective tests, inkblots and dream analysis: which pretty much don’t meet any science criteria

• Not Empirical: You can’t measure unconscious, Id etc

• Objective: All interpretation and therefore subjective

• Falsifiable: unfalsifiable e.g., you say you like someone, this suggests you might be suppressing your dislike into the unconscious

• Reductionist: simplifies concepts BUT does take both nature (Id being natural etc) and nurture (upbringing) into account

• Hypothesis testing: it can test hypotheses (e.g., Bushman hypothesised that cathartic activities would reduce aggression) but doesn’t always

• Reliable/replicable: individual case studies are not reliable/replicable

• Internal Validity: No controls, lots of EVs, very subjective etc

Science - learning

• Lab experiments and observations are generally going to reach these criteria

• The point of Learning is to be scientific and measure only behaviour not cognitive thoughts etc

• Empirical: measuring behaviour e.g., fear response, aggressive behaviour etc

• Objective: Yes, because measuring behaviour, except in Becker which is all about self-image/uses questionnaires

• Falsifiable: yes, all theories and studies e.g., Bandura could be proven wrong if the children's behaviour didn't change/they didn't learn

• Reductionist: Ignores biology, turns complex behaviours into formulas e.g., CC, Operant and SLT

• Hypothesis testing: all of the theories are testing hypotheses

• Controls: Matched pairs in Bandura, Repeated measures in Watson & Rayner

• Reliable/replicable: controlled and standardised procedures like Bandura can be easily repeated (Bandura found similar results across all his studies)

• Internal validity: Bandura reduced DCs, Matched pairs, Watson and Rayner checked for situational variables by doing the study in another room

• Animal studies: high in control, reliability, more able to eliminate EVs etc

• Becker is a field experiment which used interviews and questionnaires so has less control, more EVs (such as consumerism rather than TV), harder to repeat (since naturally occurring), was reductionist: only TV as a factor, is falsifiable, is empirical HOWEVER asking about body image might not be

Science - Watson and Rayner

• Lab experiment method

• Empirical: measuring behaviour e.g., fear or not

• Objective: probably, measuring behaviour rather than subjective opinion

• Falsifiable: Yes, he could have been fine after conditioning

• Reductionist: Ignores possible factors, reduces fear down to just conditioning

• Hypothesis testing: Yes, about the effects of conditioning on phobias

• Controls: Checked for pre-existing fears, taken to another room

• Reliable/replicable: Standardised procedure

• Internal Validity: Checked for pre-existing fears, taken to another room etc

Science - child

• Empirical: sometimes e.g., Ainsworth/Van Ijzendoorn measuring behaviour (as is evidence of privation, evidence of social releasers, scores on Li’s tests) but people like Bowlby (IWM), mental structures, Autism thoughts e.g., ToM might not be, CBT for Autism. Van Ijzendoorn used empirical statistics etcIn

• Objective: See the above, the same is true for measurements in studies e.g., Li: tests on children and ORCE however behaviours, effects of privation and IWM might be subjective

• Hypothesis testing: Li, Ainsworth and Van Ijzendoorn were all testing hypotheses/had IVs and DVs (though some were naturally occurring so don’t 100% get cause and effect)

• Falsifiable: All theories could be tested and proven wrong (Daycare could not have had an impact, parental sensitivity could not have had an impact etc)

• Reductionist: Ainsworth simplifies behaviour to a list of behaviours/types of attachment, Bowlby ignores other factors like other attachments, Li simplified daycare into good/bad (3.0) and looked at intelligence/cognitive ability using some measurements (ignoring other factors)

• Controls: Filters in Van Ijzendoorn, artificial/controlled setting in Ainsworth e.g., EVs eliminated, Li had measures to eliminate EVs (or at least acknowledge them), Bowlby and Genie however had limited controls

• Reliable/replicable: Li was secondary data so could (but the NICHD it was based on was a massive study so might be difficult), Ainsworth was standardised and repeated a lot, Van Ijzendoorn could be repeated as it was a meta-analysis

• Internal Validity: DCs limited when studying children as they lack understanding (but you could argue it’d be higher as they’re easy to influence), eliminating EVs in Structured obs like Ainsworth, filtering EVs in Van Ijzendoorn and Li but plenty of examples where they are like Genie and Bowlby 44 thieves

Science - rosenhan

• Naturalistic observation: so will have issues with control/EVs but high in ecological validity and empirical

• Empirical: measuring behaviour and treatment by the doctors etc therefore measuring an actual behaviour e.g., number of days, number of pills etc

• Objective: Some like those above will be objective but observations by the pseudo-patients might be subjective

• Hypothesis testing: this doesn’t really have IVs and DVs therefore isn’t really testing a hypothesis

• Falsifiable: Since it doesn’t have a hypothesis it can’t be proven wrong however you could say if they weren’t diagnosed it would’ve proven Rosenhan’s ideas wrong

• Reductionist: simplified Schizophrenia and diagnosis down to simple hallucinations/one-word phrases, reduces diagnostic procedure of doctors

• Controls: Everyone was trained the same, everyone began to behave normally, in real world environment so may be EVs

• Reliable/replicable: You could: various things were standardised like the words used for diagnosis

• Internal Validity: Some subjectivity in results, the pseudo-patients acted normally and therefore reduced DCs, doctors didn’t know they were taking part so reduced DCs, EVs were possible

Social control

• Use psychological knowledge to change the behaviour of an individual/ group for the ‘benefit’ of wider society (people with power)

• Formal and informal social control

Social control in social

• Agency theory/Milgram/ Burger: can increase/decrease authority on people to change obedience (uniforms, hierarchies etc)

• Personality: We could use this to fill ranks in army/ certain parts of society with authoritarian people to increase obedience

• Impact theory: Create Situations (with SIN) to increase/decrease authority on people to change obedience (uniforms, hierarchies etc)

• Identity theory: Create divisions and stereotypes to create prejudice (the media/government could do it), forced break down group boundaries to reduce prejudice (though Sherif showed that mere contact wasn't enough you needed superordinate goals)

• Realistic Conflict theory: can be used to drive prejudice - something the media does, eg press making people against immigrants

• Superordinate goals can be used to reduce prejudice e.g., charity fund raising, community projects in areas of low integration

• Cult leaders - psychological techniques to control people

Social control in sherif

• Identity theory: Create divisions and stereotypes to create prejudice (the media/government could do it), forced break down group boundaries to reduce prejudice (though Sherif showed that mere contact wasn't enough you needed superordinate goals)

• Realistic Conflict theory: Competition (or perceived competition) can be used to drive prejudice: something the media does

• Superordinate goals can be used to reduce prejudice e.g., charity fund raising, community projects in areas of low integration

• However, it is based on small sample, set location/summer camp setting, all males etc so maybe these things won't apply in other situations and it won't be socially controlling (mix these counterarguments in with the points you're making... not all in one place)

• However, maybe it would be even more socially controlling because it might work even more with pre-existing prejudices etc

Social control in cognitive

MSM:

• How schools are taught to teach

• How information is presented to dementia patients

WMM:

• Dementia treatments, eg not overloading CE with many tasks

Reconstructive:

• Can change people’s memories of events using stereotypes to restructure schemas

• Rules about who can give testimony, how police can work

Tulving:

• Cues being used to help people recall episodic memories

Social control in baddeley

• Encoding of STM and LTM doesn't have a lot to do with social control

• Could be influential with how schools are taught to teach/revise with students

• Could be influential with dementia patients and how information is presented to them

• Low ecological validity so any aspects if social control might not even apply in the real world

Social control in biological

• Hormones: we can alter hormones to increase and decrease aggression e.g., chemical castration, oxytocin levels, medication to raise serotonin (uk trialling chemical castration - optional)

• Evolution/Genetics: eugenics to alter genetic traits (there is a big argument about genetic screening of Down's Syndrome at the minute)

• Twins & Adoptions: if we figure out what is nature and nurture, we are more likely to alter nurture factors

• Brain activity: whether people are responsible for their own behaviour/ sentencing/ culpability

• However, we can't alter brain activity (YET) so maybe it isn't socially controlling

• Drug addiction: Social control in what is acceptable/unacceptable drug usage

• We could change NT level by using certain medications Buprenorphine Vs Methadone Vs Heroin

• Medication demonstrates social control where therapy/counselling may be more beneficial in some situations

Social control in Raine

• Raine found abnormal cortical/subcortical brain processes in murderers which could be used to screen the population.

• Identifying potential criminals through brain scanning could lead to interventions being put in place which could help prevent serious crimes like murder.

• The sample used in Raine may lack generalisability so any form of screening may not be useful for most of the population.

• The continuous performance task (CPT) and being in a brain scanner may not be valid compared to real life so any measures of social control may not be useful.

• The difficulty of isolating a single brain region for violent behaviour means that screening the population for violent behaviour would be very difficult and subjective.

• Just because we can't alter brain activity in vivo yet doesn't mean that will beyond our capability in future years: this research could be very influential

Social control in psychodynamic

• Can be used in advertising to appeal to unconscious

• Influence of unconscious has impact on culpability for actions/crimes

• Can be used as social control through therapy: subjective analysis etc

• Tells parents how to raise children

• Can't test or prove it however so might not be an issue of social control at all

Social control in learning

Classical conditioning:

• Can be used to make people make associations, eg media could use it to increase prejudice/ propaganda, advertising against anti-smoking

• Conversion therapy for homosexuality

• Aversion therapy for alcoholism → seen as beneficial rather than social control, people opt for it

• Treatment of phobias - people opt for it

Operant conditioning:

• Rewards and punishments can be applied directly to alter the behaviour of people against their will

• Schools can use strategies such as token economy programmes

Slt/ bandura/ Becker

• Celebrity endorsements

• Watershed/ advertising rules/ age restrictions

• Altering role models to change desired behaviours

• Bandura work mainly on children in set situations however so might not be as much of an issue

Social control in Watson and Rayner

• Found a child could be conditioned to fear various stimuli; this could be used to condition society to buy products / link to advertising

• Advertising or public health messages can be considered a form of classical conditioning through association of a product to positive outcomes

• Aversion therapy is a treatment which uses classical conditioning principles to attempt to socially control/minimise drug use

• Phobias can be treated using systematic desensitisation which is a form of control using relaxation techniques

• People normally opt for these treatments so not socially controlling

• Only one 11 month old male was tested which is not representative of the general population so any treatments that are developed from this research may not be helpful for a lot of people

• Little Albert's mother withdrew him from the study so his fear of rats (or other stimuli) cannot be tested to see if it can be extinguished so negative forms of social control could be long lasting

Social control in child

Attachment:

• Bowlby and Ainsworth both make judgements about what is good parenting and so socially controlling

• However, Ainsworth and Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenburg show that there is variation around world and within cultures so not so much social control

• It’s probably good to dissuade people from privating their children

• Deprivation research like Bowlby may suggest women shouldn’t work

• However, Rutter shows it not to be so important and therefore not socially controlling

• Fostering and adoption for children who have had problems with forming attachments can be seen to be about conforming to social norms.

• A child who does not conform is likely to be seen as a problem, and the care they are offered is likely to be affected by them not conforming.

• Universality of application of attachment theory creates a bias towards particular cultures and child care arrangements.

• Attachment theory dictates the “norm” as to the type of child care and behaviour of children with their caregivers.

Autism:

• Treatment/help for those with autism can be seen as a form of social control though the intention is to help the individual in their functioning, so this type of 'treatment' can be said to be less 'social control' than other treatments (such as drug therapy).

• ABA is socially controlling because it causes children to change their behaviour against their will (and discourages certain behaviours they may find comfortable)

• Diagnosis of Autism could be seen as socially controlling e.g., whether it is an actual condition or not

Daycare:

• Research which touts the benefits of daycare like EPPE and Li may encourage parents to use it and work more

• Socially controlling research about the negatives of daycare might criticise parents who need to use it to work

• Day care and rules governing day care can be said to give power to society rather than to individuals or the children.

• Children can make choices in a day care setting (more perhaps now than in the past), so there is less social control perhaps though choices are limited to what is offered (what is offered is controlled).

• In child psychology research into day care can show social control, such as advising about the staff-child ratio and what makes good day care for a society.

Social control in rosenhan

• Social norms in abnormality are socially controlling

• Normal behaviour was seen as abnormal in this study demonstrating the social control of ‘norms’, expectations and interpretation

• DSM & ICD: what is and is not a mental health disorder (homosexuality, transgenderism, types of schizophrenia, the bereavement clause for depression) is socially controlling

• Sectioning is a massive concern for social control because you lose the right to choose your own treatment (which didn’t happen in this study but is a linked concept)

• Drugs are prescribed by doctors and psychiatrists.

• Rosenhan showed patients admitted wrongly (saying they had symptoms they did not and then acting normally) were not recognised as not having schizophrenia or a mental health disorder.

• Rosenhan's study showed the participants/patient as losing control in not being 'allowed out'.

• Stigma of mental illness could cause social control issues

• Times have changed since this study though so perhaps we’d see less social control

• May only be applicable to US culture so perhaps not socially controlling

Comparison of social themes

• Prejudice: RCT says prejudice occurs as a result of competition between groups vs SIT says it is due to the presence of two separate groups

• Nurture: agency and impact show behaviours can be influenced by environmental factors such as authority futures. OTOH - agency theory argues we have evolved to obey hierarchies in order to aid survival, suggesting an element of nature

• Personality: authoritarian, SDO, big 5, locus of control etc look at personality as a way of explaining certain behaviours

• Authority: agency theory and social impact theory both focus on the theme of authority

• Impact: social impact theory talks about the influence of immediacy vs agency doesn’t

• All except personality ignore individual differences

Comparison of cognitive themes

• Memory:

  • MSM says there are three unitary stores of memory - Sensory memory where if you pay attention to material it moves into STM which encodes acoustically and then through rehearsal it moves into LTM, WMM is an alternative which looks at STM only and suggests it is an active form of memory with multiple parts e.g. VSSP which deals with visual information and Phonological loop which deals with auditory information. WMM is a better model because despite them having the shared theme of types of stores' it goes into more depth about the different parts of STM making it less reductionist.

  • Reconstructive vs MSM, WMM, Tulving (it doesn't deal with stores and does have schemas)

  • MSM Vs Tulving

• Brain damage: Schmolck and HM both look at brain damage look at brain damage in the MTL

Comparison of biological themes

• Aggression:

  • The hormone explanation of memory says that high levels of testosterone lead to higher levels of aggression (or lower levels of serotonin and cortisol also have an influence) whereas the Psychodynamic explanation says that aggression is caused by the Id wanting constant pleasure and getting aggressive when frustrated, a weak superego which doesn't control the person with enough guilt and anxiety etc.

  • The hormone explanation is more empirical as you can directly measure hormone levels whereas concepts like the ID and Super-ego cannot be measured so might not be a credible explanation.

  • They have similarities where both are deterministic about the causes of your behaviour being out of your control and view some elements as natural e.g., you're born with your Id and your hormones are a biological process.

  • Evolution Vs hormones

  • Evolution Vs brain activity

  • Evolution vs psychodynamic

  • Brain activity vs Psychodynamic

  • Hormones vs brain activity

  • Biological explanations vs SLT

• Addiction: Neurotransmitter explanation of addiction vs environmental e.g., SLT

• Nature vs nurture: Kety/Brendgen genetics vs environmental factors e.g., SLT

Comparison of learning themes

• Reinforcement:

  • Operant conditioning says you learn behaviours through reinforcement (e.g. positive reinforcement where you are given something positive to increase a behaviour occurrence) or punishment (e.g. negative punishment where something is taken away from you to decrease a behaviour), whereas SLT says you observe through observation and imitation of a role model, this can involve vicarious reinforcement where you see the role model being rewarded.

  • These two explanations are obviously similar in that both focus on reinforcement as a way of explaining how people learn behaviour/what increases people's behaviour.

  • You can argue that SLT is a better explanation of behaviour as it looks at cognitive factors like attention and identification whereas Operant doesn't account for cognitive factors so is more reductionist.

• Learning behaviour:

  • CC (the association of a NS with an UCS) vs OC (reward and punishment)

  • CC (the association of a NS with an UCS) vs SLT (attention, retention, reproduction, motivation)

• Phobias: Learning explanations of phobias (e.g., SLT says we observe a role model demonstrating a fear response, we retain that response and when given the opportunity we repeat it ourselves) vs biological explanation of phobias (evolutionary phobias are designed to protect us from death, e.g., if we avoid heights, we can't fall from one and die).

• Treatment of phobias: flooding vs systematic desensitisation

Comparison of child themes

• Autism:

  • The cognitive explanation of Autism suggests that they have an impaired theory of mind which means they cannot see the world from others points of view and this causes issues with reading emotions and social situations whereas the biological explanation says that autism is caused by the excess exposure to testosterone in the womb which causes their brain to develop to be more masculinised e.g. it is more lateralised which might explain issues like the delays in language they have.

  • A similarity they both share is they both view autism as being caused by 'extreme systemising' which explains why they have certain traits. You can argue the biological explanation is better as it is more empirical as you can directly measure hormones and brain structure but cannot measure theory of mind.

  • They both have issues with causes and effect because we don't know if autism is caused by the impaired ToM and the 'Extreme Male brain' or if it is the cause of these differences

  • CBT for Autism Vs ABA for Autism

• Attachment:

  • Bowlby (ASCMI) Vs Ainsworth (secure, insecure avoidant, insecure resistant)

  • Biological factors in attachment (social releasers, attachment being adaptive) vs environmental factors in attachment (responsiveness of parents, critical period separation etc).

Comparison of clinical themes

• Diagnostic manuals for diagnosis - DSM & ICD:

  • both update regularly

  • both recognise culturally bound syndromes

  • DSM only focuses on mental illness whereas the ICD focuses on all illnesses

  • DSM written by Americans whereas ICD collaboration of several countries across
    Europe

• Schizophrenia:

  • NT (high dopamine and low glutamate) vs Genetics (e.g., the deletion of a specific region of chromosome 22,
    chromosome 22, containing around 30-40 genes, causes a syndrome called DiGeorge where as many of 1 in 4 people with it develop schizophrenia)

  • NT (high dopamine and low glutamate) Vs Cognitive (faulty information processing, not being able to understand your inner voice belongs to you)

  • CBT Vs Medication

• Schizophrenia treatments:

  • Both individualised/ tailored to that patient, eg in drugs dosage and for CBT the techniques being used to combat delusions

  • Both require doctor input

  • Biological treatment has side effects such as tardive dyskinesia vs CBT doesn’t have side effects as it’s not impacting neurotransmitter

  • Biological treatment works by reducing dopamine levels vs CBT is a talking therapy involving challenging thoughts

Usefulness

Whenever we research something in society we should consider how these findings could improve the lives of others

Usefulness of social psychology

Social Identity Theory:

• helps our understanding of how prejudice occurs with the formation of ingroups and outgroups.

• does not consider the role of personality (for example, RWA), which has been linked to prejudice so may have limited help when trying to explain and/or reduce prejudice.

Agency theory:

• can help us explain why people are obedient/increase obedience via uniforms etc however, Milgram’s study is low in generalisability and ecological validity etc so might not be that useful

Realistic Conflict Theory:

• Tells us how to cause and reduce prejudice (through competition and superordinate goals) and therefore we can use that usefully in society however, based on research like Sherif which isn’t generalisable

Social Impact theory:

• Can help us explain why people are obedient/increase obedience via uniforms etc however, Milgram’s study is low in generalisability and ecological validity etc so might not be that useful

Personality theories might be useful because they highlight factors, we want to look for in people to help stop them being prejudice. However, we might not be able to influence prejudice so maybe that’s not as useful