CIE AS Level Psychology: Biological Approach Core Studies

Flashcards covering the three biological approach core studies for CIE AS Level Psychology: Dement & Kleitman (1957), Hassett et al. (2008), and Hölzel et al. (2011).

What are the three core studies of the Biological approach for Cambridge International AS Level Psychology 9990?

Dement & Kleitman (1957) — sleep and dreams; Hassett et al. (2008) — monkey toy preferences; and Hölzel et al. (2011) — mindfulness and brain scans.

What was the full published title and publication year of the study by Dement and Kleitman?

The Relation of Eye Movements During Sleep to Dream Activity: An Objective Method for the Study of Dreaming, published in $1957$.

What physiological recording techniques did Dement and Kleitman (1957) use, and what did each record?

They used EEG to record the electrical activity of the brain and EOG to record eye movements.

What were the three main aims of Dement and Kleitman (1957)?

1. To investigate whether dreaming occurs during REM sleep.
2. To investigate whether the length of REM sleep corresponds to the perceived length of a dream.
3. To investigate whether the direction/pattern of eye movements during REM corresponds to the content of dreams.

What was the sample size and participant breakdown in Dement and Kleitman (1957)?

$9$ adult participants in total: $7$ males and $2$ females.

How did the time spent in the laboratory differ between the participants in Dement and Kleitman (1957)?

Five participants were studied intensively, spending between $6$ and $17$ nights in the laboratory, while the other four were used to help confirm findings and spent around $1$–$2$ nights.

What was the sampling technique for Dement and Kleitman (1957)?

The sampling technique was not clearly reported; the sample consisted of a small group of adults who participated in the laboratory study.

What were the research method and experimental design used by Dement and Kleitman (1957)?

A laboratory experiment / controlled laboratory study using mainly a repeated measures design, as participants experienced different sleep/awakening conditions and acted as their own controls.

In Investigation 1 of Dement and Kleitman (1957), what were the independent variable (IV) and dependent variable (DV)?

IV: Whether the participant was awakened during REM sleep or NREM sleep. DV: Whether the participant reported a dream and the nature/detail of the dream.

What were the results of Investigation 1 (REM vs NREM dream recall) in Dement and Kleitman (1957)?

Awakenings during REM produced dream recall in $152$ out of $191$ awakenings, whereas awakenings during NREM produced dream recall in only around $11$ out of $160$ awakenings.

In Investigation 2 of Dement and Kleitman (1957), what were the independent variable (IV) and dependent variable (DV)?

IV: Whether the participant was awakened $5$ minutes or $15$ minutes after REM began. DV: Participant's estimate of how long they had been dreaming and the characteristics/length of the dream report.

What were the quantitative findings regarding participants' dream duration estimation accuracy in Investigation 2 of Dement and Kleitman (1957)?

$88\%$ of participants correctly identified the $5$-minute period, and $78\%$ correctly identified the $15$-minute period.

What was the main finding of Investigation 3 regarding eye movement patterns and dream content in Dement and Kleitman (1957)?

There was some evidence of correspondence (such as vertical eye movements occurring alongside vertical dream movements), but the relationship was not sufficiently consistent to prove that eye movements directly represented dream content.

What are key methodological strengths of Dement and Kleitman (1957)?

1. Objective measurements through physiological EEG and EOG data.
2. High level of laboratory control over awakenings and recordings.
3. Repeated measures design controlling for individual differences.
4. Detailed simultaneous physiological and self-report data.

What are key methodological weaknesses of Dement and Kleitman (1957)?

1. Very small sample ($9$ participants), limiting generalisation.
2. Artificial laboratory environment, reducing ecological validity.
3. Risk of demand characteristics.
4. Subjective nature of self-reported dream content.

How does Dement and Kleitman (1957) relate to the nature vs nurture and reductionism debates?

It strongly supports the nature/biological side by linking dreaming to physiological mechanisms, but it is potentially reductionist by reducing a complex psychological experience to measurable processes (REM, brain activity, and eye movements).

What was the primary aim of the study by Hassett et al. (2008)?

To investigate whether male and female rhesus monkeys show different toy preferences, and whether these differences resemble sex differences seen in human children, to determine if toy preferences have a biological component.

Where did the monkeys come from, and what was the sample breakdown in Hassett et al. (2008)?

From the Yerkes National Primate Research Center Field Station. Initially $135$ monkeys were available; $82$ took part ($61$ females, $21$ males); and $34$ interacted frequently enough to be in the main analysis ($23$ females, $11$ males).

What sampling technique was utilized in Hassett et al. (2008)?

Opportunity sampling from monkeys already living at the research centre.

What were the independent and dependent variables in Hassett et al. (2008)?

IV: Sex of the monkey (male or female). DV: Toy preference/interactions with the different toy categories (touching, carrying, manipulating, playing).

How were the toys set up and trials organized in Hassett et al. (2008)?

One wheeled toy ('male-typical') and one plush toy ('female-typical') were placed approximately $10$ metres apart outdoors with left/right positions counterbalanced across seven $25$-minute trials.

What were the key results observed for male and female rhesus monkeys in Hassett et al. (2008)?

Male monkeys showed more interaction with wheeled/male-typical toys (though not an extremely strong preference over plush toys compared to human boys), whereas female monkeys showed a stronger preference for plush/female-typical toys.

What did Hassett et al. (2008) conclude about sex differences in toy preferences?

Biological factors may contribute to sex differences in toy preferences because monkeys show similar patterns without human cultural gender expectations; however, it does not prove biology is the only cause.

What are key methodological strengths of Hassett et al. (2008)?

1. Reduced human cultural/socialisation explanations.
2. Naturalistic environment providing high ecological validity.
3. Direct behavioural observation rather than self-report.
4. Counterbalancing of toy placement to avoid location bias.
5. Video recording coded by two observers to improve reliability.

What are key methodological weaknesses of Hassett et al. (2008)?

1. Small final sample size ($34$ monkeys in the main analysis).
2. Inability to eliminate social learning from the monkeys' own environment.
3. Risk of anthropomorphism by classifying toys as 'male' or 'female'.
4. Lack of direct physiological measurement of hormones (testosterone/oestrogen) or genes.

What was the main aim of the study by Hölzel et al. (2011)?

To investigate whether participation in an $8$-week Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) programme was associated with changes in grey matter concentration.

What was the participant breakdown in the final sample of Hölzel et al. (2011)?

Initially $33$ healthy adults were recruited; $2$ withdrew due to scanner discomfort, leaving a final sample of $31$:

• MBSR group: $16$ participants ($6$ males, $10$ females)
• Control group: $17$ participants ($11$ males, $6$ females).

What sampling technique and recruitment source were used in Hölzel et al. (2011)?

A self-selected/opportunity sample of individuals recruited from four MBSR courses at a mindfulness centre in New England, USA.

What research design and neuroimaging technique did Hölzel et al. (2011) utilize?

A controlled longitudinal study with a waiting-list control group and pre-/post-testing, using MRI brain scanning with voxel-based morphometry (VBM).

On average, how much time did participants in the MBSR group spend meditating each day in Hölzel et al. (2011)?

Approximately $27$ minutes per day.

In which brain regions did Hölzel et al. (2011) identify increases in grey matter concentration?

Most importantly in the left hippocampus, with whole-brain analyses also identifying increases in the posterior cingulate cortex, temporo-parietal junction, and cerebellum.

What are key methodological strengths of Hölzel et al. (2011)?

1. Objective physiological measurement using MRI and VBM.
2. Inclusion of a waiting-list control group to control for the passage of time.
3. Pre-test/post-test longitudinal design allowing actual changes to be tracked.
4. Highly scientific and replicable procedure.

What are key methodological weaknesses of Hölzel et al. (2011)?

1. Small final sample size ($31$ participants).
2. Volunteer bias from motivated individuals.
3. Cannot establish definite causation (MBSR is associated with changes, but confounds like sleep or diet could contribute).
4. Expectancy effects and the use of a passive waiting-list control rather than an active control group.

How does Hölzel et al. (2011) support the interactionist approach to nature vs nurture?

It demonstrates that an environmental/experiential factor (mindfulness practice) can directly influence biological structures (brain grey matter), showing that nature and nurture interact.

How do the primary biological measures compare across Dement & Kleitman, Hassett et al., and Hölzel et al.?

Dement & Kleitman used physiological recordings (EEG and EOG), Hassett et al. measured behavioural interactions (toy manipulation/preference), and Hölzel et al. used MRI scanning (voxel-based morphometry).