Paper 1 psych

Four stages of attachment

1. ASOCIAL (0-8 weeks)

   • behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects is fairly similar but they show preference towards people.

   • have preference for people they have been comforted by.

2. INDISCRIMINATE (2-7 months)

   • start to display obvious social behaviour and a clear preference towards people especially family ones.

   • usually accept cuddles from anyone as have no separation or stranger anxiety.

3. SPECIFIC (7-12 months)

   • babies start to display classic attachment towards the person who they have the most interaction and responses with (65% of time is mother)

   • have anxiety towards strangers and when the figure is absent

4. MULTIPLE (1 year+)

   • extend attachment to multiple people who they regularly spend time with

   • secondary attachments e.g. grandparents, babysitter, siblings

Schafer and Emerson’s study of attachment

did an observational study on the formation of early infant-caregiver interactions

60 babies (31 male, 29 female) in skilled working class families from Glasgow

visited babies in home every month for a year and again at 18 months, and asked mum questions about baby’s protests in 7 everyday activities e.g. baby left alone in a room

also assessed stranger anxiety, their response to unfamiliar people, by the researcher approaching the child at each home visit

Evaluating Schaffer and Emerson’s study of attachment

Good external validity: most of the observations were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to the researchers so babies would behave naturally as with the parent.

• mothers being observers will not be objective- they will be biased about what they notice and how accurately they report it.

Practical application for day care

• asocial and indiscriminate: straight forward as babies can be comforted by a skilled adult- should start day care now

• specific: day care with unfamiliar adult (especially beginning it) may be problematic

Study done longitudinally so has good internal validity as no participant variables

Poor evidence for asocial stage- measuring attachment here is hard as young babies have poor coordination and are fairly immobile so anxiety may be shown in subtle unobservable ways which makes it difficult for mothers to observe and report back.

Only used one sample in an individualistic culture (collectivist cultures tend to have multiple attachments from an early age) meaning research is not generalisable

Just because a baby gets distressed when an individual leaves the room does not signify attachment

• Bowlby: children often get distressed when a playmate leaves but this does not signify attachment

• therefore Schaffer and Emerson’s study does not distinguish between secondary attachment and playmates

Reciprocity

when each person responds to the other and elicits a response (turn taking)

e.g. baby smiles, the mum talks back

• alert phases- babies periodically signal that they are ready for interaction and pay close attention to expressions (mums notice 2/3 of time)

• active involvement- infant and caregivers initiate interactions and respond appropriately. Brazelton

Interactional Synchrony

perform actions in unison to mirror each other

• babies will be depressed if there is no synchrony or they are not responded to e.g. still face, Tronick

• Meltzoff and Moore: begins as young as 2 weeks old. an adult displayed one of 3 facial expressions or a gesture and there then was a significant association with how the baby would respond.

• Isabella: observed 30 mother and babies together and their synchrony, assessed their quality of attachment. high levels of synchrony associated with better quality mother- baby attachments.

Attachment and the 3 characteristics

A particular type of emotional bond between the infant and the caregiver shown with reciprocal affection, frequent interaction, proximity and selectivity.

1. Proximity- try to stay physically close to attachment figure

2. separation distress- people show signs of anxiety when attachent figure leaves their presence

3. secure based behaviour- make regular contact even when we are independent of them e.g. baby returning to mum when playing

evaluating caregiver interactions

filmed observations in a lab meaning other distractions can be controlled, observations can be recorded in order to analyse them later, and different researchers can agree on the views of data. babies will not show demand characteristics

research into care-giver interactions has practical applications in parenting skills training.

• Crotwell, after a 10 minute ineraction therapy, interactional synchrony was improved in 20 pairs.

hard to observe and interpret a baby’s behaviour as studying small hand movements or subtle changes in expression which could be a response or may just be a twitch e.g. a smile may be a response or could just be passing wind. you cannot know from the baby’'s perspective

observing a behaviour does not tell us its developmental importance

• Feldman: synchrony and reciprocity give names to patterns in behaviour but are not useful in understanding child development as does not explain the purpose

→ evidence from other researchers that early interactions are important e.g. Isabella- interactional synchrony helped make good quality attachments, relieve stress and improve language skills

Statistics on attachment to the father

sole first attachment- 3%

joint first attachment- 27%

75% of babies formed attachment with their father after 18 months

Grossman’s research on role of the father

did a longitudinal study on babies till teenage years

researchers looked at both parent’s behaviour and relationship with child, and compared it to the quality of baby’s later attachment to other people

• quality of mother attachment was related to attachment in adolescene (not the father)

• quality of the father’s play with baby was related to adolescence attachment

• fathers have different role from mothers- more to do with play and stimulation, less to do with emotional development

Field’s research on role of the father

filmed 4 month old babies in face-to-face interactions with:

primary caregiver mother

primary caregiver father

secondary caregiver fathers

• primary caregivers (mothers and fathers) spent more time smiling, imitating and noticing- part of attachment process in reciprocity and interactional synchrony

• a baby’s relationship with their primary attachment figure forms basis of all later close emotional attachments

• when fathers are primary caregivers they are able to adopt the emotional role typically associated with mothers

• fathers only express emotion focysed and responsiveness when they are primary caregivers

Evaluating the role of the father

Research can offer economical advice to parents

• parents and prospective parents often worry who should be the primary caregiver (may even stop them having kids)

• mothers may feel pressured to stay at home, and fathers at work due to stereotypes

• this research can be reassuring as fathers can be primary caregivers e.g. mother can be breadwinner and dad stay at home if that is best for their family’s income

Lack of clarity over the question ‘what is the role of the father’

• some researchers want to understand role of the father for:

  • secondary attachments: fathers have a distinct role in play

  • primary attachments: they can be nurturing

• therefore hard to answer as a specific role is not being discussed

Findings vary according to the methodology used

longitudinal studies show fathers as secondary attachment figures have distinct roles in play and stimulation

• this suggests, however, that children whose parents are lesbian or whose mother is single, lack something

• McCallum and Golombok: show children from non- nuclear families do not develop differently

• therefore, questions about father’s distinct role remain unanswered

→ however, lines of research may not actually be in conflict as parents in non-nuclear families may adapt to include this role played by fathers so children are not bereft. when present, fathers have distinct role but families can adapt to not having a father.

Preconceptions about how fathers should behave (through media e.g. father’s stricter) may cause unintentional researcher bias so researchers record what they expect to see rather than objective reality

Lorenz’s research, animal studies of attachment

randomly divided a large litter of goose egg

• half hatched with mum in their natural environment

• half hatched in an incubator, and the first moving object they saw was Lorenz

Despite putting them all with the mother, half stayed with mum and half followed Lorenz around everywhere

Imprinting: bird species that are mobile from birth attach to the first moving object they see

• Lorenz said there was a critical period where imprinting takes place- for babies this was in the first 2-5 years otherwise there is irreversible consequences for later relationships, intelligence, behaviour and psychology.

Sexual imprinting: peacoack reared in the reptile house with a tortoise as an adult would only show mating behaviour to the tortoise

Evaluation of Lorenz

research support, regolin and Vallortigara

• chicks were exposed to simple shape combinations that moved e.g. triangle with a rectangle

• then showed a range of combinations- however they followed the original most closely

• shows young animals born with innate mechanism to imprint on moving object in critical period

Poor generalisability to humans

• cannot generalise findings and conclusions from birds to humans. mammalian attachment system is quite different and more complex e.g. 2 way attachment

Guiton: chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves and tried to mate with them as adults- with experience they learned to prefer mating with other chickens showing imprinting does not have a permanent effect

Harlow’s research, animal studies of attachment

soft object serves most of the function of a mother

reared 16 baby monkeys with 2 wire model ‘mothers’: one was plain wire and one was covered in cloth and they both dispensed milk to 8 of the monkeys

baby monkeys cuddled cloth covered monkeys in preference to plain wire and cuddled cloth when scared

→ contact comfort was important than food for attachment

followed monkeys into adulthood: maternal deprivation, aggressive, unsociable, undeveloped, unskilled at mating killed their children

had critical period of 90 days

Evaluation of Harlow

important real world application

• helps social workers and clinical psychologists understand lack of bonding experience may be risk factor in child development

• early relationships are key for later social development

• understand importance of attachment figures for monkeys

poor ability to generalise findings and conclusions from monkeys to humans.

• more similar to humans than Lorenz’s birds but human brain and behaviour still more complex

Ethical issues of research as caused severe and long term distress to monkeys (distress human like)

→ cost benefit analysis

Learning theory, classical conditioning

UCS food → UCR pleasure

NS caregiver → no response

UCS + NS food and caregiver → UCR pleasure

CS caregiver → CS pleasure

when the same person provides food over time they become associate with food, then the sight of the caregiver produces pleasure (love) so the attachment forms.

Operant conditioning, Learning theory

babies cry for comfort and receive positive reinforcement as they are then rewarded through food meaning that they are more likely to repeat the behaviour due to the positive consequence.

the caregiver avoids negative consequences when they feed because the baby no longer cries meaning the caregiver is more likely to repeat this behaviour

2 way process strengthens attachment

Attachment is a secondary drive, learning theory

hunger is a primary drive because it is innate and biological so we are motivated to eat in order to reduce this.

Sears: as caregivers provide food, attachment as a secondary drive is learnt through the caregiver giving satisfaction through food

Evaluation learning theory

Elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of attachment

• unlikely that association with food plays a central role in attachment but conditioning may still play a role.

• e.g the baby feels more warm and comfortable with a particular adult so wants them more

→ conditioning may not be an adequate explanation as babies are more active in attachment than passive.

Lack of support from animal studies

• Lorenz’s geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw which was separate from any food

• Harlow’s monkeys preferred the cloth covered surragate even those who were fed by the plain wire one

• shows that other factors help to form attachments.

Lack of support from studies of babies

• Schaffer and Emerson: babies tend to form their main attachment to their mother regardless of whether she fed them.

• Isabella: the quality of attachment was dependent on the interactional synchrony.

• shows that food is not the main factor- this is just reductionist as just 1 aspect of care

Hay and Vespo: parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviours e.g. hugging. Parents also reinforce this by showing approval when kids show their own attachment behaviours back e.g. holding hand, hugging

→ suggests infants learn attachment through social interactions and imitations of behaviour. this is a 2 way interaction so supports reciprocity.

Bowlby’s explanation for attachment, monotropy

emphasised the importance on child’s attachment to one caregiver

more time spent with primary attachment figure is better for the child’s development

• law of continuity: care needs to be constant and predictable

• law of accumulated separation: effects of separation add up “safest dose is zero”

Bowlby’s explanation of attachment, social releasers

babies have innate cute behaviours like smiling, laughing and gripping that encourage adult attention. the purpose is to activate adult social interaction to make the adult and child attach (reciprocal)

Bowlby’s explanation of attachment, critical/ sensitive period

when the infant attachment system is active

• maximally sensitive at 6 months but can then last to age 2

• if in attachment is not formed in this time, a child will find it harder to form one later

Bowlby’s explanation of attachment, internal working model (and continuity hypothesis)

child forms a mental representation of relationship with their primary attachment figure which serves a model for what relationships are like.

• having a loving relationship with a primary caregiver means you then expect all relationships to be loving and reliable, and bring these qualities to future relationships

• first relationship has poor treatment means you will form poor relationships, expect poor behaviour and act poorly

• it also affects the child’s later ability to parent as they base their parenting behaviour on how they were parented

→ continuity hypothesis: internal working mode shapes all future attachments long term

Evaluating Bowlby’s theory of attachment

Evidence supporting role of social releasers, BRAZELTON

• observed babies trigger interactions with adults, then instructed adults to ignore babies social releasers

• babies became increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and lay motionless supporting role of social releasers in attachment

Evidence supporting internal working model, BAILEY

• assessed attachment in 99 mothers and their 1 year old, and then also assessed mother’s own attachment to her primary caregiver

• mothers with poor attachment to primary caregiver more likely to have poorly attached children

• shows that the internal working model does impact generations of attachment

→ also other important influences of attachment e.g. genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affects behaviours and parenting

Attachment is innate and universal, TRONICK

• found african tribe with very different child wearing system to western societies still had 1 primary attachment

Real world application in improving childcare

• e.g. fostering instead of orphanages, parents being allowed to stay with children in hospitals, parental leave for adoptions

Laws of continuity and accumlated attachment means mothers who work may negatively affect children’s development causing pressure and like they have to then take the blame for any wrongs. Feminists argue this gives an excuse to restrict mothers

Temperament hypothesis- type of attachment not only influenced by responsiveness and sensitivity of caregiver, but also individual personality.

RUTTER- multi attachment system as all attachments are important and form the internal working model, Bowlby’s monotropic theory is at expense of other key figures like fathers.

what the strange situation was testing for

proximity seeking- baby with good quality attachment will stay fairly close to caregiver

exploration and secure base behaviour- baby with good attachment are confident exploring and occasionally check in with the caregiver

stranger anxiety- close attachment means you have anxiety when stranger approaches

separation anxiety- protest at separation from the caregiver

response to reunion- babies with secure attachment greet caregiver’s return with pleasure

procedure of strange situation, ainsworth

controlled observation with 2 way mirror

100 US 12-month old babies

7 episodes each of which are 3 minutes

1. baby encouraged to explore

2. stranger comes, talks to caregiver then approaches baby

3. caregiver leaves stranger and baby alone

4. caregiver returns and stranger leaves

5. caregiver leaves baby alone

6. stranger returns

7. caregiver returns and is reunited

→ exploration and secure base

→ stranger anxiety

→ separation and stranger anxiety

→ reunion behaviour + exploration and secure base

→ separation anxiety

→ stranger anxiety

→ reunion behaviour

types of attachment, strange situation

secure attachment B- explore happily but show regular proximity seeking and secure base behaviour. moderate separation and stranger anxiety. accept/want comfort at reunion. 60-75%

insecure- lack of sensitive responding, poor subsequent cognitive and emotional development

insecure avoidant A- explore freely without showing secure-base behaviour or seeking proximity. show little stranger or separation anxiety. little effort to make contact at reunion. 20-25%

insecure resistant C- babies seek greater proximity than others and explore less. high levels of separation and stranger anxiety but resist comfort at reunion 3%

evaluation of strange situation

attachment type can predict aspect of baby’s later development

• babies who are securely attached tend to have better outcomes e.g. more success at school, better mental health, less involvement in bullying

• type C and people who don’t fit in have worse outcomes

• validity- shows there are subsequent outcomes

→ not all psychologists think strange situation actually measures attachment but child’s anxiety response to unfamiliar environment. therefore measures more the temperament of child and that effect on attachment behaviour and later development. temperament is a confounding variable.

high inter-rater reliability (agreement between observers)

• BICK: studied trained observers who agreed 94% of time on the attachment type.

• procedure takes place in a controlled conditions and behavioural categories are easy to observe as large movement e.g. stranger anxiety- crawl away

• so confident it does not depend on subjective judgements

evidence for at least 4 attachment types

• minority of children display atypical attachments that do not fit into 3 attachment types

• disorganised attachment D- mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours. generally experienced some neglect and abuse so develop psychological disorders.

measure of attachment only valid for use in some cultures (developed in Britain and the US)

• Japan: mothers rarely separated from babies so high levels of separation anxiety. not actually high rates of insecure resistant babies but just in a culture with little separation. (at reunion mothers also rushed to babies making it harder to see infant’s response)

van IJzendoorn + Kroonenberg, cultural variation

cultural variation- differences in norms and values that exist between people in different groups. concerned with differences in proportion of children of different attachment types.

• looked at differences across and within cultures doing a meta analysis of 32 studies in 8 countries of 1,990 children

→ all countries secure attachment was the norm

individualistic- insecure resistant was 14% or less

collectivist- insecure resistant 25% or more

( have more clingy babies)

→ variations within countries 150% more than between countries e.g. US, secure attachment 46% → 90%

→ insecure avoidant most common in Germany (35%) as focus on independence, and least common in Japan (5%) as rarely separated from mothers

→ secure attachment is the most common showing attachment is innate but cultural practices do have influences.

other studies on cultural variation

Italy, Simonelli- assessed 76 babies aged 12 months.

• 50% secure, 36% insecure avoidant: higher rate of insecure avoidant than previously due to more mothers working for long hours and using professional childcare. Types vary with cultural change.

Korea, Jin- compared Korean proportions to other countries.

• overall proportions of insecure and secure the same but more of resistant, only 1 avoidant.

• this is similar to Japan- have similar child- rearing practices.

evaluating van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research

Using a meta analysis to combine results produces a large sample which increases internal validity as it reduces the impact of anomalous results caused by bad methodology or atypical participants.

made comparisons between countries rather than cultures

• within every country there are different cultures with different child rearing practices

• e.g. tokyo proportions of attachment were similar to western studies whereas a more rural sample had over-representation of insecure resistant individuals

→ particular cultural characteristics of the sample need to be specified.

impact of confounding variables on findings

• studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched for methodology when compared

• - sample characteristics e.g. social class, age

• - environmental factors e.g. size of room (may look like they explore more and less of a need to proximity seek), interesting toys

→ looking at attachment behaviour in non matched studies conducted in different countries may not tell us anything about cross cultural attachment

tried to impose a test designed for one cultural context to another context

• imposed etic- imposed an idea or technique that works in one cultural context to another

• e.g. use of babies response to reunion with caregiver in SS: in US and UK lack of affection may indeed indicate an avoidant attachment but in Germany such behaviour would be more likely interpreted as independence rather than insecurity. → behaviours may not have the same meanings in different cultural context so comparing them across cultures is useless

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation, what is deprivation and the critical period?

emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between the child and their mother.

• prolonged separation- child becomes deprived of emotional care (not when brief and with substitute carer) e.g. can be when mother has separation

critical period (2.5 years but can be up to age 5)

• if child is separated from mother without substitute care they become psychologically damaged.

Bowlby → intellectual development (and Goldfarb)

if deprived of maternal care they would experience delayed intellectual development characterised by abnormally low IQ.

Goldfarb- found lower IQ (classified as intellectual disability)in children who had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and had higher standard of emotional care.

Bowlby → emotional development

affectionless psychopathy- inability to experience guilt about their actions and lacked empathy for their victims. prevents a person from developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality.

44 Thieves

44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing

• all interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy

• families also interviewed to establish whether thieves had had prolonged early separations from mothers

• control: 44 non criminal but emotionally disturbed young people

→ 14/44 affectionless psychopaths

→ 12/12 had experienced prolonged separation in first 2 years

(only 5/30 non affectionless psychopath’s had had separation and only 2 in control group)

→ prolonged separation/ deprivation caused affectionless psychopaths

Evaluating Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

animal studies have demonstrated maternal deprivation

• Harlow’s study where 16 monkeys were separated from mothers and given metal surrogate mothers

• had long term permanent consequences- more aggressive, less sociable, unskilled at mating, killed own offspring

→ after critical period of 90 days effects of maternal deprivation irreversible

poor quality of evidence- Bowlby carried out both family interviews and assessments for affectionless psychopaths

• open to bias as he knew which teenagers he expected to show the signs

• influenced by Goldfarb’s study however this had confounding variables as it was during the war time

confusion between different types of early experience- Rutter argued there was important distinction

• deprivation: loss of primary attachment after attachment has developed

• privation: failure to form any attachment in first place

→ the secure long term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation was more likely to be effect of privation e.g. children Goldfarb studied were prived and kids in 44 thieves study similarly had disrupted early lives.

Bowlby’s idea of a critical period

• damage was inevitable if child didn’t form attachment in critical period

• evidence that good quality aftercare can prevent this e.g. Czech twins experienced severe physical and emotional abuse from 18 months to age 7. were severely damaged but recovered after receiving excellent care.

→ lasting harm not inevitable in severe privation

Institutionalisation, definition and context

effects of living in an institutional setting with little emotional care provided

• Ceausescu required romanian mothers to have 5 children

• many parents could not afford to keep their children so they ended up in huge orphanages in very poor condtions

• many ended up being adopted in UK

Rutter, institutionalisation

followed 165 romanian orphans who had been adopted by UK families

• aim to investigate extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences

• assessed physical, cognitive and emotional development at age 4, 6, 11, 15 and 23

• control group: 52 UK children who were adopted

→ ½ showed signs of delayed intellectual development and majority were severely malnourished at beginning

→ by age 11, adopted children shared differential rates of recovery related to age of adoption

IQ, adopted before 6 months	102
IQ, adopted between 6 months and age 2	86
IQ, adopted after 2 years	77

these differences remained at 16

→ ADHD common

adopted after 6 months: showed signs of disinhibited attachment

Zeanah, institutionalisation

conducted Bucharest early intervention project assessing attachment in 95 romanian kids aged 1-3 who had spent most of their life in institutional care

control: 50 children never in an institution

• used strange situation and asked about unusual behaviour

• e.g. clingy, attention seeking, indiscriminate towards adults (disinhibited)

→ 74% control group were secure while institutional group only 19%

→ 44% institutional ‘disinhibited’ vs less than 20% control group

impacts of institutionalisation

• disinhibited attachment

• intellectual disablity

disinhibited attachment- equally friendly and affectionate towards familiar people and strangers. (have no stranger anxiety)- this is due to an adaptation to living with multiple carers during the sensitive period but not for long enough to form an attachment (some had 50)

intellectual disability- most showed signs of this when they arrived in the UK. However kids who had been adopted before 6 months- had caught up with the control group by age 4 → damage to intellectual development can be recovered

evaluation of romanian orphan studies

helped to improve conditions for children growing up outside the family home

• improved psychologists understanding of early institutional care and how to prevent harm.

• led to improvements in conditions e.g. do not have large numbers of caregivers for each child but have 1-2 key workers who have a central role in emotional care

• institutional care now seen as undesirable and there is more of an effort/movement towards fostering and adoption

→ this avoids the formation of disinhibited attachment.

lack of confounding variables- other orphans studied also had varying trauma so hard to disentangle effects of neglect, physical abuse and bereavement from effects of institutional care. this means it has higher internal validity as results are not confounded by other experiences.

→ however there have may have been other confounding variables. e.g. in romania these institutions had remarkably low quality care such as no comfort or intellectual stimulation. therefore the study reflects poor institutional care which not all institutional care is.

current lack of data on adult development

• latest data looked at kids in early to mid twenties so do not have the current data about longer term effects e.g. on mental health problems, romantic relationships, parental relationships

• as it is a longitudinal study, it will take a long time to study and it may shows that even children adopted after 2 years may catch up with everyone else.

socially sensitive as results show that children who are adopted later typically have poor development.

• these results were published while they were going up

• this means carers, teachers etc. may have changed their expectations and treated them differently which may have led to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Internal working model’ effect on future relationships

baby’s first attachment leads to having a mental representation of this relationship which acts as a model to shape future relationships.

secure attachment- seek functional relationships and behave functionally e.g. affectionate and understanding

insecure avoidant- uninvolved, emotionally distant

insecure resistant- controlling, argumentative

having a bad first attachment brings bad experiences to later relationships which they struggle to form and may behave inappropriately

relationships in early childhood

• kerns

• myron-wilson + smith

kerns: securely attached children form high quality childhood friendship while insecurely attached children have friendship difficulties.

Myron-wilson + smith: assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using questionnaires on 196 children aged 7-11

• secure- uninvolved

• avoidant- victims

• resistant- bullies

relationships in adulthood

• McCarthy

• Bailey

mccarthy- studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when babies on their attachment types

• secure- have best friendships and romantic relationships

• insecure resistant- problems maintaining friendships

• insecure avoidant- struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships

Bailey- internal working model affects child’s ability to parent their own children as they base their parenting off how they were parented. this means attachment types are passed through generations.

• considered attachments of 99 mothers to babies

  • assessed using strange situation

• and to own mothers

  • assessed using interviews on adult attachment

→ majority of mothers had same attachment to own mothers and to babies

love quiz, hazan and shaver: adult relationships 💗

analysed 620 replies top quic in newspaper

1. most important/ current relationship

2. general love experience

3. attachment type by choosing 1 of 3 answers which best described their feelings

• secure, 56%- have good and long lasting romantic experiences

• avoidant, 25%- jealous and have fear of intimacy

• resistant, 19%

attachment and going to uni

Bernier: assessed attachment type in 62 college students, 28 who were about to leave home to begin uni

• after starting uni: when assessed by questionnaire about quality of ongoing relationship with parents, then family related stress

secure and avoidant: no difference is relationships with parents between those who left home and those who did not

resistant: those who had left home had sharp decline in relationships quality with parents and increase in family related stress

evaluation of the influence of early attachment on later relationships

There is supporting evidence linking attachment to later development e.g. fearon and Roisman: early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional wellbeing and attachment to own children.

• how strong this relationships is depends on attachment type and aspect of later development. e.g. insecure avoidant has fairly mild disadvantages for any aspect of development. disorganised attachment is strongly associated with later mental disorder.

→ not all evidence supports close links e.g. Regensburg longitudinal study followed 43 individuals from age 1. at age 16, attachment was assessed and there was no evidence of continuity. therefore it is not clear to the extent which attachment predicts later development.

Early attachment is assessed retrospectively

• most recent research on link between early attachment and later development are not longitudinal as do not follow the same person.

• usually ask adults about relationships with parents then assess the type.

1. asking questions rely on honesty and accurate perception of the participants. they may have to look back on childhood and memories may be inaccurate.

2. very hard to know whether what is being assessed is early attachment or adult attachment.

measures of early attachment used in most studies may lack validity.

existence of confounding variables

• some studies do assess attachment in infancy meaning early attachment is valid, but still have validity problems as associations to then later development may be affected by other variables so does not directly show cause and effect.

• e.g. parenting style may influence both attachment quality and later development, personality also impacted by genetics

therefore cannot be sure if it is early attachment or another factor which is influencing later development.

influence of early attachment is probabilistic

• insecure attachment does not invariably cause increased risk of later developmental problems- no one is doomed to be the victim of bullying or to never have a successful romantic relationship due to their attachment, just an increased likelihood.

• knowing someone’s attachment status means we can help their development, however we may also become too pessimistic and create a self fulfilling prophecy.

Conformity

an individual/ group change their behaviour and/or attitudes as a result of the influence of a larger group where there is no direct request for them to do so

2 main reasons why people conform, Deutsch and Gerald

1. Normative social influence (want to be liked) - emotional process

   • agree with opinion of majority as want to be accepted and gain approval

   • likely to happen in situations where we care about someone’s social approval or where we are concerned about rejection

     e.g. everyone loves a movie- you don’t but agree to gain approval

2. Informational social influence (want to be right)- cognitive process

• agree with opinion of majority as we believe it is correct and don’t want to be wrong

• most likely in new situations where we don’t know what is right or if the answer is unclear

• tend to follow majority where we are unsure about something e.g. following cues from coworkers on how to behave when starting a new job

Three types of conformity, Kelman

1. compliance- going along with others

   • person conforms publicly but privately continues to disagree

   • temporary change: behaviour stops when group pressure stops

   • shallowest form of conformity

2. Identification- agree with values as identify with group and want to be a part of

   • publicly change opinions/ behaviours to be accepted by the group even if we don’t agree with everything the group stands for

   • change is often temporary

3. Internalisation

• conform publicly and privately as have internalised and accepted views of the group

• results in permanent change

• deepest form of conformity

Evaluating ISI and NSI

Research support for NSI- people conform to avoid being rejected

• Asch’s participants in his study of conformity said they conformed because they felt self conscious and were afraid of disapproval

• when participants wrote down their answers instead of saying them out loud in front of people, conformity dropped to 12.5% as group pressure was removed

Research support for ISI- people conform when they don’t know the answer

• Lucas et al. students asked to give answers to maths problem with range of difficulties

• findings showed there was greater conformity when questions were difficult

• those who believed they were good at maths were less likely to conform than those who thought they had a poor ability

Individual differences in NSI- desire to be liked underlies conformity for some more than others

• does not affect everyone’s behaviours in the same way: those who are less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI

• nAffiliators- greater need for affiliation/ connection with other

• McGhee and Teran: students who are nAffiliators are more likely to conform

NSI or ISI causing conformity- unclear which causes conformity

• in Asch’s study having another participant agree with their answer lessened their conformity- because they had a chance to be liked or right?

• in a real world setting they probably work together

Asch’s experiments

• correct answer was obvious to see if people are influenced by what others think

• used 123 US Male Undergraduates who believed study was about visual perception

1. each participant tested with group of 6-8 actors (Ps were unaware of this)- control group of 36Ps tested individually in 20 trials to see if it was actually easy- error rate of 0.04%.

2. Ps shown 2 large white cards at a time- which of 3 comparison lines matched standard line?

3. 18 trials in total- first few trials all actors gave the right answers but on 12 critical trials they gave the same wrong answer and the naive particioants always gave answer prematurely or last.

75% Ps conformed at least once

36.8% overall

“conformed to avoid rejection”

Asch’s variations

1. Group size- changing number of Ps (increasing increases conformity)

   • 3 actors vs 1 P =36.8%, further actors made little difference- no need for majority more than 3

2. Unanimity- introducing actor who gave the right answer

   • meant conformity reduced by 25%

   • group power reduced unaninimity punctured

3. Task difficulties- made all lines more similar in length

• conformity increased

• ISI is more imporanr when task was harder

Sherif’s experiment

used the autokinetic effect where a small spot of light is projected on a dark screen and appears to be moving but is actually a visual illusion. - people conform to majority in an ambiguous situation

1. participant estimated how far they thought light travelled

2. then put in groups of 3 where 2 people had similar individual estimates and 1 person whose estimate was very different

3. each person in the group had to say outloud how far light had moved

• each group converged to common estimate- the person with the different estimate conformed

• people will look for others on guidance for how to be right

Evaluating Asch’s experiment

real world application- juries can be affected by pressures to conform, now has been prevented by the individual having to declare opinion privately first.

uses artificial situation and task- lacks ecological valdity

• unrealistic to be in a situation where you disagree so much with others (group also not like everyday type)

• demand characteristics as knew they were in study

• in real life, consequences of conforming are more important- here there is no real reason not to conform

cultural differences in conformity (also all male)

• Ps were all from US which is a more individualistic culture (focused on self)

• similar research in China which is a more collectivist (interdependent) culture found higher conformity rates

• Smith and Bond: collectivist cultures had higher rates of conformity

Ethical issues

• deceived Ps as said study was about visual perception and there were actors- did not give informed consent

• also psychological harm as Ps stressed due to disagreeing with others

• worth weighing up costs and benefits e.g. deception meant no demand characteristics

Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo

• social role

• uniforms

• instructions

• findings

social role-parts people play as members of various social groups, they all come with expectations of what is appropriate behaviour in each role

• mock prison in basement of psychology department

• volunteer sampling- 21 male university students who then underwent extensive psychology testing and checks that they had no criminal convictions

Uniforms- help conform to social role

• prisoners: loose smock, head cap, only identified by number

• guards: khaki uniform, reflective sunglasses, wooden clubs

Instructions for behaviour- guards encouraged to play role because they had complete power over prisoners. To leave early, prisoners applied for parole.

Deindividuation- loss of personal identity so more likely to conform to perceived social role.

findings

prisoners rebelled within 2 days e.g. ripped off uniforms, swore at guards who retaliated with fire extinguishers

guards harassed prisoners- became increasingly brutal and agressive, seemingly enjoying power

prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious- one released on day 2, and two on day 4, psychological disturbance- one went on hunger strike and was then put into ‘the hole’

social roles have strong influence on individual’s behaviour even when roles override an individual’s moral beliefs about their personal behaviour

Evaluation of the Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment

Zimbardo had control over key variables e.g. selection of participants as were all emotionally stable meaning that researchers could rule out individual personality differences meaning behaviour was due to social role.

Lack of realism, Banauzizi and Movahedi- participants were play acting not conforming to the role. Performances were baed on stereotypes of how prisoners and guards were meant to behave e.g. one guard had based his brutality from a character in ‘Cool Hand Luke’- so findings say little about actual conformity to social roles.

→ McDermott- participants did behave as if the person was real to them. 90% of conversations were about prison life e.g. discussed how it was impossible to leave before ‘sentences’ were over. Prisoner 416 thought that prison was real but run by psychologists- so did replicate social roles, higher validity

May have exaggerated the power of social roles- only 1/3 behaved brutally, 1/3 fairly and 1/3 tried to help by reinstating priviledges, offering cigarettes (resisted situational pressures to conform)- Zimbardo overstated view of Participants conformity to social roles and minimised the personality factors.

ethical concerns (before modern rules)

• psychological harm: prisoners became subdued, depressed

• deception: prisoners did not know they would be arrested

• right to withdraw declined

Milgram’s obedience study

obedience- outcome of social influence where an individual acts according to the orders of an authority figure

Aim: to investigate whether in certain cirumstances a ‘normal’ person would give somebody a potentially lethal electric shock if told to do so by an authority figure

• 40 US males aged 20-50 volunteered and were paid $4.50 (£36)

1. When each volunteer arrived they were introduced to other participants (actually confederates)- then drew lots to see who would be learner (draw fixed so that the participant was always learner)

2. Teacher was given small electric shock to experience for themselves. Had to give learner electric shock every time they made a mistake on memory pairs, getting increasingly higher. (fake)

15V ‘slight’

300V ‘intense’- learner pounded on wall then gave no response (12.5% stopped here)

450V ‘danger- severe’- 65% continued to here (predicted only 3% would continue)

They showed signs of extreme tension e.g. sweat, stutter, bite their lips, groan, 3 had seizures

if teacher hestiated, experimenter had standard prods e.g. please continue, you have no choice go on

Evaluating Milgram’s baseline study

Evidence showing that participants did think that the study was real- 75% of them in post interviews thought the electric shocks were real

• also showed extreme physical reactions

Holfing: phoned 22 nurses to give an overdose of astrofen to patients 21/22 complied- supports Milgram’s study because they unquestionably obey somebody in authority

→ Rank and Jacobson: did similar study but with 3x dosage of valium which was a drug they were familiar with, order was from a doctor they knew and were able to discuss it with nurses- in this instance 2/18 continued. This challenges Milgram’s study because in a more realistic scenario they did not blindly obey.

There were many ethical issues

• could not give informed consent as they did not know the true aims

• deceived as they thought the study was about learning and were told shocks were real

• had a lack of explicit right to withdraw due to prods.

→ Milgram argued that it was necessary to do the study and make the behaviour realistic. They did have the right to withdraw as 35% did. They debriefed the participants post study, only 2% had regrets about taking part and 74% learnt something useful about themselves. A year on from the study, they did psychological assessments of the study and there was no long term damage.

Milgram may not have been testing what he intended to- they were listening to demand characteristics and trying to fulfill the aims of the study.

• Orne and Holland: argued the participants were play acting and gave shocks as they knew it was not real.

• Perry: listened to tapes of the participants and argued that only ½ thought the shocks were real and 2/3 of these people stopped meaning the actual obedience was rate was 1/6 of people.

→ Sheridan and King: study same but they gave real shocks to puppies who showed real distresseed, 54% of males and 100% of females continued- showed that the effects in Milgram’s study was genuine as people behaved obediently even when the shocks were real.

→ this also undermines Milgram’s study because it cannot be generalised to females as it shows females are more obedient. This may be due to gender roles which make them more obedient and unquestioning.

Situational variables, Milgram’s study- proximity

The physical closeness of authority figure to person they’re giving orders to, or the closeness of the teacher to the learner.

1. teacher and learner being in the same room → 40%

2. touch: teacher had to put learner’s hand on the electroshock plate → 30%

3. Remote instruction: experimenter gave the instructions by phone → 20.5%

   • participants often pretended to shock

decreased proximity allowes people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions because they are less aware of harm

Situational variables, Milgram’s study- location

place the order is issued and the associated status with it

Conducted variation in run down office block rather than the prestigious Yale → 47.5%

Yale environment gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority. they were more obedient in baseline as perceived the experimenter was also legit so authority was expected, (obedience was still high as ‘scientific’

Situational variables, Milgram’s study- uniform

symbolic with authority as we are expected to be obedient

Experimenter was called away by an inconvenient phone call so an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (actually confederate) took over wearing every day clothes → 20"%

Uniforms encourage obedience as they are widely recognised as symbols of authority. We are more obedient because the authority is legitimate and granted by society.

Definition of a situational variable and extra examples

features immediately in the physical or social environment that influence behaviour.

support from 2 other refusing teachers → 10%

assistant delivered the shocks → 92.5%

Evaluating situational variables, Milgram

Research support, Bickman

• 3 confederates dressed in different outfits- suit, milkman and security guard individually stood in streets asking pedestrians task e.g. pick up litter

• they were 2x as likely to obey the security guard than others due to the effect of uniform on obedience.

Replicated in other cultures, Meels and Raajmakers: 90% obeyed in a Dutch study when ordered to say stressful things to an interviewee. When the person given orders was not there, obedience decreased. This supports the research as it is valid across other cultures and genders.

→ Smith and Bond: apart from 2, all replications were done in western cultures which have very similar culture to the US meaning they will have similar notions about authority so research is not applicable to other cultures.

Low internal validity because the participants were aware that the procedure was fake. Orne and Holland did also criticised variations because the extra manipulation of variables made it even less believable e.g. when the experimenter was just replaced by a member of the public, the participants may have seen through deception.

Milgram’s findings supported the situational aspect of obedience but this perspective was criticised by Mandel who argues it offers an excuse for evil behaviours. It is offensive to those affected by the Holocaust that the Nazis were just following orders and were victims of situational factors beyond their control.

Agentic state

we feel no responsility for our behaviour as we believe ourselves to be acting as an agent for an authority figure, we experience high anxiety and moral strain when we realise what we are doing is wrong but we feel powerless to disobey

autonomous state

free to behave according to your own principles so feel responsible for your own actions

agentic → shift

from being autonomous to being agentic

happens when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure meaning they have greater power because they are higher in the social hierachy

binding factors

aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore/ minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the moral strain they are feeling

e.g Milgram argued this was why many of his participants could ignore their high anxiety- such as blaming the victim for volunteering

Legitimacy of authority

more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us.

as societies are structured in hierarchical ways, people in certain positions have legitimate authority over us to allow society to function properly e.g. police

we learn acceptance from childhood

give some people the power to punish others and trust them to act appropriatly

Destructive authority

misuse/corruption of authority

• powerful and charismatic leaders e.g. Stalin

• order people to behave in ways that went against conscience

e.g. experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against conscience.

Evaluation of agentic state

Research support from Milgram’s study

• participant asked experimenter questions when resisting giving the shocks

e.g. who is responsible if the learner is harmed?- experimenter replied “I am”

• participants then went through procedure quickly with no objections showing when Ps perceieved they were in agentic state and no longer responsible for their own behaviour they acted more easily.

Agentic shift does not explain all research findings about obedience

• Rank and Jacobson: 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from the doctor who is an authority figure but they remained autonomous and felt they were still responsible as did 35% of Milgram’s participants

Must be another explanation as does not account for all bad behaviour

• Mandel: German reserve police battalion killed civilians in Poland despite not being ordered to: they were not in agentic state so were not powerless to disobey- no explanation for their behaviour

Evaluation for legitimacy of authority

Explains cultural differences in obedience

• Milgram: Australia- 16%, Germany- 85%

• in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate so demands obedience

• reflects ways different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures

Helps explain real life obedience

• Kelman and Hamilton: My Lai massacre can be understood in terms of the power hierachy of teh US army as commanding officers have clear authority and greater power to punish so soldiers followed orders.

Cannot explain instances of disobedience where there is a hierarchy where legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted

• Rank and Jacobson: 16/18 disobedient nurses despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure

many of Milgram’s participants disobeyed despite experimenter’s scientific authority - some people may just be more/ less obedient due to their personality

Characteristics of Authoritarian personality

Adorno believed obedience to such a high level was a psychological disorder and it is the personality that matters not the situation

Authoritarian personality- susceptive to obeying people in authority and submitting to those in high status but dismissive of inferiors

• society is ‘weaker’ than it once was so need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values

• show contempt to those of inferior social status

• inflexible outlook no ‘grey’ areas so uncomfortable with uncertainty

• people belonging in different ethnic groups are responsible for ills of society

Origins of authoritarian personality

• became obedient due to having insecurities

• formed in childhood due to harsh parenting: extremely strict discipline and expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticisms of perceived failings

• parents give unconditional love: affection depends on how child behaves

• this creates resentment and hostility which the child cannot express against parents because they fear punishment

• means fear is displaced on others they perceive to be weaker- scapegoating

Adorno’s study on the authoritarian personality

Aim: invesigate causes of obedient personality

sample: 2000 middle class white americans

procedure: used severeal measurement scales including potential for fascism (F-scale)

Findings: those who scored highly on the F-scale so had authoritarian leanings identified with ‘strong’ people and were generally contemptous of the ‘weak’. they were conscious of status (their own and others) and showed extreme respect, deference, and servility to those in high status. They had fixed and distinctive stereotypes of other people.

Evaluation of authoritarian personality

Elms and Milgram, research support

• interviewed small sample who had been fully obedient in Milgram’s shock study

• all completed F-scale: scored significantly higher than a comparison group of disobedient participants

• shows obedient people have similar characteristics to Authoritarians

→ when researchers analysed individual subscales of the F-scales, they found that obedient participants had a number of unusual authoritarian characteristics e.g. did not glorify fathers, did not experience unusual levels of childhood. shows link is more complex- authoritarianism is unlikely to be useful predictor for obedience

Authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a country’s population. In pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient and racist behaviours despite having different personalities and parenting- unlikely all the Nazis had authoritarian personalities.

• majority of Germans identified with anti- semetic Nazi state and scapegoated Jews- social identity theory

F-scale only measures tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology (political bias)

• Christie and Jahoda: F-scale is politically biased, can also be left wing and authoritarian e.g. Russian Bolsheviks

• extreme left and right wings have common values

• therefore not a comprehensive explanation that accounts for obedience across whole political spectrum

Greenstein: F-scale is based on flawed methodology.

• each item is measured in the same direction, meaning that if you show response bias and press agree that will make you authoritarian

• knew aim so may have shown demand characteristics

Minority influence

form of social influence in which a minority of people persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. it happens through conversion- accepted both publicly and privately through internalisation e.g. suffragettes, anti-apartheid

consistency, minority influence

being consistent increases the amount of interest from other people as makes other people start to rethink their own views

• synchronic consistency- everyone in the group saying the same thing

• diachronic consistency- being consistent over time

commitment, minority influence

must demonstrate commitment to their cause or views e.g. extreme activities that show risk

• augmentation principle- majority pay more attention as minority “must really believe it”

flexibility, minority influence- NEMETH

minority have to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable and valid counter arguments

NEMETH, consistency can be off putting as repeating same arguments seem rigid and unbending so will not change people’s views- need to have a balance between consistency and flexibility

• groups of 3 participants and 1 conferate deciding compensation to pay victim of ski accident

• when the confederate argued for low amount and refused to change his position, it had no effect on minority but when he compromised a little the minority changed

Moscovici, minority influence and evaluation

groups of 4 participants and 2 confederates viewed 36 blue-coloured slides varying in intensity

• consistent minority: confederates said they were green all the time- participants said green 8.42% of time

• inconsistent minority: confederate said green 2/3 of times- particpants said they were green 1.25% of time

• control group: were in accurate 0.25% of time (no confederates)

dissimilar to minority influence in the real world

deception over what the study was about (said it was perception) so no informed consent

psychological harm- stress involved

population validity- only female sample, does not represent population (other studies show women conform more)

Process of change

1. consistency, commitment and flexibility make people think about the topic

2. if you hear something new you might think more deeply about it

3. deeper level thinking is important in process of conversion to agreeing with minority

4. augmentation principle

5. the more people convert, the faster it happens (snowball effect- picks up more snow ❄ )

6. social cryptomnesia: have memory change has occured but not what events led to change

Evaluation of minority influence

Research evidence demonstrating the importance of consistency

• Moscovici’s blue/green slide study showed a consistent minority opinion had greter effect

• Wood carried out meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found consistent minorities were most influential- shows presenting consistent view is minimum for minority influence

Research support for deeper processing

• change in majority’s position does involve deeper processing of minority’s ideas

• MARTIN et al: presented message supporting particular viewpoint and then measured participants agreement

• either minority agreed with initial view or majority group agreed with initial view then exposed to conflicting view

• people were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to minority then majority

• minority has been deeply processed and had more enduring effect (supports how minority influence works)

→ real world social influence situations are more complicated e.g. less clear distinctions between majority and minority, majority have more power and status so research lacks ecological validity

Tasks involved are artificial e.g Moscovici’s identification of colour slides

• research far removed from how minorities attempt to change opinions (so lacks external validity)

Power of minority influence was very low (moscvoci’s→ 8%)

• therefore minority influence was rare and not useful

→ Ps wrote down answer- more likely to agree with minority (answers in public just tip of actual minority influence)

lessons for social change

Conformity research, Asch: confederate who broke power of majoirty allowed others to do the same

Normative social influence: provide information about what others do e.g. Bin it- others do, draws attention to majority so encourages conformity

Obedience research, Milgram: in variation where second teacher was conderate who refused to shock obedience went 65%-10%

Zimbardo, gradual commitment- once a small instruction is obeyed it becomes much more difficult to resist a bigger one

HOGG+ VAUGHAN: more likely to be influenced by members of in group (people with similar characteristics) e.g the british government in early 1900s-1920s were mainly upper class male MPs so more influenced by Suffragettes when they were also upper class

Evaluation for social change

Research has shown social influence processes based on psychological research do work

• NOLAN: tried to change people’s energy use habits, hung messages on front doors of houses in California every week for one month- message said residents were trying to reduce energy use (NSI)

• control group: just said to reduce energy usage

• significant decreases in energy usage for group who were told about other residents

• majority influence can lead to social change with NSI

→ Foxcroft: reviewed social norm interventions including 70 studies trying to reduce student alchohol use, research found a small reduction in drinking quality and no effect on drinking frequency (normative social influence does not lead to a long term change)

Psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change

• NEMETH: due to deeper thinking processes (divergent) minorities inspire more broad thinking so activily searching for infomation and weighing up options which leads to better decisions and more creative solutions- they were stimulated.

Deeper processing may not play role in how minorities begin change

• some people are supposedly converted due to thinking more deeply about minority’s views

• MACKIE: argues majority influence creates deeper thinking if you do not share their views because we want lots of people to think in the same way as us so we consider their arguments and reasoning more.

Methodological issues in this area of research

• explanations of social change rely on studies by Moscovici, Asch and Milgram

• all involve artificial tasks which don’t reflect real life situations as lack ecological validity

Social support, resisting conformity

pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming ( do not have to have the right answer)

this social support enables you to follow your own conscience as the non conformer is a model of independent behaviour, the majority is no longer unanimous.

Social support, resisting obedience

pressure to obey can be resisted when there is another person who disobeys e.g. Milgrams’ variation, having a disobedient confederate who did not shock, obedience went 65% → 10%

the disobedient behaviour acts as a model of dissent and acts as a model for you to follow your own conscience as they challenge the legitimacy of authority

Evaluation for social support

Research evidence for the positive effects of social support

• ALBERECHT: evaluated teen fresh start, a US 8-week programme to help pregnant adolescents resist peer pressure to smoke

• adolescents who were given slightly older mentor or ‘buddy’ by the end were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group without a buddy

• shows social support helps to resist social influence

Research support for role of dissenting peers

GAMSON: particiapnts told to produce evidence to help oil company run smear campaign (find false accusations)

• 29/33 groups (88%) rebelled against orders as had peer support so could resist obedience

ALLEN AND LEVINE: social support can help individuals resist influence of the group.

• Asch lines study: with a supporter 64% did not conform, when without it was 3%

Locus of control, Rotter- resistance to social change

Internal LOC: things that happen to you are largely controlled by yourself

• take personal responsibility for your actions

• base decisions on your own beliefs

• more self confident, achievement orientated, higher intelligence

• greater resistance to social change

External LOC: believe things that happen to you are outside of your controll

loc is a continuum

evaluation for locus of control

Research evidence to support link between LOC and resistance to social influence

• HOLLAND: repated milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were internal or external

• 37% of internals did not continue to highest shock level vs 23% of externals

• internals showed more resistance

Evidence that challenges link between LOC and resistance

• TWENGE: analysed data from LOC studies over 40 year period

• data showed people had become more resistant to obedience but also more external ( if resistance is linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal)

ROTTER: LOC is not necessarily most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence as it depends on the situation

• Your LOC is only significantly affected by behaviour in new situations as if you have conformed or resisted in the past, you are likely to do so again in that situation regardless of your LOC.

Dispositional factor so does not consider othe rfactors like social support- not just your personality is important

Coding research and evaluation

Coding- format in which information is stored in various memory stores

Baddeley- gave different lists of words to 4 groups of participants, and had to recall them in correct order

• Immediately (STM)- best with acousticaly dissimilar: STM coded acoustically

• 20 mins (LTM)- best with semantically dissimilar: LTM coded semantically

G1 (acoustically similar)- cat, cab, can

G2 (acoustically dissimilar)- pit, few, cow

G3 (semantically similar)- great, large, big

G4 (semantically dissimilar)- good, huge, hot

Separate memory stores

• identified clear difference between 2 memory stores

• STM being acoustic and LTM being semantic has stood the test of time

• helped lead to multi-store model- some exceptions though

Artificial stimuli means there is limited application

• word lists do not have personal meaning

• means findings do not tell us much about coding in different memory tasks in everyday life so people may use semantic coding even for STM

Capacity research and evaluation

Capacity- amount of information that can be held in a memory store

Jacobs- researcher reads out 4 digits and participants repeats them back, if correct then the research ups amount of digits read- found capacity was 9

Valid study as has been replicated- despite being old and lacking adequate controls, more controlled recent studies have found the same findings

Miller- made observations of everyday practice and found that lots of things come in sevens e.g. days, notes- though capacity was 7± 2

• people can read 5 words as easily as 5 letters through chunking- grouping digits or letters into chunks

May have overestimated STM capacity- Cowan reviewed other research and concluded STM is 4 ± 1

Duration research and evaluation

Duration- length of time information can be held in memory

Peterson and Peterson (24 students have 8 tests each)

• given consonant syllable e.g. YCG then told to count back from a 3 digit number (stops maintenance rehearsal)

• different tests told to stop and recall between 3-18s→ 3s=80%, 18s=3%

• STM duration approx. 18s unless we do maintenance rehearsal

Stimulus was artificial- does not reflect everyday activities where we try to remember something meaningful so lacks external validity

Bahrick- 392 Americans aged 17-74 using school yearbooks to test recall

1. remembering names from 50 photos- +15 years= 90%, +48 years=70%

2. free recall to just remember names +15 years= 90%, +48 years= 30%

shows LTM may last up to a lifetime

High external validity- researcher investigated meaningful memorie so findings are a real estimate on duration

Types of long term memory, tulving

Episodic memory: ability to recall information from our lives

• time stamped as to when they happened and how they timely relate to other events

• include several elements e.g. people and place

• conscious effort to recall

Semantic memory: shared knowledge of the world e.g. word meanings

• less vulnerable to distortion and forgetting

• conscious effort to recall

Procedural memory: for actions and skills

• may find hard to explain to someone

• no conscious effort to recaoo

Explanations for forgetting- interference

Two pieces of information disrupt each other- forgetting or distortion

In LTM these memories may be available but inacessible

Proactive interference: older memory interferes with new e.g. teacher learnt many past names so cannot remember new names

Retroactive interference- newer memory interferes with older memory e.g. can no longer remember old memory of phone number as have new one

McGeoch and McDonald: studied retroactive interference by changing similarity between 2 sets of material.

• Participants learnt 1 list of 10 to 100% accuracy

• Then learnt new list to 100% accuracy: synonyms, antonyms, unrelated, consonant syllables, 3 numbers, control

• Then had to recall original list, those who had learnt synonyms had the worst recall because the new information was interfering with the old

• Shows interference is worse when memories are similar

Evaluation for long term memory types

Clinical evidence from HM and Clive Wearing

• HM had episodic memory impaired due to brain damage from operation e.g. could not recall stroking dog 30mins earlier but could remember concept of a dog (semantic)

• Clive Wearing had episodic memory impaired by viral infection but could stil read music, sing and play piano (procedural)

• different memory stores can be damaged but others not

→ clinical studies lack control of variables as the researcher did not study memory before

Real world application- allows psychologists to help people with memory problems

• age leads to people forgetting recent episodic memories

• Belleville created intervention to improve episodic memory in the elderly- trained participants did better on episodic memory testing than a control group

Cohen and Squire: argue episodic and semantic memories are stored together in one memory store as both are consciouslly recalled- ‘declarative memory’

Tulving has argued episodic memory is sub category of semantic memory (most memories are a combination of both)

• it is possible to have a functioning semantic and damaged episodic BUT NOT damaged semantic and functioning semantic

• Hodges and Patterson: some people with Alzeimers can form new episoidic memory but not semantic

Evaluation for the multi-store model

Research shows that LTM and STM are different and independent

• Baddeley- mix up words that sound similar in STM, and words with similar meanings in LTM

→ shown using artificial stimuli so MSM not valid model of how memory works daily

Serial position curve shows that there are separate stores

• primacy: words that appear first in word list are more likely to be recalled as they are rehearsed

• recency: words at end of word will still be in STM

Prolonged rehearsal not needed to transfer to LTM

• MSM argues the more we rehearse something the more likely it is to go to LTM

• Craik and Watkins argue that the type of rehearsal matters more- elaborative rehearsal is needed: linking rehearsal to existing knowledge or thinking about meaning

Flashbulb memories are detailed, vivid memories of event stored immediately and lasts forever e.g. 9/11, wedding day

• often life changing so emotionally aroused when memory first encoded

• not everything is rehearsed to go to LTM

Evaluation for the working memory model

Clinical evidence from KF- after brain injury, KF had poor STM for auditory but could process visual information. His recall of letters and digits better when he read them than when they were read to him

→ phonological loop was damaged but visual spatial sketchpad still intact (supports model)

Studies of dual task performance

• Baddeley’s participants could do visual and verbal task at the same time

• performance declined when both tasks were visua or both verbal

• similar tasks compete for same slave subsystem but not compeition when they are different tasks

→ used tasks unlike tasks that we perform in our everyday lives and done in lab conditions

Nature of the central executive- lack of clarity over how the central executive works

Baddeley “most important but least understood part of the working memory”

• needs to be more specified as being unclear challenges the integrity of the model

Evaluation for retrieval failure

Retrieval cues can help overcome forgetting in everyday life- may not have a strong effect but worth paying attention to e.g. environment where we first learnt

Research support- lack of relevant cues at recall can lead to context and state dependent forgetting, occurs in real world situations

→ Baddley argues that context effects are not very strong especially in everyday life as environments are generally not different enough so does not explain much everyday forgetting

Context effects may depend substandially on the type of memory being tested

• Godden and Baddeley replicated underwater experiment but used a recogniton test insetad of recall- had to say whether they recognised words read to them from a list

• Performance was then the same in all 4 conditions showing context effects only apply when a person has to recall

Encoding specificity principle- how is it possible to know when a cue is encoded, means certain studies are based on assumptions rather than actual evidence

Evaluation for cognitive interview

Kohnken- supporting evidence

• did meta analysis of 55 studies comparing cogntive interview with standard police interview

• cognitive interview gave 41% higher accurate information compared with standard review (only 4 in analysis showed no difference)

• shows cognitive interview helps get information not immediately accessible

→ enhanced cognitive interview found more incorrect details (quantity>quality)

Reinstate the context and report everything prevents issues with leading questions and context-dependent forgetting

Not all elements of cognitive interview are useful, Mihne and Bill- some find reverse the order and change perspective confusing which weakens credibility of overall cognitive interview

Cogntitive interview is time consuimg

• completing it takes more time and training than the standard police interview

• more time to build rapport and allow witnesses to relax

• not realistic for police forces to do