2024 Sem 2 Psychology Exam

Topic 1: Is Psychology a Science?

Berezow’s Argument

Berezow’s argument states the psychology is not a science, and includes the following premises:

  1. Psychology doesn’t have clearly defined terminology

  2. Psychology doesn’t have quantifiability

Therefore, he concludes that psychology cannot have controlled experiments, reproducibility or have testable predictions, so it must not and cannot be considered a science.

To explain this further:

Controlled experiments: in order for a experiment to be controlled, there must be quantifiability so it can be measured, and therefore be accurate. For example, happiness is almost impossible to quantify as not only is it not clearly defined (premise 1), it also is reliant on qualitative data (interviews, anecdotes), which cannot be quantified (premise 2).

Reproducibility: if an experiment cannot have a controlled experiment and be measured once, it cannot be measured twice. Therefore, due to this lack of quantifiability, experiments cannot be reproduced in psychology. Additionally, the replication rate of experiments in psychology is around 35%, much lower than other science subjects, therefore is evidence of its inability to reproduce.

Testable predictions: Popper highlights the difference between a pseudo-science and a science in their predictions. Simply, a science must seek to disprove the theory, while a pseudo-science seeks to confirm theory. For example, while Einstein had a theory which he then proved by future findings, Freud used past events to determine a theory, and would resolve any objections by introducing new factors so his theory would remain true. This creates a distinction between the predictions in science and pseudo-science, which psychology is the latter.

Markers/Features of Science

Science can be defined in multiple ways.

The first, most obvious way, is simply anything that follows the scientific method. (Identify, develop, choose, collect, examine, interpret, communicate)

It can also be defined as the general approach to the natural world, providing that it is:

  1. Empirical - learning should be based on observation, it should be systematic, planned, careful and operationalised

  2. Empirical questions - answered by observations

  3. Public knowledge - able to contested, built on, replicated and collaborated on

However, its key cause is to understand why things happen, but should be based in objectivity rather than subjectivity.

Examples of Scientific Studies in Psychology

Scientific studies in psychology have indeed been undertaken, and can clearly follow the scientific method (IDCCEIC), for example the littering study (+font, cheating)

Quantifiability can be done, for example the taxi driver study (+prenatal testosterone)

Even traditionally “subjective” topics such as happiness can in fact, be measured.

  • It can be broken down into 2 components, the affective (pleasure vs. pain - happiness) component and the cognitive (comparing perceived status against our own standards - life satisfaction) component. (Example - study where money was left before interview, changing outcome of interview) In doing this, there is a clearer definition and experiments are able to be run on it.

  • These experiments can be further broken down into biological, behavioural, implicit measures, other reports, and self reports, therefore it is a legitimate subject for study

  • For example, a gratitude study was undertaken where 219 participants were examined over 3 weeks, and some had to write gratitude letters. The findings overall were that happiness (positive affect) and life satisfaction (cognitive evaluation) increased. Multiple studies support the association between gratitude and happiness, so we can begin to understand factors that affect happiness in this way.

  • Predictions can also be made on happiness, as trends have been found that richer countries generally are happier, which can be explained by the cognitive component of happiness, as comparison against others (cognitive evaluation) can result in a change in life satisfaction, a key element to a person’s wellbeing and happiness.

Topic 2: Social Psychology

Stanford Prison Experiment (& Zimbardo)

It was a study of the psychological effect of becoming a prisoner or prisoner guard, lead by Zimbardo and researchers from Stanford University

Aim/purpose

To test the effects of power over depersonalised others, and to test the question of how much personality effects behaviour over situation

Method

  1. An ad in a newspaper called for volunteers in a prison simulation, and 24 males who were “psychologically stable and healthy” were chosen

  2. Participants were randomly divided into 2 groups - guards and inmates

  3. Guards were informed not to physically harm prisoners, but could dehumanise them and make them feel powerless through other psychological methods. They were also given military uniforms.

  4. The prisoners were arrested by the police and transported to a fake prison, and forced to wear uniforms with numbers on them and were only called by those numbers.

Findings

Over 6 days of experiment, various events occurred, including:

  • a rebellion

  • the assignment of “bad” cells and “privilege” cells

  • mental break down of prisoners

  • escape plot

  • excessive control, punishment and abuse

The findings support the idea that an individuals behaviour can be caused by situation rather than an individuals personality

It showed how impressionable and obedient people can be when provided with dehumanising ideology and institutional support

3 key factors: Anonymity, power, dehumanisation

Criticisms

The study faced many criticisms, regarding its ethics, bias and unscientific processes.

Ethics: Breached informed consent, right to withdraw, harm caused to participants

Bias: Ad biased sample, Zimbardo was too involved (confounding variable), guard’s behaviour was influenced by stereotypes and through demand characteristics

Science: Limited scientific control, conclusions and observation highly subjective

Milgram’s Obedience Study

Method

An actor for a student was put in a separate room, linked up to an electric shock machine and a participant was a teacher. When the student got a question wrong, then a shock was given, and every time the voltage would increase. Additionally, there was an experimenter as an authority figure in the same room as the teacher who would forcefully encourage the participant to continue up to the full 450 volts.

Findings

Out of the 40 participants, 68% of them delivered the full 450 volt treatment, which many becoming temporarily stressed or having manic fits.

There were many variations made of this experiment manipulating various variables.

The standard interpretation of the experiment is that people will obey authority figures even if it involves harming someone else to the point of potentially killing them.

However, Haslam’s interpretation emphasised the banality of evil (evil is not always done by monsters). Rather than people being mindlessly obedient, he argued that people were rather engaged followers who would do become evil for the benefit of science (or a common goal).

Ethics

The experiment was highly controversial and argued to be distressing and deceptive to participants. (For example, one participant was forever traumatised and had difficulty going on with life)

It breached many of the regulations:

  • informed consent

  • debriefing

  • safety

  • deception

  • right to withdraw

However, arguably, this experiment can be ethically justified as the experiment was significant to humanity and a lot could be learned from it.

Group Think

A process by which the desire for consensus in a group can lead to poor decisions.

Features

  • Illusions of invulnerability (excessive optimism)

  • Collective rationalisation (discount warning)

  • Stereotypical view of out-groups

  • Self-censorship

  • Illusion of unanimity

  • Self-appointed mind-guards

  • Direct pressure on dissenters (pressured not to oppose group views)

Ingredients

  • Group cohesion

  • Isolation

  • Poor leadership

  • Time pressure

  • Stress involved in making decision

Examples

  • The Bay of Pigs Invasion

  • The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster

  • Abilene Paradox

Group Polarisation

When groups of likeminded people discuss/spend time with each other, they tend to move to a more extreme position than the individual’s personal position.

Ingredients

  • People have a shared perspective

  • Talk/discussion with one another

  • No moderating influences

Examples

Myers & Bishop: Found that when students who were low in racial prejudice talked to each other, overall everyone became more accepting. However, when highly prejudiced students talked about the same issues, they became even more prejudiced.

Real life example: Terrorism

Explanations

There are 2 main theories to explain this:

  1. Social comparison theory (individuals have a desire to gain acceptance and be perceived favourably by their groups)

  2. International influence theory (individuals will become more convinced by arguments in support of their position)

Deindividuation

Losing a sense of personal identity/responsibility, associated with being in a group, being anonymous and being aware of group norms.

Ingredients

  • Anonymity

  • Lowered sense of responsibility

  • Being focused on the present

  • Sensory input overload

  • Being in a new situation

  • Under the influence of drugs

  • Having high levels of physiological action

Examples

Halloween Study: When going trick or treating, children were left alone and told to only take one piece of candy, but there were 2 bowls of candy and money. There were 2 variables involved: children who came in groups and children who were alone, and children who gave identity and children who didn’t. The results were drastic, as compared to the 7.5% of children who broke the rules when alone and identifiable, 57% of children who were in groups and identified broke the rules.

Real life example: Riots, sporting crowds

Explanation

Social identity theory: you take on the traits of the group you’re in.

Conformity

A change in behaviour due to group pressure or perceived group pressure.

Explanation

There are 2 reasons why this may occur:

Normative Social Influence: conforming to a group standard to be included in the group. This is due to the desire to be liked and fear of rejection.

Informational Social Influence: in an unfamiliar domain, we take cues from others on how to behave. This is due to the desire to be right therefore, we look to others who are “correct” and follow them.

Examples

Normative Social Influence:

Salem Witch Trials: This can be explained by conformity.

  • People in Salem believed that everyone else believed in witchcraft, even if they didn’t necessarily believe it either (spiral of silence)

  • But in order to fit in and not face rejection (death) from society, they each added to the lies by falsely confessing and accusing other (normative social influences)

Informational Social Influence:

Studies: Monkey study (coloured maize), Infant study (conform when 3 other repeat an action 1 time , but not when 1 repeat an action 3 times)

Topic 3: Computational Theory of Mind

Main Idea & Concepts

The theory is that intelligence is possible in a material object/thing through computation

Key concepts:

  • Mental representation: computation is built on representations, and it is a brain state that stands for or is caused by a state of affairs or an object. Information is stored in the brain using mental representation.

  • Information: anything that reduces uncertainty, and is a correlation between a brain state and a state of affairs or an object.

  • Computation: one representational/informational state causing another one to happen in the right order. A sensory input would cause a series of representations that the causes a logical, truth preserving or useful output.

  • Algorithm: A procedure/series of steps for reaching a goal state or solving a problem (like a program)

  • Thinking: Information processing, moving from one representational state to another in a way that is useful

Chinese Room Argument

An argument based on a thought experiment. If given detailed instructions, one can manipulate and follow the rules and come up with a real answer. Therefore, manipulating symbols according to an algorithm is not the same as understanding.

Counter arguments: (counter-counter arguments by Searle)

  1. The “whole room”, including the man and rule sheet understands Chinese

    • even if the man memorises the rules, does calculations in his head and moves outside, the symbol manipulator does not understand Chinese

  2. The man lacks any sensory-motor connection to the real world

    • if you gave him a TV camera and robot arm, he has the connection but he doesn’t understand the language

  3. His program does not mirror what the brain does

    • in the Chinese gym, where millions of people in a huge gym act as neurons and shout signals to one another, replicating a neural network, the gym does not understand Chinese anymore than the original man did

Opposition to Searle: He is applying human intuition to convince us that in the original case he doesn’t understand, so when it is faster we also believe he doesn’t understand. He also is exploring the meaning of the word “understanding” as we know it

Machine Learning & Turing Machines

There are 2 main types of computation:

  • Turing computation:

    • Uses pattern matching, a goal state, a long term memory (symbol representation) and a short term memory (used to do computation)

    • then an algorithm is set up, which can be coded into a binary code tape.

  • Machine learning (/artificial neural network):

    • Uses logic gates (e.g. and, or, not)

    • Consists of an input later and an output layer, and may have many more layers in between these.

    • Each path is given a weight, and each neuron is given a threshold.

Topic 4: Theory of Mind

What it is

It refers to an ability to form “second order mental representations”.

It can be thought of as the cognitive system that humans typically use to engage in social interactions and with other people.

Link to Autism

Autism can be seen as the lack of Theory of Mind, which leads to struggles in social interactions.

Some features of extreme autism can be explained by Theory of Mind:

  • They disregard people and go for objects, or may even regard people as objects (don’t see people as having a mind)

  • Don’t pay attention to people and/or don’t respond to them when called (don’t understand someone else wanting them)

Some studies were taken looking at the early development of Theory of Mind in children, such as the Sally-Ann task/Smarties test, where child predicted what someone might do based off their own knowledge, however if they have Theory of Mind, then they will realise that another person has a separate mind and hasn’t seen something themselves.

Most autistic children are likely to fail this test, however in a similar test where instead of a person it is a camera, they passed it.

Baron Cohen’s Studies - Links between Autism and Science

His hypothesis was that autism is linked to minds wired for science. (A “dash of autism” is needed for scientific talent)

Evidence to support this:

  • Looking at prominent scientists in the past, such as Einstein, Newton and Curie, they all are suspected of being autistic

  • Autism is more common in students studying maths/science subjects then students in humanities

  • Scientists score higher in autistic traits then the general population

  • Teenagers with autism scored higher on mechanical reasoning tests (related to systems) and showed a higher interest in systems

He also suspected that there was a genetic component to autism, which was supported by the following evidence:

  • Fathers of people with autism are more likely to be working in the field of engineering

  • Therefore, the prediction was made that autism should be more common in places like Silicon valley and Eindhoven, which have a larger proportion of “system focused” jobs, and this was found to be true

  • Autism is also typically more common in males, and a study got newborn babies, both male and females to look at 2 images, one being a toy and another a human face. Generally, males looked longer at the toy and more females looked at the face

  • Another study measured the amount of prenatal testosterone a baby was exposed to, and a higher level of this was correlated to more autistic traits in the child and a stronger interest in systems

Topic 5: The Brain

Main Parts and their Functions

Hindbrain

The “lower brain”, links the spinal cord and the brain

Medulla: Continuation of the spine, controls breathing, heartbeat, digestion

Pons: Above the medulla and receives information sent from visual areas to control eye and body action

Cerebellum: Receives information from pons, role is to coordinate the sequence of body movement

Brain Stem: Regulates survival functions such as heartbeat, blood pressure, breathing rates

Midbrain

Above the hindbrain, below the forebrain

Reticular Formation: A network of neurons, and connects the hindbrain and forebrain, however is mostly situated in the midbrain. It is important in the control of arousal and “sleeping and waking” cycle

Substantia Nigra: Plays a role in regulating movement, It also produces dopamine, a neurotransmitter

Forebrain

The largest region of the brain

The Cerebrum:

  • The biggest part of the forebrain, covered by a thin layer, the cerebral cortex

  • It also can be divided into the left and right cerebral hemispheres, which is separated by a longitudinal fissure. These 2 hemispheres are almost symmetrical in appearance and joined by the corpus callosum

  • It can be divided into 4 lobes:

    1. Frontal Lobe - human activities

      (Primary Motor Cortex) - voluntary movements

      (Broca’s Area) - production of speech

    2. Temporal Lobe - hearing, understanding speech

      (Primary Auditory Cortex) - hearing

      (Wernicke’s Area) - speech comprehension

    3. Parietal Lobe - sensations from external environment (touch) and position and movement of body parts

      (Primary Somatosensory Cortex) - bodily sensations

    4. Occipital lobe: visual information

      (Primary Visual Cortex) - vision

Amygdala: Works with the hippocampus for long term memory, it is a major processing centre for emotions and links these to people/places

Hippocampus: responsible for long term memory and spatial memory.

Hypothalamus: controls basic survival actions (sleep, body temperature regulation and the 4 F’s - Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing and Fornification)

Thalamus: the “communication centre” of the brain and receives information from sensory organs (except the nose) and regulates overall activity in the cortex. It has 2 roles:

  1. Enables an organism to process sensory stimuli in the environment, receiving information and relaying this to relevant parts of the cortex to be processed

  2. Determines which of the incoming sensory information is the most important to pay attention to

Topic 6: Cognitive Psychology

Cognitive psychology is the study of processes underlying attention, decision making, language, memory and problem solving

Kahnemen - Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow

System 1:

System 1 thinking is:

  • Quick

  • Instinctive

  • Little/no effort

  • Not deliberate

  • Predictable

  • Can be wrong

  • Involuntary

  • Automatic

  • Emotional

Some examples are:

  • Orient to the source of a hidden sound

  • Detect hostility in a voice

  • Answer 2 + 2

  • Say “here” when name is called

  • *point 1 & 2 are innate, while point 3 & 4 are learnt

System 2:

System 2 thinking is:

  • Slower

  • Conscious

  • Effortful

  • More deliberate

  • More logical & orderly

  • Requires high attention span/focus

  • Includes sequence of steps

  • Causes changes in body (e.g. increased heart rate, rising blood pressure, blood vessels dilate)

Some examples are:

  • Tell someone your phone number

  • Maintain a faster walking speed than natural

  • Compare 2 washing machines for overall value

  • Turning off house alarm

How they work together:

  • System 1 can suggest ideas and system 2 checks them

  • System 2 uses system 1’s capabilities and filter them down (e.g. look for a tall woman with white hair)

Cognitive Reflection Test

The cognitive reflection test tests this “2 systems of thinking” theory, as an intuitive, quick answer may not be the correct answer as our brain replaces the original question with a simpler (and incorrect) version

The original test by Dr Frederic contained 3 questions:

  1. A bat and ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? 5 cents (S1 thinking - 10 cents)

  2. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? 5 minutes (S1 thinking - 100 minutes)

  3. In a lake there is a patch of lily pads. Everyday the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half the lake? 47 days (24 days)

A study was done with Ferraris and Fords replacing bats and balls in the first questions, however because the answer ($90 000 for a Ford) sounds unreasonable so they would answer the question correctly this can be explained because when intuitive answers conflict with other intuitions (such as those based on past knowledge), people are more likely to engage in system 2 thinking, leading to a correct answer.

(The Wason Selection test also tests cognitive reflection and when applying prior knowledge to that question engaged system 2)