Unit1 revision


Published on

  • I found the powerpoint very helpful, good amount of information. Is there another one for Unit 2?
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • hi, just wanted to say I found this really helpful for my upcoming exam. I was wondering if you could do another one for Unit 2? it would help me a lot. thanks
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Run down building – down to 47.5%
  • Unit1 revision

    1. 1. Unit 1: The Exam! 25/05/2011 <ul><li>The exam is 1 hour 20 minutes long and you will have to answer three types of question. </li></ul><ul><li>This unit is 40% of your total AS psychology and the paper is marked out of 60. </li></ul><ul><li>There are three compulsory sections. </li></ul>Cognitive Experiments Social Surveys <ul><li>There are three parts to the Unit 1 exam: </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple choice questions – read them carefully and make sure you read how many responses you have to give. [15 minutes] </li></ul><ul><li>Short answer / stimulus response. Answer fully. [40 minutes] </li></ul><ul><li>Extended writing question. [25 minutes] </li></ul>
    2. 2. Study or Theory? <ul><li>STUDY (APRC / GRAVE) </li></ul><ul><li>A study is any exercise where data is collected and analysed. </li></ul><ul><li>This involves a researcher conducting an experiment of any type. It will have an aim, procedure, results and conclusion. </li></ul><ul><li>Studies </li></ul><ul><li>Craik and Tulvin, Godden & Baddely, Milgram, Hofling, Meeus, Reicher & Haslam. </li></ul><ul><li>THEORY </li></ul><ul><li>A theory is an explanation for a psychological phenomenon. </li></ul><ul><li>Following a theory researchers will conduct studies in an attempt to support the theory and provide evidence for it. </li></ul><ul><li>Theories </li></ul><ul><li>MSM, LoP, Trace Decay, Cue-Dependency, Reconstructive Hypothesis, Agency Theory, Social Identity Theory. </li></ul>
    3. 3. APRC: Describing a STUDY <ul><li>Aim – what did the psychologist want to do? </li></ul><ul><li>Procedure – what did they do? Who did they do it to? Experimental design? Sampling method? Apparatus? </li></ul><ul><li>Results – what did they find (raw data)? </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions – so what? What does it mean? </li></ul>
    4. 4. GRAVE: Evaluating a STUDY <ul><li>G eneralisability - can the findings be applied to the general population? Think about the sample, methods used & confounding variables. </li></ul><ul><li>R eliability - can the procedure be replicated and are the findings consistent? </li></ul><ul><li>A pplications - do the findings have practical value? Think: So what? </li></ul><ul><li>V alidity - did the study test what it set out to? Can the findings be applied to everyday life (ecological validity)? Population validity (sampling). </li></ul><ul><li>E thics - with reference to the BPS ethical guidelines, how ethical was the study? </li></ul>
    5. 5. Cognitive Psychology <ul><li>Edexcel Psychology: Unit 1 </li></ul>
    6. 6. ASSUMPTION1: Information Processing <ul><li>Definition : The processing by which information is received by the senses, analysed and responded to. This flow of information is described using the terms input, process and output. </li></ul><ul><li>Example : </li></ul>
    7. 7. Information Processing Decision making Memory
    8. 8. ASSUMPTION 2: Computer Analogy <ul><li>The human mind works in a similar way to a computer in terms of information processing. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>INPUTS information from the senses; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PROCESSES information in the form of thinking, memory and language; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OUTPUTS information in the form of decision making, speech and action. </li></ul></ul>
    9. 10. ASSUMPTON 3: Active <ul><li>Humans actively organise and manipulate information from the environment. Cognitive or mental processes mediate between stimulus and response. </li></ul><ul><li>Active processing refers to sets of procedures in which a learner acts on instructional inputs to generate, re-organise, self-explain, or otherwise go beyond the encoding of material. </li></ul>
    10. 11. Evaluation of Cognitive Approach <ul><li>Strengths </li></ul><ul><li>Adopts scientific procedures to develop and test theories. </li></ul><ul><li>Uses experimental techniques. </li></ul><ul><li>Models simplify cognitive processes. </li></ul><ul><li>Allows us to understand mental process that are not directly observable. </li></ul><ul><li>Weaknesses </li></ul><ul><li>Tends to ignore biology and genetic influence also ignores individual differences. </li></ul><ul><li>Provides a mechanistic view of human behaviour. </li></ul><ul><li>Can such a scientific approach really tell us about how we think, feel and behave? (Humanistic psychology). </li></ul>
    11. 12. Cognitive Psychology <ul><li>Define memory, forgetting, storage & retrieval. </li></ul><ul><li>Describe & Evaluate MSM Theory </li></ul><ul><li>Describe & Evaluate LoP theory </li></ul><ul><li>Describe & Evaluate Cue Dependent Theory </li></ul><ul><li>Describe & Evaluate Trace Decay Theory </li></ul><ul><li>Studies in Detail </li></ul><ul><li>Godden & Baddeley (1975) </li></ul><ul><li>Craik & Tulvin (1975) </li></ul><ul><li>Key Issue </li></ul><ul><li>Eye witness testimony </li></ul><ul><li>Cognitive Interview </li></ul>
    12. 13. Memory & Forgetting… The same thing? <ul><li>Memory: </li></ul><ul><li>The retention and recall of previous experience. </li></ul><ul><li>Encoding -> Storage -> Retrieval </li></ul><ul><li>Forgetting: </li></ul><ul><li>Not been able to remember a fact or event because the memory trace is unavailable or inaccessible. </li></ul>
    13. 14. Failure at any of these 3 stages can lead to forgetting.   All 3 processes depend upon one another; they are interdependent . Memory involves three main Processes: ENCODING STORAGE RETRIEVAL The process of changing sensory input into a memory trace so that it can be stored. The process of maintaining a record of the memory trace so that it can be retrieved in the future. The process of accessing and recovering stored information so that it can be recalled.
    14. 15. Multi-Store Model [Theory]
    15. 17. AO2 Evaluation of Atkinson & Shiffrin ’ s Multi-store Model of Memory <ul><li>Lot’s of evidence supporting STM and LTM being separate stores. </li></ul><ul><li>Problems with concept of STM: </li></ul><ul><li>- FK shows that semantic as well as accoustic encoding is used. </li></ul><ul><li>- First-in-first out displacement loss disproved. </li></ul><ul><li>- Not a single system- working memory with separate subsystems for visual & spatial and verbal information. </li></ul><ul><li>X HM learning new skills shows LTM not a single system- separate episodic, semantic and procedural stores. </li></ul><ul><li>X Rehearsal does not completely explain transfer to LTM. </li></ul><ul><li>X Primacy-recency effect equally well explained by LOP framework. </li></ul><ul><li>X Supporting studies use artificial tasks therefore evidence low in ecological validity. </li></ul><ul><li>X ‘Capacity’ not well defined; not clear whether it refers to storage or processing. </li></ul><ul><li>X An additional criticism of the MSM is that it does not take into account the strategies (other than maintenance rehearsal) used to remember information. </li></ul>
    16. 18. Craik and Lockhart ’s Levels of Processing (1972) [Theory] <ul><li>Proposed as an alternative to the PROCESSES involved in storing a memory suggested by the MSM. </li></ul><ul><li>They suggested that the likelihood of remembering a piece of information depends on how we process it. </li></ul><ul><li>In this way, memory is a by-product of the information processing that occurs when attending to information. </li></ul>
    17. 19. Levels of Processing <ul><ul><li>Structural Shallow </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What does the word look like? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the word in capital letters? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phonetic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What does the word sound like? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does the word rhyme with …? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Semantic Deep </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What does the word mean? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does the word fit in this sentence? </li></ul></ul>
    18. 20. Evaluation of LoP (AO2) <ul><li>Evidence to support- Craik & Tulving (65% sem, 37% p, 17% st). This is incidental rather than intentional learning so ecologically valid. </li></ul><ul><li>Brain scanning studies show more activity when semantic processing occurring. </li></ul><ul><li>Improvement on MSM </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Elaborative rather than maintenance rehearsal; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shows complexity of encoding process. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Useful everyday applications- education. </li></ul><ul><li>X Confounding variables to depth; time, effort, distinctiveness. </li></ul><ul><li>X Semantic does not always = better </li></ul><ul><li>X Circular argument </li></ul><ul><li>X Focuses on processes not stores </li></ul>
    19. 21. Craik and Tulvin (1975) [Study] <ul><li>Aim </li></ul><ul><li>The aim was to test whether words that were processed for their meaning would be better remembered than words that were processed for information about their appearance or sound. </li></ul><ul><li>Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Laboratory experiment- the IV (depth of processing) was manipulated and there was a high level or experimental control in an artificial situation. </li></ul><ul><li>Repeated Measures- all participants participated in all three conditions: Structural processing, phonetic processing & semantic processing. </li></ul>
    20. 22. Craik and Tulvin (1975) [Study] <ul><li>Participants did not initially know that it was a memory test and thought they just had to answer questions on a list of words. In reality, different types of questions were making participants use different levels of processing structural, phonetic and semantic. </li></ul><ul><li>Words were presented to participants; each word was followed by a question which required a yes or no answer. Finally, participants were presented with the incidental memory test- incidental as they didn ’ t originally know they were going to do it. </li></ul><ul><li>Recall was measured through a recognition task where participants had to choose as many of the original words as they could amongst several others. </li></ul>
    21. 23. Is the word in capital letters? C hair Does this word rhyme with GREEN? BEAN Does the word fit this sentence? ‘The soldier picked up his _____.’ rifle Is this word in lower-case letters? FLOWER Does the word fit this sentence? ‘The woman _________ on the train.’ slept Does the word rhyme with MEND? pool Is the word in capital letters? MEANING Does the word fit this sentence? ‘Yesterday we saw a _______.’ fence Does the word rhyme with HOUSE? MOUSE Does the word fit into this sentence? ‘There are _______ growing in my garden.’ DOORS Is the word in lower-case letters? spend Does the word rhyme with TABLE? GENERAL Is this word in capital letters? article Does this word fit this sentence? ‘The _____ should not be more than 1000 words.’ castle Does this word rhyme with STOOL? POND
    22. 24. Craik and Tulvin (1975) [Study] <ul><li>Results </li></ul><ul><li>65% semantic 36% phonetic and 17% of structurally processed words were recalled. </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion </li></ul><ul><li>This study shows that depth of processing affects how well words are remembered. Semantic processing, that is thinking about the meaning of the words, leads to their being remembered best. </li></ul>
    23. 25. Craik and Tulvin (1975) A02 <ul><li>G : Problems as participants were all students (good memories?) and the task was artificial and not representative of things we remember. </li></ul><ul><li>R : As it is a lab experiment we can replicate the experiment easily to check the reliability of the study. </li></ul><ul><li>A : Shows that students (or anyone wanting to remember something) must attach meaning to it. When things are processed semantically we remember them better. Could develop revision techniques. </li></ul><ul><li>V : Artificial task so might not be measuring how we actually remember words. However, Pps. didn’t know it was a test of memory that removes some confounding variables. Poor population validity – all students. </li></ul><ul><li>E : Participants could have been embarrassed if they didn’t do well. </li></ul>
    24. 27. Trace Decay Theory <ul><li>Trace-decay theory can be used to explain forgetting from either STM or LTM. It proposes that forgetting occurs due to information not being available so there is nothing to retrieve thus recall cannot occur. </li></ul><ul><li>This theory is based on the idea that information creates a neurological (physical) trace in the brain when it is encoded which disappears over time. Without the rehearsal of information, engrams decay over time thus the memory disappears and forgetting occurs. </li></ul><ul><li>Forgetting therefore occurs from STM due to the stores limited duration if maintenance rehearsal does not take place. Equally, despite having a potential life-time duration, it has been suggested that if knowledge and skills in LTM are not practiced, then the engram will decay causing a structural change in LTM thus forgetting. </li></ul>
    25. 28. AO2 STRENGHTS Trace Decay Theory <ul><li>A study conducted by Peterson and Peterson (1959) supports the idea of trace decay in STM. They found that the number of trigrams recalled by participants decreased as the length of distraction task increased. This finding suggests that forgetting in STM is due to trace decay since the distraction task prevented rehearsal- the function of which is to replenish the trace before it decays completely. </li></ul><ul><li>This theory is also supported by physiological evidence showing that memories do create a physical trace in the brain. </li></ul><ul><li>The theory also has mundane realism as it is consistent with the forgetting demonstrated by people with Alzheimer ’ s disease who seem to lose memories (a physical process) rather than be unable to retrieve them. This suggests that trace decay may be a valid theory of forgetting. </li></ul>
    26. 29. AO2 LIMITATIONS Trace Decay Theory <ul><li>X Furthermore, Jenkins & Dallenbach (1924) tested whether time between encoding and recall led to forgetting. They found that participants who remained awake between learning and recall forgot more than those who slept. This suggests that interference rather than trace-decay causes forgetting as the lower recall in the awake group must have resulted from events between learning and recall interfering with the engram. </li></ul><ul><li>X Another limitation of trace-decay theory is that it cannot explain why some long-term memory engram ’ s, such as flashbulb memories, seem to be resistant to decay. </li></ul><ul><li>X Trace decay also has difficulty explaining why material which cannot be remembered at one time can be remembered at a future time, even though no additional presentations have been made. If the trace has decayed it should never be available. </li></ul>
    27. 30. Cue Dependent Theory Tulvin (1975) <ul><li>Tulvin claims two events are necessary for recall: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A memory trace </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Retrieval cue </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Context (environmental) Cues </li></ul><ul><li>These are cues in the environment which aid our ability to retrieve a memory at a later date. Forgetting occurs as the situation or context is different from that at encoding. </li></ul><ul><li>State Cues </li></ul><ul><li>This is the emotional state you are in at time of encoding. Forgetting occurs as the person’s state or mood is different from that at encoding. </li></ul>
    28. 31. Cue Dependent Theory (AO2) Tulvin (1975) <ul><li>Strengths </li></ul><ul><li>The theory accounts for forgetting in different tasks. There are many supporting studies. </li></ul><ul><li>The idea is testable because the retrieval environment can be replicated. </li></ul><ul><li>The Cognitive Interview is based on the theory that by providing cues to a person it will aid their ability to recall information. </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Weaknesses </li></ul><ul><li>The tasks used in the supporting studies are artificial so the results may lack ecological validity and validity. </li></ul><ul><li>It may only account for some forms of forgetting. </li></ul><ul><li>Only applies to forgetting from the LTM. </li></ul>
    29. 32. Godden & Baddley (1975) [Study] <ul><li>Aim : The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of environmental encoding cues on the ability to recall.  </li></ul><ul><li>Procedure : The 18 participants were randomly divided into four groups and all participants took part in all 4 conditions (repeated measured design). Participants were to learn list comprised of 36 unrelated words, 2-3 syllables long then recall in either the same or different context. During the experiment each participant undertook one condition per day: dry-dry; dry-wet; wet-wet; wet-dry. </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion: Godden and Baddeley concluded that their results do support the claims of cue-dependency theory. </li></ul>
    30. 33. Godden & Baddley (1975) AO2 <ul><li>G : Only trained SCUBA divers were used therefore it may not apply to all people. The environment and the tasks were artificial – learning does not usually take place like that. </li></ul><ul><li>R : The experiment can be replicated to test the reliability of the results. We could replicate in more ecologically valid situations (classroom vs. exam hall). </li></ul><ul><li>A : We can apply the findings to students learning in one environment and recalling in another. Better to sit exams in a classroom not hall. </li></ul><ul><li>V : Word list was artificial – not real learning. Poor population validity. </li></ul><ul><li>E : No ethical issues were broken. Not an issue. </li></ul>
    31. 34. Key Issue: EWT & Memory Reconstructive Hypothesis Loftus & Palmer Our perception of the event.
    32. 35. How does it help us explain the issues with eyewitness testimony? Multi-Store Model Atkinson & Shiffrin Information is only passed into the STM from the SM is we attend to it. If we are not attending to an event in the environment information about it will decay from the SM and will not be processed further (encoded) – no memory. Levels of Processing Craik and Lockheart We remember things well when they have been deeply processed, that is anaylsyed for meaning rather than for structural or phonetic information. Most questions following an event usually refer to apperance (structural processing). Cue-dependency Tulvin Research has shown that both our internal state and our surroundings when we store a new memory serve as memory cues. If these cues are not present at recall we will be unable to recall the event accurately. Reconstructive Memory Loftus & Palmer The active process of reconstruction takes place as we retrieve memories. We tend to include post-event information when reconstruct memories. Therefore, memories can be easily distorted by using leading questions.
    33. 36. The Cognitive Interview Fisher & Geiselman (1992) <ul><li>The four main techniques that the CIT uses to aid retrieval are: </li></ul><ul><li>Recreating the context: It is well established that memory is context dependent and so asking a witness to think about how they were feeling just before and during the event to be recalled, perhaps evoking the sounds and smells relating to the event, should facilitate retrieval. </li></ul><ul><li>Focused concentration: Persuading the witness to concentrate very hard on the task. </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple retrieval attempts: Encouraging a witness who feels they have recalled everything about an event to have another attempt can unlock previously un-recovered detail. </li></ul><ul><li>Varied retrieval: Witnesses will often recall events in chronological order but if they are asked to recall details in a different order, or from a different perspective, this may trigger additional information. </li></ul>46% Increase !
    34. 37. How Science Works: EXPERIMENTS <ul><li>Edexcel Psychology: Unit 1 </li></ul>
    35. 38. Experiments <ul><li>Three types of experiments: </li></ul><ul><li>Laboratory experiments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Highly controlled / artificial </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Field experiments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Controlled variables in a natural environment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Quasi (natural) experiments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We have no control over the independent variable – it ’s ‘naturally’ occurring (eg Gender) </li></ul></ul>
    36. 39. Experiments Independent Variable (IV) Dependent Variable (DV) Confounding Variable : a variable that effects the DV Extraneous Variable : a variable that could affect the DV but has been controlled for so it doesn ’t.
    37. 40. Experiments <ul><li>Extraneous Variables </li></ul><ul><li>Participant Variables </li></ul><ul><li>Independent Measures = Individual Differences </li></ul><ul><li>Situational Variables </li></ul><ul><li>Any feature of the experiment that could influence a participants behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Single Blind – Double Blind – Control Groups </li></ul>
    38. 41. Experiments <ul><li>Independent Measures </li></ul><ul><li>Participants are only in one condition. </li></ul><ul><li>Repeated Measures </li></ul><ul><li>The same participants repeat the two conditions </li></ul>Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 1 Condition 2 Counter balancing – alter order of Pp ’s
    39. 42. Experiments <ul><li>Matched Pairs – make two groups of participants as similar as possible. </li></ul>Condition 1 Condition 2 Male 21 IQ = 105 Male 21 IQ = 105 Female 25 IQ = 115 Female 25 IQ = 115
    40. 43. Evaluation of Experimental Designs. Strength Weakness Independent Measures No Order Effects Fewer Demand Characteristics Individual Differences Repeated Measures No Individual Differences Order Effects (counter balancing) Matched Pairs Controls for Individual Differences Can be difficult and costly.
    41. 44. Experiments – Hypotheses Participants memory will be much worse when there is a distraction in the room than when there is no distraction. Participants memory will be much worse when there is a distraction in the room than when there is no distraction. How are we measuring memory? What ’s better or worse? Higher / Lower? More / Less? What is the distraction? How are we manipulating it? Operationalising your hypothesis How have you manipulated your IV? How have you measured your DV?
    42. 45. Experiments – Hypotheses Participants memory will be much worse when there is a distraction in the room than when there is no distraction. Participants will remember significantly more words from a list of 20 presented for 60 seconds when they are in a room with no distractions than participants who are in a room where rock music is playing in the background.
    43. 46. Experiments – Hypotheses Participants who [ do something ] will be significantly [ faster/better/quicker etc ] at [ something ] than participants who [ do something else ]. There will be no significant difference between participants who [ do something ] and those who [ do something else ]. Any difference will be down to chance. Alternate Null
    44. 47. Experiments – Hypotheses Participants who [ do something ] will be significantly [ faster/better/quicker etc ] at [ something ] than participants who [ do something else ]. There will be a significant difference between participants who [ do something ] and those who [ do something else ]. 1Tailed 2Tailed
    45. 48. Key Terms - Experiments <ul><li>Laboratory Experiment </li></ul><ul><li>Field Experiment </li></ul><ul><li>Quasi Experiment </li></ul><ul><li>Independent Variable </li></ul><ul><li>Dependent Variable </li></ul><ul><li>Confounding Variable </li></ul><ul><li>Extraneous Variable </li></ul><ul><li>Replication </li></ul><ul><li>Cause and Effect </li></ul><ul><li>Ecological Validity </li></ul><ul><li>Alternate Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>Demand Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Ethics </li></ul><ul><li>Independent Measures </li></ul><ul><li>Repeated Measures </li></ul><ul><li>Matched-Pairs </li></ul><ul><li>Individual Differences </li></ul><ul><li>Order Effects </li></ul><ul><li>Counter Balancing </li></ul><ul><li>Operationalising Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>Null Hypothesis </li></ul>
    46. 49. Data Analysis <ul><li>Descriptive Statistics </li></ul><ul><li>Summary of data to illustrate patterns and relationships – BUT can ’t infer conclusions </li></ul><ul><li>Inferential Statistics </li></ul><ul><li>Statistical tests that allow us to make conclusions in relation to our hypothesis. </li></ul><ul><li>eg. Mann-Whitney or Spearman ’s Rho. </li></ul>
    47. 50. Data Analysis <ul><li>Nominal - measure of central tendency: mode </li></ul><ul><li>Data in categories (finished, fell, started) </li></ul><ul><li>Ordinal - measure of central tendency: median </li></ul><ul><li>Data which are ranked or in order (1 st 2 nd 3 rd ) </li></ul><ul><li>Interval - measure of central tendency: mean </li></ul><ul><li>Precise and measured using units of equal intervals (1m54s, 1m59s, 2m03s) </li></ul><ul><li>Measure of dispersion = range (Highest – Lowest) </li></ul><ul><li>Measure of central tendency = average </li></ul>
    48. 51. Strength Weakness Mean Makes use of all the values in a data set. Not good for ordinal or nominal data. Can be distorted by extreme values. Median Unaffected by extreme values. Not good for nominal data. Ignores extreme outliers. Mode Can be used with any data type. Isn ’t useful for small data sets.
    49. 52. Ethics <ul><li>Consent </li></ul><ul><li>Withdrawal </li></ul><ul><li>Debriefing </li></ul><ul><li>Deception </li></ul><ul><li>Confidentiality </li></ul><ul><li>Observation </li></ul><ul><li>Protection </li></ul><ul><li>Advice </li></ul><ul><li>Colleagues </li></ul><ul><li>Competency </li></ul>
    50. 53. Social Psychology <ul><li>Edexcel Psychology: Unit 1 </li></ul>
    51. 55. Social Psychology <ul><li>Define obedience, prejudice & discrimination </li></ul><ul><li>Describe & Evaluate Agency Theory </li></ul><ul><li>Describe & Evaluate Milgram (1963) </li></ul><ul><li>Describe & Evaluate a variation of Milgram ’ s (Bridgeport) </li></ul><ul><li>Describe & Evaluate a study of obedience from another country (Meeus) </li></ul><ul><li>Describe & Evaluate Tajfel ’ s Social Identity Theory. </li></ul><ul><li>Studies in Detail </li></ul><ul><li>Hofling (1966) </li></ul><ul><li>Reicher & Haslam (2006) </li></ul>
    52. 56. Terms You Need <ul><li>Destructive obedience: Following orders that lead to the harming of another person or people. </li></ul><ul><li>Compliance occurs when an individual goes along with what someone tells them to do whilst not necessarily agreeing with it. </li></ul><ul><li>Internalising is obeying with agreement. </li></ul><ul><li>Conformity : doing what everyone else is doing. </li></ul><ul><li>Obedience : doing something because you’re told to. </li></ul><ul><li>Moral Strain : when you have a conflict with an authority figures instructions and your morals. </li></ul>
    53. 57. Agency Theory (1974) <ul><li>Agentic State </li></ul><ul><li>This may involve an element of moral strain as the participants own moral code conflicts with the behaviour that they find themselves enacting. </li></ul><ul><li>Autonomous State </li></ul><ul><li>The individual feels responsible for the consequences of his or her behaviour and that his behaviour is under his or her own free will. </li></ul>Milgram coined the term ‘ agentic state ’ to explain the obedience seen in his famous experiments; the individual acted purely as agent, or on behalf of the authority figure, ‘ the experimenter ’ , and absolved himself of his moral responsibility to protect the learner.
    54. 58. Agency Theory AO2 <ul><li>Strengths </li></ul><ul><li>One strength of this theory is that is supported by a fairly reliable raft of research evidence including the findings of Milgram’s own obedience studies. </li></ul><ul><li>A further strength of this theory is that it has been applied in the real world and used to help people to resist destructive obedience in the face of potentially malevolent authority figures. </li></ul><ul><li>Weaknesses </li></ul><ul><li>The theory could be said to be unfalsifiable meaning that it is difficult for the findings of cross cultural research to prove the theory wrong. </li></ul><ul><li>The theory does not effectively explain why some people find it easier to resist obedience than others. For example 35% of the original sample of 40 men refused to continue at 300 volts and agency theory has little to say about the shift back to the autonomous state. </li></ul>
    55. 59. Milgram (1963) <ul><li>Aim : to test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis towards obedience. </li></ul><ul><li>Procedure : controlled observation. 40 male participants. Self-selected. Confederate – learner. Prods to continue. </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion : participants will be obedient when a perceived authority figure instructs you to – even if you don’t agree with it (moral strain). </li></ul><ul><li>Results: 65% of the participants continued to 450 volts. All participants continued to 300 volts. </li></ul>
    56. 60. Milgram: Why so obedient? <ul><li>Yale University (prestigious) </li></ul><ul><li>Experiment had a worthy purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Obliged because of volunteering </li></ul><ul><li>Being paid increased obligation </li></ul><ul><li>Novel situation, no norms were operating </li></ul><ul><li>‘ painful but not dangerous’ </li></ul><ul><li>Learner responded up to 300v </li></ul><ul><li>To see which of these may be a predicting variable Milgram conducted many different variations (replications) of his study. The one we will look at is regarding the location. </li></ul>
    57. 61. Change of venue: run down office building <ul><li>Obedient Participants: 47.5% </li></ul>Bridgeport Study
    58. 62. <ul><li>Aim: Milgram conducted a variation on his baseline study to see if obedience had been affected by the location the study had been conducted in (Yale University). </li></ul><ul><li>Procedure: Milgram manipulated the environmental setting in which the experiment took place, moving the experiment from Yale University to an inner city run down office block. Milgram kept all other aspects of the procedure constant with the baseline study so that he could make comparisons. </li></ul><ul><li>Results: 47.5% of participants delivered the full 450 volt shock when the study was conducted in a run down office block. </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion: Being in less prestigious location decreases obedience in relation to the original study although the setting seems to have the least effect out of all variables on the level of obedience. </li></ul>
    59. 63. Milgram AO2 <ul><li>G: The findings are difficult to generalise to the general population because Milgram used a fairly small and unrepresentative sample of 40 white American males aged 20-50 </li></ul><ul><li>R: Milgram ’ s carefully controlled procedure was easy to replicate and by and large replications have produced consistent results. </li></ul><ul><li>A: Milgram ’ s findings were of great value in understanding obedience. </li></ul><ul><li>V: Milgram ’ s study may lack validity: He may not have actually measured obedience to authority if the participants were not convinced by the research set-up and demand characteristics occurred. </li></ul><ul><li>E: The study broke many ethical guidelines, however, he did debrief the participants after the experiment and the study was before the guidelines were in place. </li></ul>
    60. 64. Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) <ul><li>A: To test the reliability & validity of Milgram’s research . </li></ul><ul><li>P: A laboratory experiment with independent measures was used to test 39 Dutch male and female Pps aged 18-55 to see how obedient they were when asked to administer psychological harm in the form of 15 increasingly insulting remarks to a confederate/stranger who is applying for a job at a university. </li></ul><ul><li>R: 22/24 Pps were fully obedient and delivered all 15 insults (92%). </li></ul><ul><li>C: high levels of obedience are to be expected even 20 years after the original Milgram’s original study and that obedience in Holland is in fact higher than it was in the US in the 60s. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation (Ao2) </li></ul><ul><li>G: questionable as they used a self selected sample. </li></ul><ul><li>R: supports other studies and has support itself. </li></ul><ul><li>A: particularly useful as they demonstrate that Milgram’s findings are not culture or era bound </li></ul><ul><li>V: high since the majority of participants said in follow up questionnaires that they did believe they were causing psychological distress. </li></ul><ul><li>E: highly questionable since the majority of participants said they did not enjoy delivering the insults and would have preferred not to have done so </li></ul>
    61. 65. Hofling (1966) <ul><li>Aim: This study on obedience examined how nurses complied with orders of medical doctors, even if they broke rules of the hospital. </li></ul><ul><li>Procedure : In this study, a medical doctor who was on the staff list, but not known personally to a nurse, called a nurse when she was alone in her ward in the evening telling her to administer ‘ Astroten ‘ to a patient. The max dose should be 10mg but the Dr. instructed her to adminiser 20mg. By giving the Astroten, a nurse would violate several rules of the hospital . </li></ul><ul><li>Results : Twenty-one o f 22 nurses – or 95% – complied with the order of Doctor Smith and began with the administration of the medication, until the observing doctor interrupted them. </li></ul>
    62. 66. <ul><li>Other nurses were given a detailed description of the experimental situation and asekd whether they would have given the medication. </li></ul><ul><li>Ten of 12 respondents – or 95% – sa id that they they would not have given the medication, and seven sa id that they believed a majority would reject to give medication. </li></ul><ul><li>Of 21 student nurses, all said that they would not have given the medication. </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion : This suggests that in a real world situation people will be obedient even if this creates a moral strain. It also suggests that participant self-reports about their behaviour is not a valid measure. </li></ul>
    63. 67. Hofling Evaluation AO2 <ul><li>G: As only a small number of participants were used we could have problems. However, it was far less artificial than previous obedience experiment (high EV) increasing our ability to generalise. </li></ul><ul><li>R: Controlled method so could replicate to test reliability. </li></ul><ul><li>A: Useful as we need to be aware of this – policy guidelines. </li></ul><ul><li>V: High validity and EV as it was in a real situation and nurses didn’t know they were part of an experiment. </li></ul><ul><li>E: Nurses didn’t consent, weren’t aware of RtW and may have been upset after the experiment. All were fully debriefed following. </li></ul>
    64. 68. <ul><li>A prejudice is a prejudgment (an attitude): i.e. an assumption made about someone or something before having adequate knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy. </li></ul><ul><li>The word prejudice is most commonly used to refer to a preconceived judgment toward a people or a person because of a group which they belong to. They have three componentys. </li></ul><ul><li>Affective - our feelings towards a group </li></ul><ul><li>Behavioural - our actions for or against a group </li></ul><ul><li>Cognitive - our beliefs and stereotypes about </li></ul><ul><li>a group </li></ul><ul><li>A discrimination is an action (behaviour) which occurs as a result of a prejudice. </li></ul>AL2: Activate
    65. 69. Social Identity Theory Tajfel & Turner (1979) <ul><li>The mere existence of difference groups causes conflict and prejudice. </li></ul><ul><li>People only act in terms of group membership if they identify with the group . </li></ul><ul><li>Individuals who belong to a group behave in relation to the norms and values of the group. </li></ul><ul><li>People see themselves as belonging to some groups (their in-groups ) and not belonging to others (their out-groups ). </li></ul>AL2: Activate
    66. 70. <ul><li>The three processes involved in SIT are: </li></ul><ul><li>Categorisation – seeing oneself as part of a group (your in-group) </li></ul><ul><li>Exaggeration of similarities and differences between the in-group and out-group </li></ul><ul><li>Social Comparison – people start to see their in-group as superior </li></ul><ul><li>Following social categorisation, social comparison occurs. </li></ul><ul><li>Relative status is determined. </li></ul><ul><li>Membership / Identification - you take on the norms of the group </li></ul><ul><li>Social group membership effects our self-concept and self-esteem. </li></ul>Social Identity Theory Tajfel & Turner (1979) AL2: Activate
    67. 71. Social Identity Theory AO2 Tajfel & Turner (1979) <ul><li>There are many other studies which support Tajfel & Turner ’ s SIT and suggest that in-group favouritism is a cause of prejudice and discrimination. </li></ul><ul><li>The theory has lots of practical applications. There are many examples of in-group / out-group conflicts in society which can be understood using SIT. </li></ul><ul><li>There are other theories which suggest SIT is overly simplistic. Realistic Conflict Theory states rather than just the formation of groups leading to conflict, it is the competition towards a shared goal that causes prejudice. Only when there is a shared goal will we see prejudice. </li></ul><ul><li>There are many other factors that could lead to prejudice and SIT ignores these. </li></ul>AL2: Activate
    68. 72. <ul><li>Zimbardo - SPE </li></ul><ul><li>Deterministic (we have no control / choice over our behaviour) </li></ul><ul><li>Situational explanation – the social roles in the prison caused the behaviour changes. </li></ul><ul><li>Reicher & Haslam </li></ul><ul><li>Group membership </li></ul><ul><li>Identifying with group </li></ul><ul><li>Social Identity Explaination – if we identify as a group we will internalise the norms and be strong. </li></ul>
    69. 73. Reicher & Haslam (2006) The Aims <ul><li>To provide data on the unfolding interactions between groups of unequal power and privilege. </li></ul><ul><li>To analyse the conditions that lead individuals to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify with their group; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accept or challenge intergroup inequalities. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The examine the role of social, organisational and clinical (mood) factors in group behaviour. </li></ul><ul><li>To develop practical and ethical guidelines for examining social psychological issues in large-scale studies. </li></ul>
    70. 74. For ethical reasons only people who were well-adjusted and pro-social , scoring at low levels on all social and clinical measures were included in the study. From an initial pool of 332 applicants the researchers reduced the sample to 27 men. Men were chosen so that the results could be compared with the SPE and because it was thought by the researchers to cause less ethical problems than using women. The final sample of 15 was chosen to ensure diversity of age, social class, and ethnic background .
    71. 75. 15 Males 3 matched participants 2 prisoners 1 Guard 3 matched participants 2 prisoners 1 Guard 3 matched participants 2 prisoners 1 Guard 3 matched participants 2 prisoners 1 Guard 3 matched participants 2 prisoners 1 Guard One prisoner was not involved at the beginning of filming and was introduced later on in the experiment. 15 males, first divided into five matched groups of three on traits such as racism, authoritarianism and social dominance.
    72. 76. The Interventions <ul><li>Reicher and Haslam had three interventions (IVs) that they manipulated throughout the experiment to investigate the effects of the group dynamics. </li></ul><ul><li>Legitimacy - refers to the extent to which relations and status differences between groups are perceived to be justified or not. </li></ul><ul><li>This was going to be operationalised by telling the participants that they were all equal after they initially thought that the guards were superior on tests prior to the experiment. This wasn’t required. </li></ul><ul><li>Permeability - refers to the degree to which it is perceived to be possible to move from one particular group into another. </li></ul><ul><li>This was operationalised by allowing one of the prisoners to be ‘promoted’ to guard after day 3. </li></ul><ul><li>Cognitive alternatives - refers to group members' awareness of ways in which social relations could be restructured in order to bring about social change. </li></ul><ul><li>This was operationalised by introducing the ‘Union Representative’ as the 11 th prisoner following the promotion. </li></ul>
    73. 77. AL2: Activate
    74. 78. The Conclusions <ul><li>Reicher and Haslam argue that unlike the prisoners, the guards failed to identify with their role. This made the guards reluctant to impose their authority and they were eventually overcome by the prisoners. </li></ul><ul><li>Participants then established an egalitarian social system. When this proved unsustainable, moves to impose a tyrannical regime met with weakening resistance. </li></ul><ul><li>They suggest that it is powerlessness and the failure of groups that makes tyranny psychologically acceptable. </li></ul>
    75. 79. Reicher & Haslam AO2 <ul><li>G: Only males who had never experienced prison. Self-selected sample. </li></ul><ul><li>R: Supported SIT to an extent. Not a full replication of Zimbardo so can not make direct comparisons. </li></ul><ul><li>A: Allows us to understand the power of groups and identification with those groups. </li></ul><ul><li>V: All participants ‘ internalised ’ the prison. Only some of them however actually took on the roles and believed they belonged to those groups. </li></ul><ul><li>E: Some distress did come to the participants although there was an ethics board on-site at all times throughout the experiment. </li></ul>
    76. 80. How Science Works: SURVEYS & SELF-REPORTS <ul><li>Edexcel Psychology: Unit 1 </li></ul>
    77. 81. Types of Data <ul><li>Quantitative Data </li></ul><ul><li>Number data, likert-type scales, scores and tallies. </li></ul><ul><li>Easy to analyse – no meaning </li></ul><ul><li>Less valid – individual interpretation needed </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative Data </li></ul><ul><li>Thoughts and feelings, written word, elaborated opinions. </li></ul><ul><li>Describing meaning: difficult to analyse (content analysis) </li></ul><ul><li>More valid – no interpretation needed </li></ul>
    78. 82. Surveys <ul><li>Questionnaires (written) </li></ul><ul><li>Open Questions = Qualitative Data </li></ul><ul><li>Closed Questions = Quantitative Data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fixed Choice (yes / no) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rating Scales (Likert-type Scales) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interviews (spoken) </li></ul><ul><li>Structured – a spoken questionnaire. </li></ul><ul><li>Unstructured Interviews – scaffolding but freedom to diverge. </li></ul>Survey Types Hand Out (Q) Face-to-face (I) Phone (I) Email / Internet (Q) Postal (Q)
    79. 83. Issues to Consider (AO2) <ul><li>Social Desirability : answering in a way you think you should do as a result of people or assumptions about those around you. </li></ul><ul><li>Response Rates : who will respond? Why? </li></ul><ul><li>Poor Questions : leading questions / ambiguous questions. </li></ul><ul><li>Reliability – how consistent are the findings? </li></ul><ul><li>Validity – does the question measure what is claims to measure? </li></ul>Split-Half Method
    80. 84. Reliability and Validity in Self-Reports / Survey Method Improve Check Reliability Closed Questions (less ambiguous) Split-Half Method or Replicate Validity Open Questions (no interpretation needed) Conduct an Observation