1. CLoA
1.1. Principles
1.1.1. Human beings are information processors
1.1.2. Social and cultural factors affect cognitive processes
1.1.3. Mental processes can and should be studied scientifically
1.2. Studies
1.2.1. Glanzer & Cunitz
1.2.1.1. Aim: Test primacy-recency effect.
1.2.1.2. Proceedure:
1.2.1.3. Participants were asked to read a series of 20 words.
1.2.1.4. They were then asked to recall the 20 words in any order.
1.2.1.5. In another variation, a distraction task was performed before recall.
1.2.1.6. Findings:
1.2.1.7. Participants remembered the the first and last few words better.
1.2.1.8. Results reliably fall into a pattern known as the “serial position curve”.
1.2.1.9. Conclusion:
1.2.1.10. First few words – because they had more time to rehearse the words, encoding them into their long term memory store.
1.2.1.11. Last few words – because it is still in the short term memory store.
1.2.1.12. In the variation, the last few words were not recalled because of loss through decay.
1.2.1.13. Provides evidence for multi-store model of memory.
1.2.1.14. CT:
1.2.1.15. Low in ecological validity, lab environment.
1.2.1.16. Ignored participant’s understanding of the words.
1.2.1.17. Only one culture tested
1.2.1.18. Education in some cultures may train students to remember things.
1.2.2. Frederic Bartlett
1.2.2.1. Aim: Prove that memory is reconstructive and schemas influence recall.
1.2.2.2. Proceedure:
1.2.2.3. Participants were British students.
1.2.2.4. Participants were presented with a Native American folk story.
1.2.2.5. The participants were then asked to recite the story multiples times after certain time frames.
1.2.2.6. No participants knew the aim and purpose of the task.
1.2.2.7. Findings:
1.2.2.8. The participants’ recalled version of the story left out or replaced details related to Native American Culture
1.2.2.9. e.g. Canoe -> Boat.
1.2.2.10. The British students filled in the gaps in their memory with their own cultural schema.
1.2.2.11. Average word count of the recalled story dropped from 330 words to 180 words.
1.2.2.12. Conclusions:
1.2.2.13. People reconstruct the past by trying to fit it into existing schemas.
1.2.2.14. More complex the information, the more likely elements are forgotten/distorted.
1.2.2.15. People try to find a familiar pattern in experiences, past or new.
1.2.2.16. People uses existing schemas to fill in the gaps of their memory, subconsciously.
1.2.2.17. Memory, according to Bartlett, is an imaginative reconstruction of experience.
1.2.2.18. CT:
1.2.2.19. Methodology not sophisticated.
1.2.2.20. No IV, DV or Control.
1.2.2.21. Making it difficult to measure or compare outcome.
1.2.2.22. Emic approach: Result specific to European American and Native American culture.
1.2.2.23. Low potential generalising ability.
1.2.3. Loftus & Palmer
1.2.3.1. Aim: To prove the unreliability of memory.
1.2.3.2. Proceedure:
1.2.3.3. 45 students were shown videos of car crashes.
1.2.3.4. They were then asked a series of questions about the specifics of the car crashes.
1.2.3.5. The critical question was “About how fast was the cars going when they hit each other?”
1.2.3.6. The verb “hit” was replaced with “Smashed”, “Collided”, “Bump” and “Contacted” for different participants.
1.2.3.7. Findings:
1.2.3.8. Those who were asked with “Smashed” averaged the mean speed of 40.8 mph.
1.2.3.9. Those who were asked with “Contacted” averaged the mean speed of 31.8 mph.
1.2.3.10. Conclusion:
1.2.3.11. The phrasing of the question brought a change in speed estimated.
1.2.3.12. Due to schema activated by the chose verb.
1.2.3.13. Shows schema can affect memory.
1.2.3.14. Shows the unreliability of reconstructive memory.
1.2.3.15. CT:
1.2.3.16. Confounding variable: Presumed ability to perceive the velocity of moving object.
1.2.3.17. Demand characteristics: Participants corrected their original answer according to the chosen verb.
1.2.3.18. Student sample. not enough to generalise to the mass population.
1.2.3.19. Ecological validity: Low, car crash was not real, therefore less emotion was involved affecting the level of detail retained.
1.2.3.20. Unethical and unfeasible to create real car crashes.
1.2.3.21. Forced participants to watch graphic car crashes.
1.2.3.22. Participants are generally desensitised because of the media.
1.2.3.23. No distress due to watching car crashes reported.
2. SLoA
2.1. Principles
2.1.1. How others affect our behavior
2.1.2. Study of individuals and groups in social and cultural conditions
2.1.3. How we think, feel and act in the presence of others
2.2. Studies
2.2.1. Philip Zimbardo
2.2.1.1. Aim: Prove that situational factors can affect behaviour.
2.2.1.2. Participants:
2.2.1.3. 22 male subjects were selected through personality assessment based on their mental stability, maturity and social ability.
2.2.1.4. Randomly assigned the role of either prisoner or warden r prosoners.
2.2.1.5. Signed a consent document that some of their human rights will be suspended for the experiment and that all subjects would receive $15 a day up to 2 weeks.
2.2.1.6. "Arrested" by surprise by real police from their house, taken to a real police station for standard procedures.
2.2.1.7. Driven blindfolded to a prison (set, not a real prison) where they were stripped naked, delouse, and dressed in prisoner uniform.
2.2.1.8. Stayed in the prison for 24 hours a day, followed a schedule of work, rest and meal.
2.2.1.9. Put on warden costumes with the correct props. They worked 8 hours a day, and were given no specific instructions.
2.2.1.10. Asked to keep a reasonable degree of order and were prohibited against any means of physical violence.
2.2.1.11. Findings:
2.2.1.12. CT:
2.2.1.13. Ecological validity: Low, lab environment, overt observation.
2.2.1.14. Prohibition of physical violence limited the generalising ability of the experiment.
2.2.1.15. Experimenters argue that…
2.2.1.16. The functional equivalent of the prison system (setting, costumes etc.) were implemented.
2.2.1.17. Reactions and behaviours of the subjects exceeded the level of “role play”.
2.2.1.18. Calling each other by ID number in private, wardens showed aggression even when they thought they were not being watched.
2.2.1.19. Reliability: Experiment was not repeated until years after, subjects did not act as predicted.
2.2.1.20. Culture bias: only studied subjects from the US.
2.2.1.21. Ethical considerations and issues.
2.2.1.22. Participants signed consent forms, but they had no clear idea of the procedure of the experiment.
2.2.1.23. Induced aggression in subjects.
2.2.1.24. Created discrimination and violence.
2.2.1.25. Gender bias: only male subjects were used.
2.2.2. Solomon Asch
2.2.2.1. Aim: Investigate the existence of conformity.
2.2.2.2. Proceedure:
2.2.2.3. Subject was placed into a room with 6 confederates and the experimenter.
2.2.2.4. Subject was deceived that the 6 confederates were participants just like them.
2.2.2.5. The subject was placed on the second last seat so they will be the second last to give an answer.
2.2.2.6. The group of subject and confederates were asked to select the line on the second card that matched the line on the first card.
2.2.2.7. There were 18 sets of cards in total, some of which had lines that were completely different in length, others are similar in length.
2.2.2.8. Confederates were instructed to answer correctly on some of the cards but answer incorrectly for most.
2.2.2.9. Findings:
2.2.2.10. 75% conformed at least once to the wrong answer
2.2.2.11. 32% conformed to more than half of the wrong answers
2.2.2.12. 24% did not conform at all
2.2.2.13. Conclusion:
2.2.2.14. Conformity happened
2.2.2.15. Those who did not conform sparked further research
2.2.2.16. CT:
2.2.2.17. Ecological validity: Low, lab conditions.
2.2.2.18. Controlled environment removed confounding variables.
2.2.2.19. Meaningless stimuli.
2.2.2.20. Gender bias, only male participants were used.
2.2.2.21. Culture bias, only population of the US were used.
2.2.2.22. Cannot be generalised to all population.
2.2.2.23. Ethics: Deception, but subjects were debriefed.
2.2.3. Henrey Tajfel
2.2.3.1. Aim: To test the Social Identity Theory.
2.2.3.2. Proceedure:
2.2.3.3. 48 boys were assigned at random to 2 groups based on their preference between Klee or Kandinsky’s art work.
2.2.3.4. Asked to rate in-group and out-group based on traits e.g. like-ability.
2.2.3.5. Findings:
2.2.3.6. Tajfel found that the out-group was rated less likeable, but never actually disliked.
2.2.3.7. Conclusion:
2.2.3.8. There seems to be a preference of the in-group over out-group, however it is not clear that they make social comparisons to enhance either self-esteem.
2.2.3.9. Later research – Social identity does not account for intergroup conflict. In the absence of competition, social comparison can be positive.
2.2.3.10. CT:
2.2.3.11. Supports Social Identity Theory.
2.2.3.12. Showed the formation and the features of SIT.
2.2.3.13. Ecological validity: Low, lab conditions.
2.2.3.14. Meaningless groups.
2.2.3.15. Controlled environment removed confounding variables.
3. Qualitative Methods
3.1. Interveiws
3.1.1. Focus Groups
3.1.1.1. - Fast and convenient way to collect data from individuals concurrently - Provides natural setting which can give ecological validity - Uncovers knowledge and experience about what, how and why they think about a particular topic - Can reveal cultural values and group norms
3.1.1.2. - Participants may not disclose all relevant information for fear of embarrassment or being judged - Conformity can confound the results - Ethical issues in conducting focus groups in non-free environments like prisons and nursing homes
3.1.2. Semi-Structed
3.1.2.1. - Good for collecting data on socially sensitive subjects (e.g. sexual preferences, views on racism) because it is one-on-one - Should be less biased by researcher's preconceptions - Because it is an open-ended approach, participants can elaborate and clarify - The theme is chosen in advance so non-relevant material is avoided - Data analysis is time-consuming - One-on-one situation can be considered artificial which calls into question ecological validity
3.1.3. Narrative
3.1.3.1. - Good at elucidating complexity of individual experience because it shows how humans construct meaning in their lives - Can be used for all kinds of people as it only requires everyday speech - education level - Tons of data to analyze which is time-consuming to transcribe and analyze
3.2. Qualative Approch
3.2.1. Limitations
3.2.1.1. - Time-consuming - Tons of data to deal with so analysis can be problematic - Interpreting results can be affected by the experimenter
3.2.2. Strengths
3.2.2.1. - Rich data, good for investigating complex situations. - More experimentally valid if the individual studied remains in their environment
3.3. Quantative Approch
3.3.1. Strengths
3.3.1.1. - Not as time-consuming - More generalizable to population - Data can be statistically tested
3.3.2. Limitations
3.3.2.1. - Does not provide detail
3.4. Reflexivity
3.4.1. - Important that researcher is aware of his/her own beliefs so they do not affect the interpretation of behavior - Researcher must reflect on his/her own beliefs and attempt to separate them if they are not to affect the data Willig's (2001) two forms of reflexivity; Personal reflexivity - values, beliefs, experiences, political faction, socioeconomic class, personal interest in the results can influence the research both professionally and personally Epistemological reflexivity - related to how data was gathered, limited understanding of a particular group of people can restrict the amount of data gathered