1. PSY1: Social Influence
1.1. Types of Conformity
1.1.1. AO1
1.1.1.1. Compliance
1.1.1.1.1. Gain approval
1.1.1.1.2. Normative
1.1.1.1.3. Social comparison
1.1.1.1.4. Public behaviour change
1.1.1.1.5. Private attitude remains
1.1.1.1.6. Short lived (whist group present)
1.1.1.2. Internalisation
1.1.1.2.1. Accept views
1.1.1.2.2. Informational
1.1.1.2.3. Engage and validate
1.1.1.2.4. Public behaviour change
1.1.1.2.5. Private attitude change
1.1.1.2.6. Long lived (until opinion change)
1.1.1.3. Identification
1.1.1.3.1. Gain acceptance
1.1.1.3.2. Normative
1.1.1.3.3. Both compliance and internalisation
1.1.1.3.4. Public behaviour change
1.1.1.3.5. Private attitude change
1.1.1.3.6. Lasts as long as the group does
1.2. Explanations for Conformity
1.2.1. AO1
1.2.1.1. Normative Social Influence (NSI)
1.2.1.1.1. Need companionship
1.2.1.1.2. Fear rejection
1.2.1.1.3. Needs group surveillance
1.2.1.2. Informational Social Influence (ISI)
1.2.1.2.1. Need to be confident
1.2.1.2.2. Use others to verify
1.2.1.2.3. Needs ambiguity or expertise
1.2.2. AO3
1.2.2.1. Supporting Evidence for NSI
1.2.2.1.1. Studies which show when exposed to a message that "most people" do something it changed their behaviour
1.2.2.2. Supporting Evidence for ISI
1.2.2.2.1. Studies which show when exposed to messages relating to a attitude and told it is the majority opinion produce attitude change
1.2.2.3. Research Difficulties
1.2.2.3.1. How do you assess private attitude change? Could happen later
1.2.2.3.2. Difficulty of self reporting when people don't accept or realise they have been influenced by the group
1.3. Variables Affecting Conformity
1.3.1. AO1
1.3.1.1. Asch (1956) Lines
1.3.1.1.1. Sample: 123 Male undergraduates
1.3.1.1.2. Methodology: Lab Experiment
1.3.1.1.3. Procedure: PPs seated at a table with confederates and asked to look at three lines of different lengths, asked to call out which they thought was the same length as the 'standard' line, real PPs sat second to last. confederates gave the same obvious incorrect answer on 12/18 trials (critical trials),
1.3.1.1.4. Findings: Average conformity rate = 33%, 25% never conformed, 50% conformed on 6+ of the trials,, 5% conformed on all trials
1.3.1.1.5. Terms: Confederate, Ambiguity, Critical Trial
1.3.1.2. Group Size
1.3.1.2.1. Asch found little conformity when majority was 1 or 2 confederates but once 3 it was sufficient (any more is negligable
1.3.1.2.2. Campbell and Fairey (89) suggest it depends on judgement, where there is a correct answer, 3 is sufficient but for more intangible judgements more is needed.
1.3.1.3. Unanimity
1.3.1.3.1. Asch when a dissenter was introduced conformity dropped from 33% to 5% (when they gave the correct answer) and 9% (when they gave a different incorrect answer)
1.3.1.4. Task Difficulty
1.3.1.4.1. Asch: When the difference in line lengths was made smaller conformity increased
1.3.1.4.2. Lucas et al (06) found this was not just task difficulty but it interacted with self efficacy.
1.3.2. AO3
1.3.2.1. Supporting research
1.3.2.2. Child of it's time
1.3.2.3. Independent behaviour
1.3.2.4. Cultural differences
1.4. Conformity to Social Roles
1.4.1. AO1
1.4.1.1. Zimbardo (1973) SPE
1.4.1.1.1. Sample: Stanford University 24 screened males volunteers
1.4.1.1.2. Methodology: Lab Experiment / controlled observation
1.4.1.1.3. Procedure: prison set up in Stanford University basement, pps assigned either guard or prisoner, prisoners unexpectedly arrested at home, deloused, uniformed, ID number, 3 meals, supervised toilet, two visits a week, guards uniformed, clubs, sunglasses, whistles, Zimbardo superintendent, intended to last two weeks
1.4.1.1.4. Findings: first days guards became abusive, woke prisoners in the night, forced them to clean toilets with bare hands, guards volunteered for unpaid extra hours, even when not watched they conformed, pps who wished to leave requested parole, 5 prisoners released early due to extreme reactions, first after 2 days, study terminated after 6 days, Zimbardo had to be reminded he was a psychologist not a superintendent by a postgraduate student.
1.4.2. AO3
1.4.2.1. Critical Evidence
1.4.2.2. Not Automatic but choice
1.4.2.3. Demand charactersitics
1.4.2.4. Ethics
1.4.2.5. Practical Application to Abu Ghraib
1.5. Situational Variables Affecting Obedience
1.5.1. AO1
1.5.1.1. Milgram (1963) Shocks
1.5.1.1.1. Sample: 40 male PPS (original) plus variations
1.5.1.1.2. Methodology: Lab Experiment
1.5.1.1.3. Procedure: Told it was study on punishment and learning, 2 confederates (1 experimenter and 1 learner), PPs drew rigged lots to be assigned teacher, learner had to recall word pairs if they got it wrong they were giver (fake) shocks starting at 15v increasing in increments of 15v up to a max of 450v (labelled xxx), at 300v learner went silent , if teacher asked to stop prods were given.
1.5.1.1.4. Findings: predictions were that 1/1000 would go to 450v and hardly anyone would go above 150v. 26/40 (65%) went to 450v, all PPs went to 300v and only 5/40 (12.5%) stopped there.
1.5.1.2. Proximity
1.5.1.2.1. Teacher and learner in same room obedience dropped to 40%
1.5.1.2.2. teacher hand to place learners hand on shock plates obedience dropped to 30%
1.5.1.2.3. Experimenter absent obedience dropped to 21% (with some just using 15v repeatedly)
1.5.1.3. Location
1.5.1.3.1. PPS reported that it being done at Yale gave them confidence that it must be ok to do.
1.5.1.3.2. When moved to run-down office obedience dropped to 48%
1.5.1.4. Uniform
1.5.1.4.1. Bickman - when in a uniform (guard) people would obey mundane commands like pay a parking meter or litter pick better than normal clothes or out of context uniform (milkman)
1.5.2. AO3
1.5.2.1. Ethics
1.5.2.2. Lack of realism
1.5.2.3. No gender bias
1.5.2.4. Temporal Validity
1.6. Explanations for Obedience
1.6.1. AO1
1.6.1.1. Agentic Shift
1.6.1.1.1. Autonomous State
1.6.1.1.2. Agentic State
1.6.1.1.3. positiveTo maintain postivie self image we avoid doing bad but if under orders we can do it guilt free because it wasn't 'us'
1.6.1.1.4. Gradual Commitment
1.6.1.2. Legitimate Authority
1.6.1.2.1. Only take the agentic shift if there is legitimate authority
1.6.1.2.2. This is effected by social situation and institution (labels and context) rather than individual charactersitics
1.6.2. AO3
1.6.2.1. Not as easy to shift back out
1.6.2.2. Personality rather than situation
1.6.2.3. Historical relevance and application
1.6.2.4. Practical application (airlines)
1.7. The Authoritarian Personality
1.7.1. AO1
1.7.1.1. Adorno (1950) F-Scale
1.7.1.1.1. Questionnaire: F - facist
1.7.1.1.2. Statements like "rules are there to follow"
1.7.1.1.3. If you agree it is indicative of Authoritarian Personality
1.7.1.2. Altemeyer (1981) RWA
1.7.1.2.1. Refined this to right wing authoritarianism
1.7.1.2.2. Conventionalism (as above)
1.7.1.2.3. Authoritarian Aggression (about rule breakers)
1.7.1.2.4. Authoritarian Submission (to legitimate authority figures)
1.7.1.3. Elms & Milgram (1966)
1.7.1.3.1. Sample: Follow up for Milgrams original PPs
1.7.1.3.2. Methodology: Questionnaire
1.7.1.3.3. Procedure: Selected 20 'obedient' PPs (went to 450v) and 20 'defiant' PPs (refused at some point), assessed for personality, f-scale and attitudes
1.7.1.3.4. Findings: No personality differences except Authoritarianism, obedient PPS scored higher on f-scale, reported negative relationships with father, reported more admiration for experimenter, and more contempt for learner.
1.7.2. AO3
1.7.2.1. Research Support
1.7.2.2. Social Context is important too
1.7.2.3. Role for education
1.7.2.4. Support for role of political view
1.8. Resistance to Social Influence
1.8.1. AO1
1.8.1.1. Social Support
1.8.1.1.1. Asch - Dissenter (conformity dropped to 5.5%)
1.8.1.1.2. Milgram - Disobedient ally (obedience dropped to 10%)
1.8.1.2. Locus of Control
1.8.1.2.1. Internal Locus of Control
1.8.1.2.2. External Locus of Control
1.8.2. AO3
1.8.2.1. Order matters
1.8.2.2. Need for valid support
1.8.2.3. Real World Support
1.8.2.4. LoC not effective for informational
1.8.2.5. We are becoming more external
1.8.2.6. Research Support for LoC
1.9. Minority Influence
1.9.1. AO1
1.9.1.1. Moscovici (1969) Green Slides
1.9.1.1.1. Sample: groups of 4 naïve PPs and 2 confederates
1.9.1.1.2. Methodology: Lab Experiment
1.9.1.1.3. Procedure: shown blue slides, in consistent condition confederates called these slide green, inconsistent condition called them green 2/3 of the time, control condition of all naïve said blue every time.
1.9.1.1.4. Findings: Conformity 8% for consistent, no effect of inconsistent. After they had to set a threshold for green/blue spectrum, those in consistent went more green, those who conformed even more so, suggesting minorities change private views (internalisation)
1.9.1.2. Consistency
1.9.1.2.1. Makes us re-examine (see study)
1.9.1.3. Commitment
1.9.1.3.1. Gives impression of confidence
1.9.1.4. Flexibility
1.9.1.4.1. negotiations with powerful majority are more successfull
1.9.2. AO3
1.9.2.1. Research Support for Flexibility
1.9.2.2. Power is in dissent
1.9.2.3. We feel uncomfortable with dissent
1.10. Social Change
1.10.1. AO1
1.10.1.1. Attention
1.10.1.1.1. Rallies, leaflets, protest, speeches, bombings
1.10.1.2. Cognitive Conflict
1.10.1.2.1. Majority is torn (so thinks deeply), use informational influence
1.10.1.3. Consistency
1.10.1.3.1. keep on message, show commitment, be flexible
1.10.1.4. Augmentation
1.10.1.4.1. be prepared to suffer
1.10.1.5. Snowball
1.10.1.5.1. slowly convert people until tipping point (then it is majority/normative)
1.10.1.6. Social Cryptoamnesia
1.10.1.6.1. Society forgets it was ever any other way
2. Attachment
2.1. Caregiver Infant Interaction
2.1.1. AO1
2.1.1.1. reciprocity
2.1.1.2. interactional synchrony
2.1.1.3. Meltzoff & Moore
2.1.2. AO3
2.1.2.1. Methodological Issues
2.1.2.2. High control
2.1.2.3. Failure to Replicate
2.1.2.4. Intentional?
2.2. Development
2.2.1. Stages
2.2.1.1. AO1
2.2.1.1.1. Asocial
2.2.1.1.2. Indisriminate
2.2.1.1.3. Discriminate
2.2.1.1.4. Multiple
2.2.1.2. AO3
2.2.1.2.1. Unreliable Self Report
2.2.1.2.2. Biased Sample
2.2.1.2.3. Multiple doesn't mean equivalent
2.2.1.2.4. Stage Theories (nomothetic)
2.2.2. Father
2.2.2.1. AO1
2.2.2.1.1. WW2
2.2.2.1.2. 1970s
2.2.2.1.3. present day
2.2.2.2. AO3
2.2.2.2.1. absent father is an EV
2.2.2.2.2. do backstage tasks have to be a man
2.2.2.2.3. quality or quantity
2.3. Animals
2.3.1. AO1
2.3.1.1. Harlow
2.3.1.2. Lorenz
2.3.2. AO3
2.3.2.1. generalisability
2.3.2.2. contradicting evidence
2.3.2.3. theoretical ijmportance
2.3.2.4. practical application
2.4. Learning Thoery
2.4.1. AO1
2.4.1.1. Classical Conditioning
2.4.1.2. Operant Condition
2.4.2. AO3
2.4.2.1. harlow and lorenz
2.4.2.2. shaffer
2.4.2.3. interactional syncrony
2.4.2.4. partial truth and application
2.5. Monotropy
2.5.1. AO1
2.5.1.1. Survival
2.5.1.2. Innate
2.5.1.3. Critical Period
2.5.1.4. Social Releasers
2.5.1.5. Monotropy
2.5.1.6. Internal Working Model
2.5.1.7. Continuity
2.5.2. AO3
2.5.2.1. Shaffer - not monoropy
2.5.2.2. interactional synchrony - social relseaers
2.5.2.3. IWM - Aldut attachemnt
2.5.2.4. social sensitive
2.5.2.5. economy / practical application
2.5.2.6. temprement
2.6. Strange Situation
2.6.1. AO1
2.6.1.1. behaviour
2.6.1.2. procdure
2.6.1.3. results
2.6.2. AO3
2.6.2.1. strong predictive validuty
2.6.2.2. good reliability
2.6.2.3. cukurte
2.6.2.4. disorganise
2.7. Cultural Variation
2.7.1. AO1
2.7.1.1. van Ijzendoorn
2.7.1.1.1. meta analysis
2.7.1.1.2. 32 astudies
2.7.1.1.3. 8 countries
2.7.1.1.4. 1900 children
2.7.1.1.5. secure always highest
2.7.1.1.6. resistant low UK, high Israel
2.7.1.1.7. avoidant low japan, high germany
2.7.1.1.8. more variation within than between
2.7.2. AO3
2.7.2.1. large smaple
2.7.2.2. not representative of culture
2.7.2.3. imposed etic of SS
2.7.2.4. similarity may be media
2.7.2.5. method of SS
2.8. MDH
2.8.1. AO1
2.8.1.1. deprivation
2.8.1.2. critical period
2.8.1.3. intellectual development
2.8.1.4. emotional development
2.8.1.5. bowlby 44 thieves
2.8.1.5.1. 44 criminal teens
2.8.1.5.2. interviewd for signs of psychopathy
2.8.1.5.3. compared to controls
2.8.1.5.4. 14/44 psychopaths
2.8.1.5.5. 12/14 long term separation
2.8.1.5.6. 5/30 (left) had long term separation
2.8.1.5.7. 2/44 controls had long term separation
2.8.2. AO3
2.8.2.1. war orphans - trauma
2.8.2.2. counter evidence
2.8.2.3. sensitive not critical - case
2.8.2.4. animal - MDH
2.8.2.5. orphans
2.9. Institutionalisation
2.9.1. AO1
2.9.1.1. Rutter ERA
2.9.1.1.1. 165 romanian orphans adopted in UK
2.9.1.1.2. assessed at 4, 6, 11, 15
2.9.1.1.3. compared to UK controls
2.9.1.1.4. at 11 results dependent on age of adoption
2.9.1.1.5. mean IQ early adopted 102, 86 between 6m and 2y, 77 after 2y
2.9.1.1.6. differences remained at 16
2.9.1.1.7. after 6m - disinhibited attachment
2.9.2. AO3
2.9.2.1. Practical application
2.9.2.2. Less Evs
2.9.2.3. Generalisability
2.9.2.4. No long term effects
2.10. Adult Relationships
2.10.1. AO1
2.10.2. AO3
3. Psychopathology
3.1. Definitions
3.1.1. Statistical Infrequency
3.1.1.1. AO1
3.1.1.1.1. rare
3.1.1.2. AO3
3.1.1.2.1. Practical Application
3.1.1.2.2. Desirability
3.1.1.2.3. Subjective Cut off
3.1.1.2.4. Cultural Bias
3.1.2. Deviation from social norms
3.1.2.1. AO1
3.1.2.1.1. odd
3.1.2.2. AO3
3.1.2.2.1. Practical Application
3.1.2.2.2. Cultural Bias
3.1.2.2.3. Social Control
3.1.2.2.4. Context Dependent
3.1.3. Failure to Function Adequately
3.1.3.1. AO1
3.1.3.1.1. cannot perform everyday activities
3.1.3.1.2. measured on GAF scale 1-100
3.1.3.1.3. 100 = perfect
3.1.3.1.4. social relationships
3.1.3.1.5. work/school
3.1.3.1.6. safety / hygiene
3.1.3.2. AO3
3.1.3.2.1. Cultural Bias
3.1.3.2.2. Practical Application
3.1.3.2.3. Subjective Experience
3.1.3.2.4. Not all fail to function
3.1.3.2.5. Fail to function sometimes ok
3.1.4. Deviation from ideal mental health
3.1.4.1. AO1
3.1.4.1.1. Jahoda
3.1.4.1.2. environmental mastery
3.1.4.1.3. resistance to stress
3.1.4.1.4. personal autonomy
3.1.4.1.5. accurate perception of reality
3.1.4.1.6. self esteem
3.1.4.1.7. self actualisation
3.1.4.2. AO3
3.1.4.2.1. Practical Application
3.1.4.2.2. Cultural Bias
3.1.4.2.3. Unrealistic Criteria
3.1.4.2.4. Positive Approach
3.2. Clinical Characteristics
3.2.1. AO1
3.2.1.1. Phobia
3.2.1.1.1. Description
3.2.1.1.2. Prevalence
3.2.1.1.3. Emotional
3.2.1.1.4. Behavioural
3.2.1.1.5. Cognitive
3.2.1.2. Depression
3.2.1.2.1. Description
3.2.1.2.2. Prevalence
3.2.1.2.3. Emotional
3.2.1.2.4. Behavioural
3.2.1.2.5. Cognitive
3.2.1.3. OCD
3.2.1.3.1. Description
3.2.1.3.2. Prevalence
3.2.1.3.3. Emotional
3.2.1.3.4. Behavioural
3.2.1.3.5. Cognitive
3.3. Behavioural Explanation for Phobia
3.3.1. AO1
3.3.1.1. Two Process Model
3.3.1.2. Classical Conditioning - Initiation
3.3.1.3. Operant Conditioning - Maintenance
3.3.2. AO3
3.3.2.1. Support from Little Albert
3.3.2.2. Alternative Explanation
3.4. Behavioural Treatment for Phobia
3.4.1. AO1
3.4.1.1. Systematic Desensitisation
3.4.1.1.1. Counter Conditioning
3.4.1.1.2. Relaxation
3.4.1.1.3. Reciprocal Inhibition
3.4.1.1.4. Desensitisation Heirarchy
3.4.1.1.5. Gradual Work Through
3.4.1.2. Flooding
3.4.1.2.1. Worst Fear
3.4.1.2.2. Use up fight/flight
3.4.2. AO3
3.4.2.1. Effective
3.4.2.2. Not all fears
3.4.2.3. can be self administered (long lasting)
3.4.2.4. Not always appropriate
3.5. Cognitive Explanation for Depression
3.5.1. AO1
3.5.1.1. Ellis
3.5.1.1.1. Activating Event
3.5.1.1.2. Belief
3.5.1.1.3. Consequence
3.5.1.1.4. Mustabatory Thinking
3.5.1.2. Beck
3.5.1.2.1. Negative Schema
3.5.1.2.2. Negative Triad
3.5.2. AO3
3.5.2.1. Difficult to assess cuase and effect
3.5.2.2. Support from PND
3.5.2.3. Practical Application to CBT
3.5.2.4. Irrational may be realistic
3.5.2.5. Client Blaming
3.6. Cognitive Treatment for Depression
3.6.1. AO1
3.6.1.1. Challenge and reprograme
3.6.1.2. REBT
3.6.1.3. Identify ABC
3.6.1.4. Dispute
3.6.1.4.1. Logical
3.6.1.4.2. Empirical
3.6.1.4.3. Pragmatic
3.6.1.5. Homework
3.6.1.6. Behavioural Activation
3.6.1.7. Unconditional Positive Regard
3.6.2. AO3
3.6.2.1. Effective
3.6.2.2. Not for Everyone
3.6.2.3. Not for all depression
3.6.2.4. Long lasting
3.7. Biological Explanation for OCD
3.7.1. AO1
3.7.1.1. Genes
3.7.1.1.1. Comt
3.7.1.1.2. SERT
3.7.1.1.3. Diathesis Stress
3.7.1.2. Neurochemistry
3.7.1.2.1. Low Serotonin
3.7.1.2.2. High Dopamine
3.7.1.3. Neuroanatomy
3.7.1.3.1. OFC
3.7.1.3.2. Caudate Nucleus
3.7.1.3.3. Thelamus
3.7.2. AO3
3.7.2.1. Twin Study Support
3.7.2.2. Support from cingulotomy
3.7.2.3. Practical Application
3.7.2.4. Alternative Explanation
3.8. Biological Treatment for OCD
3.8.1. AO1
3.8.1.1. Anti Depressants
3.8.1.1.1. SSRI
3.8.1.1.2. SNRI
3.8.1.1.3. Bzs
3.8.2. AO3
3.8.2.1. Effective
3.8.2.2. Ease
3.8.2.3. Side Effects
3.8.2.4. Symptom not Cause
3.8.2.5. Publication bias
4. PSY1: Memory
4.1. Multi Store Model
4.1.1. AO1
4.1.1.1. Unitary Linear Model
4.1.1.2. Sensory Register
4.1.1.2.1. Cap: Unlimited
4.1.1.2.2. Dur: Milliseconds
4.1.1.2.3. Enc: Modal (iconic/echoic)
4.1.1.3. Attention
4.1.1.4. Short Term Memory
4.1.1.4.1. Cap: 5-9
4.1.1.4.2. Dur: 18-30sec
4.1.1.4.3. Enc: Acoustic
4.1.1.5. Rehearsal
4.1.1.6. Long Term Memory
4.1.1.6.1. Cap: Unlimited
4.1.1.6.2. Dur; Lifetime
4.1.1.6.3. Enc: Semantic
4.1.2. AO3
4.1.2.1. Supporting Lab Studies
4.1.2.2. Supporting Case Studies
4.1.2.3. Too Simple
4.1.2.3.1. STM is more than one store
4.1.2.3.2. LTM is more than one thing
4.1.2.4. LTM is more than rehearsal
4.2. Working Memory Model
4.2.1. AO1
4.2.1.1. Dynamic Non-Unitary Model
4.2.1.2. Central Executive
4.2.1.2.1. Attention
4.2.1.2.2. Resource Allocation
4.2.1.2.3. Limited Capacity
4.2.1.3. Phonological Loop
4.2.1.3.1. Phonological Store (Inner ear)
4.2.1.3.2. Articulatory Process (inner voice)
4.2.1.4. Visual Spatial Sketchpad
4.2.1.4.1. Visual Cache (Inner eye)
4.2.1.4.2. Inner Scrivbe
4.2.1.5. Episodic Buffer
4.2.1.5.1. Added in 2000
4.2.1.5.2. Integreates the senses
4.2.1.5.3. Time stamps
4.2.2. AO3
4.2.2.1. Support from Dual Task
4.2.2.2. Supporting Case Studies
4.2.2.3. Problem of Case Studies
4.2.2.4. Limitation of the Central Executive
4.3. Long Term Memory
4.3.1. AO1
4.3.1.1. Declarative (explicit)
4.3.1.1.1. Episodic
4.3.1.1.2. Semantic
4.3.1.2. Non Declarative (implicit)
4.3.1.2.1. Procedural
4.3.2. AO3
4.3.2.1. Evidence from brain scans
4.3.2.2. Support from HM
4.3.2.2.1. Shows us declarative from non declarative
4.3.2.3. Support from Alzheimers
4.3.2.3.1. Shows us episodic is gateway to semantic
4.4. Forgetting: Interference
4.4.1. AO1
4.4.1.1. Proactive Interference
4.4.1.2. Retroactive Interference
4.4.1.3. Similarity
4.4.2. AO3
4.4.2.1. Supporting Rugby Study
4.4.2.2. Lacks Realism
4.4.2.3. Not all forgetting
4.5. Forgetting: Retreival Failure
4.5.1. AO1
4.5.1.1. Encoding Specificity Princliple
4.5.1.2. Context Dependent
4.5.1.3. State Depedent
4.5.2. AO3
4.6. Misleading Information
4.6.1. AO1
4.6.2. AO3
4.7. Post Event Discussion
4.7.1. AO1
4.7.2. AO3
4.8. Anxiety
4.8.1. AO1
4.8.2. AO3
4.9. Cognitive Interview
4.9.1. AO1
4.9.2. AO3