PSY1 June 7th 2017

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
PSY1 June 7th 2017 by Mind Map: PSY1 June 7th 2017

1. PSY1: Social Influence

1.1. Types of Conformity

1.1.1. AO1 Compliance Gain approval Normative Social comparison Public behaviour change Private attitude remains Short lived (whist group present) Internalisation Accept views Informational Engage and validate Public behaviour change Private attitude change Long lived (until opinion change) Identification Gain acceptance Normative Both compliance and internalisation Public behaviour change Private attitude change Lasts as long as the group does

1.2. Explanations for Conformity

1.2.1. AO1 Normative Social Influence (NSI) Need companionship Fear rejection Needs group surveillance Informational Social Influence (ISI) Need to be confident Use others to verify Needs ambiguity or expertise

1.2.2. AO3 Supporting Evidence for NSI Studies which show when exposed to a message that "most people" do something it changed their behaviour Supporting Evidence for ISI Studies which show when exposed to messages relating to a attitude and told it is the majority opinion produce attitude change Research Difficulties How do you assess private attitude change? Could happen later 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 Asch (1956) Lines Sample: 123 Male undergraduates Methodology: Lab Experiment 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), Findings: Average conformity rate = 33%, 25% never conformed, 50% conformed on 6+ of the trials,, 5% conformed on all trials Terms: Confederate, Ambiguity, Critical Trial Group Size Asch found little conformity when majority was 1 or 2 confederates but once 3 it was sufficient (any more is negligable 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. Unanimity 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) Task Difficulty Asch: When the difference in line lengths was made smaller conformity increased Lucas et al (06) found this was not just task difficulty but it interacted with self efficacy.

1.3.2. AO3 Supporting research Child of it's time Independent behaviour Cultural differences

1.4. Conformity to Social Roles

1.4.1. AO1 Zimbardo (1973) SPE Sample: Stanford University 24 screened males volunteers Methodology: Lab Experiment / controlled observation 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 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 Critical Evidence Not Automatic but choice Demand charactersitics Ethics Practical Application to Abu Ghraib

1.5. Situational Variables Affecting Obedience

1.5.1. AO1 Milgram (1963) Shocks Sample: 40 male PPS (original) plus variations Methodology: Lab Experiment 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. 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. Proximity Teacher and learner in same room obedience dropped to 40% teacher hand to place learners hand on shock plates obedience dropped to 30% Experimenter absent obedience dropped to 21% (with some just using 15v repeatedly) Location PPS reported that it being done at Yale gave them confidence that it must be ok to do. When moved to run-down office obedience dropped to 48% Uniform 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 Ethics Lack of realism No gender bias Temporal Validity

1.6. Explanations for Obedience

1.6.1. AO1 Agentic Shift Autonomous State Agentic State positiveTo maintain postivie self image we avoid doing bad but if under orders we can do it guilt free because it wasn't 'us' Gradual Commitment Legitimate Authority Only take the agentic shift if there is legitimate authority This is effected by social situation and institution (labels and context) rather than individual charactersitics

1.6.2. AO3 Not as easy to shift back out Personality rather than situation Historical relevance and application Practical application (airlines)

1.7. The Authoritarian Personality

1.7.1. AO1 Adorno (1950) F-Scale Questionnaire: F - facist Statements like "rules are there to follow" If you agree it is indicative of Authoritarian Personality Altemeyer (1981) RWA Refined this to right wing authoritarianism Conventionalism (as above) Authoritarian Aggression (about rule breakers) Authoritarian Submission (to legitimate authority figures) Elms & Milgram (1966) Sample: Follow up for Milgrams original PPs Methodology: Questionnaire Procedure: Selected 20 'obedient' PPs (went to 450v) and 20 'defiant' PPs (refused at some point), assessed for personality, f-scale and attitudes 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 Research Support Social Context is important too Role for education Support for role of political view

1.8. Resistance to Social Influence

1.8.1. AO1 Social Support Asch - Dissenter (conformity dropped to 5.5%) Milgram - Disobedient ally (obedience dropped to 10%) Locus of Control Internal Locus of Control External Locus of Control

1.8.2. AO3 Order matters Need for valid support Real World Support LoC not effective for informational We are becoming more external Research Support for LoC

1.9. Minority Influence

1.9.1. AO1 Moscovici (1969) Green Slides Sample: groups of 4 naïve PPs and 2 confederates Methodology: Lab Experiment 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. 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) Consistency Makes us re-examine (see study) Commitment Gives impression of confidence Flexibility negotiations with powerful majority are more successfull

1.9.2. AO3 Research Support for Flexibility Power is in dissent We feel uncomfortable with dissent

1.10. Social Change

1.10.1. AO1 Attention Rallies, leaflets, protest, speeches, bombings Cognitive Conflict Majority is torn (so thinks deeply), use informational influence Consistency keep on message, show commitment, be flexible Augmentation be prepared to suffer Snowball slowly convert people until tipping point (then it is majority/normative) Social Cryptoamnesia Society forgets it was ever any other way

2. Attachment

2.1. Caregiver Infant Interaction

2.1.1. AO1 reciprocity interactional synchrony Meltzoff & Moore

2.1.2. AO3 Methodological Issues High control Failure to Replicate Intentional?

2.2. Development

2.2.1. Stages AO1 Asocial Indisriminate Discriminate Multiple AO3 Unreliable Self Report Biased Sample Multiple doesn't mean equivalent Stage Theories (nomothetic)

2.2.2. Father AO1 WW2 1970s present day AO3 absent father is an EV do backstage tasks have to be a man quality or quantity

2.3. Animals

2.3.1. AO1 Harlow Lorenz

2.3.2. AO3 generalisability contradicting evidence theoretical ijmportance practical application

2.4. Learning Thoery

2.4.1. AO1 Classical Conditioning Operant Condition

2.4.2. AO3 harlow and lorenz shaffer interactional syncrony partial truth and application

2.5. Monotropy

2.5.1. AO1 Survival Innate Critical Period Social Releasers Monotropy Internal Working Model Continuity

2.5.2. AO3 Shaffer - not monoropy interactional synchrony - social relseaers IWM - Aldut attachemnt social sensitive economy / practical application temprement

2.6. Strange Situation

2.6.1. AO1 behaviour procdure results

2.6.2. AO3 strong predictive validuty good reliability cukurte disorganise

2.7. Cultural Variation

2.7.1. AO1 van Ijzendoorn meta analysis 32 astudies 8 countries 1900 children secure always highest resistant low UK, high Israel avoidant low japan, high germany more variation within than between

2.7.2. AO3 large smaple not representative of culture imposed etic of SS similarity may be media method of SS

2.8. MDH

2.8.1. AO1 deprivation critical period intellectual development emotional development bowlby 44 thieves 44 criminal teens interviewd for signs of psychopathy compared to controls 14/44 psychopaths 12/14 long term separation 5/30 (left) had long term separation 2/44 controls had long term separation

2.8.2. AO3 war orphans - trauma counter evidence sensitive not critical - case animal - MDH orphans

2.9. Institutionalisation

2.9.1. AO1 Rutter ERA 165 romanian orphans adopted in UK assessed at 4, 6, 11, 15 compared to UK controls at 11 results dependent on age of adoption mean IQ early adopted 102, 86 between 6m and 2y, 77 after 2y differences remained at 16 after 6m - disinhibited attachment

2.9.2. AO3 Practical application Less Evs Generalisability 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 AO1 rare AO3 Practical Application Desirability Subjective Cut off Cultural Bias

3.1.2. Deviation from social norms AO1 odd AO3 Practical Application Cultural Bias Social Control Context Dependent

3.1.3. Failure to Function Adequately AO1 cannot perform everyday activities measured on GAF scale 1-100 100 = perfect social relationships work/school safety / hygiene AO3 Cultural Bias Practical Application Subjective Experience Not all fail to function Fail to function sometimes ok

3.1.4. Deviation from ideal mental health AO1 Jahoda environmental mastery resistance to stress personal autonomy accurate perception of reality self esteem self actualisation AO3 Practical Application Cultural Bias Unrealistic Criteria Positive Approach

3.2. Clinical Characteristics

3.2.1. AO1 Phobia Description Prevalence Emotional Behavioural Cognitive Depression Description Prevalence Emotional Behavioural Cognitive OCD Description Prevalence Emotional Behavioural Cognitive

3.3. Behavioural Explanation for Phobia

3.3.1. AO1 Two Process Model Classical Conditioning - Initiation Operant Conditioning - Maintenance

3.3.2. AO3 Support from Little Albert Alternative Explanation

3.4. Behavioural Treatment for Phobia

3.4.1. AO1 Systematic Desensitisation Counter Conditioning Relaxation Reciprocal Inhibition Desensitisation Heirarchy Gradual Work Through Flooding Worst Fear Use up fight/flight

3.4.2. AO3 Effective Not all fears can be self administered (long lasting) Not always appropriate

3.5. Cognitive Explanation for Depression

3.5.1. AO1 Ellis Activating Event Belief Consequence Mustabatory Thinking Beck Negative Schema Negative Triad

3.5.2. AO3 Difficult to assess cuase and effect Support from PND Practical Application to CBT Irrational may be realistic Client Blaming

3.6. Cognitive Treatment for Depression

3.6.1. AO1 Challenge and reprograme REBT Identify ABC Dispute Logical Empirical Pragmatic Homework Behavioural Activation Unconditional Positive Regard

3.6.2. AO3 Effective Not for Everyone Not for all depression Long lasting

3.7. Biological Explanation for OCD

3.7.1. AO1 Genes Comt SERT Diathesis Stress Neurochemistry Low Serotonin High Dopamine Neuroanatomy OFC Caudate Nucleus Thelamus

3.7.2. AO3 Twin Study Support Support from cingulotomy Practical Application Alternative Explanation

3.8. Biological Treatment for OCD

3.8.1. AO1 Anti Depressants SSRI SNRI Bzs

3.8.2. AO3 Effective Ease Side Effects Symptom not Cause Publication bias

4. PSY1: Memory

4.1. Multi Store Model

4.1.1. AO1 Unitary Linear Model Sensory Register Cap: Unlimited Dur: Milliseconds Enc: Modal (iconic/echoic) Attention Short Term Memory Cap: 5-9 Dur: 18-30sec Enc: Acoustic Rehearsal Long Term Memory Cap: Unlimited Dur; Lifetime Enc: Semantic

4.1.2. AO3 Supporting Lab Studies Supporting Case Studies Too Simple STM is more than one store LTM is more than one thing LTM is more than rehearsal

4.2. Working Memory Model

4.2.1. AO1 Dynamic Non-Unitary Model Central Executive Attention Resource Allocation Limited Capacity Phonological Loop Phonological Store (Inner ear) Articulatory Process (inner voice) Visual Spatial Sketchpad Visual Cache (Inner eye) Inner Scrivbe Episodic Buffer Added in 2000 Integreates the senses Time stamps

4.2.2. AO3 Support from Dual Task Supporting Case Studies Problem of Case Studies Limitation of the Central Executive

4.3. Long Term Memory

4.3.1. AO1 Declarative (explicit) Episodic Semantic Non Declarative (implicit) Procedural

4.3.2. AO3 Evidence from brain scans Support from HM Shows us declarative from non declarative Support from Alzheimers Shows us episodic is gateway to semantic

4.4. Forgetting: Interference

4.4.1. AO1 Proactive Interference Retroactive Interference Similarity

4.4.2. AO3 Supporting Rugby Study Lacks Realism Not all forgetting

4.5. Forgetting: Retreival Failure

4.5.1. AO1 Encoding Specificity Princliple Context Dependent 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