mCognitive

Multi-Store Model: Atkinson and Shiffrin - Classic Linear SS, STM, LTM Three separate stores
(Rehearsal)
(Theory Evaluation: Too Simple, Good Explainer cause simple structure)

Glanzer and Cunitz: A: To investigate the Serial Position with and without filler activity Effect
Primacy and Recency Effect (Lab) (Ethics Good)
(Lab)

Clive Wearing: Viral infection ate hippocampus Retrograde Amnesia, can't move STM to LTM,
kept LTM, Therefore separate (Case Study: Hard to Generalize) (Ethics: Informed Consent,
Confidentiality, Deception)
(Case Study)

Working Memory Model:Baddeley and Hitch: STM and LTM separate stores, in depth STM
Is CE even real low support, The episodic butter was a later addition to the WMM role to hold
temporary information and connect sensory and LTM in short episodic like memories.
(Theory Evaluation: High Detail, No Knowledge if entire structure exist and hard to test
for Central Executive)
Central Executive (CEO), Episodic Buffer (Combine Phono and Visio Memories), Visuospatial
Sketchpad, Phonological Loop (Articulatory Store inner voice , Phonological Store inner ear)

Clive Wearing: Viral infection ate hippocampus Retrograde Amnesia, can't move STM to LTM,
kept LTM (Wife, Music), Therefore separate stores (Case Study: Lots of of Data, Hard to
Generalize) (Ethics: Informed Consent, Confidentiality, Deception)
(Case Study)

Landy and Bartling:

A: Investigate if articulatory suppression influence recall of list of phonologically dissimilar letter
in serial recall
P: Random allocation to two groups, Group A: No articulatory task, saw list 5 seconds then
answered. Group B: Preformed articulatory suppression task (recall list while saying 1 and 2
and rate of 2 numbers per second) , saw list 5 seconds then answer
List 7 random letters that don't sound alike
R: Experimental group scored lower than control
C: Support hypothesis disruption phonological loop through task less accurate memory prevents
rehearsal in phono loop due to overload
E: Lab high control, Replicable but Low eco and Artificial
(Lab)

Schemas:
Deeply Rooted Mental Representations of person place or things that influence memory
encoding, retrieval and can even distort memory. Categorize and organize information in
memory.
(Theory Evaluation: Provides Explanation on how we categorize information in memory,
A lot of Empirical Support, Unclear how they are formed, Does not account for new info
without existing schema)

Bransford and Johnson: A: Investigate the effects of context comprehensions on memory recall
of passage - 5 different IV - Context of Audio recordings acts as Schema improves recall (Lab)
(Ethics Good)
(Lab)

Anderson and Pritchert: A: Investigate the influence of schema on the retrieval of information
Robbers and Housebuyers read text creates recall - filler - IV some change perspectives have
both schemas therefore recall more points (Ethics Good)
(Lab)

Thinking and Decision Making:

Dual Processing:
(Theory Evaluation: Good Explanatory Power, Simple Structure, No Mention of how
Emotion involves with Model)
System 1: Fast, Biased, Intuitive System 2: Slow, Analytical, Logical
Framing: Cognitive Bias people prefer gains to losses and system 1 sees this as quick judgment
Tversky and Kahneman: To investigate thinking and decision making with decisions framed with
risk Asian disease situation - Framed options to help - The same just framed different (saved,
die) more chose save (Ethics Good)
(Lab)

Goel et al: A: Demonstrate biological Basis Dual processing system 1 and 2 P: Under fMRI
asked to do Abstract (S1: Match color to number) Concrete (S2: Analytical real life task) Found
task activated different parts of brain so separate systems for thinking
S1: Parietal lobe: sensory info quick easy S2 Left hemisphere: analytical side of brain
(Ethics: Good)
(Lab)

Cognitive bias: a systematic error in thinking that impacts one's choices and judgments.
Cognitive misers: the tendency of people to think and solve problems in simpler and less effortful ways rather than in more sophisticated and more
effortful ways, regardless of intelligence.

Theory of Planned Behaviour: See Decisions as actions that result from behavioural
intentions.The idea that in order to make a decision these 5 things have to happen: Belief,
Social Norm, and Attitude predictive behaviour. How one can test theory is through Predictive
Validity: The extent to which the combination of variables in a theory predict behaviour. Suggest
that stronger more positive decisions more likely to do behaviour
(Theory Evaluation: Predictability can predict, Good structure includes Social and
cognitive however no emotion, Good explainer of behavioural intention and action,
Confounding Variables of Life and actions that may inhibit structure)
T
Albarracin et al: A: Investigate the predictive validity of the theory of planned behaviour on
people's decision to or not use condoms, Meta analysis 42 published papers to find the
correlation study if TBD factors intention to wear condom and belief, social norm, and attitude
they’re more likely to unnhhse it
(Correlation Study)
Ethics Good

Reconstructive Memory: Recalling memory is an active not passive process and we recall it
using the Schemas (Mental Representations of situations) These can be distorted misleading
information
(Theory Evaluation: Empirical Support inc credibility, However in real life not credible
only in artificial, Construct doesn't explain how only explain what happens, Applicable to
in real life and if eyewitness testimony true)

Loftus and Palmer: A: Investigate whether misleading post event information influenced memory
recall watched video asked speed on questionnaire - 5 IV action verbs change (Smash, crash
etc) Did influence (Ethics: Briefing could lead to anxiety potential harm Showing Violent Car
Crash footage)
(Lab)

Yullie and Cutshall: Investigate whether misleading post event information natural setting
influence memory recall Robbery gunshot killed robber, asked eyewitnesses 4 months later if
they saw the headlight crack most didn't fall for it due to Flashbulb Memory (Ethics: Potential
Harm: Stress of recalling trauma)
(Interviews With elements of Natural Experiment)

Biases:
Prospect Theory: People evaluate and make decisions based on gains and losses Frames:
Manipulate that concept
Relies on mental shortcuts known as heuristics:
Prospect theory assumes that losses and gains are valued differently, and thus individuals make
decisions based on perceived gains instead of perceived losses. Also known as the
"loss-aversion" theory, the general concept is that if two choices are put before an individual,
both equal, with one presented in terms of potential gains and the other in terms of possible
losses, the former option will be chosen.

Tversky and Kahneman: To investigate thinking and decision making with decisions framed with risk,
Asian disease situation - Framed options to help - The same just framed different (saved, die) more chose
save (Ethics Good)
(Lab)
The Dual Processing Model argues that there are two ways in which we make decisions.
First, there is System 1 thinking; this system is the one that is reliant on past information and
schema with the goal of making a quick and effortless decision based on limited information.
System 2 thinking, however, is much more effortful and requires more conscious reasoning.

When we use System 1 thinking we tend to use mental short-cuts called heuristics. One
example of a heuristic is “anchoring bias.” Anchoring bias occurs when we rely too heavily
on an initial piece of information offered (considered to be the "anchor") when making
decisions. Often this information is numeric.

Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision
Engages with S1 because cognitive misers. And think of anchoring as a heuristic to
speed up decision making process
Anchoring Bias: Is the idea that we base our decisions on the initial information we receive. When use
initial information to make a judgment

Englisch and Mussweiler: To investigate the influence information has on thinking and decision making,
Gave 5 lawyers a rape case and asked them to evaluatuate the sentence lengths but given different
lengths 8 months or 32. Those who got 32 gave him 30 months; those 8 gave him 14 so initial information
impacted. (Low Gen: Since real lawyers not jury (Ethics: Good)
(Lab)

Tversky and Kahneman 1974:

A: To see the influences anchoring biases had on decision making
P: Participants were asked to find the product of numbers between 1 and 8 and they were or the
product 8 to 1 Within a 5 second time frame (Could only us S1 hence feel for bias)
IV: Wether anchor (starting number) was a high or low number DV: The product
R: When the first number was higher so was the estimate higher
When first number lower the estimate number was also lower
C: Supports S!1 The heuristic shortcut was the idea that the first number (anchor) calculated
mean the product would either be larger or smaller
(HR, HC, LE, HA) (Ethics Good)
(Lab)

Anchoring bias:an individual to rely too heavily on an initial piece of information offered (known as the "anchor") when making decisions.
Cognitive bias: a systematic error in thinking that impacts one's choices and judgments.
Cognitive misers: the tendency of people to think and solve problems in simpler and less effortful ways rather than in more sophisticated and more
effortful ways, regardless of intelligence.

Emotions Memory: Flashbulb Memory: Memories with highly emotional attachments are
recalled in greater detail
(Theory Evaluation: Research naturalistic based on reactions and emotions on real
events High Eco, Lack replicability can't check consistent, Applicable to real life
contexts)
Yullie and Cutshall: Investigate whether misleading post event information natural setting
influence memory recall Robbery gunshot killed robber, asked eyewitnesses 4 months later if
they saw the headlight crack most didn't fall for it due to Flashbulb Memory (Ethics: Potential
Harm: Stress of recalling trauma)
(Structured Interviews with Elements of Natural Experiment)

Sharot et al: Investigate flashbulb memory in 9/11 victims. Asked downtown (closer) and
midtown (farther) under fMRI a series of words and to say memories associated with them
green, flower etc then asked September as they talked about 9/11 Downtown amygdala flashed
harder than midtown Amygdala (Controls emotional brain activity) (Ethics: Deception, Potential
Harm Recalling trauma, Informed Consent)
(Quasi already their, Artificial environment natural flashbulb memories)

HL: Digital:
Transactive system the idea that we become dependent on people to store info then we forget
computers are one big transactive system.
Cognitive Process: Sparrow et al: Investigated the relationship between digital technology and
memory recall: Told p two write out 41 trivia facts, IV some told computer saves or deletes then
told to remember or not too. Those told it was saved and and not to remember least recall and
those that it wouldn't save and remember most recall. Supports the idea of one big transactive
system (very artificial Low Eco and unreasonable request.)
(Lab)

Cognitive Process: Rossen et al: Investigated the relationship between video games and motor
skills. Surgeons were asked history of surgery and skill playing video games then tested prior to
on skills in surgery then asked to play point shooter games to see accuracy. Latest time and
errors in surgery again. Found that surgeons who had most history with video games more
accurate reflexes in surgery and after playing video games their time got faster and even their
skills got better less error quicker (Low gen cause surgeons already have good motor skills)
(Correlation Study)

Accuracy: Carrier Rossen Cheever et al: Investigated how the intellectual achievement was
affected by digital multi tasking. Did a correlation study and asked for GPA then asked
participants questionnaire on tech habits then did overt observation of them studying to see how
they interacted with tech. Found the more multitasking tech during studying the lower the gpa.
(Overt Observation could cause them to change their behaviour, confounding variables,
embarrassment,)
(Overt Observation, Self Report Questionnaire, Correlation)

Can use other two for accuracy

Empathy: To feel what other feel, screen may block this process
Emotions: Carrier et al: Investigated the relationship between emotional empathy and
technology. Gave participants questionnaires and asked them about their virtual and social
interactions and questions on empathy. Found that their lack of face to face was a significant
decrease in empathy in reality due to virtual however if already friends inc empathy. Self
Response bias: There is no way of verifying whether there is any authenticity of the answers
given and whether they are an accurate representation of participants reality.
(Self Report Questionnaire, Correlation Study)

Parson and Rizzo

Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET)
A: To investigate the correlation between VRET and its effectiveness in to treat anxiety
disorders.
P: Did Meta analysis on 21 studies that used VREt to treat anxiety disorders over 300
participants.
R: They found a significant positive effect in using VRET to treat anxiety disorders and phobias.
Their results showed that it had an effect of 0.87 for PTSD specifically when compared to other
treatments.
C: Thus it could be that technology could be used to treat and reduce anxiety
(Correlation Study)

Sociocultural

Enculturation: How due to teaching models individuals especially children pick up the cultural
norms within their culture.
Odden and Ratchet: Investigating Enculturation within a Samoan Culture that believed in
observational learning and that children should learn on their own. Observed Samoan fishing
society that doesn't believe in teaching practices. Questionnaire prior on norms etc chief
system. Then longitudinal observation was noticed without being explicitly taught to learn to fish
and the final questionnaire showed they had learnt the chief system. (Overt: change behaviour,
self response) (Ethics: change routine)
(Longitudinal Overt Observation)

Greenfield: Investigated how girls picked up and learned weaving in Mayan culture. longitudinal
overt obs study of mayan mothers teaches daughter Mayan weaving culture though mayan
mother didn't explicitly direct daughters eventually watching mother teaching model learnt but
did give pointers as went on the girls learnt weaving. Also due to pressure of being a mom and
keeping tradition. (Overt obsv could change behaviour)
(Longitudinal Overt Observation)

Culture: the idea values and habits that make one culture different from another.

Acculturation: How we adapt to a cultural change and we decided to keep our own culture
while assimilating into a new one. Due to acculturation we may have many side effects like
acculturative stress: Feeling the need to fit in and reverse culture shock alienation from their
other culture. Comes from changing one's c cultural identity to assimilate better.
Berry and Katz Acculturation Model: Assimilate, integrate, separate, marginalize

Luek and Wilson: Investigated Acculturative stress in Asian American immigrants. Questionnaire
and Interview on 2000 asian americans and looked into language preference, discrimination,
and traditions. Found Bilinguals form of integration, discrimiantion caused high AS felt like it
didn't fit, sharing traditions low AS felt accepted by both cultures. (Response bias may just have
been saying what was expected of them.) 70% acculative stress
(Semi -Structured Interview, Self Report Questionnaire)

Miranda and Matheny:

A: Investigated which factors in the lives of latin immigrants to the US would decrease AS
P: Participants: Spanish speaking american immigrant average residence 3.9 years, age 25.6
Completed questionnaire to assess family cohesion, level of acculturation and AS and
strategies for Stress
R: Good stress strategies, good english, good family - experience less AS
E: High Eco, Low inter validity due to self response bias, social desirability. No cause effect
Confirmation Bias leading question)
(Self Report Questionnaires)

Culture: the idea values and habits that make one culture different from another.

Cultural Dimensions: The ideas and values that are universal throughout many cultures and
affect behaviour and cognition
(Theory Evaluation: Applicability such braud dimensions that can be applied between
cultures, Predictability This model does not account for globalisation due to it being
quite old may have blurred, unbiased includes many cultures)

Berry and Katz: Investigated conformity within an Individualistic fishing Inuit and rice farmer
Sierra leone collectivist people. Asch paradigm tes t given one control line and asked to match
to the same three 1 participant 3 confederates. Found that the collectivists conform much more
to the group because they had trust while individualistic didn't. ( Lab: Low eco validity not a
realistic task that can show very artificial) (Ethics embarrassment)
(Lab)

Kulkofsky et al:
A:To see if there is any difference in flashbulb memories of individualistic and collectivist
cultures
P: 274 Participants middle class adults Germany, USA, UK (indv)
, Turkey and China (collectivist)
5 min: Recall as many memories of public event in there life must be over year ago
Researchers used list to create questionnaires based around details of event What time of day?
When did you learn about it?
Then participants asked why this memory is important to them personally and how much they
talk about it
R: In collectivist like China less importance on themselves and more on family while
individualistic like USA always thought about themselves
E: Potential Harm: Recall traumatic memories, Naturally formed FBMs but low ecological
Environment
Individuals: More importance on themselves when creating flashbulbs
Collectivist: More importance of family, group, or nation
(Structured Interview, Self Report Questionnaire)

Culture: the idea values and habits that make one culture different from another.
Social Identity Theory:
We base our self-esteem on the ingroups outgroups we identity with: Categorization,
Discrimination and Favourtism, Social Comaprison for self esteem
The three stages of SIT can be simply remembered as:
1.Social categorization
2.Social comparison
3.The tendency for people to use group membership as a source of selfesteem
(Theory Evaluation: Empirical Support and very testable, Unbiased but mainly western
culture, Construct Fails to account for environment social constraint, cultural
expectations, rewards, Predictability of behaviour high, Good definition of what
behaviour but not completely why it works in certain way)

Tajfel: Investigated if boy placed in random task display Ingroup favourtism and outgroup
discrimination. Klee kandinsky paintings asked to rate them and then randomly unknowingly
allocated them to groups. Asked to allocate money to groups. Ingroup favourtism gave more
money and less money to other outgroups discrimination to improve selfesteem by having more
moeny. (Lab) (Low Eco, High Artificial, Ethics good)
(Lab)

Abrams et al: Base behaviour on ingroup: investigated if ingroup identiy from social
categorization affected conformity. Those individuals placed in settings were ingroups present
when outgroups present htne private and public answers. Asch paradigm 3 confederates 1 P:
IV: Ingroup, Outgroup, Private, Public. Public Ingroup: Pressure conformed more, Private
Ingroup conformed least (Lab) (Low Eco, Artificial, Replicable) (Ethics: Potential Harm
Embarrassment)
(Lab)

Social Cognitive Theory: That we learn behaviour of models and use the environment around
us to indicate as a teaching tool. Attention Retention Motivation Potential (ARMP)
(Theory Evaluation: Testabile with empirical support in both natural and lab conditions
however create more questions and hard to define (how do you measure aggression),
Unbiased seems to be cross cultural phenomenon, Good predictive power due to
Bandura), Only looks short term not much research on long term)

Bandura et al: Investigated whether aggressive behaviour can be taught through models.
Children were measured for aggression by parents and other sources then asked to watch
models of the same gender and varying levels of aggression. All children subject to mild
aggression arousal. Then the child left in own room. Found aggressive model = more
aggressive than boy imitated men more. Girls are more physically aggressive if man model and
more verbal if woman.
(Lab)
Kimball and Zabrack: Investigated whether tv had any potential in modeling and influencing
aggression in children. In british columbian isolated towns just being introduced to TV installed 1
2 4 tv stations left for 2 years and measured aggression. Found that after 2 years kids are more
aggressive with 4 stations while 1 to 2 minor aggression changes so models of aggression
within television does seem to have some impact. High ecological validity, construct validity how
do you measure aggression, confounding variables) (Ethics: Potential Harm, consent)
(Longditundinal Natural or Quasi Experiment)

Stereotypes: Are biases or prejudices we have for a person or group of people. These biases
are said to impact behaviour such as
(Theory Evaluation: Testiable Empirical support in both natural and real, Applicable in a
Real life context, Construct many confounding variables such as history and past, and
participant biases of group prior, Predictable)

Illusory correlation thank to statistical disproportion there seem to be an connection when in

reality there is not relating Hamitlon and Gifford: Investigated illusory correlation in stereotype
formation- (Minority Less: Neg seem more Majority more: Neg less Cause prejudice)
Investigate illusory correlation in stereotype formation. Positive negative descriptions read
Group A 18 pos 8 neg Group B 9 pos 4 neg. Though same participants found minority group
more negative (Lab) (High control, but not causation)
(Lab)

Rosalind and Jacobson: Self fulfilled prophecy: belief in a stereotype will impact an individuals
behaviour to make it true: Investigated whether student stereotypes affected intelligence,
Divided group after fake IQ test into sprouter (HighIQ) or bloomer (Low IQ) really it was
random. After a year took the IQ test again and bloomers better than spirits showed that due to
belief in stereotypes students and teachers changed behaviour to fit prophecy stereotypes.
(High eco validity unethical potential harm and impact on children Low gen)
(Field)

Steele and Aronson: Stereotype threat: When an individual believes in a stereotype so they will
change their potential or behaviour to fit it. A stereotype threat arises when one is in a
situation where one has the fear of doing something that would inadvertently
confirm a negative stereotype. Investigated how stereotype threat would impact
intelligence, academic performance within W and B students. Due to stereotype threat that they
would achieve worse if the task was intellectually measuring. So 3 IV Con was an IQ test, a
challenge (Rise up to challenge) or a non pressure task. All tasks are the same. Found
participants average balck students varied due to task description if their IQ did worse if not
belief in stereotype caused them to change behaviour. White barely changes. High Eco but Low
Gen and what cause and effect many variables could influence this (Potential Harm stress)
(Lab)

fHL: Globalization
Globalization: the process of interaction and integration among people of different nations
and cultures.
IDENTITY
Individualism and Collectivism: The ideas and values that are universal throughout many cultures and
affect behaviour and cognition
Local and Global culture
Local Identity: The culture that we grow up in and share with others in the same environment
(Encultured)
Global Identity: the culture that we come to learn and perhaps adapt to by contact with other cultures
(via social networking, or working internationally etc.) (Accultured)
Biculturalism: When one feels comfortable takes part and proficient in more than one culture (local and
global culture)
Delocalization: Strong Global identify but can’t identify with local (Asian American feels “not Asian
enough”)

USA: Individual
Japan: Collectivist
Japanese People: Struggle to form bicultural identity so collectivist such opposite end of the spectrum of
individualism
Japanese in USA setting (Delocalise)

Study 1:
Ogihara & Uchida (2014)
A: To investigate the relationship between individualistic values and subjective wellbeing, and number of
close relationships in Japanese individuals moving to USA.
P: 114 Japanese women 62 student US university students
– Self report questionnaire their Individualistic or Collectivist orientation, then their on wellbeing and
relationships
R: Japanese (Value collectivist culture) participants who were achievement oriented (rather aspire to win
for themselves) scored lower on wellbeing and had fewer friend’s opposite for USA (Individualistic value
local culture)
Those achieving individua goals personally doing well in collectivist culture not as happy.
Happier if the entire group happy. Shift in values
E: Self Response Bias: Want Social desirability but shows effect of globalization on this singular context,
very subjective not objective
Shows correlation but too complex and many confounding variables.
(Self Response Questionaire)
.
Study 2:
Ogihara & Uchida (2014)
A: To inve stigate the effect of individualistic work on Japanese Woman
P: 336 adult Japanese women Large achievement-oriented Japanese company in USA– self report
questionnaire on wellbeing
R: Participants who were achievement oriented (rather aspire to win for themselves) scored lower on
wellbeing and had fewer friends
Those achieving individual goals in collectivist culture not as happy.
Happier if the entire group happy.
E: Self Response Bias: Want Social desirability but shows effect of globalization on this singular context
very subjective not objective.
Shows correlation but too complex and many confounding variables
(Self Response Questionaire)

BEHAVIOUR
Berry and Katz Acculturation Model:
Assimilate (Delocalization), integrate (Biculturalism) (Maintain own cultural)
Separate (Keep tradition and global a threat to that), Marginalize (Identity confusion cant find values
agree with)
Focus Marginalization: Negative attitude to own local culture and negative attitude everyone else so you
isolate yourself.
Study 1
Hikikomori – Japanese syndrome young Japanese lock themselves in room affect 1.2 million individuals
(mainly seen in young men), rare in past but has been significantly increasing
No motivation to participate, isolate 6 months, no other psychological disorders
Don't api fit in japanese strict social culture
Marginalization: Globalization INC Hikikomori INC

Norasakkunkit and Uchida (Lab Experiment)

A: To explain the origins of hikikomori by using Berry's Acculturation Model
P: 195 Japanese University students (
Standardized Test to test whether Low or High-risk Hikikomori
Standardized Test for attitudes towards social harmony and conformity
Standardized Test for local (social harmony collectivist) and global (Individualism and achievement)
identities

R: All agree Social harmony and collectivism valued by Japanese society

High Risk HK – Social Harmony Lower than those Low in HK
High Risk HK – Lower in Global and Social identity
C: Local culture alienate Japanese youth don’t conform cultural norm but don’t identify or have access to
global so withdraw from society
Conflict with identify with local or global culture affects behavior: causes marginalization and isolation
E: Even High Hikikomori didn’t have disorder should see results on real patients, Correlation study (No
cause and Effect), Self Report Bias

Study 2
Delafosse, Fouraste & Ghobouo
A: Investigate whether globalization may lead to negative behaviors in young adults
P: Case Study Observe young Ivorians 16 -20 did rapid westernization affect behavior
Clinical Interviews and Police measure date
R: Increase in suicide attempts, drug use, and interpersonal aggression in time period
C: Attributed to conflict between their traditional values and the values of the west
Identity Confusion lose faith tradition, feel excluded global causing marginalization
E: Confounding Variables, High Eco, Low Art, Some Self Report Bias, Researcher Bias
Ivory Coast

Our feelings and behaviours and thinking towards others and how it leads to potential stereotypes
Chiu et al – Chinese vs American culture: Advertising other culture shape thinking
Definitions:

Culture: the idea values and habits that make one culture different from another.
Cultural Norm

Biological

Localization: The idea that every part of the brain has a function.
HM: Case Study HM Bike accident had a brain injury and began seizing. Wanted to stop the
seizure went to neurosurgeon Scoville who had the hippocampus out. No hippocampus had a
severe impact on memory, his episodic memory ( details, numbers, experiences) hard recall
while physical muscle memory like learning to motor movement riding bike remained. This
removal of the brain clearly correlated with episodic memory and not muscle memory. So one
could see that episodic memory functions in the hippocampus while muscle memory
somewhere else.
(Case Study) (Ethics: Consent, Potential Harm, Debriefing, Good anonymity)

Neural network: A neural network is a series of connected neurons that allows the processing and
transmitting of information. Specific networks are responsible for specific tasks.

Neuroplasticity: The brain changes in order to adapt to this environment or behaviour. Neural
network is a series of neurons connected. Neurons communicate via electrical signals to
produce behaviours. Network used more the denser and faster it becomes (profession
musician)
Maguire et al: Investigated whether neuroplasticity could be detected in the brain. Whether the
brain can undergo "plastic" (structural) changes in response to extensive navigational
experience. Did MRI (See density) on london some non taxi, some novice taxi, some very
experienced. More experience denser network especially near hippocampus and bigger
hippocampus. Hippocampus responsible for memory hence experienced used memory more
than novice. Supporting the idea that the brain does adapt to the environment.
(Quasi Experiment already ther) (Correlation study on driving experience and grey
matter) (Ethics: Good)

Neural Pruning: A lack of use as a result of discontinued behaviour may lead to neural pruning -the
process by which extra neurons and synaptic connections are eliminated.
Draganski et al:
A: To investigate whether structural changes in the brain would occur in response to practising
simple juggling routine
P: Participants self selected no prior experience with juggling then divided into two groups non
jugglers and jugglers.
Jugglers: spent three months learning classic juggling routine 3 balls then instructed to stop for 3
months Non Juggler: Never practiced juggling
Three brain scans: 1 before experiment, 1 after three months, 1 after 6 months
R: Found no difference between jugglers and non jugglers before experiment
After three months of practice significantly more grey matter in mid temporal area of cortex on both
hemispheres (Responsible for coordinate movement)
After six months difference decreased but jugglers still had more grey in same areas than at first
scan
C: Grey matter grows in the brain in response to environmental demands (learning= and shrinks
when not stimulated by practice (Neural Pruning) Shows cause and effect relationship between
learning and brain structure.
E: Internal Validity in home environments, Replicable
(Lab) (Ethics good)

Neurotransmitters: Chemical messengers that communicate function throughout the brain

through electrical signals called action potentials that pass neurotransmitters from one neuron to
the next resulting in a behaviour.
Dopamine: Pleasure Neurotransmitters
Aaron Fischer and Brown: To investigate neural mechanisms associated with the attraction
system. Participants were all in relationships said to be in “love”. Under fMRI showed each
individual's picture of love counted 6 seconds backwards one then the picture of aquatinance
repeated. Results showed that different parts of the brain activated. Loved one caused ventral
tegmental area (VTA) activated dopamine rich area of the brain.
(Lab)
(Ethics good)

Agonists: Chemical or Drug bines receptor enhance the action of Neurotransmitters

Physostigmine
Antagonists: Chemical or Drug bines receptor counteract the action of Neurotransmitters
(Scopolamine)
Acetylcholine: A neurotransmitter that aids in the consolidation of spatial memories

Agonists: Physostigmine too much acetyl deficit retrieval

Antagonist: Scopolamine too little deficit encoding

Rogers and Kesner:

A: To investigate the role acetylcholine on memory encoding and memory reretieval of spatial
memories
P: 30 Rats placed into Hebb williams maze with food in one corner
Three conditions:
1. Physostigmine Blocks enzyme that cleans acetylcholine during reuptake (High Acetylcholine
Agonist
2. Experimental injected scopolamine antagonists block receptors sites of Acetylcholine
inhibiting response (No Acetylcholine Antagonist)
3. Control Placebo saline solution
Encoding measured by difference in average number of mistakes first 5 and last 5 trails of day 1
Retrieval measured by difference in average number of mistakes last 5 and first 5 trails of day 1
R:
No Acetyl: Scopolamine group deficit in encoding no deficit retrieval
High Acetyl: Physostigmine showed no deficit encoding but deficit retrieval
C: Acetylcholine important role in memory encoding too much may interfere with retrieval and
too little deficit encoding
No Acetyl nothing changes to memories made, but too much changes to memories already
made
E: Very controlled, replicable, and placebo ------ How much can one really generalize to humans
from rats, and Ethics: Animal research
(Lab)

Inhibitory or excitatory synapses

Excitatory: An excitatory neurotransmitter binds to receptor sites and increases the chances of the
postsynaptic neuron firing (sending a signal).

Inhibitory: An inhibitory neurotransmitter binds to receptor sites and reduces the chances of the
postsynaptic neuron firing (sending a signal).

Hormones: Chemical messenger sent into the bloodstream by endocrine glands that results in
behaviour.
Oxytocin: Pituitary gland release Love hormone responsible for creating relationship and
trusting building bonds
Scheele et al: Investigated the effect oxytocin had on fidelity in human relationships. Experiment
with 30 male some in relationships and some not then some administered with placebo some
with oxytocin. Asked to approach women until distance felt uncomfy or game controller image
landscapes pretty. Found that those who kept greater distance and moved controllers slower
were in relationships and oxytocin. Oxytocin hormone may have some impact on fidelity likely
because they behaviours wanted to keep their trust with partner
(Lab)
(Ethics consent, potentil harm what if not loyal so annyomity)

Pheromones: Chemical messengers transmitted via scent to other members of the same
species to communicate fertility and attraction.
MHC: Immune system gene
Wedekind: Investigated the role MHC has in attraction and mate choice. At night men wear tshirt
for 14 days (No perfumes, hot food, sex) Pure phermone coat - 14 days woman do nasal spray
and some woman on birth control others not. Then 3 boxes have the same MHC gene, 3 boxes
different MHC, 1 control no pheromones clean. Found that different MHC more attractive for non
birth control and less attractive for birth control likely because non birth control wants to mate
with individuals that will give a wider immune system to offspring.
(Lab and Survey)
(Ethics: Debriefing, Potential Harm to routine)

Evolution: Charles Darwin Survival of the fittest, natural selection

Disgust: Evolut behaviour developed to prevent contact with infectious diseases INC survival
Curtis et al: Investigate if the emotion of disgust results from evolution and if high in pregnant
low in old. Survey many 165 countries BBC science website Photo pairs 1 disgusting 1 not.
Rate 1 - 5.
All predictions came true so supports the idea that emotions may evolve by evolution to help
survival.
(Self Report Questionnaire, Correlation Study between Rating of Disgust and Picture)
(Ethics: Debriefing and Consent to see ugly pics)

Genes: Section of DNA that codes for heritable characteristics for certain proteins that later
specialize and cause certain functions. Gene allele is a variation of that gene. Nature vs Nurture
Genes have some impact on behaviour and may be building blocks to behaviour and don’t always mean
expressed in behaviour.
5HTT: A gene linked to depression levels and reuptake of serotonin Hormone stabilize wellbeing
Caspi et al: Investigated the 5-HTT gene and the development of depression. Participants had
874 26 years old who had been on every other year basis been assessed on mental health.
interviewed, questionnaires assess life history and emotional coping mechanisms/behaviour
with frequency of stressful situations (relationships, work etc.). Then genetic mapping of 5-HTT
gene alleles. Two short, One Long One Short, Two Long. Results found that individuals 2 short
or 1 long 1 short were more likely predisposed to depressive reactions or behaviours than those
with long. Those with 5HTT and life that supported that behaviour. Supporting the idea gene has
some influence on behaviour however the environment responsible for expression of gene. If
conditions are right, there is a greater chance of depressive behaviour because they will be
predisposed.
(Genetic Mapping, Longitudinal, Semi Structured Interviews, Questionnaires)
(Ethics: Anonymity highly personal info, Debriefing, Consent, Potential Harm Trauma)

Twins: Genetically very similar individuals Monozygotic twins: Fertilized egg splits in half
Dizygotic Twins: Two different fertilized eggs womb same time. Twins useful because we can
make very interesting investigations into nature vs nurture claim and see wether gene or
environment more important to express behaviour. Gene building block environment allows final
expression
Bouchard and Mcgue: Investigate whether correlation between intelligence is hereditary. Did
Meta analysis on c 112 twin study on IQ between MZ and DZ twins that reared together or apart
to see whether the Concordance rate (Share trait) high or low between their IQs matched.
Found correlation and DZ: pretty similar MZ: Concordance rate higher when shared
environment than when they reared apart. Support the idea that there is some inherent nature to
IQ genetics because high when separate and together for MZ. More similarity than DZ twins
than reared together. More similar genetics more similar behaviour so genetics are a strong
factor in behaviour.
(Correlation Study)
(Ethics good)

MRI (Magnetic-Resonance Imaging): Three dimensional images of the brain, by manipulating

the magnetic field surrounding the brain. Since inside the body and brain mainly made up of
water (H2O), the magnetic field is able to stop the spinning hydrogen protons and have them
align in order to acquire an image that shows the varying densities of the brain and its
structures.

Maguire et al: Whether the brain can undergo "plastic" (structural) changes in response to
extensive navigational experience. Did MRI (See density) on london some non taxi, some noice
taxi, some very experienced. More experience denser network especially near hippocampus
and bigger hippocampus. Hippocampus responsible for memory hence experienced used
memory more than novice. Without MRI one couldn't see density. Crucial technological
innovation to gain new knowledge without invasive brain function that one could not see with
naked eye.
(Quasi and Correlation Study)
(Ethics: Informed Consent, )

HL Human Behaviour

Prosocial
Bystanderism: The phenomenon where an individual is less likely to help if more people are
around
(Theory Evaluation: Empirical Support yes, Testability do you see pattern yes,
Predictability yes)
Diffusion Responsibility: Less liable think everyone shares responsibility
Pluralistic Ignorance: Rely on others actions and copy
Fear of Apprehension: We feel judged by how we approach the situation incase wrong
Darley and Latane: Investigated if the bystander were less likely to help if more people - Fake
autocom calls told to vent about troubles - participant thought either alone with seizure person
or with 1,2,4 others. Seizure happened more people the slower participant (Lab Unrealistic
would need to see each other) (Ethics: Potential Harm, Debriefing)
Darley and Latane: Investigated if the bystander would conform in emergency if more people -
Smoke filled room, participant either alone or with more confederates measured reaction time,
more people who acted ignorant the slower participant reacted (Lab) (Ethics: Potential Harm:
Embarrassment, Debriefing)
Prosocial Behavior Cog:
Empathy Altruism Model: (Theory Evaluation: Theory Evaluation: Empirical Support yes,
Testability do you see pattern yes, Predictability yes, Construct: Is empathy the reason
for altruism of the to stop negative feeling) Empathy altruism model that we will when we feel
high amounts of empathy help someone no matter if we gain or not.Toi and Bason: Investigated
whether Empathy impacted atriums. Watched a movie where a woman got into an accident can't
go to Psych placed High empathy con (How do you think she feels to pretend to be her) or Low
emp (just watch) when asked to help high emp more likely than low emp also if were going to
see her emp more likely than low. (Lab) Artificial Low eco not really a face to face or realistic to
real empathy
Negative State relief model: We act prosocially and empathetically only because we feel bad
and want that feeling to go away, not altruistic.
Darley and Latane: Only helped for negative state relief didn't want trouble and felt guilt
Investigated if the bystander were less likely to help if more people - Fake autocom calls were
told to vent about troubles - participant thought either alone with seizure person or with 1,2,4
others. Seizure happened more people the slower participant (Lab Unrealistic would need to
see each other) (Ethics: Potential Harm, Debriefing)

Prosocial Behaviour Bio:

Kin Selection Theory, Hamilton: (Theory Evaluation: Empirical Support yes, Testability do
you see pattern yes, Predictability yes, Construct does not explain why people help
others outside family)
More genes the more likely to act prosocially evolution make generations last longer
Madsen et al: Investigated kin selection in human altruism in two culture South Africa Zulu, UK
Participants would sit in pain on wall to gain prize for relative, found the closer the genetic
connection the longer altruistic pain (High Gen, Low Eco)
Marsch et al: If empathy was hardwired was there any evidence - Participants Kidney Donors
gave to strangers altruistic no gain, Questionnaire, Interview, under fMRI in empathetic task
Found that amygdala fat in kidney donors and also scored as very empathic individuals. (Low
Eco, Artificial, Good support but reductionist)

Promoting Prosocial behaviour: Can prosocial behaviours be taught? Prosocial behaviour is

when one acts prosocially and helps someone so that someone gains. Social Cognitive theory
we model behaviour we see.
Beamen et al: To investigate whether changing social norms would influence bystanderism 80
introductory psych class They saw a film about prosocial behaviour and some didn't and then 2
weeks later covert obs of atriums tasks whether do it or not. Those who saw the film more likely
did it. Causation Confounding many factors could influence (Ethics Potential Harm:
Embarrassment, Debriefing)
(field)
Empathy Altruism Model: Empathy altruism model that we will when we feel high amounts of
empathy help someone no matter if we gain or not.
Staub: Asked kids to write letters to parents (No Altruism but prosocial they gain too ) But other
letter children in need Kids don't gain at all( altruism) Then asked to do prosocial Altruism task
kids did end up helping. Low eco validity wasn't kids' idea kind of a forced natartive on them but
did show that they would do this.
(lab)

Prosocial behavior is voluntary behavior intended to benefit another. Thus, it includes

behaviors such as helping, sharing, or providing comfort to another.

Personal Relationship
Formation of Personal Relationships:
Mere Exposure Effect (Zajonc): Feeling a preference for an individual because he or she is familiar. This is the basis for
the proximity principle - the tendency for individuals to form interpersonal relations with those who are close by
(The more frequently we are exposed to something, the more we like it.) (Theory
Evaluation: Empirical
Support yes, Testability do you see pattern yes, Predictability yes, Low Applicability:
Artificial)

Key Study: Zajonc (1968)

A: Investigate whether exposure to a certain person originated attraction
P: Lab Experiment Participants told study on visual memory → Split into two groups either show pictures of people at low or
high frequencies (Seconds, Show) → Then asked to rate each photo from 1- 7
R: The high frequency group rated the photos much higher than the low frequency group
C: Supported the idea mere exposure effect proposed that the longer we are exposed the more we like it
E: High Control, Replicability, Low ecological validity never would happen in real life

(Lab)

Pheromones: Chemical messengers transmitted via scent to other members of the same species to communicate
fertility and attraction.
MHC: Immune
system gene
Key Study Wedekind:
Investigated the role MHC has in attraction. At night men wear t-shirt for 14 days (No perfumes, hot food, sex) Pure
pheromone coat - 14 days woman do nasal spray and some woman on birth control
others not. Then 3 boxes have the same MHC gene, 3 boxes different MHC, 1
control no pheromones clean. Found that different MHC more attractive for non birth
control and less attractive for birth control likely because non birth control
wants to mate with individuals that will give a wider immune system to
Offspring. Pheromones a factor in sexual attraction
(Lab and Survey)

Communication in Personal Relationships

Gottman’s Four Horsemen: Believes he can predict relationships end with 98% accuracy four certain qualities that
doom a relationship called the four Horseman:
(Theory Evaluation: Empirical Support Yes Predictability: Yes however not realistic
completely since relationships are unique and everyone has preferences, Testability: Yes
both artificial and not artificial, Construct good but all of them are up for interpretation)

Criticism: Verbally attacking partner’s character “you’re so lazy”

Contempt: Attack partners sense of self psychological abuse
Defensiveness: Viewing yourself always as the victim never take blame
Stonewalling: Withdrawing from relationship to convey disapproval (Cock Can Dickdown Stacy)

Key Study: Gottman (1994)

A: To test factors that affect relationships
P: 200 couples 20 years longitudinal
Interviews: Types of fights and conflicts
Observed: Before and After In ‘Love Labs’ discussing their conflicts. Recording facial expression, physiological
responses (Sweat, Pulse), time spent in positive and negative interaction
R:
1. If any of the four-horsemen were detected relationship was like predicted to breakdown
2. In health relationships: diminish the horseman
Validate each other – diminish defensiveness
Conflict Avoiding Agree to disagree – diminish contempt
For every one insult 5 compliments 5:1
C: Conflict styles contribute to changing and ending relationships
E: Real couples’ large sample, Triangulation, Long not just snapshot
Change behaviors for research, self-response bias Low Eco heart monitors
Ethics: Potential harm: Couples already have conflict
(Interview, Overt Obsv)

Social Penetration Theory (Altman and Taylor):

Claims that relationships develop and are stunted depending on whether one moves from superficial layers of
interaction to intimate ones via self disclosure. If a partner is interested one feels validated and sees value in the
relationship. If partner disinterested one feels the need to back away and see no potential in relationship

Self-Disclosure: The act of revealing personal and intimate details of oneself to another person

Key Study: Collins and Miller

A: To investigate whether self-closure is related to attractions
P: Meta-Analysis: 50 studies lab, questionnaires
R: Those that self-disclose are more liked than individuals who do not. Disclose more personal information to people
they liked
Once disclosing personal information people tend to like that person more
C: Supports idea that self-disclosure is possibly an important factor in maintain healthy relationships
E: No ethics
Research triangulation: studies lab, questionnaires
Reductionist: not only factor in attraction and healthy relationships
(Correlation Study)

Why Relationships Change or End:

Gottman’s Four Horseman: Believes he can predict relationships end with 98% accuracy four certain qualities that
doom a relationship called the four Horseman:

Criticism: Verbally attacking partner’s character “you’re so lazy”

Contempt: Attack partners sense of self psychological abuse
Defensiveness: Viewing yourself always as the victim never take blame
Stonewalling: Withdrawing from relationship to convey dissaproval
(Cock Can Dickdown Stacy)

Key Study: Gottman (1994)

A: To test factors that affect relationships
P: 200 couples 20 years longitudinal
Interviews: Types of fights and conflicts
Observed: Before and After In ‘Love Labs’ discussing their conflicts. Recording facial expression, physiological
responses (Sweat, Pulse), time spent in positive and negative interaction
R:
1. If any of the four-horsemen were detected relationship was like predicted to breakdown
2. In health relationships: diminish the horseman
Validate each other – diminish defensiveness
Conflict Avoiding Agree to disagree – diminish contempt
For every one insult 5 compliments 5:1
C: Conflict styles contribute to changing and ending relationships
E: Real couples’ large sample, Triangulation, Long not just snapshot
Change behaviors for research, self-response bias Low Eco heart monitors
Ethics: Potential harm: Couples already have conflict

Social Penetration Theory (Altman and Taylor):

Claims that relationships develop and are stunted depending on wether one moves from superficial layers of
interaction to intimate ones via self disclosure. If partner interested one feels validated and sees value in relationship.
If partner disinterested one feels the need to back away and see no potential in relationship

Self-Disclosure: The act of revealing personal and intimate details of oneself to another person

Key Study: Collins and Miller

A: To investigate whether self-closure is related to attractions
P: Meta-Analysis: studies lab, questionnaires
R: Those that self-disclose are more liked that individuals who do not. Disclose more personal information to people
they liked
Once disclosing personal information people tend to like that person more
C: Supports idea that self-disclosure is possibly an important factor in maintain healthy relationships
E: No ethics
Research triangulation: studies lab, questionnaires
Reductionist: not only factor in attraction and healthy relationships

Biological
Pheromones:
Chemical messengers transmitted via scent to other members of the same species to
communicate fertility and attraction.
MHC: Immune
system gene

Key Study Wedekind:

Investigated the role MHC has in attraction. At night men wear tshirt for 14 days (No perfumes,
hot food, sex) Pure phermone coat - 14 days woman do nasal spray and some woman on birth
control others not. Then 3 boxes have the same MHC gene, 3 boxes different MHC, 1 control no
pheromones clean. Found that different MHC more attractive for non birth control and less
attractive for birth control likely because non birth control wants to mate with individuals that will
give a wider immune system to offspring.
(Lab and Survey)
(Ethics: Debriefing, Potential Harm to routine)
 Neurotransmitters:
Chemical messengers that communicate function throughout the brain through electrical signals
called action potentials that pass neurotransmitters from one neuron to the next resulting in a
behaviour.
Dopamine: Pleasure Neurotransmitters

Key Study: Aaron Fischer and Brown:

To investigate neural mechanisms associated with the attraction system. Participants were all in
relationships said to be in “love”. Under fMRI showed each individual's picture of love counted 6
seconds backwards one then the picture of aquatinance repeated. Results showed that different
parts of the brain activated. Loved one caused ventral tegmental area (VTA) activated dopamine
rich area of the brain.
(Lab)
(Ethics good)

Cognitive:
Similarity Attraction Model: People are attracted to others who are similar, rather than
dissimilar to themselves.
Couples tend to be similar in age, religion, social class,
cultural background, personality, education, intelligence, physical
attractiveness, and attitudes.

(Theory Evaluation: Empirical Support Yes and No Predictability: Yes however not
realistic completely since relationships are unique and everyone has preferences ,
Testability: One artificial One not, Construct: Define attraction the level we want to be in
relationship or phsyical)
Sociocultural:
Gottman’s Four Horseman: Believes he can predict relationships end with 98% accuracy four certain qualities that
doom a relationship called the four Horseman:

Criticism: Verbally attacking partner’s character “you’re so lazy”

Contempt: Attack partners sense of self psychological abuse
Defensiveness: Viewing yourself always as the victim never take blame
Stonewalling: Withdrawing from relationship to convey dissaproval
(Cock Can Dickdown Stacy)

Key Study: Gottman (1994)

A: To test factors that affect relationships
P: 200 couples 20 years longitudinal
Interviews: Types of fights and conflicts
Observed: Before and After In ‘Love Labs’ discussing their conflicts. Recording facial expression, physiological
responses (Sweat, Pulse), time spent in positive and negative interaction
R:
1. If any of the four-horseman were detected relationship was like predicted to breakdown
2. In health relationships: diminish the horseman
Validate each other – diminish defensiveness
Conflict Avoiding Agree to disagree – diminish contempt
For every one insult 5 compliments 5:1
C: Conflict styles contribute to changing and ending relationships
E: Real couples’ large sample, Triangulation, Long not just snapshot
Change behaviors for research, self-response bias Low Eco heart monitors
Ethics: Potential harm: Couples already have conflict

Social Penetration Theory (Altman and Taylor):

Claims that relationships develop and are stunted depending on wether one moves from superficial layers of
interaction to intimate ones via self disclosure. If partner interested one feels validated and sees value in relationship.
If partner disinterested one feels the need to back away and see no potential in relationship

Self-Disclosure: The act of revealing personal and intimate details of oneself to another person

Key Study: Collins and Miller

A: To investigate whether self-closure is related to attractions
P: Meta-Analysis: studies lab, questionnaires
R: Those that self-disclose are more liked that individuals who do not. Disclose more personal information to people
they liked
Once disclosing personal information people tend to like that person more
C: Supports idea that self-disclosure is possibly an important factor in maintain healthy relationships
E: No ethics
Research triangulation: studies lab, questionnaires
Reductionist: not only factor in attraction and healthy relationships
(Correl

Mere Exposure Effect (Zajonc): Feeling a preference for an individual because he or she is familiar. This is the basis for
the proximity principle - the tendency for individuals to form interpersonal relations with those who are close by (The more
frequently we are exposed to something, the more we like it.)

Key Study: Zajonc (1968)

A: Investigate whether exposure to a certain person originated attraction
P: Lab Experiment Participants told study on visual memory → Split into two groups either show pictures of people at low or
high frequencies (Seconds, Show) → Then asked to rate each photo from 1- 7
R: The high frequency group rated the photos much higher than the low frequency group
C: Supported the idea mere exposure effect proposed that the longer we are exposed the more we like it
E: High Control, Replicability, Low ecological validity never would happen in real life

Group Dynamics
Cooperation Competition:
Realistic Conflict Theory: Intergroup conflict and cooperation happens when fighting over scarce resources
competition opposing goals cooperation subordinate goals (Group norms, discrimination, and favouritism)
Social Identity Theory: We base our self-esteem on the in groups outgroups we identity with
Sucker effect: The sucker effect (also known as social loafing) occurs when people feel they doing more than their
fair share of the group's work; reduce the injustice of such a situation is to reduce their own level of effort
Cooperation: Group behaviour that benefits the interest of another group than your own “I win you win, I lose you
win” Competition arises whenever two or more parties strive for a common goal which cannot be
shared

Sherif et al: Negatively independent competition occurs when there are scarce resources, Positively independent
Cooperation occurs when there are subordinate goals.
A: Study informal groups and observe the natural and spontaneous development of group organization, attitudes
(prejudice), and group norms. (Participants: 24 white middle class 12 year old boy all went to summer camp have
never met before) P: 1. Group formation 2. Intergroup Conflict 3. Conflict Resolution
1. Groups divided into rattlers and the eagles, unaware of each other, groups quickly developed norms, rituals,
traditions began identifying as a “we”.
2. Groups became aware of each other research posed as counselors and asked them to do competitive activities
(Tug of war) clear winners (prize) and losers (nothing) Resulted: In group favouritism (spoke always positively to
group) Outgroup discrimination (name calling, burning flag, throw food)
3: Then changed the nature of activities where one group could only succeed with another (Tire too heavy to push for
one team, fix broken water tank high stakes) Result: Reduction in conflict behaviour and worked together, united and
forgot they were separate.
C: Negatively independant competition occurs when there are scarce resources, Positively independent Cooperation
occurs when there are subordinate goals between both groups
E: Field Study: High Eco, but cant control many variables (leaders convo with scouts, or inter groups interactions),
Ethical Consideration: Deception, Potential Harm: Boy anxiety (Bed wetting, crying etc.)
(Field)

Tajfel: Believed there was competition due to division of groups hence tried to create difference in scores.
Ingroup outgroup discrimination. Klee kandinsky paintings asked to rate them and then randomly unknowingly
allocated them to groups. Asked to allocate money to groups. Ingroup favourtism gave more money and less money
to other outgroups discrimination to improve selfesteem by having more moeny. (Lab) (Low Eco, High Artificial, Ethics
good)
Kerr: Willingness to cooperate or not is not simply an imitation of a model’s behaviour, but rather a desire not to be a
“sucker” and do more work than everyone else. To investigate if people are more likely to cooperate when they see
that others do Participants: 75 male undergraduates
Procedure:
asked to pump air by pressing a small rubber bulb in each hand for 30 seconds. Air was collected by a spirometer.
The participants were put into 1 of 4 conditions:
1. Alone 2. Capable hard-working partner 3. Capable not-hard-working partner
4. Individually next to someone else doing the test without much effort
Results: Alone More air 2. Pumped less air (Freerider) 3. Pumped less air (Sucker)
4. More air C: Sucker Effect: To reduce injustice of more work by doing less cooperate more less conflict
(Lab)

Discrimination: Treatment
Realistic Conflict Theory: Intergroup conflict and cooperation happens when fighting over scarce resources (Group
norms, discrimination, and favouritism)
Theory of Egotism: When intergroup self-esteem is threatened, by acting out to an outgroup boost self-esteem.
(Fein)
Social Identity Theory: We base our self-esteem on the ingroups outgroups we identify with

Sherif et al: Negatively independent competition occurs when there are scarce resources cause discrimination
between groups
A: Study informal groups and observe the natural and spontaneous development of group organization, attitudes
(prejudice), and group norms. (Participants: 24 white middle class 12 year old boys all went to summer camp have
never met before) P: 1. Group formation 2. Intergroup Conflict 3. Conflict Resolution
(Field)

Tajfel: Ingroup outgroup discrimination. Klee kandinsky paintings asked to rate them and then randomly unknowingly
allocated them to groups. Asked to allocate money to groups. Ingroup favourtism gave more money and less money
to other outgroups discrimination to improve selfesteem by having more moeny. (Lab) (Low Eco, High Artificial, Ethics
good)
(Lab)

Fein and Spencer: Investigate if threat to self-image would make people more likely to discriminate. Participants
asked to take IQ test:
Control: Told its fake Experiment: Told its real and scored low
Then both asked to do a “social judgment task”: Two scenarios both about struggling artist Greg in new york but one
change. Scenario 1: Artist had a girlfriend Anne Scenario 2: Artist had a partner and no name.
Then asked to fill questionaire and rate Greg 0 - 10 on traits some stereotpical gay (feminity creativit) and even asked
if theyd be his friend. Those told they were not smart were more likely to score greg negatively. Lowering Self esteem
more likely to discriminate (Low Eco, Artificial Ethic: Potential Harm: Esteem and Embarrassment)
(Lab)

Prejudice Attitudec
Stereotypes: Illusory Correlation prejudice against minorities. (Hamilton Gifford)
Social Identity Theory: We base our self-esteem on the ingroups outgroups we identify with. Ingroup outgroup
discrimination (Tajfel)
Prejudice is hardwired: Amygdala activates when we see outgroup, frontal lobe asses risk of outgroup (Phelps, and
Harris and Fiske)
Taboo of being prejudiced in our society. Dont present explicitly may have prejudice towards groups out of conscious
awareness. That is Implicit Prejudice.

Hamilton and Gifford: (Minority Less: Neg seem more Majority more: Neg less Cause prejudice) Investigate illusory
correlation in stereotype formation.Positive negative descriptions read Group A 18 pos 8 neg Group B 9 pos 4 neg
Though same participants found minority group more negative (Lab) (High control, but not causation)
(Lab)

Phelps: Investigates correlation between prejudice and brain activity

Under fMRI scanner standardized test for ethnic prejudice using (Implicit Association Test: (Our Implicit
(Unconscious uncontrollable belief) Measures strength to stimuli to associate objects and people can see
biases/Stereotypes: The faster the response to stimuli the stronger the unconscious association) White American in
Fmri take Implicit Associations test while looking at balck and white faces
R: Correlation strong activation of Amygdala to unfamiliar balck faces , Didn’t respond the same to positively
regarded
A computer-driven assessment of implicit attitudes. The test uses reaction times to measure people's automatic associations
between attitude objects and evaluative words
(

Harris and Fiske: to investigate he biological corrleates of stereotypes and prejudice eUnder Fmri and shown different
photos of people (disabilities, homeless, businessmen, Olympic athletes) R: Homeless: reactions of disgust in brain
(Insula: typically activated for non human objects: trash) (Dorsomedial prefrontal cortex: part of brain where we think
of other people not activated C: Participants had prejudice and discriminate the homeless as not even people (Could
be evolutionary) (Lab) (High Artificial, Low Eco) Ethics: Embarrassment
(Lab Experiment)

Origins of Conflict:
Realistic Conflict Theory: Intergroup conflict and cooperation happens when fighting over scarce resources (Group
norms, discrimination, and favouritism)
Social Identity Theory: We base our self-esteem on the in groups outgroups we identity with
Sherif et al: Negatively independent competition occurs when there are scarce resources cause discrimination
between groups - When one creates an us and them due to social categorization

Sherif et al: Sherif et al: Negatively independent competition occurs when there are scarce resources cause
discrimination between groups A: Study informal groups and observe the natural and spontaneous development of
group organization, attitudes (prejudice), and group norms. (Participants: 24 white middle class 12 year old boys all
went to summer camp have never met before) P: 1. Group formation 2. Intergroup Conflict 3. Conflict Resolution
(Field)

Tajfel: Ingroup outgroup discrimination. Klee kandinsky paintings asked to rate them and then randomly unknowingly
allocated them to groups. Asked to allocate money to groups. Ingroup favourtism gave more money and less money
to other outgroups discrimination to improve selfesteem by having more moeny. (Lab) (Low Eco, High Artificial, Ethics
good)
(Lab)

Conflict Resolution
Theory of Contact Hypothesis (by Allport): Under appropriate conditions contact between groups reduces conflict
(Appropriate con: Equal Status, Common goal, Intergroup cooperation, personal interaction)
More Contact = Less Conflict
Subordinate Goals

Sherif et al: Negatively independent competition occurs when there are scarce resources, Positively independent
Cooperation occurs when there are subordinate goals and introduced to each other more.
A: study informal groups and observe the natural and spontaneous development of group organization, attitudes
(prejudice), and group norms. (Participants: 24 white middle class 12 year old boys all went to summer camp have
never met before) P: 1. Group formation 2. Intergroup Conflict 3. Conflict Resolution
(Field)
Pettigrew and Tropp: Investigate the hypothesis and identify effects of contact on intergroup attitudes: Meta-analysis
of 516 empirical studies that tested contact hypothesis (Note: based on self-report but validated by friends of
participant Found inverse relationship between contact and prejudice: INC Contact Prejudice DEC
Strongest when natural not forced, More contact = less prejudice, Meta Analysis supports and shows also that
intergroup contact is a theory that can be generalized easily (High Gen, No Causation, Confounding, Ethics Good)
(Correlation Study)

Definition
Cooperation: is a form of pro-social behaviour. It is when people work together with commonly
agreed-upon goals, instead of working separately in competition.
Cooperation aids group productivity
Altruism
Prosocial
Subordinate Goal: Goals that are achieved by the contribution and co-operation of two or more
people, with individual goals that are normally in opposition to each other, working together.)
Prejudice: Refers to a preconceived judgment, opinion or attitude directed toward certain
people based on their membership in a particular group. It is a set of attitudes, which supports,
causes, or justifies discrimination
Discrimination: Negative behaviour towards a group of people; it involves treating people in an unfair way based
on their group membership
Attitude: An attitude can be defined as the combination of emotion and cognition.

Stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination are all types of social bias.

sResearch Methods
Lab:
Manipulates IV in artificial setting
High Control
High Replicability
High Artificial
Low Ecological

Field Experiment:
Manipulates IV in Natural Environment
Low Control
High Eco
Low Artificial
Low Replicability
Confounding Variables

Quasi Experiment:
IV is pre-existing and natural (innate characteristics)
Not Randomly assigned to experimental groups
Can't control replicability cause experience different
No control group
High Eco
Confounding variables

Interviews
Interview asks participant questions for a specific purpose and records response
Researcher Bias: Chooses what's important Confirmation Bias
Response Bias: May not be honest
Time consuming
Subjective
High Art
Low Eco

Self Response Questionnaire:

Response Bias
Cheap and Fast
Collect lost of Data
Bad Survey Question or Leading Questions affect results
Flexible
Explore questions that studies cant

Correlation Study
To measure relationship between two variables
No IV or DV rather co variables A and B
Confounding variables unaccounted for
A effect B but could B be the thing affecting A
Good if can't be tested in Lab
Time consuming

Meta Analysis:
Combining evidence across multiple studies to address a research question
Gives a well rounded perspective
Easier to do something that can't be tested for (maybe unethical)
More studies better Meta Analysis
Confirmation bias
Time Consuming

Covert Observation: Participant doesn’t know: Less artificial -- Dont know not as ethical
Overt Observations: Participant knows they are observed: -- Can change behaviour and artificial -- Ethical
Case Study:
Longitudinal observation on an individual or group and combine research methods:
Highly detailed understanding phenomena Lots of Data
High Eco
High Art
Low Gen,

Ethics
Ethics must be considered to protect humans and animals from harm and maintain rules of conduct for researcher

Potential: No potential physical or mental harm (ex. Stress, humiliation, injury, or reveal personal info) If we don't
know if potential there it can be unethical

Informed Consent: Participants (18+) informed of true aims before consent -- Participant bias (Change behaviour)
so only when no harm can it not be done. Understand the nature of the experiment. Children must get parents.

Right to Withdraw: Inform that participation and data withdrawn no penalty (Some not able to know they could)

Confidentiality: Participants results and data always anonymous protect participant from consequences of data

Anonymity: No releasing of data that could link back to participants identity

To be anonymous means not having your name known. In studies the names of participants are not revealed (i.e.
participants are anonymous) to protect their privacy and to avoid embarrassment or other potential issues.

Deception: Deception should be avoided unless causes participant bias the as soon as can -- unethical if causes
harm (Low level sometimes acceptable if its needed to work)

Briefing and Debriefing: Any deception must be revealed, findings have to be available if not unethical
Can not debrief if no stress caused, however must be debriefed at end

Animal Welfare:

PIRCDB
Please I Really Can't Drink Bourbon Again
Potential-Harm, Informed Consent, Right to Withdraw, Consent, Deception, Briefing, Anonymity

TEACUP
Testability:
Can you test for a Pattern
If not… not good

Empirical Support:
Does the theory have a study (Always yes)
Is Eco High, Low Art if not can’t generalize to real life

Applicability:
Can you apply it to other situations? Easy to Generalize

Construct Validity:
Are terms and variables defined and measurable?

Unbiased:
No Bias on Gender and Culture
Androcentric: research only men
Ethnocentric: Research only western culture

Predictability:
Can it predict human behaviour
Does not describe it predicts
When, Why, and What situations it would happen.

Always do what is said first and focus.

SAQ
Describe
Explain: Why. Because etc.
Outline

ERQ
Contrast: Differences between two things do throughout whole essay (Identify
difference in theory paragraph then highlight it throughout)

Evaluate: Weigh the Strengths and Weaknesses

To What Extent: Weigh the Strengths and Weaknesses does that inhibit stuff

Discuss: Just talk like to a person

Structure

Intro

Theory
(If Ethics in context of ethics)
(If Research Method in context of method)

Study 1
(If Ethics in context of ethics)
(If Research Method in context of method)

Study 2
(If Ethics in context of ethics)
(If Research Method in context of method)
E

Conclusion
Weigh up all of it

Research Methods:
Cause and Effect (Establish relationship easily)

Lab Experiments: Artificial Setting IV Change

Researcher super control all variables (IV) but DV:
High Control Variables,
Cause and Effect established easier
Replicable --
Artificial and Low Eco Validity

Field Experiments: Natural Setting IV change

Natural Environment (Reflects real life - real life setting)
Researcher manipulate IV:
High Eco Validity,
Not Artificial - Not Replicable,
Confounding variables from lack of control

Quasi: IV is Pre Existing Can’t be manipulated like (age, brain structure etc)
Natural Experiments: All IV Occur naturally
IV Natural researcher just records DV ------ IV cant be produced in Lab
Very High Ecological Validity,
No control can't manipulate IV
Confounding variables,
Low replicability,
Low reliability

Correlation Study:
No IV no DV - THEY ARE CO VARIABLES
Maybe A affect B or B affects A
Confounding Variables

justeasure how strongly two variables correlate and relate

Manipulate Quantitative Data that cant be manipulated in Lab
Correlation does not establish causation and cause and effect
Unlike Experiments where IV or Dv correlation studies have Co variables.
Study variables difficult to measure lab
Unethical things can be measured as they occur naturally,

Covert Observation: Participant doesn’t know: Less artificial -- Dont know not as ethical
Overt Observations: Participant knows they are observed: -- Can change behaviour and artificial -- Ethical

Interview:
Semi Structured: Some closed and Open Ended questions, Use prompts to keep in framework, conversational
Can discover stuff of importance that researcher may not have considered
Demanding analysis
Lack of structure
Researcher Bias

Unstructured:Tell me about…. Very unstructured and much more narrative, researcher can ask participants to expand

Case Study:
Longitudinal observation on an individual or group and combine research methods:
Highly detailed understanding phenomena Lots of Data
Low Gen,
Researcher Bias,
Low Replicability,
Not empirical

Survey: Participant is given a list of questions: Simultaneous and quick

-- Self Report bias (lies) and wording effects
Correlation Study. : Explore questions experiments cant -- No control for cause and effec

Meta-analysis: Pooling data from multiple studies of the same research question to arrive at one
combined answer. Tons of journal Articles. Pool all results in. Find

Researcher, confirmation bias.

Ethics:
E - S1 - E - S2 - E (Can use studies that did stuff right and wrong always “Assume”)
Ethics must be considered to protect humans and animals from harm and maintain rules of conduct for researcher

Potential: No potential physical or mental harm (ex. Stress, humiliation, injury, or reveal personal info) If we dont
know if potential there it can be unethical

Informed Consent: Participants (18+) informed of true aims before consent -- Participant bias (Change behaviour)
so only when no harm can it not be done. Understand the nature of the experiment.

Right to Withdraw: Inform that participation and data withdrawn no penalty (Some not able to know they could)
Confidentiality: Participants results and data always anonymous protect participant from consequences of data

Anonymity: No releasing of data that could link back to participants identity

To be anonymous means not having your name known. In studies the names of participants are not revealed (i.e.
participants are anonymous) to protect their privacy and to avoid embarrassment or other potential issues.
Deception: Deception should be avoided unless causes participant bias the as soon as can -- unethical if causes
harm (Low level sometimes acceptable if its needed to work)

Briefing and Debriefing: Any deception must be revealed, findings have to be available if not unethical

Animal Welfare:

PIRCDB
Please I Really Can't Drink Bourbon Again
Potential-Harm, Informed Consent, Right to Withdraw, Consent, Deception, Briefing, Anonymity

TEACUP
Testability

Empirical Support

Applicability

Construct Validity

Unbiased

Predictability

Question Types
Do whatever comes first and focus

Discuss
Evaluate: Strengths Weaknesses
Contrast: Only Differences
To What Extent: Strengths and Weaknesses

Research Method: Bring up research method and why effective for theory
Each Paragraph show how research method effective non effective studied

Ethics: Bring up Ethical Issue and why effective for theory

Each Par show how ethicseffective non effective studied