Contempary And Classic Studys Flashcards
What are the aims of Brendan’s study?
To see if social aggression is caused by genes or the environment
To see if social aggression shared the same cause as physical aggression
To see if one type of aggression could lead to other types of aggression
Write down the methods of Brendan’s study’s
Participants of an on-going longitudinal study
The sample were twins from Canada
Zygotzity testing
Comparison of family characteristics
Followeded up at 5,18,30, 48 and 60 months final follow up at 6 years old
Sample consisted of 44 male MZ twins, 50 female MZ twins, 41 Dz male twins and 32 DZ female twins.
There were 67 mixed sex twins
Peer nominations and teacher rating were obtained from 409 classrooms
Teacher rated children’s level of physical and social aggression using items based on the preschool social behaviour scale
Peer ratings were gathered for the twins level of social and physical aggression
The children were asked to circle the faces of three children who beat fit the descriptor
Results of Brendgans study
For social aggression, environmental effects were found but only weak genetic effect were noted e.g. there was equal correlation between MZ and DZ twins
For physical aggression significant effects of genes and limited environmental effects were found e.g. there was a higher correlation for MZ in comparison to DZ twins
Gender differences in aggression. Results showed that according to teachers, boys were more likely to be physically aggressive then girls and girls are more likely to be socially aggressive
Evaluate Brendgan
Large sample strength
Measure social aggression in a range of children in the target population
However, study in Quebec individualistic culture
Aggression could be more overt in comparison to collectivist cultures which may be more covert in demonstrating social and physical aggression
Strong reliability
Standardised measures of aggression ratings e.g. pre school rating scales
Consistency on how data is measured over time
However may be differences between how the teachers used the scales
Application
Understanding gender differences in aggression could lead to support for boys e.g channeling physical aggression through sport
Validity
Study is valid as care was taken to ensure that the questions had the same semantic meaning e.g French and English
The study has a degree of construct validity
That said, there could be subjectivity in peer nominations and teacher ratings could invalidate the findings of the study
The teacher ratings may also differ to aggression at home so may not be accurately measuring aggression
The zygoticity of the group can also be questioned e.g physical resemblance only
Could be issues with those classed as monozygotic. Therefore this could mean the MZ twins may be wrongly classed as MZ as they look similar. Therefore impacting the overall validity of the physical and social aggression findings
However, a longitudinal method was used and therefore development of physical and social aggression over time could be measured
What is the aim of baddeleys study?
To assess whether coding in STM and LTM is mainly acoustic (sound) or semantic (meaning)
What happened in Experiment 1? Baddeley
List A: 10 words acoustically similar (man,cab,can,cad)
List B: 10 words acoustically dissimilar (pit, few, pen, sup)
List C: 10 adjectives without similar meaning (good, huge, hot, safe)
Independent groups design
Words presented in 3 second intervals
40 second recall in the right order
20 minute task
Retest to write down as many words in order from initial test
Results of baddeleys first experiment
The order of the words was not so well recalled in the acoustically similar list but there was not so much forgetting either
In semantically similar list, the recall was not different from that in the control list. It was the acoustic similarity that caused difficulties
Baddeleys Experiment 2?
List A and List C from first experiment was used
Condition X- learning same as in Expt 1. 2x groups (list A and list C) with immediate recall. 20 minute gap then recall
Condition Y- same as expt 1 but an interference task between each learning and recall. 20 min gap then recall
Condition Z- same as condition Y but interference task between test and next presentation (control)
2x groups (list A and List C) with immediate recall for first recall and then interference task in next trail. 20 minute gap and then recall
Results from Baddeley second experiment
Where there was an interference task to stop recall in stm there was a significant effect in learning. Therefore he realised he needed to use interference to block atm and test ltm properly
Baddeley experiment 3
Visual presentation was used to prevent mishearing. Words presented visually by slide projector
Procedure: 75ppts were presented with one of 4 lists, repeated 4 times using condition Y in expt 2- interference task between learning and recall
List A- 10 acoustically similar words (cat, mat, sat)
List b- 10 acoustically dissimilar words (pit,day, cow)
List c- 10 semantically similar words ( big, huge, tall)
List D- 10 semantically dissimilar words (hot, safe,foul)
To test coding in STM: ppts were given a list containing the original words in the wrong order and their task was to rearrange in the correct order
To test procedure for LTM: same as above but with 20 interval before recall doing an interference task.
Each word was presented with 3 second intervals
After 4 learning trails they were given a 15 minute interference task followed by a retest of the world list sequence
Findings of Classic study Baddeley
When interference task used, recall in acoustically similar condition and control were similar. In LTM acoustic similarity did not affect recall. In semantic similarity recall was much better in the control compared to recall in LTM
For stm, ppts that we’re given LIST A performed the worst 10% recall, recall for other lists were good (60%-80%)
For LTM:ppts with list C performed the worst (55%). Recall for other lists were comparatively good (70-85%)
Conclusions
List A was recalled the least efficiently in stm suggesting Stm is coded on an acoustic basis. They confused similar sounding words
List C was recalled the least efficiently for LTM suggesting LTM is coded on a semantic basis, they confused similar meaning words
Aim of burgers study
To partially replicate milgrams (1963) study and to see whether situational factors impact obedience
Method of burgers study what extra steps did he take to make it more ethical?
Receive a phone call from a research assistant who begins the screening procedure.
A two step screen process to exclude any individual who might have a negative reaction to the experience (also exclude people who took psychology)
2. Told three times they can withdraw
3. A sample shock was administered (with consent)
4. The study stopped at 150v. Knowing how people respond up to 150v can make an estimate
5. Debriefing was immediate and within seconds of the end of the study, the learner entered the room to reassure the participant that he was fine
6. Experimenter was a clinical psychologist
What sample was used for Burgers study?
29 men, 41 women. Aged 20-81, mean age 42.9. Self selected sample, recruited from adverts in the local newspaper, online listings, flyers in libraries, farmers markets, coffee shops and community centres
Describe burgers baseline condition
Used a script similar to original study
15v sample shock
Same 4 Verbal prods
No participant was allowed to continue after 150v volts
Describe burgers model refusal condition
The draw was rigged and participant was assigned teacher
Both teachers sat next to each other with confederate on left me participant on right
Confederate went first and showed no signs of hesitating until 75v
After the first prompt, pushed chair back and asked real participant to continue
Findings of burgers both conditions
70% of people continued after 150v
63.3% continued after 15v in refusal
Conclusions of burgers study
The same situational factors are around today -ie it is the situation that leads to obedience
Stopped at 150v but felt that some would continue onto 450v
It is not a lack of empathy that leads to obedience but rather personality factors but he is unable to pinpoint any in particular
The generalisability or burgers
Can be said to be better than Milgrams as he gathered a diverse sample of ages and ethnicities and so the study has greater generalisability, this means that destructive obedience in a range of individuals could be measured
That said, the sample was still voluntary and so this could well mean that people with similar personality characteristics may call to do the study and so therefore the sample may be more willing to obey
Reliability of burgers
The study is highly standardised e.g burger standardised procedure and prompts
This means that the study had internal reliability as it was very controlled and the method could be used by other psychologists to test the relevance of the findings over time e.g. comparing against Milgram
Validity of burgers study
Contrived settings e.g Santa Clara university.
Participants may have guessed the aim of the study more obedient cause they knew it wasn’t real
The task of electrifying someone lacks mundane realism and is not realistic obedience task in everyday life. That said the findings were further supported by a study in a realistic environment with a realistic task e.g hofling
The study is highly controlled, obedience less likely to impacted by extrenous variables
A screening process was also used so that participants were not aware of the aims and findings of milgrams original study
Burgers ethics
There were more ethical consideration in comparison to Milgram e.g screening for mental health issues
Ensure people are psychologically healthy. Burger did not go beyond 150v and so this is more ethical than milgrams study
That’s said still problems with right to withdraw and informed consent
What are the aims of sheriffs robbers cave?
To study informal group and observe the natural development of group organisation and attitudes. To see if competition will create hostility
Method of robbers cave
Field experiment
22 white, 11 year old boys with average to good school performance and above average intelligence with a Protestant, two parent background
Procedure of robbers cave?
Stage 1- formation of groups
Boys were kept separate from each other and encouraged to bond. They quickly established there own cultures and group norms and chose names
Stage 2- group competition
Competitive activities were organised to deliberately create friction between the groups. At first the prejudice started with name calling or taunting, as the competition wore on the eagles burned the rattlers flag, the rattlers ransacked the eagles cabin and stole private property. The groups became so aggressive they had to be physically separated
Stage 3- staged activities so that they had to work together to achieve the goals, the exchange of insults abruptly stopped
Conclusion of robbers cave?
The mere existence of groups is enough to cause discrimination and prejudice
There is a lot of evidence that when people compete for resources there is a rise in hostility. Hostility can be reduced through cooperation and teamwork
