Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > Core Studies(year 1) > Flashcards

Core Studies(year 1) Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards
1
Q

Milgram sample

A

40 men, self-selected, new haven newspaper ad $4.50 20-50

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Milgram ethics

A

Deception(memory and learning)
Informed consent
Protection from harm
Dodgy right to withdraw
Did debrief

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Loftus and palmer aim

A

To investigate the effect of leading questions on eye witness testimony

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Loftus and palmer aim

A

To investigate the effect of leading questions on eye witness testimony

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

L&P research method +design

A

Lab experiment
Independent measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

L&P: exp 1 variables

A

IV: verb( smashed collided bumped hit contacted)
DV:speed estimates

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

L&P exp 1 sample

A

45 students into 5 groups of 9

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

L&P exp 1 procedure

A

7 clips of car accidents, had to answer questionnaire, critical question how fast the cars going

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

L&P exp 1 results

A

Smashed:40.8
Collided:39.3
Bumped:38.1
Hit:34.0
Contacted:31.8

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

L&P exp 1 conclusions

A

How the question was phrased did influence
People are not good at judging speed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

L&P exp 2 variables

A

IV: verb( hit smashed or not asked )
DV: wether broken glass was seen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

L&P exp2 sample

A

150 students 3 groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

L&P exp 2 procedure

A

1 min film 4 second car accident
Group asked how fast when_ each other or not asked
1 week later returned and asked more questions the critical one being did you see any broken glass

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

L&P exp2 results

A

Smashed 16 yes
Hit 7 yes
Control 6 yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

L&Pexp 2 conclusion

A

Leading question did actually alter memory
2 types of info
1= own perception at time
2= supplied after

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Grant aim

A

Investigate the importance of environmental context dependency effects on learning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Grant research method and design

A

Lab
Independent measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Grant variables

A

IV: silent or noisy conditions(reading)
Matching/mismatching conditions(test)
DV: short answer test/10
Multiple choice /16

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Grant sample

A

39 ptts 17-56 yrs
17 f 23m
Opportunity sample

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Grant procedure

A

All wore headphones
Silent didn’t hear anything
Noisy heard cafeteria noises
After 2min break short answer was given followed by mc in matching/mismatching conditions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Grant results

A

Matching: silent 6.7(short answer) 14.3(MC) noisy 6.2(SA) 14.3(MC)
Mismatching: silent noisy4.6(SA)
12.7(MC)
Noisy silent 5.4(SA) 12.7(MC)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Grant conclusions

A

Studying and testing in the same context leads to better performance
Silence performed slightly better

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Milgram aim

A

To measure level of obedience to an authority figure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Milgram research method and design

A

Controlled observation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Milgram results

A

65% went all the way
All went to 300v( enough to kill)
14 refused to go all the way

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Milgram results

A

65% went all the way
All went to 300v( enough to kill)
14 refused to go all the way

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Milgram conclusion

A

All showed high level of obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Bocchiaro aim

A

To investigate rates of obedience disobedience and whistleblowing in a situation that was ethically wrong
Investigate accuracy of people’s estimates
Investigate dispositional factors in o d and w

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Bocchiaro research method and design

A

Lab study

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Bocchiaro sample

A

Exp group: 149 students 96f 53m self selected 7euros or course credit
Comp group: 138
8 pilot test groups:92 students

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Bocchiaro procedure

A

Cover story- sensory deprivation on brain function, had very bad effects
Had to write a statement using adjectives exciting incredible
Experimenter left for 3 mins then they moved to second room to write statement or whistle blowing forms
Completed 2 personality tests and found out whether they had faith then debriefed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Bocchiaro results

A

Comp group: 3.6% said they’d obey 31.9 disobey 64.5 whistle blowing
Exp group: 76.5 obeyed, 14.1 dis 9.4 wb
No difference in personality test( hexaco and independent games measure)
Those with strong faith more likely to whistle-blow

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Bocc conclusion

A

People are obedient
People overestimate blowing the whistle and underestimate obedience
Behaving morraly Is challenging
Whistle blowers tend to have more faith

32
Q

Bandura aim

A

To demonstrate learning can occur through observation and imitation can occur in the absence of the model

33
Q

Bandura hypothesis

A

Children shown aggressive models will show more imitative aggressive acts
Children shown non-aggressive models will show less aggressive behaviours
Boys more aggressive
Children will imitate same-sex more

34
Q

Bandura sample

A

36 boys+girls 3-5 yrs from Stafford nursery school

35
Q

Bandura research method and design

A

Lab
Matched pairs

36
Q

Bandura variables

A

IV: model type
DV: imitative aggressive behaviour

37
Q

Band model conditions

A

6 boys opposite sex
6 girls opposite sex
6 boys same sex
6 girls opposite sex
Both aggressive and non aggressive

38
Q

Band procedure

A

Watched model(not control)
Second room told toys were for other kids
New room observed 20 mins one way glass
Imitation physphysical aggression
Imitation verbal aggression
Imitative non aggressive verbal
Partial Imitation:
Mallet aggression
Sitting on bobo
Non imitative a
Punching
Gun play
Non aggressive behaviour

39
Q

Band conclusion

A

Aggressive models showed more imitative aggression and non imitative and partial imitative
Boys more aggression
Imitated male model more but girls female for verbal

40
Q

Chaney aim

A

To see if funhaler can improve adherence to medical regime

41
Q

Chaney research methods and design

A

Field exp
Repeated measures

42
Q

Chaney variables

A

IV: type of inhaler
DV: adherence rates(self report)

43
Q

Chaney sample

A

32 Australian kids 10m 22f 1.5-6 yrs with asthma

44
Q

Chaney procedure

A

Completed initial questionnaire
2 weeks on funhaler second questionnaire
During time parent was called at random about whether kid had been medicated day before

44
Q

Chaney procedure

A

Completed initial questionnaire
2 weeks on funhaler second questionnaire
During time parent was called at random about whether kid had been medicated day before

45
Q

Chaney results

A

80% took 4 or more with funhaler (50 normal) 22/30 reported always been successful compared 3/30 normal
81% medicated previous day
68% reported pleasure 10 with normal

46
Q

Chaney conclusion

A

Funhaler provides positive reinforcement leads to improved adherence
Funhaler could improve clinical outcome
May improve overall health

47
Q

Sperry aim

A

Show each hemisphere possesses independent stream of consciousness and has own separate chain of memories

48
Q

Sperry design

A

Quasi exp case study

49
Q

Sperry variables

A

IV: hemisphere disconnection
DV: performance on visual and tactile tasks

50
Q

Sperry sample

A

11 epilepsy split brain

51
Q

Sperry procedure

A

Visual field: cover one eye stare fixation point image is presented for 1/10th second name and describe image
Tactile tests: both eyes covered object is placed in hand and asked to describe it or retrieve from bag of object

51
Q

Sperry procedure

A

Visual field: cover one eye stare fixation point image is presented for 1/10th second name and describe image
Tactile tests: both eyes covered object is placed in hand and asked to describe it or retrieve from bag of object

52
Q

Sperry results

A

Visual: rvf can be described in speech, lvf no speech yes writing
Tactile: verbally right hand, left hand no verbal,

53
Q

Sperry conclusion

A

Each hemisphere works independently,and has no knowledge of what the other is doing

54
Q

Casey aim

A

Asses whether delay of gratification in childhood predicts impulse control in their 40’s

55
Q

Casey research method and design

A

Quasi
Repeated measures

56
Q

Casey variables

A

IV: high/low delayer
DV: performance on impulse control task exp1 neural activity fMRI scans exp2

57
Q

Casey exp1 sample

A

32 high delayers 27 low delayers

58
Q

Casey procedure exp 1

A

Go/no go task cool version male female hot version facial expressions

59
Q

Casey exp 1 results

A

Both high accuracy on go trials
Low delayers committed more false alarms no go
Hot task low delayers performed worse

60
Q

Casey exp 2 sample

A

27 ptts from exp1 15 high 11 low

61
Q

Casey exp 2 procedure

A

fMRI examine activity ventral stratum and inferior frontal gyrus to see if it correlated
Completed hot task

62
Q

Baron Cohen aim

A

To devise a more challenging task to test for theory of mind.
Demonstrate that deficit in theory of mind is unique to autism/ aspergers by comparing with tourettes and normal

63
Q

BC research method and design

A

Quasi
Lab and field

64
Q

BC variables

A

IV: autism ts or normal
DV: eyes task performance

65
Q

BC sample

A

A:
13m 3f normal intelligence
Normal: 25m 25f random sample
Ts: 8m 2 f referral centre normal intelligence

66
Q

Freud aim

A

Give an account of boy suffering from phobia, prove oedipus complex

67
Q

Freud research method design

A

Case study self report

68
Q

Freud sample

A

Little hans horse phobia age 5

69
Q

BC: results

A

Autsim group did significantly worse than control group in identifying emotions

70
Q

BC conclusion

A

People with autism struggle to recognise mental states

71
Q

BC procedure

A

25 b&w photos of eyes 3 secs and asked to choose between 2 mental states
Control tasks: gender of eyes basic emotion task

72
Q

Freud procedure

A

Observed by father
Giraffe fantasy plumber fantasy and family dream

73
Q

Freud conclusion

A

LH experienced castration anxiety and oedipus complex but resolved

74
Q

Freud results

A

Horses fear = castration anxiety and fear of father( oedipus complex)

75
Q

Freud plumber fantasy

A

Plumber replaces widdler and bum with new larger ones( identifying with father)

76
Q

Freud giraffe dream

A

One large one crumpled.took smaller and sat on it (mother) large one cried out

Psychology (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions