Key Summaries Flashcards
Describe the study Hudson (1960), and it’s strengths and limitations
- Pictorial depth perception
- Caucasian groups vs African groups
- difference in perception of 2D and 3D
- both cultures able to perceive 2D images
- African cultures struggled to perceive depth in images to make them 3D
Strengths
- varied and socially controlled group
Limitations
- only two groups, one of each race, investigated, results were generalised
- extraneous variables may have also led to different perception not just cultures.
Describe Deregowski (1972)
- Replicates Hudson 1960
- showed them a spear, cube and visual illusion trident and split elephant
- 2D perceivers only constructed 2D diagrams
- 3D perceivers constructed 3D diagrams
Deregowski, Muldrow and Muldrow (1972) and its strengths and weaknesses
- Highland tribes vs lowland tribes
- highlands = exposure to pictures
- lowlands = exposure to animals but not pictures
- lowland had greater familiarity with animals, both able to recognise animals in images with difficulty and gradually
Strengths
- researcher who knew language of people being investigated –> more reliable
Limitations
- some participants seemed stressed –> violated ethics
- uncontrolled extraneous variables that could have affected experiment
- colours (black and white) were uncontrolled extraneous variable
Baddley and Hitch (1974) and strengths and limitations
- created model for short term (working) memory
- not an experiment
- four parts to working memory
- central executive
- visuo-spatial sketchpad
- phonological loop
- episodic buffer
Strengths
- applicable
- gained research support
Limitations
- little evidence
- issues with visuo-spatial sketchpad for people with visual impairment.
Grant et.al (1998) and its strengths and limitations
- context dependent memory
- Grant is taking a test in a noisy hall
- silent-silent, noisy-noisy, silent-noisy, noisy-silent (study-test)
- performance was better in matching conditions (noisy-noisy and silent-silent)
Strengths
- conducted by reliable source
- wide range of participants
Limitations
- small sample size
- reduces population validity
Pavlov (1897/1902) and its strengths and limitations
- dog salivating at the sound of a bell
- classical conditioning
- paired association of food with ringing of bell
- Law of Temporal Contiguity –> stimuli have to be presented together from time to time, otherwise the conditioned response would disappear.
Strengths
- first to test classical conditioning
- brings forward useful terminology and gaps in research
Limitations
- participants were animals
- somewhat unethical
Bandura (1977)
- BOBA doll experiment where kids hit dolls
- assesses willingness of people to imitate behaviour observed in others
- needs live models to demonstrate behaviour
- model provides instructions
- There were 3 types of modelling stimuli –> live model, verbal instruction, symbolic
Watson and Rayner (1920) and its strengths and limitations
- Little Albert (poor kid)
- every time he touched the toy there was stimuli to upset him
- found that fear can be conditioned
- different degrees of fear
- can react to similar objects not just main object
Strengths
- effectively shows development of fear
Weakness
- unethical
- only one participant
Haney, Bank and Zimbardo (1973) and its strengths and limitations
- investigated how people adapt and cope in situations
- 22 men randomly assigned guard or prisoner
- guards settled into roles first, began tormenting prisoners with no reason, prisoners adapted and began to act like their role
- study showed people readily complied to social roles
Cialdini et al (2006) and its strengths and limitations
- four types of language used
- negative injunctive norm (please do not…)
- positive injunctive norm (please do / please leave ..)
- negative descriptive norm (many people have removed… please don’t)
- positive descriptive norm (Most people have left it, please do this)
Results
- descriptive normative information more likely to increase theft compared to injunctive
Strengths
- ethical
- reduction of theft
- done in realistic environment
- big sample size
Weaknesses
- context specific
Milgram (1963) and its strengths and limitations
- shock
- tested to what extent people would follow instructions from someone with authority even if it went against personal beliefs
- asked to administer shocks to people on other side of room (not seen) (actors)
- sometimes asked to administer fatal shock.
- 65% gave shock of 450 volts (fatal)
- all participants were nervous and generally did not want to administer fatal shock.
- situational factors are strong influencers on human behaviour
- people often make incorrect dispositional attributions to behaviour
Strengths
- lots of control over variables
- internal validity
Limitations
- not ethical
- not representative of population (all participants white males)
Asch (1951) and its strengths and limitations
- investigated conformity
- lines
- people asked in group setting about qualities of lines (which is longest)
- one participant the rest actors
- actors gave wrong answers, often participant would conform
- 75% participants conformed on at least one occasion.
- 12 critical trials
Strengths
- replicability
- independent variable can be changed to investigate situational factors
Limitation
- unethical to a degree
- participants informed at end but were stressed during experiment
- not representative – all males of same age and ethnicity
Darley and Latane (1968) and its strengths and limitations
- investigated bystander effect
- actor went into fake seizure behind booth
- participants had headphones on and waited for their turn to respond
- variable was amount of participants together
- two three and six people present
- measured length of time to report
- more people / participants = slower time to report
- diffusion of responsibility
Strengths
- based on real event – context specific
Limitations
- lacks external validity – lab conditions
- uneven numbers in genders – not representative
Buss et al. (1990) and its strengths and limitations
- investigated differences in mate selection
- quasi-experimental design, questionnaire
- They asked participants about the factors used in choosing a mate (what the participant would like in their relationship in the future) and preferences for a partner (physical attraction, financial situation etc).
- largest difference was around chastity, home children and good housekeeping also varied in importance
- many common characteristics important to both sexes across cultures
- 33 countries, 9474 people
Strengths
- large sample size
- detailed
- use of translators for equal representation
Limitations
- correlation design –> no cause and effect could be established well
- discussion of cultures could be bias
- participants were volunteers –> not representative
Rollie and Duck (2006) and its strengths and limitations
- looks at break ups
- Intrapsychic phase reflecting on relationship
- Dyadic phase talking about it
- Social phase tell your friends
- Grave-dressing phase thinking back and thinking it was great
- Resurrection phase ready for new relationship
I Don’t See Good Reason
Strengths
- high reliability and validity –> experts wrote chapter
Limitations
- does not present all current models
- not representative of population (all white heterosexual and middle class)
- review of literature not experiment
Festinger (1957) and its strengths and limitations
- investigated whether people would act contrary to belief, and whether this could change their opinion
- participants were in three groups, control, $1 and $20. $20 group reported to enjoy more than other groups.
Strengths
- very testable in different conditions
Limitations
- subjective
- low ecological validity
- individual differences
Tajfel (1970) and its strengths and limitations
- investigates behaviour towards in-group members and out-group members
- social identity theory
- Experiment 1: Randomly divided into 2 groups of 8 and told they were categorised according to test scores. Then instructed to allocate money to their group and other group members.
- Experiment 2: 3 new groups of 16 boys each allocated to groups based on aesthetic preference of two paintings. Then instructed to allocate money to their group or anyone in the study.
Results
- Experiment 1: Majority of participants allocated significantly greater amounts of money to their own members compared to other group.
- Experiment 2: Boys chose not to allocate money in a way that would maximise total group profit and instead allocated money for the benefit of their own group.
Strengths
- experimental methodology
Limitations
- lacks population validity
- 1970, lacks historical validity
- artificial, lacks ecological validity
Ross et. al. (1977) and its strengths and limitations
- 18 males 18 females assigned randomly contestant or questioner
- questioner made 10 challenge questions for contestant
- all participants answered questionnaire, rated their general knowledge and partners knowledge
- questioners rated themselves as superior to contestant and contestant marked themselves as inferior
- gender difference, female questioners asked more difficult questions, rated themselves higher.
- fundamental attribution error
Strengths
- accessible
- support for fundamental attribution error theory
- gave opportunity to show bias
Limitations
- limited population validity
- sampling bias (all uni students) difficult to generalise
- conducted in lab, highly artificial environment, lacks ecological validity
Bargh, Chen, Burrows (1996) and its strengths and limitations
- investigated whether social behaviour can be primed using stereotypes
- walking test after reading old or young words, slower after reading words associated with old age, faster after young words
McMillan and Chavis (1986) and its strengths and limitations
- cults
- four factors make a community
- influence – individuals exert impact on decisions made for the group
- integration and fulfilment of needs – keeping everyone happy solidifying mission or rewarding behaviours
- membership – sense of belonging to group or society through investment
- shared emotional connection – sense of connectedness to community history or emotional past
INTENSE INITIATION MEETINGS SUCK
Strengths
- accessible to students
- increased validity by using existing groups as example
Limitations
- untested theories at time of publication
- some elements have not been supported
