Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psyc 474 > Nov 7 > Flashcards

Nov 7 Flashcards

1
Q

epistemology

A

branch of philosophy

deals with questions of HOW WE OBTAIN KNOWLEDGE

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

epistemology epidemiology

A

from Greek

EPISTEME: “knowledge, understanding or acquaintance”

LOGOS: “account, argument, or reason”

epistemology: THE STUDY OF KNOWLEDGE

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

epistemology is the study of…

A

knowledge

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

what are the epistemic features of close relationships?

A

the features that impact our KNOWLEDGE/BELIEFS

(including beliefs about ourselves)

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

self-expansion as an epistemic feature of close relationships

A

the self-expansion model suggests that love causes our self-concepts to EXPAND and CHANGE

as our partners bring us NEW EXPERIENCES and NEW ROLES

and we GRADUALLY LEARN THINS about ourselves that we didn’t know before

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

shared-reality

A

the experience of SHARING A SET OF INNER STATES (thoughts, feelings, beliefs)

with a PARTICULAR INTERACTION PARTNER about the world in general

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

in order to make sense of the world around them…

A

people turn to others to create a SHARED REALITY

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

what happens to shared reality as relationships progress?

A

we develop DEEPER FORMS of shared reality

moving from shared experiences…to shared habits, memories, beliefs and identities

switch from using “me” and “him/her/them” to “US”

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

who do we form shared reality with?

A

ingroup members

epistemic authorities

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

we have epistemic trust in…

A
  1. similar others

^we rely on them more to CONFIRM OUR VIEW of the world

  1. epistemic authorities

^have more epistemic trust in those who have authority on a particular topic

^ie. more trust in a psychology prof when speaking about psychology, even if they aren’t an ingroup member

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

shared reality: what do we tend to do to our communications?

A

tend to TUNE our communications

to reflect what WE THINK our communication PARTNERS BELIEVE

ie. may adjust our preferences or say things that don’t truly reflect how we feel in order to match our perceptions of our communication partner’s view

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

when can audience tuned messages lead us to internalization?

A

only when we’re MOTIVATED to create a shared reality with that person

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

saying-is-believing paradigm PARTICIPANTS

A

3 people:

PARTICIPANT (person whose data we’re collecting)

AUDIENCE (person P communicates to)

TARGET (who the P must communicate with the audience about)

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

saying-is-believing paradigm SETUP

A
  1. participants are told that the audience has either a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE VIEW of the target
  2. participants are given AMBIVALENT BEHAVIOURAL INFO about a TARGET PERSON

^ can be interpreted as helpful or condescending

  1. participants are asked to DESCRIBE the TARGET person to an audience who who has ALREADY formed an IMPRESSION about the target

^ participants know how the audience feels

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

saying-is-believing paradigm RESULTS

A

those who communicate with and audience who LIKES (versus dislikes) the target person typically describe the target MORE POSITIVELY

they TUNE their descriptions to fit the audience’s ideas

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

saying-is-believing paradigm: recall of the ambivalent behavioural info…

A

is ALIGNED with audience tuned messages

memory bias - they recall the experience more in tune with the audience’s beliefs

BUT this effect depends on the formation/MOTIVATION for shared reality

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

shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: increasing the epistemic authority of an out-group audience SETUP

A

GERMAN participants communicated with either a German (ingroup) OR a Turkish (outgroup) AUDIENCE

communicated about a German target person (ingroup)

Ps believed the audience had either a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE attitude towards the target

(context: large ethnic minority of Turkish people in Germany)

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

shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 1a SETUP

A

4 conditions
a) positive attitude from German audience
b) negative attitude from German audience
c) positive attitude from Turkish audience
d) negative attitude from Turkish audience

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

shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 1a RESULTS

A
  1. participants TUNED their messages to BOTH INGROUP and OUTGROUP audiences (regardless of whether the audience likes or dislikes the target)
  2. RECALL was ONLY biased in audience’s direction when the audience was GERMAN

^ likely because German Ps were only motivated to create a shared reality with the German audience

  1. SAME PATTERN when Turkish participant target was used (memory bias only occurred when Turkish Ps communicated with Turkish audience)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

intergroup memory bias from experiment 1 is viewed as stemming from…

A

a LACK of EPISTEMIC TRUST in the outgroup

so, study authors tested whether increasing the EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY of the outgroup reduces the intergroup memory bias

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

shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 2 SETUP

A

had GERMAN PARTICIPANTS communicate with a TURKISH AUDIENCE about a TURKISH TARGET or a GERMAN TARGET

(manipulating epistemic authority of audience about communication topic)

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

shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 2 RESULTS

A
  1. participants had HIGHER EPISTEMIC TRUST in the audience when the target belonged to the SAME GROUP as the audience
  2. participants’ RECALL MATCHED their communications MORE when the TARGET’s GROUP MATCHED the AUDIENCE

^ consistent with hypothesis that shared reality across intergroup divide can be increased by enhancing the outgroup’s epistemic authority regarding the topic

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

shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 3 SETUP

A

this time the researchers increased the audience’s EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY via GROUP CONSENSUS

the German participants communicated about either a German or a Turkish target with an audience of 3 TURKISH PEOPLE (who all shared either a negative or positive view of target)

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

shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 3 CONDITIONS

A
  1. german target - turkish audience - POSITIVE view
  2. german target - turkish audience - NEGATIVE view
  3. turkish target - turkish audience - POSITIVE view
  4. turkish target - turkish audience - NEGATIVE view
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

shared reality in INTERGROUP communication: EXPERIMENT 3 RESULTS

A
  1. replicated results of previous studies

a) message TUNING regardless of condition

b) RECALL valence MOST ALIGNED with audience when AUDIENCE and TARGET were both Turkish

  1. also, RECALL was influenced by audience tuned message EVEN WHEN the target was GERMAN

^ perhaps this is due to effect of GROUP CONSENSUS

^ more consistent with shared-reality theory than intergroup threat accounts

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

recap of shared reality

A
  1. we have a FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVATION to form a shared-reality with others
  2. this motivation impacts our COGNITION/MEMORY
  3. but the FORMATION of shared-reality DEPENDS on a) group membership/identification, b) epistemic trust/authority and c) group consensus
  4. experimental research has shown that this INTERGROUP BIAS can be REDUCED if:

a) epistemic authority of outgroup is enhanced

b) epistemic consensus of outgroup is enhanced

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

3 things that development of shared reality depend upon

A
  1. group membership/identification
  2. epistemic trust/authority
  3. group consensus
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

intergroup bias resulting from shared reality can be REDUCED if…

A
  1. epistemic authority of outgroup is enhanced
  2. group consensus of outgroup is enhanced
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

gaslighting background - in intimate relationships, our identities…

A

merge with our partner

we form a sense of epistemic trust with our partner and engage in deeper and deeper forms of shared reality

epistemic trust and shared reality exert powerful influences on our memory and cognition

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

gaslighting in intimate relationships involves taking advantage of which features of close relationships?

A
  1. leads to SELF-CONTRACTION (opp of self-expansion)
  2. depends on MANIPULATING VICTIM to accept FALSE BELIEFS about WORLD/SELF
  3. leads to CONFUSION and DOUBTING of one’s memories
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

history of gaslighting

A

1930-1944: in fiction - movies

1969-1979: psychiatric case studies

1981-1996: psychodynamic research

2008: self-help

2014: philosophy

2016: Trump descriptions

2021-present: psych

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

gaslighting 1930-1944

A

IN FICTION
Patrick Hamilton’s screenplay

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

gaslighting 1969-1979

A

PSYCHIATRIC CASE STUDIES

involving institutionalization of people by others presenting false pretences

(ie. gaslighting partner into thinking they are going crazy)

34
Q

gaslighting 1981-1996

A

PSYCHODYNAMIC RESEARCH

following de-institutionalization

gaslighting is redefined by psychodynamic researchers as a form of PROJECTIVE IDENTIFICATION

35
Q

gaslighting 2008

A

SELF-HELP

Stern’s self-help book on gaslighting raises PUBLIC AWARENESS

36
Q

gaslighting 2014

A

PHILOSOPHY

first work of epistemologists

apply epistemic injustice framework to gaslighting

37
Q

gaslighting 2016

A

DESCRIPTIONS OF TRUMP

gaslighting is frequently discussed in the MEDIA

increasingly studied by a VARIETY of research-focused DISCIPLINES

PSYCHOLOGICAL research on the term is STILLL SCANT

38
Q

gaslighting 2021-present

A

starting to get into psychology research

39
Q

gaslighting - key plot points and themes

A
  1. accusations of insanity
  2. threats of institutionalization
  3. social isolation
  4. adultery
  5. quick and intense initiation of a serious relationship (love-bombing)
40
Q

gaslighting as a cautionary tale for psychiatrists

A

started out as an anti-psychiatry movement

on being SANE in INSANE places

41
Q

being sane in insane places experiment

A

8 healthy “sane” volunteer participants had themselves admitted to psychiatric wards

all claimed to be “hearing voices”

were all easily admitted, but immediately ceased to feign symptoms

they were institutionalized for up to 56 DAYS

all of them were discharged eventually with a schizophrenia in remission label - NOT ONE OF THEM WAS DEEMED SANE

42
Q

being sane in insane places takeaway

A

once you have this label of “insanity”, it can be really hard to shake

many normal facts/behaviours can be construed as evidence of mental illness

43
Q

being sane in insane places quotes

A

“once a person is designated abnormal, all of his other behaviours and characteristics are coloured by that label”

“one tacit characteristic of psychiatric diagnosis is that it locates the sources of aberration within the individual and only rarely within the complex of stimuli that surrounds him”

44
Q

Barton and Whitehead (1969) - The Gaslighting Phenomena

A

gaslighter can get person to believe there’s something wrong with them

paper suggests idea that MANIPULATIVE FAMILY MEMBERS have been trying to get healthy people INSTITUTIONALIZED

3 case studies, to WARN PSYCHIATRISTS of this possibility

45
Q

Barton and Whitehead (1969) - The Gaslighting Phenomena SUMMARY POINTS

A
  1. institutionalization based on FALSE PRETENCE
  2. gaslighting refers to attempts to CONVINCE PSYCHIATRISTS that victim is insane
  3. NO discussion of IMPACT of abuse on victim’s psychological wellbeing
  4. focus on TANGIBLE MOTIVATIONS of the gaslighter
46
Q

gaslighting from 1969-1979 - change in…

A

the way the term gaslighting is used

coincides with de-institutionalization - view of psych hospitals as cruel and wrong

so lots of hospitals closed

shift in meaning of term has something to do with these hospital closures

^gaslighters could no longer easily institutionalize people - so they had to ADAPT

47
Q

psychosis imposed on another: psychodynamic descriptions of gaslighting QUOTE

A

1981-1996

“[one person] attempts to influence the judgment of a second individual by causing the latter to DOUBT THE VALIDITY of his or her own judgment”

“the motivation may be conscious, although it’s USUALLY UNCONSCIOUS”

“the target becomes UNCERTAIN/CONFUSED in regard to his/her assessment of internal/external PERCEPTIONS and the integrity of his/her own reality testing”

48
Q

gaslighting as projective identification

A
  1. gaslighter PROJECTS some unwanted aspect of THEMSELVES onto the victim

ie. incompetence, malice, laziness, weakness, insanity

  1. the victim ACCEPTS this projected content
  2. via their manipulation of the victim the gaslighter can now CONTROL this UNWANTED CONTENT
49
Q

gaslighting and the double bind

A

double bind: person communicates 2 MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MSGS abut how they want another person to behave

catch 22 situation

ie. mother who says “come give me a huge” but whose tone of voice, body language, and facial expressions all communicate that she wants to be left alone

^ if child gives the hug there’s a physical sense that it’s unwanted

^ if child refuses the hug the mother asks “don’t you love me?”

50
Q

psychodynamic example 1 of gaslighting

A

“don’t you care about the children?”

presupposition: you should care about your children; it’s wrong of you not to

51
Q

psychodynamic example 2 of gaslighting

A

mother: “everything you do turns to shit”

daughter: “that’s mean! I wish you wouldn’t say that”

mother: “you have no sense of humour. I was only kidding”

^ puts victim in position where they must accept that they’re MISREADING the situation OR being OVERLY SENSITIVE

OR mother is abusing her daughter’s epistemic trust in her

52
Q

key differences between psychodynamic and earlier definitions of gaslighting

A
  1. VICTIM must be CONVINCED of their inability to grasp reality
  2. victims of gaslighting become CONFUSED
  3. gaslighting can be perpetuated CONSCIOUSLY or UNCONSCIOUSLY
  4. gaslighting’s motives aren’t necessarily material or clear - they can be EMOTIONAL in nature
53
Q

Stern’s (self help author) Gaslighting Questions

A

help people identify if they’re being gaslighted

  1. you ask yourself, “am I being too sensitive?” a dozen times a day
  2. you often feel confused and even crazy at work
  3. you’re always apologizing to your mom/dad/boyfriend/boss
  4. you frequently make excuses for your partner’s behaviour to your friends/family
  5. you think twice before bringing up seemingly innocent topics of conversation
  6. you feel as though you can’t do anything right
54
Q

intro power and gaslighting background

A

power and control have become more important themes of gaslighting in the past few decades

means through which people can assert power and control over one another

way for more powerful people to influence less powerful ones

reinforces SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA, RACISM etc

at work in workplaces

55
Q

power to gaslight: relationship dependence power

A

if you perceive yourself as having MORE ALTERNATIVES and your partner as being MORE COMMITTED to the relationship

you have HIGHER DEPENDENCE POWER

measuring dependence power = QUANTITATIVE way to investigate relationship between power and gaslighting

56
Q

relationship dependence power measures

A
  1. commitment and self-perception of alternatives (using self-report)
  2. self-report participants were also asked about whether they felt their partner used gaslighting tactics
57
Q

relationship between dependence power and experiences of gaslighting

A

curvilinear

participants with VERY HIGH or VERY LOW power were MOST LIKELY to experience gaslighting

(low power people also gaslight others - as a way to gain control in a more roundabout, sneaky manner)

participants in more EGALITARIAN relationships were LEAST LIKELY to experience gaslighting

58
Q

gaslighting and the LGBTQ+ community

A

gaslighting in context of CLINICAL INTERACTIONS with PARENTS of TRANS children

parents who CLAIM to be supportive of their child’s gender transitions

who ACT in ways that contradict this support

ie. setting rules about where children can wear gender affirming clothing

ie. asking children to hide their gender identity around grandparents

59
Q

gaslighting LGBTQ+ individuals study SAMPLE

A

SAMPLE:
N = 365

gay (45%), lesbian (37%) and bisexual (17%)

cis-gender men (40%), transgender men (24%), transgender women (9%), non-binary/other gender identities (3%)

60
Q

gaslighting LGBTQ+ individuals study MEASURES

A
  1. demographic info
  2. gaslighter’s demographic info
  3. gaslighting
  4. identity development (dissatisfaction, uncertainty, conceal motivation, difficulty, centrality, stigma sensitivity, identity superiority)
  5. relational power
61
Q

gaslighting LGBTQ+ individuals study EXAMPLES OF GASLIGHTING TACTICS

A
  1. use of GRATIFICATION/FLATTERY to control someone
  2. displaying SEEMINGLY POSITIVE behaviours to satisfy one’s own NARCISSISTIC NEEDS, while leaving partner unsatisfied
  3. yelling, guilt-trips, withholding, criticism
  4. feigning lack of understanding, REFUSING to COMMUNICATE
  5. QUESTIONING a victim’s MEMORY incessantly
  6. changing and CONTROLLING topic of CONVO
  7. claiming to have FORGOTTEN important events/PROMISES
62
Q

gaslighting LGBTQ+ individuals study POWER RESULTS

A
  1. gaslighting was NEGATIVELY associated with power
63
Q

gaslighting LGBTQ+ individuals study SEXUALITY RESULTS

A
  1. GAY participants experienced MORE gaslighting compared to BISEXUAL
  2. NO DIFF between lesbian and bisexual OR lesbian and gay participants
64
Q

gaslighting LGBTQ+ individuals study IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

A
  1. positive correlation with identity dissatisfaction, identity uncertainty, difficult identity development, identity centrality, and stigma sensitivity
  2. negative correlation with identity superiority

^ more gaslighting = more difficulty one’s LGBTQ+ identity in general

65
Q

gaslighting LGBTQ+ individuals study - who perpetuates gaslighting the most?

A

heterosexual people

cisgender men

parents

66
Q

gaslighting LGBTQ+ individuals study - GASLIGHTING WAS NEGATIVELY ASSOCIATED WITH…

A

relational power

67
Q

personality correlates of gaslighting behaviours in young adults MEASURES

A

dysfunctional personality domains inventory from DSM-5

essentially the big 5 but inverted

  1. PSYCHOTICISM (as opposed to openness/lucidity)
  2. DISINHIBITION (as opposed to conscientiousness)
  3. DETACHMENT (as opposed to extraversion)
  4. ANTAGONISM (as opposed to agreeableness)
  5. NEGATIVE AFFECTIVITY (as opposed to neuroticism/emotional stability)
68
Q

personality correlates of gaslighting behaviours in young adults RESULTS

A

GASLIGHTERS had higher levels of:

  1. DETACHMENT (as opped to extraversion)
  2. DISINHIBITION (as opped to conscientiousness)
  3. PSYCHOTICISM (as opped to lucidity/openness)
69
Q

personality correlates of gaslighting behaviours in young adults RESULTS SPECIFIC

A
  1. DETACHMENT was most associated with attempts to CONTROL partners through FLATTERY and LOVE BOMBING
  2. gaslighters high in DISINHIBITION (low self-control) may rely on gaslighting as a means of ATTAINING INSTANT GRATIFICATION
70
Q

qualitative analysis of gaslighting in romantic relationships SAMPLE

A

65 participants

grounded theory approach

^ create codes for data that become increasingly complex and more and more indicative/abstract

^ compare codes and what has emerged - iteratively create coding structure and see how diff themes emerge

71
Q

qualitative analysis of gaslighting in romantic relationships QUESTIONS

A
  1. please describe in detail HOW an instance(s) of gaslighting occurred in your relationship

(context, what was said, were you accused of being forgetful/naive/stupid/ etc, did any of these things happen on a recurring basis, was there a particular issue that led to this behaviour, etc)

  1. please describe any OTHER BEHAVIOURS that your partner engaged in that you consider as having CONTRIBUTED to gaslighting
  2. has your SENSE OF SELF CHANGED at all since your relationship? please describe in DETAIL

(have you come to identify/stopped identifying with any traits, roles, hobbies, relationships? how has your view of yourself changed?)

72
Q

qualitative analysis of gaslighting in romantic relationships GASLIGHTING BEHAVIOURS

A
  1. most relationships STARTED with LOVE-BOMBING

^ “he said he loved me in 3 days. that was a red flag, but I was swept up by his charm”

^ “he continued to shower me with expensive gifts like jewelry, flowers, dinners…”

  1. Ps reported becoming increasingly SOCIALLY ISOLATED

^ “told me my friends were saying awful things about me”

  1. Ps described their gaslighters as being UNPREDICTABLE

^ “arguments started for no reason, then switched very rapidly to being extremely affectionate and sexual”

  1. demeaning INSULTS, false ACCUSATIONS, undue BLAME were common
73
Q

qualitative analysis of gaslighting in romantic relationships CONSEQUENCES FOR SURVIVORS

A
  1. DIMINISHED SENSE of SELF
  2. GUARDEDNESS and MISTRUST of FUTURE RELATIONSHIPS
  3. POST-TRAUMATIC GROWTH
74
Q

qualitative analysis of gaslighting in romantic relationships DIMINISHED SENSE OF SELF

A

CONTRACTION of sense of self

“I felt very confused, worthless, unlovable and broken”

“I was broken. I felt like a shell of a woman. Lovely and desperate”

“I barely felt like a person anymore…when your perception of the truth gets warped, it’s hard to tell up from down”

75
Q

qualitative analysis of gaslighting in romantic relationships GUARDEDNESS/MISTRUST OF FUTURE RELATIONSHIPS

A

“I prefer to avoid social contact…I prefer solitary hobbies and activities, or only with my immediate family”

76
Q

qualitative analysis of gaslighting in romantic relationships POST-TRAUMATIC GROWTH

A

“I am a much stronger person now and know when I am being used”

77
Q

gaslighting model 3 divisions

A
  1. relationship start
  2. gaslighting cycle
  3. insight and recovery
78
Q

gaslighting model stage 1: relationship start

A
  1. LOVE BOMBING
  2. enabling constraint 1: PERPETRATOR’s MOTIVATION to gaslight
  3. enabling constraint 2: survivor’s motivation to view the PERPETRATOR POSITIVELY
79
Q

gaslighting model stage 2: gaslighting cycle

A
  1. PERPETRATOR’s GASLIGHTING
  2. SURVIVOR ISOLATION
  3. SURVIVOR RATIONALIZES perpetrator’s behaviour and ACCEPTS their narrative
  4. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES for the survivor
80
Q

gaslighting model stage 3: insight and recovery

A
  1. survivor DISCOVERS gaslighting/has insight
  2. survivor’s VIEW of perpetrator CHANGES (enabling constraint 1 ceases)
  3. survivors engages in RECOVERY behaviours
81
Q

key theme of gaslighting model

A

gaslighting occurs when you have EPISTEMIC TRUST in somebody

gaslighters USE THAT TRUST to try and convince you that you can’t PROPERLY GRASP REALITY

once that person’s epistemic self-trust is diminished, the gaslighter’s EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY is ESTABLISHED and the gaslighter can CONTROL VICTIM’S BEHAVIOUR

gaslighter becomes the ARBITRARY ARBITER of what is REAL, RATIONAL, REASONABLE

Psyc 474 (23 decks)

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