paper 1 evaluation Flashcards
Limitation of asch’s research (task being artificial)
one limitation of asch’s reaserah is that the task and situation were artificial. Paricipents knew they were in a research study and may simply have gone with what was expected (demand characterisitic).The task of identifying lines were relatively trivial and therefore there was no reason not to conform. Also accordind to susan Fiske “ Asch’s groups where not groupy” as they did not really resemble groups that we experience in everyday life. This means the findings do not generalise to real world situations, especially those where the consequence of conformity might be important.
Limitation of asch’s reserach
(women and culture)
Another limitation is Aschs participent was American men. Other research suggests that women may be conformist, probably because they oncerned about social relationships, and being accepted. Furthermore US is more indivualistic culture. Similar conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures have found that conformity rates are higher. This means that Asch’s finding tell us little about conformity in women and people from some culture.
strength of asch’s reserach
one strength of asch’s research is support from other studies for the effect of task difficulty. Lucas et al (2006) asked their particpents to solve easy and hard maths problem. Participent were given answer from three other students (not atually real). The participent conformed more often when the problem was harder. This shows that Asch’s was correct in claimimg that task difficulty is one variable that affects conformity.
Evaluation of LTM for the multistore model
Over simplistic: long-term memory are more complex than the multi store model suggests. For example,Tulving has suggested that there are many different types of long-term memory (e.g. semantic, eposidic and procedural) that are stored and processed in completely different ways.
Evaluation of STM
- Cowans (2001) had done studies on Capacity of STM and concluded STM is likely to be limited to 4 chunks
- Jacob found that recall ( digit span) increased steadily with age as research shows 8 year old - 6.6 digit and 19 year old - 8.6 digits
- testing STM is artificial. This study is completely irrelevant because we try to remember rarely meaningful memory. As trying to memorise constant syllables does not truly reflect most everyday memory activities where what we are trying to remember is meaningful. This means this study lacks ecological validity.
Evaluation for types of LTM
One strength is evidence from the famous studies HM and Clive wearing. Episodic memory for both these men had been severely impacted due to brain damage. But their semantic memory were relatively unaffected. They still understood meanings of words. Their procedural memory is also intact. They both knew how to walk and speak. Clive wearing knew how to read music, sing and play piano.
Conflicting neuroimaging evidence.
One limitation is that there are conflicting research findings that linking types of LTM to areas of the brain. Buckner and Petersen received evidence regarding the location of semantic and episodic. They concluded that semantic memory is on the left side of the prefrontal cortex and episodic on the right. However other research links the left prefrontal cortex with encoding of episodic memory and right prefrontal cortex with episodic retrieval. This challenges the neurophysiological evidence to support types of memory as there is poor agreement where each type might be.
evaluation that supports MSM
one case of a man called HM. his brain damage was caused by removing hippocampus from both sides of his brain to reduce epilepsy. His personality and intellect was intact but he was not able to form new LTMs but could still remember his things from before the surgery. This provided support to MSM as HM was unable to transfer info from STM to LTM but were able to retrieve information
Limitation of MSM
MSM suggests that STM comes before LTM however Logie pointed out that STM actually relies on LTM so therefore can not be first.
Ruchkin did a study by asking participants to recall a set of words and pseudo-words. They found out that there were much more brain activity when normal words asked compared to pseudo-words and this research shows that STM and LTM are not separate and that STM is just a part of LTM
strength of WMM
One strength is support from the case study of KF. After his brain injury KF had poor STM ability for auditory info but could process visual info normally. For instance his instant recall if letters and digits were better when he read them than when they were read to him. KF’s physiological loop was damaged but his visual sketch pad was still intact. This finding strongly supports the existence of separate visual and acoustic memory stores.
Another strength is the studies of dual task performance support the separate existence of the visuo spatial sketchpad. When Braddley et al participant carried out a visual and verbal at the same time, their performance on each was similar to when they carried out the task separately. But when both task were visual, performance on both declined substantially. This is because both visual tasks compete for the same subsystems, whereas there is no competition when performing a verbal and visual task together. This shows that there must be a separate subsystem that processes visual input.
limitations of WMM
One limitation is that there is lack of clarity over the nature of the central executive. Braddley (2003) recognised this when he said, “The central executive is the most important but the least understood of working memory model’. The CE needs to be more clearly specified than just being simply attention. For example some psychologist believe the CE may contain of separate subcomponents. This means that CE is an unsatisfactory component and that this challenges the integrity of WMM.
strength of interference
one strength is that there is evidence of interference affects in more everyday situations. Alan Braddley and Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to to recall the names of the team they had played against during a rugby season. The players all played for the same time interval but the number of intervening games varied because some layers missed matches due to injury. Players who played the most games had the poorest recall. This study shows that interference can operate in at least some real-world situations and increasing the validity of the theory.
Another strength comes from evidence of retrograde facilitation. Psychologists gave participants a list of words and later asked them to recall the list, assuming the intervening experience would act as a interference. They found that when a list of words was learned under the influence of the drug diazepam, recall one week later was so poor compared to a placebo group. But when a list learned before the drug was taken, later recall was better than the placebo, So the drug actually improved recall of material learned beforehand. Wixted suggest that the drugs prevents new info reaching parts of the brain involved in processing memories, so it cannot interference - reduce the interference and you reduce the forgetting the drug was taken.
Limitations of interference
limited explanatory power:
- interference only explain when 2 types of interferes are similar, but does not explain when the situations are different
lacks ecological and external validity:
- psychological research on forgetting on interference is often based on experiments in artificial lab and so findings might not transfer to real life situation
one limitation is that interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues. Tulving et al gave participants lists of words organized into categories, one list at a time. Recall averaged about 70% for the time, but became progressively worse as participants learned each additional list (proactive interference). But had the words really disappear from LTM or were they still available. At the end of the procedure the participants were given cued recall test- they told the names of the categories. Recall rose again to about 70%. This shows that interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to material that is still in LTM, a finding not predicted by interference theory.
A03 of retrieval failure
strength
Darley et al (1973) observed that participants who forgot where they hid money while high on cannabis were more likely to remember where they hid that money once they got high again compared to when they were sober.
Similarly, there are studies supporting the existence of context-dependent failure (i.e. forgetting when the external environment is different). For example, Godden and Baddeley (1975) got divers to learn lists of words on both dry land and underwater. They found the divers’ recall was much better in the environment it was learned (i.e. the words learned underwater were recalled better underwater and vice versa).
Another strength is the impressive range of research that supports the retrieval failure explanation. The studies by Godden and Baddeley and Carter and Cassaday (facing page) are just 2 examples because they show that a lack of relevant cues at recall can lead to Context and state dependant forgetting in everyday life. Memory researcher Micheal Eyesrisck and Mark Keane argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM. This evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real world situation as well as in highly controlled conditions of the lab.
A03 of retrieval failure
limitation
lacks ecological and external validity:
- psychological research on forgetting on absense of cues is often based on experiments in artificial lab and so findings might not transfer to real life situation
misleading information strength
One strength of research into misleading information is that it has important practical uses in the criminal justice system. The consequences of inaccurate EWT can be very serious. Loftus believes that leading qs can have such a distorrting effect on memory that police officers need to be very careful about how they phase tjier qs when interviewing eyewitnesses. Psychologists are sometimes asked to act as experts witnesses in court trial and explain the limits of EWT to juries. This shows that psychologists can help to improve the way the legal sytstem works, esp by protesting innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT.
misleading information limitation
One limitation of the substitution explanation is that EWT is more accurate for aspects of an event than for others. For example Sutherland and Hayne showed participants a video clip. When participants were later asked misleading qs, their recall was more accurate for central details of the event than for peripheral ones. Presumably the participant’s attention was focused on central features of the event and these memories were relatively resistant to misleading info. This suggests that the original memories for central details survived and were not distorted, an outcome that is not predicted by the substitution explanation.
Another limitation of the memory conformity explaination is evidence that post event discussion actually alter EWT. Skagerberg and Wright showed thier participants film clips, There were 2 versions e.g a muggers hair was fark brown in one but light brown in the other. Participants discussed the clips in pairs, each having seen different versions. They often did not report what they had seen in the clips or what they had heard from the co witness, but a blend of the 2, so the common answer was not light brown or dark brown but medium brown. This suggests that the memory itself is distorted through contamination by misleading post event discussion, rather than the result of memory conformity.
cognitive interview strength
One strength of the cognitive interview is evidence that it works. For example, a meta analysis by kohnken et al combined data from 55 studies comparing the CI with standard police interviews. The CI gave an average 41% increase in accurate info compared with the standard interview. Only 4 studies in the analysis showed no difference between the types of interview. This shows that CI is an effective technique in helping witness to recall information that is stored in memory but not immediately accessible.
cognitive interview limitation
One limitation of the original CI is that not all of its element are equally effective or useful. Mine and Bull found that each of the four technique used alone produced more info than standard police interview. But they also found that using a combination of report everything and reinstate the context produced better recall than any of the other element or combination of them. This confirmed police officers suspicions that some aspects of the CI are more useful than others. This casts doubt on the credibility of the overall cognitive thinking.
Another limitation is that police officers may be reluctant to use the CI because it takes more time and training than the standard police interview. For example more time is needed to establish rapport with a witness and allow them to relax. The CI also requires special training and many forces do not have the same resources to provide more than a few hours. This suggests that the complete CI as it exists is not a realistic method for police officers to use and it might be better to focus on just a few key element.
anxiety limitation
chrisianson and Hubinette found no relationship between anxiety and accuracy of testimony
strength of Caregiver interaction
One strength of this is the reserach is that caregiver-infant interactions are usually filmed in a lab. This means that other activit might distract a baby, can be controlled. Also using films means that observations can be recorded and analysed later. Therefore it is unlikely that research will miss seeing key behav. furthermore having filmed interactions can record data and establish the inter-reliability of observation. Finally babies dont know they are being observed, so behav wont change. Therefore the data collected has good reliablity and validity
limitation of Caregiver interaction
One limitation of caregiver interaction is that it is hard to interpret a baby’s behv. Young babies lack coordination and much of their bodies are immobile. The movements being observedare just small hand movements or subtle changes in expression so it is difficult to be sure. Also it difficult to determine what is taking place from the baby’s perspective. THis means that we cannot be certain that the behav seen in caregiver-infant interaction have a special meaning.
strength of Caregiver interaction
One strength of this is the reserach is that caregiver-infant interactions are usually filmed in a lab. This means that other activit might distract a baby, can be controlled. Also using films means that observations can be recorded and analysed later. Therefore it is unlikely that research will miss seeing key behav. furthermore having filmed interactions can record data and establish the inter-reliability of observation. Finally babies dont know they are being observed, so behav wont change. Therefore the data collected has good reliablity and validity
limitation of Caregiver interaction
One limitation of caregiver interaction is that it is hard to interpret a baby’s behv. Young babies lack coordination and much of their bodies are immobile. The movements being observedare just small hand movements or subtle changes in expression so it is difficult to be sure. Also it difficult to determine what is taking place from the baby’s perspective. THis means that we cannot be certain that the behav seen in caregiver-infant interaction have a special meaning.
evaluation for the different stages of attachment
one strength of Schaffer and emerson’s research is that there is external validity. Most of the observations were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to the researchers. The alternative would have been to have the researcher present which might have made distracted the baby or made them feel anxious.
One limitation of schaffer and emerson’s study is the validity of the measure they used to assess attachment in the asocial stage. Young babies have poor coordination and are fairly immobile. So if babies were less than 2 months old felt anxiety in everyday situations they might have displayed this quite subtle, hard to observe and report back to researchers on signs of anxiety and attachment in this age group. This means they could have been social but due to flawed methods, they appear to social.
This study lacks generalisability. They only looked at one sample which had unique features in terms of the cultural and historical context. 1960s working class Glasslow. In other cultures, for example collectivist culture, multiple attachment from a very early age are more the norm.
Evaluation of Learning Theory
- Reductionist
Evaluation: Learning theory oversimplifies attachment by focusing only on learning processes (food and comfort), ignoring other factors like emotions or biological influences, such as Bowlby’s theory of innate attachment.
- Contradictory Evidence
Evaluation: Harlow’s study with monkeys and Lorenz’s study with geese show that attachment can form without the need for food, suggesting that attachment is not just about learning through rewards or comfort.
- Real-Life Applications
Evaluation: Although the Learning Theory has been criticized, it has contributed to practical applications, such as improving child-care practices where caregivers use positive reinforcement to encourage attachment behaviors.
Evaluation of Bowlby’s Theory
Support for the Critical Period
Research shows that attachments formed in early childhood are crucial for later emotional and social development. Studies on children who were deprived of care (e.g., Romanian orphans) support the idea of a critical period for attachment.
- Overemphasis on Monotropy
Bowlby places too much focus on the primary attachment figure, suggesting that the first bond is always the most important. However, other research shows that children can form multiple attachments that are equally significant, like those to fathers or siblings. - Real-Life Applications
Bowlby’s theory influenced childcare practices and policies, such as encouraging bonding between mothers and babies right after birth and supporting the importance of a stable caregiver in early childhood. - Cultural Bias
Bowlby’s theory is based on research in Western cultures. In other cultures, multiple caregivers might be common, and children can form attachments to various people. This suggests that the theory may not fully apply across all cultures.
Evaluation of Types of Attachment
Predictive Value
Research shows that secure attachment is linked to positive outcomes later in life, like better social and emotional development, while insecure attachment is linked to problems, like difficulty forming relationships.
Cultural Differences
The Strange Situation was developed in Western cultures, and it may not apply in the same way to other cultures. For example, some cultures may value independence or emotional restraint, which might affect how attachment types appear.
Reliability of Classification
The Strange Situation has been shown to be reliable, meaning that it consistently categorizes children into the attachment types in a consistent way. However, some critics argue that children can show behaviors that fit more than one type, making the classification somewhat limiting.
Individual Differences
There can be individual differences within each attachment type. For example, children with a secure attachment may still have different attachment behaviors depending on their temperament or the caregiving style they experience.
Evaluations for cultural variation
Strengths:
The research shows that attachment is a universal phenomenon, but the way attachment behaviours are expressed can vary across cultures, emphasising the role of both biology and culture.
Meta-analyses, like those of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg, provide large-scale, cross-cultural evidence of attachment behaviours.
Weaknesses:
Ethnocentrism: Many of the studies, including Ainsworth’s Strange Situation, were designed in Western cultures. This means that the attachment behaviors considered “secure” or “insecure” may not fully apply to non-Western populations, potentially leading to biased conclusions.
Cultural bias: The methods used (like the Strange Situation) may not be suitable for all cultures. For example, the method assumes that the child’s distress is a sign of attachment, but in some cultures, children may not express distress in the same way.
Over-simplification: It is too simplistic to categorise children into just one attachment type. There is considerable variation within each culture that isn’t always captured in these broad classifications.
Evaluations for Bowlby’s maternal deprivation
Strengths:
Real-world applications: Bowlby’s theory has had practical implications for child welfare. For example, it contributed to changes in hospital policies regarding allowing parents to stay with their children during medical treatment.
Empirical support: Bowlby’s own research (e.g., the 44 Thieves study) and other studies suggest a link between maternal deprivation and later behavioural and emotional problems.
Influence on attachment theory: Bowlby’s work laid the foundation for further research into attachment, such as Ainsworth’s Strange Situation.
Weaknesses:
Causality issues: While there is an association between maternal deprivation and negative outcomes, it is difficult to prove direct causality. Other factors, such as genetic predispositions or later family environment, could also contribute to developmental issues.
Ethnocentrism: Bowlby’s theory was developed with a Western perspective, and it may not be applicable in the same way across all cultures. Some cultures might have different child-rearing practices that could influence attachment and the effects of maternal deprivation.
Overemphasis on the mother: Bowlby’s theory places a significant emphasis on the mother as the primary attachment figure. However, research has shown that fathers, grandparents, or other caregivers can play just as important a role in a child’s emotional development.
evaluation for Romanian orphan studies - institutionalisation
Strengths:
Real-life Applications: The findings from these studies have had significant real-world implications, influencing child welfare policies, such as improving the care of children in orphanages and promoting adoption over institutional care.
Longitudinal Design: Many of the studies, like Rutter’s ERA, followed children over time, allowing researchers to assess the long-term effects of institutionalization.
Control Group: The studies often included control groups (e.g., children raised in families), making it easier to compare the effects of institutional care with more typical family-based care.
Weaknesses:
Ethical Issues: The studies raise ethical concerns because children were placed in institutions during a time when the conditions were extremely poor. The studies do not have the luxury of randomly assigning children to institutional care, meaning the effects observed may be due to other factors, such as pre-existing conditions or neglect.
Generalisability: While the Romanian orphan studies provide important insights, the conditions in Romanian orphanages may have been particularly extreme. Therefore, the findings may not generalise to other forms of institutional care worldwide, which may not be as severe.
Individual Differences: Not all children in institutions show the same outcomes. Some children are more resilient and may show fewer negative effects from institutionalisation. Therefore, individual differences should be considered when evaluating the impact of institutional care.
Evaluation for influence of early attachmenton later attachement
Empirical Support for Attachment Theory:
Research like Hazan and Shaver’s study and other longitudinal studies support the idea that early attachment experiences are linked to adult relationships. These studies show that individuals with secure attachments in childhood are more likely to have stable and healthy romantic relationships in adulthood.
Many studies on the link between early attachment and adult relationships, including Hazan and Shaver’s, rely on self-report measures, which can be influenced by social desirability bias or memory distortion. Participants may not accurately recall their early attachment experiences or may give responses they believe are more socially acceptable or expected.
Additionally, self-reports don’t always provide a clear picture of the complexity of attachment styles or the nuances of individual experiences.
Some critics argue that the theory overemphasizes the role of early attachment in determining adult relationships, neglecting the influence of later life experiences, such as friendships, romantic relationships, or traumatic events, which can significantly alter or shape attachment patterns.
A dynamic systems perspective suggests that attachment styles can change throughout life depending on various experiences. Therefore, while early attachment might play a foundational role, it’s not necessarily deterministic or fixed.
