potential 20 and 16 markers

Question 1

human ethics in psychology 20 marker

Answer 1

• H.M only used initials which is good for confidentiality BUT HM had severe brain damage affecting his memory therefore consent is a bit tricky
• corrolations rather than experiments is more ethical in some cases eg testing if smoking causes cancer BUT other aspects like Li et al unethical PFH - showing heroin addicts pictures of heroin, Raine et al taking SZ patients off meds for 2 weeks
• Pavlov used dogs rather than humans, skinner used rats, breland and breland used pigs, more ethical than humans BUT Bandura encouraged children to be agg which breeches PFH as they may get into trouble for this in the future
• Carlsson - no ethical concerns because used secondary data BUT Rosenhan was unethical because the implications of his study meant that loads of mentally ill people were turned away from mental hospitals which is massively unethical
• Loftus and palmer good and ethical because informed consent, no deception, debrief and post event debrief BUT other aspects like drug treatments like MPA may have awful side effects but may be a mandatory part of a release plan for offenders

Question 2

(human) practical issues in psychology 20 marker

Answer 2

• Androcentrism - Milgram in OG experiment … BUT milgram in variation 8 resolved this
• large sample - large sample used in Baddeley - 72, 75 BUT case studies such as HM or clive wearing didnt solve this
• standardised procedure - Loftus and Palmer BUT Maletzky dosages and timings unknown
• task validity good in Rosenhan BUT validity cannot be ensured by studies like carlsson because there may be undisclosed validity issues
• learning theories like SLT are more valid because they are more holistic BUT less valid because a lot of the research into learning theories use animals eg pavlov- dogs, skinner - rats/pigeons, breland and breland - pigs etc

Question 3

the problem of psychology as social control 20 marker

Answer 3

• Social impact theory and Milgram - can manipulate to make ppl more obedience using immediacy, number and strength because Milgrams studies showed they were effective BUT milgrams research has also been used by the US army to make sure blind obedience isnt happening
• Classical conditioning - aversion therapy, BUT can also be used for good - alcoholism and drug abuse- antabuse
• OC - token economies to make sure we make purchases and stay loyal to specific brands BUT also systematic desensitisation helps rid people of phobias
• drug treatments - mask not cure symptoms, clinicians may not tell full side effects, if they come off them unaided they will go into withdrawal so they have no power over when they come off them unless with a psychiatrist BUT justifiable because effective - Geddes, gets people back into society which gives them more autonomy than being kept in a mental hospital
• Raine et al - genetic predisposition to crime, labels innocent people as criminals, may be kept underobservation or sanctionned for a crime they have autonomy over and havent committed - forcing an SFP on them, controls their behaviour BUT could also put in early intervention because better than allowing murderers around

less areas but more to talk about

Question 4

Use of psychology in society 20 marker

Answer 4

• yes can - Sherif and RCT can be used to reduce prejudice such as smear campaigns and promotes superordinate goals BUT may be socially sensitive because personality traits linked with prejudice may be targetted for “re-education” which is social control
• Antabuse good treatment, SD and flooding used to cure fears, OC helps children in medical settings to keep them calm and stop distress which is ethical BUT also led to conversion therapy, those who dont respond well to points or secondary reinforcement are labelled as bead kids which is unethical so maybe shouldnt be used
• Rosenhan’s research led to more focus on patient-centred care in the medical industry therefore it has had positive uses BUT other aspects of clinical are dubious eg drug treatments - threat of sectioning if not medicated, publication bias in piggott et al therefore clinical’s use in society is limited becayuse it is socially sensitiive
• Loftus and Palmer, reconstructive memory can be used to discredit EWTs, good because prosecution services to find more reliable evidence, improving the justice system BUT may be distressing to the victim/ EW to be told that they have been discredited based on one piece of evidence eg Wynn and Logie found recall to be fine
• XYY, certain brain abnormalities and Raine et al can all be used to reduce crime by screening and early intervention BUT minimises the autonomy of the action, takes away the responsibility from the offender which could be dangerous

Question 5

socially sensitive with rosenhan - 16 mark

(only half)

Answer 5

• Socially sensitive - Part 2 was very damaging as genuine patients who needed help got sent away bc the staff were trying to pick out pseudos even though there weren’t actually any BUT The results (that the DSM-II was not valid) caused the classification system to be improved – good – use in society
• Socially sensitive – Also very damaging to the nurses’ and hospitals reputations and credibility – could affect their ability to get a job in the future BUT made psych wards focus on patient-centred care – good – use in society

Question 6

use in society of rosenhan’s research 16 marker

(only half)

Answer 6

• The results (that the DSM-II was not valid) caused the classification system to be improved – good – use in society BUT Socially sensitive - Part 2 was very damaging as genuine patients who needed help got sent away bc the staff were trying to pick out pseudos even though there weren’t actually any
• Made psych wards focus on patient-centred care – good – use in society BUT Socially sensitive – Also very damaging to the nurses’ and hospitals reputations and credibility – could affect their ability to get a job in the future

Question 7

practical issues of rosenhan 16 marker

(only half)

Answer 7

• Bad generalisability – only represents American hospitals in the 70s
• Good reliability – starts off with standardised proc – all ppts reported the same symptoms e.g. hearing the words ‘hollow’, ’empty’, ‘thud’ BUT once they were admitted, bad reliability as couldn’t control what they were doing at all times - difficult to replicate
• Good validity – once admitted, pseudos acting as they normally would – didn’t have to remember complex backstories / behaviour – more valid as they were acting as they would in their day-to-day life - 35/118 recognised this

Question 8

practical issues of baddeley 16 marker

Answer 8

• Bad generalisability – exp 1 used all servicemen so results on encoding in STM and LTM may not be representative of those in diff jobs BUT decent sample size – 75 ppts so findings on encoding in STM & LTM were not likely to be too skewed by anomalous results
• Good reliability – standardised proc, within each group every ppt had the same list of words, same amount of time to learn them, same interference task etc BUT
• Bad internal validity – memory reduced down to a measurable task – word recall – not natural, not something ppts would do in day-to-day life so not representative of memory in natural situations