Psych Exam 10/13/22 Flashcards
psyche
study of the soul
William James (1890)
science of mental life
mind, brain, and behvaior
mind = mental states, thoughts and feelings and motives
brain = enables mind, mind = emergent property of brain functions
behavior = any overt action (speech, gesture etc)
behavior + brain = observable
mind = invisible, inferred not observed
structuralism (Wilhelm Wundt and Edward Titchener)
break down conscious experience into basic elements, like chemistry
introspection - years of training, required the ability to describe sensory elements in the most basic form without any influence of expectations from society (eg newborn child) - Hersey kiss example
primary areas = perception, sensation
functionalism (William James)
consciousness should be studied for function rather than structure - Hershey’s kiss example = focus on what we feel about it and why
primary areas = social, practical, everyday higher-order experience (ex evolutionary psychology)
gestalt (Max Wertheimer)
experience is not made up of finite components but rather the whole of experience is indescribably different than the mere sum of its parts - anti-strucuturalist
primary area = perception
psychoanalytic (Sigmund Freud)
behavior is determined by unconscious drives - heavily affected by childhood, used dream analysis and free association to uncover unconscious desires and conflicts
primary area = personality development + psychopathology
behaviorism (John Watson, B. F Skinner and Ivan Pavlov)
shouldn’t worry about a conscious mind because you will never know what the people next to you are thinking
should study behavior as an end to itself rather than as a means for inferring mental processes or structures
primary area = learning
“Tabula Rasa” (behavioralism)
people are born as a blank slate and we become who we are sole though learning history - built his daughter a box and focused her learning history on behavior psychology…she became a behavioral psychologist
humanistic (Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers)
humans can determine their own fate through the concept of free will and everyone can develop to their fullest potential
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
Roger’s person-centered therapy
focused heavily on a person’s present more than past
primary area = personality and therapy
cognitive revolution (George Miller)
thinking should be studied as information processing
primary areas = memory, learning, language and cognitive psychology in general
social revolution (Kurt Lewin)
need to understand both individual and social pressures/social context in order to fully predict behavior
B = f(P,E)
primary area = social, cultural
“group dynamics (social revolution)
believed that group behavior was different than what could be expected from the individuals alone
case study
deep investigation of a single case (one participant, couple or group)
for studies that cannot be ethically manipulated in a lab (ex brain injury, cults etc), way to uncover truths about the mind that would be difficult to study in any other way
rare minds that have been injured or mind with extraordinarily rare abilities (
case study pros
real-life observation and rich description, what the human mind is capable of, what is possible, even if it’s not typical
case study cons
limited generalizability pr inferences that you can make
correlational research
observational or survey methodology
correlational research step 1
hypothesis of relationship among variables - example “does absence make the heart grow fonder?”
variables - measurable conditions, events, characteristics or behaviors of interest (anything that “varies) - ex absence, fondness
correlational research hypotheses
1 - absence makes the heart grown fonder
2 - “out of sight out of mind”
correlational research step 2
operationalization = translation of the hypothesized variables into specifics, concrete measurable or manipulatable definition of the variable of interest
variable - fondness, how could you measure fondness
- self-reported relationship satisfaction
- frequency of gazing touching eye contact and smiling observed in the lab field
correlational research pros
easier to get larger samples, ask about a wider variety of events that can be manipulated in lab, easier to ensure generalizability across situations
correlational research cons
self-report biases, people can lack insight, “tests” of hypotheses are correlational in nature
definition of correlation
an expression of the relationship between two variables
definition of sign
positive or negative reflects the pattern of relationships
positive - A increases, B increase (ex temperature and popsicle consumption)
negative - A increases, B decreases (ex temperature and hot chocolate consuption)
definition of magnitude
vary from 1 to -1, absolute magnitude reflects the strength of relationship (larger = stronger)
1 = perfect positive correlation
-1 = perfect negative correlation
example - r = -0.87 stronger than r = +0.23
correlation does not equal causation
A causes B - increasing absence reduces fondness
B causes A - decreasing fondness increases absences
C causes both A and B - third variable may be causing both increases absence and decreased fondness (ex financial stress causing argument and more time away because they are working more)
experimental research
manipulation of one set of variables in order to assess effects on other variables
experimental research pros
can draw casual inferences
experimental research cons
can be artificial, limited to certain topics
independent and dependent variables (experimental research)
requires manipulation of an independent variable and measurement of a dependent variable
IV - hypothesized cause, different levels of the IV must be randomly assigned
DV - hypothesized out come, must be measurable/quantifiable
random assignment (experimental research)
placing participants into conditions based on chance (not volunteer-based)
on average the comparison groups are the same - all other differences should logically be unrelated to the manipulation (since it’s random)
manipulation of IV is the most likely cause of effect (correlational language is acceptable here)
definition of confound (good research)
any alternative variable that covaries with the experimental condition and could potentially explain differences between experimental groups - example what if Beyonce was always “dropping paper” in the morning and Nick Nolte (creepy man) was “dropping paper” in the evening = a confound
avoiding confounds (good research)
rigid control, every participant’s experience is controlled/identical except for the manipulation
randomly vary as many “nonessentials” as possible (ie who the experimenter is, order of dependent measures…) so that any differences presumably will average out
avoiding bias (experimenter and/or participant)
correcting ways in which the experimenter or participant could (even unconsciously) influence the results by changing their behavior
experimenter expectancy effects
subtle differences in treatment may influence participant behavior - ex telling some students they have a “smart, genius rat” vs “dumb rats” changes the way they treated them so in the end those who were told they had smart rats ended up with smarter rats than those who were told they had dumb rats
observer bias
observer expectations alter the way one interprets behavior
participant bias
social desirability - behave “better” in studies than real-life in order to look morally good
suggestibility - desire to confirm study hypothesis (or reactance - desire to do the reverse of the hypothesis)
ways to avoid participant bias
single and double “blind” procedures - participants don’t know the hypothesis, experimenter/observers don’t know what conditions were assigned to which participant
mundane realism
lab tasks mirror the real-world environment in hopes of capturing more natural behavior (ie studying consumer preferences in a grocery story layout, with real brands)
psychological realism
when the tasks used to capture the psychological process in a controllable setting, even if it still looks and feels like a lab, rather than an everyday environment - more important than mundane realism
easy = low-level visual perception, psychological process is the same in and out of lab
difficult = resisting temptation, hard to bring into the lab (“taste test” study)
ethical research
when creating “psychological events” in a lab one must ensure the benefits of the knowledge outweigh any costs to participants
IRBS (Institutional review Boards) - does not include the researchers themselves, reviews studies to ensure cost/benefit ratio is appropriate
participant rights
informed consent, ability to withdraw without penalty, debriefing on what the study was about and informed of any deception
replicability
if study was run again, would you get the same results
reliability
how stable are your manipulations and measures
well-established introversion scale is going to be more reliable than a Buzzfeed survey or projective (ink blot) test
validity
how “true” are your findings
internal validity - lack of confounds and larger samples imply that within this experiment inference is solid, unlikely to be due to chance alone
construct validity - operations are good reflections of the construct you think you are studying (ie “fondness” as measured by the expense of presents purchased for a partner - obviously has very bad construct validity)
external validity - generalizability of findings to other samples across ages, cultures, genders, social class
genes
segments of DNA that guide the production of proteins to carry out specific tasks
all humans have the same genes arranged in the same order, more than 99.9% of our DNA sequence is the same, but the few differences matter and can change the shape and function of a protein
units of heredity
genes can be turned “on” or “off” by aspects of environment (seasonal changes and animal fur color)
genotype
actual genetic constitution - the DNA sequence itself
phenotype
observable expression of characteristics - results from genes and environment
genotype vs phenotype
same genotype can be expressed in different phenotypes ( example tortoiseshell coloring occurs because one coat gene is randomly inactivated in the embryo stage)
same phenotype can result from different genotypes (tongue rolling)
TT = T
Tt = T
tT = T
tt = t
role of heredity (behavioral genetics)
genes passed down through families
family studies (behavioral genetics)
behaviors/traits can be similar in families but families provide environments as well as genes
twin studies
identical twins - genetic clones
fraternal twins - non-clones
compare the size of the positive correlations of the trait under study between MZ “identical” twins vs DZ “fraternal” twins
MZ > DZ - genetic heritability
MZ = DZ - common evniorment
MZ < 1 - unique environment
examples of heritable characteristics
physical traits (height, weight), vulnerability to some mental illnesses, extraversion/introversion, daily happiness
gold standard of heritability studies
adoption studies of twins raised apart, shows hereditary genetic traits vs environmental but does it really prove solely genetic basis
evocative interaction of genes and environment - when a heritable feature changes how environment responds to you
evocative interaction (behavioral genetics)
when a heritable feature changes how environment responds to you
