Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology edexcel a level > Social > Flashcards

Social Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Obedience definition

A

A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order.

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

Moral strain definition

A

A state of mental discomfort or anxiety experienced in the agentic state when an individual’s actions conflict with their morality

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

Autonomous state

A

A mindset where we behave independently, make our own decisions and take responsibility for the consequences of our behaviour

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

Agentic state

A

A mindset which allows us to carry out orders from authority figures, even if they conflict with our morality. We absolve ourselves of responsibility, believing that we are acting on the behalf of others

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

Agentic shift

A

The switch between autonomous and agentic states

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

Agency theory

A

Milgram (1974)
Humans mainly operate in two states autonomous and agentic. Usually autonomous but can switch between

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

Agency theory - Strengths

A

Milgram’s baseline study (1963)
Military application - Soldiers following orders even though they may conflict with their morality, euphemisms and dehumanising language

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

Agency theory - Weaknesses

A

Baseline study has low internal validity, Perry (2012). Reinterpretation of Milgram’s data, finding that participants may have thought that the shocks were not real.

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

Social Impact Theory

A

Latane (1961)
An explanation of obedience in terms of Strength, Immediacy and Number

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

Social Impact Theory - Strength

A

The perceived authority of the source

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

Social Impact Theory - Immediacy

A

The closeness of the source and target

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

Social Impact theory - Number

A

The number of sources or targets present during the interaction

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

Multiplicative effect

A

Increasing the Strength, Immediacy or number of sources would significantly increase the obedience

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

Divisional effect

A

If there is a larger number of targets than sources than the obedience would decrease

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

Law of diminishing returns

A

Once the source group is larger than three, each additional person has less of an influence on the obedience

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

Social Impact theory - Strengths

A

Sedikides and Jackson (1990)
Application to political influence

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

Sedikides and Jackson

A

Field study at a zoo
Strength - zookeeper 58%, t-shirt and shorts 35%
Immediacy - in same room 61%, in adjacent room 7%
Number - smaller group 60%, larger group 14%

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

Social Impact Theory - Weaknesses

A

Sedikides and Jackson - field study, low internal validity
Immediacy less important than strength - Hofling et al (1966)

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

Hofling et al (1966)

A

Arranged for an unknown doctor to telephone 22 nurses and ask them to administer an overdose of a drug no on their list. Found that they obeyed even though the doctor was not immediately present.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Milgram’s baseline study (1963) - Aim

A

To understand the behaviour of the Nazis involved in the genocide of Jewish people, reasons people would obey a legitimate authority.

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

Milgram’s baseline study (1963) - Procedure

A

Sample - 40 men aged 20-50, volunteer through newspaper adverts, $4.50 for participating
On arrival participants were given the right to withdraw. Introduced to the experimenter and another participant, both confederates.
Fixed lots were drawn to decide that the confederate was the learner.
Teacher told to give learner a shock for every wrong answer on a word recall task, rising by 15V from 15 to 450.
The shocks were fake but a real test shock of 45V was administered to the teacher
If the teacher protested they were given a standardised series of prods to continue, after the fourth they were allowed to leave, the study was recorded

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

Milgram’s baseline study - Findings

A

65% of sample administered full 450 V shock
100% went to 300V
Participants were observed to tremble, bite their lips.

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

Milgram’s baseline study - Conclusion

A

Ordinary Americans are surprisingly obedient to to legitimate authority
Milgram suggested that a number of factors may explain the obedience such as the perceived competence of the researcher

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

Milgram’s baseline study - Strengths

A

Standardised procedure - filmed
Confederates were always played by the same people, number and timing of learners mistakes were the same
High reliability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Milgram’s baseline study - Weaknesses

A

Gina Perry (2012) - internal validity
Halsam et al (2014) showed that participants only continued after the first three prods, everyone that heard the fourth disobeyed, challenges the view that they are highly and blindly obedient to authority.
Low generalisability
Low ecological validity
Deception

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

Milgram experiment 10

A

Rundown office block
47.5% fully obedient
Building may decrease the perceived competency of the experimenter

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

Milgram experiment 7

A

Telephonic instructions
22.5% fully obedient, participants lied to say that there were raising the shock level when they were not
Physical presence of an authority figure appears to be an important situational factor that increases obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Milgram experiment 13

A

Ordinary man gives orders
Experimenter would start before having to leave and handing control to a confederate participant.
80% refused to continue after the ordinary man started giving orders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Factors affecting obedience - Personality factors

A

Authoritarian personality
Internal and external loci of control

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

Authoritarian personality

A

Adorno et al (1950) developed the F scale, high score= authoritarian personality.
Tend to be hostile towards those with an inferior status but obedient to those with a higher status
Could be due to strict parenting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Internal and external loci of control

A

Rotter et al. Refers to a persons perception of their personal control of behaviour. External - things happen to you, internal - you make things happen
High internal suggests independence, whereas external suggests obedience.

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

Factors affecting obedience - Personality factors - Strengths

A

Elms and Milgram (1966) used F-scale to test 20 fully obedient and 20 not from Milgram’s baseline study
Obedient participants score higher on the F-scale and showed more characteristics of an authoritarian personality

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

Factors affecting obedience - Personality - Weaknesses

A

Internal locus of control does not predict defiance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Factors affecting obedience - Gender

A

Women more obedient than men - Sheridan and King
Men more obedient than women - Kilham and Mann
Moral reasoning - Gilligan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Sheridan and King (1972)

A

Participants asked to give real shocks to a live puppy
Women 100% obedient compared to 54% males

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Kilham and Mann (1974)

A

Replication of Milgram’s baseline study in Australia
40% males obedient, 16% of females

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Moral reasoning - Gilligan (1982)

A

Suggested that moral decision making is guided by different principles in men and women
Justice in men, fairness and equality, detached outlook to avoid bias.
Care in women.
Destructive obedience men would be more likely to obey.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Factors affecting obedience - Gender - Weakness

A

There may be no difference, many studies including Blass (1999) show no difference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Factors affecting obedience - Situation

A

Legitimacy
Proximity
Behaviour of others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Factors affecting obedience - situation - legitimacy

A

Reducing the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure can reduce obedience. In Milgram (variation 13) a normal person took over when the experimenter had to leave due to a phone call, this led to decreased obedience.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Factors affecting obedience - situation - proximity

A

Increasing the distance between the authority figure and the participant decreases obedience.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Factors affecting obedience - situation - behaviour of others

A

Exposure to disobedient role models decreases obedience. Milgram (variation 17) showed that when two other confederate teachers refused to carry on obedience dropped to 10%.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Factors affecting obedience - situation - strength

A

Meeus and Raaijmakers (1995)
Application to rule breaking - Gramann et al (1995)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Meeus and Raaijmakers (1995)

A

Asked participants to deliver increasingly unkind insults to a confederate applying for a job. More than 90% delivered all 15 insults in the baseline, compared to 36% when the experimenter left the room and 16% when they witnessed rebellious confederates.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Gramann et al (1995)

A

Found that if information was provided as to why rules were in place, obedience was increased due to increases in immediacy. Applies to countryside rules, with nobody to enforce them.

46
Q

Factors affecting obedience - situation - weaknesses

A

In all of Milgram’s variations there were individual differences, therefore personality must be a key part of the explanation.

47
Q

Factors affecting obedience - culture

A

Individualism/collectivism
Power distance index (PDI)

48
Q

Individualistic and collectivist cultures

A

Individualistic cultures value personal autonomy and self-reliance whereas collectivist cultures value loyalty to the group and cooperation in pursuit of group goals. Therefore people from individualistic cultures (USA) may be less obedient than those from collectivist cultures (China) due to the value of independence.

49
Q

Power distance index (PDI)

A

Hofstede (2017). Refers to how accepting people are of hierarchical order and inequality in society. In a high PDI culture subordinates expect to be told what to do, therefore they may be more obedient.

50
Q

Factors affecting obedience - culture - strength

A

Close relationship between obedience and Hofstede’s PDI. Replications of Milgram’s baseline study in Australia (36% PDI) found 28% obedience compared to 90% in Poland (68% PDI). Suggests PDI is useful in predicting obedience.

51
Q

Factors affecting obedience - culture - weakness

A

Blass (2012)

52
Q

Blass (2012)

A

Calculated the average obedience rate for eight non-American Milgram replications finding 66% obedience compared to an average of 61% across American variations. This suggests that obedience is universal with culture having only a small effect

53
Q

Prejudice definition

A

A biased belief held about an individual or group prior to a direct experience of them, such attitudes are often based upon stereotypes.

54
Q

Discrimination definition

A

Discrimination is the resulting behaviour arising from the prejudice of a person or group

55
Q

Social identity theory

A

Tajfel (1979). An explanation of prejudice in terms of our social identity, with much of our social behaviour being driven by the motivation to maintain self-esteem as a valued member of a group, the mere existence of an out group may lead to prejudice. It has three main stages: social categorisation, identification and comparison

56
Q

Social categorisation

A

The separation of individuals in for the in group and out groups. The in group is the one that you see yourself being a part of and the out group consists of anyone not in the in group.

57
Q

Social identification

A

Involves the individual adopting the beliefs, values and attitudes of the groups that they see themselves belonging to, altering their behaviour to fit the norm of the group.

58
Q

Social comparison

A

An individual would boost their self esteem by making comparisons between the in and out groups. However these would be biased in order to improve our self esteem, as if in group members are seen as better then we too as an in group member are seen as better, motivating us to see the in group in a positive light. This is boosted by seeing the out group in an unfavourable light with the differences between the groups being emphasised and the similarities minimised.

59
Q

Social identity theory - strengths

A

Tajfel (1970)
Application to reducing prejudice - Fein and Spencer (1997)

60
Q

Tajfel (1970)

A

Worked with fifteen year old Bristol school boys, creating in and out groups by telling them which boys had acted similarly to them in a previous task. Later the boys would be asked to allocate points to the other boys and were told that they would be exchanged for cash. He found that more points were allocated to in group members and that boys opted to maximise the difference between the groups, even if it reduced the final sum awarded to the in group.

61
Q

Fein and Spencer (1997)

A

Gave students a sense of high or low self esteem. Students that had a low self esteem later rated Jewish applicants for a job less favourably than an Italian candidate but this was not true of this with high self esteem. Self esteem was then increased by asking the students to write about something they valued, this also decreased the anti-Jewish prejudice.

62
Q

Social identity theory - weaknesses

A

Wetherell (1982)
Tajfel (1970) - low in ecological validity as it lacks mundane realism (privately allocating points). In real life people may be less prejudiced and discriminatory as there would be consequences to their actions.

63
Q

Wetherell (1982)

A

A replication of Tajfel’s study using eight year old school children in New Zealand. Found that indigenous Polynesian children were significantly more generous in their allocation of points to out groups than the Caucasian children. This suggests that social identity theory may be ethnocentric as it cannot predict the behaviour of people from collectivist cultures.

64
Q

Realistic conflict theory

A

An explanation of prejudice that sees competition for limited resources as a key determinant of inter group relations. It was proposed by Sherif as an explanation for his robbers cave study

65
Q

Inter group competition

A

Sherif suggests that the key to prejudice is competition in any form, when both groups are striving for the same goal prejudice adn hostility will intensify

66
Q

Negative interdependence

A

Occurs in scenarios when two groups are both seeking to achieve a goal that they both value, yet only one of them can achieve it. In these scenarios interactions with the out-group will become more hostile and interactions with the in-group will become more cooperative

67
Q

Limited resources

A

Situations involving physical or finite resources often lead to the highest levels of discrimination and prejudice

68
Q

Superordinate goals

A

Prejudice that has arisen through inter-group conflict can be reduced by making both groups work together to achieve a common goal (superordinate goals), leading to more harmonious inter-group interactions

69
Q

Positive interdependence

A

Positive interdependence refers to scenarios where neither group can reach their goals unless the other group also reaches theirs

70
Q

Realistic conflict theory - strengths

A

Robbers cave study - Sherif (1961)
Application to reducing prejudice

71
Q

Realistic conflict theory - weaknesses

A

Low validity of the robbers cave study - the inter group competition did not lead to the hostilities, the experimenters provoked them (raiding one groups cabin and blaming it on the others).
Competition may not be necessary - Tajfel’s minimal groups study showed that prejudice could be caused simply by group membership.

72
Q

Realistic conflict theory - application to reducing prejudice

A

The theory has successfully been used to reduce prejudice using superordinate goals, for example the Paris agreement on climate change

73
Q

Factors affecting prejudice - personality

A

The authoritarian personality
Allports authoritarian personality
Right wing authoritarianism (RWA)
Social dominance orientation (SDO)

74
Q

The authoritarian personality

A

Adorno et al (1950) stated that strict parenting led to a personality type that is prone to display prejudice, the children would feel hostile towards their parents conditional love but displace the anger elsewhere

75
Q

Allport’s authoritarian personality

A

Allport (1954) compared the empathic, accepting orientation of people with unconditional parental love, that can think in shades of grey to those with authoritarians that think in rigid black and white. He believed that people with authoritarian personalities are not necessarily prejudiced but may be more receptive to some political arguments

76
Q

Right wing authoritarianism (RWA)

A

Altemeyer (1988) focused on three of Adornos nine authoritarian traits (authoritarian submission, aggression and conventionalism). People with RWA would hold more prejudicial views seeking security through the preserving existing social order. He states that it is a result of social learning to believe that the world is a dangerous place.

77
Q

Social dominance orientation (SDO)

A

Pratto et al (1994) developed SDO to describe people that are motivated to seek ingroup power and superiority. People with an SDO see the world as a ‘competitive jungle’ where people have to be ruthless to fight for their share of limited resources, like RWA it is a result of social learning

78
Q

Factors affecting prejudice - personality - strengths

A

Cohrs et al (2012)
Application to reducing prejudice by reducing social factors leading to the development of SDO and RWA through the greater regulation of media sources and international exchanges.

79
Q

Factors affecting prejudice - personality - weaknesses

A

RWA and SDO are not consistent over time as both interact with social factors, making prejudice harder to predict in the real world
Louis et al (2003)

80
Q

Cohrs et al (2012)

A

Found that RWA (+.48) and SDO (+.28) positively correlate with prejudice. RWA was also negatively correlated with openness to experience and SDO to experience. This shows that levels of prejudice can be accurately predicted from personality traits

81
Q

Louis et al (2003)

A

RWA and SDO do not include items which are heavily affected by social attitudes. 72% of people in their study disagreed with the statement ‘the white race is the best race’ but agreed with the exclusion of asylum seekers

82
Q

Factors affecting prejudice - situation

A

Social norms, (Minard 1952)
Competition and resource stress, (Esses (2001)

83
Q

Minard (1952)

A

Noted the difference in relations between white and black coal miners in the US. Below ground (when they identified as miners) they were friendly and worked well together, whereas above ground (when they identified as their white and black social groups) they held negative views towards eachother.

84
Q

Esses (2001)

A

Used the term resource stress to describe the problem that occurs when people believe that resources are limited, prejudice arises when an ingroup sees themselves to be in direct competition for these resources with an out group.

85
Q

Factors affecting prejudice - situation - strengths

A

Akrami et al (2009)

86
Q

Factors affecting prejudice - situation - weaknesses

A

Akrami et al (2009) also reported that personal differences had an influence on the levels of prejudice therefore prejudice being due to situational factors is an incomplete explanation

87
Q

Akrami et al (2009)

A

A Swedish study that manipulated social norms. Some participants heard a confederate express scepticism that anybody could agree with the statement ‘discrimination of women is no longer a problem in Sweden’, mean levels of sexism were significantly lower in this group than a control group that did not hear the statement

88
Q

Factors affecting prejudice - culture

A

The norm of intolerance
The norm of fairness

89
Q

The norm of intolerance

A

Baldwin (2017) states that all cultures are ethnocentric to some extent, however some cultures are more prejudiced than others. In some cultures the norm is to be more accepting of other cultures, however prejudice often exists in a more subtle way, such as donating money to homeless people but not wanting a homeless shelter built on your road. In other cultures prejudice is accepted, such as apartheid in South Africa

90
Q

The norm of fairness

A

Some cultures are more concerned with fairness than competition. Countries scoring lower on Hofstedes continuum would be more collectivist and therefore focused on sharing and cooperation

91
Q

Factors affecting prejudice - culture - strengths

A

Orpen (1971)

92
Q

Orpen (1971)

A

Noted that F-scale scores were not significantly correlated with prejudice in a group of white South African participants, however measures of social conformity and susceptibility to cultural pressure showed significant correlations with prejudice towards black South Africans. This suggests conformity to cultural norms is an important factor affecting prejudice

93
Q

Sherif et al (1954) - aims

A

Aimed to explore how intergroup competition can lead to the prejudice and discrimination of the outgroup

94
Q

Sherif et al (1954) - procedure

A

Field study with a sample of 22 middle class, protestant boys from Oklahoma, that were divided into two equal groups. The boys did not know that they were being observed.
Stage 1: group formation
Stage 2: friction
Stage 3: reducing friction

95
Q

Stage 1: group formation

A

The boys took part in non-competitive activities to bond within their group (rattlers or eagles). Activities including fire starting and tent pitching. Two eagles went home towards the end of the week due to homesickness

96
Q

Stage 2: friction

A

Each group learnt of the other groups existence. The researchers then created a tournament with prizes for the winners, creating intergroup competition

97
Q

Stage 3: reducing friction

A

Initial tasks involved increasing social contact, for example eating together, before superordinate goals were introduced, such as mending a broken water supply

98
Q

Sherif et al (1954) - findings

A

Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3

99
Q

Stage 1 findings

A

Leaders of the groups were established and differing social norms became apparent, the rattlers were tough and swore a lot whereas the eagles cried more when injured

100
Q

Stage 2 findings

A

Upon discovering each other both groups wanted to challenge the other to a baseball competition and hostilities developed. There was name calling, fights and they raided each others cabins. Ranked scales showed that more ingroup members were seen as brave, tough and friendly whereas the outgroup members were seen as sneaky. Only 6.4% of the rattlers friends were eagles and 7.5% of the eagles friends were rattlers

101
Q

Stage 3 - findings

A

Superordinate goals helped to reduce the tensions with the boys sitting with each other around the campfire on the last night. At the end 36.4% of rattlers friends were eagles and 23.2% of the eagles friends were rattlers

102
Q

Sherif et al (1954) - conclusion

A

Intergroup competition led to increased ingroup favouritism and outgroup hostility. Superordinate goals can reduce prejudice effectively

103
Q

Sherif et al (1954) - strengths

A

Application to reducing prejudice - Aronson and Bridgeman (1979)
High internal validity as the researchers carefully matched (interviews and tests) the two groups so that the differences were not due to pre-existing factors. However, two eagles went home with home sickness, messing up the matching process

104
Q

Aronson and Bridgeman (1979)

A

Used Sherif’s idea about superordinate goals to develop the jigsaw classroom, an intervention in tackling racism in US schools where students had to work together and take responsibility for a different part of a group project

105
Q

Sherif et al (1954) - weaknesses

A

Tyerman and Spencer (1983)

106
Q

Tyerman and Spencer (1983)

A

Replication of Sherif (1954) that failed to replicate the findings. Tyerman studied his sea scout troop of 30 boys, that belonged to four patrols. In their two week camp Tyerman observed that ingroup solidarity in each patrol did not increase. The patrols also interacted well throughout the camp even though they were in competition

107
Q

Burger (2009) - aim

A

To see whether Milgram’s findings were era bound and to see whether obedience was affected by gender

108
Q

Burger (2009) - procedure

A

Volunteer sample of 70 (29 men and 41 women) obtained through adverts. Followed the same procedure as Milgram experiment five (heart condition) but had ethical controls. These were: stopping the shocks at 150V to reduce distress (79% of those that reached 150V in Milgram’s study went to 450V), a two step screening process to eliminate participants that may have a negative reaction to the study, three reminders of the right to withdraw, a 15V test shock instead of 45V, immediate debriefing at the end of the study, a clinical psychologist supervised all trials. Self report questionnaires were used to measure empathic concern and desire for control

109
Q

Burger (2009) - findings

A

70% of participants reached 150V compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s baseline. No significant difference between men and women (66.7% and 72.7%). No significant difference between the empathic concern between defiant (19.25) and obedient (19.20) participants, however the defiant participants had a significantly higher desire for personal control (106.92) compared to the obedient participants (98.24).

110
Q

Burger (2009) - conclusion

A

The findings show that Milgram’s findings are not era bound and that lack of empathy does not seem to be a valid explanation for defiance yet desire for personal control is

111
Q

Burger (2009) - strengths

A

Strong internal validity - none of the participants had knowledge of Milgram’s research, participants were screened based of whether they had taken psychology classes with individuals having taken more then two being removed from the study.
The study was very strong ethically

112
Q

Burger (2009) - weaknesses

A

Poor generalisability - the sample is not representative of the target population as individuals that may have had a bad reaction were excluded, therefore the sample may be more psychologically robust than the general population.
Elms (2009) claims that the study lacks ecological validity as it is unlike real world obedience, therefore the results have no real application.

Psychology edexcel a level (6 decks)

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