Topic Evaluations

Question 1

MSM

Answer 1

not unitary - KF, Tulving
case study evidence -HM
research support - Baddeley, serial position

Question 2

LTM

Answer 2

neurological evidence - tulving scans
clinical evidence - HM, Clive Wearing
problems w clinical - lack control

Question 3

WMM

Answer 3

clinical evidence - KF
dual task performance - Baddeley
central exec - too vague, EVR

Question 4

Interference

Answer 4

validity issues - McGeoch and McDonald, no CV
limited explanation - rare conditions
real-world application - Baddeley and hitch rugby

Question 5

Retrieval Failure

Answer 5

research support - Darley et al
context effects - Baddeley, have to be very different
recall v recognition - Godden and Baddeley replicated

Question 6

Misleading Info

Answer 6

real world application - cognitive interview
low ecological validity - Foster, Yuille and Cutshall
demand characteristics - Zaragoza and McCloskey

Question 7

Anxiety

Answer 7

unusualness - pickel
research support - Christianason and Hubinette
methodological limits - limited control, manipulation

Question 8

Cognitive Interview

Answer 8

research support - meta analysis more accurate
quality not quantity - Kohnken 81 v 61
time consuming - Kebbel and Wagstaff

Question 9

Types of Conformity

Answer 9

research support - aschs study
individual difference -nAffiliators, Perrin and Spencer

Question 10

Asch

Answer 10

child of its time - Perrin and Spencer, probation
artificial - demand characteristics, trivial
limited application - gender bias Neto, culture bias
ethical issues - deceived, distress

Question 11

Zimbardo

Answer 11

demand characteristics - banauzizi and movehedi
lack of research support - reicher and halsam
real world application - abu ghraib
individual difference - Fromm

Question 12

Milgram

Answer 12

low internal validity - Orne and Holland, Perry
good external - Hofling et al 21/22
ethical issues - deceived, no protection

Question 13

Situational Variables

Answer 13

research support - bickman uniform
low internal validity - orne and holland
cross culture replication - Meeus and Raj, Smith and

Question 14

Situational Explanations

Answer 14

research support - Blass and Schmitt
limited explanation - Rank and Jacobson, milgram
culture differences - Kilham, Mantell

Question 15

Dispositional Explanation

Answer 15

research support - Milgram and Elms
limited explanation - germany, scapegoating
methodological issue, Greenstein, social desire

Question 16

Resistance to Social Influence

Answer 16

research support - Asch 5.5 Milgram 10
locus of control - Holland 37 internal 23 ex
contradictions - Twenge et al

Question 17

Minority Influence

Answer 17

research support - Moscovici, Wood et al
research support - Martin
artificial tasks - doesn’t relate such as jury

Question 18

Social Change

Answer 18

research support - Nolan et al
contradictory - DeJong, Foxcraft
barriers to social change - Bashir, stereotypes

Question 19

Behaviourist

Answer 19

well controlled - lab, broken down
real world application - phobias/gambling
environmental determinism - ignores free will
animal studies - not general and unethical

Question 20

Social Learning Theory

Answer 20

cognitive factors - not simplified
real world application - explains culture difference
rely on lab studies - contrived expected behaviour
underestimates biological - environment only, testosterone

Question 21

Cognitive Approach

Answer 21

scientific methods - reliable, as controlled
real world application - reforms in police, understanding in mental illness
machine reductionism - ignore human emotion

Question 22

Biological Approach

Answer 22

scientific methods - objective techniques, tech advances
real world application - clinical depression
biological determinism - phenotype influenced by environment, free will

Question 23

Psychodynamic Approach

Answer 23

explanatory power - influences, significant in childhood
real-world application - psychoanalysis, dream analysis
untestable concepts - unfalsifiable, unconscious level, subjective cases

Question 24

Humanistic Approach

Answer 24

not reductionist - doesn’t break, holism
positive approach - human into psych, people as good
western cultural bias - freedom and growth individualist, other cultures don’t identify

Question 25

Caregiver Infant Interactions

Answer 25

filmed observations - CV controlled, analysed later
difficult to observe - lack coordination, can’t determine
developmental importance - isabella research not replicated, feldman says robust phenomena

Question 26

Schaffers Stages

Answer 26

external validity - ordinary activities, parents so natural, no alien environment or others
asocial stage - immobile, anxiety difficult to see, reports may be inaccurate
real life application - day care in asocial and indiscriminate not specific attatchment
generalisability - considerable data all from same demographic, collectivist cultures

Question 27

Role of the Father

Answer 27

real world application - agonising decisions, reassures fathers and same sex
confusion over question - some primary, secondary, difficult to answer
conflicting evidence - longitudinal show distinct role but mccallum and golombok said same sex not different
observer bias - stereotypes of fathers, unintended conclusions

Question 28

Animal Studies

Answer 28

theoretical values - apply to real life, close contact, quality of attatchment in life
practical value - howe understand neglect, attatchment in zoos
ethical issues - monkeys human like, knew suffering
generalisability - imprinting in birds can’t relate, mammalian show more attatchment
questionable observation - guiton said chickens on gloves but leant to mate, lorenz said permanent

Question 29

Learning Theory

Answer 29

counter evidence (animal) - lorenz imprinted before fed, harlows study no food importance, cloth mother other milk provider
counter evidence (human) - schaffer and emerson show form attatchment to mother even though others fed, food not always main factor
other factors - research, quality associated with reciprocity and synchrony (isabella), no reason if feeding formed
social learning - new developments, hay and vespo says reach through hug or reinforce with praise, doesn’t rely on cupboard love

Question 30

Bowlbys Theory

Answer 30

internal working model - hazan and shaver, the love quiz assesses working model, positive correlation, bailey et al, 99 mothers, poor attatchment, childhood reflects
social releasers- brazelton, observed and found synchrony, observation to experiment, ignore signals, distressed and fetal position
monotropy - schaffer and emerson, multiple attachments in 27%, challenges need for one
alternative explanation - individual experience, kagan ‘temprament hypothesis’, genetically inherited traits, some more sociable/anxious, bowlby ignored, may influence attatchment type

Question 31

Types of Attatchment

Answer 31

reliable - highly controlled, several observers, 94% agreement, inter observer reliability strong, trustworthy
predictive validity - mccormick, securely attached achieve better, less bullying and better health, meaningful indicator, influence on later life
another type - main and soloman, analysed via tape, inconsistent meant insecure-disorganised, meta analysis found 15% type D
lack of ecological value - conducted in artificial setting, unfamiliar to both, may act different, don’t know if behaviour natural

Question 32

Cultural Variations

Answer 32

large sample size - high internal validity, 1990 infants and figures, reduces anomalies, simonella and jin had large comparisons, trustworthy
represent countries - not studying between variations but in countries, many rearing styles and cultures within, CVs such as location or poverty, distributions in Tokyo similar to western, rural had over representation
cultural bias - imposes test for context, imposed etic, one cultural context in another, examine in many countries, britain and america lack of affection avoidant, germany, independent

Question 33

Maternal Deprivation

Answer 33

limited explanation - confusion over types, Ritter said deprivation and privation, loss of attatchment or failure to form attatchment, orphans studied by goldfarb may be prived, long term damage not due to deprivation
flawed evidence - bowlby carried out interview, research open to bias, may have anticipated, goldfarbs children experienced trauma
critical v sensitive - prolonged separation affected if in 2 half years, koluchuva, twin boys suffered abuse from 18months to 7 years, recovered fully
research support - levy et al, seperate rats from mother had effect, gao et al, poor quality care meant psychopathy

Question 34

Romanian Orphan Studies

Answer 34

real life application - can improve conditions, understand effects of care, how to prevent effects, social workers, reduce disinhibited attatchment
few CVs - previous studies had trauma, neglect etc, difficult to detangle effects, romanian handed over by loving parents, institutional measured
lack of adult data - most recent data from early 20s, can’t answer long term effects, mental health and relationships, don’t know long term effects

Question 35

Influence of Early Attatchments

Answer 35

research support - review of evidence, attatchment predicts later and wellbeing, type of attatchments tells how strong link is, avoidant mild, disorganised mental disorder, secure attatchment advantageous
methodology - assessed retrospectively, not longitudinal, ask participants about relationship, relies on honesty, impacted by social desirability, difficult to know if child or adult attatchment assessed
reductionism - confounding variable and other explanation, mccarthy, attatchment in infancy, valid, association affected for example traumatic incident, genetically influenced