Biological Approach

Question 1

Antonova et al. (2011) full details

Answer 1

Aim: Test whether blocking acetylcholine receptors impairs spatial memory.
Method: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subjects; 20 males; scopolamine vs placebo before virtual Morris Water Maze inside fMRI; counterbalanced two weeks apart.
Findings: Scopolamine increased latency and errors, reduced hippocampal activation.
Conclusion: Acetylcholine is critical for encoding spatial memories via hippocampal circuits.
Evaluation:
- Causality & Control: High internal validity (double-blind, within-subjects).
- Validity: High internal; moderate external (virtual task); low ecological.
- Reliability: High standardization of dosing and fMRI protocols.
- Ethics: Potential side effects; screened participants; debrief.
- Reductionism vs Holism: Reductionist focus on one neurotransmitter.
- Generalizability: Limited to young adult males.

Question 2

Antonova et al. (2011) aim?

Answer 2

Test whether blocking acetylcholine receptors impairs spatial memory.

Question 3

Antonova et al. (2011) Method?

Answer 3

Double-blind procedure, placebo-controlled, within-subjects, 20 males, scopolamine vs placebos before virtual Morris Water Maze inside fMRI, counterbalanced two weeks

Question 4

Antonova et al. (2011) findings?

Answer 4

Scopolamine increased latency and errors, reduced hippocampal activation.

Question 5

Antonova et al. (2011) conclusion?

Answer 5

Acetylcholine is critical for encoding spatial memories via hippocampal circuits.

Question 6

Antonova et al. (2011) evaluation?

Answer 6

• Causality & Control: High internal validity (double-blind, within-subjects).
• Validity: High internal; moderate external (virtual task); low ecological.
• Reliability: High standardization of dosing and fMRI protocols.
• Ethics: Potential side effects; screened participants; debrief.
• Reductionism vs Holism: Reductionist focus on one neurotransmitter.
• Generalizability: Limited to young adult males.

Question 7

Maguire et al. (2000) full?

Answer 7

Aim: Test whether long-term spatial navigation affects hippocampal anatomy.
Method: Quasi-experiment. MRI scans of 16 male London taxi drivers (mean 14 years’ experience) vs. 50 matched controls. Voxel-based morphometry measured grey matter volume.
Findings: Taxi drivers had larger posterior hippocampi (and smaller anterior hippocampi); posterior volume correlated with years on the job.
Conclusion: Spatial navigation expertise induces experience-dependent neuroplastic changes localized in the hippocampus.
Evaluation:
• Causality & Control: No random assignment; self‐selection bias.
• Validity: High ecological; good internal control for age/education; limited external (male Londoners).
• Reliability: MRI measures are standardized; correlational consistency.
• Ethics: Non-invasive; informed consent.
• Reductionism: Structural focus; doesn’t assess cognitive strategies.
• Generalizability: Specific to this population and city layout.

Question 8

Maguire et al. (2000) aim?

Answer 8

Test whether long-term spatial navigation affects hippocampal anatomy.

Question 9

Maguire et al. (2000) method?

Answer 9

Quasi-experiment. MRI scans of 16 male right-handed London taxi drivers (mean 14 years’ experience) vs. 50 matched controls. Voxel-based morphometry measured grey matter volume.

Question 10

Maguire et al. (2000) findings?

Answer 10

Taxi drivers had larger posterior hippocampi (and smaller anterior hippocampi); posterior volume correlated with years on the job.

Question 11

Maguire et al. (2000) conclusion?

Answer 11

Spatial navigation expertise induces experience-dependent neuroplastic changes localized in the hippocampus.

Question 12

Maguire et al. (2000) evaluation?

Answer 12

• Causality & Control: No random assignment; self‐selection bias.
• Validity: High ecological; good internal control for age/education; limited external (male Londoners).
• Reliability: MRI measures are standardized; correlational consistency.
• Ethics: Non-invasive; informed consent.
• Reductionism: Structural focus; doesn’t assess cognitive strategies.
• Generalizability: Specific to this population and city layout.

Question 13

Zhou et al. (2014) full?

Answer 13

Aim: Examine whether ANDrostadienone (AND) acts as a human pheromone affecting women’s mood.
Method: Repeated-measures, double-blind. 50 heterosexual women exposed to AND, vanillin, or no odor; mood questionnaires and skin conductance recorded.
Findings: AND increased positive mood and physiological arousal near ovulation.
Conclusion: AND may function as a pheromone influencing mood hormonally.
Evaluation:
• Causality & Control: Good internal validity; double-blind.
• Validity: High internal; low ecological; artificial lab odor.
• Reliability: Repeated measures; precise dosing.
• Ethics: Informed consent; minimal risk.
• Reductionism vs Holism: Chemical focus; ignores cognitive factors.
• Generalizability: Specific to heterosexual women; hormonal timing matters.

Question 14

Zhou et al. (2014) aim?

Answer 14

Examine whether ANDrostadienone (AND) acts as a human pheromone affecting women’s mood.

Question 15

Zhou et al. (2014) method?

Answer 15

Repeated-measures, double-blind. 50 heterosexual women exposed to AND, vanillin, or no odor; mood questionnaires and skin conductance recorded.

Question 16

Zhou et al. (2014) findings?

Answer 16

AND increased positive mood and physiological arousal near ovulation.

Question 17

Zhou et al. (2014) conclusion?

Answer 17

AND increased positive mood and physiological arousal near ovulation.

Question 18

Zhou et al. (2014) evaluation?

Answer 18

• Causality & Control: Good internal validity; double-blind.
• Validity: High internal; low ecological; artificial lab odor.
• Reliability: Repeated measures; precise dosing.
• Ethics: Informed consent; minimal risk.
• Reductionism vs Holism: Chemical focus; ignores cognitive factors.
• Generalizability: Specific to heterosexual women; hormonal timing matters.

Question 19

Baumgartner et al. (2008) full?

Answer 19

Aim: Test whether oxytocin increases trust after betrayal.
Method: Double-blind, placebo-controlled. 49 participants received intranasal oxytocin or placebo, then played a trust game during fMRI scanning.
Findings: Oxytocin group invested more after betrayal; showed reduced amygdala activation.
Conclusion: Oxytocin modulates fear circuitry to promote social trust.
Evaluation:
• Causality & Control: High internal validity (double-blind, placebo).
• Validity: High internal; low ecological; lab game context.
• Reliability: Standard dosing; fMRI protocols.
• Ethics: Consent; debrief emotional manipulation.
• Reductionism vs Holism: Neurochemical focus; social context minimal.
• Generalizability: Cultural differences in trust exist.

Question 20

Baumgartner et al. (2008) method?

Answer 20

Double-blind, placebo-controlled. 49 participants received intranasal oxytocin or placebo, then played a trust game during fMRI scanning.

Question 21

Baumgartner et al. (2008) findings?

Answer 21

Oxytocin group invested more after betrayal; showed reduced amygdala activation.

Question 22

Baumgartner et al. (2008) aim?

Answer 22

Test whether oxytocin increases trust after betrayal.

Question 23

Baumgartner et al. (2008) conclusion?

Answer 23

Oxytocin modulates fear circuitry to promote social trust.

Question 24

Baumgartner et al. (2008) evaluation?

Answer 24

• Causality & Control: High internal validity (double-blind, placebo).
• Validity: High internal; low ecological; lab game context.
• Reliability: Standard dosing; fMRI protocols.
• Ethics: Consent; debrief emotional manipulation.
• Reductionism vs Holism: Neurochemical focus; social context minimal.
• Generalizability: Cultural differences in trust exist.

Question 25

Udry et al. (1985) full?

Answer 25

Aim: Investigate how rising testosterone during puberty relates to adolescent risk behaviors. Method: Longitudinal correlational study. Adolescent males (ages 12–17) provided salivary testosterone samples and self-reports of delinquency over three years. Findings: Higher testosterone predicted increases in delinquency and social dominance behaviors, controlling for age. Conclusion: Pubertal hormones play a causal role in adolescent risk-taking and status behaviors. Evaluation: • Causality & Control: Correlational; longitudinal aids causality inference. • Validity: Good internal; self-reports bias; moderate external and ecological. • Reliability: Reliable assays; subjective measures less so. • Ethics: Non-invasive; parental consent. • Reductionism vs Holism: Focus on biology; overlooks peer and family influences. • Generalizability: Limited to male adolescents in that culture.

Question 26

Udry et al. (1985) aim?

Answer 26

Investigate how rising testosterone during puberty relates to adolescent risk behaviors.

Question 27

Udry et al. (1985) Method?

Answer 27

Longitudinal correlational study. Adolescent males (ages 12–17) provided salivary testosterone samples and self-reports of delinquency over three years.

Question 28

Udry et al. (1985) findings?

Answer 28

Higher testosterone predicted increases in delinquency and social dominance behaviors, controlling for age.

Question 29

Udry et al. (1985) conclusion?

Answer 29

Pubertal hormones play a causal role in adolescent risk-taking and status behaviors.

Question 30

Udry et al. (1985) evaluation?

Answer 30

• Causality & Control: Correlational; longitudinal aids causality inference. • Validity: Good internal; self-reports bias; moderate external and ecological. • Reliability: Reliable assays; subjective measures less so. • Ethics: Non-invasive; parental consent. • Reductionism vs Holism: Focus on biology; overlooks peer and family influences. • Generalizability: Limited to male adolescents in that culture.

Question 31

Clarke & Hatfield (1989) full?

Answer 31

Aim: Examine gender differences in sexual permissiveness consistent with evolutionary theory. Method: Field experiment on campus. Confederate men and women approached strangers with three requests: date, apartment, or sex. Findings: ~50% of both genders accepted a date; ~75% of men vs 0% of women accepted sex. Conclusion: Supports parental investment theory: men favor short-term mating; women are more selective. Evaluation: • Causality & Control: Naturalistic; low control of confounds. • Validity: High ecological; low internal; context-specific. • Reliability: Difficult to replicate identically. • Ethics: Post-hoc consent; potential discomfort; debriefing essential. • Reductionism vs Holism: Evolutionary reductionism; ignores social influences. • Generalizability: Student sample; cultural variation.

Question 32

Clarke & Hatfield (1989) aim?

Answer 32

Examine gender differences in sexual permissiveness consistent with evolutionary theory.

Question 33

Clarke & Hatfield (1989) method?

Answer 33

Field experiment on campus. Confederate men and women approached strangers with three requests: date, apartment, or sex.

Question 34

Clarke & Hatfield (1989) findings?

Answer 34

~50% of both genders accepted a date; ~75% of men vs 0% of women accepted sex.

Question 35

Clarke & Hatfield (1989) conclusion?

Answer 35

Supports parental investment theory: men favor short-term mating; women are more selective.

Question 36

Clarke & Hatfield (1989) evaluation?

Answer 36

• Causality & Control: Naturalistic; low control of confounds. • Validity: High ecological; low internal; context-specific. • Reliability: Difficult to replicate identically. • Ethics: Post-hoc consent; potential discomfort; debriefing essential. • Reductionism vs Holism: Evolutionary reductionism; ignores social influences. • Generalizability: Student sample; cultural variation.

Question 37

Minnesota Twin Study (Bouchard et al., 1990)

Answer 37

Aim: Estimate heritability of IQ via monozygotic twins reared apart (MZA) vs together (MZT). Method: Correlational twin design. 56 MZA and 54 MZT pairs, standardized IQ tests, background surveys. Findings: MZAIQ correlation ~0.75; MZTIQ ~0.85; heritability ~70%. Conclusion: Genetic factors strongly influence intelligence. Evaluation: • Causality & Control: Correlational; twin design controls genes but adoption context can introduce bias. • Validity: High internal; IQ cultural bias; moderate ecological. • Reliability: Standardized testing. • Ethics: Consent; potential psychological impact of genetic feedback. • Reductionism vs Holism: Genetic focus; overlooks socio-economic factors. • Generalizability: Limited MZA sample; adoption practices vary.

Question 38

Minnesota Twin Study aim?

Answer 38

Estimate heritability of IQ via monozygotic twins reared apart (MZA) vs together (MZT).

Question 39

Minnesota Twin Study method?

Answer 39

(Twin studies) Correlational twin design. 56 MZA and 54 MZT pairs, standardized IQ tests, background surveys.

Question 40

Minnesota Twin Study findings?

Answer 40

MZAIQ correlation ~0.75; MZTIQ ~0.85; heritability ~70%.

Question 41

Minnesota Twin Study conclusion?

Answer 41

Genetic factors strongly influence intelligence.

Question 42

Minnesota Twin Study evaluation?

Answer 42

• Causality & Control: Correlational; twin design controls genes but adoption context can introduce bias. • Validity: High internal; IQ cultural bias; moderate ecological. • Reliability: Standardized testing. • Ethics: Consent; potential psychological impact of genetic feedback. • Reductionism vs Holism: Genetic focus; overlooks socio-economic factors. • Generalizability: Limited MZA sample; adoption practices vary.

Question 43

Caspi et al. (2003) full?

Answer 43

Aim: Test gene–environment interaction in depression via 5-HTT serotonin transporter. Method: Longitudinal cohort of 847 New Zealanders from birth to age 26. Genotyped for s- vs. l-allele of 5-HTT; self-reported stressful life events; clinical interviews for depression. Findings: s-allele carriers showed more depressive symptoms after stress; no allele difference without high stress. Conclusion: Diathesis–stress interaction: genetic vulnerability (s-allele) moderates response to environmental stressors. Evaluation: • Causality & Control: Correlational; longitudinal strengthens temporal inference. • Validity: Good internal; self-report bias; high external and ecological. • Reliability: Reliable genotyping; stress diaries less so. • Ethics: Genetic confidentiality; informed consent. • Reductionism vs Holism: Integrates genetics and environment. • Generalizability: Good for similar populations; allele frequencies vary culturally

Question 44

Caspi et al. (2003) aim?

Answer 44

Test gene–environment interaction in depression via 5-HTT serotonin transporter.

Question 45

Caspi et al. (2003) method?

Answer 45

Longitudinal cohort of 847 New Zealanders from birth to age 26. Genotyped for s- vs. l-allele of 5-HTT; self-reported stressful life events; clinical interviews for depression.

Question 46

Caspi et al. (2003) findings?

Answer 46

s-allele carriers showed more depressive symptoms after stress; no allele difference without high stress.

Question 47

Caspi et al. (2003) conclusion?

Answer 47

Diathesis–stress interaction: genetic vulnerability (s-allele) moderates response to environmental stressors.

Question 48

Caspi et al. (2003) evaluation?

Answer 48

• Causality & Control: Correlational; longitudinal strengthens temporal inference. • Validity: Good internal; self-report bias; high external and ecological. • Reliability: Reliable genotyping; stress diaries less so. • Ethics: Genetic confidentiality; informed consent. • Reductionism vs Holism: Integrates genetics and environment. • Generalizability: Good for similar populations; allele frequencies vary culturally

Question 49

Martinez & Kesner (1991) full?

Answer 49

Aim: Determine acetylcholine’s role in memory consolidation in rats. Method: Lab experiment. Three rat groups injected post-training with scopolamine (ACh antagonist), physostigmine (ACh agonist), or saline. All ran a T-maze for food; time and errors recorded. Findings: Antagonist group was slower with more errors; agonist group learned fastest with fewest errors. Conclusion: Acetylcholine facilitates memory consolidation in the hippocampus. Evaluation: • Causality & Control: High internal validity (controlled dosages and maze conditions). • Validity: Good internal; low ecological; limited human generalizability. • Reliability: High—standardized protocols. • Ethics: Animal welfare considerations; must follow 3Rs. • Reductionism: Focus on one neurotransmitter. • Generalizability: Rodent model to human inference.

Question 50

Martinez & Kesner (1991) aim?

Answer 50

Determine acetylcholine’s role in memory consolidation in rats.

Question 51

Martinez & Kesner (1991) method?

Answer 51

Lab experiment. Three rat groups injected post-training with scopolamine (ACh antagonist), physostigmine (ACh agonist), or saline. All ran a T-maze for food; time and errors recorded.

Question 52

Martinez & Kesner (1991) findings?

Answer 52

Antagonist group was slower with more errors; agonist group learned fastest with fewest errors.

Question 53

Martinez & Kesner (1991) conclusion?

Answer 53

Acetylcholine facilitates memory consolidation in the hippocampus.

Question 54

Martinez & Kesner (1991) evaluation?

Answer 54

• Causality & Control: High internal validity (controlled dosages and maze conditions). • Validity: Good internal; low ecological; limited human generalizability. • Reliability: High—standardized protocols. • Ethics: Animal welfare considerations; must follow 3Rs. • Reductionism: Focus on one neurotransmitter. • Generalizability: Rodent model to human inference.

Question 55

HM Case Study (Scoville & Milner, 1966) full?

Answer 55

Aim: Examine the effects of bilateral hippocampal removal on memory. Method: Single-case. Patient H.M. underwent bilateral medial temporal lobe resection to treat epilepsy. Neuropsychological tests (e.g., digit span, mirror-drawing) and observational follow-ups over decades. Findings: Severe anterograde amnesia (no new declarative memories); intact short-term and procedural memory. Conclusion: Hippocampus is essential for consolidating declarative memories; procedural and working memory rely on other brain structures. Evaluation: • Causality & Control: Strong inference from lesion; no control group; confound of surrounding tissue removal. • Validity: High construct validity; low external (single case); high ecological (real-life observations). • Reliability: Limited by n=1 but consistent over time. • Ethics: Retrospective consent issues; H.M. later consented to ongoing study. • Reductionism: Lesion approach supports distinct memory systems. • Generalizability: Foundational but based on one individual.

Question 56

HM Case Study (Scoville & Milner, 1966) aim?

Answer 56

Examine the effects of bilateral hippocampal removal on memory.

Question 57

HM Case Study (Scoville & Milner, 1966) method?

Answer 57

(Case study) Single-case. Patient H.M. underwent bilateral medial temporal lobe resection to treat epilepsy. Neuropsychological tests (e.g., digit span, mirror-drawing) and observational follow-ups over decades.

Question 58

HM Case Study (Scoville & Milner, 1966) findings?

Answer 58

Severe anterograde amnesia (no new declarative memories); intact short-term and procedural memory.

Question 59

HM Case Study (Scoville & Milner, 1966) conclusion?

Answer 59

Hippocampus is essential for consolidating declarative memories; procedural and working memory rely on other brain structures.

Question 60

HM Case Study (Scoville & Milner, 1966) evaluation?

Answer 60

Evaluation: • Causality & Control: Strong inference from lesion; no control group; confound of surrounding tissue removal. • Validity: High construct validity; low external (single case); high ecological (real-life observations). • Reliability: Limited by n=1 but consistent over time. • Ethics: Retrospective consent issues; H.M. later consented to ongoing study. • Reductionism: Lesion approach supports distinct memory systems. • Generalizability: Foundational but based on one individual.

Question 61

Localisation of function?

Answer 61

Specific brain areas specialize in certain functions (e.g., hippocampus for spatial memory in Maguire; language in Broca’s area)

Question 62

Neuroplasticity

Answer 62

The brain’s ability to reorganize its structure and function in response to learning or injury (e.g., Maguire’s taxi drivers).

Question 63

Reuptake

Answer 63

Process where neurotransmitters are reabsorbed by presynaptic neuron, terminating the signal (e.g., 5-HTT in serotonin transport).

Question 64

Excitatory / Inhibitory Neurotransmitter

Answer 64

• Excitatory: Increases likelihood of postsynaptic firing (e.g., acetylcholine). • Inhibitory: Decreases likelihood (e.g., GABA).

Question 65

Agonist / Antagonist

Answer 65

• Agonist: Mimics or enhances a neurotransmitter (e.g., physostigmine is an ACh agonist). • Antagonist: Blocks neurotransmitter action (e.g., scopolamine is an ACh antagonist).