Flashcards in Final Exam History of Psych 14' Deck (10):
Is psychology a science?
Partially depend on determinism (idea that everything happens according to laws and rules. If we knew those laws and rules we could predict everything that is about to happen) can't di that in psych
Partially depends on determinism
What is determinism? Can be determined
Alternatives to determinism
Indeterminism and the idea of reflexivity : there are rules but were not smart enough to figure it out
Partially depends on using naturalistic explanations
IV. Is psychology a science?
1. What is determinism?
Psychology is NOT a science because we can't make predictions about what we will do,think, or say
2. Alternatives to determinism
A. Randomness: just happens can't predict it!
P value: chance
P=.05 5% of the time chance will influence results
B. Free will, not science
C. Indeterminism and the idea of reflexivity (Complex)
Molecules and chemicals are simpler
Can't predict people because humans can not explain humans
2. Partially depends on using naturalistic explanations
Not supernatural! People are not mentally ill because of the devil
Catholic Church: rare but exorcisms are still performed
Naturalistic is a more SCIENTIFIC perspective
Neuroscience is the most popular: naturalistic and observes chemicals
3. A problem for psychology- The " Black Box" issue
You can take a watch a party but not your mind. Don't know what's going on inside. Can't look inside mind to figure it out because that would involve killing you!
Behaviorism: nothing inside you influence you
Nobody believes that!
Different versions of psych have different answers for what's inside the black box
Neuroscience is so popular because they think it answers what is inside the black box
Is there a mind (or a soul) separate from the body
Religious: mind stops but you still have a soul
1. Monism: only one thing, no! There is not a separate mind and body
Materialism: all we have is a body, if you believe in materialism most believe it is the body (Neuroscience)
Idealism: idea that there is no physical world...all you have is your mind! Were part of Gods dream
2. Dualism: both! Mind and body, how do the mind and the body influence each other?
a. Interactionism:each influence each other
b. Epiphenomenalism: body influences your mind, mind is like a biproduct of your body. We think but our thinking does not make our body move. Our brain does the processing. Not our mind but our brain
c. Parallelism: don't influence each other, two trains on parallel tracks
What you do as a psychologist is effected by what you believe?
Materialism: prescribe drugs, physical imbalance
Psych major (want to do therapy) is Interactionism. Believe talk effects brain
Psychiatrist: drugs change brain chemistry but still talking to then will help (Interactionism)
Why wouldn't psychologists believe in Epiphenomenalism? Because that would,d mean that they believe talking won't fix it!
epending on what you believe you will study and explain differently
Nativists: study babies.
Empiricists: don't study babies! They have experience. Spend a lot if time talking about how environment effect it (psych of learning)
rationalists: study those capable of logical thinking, not babies. Cognitive psychology (thinking)
C. Do we have conscious control of our life?
1. Yes, believe in free will
2. No, believe in determinism
Three things make you do what you do
b. Our brain (neuroscience)...our neurons make us do what we do
c. Our unconscious mind (Freud) Freudian slip: unconscious mind make you say it!
D. Are people basically rational or irrational
Logical vs. Emotional
Freud: inborn drives
Ellis: rational emotive therapy (people's problems Re because they arnt thinking logically so you argue and talk with them to help them think logically) NOT ON TEST
E. How are humans related to other animals?
If you believe humans are similar to animals then you believe animals are great examples and can be used for studies
Others believe humans are different from animals
F. Are humans inherently good, bad, or neither?
Inherently good: humanistic, environmental and society make them bad
Almost none believes this
Inherently bad: psychoanalytic, freud and drive (sex, hurt people, and staying alive)
Neither: behaviorists, people turn out the way they are because of punishments and reinforcements
Clay, environment molds you into something else
Neuroscience, people are nothing but bags of chemicals
B. How do we acquire knowledge of the world?
1. Nativism: born in (born with knowledge, comes to us)
Most psychologists believe babies come in knowing stuff. Some even believe that we are born with morals
Knowledge of physics, knowledge if morality
Because of evolution!
Know what a dog is: born with it
2.Rationalism: knowledge from logical thinking
Know what dog is: sat and thought about it
3. Empiricism: knowledge comes from your senses
Know what a dog is: see it, felt it, smelt it
what year did Wilhelm Wundt found psychology?
How social factors effect psychology?
Social and cultural
15 years ago about, the congress voted unanimously to censor a valid study so that it would never be reported...whether there were any negative effects of sex between teens and adults (relationships) results showed: nothing, neutral long term effects..either neutral or positive younger guys with older women
Congress voted to cut funding fir political science, somebody in congress introduced legislation to cut funding on how to prevent drug abuse the reason why he introduced it was cause he was religious and believed only reason people do it is free will...social influences on what is funded and researched
Governor if Florida, should no longer offer anthropology majors because it is not important
People have said the same about Psychology! They are trying to do that..a movement to on,y have psych at a few schools..reflects social necessities! Not just beliefs and experiments affected but our majors!
1. Religious Freedom
Religion is really behavior modification
Focus on bottom line:
Money is the bottom line.
Focus on practical questions
"How can I get people to buy things?"
Focus on individual differences
Ex: Better worker
Background of behaviorism
1. Descartes: "I think therefor I am"explained things in terms of mechanical things. Don't need to bring in thinking to explain what most people do.
2. Associationism and Empiricism: review in past notes!
3. Positivism: far away from positive psychology. An approach to science not allowed to use any words that refer to things you can't observe. Can't talk about anybody's mind.
B. Scientific Background
When behaviorism started, psych had been around awhile. Behaviorism sprouted from psychology, functionalism specifically. Functionalists studied animals. Habits were a topic of discussion at this time too.
Force of habit doesn't involve thinking
A lot of what you do doesn't involve thinking
Behaviorism went the last step. They tried to cut thinking out of the picture.
You never need to use thinking to explain what you do.
Thorndike: He wasn't a behaviorist, not quite.
Cats in puzzle box
law of effect and exercise: reinforcement increases the behavior that is Winifred
Still talked about mind: the animal "likes" it
More often you do something the stronger the learning
Pavlov: Technically he wasn't a behaviorist because there was no behaviorism because it didn't exist then
Classical conditioning of dogs digestive system
Dislike for mentalistic explanations: no where did it talk about the feelings or thoughts of the dog. No thought involved
Bekhterev: lot believe he should be credited not Pavlov because he studied classical conditioning movements
Eye blink, knee jerk
Can you rally use simple parts to explain larger things
Got to bring it to complicated movements but so far all we have our simple reflexes and drooling of dogs, and explain them without thinking.....
Twitmyer: Classical conditioning in humans
It should be him who's credited!
He dud something important but faded away
Still he was focusing on knee jerks and such
Still stuck with the idea that we need to expland to complicated things
Loeb: Tropisms: complicated reflex
Roaches going for dark spot when light is turned on
It is a reflex! Doesn't think about it.
Kuo: Did research to try to prove that instincts do not exist
Raised kittens with newborn mice
Some were raised with cat mother
Cats enough,d have to learn to attack mice from their mother but what if it was an instinct.
Even some of the cats raised with mice attacked mice.
Basic ideas behind behaviorism
A. Psychology is a science, not Humanities
B. What topic should psychology study? Same as now!
Called it by a different name
Example: Journal of memory and language
Back then it was termed Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior
Same thing but behaviorists couldn't use the words memory and language, same stuff though!
The way you act is the way you are! Token economies changed their environment and stopped
c. Methods of behaviorism:
Participants: anyone! Animal or human
Collect data: used mazes
T maze or any mazes
Started using operant chambers
Pavlov raised his children in operant box!
Humans: paired associate learning
List of pairs of nonsense syllables, stimulus and respond with pair
No Skinner box or maze but test with pair associate
Explaining findings: association, reinforcement, logical positivism
Logical positivism: you can use abstract term as long as it's connected to something
Connect using operational definitions: opperationism
No mental terms (mostly)
Gestalt psychology: basic principles
1.Holism: " whole is more than the sum of the parts"
Emergent properties: combine parts together as a whole new properties emerge
The whole determines the nature of the parts
Everything is meaningless and vague until it's been put in a situation
Top down processing.
2.Isomorphim: structural similarity
Electrical activity in brain and conscious experience
One line quickly changes to another slide with the line lower you think you see it move
Neurons in brain fire, takes time
Generating really complicated electrical field
ii. Brain is important not indeed (epiphenomenalism)
We do think but what we think is coletly run by our brain, it is a byproduct. Brain makes us think what we do
iii. Environment forces brain to react in a certain way (Determinism)
Neuro view of psych, no free will mind is reflection if brain
3. relationships between parts are important, not the parts themselves
Shown to babies, they cry!
Relationship that counts not parts
4. Closure: not just relationships but pretty much anything
Oh yeah! I get it!
Final puzzle piece
Neurons in brain not being able to bridge gap
When monkeys were given a picture if a circle with a gap, they always complete it!
5. Other principles
Figure ground proximity continuity
II. Important individuals
1. Founder of Gestalt Psychology
2. Phi phenomenon
1. Insight learning
Flash of insight: spark, aha all of the sudden I get it!
Monkey put in room with hanging bananas, sits down and then gets up to stack boxes so they could get it. Not because they thought about it but because the things in your environment forced them to get up. Have conscious experience but not from your thinking but because brain worked it out.
Black paper vs gray paper, learned to peck black for corn
Never rewarded for gray
Presented with gray and white, they peck on gray (darker)
what counts is relationship (darker one) not parts (black paper)
Fact relative to other facts
1. Child development
Comparison of cognitive and behaviorism
Only record observable behaviors
Behaviorism: stimulus and response
2. Importance of the environment versus the organism
Cognitive: emphasis on organism
3. Importance of mental processes
Cognitive: emphasis on though processes
Behaviorism: doesn't! Except Tolman
4. Importance and interpretation of animal research
Cognitive: learning about people need to study people
But they do believe animals think like people
Behaviorism: everything you learn about humans through animal research
Person is a big rat
5. Disappearance of reinforcement
Why did psych move to cognitive?
Reasons for the cognitive revolution
A. Death of logical positivism
B. Empirical problems with behaviorism
1. Biological constraints on animal learning
A. Garcia: taste aversion
Rats are biologically different than humans
B. The Brelands
Animal trainers tried to train animals but animals reverted to instinctive behavior
Raccoon didn't out quarter into bank but made a washed movement
Want to learn how humans learn, study humans
Not saying you can't do it on oeople just saying you shouldn't use rats to study people
2. The Role of consciousness in human learning
Role of consciousness: whether human beings need to be consciously aware of what's going on or being done to them to learn
Behaviorists don't believe that it's necessary.
A. Classical conditioning
Experimenter told the participant to just talk, reinforced with aha when saying a plural noun
Have to prove participants didn't know what was being manipulated
All said no, but even though they didn't know it worked (looks good for behaviorism, behavior can change even when you have no clue what your doing)
65 of 75 participants were recorded
He threw out the data of those who knew! Considered them outliers
He was very specific on what had to be says to be considered them being conscious of what was being manipulated
If you're a smart researcher you can get significant results because you've managed to come up with the right participants, right statistic, right method to get what you want
C. Computers were invented
Argue that something like programs are inside of you (cognitive)
Reinforcing doesn't have a role in computers (not behaviorism)
Computers do a lot if what people do
Can program them to build, drive, and talk
D. The "New Look" in perception
Bruner: curse word takes longer to press because it's a bad word
When your looking at a word you aren't just pressing, you are also thinking about them too!
Thinking about it unconsciously! Slows down response
Don't just respond, you think about it too!
Argument for cognitive but behaviorists can explain these results saying that participants had been punished for cursing
E. Problems with behaviorist explanations of language
Chompsky: reviewed skinners book and tore it apart, convinced behaviorism is wrong