Flashcards in Review of Studies Deck (133):
What were the Aims of Baddeley's study?
To Investigate the influence of acoustic + semantic word similarity, on learning and recall in the LTM
How many lab experiments did Baddeley conduct in his 1966 study?
Three different lab experiments were conducted
(we focus on Experiment Three)
How many participants were there in Baddeley's study, and what levels of the IV were there?
72 participants - 15-20 ppts for each word list
The 4 Lists of 10 Words:
List A: Acoustically Similar
List B: Acoustically Dissimilar
List C: Semantically Similar
List D: Semantically Dissimilar
(Lists B + D were baseline control groups for Lists A + C respectively)
What was the Procedure of Baddeley's study?
The words were presented via projector
They were projected One Word Every Three Seconds
They did an interference test to block out their usage of the STM
They were asked to recall the words within a minute, in the correct order
They received a list of all the words, as this was a test of memory, and not learning the words.
They repeated this over 4 learning trials.
15 minute interference task
They copied down 6 lots of 8 digit sequences at their own pace
This was to block out Rehearsal
After this, they were given a surprise retest
What were the Findings of Baddeley's study?
Recall of Acoustically Similar was Worse than Acoustically Dissimilar
These results, however, were not significant
At first, the acoustically dissimilar group did better than the similar group, but then the acoustically similar got better until they exceeded the control's performance in the surprise retest.
This demonstrates that Acoustic Encoding is Initially Difficult (and affects STM recall), but didn’t affect LTM recall
Recall of Semantically Similar Words was Worse than Semantically Dissimilar
These results were significant
What did Baddeley conclude in his study?
The STM is Largely Acoustic
The LTM is Largely (but Not Exclusively) Semantic
What were the strengths of Baddeley's 1966 study?
Internal Validity: Lab Experiment
Internal Validity: Control Group
Reliability: Standardised Procedure
What were the weaknesses of Baddeley et al's 1966 study?
Ecological Validity: Lab Experiment
Ecological Validity/ Mundane Realism: Unnatural Behaviour
^^ Therefore, Generalisability is Questioned
Ethics: Participants weren’t informed about the surprise retest
What were the Ethics surrounding Baddeley's (1966b) study?
Baddeley is a well-known psychologist who had previously conducted many studies into memory and cognition and therefore he was competent to conduct the study to investigate what type of encoding LTM has and so the study was ethical.
No informed consent was gained as the pps were told exactly what the study is going to be about so the encoding of the LTM.
But this was done to ensure no demand characteristics took place- so pps don’t on purpose try to focus on certain words.
What were the Practical Issues surrounding Baddeley's study?
There was a high level of control in this study where each word was shown on a projector for only 3 seconds so it can be deduced there is a strong C and E between words and LTM encoding.
Since a lab experiment was used the whole atmosphere was artificial and the tasks given so looking at each word and trying to remember it lacks mundane realism and is not ecologically valid.
How did Badddeley's study surround Reductionism?
This study simplified the complex nature of encoding into list of words that were either acoustically of semantically similar or dissimilar but in real life most sentences consider both types of encoding and so LTM in real may use different kind of encoding not just semantic and so the study is reductionist. It was important to simplify the type of encoding to study the LTM and so word lists were the only way to investigate this. and scientific as the effect of one variable on another can be examined
How did Baddeley's study regard Comparisons of Explanations?
The study revealed that MSM was an accurate theory as LTM was found to have a different type of encoding to STM (semantic as opposed to phonetic).
However it does not account for other theoretical explanations of memory, such as reconstructive memory that argues memory is an imaginative reconstruction of events.
How did Baddeley's study regard Psychology as a Science?
This was lab experiment which had a high level of control so each word only shown for 3 seconds and it has a standardised procedure so is replicable and internally valid.
This study is considered to be reductionist because memory is simplified into list of words. Also, as a result of being scientific, the study lacks ecological validity and mundane realism due to the unrealistic lab environment and task.
How did Baddeley's study regard Culture + Gender?
Baddeley study used Western students who most probably were similar in social class therefore the study is ethnocentric
How did Baddeley's study regard Nature v Nurture?
Baddley’s findings suggest LTM and STM encode differently for everyone, therefore it could be deduced that genes affect encoding of memories, since it appears to be innate rather than learned.
However, Baddeley found that when rehearsal in the STM was not blocked in the first experiment, this acted as a confounding variable and improve memory. Since the amount of rehearsal someone carries out can be determined by nurture, this implies the encoding of long term memories can be affected by nurture aswell.
How did Baddeley's study regard Psychology Over Time?
Baddley’s investigation was very important in its time, as it provided convincing empirical evidence for the separation of LTM and STM and MSM was the most up to date theory of memory at the time.
Since Baddeley’s investigation, LTM has been further separated into episodic and semantic memory, and STM into the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad, showing how our understanding of memory has developed over time.
How did Baddeley's study regard Psychology in Society?
This study allowed us to identify that LTM has semantic encoding so now during a diagnosis after an accident on the brain, doctors can easily identify if memory has been lost and what kind of memory is affected depending on the type of encoding the patient is unable to do.
What was the aim of Sherif's (1956/61) study?
To investigate relations between groups:
To see whether strangers who have common goals will form a close group.
To see whether 2 groups that compete with each other will become hostile towards each other.
What was the Procedure of Stage 1 in Sherif's (1954/61) study?
For 1 week, the two groups were kept apart and allowed to form group norms + identities
Boys developed an attachment to the group throughout the first week of the camp, by doing various activities together (hiking, swimming, etc)
The boys chose names for their groups- The Eagles + The Rattlers- and stencilled them onto shirts + flags
What was the Procedure of Stage 2 in Sherif's (1954/61) study?
The boys were told about another. They went through a tournament of a series of competitions; where the winner get trophies, medals, and camping knives
The researchers recorded phrases used by the boys, and analysed if they're derogatory
A bean counting competition was included-boys had to then estimate how many each found; which was to see if they'd overestimate the in group/ underestimate the out group
What was the Procedure of Stage 3 in Sherif's (1954/61) study?
To achieve harmony within the group, the boys started doing tasks that brought them all together
Examples: Fixing a water tank, pulling a broken truck out of mud
Data was collected through the observation of the boys' friendship, an analysis of friendship, through the experiments and tape recordings.
What were the Results of Stage 1 in Sherif's (1954/61) study?
The boys bonded with their groups and both groups had a recognised leader.
They discussed the existence of the other group in negative terms e.g. ‘they had better not be in our swimming hole’.
What were the Results of Stage 2 in Sherif's (1954/61) study?
Towards the end of stage one, the groups began to become competitive and prejudice became apparent between the two groups
At first this was only verbally expressed but as the competition wore on this expression took a more direct route
The Eagles refused to sit with the Rattlers, the Eagles burned and Rattlers flag. The next day the Rattlers ransacked the Eagles cabin overturned beds and stole private property
What were the Results of Stage 3 in Sherif's (1954/61) study?
The hostility between the groups initially remained, but the problem solving problems began to reduce the hostility towards each other.
When they fixed the water tank they celebrated together, and there was cooperation by all the boys contributing the same amount to hire a film
For tasks helped to reduce friction and by the end of the stage, although friendship choices still favoured the in-groups, there was increased friendships between the groups
The Rattlers even spent a $5 prize from one of the competitions on drinks for all of the boys
What was the conclusion of Sherif's (1954/61) study?
Groups bonded and developed hierarchies within them, as expected
When the groups met in competition, in-group solidarity and cooperation increased, and hostility towards the other group was strong
Contact between the two groups was not enough to reduce hostility, and friction was reduced by the groups having to solve problems together and cooperate
What were the Strengths of Sherif's (1954/61) study?
Reliability: all boys experienced the same team-building and competitive activities in three stages – standardised
Ecological Validity: The boys behaviour was tested on summer camp at the Robbers Cave National Park, Oklahoma - natural environment
Internal Validity: The ppts were all very similar, meaning participant characteristics couldn't affect results
The covert observations mean that the researchers (initially) weren't going to affect their behaviour
What were the Weaknesses of Sherif's (1954/61) study?
Generalisability: The participants were twenty two 11 and 12 year old boys who are all athletic/sporty, and are white American Protestants
Ecological Validity: The procedure involved strangers meeting and competing, which is artificial as usually people in competition have a history of social interaction
Internal Validity: The naturalistic environment meant that the researchers couldn't really control extraneous and confounding variables
Internal Validity/Mundane Realism: Unpublished researcher notes and interviews many years later revealed that the boys were aware that behaviour was being recorded, and the researcher may have encouraged hostility between the boys by breaking down tents and blaming rival teams – demand characteristics
What are the Ethical Issues surrounding Sherif's (1954/61) study?
Protection From Harm: They were given pen knives as prizes, allowed to set fire to flags
Sherif encouraged high levels of conflict in order to gain successful study outcomes
Deception: The boys believed it was a study of leadership, rather than hostility
Where did Sherif et al's (1954/61) study take place?
Robber's Cave State Park, Oklahoma
(it occurred during the boys' summer camp)
Who created Realistic Conflict Theory, and when?
How does Sherif's (1954/61) study regard Ethics?
Arguably it is unethical since the boys who were the participants of this study were unware that they are part of a study which tested prejudice and so deception was used, however this was necessary to reduce the chances of demand characteristics in the study which would mean the results are not valid.
---It’s also true that possible psychological harm was caused to the boys who took part as the researchers tried to create conflict between the 2 groups in order to get their results to prove or disprove the idea of realist conflict theory.
---This leads to the assumption that perhaps the code of practice was broken because the researchers had to intervene to get the results which arguably breaks the integrity guideline that all psychologists must follow.
---The boys were prone to physical harm as the researchers were unaware of where this conflict may go, perhaps physical aggression could’ve arise which would’ve harmed the boys.
however although the pps were unaware of taking part in a study, the right to withdraw was still given to them as it was found 2 of the boys left the camp in the first week; this shows how the right to withdraw was exercised.
How does Sherif's (1954/61) study regard Practical Issues?
This study took place in a summer camp which is a natural environment for the American populations and so the boy’s behaviour had ecological validity.
Since only boys were used who were only 11 years old the study’s findings on prejudice cannot be generalizable to everyone.
How does Sherif's (1954/61) study regard Redctionism?
This study simplified the complex nature of prejudice into into 3 stages of group formation, competition and collaboration, where in reality these 3 factors can all be occurring simultaneously within a group and can interact to affect behaviourso the study is reductionist.
One can say this study was not reductionist because Sherif ensured to consider the psychology and sociology of a person, where the way a person thinks and how their surroundings may have influenced their behaviour.
How does Sherif's (1954/61) study regard Comparisons of Explanations?
This study explains how competition is the thing that increases prejudice between groups and that it can be reduced by a superordinate goal
But Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory explains that prejudice arises to maintain high self-esteem within the group that you identify yourself with.
How does Sherif's (1954/61) study regard Psych as a Science?
The study involved having 3 stages to this study; group formation, intergroup conflict and the integration phase. This was a standardised procedure and is replicable. In addition, the prejudice was observable which is empirical.
The study may lack internal validity since unpublished researcher notes and interviews many years later revealed the boys were aware their behaviour was being recorded and the researchers may have encouraged hostility between the boys by breaking down tents and blaming rival teams. This lack of control may have caused demand characteristics and is unscientific. (
How does Sherif's (1954/61) study regard Culture + Gender?
This study involved only using 22, 11-year-old American boys- androcentric, to study prejudice and so the findings cannot be generalizable to other societies, cultures and the female population. The sample was also all white male Protestants, therefore it was ethnocentric (biased towards Western culture).
How does Sherif's (1954/61) study regard Nature v Nurture?
This study shows how nurture has an effect because the boys that were studies were American and all showed prejudice so perhaps the way Americans are brought up has something to do with prejudice.
The boys may have some kind of biological predisposition that led them to show prejudice so nature plays a role especially as they were quite a homogenous group who may have shared genetic trends (similar in terms of gender ethnicity and social class).
How does Sherif's (1954/61) study regard Psychology Over Time?
This study led to the understanding that prejudice arises when competition is in place however further theories have developed like social identity that explain prejudice is a way of maintaining high self-esteem and not when something is to gain, this has allowed prejudice to be explained in a more holistic manner where cognitive and social factors are considered so in group and out group relations with high self-esteem.
How does Sherif's (1954/61) study regard Psychology in Society?
Now that we know competition is the main cause of prejudice, schools have adopted the jigsaw technique to ensure pupils maintain harmony within themselves.
How does Sherif's (1954/61) study regard Socially Sensitive Research?
This research was viewed as unethical since no informed consent from the boys was gained and deception was used which is bad.
However, it allowed the development of the realist conflict theory which now allows schools to maintain harmony within pupils by using jigsaw technique.
Who conducted the Little Albert experiment?
Watson and Rayner
When was the Little Albert study conducted?
What was the aim of the Little Albert study?
To investigate whether a child can be classically conditioned to fear a white rat.
What happened before the conditioning in Little Albert's experiment?
• 9 month old Albert was shown a variety of objects, including a mask, a monkey and a white rat
• He showed no fear to any, and petted the white rat
• NS = White Rat
What happened during the conditioning stage of Little Albert's experiment?
• A week after the initial showcase of objects, he was shown the same objects. When the pet rat appeared, they banged a steel bar. This made Albert scared.
• They did this four times a week
•UCS = Steel Bar UCR= Fear
What happened during the conditioning stage of Little Albert's experiment?
• A week after the initial showcase of objects, he was shown the same objects. When the pet rat appeared, they banged a steel bar. This made Albert scared.
• They did this four times a week
•UCS = Steel Bar UCR= Fear
What happened after the conditioning of Little Albert's experiment? (Results part 1)
• Albert was scared of the pet rat, and cried every time it came near
• This fear generalised to similar objects, like a Santa’s beard, a white coat + a rabbit
• CS = White Rat CR= Fear
What happened 3 months after the Little Albert experiment? (Results part 2)
• 3 months later, extinction happened with his fear of the similar objects. He was still scared of the rat.
• He was removed from the experiment before they could get rid of his phobia
What did Watson + Rayner conclude about their Little Albert study?
You can be classically conditioned to fear an object.
Generalisation + extinction occurs with conditioning.
Was the Little Albert study Internally Valid?
Lab experiment, where variables were controlled; making results internally valid
Was the Little Albert study Ecologically Valid?
Lab experiment, where things aren’t natural (aren’t presented with object and strategically give the UCS of steel bar), possibly unnatural behaviour; limiting ecological validity
Which Ethical Guidelines did the Little Albert study break?
Protection from Harm (they inflicted fear)
Right to Withdraw (a 9 month old can't discuss this)
Informed Consent (a 9 month old can't consent)
Deception (the mother said she never knew what was going on)
Debriefing (the mother took Albert away before they could debrief)
How did Watson + Rayner's (1920) study regard Ethics?
The little infant, Albert, was classically conditioned to develop fear of a white rat which was paired with a loud bang and this procedure caused him a lot of psychological harm as he developed fear of something most children would not be scarred of,
This was study was a good study to prove humans too can be classically conditioned and so then it can be used in society to help people for example to treat phobias.
Since he was just a little boy, he was unable to given full informed consent so arguably the study took place without him having the knowledge of being part of it so its unethical
However his mother did give consent which in the case of an infant should be considered.
However, she was still not explained fully about what the study was going to be about so issues with consent remain.
----The infant was not deconditioned and the mother was not debriefed which breaks many ethical guidelines so the study was unethical.
But its fair to say extinction may have occurred so Little Albert didn’t really need to be deconditioned.
Since this was the first ever human study on classical conditioning the competence of the researchers could be put into question as perhaps they didn’t really have the required knowledge to carry out this experiment.
How did Watson + Rayner's (1920) study regard Practical Issues?
It was a lab experiment where the rat was paired with the loud sound many times and then a wooden block was also shown but without the sound and so a control item was used which ensures a strong cause and effect between IV object and DV fear to established.
The infant was wrongly used to induce fear and prove classical conditioning which many not generalize to humans since only 1 small boy was used.
How did Watson + Rayner's (1920) study regard Reductionism?
This study simplified the nature of fear into a loud sound and objects like a rat and wooden blocks so basic units of learned associations which is reductionist as fear is a complex behaviour and many factors like cognition are involved.
To investigate behaviours like fear it’s important to look at only one factor to make investigation easyand scientific as the effect of one variable on another can be examined
How did Watson + Rayner's (1920) study regard Comparison of Explanations?
The study shows how behaviour can be learnt by associating a stimulus with another with leads to certain behaviours being executed
But operant conditioning is another theory that explains behaviour can be learnt by the idea of reward and punishment so Skinner’s box study.
How did Watson + Rayner's (1920) study regard Psychology as a Science?
The study involved gathering empirical data where Albert’s fear was evident to the white rat as he started crying and so study was scientific.
Study was in a lab like settings where Little Albert was conditioned to develop fear which is not like real life behaviour and so study is not ecologically valid.
How did Watson + Rayner's (1920) study regard Culture + Gender Issues?
A young white male was used so the study cannot generalize to everyone- females. Androcentric
How did Watson + Rayner's (1920) study regard Nature v Nurture?
This study shows how behaviour can be developed by the way someone is nurtured, so little Albert was nurtured to develop fear by having seen a white rat with the loud sound.
However, the UCS that Albert showed (fear of the loud noise) is an example of nature influencing behaviour, since this responses was an innate reflexes that he was born with and did not learn (this applies to all UCS)
How did Watson + Rayner's (1920) study regard Psychology Over Time?
This study allowed us to identify that humans can be conditioned and so led to development of treatments for phobias like systematic desensitisation.
How did Watson + Rayner's (1920) study regard Psychology in Society?
This led to the development of treatments for phobias which has benefited the society.
How did Watson + Rayner's (1920) study regard Socially Sensitive Research?
It is socially sensitive because the infant was deliberately caused distress where he had to hear the loud sound he was afraid of many times so this study is unethical.
But it is also true that Albert’s mother had given consent so arguably it wasn’t unethical.
What was the aim of Raine et al's study?
1. To see if participants pleading 'Not Guilty By Insanity' (NGRI) would show brain dysfunctions in areas of the brain associated with violence
- Namely, these were the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus + corpus callosum
2. To see if the findings of studies linking brain structure to aggression in animals could be generalised to humans.
When did Raine's Experiment happen?
What was the Raine et al's Sample?
2 groups of 41 participants
39 males, 2 females
Who were the Participants in the Experimental Group for Raine et al?
41 criminals convicted of murder or manslaughter were tested to support evidence of the NGRI claim.
(Including, but not limited to)
- 6 had schizophrenia
- 23 suffered organic brain damage/ brain activity
- 3 were substance abusers
- 2 had epilepsy
All participants remained medication free 2 weeks prior to the PET Scans
Who were the Participants in the Control Group for Raine et al?
- They were matched with the experimental group based on age + gender
- None of them had any criminal history or mental disorders ( apart from 6 schizophrenic controls)
- Consent was gained from all participants before the PET Scan was administered
The murderers were never matched to their specific controls, the two groups just existed
What was the Procedure for Raine et al's study?
- Participants were given a continuous performance task (CPT), consisting of a sequence of blurred numbers to focus on.
- Participants started the CPT as a practice trial for 10 minutes
- Participants were injected with the FDG
- After a further 32 minutes, the PET scan was conducted
- This measured the metabolic rate in different areas of the brain in order to look at brain activities
What were the Results of Raine et al's study?
Compared to the control group, murderers showed:
1. Lower activity in the frontal lobe/prefrontal cortex
2. Lower activity in parietal lobe
3. Higher activity in the occipital lobe
4. Identical activity in the temporal lobe
In subcortial areas, murderers also showed:
1. Lower activity in the corpus callosum
2. Asymmetrical activity in the brain (lower in the left, higher in the right)
The amygdala, hippocampus and thalamus showed to have differences; which was also found in animals
What's the Conclusion of Raine et al's study?
Pre-frontal deficits are associated with impulsive and emotional behaviour
Deficits in the limbic system might lead to aggression, which was also found in cats
The amygdala controls urges and desires
The thalamus process information
The hippocampus processes memory
Corpus callosum deficits may impair ability to make long term decisions
The results do not show that NGRIs had no free will, or that they couldn't help themselves when they committed the crime
Raining looked into the murders themselves, and found that a lot of them were not necessarily violent- therefore it's not possible to link the brain deficits with violence
What are the Advantages of Raine et al's (1997) Study?
Generalisability: The sample was the largest sample of violent offenders to be studied in this way (41 criminals convicted of murder, and 41 controls)
Reliability: The procedure involved PET scans-standardised
Internal Validity: They kept ppts free if drugs for 2 weeks before the scans - controlling extraneous variables
Matched Pair Design-similar head injuries, and left/right handedness- ppt variables didn't affect results
Practical Application: The finding that violent murderers have abnormal brain functioning may apply in the court system, whereby brain scans might serve to be helpful as part off a criminal investigation
What are the Disadvantages of Raine et al's (1997) Study?
Generalisability: The sample was 41 criminals pleading NGRI- the finding only apply to murders, those pleading NGRI and males (as there were only 2 females)
Ecological Validity: PET scans and the continuous performance task do not represent normal behaviour
What were the Ethical Issues surrounding Raine et al's (1997) study?
Protection From Harm: Asking participants to not take their medication for 2 weeks may have led to a temporary increase in the symptoms they get, causing more harm
Informed Consent: It is difficult to those diagnosed with mental health disorders to fully give informed consent
How does Raine et al (1997) regard Ethics?
This study used 41 prisoners who pleaded NGRI, and some of these who were part of the study had mental health disorders like schizophrenia, and before taking part in this study all the pps were kept medication free for 2 weeks which one can say is unethical and the really ill like those who had schizophrenia were denied medication which may have worsened their health and so caused them harm as the symptoms of schizophrenia are known to be debilitating,
this was an important step to ensure there is a strong cause and effect relationship between the IV- the type of people and the DV- brain functioning.
A PET scan took place in which the pps were required to be injected with radioactive material- FDG- which caused them to be prone to physical harm so the study is unethical.
This study was funded by a law firm who wanted to prove the prisoners not guilty so there was invested interest in the study which puts into question the integrity of the researchers as the study may have genuinely been to only support the law firm and not actually true
How does Raine et al (1997) regard Ethics?
A PET scan took place which has a standardised procedure; pps were asked to focus on blurred number for some time and then be undertake the scan, this can be replicated as its standardised and the results produced are objective so can only be interpreted in one way. Since a continuous performance task took place it is not similar to real life so the study lacks mundane realism.
How does Raine et al (1997) regard Reductionism?
Raine simplified violence and aggression into brain functioning even that of the limbic system, mainly amygdala, and ignored the different interactions made not only within the brain but also other factors like the nurture of a person that may make someone violent.
To study violence on the view of someone’s nature it was important to isolate one factor which was brain functioning to provide with an explanation for aggression and so being reductionist was important. and scientific as the effect of one variable on another can be examined
How does Raine et al (1997) regard Comparisons of Explanations?
Raine’s study explains that nature of an individual so their brain functioning is responsible to the aggression one shows
However other studies like Manzur have demonstrated a link between the hormone testosterone and aggression as it has been found that aggression increases during puberty and this is the time where testosterone levels amongst boys are high.
How does Raine et al (1997) regard Psych as a Science?
PET scanning took place where the data gained was objective because a brain scan can only be interpreted one way and so the results are valid.
A continuous performance task had to take place where they had to focus on blurred number 32 minutes which is unlike real life behaviour and so lacks mundane realism.
How does Raine et al (1997) regard Culture + Gender?
This study mainly used males, there were 39 males and 2 females so the study and results are said to be androcentric.
How does Raine et al (1997) regard Nature v Nurture?
Nurture may have an effect as the criminals may have suffered from some kind of trauma that led them to commit crimes,also SLT explains how people become criminals. Biological environmental factors such as head trauma through physical injury and drug abuse are known to disrupt brain activity and these factors could have been responsible for the abnormal brain activity seen in the NGRI group and their violent tendencies.
Alternatively, dysfunction in their brain functioning and low activity in their limbic system could have been caused by nature and genes, for example the presence of the “warrior gene” (MAOA variant)
How does Raine et al (1997) regard Psychology Over Time?
Understanding criminals has become more modernised with technology like brain scanning and now they don’t just focus on factors like appearance to suggest whether someone is criminal or not. Raine studies criminals in an objective way and allowed the society to understand the link between brain functioning and aggression.
How does Raine et al (1997) regard Psych in Scoiety?
Brain functioning plays an important role in aggression has been identified after this study and so sometimes those who have committed a crime purely due to their nature are not punished as harshly as those who have bad intentions and may be placed in a psychiatric prison for the criminally insane rather than a normal prison.
How does Raine et al (1997) regard Socially Sensitive Research?
The fact that brain scans can determine whether someone is a criminal or will commit crime shows that this study is deterministic because labelling may occur and someone who doesn’t want to commit crime despite their brain functioning may be inclined to do so.
This although may help society in the future if methods are developed for the government and police to detect who is more likely to commit crimes and so then allow them to be identified and have special attention paid to them. (although this currently does not happen)
What was the aim of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study: Experiment One?
To investigate whether leading questions could influence the estimates of the speed of a vehicle among eyewitnesses.
To apply this to the court process
How many participants were in Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study: Experiment One?
What was the Procedure of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study: Experiment One?
45 students saw 7 short clips (5-30 secs) of a traffic accident
They gave an account of what happened, and then answered specific questions about the accident.
The critical question was "how fast were the cars going when they _____ each other?"
Each received either: hit / smashed / contacted / collided / bumped
They applied this procedure to every film.
What were the Results of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study: Experiment One?
Smashed - 40.8
Collided - 39.3
Bumped - 38.1
Hit - 34.0
Contacted - 31.8
When the actual speed was 20, the estimated speed was 37.3
When the actual speed was 30, the estimated speed was 36.2
When the actual speed was 40, the estimated speed was 39.7/36.1
This shows people aren't good at estimated speed
(All in mph)
What was the Conslusion of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study: Experiment One?
The form of question can affect the answer
This is due to 2 reasons:
- People can't judge speeds between 30 and 40 mph and so use the wording to help them
- The wording affects memory and recall
What was the Aim of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study: Experiment Two?
To investigate whether leading questions can influence recall
Who were the Participants in Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study: Experiment Two?
150 students, split into 3 equal groups
What was the Procedure of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study: Experiment Two?
150 students watched a film showing a multiple car accident
They were given a questionnaire, and we split into 3 equal groups:
1. "How fast were the cars going when they SMASHED into each other?"
2. "How fast were the cars going when they HIT each other?"
3. No question about speed was asked
One week later, they answer 10 questions.
The critical question was: "Did you see any broken glass?" (none was actually present)
What was the Results of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study: Experiment Two?
32% of the Smashed participants said yes
14% of the Hit participants said yes
12% of the Control Group said yes
What was the Conclusion of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study: Experiment Two?
Two kinds of information goes into memory
Information during the event
Information after the event
This is the reconstructive hypothesis.
What was the overall Conclusion of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study?
The change in the verb can affect recall.
What were the Advantages of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study?
Inter-Rater Reliability: Loftus + Zanni (1975) found "the" is more powerful than "a" in planting memories in leading questions
R: Loftus used standardised film length and questions which were rotated, allowing for replication of the experiment
R/V: The high control over extraneous variables such as the actual speed of the cars travelling in the video allows for replication consistently making research reliable.
I.V: The critical questions were hidden amongst other questions, so ppts could not get the aim and show demand characteristics
I.V: L+P showed clips of varying speeds, which did not affect the estimated speed; strengthening the cause-and-effect relationship between leading questions and speed estimates
What was the Application of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study?
Police practices have been improved as a result of research and now they avoid leading questions in interrogations
The Devlin committee was set up to investigate EWT in courts, and found that many people have been convicted of serious crimes, by EWT alone. As a result, the police and legal professionals are guided to minimise the use of leading Qs.
The justice system is aware of the need to keep witnesses in isolation before giving their statements to police/in court, in order to avoid leading questions from other witnesses distorting the accuracy of testimonies
The justice system should question the strength of EWTs in court and only rely upon it if it is consistent with other forensic evidence
What were the Disadvantages of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study?
G: The sample only consisted of students which doesn't represent society
G: Students regularly follow instructions from their lecturers, and may be more easily influenced by leading questions; making the sample unrepresentative of society
I.V: Results may be due to demand characteristics, and lack validity as ppts may have guessed of the car rather than actually remembering it as faster in the question condition
Task Validity: The ppts had more focused attention on the video than a real eyewitness would on an actual indirect. Therefore the experiment lacks task validity
E.V: A video was shown as opposed to being a real life situation. This reduces the amount of emotional strain, and questions validity
What were the Ethical Issues of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study?
D: Ppts were deceived as they were unaware of the misleading questions in the interrogation interview (however, this was unavoidable as telling them about the leading question would increased demand characteristics)
P: Ppts were made to watch a car crash, which may have caused distress or psychological harm to ppts, especially if they have experienced a car crash
(However the video was a health and safety video; therefore the content was designed to be viewed by the public without causing stress or psychological harm – this doesn't have to be known)
What individual differences should be taken into account of Loftus + Palmer's (1974) study?
People may interpret things differently
People may have different schemas and experiences, which may affect how they interpret the wording
How does Loftus + Palmer (1974) regard Ethics?
The pps in the study were asked to watch clips of car accidents which may have caused some of them psychological harm as they watched distressing acts so this study was unethical, this was a key study to investigate the effect of leading questions on EW who watched a clip of accidents.
Since the pps only watched a clip it didn’t cause them as much distress as a real-life accident would and so the study was ethical.
Deception was used as the pps were unaware of being part of a study.
How does Loftus + Palmer (1974) regard Practical Issues?
The questionnaire that was used had a standardised set of questions and only the last question which was the critical questions was changed for each group so the study can be replicated with the same questionnaire to reconfirm the results.
The study lacked mundane realism because the pps were shown a clip of many car accidents and then answer questions which is not similar to real life.
How does Loftus + Palmer (1974) regard Redcutionism?
This study simplified the idea of leading questions and unreliability of EWT into verbs that describe speed limits but in real life leading questions have more of an effect with not a just a verb hanged but sometimes completely different questions so the study was reductionist.
This study allowed a strong cause and effect relationship to be established between leading questions so the verb change and accuracy of recall so it was important to simplify the idea of leading questions.
How does Loftus + Palmer (1974) regard Comparisons of Explanations?
This study considers that leading questions are the main factor that affects the unreliability of EWT
However studies like Steblay who conducted a meta-analysis of 19 studies and he found that weapon focus is a variable that affects EWT.
How does Loftus + Palmer (1974) regard Psych as a Science?
The study had a standardised procedure where pps were asked to watch a film and then answer a questionnaire which can be replicated to achieve similar results.
How does Loftus + Palmer (1974) regard Psych Over Time?
The fact that leading questions have an effect EWT has been further developed within the society and more people now are aware of this.
How does Loftus + Palmer (1974) regard Psych in Society?
Strict cognitive interviewing techniques have been developed to minimise the effect of leading questions on recall.
How does Loftus + Palmer (1974) regard Socially Sensitive Research?
The idea that EW cannot be trusted may have led to some courts not taking into account those EWs too who were genuinely correct and played an important role in the case.
Not socially sensitive research because better cognitive interviewing techniques were developed which ensured only those who committed crimes were in prison and not innocent people.
What was the Title of Rosenhan's (1973) study?
On being sane in insane places
What was the Aim of Rosenhan's (1973) study?
To answer the question "can the sane be distinguished from the insane?"
David Rosenhan challenged the diagnostic system; putting the individuals self-reporting being the source of the symptoms compared to the environmental context in which the symptoms arose.
Who were the pseudopatients used in Rosenhan's (1973) study?
3 psych graduates
What was the Procedure of Rosenhan's (1973) study?
The 8 pseudpatients called 12 institutes across America; reporting to hear voices saying "empty" "hollow" and "thud".
They were all went under different names to protect their identity
They recorded their experiences by taking notes
What happened to the pseudopatients whilst in the hospital during Rosenhan's (1973) study?
Whilst in the hospital; they had to try to convince the staff of their sanity, in order to be let go. Their sanity was never detected by the staff, and they were discharged with a diagnosis of 'schizophrenia in remission'
7 out of 8 were diagnosed with schizophrenia, and 1 with manic depression with psychosis
All stayed for an average of 19 days; ranging from 9 days to 52.
What did the patients think about the pseudpatients whilst they were in the institution in Rosenhan's (1973) study?
Many patients suspected the pseudopatients were fake. One even asked if the researcher was a journalist
How did the staff treat the pseudopatients in Rosenhan's (1973) study?
The staff treated normal behaviour as symptoms consistent of diagnosis (e.g. note-taking was referred to as 'writing behaviour')
Patients were dehumanised by staff - when contact was initiated between the pseudopatients and nurses, they were ignored 71% of the time.
What was the follow up experiment in Rosenhan's (1973) study?
Rosenhan tested one leading hospital to a similar study - they were asked to spot the pseudopatients
Of 193 admitted over the next 3 months, 41 were thought to be fake by at least one staff member, and 19 by two
Rosenhan sent none.
What was the Conclusion of Rosenhan's (1973) study?
There is unreliability in the diagnostic process.
The diagnostic label changed the perspective of the person, so that all of their behaviour was interpreted within the context of the diagnosis.
What were the Strengths of Rosenhan's (1973) study?
G: The pseudopatients were both male and female
G: The hospitals used included old, new, public + private hospitals; which is representative to an extent
R: The pseudopatients claimed to hear voices saying "empty", "hollow" and "thud", which is a standardised procedure
E.V: The environment was a real life hospital; and the doctors + nurses' behaviour was natural.
What were the Weaknesses of Rosenhan's (1973) study?
G: There was a small sample size of 8 pesudopatients
G: They only used American institutions
I.V: They weren't able able to control any extraneous variables, and Rosenhan wasn't able to control anything because he wasn't there, meaning it wasn't internally valid.
I.V: The pseudopatients claimed to have symptoms they did not, which would not usually occur in real life
What ethical guidelines did Rosenhan's (1973) study break?
P: They were kept in the mental hospital for up to 52 days, even though they were mentally sane. There was no way of controlling it; anything could've happened
P: The doctors had to spend time with the pseudopatients, meaning thy spent less time with the real patients; reducing the quality of their treatment
W: They couldn't withdraw from/ leave the hospital
I: No informed consent was gained from hospitals prior to the initial experiment
D: The doctors were deceived by pseudopatients, as they believed they were real patients
D: There was no formal debrief, even though he wrote abut it in the book
What Application did Rosenhan's (1973) study have?
The study led to improvements in the psychiatry system, as well as the DSM being made multiaxial, thereby having application to society
How does Rosenhan's (1973) study regard Ethics?
Deception was used against the staff so the doctors and the nurses of the hospitals which makes this study unethical,
but this was a key step to ensure the staff acts the same way as they would with real patients so to reduce demand characteristics.
The fact that the 8 pseudopatients had been admitted into hospitals and didn’t require ay treatment of attention from the staff but they still got it means those who were genuinely suffering from a mental health disorder didn’t receive the right care they needed as the staff’s time was spilt,
this was important to ensure the staff’s behaviour with the pseudopatients was real.
The right to withdraw was not given to the pps so the doctors, staff and hospitals as they were unaware of being part in a psychological study.
How does Rosenhan's (1973) study regard Practical Issues?
The study took place in a natural environut where the pseudopatients were admitted into real hospital and the treatment of the staff was real so this study is ecologically valid.
However, the study might be said to lack validity since the pseudopatients claimed to have symptoms they did not, which would not usually occur in real life.
How does Rosenhan's (1973) study regard Reductionism?
The study exposed the fact that diagnosis of mental health disorders was a reductionism process, since the symptom of hearing “empty, dull, thud” was used to diagnose without considering how this symptom interacted with and affected the person’s ability to function and lead a normal life .
Partly as a result of the study, the multiaxial DSM was introduced which looked at how symptoms interacted with personality and environment, thereby making diagnosis more holistic
How does Rosenhan's (1973) study regard Psych as a Science?
This study was falsifiable as the hypothesis involved testing medical institutions to test their reliability and validity of diagnosis that could’ve been proved wrong had the pseudo patients been discovered.
It was a real-life experiment where each pseudopatient had to take notes on the behaviour of the staff which may have been subjective as different people may have viewed behaviours differently so results are not internally valid.
How does Rosenhan's (1973) study regard Culture + Issues?
This study only consisted of hospitals of the US so study is focused on 1 culture so its not generalizable and is ethnocentric
How does Rosenhan's (1973) study regard Nature v Nurture?
Rosenhan showed that the environment in which someone is in can influence how their behaviour is interpreted by others. The fact that the pseudo patients were in the institution led the clinicians to interpret all behaviours as pathological e.g. “note taking behaviour” was seen as a symptom by clinicians. Therefore this shows how nurture and environment can influence the way symptoms and mental health is interpreted by clinicians.
Humans are an innately social species. It could be argued that the tendency to interpret behaviours (such as potential symptoms of a mental disorder) through the context that they are seen in, is an tendency that we have inherited in our genes.
How does Rosenhan's (1973) study regard Psychology Over Time?
This study has made the world realise the invalid nature of diagnosis and based on this there have been many improvements and standardisation in the way diagnosis is done, for example the DSM and ICD10 have become more consistent and in the new DSM there are ways of ensuring a clinician knows how to conduct diagnosis with someone of a different culture to them.
How does Rosenhan's (1973) study regard Psych in Society?
Now, people focus more on ensuring their diagnosis is valid and so often patients under go many kinds of diagnosis not just one.
How does Rosenhan's (1973) study regard Socially Sensitive Research?
The findings that diagnosis is invalid may have led to some kind of disturbance amongst the mentally ill and actually led them to not be able to trust the professionals so caused harm somewhat psychologically.
Others thanked Rosenhan for identifying the problems that existed in diagnosing mental health and led to development of better diagnostic tools.
What was the Sample Size of each Classical Study?
Baddeley: 72 adult mean + women
Sherif: 22 white American 11-yo boys
Raine: 41 pleading NGRI (39m, 2f) and 41 in control group
Watson + Rayner: 1 male infant
Loftus + Palmer: 195 college students
Rosenhan: 12 institutions in America, 8 pseudopatients
What was the Experimental Design of each Classic Study?
Baddeley: Independent measures (list A B C or D)
Independent measures (Eagles or Rattlers)
Raine: Independent measures (Pleading NGRI or control)
Watson + Rayner:
(Only 1 ppt)
Loftus + Palmer:
What Experiment was used in each Classical Study?
Baddeley: Lab exp
Sherif: Field exp
Raine: Lab exp
Watson + Rayner: Lab exp
Rosenhan: Field exp
Loftus + Palmer: Lab exp