AQA AS Psychology
Covers most but not all
- Created by: Gemma
- Created on: 05-01-13 16:39
MSM structure
Environmental Stimuli
Sensory Memory (SM)
Attention
Short-term memory (STM) - (top) Maintence Rehearsal - (bottom) Information Retrieval
Elaborative Rehearsal (forwards) Retrieval (backwards) Long-term memory (LTM)
(draw out below)
MSM
- Based on three seperate memory stores and how information is transferred between them
- Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) - SM, STM and LTM
- No rehearsal = decays, new info enters = displacement
- Case study of HM supports MSM - ability to form new memories in LTM impaired when hippocampus removed
Evaluation: Strengths - HM & produces testable predictions
Limitations - STM and LTM not unitary stores, rehearsal involves elaboration (processing) as well as maintenance
SM - info collected by senses, retained for few seconds, capacity = large, encoding depends on: visual for eyes, acoustic for ears. Transfers to STM via attention. Sperling - conducted a lab experiment: asked to recall letters = information decays rapidly in the sensory store.
WMM
WMM - Baddeley and Hitch (1974) : Explanation of STM
Central Executive - Monitors and coordinates all mental functions in WMM
Episodic Buffer - Receives, temporarily stores this info
Phonological loop - Encodes speech sounds, involved in maintence rehearsal (constant repeating) - divided into phonological store (inner ear) and articulatory process (inner voice)
Visuo - spatial sketchpad - Encodes visual info - divides in visual cache (stores info) and inner scribe (spatial relations)
Reseach supporting - Dual task performance (Hitch and Baddeley) conducted lab experiment. Performance slower when given task involving CE and 2nd involving CE and another instead of one alone.
WMM
Evaluation: Strengths - Explains word-length effect with patients e.g. KF, comparison to MSM - expands understanding of MSM shoring different stores within STM
Limitations - CE isn't fully defined, evidence from brain-damaged patients may be false
Effect of misleading info on EWT
Experiment 1 - Lab exp, 45 students, 'smashed, collided, bumped or contacted' SHOWED: 'smashed = higher speed than group of heard word 'contacted' - leading Q has big impact.
Experiment 2 - different group showed a film of accident and week later asked if they'd seen broken glass. SHOWED: group who heard 'smashed' were more likely to recall a broken headlight
Evaluation - Loftus et al supported original findings with further lab exp: 'STOP' & 'YIELD' may lack VALIDITY - lab exp = not real life. Foster et al showed recall more accurate in real life. Real-world application and individual differences
Effect of anxiety on EWT
Christianson & Hubinette - Anxiety enhances recall: 58 witnesses.
Johnson & Scott - Weapon focus effect: Lab exp
Explanations - YERKES - DODSON law = medium ^ high decreases = contradictory findings
Effect of age on EWT
Parker and Carranza = Children as witnesses
Cognitive Interview
Fisher and Gieselman, 1992
1. Report everything
2. Mental reinstatement of original context
3. Changing the order
4. Changing the perspective
Real-world application: Stein and Memon - females cleaners in brazil - better recall
Difficulties in establishing effectiveness: Kebbell and Wagstaff - different forces different components
Memory Improvement
Verbal techniques:
Acronyms - ROYGBIV, Acroustics - Big Elephants...., Rhymes, Chunking
Evaluation: Role of organisation - Bower et al. Reseach evidence - Glidden et al - learning difficulties however not long term
Visual techniques:
Method of Loci - areas
Keyword method - images
Mindmapping - visual appearance
Evaluation: Dual codeing hypothesis - Pavio - words and images processed seperately, concrete words are double-encoded (image and word) Reseach evidence - O'Hara et al - MoL has long term benefits for older adults
Learning theory
Classical conditioning Food = UCS, happy = UCR. New response is learned when neutral stimulus (NS) associated with UCS then produces a UCR. Learning through association
Operant conditioning - Dollard and Miller = reinforcement. Attachement occurs as infant seeks person who gives reward (food)
Strength - LT can explain attachment
Limiations - Contact comfort is more important
Bowlby's theory of attachment
- Born with social releasers - innate drive to become attached
- Develops during sensitive period - 3-6 months
- One special emotional bond (monotropy) with PAF
- Many bonds with SAF
- Mother-infant relationship creates expectations - internal working model
- Continuity hypothesis - continues into later life
Strengths - Evidence that it is innate process (Lorenz), Harlow's exp. Continuity
Limitations - Multiple attachments and monotrophy - not clear how many is needed (Rutter), Alternative exp. temperament hyp (Kagan)
Secure and Insecure
Ainsworth et al (1978) - strange situation
- 66% secure - willing to explore, high stranger anx, enthusaistic reunion
- 22% insecure-avoidant -willing to explore, low stranger anx, not bothered
- 12% insecure-resistant - not willing, high stranger anx
Research evidence - results could be exp be Bowlby's theory (caregiver sensitivity)
Evaluation - Validity - what is being measured?, Sensitivity/maternal reflexive thinking
Distrubtion of attachment
Bowlby predicted DofA had negative effect on children's social and emotional development
Spitz and Wolf - 100 'normal' children in instituion became severely depressed within a few months
Robertson and Robertson (1963-1973) 6 children (less 3) studied during brief seperation from PAF. Laura = hospital, John = residential nursery, Jane,Lucy,Thomas and Kate looked after by Robinsons in their home = high level of substitute emotional care
SHOWED:
- Laura and John = depressed and withdrawn
- Other children coped well
Validity: Case studies = unique = lack generalisability, however data was v detailed
Privation
Failure to form attachment = privation
Hodges and Tizard (1989) - 65 children, institutional care when less than 4 months old, caregivers told not to form attachments. SHOWED: Problems with peers
Case study Genie was privation but not IC (Rymer)
Evaluation - Poor parenting (Quinton et al) privation cycle, Privation is only one factor (some Romanian orphans did recover), Privation or rejection - Hodges and Tizard may be due to rejection.
Impact of day care on aggressiveness
Negative effects - NICHD study is longtitudinal study in US - 30+ hours = arguing, temper tantrums, lying and hitting compared with those cared at home by their mother.
EPPE study similar results in the UK. More aggressive when longer hours/before the age of 2
Evaluation - Reinterpretating NICHD results (Friedman) less than 30 hours per week didn't show high levels of agression, Other factors affect aggression (sensitivity)
Mediating factors - Quality of care, Lack of commitment, Individual differences, Child's age, Number of hours
Impact of day care on peer relations
- Attachment - secure attachement is better for PR
- Social development - Greater at daycare compared to stay at home kids
Evaluation - Other factors. Day care isn't the only factor.
Influence of attachment research
- Improving quality of day care
- Institutional care (hospitals and adoption centres) substitute emotional care
- Adoption - before sensitive/critical period
- Help for parents that suffered themselves.
Evaluation
- Improving QofDC - supported by Bowlby's theory with importance of SAF
- Substitute care (IC) supported by Robertson and Robertson
Influence of day care research
- Importance of high quality DC
- NICHD 1:3
- Minimal staff turnover
- Qualified/exp staff
Evaluation
Importance of hihg quality DC supported by Bowlby and Ainsworth
Problems associated with DC may be due to low Q
Key Facts RM
- Aim, conclusions
- Interview & questionnaire design - closed Q, interviewer bias, leading Q, open Q, social desirability bias
- Experimental design - Control condition, control group, experimenter bias/effects, random allocation, repeated measures, matched pairs, order E
- Research methods - CS, Content analysis, study using correlational analysis (No RM), experiement (lab/field/natural)
- Observation, questionnaire, self-report (questionnaire/interview)
- Sampling - opportunity, random, stratified - according to # in population, systematic, target population, volunteer
- Validity - demand characterisitics, ecological V, ext V, int V, pop V
- Reliability - ext. R, int. R
- Single blind - PPs doesn't know aim of study
- Double blind - exp or PPs don't know aim of study
- Directional hyp, Non directional hyp
Key Facts RM
Quantitative Data
Measure of Central Tendency = Mean, mode, median
Measures of Dispersion = Range and Standard deviation (variation)
Visual Display = Bar chart, scattergram
Key Facts RM
Ethical issues:
- Informed Consent - pps given proper info
- Deception - PPs not told true aim
- Right to withdraw
- Protection from harm
- Confidentiality
- Privacy
Others:
- Extraneous V = variable that cam affect the DV (not the IV)
- Eco V = enviroment/setting
- Pop V = Generalise or not
- In V = intended measure
- Ex V = how much research can be generalised
Related discussions on The Student Room
- Difference Between Psychology A and Psychology B »
- AQA GCSE Psychology Textbook? »
- Best textbook for aqa a level psychology ? »
- Which textbook do I buy for aqa Psychology? »
- A Level AQA Psychology Resources »
- AQA GCSE Psychology Textbook...Suggestions please? »
- GCSE Psychology (Beginner-->Self-Study?) »
- AS and A-Level psychology resources thread »
- AQA GCSE Psychology Textbook...Suggestions please? »
- OCR Sociology or AQA Psychology?? »
Comments
No comments have yet been made