Docsity
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Docsity AI
Docsity AI
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search for your university

Find the specific documents for your university's exams

Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

Psych AO3 Suggestions, Study notes of Psychology

Psychology

Psychology paper 1 and 2 evaluation guide idea

Typology: Study notes

2025/2026

Uploaded on 11/13/2025

rosie-burvill
rosie-burvill 🇬🇧

1 document

1 / 23

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
AQA A-Level Psychology: A* AO3 Master Evaluation Guide
Memory (Expanded)
MEMORY - A* AO3 EVALUATION (EXPANDED)
MULTI-STORE MODEL (MSM):
- Strength: Empirical support from studies like Baddeley (coding), and Peterson & Peterson (duration of
STM). Also supported by HM - could form new procedural LTM but not episodic LTM, suggesting different
stores.
- Limitation: Overly simplistic - assumes STM and LTM are unitary. Case study of KF suggests verbal and
visual STM are separate (dual-store model better explained by WMM).
- Artificial tasks (e.g., word lists) reduce ecological validity and mundane realism.
- MSM assumes rehearsal is key to transfer, but research (e.g., Craik & Watkins) suggests type of rehearsal
(elaborative > maintenance) is more important - theoretical flaw.
- Application: Informs study techniques and memory aids; useful in education.
- Methodological strength: Lab methods allow for control and replication - increases internal validity, supports
psychology as a science.
WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM):
- Strength: More comprehensive than MSM - accounts for multiple components in STM and supported by
dual-task performance studies (e.g., Baddeley et al.).
- Neuroimaging (PET, fMRI) shows different brain regions active during verbal and visual tasks, supporting
the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad - methodological triangulation.
- Central executive is criticised for being vague and difficult to test - lacks operational definition.
- Application: Real-world relevance - useful in education and understanding attentional deficits (e.g., ADHD).
- Criticism: Lab studies lack ecological validity; visual + verbal task combinations may not reflect real
multitasking.
- More holistic than MSM - allows for interaction of components (better explanatory power).
FORGETTING - INTERFERENCE:
- McGeoch & McDonald (1931) - similarity of information reduces recall (retroactive interference); controlled
design supports internal validity.
- Real-life support: Baddeley & Hitch (rugby players - recall affected by number of games, not time).
- Limitation: Artificial stimuli (word lists) lack ecological validity; everyday forgetting may involve more
complex factors (e.g., emotional salience).
- Useful in understanding study habits - don't revise similar subjects together.
- Interference is a limited explanation - can't account for forgetting of things not similar (reductionist).
FORGETTING - RETRIEVAL FAILURE:
- Godden & Baddeley (context-dependent forgetting) and Carter & Cassaday (state-dependent) provide
strong support - forgetting often due to lack of cues (cue-dependent forgetting).
- Ecological validity varies - extreme contexts (e.g., underwater) not always reflective of real life.
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17

Partial preview of the text

Download Psych AO3 Suggestions and more Study notes Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!

Memory (Expanded)

MEMORY - A* AO3 EVALUATION (EXPANDED)

MULTI-STORE MODEL (MSM):

  • Strength: Empirical support from studies like Baddeley (coding), and Peterson & Peterson (duration of STM). Also supported by HM - could form new procedural LTM but not episodic LTM, suggesting different stores.
  • Limitation: Overly simplistic - assumes STM and LTM are unitary. Case study of KF suggests verbal and visual STM are separate (dual-store model better explained by WMM).
  • Artificial tasks (e.g., word lists) reduce ecological validity and mundane realism.
  • MSM assumes rehearsal is key to transfer, but research (e.g., Craik & Watkins) suggests type of rehearsal (elaborative > maintenance) is more important - theoretical flaw.
  • Application: Informs study techniques and memory aids; useful in education.
  • Methodological strength: Lab methods allow for control and replication - increases internal validity, supports psychology as a science.

WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM):

  • Strength: More comprehensive than MSM - accounts for multiple components in STM and supported by dual-task performance studies (e.g., Baddeley et al.).
  • Neuroimaging (PET, fMRI) shows different brain regions active during verbal and visual tasks, supporting the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad - methodological triangulation.
  • Central executive is criticised for being vague and difficult to test - lacks operational definition.
  • Application: Real-world relevance - useful in education and understanding attentional deficits (e.g., ADHD).
  • Criticism: Lab studies lack ecological validity; visual + verbal task combinations may not reflect real multitasking.
  • More holistic than MSM - allows for interaction of components (better explanatory power).

FORGETTING - INTERFERENCE:

  • McGeoch & McDonald (1931) - similarity of information reduces recall (retroactive interference); controlled design supports internal validity.
  • Real-life support: Baddeley & Hitch (rugby players - recall affected by number of games, not time).
  • Limitation: Artificial stimuli (word lists) lack ecological validity; everyday forgetting may involve more complex factors (e.g., emotional salience).
  • Useful in understanding study habits - don't revise similar subjects together.
  • Interference is a limited explanation - can't account for forgetting of things not similar (reductionist).

FORGETTING - RETRIEVAL FAILURE:

  • Godden & Baddeley (context-dependent forgetting) and Carter & Cassaday (state-dependent) provide strong support - forgetting often due to lack of cues (cue-dependent forgetting).
  • Ecological validity varies - extreme contexts (e.g., underwater) not always reflective of real life.
  • Real-world application: Context reinstatement in cognitive interviews.
  • However, Tulving suggests cues don't always work unless encoded at learning - encoding specificity principle is difficult to test (circular reasoning).
  • Retrieval failure better than decay theory - fits with tip-of-the-tongue phenomena.

EWT - MISLEADING INFORMATION:

  • Loftus & Palmer: leading questions distort memory - supports reconstructive memory view.
  • Reliability: study replicated and supported by Gabbert et al. (post-event discussion causes memory contamination).
  • Limitation: Film clips lack emotional realism - low ecological validity. Real-life EWT may be more accurate.
  • Yuille & Cutshall: real robbery - witnesses had accurate recall months later; suggests misleading info less influential in high-stress, real-world events.
  • Application: Police interviewing practices - avoid leading questions.

EWT - ANXIETY:

  • Johnson & Scott: weapon focus effect - anxiety reduces recall; supports tunnel theory.
  • Yuille & Cutshall: contradicts - higher anxiety linked to better recall.
  • Yerkes-Dodson Law (inverted-U) explains contradiction - moderate anxiety enhances memory.
  • Limitation: Field studies lack control - may include confounding variables.
  • Demand characteristics in lab studies may distort true anxiety effects.

COGNITIVE INTERVIEW:

  • Fisher & Geiselman: improves accuracy by reinstating context, changing order/perspective.
  • Khnken et al. meta-analysis: CI improves correct recall by 34% but increases incorrect recall too - reliability vs validity trade-off.
  • Time-consuming and requires trained interviewers - limits practical application.
  • Effective across age groups - supports external validity.
  • Modified versions address concerns (enhanced CI).

EVALUATION ACROSS MEMORY:

  • Triangulation: use of lab and field studies provides converging evidence (increased validity).
  • Reductionism: MSM and interference theory oversimplify; WMM and retrieval failure offer more complete views.
  • Application: Influences legal systems, education, cognitive therapy - supports real-world relevance.
  • Nomothetic focus: general laws of memory helpful, but idiographic insights (e.g., case studies like HM, KF) enrich understanding.

WRITING FRAME (EXAMPLE): "One strength of the Working Memory Model is the support from dual-task studies. These show that people can complete a verbal and visual task simultaneously, but not two of the same type, supporting the idea of separate components. This increases internal validity. However, the model is criticised for a vague description of the central executive, reducing its explanatory power. Nonetheless, the WMM is more

Social Influence (Expanded)

SOCIAL INFLUENCE - A* AO3 EVALUATION (EXPANDED)

CONFORMITY - ASCH:

  • High internal validity: tightly controlled lab design with standardised line tasks. Results replicated in multiple studies.
  • But low mundane realism: judging lines is artificial, which questions ecological validity and generalisability to real-world social influence.
  • Temporal validity issue: conducted in 1950s America (conformist era). Perrin & Spencer (1980) found much lower conformity in British engineering students.
  • Cultural bias: all American, male participants - lacks population validity. Bond & Smith meta-analysis found higher conformity in collectivist cultures.
  • Ethical issues: deception and psychological stress due to pressure to conform.
  • Application: Highlights how social pressure influences group decision-making (e.g., in juries, workplace), increasing real-world relevance.

TYPES & EXPLANATIONS OF CONFORMITY:

  • Supported by ISI (informational social influence) and NSI (normative social influence). Lucas et al. (2006): greater conformity when tasks are difficult, especially among low-confidence participants.
  • Individual differences: McGhee & Teevan found nAffiliators (high need for social approval) conform more - NSI does not apply equally.
  • Reductionist: Treats ISI and NSI as distinct when both can occur simultaneously (e.g., in ambiguous tasks). Interactionist perspective is more holistic.

CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES - ZIMBARDO:

  • Strength: High internal validity - random assignment reduces participant variables, behaviour driven by situation.
  • However, demand characteristics criticised - Banuazizi & Mohavedi: participants behaved according to perceived role stereotypes.
  • Dual role of Zimbardo (superintendent and researcher) introduces potential investigator bias.
  • Ethical issues: protection from harm, withdrawal rights unclear. But Zimbardo debriefed participants thoroughly and followed up long-term.
  • Real-world application: shows how institutional environments foster abusive behaviour (e.g., Abu Ghraib).

OBEDIENCE - MILGRAM:

  • High reliability: repeated with similar results (Burger, 2009 - 70% obedience with ethical safeguards).
  • Internal validity debated: Orne & Holland suggested participants didn't believe the shocks were real. Yet, Milgram interviewed participants who believed the set-up.
  • Ethical concerns: deception, psychological distress, lack of informed consent. However, Milgram followed up and justified study through cost-benefit analysis.
  • Sample bias: all American men - lacks generalisability. Cross-cultural replications (e.g., Mantell, Germany - 85% obedience) show cultural variations.
  • Real-world application: understanding events like the Holocaust and My Lai Massacre (agentic state and legitimacy of authority).

SITUATIONAL VARIABLES:

  • Research supports legitimacy of authority, proximity, and uniform as obedience-enhancing variables.
  • Bickman (1974): people obeyed more when orders given by someone in uniform - real-world credibility.
  • Controlled procedures but still lab-based - lacks mundane realism.
  • Cross-cultural support (e.g., Kilham & Mann found lower obedience in Australia) increases external validity.

AGENCY THEORY & LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY:

  • Explains why people obey immoral orders (agentic state reduces personal responsibility).
  • But doesn't explain individual differences - some resist, others obey (e.g., Milgram's variation findings).
  • Supported by hierarchical structures - obeying perceived authority figures is common in military, workplaces.
  • Application: Useful for training and understanding organisational behaviour.

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY:

  • Adorno's F-scale: link between high scores and obedience to authority.
  • Limitation: correlational - no causation. May be influenced by education level, upbringing (confounding variables).
  • Right-wing bias: doesn't explain obedience in left-wing individuals.
  • Over-reliance on retrospective self-report - low internal validity.

RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE:

  • Social support: Asch variation showed even one dissenting confederate significantly reduced conformity.
  • Milgram's variation with two disobedient peers: dropped obedience from 65% to 10%.
  • Locus of Control (Rotter): internal LOC = greater resistance. Avtgis meta-analysis confirms this.
  • But LOC may be more relevant in novel situations than familiar ones (role of experience underestimated).

MINORITY INFLUENCE:

  • Moscovici: consistent, committed, and flexible minorities influence majority. Minority influence is slow but deeper (internalisation).
  • Lab studies may lack ecological validity. Real-life influence is more complex (e.g., involves power and status).
  • Application: Explains social change (e.g., suffragette movement, climate activism).
  • Wood et al. meta-analysis supports consistency as key to influence.

SOCIAL CHANGE:

  • Based on minority influence, augmented by majority awareness and the snowball effect.
  • Application: civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, climate change awareness.

Psychopathology (Expanded)

PSYCHOPATHOLOGY - A* AO3 EVALUATION (EXPANDED)

DEFINITIONS OF ABNORMALITY:

  • Statistical Infrequency: Objective and measurable using numerical norms (e.g., IQ < 70 = IDD). However, not all rare behaviours are negative (e.g., high IQ), and desirable abnormalities challenge the assumption.
  • Deviation from Social Norms: Useful in diagnosing antisocial personality disorder. However, cultural relativism undermines universality - what's abnormal in one culture may be acceptable in another.
  • Failure to Function Adequately: Takes individual perspective into account (e.g., distress, maladaptiveness). However, subjective - non-conformity may not always indicate dysfunction (e.g., alternative lifestyles).
  • Deviation from Ideal Mental Health: Offers positive framework (e.g., autonomy, self-actualisation - Jahoda). However, criteria are culturally and individually biased - few meet all standards (unrealistic expectations).

BEHAVIOURAL EXPLANATION OF PHOBIAS:

  • Based on classical (initiation) and operant (maintenance) conditioning. Little Albert (Watson & Rayner) shows acquisition through association.
  • Scientific and testable, supported by lab research = high internal validity.
  • Real-world application: Informs effective therapies (e.g., systematic desensitisation, flooding).
  • However, it is reductionist - ignores cognition, biology, and evolutionary factors (e.g., preparedness theory - Seligman).
  • Ethical concerns: Little Albert faced harm without informed consent - raises cost-benefit analysis debate.

TREATING PHOBIAS:

  • Systematic Desensitisation (SD): Based on counterconditioning and reciprocal inhibition. Supported by Gilroy et al. - effective and long-term benefits.
  • Flooding: Cost-effective but can be highly distressing - not appropriate for all, particularly with comorbid health conditions.
  • Both therapies highly structured and replicable (standardised procedure) - enhances reliability.
  • However, behavioural treatments may address symptoms rather than causes (risk of symptom substitution).

COGNITIVE EXPLANATION OF DEPRESSION:

  • Beck's cognitive triad: Negative self-schema leads to biased interpretation.
  • Ellis's ABC model: Irrational beliefs cause emotional consequences.
  • Supported by Grazioli & Terry - women with cognitive vulnerability more likely to suffer postnatal depression.
  • Application: Foundation for CBT, a leading treatment - high utility.
  • However, causality issue - negative thoughts may be a symptom, not a cause.
  • Cognitive approach ignores biological influences (e.g., serotonin imbalance), limiting explanatory power.

TREATING DEPRESSION:

  • CBT: Combines cognitive restructuring with behavioural activation. Supported by March et al. (81% effective alone; 86% with SSRIs).
  • Practical application: structured, short-term, collaborative - empowers patients (ethically strong).
  • Limitation: May not suit those with severe depression (lacks motivation); medication sometimes needed.
  • Therapist competence is key - variability in effectiveness.
  • Time-consuming and emotionally demanding - may not work for all.

BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF OCD:

  • Genetic basis: Nestadt et al. (68% concordance MZ twins vs 31% DZ). Polygenic - different genes linked to OCD (e.g., SERT, COMT).
  • Neural basis: Low serotonin levels and dysfunction in areas like orbitofrontal cortex implicated.
  • Scientific credibility: Uses brain scans, twin studies - increases objectivity and validity.
  • However, deterministic and reductionist - ignores life experiences (e.g., trauma-triggered OCD).
  • Family studies don't account for shared environment (confounding variables).
  • Nomothetic but fails to capture idiographic understanding of varied symptoms.

TREATING OCD:

  • SSRIs: Increase serotonin; supported by Soomro et al. - more effective than placebo.
  • Cost-effective and accessible - suitable for healthcare systems.
  • Side effects (e.g., nausea, insomnia, loss of libido) may reduce adherence.
  • Only treats symptoms, not underlying cognitive/emotional causes - relapse common after discontinuation.
  • Combination with CBT often most effective (biopsychosocial model - holistic approach).

WIDER DEBATES & SYNTHESIS:

  • Nature vs Nurture: OCD and depression show interactionist influence - genes + environment (diathesis-stress model).
  • Determinism vs Free Will: Biological and cognitive approaches suggest determinism; CBT implies agency and choice.
  • Reductionism vs Holism: Behavioural and biological are reductionist; holistic integration (CBT + meds) more effective.
  • Scientific Credibility: Cognitive models less testable; biological research robustly empirical (fMRI, PET, drug trials).
  • Ethics: Treatments generally ethical, but historic studies (e.g., Little Albert) raise concerns. CBT empowers clients - aligns with ethical principles.

Research Methods (Expanded)

RESEARCH METHODS - A* AO3 EVALUATION (EXPANDED)

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS:

  • Lab Experiments: High control over extraneous variables increases internal validity. Replicable and falsifiable - supports psychology as a science. However, lacks ecological validity and mundane realism; artificial tasks may not reflect real-world behaviour.
  • Field Experiments: Higher ecological validity than labs, useful for studying behaviour in natural contexts. However, lack of control introduces confounding variables, reducing internal validity. Also raises ethical concerns (informed consent, deception).
  • Natural Experiments: Allows study of unethical or impractical manipulations (e.g., brain injury effects). High ecological validity. However, lack of control and rare situations reduce reliability and make replication difficult.
  • Quasi Experiments: Based on pre-existing characteristics (e.g., gender, age). Allows comparisons where manipulation is not possible. However, risk of confounding variables and selection bias limits causal conclusions.

RESEARCH DESIGNS:

  • Independent Groups: Avoids order effects but may suffer from participant variables. Random allocation helps reduce bias.
  • Repeated Measures: Controls for participant variables; more economical. However, order effects (fatigue/practice) can reduce validity - counterbalancing helps mitigate.
  • Matched Pairs: Combines strengths of both, reducing individual differences without order effects. However, very time-consuming and difficult to match effectively.

RELIABILITY:

  • Internal Reliability: Consistency within a test (e.g., split-half method). Ensures stable measurement of constructs.
  • External Reliability: Consistency over time (e.g., test-retest). Increases confidence in replicability.
  • Inter-Rater Reliability: Agreement between observers - essential in observations. Training and clear operational definitions improve this.

VALIDITY:

  • Internal Validity: Whether the study measures what it intends to - influenced by control, demand characteristics, and confounding variables.
  • External Validity: Generalisability beyond the research setting.
    • Ecological Validity: Real-life applicability of findings.
  • Population Validity: Representative sample ensures generalisation to wider groups.
  • Temporal Validity: Relevance of findings across time periods.
  • Face Validity: Whether the test appears to measure the intended construct.
  • Construct Validity: Whether it actually reflects the theoretical concept.
  • Concurrent Validity: Correlation with established measures.

OBSERVATIONAL METHODS:

  • Naturalistic: High ecological validity, captures real behaviour. However, low control and difficult to replicate.
  • Controlled: More replicable and focused but may induce unnatural behaviour.
  • Participant Observation: Greater depth and insight, but risk of bias and loss of objectivity.
  • Non-Participant: More objective but may lack context.
  • Covert: Reduces demand characteristics but raises ethical issues (informed consent, deception).
  • Overt: More ethical but risks reactivity effects.

SELF-REPORT METHODS:

  • Questionnaires: Efficient for large data collection. However, risk of social desirability bias, low response rates, and interpretation issues.
  • Interviews:
    • Structured: Standardised, replicable, easy to analyse.
    • Unstructured: Richer data but harder to quantify.
    • Semi-structured: Balance of flexibility and structure.
  • Risk of interviewer bias - training and standardisation can reduce this.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUES:

  • Random Sampling: Equal chance, avoids bias. But may not be truly representative by chance.
  • Opportunity Sampling: Convenient but prone to bias - low population validity.
  • Volunteer Sampling: Ethical but may attract similar personality types (volunteer bias).
  • Stratified Sampling: More representative - matched to population characteristics. Time-consuming and complex to organise.

CORRELATIONS:

  • Useful for exploring relationships and predicting variables.
  • Objective and easy to analyse statistically.
  • Cannot establish causation - third variable problem.
  • Valuable for hypothesis generation, not hypothesis testing.

CASE STUDIES:

"One strength of lab experiments is that they allow for high levels of control over extraneous variables. This increases internal validity and means causal conclusions can be drawn. However, their artificial nature often reduces ecological validity, making it difficult to generalise findings. Despite this, the method's scientific rigour and replicability make it essential for building reliable psychological theories."

Biopsychology (Expanded)

BIOPSYCHOLOGY - A* AO3 EVALUATION (EXPANDED)

BIOLOGICAL RHYTHMS:

  • Circadian Rhythms (e.g., sleep-wake cycle):
    • Supported by Siffre's cave studies - body clock maintained a roughly 24-hour cycle without external cues (endogenous pacemakers).
    • However, small samples and individual differences reduce generalisability. Siffre's rhythm lengthened in later replications - shows biological rhythm is not fixed.
    • Practical application: shift work research (e.g., night shifts impact alertness, increase health risks - Boivin et al.). Economic implications for work scheduling and healthcare.
    • Limitation: Lab-based studies may lack ecological validity; artificial lighting may act as exogenous zeitgeber.
  • Infradian Rhythms (e.g., menstrual cycle):
    • Supported by Stern & McClintock - menstrual synchrony through pheromonal exposure.
    • Low internal validity: small sample, self-report, confounding variables (e.g., diet, stress).
      • Evolutionary explanation suggests survival advantage (collective care for offspring), but counterarguments (e.g., increased competition) challenge this.
    • Application: understanding of hormonal rhythms aids fertility treatment and PMDD.
  • Ultradian Rhythms (e.g., sleep stages):
    • Supported by EEG studies identifying REM and NREM cycles. Dement & Kleitman linked REM to dreaming.
    • Objective measurements enhance internal validity.
    • Limitation: controlled sleep lab studies may alter natural sleep behaviour.

ENDOCRINE SYSTEM & FIGHT OR FLIGHT:

  • Fight or Flight Response:
    • Evolutionary basis - prepares for survival. Activation of SAM and HPA systems releases adrenaline and cortisol.
    • However, modern stress rarely requires physical response - mismatch theory.
      • Taylor et al. (2000): "Tend and Befriend" - gender difference; females protect offspring and seek social support.
    • Overactivation linked to health issues (e.g., hypertension, suppressed immunity) - practical relevance for stress management.

NEURONS & SYNAPTIC TRANSMISSION:

  • Strength: Scientific credibility - uses objective, empirical methods (e.g., fMRI, genetics).
  • Practical application: Effective treatments (e.g., SSRIs, DBS).
  • Limitation: Biological determinism - assumes no free will in behaviour; issues for legal responsibility.
  • Biological reductionism - neglects role of environment and cognition.
  • Nature vs Nurture: Often focuses on innate mechanisms, but epigenetics shows complex interaction (environment switches genes on/off).
  • Ethics: Brain imaging raises privacy concerns; biological explanations may stigmatise mental illness.

WRITING FRAME (EXAMPLE): "One strength of localisation theory is the supporting evidence from brain scan studies. Petersen et al. found specific areas active during listening and reading tasks, which confirms the idea that cognitive functions are localised. However, this theory has been challenged by Lashley, who found that learning involved all areas of the cortex, suggesting a more holistic brain function. Therefore, while localisation explains some functions, complex tasks may require distributed processing."

Issues and Debates

ISSUES AND DEBATES - A* AO3 EVALUATION

GENDER BIAS:

  • Androcentrism: Male-centred research generalised to women (e.g., Freud's theory - women as inferior).
  • Alpha bias: Exaggerates gender differences (e.g., sociobiological explanation of sexual behaviour).
  • Beta bias: Minimises gender differences (e.g., fight or flight research based on males).
  • Evaluation: Gender bias reduces validity and application of findings. Feminist psychology argues for rebalancing - greater emphasis on equality and diversity.
  • Reflexivity: Modern researchers acknowledge bias and its effects, improving validity.

CULTURAL BIAS:

  • Ethnocentrism: Judging other cultures by the standards of one's own (e.g., Ainsworth's Strange Situation assumes Western attachment styles are universal).
  • Cultural relativism: Norms are culturally bound - challenges universality of findings.
  • Etic vs emic: Etic = universal approach; emic = culture-specific.
  • Evaluation: Cultural bias limits population validity; cross-cultural research helps address this (e.g., Takahashi, Van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg).
  • Practical value: Highlights need for culturally appropriate research and interpretations.

FREE WILL VS DETERMINISM:

  • Determinism: Behaviour is caused by internal/external forces (e.g., biological, environmental, psychic).
  • Free will: Individuals actively choose behaviour (e.g., humanistic approach).
  • Hard determinism = no control; soft determinism = constrained choice.
  • Evaluation: Determinism is consistent with science and allows prediction, but may remove moral responsibility.
  • Free will has face validity and links to moral/legal systems but is difficult to empirically test.

NATURE VS NURTURE:

  • Nature: Behaviour is genetically/biologically determined.
  • Nurture: Behaviour is shaped by environment and experience.
  • Interactionist approach: Combines both - e.g., attachment (temperament + caregiver sensitivity), schizophrenia (diathesis-stress model).
  • Epigenetics: Environment affects gene expression - blurs distinction.
  • Evaluation: Research supports both sides - extreme positions are outdated. Twin studies often misattribute shared environment to genetics.

REDUCTIONISM VS HOLISM:

  • Reductionism: Breaks behaviour down into parts (e.g., biological, behavioural).
  • Holism: Emphasises the whole experience (e.g., humanistic approach).

Approaches in Psychology

APPROACHES IN PSYCHOLOGY - A* AO3 EVALUATION

BEHAVIOURIST APPROACH:

  • Strength: Scientific methodology - highly controlled lab studies increase internal validity and replicability (e.g., Skinner's operant conditioning chamber).
  • Application: Effective therapies (e.g., systematic desensitisation, token economy systems in institutions).
  • Limitation: Environmental determinism - assumes all behaviour is learned; ignores free will and internal thoughts.
  • Ethical concerns: Animal research (e.g., Pavlov's dogs, Skinner's rats) may involve distress; debate over cost-benefit analysis.
  • Reductionist - ignores biology and cognition; however, increases falsifiability.
  • Nomothetic approach allows general laws, but lacks idiographic insight into individuals.

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY:

  • Strength: Emphasises role of cognition in learning (mediational processes), unlike behaviourism - more comprehensive.
  • Bandura's Bobo Doll study supports imitation and vicarious reinforcement - high internal validity due to standardised procedures.
  • Limitation: Lab-based - low ecological validity; demand characteristics may occur (children may think aggression is expected).
  • Practical application - explains cultural norms, media influence (e.g., in aggression, eating disorders).
  • Underestimates biological factors (e.g., testosterone in aggression) - partial explanation.

COGNITIVE APPROACH:

  • Strength: Highly scientific - uses lab experiments and neuroimaging (e.g., fMRI) to investigate mental processes, increasing credibility.
  • Application: Basis for CBT and AI development.
  • Limitation: Inference of mental processes from behaviour can be indirect - lacks ecological validity.
  • Computer analogy may oversimplify human cognition - mechanistic reductionism.
  • Nomothetic but lacks flexibility for individual differences; lacks consideration of emotion.
  • Soft determinism - mental processing constrained but not rigid, offering balance.

BIOLOGICAL APPROACH:

  • Strength: Strong scientific basis - uses twin studies, neuroimaging, and biochemical analysis (fMRI, PET scans).
  • Application: Drug treatments for disorders (e.g., SSRIs for depression or OCD).
  • Limitation: Biological determinism - assumes behaviours are genetically or chemically fixed.
  • Reductionist - ignores environmental/social context; risks over-medicalising human behaviour.
  • Ethical issues - genetic screening, labelling risk; socially sensitive research.
  • Twin studies often fail to separate nature from nurture (shared environment confound).

HUMANISTIC APPROACH:

  • Strength: Holistic - considers whole person (self, free will, personal growth), increasing face validity.
  • Focus on free will aligns with personal experience - more ethical and empowering.
  • Application: Client-centred therapy - influential in counselling psychology.
  • Limitation: Untestable concepts - lacks empirical support; unfalsifiable ideas like self-actualisation.
  • Idiographic - valuable insight but lacks generalisability.
  • Cultural bias - emphasises individual achievement (may not apply in collectivist societies).

PSYCHODYNAMIC APPROACH:

  • Strength: First to highlight influence of childhood experience and unconscious processes.
  • Application: Psychoanalysis still used today, especially for personality disorders.
  • Limitation: Subjective case studies (e.g., Little Hans) - low internal validity and lacks scientific rigour.
  • Psychic determinism - all behaviour driven by unconscious, conflicts with free will.
  • Gender bias - Freud's theories criticised for androcentrism (e.g., penis envy).
  • Lacks falsifiability - concepts like the id or Oedipus complex can't be empirically tested.

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION ACROSS APPROACHES:

  • Determinism: Behaviourist, biological and psychodynamic are hard deterministic; humanistic favours free will.
  • Reductionism: Biological and behaviourist are highly reductionist; cognitive = machine reductionism; humanistic = holistic.
  • Nature vs nurture: Biological = nature; behaviourist = nurture; psychodynamic & SLT = both; humanistic = interactionist.
  • Scientific methods: Biological and cognitive = high scientific credibility; humanistic and psychodynamic = low.
  • Idiographic vs nomothetic: Humanistic and psychodynamic = idiographic; others = nomothetic.

WRITING FRAME (EXAMPLE): "One strength of the cognitive approach is its use of scientific methodology, including lab experiments and brain imaging techniques like fMRI. This enhances internal validity and allows the approach to establish cause-and-effect relationships. However, reliance on artificial tasks may reduce ecological validity, and the analogy of the mind as a computer may neglect important emotional and social influences..."