IB Psychology HL Notes (Incl. Human Reltn. & Abnormal Psych Options)

By mythic_fci#1141
IB Psychology Notes
These notes were written based on my revision for May 2019 exams. They may not
reflect syllabus updates for later exam sessions.
Key Acronyms
S: Participant (Ss: Participants, Ss’: Participants’, etc.)
R: Researcher (Rs: Researchers, Rs’: Researchers’, etc.)
E: Experimenter (Es: Experimenters, Es’: Experimenters’, etc.)
I: Interviewer (Is: Interviewers, Es’: Interviewers’, etc.)
Exp: Experiment
+ve/-ve: Positive/Negative
BIO: Biological Approach
SCTRL: Sociocultural Approach
COG: Cognitive Approach
HR: Human Relationships Option
ABN: Abnormal Psychology Option
Research Methods
Ethical Considerations
Researchers must always seek approval from their supervising ethics board before
any study. Researchers & the ethics board must:
● Ensure that all ethics requirements satisfied to greatest extent possible

● Perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine if benefits of study/exp
procedure outweigh any ethical concerns
Research on Humans:
● 4 main ethical guidelines to satisfy for any experiment/research involving

humans:
○ Informed Consent: Ss should know general aim of study & their rights
to agree to participate
○ Withdrawal: Ss should be allowed to leave experiment & ask for data to
be removed at any time without punishment or loss of reward
○ Harm: Ss should not be subjected to any long-term and/or undue
physical & mental harm (e.g. emotional distress, pain, etc.)
○ Debriefing: At end of study, Ss should be told full details of study
including any deception necessary for experimental purpose & Rs
should ensure Ss health & comfort
IB Psychology Notes — by mythic_fci#1141
Research on Animals:
● Some ethical considerations necessary for humans unnecessary (e.g.

informed consent impossible to obtain from animals) or relaxed (e.g. animals
may be subjected to invasive surgery, isolated, killed, etc. if necessary) for
animals
● However, animals still should not be subject to undue stress, harm & pain
○ A cost-benefit analysis should still be performed, weighing the benefit
of the findings you might obtain to the cost of any stress, harm, or pain
caused to the animals in the process.
● The ‘Three Rs’ guide ethics in animal research:
○ Replace: Where possible, replace testing on animals with other forms
of experimentation.
○ Reduce: If it is necessary to use animal testing, reduce the number of
animals used to the minimum necessary to complete the research.
○ Refine: Refine techniques used in animal testing to the point where
minimal stress, harm & pain are caused, if any.
Sampling Methods
The process of recruiting Ss for a study. There are 2 types of sampling methods:
Probabilistic Techniques: Selecting people in such a way that all members of a

population have a (theoretically) equal chance of being part of the sample.
Name What is it? Strengths Weaknesses
Random Randomly selecting with sufficient Time consuming,

members of population sample size, expensive, very
(each member has equal individual difficult to truly
chance of being part of characteristics achieve
sample) should be evenly
distributed,
negating effects
on results
Stratified Splitting a group/population Helps ensure Time consuming &

into its sub-groups, then distribution of difficult (esp. when
randomly sampling Ss from sample is many strata are
specific categories (‘strata’) representative to present within
of population to form population population),
sample subject to R’s
knowledge of
population
2
Cluster Randomly selecting Ss from Easier & more Generalizability

a subset of the larger convenient impacted if subset
population to represent the is different from
larger population. broader population
Non-Probabilistic Techniques: Selecting ppl with specific characteristics desirable

to the study. Not all members of the population have an equal chance of being
selected. Common in qualitative research.
Name What is it? Strengths Weaknesses
Purposive Selecting specifically Ss Allows Rs to R’s bias/prejudice

likely to give relevant investigate more may influence
info based on study’s specific aspects sampling
characteristics (i.e. (behaviors,
what’s being studied) phenomena, etc.)
Quota Splitting a Allows Extremely time

group/population into its representative consuming &
sub-groups, then sampling of difficult, subject to
selecting Ss from those populations R’s knowledge of
sub-groups to best fit matching needs of population
the population and/or experiment
needs of the experiment
Snowball Using existing Ss to help Allows Rs to Ss found may not

recruit additional Ss sample from be representative
through own social otherwise-difficult of group being
networks to access target studied (ppl tend
populations to be friends with
like-minded ppl)
Convenience Choosing Ss who are Quick, easy, High potential for

easily available to Rs for convenient sampling bias;
study (e.g. Psych sample may be diff
undergrads) from population
3
Haphazard Any other Extremely easy, Extremely

non-systematic method quick, cheap vulnerable to
of sampling (e.g. anyone sampling bias, esp.
passing by a grocery as characteristics
store) of sample not
known (unable to
compare with
broader
population)
Quantitative Research
Used to derive universally-applicable, objective rules for behavior of broader
populations through experiments.
Variables
Quantitative research is based on variables, i.e. any characteristic objectively
quantified through operationalization (expression in terms of observable
characteristics).
Independent Variable [IV]: The variable that’s changed in order to test a hypothesis.
Dependent Variable [DV]: The variable that’s observed/measured, in order to support

or disprove a hypothesis.
Controlled Variable [CV]: Variables which the researchers control in order to reduce
unwanted changes or effects to the DV.
Extraneous Variable [EV]: Variables which may adversely impact the manipulation of
the IV, and/or the measurement of the DV.
● Also known as confounding variables, if they interfere with ability to determine

causative relationship between IV & DV
● May include (but not limited to) researcher or participant biases
● Main types are:
○ Situational Variables: Factors in the environment (e.g. temperature,
lighting, etc.)
○ Ss Variables: Characteristics of the sample or individual S (e.g. age,
gender, SES, etc.) that may influence (bias) how they perform on
experimental tasks
○ Demand Characteristics: Ss changing the way they act, because of what
they perceive the experiment’s purpose to be; for example:
● Halo Effect — Trying to ‘help’ the experiment succeed by
acting in a way that meets researchers’ expectations
4
● ‘Screw You’ Effect — Trying to sabotage the experiment

● Social Desirability Bias — See Biases
■ Investigator Effects: Researchers/experimenters unintentionally
influencing the way Ss behave (through leading questions,
observer effects, etc.)
Validity
The truth/accuracy of the experiment & its elements (sampling, measures, etc.)
Two types:
INTERNAL VALIDITY EXTERNAL VALIDITY
How much does the experiment’s How much can the experiment’s
procedure or findings actually allow you findings be generalized beyond the
to draw conclusions about the effect of experiment itself?
the IV on the DV?
● E.g. Are findings like “cramming
● E.g. Does an intelligence test for 40 hours straight increases
actually measure intelligence? your performance on an IQ test”
○ This is construct validity, a really applicable to the behavior
type of internal validity and needs of the general public?
which looks specifically at ○ This is ecological validity,
whether something a type of external validity
actually measures what which looks specifically at
it’s intended to measure how much a study’s
● The presence of findings can be applied to
extraneous/confounding the real world
variables may decrease internal ● Other types of external validity
validity include:
○ Population validity: How
well a study’s findings can
be generalized to the
population it studies
(linked with
sampling/sampling bias)
○ Historical validity (how
well a study’s findings can
be generalized across
time periods)
○ Etc.
5
Methods
Quantitative research uses non-probabilistic sampling methods to recruit Ss from the
population being researched, avoiding sampling bias (see Biases) as much as
possible so that the findings of the study can be generalized to that population.
There are 4 types of experimental methods used in quantitative research:
LABORATORY (Lab) EXPERIMENTS
An experiment conducted in a controlled environment. The researcher manipulates

the IV to (hopefully) cause a change on the DV.
Strengths Weaknesses
● Causation can be easily ● Controlled lab tests are rarely

established between the IV & DV, similar to real-life environments &
since Rs can tightly control the situations
environment to eliminate ○ Ss’ cognition (thinking) or
extraneous variables and their behavior may be different
unwanted effects. to if they were in a real
situation (i.e. low realism)
in a natural environment
(i.e. low ecological
validity)
FIELD EXPERIMENTS
An experiment that is conducted in a natural environment, where the researcher

manipulates the IV.
● The natural environments of such ● Natural environments are much

studies may be closer to the harder to control for extraneous
environments a person would variables, at least not without
encounter in real life introducing unnatural elements
○ Thus, Ss’ cognition & ○ If the researcher doesn’t
behavior are likely more control many aspects of
similar to real life (i.e. the environment, they risk
ecological validity tends to having weak causation
be stronger) ○ If the researcher heavily
● As the researcher directly controls their environment,
manipulates the IV, strong they risk having lower
6
causation can still be established realism & ecological

in such experiments validity
NATURAL EXPERIMENTS
An experiment conducted in a natural environment, where the researcher observes

naturally occurring changes in an IV, and measures their effect on the DV. The
researcher does not manipulate any variables.
● Since the researcher is simply ● Often difficult (even impossible)

observing a natural situation to replicate, because the natural
developing as it would naturally situations in question can be very
rare, making it difficult to confirm
develop, and is not intervening in
the findings of such studies
any way, the ecological validity of ● Possible low generalizability
such studies is often very strong ○ It’s difficult to tell if certain
● It may be possible to study extraneous variables
certain phenomena that specific to the natural
researchers cannot feasibly, or environment or situation,
ethically, study otherwise1 rather than the
researchers’ chosen IV,
were responsible for the
change (or lack of change)
in the DV.
QUASI-EXPERIMENTS
Comparing Ss based on differences in pre-existing variables (e.g. gender, age).
● Such studies allow for ● More difficult for researchers to

comparisons between control for extraneous variables
pre-existing groups. ○ No control over how the
group was formed; thus,
no way to ensure that both
groups are equal in all
ways except for the IV
● Correlation ≠ Causation — All a
quasi-experiment tells you is that
two naturally-occurring groups
1
E.g. Charlton et al., 2000 (not included in these notes) took advantage of a rare situation—the
introduction of TV to an isolated island—to allow researchers to study the effect of TV on childrens’
behavior. It’d be extremely difficult, not to mention arguably unethical, to deprive a large group of
children access to TV from birth just to test a hypothesis. However, since the lack of TV naturally
existed, and its introduction was going to happen anyway, the researchers were able to simply
observe a sample of children before & after the change as it happened.
7
are different from each other, or

perform differently to each other,
in certain ways. There’s not
enough information to say for
sure why they are different in
those ways, or whether
difference A caused difference B2
Design
Experiments may either use:
● Independent Measures: Allocating Ss into diff groups (usually randomly), then

exposing each group to a different condition; cancels out confounding
variables. Subtypes include:
○ Matched Pairs: Rs match 2 Ss with similar characteristics into a pair,
then assign the 2 Ss done with all Ss such that groups are equivalent
● Repeated Measures: Same Ss exposed to multiple conditions; Ss’s own
performance between conditions compared.
○ Also often requires counterbalancing: Equal no. of Ss should perform
all possible orders measures could come in, negating order effects
Analyzing Data
Statistical Significance: The likelihood that an experiment’s results (a correlation, a
difference between groups, etc.) indicate a causal relationship, as opposed to simply
having happened by chance.
● Causal relationship: The change in the IV caused the change in the DV

● Researchers work with 2 hypotheses:
○ The null hypothesis says that there is no relationship between the IV
and DV.
○ The research hypothesis (or ‘alternate hypothesis’) is a prediction,
usually based on existing evidence & theories, that there is a
relationship between the IV & DV.
2
For example: In Maguire et al. (2000), the brains of London taxi drivers were found to have (on
average) more volume in some areas of their brain than non-taxi drivers. It’s possible that taxi driving
caused a change in the taxi drivers’ brain structure, helping them remember routes and navigate
around the city more easily. It’s also possible that the people who pass the tests to become a licensed
taxi driver tend to already have different brain structures, in ways that allow them to naturally
remember routes better. Since the study didn’t investigate if the differences in brain structure between
the two groups existed before the taxi drivers became taxi drivers (which would’ve made it a natural
experiment), there’s no way to tell which explanation is true (and it’s possible both are true at once!).
8
○ If the results of an experiment were extremely unlikely to happen if

there was no relationship between your IV & DV (i.e. assuming your null
hypothesis was true)...
○ Then the results are statistically significant and the researcher can
reject the null hypothesis.
● How do you check this? Inferential statistics — these give the probability (p)
that a result is due to random chance, assuming that the null hypothesis is
true.
○ p < 0.05 — The probability that the results occurred by chance, if the
null hypothesis was true, is less than 5% (i.e. findings are significant)
○ p > 0.05 (or p = n.s.) — The probability that the results occurred by
chance, if the null hypothesis was true, is greater than 5% (i.e. findings
are not significant)
○ There are 2 types of inferential stats: parametric (i.e. assumes the
result data belongs to a specific type of mathematical distribution, like
a normal distribution) and non-parametric (i.e. doesn’t require the result
data to have any kind of distribution)3
CORRELATIONAL ANALYSES investigate the presence of a linear relationship

between 2 variables (in a study, this’ll usually be your IV & DV).
● A linear relationship means that when X changes, Y changes proportionally to

it. On a 2D graph, this’ll look like a straight line.
○ Positive Relationship: As A increases, B increases linearly & vice versa
Negative Relationship: As A increases, B decreases linearly & vice versa
○ In psychology, it’s standard practice to make the x-axis (horizontal) your
IV, and the y-axis (vertical) your DV.
● If a relationship isn’t linear, you may be able to linearize it by applying a
mathematical transformation to one of the variables (e.g. taking its square
root), allowing the relationship to be investigated linearly.
The strength of a linear relationship may be measured by its correlation coefficient

(represented by r), a number which ranges 1 to -1. To understand what different
values of r mean:
Absolute Value of r
(i.e. ignore the negative sign, if there is one)
Strong 1 to 0.8
Moderate 0.8 to 0.5
Weak 0.5 to 0.3
3
You generally don’t need to know this for the exam papers, since you won’t be expected to memorize
studies in so much detail that you know the stat tests they used. This can be helpful for IAs, though.
9
Very Weak (essentially no 0.3 to 0

correlation)
Qualitative Research
Used to acquire an in-depth understanding of particular cases, situations,
phenomena, etc. of human experiences, interpretations, or meaning.
Credibility
The qualitative ‘version’ of internal validity—i.e. do findings reflect reality of Ss’s
experiences or the situation being studied? (if they do, the study is credible)
This can be ensured in various ways:
Triangulation: Combining diff approaches of investigation. Four types:
● Methodological: Using diff methods (e.g. interviews & observation)

● Data: Studying data from diff sources (e.g. interviewing Ss & reading Ss’
journals)
● Researcher: Using diff Rs/Es (e.g. using 2 observers & comparing their notes)
● Theoretical: Using diff theoretical approaches to address a situation (e.g. diff
models, psychological approaches, etc.)
Rapport: Having a good relationship with Ss, ensuring their responses are voluntary
(unforced) & honest (true: no lying, demand characteristics, social desirability bias,
etc.)
Iterative Questioning: Rephrasing then re-asking questions later to prevent Ss from

distorting data intentionally/unintentionally. (Esp. useful if anomalous/ambiguous
answers given 1st time round and/or if questions relate to personal/sensitive topics)
Reflexivity: Rs reflecting on how subjectivity/bias might influence their findings. Two

main types:
● Epistemological: Reflecting on strengths, limitations, biases arising from

method of study used
● Personal: Reflecting on influence of personal background, beliefs,
expectations, etc. on collection & interpretation of data
Credibility Checks: Ensuring interpretations are correct by sharing data,

observations, transcripts, etc. with Ss & asking if accurate
10
Biases
Biases may influence Rs/Ss in ways that decrease the credibility of quantitative
findings. Some examples include:
Participant Researcher
Acquiescence bias: Tendency to give Confirmation bias: When Rs have prior

+ve answers, regardless of the question beliefs & uses research unintentionally
● Some ppl may do this by nature to confirm it; may influence question
● Rs should not ask leading wording, Rs’s behavioral nuances
questions, but instead should ask ● Solution: Reflexivity (see
open-ended, neutral questions Credibility). Rs should be trained
focused on Ss’ opinion to recognize confirmation bias in
themselves & adjust their
Social desirability bias: When Ss procedures to reduce it as much
respond in a socially acceptable way, as possible.
rather than giving actual, honest
responses Leading questions: When Rs/E’s
● Research on sensitive & wording of a question unconsciously
controversial topics (e.g. politics) encourages Ss to answer a certain way
is especially vulnerable, as Ss ● Rs/Es should be trained to ask
may fear judgment for saying open-ended, neutral questions &
their true beliefs/thoughts not paraphrase Ss’ responses
● Questions should be phrased
non-judgmentally & neutrally Order effects: When responses to an
earlier question influence Ss responses
Dominant respondent bias: In group to later questions
setting, when one Ss influences ● General questions should be
behavior/responses of others, e.g. asked before specific ones, +ve
hijacking talking time, intimidating ones before -ve ones, behavior
others, etc. ones before attitude ones
● Rs should keep dominant
responders in check & make sure Sampling bias: When sample isn't
all Ss have equal opportunities to adequate for research's aims (e.g. due
speak in a safe & comfortable to convenience sampling, 'professional
environment Ss')
● Rs should consider what kind of
Sensitivity bias: Tendency of Ss to sampling would best allow for a
distort responses on questions with appropriate & useful sample of
sensitive subjects, giving incorrect info Ss to be chosen
to hide secrets
● Rs should build rapport & trust Biased reporting: When some findings
with Ss, behave professionally & of study aren't equally reported (e.g. Rs
ethically (esp. in terms of only briefly mentioning evidence that
maintaining confidentiality), & doesn't fit their conclusion)
only gradually increase the ● Reflexivity & integrity training can
sensitivity of any questioning help counteract this
11
Methods
Qualitative research uses non-probabilistic sampling methods to find Ss who are
most suitable/fit best the aims of the research (allow for study of
situation/phenomenon being studied).
3 main methods used in qualitative research:
Observations
Watching & recording Ss’ actions.
4 ‘dimensions’ defining the nature of the observation (R must decide what to do on

each dimension to satisfy research/ethical requirements):
Laboratory vs Naturalistic
Essentially, whether behaviors occur naturally or not.
Laboratory: R manipulates IV directly causing S’s behavior to change (from an

outside influence) (NOTE: can be conducted in lab or natural setting)
● Strong control over extraneous variables, environment; behavior likely to
occur
● Can determine causation through isolation & manipulation of IV
● Tend to have lower ecological validity; behaviors may be unnatural
● Some topics/behaviors difficult to study in lab with observation (e.g.
altruism)
Naturalistic: Observing of situations where behaviors naturally occur without

outside influence (i.e. no R manipulation)
● Tend to have high ecological validity—takes place in Ss’s natural
environment, assumed Ss behave as they usually do
● Can be used to collect data in cases where otherwise impossible/unethical
(e.g. Alzheimer’s patients)
● Risk that Ss may react to being observed (if overt), thus reactivity
● Poor control over behavior & factors affecting behavior, behavior of interest
may not even occur during observation
Overt vs Covert
Overt: Ss aware they’re being observed
● Informed consent easy to obtain, ethical guidelines strongly followed
● Susceptible to reactivity/demand char, Ss may behave unnaturally when
observed (audience effects, SDB, etc.)
Covert: Ss not aware they’re being observed

● Ss’s natural behavior preserved, free of influence of observation
● Following ethical guidelines difficult; informed consent/use of data must be
12
obtained after fact

(NOTE: Both natural & lab experiments can be overt/covert!)
Participant vs Non-Participant
Participant observations are carried out within-group where researchers becomes
participating member
● Provides detailed & in-depth knowledge of topic which can’t be gained by
other methods
● Best way to avoid researcher bias bc Rs seek to understand how & why
social processes are the way they are (vs imposing own reality)
● Provides holistic interpretation of topic as views of group integrated deeply
in observation (1st person acct)
● Difficult to record data promptly & in organized/structured way
● Time consuming & demanding—becoming member of group takes time &
commitment
● Risk that R loses objectivity, adopting group norms/values
● R’s involvement may change Ss behavior in unnatural ways
Non-S observations are carried out as an ‘outsider’ for the group with little-no
interaction btw group & R
● Influence of R minimized (esp if covert)
● R bias may be pronounced as S input & interpretations will not be included
as much
(NOTE: These can be overt or covert!)
Structured vs Unstructured
Structured: Observations recorded in systematic & standardized way, e.g. using
checklists of behavior, frequency of specific pre-determined behaviors recorded
● Stronger reliability btw repeated measures & raters/observers
● Quantitative data: easy to process & analyze
● May limit range of behaviors receiving attention; may miss relevant
behaviors
● Creating checklist reliant on expectations/prior knowledge of researcher
Unstructured: R records any ‘noteworthy’ behavior, often descriptions of behavior

vs quantitative data
● Open-ended structure can capture all possible behaviors; suitable for
exploratory/initial investigation into new topics & behaviors
● May have poor inter-rater reliability, inconsistent observations btw repeated
observations
● Susceptible to R biases (e.g. attentional biases, confirmation bias, etc.)
● Extremely time-consuming in processing & data analysis
13
Case Studies
In-depth observation of a human experience (a ‘case’) through multiple methods

● Not itself a ‘method’, strictly speaking, just a term used for applying a
collection of them to a single human experience
● Useful for studying sensitive & unique issues (e.g. poverty, health, domestic
violence), may generate entirely new knowledge & challenge existing
theories
● However, cost & time intensive, susceptible to R bias & S effects due to long
periods both spend together, generalization not always possible
Interviews
Meetings between Rs and Ss with a specific purpose (e.g. answer a research

question, initial investigation, diagnosis, etc.) & defined roles, producing a
transcript to be analyzed
Types:
Structured Interviews: Asking Ss fixed list of questions asked in a specific order
● Allows for standardization of procedure & comparison btw observers
● However, doesn’t accommodate for individual
circumstances/characteristics of Ss
Semi-Structured Interviews: Exploring ‘themes’ with a guide (checklist of info to

ask Ss)
● Flexibility present in what to ask, open- & closed-ended questions used,
informal & conversational (usually one-on-one, face-to-face)
● Allows Ss to elaborate on answers & for detailed knowledge to be obtained,
better for addressing sensitive/private issues (private environment)
Focus Groups: Variant of semi-structured interview exploring group’s

understanding of issue
● Usually groups of 6-10ppl used. Ss interact with each other as if IRL,
discussing & responding to each other; facilitator present who introduces
everyone, establishes tone, asks questions, & leads interactions
● Allows quick collection of rich, dynamic data from group in a more natural
setting
● However, Ss may be susceptible to group dynamics (conformity) & not want
to reveal private info
Unstructured/Narrative Interviews: Individual interviews where Ss take more of a

leading role in (‘driving’) the interview. Questions mostly determined ad-hoc by S’s
responses with minimal interviewer influence.
● Useful for gaining in-depth understanding of situations’ meaning in Ss’ own
words
● However, time consuming to analyze (extremely rich data; some might be
irrelevant), ethical concerns in asking about traumatic experiences
14
Analyzing Data
Analysis of dense qualitative data (e.g. observation reports, interviews, etc.) done
through Inductive Content Analysis [ICA]
● Aka: Thematic Content Analysis [TCA], Inductive Analysis, Grounded Theory

[GT], Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis [IPA], Idiographic Approach (if
used for study of individual cases)
● Takes a phenomenological approach—focusing on direct experience of Ss
(phenomenological=perception), in contrast to positivism (idea that there is
an objective reality/objective data)
Analyzes data collected qualitatively to interpret it (opposite direction of scientific

method) to gain insider’s view of how individual makes sense of world.
Steps:
1. Read & reread transcripts—Become familiar with Ss’s account, look for key
phrases, preliminary interpretations, connections, contradictions, language
use, summary statements
2. Identify emergent themes—Find low-level/raw themes present in text that
capture sth essential abt study (doesn’t have to use psychological
terminology)
3. Structure emergent themes—List all above themes & find how they relate to
each other in higher-level clusters/hierarchies; label clusters based on
essence of themes
a. E.g. ‘Childhood cluster’ consisting of themes ‘relationships with friends’
& ‘relationships with family’
4. Re-read—Analyze data further until can’t find any more info
5. Write interpretation of data—Use high level themes to organize data, giving
examples
Generalizability
3 types of generalizability (extending findings beyond study) for both quantitative &
qualitative research:
● Sample-to-population generalizability: Applying findings to a wider

population
○ Requires a representative sample; often weak in qualitative research
due to non-probabilistic sampling used
15
● Case-to-case generalizability (transferability): Applying findings to other

situations/contexts (esp similar ones)
● Theoretical generalizability: Applying findings to broader theories
16
Biological Approach
Core Concepts
● There are biological correlates of behavior.
○ i.e. We can & have observed links between biological elements, e.g.
neurotransmission, hormones, regions of brain, etc. and various
behaviors, e.g. ability to perform tasks, reactions to life events, etc.
● Behaviors can be inherited.
○ Behaviors can be passed on from parents to offspring through genetic
inheritance (passing on of genetic material)
● As we know more about the human genome, we will/should eventually know
how specific genes relate to specific behaviors.
○ Genome: Complete genetic material
○ Genes may influence likelihood/risk of expression of various traits,
including behavior, though they don’t function in isolation
■ Multiple genes may together influence likelihood combined with
other, e.g. environmental, factors
● Animal research can provide insight into human behaviors.
○ Some animals (e.g. monkeys, rats, etc.) have very similar brains to
humans; thus, it is assumed links observed between their biological &
behavioral aspects apply to humans too
○ Not necessarily always true, though—not all such links observed in
animals are present in humans!
The Brain & Behavior

Methods of Studying the Brain
Techniques often used to study the brain are:
● Autopsies: Examining the brains of corpses (animal or human, especially with

neurological disorders) for structural differences from the norm
○ If lots of Ss/animals with common behavioral symptoms all exhibit the
same structural differences, a correlation may be drawn between that
difference & that behavior
○ Correlation =/= causation, though...
● Selective Destruction: Destroying specific parts of brains of live patients &
seeing resulting behavioral effects
○ Obviously unethical in humans to do this experimentally...
17
○ If someone otherwise experiences damage/has part of brain altered

(e.g. to cure seizures), they can be studied to correlate
damaged/altered part with behavioral characteristics
● Brain Imaging: Scanning the brain using technology to determine its structure
or function; 2 main types:
○ Structural: Can see the physical structure of the brain in great detail but
not the brain’s functioning/activity
○ Functional: Can see the activity of the brain but doesn’t show physical
structure in great detail
MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
● Structural brain imaging technology

● Uses magnetic fields to cause nuclei in brain to emit varying radio waves
(detected & processed)
● Produces 2D/3D static representation of brain structure; can ‘slice’ open
brain digitally to see internal structure
Advantages:
● Non-invasive & little-no risk of harm
● High resolution (detailed) images produced
Limitations:
● Doesn’t indicate function—structural differences can’t be linked causatively
to behaviors
fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
● Functional brain imaging technology

● Uses magnetic fields to cause nuclei to emit radio waves, takes multiple
snapshots & observes difference between regions with high vs low
oxygen-rich blood flow
● Produces 2D/3D video representation of brain activity over time.
Advantages:
● Non-invasive, little risk of harm, easy to carry out
● Can causatively indicate links between thinking & activity in brain
Limitations:
● Unnatural setting (behaviors/cognition may be artificial, not ecologically
valid)
Localization of Function
The assertion that different parts of the brain have different functions.
3 main perspectives/arguments on this issue:
● Strict Localization: Specific parts of the brain are solely responsible for
specific functions
18
● Holism (distributed functioning): Functions of the brain are the result of the
brain working as a whole, not specific regions
○ 2 key concepts:
■ Principle of Mass Action: Proportion of brain damaged directly
proportional to decreased cognitive ability
■ Principle of Equipotentiality: Ability of intact parts of brain to
carry out functions of lost/destroyed parts
● Relative Localization: Specific parts may be responsible for certain functions
but not exclusively; other parts may also assist in the functioning
Research supports instances of strict localization in some cases but counters it in

others; some functions appear localized but others not quite (relative localization
supported)
● The temporal lobe of the cerebrum appears to be associated with memory

recall
○ Maguire et al. (2000)’s findings suggest hippocampus (part of temporal
lobe) responsible for (spatial) memory, posterior for storage & anterior
for creation, though only correlation—no causation
○ Draganski et al. (2004)’s findings indicate mid-temporal lobe
responsible for memory creation
● These findings support a degree of weak localization of the cognitive process
memory to the temporal lobe, though exact areas of temporal lobe (quite big
part of brain) involved are unclear (may differ between types of memory)
○ Also unclear if other parts of brain may be involved in memory function
even if not primarily and/or not changing physically in response to
demand
○ Essentially supports relative localization (no one part of the temporal
lobe is entirely responsible for memory)
Neuroplasticity
Ability of brain to adapt/change due to experience (environmental changes, learning,
practice, etc.) physically, e.g. through changes in neural connections (grey
matter/density of synaptic connections, strengthening/weakening of synapses, etc.),
and functionally (changes in activity, changing ability).
Research extensively supports presence of neuroplasticity:
● Rosenzweig et al. (1972)’s findings indicate (in rats, at least) that brain
structure & activity (esp relating to neurotransmitter ACh) does change with
experience (though unclear if environmental or social)
19
○ Indicates activity changes in animals, what about in humans? Do

humans demonstrate neuroplasticity & changes in brain
function/activity based on demand?
● Maguire et al. (2000) & Draganski et al. (2004)’s findings indicate that in
humans, brain structure of relevant parts of brain does change with
experience depending on demands (learning/memory creation, memory recall,
etc.), though no clear conclusion on activity
○ But these 2 studies only indicate structural changes—no confirmation
of functional diffs, e.g. in ability/skill (implied in Maguire et al.,
indicated in Draganski et al. by learning of new skill), brain activity, etc.
Neurotransmitters & Behavior

Neurotransmitters [NTs]: Chemical ‘messengers’ made by body, sent between
neurons (through synaptic cleft) allowing neurotransmission to occur.
● Neurons: Cells which transmit electrical signals throughout body

● Neurotransmission: Chemical communication between neurons, passing on
impulses (signals)
How Neurotransmission Works
1. NT secreted by presynaptic (1st) neuron

2. NT floats across synaptic cleft, binds to receptor on postsynaptic (2nd)
neuron
3. NT then either excites (makes action potential, i.e. change of potential
assoc with passage of impulse, more likely) or inhibits (makes action
potential less likely) post-synaptic neuron
a. The more NTs excite/inhibit postsynaptic neuron, the more/less likely
an action potential is
4. NT then released & either:
a. Reabsorbed by presynaptic neuron for future use (reuptake)
b. Diffuses away (may lead to reuptake by or activation in neighboring
neuron)
c. Floats back to postsynaptic neuron to be activated again
d. Broken down by enzymes
NTs, in affecting transmission of impulses, may affect behavior; changes in levels

(thus synaptic activation) of NTs may thus affect behavior differently
20
● However, difficult to establish causation as often many other biological (and

non-biological, e.g. sociocultural) factors simultaneously influence behavior
One example of a NT is serotonin, an inhibitory NT; has been linked to depressive

behavior (may inhibit depressive reactions).
● Caspi et al. (2003) found variations (presence of short allele) in 5-HTT

transporter gene of serotonin linked more -ve reactions to events, implying
serotonin may play a role in depressive behavior
○ See Genes & Behavior for more info on function of genes
○ However, link between serotonin itself & reactions to events unclear as
no measures of serotonin given! Only weak/implied support, at best;
5-HTT may have other regulatory functions linked to depression
● Delgado et al. (1990) found that decreased TRP levels, linked to decreased
serotonin levels in brain in animal research (TRP involved in serotonin
synthesis), caused increase in depressive symptoms in previously-depressed
(but in remission) patients
● The TADS study (March et al., 2007) found SSRI-based drug therapy (inhibits
serotonin reuptake, increasing serotonin activation) reduces depressive
symptoms in depressed patients
Evaluating research into serotonin & depressive behavior
● Empirical evidence (research) indicates serotonin may, to some extent, plays

role in +vely influencing cognition & cognitive thinking processes
○ However, other factors (e.g. genes [5-HTT gene] with other influences
beyond serotonin reuptake, other metabolic processes, etc.) may also
play role
○ Ethical concern with lowering serotonin level in humans (undue
stress/harm)
● Other factors may also cause vulnerability beyond NT serotonin
○ E.g. Biased cognition (Beck’s Cognitive Theory of Depression; proposes
-ve cognitive beliefs about self, world & future, -ve self-schemata, faulty
thinking patterns lead to depression), sociocultural risk factors for
depression, etc.
○ To consider NT of serotonin as only cause of depressive behavior
overly reductionist
21
Hormones & Pheromones

Hormones & Behavior
Hormones: Chemicals released by glands in the body to regulate medium & long
term changes in the body (e.g. mood, attention, etc.)
● NOTE: Some hormones (e.g. oxytocin) may also act as neurotransmitters; diff
lies in whether they’re made/act within nervous system or made in endocrine
system (glands in body that produce hormones) & act on other parts of body
via blood
One example of a hormone is oxytocin, a hormone linked to cooperative behavior

(trust, sacrifice, etc.)
● Kosfeld et al. (2005) found increasing oxytocin levels intranasally resulted in

increased trust in social contexts in males
● Morhenn et al. (2008) found that massages increased oxytocin levels but only
after an act of trust & that oxytocin levels from massage predicted higher
sacrifice but not trust
○ Seems to oppose Kosfeld et al.; why? Natural levels of oxytocin acting
differently? Mixed-gender sample
● Thus, seems oxytocin has effects on cooperative behavior, though exact
effect still unclear (may/may not have effect on trust, may have further effect
on sacrifice, etc.)
Pheromones & Behavior

Pheromones: From Greek phero (I carry) & hormon (stimulating): broad term for
chemical communication between members of a species, for example for the
purpose of mating
● Form of ectohormones (i.e. hormones secreted & acting outside of an

organism’s body in other organisms)
● Generally accepted to occur in animals, including mammals; e.g. A male
rhesus monkey will ignore a female if he can’t sense pheromones signalling
fertility from her (Herz, 2009)
● Effect in humans though…? Inconclusive (some research supporting, some
opposing)
○ Most mammals use vomeronasal organ [VNO] to detect, accessory
olfactory bulb to process pheromones, but adult humans lack
accessory olfactory bulb, minority of humans have non-functional
VNOs (not linked to nervous system, therefore non-functional)
■ Do humans process pheromones some other way then?
22
○ Humans have ~400 different kinds of odour receptors, all with genetic
variants; different variants of receptors may react differently to
suspected pheromones
■ Any exp would hypothetically need to test with all possible
genetic variations to reach a conclusive answer (if one exists)
Research on influence of pheromones on human behavior has mixed findings; some

chemicals (e.g. Androstadienone [AND] produced by males; Estratetraenol [EST]
produced by females) found to have pheromone-esque characteristics but other
studies find otherwise
● Lundstrom & Olsson (2005) found that AND appears to increase mood &
psychological arousal but not attention/attractiveness perception
○ Some apparent pheromone-esque effects, but many non-pheromone
chemicals can lift mood (no chemical communication demonstrated…)
○ Much higher concentration of AND used than naturally present
● Hare et al. (2017) found AND & EST have no influence on attractiveness
perception & gender signalling; do not support argument for pheromones in
humans
○ As with Lundstrom & Olsson, much higher concentration of AND used
than naturally present...
● Both Lundstrom & Olsson & Hare et al. are lab experiments, though; some field
experiments support pheromones in naturalistic situations/environments, but
these are often funded by companies or run by Rs with vested interests
○ E.g. Cutler, Friedmann & McCoy (1998) found pheromones increased
sociosexual behavior (i.e. behaviors involving female partner; not
including personal behaviors e.g. masturbation) in heterosexual men in
natural setting (exposed via perfumes, actual romantic/sexual partners
used)
○ But Cutler et al. work in business of selling (supposedly)
pheromone-containing perfumes (Athena Institute); potential for bias in
publication & reporting findings (excluding null results?) must be
considered
● Much research seems to be focused on presence of sex pheromones
impacting mate behaviors; what about non-sex pheromones? Can findings re:
sex pheromones be generalized to potential presence of non-sex
pheromones?
23
Genetics & Behavior

Genes & Behavior
Gene: Part of DNA responsible for the synthesis of particular proteins that may result
in a specific trait or behavior
● Genotype: Specific set of variants of a gene present in one’s DNA
Phenotype: Individuals characteristics like traits, appearance, or behavior
● Genes/genotypes are considered to be somewhat responsible for the

expression of phenotypes
● However, a single gene is usually not responsible for a phenotype but may
lead to increased likelihood of it (combined with environmental factors, other
genes, etc.)
Research has implicated the function of specific genes (through molecular genetic
studies studying structure/function of genes @ molecular level) in various behaviors
● Caspi et al. (2003) linked 5-HTT (serotonin transporter gene) to -ve reactions
to life events; implied to be as variations in 5-HTT influence levels of
neurotransmitter serotonin, thus causing more -ve thinking/cognition
● Further explanations may come from evolution (see ToE); Wedekind et al.
(1995) found that MHC genes seem to influence attraction
● Thus, genes/genotype appear to influence behavior, implicitly by modulating
specific biological characteristics e.g. levels of chemicals like NTs &
hormones
○ However, studies in area all quasi-experimental (manipulation of genes
in live humans widely considered unethical, tech still in infancy); causal
link between specific genes & behaviors unclear (only likelihood/risk
increases at any rate)
○ Other factors demonstrably still affect behavior; genes not only factor
(e.g. in Wedekind et al., use of oral contraceptives reversed odor
preference; possibly as they mimicked steroids females produce during
pregnancy)
Genetic Similarity
Humans share a degree of genetic similarity with related family members:
● Monozygotic [MZ] twins share 100% of their genotype with each other
● Offspring share 50% of their genotype with their parents (& vice versa)
● Siblings and dizygotic [DZ] twins (effectively same thing; DZ twins come from
diff eggs & sperm, like normal siblings) share ~50% (average) genotype with
each other
24
Thus, studies may utilize genetic similarities between related family to study extent
of influence of genes on behavior (versus other factors e.g. environment, upbringing,
etc.)
● This is done by looking at & comparing concordance rates (% of pairs that

both display a trait within a population) between diff degrees of relation &
genetic similarity (e.g. MZ vs DZ twins)
● Twin studies compare behavior of twins with each other to determine degree
of similarity
○ If twins behave similarly in some respect, due to genetic similarity,
implies that similar behavior due in some part to genetics
○ However, environmental factors may still play a role in this, esp if twins
raised together in same environment (thus influenced equally by same
env factors)
● Adoption studies are a type of twin study comparing twins adopted & thus
raised in diff environments with diff upbringings
○ However, selective placement (when adoption agencies place children
in environments similar to biological parents, often to reduce stress on
children during adoptive process) may still cause environmental
similarities
■ i.e. Shared characteristics between environments may influence
similarity/relationship; genotype not fully isolated from
environmental confounding variables
Behaviors such as homosexuality (sexual/romantic attraction to members of same

sex) have been investigated with such studies:
● Bailey & Pillard (1991) found that MZ twins had much higher overt
(self-identified) homosexuality concordance rates than DZ & non-twin siblings,
indicating potential genetic component to homosexuality
○ However, this was only for self-identifying homosexual twins; possible
that one might be homosexual/display homosexual behaviors witho
self-identifying as gay
○ No specific genes identified though, only a statistical link/implication
● Santilla et al. (2008) found that MZ twins had much greater homosexual
behavior (both potential/hypothetical & overt/actual) than DZ twins
○ Indicates homosexual behavior in general, whether one identifies as
homosexual, appears to be influenced by genetics
○ Again, no specific genes identified though… Only a statistical
link/implication
● Why might homosexuality be genetically transmitted?
○ Hypothesized due to increased attraction—men with more feminine
faces more attractive to women during points in menstrual cycle
25
■ Zietsch et al. (2008) found that those with more sex-atypical

gender-identity (those who felt more like opposite sex) had more
heterosexual partners, especially if they had a homosexual twin
○ Implied that inheriting genes influencing homosexuality also thus
makes one more likely to inherit traits of opposite sex; thus, research
suggests homosexual traits may be genetically transmitted for
reproductive benefit
Evolutionary Explanations for Behavior

Theory of Evolution [ToE] (Darwin, 1859) posits organisms driven by need to survive
& reproduce
● Organisms best-adapted/fit to their environments survive, passing on traits

which allowed them to survive thru genes; lesser-adapted/fit organisms die
off faster/reproduce less, disappearing altogether (natural selection)
● Organisms also thus driven to reproduce as much as possible & ensure
greatest odds of survival for offspring, ensuring species survival & own (good)
traits passed on, selecting mates which ensure this (sexual selection; subset
of natural selection)
Various human behaviors, notably mating behaviors (finding partner to mate with &
produce offspring/next generation), exhibit characteristics supporting evolutionary
explanations.
● Buss (1989) found mate selection preferences across cultures match ToE
predictions re: sexual selection (preference for characteristics allowing
greater reproduction & offspring survival, e.g. mate wealth, youth/fertility,
age/experience, etc.)
○ No specific genes found though, only preferences found which appear
to support ToE
● Wedekind et al. (1995) found attractiveness appears to be influenced by
diverse MHC genes, a characteristic which aids survival, supporting ToE
explanations re: sexual selection (better odds of survival for offspring)
● Neither study, though, actually demonstrates ToE in action (only
demonstrating effects supporting presence of evolution)
○ Obviously very difficult/impossible to observe evolution in
action...maybe animal studies over several generations could provide
insight? (Possibility for future research)
26
(HL) Animal Research

Studies using the technique of experimenting on animals (animal testing/research)
may provide valuable insight into human behaviors.
● Human physiology & genetics similar to animals, so assumed that animal

research is to some extent generalizable to humans
Animal testing has various advantages/downsides—
Advantages Limitations
● Humans & animals are ● Similarity =/= same; animal

biologically & behaviorally research can’t necessarily be
similar generalized to humans
○ E.g. Rats 99% genetically ○ Animals, while similar, still
similar to humans have biological &
○ Many findings can be & psychological/behavioral
have been generalized to diffs to humans
humans with useful ○ Brady (1958)’s findings re:
outcomes responsibility causing
○ Rosenzweig et al. (1972)’s stress not wholly
findings re: neuroplasticity supported by human
have been observed in research, e.g. Rose &
humans too (e.g. Maguire Marmot (also due to
et al. (2000), Draganski et sociocultural factors
al. (2004)) absent in animals)
● Rs can investigate animals over ● Animals may behave differently
entire lifespans/generations to humans (psychological
○ Humans live on avg close differences) despite biological
to a century, can only be similarities
investigated for fraction of ○ Studies on humans must
lifespan still be conducted to
○ Animals (e.g. rats) have support findings
much shorter lifespans ● Animals can’t communicate their
(few years); Rs can responses; we can only observe
observe entire lifetimes & them
even several generations ○ Insight into cognitive
● Variables can be controlled & processes only implied
manipulated (e.g. genetic ● Ethical considerations must still
similarity, entire living be considered for animals
environment) in ways ○ Can’t just do anything to
methodologically/ethically animals
impossible in humans ○ Animal testing has its own
○ Rats inbred by geneticists ethical considerations
to produce genetically (requirements relaxed vs
similar lines of lab rats humans but still must be
27
○ Rs can ensure animals live considered); see Ethical

in identical environments Considerations (esp 3 Rs).
with only one/few ○ Experiments with signf
variables manipulated, cost/harm not justified by
switch on/off genes in benefit still unethical
DNA sequence, etc. ■ See Brady (1958)
○ Procedures may be used
that’d be unethical on
humans (e.g. surgery,
isolation, etc.)
28
Cognitive Approach
Core Concepts
● Mental processes can be studied scientifically.
○ Rs can manipulate stimuli/cognitive IVs and observe behavioral
responses (DVs) to study a relationship between such an IV/DV.
● Mental representations guide behavior.
○ There are cognitive mediators between what happens in the
environment (input) and what is delivered as output (behavior); i.e.
Input -> Mediational Processes -> Output
○ Humans always view reality with a certain lens/way of thinking dictated
by our mental representations (e.g. schemas, biases, etc.)
■ These may originate from prior knowledge/experience or innate
characteristics/biases
○ ‘Black box’ models/theories (not investigating exactly how mind
functions but rather describing processes in mind; treating inner
processes of mind as if hidden in a ‘black box’) are created by
researchers to study cognition
● Cognitive processes do not function in isolation.
○ Different cognitive processes are constantly interacting with each
other; many cognitive processes may react to certain stimuli, hard to
isolate one
○ Rs must be aware of this while studying.
● Biases in cognition can be systematic and predictable.
○ Humans appear to have certain 'tendencies' or 'habits' in processing
information, aka biases in processing
○ Evidence of these biases extensive, allow us to make predictions about
human behavior and it reveals how underlying cognitive processes may
work
Cognitive Processing
Models of Memory
Various models proposed to model the nature of memory in human mind (not just
one unitary store of ‘memory’); two important ones are:
Multi-Store Model of Memory [MSM] (Atkinson & Shiffrin)

● Inspired by computer science, sees brain as an ‘info processing unit’ (input ->
processing -> output; like a computer)
29
● Modular information processing model of encoding, storage, & retrieval of

memory
○ i.e. Process of memory broken into distinct parts that interact with
each other
● 3 stages (stores of memory): sensory memory [SM], short-term memory

[STM], and long-term memory [LTM]
○ SM: Unlimited capacity, very short duration (<1s)
○ STM: Limited capacity (~7 ±2 items), short duration (<1min)
○ LTM: Unlimited capacity & duration
○ All modalities (types) of memory stored in the same store of memory
(‘location’) regardless of modality
● Memory stores interact via control processes:
○ Attention (sensory -> STM): SM info selected thru attention,
transferred to STM for processing
○ Rehearsal (STM -> STM/LTM): STM info information repeated
(rehearsed) to maintain in STM; transferred to LTM if rehearsed enough
○ Retrieval (LTM -> STM): when information is recalled from LTM to STM
MSM’s core assertions have been supported by a variety of research:
● Glanzer & Cunitz (1966)’s findings support the concept of separate short-term
& long-term memory stores, the short term store having limited duration
● Peterson & Peterson (1959)’s findings suggest a distinct short-term memory
store with duration of short-term memory was no greater than 18s (for
remembering consonant triplets—language, aka echoic memory)
Evaluating the theory:
● One of the first memory models proposed

● Has predictive power
● Core assertions are testable; in fact, research supports core assertions
(separate stores of memory, STM having limited duration/capacity, etc.)
● However, in many respects, MSM could be considered overly reductionist
30
○ Research (e.g. Quinn & McConnel (1996)) indicates presence of

different, separate memory stores for diff types of memory, not just
one unitary store of ‘short-term memory’
○ Assumes all memory is equally easy/difficult to recall & involves same
mechanisms in same ways (may not be, e.g. FMs)
○ Doesn’t account for human ability to ‘chunk’ memory (e.g. considering
“51” as a single ‘item’ rather than two, as some animals have
demonstrated in exps)
○ Assumes memory is a passive process of storage & recall & that info in
memory stores not impacted by other mental
processes/representations (e.g. emotion, schemas, etc.)
■ Assumes info in LTM is ‘untouchable’ (no
degradation/loss/modification); research indicates otherwise
(that long-term memories degrade too over time, e.g. Talarico &
Rubin (2003))
■ Assumes memory not affected by any mental representations,
cognitive processes, etc. when research has proven they are
(e.g. Loftus & Palmer (1974))
■ Doesn’t explain confabulated memory, i.e. memories believed to
be true based on fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted
knowledge of events (e.g. Shaw & Porter (2015))
○ All in all, reflects understanding of memory in psychological research in
mid-20th century, but psychology has moved on since then
Working Memory Model [WMM] (Baddeley & Hitch)

Proposed as a response to MSM; challenges assertion of unitary stores of memory.
Develops concept of ‘short-term memory’ to include diff modalities of storage (i.e.

different types of info processed/stored differently) with concept of Working
31
Memory [WM] consisting of several stores/mechanisms all interacting with each

other:
● Central Executive: ‘Manager’ of WM; responsible for controlling attention &

resource allocation between all other components of WM
● Visuospatial Sketchpad: Stores visual and spatial info
● Phonological Loop: Stores auditory info; consists of—
○ Phonological Store (‘Inner ear’): Passively stores sound for short
duration
○ Articulatory Rehearsal Component (‘Inner voice’): Repeats auditory info
& can change modality of info (e.g. visual speech info to auditory info
by subvocally ‘saying’ words to oneself as one read them)
● Episodic Buffer: Integrates info from visuospatial sketchpad and phonological
loop into episodic memories for storage in LTM (like a video editor); added in
a later version of WMM (not in original)
● All stores interact with long-term memory (similarly to MSM; not modeled
explicitly in WMM)
Research supports assertions of WMM (in contrast to MSM):
● Baddeley & Hitch (1976) found that performance on tasks decreased with
presence of a difficult suppression task; R asserts this supports presence of
CE
○ However, unclear if CE was present or if humans have limited info
processing capability
● Quinn & McConnel (1996) found that visual & auditory memory were
separately influenced by modality-specific distractors, implying separate
mechanisms for them
● Re: STM, more comprehensive than MSM; research supports some of its
elements/assertions (e.g. modality-specific memory stores)
○ However, research on other elements remains unclear (e.g. CE); in fact,
existence & nature of CE as a component has been debated extensively
(some argue that it’s an overly vague/untestable concept)
● However, only models STM & not SM/LTM; not comprehensive in that regard
● Somewhat predictive, but unclear/vague; exact function of each component
(esp CE) in given situations still unclear, model has been criticized for
emphasizing structure over processing
● Still doesn’t/only vaguely accounts for various aspects of memory, e.g.
confabulated
● memory (might be CE overloaded therefore mistaken?), long-term memory
decay, different types of memory (e.g. FMs) being easier to recall, etc.
32
Schema Theory (Bartlett)

Attempts to explain how humans actively process info in relation to existing
knowledge.
2 forms of info processing in cognitive psych:
● Top-Down: Using existing knowledge to interpret/process info thru our own

‘cognitive lens’; schemas play a role in this
● Bottom-Up: ‘Pure’ info processing based on the info as-is witho bias or
influence
Schemas: Cognitive structures derived from past experiences that provide a

framework for organizing info.
● Used to organize info in memory, regulate behavior & increase info processing
efficiency
● Fairly stable/resistant to change
○ Ensures continuity in our actions
○ But may lead to errors in processing if in unfamiliar situations requiring
novel approaches or if wrong schema(s) activated
Research has supported the influence of schemas on cognition/cognitive processes:
● Bartlett (1932) demonstrated the effect of cultural schemas on memory of a

culturally unfamiliar story
● Loftus & Palmer (1974)’s findings indicated schemas of violent car crashes
activated with leading questions influenced memory of a video shown of a car
crash
● Useful for explaining many cognitive processes, phenomena in cognition e.g.

reconstructive memory, stereotyping, etc.
● Lacks predictive power; only explains what schemas are, not how exactly they
influence cognition in specific situations or how they form
○ Cohen (1993) argues that schema theory is too vague to be useful,
never truly explains where they come from
○ Still useful as a concept in cognitive psych regarding mental
representations present in one’s mind, but as a theory still rather vague
● Research (empirical evidence) supports influence of schemas (mental
representations in general) on cognition & thus behavior
33
Thinking & Decision-Making

Thinking: Using information & processing it somehow (e.g. making a decision)
Decision Making: Cognitive process of choosing a belief or action/behavior from

multiple possible choices based on the preferences of the decision maker
2 types of decision making models:
● Normative (ideal models, what thinking should be; formal logic/syllogisms)

● Descriptive (realistic models of human decision making/thinking processes)
Theory of Reasoned Action/Planned Behavior [TRA/TPB] (Fishbein)

A descriptive model of decision making looking at how behavioral choice is
influenced by one’s attitudes.
● Originally proposed as Theory of Reasoned Action [TRA]; Theory of Planned

Behavior [TPB] proposed later as expansion/development of TRA
Asserts that to carry out a behavior, we must have behavioral intent—predisposition

towards behaviors based on beliefs that it will lead to a desired outcome. Behavioral
intent determined by 3 factors:
● Attitude: One’s individual/own perception of a behavior (+ve or -ve)

● Subjective Norms: One’s perception of how socially acceptable the behavior is
(+ve or -ve)
● Perceived Behavioral Control: Whether or not one believes they are capable of
carrying out a behavior (added by TPB)
Further implied that by influencing above factors, behavioral intent & thus behavior
may be influenced/changed; potential societal implications.
Research somewhat supports TRA/TPB:
34
● Albarracin et al. (2001), meta-analyzing studies on TRA/TPB re: condom use,

found moderate correlations (stat signf, even when intent measured before
the fact) between 3 factors & behavioral intent and behavior intent & behavior
○ Supports assertion that intent causes behavior & that 3 factors cause
intent
○ However, correlations not perfect; possible additional
factors/influences?
● Kothe et al. (2011) found that 3 cognitive variables influencing TRA/TPB
predict not only intent but also future behavior (eating breakfast)
○ Furthermore, changes in cognitive variables predicted changes in
behavior, though interventions targeting attitude & PBC didn’t cause
changes in variables
○ Predictions/associations not perfect (~40% between 3 factors & intent,
~30% between intent & future behavior); as with Albarracin et al,
possible additional factors/influences not accounted for
● Has predictive power; allows one to predict behavior based on given

factors/cognitive variables
● Doesn’t explain how the process of coming to a decision actually works, only
what factors influence said process
○ Extent of each of the factors/variables unclear & not explained
○ Doesn’t account for/explain delay between having intent & performing
behavior (e.g. procrastination)
● Somewhat supported by research that indicate behavioral intent is influenced
by TRA/TPB’s 3 factors & that behavior is influenced by behavioral intent; but
caused? Still unclear
○ Research has correlated these variables, but correlation =/= causation;
third/confounding variables which may cause behavioral intent & which
are correlated with but are not the 3 factors not accounted for
○ Links & correlations in research (both Kothe et al. & Albarracin et al.)
not perfect, suggesting further influences (environmental? social?)
Reliability of Cognitive Processes

Reconstructive Memory
Memory is an active reconstructive process, not passive storage & recall.
● i.e. Instead of passively recording/recalling memory like adding to & reading

from a library, we actively reconstruct/re-encode memories each time we
recall them, like a game of telephone
35
● Active reconstruction done with reference to existing knowledge/mental

representations (e.g. schemas) and may be influenced by cognitive
processes; this may lead to memory alteration, distortion, implantation, etc.
○ Thus, memory may be confabulated (memories believed true based on
fabricated, altered, distorted, or misinterpreted knowledge of events)
Variety of research supports the concept that memory is an active reconstructive

process and can be influenced during the process of constructing/reconstructing
memories (storage & recall):
● Loftus & Palmer (1974)’s findings indicated schemas of violent car crashes
influenced encoding/recall of memory of a video shown of a car crash
● Shaw & Porter (2015)’s findings indicated through the use of suggestive
interviewing/questioning techniques, wholly false yet rich (detailed) memories
could be implanted within Ss
○ Rs argue use of existing prior knowledge in suggesting false memories
indicates they served as a foundation/starting point for suggestion;
implies that prior knowledge/representations influence process of
memory recall
○ Trust & legitimacy important components; in situations one feels
comfortable in, process of memory recall may be manipulated more
easily to ‘reconstruct’ false memories that one believes/trusts own
belief in
○ Tactics used in study similar to those present in various IRL situations
(e.g. police interrogations); can be generalized to those)
● Thus, findings of studies appear to support assertion that memory is an active
reconstructive process that may be influenced by schemas & manipulated to
the point of constructing false memories based on prior knowledge
Biases in Thinking & Decision Making

Cognitive biases: Systematic deviations from normative/rational thinking.
● Humans have limited processing capacity (limited attention, can’t pay

attention to all info/analyze entire situation), so we form heuristics (mental
shortcuts/rules for making decisions) to help us process info faster; these
may lead to cognitive biases
Kahneman proposes that humans use 2 cognitive systems to process info:
● System 1—Intuitive thinking; fast, intuitive, emotional, common for everyday

tasks, leads to biases
36
● System 2—Analytical thinking; slow, logical, conscious, used for more

complex decisions
Cognitive biases may arise from the mind’s tendency to only focus on a limited
portion of available info. 2 examples of this are:
● Framing Effect (Prospect Theory): When options are proposed with no logical
difference, how they are framed (described based on a reference point)
influences choice made between them (e.g. whether options described as
loss or gain)
○ Aka “Avoid risks, but take risks to avoid losses” (Baron)
○ Kahneman & Tversky (1979) proposed this as Prospect Theory; Tversky
& Kahneman (1981)’s findings supported presence of Framing
Effect/assertions of Prospect Theory
● Asymmetric Dominance: Tendency to focus on an option that clearly
dominates an decoy despite fact that decoy should have no impact on the
‘actual best’ option
○ Huber et al. (1982) demonstrated tendency to choose options
dominated by a clearly-inferior decoy (weakest in all attributes but
made to be obviously inferior to one of the choices)
Emotion & Cognition

The Influence of Emotion on Cognition
Cognitive processes (e.g. memory) may be influenced by emotion; memories formed
of highly emotional events appear to have different characteristics than normal
memories.
Flashbulb Memory Theory [FMT] (Brown & Kulik, 1977) posits that a unique type of
episodic memory (memory about an event; combines various sensory elements e.g.
visual & auditory), flashbulb memories [FMs], are:
● Formed from surprising & highly emotionally arousing info

● Maintained through overt (public; with others) & covert (internal) rehearsal
● Are more vivid & more reliable/accurate (last longer) than other memories
● Use a specialized neural mechanism in the brain (separate system of
memory)
Ppl tend to recall 6 major features of FMs (Brown & Kulik, 1997):
● Place: Where event occurred

● Ongoing Activity: What one was doing at the time
● Informant: How one learned about the event
37
● Own Effect: How one felt about the event

● Effect on Others: How others felt about the event
● Aftermath: What happened immediately after the event
Research has supported some but not all aspects of FMT:
● McGaugh & Cahill (1995) indicated that memories of emotional stories appear
to have higher short-term accuracy/reliability
○ Follow-up study using beta-blockers to reduce amygdala activation
found increased accuracy/reliability of emotional story nullified
○ Thus, study as a whole supports assertion of FMT that FMs are more
reliable/accurate & use a specialized neural mechanism
● Talarico & Rubin (2003) indicated natural FMs formed of 9/11 attacks appear
to have much higher vividness but little diff in accuracy compared to normal
memories
Thus, it appears that:
● Emotion appears to have a distinct effect on the cognitive process of memory

● Unique type of memory (FMs/FMT) appears to be formed from highly
emotional info with high vividness & confidence in memory; reliability vs
normal memories unclear
○ FMT is highly testable & has predictive power but doesn’t appear to be
fully (only partially) supported by empirical evidence (research)
(HL) Cognitive Processing in the Digital World

Developments in tech & resulting modern-day digital environment means humanity
carries out more & diff tasks daily, e.g.:
● Digital gaming with spatial elements, e.g. first-person shooters/FPSs,

simulation software, etc.
● Induced media multitasking (switching between various tasks constantly
rather than focusing on one at a time; recent phenomenon induced by digital
media)
● Etc.
Effects of digital tech on cognition seems mixed; some +ve, some -ve.
● Interaction with digital tech may have +ve effects on cognitive processing
relating to spatial awareness/ability
○ Rosser et al. (2007) found surgeons who played more video games &
self-reported more experience on them did better on surgical drills
38
○ Sanchez (2012) found that playing a spatial game (a FPS; Halo)

increased spatial understanding in broader contexts (understanding
plate tectonics)
● However, excessive exposure to digital tech (e.g. through induced media
multitasking) also appears to have -ve effects on other cognitive processes
(e.g. memory) by diverting attention
○ MSM asserts humans have limited attention… More tasks -> attention
divided between tasks -> (implied) performance decrease on each
○ Rosen et al. (2011) found induced media multitasking (texting during a
lecture) decreased memory recall efficacy
○ Sparrow et al. (2011) found that the ‘Google Effect’ (having tech to
store info for you leading to decreased memory recall) decreased recall
of given statements
■ Though this may not be applicable to digital tech in general;
arguably counterable with metacognitive strategies (e.g. forcing
self to remember)
Effects of digital tech on cognitive processing can be studied with:
● Lab experiments that directly manipulate presence of tech & observe resulting
effects on cognition/observed behavior, e.g. Rosen et al. (2011) & Sanchez
(2012)
● Quasi-experimental/correlational studies that observe natural links between
tech & cognition/observed behavior & measure (correlate, for correlational
studies) diffs, e.g. Rosser et al. (2007)
39
Sociocultural Approach
Core Concepts
● Our behavior as humans is influenced by others, even unconsciously.
● We have both an individual and social identity that influence our behavior
○ Identity: Who we believe we are
○ Individual: Relating to oneself
○ Social: Relating to other individuals in one’s life
● One can learn/take on certain behaviors through interaction with &
observation of others.
○ Aka observational learning—may play a key role in behaviors/processes
such as enculturation, survival, etc.
● Elements of culture may influence behavior.
○ Not all cultures are equal—diff cultures have diff characteristics & thus
their members behave differently
○ This may influence enculturative processes, individual vs group
behaviors (e.g. conformity), etc.
The Individual & The Group

Social Identity Theory [SIT] (Tajfel & Turner)
Asserts social categorization (act of grouping people) influences one’s identity & thus
one’s behaviors.
Posits social behaviors influenced by 4 connected concepts:
Social → Social → Social → Positive

Categorization Identification Comparison Distinctiveness
Act of grouping Group membership Comparing in-groups Motivation to show

others into: aspects of one’s & out-groups. in-group > out-group
self-image (who one to create +ve
In-groups (groups sees self as an Not always fair—for association with
one identifies as individual) are in-groups, similarities in-group, enhancing
member of) activated & brought may be exaggerated self-esteem
to forefront of one’s & differences
Out-groups (groups mind. minimized (vice versa May be successful,
one doesn’t identify for out-groups), i.e. resulting in more
as member of); “us category accentuation value placed on
vs them” effect membership to
in-group, more +ve
social identity &
40
higher self-esteem.
May be unsuccessful
(in-group perceived
inferior to out-group),
leading to lower
self-esteem & one
possibly trying to
leave in-group (if
possible)
SIT & its key assertions has been supported by a wide variety of research:
● Tajfel et al. (1971)’s findings indicate social categorization causes

competitive, arguably discriminatory (though latter is a point of contention)
behavior
● Abrams et al. (1990)’s findings suggest social identity has effect on social
behaviors, e.g. normative conformity
○ Conformity: Individuals changing their attitudes/behavior to adhere to
existing social norms (agreed-upon ideas, standards, rules, or ways of
thinking within groups/societies).
■ May originate from a normative influence (i.e. normative
conformity)
○ Normative influence: Conforming to behavior of a group, even if group
is obviously wrong, to avoid rejection/judgement (“Don’t rock the boat”)
Evaluating the theory based on above research:
● Somewhat testable; social categorization easy to induce & social comparison

can be measured, but may be difficult to measure activation of social identity
itself (maybe self-report, questionnaire, etc. could work?)
○ Above research indicates that social categorization does influence
behavior, supporting SIT
● Strong predictive ability; defined criteria lead to positive distinction
● May be overly reductionist; other variables may also be present/influencing
identity & behavior beyond merely social identity
○ E.g. studies like Sherif (1954; 1958; 1961) have demonstrated
interdependence/compatibility of goals may also affect social
behaviors, supporting alternative theories like Realistic Group Conflict
Theory
41
Social Cognitive Theory [SCT] (Bandura)

Asserts that humans don’t need to experience things personally to learn them and
can learn through observational learning from models:
● i.e. A learner can watch another person (model) carry out a behavior & learn to
either imitate or avoid said behavior depending on whether model is rewarded
or punished
● Saves time when thinking, helps with survival
4 conditions required for such learning:
● Attention: Observers must attend to modeled behavior

● Retention: Observers must be able to remember the behavior
● Motivation: Observers must want to reproduce & expect a certain outcome
from the behavior
● Potential: Observers must believe themselves to be capable of carrying out
the behavior
Research (both lab & naturalistic) appears to support observational learning in

various contexts, supporting SCT
● Bandura et al. (1961) demonstrated (short-term) observational learning of

aggressive behavior in children
● Odden & Rochat (2004) demonstrated Samoan children used observational
learning primarily to learn social/cultural norms, behaviors, etc.
Evaluating the theory based on above research:
● Testable; observational learning & SCT’s conditions for it can be induced &/or
observed
● Highly predictive in nature; with factors present/absent (can be measured),
observational learning occurs
● Range of research appears to support presence of observational learning both
in controlled & in naturalistic situations (e.g. in enculturation)
○ However, research given focuses mostly on children; further research
needed on observational learning in adults (do adults also do it? Diff
mechanism?)
○ Research indicates observational learning in cultures with high Power
Distance (see Cultural Dimensions) & from (implied) figures of authority
(adult > child in both Bandura et al. and Odden & Rochat); observational
learning with low Power Distance or from someone equal in social
status needs further study
42
○ Neither Bandura et al. nor Odden & Rochat explicitly looks @ 4

requirements of observational learning—further research needed to
confirm 4 requirements of SCT itself
Stereotypes
Stereotypes: Generalized, fixed mental representations/social categorization of a
group & its members (may be +ve or -ve)
● As our social world is very complex, it needs to be simplified—we look for

‘trends’ to make info processing easier via mental shortcuts (heuristics)
● Thus, we may form biases in our cognition which cause prejudice (-ve
attitudes/beliefs regarding groups) influencing our social behaviors (e.g.
discriminatory behavior, i.e. -ve behaviors towards groups)
Formation of Stereotypes
● SIT posits stereotypes & resulting discriminatory behavior are formed as a
result of social categorization
○ Esp the category accentuation effect (i.e. tendency in social
comparison to minimize similarities/exaggerate diffs in out-group &
vice-versa to elevate in-group)
○ Tajfel et al. (1971) demonstrated social categorization caused
apparent discriminatory behavior
■ Though actual formation of stereotypes wasn’t demonstrated or
measured; only implied they were present by way of
discriminatory behavior of Ss)
■ Chicken & egg problem: do stereotypes lead to discriminatory
behavior, or does discriminatory behavior eventually lead to
formation of stereotypes?
● May be formed due to illusory correlation—cognitive bias where ppl see a
relationship between 2 variables when there is none)
○ Hamilton & Gifford (1976) found illusory correlations are formed btw
-ve behaviors being infrequent & a resulting -ve perception of group as
a whole
○ Suggests a source for formation of stereotypes
■ Though, again, actual presence of stereotypes wasn’t measured,
only that humans may see trends in infrequent behaviors which
explains reasoning behind formation of irrational stereotypes)
43
Effect of Stereotypes
Stereotype Threat (theory on effect of stereotypes) posits stereotypes affect
behaviors of stereotyped group (& its members). Asserts ‘stereotype threat’ occurs
when members of a group are aware of a stereotype and inadvertently adjust their
behavior to match it.
● Steele & Aronson (1995) found activating/reminding of stereotype activation

affects performance via self-doubt & self-handicapping (but not thru anxiety),
causing behavior fitting stereotype not otherwise present, supporting
Stereotype Threat
● Evaluating the theory:
○ Concept is sound & testable, also backed up by empirical evidence
(Steele & Aronson)
○ However, also rather vague & lacks nuance; extent of effect unclear
○ Also seems rather focused on -ve behavior; wb ostensibly +ve
stereotypes (e.g. Asians good at math)? Can stereotype threat be
generalized to them?
Cultural Origins of Behavior & Cognition

What is ‘culture’?
Multiple definitions for ‘culture’ have been proposed; two are:
Matsumato & Juang (2007) Hofstede
“A dynamic system of rules, explicit and “Collective programming of the mind

implicit, transmitted across generations, distinguishing members of one group
that allows the group to meet needs of from another.”
survival, pursue well being, and derive
meaning from life.” i.e.
● Cultures & their members have
i.e. shared mental concepts (ideas,
● Dynamic: Changes over time norms, beliefs, etc.) that guide
● Explicit & implicit: Both openly their thinking
spoken about & implied ● Diff cultures have different
● Transmitted across generations: shared mental concepts; these
Passed on from one generation distinguish them from each other
to the next (i.e. enculturation)
● Allows the group to meet needs
of survival, pursue wellbeing,
44
and derive meaning from life:

Basically, function/survive &
thrive
Researchers studying culture (esp from outsider POV, e.g. if taking etic approach)
may be subject to WEIRD biases (Western, Educated researchers from Industrialized,
Rich, Democratic societies).
● i.e. They may be biased (consciously or unconsciously) towards applying

norms from their own Western, developed, well-off backgrounds onto their
study of other cultures not Western, developed, or well-off
The Cultural Dimensions

Hofstede, with his original questionnaire of IBM employees (see Hofstede (1973))
found 6 cultural dimensions (4 initially; 2 added later), i.e. common types of cultural
norms/values where cultures are similar/differ that influence behavior of cultures’
members
● Power Distance: How individuals relate to power & authority (preferring a

hierarchical order vs equality of power)
● Individualism vs Collectivism: Whether individuals see themselves as
dependent or independent of a social group
● Long-Term vs Short-Term Orientation: How a society thinks about its past,
present, future & how it organizes itself based on this (maintaining traditions
& being suspicious of change vs taking a pragmatic approach to change)
● Masculinity vs Femininity: Preference for ‘masculine’ (e.g. competition, glory,
etc.) vs ‘feminine’ (e.g. cooperation, friendship) values
● Uncertainty Avoidance: Degree of comfort with uncertain/ambiguous
situations
● Indulgence vs Restraint: How much individuals in a society control their
desires/impulses (allowing vs suppressing gratification)
Effect of Culture on Behavior

The cultural dimension of individualism vs collectivism appears to influence the
behavior of conformity to group norms (from normative influence).
● Conformity: Individuals changing their attitudes/behavior to adhere to existing

social norms (agreed-upon ideas, standards, rules, or ways of thinking within
groups/societies).
45
○ May originate from normative influence (i.e. normative conformity; see

below)
● Normative influence: Conforming to behavior of a group, even if group is
obviously wrong, to avoid rejection/judgement (“Don’t rock the boat”)
Research often finds that more collectivist cultures generally conform more often
than more individualist cultures. See:
● Berry (1967)—When comparing individualist (Canadian Inuits) culture with

collectivist (African Temne tribe) culture on Asch line paradigm measuring
conformity to group norm, collectivist culture conformed at much higher rate
than individualist culture
● Bond & Smith (1996)—Meta-analysis of Asch line paradigm replications
worldwide found similar findings to Berry (that individualist cultures conform
less than collectivist ones)
● Also relevant to discuss Hofstede (1973)’s original research & what it found
the cultural dimensions are (especially Individualism vs Collectivism itself)
Enculturation & Acculturation

Enculturation
The process by which people learn the norms of their culture via cultural
transmission (‘teaching’ of norms).
May occur via:
● Active learning (i.e. learner participating actively in activities of the culture)

○ Trainor et al. (2012) found that infants in active participatory music
class with parents learned preferences for tonality of music
● Observational learning (i.e. observing members of culture perform a
norm/behavior witho participating in cultural activities directly)
○ Supported by theories such as Social Cognitive Theory that assert ppl
can learn to do/not to do behaviors by observing models perform it &
the outcome the model experiences as a result
○ Odden & Rochat (2004) found that Samoan children tended to learn
cultural behaviors, norms, etc. observationally from adults witho
participating together with them
● Whether active or observational learning is used may depend on the culture in
question, age of person, etc.
○ Trainor et al. showed active learning seems to be prevalent in a
Western cultural context with lower Power Distance (see Cultural
Dimensions)
46
■ However, infants used as Ss; also questionable if Ss were

influenced by Western culture or merely behaving naturally
(degree of enculturation not likely to be high)
○ Odden & Rochat showed observational learning seems to be prevalent
in some non-Western cultural contexts and/or cultures with higher
Power Distance
■ Possible that in cultures where consulting authority is frowned
upon, ppl may be pushed towards learning observationally vs via
active participatory learning
Acculturation
Berry (2005) defines acculturation as “the dual process of cultural and psychological
change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups
and their individual members".
Berry (2008) asserts 4 acculturative strategies individuals take when faced with a
new culture:
Open to Change & Interaction with Other Cultures
Yes No
Maintenance Yes Integration Separation

of Own
Culture No Assimilation Marginalization
Acculturation may result in stress (aka acculturative stress): psychological, somatic

& social difficulties that may result in mental & physical stress, e.g. anxiety,
depression, etc.
● Berry asserts individuals who take integrative strategies experience the least
amount of acculturative stress
Research has identified various factors influencing acculturative stress.
● Miranda & Matheny (2000) found in Latino immigrants to US coping strategies

for stress, proficiency in the new culture/region’s native language, and strong
social support from one’s family reduce levels of acculturative stress
o Partly supports Berry’s assertion that integrative acculturative
strategies cause least stress—proficiency in region’s native language
indicates openness to change & interaction with new culture (but
maintenance of own culture not displayed, i.e. integrative strategy not
fully demonstrated)
47
● Lueck & Wilson (2010) found in Asian-Americans that acculturative stress is

common in immigrants & that bilingual language preferences, prevalence of
discrimination, socioeconomic status [SES], satisfaction with immigration
reduce acculturative stress
o Supports Berry’s assertion that integrative acculturative strategies
cause least stress—bilingual preference indicates interaction with new
culture (using new native language) while maintaining old culture
(continuing to use old native language)
● Evaluative Note: Both these studies look @ acculturation to US culture;
possible that acculturation works differently with other target cultures
(HL) Globalization
Globalization: The process of increasing interconnectedness across the world.
As humanity is increasingly able to interact with each other globally, our identity &
behavior are influenced accordingly.
● Some, like Giddens (1991), claim we are headed to a “global social identity”
with a “cosmopolitan” (diverse) individual for whom humankind is a “we”
(in-group) and there are no others (i.e. no out-groups)
o Globalization/global influence -> +ve influence on behavior of local
groups
● Rosenmann et al. (2015) argues that globalization is merely the spread of
typical Western values/content
o Globalization/global influence ‘overtaking’ norms, customs, etc. of local
cultures
Research indicates a variety of effects resulting from globalization & related

interactions between global & local influences
● Buchan et al. (2011) shows that those with higher GSI appear to cooperate &
act in benefit of public (global) good more, demonstrating +ve influence of
globalization/global influences on behavior
● However, globalization & global influences may also -vely influence behavior
(e.g. body image, promoting eating disorders, etc.), countering +ve influence
of local influences
o Becker et al. (2002) suggests that increasing interconnectedness
appears to increase vulnerability to symptoms of eating disorders,
induce changes in body image ideal & anxiety, etc.
o Findings could be attributed to acculturation via TV (e.g. to Western
culture, given popularity of Western programs), not globalization
48
▪ But if acculturation is spread of Western values (see Rosenmann

et al.’s argument), then maybe it does comment on the actual
nature/phenomenon of globalization…
Methods used to study globalization mostly consist of:
● Naturalistic studies which observe changes in behavior of members of a

population as they & their culture (norms, attitudes, etc.) become increasingly
globalized, e.g. Becker et al. (2002)
● Quasi-experimental studies which compare diffs between pre-existing
globalized & less-globalized individuals (e.g. those with more/less GSI), e.g.
Buchan et al. (2011)
49
Option: Human Relationships

Personal Relationships
Personal Relationships: Interpersonal relationships between individuals, including but
not limited to romantic/sexual relationships, familial relationships, etc.
Origins & Formation of Personal Relationships

Attraction, an integral part of mate selection (forming personal romantic/sexual
relationships for reproduction), has been explained via a biological approach with
evolutionary explanations.
See earlier outline of Darwin’s ToE.
Research appears to support idea that evolution guides attraction/mate selection

preferences:
● Buss (1989) found mate selection preferences across cultures match ToE
predictions re: sexual selection (preference for characteristics allowing
greater reproduction & offspring survival, e.g. mate wealth, youth/fertility,
age/experience, etc.)
○ No specific genes found though, only preferences found which appear
to support ToE explanations for mate selection
○ Cultural/globalized elements not precluded either
● Wedekind et al. (1995) found attractiveness appears to be influenced by
diverse MHC genes, a characteristic which aids survival, supporting ToE
explanations re: sexual selection (better odds of survival for offspring)
● Neither study, though, actually demonstrates ToE in action developing
preferences, only demonstrating effects supporting presence of evolution
● Explanations seem to match human behaviors found in research

○ Human mating behaviors/preferences demonstrate desire to reproduce
& ensure offspring survival
○ Genetic element to attraction (maximal survival odds with best genes)
also demonstrated, supporting modern genetic/evolutionary
explanations
○ Global nature of similarities in mating behaviors imply underlying
universal biological influence
● Only one type of personal relationship (romantic/sexual) explained;
generalizable to other relationships (e.g. friend/platonic)?
50
○ Wedekind et al. suggests additional factors explaining potential familial

attraction preference, but only implied from findings/explanation;
further research needed
● Hard to eliminate other (e.g. environmental, sociocultural, etc.) factors
○ Nature vs nurture—socialization (how attitudes, behaviors, etc. are
shaped by social influences) could also explain mate selection
○ Globalization might explain worldwide similarities
● Impossible to experimentally confirm in humans (human lifespan too long)
○ Could investigate in animals, but animals don’t mate same way as
humans do
● Potential ad-hoc fallacy (trying to ‘fit’ evidence that doesn’t necessarily
support ToE to ‘supporting’ ToE)
○ However, evolution is complex; too simplistic to just consider it as only
“survive & reproduce”, just bc something’s an exception doesn’t make it
false
Communication in Personal Relationships

Constructive communication plays a key role in the maintenance of interpersonal
relationships; Canary & Dainton liken communication to a “centrifugal force” (pulling
towards center) which, in absence, leads to relationships pulling apart.
Socio-cognitive approach to understand this may be seen in Heider’s Attribution

Theory which asserts ppl attribute event causes to either situational (outside of one’s
control) or dispositional (caused by oneself) factors.
● Attribution styles: Ways which we tend to attribute outcomes to factors

(some styles beneficial to relationships, some harmful)
● Adaptive Attribution Style: Attributing +ve behaviors to dispositional factors,
-ve behaviors to situational factors
● Maladaptive Attribution Style: Attributing +ve behaviors to situational factors,
-ve behaviors to dispositional factors
In interpersonal relationships, how attributions are made & communicated allows

maintenance of relationship satisfaction & trust (healthy relationships -> adaptive
attribution styles towards other member(s)); research supports this:
● Stratton (2003) found that maladaptive attribution styles were common in

parents to children but not to self (blaming child but not self for -ve behaviors)
in troubled family relationships
● Fletcher et al. (1987) found romantic couples with adaptive attribution styles
regarding themselves & their partner had more love, were more satisfied, etc.
51
& couples who attributed relationship maintenance to situational factors were

less satisfied
● Attributions/attribution styles clearly defined & observable/testable

● Generalizable to many types of interpersonal relationships; supported by
variety of research into various types of said interpersonal relationships
● Doesn’t consider social factors; assumes only factors are cognition &
behaviors of those involved witho considering actual influence of external
factors
○ Essentially assumes perceiving external factors in certain way results
in distress/weak relationships/non-constructive communication
(implying to an extent they don’t truly affect relationship on their own)
○ Might attributions merely reflect truth of situation (e.g. relationship
really is only being maintained due to external reasons) rather than
patterns in cognition? Overly reductionist?
● Doesn’t explain basis behind attribution styles (why do ppl choose certain
attribution styles?)
● Predictive power rather weak; can make vague predictions but not specifics,
esp as basis of attributions & extent of effect of attributional styles not
explained (lacks nuance arguably)
● Directionality unclear—do maladaptive attributional styles result in
distress/weak relationships or other way round?
Change & End in Relationships

Canary & Dainton say that relationships (witho maintenance) are destined to pull
apart (break down).
Rollie & Duck’s 5-Stage Model of Relationship Breakdown provides a sociocultural

explanation for this; stages (sequential; stages can’t be skipped) of breakdown are:
● Intrapsychic: Dissatisfaction experienced by one/both partners but not openly

expressed
○ Boundary to move to next stage is “I can’t stand this anymore”
● Dyadic: Dissatisfaction expressed & discussed openly by both partners
(doesn’t always lead to next stage; may lead to conflict resolution or
worsening)
○ Boundary to move to next stage is “I would be justified in withdrawing”
● Social: Partners seek support/help from others; normative social influence
begins to impact relationship & influence partners; often leads to relationship
breakdown
52
○ Boundary to move to next stage is “I mean it”

● Grave Dressing: Partners break up & seek to defend/justify decision to do so;
both partners experience distress (e.g. anxiety, depression, etc.), attempt to
minimize own fault & attribute breakdown cause to other factors (e.g.
environmental, partner, etc.)
○ Boundary to move to next stage is “It's time to start a new life”
● Resurrection: Final recovery; self-development, new understanding of self in
relation to former partner & community
Research supports various aspects of the 5-Stage Model:
● LeFebvre et al. (2014) found online behaviors corresponding to social, grave

dressing, & resurrection phases (e.g. seeking social network support,
removing presence of partner from own social media, withdrawing from them,
virtually reconciling with them, etc.)
● Tashiro & Frazier (2003) found behaviors supporting nature of grave dressing
(e.g. distress, attributing cause to other factors) & resurrection stages
(personal growth)
● Comprehensively models relationship breakdown; predictively, though,

somewhat vague (why & how boundary to move to next stage is reached
unclear)
● Focused on romantic relationships; difficult to generalize to other forms of
interpersonal relationships (e.g. family)
● Various stages supported by research; howevers, others not so much (esp as
difficult to test; difficult to recruit Ss in intrapsychic/dyadic stages given by
nature they don’t share issues publicly)
○ Longitudinal studies could be conducted (future research)
Group Dynamics
Cooperation & Competition
In context of intergroup dynamics (processes occurring within & between groups, aka
intra-group & inter-group respectively):
● Cooperation: Intergroup behavior benefiting interests of another group (either

while also benefiting own group or at cost of own group)
○ Aka either “I win, you win” (both other & own benefiting) or “I lose, you
win” (benefiting other but not own)
● Competition: Interpersonal or intergroup behavior benefiting interests of own
group at cost of other group
53
○ Aka “I win, you lose”
Sociocultural Explanations: Social identity Theory & Realistic Group Conflict Theory.
Social Identity Theory [SIT] (Tajfel et al.)

See earlier outline & evaluation of SIT as supported by Tajfel et al.
(1971)—demonstrates effect of social categorization on causing competitive
behavior between groups (though concerns with artificiality of situation present).
Realistic Group Conflict Theory [RGCT] (Campbell)

Attempts to explain conditions from which conflict/competition and cooperation
(also conflict resolution) between groups originate.
● Conflict/Competition:
○ Arises from incompatible goals (i.e. negative interdependence—only
one side can succeed)
○ Results in ingroup favoritism, discriminatory social norms/behavior
against out-group, etc.
● Cooperation:
○ Arises from superordinate goals (i.e. positive interdependence—shared
goals + working together required for success)
○ Results in reduction/elimination of conflict (stereotypes,
prejudice/discrimination, conflict, etc.)
Supported by Sherif (1954; 1958; 1961)’s Robber’s Cave studies.
● Acknowledges further variables beyond SIT

● Highly predictive & testable; supported by empirical evidence (research)
○ However, Sherif’s studies were conducted on children; concern re:
generalizability?
○ Theory could be generalized to youths/adolescents but adults, further
study may be needed to see if diffs exist
Prejudice & Discrimination

● Prejudice: -ve attitudes towards individuals/groups
● Discrimination: -ve behaviors towards groups/individuals based on group
membership (result of prejudice)
How do we explain the origins & effects of prejudice & discrimination?
54
SIT & RGCT

SIT & RGCT provide a sociocultural framework for understanding the origins of
prejudice & discrimination (see earlier outlines + research).
● SIT asserts prejudice & discriminatory behaviors originate from social

categorization
● RGCT asserts prejudice & competitive inter-group discriminatory behaviors
arise from incompatible goals/-ve interdependence.
Implicit Bias
Prejudice (which leads to discrimination) may arise from cognitive biases (see
earlier definition/explanation). May not be explicit (openly stated) & may be implicit
(present but not openly stated.
Where do these biases originate from?
Bartlett’s Schema Theory has been used as a framework for understanding prejudice
& discrimination.
● Asserts that activation of social schemas about others influences cognitive

processes (e.g. memory), leading to prejudice & discriminatory behavior
● E.g. Levinson (2007) found in a sample of volunteers that their memory of
(otherwise-identical) stories was biased against African-Americans &
Hawaiians in favor of Caucasians (& that these biases were unrelated to
explicit racial preferences)
○ Implied that prior knowledge/cognitive structures biased their
cognition given memory is an active reconstructive process & stories
were identical
○ Also indicates such implicit biases are separate from explicit biases
How do we measure implicit biases?
Given we can’t ‘observe’ mental processes, knowledge, schemas, etc., how can we
measure presence & extent of implicit prejudicial biases?
Greenwald et al. developed the Implicit Association Test [IAT] as a technique to

measure such implicit biases.
● Based on idea that if someone has strong automatic associations between 2

mental concepts, reaction time to associate them will be shorter than if weak
association present
○ i.e. The stronger the mental association , the less conscious
processing needed to link them
● Test is digital; on screen, 2 words indicating concepts (e.g. Black &
unpleasant) are shown on left & 2 on right, word flashes up in middle, Ss use
55
keyboard to indicate if it’s associated with either of the concepts on the left or
either on the right
○ If 2 concepts on a side have strong mental assoc (feel naturally related
to Ss already), Ss will take less time to associate them
○ If 2 concepts on a side have weak mental assoc (feel
contradictory/unrelated to Ss), Ss will take longer to associate them
Levinson et al. (2010) conducted study using IATs to determine effect of implicit
biases on decision making in a legal context; found that:
● Implicit biases against African-Americans are linked with more harsh

judgment but regardless of race
● Implicit biases appear to be correlated with explicit racial biases but inversely
correlated with explicit (emotional) racial preferences
● Possible metacognitive strategies at play? Human bias for desiring
consistency in action?
Evaluating implicit bias research:
● Main assertions supported by evidence; implicit biases do appear to be

present in form of existing knowledge/representations, biasing cognition
prejudicially
● Effect can & has been observed; however, actual effect on behavior unclear
(may not actually lead to discriminatory behavior)
○ Levinson et al. found that implicit biases don’t seem to influence
decision making in a biased manner (though they do make it more
harsh)
● Most research quasi-experimental/correlational; can’t establish causation (do
racial attitudes/beliefs cause implicit bias or other way round?)
○ Much research also focused on Western, namely US, racial dynamics;
wb implicit racial bias in other races with diff dynamics (e.g. Asian
cultures)?
○ Further research needed in other contexts (diff legal domains, other
cultural contexts, etc.) to determine more fully nature & influence of
implicit biases
Biological Correlates (Amygdala, mPFC, Insula)

Research has found biological correlates in brain areas to certain reactions/cognitive
processes (significant element of inter-group conflict):
● Medial Prefrontal Cortex [mPFC]: Region of brain at very front of forward lobe;
assoc with processing social info about people
● Insula: Region of brain within cerebral cortex associated with disgust
● Amygdala: Associated with emotion & emotional reactions (especially fear)
56
Activation/lack of activation of these may indicate elements of how we viewithreact

to prejudiced groups & thus origins of prejudice and resulting discriminatory
behavior.
● Harris & Fiske (2006)’s initial study found prejudicial reactions of disgust to
those of low ability & warmth/closeness relative to self were linked to
reactions of fear, disgust, & dehumanization indicated by brain activity
● Harris & Fiske (2006)’s follow-up study found that dehumanizing reactions
could be reversed (‘rehumanizing’) with tasks requiring personalization
Evaluating these explanations/research:
● Correlation, not causation; does brain activation cause

prejudice/discrimination or other way round?
● Only implies elements of prejudice; discriminatory behavior & conflict between
groups not demonstrated
○ One could hold prejudices witho inciting conflict or performing
discriminatory behavior (metacognitive strategies?)
Origins of Conflict & Conflict Resolution

● Conflict: Explicit competition between groups; a continuum starting from
prejudice to overt discriminatory behavior & bias
● Conflict Resolution: Strategies to reduce conflict.
How is conflict caused & how do we reduce it?
● Sociocultural explanation: SIT & RGCT (+Allport’s Contact Theory)

● Biological explanation: Biological correlates of prejudice (+Allport’s Contact
Theory)
SIT & RGCT

SIT & RGCT provide a sociocultural framework for understanding the origins of
conflict & conflict resolution (see earlier outlines + research).
● SIT asserts conflict (prejudice & discriminatory behavior against out-groups)

originate from social categorization
● RGCT asserts conflict (discriminatory behavior against outgroups) arises
from incompatible goals/-ve interdependence & conflict can be reduced in
situations with shared goals/+ve interdependence
57
Biological Correlates
Biological correlates (see earlier outline + research) have been linked to prejudicial
attitudes & their resolution which cause discrimination, a key element of conflict
(NOTE: Conflict itself not observed/measured!)
Contact Theory
Originally proposed by Allport (1954); further contributions by Dovidio et al. (2003).
Asserts following conditions necessary in mutual contact for reduction of conflict
between groups:
● Equal status
● Shared goals
● Intergroup cooperation
● Support of societal/institutional authorities
● Personal acquaintance with outgroup members, considering other member as
an individual
● Inter-group friendships
First 4 supported by research into RGCT (e.g. Sherif (1954; 1958; 1961)); 2nd-last one
supported by biological research into correlates of prejudice
(dehumanization/rehumanization).
58
Option: Abnormal Psychology

Disorder to be looked at:
Major Depressive Disorder [MDD]

Characterized by DSM-5 as having the following symptoms (ABCDE):
● Affective symptoms (e.g. insomnia/hypersomnia, depressed mood, suicidal

thoughts, etc.); 5+ of them for >2 weeks
● Causing Behavioral impact on social, occupational, etc. areas of functioning
● Not caused by other medical Conditions/Chemicals (substances)
● Not explained by other Disorders (e.g. delusional, schizophrenic, etc.)
● Without manic/hypomanic Episodes
DSM-5 gives 12-month prevalence rate of 7%, 3x more 18-29 y/os than >60y/os,
1.5-3x more females than males.
Etiologies of Disorders
Etiologies
Biological: Serotonin Hypothesis
Asserts that low activation of serotonin causes depressive symptoms/behavior. See
earlier outline of serotonin as a neurotransmitter.
Cognitive: Cognitive Theory of Depression (Beck, 1967)

Identifies 3 cognitive elements of depression:
● Cognitive Triad: -ve beliefs about self, world, & future (leading to each other in
that order); deeply rooted, influence automatic thoughts to be irrationally
pessimistic
● -ve Self-Schemata: Generalized -ve beliefs about self; individuals see own
fault in everything that happens to them (even if out of their control)
● Faulty Thinking Patterns: Irrational/illogical thinking (e.g. logical fallacies,
irrational conclusions, etc.) resulting from biased info processing arising from
first 2 elements
Research has been conducted into CTD as an explanation for depression, both in
terms of the elements causing depression and treatment based on the elements.
● Alloy et al. (1999), investigating cognitive elements causing depression, found

those with -vely biased & pessimistic cognition about world & self were more
likely to develop MDD & suicidal tendencies
59
● Reverse logic may be used in that if treatment based on/’fixing’ the elements
of CTD is successful, therefore CTD must be the cause of depression
○ Hollon et al. (2005) found that treatment based on CTD was more
effective in preventing relapse; implies CTD is ‘true’ cause of
depression (as treatments based on it actually cure cause vs
symptom)
○ The TADS study (March et al., 2007) found that CTD had similar
long-term remission rates to drug therapy & combined treatment &
lower suicide rates to drug therapy BUT drug & combined therapy had
better short-term efficacy
■ Indicates bio factors must also be considered
Evaluating CTD:
● Difficult to test for; can’t ‘observe’ cognitive elements, only can be reported &
effects on behavior observed
○ Thus, difficult to investigate & predict in own right; can investigate
cognition in general but hard to isolate variables
○ Backwards logic may be faulty; may just counteract effectively the ‘true’
cause without revealing it (3rd variable?)
● However, empirical evidence appears to support in various contexts, plus has
been used to develop effective diagnostic tools & treatments e.g. CBT
Sociocultural: Risk & Protective Factors

Sociocultural factors relating to social environment may play a role in protecting
against (protective factors) or causing vulnerability to (risk factors) depression.
US National Institute for Mental Health [NIMH] identifies several risk & protective
factors for various stages of life, e.g.:
● Risk: Parental drug abuse, marital conflict/divorce, poverty, etc.

● Protective: Good peer relationships, extended family support, +ve teacher
expectations, etc.
Research supports presence of sociocultural risk & protective factors:
● Brown & Harris (1978) found that a variety of risk & protective factors along
with provoking agents (severe life events) contributed to development of
depression in UK women
● Kivela et al. (1996) found a variety of societal factors predicting the
development of depression in elderly Finnish ppl
Evaluation:
60
● Only risk/protective factors but not direct causes; possible further

biological/cognitive vulnerabilities
○ Research into sociocultural factors does generally acknowledge this
○ Any perspective taking these into account must also consider other
bio/cog factors then; only considering one would be overly reductionist
● Diffs between cultures, social groups, age groups, etc. (as shown by research)
indicate further research necessary to establish factors for many diff groups
○ Can’t generalize research on one to all (other than, at most, basic
trends)
○ As such, may not be very predictive in nature, more descriptive of
situations than anything
Prevalence Rates
Prevalence Rate: Proportion of a population found to be affected by a disorder.
Various factors may influence the prevalence rate of disorders, e.g.:
● Sociocultural Change: Societal/cultural change may impact prevalence rates

within populations, both by changing reporting of disorder and actual
likelihood/vulnerability of disorder
○ Twenge (2015) argues that recent increases in prevalence of
depression in youth is bc of destigmatization of depression (more
awareness+ppl willing to come forward/seek help, not necessarily
increased actual prevalence).
○ Recent phenomena of globalization (increasing global connectedness
worldwide means where previously local influences may have
protected against disorders/abnormal behaviors, global influences
might override them & not protect against them to same degree
○ Becker et al. (2002) found that after TV’s intro to Fiji, presence of
indicators of eating disorders increased
■ Unclear if due to a Western cultural shift (prevalence/popularity
of Western TV programs) or globalization caused this
■ Rosenmann et al. (2015) argues that actual phenomenon of
globalization is the spread of Western cultural values, norms,
etc. (Western influence) though, so answer could be both
● Validity of Diagnosis: If validity of diagnosis is low (e.g. flawed diagnostic
system, biases in diagnosis, etc.), higher/lower prevalence rates may be
observed from diagnosis rate than actually present in a population
○ Rosenhan (1973) found flaws in validity of diagnoses in variety of US
mental institutions; these might impact prevalence rate as if diagnoses
61
invalid, reported prevalence rate of disorders in population would differ

from actual prevalence rates
○ Brings up question of normality vs abnormality; diagnostic systems
determining boundaries/characteristics of abnormal disorders &
behaviors are written by humans, changing them (e.g.
widening/narrowing bounds for disorders) may change disorder
prevalence rates
■ Abnormal behaviors still observable & do exist, but how do we
recognize & classify them properly?
■ Design of diagnostic systems must consider various factors
(behavioral, somatic, etc.) in defining rigorous & valid definitions
to ensure that diagnoses, thus resulting prevalence rates, are
accurate
Treatment of Disorders
Biological & Psychological Treatments
Two main approaches: biological (chemical; drug therapy, focusing on changing
biological aspects influencing depression) and psychological (CBT; focusing on
changing cognitive aspects influencing depression)
● Drug Therapy: Based on theories/models like Serotonin Hypothesis; using

drugs to manipulate effect of neurotransmitters, inhibiting -ve
responses/increasing +ve ones
● Cognitive Behavioral Therapy [CBT]: Based on Cognitive Theory of
Depression; patients work with therapists, performing activities (e.g. socratic
questioning, keeping records of own thoughts, etc.) to correct -ve cognition. 3
main components:
○ Behavioral Activation: Learning alternative problem-solving strategies &
engaging in behaviors in line with new thinking
○ Modifying Automatic Thoughts: Learning how to identify automatic
thoughts leading to depression & analyze their rationality
○ Modification of Core Schemas: Changing deeply-held beliefs about self,
world, & future
● Drug therapy & CBT can be combined; this is known as combined therapy (an
‘eclectic’ approach to treatment)
○ However, this requires more effort on the part of patient &
therapist/psychiatrist
62
Effectiveness of Treatments
How do we measure the effectiveness of a treatment?
● Response Rate: % of population who, after treatment, show reduction in

symptoms
● Remission Rate: % of population who, after treatment, show near-elimination
of symptoms
● Relapse Rate: % of population whose past condition/symptoms reoccur
Which treatment is more effective: drug therapy or CBT (or both combined)?
● Kirsch et al. (2002) found considering published & unpublished studies ~80%
of effect of SSRIs could be attributed to placebo; casts doubt on drug therapy
○ But even if placebo, better than nothing; other studies show +ve effect
● The TADS study (March et al., 2007) found that combination therapy had
highest short- & long-term remission rates, that effectiveness of all treatments
increased over time, and that drug therapy alone had higher short-term but not
long-term remission rates than CBT alone
● Hollon et al. (2005) found that CBT had a more long-lasting effect (enduring
even after treatment ended) than medication, indicating medication may only
be effective when one is taking it
Culture-Specific Treatment
Cultural factors may influence the effectiveness & appropriateness of treatment;
adapting existing treatments to certain cultures may not always be the best course
of action (sometimes may work, sometimes may not)
● Hodges & Oei (2007) conducted literature review of studies of CBT in China,
found that various aspects of CBT might allow it to be especially compatible
with Chinese cultural attributes but possible problematic areas
○ Arguments formed in relation to Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
○ High Long-Term Orientation of Chinese culture (tendency to take a
pragmatic approach to change) allows greater acceptance of CBT
activities as “necessary aspect of change”; “Confucian work ethic”
cited as factor among other things
○ High Power Distance (hierarchical; significant power gap between
those of high & low social status) of Chinese culture means authorities,
e.g. doctors, highly respected & thus their instructions will be followed
■ But might also lead to patients hiding own feelings/beliefs to
pretend as if treatment is working, possibly to avoid
embarrassment/shame
■ Kinzie et al. (1987) found tendency in SE Asian patients
undergoing drug therapy not to take medicine (but compliance
63
with treatment increased after discussion); possible support of

this tendency?
● Sometimes it may be more effective to adapt the treatment to the culture
○ Naeem et al. (2012) developed a culturally-sensitive version of CBT for
Pakistanis via interviews, acknowledging local elements of depression
(e.g. higher prevalence of somatic vs mental symptoms)
■ An example of a ‘bottom-up’ approach to adapting treatment,
changing the treatment & its delivery itself
○ Griner & Smith (2006) found that cultural adaptations to treatment were
more effective, esp if they were adapted for specific sub-populations
(e.g. run on same-race clients, therapist spoke same language, etc.)
■ Demonstrates both ‘top-down’ (superficial changes, e.g.
language of delivery) & bottom-up adaptations may make
treatments more effective in diff cultures
64
Relevant Research
Maguire et al. (2000): London Taxi Drivers
Relevant to: Localization [BIO], Neuroplasticity [BIO]
Aim: Investigate differences in brain structure in London taxi drivers

Ss: Right handed males
● 1 group of certified London taxi drivers with >1.5yrs experience
● 1 control (non-taxi drivers)
Background Info: London taxi drivers, to become certified, must pass an extremely
difficult prerequisite exam known as ‘The Knowledge’ where they must use only
their mental map of London to verbally describe directions to/from any places in
London
Procedure: Quasi-experimental study; Ss underwent MRI scans; scans of taxi
drivers & control compared
Findings:
● Taxi drivers had larger posterior (rear) hippocampi & smaller anterior
(forward) hippocampi than control
● In taxi drivers, volume of right posterior hippocampus +vely correlated with
experience (years spent) as taxi driver
● Otherwise, no signf diffs
Conclusions:
● Differences in/characteristics of brain structure between taxi drivers &
control indicates hippocampus changes in response to environmental
demands
○ Differences in volume between taxi drivers & control indicates
differences in brain structure to fit diff demands (taxi drivers using
spatial recall more)
○ Correlation between volume & experience of right posterior
hippocampus of taxi drivers suggests that the brain changes more
over time to fit long-term demands
● Hippocampus (part of temporal lobe) appears to be linked with memory
○ Posterior hippocampus appears associated with recall of existing
spatial knowledge (larger in taxi drivers as used more/demands
higher)
○ Anterior hippocampus appears associated with learning of new
spatial knowledge (taxi drivers already know London streets, thus
used less & smaller to suit lower demand)
Evaluation:
● Study only used structural scanning (MRI) with correlation & comparing
65
diffs; causation can’t be established, only suggested/implied
Draganski et al. (2004): Learning Juggling
Relevant to: Localization [BIO], Neuroplasticity [BIO]
Aim: Investigate whether brain changes structurally in response to

learning/practice
Ss: Didn’t have juggling experience before study (self-attested)
Procedure: Experiment (mix of lab & field)
1. All Ss underwent initial MRI scans
2. Ss divided into 2 groups: juggler & control
a. Juggler group spent 3 months practicing juggling, then 3 months not
practicing juggling (6 months total)
b. Control group spent all 6 months not practicing juggling
3. At 3-month & 6-month mark, Ss in both groups had MRI scans
Findings:
● Initial scan: No differences in brain structure between groups
● After 3 months: Jugglers had significantly greater density of neural
connections (grey matter) in mid-temporal area than control
● After 6 months: Difference between jugglers’ & control Ss’ grey matter in
mid-temporal area decreased (but still present)
Conclusions:
● Mid-temporal area (middle of temporal lobe) appears to be associated with
memory creation (as necessary when learning juggling)
● Learning/practice leads to changes in brain structure (greater neural
connections/grey area)
○ Lack of learning results in reversal of changes
Evaluation:
● Study only used structural MRI scans; link between structural changes &
activity/functional changes unclear, difference in ability merely implied by IV
manipulation
Rosenzweig et al. (1972): Brain Change in Response to Experience
Relevant to: Neuroplasticity [BIO], Animal Research [BIO HL]
Aim: Investigate if environmental stimulation causes physical changes in the brain

Ss: Lab rats (animal study)
66
Procedure: Lab experiment method (between groups design) using animals

(‘Litter’ = Rats born @ same time from same parents)
1. 3 adult rats from same litter randomly allocated (with adequate food/water)
to:
a. Control Condition [CC]: Rat placed with 2 others (3 total) together in
cage witho stimulus objects
b. Enriched Condition [EC]: Rat placed with many others (10-12 total)
placed together in cage with stimulus objects (e.g. toys) to interact
with
c. Impoverished Condition [IC]: Rat placed alone in cage witho stimulus
objects
2. After 30-60 days, rats killed, brains studied (autopsy)
Findings:
● Rats in EC has thicker & heavier cerebral cortices
● Testing of nerve cells in brain revealed greater neural activity in cortex in
neurons associated with transfer of acetylcholine (ACh; associated with
memory)
Conclusion: Brain structure appears to be influenced by environmental factors e.g.
living environment
Evaluation:
Methodological
● Animal study; on its own, unclear if generalizable to humans
○ However, Maguire et al. & Draganski et al., two studies on humans
investigating neuroplasticity in naturalistic setting (latter with
experimental manipulation) found same
○ Thus, appears/assumed that findings generalizable to humans (esp.
re: neurotransmitter ACh); further study in humans needed to verify,
but possibility/likelihood present given generalizability of other
findings
● Unclear if findings due to environmental or social factors (multiple rats a
confounding variable in this regard; Rs tried putting a rat alone in EC but it
only sat there grooming witho interacting with stimulus objects)
Ethical
● Concern re: isolating rats & killing them to study brain; not entirely ethically
sound
● However, benefit of findings outweighs costs (significant, generalizable
findings found), plus rats not subjected to undue stress/harm in their
environments
○ Isolation doesn’t cause permanent harm (not in the same way Brady
(1958)’s rats dying for sake of investigating health does)
67
○ Lab rats generally killed after exp anyway

○ Benefits of killing+autopsy are justifiable in insight allowed to
produce findings; while brain scan could’ve been performed instead,
difficult & very costly for animals (must train to stay still/sedate, scan
for long time, etc.)
Caspi et al. (2003): 5-HTT & Reactions to Life Events
Relevant to: Neurotransmitters & Behavior [BIO], Genes & Behavior [BIO], Serotonin
Hypothesis (Biological Etiologies) [ABN]
Aim: Investigate relationships between stressful life events & depressive behavior
given variations in the gene 5-HTT & resulting (implied) decreased serotonin levels
Background Info: 5-HTT is a transporter gene of serotonin with both short and long
variations (latter most common). Research has linked different variants to
differences in serotonin reuptake
Ss: Representative sample of New Zealand children with either:
● 2 short 5-HTT alleles (s/s)
● 1 short & 1 long 5-HTT allele (s/l)
● 2 long 5-HTT alleles (l/l)
Procedure: Longitudinal quasi-experimental study (NOTE: No measure of serotonin
levels themselves at any point in study!)
1. Followed up with Ss from age 3-25 every 2 years
a. At ages 21 & 25, gave Ss a ‘life history calendar’ assessing stressful
life events (e.g. employment, health, relationship stressors)
2. At age 25, Ss assessed for past-year depression based on DSM-IV from S
interviews & reports from Ss-nominated informants
Findings:
● No difference in number of stressful life events experienced Ss regardless
of alleles
● Ss who had short alleles of 5-HTT (either one or two; i.e. s/s or s/l) reacted
to stressful life events with more depressive symptoms; Ss with only long
alleles (l/l) had no change in depressive symptoms
Conclusion: Variations in the 5-HTT serotonin transporter gene (presence of short
allele) linked with more -ve reactions to events
● Presence of short allele implies decreased activation, cause more -ve
reactions
Evaluation:
● Quasi-experimental study, no actual manipulation of any DV (only
comparing pre-existing groups, i.e. alleles of 5-HTT)
68
● No actual measure of serotonin; any link between supposed changes in

serotonin activation & behavior from this study not conclusive and only
suggested/implied by other research
○ Not conclusive support for the Serotonin Deficiency Hypothesis
(though it does lend it some plausibility)
○ Could suggest a genetic component to MDD, if anything
● Naturalistic situation/environment -> High realism, ecological validity
○ But given sample was only from New Zealand, there’s some possible
concern about generalizability to the broader population, especially
other racial/ethnic groups with different genetic makeups
Delgado et al. (1990): Serotonin, Tryptophan & Depression
Relevant to: Neurotransmission [BIO], Serotonin Hypothesis (Biological Etiologies)

[ABN]
Aim: Investigate influence of serotonin levels on depressive behavior.

Ss: 21 patients in clinical remission for depression (diagnosed with DSM-III-R)
Background Info: The amino acid tryptophan (TRP) forms key part of process of
synthesizing serotonin; Rs cite various pieces of animal research indicating
decreased dietary intake of TRP -> decreased serotonin levels in lab animals’
brains (e.g. monkeys)
Procedure: Lab exp; repeated measures design
1. For 24h, Ss ate a low-TRP diet either supplemented by TRP (control
condition; to maintain normal TRP levels) or not supplemented (low TRP
condition)
2. Next morning, Ss further drank an amino acid drink—low-TRP Ss’ drink did
not contain TRP; control Ss’ drink did (again, to maintain normal TRP levels)
3. Ss then performed behavioral ratings & had levels of TRP in blood plasma
measured @ various points throughout day
4. Ss performed both control & low-TRP conditions separated by several days;
order counterbalanced, double blind used
Findings:
● Ss in low-TRP condition had significant increase in ratings of depressive
symptoms
● Amt of TRP in blood was correlated -vely with ratings of depressive
symptoms (lower TRP -> higher rating)
Conclusion: Low TRP levels (linked to low serotonin levels) appear to cause
depressive symptoms, indicating serotonin plays a role in depressive symptoms
Evaluation:
69
● No actual measure of serotonin; only implied from prior research on animals

○ Concern with generalizing such animal research to humans; does
TRP cause changes in serotonin level in same way in humans?
○ Likely; same molecule, synthesized same way from same base
molecules, but further biological study needed to verify in humans
○ Rs themselves acknowledge other metabolic effects may have
influenced/been confounding variable on serotonin levels
● Small sample size of already clinically depressed patients; may have already
had some pre-existing vulnerability to depression
○ Does serotonin cause depressive symptoms in all situations or only
in presence of an existing vulnerability?
○ Are all ppl’s serotonin levels affected same way by TRP? Do all ppl
react same way to lack of serotonin?
Ethical
● Undue stress/harm on Ss; giving chemical substances to cause depressive
symptoms ethically questionable (causing further distress & potentially
causing relapse given Ss were already depressed)
○ Rs did take steps to prevent undue stress/harm; initially, procedure
involved giving Ss in low-TRP condition a drink containing TRP, but
after first S felt unwell post-drink, Rs suspended procedure
Kosfeld et al. (2005): Oxytocin & Trust with Money
Relevant to: Hormones & Behavior [BIO]
Aim: Investigate effect of oxytocin on trust

Ss: Male uni students
Procedure:
(P: Procedure; F: Findings)
Exp 1 (‘Trust’)
P:
1. Ss given oxytocin solution OR placebo intranasally
2. Ss then played a trust game; given 12 ‘monetary units’ [MU], told they could
transfer 0, 4, 8, or 12 MU to a trustee (fellow anonymous S) who would
receive 3x what Ss chose to give & could send back as many/little MUs as
they wanted
a. Trust indicated by how many MUs SS gave; the more they gave, the
more they trusted uncertainty of trustee’s behavior (that they’d give
back more money)
F: Ss given oxytocin far more trusting (gave more to trustee & more often gave all 1
70
MU); unclear if due to general willingness to take risks or the social risk of the
trustee’s response
Exp 2 (‘Risk’)
P: Replication of exp 1, but Ss invested MU in a project (not a trustee/person)
F: No diff in risk-taking between oxytocin & placebo Ss
Conclusion: Oxytocin appears to positively influence trust in a social context (not
just a willingness to take risks)
Evaluation:
● Sampling bias, concern with generalizability—Ss were all males, perhaps
hormone influences females differently, thus can’t be generalized to them
● While situation somewhat grounded in reality (money transfers,
investments, etc. do occur IRL), thus has some ecological validity, can
situation be generalized to all interpersonal contact?
○ Concern with generalizability to other interpersonal contexts with
more social elements, e.g. getting to know other
○ Oxytocin administration unnatural; does oxytocin influence behavior
same way with natural levels?
Morhenn et al. (2008): Oxytocin from Touch & Trust
Relevant to: Hormones & Behavior [BIO]
Aim: Investigate influence of oxytocin levels on cooperative behaviors (trust &

sacrifice) as induced by interpersonal touch
Ss: UCLA students (mixed-gender)
Procedure: Lab experiment method; repeated measures design
1. Ss first had blood drawn to measure baseline oxytocin levels
2. Ss then either:
a. Had a 15 min message, then played a trust game
b. Had a 15 min massage only
c. Rested for 15 mins (in same room as where massages took place),
then played trust game
d. Trust game conducted at computer, Ss partitioned off & couldn’t
communicate:
i. 2 Ss randomly assigned to role of Decision Maker 1 [DM1] &
Decision Maker 2 [DM2], both got $10
ii. DM1 then prompted to send some of their $10 to DM2;
amount they sent was tripled then deposited in DM2’s account
(act of trust)
iii. DM2 then informed of the amt deposited in own acct, asked if
71
they’d like to send money back (act of sacrifice)

3. Ss then had 2nd blood draw to measure oxytocin levels
Findings:
● Massages increased oxytocin levels but only if followed by an act of trust
(playing the trust game)
● Ss who received massage sacrificed more (but didn’t trust more); sacrifice
predicted by oxytocin levels
Conclusion: Oxytocin, induced through human touch, appears to have a role on
cooperative behaviors (though not necessary trust)
Evaluation:
● Findings re: trust appear to contradict Kosfeld et al. (2005)
○ Perhaps in more natural setting (massage vs intranasal
administration), oxytocin has diff effects on behavior
● Similar ecological validity concern; while massage & money transfers have
grounding in reality, Ss never saw other DM; concern with generalizability to
other interpersonal contexts with more social elements (e.g. getting to
know other)
Lundstrom & Olsson (2005): AND & Mood in Women
Relevant to: Pheromones & Behavior [BIO]
Aim: Investigate if the suspected pheromone AND can act as a sex pheromone
Ss: Adult women
1. Ss interacted with either a male or a female E (not both; double blind used)
for two identical sessions to perform several tasks with AND either present
or absent
a. Tasks: Rated attractiveness of male faces, performed measures of
mood, sustained attention, psychological arousal
b. AND solution or control solution applied by swabbing on upper lip;
order of AND present vs AND absent counterbalanced
Findings:
● Female E: AND had no effect at all vs control
● Male E: AND increased mood & arousal; no diff to attention or attractiveness
ratings
Conclusions: Mixed...
● AND appears to have some pheromone-esque effects (intensifying female
reactions in presence of males)
● But lack of effect on attention & attractiveness ratings calls into question if
72
AND has influence on behaviors, esp sexual ones

Evaluation:
● Only demonstrates apparent pheromone-esque effect of one chemical on
females; can’t conclude pheromones present/have effect on males or that
other pheromone-esque chemicals exist
● No control for attractiveness of E (only one female/one male E used) &
attractiveness is highly situational
○ Artificial environment; effect of pheromones may have been
‘counterbalanced’ by discomfort/artificiality of situation
● Concentration of AND used much higher than natural levels, not
generalizable to natural situation (but maybe to artificial products)
● No chemical communication demonstrated in procedure; many chemicals
can influence mood but that doesn’t indicate any chemical communication
(no actual behavior induced)
Hare et al. (2017): Pheromones & Attraction/Gender Signalling
Relevant to: Pheromones & Behavior [BIO]
Aim: Investigate if gender-specific pheromones can signal gender & increase

attraction
Ss: 24 males, 22 females
1. Ss exposed to solution either consisting of a suspected sex pheromone
secreted by the opposite sex+clove oil or only clove oil (control)
a. Males were exposed to EST, females to AND
b. Exposed by taping cotton with solution under nose
c. Repeated measures used; Ss exposed to both in separate days, order
counterbalanced
2. Ss then carried out 2 tasks:
a. Facial Morphs Task: Ss shown composite androgynous morphs of
human faces, asked to guess what sex the ‘person’ was
b. Attractiveness Rating Task: Ss shown faces of ppl from opposite
sex, asked to rate attractiveness from 1-10
Findings: Null results; no differences in either task between sex pheromone vs
control
Conclusion: AND & EST don’t appear to be sex pheromones—they don’t signal or
improve attraction to opposite sex
Evaluation:
● AND/EST not pheromones doesn’t necessarily imply no human pheromones
73
exist at all
● Androgynous facial morphs highly artificial, low ecological validity
(deliberately unclear, other factors present in real-life environment e.g. full
body, behavioral cues, voice, etc.)
● Exposure to AND/EST artificial; effect of pheromones on behavior may have
been negated by artificial task and/or exposure method (cotton under nose)
○ Concentration of AND/EST used much higher than natural levels, not
generalizable to natural situation (but maybe to artificial products)
Wedekind et al. (1995): Smelly T-Shirts
Relevant to: Genes & Behavior [BIO], Evolutionary Explanations for Behavior [BIO],
Origins & Formation of Personal Relationships [HR]
Aim: Investigate influence of MHC genes on mate selection in females

Ss: Female (F) & male (M) Ss, selected for wide variety of MHC genes in sample
Background Info:
● Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes influence one’s immune
system
● Offspring inheriting diverse MHC genes from parents with diff MHC genes
results in offspring having strong immune systems & better odds of survival
Procedure: Quasi-experimental study
1. F Ss were:
a. Asked to report if using oral contraceptives
b. Given nose spray to ensure nasal health (support regeneration of
nasal mucous)
c. Given copy of book ‘Perfume’ to sensitize smell perception
2. M Ss were:
a. Asked to wear a T-shirt for 2 nights & to keep the T-shirt in an open
plastic bag during the day (between nights)
b. Given scent-free detergent & soap to use (ensuring how they smelled
was entirely natural)
c. Asked not to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, eat spicy food, engage in
sexual activity, or use deodorants/perfumes
3. Later, when F Ss were in 2nd week after starting menstruation (Fs appear
most sensitive to odor during that time), F Ss asked to rate odor of 7 T-shirts
on intensity (0-10) and pleasantness and sexiness:
a. 3 T-shirts from M Ss with similar MHC to F Ss
b. 3 T-shirts from M Ss with dissimilar MHC to F Ss
c. 1 unworn (control) T-shirt
74
d. All T-shirts placed in cardboard boxes with smelling holes, double

blind used
Findings:
● F Ss not on oral contraceptives scored odor of T-shirt as more pleasant if M
Ss’s MHC was more dissimilar to their own
● Difference in odor assessment was reversed if F Ss were taking oral
contraceptives (i.e. odor was found more pleasant if M Ss had similar MHC)
● No diffs in ratings of intensity between men with similar/dissimilar MHC
genes & presence/absence of oral contraceptives
● Odors of MHC-dissimilar men reminded women of their own current/former
mates
Conclusions:
● MHC diversity appears to influence mate selection, supporting ToE
explanations (sexual selection of mates with characteristics aiding
offspring survival)
● As oral contraceptives imitate steroids naturally released in pregnancy, Rs
posit reversal in order preferences may be to prefer relatives who may help
take care of offspring
Evaluation:
● Highly replicable
● Findings support evolutionary explanations for human mate selection
○ More diverse genes allow for greater odds that beneficial
genes/mutations are inherited (re: MHC—more diverse MHC =
stronger immune system)
○ Thus, breeding for gene diversity (as demonstrated) increases
offspring survival odds
○ Reversal of oral preferences & given argument re: oral contraceptives
mimicking steroids in pregnancy indicates actions favoring survival
of offspring
● Attractiveness =/= mate selection; other factors as well, experiment
arguably too reductionist, ignoring cognitive & sociocultural factors in mate
selection (e.g. Matching Hypothesis)
Bailey & Pillard (1991): Gay-Identifying Twins
Relevant to: Genetic Similarity [BIO]
Aim: Determine concordance (% of twin pairs who both display a particular trait in
a population) rates of homosexuality between twins
Ss: Males; MZ twins, DZ twins & non-related adopted brothers raised together with
75
at least one twin/member of sibling pair self-identifying as gay; recruited via gay
publications
Procedure: Quasi-experimental correlational study
1. Sexual orientation of Ss assessed either by asking relatives or (only when
impossible) asking the Ss themselves
2. Ss filled out questionnaires to assess childhood gender nonconformity
[CGN] (i.e. phenomenon where prepubescent children don’t conform to
expected gender patterns and/or identify with opposite gender)
Findings:
● ~50% of MZ twins were both homosexuals vs ~20% of DZ twins
● 11% of non-related adopted brothers were both self-ID homosexuals
● 9% of related non-twin siblings were both homosexuals
● CGN not correlated with homosexuality in any sample
Conclusions:
● The more closely genetically linked a pair are, the more likely they are to
both exhibit heterosexual/homosexual tendencies
○ However, concordance rate not 100% for MZ twins (despite 100%
genetic similarity) & not 0% for adopted brothers; environmental
factors implied to also influence presence of homosexual tendencies
○ Similarities in DZ twins possibly attributable to greater environmental
similarity
● Gender nonconforming behavior in childhood is not related to
homosexuality
Evaluation:
● Recruitment method may have resulted in sampling bias (twins unsure of or
closeted/not open about sexuality may not have been recruited)
● No actual genes found responsible, only statistical link/implication (and
exact source of imperfect concordance rate unclear/not found)
● Gender nonconforming behavior subjective & influenced by sociocultural
norms; gender norms may differ between cultures
Santilla et al. (2008): Homosexual Behavior Between Twins
Relevant to: Genetic Similarity [BIO]
Aim: Determine the concordance rate of potential homosexual behavior vs overt

homosexual behavior in twins
Ss: Female & male MZ & DZ twins
Procedure: Ss completed a questionnaire to establish sexual orientation, namely
both potential (hypothetical) and overt (actual/past incidences) homosexual
76
behavior
Findings:
● Potential for homosexual responses far higher than reported incidences of
homosexual behavior
● Concordance rates for both potential responses & overt behavior 2x higher
for MZ twins than DZ twins
Conclusions:
● Genes do appear to have a role in determining homosexual behavior to a
certain extent
● Previous research (see Bailey & Pillard (1991)) that use overt measures (e.g.
self-reported sexuality) probably underestimate rates of homosexuality
Evaluation:
● No actual genes found responsible, only statistical link/implication (and
exact source of imperfect concordance rate unclear/not found)
Buss (1989): Cross-Cultural Mate Preferences
Relevant to: Evolutionary Explanations for Behavior [BIO], Origins & Formation of
Personal Relationships [HR]
Aim: Investigate cross-cultural similarities in mate preferences worldwide

Ss: >10,000 ppl (33 countries; 6 continents)
Procedure: Quasi experimental study; Ss given questionnaires asking:
1. When they preferred to get married
2. Desired age diff between self & spouse
3. Desired no. of children
4. To rate various characteristics of a potential mate as undesirable/desirable,
e.g. financial prospects, physical attractiveness, chastity, etc.
Findings: Consistently across all countries/continents/cultures—
● Female Ss preferred older mates with good financial prospects
● Male Ss preferred younger, physically attractive mates
Conclusions: ToE (principle of sexual selection) supported—
● Males valuing physical attractiveness & youth (assuming former indicates
youth/fertility; chars like muscle tone, healthy skin, etc. represent youth &
females are most fertile in early 20s) consistent with ToE asserting
organisms driven to reproduce as much as possible
● Females valuing good financial prospects & older (presumably more
experienced/mature, esp given male fertility doesn’t change dramatically
over much of life) mates consistent with ToE asserting organisms driven to
increase survival odds of offspring as much as possible (ensure resources
77
& protection/care)
● Also demonstrates (in humans) that males driven to maximize
offspring/increase reproductive rate, females driven to care for/maximize
survival rate of offspring
Evaluation:
● Rs themselves acknowledge sample not fully representative; sample size
varied signf between countries, rural/less-educated under-represented
Brady (1958): Stress & Responsibility in Monkeys
Relevant to: Animal Research [BIO HL]
Aim: Study effect of responsibility on stress.

Ss: Monkeys
Procedure: Lab experiment method; animal testing
1. Monkeys given electric shocks every 20s, conditioned to pull a lever to stop
the shocks
2. Monkeys then paired together; the monkey which had learned faster to pull
the lever in step 1 assigned executive role, other monkey yoked role
3. Both monkeys then continued to receive shocks:
a. Yoked monkey couldn’t do anything but receive shocks
b. Executive monkeys could pull the lever to stop shocks for both
themself & yoked monkey, thus having responsibility for both
monkeys’ suffering
Findings:
● Executive monkeys developed ulcers & died, found to have high levels of
stomach acid
● Yoked monkeys demonstrated no -ve health effects
Conclusion: Stress of having responsibility over decision making -vely affects
health
Evaluation:
Methodological
● May not be generalizable to humans; humans may react to stress differently
than animals (also assumes that responsibility -> stress
○ Rose & Marmot found ppl with lower social class (witho chance to
make decisions) have more health problems e.g. heart disease
(though also partially due to societal risk factors e.g. smoking)
Ethical—Many ethical concerns...

● Monkeys not allocated randomly, thus undue stress/harm on monkeys
78
which demonstrated better learning ability (arbitrary suffering)

● Degree of suffering wholly unnecessary, benefit of findings don’t justify cost
of monkeys’ death due to procedure (monkeys didn’t have to die to judge
stress & effects on health)
○ Study should’ve been stopped as soon as monkeys exhibited ill
health as that would’ve shown sufficient findings witho killing them
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966): Separate Stores of Memory
Relevant to: Multi-Store Model of Memory [COG]
Aim: Investigate the presence of separate short- and long-term stores of memory
and thus the characteristics of short-term memory.
Ss: Enlisted army men
Procedure: 2nd exp of study. Lab experiment method; repeated measures design
1. Ss shown several 15-word lists, each word shown sequentially in a
slideshow & read out by E
a. Ss were shown a series of 5-word ‘practice lists’ before this to
familiarize them with the procedure
2. After being shown each word list, Ss randomly either attempted:
a. Free Recall: Immediate recall of all words in list in any order
b. Delayed Recall: Performed a distractor task (counting up from a
single-digit number for 10s or 30s) preventing rehearsal of words in
list, then attempted recall of all words in list in any order
Findings:
● Ss in both conditions demonstrated much better recall of words at
beginning of list than middle (primacy effect)
● Ss in free recall condition demonstrated much better recall of words at end
of list than middle (recency effect)
● Ss in delayed recall condition did not demonstrate the recency effect
○ 10s delay with distractor removed most trace of recency effect; only
marginal diff with words in middle
○ 30s delay removed recency effect entirely
Conclusions:
● MSM supported; there appear to be two separate stores of memory, one
long-term and one-short term with limited duration
● According to MSM:
○ Primacy effect due to Ss having more time to rehearse words @
beginning of list; thus, words were transferred to LTM
○ Recency effect in free recall condition due to fact that given words
79
were only shown very recently, words were still in STM

○ Delayed recall with distractor preventing rehearsal caused words to
decay from STM, being lost/forgotten
Evaluation:
● Lab experiment—procedure replicable, controlled, causation can be
established
● Study sample might not be representative—enlisted males in military might
have some differences in memory characteristics either by nature or due to
their training/vocation
● Difficult to confirm if distractor task really did prevent rehearsal or not in Ss
● Concern with ecological validity—memorizing random words isn’t a realistic
task, not representative of behavior of STS in a realistic situation
Peterson & Peterson (1959): Duration of STM
Relevant to: Multi-Store Model of Memory [COG]
Aim: Investigate the duration of memory storage in STM

Procedure: Lab experiment
1. Ss presented with triplets of consonants (e.g. TGH, CLS, etc.), had to recall
them after a delay of either 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, or 18 seconds
a. During delay, had to count backwards out loud in threes from a given
number (e.g. 526, 523, 520, etc.) to prevent rehearsal
Findings: As delay increased, recall of words dramatically decreased—
● 3s delay: Recall of consonant triplets was ~80%
● 6s delay: Recall was 50%
● 18s delay: Recall only ~10%
Conclusion: STM has a limited duration of ~18s given no rehearsal
Evaluation:
● Lab experiment; replicable, controlled, causation can be established BUT
concern with ecological validity due to realism of task
● Concern with generalizability—demonstrates recall duration of consonants
(language; echoic memory), possible that other types of memory might
interact with STM differently (e.g. diff duration); MSM doesn’t predict this
but still possible
Baddeley & Hitch (1976): Presence of the Central Executive
Relevant to: Working Memory Model [COG]
80
Aim: Investigate the existence & function of a CE under certain types of load
Procedure:
1. Ss asked true/false questions of increasing difficulty about letter combos
(e.g. does B come after A, does X come after P, etc.); time taken to answer
measured
2. Ss then repeated Step 1 but while simultaneously performing an articulatory
suppression task (preventing verbal rehearsal) where they either:
a. Repeated the word “the”
b. Repeated numbers 1-6 in increasing order
c. Repeated a given sequence of random numbers
Findings:
● Questions only: Ss’ response times increased as question difficulty
increased
● Questions with suppression task: Ss who repeated sequence of random
numbers had highest response times vs both other conditions
Conclusion: There is a CE that manages memory processes with limited
processing ability which may be overloaded
● Rs argue increased response time caused by CE being overloaded with
tasks of high difficulty
Evaluation:
● Lab experiment; replicable, controlled, causation can be established BUT
concern with ecological validity due to realism of task
● Arguably doesn’t inherently establish an active manager of memory, only
that humans have limited cognitive processing ability (our minds may be
overloaded by difficult tasks)
○ No resource allocation actually demonstrated, only implied
Quinn & McConnel (1996): Separate Stores of WM
Relevant to: Working Memory Model [COG]
Aim: Investigate the presence of separate stores of WM for different modalities

(types) of information
Procedure: Lab experiment method; between-groups design
1. Ss asked to memorize a list of words through either imagery or verbal
rehearsal with either:
a. No interference (control)
b. Visual noise (changing pattern of dots)
c. Auditory noise (speech in a foreign language)
81
2. Ss’ memory of words in list then tested

Findings:
● Ss who practiced with imagery performed worse than control with visual
noise but equally well as control with verbal noise
● Ss who practiced with verbal rehearsal performed worse than control with
verbal noise but equally well as control with visual noise
Conclusion: There are separate phonological (auditory) & visual stores of WM
which work & are/can be affected independently
Evaluation:
● Concern with ecological validity/mundane realism; IRL distinctions between
modalities aren't perfectly clear, many more distractions than just one
modality-specific targeted distraction
○ E.g. Visual distractions consisting of words converted into auditory
info via articulatory rehearsal component of the phonological loop;
according to WMM, would interfere with performance of the
phonological loop on auditory tasks
○ Procedure forced Ss into memorizing using one modality only; IRL,
rehearsal may take place with many (e.g. visual & auditory)
components (e.g. watching instructional video), requiring diff
interactions between stores
Bartlett (1932): War of the Ghosts
Relevant to: Schema Theory [COG]
Aim: Investigate how memory recall is influenced by prior knowledge

Ss: British volunteers
Procedure:
1. Ss told a Native American legend (‘The War of the Ghosts’)
2. Ss then asked to recall the story using either:
a. Repeated Reproduction—Same S repeatedly recalling the story over a
period of time
b. Serial Reproduction—One S tells story to a second S, who tells it to a
third, & so forth
c. Intervals between Ss being told story & recalling story ranged from
15m to several yrs
Findings:
● Overall, main themes of story recalled, but Ss changed/distorted various
elements/details as they recalled it in 3 distinct ways:
○ Assimilation: Ss modified story details to match own culture (e.g.
82
seal hunting -> fishing, canoes -> boats, etc.)

○ Leveling: Ss shortened story with each retelling, omitting info judged
‘unimportant’
○ Sharpening: Ss changed order of events in story & added terms
familiar to them (e.g. adding emotions)
Conclusion: Memory formation/recall is an active reconstructive process
influenced by existing mental representations (schemas)
Loftus & Palmer (1974): Car Crash Experiments
Relevant to: Schema Theory [COG], Reconstructive Memory [COG]
Aim: Investigate the effect of schemas on altering memory

Ss: Students (45 for 1st exp, 150 for 2nd)
Procedure: Lab experiment; between-groups design. 2 experiments
Exp 1
P:
1. All Ss shown video of a car crash
2. Ss then asked a series of distractor questions about the crash before being
asked “How fast were the cars going when they [verb]?” (responding with a
speed estimate in mph)
a. Five different verbs were used when asking question, each more
violent than the other—‘contacted’, ‘hit’, ‘bumped’, ‘collided’, ‘smashed’
F: Ss asked with verb ‘smashed’ (very violent verb) had highest speed estimates;
Ss asked with verb ‘contacted’ (neutral verb) had lowest speed estimates
● Could be because memories themselves altered by activation of schemas
(mental representations about severe car crashes) induced by verb used
● Also could be due to response bias (leading questions induced by verb)
Exp 2
P:
1. All Ss shown video of a car crash; then, Ss either:
a. Asked “How fast were the cars going when they [verb] each other?”
(responding with mph estimate); verb was either ‘hit’ or ‘smashed’;
b. Not asked any question; i.e. control
2. One week later, Ss then asked if they saw any broken glass in the video of
the car crash (none was actually present in the video)
F: Ss who were asked with “smashed into” verb reported seeing glass at a much
higher rate than either of the other groups
83
Overall Conclusions:
● Leading questions may distort/change the functioning of memories formed
related to them (rather than resulting in response bias)
○ Schemas of violent crashes (incl. broken glass) activated in the
process of memory formation or recall, distorting the memory to
include details related to those schemas
○ Unclear in which stage of the experiment was memory distorted to
add features from schemas; could’ve been during initial formation or
during recall (when prompted by Rs)
○ In any case, some degree of distortion in initial formation indicated
(if not the addition of violent features, then at least the attachment of
some form of violent perception/bias when thinking of crash)
Evaluation:
● Not realistic; Ss viewed video of car crash, not actually present (possible
diffs if actually present)
○ Leading question effect might be generalizable to other situations?
E.g. courtroom, police interview, etc.
Shaw & Porter (2015): Rich False Memories of Crimes
Relevant to: Reconstructive Memory [COG]
Aim: To explore whether false memories of committing a crime involving police

could be generated in memory.
Ss: 60 Canadian undergrad students
Procedure: Lab exp; between groups design
1. Ss underwent structured interviews over 3 separate sessions, asked by I to
recall details of a series of prior life events
a. Various actual life events & their details had been provided &
confirmed prior by a family member
2. During interviews, along with measuring recall of true memories, I
attempted to generate a criminal (e.g. assault) or non-criminal (e.g. loss of
dog) false emotional memory of a fictional event using suggestive memory
retrieval techniques
a. For both true & false memories Is provided various contextual cues
suggesting details of event to Ss to aid their recall/implant false
memories (e.g. S’s age at supposed time of event)
i. For true events, cues given were entirely true (coming from
details of Ss’ life events reported by family member)
ii. For false events, some cues given were false/made up, but
84
some were true (e.g. where S lived at time, a friend S had at

the time) as reported by family member
b. I established rapport (trust/+ve relationship) & own legitimacy with
Ss in various ways (e.g. asking about S’s well-being, having bookshelf
full of visible memory retrieval books, etc.)
Findings:
● In 1st interview session, Ss were able to recall various details of true
memories accurate to reality (as reported prior by family member) but not
the false ones (indicating the false ones hadn’t actually occurred)
● By last interview session, after suggestive memory retrieval techniques, vast
majority (70%) of Ss had accepted & generated false memories
○ Acceptance rate for criminal & non-criminal events was similar
○ Ss gave detailed accounts of false memories with considerable
detail/richness (including details not originally suggested/cued)
comparable to detail of real memories
Conclusion: Ppl can readily be led to generate & accept detailed false memories of
crimes given contextualization, suggestiveness, and trust/legitimacy of the
suggestor/situation
Evaluation:
● Implied that contextualization may have activated existing mental
representations (e.g. schemas) & prior knowledge of such events
○ Rs argue that the use of true cues from Ss’ existing/prior knowledge
(memory) gave Ss a foundation upon which to build false memories
● I had extensive training in police interview tactics & was extroverted (Porter
et al. (2000) linked this characteristic to high success rate in false memory
implantation); might partially account for high success rate (unrealistic;
difficult to generalize)
○ However, still indicates cognitive process of memory may be
manipulated to the point of implantation of false memory by a
skilled-enough manipulator
● Various techniques in study were similar to tactics used IRL to
suggest/prompt memory recall (e.g. in police interviews/interrogations);
may be generalizable to such situations
Albarracin et al. (2001): Meta-Analyzing Intent & Condom Use
Relevant to: Thinking & Decision Making (TRA/TPB) [COG]
Aim: Investigate the relationship between intent and actual behavior.

Procedure: Meta-analysis of published & unpublished studies of TRA/TPB on
85
condom use correlating reported intent (to use a condom or not) and actual
behavior (using a condom or not)
Findings:
● Avg. 0.51 correlation between intent & behavior overall
● Signf correlations between behavioral intent & norms, attitudes, PBC
● Also found differences in retrospective (after the event) & prospective
(before the event) assessments of intent & behavior
○ Retrospective assessments had 0.57 correlation
○ Prospective assessment had 0.45 correlation; lower but still
statistically significant
Conclusion: Intent to carry out a behavior appears to be a factor in determining
behavior choice
Evaluation:
● Correlation =/= causation; possible explanation is that behavior determines
intent after the fact
○ Correlation in prospective assessments does still suggest that intent
does cause behavior (though third/confounding variables not
accounted for)
● Imperfect correlation indicates presence of additional variables (emotion?
Social pressure?)
● Findings re: condom use may not be generalizable to all decisions—sexual
intercourse highly intense/emotional, in heat of moment, ppl might act more
impulsively than usual/disregard prior intent
Kothe et al. (2011): TPB-Based Breakfast Consumption Interventions
Relevant to: Thinking & Decision Making (TRA/TPB) [COG]
Aim: Test the efficacy of interventions based on TPB promoting regular

consumption of breakfast.
Ss: Students taking 1st year uni Psych course
Procedure: Exp; between-groups design
1. Initially, Ss completed a online questionnaire measuring their baseline of:
a. Own attitudes towards eating breakfast daily
b. Subjective norms related to ppl close to Ss (e.g. parents) regarding
eating breakfast daily, along with Ss’ own motivation to comply with
them
c. PBC, namely Ss ability, confidence, and controllability of the behavior
of eating breakfast daily
d. Intention to perform behavior in future (will eat breakfast daily)
86
e. Self-reported behavior (no. of times Ss had eaten breakfast in past

week)
2. Ss then exposed to ‘interventions’ (motivational messages) focusing on
either:
a. Perceived behavioral control (PBC)—Persuading Ss that they have
the ability to eat breakfast every morning and so to make a firm
decision to
b. +ve framing—Conveying +ve attitudes about eating breakfast (e.g.
+ve consequences of eating breakfast, like having lots of energy) to
Ss
c. -ve framing—Conveying -ve attitudes about not eating breakfast (e.g.
-ve consequences of not eating breakfast, like having less energy) to
Ss
d. ...or Ss exposed to control task (distractor questions, e.g. asking
about difficulty of questionnaire)
3. 4 weeks later, Ss completed same online questionnaire again as a follow-up
Findings:
● None of the interventions resulted in increases in behavior or changes to
attitude, subjective norm, or PBC
● Baseline attitude, subjective norm, & PBC moderately predicted (~40%)
baseline intention, which also somewhat predicted (~30%) self-reported
breakfast consumption in follow-up questionnaire
○ Not perfect but stat signf
● Change in behavior frequency between baseline & 4-week questionnaire
was predicted by changes in attitudes, subjective norms, & PBC between
baseline & follow-up questionnaire
○ NOTE: This does not contradict 1st finding; 1st finding demonstrated
the interventions had no effect, but changes in 3 elements of TPB
unrelated to the interventions still influenced behavior!
Conclusions:
● TPB is able to model the influence of cognitive variables (attitude,
subjective norms, PBC) on real-life behaviors
● Short-term interventions appear to be unable to influence said cognitive
variables
Evaluation:
● Short-term interventions not working =/= all interventions won’t work;
interventions may have been too short
○ Further investigation needed into long-term interventions with greater
degree of Ss involvement to induce actual changes in cognitive
variables
● Only moderate links between variables & intent and intent & behavior;
87
possible further cognitive influences/variables present? Environmental

factors?
○ On-the-spot influences/factors negating original/baseline levels of
cognitive variables, perhaps?
Tversky & Kahneman (1981): Asian Disease
Relevant to: Biases in Thinking & Decision Making (Framing Effect) [COG]
Aim: Demonstrate that people assess a situation from a reference point.

Ss: Americans
Procedure: Lab exp; between-groups design
1. Ss told to imagine that the US is preparing for an outbreak of a foreign
(Asian) disease expected to kill 600 people, with two programs being
proposed to combat it
2. Ss then told about program in terms of either:
a. Potential Gain: Option A is guaranteed to save 200 people, Option B
has a ⅓ chance of saving all 600 people but a ⅔ chance of saving
nobody
b. Potential Loss: Option C is guaranteed to result in 400 people dying,
Option D has a ⅓ chance of no one dying but a ⅔ chance of all 600
dying
Findings:
● When programs framed in terms of potential gain (lives saved), majority of
Ss chose the ‘safe’ option (Option A; guaranteed to save people)
● When programs framed in potential loss (lives lost), majority of Ss chose
the ‘risky’ option (Option B; chance of saving more people/less dying)
Conclusion: The way a situation is framed/described (as gain or loss) affects how
people make decisions—
● When gains are described, people tend to avoid risks
● When losses are described, people tend to take risks
● Supports Tversky & Kahneman’s ‘Prospect Theory’ (states the above
conclusions as assertions)
Huber et al. (1982): Asymmetrically Dominated Decoy
Relevant to: Biases in Thinking & Decision Making (Asymmetric Dominance) [COG]
Aim: Investigate the effect of choice bias in the presence of an asymmetrically
88
dominated decoy
Procedure: Lab exp
1. Ss asked to decide between 2 choices measured on two attributes (2 axes
on a graph); each choice strong in one attribute & weak in the other (thus
logically equal)
a. Various categories of decisions trialed, e.g. Vacation destination
based on cost vs skiing opportunity
2. Ss then shown a second graph with a third choice added—an
asymmetrically dominated decoy (choice weak in all attributes, thus
logically the worst, but which is obviously superior to one of the choices in
particular in one attribute)
3. Ss then asked if they’d switch their choice or not
Finding: Ss, once presented with decoy, tended to switch their choice to the one
which obviously dominated (‘beat’) the decoy choice
Conclusion: When presented with an asymmetrically dominated decoy when
making a decision, people tend to be biased towards the choice which clearly
dominates the decoy
Evaluation:
● Lab experiment—replicable, controlled, causation can be established
● Concern with ecological validity—real situations/decisions will have far
more than just two aspects
○ Thus, suggests bias in decision making due to asymmetric
dominance, but full effect with many variables (as IRL) to be
determined
○ Cultural factor not precluded; are members of diff cultures influenced
differently by biases when making decisions?
McGaugh & Cahill (1995): Emotional Stories
Relevant to: Influence of Emotion on Cognition [COG]
Aim: Investigate the influence of emotion on the formation of memories & a neural
basis for said influence
Procedure: Lab exp; between-groups design. 2 studies:
Initial Study
1. Ss shown either:
a. Boring story about a boy & his mother going to visit boy’s father @
hospital & witnessing a disaster drill of simulated victim
b. Emotionally arousing story about boy getting into horrific car crash,
losing feet; surgeons reattached feet & boy stayed with mother for
89
several weeks
2. 2 weeks later, Ss then given MCQ questionnaire to measurement andure
memory of story’s details
Follow-up Study: Same as initial, but Ss shown emotionally arousing story also
injected with propranolol (beta blocker which decreases amygdala activation)
Findings:
● Initial study: Ss shown emotionally arousing story had higher recall of story’s
details than Ss shown boring story
● Follow-up Study: Ss shown emotionally arousing story didn’t have higher
recall of story’s details
Conclusions:
● Emotional memories (FMs?) appear to have greater short-term accuracy
than normal ones
● Appears to be due to a neural mechanism involving the amygdala
Evaluation:
● Lab experiment—replicable, controlled, causation can be established
● Only short-term accuracy established, not long-term
● No control of Ss’ rehearsal of memory between being shown memory &
recalling
○ Difficult to control though; practically impossible to ask a person to
‘stop thinking’ about sth
● Concern with ecological validity; Ss only shown an emotional story in a
highly artificial environment, might not behave/think in same way as if
experiencing an emotionally arousing event themselves
○ Unclear if memories formed from procedure truly FMs or just
memories that happened to be somewhat more emotional
● No actual measure of amygdala activation; only implied from beta-blocker
use that amygdala activation decreased
○ Also considering above note about whether memories were truly FMs
or not, can findings re: amygdala be generalized to natural FMs?
○ Sharot et al. (2007) conducted study of 9/11 memories using fMRI
though & found amygdala was activated for those natural FMs,
though, so it seems assertion is supported
Talarico & Rubin (2003): 9/11 Memories vs Normal Ones
Relevant to: Influence of Emotion on Cognition [COG]
Aim: Determine accuracy & consistency of FMs relative to normal memories

Ss: Duke University students
90
Procedure: Naturalistic study

1. 1 day after 9/11 terrorist attacks in NYC, Ss asked thru open-ended
questionnaires to recall personal circumstances (e.g. location, what they
were doing, etc.) surrounding:
a. 9/11 attacks (FM)
b. 1 recent everyday (control) memory
2. Then, either 7, 42, or 224 days after the attack, Ss asked to recall again
personal circumstances & everyday memory w same questionnaire;
responses compared to originals
Findings:
● Accuracy of recall of both 9/11 FMs & normal control memories decreased
@ similar rate (i.e. FMs weren’t more reliable/accurate & degraded similarly
to normal memories)
● Reported confidence & vividness of 9/11 FMs much higher than normal
control memories though; remained same for FMs whereas decreased over
time for normal memories
● Ss’ original emotional response to news of 9/11 attacks was correlated with
later reported confidence when asked to recall again but not actual
accuracy of recall
Conclusion: FMs don’t appear to be unique in terms of accuracy but do appear to
be unique in terms of vividness (as originally proposed) & perceived confidence
(possible additional characteristic)
Evaluation:
● Naturalistic study; no control for Ss’ rehearsal
○ Difficult to control though; practically impossible to ask a person to
‘stop thinking’ about sth
○ Given FMs were natural, though, any rehearsal behaviors might
merely reflect actual overt & covert rehearsal behaviors characteristic
of FMs, so not entirely a confounding variable
Rosser et al. (2007): Surgeon Gamers
Relevant to: Cognitive Processing in the Digital World [COG HL]
Aim: Aim: Investigate the relationship between video game play and cognitive skill
@ surgical tasks
Ss: Surgeons (some in-training)
Procedure:
Ss given questionnaires to self-report video game experience
1. Ss’s surgical skill measured with a series of standardized surgical drills
91
(that Ss had experienced before as a part of their surgical training)

2. Ss’s video game mastery then measured by playing 3 games (e.g. Super
Monkey Ball 2) for 25 minutes
Findings:
● Video game mastery measured during game play highly correlated with
performing surgical drills faster & with fewer errors
● Ss who reported playing video games for >3h a week performed surgical
drills faster & with fewer errors than non-playing Ss
Conclusion: Video game play appears to have a positive influence on cognitive
processing (spatial awareness) useful in non-digital situations (e.g. surgery)
Evaluation:
● Study is correlational; can’t establish causation (could be that better
surgeons/people with better motor skills are just inherently better at games
due to pre-existing cognitive motor skill/ability)
● Further study needed to identify specific +ve effects on specific skills
● Ss had done surgical drills before (esp as some Ss were surgeons in
training who would’ve likely practiced a lot on them recently)
○ Perhaps Ss who did better on surgical drills were just more familiar
with them (though random assignment should’ve negated this factor)
Sanchez (2012): Halo & Plate Tectonics
Aim: Investigate effect of spatial training video games on spatial ability in broader
contexts
Procedure:
1. Ss played either Halo (first person shooter game with spatial elements;
spatial training condition) or Word Whomp (word matching game; control)
respectively
2. Ss then read a complex text (no illustrations) on plate tectonics
a. Understanding science of plate tectonics requires, to some extent,
spatial understanding on movement of tectonic plates
3. Ss then asked to apply learned concepts by writing an essay on what
caused Mt. St. Helens to erupt
4. Independent scorers assessed the extent to which Ss’s essay demonstrated
understanding of concepts of plate tectonics
Findings: Ss who played Halo (spatial training condition) demonstrated better
understanding of plate tectonics in their essays
Conclusion: Spatial training through video games may improve spatial
ability/understanding in broader contexts
Evaluation:
92
● Study only demonstrated a short-term effect (Ss wrote essay almost

immediately after playing game); any long-term effects remain unclear
● No control for Ss’ prior experience on video games (Ss with more
experience might’ve already had advantage; see Rosser et al. (2007)
○ Random assignment should’ve accounted for this, though
Rosen et al. (2011): Texting During Lectures
Aim: Investigate the impact of digital tech distractions on memory recall

Ss: Students
Procedure: Lab exp; between-groups design
1. Ss watched a video lecture, during which they received either a small,
moderate, or large number of text messages that had to be responded to
during the lecture (Ss could choose when to respond)
2. After viewing the lecture, Ss were tested on lecture’s content
Findings:
● The more text messages the Ss got/had to respond to, the worse they
performed on the test
● Ss who chose to respond to many text messages strategically did better
than Ss who immediately responded to every single message
Conclusions:
● Distractions resulting from digital tech (e.g. text messages) negatively
influence memory recall, possibly by drawing attention away/distracting self
● Appears to be possible to consciously counterbalance -ve effects via
metacognitive strategies (strategies to self-manage cognition, in this case
remaining focused/attentive, e.g. responding strategically to messages at
appropriate times)
Evaluation:
● Presence of metacognitive strategies is an assumption only (actual
presence of them wasn’t measured)
● Concern with ecological validity; extent of induced media multitasking &
thus observed effects may have been exaggerated
○ IRL, not all text messages require response within such short period
of time, like within duration of lecture; thus, findings generalizable to
RL?
○ To some extent, yes, bc some ppl IRL likely still do choose to reply
during lecture, thus engaging in unforced induced media multitasking
similar to sort induced in procedure
93
Sparrow et al. (2011): The ‘Google Effect’
Aim: Investigate the effect of digital ability to ‘save information’ on memory recall
Background Info: with digital tech (e.g. internet, digital reminders, etc.) we can
save & find info easily & don’t always need to remember it ourselves
Procedure:
1. Ss read 40 memorable trivia statements of the type that one would look up
online; typed statements into computer
2. ½ believed the computer would save what was typed; ½ believed the item
would be erased; ½ in each condition were asked explicitly to try to
remember the information
3. Ss recall then tested; tried to write down as many of the statements as they
could remember
Findings:
● Ss told that statements would be erased had better memory recall of
statements
● Explicit instruction to recall the info had no effect on recall
Conclusion:
● When ppl believe they will have access to info later, they will not recall it as
the same rate as when they believe the opposite
○ Ss didn’t make effort to remember/pay attention to statements when
they thought they could later look them up
Tajfel et al. (1971): Minimal Groups Paradigm
Relevant to: Social Identity Theory [SCTRL], Cooperation & Competition (SIT) [HR],
Prejudice & Discrimination (SIT) [HR]
Aim: Demonstrate that putting people into groups (i.e. social categorization) is
sufficient for ppl to discriminate against out-group in favor of in-group
Ss: British schoolboys
Procedure: Lab experiment method (between-groups design)
1. Ss shown paintings by 2 artists (Klee & Kandinsky) witho being told which
painting was from which artist & asked to say which paintings they
preferred
2. Ss then randomly assigned to ‘Klee group’ or ‘Kandinsky’ group, told that
group assignment was based on which artists’ paintings they preferred
94
more
3. Ss given matrices to give ‘points’ to a boy from their group & a boy from the
other group by selecting one column of points awarded; matrices were
designed so Ss could take 3 strategies:
a. Maximum joint profit: Largest absolute reward for members of both
groups
b. Largest reward to in-group: Largest absolute reward for in-group
regardless of reward to out-group
c. Maximum difference: Largest possible relative difference in reward
to in-group vs out-group
Findings: Majority of Ss took maximum difference strategy, rewarded more to own
group than other group to maximize diff btw groups (indicating their priority was to
elevate own group own other group)
Conclusion: Social categorization is sufficient for discrimination against out-group
in favor of in-group to occur.
Evaluation:
● Lab experiment: easy to observe/analyze results, establish causation,
replicate, but may lack ecological validity (artificial in nature)
○ Arbitrary, artificial ‘point assignment’ unrealistic, may not be
applicable IRL
● Ss may have shown demand characteristics, tried to please Rs; may have
interpreted this specific task as competitive (not indicator of realistic
behavior)
● Ss may have been incited to compete by procedure itself—competition isn’t
necessarily discrimination
● Potential sampling bias; all Ss were schoolboys, possible increased
tendency towards such discriminatory behavior in
schoolboys/students/boys/males vs other populations
Abrams et al. (1990): Asch Line Paradigm & Social Identity
Relevant to: Social Identity Theory [SCTRL]
Aim: Investigate effect of social identity (in-group/out-group) on conformity due to

a normative influence
Ss: Uni psych students
Procedure: Lab experiment method (repeated measures design); modified Asch
line paradigm
1. Ss entered a room with several confederates/actors whom Ss were led to
believe were other Ss and either:
95
a. Psychology students like them (in-group)

b. Ancient history students (out-group)
2. All ppl in room shown 2 cards: 1st had 1 line on it; 2nd had several, one of
which was obviously the same length as the line on the 1st
3. Ss and confederates then asked which line on the 2nd card matched the line
on the 1st card (confederates agreed on what answer to give beforehand)
4. Steps 1-3 above repeated multiple times (trials); confederates deliberately
give the wrong answer on some of the trials
Findings:
● Majority of Ss conformed at least once with in-group (psych student)
confederates
● Only a minority did so with out-group (history student) confederates
Conclusions:
● One’s behavior (conformity; normative influence) is more influenced by one’s
in-groups vs out-groups
○ Re: SIT—Desire to elevate one’s in-group above out-group (Positive
Distinction) supersedes ‘reasonable’ response; demonstrates extent
of effect of social categorization on behavior
Evaluation:
● (Also consider evaluative points for Asch (1951) given similar procedure)
● Potential for demand characteristics; Ss being psych students may have
already had prior knowledge of (well-known) Asch line paradigm
○ May have deduced aim of experiment or simply known they should
answer with the correct line & ignore confederates
Bandura et al. (1961): Bobo Doll Experiment
Relevant to: Social Cognitive Theory [SCTRL]
Aim: Investigate if social behaviors can be acquired by observation & imitation

Ss: 3-6 y/o boys & girls
Procedure: Lab experiment method (between-groups design)
1. Ss aggression levels measured by asking Ss’s teachers to rate their
aggression
2. Ss split into groups by matched-pairs design to ensure all variables (e.g.
pre-existing levels of aggression) distributed equally
3. Ss entered a room with toys, then told that they could not play with them;
this caused baseline levels of frustration as control for initial frustration
level of Ss
4. Then, Ss either:
96
a. Shown a male or female aggressive model (i.e. model acted

aggressively to Bobo doll)
b. Shown a male or female non-aggressive model (i.e. model acted
neutrally, e.g. assembling toys)
c. Shown nothing (control)
5. Ss then given the Bobo doll, aggression levels to it (behavior) were recorded
Findings:
● Children shown aggressive model acted most aggressively to Bobo doll
● Children shown no model were second-most aggressive
● Children shown non-aggressive model were least aggressive
● Boys tended to imitate both physical & verbal aggression of model,
regardless of model’s gender
● Girls tended to imitate only the verbal (not the physical) aggression of the
male model BUT both the physical & verbal aggression of female model
Conclusions:
● Social behaviors can be acquired through observation and imitation of a
model
● In-group (identification with) models appear to encourage social learning
○ As girls identified more with female models, perhaps they were more
motivated to & believed themselves to be more capable of replicating
behavior
Evaluation:
● Lab experiment: easy to observe/analyze results, establish causation,
replicate, but may lack ecological validity (artificial in nature)
● Subjective operationalization; Rs judged ‘aggression’ witho defining
behaviors considered aggressive, subject to R bias
● Ss were only exposed to models for short amount of time; not indicative of
long-term learning
● Ss may have believed that Rs explicitly wanted them to act in a certain way
to Bobo doll & thus had artificial motivation; further research needed with
naturalistic motivation
Odden & Rochat (2004): Observational Learning & Enculturation in Samoa
Relevant to: Social Cognitive Theory [SCTRL], Enculturation [SCTRL]
Aim: Investigate the role of observational learning in enculturation in children in

non-Western cultures
Ss: Samoan children
Procedure: Longitudinal study. Naturalistic observations of children +
97
semi-structured interviews with caretakers, teachers, pastors, chiefs +

questionnaires. Rs sought to investigate learning of various behaviors, notably
looking @:
1. Household chores
2. Fishing
3. Societal hierarchy & cultural rituals (the ‘Chief’ system)
One R spent 25 months in Samoa, 20 in a single rural village
Findings:
● Samoan culture observed to have high distance to authority (power
distance; see Cultural Dimensions); questioning discouraged & shown as
disrespectful, children largely left to learn by themselves with observing &
listening to elders
● Children would watch adults fishing (but not participate/ask for help), then
try it themselves; by age 12, most children were skilled fishermen
● Children began learning wide range of chores when young; by 15, spent
signf amt of time doing chores, yet interviews + observations indicated
parents didn’t teach children said chores
● Same for societal hierarchy/cultural rituals—adults never taught
norms/behaviors but children learned them anyway
Conclusion: Observational learning appears to be key to enculturation (learning of
cultural behaviors, norms, etc.), at least in some cultures (e.g. those with high
power distance)
Evaluation:
● Rich data collected; highly representative of actual situation/experience esp
with method triangulation, indicative of true nature of enculturation in rural
Samoa
● However, generalizability to broader populations limited; perhaps only
applicable to Samoa?
○ Might be applicable to other cultures with high power distance
○ Rs note that some observed aspects of Samoan behavior were akin
to those observed in prior enculturation/observational learning
research on non-Western cultures
Hamilton & Gifford (1976): Illusory Correlations
Relevant to: Stereotypes
Aim: Investigate illusory correlation between frequency of behaviors in groups &

perceptions of groups
Procedure: Lab experimental design (but no manipulation)
98
1. Ss shown series of statements in quick (8s each) succession about

members belonging to 2 groups, Group A & Group B, performing either +ve
or -ve behaviors
○ Both groups had same proportion of +ve/-ve behavior but Group B
had less behaviors than Group A
■ A had 8 +ve/16 -ve; B had 4+ve/8 -ve
○ No mention made of how many members either group had
2. Ss asked to estimate how often +ve or -ve statements occurred for
members of each group
Findings:
● Ss overestimated the frequency of -ve statements for Group B members
Conclusion: -ve stereotypes may arise from illusory correlations being drawn from
more infrequent events appearing more distinctive
● As Group B was smaller, its traits (esp -ve ones) appeared more distinct &
representative of the group as a whole
Steele & Aronson (1995): Stereotype Threat
Relevant to: Stereotypes
Aim: Investigate the existence & consequences of stereotype threat

Ss: African-American (AA) & White (W) US college students
Procedure/Findings: Lab experimental method (between-groups design); 4
experiments conducted
Exp 1
P: Ss took difficult verbal test (GRE); before test, told that test was either:
1. Indicative of Ss’s intelligence (threat condition), or:
2. Not indicative of Ss’s intelligence (non-threat condition)
F:
● W Ss performed equally well in both conditions
● AA Ss in threat condition had lower test scores than W Ss
● AA Ss in non-threat condition performed equally well as W Ss
Exp 2
P: Replication of exp. 1, but at end of test, R measured Ss anxiety levels thru
self-report
F: No diff in anxiety btw W & A Ss
99
Exp 3
P: Replication of exp. 1, but after being told test was/wasn’t indicative of
intelligence & before test itself, Ss completed questionnaires asking (optional)
demographic info & with measures of:
1. Stereotype Activation: Word completion task, e.g. _ _ CE, _ _ A C K, etc.
2. Self-Doubt: Word completion task, e.g. DU _ _
3. Stereotype Avoidance (degree of avoiding perception of appearing like
stereotype): Questions asked like “How much do you enjoy rap
music/classical music/basketball/etc.?)
4. Self-Handicapping (degree of giving excuses for performance): Questions
asked like “How fair do you think standardized tests are?” or “How much
stress have you been under lately?”
F: AA Ss in threat condition displayed…
● Heightened awareness of own racial identity—Filled in words with racial
connotations more often, e.g. RACE & BLACK instead of, say, MACE or
SHACK
● More self-doubt—Filled in words indicating self-doubt, e.g. DUMB instead
of, say, DUCK
● More avoidance of stereotypes—Answered less +vely than non-threat AA Ss
when asked how much they enjoyed ‘stereotypically Black’ things e.g. rap
music, basketball
● More self-handicapping—Made more excuses for lack of own ability (e.g.
tended to say they were under more stress, felt tests were unfair, etc.)
● Disidentification with their (stereotyped) group: Less likely to report own
race in demographic questions
Exp 4
P: Replication of the non-threat condition only of exp. 1 (i.e. ALL Ss were told that
the test wasn’t indicative of intelligence); ½ of Ss asked to report their race before
the test
F: If asked to report race, AA Ss performed worse than W Ss; no difference if not
asked
Overall Conclusions:
● Making stereotypes about ability salient (obvious) can lead to:
○ Disruptions in performance (all exps)
○ Doubt in one’s ability (exp 3)
○ Disidentification with a stereotyped group (exp 3)
● Anxiety is not a factor in the disruptions of performance caused by
stereotype threat (exp 2)
● Even reminding people of their identity itself (without mentioning a specific
100
stereotype) before performing a tasked stereotyped with their identity can

lead to stereotype threat (exp 4)
Hofstede (1973): The Questionnaire
Relevant to: Cultural Dimensions [SCTRL], Effect of Culture on Behavior [SCTRL]
Aim: Identify & classify behaviors according to cultures worldwide

Ss: IBM employees from various countries worldwide
Procedure: Quasi-experimental method, comparing cultures. From 1967-1973, Ss
filled out questionnaires about how they perceived their work environment
Findings/Conclusions:
● Found differences in mental programming (i.e. shared mental concepts,
ideas, etc. between cultures; now known as Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
(see list & description Cultural Dimensions)
○ Initially, only identified the first 4 specific cultural dimensions; last 2
(Uncertainty Avoidance, Indulgence vs Restraint) only added later
Berry & Katz (1967): Conformity of Individualist vs Collectivist Cultures
Relevant to: Effect of Culture on Behavior [SCTRL]
Aim: Investigate differences in conformity between individualistic and collectivist

societies
(Refer to Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions for clear definition of this)
Ss: 1 group of Inuits from Canada, 1 group from African Temne tribe
Background Info:
● Inuits considered individualist (hunt for food individually, must rely on self
for long periods of time)
● Temne considered collectivist (must communicate & cooperate to harvest
crop for entire community)
Procedure: Lab experiment method (repeated measures design); both groups of
Ss performed the Asch line paradigm
Asch Line Paradigm
believe were other Ss
101

Findings:
Ss from Temne tribe conformed to the confederates/group at a much higher rate
than those of the Inuits
Conclusion: Culture (individualism vs collectivism) appears to influence
conformity—individualist societies have lower rates of normative conformity & vice
versa
Evaluation:
● Concern about ecological validity—Asch paradigm not a realistic task, not
necessarily representative of natural behavior
● Both cultures present rural/not developed; further investigation needed in
more complex, industrialized societies
● Rs may not have fully understood cultures & therefore misunderstood Ss
responses (etic approach bias)
Bond & Smith (1996): Meta-Analysis—Individualist vs Collectivist Conformity
Relevant to: Effect of Culture on Behavior [SCTRL]
Aim: Investigate the effect of individualism vs collectivism of a culture on

conformity rates of said culture
Procedure: Meta-analysis of various Asch line paradigm replications carried out
worldwide
Asch Line Paradigm
believe were other Ss
Findings: Individualist societies (e.g. US, UK) tended to conform @ lower rate than
collectivist societies (e.g. China, Japan)
Conclusion: Individualist societies tend to normatively conform less than
collectivist ones
102
Trainor et al. (2012): Musical Enculturation in Infants
Relevant to: Enculturation [SCTRL]
Aim: Investigate if enculturation occurs from active learning

Ss: 6-month-old Western infants
Procedure: Lab experiment method; both between-groups and repeated-measures
(counterbalanced) design elements
1. Ss, for 6 months, either did:
a. An active participatory music class involving infants & their parents
b. A class with passive exposure to music (while playing with toys)
2. Ss then exposed to a toy which, if looked at, played a classical music piece
(if looked away, stopped playing); 2 versions played to all Ss (order
counterbalanced):
a. Tonal version: Original, unaltered version
b. Atonal version: Original but with accidentals (wrong notes)
3. Which version Ss preferred measured by how much they looked at the toy
for the tonal vs atonal version of the piece
Findings:
● Ss who did the active class preferred the tonal version over the atonal
version of the piece
● Ss who did the passive class had no preference for either version
Conclusion: Active learning in a social context promotes enculturation (in this
case, sensitivity to cultural tonality)
Miranda & Matheny (2000): Acculturative Stress in Latino Immigrants
Relevant to: Acculturation [SCTRL]
Aim: Investigate factors influencing acculturative stress

Ss: Latino immigrants to US
Procedure: Quasi-experimental study. Ss completed questionnaires & tests
measuring:
● Family cohesion
● Level of acculturation
● Level of acculturative stress
● Coping strategies for stress
Findings:
● Ss with good coping strategies, proficiency in English & strong family
structures were less likely to experience acculturative stress
103
● Ss who had spent longer in the US had higher levels of acculturation & were
less likely to experience acculturative stress
Conclusion: The use of coping strategies for stress, proficiency in the region’s
native language & strong social support (e.g. from family) appear to reduce
acculturative stress
Evaluation:
● Sample only looked at Latino immigrants to US; possible that acculturation
affects ppl of different cultural origins/acculturating to different target
cultures differently
○ i.e. Findings may not necessarily be generalizable to all ppl of all
cultures undergoing acculturation and/or experiencing acculturative
stress
Lueck & Wilson (2010): Acculturative Stress in Asian-Americans
Relevant to: Acculturation [SCTRL]
Aim: Investigate factors influencing acculturative stress

Ss: Asian-American immigrants to US from various Asian cultures; roughly ½ were
1st-gen immigrants (i.e. original generation in family to immigrate)
Procedure: Ss underwent semi-structured interviews with interviewers of similar
cultural & linguistic backgrounds to them exploring various themes, including:
● Levels of acculturative stress
● Impact on acculturative stress of:
○ Language preference
○ Discrimination faced
○ Socioeconomic status [SES] & economic opportunities
○ Satisfaction with immigrating
● And more...
Findings:
● ~¾ of Ss had acculturative stress
● Ss with bilingual preferences had lower acculturative stress; Ss who only
preferred to speak English had higher acculturative stress
● Discrimination significantly contributed to acculturative stress
● Ss satisfied with their SES/economic opportunities and/or their choice to
immigrate (i.e. they would choose to do it again) had lower acculturative
stress
Conclusions:
● Acculturative stress is common in immigrants
● Bilingual language preferences, prevalence of discrimination, satisfaction
104
with SES, & satisfaction with immigration decrease acculturative stress

Evaluation:
● Sample only looked at Asian immigrants to US; possible that acculturation
affects ppl of different cultural origins/acculturating to different target
cultures differently
○ i.e. Findings may not necessarily be generalizable to all ppl of all
cultures undergoing acculturation and/or experiencing acculturative
stress
Buchan et al. (2011): Global Social Identity & Cooperation
Relevant to: Globalization [SCTRL HL]
Aim: Investigate if identification with a ‘global culture’ motivates cooperation

Ss: 1122 ppl from various countries (US, Italy, Russia, Argentina, South Africa, Iran)
Procedure:
1. Ss’s social identity (local, national, global) & concern for global affairs (e.g.
global warming) measured
2. Ss then given money to invest in either a personal, national, or global fund
with a certain guaranteed payback (that Ss knew of):
a. A single S investing into their personal fund would get back that
exact amount of money from the fund
b. Several Ss from same country investing into their national fund
would have total money invested in fund multiplied x2, then total
money in fund shared equally between all Ss who invested in it
c. Several Ss from multiple countries investing into their global fund
would have total money invested in fund multiplied x3, then total
money in fund shared equally between all Ss who invested in it
i. Global fund mathematically superior but only if Ss invest lots
into it!
Findings: Ss who identified more with a global community tended to invest more in
the global fund (the mathematically superior fund…if everyone invests in it)
Conclusion: Social identification with a global culture/community appears to
increase cooperative behaviors contributing to the global public good
Evaluation:
● Difficult to separate identification/cooperation from pragmatism
● Perhaps more ‘globalized’ Ss (i.e. identified with global community/culture
more) simply more pragmatic in nature by way of cultural norms
105
Becker et al. (2002)—Eating Behaviors in Fijian Adolescent Girls
Relevant to: Globalization [SCTRL HL], Prevalence Rates [ABN]
Aim: Investigate the effect of introducing media to a previously media-naive

population.
Ss: 2 groups of Fijian girls
Background Info:
● Fiji only got TV in mid-1990s
● Fijian body image ideal ‘heavier/bigger’ in Fiji than Western culture
● FIjian cultural traditions also protective against body image dissatisfaction
Procedure: Quasi-experimental study (NOTE: Not longitudinal!)
1. Before TV was intro’d to Fiji, R measured eating attitudes of 1st group
(~17y/o) of Ss through interviews
2. 3yrs after TV intro’d to Fiji, R conducted interviews with 2nd group of Ss
(also Fijian girls, but ~5yrs older on avg & NOT the same girls as 1st group)
Findings:
● 2nd group had signf increase in indicators of eating disorders
● Interview responses of 2nd group (Fijian girls after intro of TV) showed
higher levels of anxiety about weight, changes in attitudes to diet, weight
loss & ideal body image
Conclusion: Globalization results in cultural shifts in behavior—in this case, in
perception of body image as caused by TV programs
Evaluation:
● Many possible confounding variables
○ Aging/maturing process (esp. as evidenced by avg age gap) could’ve
resulted in the diff shown
○ Can’t draw comparison in changes in same Ss; thus, Ss variables
possibly concern
● Other studies also point to same conclusion re: shifts in body image—e.g.
Hall (2013) found worldwide effects on body image perception (ideal skin
color) from globalization, resulting in skin bleaching
Stratton (2003): Attributions in Troubled Families
Relevant to: Communication in Personal Relationships [HR]
Aim: Investigate attributional styles in troubled family relationships

Ss: 8 troubled families with step-parents or adoptive parents attending family
therapy
106
● Assumed that as families sought therapeutic help, they were troubled

Procedure: Qualitative observations (structured, lab, non-S). Rs observed films of
family therapy sessions which Ss (all members of family, incl all parents &
children) attended; interactions recorded with checklist for attributional behaviors
Findings:
● Nearly 2000 attributions recorded; ~4 attributions/minute; attributions quite
common in communication
● Parents often used -ve dispositional attributions against children (i.e.
children caused bad outcomes); less often towards self (i.e. self caused
bad outcomes)
● -ve behaviors of children described as controllable more often than -ve
behaviors of parents
Conclusion: A maladaptive attribution style towards others (blaming other
individuals) in behavior (interactions, communication, etc.) appears to result in
distress in relationships
Evaluation:
● Supports attribution theory (theoretical generalizability); (somewhat)
indicates maladaptive attribution styles towards others in relationships
present
● Possible case-to-case generalizability to interpersonal relationships with
one member ‘socially inferior’ (lower position, e.g. younger) than other
○ Maybe not all tho (e.g. relationships with equal status might work
differently)
● Has credibility but with caveats:
○ Ss were behaving naturally, though in artificial setting (not at home)
○ Structured nature of observation may have meant some behaviors
ignored/lost; however, checklist was comprehensive, data collected
still quite rich (many attributions recorded)
● Can’t definitively establish causation—did attributional styles cause bad
relationship or did deterioration of relationship cause attributional styles?
Fletcher et al. (1987): Attributions in Dating Couples
Relevant to: Communication in Personal Relationships [HR]
Aim: Investigate whether patterns of attributions are related to relationship

satisfaction
Ss: Students from a US uni in heteroseuxal relationships not living together (NOTE:
More females than males in sample!)
Procedure: Quasi-experimental study.
107
1. Ss completed initial questionnaire measuring relationship characteristics

(e.g. happiness, commitment, etc.) & describing relationship (own &
partner’s role, interactions, external factors, etc.)
2. 2 months later, Ss still in relationship answered abridged version of original
questionnaire via phone interview
Findings:
● Ss with high relationship satisfaction attributed +ve behaviors (in general) in
relationship as caused by self & partner but not -ve behaviors
● Ss in happier relationships tended to describe relationship in more
interpersonal terms (“we”), implying closeness in interactions
● Ss who made more situational attributions for reasons for relationship
maintenance had less happiness, commitment, & love
Conclusions: Adaptive attributions in communication in relationships, among other
relationship behaviors, results in higher satisfaction & love
Evaluation:
● More females than males were used in the sample of the study, might limit
generalization (females might tend to use different maintenance
strategies/attributions &/or think of relationships differently)
● Supports attribution theory; indicates adaptive attribution styles in
relationship behaviors, including interactions/communication, lead to
satisfaction
○ No observations of actual interactions & attribution styles present in
them though; relies on self-reports (social desirability bias? Couples
may want to report as if they attribute certain ways to appear
happier?)
○ Diff between couples still observed tho
LeFebvre et al. (2014): Relationship Breakdown on Facebook
Relevant to: Change & End in Relationships [HR]
Aim: Apply Rollie & Duck’s model of relationship breakdown to Facebook users’
behavior during & after break-ups
Ss: College students
Procedure: Ss completed online survey asking about romantic relationship that
ended in past 2 years, in which:
● Rated seriousness of relationship
● Stated frequency of face-to-face & online contact with partner
● Reported online communication + behaviors during & after break-up with
partner
108
Survey responses analyzed qualitatively with Inductive Content Analysis.

Findings: Ss performed various behaviors during/after relationship dissolution—
● During relationship dissolution:
○ Minimized FB activity
○ Removed partner from own social media presence (e.g. removing
relationship status, untagging/deleting posts, etc.)
○ Sought support from social networks; engaged in ‘virtual mourning’
of relationship (e.g. posting emotional statuses)
○ Observed/stalked online actions of partners
● After relationship dissolution:
○ Continued removing partner from own social media presence (e.g.
deleting posts, etc.)
○ Withdrew & self-regulated from partner (e.g. defriended/blocked
partner, avoided viewing partner’s profile, etc.)
○ Exhibited impression management behaviors (e.g. +ve online
presentation), often to make partner jealous/regretful
○ Virtually reconciled with partner (e.g. sending apology emails),
sought new relationship interests
Conclusion: Aspects of Rollie & Duck’s 5-stage Model supported:
● Social: Removing partner’s presence, social network support, etc.
● Grave Dressing: Impression management, withdrawing & self-regulating
from partner, etc.
● Resurrection: Virtual reconciliation, new relationship interests ,etc.
Evaluation:
● Strong credibility; method triangulation (qualitative analysis + quantitative
ratings combined) used
● Concern with generalizability; used college students; findings (esp
qualitative analysis) may not apply to all relationships between all social
groups across all (esp non-verbal) means of communication
Tashiro & Frazier (2003): Recent Breakups
Relevant to: Change & End in Relationships [HR]
Aim: Investigate prevalence of personal growth and distress following break-ups.

Ss: Undergrads who had recently experienced a romantic break-up
Procedure: Ss given multiple surveys to report/measure:
1. Attribution of blame for end of relationship
2. Cause for end of relationship
3. Distress
109
4. Growth/learning post-relationship (personal & otherwise)

Findings:
● In terms of degree of personal growth, Ss on avg reported ~5 types of
personal growth that might improve future relationships
● Female Ss reported more personal growth than male Ss
○ Might be explained by social norms (males ‘strong’, shouldn’t show
even implied weakness)
● Ss who attributed cause of break-up to ex-partner & environmental factors
experienced greater distress
Conclusion: Rollie & Duck’s model, esp grave-dressing & resurrection, supported
● Attributions of cause (e.g. to ex-partner, environmental factors, etc.)
suggest degree of justifying break-up, supporting grave-dressing stage
● Ss viewing ex-partner & outside factors (vs own faults) as responsible for
ending relationships having distress supports grave-dressing stage (ppl try
to attribute cause to ex-partner & outside factors; also indicates trying to
justify breakup)
● Personal growth shown, supporting presence of resurrection stage
Evaluation:
● Concern with generalizability; undergrads used, perhaps diff social classes
& relationships in them behave differently
Sherif (1954; 1958; 1961): Robber’s Cave Studies
Relevant to: Cooperation & Competition [HR], Prejudice & Discrimination (RGCT)
[HR]
Aim: Investigate characteristics of intergroup conflict & cooperation

Ss: White, lower-middle-class boys from Protestant families
Procedure: Field exp. 3 exps conducted (similar with minor variations); longitudinal
3-week study, Es posed as camp leaders observing Ss while parents asked to stay
away
1. Group Formation Stage: Ss split into 2 matched groups (i.e. groups
comparatively similar in characteristics like height, weight, popularity, etc.)
a. In 2 of 3 exps, Es observed who Ss befriended during 1st few days of
camp then separated Ss such that they were in separate groups
b. In 1 exp, Ss separated into groups immediately witho any initial
contact; groups initially unaware of others’ presence but eventually
found out
2. Inter-Group Conflict Stage: 2 groups engaged in competitions (e.g. tug of
110
war); winning team would receive rewards (trophy, new much-wanted

penknife), losers would receive nothing
3. Conflict Reduction Stage: Rs attempted to reduce conflict with mere contact
(e.g. meals together, watching movies together) and +ve interdependence
(e.g. cooperation necessary to bump-start a truck needed by both groups)
Findings:
● Group Formation Stage:
○ Both groups developed in-group norms, structure, rituals quickly
○ Ss made comparisons btw own group & other group, own group seen
as superior (even before actual competition occurred)
● Inter-Group Conflict Stage:
○ Ss displayed in-group favoritism: Became tight-knit group, focused
on group’s similarities & strengths, stopped socializing with
out-group members
○ Ss engaged in out-group discrimination: Ridiculed & belittled
out-group, burnt flags & raided cabins of out-group (even when
friends were in out-group)
● Conflict Reduction Stage:
○ Mere contact strategies ineffective; Ss continued to interact with
each other -vely (e.g. food fights)
○ When situations with +ve interdependence set up, Ss collaborated to
solve/fix problem; eventually, inter-group conflict reduced (Ss from
winning group shared with losing group)
Conclusions:
● Social categorization does result in ingroup favoritism and outgroup
discrimination, supporting RGCT and SIT
● -ve interdependence and conflicting goals further results in/increases
outgroup discrimination, supporting RGCT
○ However, SIT also supported in that outgroup prejudice (elevation of
ingroup vs outgroup) occurred before conflict even started; but
prejudice doesn’t inherently = discrimination/conflict/competitive
behaviors
○ RGCT supported in that -ve interdependence/conflicting goals
caused greater conflict and overt discriminatory behavior towards
other group
● Presence of superordinate goals & +ve interdependence decreases
outgroup discrimination, supporting RGCT
Evaluation:
Methodological
● High ecological validity—realistic setting & group situation, Ss didn’t know
they were being studied & thus behaved authentically
111
● Rich data—Ss’s interactions complex & behaviors diverse, grounded in real

interactions
● Sampling bias; Ss variables might impact generalizability (maturity, gender,
culture, etc. might have impacted extent of behaviors)
● Possible demand characteristics—camp leaders’ overt setting up of
competitive situation (competitive games with rewards) might influence Ss
into conflict rather than incompatible goals themselves resulting in conflict
● Concern re: construct validity—operationalization of hostility/violence
measures vague, vulnerable of researcher bias (stage of study might
influence Rs’/Es’ interpretation of Ss’s behavior, e.g. behavior seen as
neutral in Stage 3 might have been seen as more discriminatory if seen in
Stage 2)
Ethical
● Ethical concern—Ss forced into study with no consent or knowledge of its
nature, might’ve suffered mental distress/harm (esp if on losing team)
Levinson (2007): Memory of Racial Stories
Relevant to: Prejudice & Discrimination (Implicit Bias) [HR]
Aim: Investigate effect of implicit bias in memory recall.

Procedure: Lab experiment, between-groups design.
1. Ss read 2 stories, one about a fistfight and the other about an employee
being terminated
a. Race of protagonist of the story was manipulated; was either
Caucasian [C] man, an African-American [AA] man, or a Hawaiian [H]
man
b. Otherwise, stories were identical for all Ss
2. Ss then, after a brief distractor task, completed yes/no questionnaire
measuring recall of details of story
3. Ss then completed a further test for explicit (openly expressed) racial
preferences
Findings:
● Ss’ recall of story demonstrated -ve racial biases towards AA and to a lesser
extent H characters
○ Ss more likely to remember aggressive facts (e.g. character punching
someone from behind) AA & H characters than C character from
story
○ Ss more likely to falsely remember +ve facts (e.g. character receiving
an award) about C character than AA & H characters
112
● No relationship found between biases in memory recall & explicit racial

preferences
Conclusions:
● Implicit biases about races appear to influence cognitive processes (e.g.
memory)
● Implicit biases appear to operate separately from explicit racial preferences
Evaluation:
● Implicit bias/schema activation not actually measured, only implied via
biased nature of memory recall of aggressive facts & +ve facts
● Schema activation also not measured, only implied given stories were
identical yet bias was present (implying some prior knowledge/mental
representation was influencing/biasing cognition)
Levinson et al. (2010): Guilty by Implicit Racial Bias
Relevant to: Prejudice & Discrimination (Implicit Bias) [HR]
Aim: Investigate impact of implicit bias against African-Americans in legal

decision-making
Ss: Undergrad students
Procedure: Lab experiment, between-groups design. Ss sat in cubicle with
computer, performed following tasks:
1. Ss performed robbery evidence evaluation task: read story of robbery,
shown crime scene photos with dark-skinned or light-skinned suspect,
then—
a. Scored each piece of evidence on degree indicating guilt/innocence
b. Gave verdict on whether suspect was guilty or innocent
2. Ss then completed (random order, avoiding order effects):
a. Black v White/Guilty v Not Guilty IAT
b. Black v White/Pleasant v Unpleasant IAT
c. Modern Racism Scale [MRS] (measuring self-reported explicit racial
beliefs)
d. Feeling Thermometers (measuring explicit racial preferences based
on emotion, e.g. “How warm to you feel towards African-Americans?”
Findings:
● On IATs, in general Ss had much higher assoc of Black & guilty/Black &
unpleasant than White & guilty/White & unpleasant
● Ss with stronger association of black & guilty/black & unpleasant more
likely in robbery evidence evaluation task to judge ambiguous evidence as
indicating guilt
113
○ This, however, was regardless of the race of the suspect!

● Higher assoc of Black & unpleasant (but not Black & guilty) correlated with
less favorable explicit attitudes & lower warmth towards AAs on MRS &
Feeling Thermometers, respectively
● However, higher assoc between Black & guilty on IAT correlated with higher
warmth towards AAs on Feeling Thermometer(!)
Conclusions:
● Implicit racial biases appear to be linked to explicit racial beliefs but not
(emotion-based) explicit racial preferences
○ Explicit racial preference don’t indicate implicit racial biases and may
even counteract them; possible metacognitive strategies in play
(attempting to counteract prejudicial cognition)?
● Guilt v race & pleasantness v race appear to be different mental constructs
(given Black & unpleasant appeared to influence explicit attitudes
differently, e.g. on MRS, than Black & guilty)
● Implicit racial biases appear to bias ppl towards judgments of guilt
regardless of race
● Rs state further investigation of implicit bias’s influence needed in other
legal domains
Evaluation:
● Artificial situation; Ss performed tasks sitting alone in cubicle—lacked social
cues, face-to-face interaction, etc.
○ Carrier et al. (2015) found that virtual empathy < IRL empathy;
emotion might influence cognition differently in realistic scenario
(e.g. actual courtroom)
● Sampling bias; Ss were undergrads, diff populations may behave/think
differently depending on nature of explicit/implicit racial beliefs
○ Societal progress means now less socially acceptable to express
explicit anti-racial preferences; Ss being young might’ve been
influenced by this, but older Ss raised in diff time might think
differently
Harris & Fiske (2006): Outgroup Less Than Human
Relevant to: Biological Correlates (Prejudice & Discrimination) [HR]
Aim: Investigate socioemotional & neurological reactions to outgroup members

Ss: 10 right-handed American undergrads
Background Info: Stereotype Content Model [SCM] posits ppl judge others on 2
dimensions—competence (ability) & warmth (closeness to self)
114
● High competence & high warmth elicits pride

● High competence & low warmth elicits envy
● Low competence & high warmth elicits pity
● Low competence & low warmth elicits disgust
Procedure: Ss underwent fMRI scans focusing on mPFC, amygdala, insula, while—
1. First shown pics of control objects
2. Then shown pics of ppl diff social groups (e.g. Olympic athletes, disabled
ppl, rich businessmen, homeless ppl, etc.) intended to elicit pride, envy, pity,
or disgust (according to SCM)
a. Pics had been pretested to elicit said reactions
Findings: Ss shown pics of ppl intended to elicit disgust (low competence &
warmth, e.g. homeless ppl, drug addicts, etc.) had:
1. High amygdala & insula activation (implying fear & disgust)
2. No mPFC activation (implying Ss didn’t consider them socially or as
‘human’)
Conclusions: Those whom we are not socially close to (low warmth) & perceive as
having low competence (ability) (e.g. homeless ppl, drug addicts, etc.) produce
emotional (& biological) responses of:
● Dehumanization (no mPFC activation)
● Disgust (left insula activation)
● Fear (right amygdala activation)
● i.e. Ppl view such groups as less than human & no different than objects
Evaluation:
● Very small sample size (due to expense of fMRI usage); concern with
generalizability
○ Ss all Americans; US has unique racial dynamics, possibly only
applicable to prejudice/discrimination/conflict in US?
● Can’t establish directionality (does brain activation cause
prejudice/discrimination or other way round?)
● Nature of reactions only implied; no actual measure to confirm if Ss were
actually reacting that way
● Only implies elements of prejudice; discriminatory behavior, conflict, etc. not
measured/observed in any way
Harris & Fiske (2006): Follow-Up Study—Rehumanizing the Dehumanized
Relevant to: Biological Correlates (Prejudice & Discrimination) [HR]
Aim: (Follow-up study) Investigate if dehumanizing fearful/disgusted responses to

those with low warmth & low competence can be reduced/negated
115
Ss: 18 right-handed females

Procedure: Ss underwent fMRI scans focusing on mPFC, shown pics of ppl from
diff social groups intended to elicit pride, envy, pity, disgust & either—
1. Shown a vegetable before shown pic of person, asked if they thought the
person would like the vegetable (yes/no) (vegetable task)
a. Forces Ss to engage in individuation (process of understanding
target as a unique human being)
2. Shown pic of person then asked if they thought the person was >35y/o
(yes/no) (age task)
Findings: Ss in vegetable task shown disgust images had significantly higher
mPFC activation than Ss in age task (who similarly had no mPFC activation as in
1st study)
Conclusion: Forcing individuation appears to reduce dehumanizing responses to
those eliciting disgust, suggesting decreased prejudice & thus decreased
discrimination & conflict
Evaluation: Similar points to original study
Alloy et al. (1999): -ve Cognition & Depression
Relevant to: Cognitive Theory of Depression (Etiologies)
Aim: Investigate if -ve cognition is associated with depressive symptoms

Ss: Non-depressed 1st year college students
1. Ss given questionnaire to establish cognitive thinking patterns; based on
responses, assigned to either low-risk or high-risk group
a. High-risk Ss believed -ve life events were catastrophic & meant they
were worthless
2. Ss followed up longitudinally for several yr thru self-reports & structured
interviews
Findings: Ss in high-risk group were considerably more likely to develop MDD &
suicidal tendencies
Conclusion: -ve cognition about world & self appears to influence development of
depression
Evaluation:
● Possible 3rd/confounding variables; does -ve cognition directly cause
depression or do they lead to higher freq of -ve life events leading to
depression?
116
Brown & Harris (1978): Sociocultural Risk & Protective Factors
Relevant to: Sociocultural Risk & Protective Factors (Etiologies) [ABN]

Aim: Investigate links between depression, social factors & stressful life events
Ss: South London women
1. Ss surveyed on daily life & depressive episodes with focus on important
bibliographic details (particular life events/difficulties faced by Ss)
2. Events later rated in severity by independent judges
Findings:
● Vast majority of Ss who’d become clinically depressed past year (10% of Ss)
had experienced an adverse life event or serious difficulty (e.g. loss of loved
one, abusive relationship)
● Social class had large effect on depression developing in Ss with children
● 3 major influences identified affecting development of depression:
○ Protective factors: Create high self-esteem & sources of meaning in
life (e.g. high intimacy with husband)
○ Vulnerability factors: Increase risk of depression when combined with
provoking agents (e.g. loss of mother @ young age, unemployment,
etc.)
○ Provoking agents: Severe life events resulting in grief & hopelessness
(esp for those witho social support) contributing to acute & ongoing
stress
Conclusions:
● Social factors (e.g. serious life events) are linked to depression
● Socioeconomic status is associated with risk for depression (lower social
class increases exposure to vulnerability factors & provoking agents; vice
versa)
Evaluation:
● Sampling bias (only females); concern with generalizability, esp to men
○ Are men influenced differently by social factors?
○ Broad categories/factors (vulnerability factors, protective factors,
etc.) may still be generalizable (no reason males aren’t similarly
vulnerable/protected) but not specific influences
● Study quasi-experimental, directionality/causation unclear; can’t determine
if events caused depression or depression caused increased likelihood that
events would occur
● No control for other variables (e.g. genetic vulnerability)
Kivela et al. (1996): Social Predictors of Depression in the Elderly
117
Relevant to: Sociocultural Risk & Protective Factors (Etiologies) [ABN]
Aim: Investigate social factors predicting depression in the elderly

Ss: Elderly Finnish ppl
Procedure: Quasi-experimental longitudinal study
1. From 1984-85, ~1500 Finnish elderly (>61 y/o) were tested for depression
with DSM-III criteria in a clinical study
2. From 1989-90, Ss who weren’t previously depressed (~700 of original
~1500) were interviewed & examined again
3. Social variables & occurrence of certain life events measured with
questionnaires
Findings:
● ~8% of men & ~9% of women not depressed in 1984-85 were depressed in
1989-90
● Comparative analysis between depressed & non-depressed men & women
revealed various social factors predicting depression
○ Some shared between males & females (e.g. alcohol problem of
close person)
○ Some gender-specific (e.g. males: losing mother under 20 y/o,
grandchild’s divorce; females: losing father under 20 y/o, lack of
religious activity, etc.)
○ Some unique to old age (e.g. males: moving into institutional care)
Conclusion:
● Social factors & changes in them may predict the onset of depression, esp
in old age
● There appear to be gender diffs in social factors predicting depression
onset
○ May be assoc with societal/cultural norms (e.g. men more ‘prideful’
esp in Western societies, thus going into institutional care more
shameful)
Rosenhan (1973): Sane in Insane Places
Relevant to: Prevalence Rates [ABN]
Aim: Investigate the validity of diagnoses in mental institutions.

Ss: 8 sane ppl (including Rosenhan)
Procedure & Findings:
Experiment 1
Procedure:
118
1. Ss tried to get admitted to variety of hospitals (12 total), stated that they’d
been hearing an unfamiliar voice of same sex saying “empty”, “hollow”,
“thud”
a. Symptoms chosen as they appeared reasonable & representative of
existential self-conflict but didn’t match any existing disorders in
psychiatric/psychological literature (no such thing as ‘existential
psychosis’)
b. Hospital directors informed but not broader staff; lawyers prepared
for removal if necessary
2. If/when admitted, Ss stopped faking symptoms & acted normal, tried to
convince staff to release them, observing behavior of staff & their treatment
of patients
Findings:
● Ss remained hospitalized for several weeks (avg 19 days); none found to be
fake (though fellow patients did suspect that they were faking)
○ All Ss discharged as ‘in remission’
● Ss’ normal behavior seen as aspects of their disorder (e.g. writing seen as
pathological behavior)
● Ss experienced & observed depersonalization & powerlessness, e.g. toilets
witho doors, patients treated violently by orderlies, only spent 7min/day with
medical staff, etc.
Exp 2
Procedure:
1. Staff in a hospital, aware of 1st exp, told that over next 3 months sane
pseudopatients (fake patients) would attempt to be admitted, asked to rate
from 1-10 the likelihood that each patient they saw was a pseudopatient
a. No pseudopatients actually sent
Finding: ~10% of intake judged to be pseudopatients
Conclusion: Flaws in validity of diagnosis demonstrated (at least, at time); 1st exp
demonstrates failure to detect sanity (Type 1/false +ve error), 2nd demonstrates
failure to detect insanity (Type 2/false -ve error)
● In context of prevalence rates, implies that they’d be affected as hospitals
might diagnose more ppl as mentally ill than actually present (or diagnose
less, if fearful of misdiagnosis)
Evaluation:
● Unclear if flaws due to medical incompetence or inherent flaws; still exist tho
● Naturalistic study with realistic conditions—high ecological validity, but
withb temporal validity? Mental healthcare has progressed since 1973 with
more rigorous diagnostic systems (DSM-II -> DSM-5), may not be as
applicable to today
● Ss psychologists/psychiatrists, uniquely positioned to fool hospitals with
119
extensive knowledge/expertise of disorders

○ Might such a situation arise IRL? Less likely
● Discharge diagnosis of ‘in remission’ was rare at the time; possible proof
that psychiatrists recognized Ss’ behavior as unusual?
March et al. (2007): Treatment of Adolescents with Depression Study/TADS
Relevant to: Biological & Psychological Treatments [ABN]
Aim: Examine short & long term effectiveness of drug therapy, CBT, & combination
therapy (drug therapy + CBT)
Ss: Adolescents aged 12-17 from US diagnosed with MDD; 13 participating clinics,
funded by the US National Institute for Mental Health [NIMH]
Procedure: Field exp; longitudinal. 3 stage exp; depression measured @ each
stage using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D); response rate defined as
% of Ss with >50% decrease in HAM-D score
1. Acute Treatment Stage (12 weeks): Ss randomly assigned to one of 4
conditions & treated accordingly:
a. Drug therapy only condition (the SSRI fluoxetine)
b. CBT only condition
c. Combination therapy condition
d. Placebo condition
2. Consolidation Stage (6 weeks): Ss continued to be treated. Ss in placebo
group informed that they’d been taking a placebo, allowed to choose to join
any of the other 3 conditions (but didn’t participate in study any further)
3. Continuation Stage (18 weeks): Ss continued to be treated; long-term
effectiveness assessed.
Findings:
● Acute Treatment Stage: Combination treatment had best response rate
(71%), drug therapy second (61%), CBT third (44%), placebo last (35%)
● Consolidation Stage: Response rates of all 3 treatments increased.
Combination still had highest response rate (85%), CBT only caught up to
drug therapy only (two had similar response rates; 65% CBT / 69% drug
therapy)
● Continuation Stage: All 3 treatments had similar response rates but
combination marginally higher (86% combination vs 81% CBT & drug
therapy)
● Ss in all treatments demonstrated decrease in suicidal tendencies, though
drug therapy had higher rate (15% vs 8% combination / 6% CBT only)
Conclusion:
120
● All 3 treatments outperformed placebo, so both drug therapy (biological) &

CBT (cognitive/psychological) are effective
● Combination therapy is most effective for treating MDD with highest short &
long-term response rates
● Drug therapy only has greater short-term but NOT long-term effectiveness
than CBT only
○ Suggests antidepressants may be well-suited for situations where
quick response/improvement necessary e.g. suicidal tendencies
○ However, fact that suicidal tendencies were higher in drug therapy
than CBT only/combination therapy sugggests caution must be taken
with such an approach
○ Only looks at one type of drug therapy (SSRI) though; wb other types
& their efficacy?
Hollon et al. (2005): Relapse Rates of CBT vs Drug Therapy
Relevant to: Biological & Psychological Treatments [ABN]
Aim: Determine if CBT has a more enduring effect than drug therapy
Ss: Patients diagnosed with MDD who:
● Responded +vely to CBT over 12 months, then were withdrawn from CBT
● Responded +vely to drug therapy over 12 months, then continued receiving
medication
● Responded +vely to drug therapy over 12 months, then received a placebo
Procedure: All Ss’ relapse rates measured over a further 12 months
Findings: Ss who responded +vely then were withdrawn from CBT were less likely
to relapse (~30%) than Ss continuing drug therapy (~50%) & taking placebo
(~80%)
Evaluation:
● No comparison to Ss withdrawn from drug therapy with knowledge of
withdrawal; extent of observed effect possibly understated
○ Do Ss withdrawn from drug therapy relapse even more? Less (e.g.
they think they’re cured/self-fulfilling prophecy)?
● No control for sociocultural factors; possible that those in drug therapy may
have experienced social stigma, discrimination, etc. for taking drugs,
affecting behavior
○ However, unconfirmed; another possible argument would be that
CBT, in +vely influencing cognition/thinking patterns better equips Ss
for dealing with social stressors
121
Kinzie et al. (1987): SE Asians Not Taking Antidepressants
Relevant to: Culture-Specific Treatment [ABN]
Aim: Investigate possible phenomenon of SE Asians not taking antidepressants

due to social/cultural reasons
Ss: 41 depressed SE Asian patients undergoing drug therapy prescribed by US
clinics
1. Ss’ blood tested to measure antidepressant levels
2. Ss had doctor-patient discussion about problems & benefits of
antidepressants
Findings:
● Majority of Ss (61%) had no detectable medicine levels in blood
● After discussion, Ss compliance rates with treatment signf increased
Conclusion: Ppl from certain cultures may not want to undergo prescribed therapy
(e.g. take medication)
● Rs explain this as originating from social stigma of antidepressants +
cultural attitudes towards authority influencing patients into pretending
they’re following prescription so as not to offend doctor
● Open discussions may aid in the effective application of treatments to
certain cultures
Evaluation:
● Sampling bias (only Ss seeking treatment at foreign [US] clinics); concern
with generalizability—would Ss react same way if treated by member of
same culture?
● Generalizability—Treatment in question was drug therapy, can findings re:
attitude be generalized to all forms of therapy?
○ Depends on culture in question; some may be more open to
behavioral therapies than chemical/drug therapies
Griner & Smith (2006): Culturally Sensitive Treatment
Relevant to: Culture-Specific Treatment [ABN]
Aim: Examine effectiveness of culturally-adapted treatments of mental disorders

Ss: In total ~25000 ppl
Procedure: Meta-analyzed 76 studies with quantitative estimates of effectiveness
of cultural adaptations of treatments (e.g. CBT) to disorders
Findings:
122
● Culturally adapted interventions for treatments had “moderately strong”

benefit in treating disorders
● Benefit was 4x stronger for same-race groups of clients than mixed-race
● When therapist spoke client’s language, therapy was more effective than
when therapist spoke English
Conclusion: Cultural adaptations of treatments are effective, especially if adapted
for specific sub-populations (e.g. races)
123

IB Psychology HL Notes (Incl. Human Reltn. & Abnormal Psych Options)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IB Psychology HL Notes (Incl. Human Reltn. & Abnormal Psych Options)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IB Psychology HL Notes (Incl. Human Reltn. & Abnormal Psych Options)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the main ethical guidelines that must be satisfied for any experiment involving humans?

What are some of the main ethical guidelines that must be satisfied for any experiment involving humans?

What are the 'Three Rs' that guide ethics in animal research?

What are the 'Three Rs' that guide ethics in animal research?

By mythic_fci#1141

● Ensure that all ethics requirements satisfied to greatest extent possible

● 4 main ethical guidelines to satisfy for any experiment/research involving

● Some ethical considerations necessary for humans unnecessary (e.g.

Probabilistic Techniques: Selecting people in such a way that all members of a

Name What is it? Strengths Weaknesses

Random Randomly selecting with sufficient Time consuming,

Stratified Splitting a group/population Helps ensure Time consuming &

Cluster Randomly selecting Ss from Easier & more Generalizability

Non-Probabilistic Techniques: Selecting ppl with specific characteristics desirable

Name What is it? Strengths Weaknesses

Purposive Selecting specifically Ss Allows Rs to R’s bias/prejudice

Quota Splitting a Allows Extremely time

Snowball Using existing Ss to help Allows Rs to Ss found may not

Convenience Choosing Ss who are Quick, easy, High potential for

Haphazard Any other Extremely easy, Extremely

Dependent Variable [DV]: The variable that’s observed/measured, in order to support

● Also known as confounding variables, if they interfere with ability to determine

● ‘Screw You’ Effect — Trying to sabotage the experiment

INTERNAL VALIDITY EXTERNAL VALIDITY

There are 4 types of experimental methods used in quantitative research:

LABORATORY (Lab) EXPERIMENTS

An experiment conducted in a controlled environment. The researcher manipulates

● Causation can be easily ● Controlled lab tests are rarely

An experiment that is conducted in a natural environment, where the researcher

● The natural environments of such ● Natural environments are much

causation can still be established realism & ecological

An experiment conducted in a natural environment, where the researcher observes

● Since the researcher is simply ● Often difficult (even impossible)

Comparing Ss based on differences in pre-existing variables (e.g. gender, age).

● Such studies allow for ● More difficult for researchers to

are different from each other, or

● Independent Measures: Allocating Ss into diff groups (usually randomly), then

● Causal relationship: The change in the IV caused the change in the DV

○ If the results of an experiment were extremely unlikely to happen if

CORRELATIONAL ANALYSES investigate the presence of a linear relationship

● A linear relationship means that when X changes, Y changes proportionally to

The strength of a linear relationship may be measured by its correlation coefficient

Moderate 0.8 to 0.5

Weak 0.5 to 0.3

Very Weak (essentially no 0.3 to 0

This can be ensured in various ways:

Triangulation: Combining diff approaches of investigation. Four types:

● Methodological: Using diff methods (e.g. interviews & observation)

Iterative Questioning: Rephrasing then re-asking questions later to prevent Ss from

Reflexivity: Rs reflecting on how subjectivity/bias might influence their findings. Two

● Epistemological: Reflecting on strengths, limitations, biases arising from

Credibility Checks: Ensuring interpretations are correct by sharing data,

Acquiescence bias: Tendency to give Confirmation bias: When Rs have prior

3 main methods used in qualitative research:

Watching & recording Ss’ actions.

4 ‘dimensions’ defining the nature of the observation (R must decide what to do on

Laboratory: R manipulates IV directly causing S’s behavior to change (from an

Naturalistic: Observing of situations where behaviors naturally occur without

Covert: Ss not aware they’re being observed

obtained after fact