Slides

PsychExchange.co.uk Shared Resource

Description
1. Section C of the G542: Core Studies exam focuses on the five approaches and two perspectives we cover. You will have a choice of two sets of questions to answer of…
Categories
Published
of 22
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  • 1. Section C of the G542: Core Studies exam focuses on the five approaches and two perspectives we cover. You will have a choice of two sets of questions to answer of which you must answer one set. You will have to answer four parts and they will usually follow this format: The five approaches are: a) Outline an assumption of the approach/perspective [2] • Social • Cognitive b) Describe how the approach/perspective could explain a • Developmental behaviour or phenomenon [4] • Physiological • Individual c) Describe one similarity and one difference between two Differences studies from the approach/perspective [6] The two perspectives are: • Psychodynamic d) Discuss strengths and weaknesses/limitations of the • Behaviourist approach/perspective using examples from the approach/perspective studies [12] In this guide you will have space to write plans of answers for each of these questions based on each approach and perspective. The social approach has been done for you, however if there are other ideas or information you can add then make sure to do so. Fill in the information using the same format for the other approaches and perspectives. The two assumptions are:
  • 2. Assumption 1 All behaviour occurs in a social context even when nobody else is present. Assumption 2 A major influence on people’s behaviour is other people and the society they have created. NB. Remember you will only need to state one in your exam for the 2 mark part (a) question unless asked otherwise. Which issues/behaviours could you be asked to explain in part (b) using the social approach? Think about what the three studies are about. Use each space to make notes on the information you would include to get 4 marks. Include examples from the studies themselves if possible to support your points. Issue/Behaviour: Obedience Explanation: The social approach, as demonstrated through Milgram’s study, could explain obedience. Firstly, as Milgram himself suggested the environment – Yale University – influenced participants as to the worthiness of the study and the competence of the experimenter, resulting in high levels of obedience which may not be found in a less prestigious setting. Secondly, the presence of a legitimate authority figure, dressed in a white lab coat, carrying a clip-board, influenced the participants’ behaviour as they believed him to be a trustworthy and knowledgeable individual who should be obeyed. Issue/Behaviour: Helping or bystander behaviour Explanation: The social approach and more specifically Piliavin et al’s study on a New York subway could explain bystander and helping behaviour. They proposed a cost-benefit theory suggests that individuals make a rational choice about how to behave based on balancing the perceived benefits with the perceived costs of affecting a particular behaviour in any specific situation. When deciding whether or not to help a victim, an individual weighs up the costs of helping e.g. lost time, risk of injury, against the possible benefits e.g. praise from others, thanks from the victim, and if the costs outweigh the benefits they do not help or vice versa. They may also choose to help in an attempt to decrease their uncomfortable level of arousal which the situation may be causing to them, or they may not help and leave the scene of the emergency which would also decrease it. Issue/Behaviour: How we identify with our social group Explanation: Tajfel and Turner proposed the Social Identity Theory which helps explain how we may identify with our social group. The theory hypothesises that there are 3 cognitive processes that are involved in evaluating ourselves as part of a group and categorising others as either one of ‘us’ or one of ‘them’. Firstly, social categorisation, where we categorise other people as members of particular social groups. The categories we all tend to subscribe to involve gender, race and social class. Next, we tend to adopt the identity of the group to which we have categorised ourselves as belonging and there is an emotional significance to identification with a group and our self-esteem becomes bound up with group membership. This is called social identification. The final cognitive process is called social comparison. We compare our group (in- group) with other groups (out-group) and favour the in-group. If our self-esteem is to be maintained our group needs to compare well against other groups. This theory can be applied to the results of Reicher and Haslam’s study and Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment. Fill in the table below to illustrate the similarities and differences between all the social approach studies. Focus on points about the methodology, sample and sampling method, ecological validity and ethics where appropriate. This will help you to answer the part (c) questions worth 6 marks (3 for the similarity and 3 for the difference). Remember to state what the similarity or difference is and explain it using examples from the studies. Milgram and Piliavin Similarities
  • 3. Both studies broke ethical guidelines, e.g. deception and right to withdraw. Both studies used standardised procedures, such as the recorded responses of the learner and the verbal prods and script of the experimenter in Milgram; and the use of the same train journey and actions of the victims in Piliavin. Both studies were conducted in America making them ethnocentric. Both studies collected both qualitative and quantitative data, e.g. observations of behaviour and how far participants went on the shock generator in Milgram and the comments of the bystanders and recordings of who helped and how many people helped in Piliavin. Differences Milgram used a controlled observation whereas Piliavin used a field experiment as the research method. Milgram used a self selected sample of 40 males whereas Piliavin used an opportunity sample of approximately 4450 males and females. Milgram’s study lacked ecological validity as it was carried out in a laboratory at Yale University whereas Piliavin carried out his study in a realistic, everyday, real-life setting so has high ecological validity. Milgram and Reicher and Haslam Similarities Both studies used male samples making them androcentric. Both studies used self selected samples by placing advertisements requesting people to come forward to participate. Both studies were conducted in Western cultures making them ethnocentric. Both studies used observation to collect the data. Both studies were conducted in artificial environments meaning that they lack ecological validity. Differences Milgram broke ethical guidelines concerning right to withdraw and protection from harm whereas Reicher and Haslam conducted a very ethical study where they screened the participants to make sure they weren’t vulnerable to psychological harm. Piliavin and Reicher and Haslam Similarities Both studies were conducted in Western cultures making them ethnocentric. Both studies used observation to collect the data. Both studies collected both qualitative and quantitative data, e.g. the comments of the bystanders and recordings of who helped and how many people helped in Piliavin and the video recording observations of behaviour and the measuring of clinical and psychological variables in Reicher and Haslam. Differences Pilaivin conducted a field experiment in a natural setting making it high in ecological validity whereas Reicher and Haslam’s study was conducted in an artificial mock prison resulting in a lack of ecological validity. Piliavin’s sample included both males and females whereas Reicher and Haslam used a male only sample. The sampling method used by Piliavin was opportunity sampling as he used people present on the train at the time, whereas Reicher and Haslam recruited their self selected sample by placing advertisements and requesting participants to come forward themselves. Piliavin broke many of the ethical guidelines such as right to withdraw, informed consent, deception and debrief whereas Reicher and Haslam were very careful to ensure they adhered closely to ethical guidelines. Use this space to plan an answer for a part (d) question discussing the strengths and weaknesses/limitations of the social approach. Remember to state what the strength or weakness is, use an example from one or more of the social studies and explain it fully. Strength 1: The use of natural settings and field experiments. Example: Piliavin’s study took place on a real New York subway train. Explanation By using a real-life setting with real passengers the study has high ecological validity. By witnessing the victim’s collapse in a normal environment the participants were more likely to react in a normal way than acting in a socially desirable way as a result of demand characteristics which may be present in a laboratory
  • 4. situation. This therefore makes the results of such social studies more valid and helps us to gain a more realistic understanding of human behaviour. Strength 2: The social approach has a wide variety of applications. Example: Milgram helps to explain real-life obedience to authority, e.g. the Holocaust and Reicher and Haslam helps to explain tyrannical regimes such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s rule, and, how people identify with groups and take on social roles. Explanation Milgram’s study suggests that certain factors such as the perception of legitimate authority figures and the situation which individuals find themselves in can affect how obedient they are. For example, this may explain why so many Nazi soldiers obeyed to Hitler’s authority during the Second World War and committed atrocious acts resulting in the persecution of innocent people during the Holocaust. Furthermore, it can be applied to obedience to authority in schools where students obey teachers and in society where people obey the authority of the police. From Piliavin’s study it can be seen that failure of a group to establish control, as in the case of the guards, can lead to very negative consequences including tyranny and abuse of power. Findings such as this can be used to inform the running of our prison system. Weakness 1: The use of controlled, artificial environments and situations. Example: Milgram’s study was conducted in a laboratory at Yale University. Explanation Milgram’s study not only took place in an unusual, artificial environment but also involved an unusual task of administering electric shocks to another person during a memory test. These artificial surroundings and tasks tend to produce demand characteristics where the participant does not behave in a natural way but responds to the unusual situation in a way they feel is expected of them. This can affect the overall validity of the data gathered and ultimately means the studies conducted within the social approach using such situations may lack ecological validity. This means that the findings are ultimately less useful when being applied to explaining real-life behaviours. Weakness 2: Ethical guidelines are often broken in social studies. Example: Milgram breaking right to withdraw, deception, protection from harm and Piliavin breaking practically all the ethical guidelines especially gaining informed consent, deception, right to withdraw and debriefing. Explanation In an attempt to understand real-life social processes, social psychologists have often conducted research where they have deemed it necessary to break some ethical guidelines to avoid issues such as demand characteristics and make the findings more ecologically valid. Although the results provided by studies such as Milgram’s and Piliavin’s provide us with useful insights into human behaviours, we have to question the ethics of social studies that may psychologically harm the participants in the process. On the other hand, Reicher and Haslam showed with their prison study how it is possible to conduct ethical social studies which still help explain real-life human behaviour and contribute further to psychology using scientific rigour. The two assumptions are:
  • 5. NB. Remember you will only need to state one in your exam for the 2 mark part (a) question unless asked otherwise. Which issues/behaviours could you be asked to explain in part (b) using the cognitive approach? Think about what the three studies are about. Use each space to make notes on the information you would include to get 4 marks. Include examples from the studies themselves if possible to support your points. Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Fill in the table below to illustrate the similarities and differences between all the cognitive approach studies. Focus on points about the methodology, sample and sampling method, ecological validity and ethics where appropriate. This will help you to answer the part (c) questions worth 6 marks (3 for the similarity and 3 for the difference). Remember to state what the similarity or difference is and explain it using examples from the studies. Loftus and Palmer and Baron-Cohen Similarities
  • 6. Differences Loftus and Palmer and Savage-Rumbaugh Similarities Differences Baron-Cohen and Savage-Rumbaugh Similarities Differences Use this space to plan an answer for a part (d) question discussing the strengths and weaknesses/limitations of the cognitive approach. Remember to state what the strength or weakness is, use an example from one or more of the cognitive studies and explain it fully. Strength 1: Example: Explanation
  • 7. Strength 2: Example: Explanation Weakness 1: Example: Explanation Weakness 2: Example: Explanation The two assumptions are: NB. Remember you will only need to state one in your exam for the 2 mark part (a) question unless asked otherwise. Which issues/behaviours could you be asked to explain in part (b) using the developmental approach? Think about what the three studies are about. Use each space to make notes on the information you would
  • 8. include to get 4 marks. Include examples from the studies themselves if possible to support your points. Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Fill in the table below to illustrate the similarities and differences between all the developmental approach studies. Focus on points about the methodology, sample and sampling method, ecological validity and ethics where appropriate. This will help you to answer the part (c) questions worth 6 marks (3 for the similarity and 3 for the difference). Remember to state what the similarity or difference is and explain it using examples from the studies. Freud and Bandura Similarities Differences
  • 9. Freud and Samuel and Bryant Similarities Differences Samuel and Bryant and Bandura Similarities Differences Use this space to plan an answer for a part (d) question discussing the strengths and weaknesses/limitations of the developmental approach. Remember to state what the strength or weakness is, use an example from one or more of the developmental studies and explain it fully. Strength 1: Example: Explanation
  • 10. Strength 2: Example: Explanation Weakness 1: Example: Explanation Weakness 2: Example: Explanation The two assumptions are: NB. Remember you will only need to state one in your exam for the 2 mark part (a) question unless asked otherwise. Which issues/behaviours could you be asked to explain in part (b) using the physiological approach? Think about what the three studies are about. Use each space to make notes on the information you would include to get 4 marks. Include examples from the studies themselves if possible to support your points.
  • 11. Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Fill in the table below to illustrate the similarities and differences between all the physiological approach studies. Focus on points about the methodology, sample and sampling method, ecological validity and ethics where appropriate. This will help you to answer the part (c) questions worth 6 marks (3 for the similarity and 3 for the difference). Remember to state what the similarity or difference is and explain it using examples from the studies. Dement and Kleitman and Maguire Similarities Differences
  • 12. Dement and Kleitman and Sperry Similarities Differences Maguire and Sperry Similarities Differences Use this space to plan an answer for a part (d) question discussing the strengths and weaknesses/limitations of the physiological approach. Remember to state what the strength or weakness is, use an example from one or more of the physiological studies and explain it fully. Strength 1: Example: Explanation Strength 2: Example:
  • 13. Explanation Weakness 1: Example: Explanation Weakness 2: Example: Explanation The two assumptions are: NB. Remember you will only need to state one in your exam for the 2 mark part (a) question unless asked otherwise. Which issues/behaviours could you be asked to explain in part (b) using the individual differences approach? Think about what the three studies are about. Use each space to make notes on the information you would include to get 4 marks. Include examples from the studies themselves if possible to support your points.
  • 14. Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Fill in the table below to illustrate the similarities and differences between all the individual differences approach studies. Focus on points about the methodology, sample and sampling method, ecological validity and ethics where appropriate. This will help you to answer the part (c) questions worth 6 marks (3 for the similarity and 3 for the difference). Remember to state what the similarity or difference is and explain it using examples from the studies. Rosenhan and Griffiths Similarities Differences
  • 15. Rosenhan and Thigpen and Cleckley Similarities Differences Thigpen and Cleckley and Griffiths Similarities Differences Use this space to plan an answer for a part (d) question discussing the strengths and weaknesses/limitations of the individual differences approach. Remember to state what the strength or weakness is, use an example from one or more of the individual differences studies and explain it fully. Strength 1: Example: Explanation Strength 2: Example: Explanation
  • 16. Weakness 1: Example: Explanation Weakness 2: Example: Explanation The two assumptions are: NB. Remember you will only need to state one in your exam for the 2 mark part (a) question unless asked otherwise. Which issues/behaviours could you be asked to explain in part (b) using the psychodynamic perspective? Think about what the three studies are about. Use each space to make notes on the information you would include to get 4 marks. Include examples from the studies themselves if possible to support your points.
  • 17. Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Issue/Behaviour: Explanation: Fill in the table below to illustrate the similarities and differences between all the psychodynamic perspective studies. Focus on points about the methodology, sample and sampling method, ecological validity and ethics where appropriate. This will help you to answer the part (c) questions worth 6 marks (3 for the similarity and 3 for the difference). Remember to state what the similarity or difference is and explain it using examples from the studies. Similarities Differences
  • 18. Similarities Differences Similarities Differences Use this space to plan an answer for a part (d) question discussing the strengths and weaknesses/limitations of the psychodynamic perspective. Remember to state what the strength or weakness is, use an example from one or more of the psychodynamic studies and explain it fully. Strength 1: Example: Explanation Strength 2:
  • 19. Example: Explanation Weakness 1: Example: Explanation W
  • ruby

    Jul 23, 2017
    We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks