Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
34 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Raine |
Raine |
|
|
Methodology |
Quasi Experiment with a matched pairs design IV NGRI or not. DV brain differences. 41 ppts 39 male 2 female charged with murder/ manslaughter but NGRI. Medication free for two weeks prior to brain scanning. 41 controls were matched with NGRI group. 6 schizoid’s were matched from mental hospital. |
|
|
Raine Procedures |
Participants were selected by opportunity sampling. PET scan was used, involving a tracker of Flurodeoxyglucose (FDG). Took 32 minutes to be taken up by the brain in which time ppts filled out a continuous performance task ( CPT). 10 minutes before tracer injection practice trials started. 30 seconds before injection CPT began so task novelty wasn’t effected. PET scan was done after 32 minutes using cortical peel and box techniques. Cortical peel- surface cortical regions measured. Box- medial and subcortical regions were measured. |
|
|
Evaluation of Methodology and Procedures |
QuasiExperiment- controlled conditions, scientific conditions, control group, don’tmatch exactly. PETscans- scientific method, measuring brain activity, quantitive- same scan, same CPT, same chemical of FDG. Morethan one researcher can interpret scan, increasing reliability. Did not prove that violence is determined bybiology. Sample-good size of 41 and 41 control. Gender imbalance, non representation ofsociety, not full of violent murderers. |
|
|
Raine Findings |
Reducedactivity in the brain of NGRI participants in areas previously linked to violence- prefrontal cortex, Parietal lobe, amygdala, thalamus and hippocampus. Increased activity in areas previously nort linked to violence- cerebellum occipital lobe.•Nodifference between NGRI and control group in areas not previously linked toviolence- caudate,putamen. Bothgroups of participants performed similarly on the CPT thereforebrain abnormalities were not related to task performance. 6 murderers were left handed andhad lessabnormal amygdala asymmetry and higher prefrontal activity thanright handed murderers. 14murderers were non-white but had no difference in brain activity. 23murderers had a history of head injury but their brain didn’t differ frommurderers with no history of head injury. |
|
|
Raine Conclusions |
Murdererspleading NGRI have different brain functioning to normal individuals. Morespecifically they have significant differences in glucosemetabolism compared to normal individuals. Thistype of brain dysfunction may make an individual liable to violent behaviour rather than causing it. Theresults does not show that violent behaviour is determined by biology alone,nor do they show that murderers pleading NGRI are not responsible for theiractions or the PET scans can be used to diagnose violent individuals. |
|
|
Evaluation of F & C |
Data-quantitative, allows for comparisons to be made more easily e.g. Raine couldcompare each set of matched participants brain images. Littleto no qualitative- lack of depth/ detail about other factors that may determineviolent behaviour or the causes of the brain dysfunction. PET scans offer nofurther explanation/ elaboration. |
|
|
Raine Social Implications |
Misreadingscans- PET scans can be misread leading to damaging labels. Criminaljustice system- brain abnormality causes violence. Scan everyone in the world,monitor them and put them in prison. Treat them? |
|
|
Raine Ethical Issues |
Riskto participants status- injection causes pain and infection. Consent-done in prisons, choice to say no? Withdrawal-can they withdraw in a prison/ secure hospital |
|
|
Watson Methodology |
Sample-1 baby boy (Albert) chosen due to strong physical health and emotionalstability. He was stolid, emotionless. Was a controlled observation research method. |
|
|
Watson Procedures |
Emotionaltesting at 9 months, steel bar struck to test fear reaction.•11months 3 days presented with white rat, bar was struck when rat touched him.•11months 15 days presented with a control- blocks, transference occurred withrabbit, dog, fur coat, cotton wool andSanta mask. 11month 20 days was moved into a largelecture room and presented with dog, rabbit and rat. 1 year21 days, Little Albert was removed from the study before Watson and Raynercould remove the conditioned emotional responses. |
|
|
Watson Evaluation of M & P |
Emotional testing found that Albertshowed no fear to animals or objects but did fear the loud banging noise. 11 months 3 days; Whimpered when the barwas struck 11 months 15 days; Played with blocks andonly withdrew when the rat was presented. 11 months 20 days; played with blocks andwithdrew when rat was shown. Violent reaction when bar was struck. Fell overwhen rat was on its own.Leaned away from rabbit. Whimpered and fell when presented with rat and dogafter ‘freshening’. Less extreme responses in lecture room to rat and dog. |
|
|
Watson Conclusions |
Fear response can be conditioned with a neutral stimuli. Using joint stimulation. Conditioned emotional responses can be transferred to similar stimuli. |
|
|
Watson Evaluation of F & C |
Data Watson and Rayner’sresearch is problematic as the data is qualitative. Seligman'stheory of biological preparedness challenges W+R’s findings and conclusions.E.g. conditioning to fearing snakes takes less attempts than conditioning fearof a flower. Di Nardo alsochallenges them, saying that people who experience the same traumatic event,such as being bitten by a dog do not develop a phobia of dogs. This suggestthat conditioning cannot explain all behaviours. |
|
|
Loftus Methodology |
Methodology; Consistedof two controlled laboratory experiments. Sampleconsisted of 45 students in Exp 1 and 150 in Exp 2. |
|
|
Loftus Procedures |
Procedures; In Exp 1; 7 short films of car accidents shown to 5 groups of 9 participants. Gave them a questionnaire that first asked them to “give an account of the accident you have just seen”. Then asked them specific questions about the incident including a critical question of “ About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” replacing the word hit with smashed, collided, bumped and contacted for the other four groups. In Exp 2; showing 3 groups of 50 a film with a multiple car accident lasting less than a minute. The first group of 50 were asked “ how fast were the cars gong when they smashed into each other?” Asked another 50 students “ How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” The control were not asked about the speed in the first questionnaire. All participants were asked a week later “Did you see any broken glass?” participants either said yes or no. |
|
|
Loftus Evaluation of M & P |
Evaluation of Methodology and Procedures; In terms of reliability L&P’s research is strong; Controlled lab experiment, reduced confounding variables to participants. Standardised procedure repeated and retested. In terms of external validity it is weak; Lab experiment is not a place usually to see car accidents. Real witnesses experience emotions, distractions and consequences. Interviews not questionnaire for real witnesses. •Yulli and Cutshall found that real witnesses from a bank robbery could recall their earlier reports without being affected by leading questions. In terms of sampling it is problematic; large sample size of 195. Opportunity sample of students is not representable- ethnocentric and class bias, Students lack driving experience, Social Desirability bias. |
|
|
Loftus Conclusions |
Conclusions; From Exp1; Form of a question can affect awitness’s answer to that question. For 2 reasons: 1. A person’s SCHEMA for thatword affects the estimated speed when uncertain (response bias) 2. the verbchanges people's memory.•From Exp 2;The way a question is asked can enormously influence the answer given. Loftusand Palmer concluded that leading questions actually alter the memory a personhas of an event, rather than just their speed estimation. 2 kinds ofinformation are integrated to create a memory; the original perception of theevent, and external information supplied ‘after the fact’.• |
|
|
Evaluation of F & C |
Evaluation of F&C; In terms of data L&P research is problematic; collected speeds and describing accident in own words but only assessed quantitive research. Can compare and predict based on speeds. But lacks depth and detail. Exp 1 supports Loftus’ study. past research from Carmichael and Marshall increasing academic credibility. Social Implications; Criminal Justice- Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) act provides a code of practise for EW identification attempts direct examination by the prosecution using leading questions is not allowed beyond factual information. Leading questions are permitted from the defence in cross examination. Greene (1990) found mock juries did not test EWT due to medical results e.g. 60% of wrongful convictions are due to EWT. Real juries may feel same way and disregard valid EWT accounts. •Ethical Issues; •Consent- all gave consent and all knew the purpose of the research Deception- they were unaware that different verbs were given to different groups ( necessary) Physical and Psychological harm- no physical harm ( crashes weren’t real), care crash scenes may cause stress and trauma. |
|
|
Bowlby Methodology |
Methodology; Was acase study method. Samplewere selected from the London Child Guidance Clinic between1936-1939. Were 44 child delinquents who were known to steal. 31 male and 13 female. Compared to 44 other maladjustedchildren (34 male 10 female) at the clinic who did not steal. Average IQ washigher for both groups than the national average. 75-159 in thieves. Bothgroups evenly matched by age . The range of ages for both groups were 5.0-16.11years. |
|
|
Bowlby Procedures |
Procedures; Assessed participant across 4 categories. History, personality, stealing and examination. Specific assessments included those of psychiatrists and psychologists upon entry to the clinic and through the process of therapy. |
|
|
Bowlby Findings |
Findings; 5 aetiological studies- possible genetics, prolonged separation from mother in early stages of development, ambivalent mother, fathers who showed hatred towards the child and traumatic events in later childhood. |
|
|
Bowlby Conclusions |
Conclusions; Only prolonged separation with the mother was the significant aetiological study (most common 21/44) but all the others were also likely to lead to unstable and maladapted children. Children with prolonged separation 17/44 and hatred of fathers 6/44 fell into the most 2 severe degrees of stealing (grade 3+4). The thieves who consistently stole were affectionless psychopaths, caused by superego under development and prolonged separation from the mother. Opportunities to diagnose and treat children before the age of 5 should be sought and prolonged separation should be avoided. |
|
|
Evaluation of F & C |
Evaluation of F&C; Bowlby’sresearch method is problematic; has both qualitative and quantitative datashowing depth and allowing comparison. Data is subjective, relies oninterpretation of the psychiatrists. Some children could be wronglycharacterised.•RutterEt Al’s research claims Bowlby’s study is outdated as when he did the samestudy on Romanian orphans, if they were adopted and looked after before being 6months old they could overcome problems associated with separation. |
|
|
Bowlby Social Implications |
Social Implications; Parenting; children should not face prolonged separations without an alternative care giving substitute to avoid likelihood of delinquency . Upheld By maternity laws where parental leave can now be split between each parent- moving away from traditional views of the mother as the primary caregiver. Parents should be taught parenting skills that avoid hostility and a poor bond being developed during the critical period to ensure secure superego development. Criminal Justice; diagnosing and treating children before the age of could be used to reduce crime rates the UK. This could however lead to labelling- where we cannot be sure that every affectionless child will become a delinquent. |
|
|
Bowlby Ethical Issues |
Ethical Issues; Valid consent; (Vulnerable individuals) Parental permission at the guidance clinic. Given consent by proxy. Only 2 participants were over the age of 16 years old. Confidentiality and privacy; surnames have not been revealed. Case notes have been reviewed, violating privacy and pseudonyms have not been used, minor risks are possible. •Risk to participant status, Labelling; being labelled as an affectionless psychopath could lead to self fulfilling prophecies, would not be aware of that label. |
|
|
Myers Methodology
|
•Methodology;Researchwas a Literature review. |
|
|
Myers Procedures |
Procedures; They selected existing data from studies into happiness and drew them together across a range of themes, presenting existing information in a new way to create a theory of happiness. How happiness and wellbeing are measured is also discussed were assessments of subjective wellbeing are used to reflect on happiness and life satisfaction. Components of wellbeing are also considered. Data selected were from 2 main themes, myths of happiness, age gender culture money etc. and happy people- traits, relationships, ‘flow’. Secondary research was based on interviews, self report surveys, meta analysis, cross cultural comparisons and correlations. |
|
|
Myers Evaluation M & P |
Evaluation of Methodology and Procedures; Reliability problematic, various studies which are scientific e.g. correlations when looking at money but literature reviews are subjective. M+D select research that fits in with their hypothesis- researcher bias. •External validity problematic- some of the original data collection techniques are valid e.g. interviews on age and subjective wellbeing. Concurrent validity, lots of sources show the same findings. Some of research is outdated and can contain western culture bias. People may lie about their subjective wellbeing. Sampling problematic- no primary data but literature review allows a large participant pool to be assessed. Secondary sources however can be misinterpreted and some could be based on small samples. |
|
|
Myers Findings |
Findings; Myths of happiness- no time of life is any more or less happy than another but social relations and health is more important in later life. Gender can effect misery- women feel more sadness but can also feel more joy. Race and disability have no relative difference in happiness. However different nations have different happiness, 10% very happy in Portugal 40% very happy in Netherlands. •Happy people- have 4 inner traits, like themselves, have personal control, optimistic and usually are extraverted. People who have supportive intimate relationships are found to be happiest, marriage is most happy. People with strong religious faith enter higher levels of satisfaction with life and cope better after divorce, unemployment and bereavement. |
|
|
Myers Conclusions |
Conclusions; Found 3 elements of a theory of happiness: 1. Recognise the importance ofadaptation. 2. Happiness is a cultural world view. 3. Have values and goals.They also stated that "by asking who is happy, and why, we can help people rethink their priorities”. |
|
|
Myers Evaluation of F & C |
Evaluation of F&C; Schinka et al- suggested that people with a long line of 5-HTT gene report higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction. If this is the case Myers research could be extended to a genetic view. Lyubomirsky (2013) suggested that happiness was made up of 40% self control, 10% life circumstances and 50% genetic influences. |
|
|
Myers Social Implications |
Social Implications; Industry- Use of flow could be used to reduce absenteeism and workplace stress. Create more challenging work to engage people to make them happy, making them more effective and efficient workers. Healthcare- Happiness is a combination of world view, adaptation and values/ goals. If this is true therapies that aim to increase levels of happiness in those who are depressed may be limited, as culture and faith are not something that can be altered to improve health and wellbeing. |
|
|
Myers Ethical Issues |
Ethical Issues; Valid consent- all studies were referenced but if findings are misinterpreted/ misrepresented original consent from participants is invalid. Risk to ppts values, beliefs and status- no new harm done to the participants of the studies within the review. People’s status at risk due to findings about culture and faith e.g. Portuguese labelled as unhappy. Misrepresentations of research could affect status of original psychologist. |
