Psychology A2 Revision Set

Front 1

Explain bandurra's study (1965)

Back 1

3 conditions
c.1 model is rewarded
c.2 punishment
c.3 nothing

-reward means we are more likely to reproduce behaviour.
:( ethics? children cant consent
large sample-> high pop v
highly deterministic

Front 2

How is Institustional Aggression explained?

Back 2

SLT (randall)
Deindividuation

Front 3

How can SLT explain institutional aggression?

Back 3

Randall 1997- When we join an institution we have low status.
We seek MODELS within our group with high status to imitate.

e.g in prison we OBSERVE the prison ring leader being aggressive and gaining respect
Then I start reproducing the behaviour
Then I get respect , so I repeat it.

[btw if you think that me being in prison is realistic you're a racist.]

Front 4

Studies that support SLT

Back 4

Rigby and Slee (1993)- schoool bullies can be role models too.
aussie boys rated bullies to be highly popular.

Archer (1999)- bullying in US fire service
-harsh treatment was not hostile just custom
victims saw models endured the treatment-> tolerate it.

RandlE-nurses eaarly in their training had experienced inst' aggression-> by the end they started to imitate it.

Front 5

AIDS/Evaluation of SLT studies.

Back 5

Rigby/Slee- psychology as a science "popular"->subjective terms
self report-> social desiribility.
(cultural bias)

Archer 1999- self report-> new recruits might not have wanted to report hostility
(cultural bias)

Randle (2003)- Longitudal-> looked at the start/end of training.
Interviews-> social desiribility

Overall AIDS- where is free will?
some people might just be horrible.

Front 6

Deindividuation + Institutional Aggression

Back 6

Lebon/Festinger
uniforms increase the feeling of being annonymous.

Front 7

Studies for deindividuation

Back 7

Zimbardo ( I'm not typing it out again you should know it by now.)
glasses/ uniform = anonymous
deindividuated prisoners= less human

Abu Ghraib-
Jail in Baghdad under the control of US army.
Insufficently trained/unsupervised -> abuse/torture/humiliation of prisoners
@the trial Zimbardo was a witness.
Institutions such as the army , loose some of their free wil and have diminished responsibility for their actions.

Front 8

AIDS

Back 8

SLT takes away free will
Abu Ghraib- natureVnurture-
was it the situation/or were they just horrible.

Front 9

Name the three factors that influence our eating behaviour.

Back 9

Mood
Health Concerns
Culture

Front 10

Wansink et al
Happy + Sad= escape

Back 10

Results : those watching a sad film ate 36% more popcorn.
Those watching a comedy ate more grapes

Conclusions :
Watching sad films + indulgent foods = escape
watching happy films + comfort food = ehanced experience.

Front 11

Evaluation of wassink

Back 11

Individ' diff + small sample + social desirability.

Front 12

Health Concerns-)
blindfolding + dairy + steptoe

Back 12

Monneuse (1991

Importance of health concerns , by blindfolding participlants and giving them a taste test ;)
-those who preffered low/high sugar-> choose low sugar

Tuorila and Pangborn (1998)
questionaire data on womens inted/ actual consumption of dairy products
-actual consumption based more on taste.

Steptoe et al (1995)
ranked participants factors that influenced food choice
1) Sensory appeal
2)Health
3)Convenience
3) Price

Front 13

Cultural Factors
Scandanavians dont like fibre , but south mediattteran <3 fruit more than England :)

Back 13

Wardle (1997)
Diets of 16,00 <-> 21 countries
Scandanavians eat more fibre then South Meditterranean.

South Meditterranean. eat more fruit than Britain.

Numbers eating a basic healthy diet are low.

Pica Indians (CHEIF)- Indians who stary in communties -> low levels of obesity
those who move to towns-> develop high levels of obesity

Front 14

Name two theories of relationship formation

Back 14

Mere Exsposure Hypothesis
Attractiveness: idealistic versus realistic choice.

Front 15

Studies-> Mere Exposure Hypothesis

Philadelphia + uni + made up faces + online dating
(festinger) (bossard) (rhodes) (norton)

Back 15

Bossard (1932)-
half of 5000 couples getting married in philadelphia -> lived within minutes of each other.

Festinger et al (1950)
halls of residence students-> more likely to be friends with those on same floor

Rhodes (2005)
Showed participants fe/male faces -> rate
composite faces -> rate

Findings :
real faces ratings were high
composite faces were low

Norton (2007)
-online daters/uni students completed a survey
-did another study students/online daters. + gave info on potential dates-> rate attractiveness/similarity.

Findings:
1st survey = they beleived the more they knew the more attractive someone was,
2nd survey - ratings of people after receving info
on campus: -0.23 online: -0.12

Front 16

AIDS/ Evaluation:
Philadelphia + uni + made up faces + online dating

Back 16

Historical validity -> long distance Philadelphia: relationships because we have more transport links.
Uni- doesnt explain romantic relationships.
Made Up Faces-> Low Ecological Validity-> artifical faces.
*psychology as a science , measuring attractiveness is subjective*
Online Dating: high population validity + two samples validated each other.
*ignores free will*

Front 17

Studies on attractiveness: Idealistic/realistic:

Back 17

Walster (1966)
Students at freshers week were randomly assigned to a partner-> told they were assigned based on attractiveness.
--at break they were asked to rate their partner/ would they like to see them again
Findings: those that rated each other similar on attractiveness-> more likely to go on a date
Fiore/Donaths (2005)
-had access to an online dating site-> could see profiles/ratings.
-47 contacts made 49% thought they were similar (attractiveness)
-37% chance you'd get someone of same level attractiveness.

Feingold (1988)
meta analysis of studies rating the attractiveness of partners.
-average correlation was 0.49.

Front 18

Aids/Evaluation
Walsters+ Dating+Gold

Back 18

Walster: high pop validity
cultural bias
Ethics -> deception

Fiore and Donath's (Dating)
High Ecological Validity
Psych as a science - subjective how people rate.

FeinGOLD- meta analysis- not every study is like/like.

Front 19

Maintaenance/Breakdown of relationships:

Back 19

Social Exchange Theory.
Needs Satisfaction.

Front 20

Explain SET
reward,previous,alternatives.

Back 20

Thibuat & Kelly (1959)
We run our relationships based on a ratio between costs/rewards-> we calculate this and arrive at a positive/negative measure (outcome)

2 levels of comparison:
The Comparison Level-> current relationship compare to -> expectation of general relationships

Comparison level for alternatives.-
comparison of current relationships-> alternatives on offer.

Front 21

Studies:

Back 21

Jacobson & Margolin (1979)- Aim to increase the ratio of positive/negative interactions -> so that each reasses rewards.

Argyle (1987) - people only count costs after they have become dissatisfied with the relationship.

Duck (1994)- Supports Argyle we do not look for alternatives whilst satisfied.

Front 22

Evaluation / Aids:

Back 22

Zafirovski (2005)- complains it psychology reductionist-> other factors involved.

Jacobson & Margolin- Practical applications in behavioural marital therapy.

Front 23

Explain Needs Satisfaction-

Back 23

Does our relationship fulfill our needs?
Maslow (1950)
Inclusion - we want attention
Control- balance between being influence/influencing
Affection- need to be loved

Front 24

Studies

Back 24

osbourne (2009)
91 students identified themselves in LTM relationship -> questionaire on lonliness, life satisfaction, interpersonal needs.
Findings :
Satisfaction of needs had a strong correlation with life satisfaction

Drigotas/Rusbult (1992)-
Looked at the satisfaction students needs in terms of intimacy etc.
- Those whose needs weren't being satisfied -> more likely to terminate relationship.
-partners have to provide whole package

Front 25

Evaluation/Aids

Back 25

Questionaire-> Social Desiribility
Correlation- Cause/Effect
Free Will ?
Cultural Bias- Only explains western relationships.

Front 26

Agression as an adaptive response has three key areas :

Back 26

Paternity Uncertainty
Consequences of Infidelity for women
What Infidelity means to men and women

Front 27

What Infidelity means to men/women.

Back 27

Buss (1992)
(a)would sex or
(b)deep emotional attachment with another person make you jealous?

Men- 60% men said yes to (a)
Women- 85% said yes to (b)

Front 28

Paternity Uncertainty:

Marrriage + FGM + Veiling + Fights.

Back 28

ggression is an adaptive response in terms of paternity uncertainty , as a male has to be sure the child he's raising is his own.

That's why diffferent cultures put in mechanisms to try rule out the possibility of infidelity.


Marriage- woman should feel more committed.

Female Circumcision (FGM) - the removal of the clitoris -> removes chances of sexual pleasure-> increases paternity chances of father.
Veiling- woman can not be seen by male strangers only inner family -> significantly decreases the chances of sexual contact.

Fighting between men ( Daly/Wilson '98) young males in every society have the highest rate of same sex homicide -> disputes are often about status competition with men about women.

Front 29

Influence of childhood and adolescent experiences on adult relationships:

Back 29

Parent child relationships in infancy
Parent child relationships in adolescence.
Peer relations and later romantic attachements.

Front 30

Parent child relationships

Back 30

- relationships with our parents may affect how well we manage romantic relationships.
-Ainsworth/Bowlby
(Internal Working Model)

Studies :
Hazan/Shaver (1987)
"Love Quiz"-> measure , friendship/jealousy/fear of closeness.

Results:
Avoidant A- 25%- feared proximity.
Secure B 56%- longer rekationships
Resistant C- jealousy.

Conc: quality of relationship with parent influences adult relationships.

Zimmerman et al (2000)-
Life events such as parental divorce/ death had greater influrence on later security.

Banse (2004)
studied relationship type/ relationship satisfaction
-Secure -> associated with relationship satisfaction

Front 31

Evaluation of parent-child relationship studies.

Back 31

Hazan Shaver-
Cultural bias- America - attachment types are different.
Large sample -> pop v

Zimmerman et al -
cultural bias- germany has higher rates of avoidant children.

Banse- no cause.effect
333 couples high pop v.

Front 32

parent child relationships in adolescence

Back 32

McElhaney/Insabella (2000)
link between promotion of independence@ 16 and romantic relationships at 18.
intervieed to established parental promotion + two years later they were interviewd again .

Results:
high promotion of independenc less dependent on romantic relationships.
low promotion of independence -> trust isssues

Front 33

Peer relations and romantic attachments

Back 33

- adolescence peer relationships become more important - 90% consider them to be in a peer group.

Studies :
Kuttler/La greca (2004)
qualtiy of same sex friendship & heterosexual dating in girls aged 15-19.
- Those who dated seriously tended to have poorer friendships than those who casually dated.

Seiffge-krenke et al (2004)
longitudal study of 72 adolesents x 6 years .
Quality of relationships with parents and peers asessed annually.
No correlation between quality of friendships+ romance
Correlation between parent relationships + romance

Front 34

the Nature of relationships in different cultures.

Back 34

Cultural differences in attraction.
Arranged marriages in collectivist cultures.

Front 35

Cultural differences in attraction.

Back 35

AO1:
Fiore/Donath (2004) - people generally prefer the appearance of those with a symmetrical face.
Anderson et al (1992)
idea that body type in romantic relationships varied according to avalibility of food.

Front 36

Arranged in collectivist cultures.

Back 36

Umadevi et al (1992)
-Preferences for love/arranged marriages-> female indian students non/proffesional backgrounds
- found happy with idea of arranged marriages + love love marriage with parental approval.

Gupta/Singh (1982)
Compared love and liking in love/arranged marriages
100 proffesional couples
50 arranged marriages 50 love marriages
-measure linking 1,5 and 10 years.
Love marriages - love/liking was high then decreases
Arranged love/liking low increases and eclipses love marriages.

Front 37

Relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour.

Back 37

Sex differences in human reproductive behaviour.
Universal features ofattractiveness.
(how we choose a partner)

Evolutionary explanations of parental investment.
parental-Offspring conflict

Front 38

Sex differences in human reproductive behaviour.

(how we choose a partner)

Back 38

Ridley- in the past 10,000 we haven't evolved.
=A01- women seek to secure best genes for their children,
Men wan't to pass on their genes as much as possible..
Men/women look for different things when it comes to mate choice.

Buss (1989)
men/women prioritise different attributes.
36/37- women prioritised good finance
37/37- men want a younger mate.
Conc: differ consistent in characteristics when choosind prospective partner.

Kendrick (2006)
- creative displays have developed to attract a mate.
-small groups -> each wrote a short story-> graded 1-9 to create a baseline-
In c.1 - not shown photo -> had to write a date for their perfect partner
c.2 shown photo of highly attractive person- write perfect first date

Results:
women creativity had an average of 3.8 in both c's
3.7->4.5
conc: men act on sexual cues so they up their game in order to and attract partner,

Front 39

Evaluation of sex differences

Back 39

Buss (1989)
Stron pop v 10, 047 paticipants,
Aids- highly deterministic suggests we dont have any choice.
high culture validity

Kendrick
low pop v 91 psych students -> increase in social desiribility.
artifical experiment.

Front 40

Universal features of attractiveness.

Back 40

builds on sexual selection , physical features , is there features that are considered universally attractive.

Wass et al 1997- Waist hip ratio is used as an indicator of how attractive people are.

Streeter& Burney (2003)
male part' were shoen photoshopped women whose waist/hip ratio had been altered
0.7 was considered desirible.

We use waist hip ratio as an indicator of fertility.

Front 41

Evolutionary explanations for
Sex differences in investment.

Back 41

a01- mothers tend to invest more -> from production of egg , want to guarantee reproductive success
-men want to maxamise reproduction potential.

Buss (1992)
male emotional infidelity is worse than them having sex with different women.
A womans sexual infidelity is worser than emotional infidelity.
men want to guarantee genes and not invest in a child that isn't theres.
women dont want to loose support.

Geary ( 1998) - men spend less time raising children -> what about single fathers.

Front 42

Evolutionary explanations for
parent child conflict

Back 42

parents have to balance childrens needs fairly.
offspring only concerned with their own survival
starts from conception taking mothers resources. (weaning).
continues to ADULTHOOD.
offspring wants to secure best genes versus parents concern whether their child will get the best support.

Apostolou (2008)
parents rank looks less in important for offspring.
quesionaire had 2 scenarios.
-arranage a marriage for children
-arrange your own marriage
rate ideal characteristics in a prospective mate.

results : most characteristics rated the same,
looks were more important for themselves.
motivated to prioritise a mate for their child.

reductionist
online questionaire,

Front 43

Aggressive displays in humans

Back 43

lynch mobs
aggression at sporting events.
Deindividuation
Social Dominance Theory

Front 44

Deindividuation
Marsh/postmes

Back 44

lebon

Marsh 1978 -
football crowds aren't habitually aggressive- crowd feels anonymous matching shirts/colours -> don't accept violence as the norm.

postmes (2005)
traditional police crowd strategies : everyone's equally responsible-> increases aggitation
modern -> target ringleaders remove peacefully to not antagonise crowd.

Front 45

Social Dominance Theory;
Sidanius/pratto 94

Back 45

gender -> men higher women.
age-> adults more status .
arbitary set -> status between races/religions.

+ A01- Legitimising myths
"black men are a sexual threat"

Evans/Rowe (2002)
analysed 40 matches played in Europe by English teams-> more crowd trouble at international matches.
International team is regarded as of lower status+ clear divide , whole of england is united for example.

Front 46

Biological explanations of aggression

Back 46

Genetics
hormones
Neural mechanisms.

Front 47

Genetics
Lagerspetz+ Mason/Frick+Lyons et al+ NOS + Retz

Back 47

- bred 25 generations of mice
aggressive+ aggressive = Super aggressive
use of animals->does this happen to humans?

Mason and Frick 1994-
investigated aggression, asbo's and criminality -> meta analysis ->mz/Dz twins
concordance rate for DZ lower than mz
inhearibility of 0.48 not wholly NATURE

Lyons et al
misbehaviour/juvenille crime in thousands of twins.
little difference in Mz/DZ twins,

But as MZ got older they grew more similar.

Nos gene in rodents-> related to aggression -> deleted , suggestion that the mice grew more dolicile.

retz et al (2004)
relationship between violent behaviour/5-HLLTPR
Found: association between gene/violence.
gender bias - 153 men
correlation - cause or effect?

Front 48

Hormones

Olweus +Beeman+Bettencourt/miller+Dabbsx2

Back 48

Olweus-
measured bblood testosterone levels in boys+ aggression (quesionaire)
Found: high levels of testosterone were associated with aggression

Beeman (1947)
castration in male dogs reduces aggression.

Bettencourt/ Miller (1996)
men more likely to pick fight than women.

Dabbs (1995/7)
male prisoners who have committed violent crimes have higher levels of testosterone

Dabbs 2001-
students who are more assertive/confident had highest levels of testosterone -> positive effects?

Front 49

Neural Mechanisms
Hypothalamus + Amygadala + Neurotransmitters.
Diegal + Lesioning+ Valzelli

Back 49

Hypothalamus
Diegal &Petts 1988- stimulation of the ventromedial hypothalamus leads to spontaneous aggressive responses

Amygadala-
Stimulation in this area caused hamsters to display aggressive behaviour.
Lesioning the amygdala reduces aggressive behaviour..

Neutransmitters- Serotonin
Valzelli (1973) - male mice with lower serotonin levels were more aggressive

Highley et al (1996)
monkeys with lower levels of serotonin more likely to fight and die early.

virkkunen et al (1987) - violent offenders have lower levels of serotonin.