Psychology - Course Companion - Popov, Parker and Seath - Second Edition - Oxford 2017

O X
F O
2 N D
R
D
I B
D
I P L O
M
A
P
R
O
G R
A
M
M
E
E D I T I O N
P S Y C H O LO G Y
C O U R S E
C O M PA N I O N
Alexey Popov
Lee Parker
Darren Seath
Cutler,
WB,
inuences
3
Sexual
Clarendon
Street,
Oxford,
OX2
6DP,
United
University
Press
is
a
department
of
the
University
It
furthers
the
research,
scholarship,
Oxford
a
the
©
is
UK
Oxford
The
in
rights
of
mark
other
Press
the
objective
education
trade
certain
University
moral
and
registered
and
University’s
of
by
of
excellence
publishing
Oxford
Press
Holmes,
in
of
countries
table
in
‘
A
by
rights
Thomas
‘The
reserved.
by
any
1967,
D
authors
have
been
H
No
in
part
a
of
this
retrieval
means,
University
or
under
and
Pearson
publication
system,
or
may
in
without
Press,
terms
organization.
scope
of
the
IB
or
the
as
agreed
Enquiries
above
University
must
impose
British
Data
not
prior
permission
expressly
in
permitted
with
the
appropriate
concerning
should
Press,
this
circulate
same
Library
of
and
in
Archives
1–13,
depression’,
Psychiatry,
BMJ
Publishing
Rahe,
1967,
reprinted
Group
by
of
reprinted
1960,
Vol.
in
23,
Group
Richard
Rating
Vol.
11,
H:
by
Journal
pp.
56-62,
Ltd.
abridged
Scale’
Issue
permission
Johnson
Skills,
Education,
of
in
2,
version
Journal
pp.
of
213-218,
F
P:
Joining
Elsevier.
Together:
1st
Inc.,
Ed.,
New
©
1975,
York,
reprinted
Group
New
by
permission
York.
be
sent
to
law,
Rights
at
the
address
this
work
condition
Cataloguing
on
in
in
any
Programme
Organization:
Psychology
various
Guide
©
extracts
International
Organization,
2017.
by
J:
‘Some
reections
on
the
origins
of
MBSR,
skilful
reprographics
reproduction
the
Baccalaureate
writing
by
and
the
trouble
with
maps’
in
Contemporary
Buddhism,
outside
Vol.
12,
1,
pp.
281-306,
reprinted
by
permission
of
the
Department,
(Taylor
&
Francis
Ltd),
http://www.tandfonline.com.
above.
Kahneman,
You
for
and
Readjustment
and
Diploma
publisher
Oxford
pp.
any
2011,
the
1,
be
transmitted,
means,
rights
number
‘Pheromonal
by,
asserted.
Kabat-Zinn,
licence
scale
Research,
Johnson,
Baccalaureate
or
Oxford
H
Social
Copyright
from
of
NL:
men’
2017
reproduced,stored
form
rating
permission
International
All
21,
in
2017
of
published
Vol.
Neurosurgery,
Psychosomatic
Theory
First
McCoy,
in
worldwide.
University
and
Springer.
M:
Neurology,
1998,
E
behavior
of
reprinted
Oxford.
of
Hamilton,
Kingdom
of
Oxford
sociosexual
Behavior,
permission
Great
Friedmann,
on
any
other
form
and
you
must
acquirer.
Publication
the
reprinted
Data
Selye,
available
of
D
psychology
by
H:
and
of
Tversky,
choice’,
permission
‘The
Medicine,
in
of
A:
‘The
Science,
framing
Vol.
211,
Vol.
2,
decisions
and
453–458,
AAAS.
General-Adaptation-Syndrome’
1951,
of
pp.
pp.
327-342,
http://www.annualreviews.org,
©
by
reprinted
in
Annual
Annual
by
Review
Reviews,
permission
of
Annual
978-0-19-839811-0
Reviews.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Skinner,
Paper
used
product
in
the
made
production
from
manufacturing
wood
process
of
this
grown
in
conforms
book
is
a
natural,
sustainable
to
the
recyclable
forests.
material
The
BF:
Experimental
is
of
the
country
of
the
Science,
in
United
Acknowledgements
author
and
the
pigeon’,
Vol.
38
(2),
in
Journal
pp.
of
168–172,
this
domain.
JM
and
Rubin,
Vol
ashbulb
DC:
‘Condence,
14,
5,
memories’,
SAGE
2003,
in
not
consistency,
Psychological
Journals.
Kingdom
World
The
public
in
1948,
origin.
characterizes
Printed
Psychology,
environmental
Talarico,
regulations
in
‘‘Superstition’
Health
Organization:
report
‘World
Health
Statistics
2016’
publisher
are
grateful
for
permission
to
reprint
http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_
extracts
from
the
following
copyright
material:
statistics/2016/en/,
Ajzen,
Icek:
‘The
theory
of
planned
behaviour
is
alive
and
World
and
not
and
Araújo-Soare’
ready
to
retire:
a
commentary
on
Sniehotta,
Health
Psychology
Review,
Health
WHO
Organization:
Vol.
9,
Issue
by
Taylor
&
Francis,
2015,
reprinted
by
sheet
Gordon
Perseus
Books
W:
The
Nature
Publishing
of
L.L.C.,
Prejudice,
reprinted
Copyright
by
N°311
-
updated
June
2016,
Books,
a
member
of
the
Perseus
Books
copyright
WHO
through
Copyright
Clearance
Group,
Center,
Health
Organization,
Health
Topics,
Health
Alan:
‘Exploring
Journal
of
the
central
Experimental
in
1996,
by
pp.
5-28,
Francis
reprinted
Ltd.,
by
permission
of
the
Health
publisher
(Taylor
Thinking
and
Deciding
(fourth
reprinted
we
University
Press,
GH,
in
all
Black,
JB
Cognitive
by
and
Turner,
Psychology,
TJ:
1979,
‘Scripts
Vol.
11,
in
permission
of
JD
&
Johnson,
1973,
by
W
G
MK:
Chase,
permission
Burbank,
V.
Aboriginal
Australia’,
p.
719,
in
Visual
K:
reprinted
of
‘Fighting
by
the
for
World
Low-
and
–
New
The
York,
Women.
Berkeley:
in
the
Marketing
Middle-income
effort
to
publication,
trace
this
and
has
contact
not
been
all
possible
If
at
notied,
the
the
earliest
publisher
will
rectify
any
errors
or
opportunity.
to
for
third
party
information
websites
materials
only.
are
provided
contained
Oxford
by
in
any
disclaims
Oxford
third
party
any
in
good
faith
responsibility
website
referenced
for
Academic
in
book.
Press,
Elsevier.
permission
Science
every
before
Information
Anger
University
of
and
of
University
Aggression
California
of
Photo
in
Press,
California
Press
Books.
Center
permission.
made
177–220,
this
(1994),
and
WHO,
Elsevier.
the
Bransford,
reprinted
Diet
memory
pp.
and
Processing,
by
have
holders
cases.
Links
reprinted
for
copyright
2008.
omissions
text’,
Policies
Diseases’,
edition),
in
for
‘Fiscal
&
copyright
Bower,
Organization:
Non-communicable
www.tandfonline.com).
Jonathan:
Cambridge
of
49A,
Although
Baron,
WHO,
permission.
The
Vol.
2016,
(1),
copyright
Inc.
executive’,
Psychology,
Promotion,
of
Prevention
Quarterly
reprinted
permission
World
Baddeley,
2016,
1954
permission
reprinted
conveyed
–
http://www.who.int/
http://www.who.int/topics/health_promotion/en/,
Perseus
permission.
permission.
World
by
by
overweight’
permission.
by
Allport,
reprinted
and
2,
mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/,
published
2016,
‘Obesity
Presseau,
Fact
from
copyright
well,
Public
and
Interest:
Health
Countries’,
report
Impact
reprinted
of
by
‘Carbonating
Sugar
Drinks
permission.
in
and
artwork
permissions
are
continued
on
the
last
page
Course Companion denition
The
are
IB
Diploma
resource
students
Programme
materials
throughout
Course
designed
their
to
Companions
two-year
requirements;
essay;
support
course
of
study
in
a
particular
will
what
is
help
students
book
gain
an
understanding
from
the
study
of
an
IB
subject
while
presenting
way
that
illustrates
the
purpose
content
and
IB.
They
reflect
the
philosophy
aims
and
the
of
each
issues
IB
and
encourage
subject
and
by
a
deep
making
providing
a
and
books
mirror
approach;
the
IB
terms
connections
for
use
of
a
philosophy
of
wide
international-mindedness;
profile
and
the
IB
a
of
the
with
IB
other
are
to
resources.
draw
conclusions
Suggestions
further
reading
are
given
for
and
suggestions
for
how
to
extend
in
each
research
provided.
to
wider
In
addition,
advice
critical
and
of
the
Course
guidance
Companions
on
the
requirements
They
are
specific
and
distinctive
on
provide
course
academic
and
honesty
authoritative
viewing
without
being
prescriptive.
develop
challenging
whole-course
range
the
Diploma
conjunction
understanding
opportunities
the
in
of
and
assessment
curriculum
in
students
encouraged
variety
protocol.
the
used
approach
thinking.
The
be
indeed,
of
are
of
extended
(CAS).
in
book
the
can
and
additional
a
the
service
Diploma
from
Programme
knowledge;
of
required
expected
of
action,
subject.
materials
They
theory
creativity,
Diploma
Each
Programme
and
IB
of
resources;
learner
Programme
core
IB mission statement
The
International
inquiring,
who
help
Baccalaureate
knowledgable
to
create
a
and
better
aims
caring
and
to
develop
young
more
people
education
through
intercultural
programmes
world
international
to
encourage
become
active,
students
across
compassionate,
and
respect.
lifelong
To
of
assessment.
understanding
the
and
programmes
rigorous
peaceful
These
world
and
this
end
the
governments
IB
and
works
with
people,
schools,
international
learners
organizations
with
who
their
understand
differences,
that
can
other
also
be
right.
to
The IB learner prole
The
aim
of
all
IB
internationally
their
of
common
the
planet,
peaceful
programmes
minded
humanity
help
world.
IB
to
is
people
and
create
learners
to
recognizing
shared
a
guardianship
better
strive
Thinkers
develop
who,
to
and
thinking
and
They
skills
approach
reasoned,
more
exercise
critically
complex
ethical
They
acquire
inquiry
and
learning.
of
They
the
skills
research
They
learning
develop
be
natural
necessary
and
actively
will
their
show
enjoy
sustained
to
curiosity.
in
conduct
independence
learning
and
throughout
in
this
their
ideas
love
and
and
In
issues
so
and
that
doing,
develop
balanced
They
have
they
explore
local
acquire
and
understanding
range
of
concepts,
global
in-depth
across
disciplines.
problems,
to
and
recognize
make
more
modes
and
than
of
ideas,
significance.
broad
They
one
understand
confidently
language
communication.
willingly
in
and
They
collaboration
and
and
in
a
variety
work
with
express
creatively
of
effectively
others.
lives.
knowledge
a
applying
decisions.
information
Principled
Knowledgable
in
creatively
be:
Communicators
Inquirers
initiative
and
and
with
a
respect
and
They
strong
for
the
own
actions
accompany
of
dignity
communities.
their
act
sense
with
of
They
and
integrity
fairness,
the
take
the
and
justice,
honesty,
and
individual,
groups,
responsibility
consequences
for
that
them.
iii
Open-minded
their
own
open
of
to
the
other
They
cultures
understand
and
personal
perspectives,
individuals
and
and
appreciate
histories,
values,
and
and
are
They
have
new
and
traditions
communities.
and
the
roles,
articulate
to
seeking
and
evaluating
a
range
of
view,
and
are
willing
to
grow
in
of
spirit
strategies.
defending
to
They
their
explore
are
brave
beliefs.
They
from
understand
the
importance
of
of
intellectual,
points
and
are
Balanced
accustomed
independence
ideas,
physical,
and
emotional
balance
to
the
achieve
personal
well-being
for
themselves
and
experience.
others.
Caring
They
show
respect
towards
empathy,
compassion,
and
Reflective
the
needs
and
feelings
of
to
They
have
a
personal
commitment
to
service,
their
to
make
a
positive
difference
to
the
lives
own
to
assess
and
to
the
Risk-takers
and
consideration
experience.
and
understand
their
They
are
strengths
and
in
order
to
support
their
learning
and
environment.
They
uncertainty
thoughtful
and
of
limitations
others
give
learning
and
able
act
They
others.
approach
with
unfamiliar
courage
and
personal
development.
to
reader
situations
forethought,
A note on academic honesty
It
is
of
vital
importance
appropriately
when
that
After
all,
credit
the
information
owners
of
to
acknowledge
owners
is
used
ideas
of
in
and
same
information
your
(intellectual
how
the
work.
a
or
information.
extended
viewer
A
of
your
bibliography
work
is
can
find
compulsory
the
in
essay.
property)
What constitutes misconduct?
have
property
rights.
To
have
an
authentic
piece
Misconduct
of
work,
it
must
be
based
on
your
result
and
original
ideas
with
the
work
of
others
in,
you
Therefore,
all
assignments,
in
oral,
own
completed
language
used
or
and
referred
quotation
or
for
assessment
expression.
to,
whether
paraphrase,
appropriately
must
Where
in
such
the
use
sources
form
sources
of
are
direct
must
be
Plagiarism
ideas
way
that
you
ideas
footnotes
or
any
one
or
student
more
includes
is
work
of
acknowledge
other
people
that
is
Words
are
and
and
support
you
or
may
gaining
an
assessment
unfair
component.
plagiarism
and
collusion.
defined
of
as
the
another
some
of
representation
person
the
ways
as
to
your
avoid
of
own.
the
The
plagiarism:
ideas
one’s
of
another
arguments
person
must
be
used
to
acknowledged.
have
through
the
Passages
that
are
quoted
verbatim
must
use
be
of
in,
acknowledged.
●
the
or
following
●
used
results
your
How do I acknowledge the work of others?
The
that
written
Misconduct
or
behaviour
fully
advantage
acknowledged.
is
individual
enclosed
within
quotation
marks
and
bibliographies.
acknowledged.
Footnotes
endnotes
to
be
from
(placed
(placed
provided
another
information
do
not
that
is
to
of
a
‘body
do
part
assumed
the
in
provide
not
of
a
quote
or
a
of
or
●
are
for
Internet,
the
●
You
footnoted
as
The
resources
are
●
knowledge.
should
listing
should
magazines,
resources,
that
you
include
include
all
newspaper
CDs
and
used
in
Works
of
theatre
a
formal
your
list
resources,
articles,
works
of
work.
art.
books,
arts,
should
use
one
of
the
several
means
another
iv
You
must
provide
accepted
full
or
they
part
media
and
must
graphs,
must
be
not
your
own
music,
film,
dance,
arts,
of
a
be
journals.
data,
material
are
the
maps,
programs,
similar
visual
a
books
photographs,
whether
of
as
on
and
where
work
takes
work.
the
place,
acknowledged.
forms
information
is
defined
student.
as
This
supporting
malpractice
by
includes:
that
allowing
your
work
to
be
copied
or
of
for
presentation.
use
be
Collusion
●
you
art,
if
electronic
way
computer
and
sites
of
based
‘Formal’
all
web
The
including
Internet
of
acknowledged
they
other
same
audio-visual,
is,
messages,
any
the
sources
must
the
and
in
creative
Bibliographies
email
illustrations,
information
That
CD-ROMs,
treated
summarize
document.
knowledge’.
be
page)
paraphrase
closely
footnote
to
a
document)
or
another
of
need
bottom
end
you
document,
definitions
of
the
the
when
provided
need
part
at
at
as
assessment
by
another
student
submitted
●
duplicating
work
components
for
and/or
different
diploma
assessment
of
requirements.
another
student.
unauthorized
misconduct
Other
forms
of
misconduct
include
any
action
you
an
unfair
advantage
or
affects
the
during
an
into
include,
an
taking
examination
examination,
and
room,
falsifying
that
a
gives
Examples
material
CAS
record.
results
Contents
Introduction
........................................................
vi
The
influence
behaviour
Unit
1
Research
Research
in
psychology ........................................
research:
the
Quantitative
experiment
research:
correlational
...............
2
Unit
9
Normality
5
Abnormal
versus
studies .......
20
Classification
Qualitative
research
...........................................
24
Prevalence
Qualitative
research
methods.............................
31
Validity
37
The
in
2
psychological
Biological
research .........................
and
role
of
approach
to
...................................................
used
to
behaviour ......................
study
the
for
to
behaviour
and
brain
Genes
and
..................................
78
87
Evolutionary
The
role
human
of
genetic
explanations
animal
behaviour
(HL
similarities..........
for
research
in
behaviour ........
94
108
Unit
6
3
Cognitive
Concepts
to
and
approach
principles
of
the
to
of
cognitive
Thinking
and
Reliability
of
115
Biases
in
and
Cognitive
only)
4
Cultural
norms
180
Social
origins
—cultural
The
digital
The
and
theory
individual
and
to
the
and
of
331
health
.............................................
339
2:
stress ...................................
344
350
of
human
relationships
discrimination............................
conflict
and
conflict
394
resolution ........
400
responsibility ..........................................
404
8
and
of
cultural
202
cognition
208
psychology
development ....................................
mind
Gender
220
of
empathy
and
446
455
peers
Effects
of
and
play ......................................
trauma
poverty
social
437
roles .......................
of
and
430
Attachment.......................................................
Role
identity
422
theory
............................................................
Childhood
group—social
group—social
Developmental
development ...........................................
Cognitive
and
on
464
resilience .....................
473
relationships ...................
481
identity
Unit
theory
and
Development
attitudes,
...............................................
and
of
188
behaviour
......................................
the
explanations
world
approach
behaviour
dimensions
individual
cognitive
of
being
386
cognition.....................................
..............................................................
Cultural
and
370
Origins
individual
obesity
dynamics ...............................................
168
on
327
1:
......................................
decision-making ..........
behaviour—culture
health ....................................
psychology
relationships
Prejudice
........................................................
and
319
Psychology
160
influences
identities
......................
treatment
.......................................................
problem
7
Group
memory ....................................
Sociocultural
of
depression
131
Brain
Unit
306
313
in
of
........................................................
Unit
(HL
depression ...................
123
processes:
the
300
health
Personal
in
295
Promoting
Unit
processing
depression ........
treatment ..........
problems
149
and
of
............
culture
cognitive
decision-making.........................
thinking
Emotion
of
overweight
141
reconstructive
of
treatment
problem
.................................................
cognitive
and
approach
memory ...........................................
theory
288
for
effectiveness
treatment
Determinants
Health
Schema
.............................
disorders—cognitive
behaviour
behaviour .....................................................
Models
280
disorders—biological
explanations
the
Health
Health
understanding
only) ............................
role
Social
Unit
269
.............
72
behaviour ...............................
behaviour;
..................
diagnosis
in
.........................................
behaviour
and
in
56
The
Pheromones
diagnosis
depression
for
Psychological
Hormones
of
biases
262
266
64
Biological
relation
disorders .........................
257
46
Assessing
Techniques
and
for
sociocultural
and
psychology
reliability
Explanations
Neurotransmitters
250
behaviour
........................................................
Neuroplasticity
individual
abnormality ..........................
clinical
explanations
Localization
on
systems .......................................
rates
Explanations
Unit
globalization
only).........................................
methodology
Quantitative
Ethics
of
(HL
stereotyping ...................................
9
Internal
assessment
229
Overview
of
the
requirements
for
internal
assessment ........................................................
488
v
...............................
490
The
Writing
the
introduction ..................................
493
Other
Writing
the
exploration ....................................
Planning
the
Conducting
Writing
Unit
a
the
the
References
10
investigation
497
evaluation .....................................
510
The
IB
conceptual
Examination
appendices
essay ..........................................
521
resources ................................................
528
Bibliography .....................................................
529
495
analysis ...................................
and
extended
..............................
512
Index
............................................................... 564
curriculum:
model
requirements
..............................
516
Introduction
This
of
book
is
a
Course
psychology
Diploma
in
the
Companion
for
International
Programme
at
higher
important
students
complex
Baccalaureate
and
standard
is
and
designed
at
to
home.
coverage
variety
of
of
be
We
all
used
have
topics
tried
in
arguments
extensively
the
to
both
provide
syllabus,
supported
by
in
class
“Psychology
concepts
deep
on
classic
a
research.
Your
job
is
to
study
along
you
have
with
in
the
class,
discussions
take
notes,
and
“ATL
and
use
other
techniques
all
its
is
aspects.
real
help
life”
in
features
the
you
text
see
to
the
will
apply
some
vast
the
real-life
practical
skills”
will
suggest
for
you
a
number
and
your
of
questions
classmates
activities
make
to
to
activities
develop
your
learning
skills
further,
and
mind
help
maps
in
the
to
that
behaviour
studied
and
and
material
human
be
applications.
●
contemporary
in
discussed
scenarios,
focusing
both
because
should
levels.
●
It
skill
and
“compress”
you
become
better
researchers
and
the
communicators.
information
you
it,
eat,
digest
so
you
which
Course
and
understand
chew
helps
the
you
Companion
it,
you
please
do
need
not
food
digest
is
to
no
the
topics.
before
the
swallowing
food
different:
chew
literally
it
better.
if
(this
chew
When
is
the
you
a
●
This
want
to
metaphor,
help
that
you,
you
the
can
book
use
to
has
a
your
Inquiry
questions
at
the
start
challenge
allowing
you
of
features
to
key
you
compare
to
to
see
psychological
other
knowledge
terms,
psychology
disciplines.
learning
skills.
Exercises
and
links
as
and
research
videos
beyond
staying
●
will
behind
book).
number
enhance
links
concepts
meaningfully
●
To
TOK
of
every
this
book
focused
to
external
while
on
materials
papers)
the
at
the
topics
will
take
same
(such
you
time
relevant
to
the
section
syllabus.
will
encourage
that
do
stance,
not
but
discover
you
have
be
new
to
an
think
easy
ready
to
about
solution.
change
it
problems
Take
as
a
There
you
that
ethics.
knowledge.
in
●
Material
provided
in
the
text
will
equip
a
range
of
arguments
and
two
are
Research
psychology
is
to
deepen
●
These
their
the
inquiry
hidden
arguments
empirical
will
research,
psychology
questions
is
it
is
be
supported
because
teacher
from
the
IB
in
order
course,
you
need
to
living
needs
will
provide
list
of
topics
how
focus
behind
of
it.
research
and
in
non-human
to
be
done
responsibly.
you
with
subject
information
guide:
that
you
aims
need
to
of
know,
requirements
and
criteria.
Remember
it
refer
to
this
information
you
will
learn
in
this
section”
boxes
you
summarize
the
key
what
“This
section
making
also
links
links
to”
between
is
so
expected
that
you
of
you
at
clearly
all
times.
will
is
a
journey
full
of
exciting
points.
will
support
topics—this
is
you
no
spoilers—you
will
see
for
yourself.
an
Alexey
vi
the
beings—human
psychology
discoveries—but
in
discovery
and
claim
to
know
Psychology
●
of
every
obtained.
“What
help
because
research
Your
understand
●
history
because
with
to
was
a
everything
research
knowledge
procedural:
fully,
important
in
book:
and
assessment
understand
themes
this
dimensions.
the
in
has
in
evaluation
animals—so
uncover
is
important
psychology
points
overarching
discussing
you
Ethics
with
are
we
Popov,
Lee
Parker,
Darren
Seath
R E S E A R C H
M E T H O D O L O G Y
Topics
●
Introduction:
●
Quantitative
research:
the
●
Quantitative
research:
correlational
Research
in
●
Qualitative
research
●
Qualitative
research
studies
●
Ethics
used
the
psychology
experiment
in
methods
psychological
research
Introduction
This
unit
deals
in
psychology.
of
research
with
In
research
any
methods
methods
discipline,
greatly
increases
mind)
think
knowledge
to
understand
a
topic.
not
an
exception.
The
unit
ability
to
it
may
builds
seem
an
knowledge
critically
on
the
how
it
was
obtained
is
task,
if
you
a
little
important
abstract
to
foundation
you
for
essential
to
of
the
material
in
all
the
other
units.
basis
Applying
of
easy
evaluate
understanding
psychological
an
Psychology
but
is
Not
it.
our
This
ability
objectively.
about
the
knowledge
and
skills
related
avoid
to
research
methodology,
you
will
be
able
to
misconceptions.
critically
Speaking
plenty
of
popular
to
it
of
misconceptions,
them
numerous
is
is
Knowledge
whole
strengths
material
take
to
of
and
methods
by
extent
…”
the
the
at
allows
When
you
what
you
to
this
unit
the
concepts
We
start
no
You
we
its
is
a
special
two
hand,
it
is
will
time
read
what
and
to
this,
what
that
justied.
discipline.
scientic,
just
like
test
which
On
can
in
or
what
we
and
explanations
objective
in
unlike
an
knowledge.
natural
sciences
psychology
studies
is
the
and
referring
apply
and
you
back
reinforce
methodology.
and
what
to
four
but
not.
Then
research
at
These
the
complement
credibility,
in
same
each
Following
overarching
quantitative
sampling,
is
dramatically
investigation.
both
it
of
of
qualitative.
differ
objectives,
combined
to
denition
groups
and
methods
discuss
bias.
concepts
and
qualitative
Next,
we
look
at
the
generalizability
application
that
these
concepts
separately
correlational
in
quantitative
studies)
and
eliminate
attempt
On
the
that
research.
Finally,
any
discipline
to
involves
research
with
living
beings
other
to
adhere
to
the
principles
of
ethics.
We
study
discuss
“nature”,
of
conclusions,
unjustied
research
broad
holistic
apply
needs
hand,
and
keep
areas
chemists,
that
achieve
it
two
of
be
a
qualitative
competing
specic
balanced
can
to
in
the
means
physicists
hypotheses
you
discussing
(experiments,
rigorously
will
related
rationale
other
was
of
psychologists,
at
quantitative
groups
their
have
and
one
We
that
introduce
methods:
the
longer
psychologists
by
research:
Psychology
so
psychology,
see
all
studying
will
understand
are
to
arrive
misconceptions
generalizations.
So
with
psychologists”
inferences
avoiding
a
vulnerable
clearly,
value.
and
is
and
knowledge
not.
“British
face
“British
their
is
also
chapter,
lines
it
understand
it
process
like
Psychology
makes
limitations.
this
discovered
between
what
psychology
are
interpretations.
clearly
research
in
eld.
which
and
statements
done
this
popular
important
psychology
the
in
discipline
there
evaluate
ethical
considerations
in
psychological
humans,
research.
inherently
an
attempt
subjective
to
study
creatures.
the
So
subjective
psychology
(for
is
example,
1
1
Research in psychology
Inquiry questions
●
What
●
How
is
scientic
can
we
tell
psychology?
if
a
research
study
is
credible?
●
How
is
correlation
●
How
is
quantitative
qualitative
●
How
can
we
study
subjective
different
from
research
causation?
different
from
research?
phenomena
objectively?
What you will learn in this section
●
What
is
●
psychology?
Research
methodology:
qualitative
Psychology
behaviour
is
the
and
scientic
mental
study
quantitative
and
methods
of
processes
Qualitative
versus
quantitative
comparison
Science
and
non-science
Types
Behaviour
and
mental
of
quantitative
experimental,
A
study
of
non-human
IB
psychology
is
correlational,
descriptive
animals
Types
What
research:
processes
of
qualitative
research
not
●
Sampling,
bias
●
in
There
credibility,
research:
should
be
an
a
generalizability
and
overview
history
of
independent
W  ?
attempts
“Psychology
is
the
scientic
study
of
behaviour
to
test
the
theory
or
replicate
the
and
study.
mental
to
use
short
Let’s
processes.”
throughout
denition,
try
and
This
this
there
uncover
is
the
book.
are
a
them
denition
Although
lot
of
one
we
it
is
are
quite
implications
by
going
in
a
it.
one.
TOK
Psychology
is
the
scientic
study…
This
part
of
the
Science versus non-science demarcation is one of the
denition
excludes
such
areas
as
pop
psychology,
key topics in TOK . The following concepts are impor tant
that
is,
simple
and
appealing
explanations
that
are
in the discussion of demarcation criteria:
not
a
backed
theory
between
TOK
the
up
or
a
by
study
science
question
book,
empirical
but
evidence.
scientic,
and
or
where
non-science?
and
you
here
are
will
return
some
What
This
to
major
it
is
makes
the
is
line
largely
●
empirical evidence
●
falsication/falsiability
●
replication.
a
throughout
points.
While reading this unit, take a note of examples that
●
It
should
be
supported
by
empirical
evidence
illustrate these three concepts.
and
be
based
on
this
evidence.
Think of other similar examples from such areas of
●
It
should
be
falsiable,
that
is,
it
should
be
knowledge as human sciences, natural sciences and
possible
for
the
theory
or
study
to
be
proven
mathematics.
wrong.
2
R e s e a R c h
he
Exercise
had
taught
(addition,
at
the
following
research
questions
one
that
you
nd
Do
children
shows
who
become
watch
more
more
violent
Does
3.
Are
extrasensory
hoof
violent?
perception
of
their
attracted
to
men
public
Is
by
the
They
smell
experienced
heterosexual
and
Are
breathing
test
differently
What
gay
effective
Are
in
people
do
people
movies
experience
in
a
when
cinema?
you
were
to
would
such
they
the
arranged
who
marriages
married
conduct
question
you
as
go
who
would
clues
a
by
be
the
it?
you
study
picked,
Think
about
participants
required
results
was
that
arrive
a
later
What
and
to
how
how
be,
you
would
if
are
the
of
von
interested
partially
Osten,
Hans
Commission).
concluded
So
that
Hans’s
the
abilities
phenomenal!
investigation
Pfungst,
It
a
psychologist,
demonstrated
mental
that
by
was
operations
Hans
very
such
as
responsive
to
unsuspecting
conclusions,
Pfungst
humans.
alternative
successively
hypotheses.
give
the
and
horse
the
hints
or
questioner
clues?
in
spectators,
tasks
but
the
horse
the
continued
solve
correctly
anyway.
would
What
if
von
Osten
himself
gives
the
horse
some
ensure
Another
questioner
was
used
during
believable.
twentieth
evolved
interest.
lot
trials,
but
the
horse’s
performance
did
worsen.
What
if
something
answer
Blinders
turned
out
Did
were
that
the
so
or
know
not
out
that
that
questioner
of
the
to
horse
test
Hans
consciously
though?
the
the
let
hoof
it
answer
to
Hans
the
horse
either
the
could
taps)
was
all.
Additional
questioner
Clever
hypothesis.
So,
after
the
feel
wearing
of
time.
gives
can
this
was
number
the
questioner
answer,
organized
did
(the
questioners
correct
used
most
the
the
and
when
responses
incorrect
in
in
away
know
trials
were
knew
questions.
only
It
answer
Wilhelm von Osten and Clever Hans
Darwin’s
of?
as
horse
horse
to
turned
capable
the
of
of
the
least
a
was
what
4.
very
the
fraud.
Oskar
spectators
something
humans
Osten
gained
committee
and
perform
these
tested
were
was
Von
and
details
would
do,
you
at
blinders
early
a
results.
absence
It
the
(called
tests
provided
number
that?
Charles
times.
independent
by
but
were
correct
of
or
tapping
how
3.
In
of
by
to
not
Figure 1.1
respond
special
not
actually
several
▲
A
recognized
different
clues?
that
would
choice?
research
that
about
your
results
some
verbally
happier
2.
measure
asked
frequently
of
another
out
not
He
answer
series
multiplication,
1.
If
be
number
horse
ofcially
tested
than
understand
anxiety?
horror
people
problems
division,
for
To
7.
Hans
Germany
a
However,
relationships?
exercises
emotions
watching
arithmetic
in
could
6.
and
could
attention.
in
yielded
reducing
spell
certain
the
ran
carried
5.
and
performance
body?
abuse
solve
multiplication,
exist?
were
4.
a
exhibited
formed
women
read,
Questions
writing,
his
TV
of
2.
to
interesting:
in
1.
Hans
and
German.
pick
p s y c h o l o g y
subtraction,
fractions),
Look
i n
in
from
case
Hans
was
so
animals
what
horse.
the
Its
teacher,
answer
are
be
at
they
a
lot
Wilhelm
claimed
This
to
if
sparked
owner
public
must
exactly
Hans
questions
the
correctly
in
when
the
questioner
knew
advance.
inuence
the
intelligence:
Clever
mathematics
under
evolution,
animal
of
a
of
animals,
intelligent,
The
a
century,
theory
the
that
changed
the
the
questioner.
observations,
who
knew
more
focus
tense
correct
it
the
as
answer
posture
and
When
was
hoof
which
facial
research
Pfungst
concluded
answers
the
of
had
a
the
horse
out
his
questioners
tendency
be
expressions
carried
that
tapping
would
from
to
become
approached
reected
without
in
the
their
them
3
1
RE SE AR CH
realizing
horse
it.
was
detection
a
was
not
This
was
using.
of
survival
certainly
M E T H O D O LO G Y
small
skill
was
probably
This
makes
postural
for
horses
clever,
but
mathematical
the
clue
sense
changes
in
the
the
is
wild.
nature
(Goodwin,
that
the
evolutionarily,
important
Clever
of
his
as
as
Hans
scientically),
but
effects
processes
So,
mental
we
world
can
as
infer
we
can
observe
have
something
on
the
indirect
one’s
about
the
behaviour.
mental
well.
abilities
2010)!
ATL skills: Thinking
Brainstorm some behavioural indicators of the following:
ATL skills: Thinking
●
attention
●
anxiety
●
embarrassment.
How does Pfungst ’s investigation illustrate the
concepts of empirical evidence, falsication and
replication?
To what extent do you think is it possible to use behavioural
indicators to infer these “internal” phenomena? Would the
Von
Osten
himself,
however,
was
never
convinced
inference be reliable?
of
Pfungst’s
the
horse
was
rigorous
and
as
one
before.
of
human
experiments,
the
the
if
he
It
carefully
artifacts—results
effect
of
points
unforeseen
was
as
much
Throughout
for
“behaviour”
designing
in
psychology
recognized
controlled,
that
exhibit
scientically,
methodology
sciences.
to
gaining
Nonetheless,
starting
not
continued
Germany,
experimental
other
produce
and
throughout
popularity
this
ndings
are
that
whole
associated
with
while
aware
used
factors.
story
shows
tested
how
claims
scientically,
that
can
is,
systematic
evidence-based
in
a
one
hypothesis
rigorous
fashion.
investigation
rather
than
Note
attempted
support
to
another
also
how
falsify
that
and
the
the
in
study
of
mental
investigation
processes.
requires
an
of
to
research,
that
is,
general
as
a
means
of
sense,
you
of
need
to
“behaviour”
as
So
an
is
umbrella
sometimes
be
often
term
you
to
This
mental
is
not
processes
exactly
as
accurate,
theory
that
specify
the
denition
human
because
an
of
behaviour
research
integral
with
part
of
psychology
or
mental
non-human
psychology.
does
not
processes.
animals
Since
This
is
humans
A
just
a
stage
in
the
continuous
process
of
empirical
relying
data
term
references
the
study
of
animals
may
inform
our
on
understanding
observation
the
processes”
patterns
However,
psychological.
“behaviour”.
evolution,
approach
“mental
internal
acceptable.
Note
whole
existing
are
scientic
more
that
term
them
is
and
fact
term
the
observable
puts
tests
it.
behaviour
the
a
the
processing.
encounter
also
…
of
use
conducting
investigation
after
to
will
external,
and
by
but
forward
used
everything
types
a
we
to
denote
be
information
could
book
refer
will
will
shouldbe
to
manifestations
for
This
this
collection.
of
human
behaviour
(and
mental
On
processes).
the
other
from
“the
the
study
wealth
of
directly
this
can
hand,
an
as
is
stays
such
thinking.
led
represent
a
The
rst
as
can
it
attention,
box”
and
are
a
not
be
the
overt
to
them
say
cannot
on.
memory
directly
that
be
so
mental
perception,
psychology
emphasis
knowledge,
is
on
but
and
an
research.
many
they
studied
coats
that
comes
focuses
on
research
because
to
academic
than
thorough
concepts
and
importance
in
is
able
to
spheres
think
is
of
of
in
rst
and
with
lab
thing
psychology
and
counselling
phenomena
all
the
IB
knowledge
pure
think
work
workers
However,
than
counsellors
who
not
with
scientic
people
understanding
being
psychological
When
University
and
broader
imagine
research
mind.
rather
is
practitioners
clients.
conducting
discipline
research
psychology
psychology
individual
academic
rigorous
psychotherapists,
expressions,
are
an
about
registered
and
IB
academics
that
includes
observe
psychologists
“black
with
solving
reactions
scene”
cannot
in
study,
behaviour.
facial
endocrine
We
some
that
gestures,
itself
step
That’s
=
which
something
observer:
the
of
comes
logos
concerns
identify
“behind
and
many
directly.
as
(which
soul
everything
well
processes
4
to
responses,
(which
=
soul”)
independent
verbal
What
is
observed
actions
and
the
observable.
Behaviour
by
of
psyche
phenomena,
dilemma
be
psychology
Greek
scientic
skills.
of
This
is
psychological
critically
about
paramount
psychology,
R e s e a R c h
including
start
counselling.
with
need
to
building
study
allowed
to
It
makes
these
skills,
aerodynamics
pilot
an
perfect
much
before
sense
like
you
to
might
look
at
a
questionnaire,
the
hormone)
are
you
airplane.
can
which
in
see,
a
i n
self-report
the
the
level
score
of
needs
are
or
usually
may
to
be
use
on
cortisol
bloodstream
there
construct
researcher
p s y c h o l o g y
an
anxiety
(the
stress
weight
multiple
loss.
operationalized;
creativity
in
As
ways
in
the
designing
Rr : q
a
 q 
good
operationalization
essence
of
the
observable
All
research
methods
used
in
psychology
can
as
either
quantitative
or
in
quantitative
numbers.
usually
that
to
research
aim
arrive
at
characterize
individuals
like
The
the
comes
in
of
quantitative
numerically
behaviour
(that
aim
of
is,
the
of
universal
natural
the
is
the
directly
measurable.
examples
in
this
As
book,
you
it
is
will
often
operationalization
This
in
makes
research
a
in
outstanding.
is
laws
groups
laws).
that
form
research
expressed
large
sciences
captures
yet
qualitative.
psychology
of
reliably
throughout
creative
Data
and
that
and
be
see
categorized
construct
of
is
much
which
ATL skills: Research and communication
it
In small groups think of operationalizations of the
has
been
the
ideal
for
a
long
time
to
have
a
set
following constructs: belief in God, asser tiveness,
of
simple
rules
that
describe
the
behaviour
throughout
the
universe
of
all
shyness, pain, love, friendship, prejudice, tolerance to
material
objects
(think
uncer tainty, intelligence, wisdom.
about
for
laws
of
example).
orientation
gravity
In
on
in
classic
philosophy
deriving
Newtonian
of
science
universal
physics,
Is it equally easy to operationalize them?
such
laws
is
called
the
Discuss each other ’s operationalizations and outline
nomothetic
approach .
their strengths and limitations.
Quantitative
A
variable
values”)
research
(“something
is
any
operates
that
can
characteristic
with
take
that
is
variables.
on
varying
objectively
There
registered
and
quantied.
Since
●
deals
that
be
an
with
are
a
not
lot
of
“internal”
directly
important
characteristics
observable,
operationalized
rst.
distinction
For
are
three
types
they
this
between
need
reason,
to
there’s
constructs
Experimental
its
and
simplest
variable
(DV),
(IV)
for
is
example,
memory,
any
theoretically
violence,
attention,
dened
aggression,
love,
anxiety.
construct,
expected
to
you
it
give
from
it
a
other
denition
similar
Such
As
a
denitions
rule
example,
if
you
they
are
called
have
based
cannot
constructs
“constructed”
important
is
the
The
one
DV
as
the
IV
changes.
is
For
on
to
investigate
depression,
the
you
effect
might
assign
participants
to
two
groups:
the
dissimilar)
for
them
group
will
receive
psychotherapy
on
be
the
control
group
will
not.
After
a
while
directly
might
measure
the
level
of
depression
by
a
conducting
reason—we
IV
researcher.
want
psychotherapy
you
observed:
potentially
variable
which
(and
are
constructs
dependent
The
in
independent
dene
while
theories.
the
change
experimental
constructs.
other
experiment
one
attraction,
To
randomly
delineates
research.
variable,
of
a
one
controlled.
by
The
includes
and
the
are
manipulated
construct
quantitative
studies .
form
while
variables
operationalizations.
A
of
psychology
based
a
standardized
clinical
interview
on
(diagnosis)
with
each
of
them.
In
this
case
theory.
the
To
enable
research,
operationalized.
means
aggression
insulting
swear
For
you
it
Facebook
in
terms
example,
might
comments
words
need
Operationalization
expressing
behaviour.
constructs
per
posts”.
per
100
To
to
look
of
of
a
construct
in
or
verbal
number
“the
the
operationalize
psychotherapy.
changing
depression;
of
recent
anxiety
different
that
of
number
most
by
is
it
standardized
observable
“the
hour”
IV
be
operationalize
at
words
to
IV
you
in
a
the
only
in
is
yes
manipulate
or
no.
operationalized
two
in
This
method
value:
diagnostic
the
change
DV
.
its
You
the
is
that
IV
why
you
“caused”
the
allows
If
may
a
the
DV
through
procedure.
groups,
The
the
is
the
DV
is
conclude
change
experiment
is
the
cause-and-effect
inferences.
5
1
RE SE AR CH
M E T H O D O LO G Y
classmates
or
even
by
observation
in
a
natural
Other variables:
X
setting)
and
the
per
spent
average
number
of
hours
controlled
day
watching
violent
television
Cause-and-effect
shows.
Then
you
can
correlate
these
two
Independent
inference
Dependent variable
variable (IV):
variables
using
obtained
a
a
formula.
Suppose
you
(DV): changes
manipulated
means
more
Other variables:
large
that
time
positive
there’s
an
a
correlation.
trend
adolescent
in
the
spends
This
data:
the
watching
X
violent
controlled
is.
▲
Figure 1.2
shows,
However,
Correlational
studies
that
are
the
is
want
to
(there
how
are
and
establish
violent
much
television
time
effect
inferences
Since
you
behaviour
(by
IVs
For
or
they
is
any
of
spend
you
and
DVs).
example,
there
may
self-report,
would
Variables
relationship
their
a
could
and
low
violent
sample
ratings
do
violent
make
he
or
she
cause-and-
could
be
a
third
changes
as
the
is
also
(this
intuitive
one
that
Or
to
there
example,
both
on
surface”
fact
that
choose
(for
violence
of
watching
programmes.
the
the
the
possible
inuences
“on
other
that
violently
watching
observe
of
direction
popular,
variable
that
that—“co-relation”,
from
it
studies.
behaviour
most
behave
one
the
case
violent
the
television
and
you
the
However,
self-esteem)
What
know
be
be
who
violent
even
correlational
manipulate
not
inuences
behaviour
violent
from
not
probably
adolescents
watch
adolescents
It
assumption).
you
watching
by
violence
any
between
if
recruit
measure
in
manipulate
relationship
did
you
inuence.
experiments
not
behaviour
shows,
adolescents
no
the
if
Correlational
from
does
quantied.
between
of
different
measured
them
studies.
researcher
variables
are
more
cannot
Cause-and-eect inference
variables,
●
the
you
is
one
violent
television.
just
variable
changes.
ATL skills: Communication and social
In small groups come up with results of ctitious studies that would demonstrate either correlation or causation. Here
are two examples.
1.
In a group of adults we measured their attitudes to horror lms and the number of siblings they have. We found that
the more siblings you have, the more you like horror lms.
2.
We told one group of astronauts that their mission would star t in a month and the other group that the mission
would star t in a year. We measured anxiety and found that it was higher in the group of astronauts who expected the
mission to star t in a month.
As you go through your list of ctitious studies, the other groups will have to say whether the study shows correlation or
causation.
●
Descriptive
studies.
In
relationships
between
variables
investigated,
separately.
quantitative
survey.
We
support
and
we
answers
studies
are
a
to
are
variables
would
current
in
used
used
deeper”
be
in
in
into
are
are
a
the
approached
public
of
opinion
the
“Do
question.
of
Descriptive
to
research
in-depth
study
entails
measured
realm
and
of
of
human
meanings.
such
data
interview
conduct
of
on.
approaches.
In
but
Its
what
the
as
data
analysis
achieve
of
use
interviews
of
a
and
degree
than
quantitative
science
or
texts:
notes,
deeper
through
philosophy
be
the
makes
involves
is
can
into
form
observational
of
focus
interpretations
research
in
main
phenomenon.
quantied
methods
comes
transcripts,
usually
beyond
and
experiences,
Interpretation
can
different.
particular
Qualitative
Data
subjectivity,
we
a
going
collection
observations.
is
of
objectively
so
before
an
“In-depth”
they
and
phenomenon
specics.
you
President?”)
distribution
sociology
a
is
example,
psychology
of
Qualitative
studies
not
descriptive
(for
the
particular
often
a
policies
interested
this
of
questions
investigation
“delving
6
study
sometimes
broad
the
example
ask
the
are
and
An
descriptive
such
R e s e a R c h
orientation
case
or
on
an
in-depth
phenomenon
analysis
(without
Parameter
Quantitative
Aim
Nomothetic
applicable
of
trying
a
to
particular
universally
derive
idiographic
research
approach:
i n
p s y c h o l o g y
applicable
Qualitative
derive
universally
Idiographic
laws
laws)
is
called
the
approach .
research
approach:
understanding
of
a
in-depth
particular
case
or
phenomenon
Data
Numbers
Texts
Focus
Behavioural
manifestations
Human
(operationalizations)
Objectivity
More
objective
eliminated
▲
Table 1.1
this
researcher
the
studied
is
More
reality)
in
research
chapter
methods
that
we
will
discuss
for
the
subjective
the
studied
conclusions
Similarly,
are:
people
●
interpretations,
(the
researcher
is
included
reality)
Quantitative versus qualitative research
Qualitative
in
(the
from
experiences,
meanings
if
you
and
you
study
you
will
be
political
recruit
your
able
to
views
sample
make.
of
by
unemployed
asking
a
small
observation
●
interview
number
of
possibly
friends
a
●
focus
●
case
●
content
limited
participants
of
sample
to
bring
friends),
because
their
you
friends
might
people
of
end
(and
up
similar
with
political
group
views
are
more
likely
to
be
friends
with
each
other.
study
Credibility
refers
of
can
to
the
degree
to
which
the
results
analysis.
is
the
study
closely
study
be
linked
do
not
to
trusted
bias,
reect
to
reect
because
reality
if
the
the
there
reality.
results
was
of
some
It
the
sort
of
s , rb, rzb
bias
 b  rr
Sampling,
are
some
research
These
but
credibility,
of
the
study
they
can
even
with
express
way
A
make
to
these
So
the
very
its
of
down
sciences,
terms
research.
you
start
as
of
individuals
taking
of
the
hypothesis,
bias
with
the
research
nding
There
is
and
are
recruiting
different
important
limitations
study.
see
(in
if
For
to
as
school
sampling
be
aware
if
you
only
will
the
for
the
their
aim
of
the
your
sample
important
the
is
to
teenagers
teenagers
neighbourhood,
have
of
research
in
to
the
in
a
controlled
study
is
and
qualitative
and
bias
way
them
in
or
of
research
distinctly
to
contradicting
approaches
sources
and
credibility
high.
different,
their
potential
knowledge
be
think
supporting
that
eliminated,
believed
aim
researchers
conrming
ignore
our
the
they
Or
while
responses
guess
that
to.
notice
indication
best
researcher
interview,
actually
unintentionally
in
some
of
the
Quantitative
to
credibility
although
they
aspects.
Generalizability
it
and
results
aggression
may
interested
is
an
a
of
study.
and
strengths
affect
in
that
interviewee’s
selectively
there
are
the
expecting
being
If
“traps”
example,
respond
is
may
and
of
part
process
techniques,
with
criminal
technique
of
may
the
correlates
a
is
individuals
sampling
but
in
Sampling
sampling
example,
anxiety
general),
one
study.
lot
believes
and
were,
abilities,
a
participants
study
evidence.
are
For
researcher
overlap
in
into.
true,
research
concepts.
group
be
of
and
quantitative
Let’s
walk
evidence
to
that
concepts
There
researcher
to
the
it.
themselves,
by
sometimes
important
in
a
quality.
differently
sets
is
bias
social
researchers,
it
the
describe
of
for
overarching
broken
and
to
judgment
different
ideas.
qualitative
is
a
used
universal
qualitative
are
overarching
sample
are
approached
both
they
compared
the
be
and
same
understand
the
and
distinctly
the
generalizability
characteristics
characteristics
quantitative
can
in
from
your
implications
the
results
the
sample
itself.
of
the
and
the
Sometimes,
research,
sample
you
to
a
research
study
of
is
the
extent
be
applied
settings
to
used
in
group
your
conducted
the
study
people
is
to
from
the
(called
discover
Sometimes
in
which
beyond
ndings
of
aim
behaviour.
in
to
quantitative
generalize
wider
because
laws
to
can
especially
want
much
“population”)
universal
refers
study
articial
the
settings
7
1
RE SE AR CH
(for
example,
want
way
any
in
to
in
their
case,
the
which
a
believe
M E T H O D O LO G Y
laboratory
people
natural
setting
generalizability
interpretation
quantitative
approach
experiment),
that
of
is
will
in
an
daily
of
the
is
in
ways
these
time
distinctly
Overview
credibility
and
Quantitative
Overarching
Experimental
studies
gives
concepts
As
time
read
better.
so
an
to
overview
characterize
credibility
correlational
you
concepts
to
you
used
generalizability,
experimental,
general
generalizability,
below
main
research.
in
studies
different.
Sampling,
table
the
sampling,
In
aspect
research
ndings
of
same
too.
Again,
qualitative
generalizability
life
The
you
the
important
ndings.
and
but
behave
that
on,
you
Refer
you
to
place
and
and
bias
qualitative
will
understand
this
table
them
from
clearly
in
the
framework.
table:
bias
in
qualitative
and
research
quantitative
Qualitative
Correlational
research
research
studies
concepts
Sampling
Random
Same
Quota
sampling
Stratied
Purposive
Self-selected
Theoretical
sampling
Opportunity
Snowball
sampling
sampling
Convenience
Generalizability
External
validity:
Population
Construct
–
Population
–
Ecological
validity
Sample-to-population
validity
generalization
validity
Case-to-case
Credibility
Internal
what
validity:
extent
some
is
by
variables:
No
to
the
the
other
Controlling
keeping
IV
and
variable?
confounding
eliminating
constant
in
special
used:
DV
or
term
“validity”
“credibility”
Credibility
and
can
be
used
interchangeably
Credibility
bias
is
high
if
=
trustworthiness.
no
occurred
extent
do
reect
the
the
Iterative
internal
validity:
On
the
level
rapport
–
History
–
Maturation
on
the
bias:
of
Selection
variables:
checks
descriptions
Participant
of
measurement
–
a
questioning
Reexivity
Thick
to
what
Triangulation
Credibility
Threats
To
ndings
reality?
Establishing
all
conditions
Bias
generalization
validity
inuenced
not
generalization
validity
Theoretical
Construct
sampling
–
Acquiescence
–
Social
–
Dominant
–
Sensitivity
depends
method
desirability
of
respondent
measurement
–
Testing
effect
On
–
the
level
of
Researcher
Instrumentation
interpretation
–
Regression
to
–
Experimental
–
Experimenter
–
Demand
the
mean
mortality
ndings:
–
characteristics
Curvilinear
relationships
bias
–
The
third
bias:
of
variable
–
Conrmation
–
Leading
–
Question
–
Sampling
–
Biased
bias
questions
order
bias
problem
–
Spurious
correlations
▲
8
Table 1.2
bias
bias
reporting
Quantitative research: the experiment
Inquiry questions
●
Why
do
experiments
allow
cause-and-effect
●
How
inferences?
of
can
ndings
people
be
from
a
small
generalized
to
an
group
entire
population?
●
How
can
bias
in
experimental
research
be
●
prevented?
How
can
experiments
be
designed?
What you will learn in this section
●
Confounding
variables
External
validity:
population
and
ecological
●
Sampling
in
the
experiment
●
Bias
in
experimental
research:
threats
to
Representativeness
internal
Random
validity
sampling
Selection
Stratied
sampling
History
Opportunity
sampling
Self-selected
sampling
Maturation
Testing
●
Experimental
effect
designs
Instrumentation
Independent
measures
design
Regression
Matched
pairs
design;
matching
to
the
mean
variable
Mortality
Repeated
measures
design;
order
effects;
Demand
characteristics
counterbalancing
Experimenter
●
Credibility
and
experiment:
types
Construct
Internal
generalizability
of
in
validity
validity
●
Quasi-experiments
●
Natural
X,
is
we
mentioned,
the
experiment
is
the
you
Z
also
that
that
allows
researchers
to
make
inferences.
This
is
achieved
by
dening
variable
manipulating
(IV)
and
the
dependent
the
IV
and
in
response
to
this
that
is
it,
to
isolate
nothing
that
you
changes
reality
the
else
IV
so
Y
.
X
observing
However,
complex
when
you
Imagine,
and
in
change
Y
,
but
Z.
In
you
reality
it
incorrectly
X
(your
IV)
is
your
the
cause
of
hypothesis.
Y
,
If
thus
this
think
about
the
following
sounds
example:
X
is
how
the
deprivation
(which
you
manipulate
by
waking
DV
one
group
of
participants
every
15
minutes
when
manipulation.
very
that
changes.
manipulate
in
is
change
conrming
abstract,
they
Psychological
unintentionally
variable
up
changes
experiments
the
sleep
(DV),
eld
experiments
only
too
independent
and
true
cause-andincorrectly
effect
experiments
causesa
conclude
method
versus
validity
cf rb
As
bias
the
for
observe
every
and
time
the
trick
manipulate
example,
the
you
resulting
manipulate
and
by
a
sleep,
Y
is
memory
simple
realizing
you
while
let
this
test
might
control
experimental
control
group
performance
memory
that
the
the
be
group
group
in
(which
the
an
in
a
at
normally)
you
morning).
important
sleep
sleeps
sleeps
home
measure
Without
factor,
while
laboratory
the
being
9
1
RE SE AR CH
supervised
variable,
by
M E T H O D O LO G Y
an
experimenter.
variable
Z:
stress
So
caused
there’s
by
the
another
s   r
unfamiliar
Being
environment.
It
could
be
the
case
that
in
aims
experiment
it
was
the
unfamiliar
a
truly
environment
at
discovering
caused
a
reduction
in
memory
performance
than
sleep
deprivation
of
to
that
relationship
in
the
can
example
the
above)
variables.
They
need
controlled,
to
be
keeping
so
that
them
they
not
and
to
either
in
affect
distort
all
DV
groups
These
the
Z
of
of
people
expected
variables
eliminating
groups
between
population.
(like
confounding
bias.
by
the
the
called
contribute
constant
do
IV
are
of
experiment
behaviour
of
This
people
makes
across
relevant
a
the
(X).
potentially
between
large
situations.
distinction
Variables
the
laws
(Y),
variety
rather
method,
universal
(Z)
applicable
that
nomothetic
this
them
group
or
itself.
participants
are
comparison.
to
to
be
can
obtained
the
target
the
taking
we
in
population?
We
A
sample
is
said
target
the
group
study
sample
is
are
the
experiment
be
do
be
is
whatever
key
to
the
the
the
can
representativeness—the
sample.
in
that
sample
of
The
part
ensure
the
and
population
ndings
generalized.
people
How
sample
target
which
to
of
The
the
results
generalized
this
through
property
of
a
representative
of
Discussion
the
target
population
if
it
reects
all
its
essential
characteristics.
How
the
could
the
researchers
confounding
variable
have
in
this
controlled
example?
Exercise
Imagine
this
you
are
experiment
(experimental
three
times
every
week.
Suppose
your
●
This
can
while
end
be
depends
of
the
may
socio-economic
potentially
aim
be
a
sample
the
sample
is
important
characteristics?
economic
If
the
are
sample
two
claim
Given
is
ways
that
the
No,
not
to
the
aim
it
x
it
it:
does
the
keep
ndings
study,
in
top
told
grades
is
split
in
praise
the
two
this
to
two
need
to
every
students
one
that
are
of
is,
For
groups
praise
the
from
you
teenagers.
groups
population,
For
of
into
instructed
only
students
target
is.
would
to
school
sample
a
characteristics
to
the
in
the
to
increase
are
DV
is
compared.
the
take
student
once
schools
teenagers
into
praise
be
a
in
in
account
example,
on
that
Socio-economic
connection
The
pursue
pride,
Whatever
For
(depending
education.
of
essential.
essential.
general).
between
type
quality
whereas
in
of
the
school
education
public
is
and
schools
classmates.
characteristics
sufcient
of
to
of
the
reect
cultural
target
all
population.
these
backgrounds,
socio-
population.
characteristics
narrow
that
the
students
variation
down
generalizable
you
of
point
from
the
essential
more
a
example
found
or
where
be
in
may
value
essential
our
represent
schools
would
may
the
and
reacts
there
their
bullying
in
IV
authority
schools
reect
the
teenager
and
and
praise
sampling
are
how
how
school
of
teacher
is
the
theoretically
not
of
to
between
family
must
types
either
your
teachers
lead
one
representative
research
of
and
for
teachers’
it
high
performance
you
research.
well:
may
are
ndings
school
that
the
teacher
participant
factor:
from
because
backgrounds
the
as
placements
teenagers
the
adults,
representative,
of
of
teenager’s
neighbourhoods
the
the
the
performance
experiment
essential
important
of
period
on
group
the
relationship
to
in
If
to
the
college
criminal
this
links
praise
participants
group
representative
the
attitudes
be
of
of
experimental
control
in
inuence
status
sample
generalize
how
may
a
research
prestigious
Is
10
to
and
inuence
the
the
the
research
cultural
background
●
on
background
teenager’s
another
of
the
have
In
in
able
population
aim
to
participants
you
theoretically
cultural
●
need
control).
the
the
Will
target
The
and
week
At
that
city.
general?
your
a
investigating
you
than
the
of
the
target
they
target
population,
population
really
representativeness
and
do
are.
of
your
sample?
there
not
Q u a n t i t a t i v e
There
is
no
quantitative
representativeness
expert
decision
particular
is
done
on
the
of
the
and
way
to
sample
of
is
and
is
say
always
not.
or
a
In
needs
other
students
any
to
you
narrow
the
This
from
studies.
population
case
to
case
be
of
explained.
sampling
techniques
can
be
used
in
from
create
The
choice
depends
on
the
aim
the
random
available
resources
and
the
of
nature
full
of
make
sampling.
the
sampling
sample
This
is
the
ideal
representative.
an
every
equal
from
perfectly
students
from
and
this
strategy
where
the
is
a
is
possible
select
list.
An
your
example
pre-election
participants
telephone
Facebook
though,
you
member
chance
of
of
the
target
becoming
is
not
book
are
(or
selected
a
proles).
Even
in
random
this
have
a
it
is
all
With
you
take
a
sufcient
into
sample
account
all
to
of
admit
that
of
the
target
Stratied
ones
you
never
this
possible
to
the
target
a
random
sample
the
representation
results
random
easily
of
a
of
play
a
is
not
you
size
you
large,
is
reasons.
for
If
example,
impossible
to
possible
target
that
population
gets
an
equal
sample.
create
a
Being
list
of
based
all
in
various
select
a
in
the
each
Europe,
and
Fiji
to
come
and
join
in
to
Primary
Middle
High
school
has
the
to
more
essential
reect.
distribution
target
of
these
population
statistical
data
(for
available
agencies).
way
Then
proportions
in
the
that
you
keeps
recruit
the
population.
sample
For
as
is
example,
your
same
observed
imagine
in
that
is
your
target
your
school.
population
The
is
all
the
students
characteristics
you
in
decide
of
important
for
school,
the
aim
middle
of
the
school,
study
high
are
age
school)
cannot
grade
point
average—GPA
(low,
average,
world,
call
You
study
school
records
and
nd
out
the
Lynn
experiment.
GPA
of
students
across
these
categories:
In
Average
GPA
High
GPA
Total
10%
10%
20%
5%
30%
15%
50%
5%
20%
5%
30%
10%
60%
30%
100%
school
Total
decide
0%
school
is
enter
you
the
then
your
Low
use
a
distribution
from
approach
world,
member
chance
teenagers
sample
you
the
in
high).
randomly
This
sample
the
in
participants
and
just
First
the
study
may
(primary
your
who
prole).
is
are
this
country
for
population
teenagers
ensure
the
Facebook
However,
always
your
all
of
a
making
the
practical
have
role.
sufcient
population,
generalizable.
sampling
particular
even
from
good
a
means
this
Arguably,
of
essential
population,
suspected
citizens
(or
sampling.
characteristics
the
citizens
the
Then
characteristics
the
population
part
size
the
telephone
characteristics
that
all
random
theory-driven.
sample.
Table 1.3
For
that
For
a
stratied
your
below).
it
cell
In
any
characteristics
the
this
or
is
that
of
essential
available
it
to
can
the
stratied
when
you
are
are
not
and
large.
this
are
more
university
and
about
when
there.
for
it
easily
so
it
is
to
white
as
the
a
a
are
easy
very
study
rats”.
for
of
There
of
time
has
“US
example,
also
to
nd
college
be
samples
sometimes
freshmen
several
when
limited.
choice
university
been
sampling.
choice
are
For
popular
them
could
convenience
and
sampling .
participants
usually
psychology
technique
resources
recruit
available.
are
researchers
choosing
is
you
students
Jokingly,
referred
and
(opportunity)
technique
professors
may
certain
characteristics
sizes
fairly
This
For
because
essential
are
sample.
Convenience
that
(see
theory-driven
population
in
either
approaches
makes
is
●
ensure
proportions.
theory-dened
participant
sample
you
other
what
the
choice
need
same
table
that
represented
ideal
you
the
use
case,
special
ensures
equally
of
has
randomly
sampling
and
sample
sample
every
sample
be
is
approach
In
●
has
▲
it
On
population
the
own
it
of
sampling
of
country;
a
list
randomly
hypothesis)
population.
target
school,
your
population.
Random
to
your
cross-cultural
(for
target
your
survey
population
●
your
if
that
the
case,
target
believe
essential
an
selection
research,
not
down
randomly
experiment.
either
are
participants
well
e x p e R i m e n t
hand,
telephone
Several
t h e
differences
the
whether
or
knowledge
research
target
explicitly
to
it
essential
prior
this
establish
and
researcher
basis
theories
choice
justied
a
a
characteristic
published
the
of
of
R e s e a R c h :
reasons
First,
nancial
Second,
there
11
1
RE SE AR CH
could
that
be
M E T H O D O LO G Y
reasons
different
under
study.
inuence
reasons
of
to
in
to
believe
terms
For
believe
on
that
and
that
the
example,
caffeine
cross-culturally,
of
if
you
are
study
attention,
results
it
people
not
phenomenon
might
will
be
a
be
The
the
there
depending
and
of
there
is
are
use
a
stratied
or
a
random
sample.
sampling
is
useful
when
known
of
ndings
is
not
the
of
your
research,
for
example,
an
exploratory
study
a
sure
the
hypothesis
will
be
if
you
small
If
the
hypothesis
sample,
why
and
you
supported
will
waste
not
time
comparison
form,
your
sample?
Or
you
if
the
this
else’s
research
universal
someone)
sample,
thus
law
will
and
(that
hold
trying
to
your
was
true
it
aim
your
prior
involves
into
these
groups
groups.
In
its
you
randomly
into
the
allocate
participants
experimental
the
control
group.
Then
you
group
manipulate
conditions
so
that
they
are
the
the
same
in
in
the
two
groups
except
for
the
independent
a
After
the
manipulation
you
compare
the
replicating
is
to
discovered
in
falsify
design
participants
between
sample
dependent
someone
of
by
“work”
testing
are
design,
experimental
are
variable.
representative
of
an
are
in
a
measures
allocation
experimental
evidence.
experimental
types
in
primary
and
not
the
research.
wide
from
conducting
the
conditions
Finally,
simplest
goal
as
basic
of
and
design.
and
generalization
aims
groups
time
random
convenience
the
of
three
Independent
to
on
organization
experiment
are
similar
waste
differ
variable
in
the
two
groups.
see
by
specic
ATL skills: Research
theory.
Consider the dierence between random sampling
The
limitation
of
convenience
sampling
is,
of
(selecting the sample from the target population) and
course,
lack
of
representativeness.
random group allocation (dividing your sample into
●
Self-selected
recruiting
approach
sampling .
volunteers.
is
newspaper
An
advertising
and
using
This
example
the
the
refers
to
of
groups). It is possible to have random group allocation in
this
experiment
participants
non-random samples and vice versa.
in
a
who
The
respond
to
the
advert.
The
strength
of
is
selected
sampling
is
that
it
is
a
quick
rationale
that
easy
way
to
recruit
individuals
the
same
time
having
wide
coverage
other
start
people
read
newspapers).
The
limitation,
again,
is
out.
of
the
to
who
volunteer
to
may
be
more
part
population,
or
motivated
they
than
may
be
of
incentives
(in
many
rewarded
studies
for
looking
their
their
participants
that
to
sampling
be
used
in
an
experiment,
how
would
your
approach
to
on
the
investigation
school
of
recruiting
the
performance
of
is
a
that
different
the
12
specic
involve
measuring
ways
in
the
which
inuence
of
you
are
testing
improves
the
students’
you
one
take
two
being
existing
rarely
praised
the
other
might
one
not
be
often
praised.
equivalent:
experiences
Of
manipulating
can
in
be
when
these
the
allocation
the
course,
will
higher
there
some
others.
But
organized
on
of
on
levels
inuence
change
all
and
with
habits,
the
and
teachers,
potentially
so
on—
important
is
group
sizes
completely
are
sufciently
random,
be
equivalent—the
chances
larger
the
the
chance.
praise
teenagers?
this
this
values
for
groups
example,
always
that
school
sample
er 
and
at
comparing
impossible.
and
many
variables
at
with
and
ingroup
depending
Experiments
for
groups
account
sample,
for
be
you
are
change
will
strategies
large
can
and
the
Conversely,
what
Imagine
praise
teachers
have
factors
know
you
are
Exercise
you
cancel
equivalent
time).
but
that
not
for
different
Now
are
the
they
nancially
groups
experiment,
students,
Arguably,
the
the
in
by
general
allocation
variables
representativeness.
take
groups
experiments
If
oranges.
performance
People
group
most
hypothesis
essential
random
confounding
(many
apples
different
potential
while
the
at
all
and
each
relatively
behind
self-
school
these
how
each
you
of
could
be
many
variable
could
praise
use
and
participants
you
into
would
four
IVs
than
you
has.
more
the
performance.
IVs
more
In
two
use
the
than
With
need
groups:
two
to
and
how
above
one
allocation
groups,
of
levels
IV:
the
homework
for
randomly
each
allocate
Q u a n t i t a t i v e
R e s e a R c h :
according
Homework
given
not
1
2
the
highest
two
praised
3
abilities
lowest).
(for
Then
example,
you
take
the
allocate
from
one
of
the
top
them
to
of
the
the
list
and
experimental
4
group
You
▲
the
participants
randomly
Frequently
memory
to
given
rst
praised
their
e x p e R i m e n t
Homework
from
Rarely
to
t h e
and
take
the
the
other
next
one
two
to
the
control
participants
group.
and
repeat
the
Table 1.4
procedure
This
experimental
design
with
two
IVs,
each
levels,
is
quite
frequently
used
in
are
It
is
known
as
a
2
×
2
certainly
and
Of
course
combinations:
2
you
×
3
can
(two
think
IVs,
of
of
the
list.
The
two
resulting
equivalent
probably
(due
to
in
terms
random
of
memory
chance)
experimental
equivalent
design.
rest
psychological
abilities
experiments.
the
with
groups
two
for
in
all
other
characteristics.
other
three
levels
in
each),
Rank par ticipants
3
×
2
IVs,
(three
four
IVs,
levels
two
in
levels
each).
in
The
each),
more
4
×
cells
4
(four
you
have
Highest
in
this
table,
the
larger
the
sample
you
need,
so
1
at
2
some
point
number
of
it
becomes
impractical
to
increase
the
3
4
groups.
Measure
5
Randomly allocate
6
into groups
matching
To
summarize,
regardless
of
the
number
of
IVs
and
variable
their
levels,
an
experiment
follows
an
7
independent
8
measures
design
when
the
IV
is
manipulated
by
9
randomly
allocating
participants
into
groups.
This
Lowest
allows
us
to
assume
that
the
groups
are
equivalent
▲
from
the
by
the
end
our
start
of
so
the
whatever
experiment
experimental
difference
must
we
have
observe
been
pairs
The
is
similar
to
variable
the
The
completely
matching
only
random
to
form
difference
is
allocation,
the
that
example
is
controlled
above)
is
(memory
called
the
abilities
matching
independent
variable.
measures.
Matched pairs design
caused
manipulation.
design
Figure 1.3
at
in
Matched
10
that
instead
researchers
Matched
pairs
designs
are
preferred
when:
of
use
●
groups.
the
researcher
that
the
nds
groups
are
it
particularly
equivalent
in
important
a
specic
variable
To
illustrate
Suppose
of
sleep
two
are
of
let’s
on
in
the
a
an
study
memory.
participants.
peacefully
consider
conducting
deprivation
groups
sleep
matching,
you
One
of
For
of
laboratory
example.
the
this
the
and
effect
you
groups
the
●
need
the
sample
chance
will
not
be
will
be
woken
up
every
15
minutes.
In
you
will
give
both
groups
a
sufcient
and
compare
their
performance.
You
there
is
one
confounding
is
to
measures
compare
variable
participants.
that
exposed
to
the
results:
memory
abilities.
generally
have
better
memory
than
it
is
important
to
you
that
the
two
the
their
start
of
the
memory
usually
make
experiment
abilities.
that
are
Random
aim
participants
happen,
(10
in
each
but
equivalent
allocation
you
group).
like
this
there
is
a
chance
only
With
that
a
list
will
of
not
work.
memory
So
you
abilities
of
three
in
silence
you
to
everything
test
the
memory
else
to
abilities
experiment.
Then
in
want
your
you
the
groups
group
more)
of
participants
conditions,
compared.
For
example,
and
the
imagine
to
investigate
You
the
ask
effect
your
of
classical
participants
of
trigrams
(meaningless
to
combinations
letters
and
such
as
register
HPX,
the
LJW)
for
number
of
10
minutes
trigrams
recalled.
to
Then
learn
a
you
ask
different
the
list
same
of
trigrams
for
random
to
control
chance.
10
minutes,
but
this
time
with
classical
the
playing
in
the
background.
You
compare
while
For
participants
rank
when
than
small
“manually”
random
used
have
a
results
leaving
is
rather
will
music
equivalence
equivalence.
in
another
allocation
same
(or
learning.
participants
sample
design
conditions
The
two
are
is
on
correctly
20
a
groups
learn
at
is
will
others,
music
therefore
group
there
groups
Some
your
people
ensure
into
may
conditions
inuence
therefore
suspect
is
that
to
large,
allocation
memory
of
test
not
the
goal
morning
is
random
other
Repeated
group
size
that
prior
participants
from
the
rst
and
the
second
trial.
this
The
that
problem
they
are
with
repeated
vulnerable
to
measures
order
designs
effects:
is
results
13
1
RE SE AR CH
may
be
comes
M E T H O D O LO G Y
different
rst
(for
depending
example,
on
which
silence
condition
then
classical
crb  rzb  
music
r:  f 
or
classical
appear
●
music
due
to
Practise:
on-task
then
various
silence).
reasons,
participants
Order
such
practise,
concentration
and
effects
as
the
following.
improve
become
may
As
with
the
rst
trial.
Their
the
quality
task
of
research
experiments
in
the
used.
Fatigue:
participants
and
their
get
tired
during
concentration
the
decreases.
performance
Instead
in
the
order
second
effects
counterbalancing.
other
could
“silence
“music
then
trial
be
and
vice
is
of
used:
still
versa.
one
and
It
be
groups.
collated
participants
reversed.
music”
will
researchers
use
with
given
one
is
made
data
where
sequence
the
to
group
group
collated
terms
order
the
two
2
data
to
condition
condition
sets
will
a
1
2,
be
of
justied
in
some
a
comes
are
very
experiments
internal
and
a
the
dened
expressed
of
research
results
are
a
is
of
a
leap.
high
if
back
to
specially
at
of
Construct
this
construct.
anxiety
amount
are
linked
operationalization
bit
the
in
(operationalization).
operationalization
studies
invited
to
not
leap
is
provides
For
was
example,
measured
constructed
various
chair
points
“dgeting”.
the
laboratory
suspecting
started.
anxious
chair.
Are
you
the
The
are,
and
that
hand,
it
hand,
dgeting
is
an
than
objective
Internal
quality
when
may
the
of
the
of
a
a
Also
and
Subjects
asked
to
experiment
anxiety?
the
the
dget
On
On
symptom
the
the
of
in
rst
a
one
other
something
relationship
dgeting
experiment.
that
dgetometer
has
between
to
be
research.
characterizes
confounding
is
you
measure.
empirical
validity
of
be
increased
in
more
readings
anxiety.
and
rationale
the
operationalization
demonstrated
is compared to
the
Internal
variables
have
methodological
validity
been
is
high
controlled
Counterbalancing
and
the
in
advantage
of
repeated
essentially
overcomes
the
measures
compared
inuence
to
of
designs
is
we
IV
the
are
(not
DV
.
(differences
experiment
more
from
between
starts).
reliable.
this
is
that
It
certain
In
other
that
else)
words,
it
was
that
the
change
caused
internal
the
validity
in
change
directly
to
bias:
validity
of
the
the
less
bias,
the
higher
links
the
internal
themselves,
experiment.
Biases
in
the
experiment
participant
the
to
internal
validity)
will
be
discussed
below.
groups
makes
Another
smaller
quite
something
that
(threats
required.
an
a
movements
chair,
already
anxiety
following
quality
the
then
when
ndings
from
coverage
research
be
in
other
the
the
rst
and
empirical
time
experiment
if
is
makes
always
dgetometer,
good
Silence
Music
comparison
the
know,
Music
the
variability
you
study
same
is
an
registers
more
are
As
Condition 2
Silence
Figure 1.4
characterizes
behaviour
Moving
calculates
has
14
of
construct,
construct
research
and
sufcient
wait
Group 2
a
the
construct
validity
by
Group 1
At
constructs.
that
under
as
Operationalization
would
before
quality
their
observable
interpreted
conditions,
1
of
possible.
sequence
note
between
from
the
example,
given
from
two
involves
our
important
Data
These
For
Condition 1
which
by
validity
theoretically
so
people
the
operationalizations.
that
An
it
terms
rst
compared.
▲
When
these
decreases.
Counterbalancing
silence”.
between
will
be
then
comparison
not
groups
conditions
groups
characterize
validity.
phenomenon
overcome
the
to
Their
of
of
studies.
specically,
characterized
Construct
using
generalizability
used
increases.
trial,
To
and
are
second
external
●
that
during
is
trial
credibility
terms
more
experimental
performance
seen,
their
rarely
the
have
overarching
to
comfortable
you
are
External
the
ndings
advantage
sample
sizes
are
external
validity.
validity
in
the
characterizes
experiment.
validity:
population
Population
generalizability
There
are
validity
validity
refers
two
and
to
types
of
of
ecological
the
extent
Q u a n t i t a t i v e
to
which
sample
is
high
ndings
to
the
when
can
target
the
be
generalized
population.
sample
is
from
representative
extent
the
Population
validity
of
R e s e a R c h :
population
and
an
appropriate
is
used.
Ecological
is
validity
refers
extent
to
which
ndings
can
be
the
experiment
to
other
settings
or
links
to
the
articiality
of
an
inverse
and
for
In
highly
experimental
articial.
controlled
subjects
often
that
do
not
nd
themselves
resemble
their
daily
life.
to
in
memory
memorize
experiments
long
validity.
between
To
avoid
internal
bias
variables,
you
and
make
procedures
This
reduces
more
standardized
ecological
lists
of
in
an
attempt
to
validity.
increase
ecological
they
are
trigrams.
you
may
behave
allow
and
more
what
freedom
settings
in
they
how
choose,
but
For
would
mean
that
you
are
losing
control
over
often
some
asked
to
in
this
example,
applied
laboratory
people
situations
be
experimental
validity
experiments
relationship
ecological
confounding
Conversely,
conditions.
studies
situations.
and
It
such
generalized
the
from
from
situations?
to
control
the
ndings
learning
sampling
validity
technique
e x p e R i m e n t
the
There
target
can
everyday
t h e
To
potentially
confounding
variables.
what
Validity
Internal
External
Construct
To what extent
To what extent is the
Population
Ecological
do the operationalizations
change in DV caused by IV?
reflect the construct?
To what extent can the
To what extent can the
findings be generalized
findings be generalized
to the wider population?
to real-life settings?
Generalizability
Credibility
(to theory)
▲
Figure 1.5
Generalizability
Generalizability
(to other people)
(to other situations)
Validity of experiments
Exercise
●
Leaf
on
through
the
approach
of
any
this
biological,
to
book
(consider
cognitive
behaviour),
experimental
or
nd
study
the
units
sociocultural
a
Selection
description
and
analyse
its
Experimenter
construct,
internal
and
external
validity.
History
If
bias
you
feel
you
could
study
that
you
nd
online,
do
not
more
or
have
enough
information
even
read
the
on
detail,
the
original
article.
Demand
Threats to
Maturation
characteristics
●
Present
the
results
of
your
analysis
in
class.
internal
validity
B  r rr: r
Mor tality
Testing effect
 r 
Bias
in
experimental
confounding
factors
research
that
may
comes
in
the
inuence
form
the
of
Regression
cause-
Instrumentation
and-effect
relationship
decreasing
description
internal
of
between
validity.
several
the
Below
common
IV
you
sources
and
will
of
the
to the mean
DV
,
nd
threat
a
to
▲
internal
validity,
based
on
Campbell
Figure 1.6
Sources of threat to internal validity
(1969).
15
1
RE SE AR CH
1.
Selection.
groups
are
M E T H O D O LO G Y
This
not
experiment:
difference,
As
a
occurs
apart
they
result,
if
for
equivalent
we
from
differ
the
in
cannot
some
at
the
planned
some
be
other
sure
if
little
reason
start
the
of
The
the
the
differences
inuence
of
the
IV
between
or
this
naturally
IV-related
control
variable.
measurements
group
(the
occurs
in
groups
other
independent
Testing
effect.
DV
affect
may
not
pairs
designs
completely
in
case
History.
happen
This
to
problem
the
DV
when
or
are
comparison
important
DV
is
the
study.
bias
in
not
group
For
of
begins,
sides
there
is
the
after
of
of
is
a
rst
For
to
the
(and
example,
same
of
the
subsequent)
suppose
effectiveness
in
of
primary
some
and
As
is
B
a
you
video
school
be
They
fact
in
that
and
you
long
it
are
to
are
to
children.
show
Suppose
is
a
outside.
The
their
may
is
be
neutral
you
get
video
on
so
and
taking
the
less
the
Test
the
(on
experiment
coming
site
and
control
of
B.The
A
time
following
(test
time
video
with
naturally
a
at
time
the
second
use
the
specially
time
the
format
anxious.
group
same
A
where
duration.
results:
control)
control
construction
both
test
procedure
measure)
familiar
to
ability
measure
your
the
between
of
more
this
watch
anxiety
an
anxiety
repeat
result
therefore
solution
then
and
anxiety
the
take
self-report
video
test—they
of
a
self-report
may
the
the
conducted
rooms
the
A.
difference
where
memorize
noise
and
the
onset
time
by
participants
from
group
the
a
anxiety
scale
0–100)
road
Before
Test
1
Before
Test
2
is
Experimental
closer
the
sessions).
measurement
second
anxiety
Group
construction
The
the
the
your
designed
a
history-related
different
school.
in
where
experiment
to
at
the
inuence
the
experiment
two
of
especially
experiments
required
in
test
this
preceded
that
become
distributed
(experimental
simultaneously
opposite
course
potentially
example
and
period,
training
a
allocation
events
events
History
memory
are
groups
the
sometime
an
a
in
can
lengthy
words
two
outside
evenly
groups.
in
participants
of
to
outside
they
measured
think
lists
refers
These
using
random.
participants
experiment.
time
be
and
For
2.
assertive.
variable.
measures
reduce
was
no
more
would
reect
investigating
matched
same
but
measurements.
Selection
became
strategy
post4.
experiment
and
counteracting
noise
90
55
90
70
in
(specially
their
room
is
louder.
Since
distracting
noise
can
designed
affect
memory
performance
and
levels
of
Control
were
not
equal
in
the
two
groups,
video)
noise
(neutral
resulting
video)
differences
of
the
IV
(noise).
in
as
To
the
well
DV
as
may
the
counteract
reect
the
confounding
history
as
a
inuence
variable
threat
▲
Table 1.5
to
Analysis
internal
validity
such
confounding
of
reduction
should
be
either
eliminated
or
kept
constant
comparison
groups
(for
example,
change
to
so
that
they
are
both
on
the
same
side
school
Maturation.
of
the
anxiety
testing
that
there
specially
In
the
course
of
the
go
through
such
example,
psychological
assertiveness
measure
training
measure
increase
the
IV
that
16
as
natural
fatigue
suppose
training
in
programme
20
points
is
however,
probably
over
is
a
15-point
anxiety
and
effect
designed
of
video.
repeated
measures
of
school
at
middle
or
school
the
may
a
5.
increase
be
students
the
and
resulting
due
to
You
conduct
months
The
simply
to
students.
several
testing
is
a
special
case
is
of
order
used
to
effects,
control
and
for
it.
growth.
piloting
start,
again.
assertiveness
training)
simply
are
designs
developmental
programme
for
assertiveness
or
you
middle
assertiveness
(the
the
by
effect;
counterbalancing
For
a
experiment
effect
participants
processes,
that
building).
In
3.
reveal
of
the
the
can
the
above
rooms
results
in
due
all
these
variables
the
grew
to
either
fact
up
a
Instrumentation.
instrument
This
measuring
effect
the
between
measurements.
becomes
relevant
an
“instrument
human
are
of
observer.
bullying
on
looking
exposed
to
a
at
when
For
you
occurs
school
different
of
is
are
this
that
often
a
investigating
during
breaks.
students
experimental
the
slightly
psychology
consider
you
campus
groups
when
changes
measurement”
Suppose
two
DV
who
You
are
conditions.
If
Q u a n t i t a t i v e
you
in
observe
the
afternoon
If
group
afternoon,
you
and
miss
observe
break
and
1
one
the
in
you
some
of
other
during
less
because
avoid
this
across
all
the
it
researchers
measurement
be
during
lunch
is
as
a
to
and
would
2
so
the
may
break,
be
To
all
study
Regression
to
the
mean .
This
is
source
of
bias
that
when
the
initial
than
the
this
start
if
of
the
a
(either
more
you
for
purely
low
or
high).
average
have
students.
on
a
you
the
on
the
DV
Extreme
100-point
then
expect
session.
To
put
it
extremely
even
more
they
that
statistically
be
expected.
group
level
time,
with
and
but
are
not
is
less
become
A
a
than
the
of
starting
measurements
without
the
at
Experimental
feel
that
some
participants
a
training
which
may
out
become
dropouts
are
investigating
ethical
“Would
person”
so
is
this
there
a
you
control
group
inuence
is
utilitarian
number
kill
1
group
socially
a
a
is
more
in
that
you
to
save
description
in
the
they
the
can
people
be
of
(note
of
no
experimental
participants
drop
out.
the
be
other
words,
think
the
ethical
nd
characteristics
Note
that
in
may
of
so
be
the
reasons,
that
they
behave
avoid
to
may
demand
used
study
what
have
does
but
not
just
repeated
characteristics
that
behave
to
(however,
below).
post-experimental
strategy
impact).
feel
and
To
out
demand
they
issues—see
using
change
t
various
may
way.
to
experimenter
for
evaluated
characteristics
(this
a
and
purpose
to
to
experiment
deception
true
refers
understand
desirable
raises
results
This
participants
are
a
extent
inuenced
prevent
estimates
measures
larger
their
designs
participants
take
part
in
threat
more
than
one
an
9.
on
the
this
your
type
less
and
out
so
or
likely
to
Experimenter
in
an
which
the
inuence
have
guess
greater
the
of
be
they
research
this
by
aim
two
one
of
This
opportunities
of
the
study.
Hans
bias
was
rats
of
and
were
at
groups
was
situations
study,
exerts
for
discussed
above.
rigorously
Fode
studied
random,
(psychology
to
the
case
rst
performance.
groups
the
refers
unintentionally
results
Rosenthal
experiment
assistants
the
Clever
this
maze-running
into
bias.
researcher
on
the
Existence
supported
You
when
this
gure
example,
In
“one
personally,
that
is
are
give
1000?”
decision-making
involved
There
the
you
involvement.
will
to
happen
consider
demand
experimental
know
confounding
problem
emotion
this
scenarios
emotional
their
personally
of
but
someone
of
In
questionnaires
of
during
Suppose
For
person
the
neutral,
hypothesize
are
the
random.
decision-making.
participants
the
not
at
non-
experimental
that
participants
somehow
to
if
be
disproportionally
subconsciously
can
in
condition
experiment,
is
designing
way
need
the
they
This
will
You
should
point
that
deception
means
to
of
example,
conceal
anxiety
refers
which
characteristics,
control
same
ways
for
would
This
average
drop
a
the
behaviour
because
fact
a
groups.
characteristics .
in
purpose
expects.
probability
is
not
Demand
in
assume
become
anxiety
This
than
such
interpretation.
intervention.
mortality .
which
two
counteract
other
would
demand
7.
to
in
their
probability
will
the
the
the
conditions
the
who
naturally
the
anxious.
reduction
same
we
the
counter-measure
in
way
situation
group
and
we
to
without
less
a
80–100
if
issue,
students
8.
you
session
precisely,
may
training
students
students
even
appears
as
is
students
Even
an
anxious
more
of
training
again.
they
issue
equivalent
scores
in
example,
these
There
were
more
issues
Suppose
reduction
With
anxious
that
trials.
sample
(for
your
anxious
will
a
experiment,
now.
Ethical
become
effectiveness,
anxiety
anxious
to
questionnaire
scale).
extremely
less
that
score
effects
become
its
select
conduct
their
testing
anxiety
test
and
tendency
subsequent
anxiety
largest
measure
that
To
an
students
have
on
designed
administer
of
statistical
groups
the
refuse
out,
methodological
two
(sensitivity)
mortality
have
a
group
drop
group.
by
several
a
reliable
extreme
control
the
that
experimental
presents
even
approved
and
and
possible
an
becomes
score
be
participants
quite
Suppose
so
represented
concern
not
is
in
in
the
it
participation
variable
interesting
would
committee).
equivalent
6.
among
issues;
continue
the
observers.
distress
ethical
to
well:
possible
e x p e R i m e n t
participants
aside,
standardize
as
a
ethics
t h e
create
raises
such
short
lunch
crowded.
try
in
behaviours.
the
much
groups
group
tired
during
break
more
should
and
more
groups
conditions
comparison
morning
important
the
one
observations
accurate
the
might
R e s e a R c h :
Rats
but
students)
(1963).
for
were
the
In
their
split
laboratory
were
“maze-bright”
told
that
and
17
1
RE SE AR CH
the
other
M E T H O D O LO G Y
one
difference
assistants
in
had
standardized
rats
were
learning
be
an
rats,
was
to
follow
on
maze
identical
and
genetic.
a
their
task.
study
results
“maze-dull”
was
was
showed
that
the
rats
signicantly
the
which
so-called
both
of
been
identical
that
from
Rosenthal
told
if
which
Fode
would
of
had
is
from
The
have
assistants
rats
bias
and
experiment.
laboratory
group
designs
introduce
participants
the
and
the
could
the
conducting
double-blind
to
double-blind
information
people
study
in
supposed
with
using
where
withheld
in
performance
conducted
is
this
and
procedure
This
performed
that
Laboratory
rigorous
experimental
tested
the
but
“maze-dull”
ability
been
had
which
not
label.
labelled
worse
Exercise
than
the
ones
concluded
labelled
that
the
“maze-bright”.
result
was
an
It
was
artifact:
it
Once
was
caused
by
experimenter
bias
rather
again
leaf
description
any
genuine
differences
between
the
groups
Post-experiment
investigations
of
any
experimenter
To
bias
was
not
intentional
The
results
were
what
induced
by
handled
it,
in
the
assistants
slightly
for
the
rats.
handled
longer
these
way
For
rats
and
than
laboratory
example,
stress
for
was
realizing
rats
●
If
for
extent
internal
morereduced
“maze-dull”
against
to
was
one
this
of
validity?
credibility
rats.
experimenter
you
more
of
do
not
experimental
the
sources
What
the
have
information
even
of
study
threat
does
it
tell
you
study?
read
the
enough
on
the
original
detail,
study
nd
online,
or
article.
A
●
counter-measure
a
assistants
without
“maze-bright”
so
nd
subtle
about
differences
and
study.
or
to
conscious.
book
revealed
susceptible
that
this
experimental
of
●
rats.
through
than
Present
the
results
of
your
analysis
in
class.
bias
ATL skills: Self-management
Athabasca University has a great learning resource on threats to internal validity. One tutorial consists
of two par ts, where par t 1 is the theoretical background and denitions and par t 2 is a practical
exercise involving the analysis of 36 hypothetical experiments.
If you want to practise identifying potential sources of bias in experiments, you can access the tutorial
here: https://psych.athabascau.ca/open/validity/index.php
the
results,
and
then
model
a
testing
situation
and
Q-r r r
compare
r
is
Quasi-experiments
experiments
not
done
in
that
randomly.
inter-group
meaning
be
groups
at
cannot
sure
the
differences
a
difference
Suppose
test
of
an
in
your
to
school
test
anxiety
two
one
allocation
is
the
of
major
the
hypothesis
You
(anxious
that
This
An
and
a
of
of
be
divide
be
the
by
sample
administer
sample
non-anxious)
in
to
have
line
“anxiety
strictly
For
is
is
that
linked
speaking
we
test
To
“inuence”
this
the
so
high
we
this
DV
we
variable
it
is
not
test
not
Pre-existing
cannot
of
able
able
that
it
is
performance.
to
conclude
performance”,
be
be
differs
anxiety
and
test
be
is
does
that
levels
will
test
study
possible
attention,
inuences
to
in
study.
example,
will
inuences
and
used,
with
that
IV
researcher
only
unstable
attention
bottom
in
are
the
students
the
IV
anxiety
groups.
school
tend
levels)
the
is
The
to
say
but
“anxiety
performance”.
inuences
obvious
to
that
two
However,
anxiety
two
actually
variables.
opportunity
would
that
high
The
accompanied
intuitively
has
manipulate
the
also
we
comparison
anxiety
sure
in
a
because
(it
differences
prex
pre-existing
that
an
really
is
cause-and-effect
is
confounding
is
hypothesis
is
limitation
may
have
students.
groups
anxiety
performance.
performance.
“true”
pre-existing
“Quasi”
study:
variable
from
into
equivalence
questionnaire,
groups
is
made.
unexpected
this
some
used.
design
be
start
performance.
high
way
18
in
of
different
Instead
The
quasi-experimental
cannot
the
difference
“almost”.
inferences
are
test
into
based
on
test
the
experiment
to
would
manipulate
anxiety?
One
randomly
the
be
IV
.
How
example
into
two
hypothesis
required,
is
can
and
true
we
you
splitting
groups
a
so
would
have
manipulate
participants
telling
one
of
the
Q u a n t i t a t i v e
groups
that
college
applications
these
in
they
results
the
should
would
(Note
ethical
creates
that
issues
since
distress
group.
such
it
an
of
their
Anticipation
increase
Then
the
major
many
of
The
anxiety
test
experiment
involves
among
results
today.
probably
experimental
given.
expect
later
can
would
R e s e a R c h :
have
deception
and
participants.)
in
a
internal
examples
of
pre-existing
differences
gender,
cultural
background
and
of
experimental
implies
a
groups
based
quasi-experiment.
“true”
experiment
cannot
be
on
is
impossible
how
do
you
experiments
to
manipulate
manipulate
are
age
conducted
the
or
IV
the
way
they
(for
gender?)
so
quasi-
on
IV
,
resemble
“true”
are
of
the
more
possible
like
(supercially)
experiments,
inferences
correlational
train
come
to
researchers
lower
experiment
(1969)
pretended
subway
to
and
observed
help.
To
if
other
manipulate
were
carrying
a
cane
(the
while
others
were
carrying
a
bottle
condition).
experiments,
conducted
here
the
in
just
like
participants’
researcher
has
eld
natural
no
experiments,
environment,
control
over
the
quasi-
but
(essentially)
IV
occurred
naturally.
Ecological
validity
in
in
natural
terms
Piliavin’s
researchers
subway
condition)
drunk
IV—the
experiments
a
would
some
Natural
are
designed
eld
over
is
example,
justied.
are
a
there
because
but
In
of
control
so
these
(the
it
variables
example
and
the
experiments
less
Sometimes
cane
a
An
to
is
controlled.
higher
occupation.
the
variables
compared
limitation
be
is
are
passengers
Formation
as
Rodin
which
cannot
experiments
confounding
Piliavin,
collapse
age,
variables
The
validity.
in
e x p e R i m e n t
eld
validity
potentially
is
of
laboratory.
study
Other
extraneous
strength
ecological
be
t h e
experiments
is
an
advantage
and
internal
they
validity
is
control
over
a
disadvantage
owing
to
there
being
less
studies.
advantage
be
F r  r
IV
,
used
for
of
confounding
natural
when
it
example,
is
variables.
experiments
unethical
comparing
to
Another
is
that
they
manipulate
rates
of
can
the
development
r
in
Field
life
but
experiments
setting.
since
Type
The
are
researcher
participants
of
conducted
are
experiment
in
a
manipulates
in
their
real-
the
natural
Independent
orphans
stayed
IV
,
setting
in
that
the
manipulate
were
adopted
orphanage.
the
IV
,
all
and
Since
natural
in
those
researchers
experiments
who
do
not
are
quasi-experiments.
variable
Settings
Can
we
infer
causation?
True
laboratory
Manipulated
by
the
researcher
Laboratory
Yes
Manipulated
by
the
researcher
Real-life
Yes
experiment
True
eld
experiment
(but
there
confounding
Natural
experiment
Quasi-experiment
Manipulated
Not
by
the
manipulated;
nature
Real-life
pre-existing
difference
▲
may
be
variables)
No
Laboratory
or
No
real-life
Table 1.6
Exercise
Go
online
and
nd
examples
of
quasi-experiments,
natural
experiments
and
eld
experiments
in
psychology.
19
Quantitative research: correlational studies
Inquiry questions
●
What
does
correlate
●
What
it
mean
with
should
each
be
for
two
variables
●
to
Can
other?
avoided
two
correlating
variables
be
unrelated
in
fact?
when
interpreting
●
Can
correlations?
correlations
show
curvilinear
relationships?
What you will learn in this section
●
What
is
a
Effect
correlation?
Curvilinear
size
Spurious
Statistical
●
signicance
Sampling
relationships
correlations
and
generalizability
in
correlational
studies
●
Limitations
of
correlational
studies
●
Causation
The
third
cannot
be
variable
Credibility
you
are
interested
relationship
studies
are
different
in
that
no
variable
is
manipulated
researcher,
so
causation
cannot
be
or
more
variables
are
a
group
measured
of
and
between
them
is
in
investigating
between
anxiety
and
if
there
is
a
aggressiveness
of
students.
students
For
and
this
you
measure
recruit
anxiety
a
with
self-report
questionnaire
and
aggressiveness
the
through
relationship
studies
inferred.
a
Two
correlational
by
sample
the
in
from
in
experiments
bias
problem
W   rr?
Correlational
and
inferred
observation
during
breaks.
Yo u
get
mathematically
two
scores
for
each
participant:
anxiety
and
quantied.
aggressiveness.
The
way
it
graphically
is
done
can
through
be
illustrated
scatter
plots.
Suppose
values
from
graphically
0
Suppose
to
100.
both
The
represented
with
100
)sixa-y( ssenevisserggA
Correlation
50
Jessica
70
0
100
Anxiety (x-axis)
▲
20
Figure 1.7
Scatter plot
scores
whole
a
can
sample
scatter
take
can
plot.
be
Q u a n t i t a t i v e
Each
dot
person.
the
on
scores
example,
x-axis
is
50
plot
the
The
scatter
obtained
Jessica’s
y-axis
looks
like
a
between
is
two
of
represents
each
each
and
on
of
her
“cloud”
a
space
variables.
is
70
linear
straight
line
that
best
Graphically
a
can
A
the
scatter
In
the
example
Y,
we
probably
and
is
vice
we
a
link
Y
increases,
high
also
that
score
got
the
Y
high
is
inuences
X
X.
variable
score
where
two
that
increases,
on
does
name
we
“co-
not
inuences
All
X,
on
the
variables
correlation
say
between
a
This
from:
cannot
that
X
a
versa.
comes
Remember
say
as
got
s t u d i e s
imply
Y,
know
nor
is
that
them.
is
correlation
coefcient
can
vary
from
−1
to
“cloud”
+1.
in
person
there
correlation
this
tendency:
causation:
relationship
approximates
a
individual
“correlation”
A
a
is
an
relate”.
the
variables.
c o R R e l a t i o n a l
variable
scatter
in
if
that
For
(the
aggressiveness
participants
of
so
you
variables.
whole
two
there
one
give
on
The
the
measure
the
score
of
of
dot
anxiety
coordinate).
two-dimensional
correlation
for
score
coordinate)
(the
plot
coordinates
R e s e a R c h :
The
scatter
plots
below
demonstrate
some
plot.
examples:
because
the
above,
cloud
of
the
correlation
participants
is
is
positive
oblong
and
Positive correlation
Zero correlation
sixa-y
sixa-y
sixa-y
x-axis
▲
A
Negative correlation
Figure 1.8
positive
x-axis
x-axis
Examples of correlations
correlation
demonstrates
the
tendency
Correlation
for
one
variable
to
increase
as
the
other
effect
increases.
A
negative
correlation
inverse
tendency:
when
one
size
Interpretation
(r)
demonstrates
Less
the
coefcient
variable
than
0.10
Negligible
variable
0.10–0.29
increases
steeper
A
the
the
perfect
line
other
line,
variable
the
stronger
correlation
with
the
slope
decreases.
of
of
1
45
(or
the
relationship.
−1)
is
degrees:
a
as
straight
one
0.30–0.49
Medium
0.50
Large
(or
to
zero
that
tells
us
variable
like
a
a
unit,
by
is
a
relationship
fact
X
one
decreases)
close
no
by
exactly
at
scored
about
Graphically
circle
or
a
other
one
line.
between
person
nothing
Y.
the
It
variable
unit.
A
shows
the
two
high
his
or
such
or
there
variables:
low
her
on
is
the
variable
score
scatter
larger
Table 1.7
Eect sizes for correlation coecients
increases
correlation
that
and
variable
▲
increases
Small
The
plots
on
The
is
effect
size
important
coefcient.
are
more
rectangle.
obtained
the
that
by
turn
a
a
zero?
only
is
the
It
parameter
that
In
level
of
other
you
sample
a
will
and
of
statistical
depends
on
this
shows
size
words,
the
the
has
what
replicate
the
that
correlation
signicance
correlation
chance.
different
to
the
interpreting
Statistical
probability
with
not
Another
signicance.
likelihood
is
when
the
study
correlation
sample
been
is
will
size:
e z   
with
The
absolute
(the
number
How
do
There
you
are
Cohen’s
size
of
value
from
know
widely
(1988)
of
−1
if
the
to
a
correlation
1)
is
accepted
in
the
is
social
to
effect
small
guidelines
suggestions
correlations
called
correlation
coefcient
based
interpret
sciences.
or
size.
large?
on
the
effect
small
obtained
has
not
With
samples
been
large
reliable
and
genuine
you
is
a
if
due
it
to
be
more
product
reection
of
a
of
be
is
sure
that
relatively
random
correlation
can
not
cannot
even
obtained
samples
correlation
a
you
correlation,
chance.
estimates
condent
random
relationship
an
large,
are
that
more
the
chance
between
but
the
21
1
RE SE AR CH
two
that
variables
a
is
the
chance
due
to
can
than
been
be
The
obtained
estimated.
that
random
than
population.
has
probability
More
Less
in
correlation
random
The
M E T H O D O LO G Y
the
probability
due
to
Again,
result
are
conventional
considered
to
Notation
Interpretation
points
when
results
signicant”
or
are
not.
p
=
n.s.
Result
is
non-signicant
p
<
.05
Result
is
statistically
chance
5%
5%
signicant
(reliably
different
zero)
Less
than
1%
p
<
.01
Result
is
very
Less
than
0.1%
p
<
.001
Result
is
highly
signicant
signicant
Table 1.8
The
conventional
signicance
if
cut-off
“statistically
there
from
▲
be
the
is
probability
occurrence
is
cut-off
5%.
that
less
point
Whatever
this
than
for
result
5%,
statistical
result
we
is
you
pure
assume
result
obtained,
chance
that
the
from
out
is
statistically
zero
of
same
and
100
so
signicant,
would
independent
target
be
reliably
replicated
samples
different
in
drawn
at
least
from
95
the
population.
TOK
As you see, the nature of knowledge in psychology, just like the other social sciences, is probabilistic. We only know
something with a degree of cer tainty and there is a possibility this knowledge is a product of chance.
How does that compare to the nature of knowledge in other areas such as natural sciences (physics, chemistry,
biology), ethics or indigenous knowledge systems?
What can we do to increase the degree of cer tainty in social sciences (for example, think about replication of studies)?
When
interpreting
correlations
one
needs
to
take
l f rr 
into
account
both
the
effect
size
and
the
level
of
Correlational
statistical
signicance.
signicant,
because
can
be
in
it
does
large
not
If
correlation
mean
samples
signicant
a
that
even
(reliably
it
is
small
different
is
large,
●
correlations
scientists
are
looking
for
from
statistically
As
with
large
effect
have
several
major
limitations.
mentioned,
in
correlations
terms
of
cannot
be
causation
zero).
“The
third
variable
problem”.
There
is
always
signicant
a
correlations
already
interpreted
●
So,
studies
statistically
possibility
that
a
third
variable
exists
that
sizes.
correlates
both
correlation
with
ATL skills: Research
to
a
larger
have
with
between
X
number
more
and
them.
of
criminals.
Y
spa
Is
and
For
explains
example,
salons
there
a
also
the
cities
tend
correlation
Correlations are denoted by the letter r. Below are some
between
the
number
of
criminals
and
the
examples of results of ctitious correlational studies.
number
of
spa
salons?
Yes,
but
once
you
take
See if you can interpret them using your knowledge of
into
account
city,
this
the
third
variable,
the
size
of
the
Cohen’s eect size guidelines and levels of statistical
correlation
becomes
meaningless.
signicance:
●
Curvilinear
relationships .
variables
linked
Sometimes
r = 0.14, p = n.s.
a
famous
are
non-linearly.
Yerkes-Dodson
law
in
For
example,
industrial
r = 0.10, p < .05
psychology
between
states
arousal
that
and
there
is
a
relationship
performance:
performance
r = 0.34, p < .01
increases
a
point.
as
arousal
When
increases,
levels
of
but
arousal
only
surpass
r = 0.61, p < .001
point,
22
performance
begins
to
decrease.
up
to
that
Q u a n t i t a t i v e
Optimal
of
performance
arousal
scatter
are
plot
is
average.
observed
This
can
when
be
seen
R e s e a R c h :
c o R R e l a t i o n a l
levels
population
in
self-selected
the
using
s t u d i e s
random,
stratied,
opportunity
or
sampling.
below.
Generalizability
is
directly
of
linked
representativeness
much
like
ndings
with
of
in
correlational
sampling
the
population
and
sample.
validity
in
research
depends
Again,
this
on
is
experiments.
ecnamrofreP
Correlation
crb  b  rr
rr
Bias
in
level
correlational
of
variable
interpretation
research
can
measurement
of
occur
and
on
on
the
the
level
of
ndings.
Arousal
On
▲
Figure 1.9
Arousal and performance
the
biases
level
may
of
correlational
However,
captured
this
by
correlation
they
best
could
to
at
is
to
scatter
correlational
plot.
a
if
we
nd
a
be
is
Since
linear,
straight
So,
to
only
graph.
are
nd
methods
can
the
coefcients
do
the
relationship
looking
the
inherent
that
were
ts
using
used
arousal
and
to
end
performance,
up
obtaining
is
complex
coefcient.
a
and
curvilinear
we
small
to
correlational
to
linear,
there
Psychological
are
relationships
methods
easily
a
lot
of
reduce
Spurious
study
involves
between
that
correlations .
multiple
some
of
correlations
chance.
the
these
be
the
that
a
a
●
the
level
is
the
one
relationships
of
“The
with
the
probability
If
5%
chance
that
the
is
a
of
is
third
the
relationship
is
biases
issue.
the
biases
are
inherent
The
of
list
in
goes
ndings,
represent
on.
the
potential
between
suspected,
study
possibility
and
random
scatter
variables
researchers
(see
should
plots.
correlation
potential
includes
actually
does
them
explicitly
study
this
variable.
third
problem”.
credible
“third
in
the
if
the
links
Correlational
the
researcher
variables”
research
between
in
in
X
advance
order
and
Y
to
and
Spurious
correlations.
To
increase
credibility,
from
There
is
more
signicant
different
95%.
variable
is
is
of
multiple
an
not
comparisons
should
be
still
with
caution.
Effect
sizes
need
to
be
artifact
considered
and
the
questionnaires
relationships
this
interpreted
a
all
to
observation
variables,
of
interpretation
and
considers
signicant
result
of
an
if
bias.
research
results
zero
become
of
generate
correlations
statistically
that
If
variables,
considerations
above).
●
correlation
the
aware
observation.
Curvilinear
but
research
there
statistically
would
of
example,
medium
variables,
multiple
variables,
Remember
be
various
specic
patterns.
When
calculating
one
to
variables,
not
reality
●
●
For
of
are
would
potentially
between
quantiable
needs
in
they
relationship
sources
correlation
measure
measure
following
probably
and
research.
questionnaires
On
between
to
researcher
best
line
used
measurement
occur
exist
together
with
the
level
of
statistical
in
signicance.
reality.
and
When
only
pick
signicant,
have
we
the
this
picked
calculate
ones
that
increases
spurious
100
correlations
turned
the
out
chance
to
that
be
we
ATL skills: Self-management
correlations.
Go back to the overview table (Table 1.2). Compare and
contrast sampling, generalizability, credibility and bias in
s  rzb 
correlational research with those in experimental research.
rr 
Sampling
are
the
strategies
same
population
is
as
in
in
correlational
experiments.
identied
research
First
depending
the
on
●
In what aspects are the approaches dierent?
●
In what aspects are they the same?
●
Are there any aspects where the ideas are similar but
target
the
aims
of
the terminology diers?
the
study
and
then
a
sample
is
drawn
from
the
23
Qualitative research
Inquiry questions
●
To
what
extent
research
be
can
ndings
from
●
qualitative
generalized?
What
in
are
how
How
can
credibility
of
qualitative
differences
qualitative
research
●
the
be
similarities
quantitative
sampling,
credibility,
research
generalizability
studies
and
approaches
and
and
bias?
ensured?
What you will learn in this section
●
Credibility
in
qualitative
Triangulation:
research
method,
data,
Question
researcher,
order
Sampling
bias
bias
theory
Biased
reporting
Rapport
●
Iterative
Sampling
in
qualitative
Quota
Reexivity:
personal,
sampling
epistemological
Purposive
Credibility
sampling
checks
Theoretical
Thick
sampling
descriptions
Snowball
●
Bias
●
Participant
in
research
questioning
qualitative
sampling
research
Convenience
sampling
bias
●
Acquiescence
Generalizability
in
qualitative
Sample-to-population
Social
desirability
respondent
generalization
bias
Case-to-case
Sensitivity
●
Researcher
bias
questions
bias
eliminating
crb  q rr
all
Credibility
in
of
validity
of
it
you
the
is
have
qualitative
seen,
extent
to
intended
to
experimental
is
the
IV
,
not
in
research
the
test.
the
To
research
anything
an
validity
a
experiment
ensure
we
is
else,
that
to
tests
sure
the
a
the
DV
.
To
do
this,
we
identify
all
the
similar
research
extent
what
validity
make
causes
In
method.
measure
internal
need
do
picture
in
that
it
is
24
variables
and
control
or
by
keeping
them
constant
in
participants.
of
fashion,
related
credibility
to
the
ndings
the
phenomenon
the
study
is
in
qualitative
question,
the
presented,
reect
the
them,
“To
what
reality?”
under
study
If
is
a
true
being
credible.
change
term
“trustworthiness”
is
also
possible
credibility
confounding
them
of
equivalent
experimental
internal
which
is
groups
The
in
=
bias
Leading
As
generalization
transferability
bias
Conrmation
internal
generalization
bias
Theoretical
Dominant
research
bias
either
by
in
qualitative
research.
used
to
denote
Q u a l i t a t i v e
R e s e a R c h
TOK
How do we know if the picture of a phenomenon presented in the ndings from a qualitative study is “true”? If we had a
way to know that, we wouldn’t need a research study in the rst place!
One of the popular denitions of knowledge is “justied true belief ”. A similar problem, however, arises with this
denition: other than through “knowledge”, we do not have a way of establishing if something is true. So, knowledge
depends on truth but truth is a result of knowledge.
To solve this paradox, it has been suggested to substitute “true” in this denition to “beyond reasonable doubt”. So,
to ensure that a qualitative research study is credible we need to demonstrate that its ndings are “true beyond
reasonable doubt”.
How do you understand that? What do you think is “reasonable doubt” in this context?
To
of
ensure
a
that
what
qualitative
measures
can
is
study
be
presented
is
true,
in
the
several
ndings
types
of
taken.
Credibility (trustwor thiness) in qualitative research
Iterative
Triangulation
Rapport
Credibility
Thick
checks
descriptions
Reflexivity
questioning
method
▲
●
data
Figure 1.10
researcher
personal
epistemological
Trustwor thiness
Triangulation.
of
theory
different
This
refers
approaches
interpreting
data.
to
There
to
a
are
the
combination
collecting
several
same
their
and
triangulation
all
of
which
can
be
used
the
credibility
of
a
triangulation.
triangulation.
in
The
use
of
their
combination
can
individual
strengths.
obtained
using
example,
If
limitations
the
same
various
interviews
and
results
methods
and
data
For
these
to
a
variety
example,
interview
if
a
refer
to
clearer
that
example,
This
of
refers
Researchers
are
being
should
honest.
the
researcher
voluntary
should
remind
the
withdraw
participation
and
(for
to
accessible
certain
may
be
right
to
obtained
from
answers
sources.
be
an
in
of
by
biographical
data,
so
that
responses
are
participants
who
are
willing
their
so
triangulation.
name,
this
general
with
little
a
made
no
as
in
good
the
clear
right
or
to
wrong
rapport
participants
behaviour
as
be
are
so
should
that
presence
of
they
the
possible.
Iterative
questioning.
especially
In
those
many
research
involving
sensitive
documented
there
is
a
risk
that
participants
will
on.
As
refers
Undoubtedly,
if
combining
of
different
two
people
data
either
unintentionally
follows
to
observations/interpretations
researchers.
in
there
the
distort
Researcher
should
Observations
studying
and
and
researcher
order
It
that
established
alter
documents,
studied
contribute.
participants
using
during
understanding
experiences.
supported
the
rapport .
about
data,
from
a
participants
participants
projects,
be
data.
reinforce
●
participants’
may
using
to
observations),
participants
documents
gain
to
increases.
triangulation.
from
refers
theories
are
to
Data
the
Establishing
only
credibility
or
compensate
For
their
of
different
ensure
for
credibility
study.
●
methods
This
perspectives
interpret
Method
increases
to
multiple
enhance
this
types
Theory
of
thing,
ndings.
see
intentionally
to
impression
on
ambiguous
answers
topic
later
the
try
while
to
create
researcher.
at
and
the
(lying)
a
Spotting
returning
same
or
certain
time
to
the
rephrasing
25
1
RE SE AR CH
the
M E T H O D O LO G Y
question
deeper
might
insight
help
into
the
researchers
sensitive
to
gain
This
a
behaviour
“thinly”,
phenomenon.
placed
●
Reexivity.
Researchers
should
reect
just
in
a
out
context
possibility
that
their
own
biases
interfered
with
the
observations
Arguably,
due
to
the
qualitative
research
that
of
the
requires
researcher
in
a
certain
degree
of
bias
researchers
identify
the
affected
by
were
ndings
these
affected,
need
that
biases
how.
to
the
There
what
meaningful.
researchers
should
To
provide
reect
they
observe
and
hear
even
if
including
some
do
not
seem
signicant
at
the
of
these
time.
studied
able
descriptions
are
also
terms
referred
are
to
as
“rich”
interchangeable.
been
and
two
these
to
have
most,
are
in
be
unavoidable.
be
might
where,
it
interpretations,
descriptions;
However,
reported
can
the
the
is
that
own
Thick
reality,
be
it
or
details
involvement
can
or
nature
their
of
(who,
making
descriptions
anything
interpretations.
fact,
might
thick
have
context
the
on
circumstances),
the
of
stating
if
they
types
ATL skills: Research
of
To what extent is this similar to the way internal validity
reexivity:
is ensured in experimental research? What are the
epistemological
knowledge
of
the
of
reexivity ,
the
method
strengths
used
to
following
behaviours
however,
they
and
collect
were
should
be
linked
to
dierences?
limitations
data
(“the
observed
…
interpreted
B  q rr
with
In
caution
because
participants
were
quantitative
bias
that
they
were
being
observed
and
have
modied
their
personal
reexivity,
beliefs
researcher
trauma
(“I
was
history
this
of
linked
that
particularly
the
overcoming
could
of
by
trying
my
personal
integral
overcoming
since
I
in
myself
childhood
have
beliefs
been
and
is
researcher
their
have
trauma,
So,
while
types
on
of
and
by
an
Credibility
checks.
This
of
is
a
In
possible,
the
it
potential
completely
variables
and
of
accounted
is
which
bias
inevitable
bias
or
keeping
constant
may
and
research
actually
process
through
types
are
qualitative
research
tool
some
bias
be
in
an
because
data
be
is
the
collected.
avoided,
need
to
this
be
other
reected
for.
of
bias
in
qualitative
research
may
be
crossboth
with
the
researcher
and
the
interviewer”).
participant.
●
with
inuenced
should
independent
groups.
not
part
associated
checked
eliminate
confounding
comparison
Sources
by
to
potentially
approach
the
emphasized
however,
observation
to
expectations
noticed
conversations,
a
and
deal
behaviour”)
all
personal
we
hence
the
might
research
aware
refers
to
Let’s
look
at
the
major
sources
of
bias.
checking
pr  b
accuracy
of
themselves
or
eld
that
data
to
notes
the
read
of
This
is
being
provide
participants
transcripts
observations
of
often
interviewees
and
asking
transcripts
representation
did.
by
or
notes
what
used
receiving
asked
to
an
said
the
with
transcripts
any
people
accurate
(meant)
or
Acquiescence
positive
conrm
interviews
correct
●
interviews
and
are
they
in
of
others
or
should
or
“Thick
just
the
context
the
observed
in
which
description
becomes
who
observed
never
hand.
the
can
For
26
descriptions”.
not
Essentially
phenomenon
be
it
example,
This
refers
behaviour
it
occurred
meaningful
the
boils
in
understood
sufcient
a
to
so
to
to
but
that
an
detail
stranger
also
outsider
so
in
To
focused
by
may
questions
avoid
careful
their
at
they
idea
it
context.
smiled
Social
to
questions
on
the
the
be
bias,
Some
in
by
some
the
researcher’s
researchers
leading
questions,
open-ended,
opinions
give
and
induced
the
ask
to
question.
nature,
or
this
not
desirability
to
think
you.
about)
better
than
make
may
the
or
topics
or
of
is
the
neutral
participant.
of
really
participants’
behave
them
guess
aim
they
intentionally
sensitive
bias
respond
will
Participants
rst-
that
●
tendency
the
describing
and
the
tendency
explaining
itself,
phenomenon
down
holistically
imagine
be
making
clarications.
and
●
of
a
acquiescent
behaviour.
notes
inaccuracies
are
is
whatever
acquiescence
nature
the
bias
answers
(or
the
in
liked
at
least
study
are.
This
especially
way
that
accepted.
have
and
may
unintentionally.
is
a
or
a
try
be
vague
to
Research
vulnerable
look
done
to
into
social
Q u a l i t a t i v e
desirability.
be
phrased
suggests
trick
that
that
about
your
a
To
in
reduce
a
any
answer
researchers
third
friends
participants
person
think
to
this
bias,
questions
non-judgmental
use
(for
way
is
acceptable.
is
to
ask
If
This
from
the
can
do
and
provide
more
honest
to
recognize
possibility
then
be
Dominant
interview
setting
inuences
of
the
respondent
the
others.
“hijack”
Dominant
demonstrating
be
trained
check
and
provided
are
in
voice
a
of
to
time
their
the
make
safe
or
sure
and
the
in
group
Leading
may
or
or
superior
to
a
are
speak
environment
and
question
to
answer
distort
their
subjects.
bias
They
such
to
and
ethical
as
to
build
and
the
questions
to
good
create
to
gradually
on
●
sensitive
often
cause
observer
to
when
should
avoid
to
a
be
and
sure
own
to
in
do
the
may
responses.
trained
be
in
that
Also
they
participant’s
understood
should
Even
follow-up
answer.
they
so.
advance,
questions
the
to
wording
in
these
rigorously
neutral
particular
make
the
them
additional
paraphrasing
Questions
inclined
planned
distortions
suggest
not
one
bias
with
build
absolutely
Question
worded
it
in
the
language.
to
stems
the
example,
asked
but
issues
to
the
sensitivity
of
the
to
to
you
gym
attitude
ones,
ones,
on
and
the
you
positive
inclined
about
your
To
minimize
be
asked
questions
behaviour
be
interview
be
answers
should
to
For
hesitated
probably
membership.
questions
specic
negative
actions.
and
positive
This
tendency
question
sports
responses
participant’s
questions.
and
would
more
general
more
concerns.
to
rst
when
the
human
beliefs
liked
yes,
occurs
following
the
our
the
give
attitudes
bias,
if
you
said
later
clear
if
in
bias
inuence
the
from
consistent
trust,
responsive
order
question
responses
professionally,
being
ask
are
because
questions,
do
to
to
between
To
regarding
while
but
solution
trust
the
account.
research
participants
rapport
behave
increase
into
be
not).
occurs
carefully
open-ended,
response
incorrect
The
researcher.
needs
participant’s
give
a
guidelines
and
of
honestly,
questions
secrets.
condentiality
participant
the
is
researcher
make
tendency
even
hide
participant
participant
the
may
to
problem
each
a
questions
it
another
(or
bias
way
asking
correctly.
responses
information
this
is
regular
with
encourages
is
clarication
should
opinions.
Sensitivity
take
recognized,
interview
certain
Interviewers
in
an
interview
potentially
should
participants
opportunities
the
an
in
in
participant’s
●
is
ndings
questions
researchers
by
respondents
comfortable
of
if
others
Researchers
all
answer
participants
respondents
that
a
responses
assertiveness
equal
and
bias
So
should
sensitive
intimidate
dominant
it
observer.
researchers
answers.
occurs
of
and
subject.
keep
with
their
one
behaviour
talking
knowledge
when
bias
of
human
it,
repeated
the
respondents
●
a
avoiding
corroborate
helps
●
topics
the
“through”
than
trained
Another
what
…?).
disengage
rather
questions
example,
about
collected
should
that
R e s e a R c h
this
before
before
questions
before
questions.
Rrr b
●
●
Conrmation
bias
occurs
when
Sampling
not
researcher
has
a
prior
belief
and
uses
adequate
conrm
in
that
inuence
small
an
belief.
the
way
nuances
behaviour,
unintentional
in
and
attempt
Conrmation
questions
the
are
of
behaviour
or
the
bias
“the
best
t”
selection
may
be
Also
there
who
look
in
that
attended
while
interpreting
supports
the
prior
information
is
disregarded.
Reexivity
is
the
deeply
bias.
that
the
grounded
processing
qualitative
that
it
Conrmation
error
is
research
in
belief
where
terms
of
of
people
the
who
research
are
not
purposes
the
result
are
of
convenience
“professional
sampling.
participants”
for
that
provides
to
take
nancial
part
in
incentives
Although
they
can
be
for
accessed
and
is
such
in
only
of
recruited
easily,
“professional
samples
participants”
consisting
should
be
to
be
with
caution.
a
information
can
opportunities
is
solution
unavoidable
data
For
contradicts
bias
human
largely
is
data.
used
conrmation
sample
research.
while
entirely
it
the
the
non-verbal
attention
quickly
to,
of
the
participation.
Information
when
aims
may
research
observing
the
to
worded,
researcher’s
selectivity
occurs
for
the
example,
research
bias
the
●
Biased
of
the
reporting
study
research
occurs
when
are
not
equally
report.
For
example,
some
ndings
represented
the
in
the
researcher
27
1
RE SE AR CH
might
M E T H O D O LO G Y
choose
evidence
to
that
only
do
not
briey
“t”.
mention
pieces
Reexivity,
of
s  rzb 
integrity
q rr
and
training
counteract
of
researchers
biased
are
the
means
to
Generalization
reporting.
observations.
is
It
a
is
broad
“an
inference
inference
unobserved
based
Beck,
Elsevier).
on
the
from
about
observed”
particular
the
(Polit
and
Bias in qualitative research
Par ticipant bias
2010,
Traditionally
Researcher bias
of
Acquiescence
Confirmation bias
Social desirability
Leading questions bias
debate
and
Dominant respondent
Question order bias
Sensitivity
Sampling bias
qualitative
against
that
of
Biased repor ting
generalizability
between
methods.
generalizability
samples
the
target
are
not
Figure 1.11
To
sum
necessary
Types of bias in qualitative research
beyond
up,
research
need
to
some
may
be
important
With
and
to
to
bias
researcher
paid
to
into
are
the
allow
in
some
the
bias,
special
all
that
words,
most
researcher
say
research
account.
qualitative
incorporating
to
others
two
the
to
research.
study
it
a
and
research
acknowledging
study,
researchers
followed.
to
With
important
to
open-ended
as
well
review
as
in
ask
to
carefully
questions
and
argument
is
achievable,
crafted,
and
of
in
fact
presence
of
biases
is
directly
There
are
other
bias,
generalizability
it
is
and
neutrality.
in
no
less
and
generalizability
of
research
to
be
do
and
not
to
but
some
claim
not
the
that
it
to
in
methods
scholars
a
that
aim
population,
sample
is
applied
population
qualitative
linked
to
research
to
a
certain
quantitative
research
arguments
valid.
study
Some
is
too,
is
apply
other
is
the
population
make
a
generalizability
extent,
in
They
embedded
(sample,
less
scientists
possible
studies.
is
in
setting,
popular,
doubt
principle,
argue
in
a
time,
that
even
that
every
certain
and
so
on),
and
both
generalization
credibility
know,
the
context
The
wider
is
research.
but
indirect
maintain
target
research
representative
ndings
methods
However,
procedure
participant
a
stronger
argument
the
independent
results
for
the
of
particular
you
focus
attention
data
limitations
asking
the
regards
the
to
main
qualitative
As
the
counter-argument
qualitative
“represents”.
qualitative
report
to
purpose
been
quantitative
quantitative
“weak”
ndings
the
of
in
sample
A
of
statistically
requirement
represents.
qualitative
taken
that
of
in
while
triangulation
inuence
be
bias
and
instruments
the
regards
needs
of
eliminated
recognized
Reexivity
reduce
be
types
The
in
population.
representativeness
▲
has
supporters
of
ndings
would
always
include
ndings.
a
degree
other
of
unsubstantiated
scholars
argue
that
speculation.
qualitative
Some
research
is
ATL skills: Thinking and self-management
in
fact
more
generalizable.
The sources of bias in experimental and qualitative
data
obtained
research appear in the table below. See if you can nd
gain
a
deeper
any overlaps and discuss in class.
and
so
make
in
They
qualitative
understanding
more
accurate
claim
studies
of
the
that
allows
rich
us
to
phenomenon
inferences
about
its
nature.
Experimental research
Qualitative research
Selection
Acquiescence bias
History
Social desirability bias
Maturation
Dominant respondent bias
s
In
of
Testing eect
quantitative
the
sample
results
to
a
wider
the
ability
to
population)
is
Researcher bias
ensured
Regression to the mean
Conrmation bias
Experimental mor tality
Leading questions bias
Experimenter bias
Question order bias
through
sampling
has
an
each
equal
sample.
Demand characteristics
representativeness
therefore
Sensitivity bias
generalize
Instrumentation
research,
(and
In
random
member
chance
other
of
of
sampling.
the
being
words,
In
target
population
included
random
random
in
the
sampling
is
Sampling bias
probabilistic.
However,
sampling
in
qualitative
Biased repor ting
research
28
is
non-probabilistic .
These
are
the
Q u a l i t a t i v e
most
commonly
qualitative
used
types
of
sampling
Generalizability
in
research
research.
may
Quota
sampling .
In
quota
sampling
it
many
prior
to
people
which
the
to
start
include
characteristics
of
in
research
the
they
are
and
have.
is
driven
by
the
research
look
for
people
whose
most
likely
Using
provide
researchers
quotas
are
stratied
in
that
various
an
insight
then
met.
recruit
Quota
sampling
both
the
characteristics
proportions
recruitment
in
and
are
participants
is
into
(1993)
types
of
distinguished
generalizability
framework
for
qualitative
Purposive
until
the
1.
to
research
necessary
researcher
population
participant
This
sample
approach
starts
and
representative
sampling.
is
to
by
then
of
sampling
similar
in
of
the
sense
that
participants
this
the
are
advance
and
then
who
researchers
have
these
a
this
is
to
that
target
that
The
use
is
the
sample
is
best
random
used
to
describe
generalizability
“population
validity”
in
(part
main
“external
validity”).
Due
to
the
non-
dened
nature
of
samples
in
qualitative
recruit
research,
participants
generalization .
population.
concept
is
probabilistic
in
a
quantitative
to
of
characteristics
provide
identifying
selects
achieve
The
experiments
quota
between
that
comparing
Sample-to-population
The
pre-dened.
sampling.
theoretical
studies.
sample-to-population
●
or
the
similar
quantitative
the
purposive
generalizable.
strategies,
sampling
important
more
experiences
and
topic.
qualitative
sampling
question—
convenient
would
in
of
t f rzb
three
researchers
quota,
type
This
Firestone
decision
ndings
the
how
sample
should
using
on
is
sampling
decided
research
depend
used—studies
●
of
R e s e a R c h
this
type
of
generalization
is
characteristics.
difcult.
However,
are
not
the
proportions
and
the
sample
size
dened.
2.
Theoretical
is
●
Theoretical
sampling .
This
is
a
special
type
sampling
that
stops
when
the
made
from
theory.
data
saturation
is
reached.
Data
that
no
new
information
is
new
participants
information
added
is
to
“new”
the
or
the
basis
of
a
background
(or
theory:
counterevidence)
for
is
theory
emerges,
the
in
data
this
if
the
saturation
case
is
no
made
is
theoretical
to
the
claims
Snowball
of
of
sampling.
participants
other
interest
This
groups
●
for
the
is
(when
carefully
(for
people
approach
studies
In
this
are
approach
invited
approach
is
easily
of
used
and
are
users,
you
might
or
the
in
just
or
if
In
qualitative
rigorous
analysis
and
is
achieved
interpretation
ndings:
we
can
generalize
to
a
of
wider
data
saturation
provided,
was
achieved,
analysis
was
thick
in-depth
free
very
The
asked
use
simply
on.
Theory
plays
research
a
than
quantitative.
3.
Case-to-case
generalization ,
resources
to
a
to
to
with
reach
members).
different
setting
or
group
context.
transferability
the
researcher
report.
The
ensure
that
so
the
is
of
In
the
and
also
Generalization
people
or
a
qualitative
reader
researcher’s
made
different
research
responsibility
the
known
is
of
of
the
both
research
responsibility
is
to
supercial
sample
because
so
qualitative
to
transferability.
gang
research
and
in
as
research
(for
role
research
difcult
the
biases,
greater
are
research.
most
of
small
thick
descriptions
are
provided
that
that
reader
has
sufcient
information
example,
and
details
about
The
reader’s
the
context
of
the
study.
with
it
is
responsibility
is
to
decide
timewhether
and
construct.
generalization
the
a
also
pilot
in
youth
accessible
conduct
students
who
insufcient
sampling .
where
university
are
who
available
professors
purposes
mostly
drug
Convenience
know
participants)
people
example,
they
there
select
of
make
operationalizations
theory.
in
invite
form
we
reached.
from
much
number
the
leap
of
and
●
takes
the
new
descriptions
data
is
observable
unobservable
theory
Generalization
it
dened
research
the
a
sample.
not
through
evidence
validity:
directly
research
on
to
research
obtained
to
Whether
generalization
construct
from
from
observations
quantitative
saturation
of
means
In
point
theoretical
of
particular
Generalization
of
broader
purposive
generalization .
or
not
the
context
described
in
cost-efcient).
29
1
RE SE AR CH
the
report
(Polit
and
distant
is
M E T H O D O LO G Y
similar
Beck,
to
a
2010).
equivalent
of
new
A
situation
rough
and
transferability
pretty
in
quantitative
“ecological
research
validity”
would
probably
(another
part
of
be
“external
validity”).
ATL skills: Research and self-management
Compare the sampling techniques used in experiments and in qualitative research studies. Use any kind of visual
representation to demonstrate the results of this comparison and present it in class.
How are the three types of generalizability approached in experiments and qualitative research studies? Which of these
do you think are better achieved in qualitative research as compared to experimental research?
Go back to the overview table (Table 1.2) and see if it reects your current knowledge of generalizability.
30
Qualitative research methods
Inquiry questions
●
What
used
is
the
in
range
of
qualitative
●
methods
How
psychology?
be
and
why
chosen
should
over
the
one
qualitative
method
others?
What you will learn in this section
●
●
Observation
Reasons
for
choosing
observation
as
Focus
the
group
Reasons
for
choosing
the
focus
group
method
Limitations
Reexivity
in
●
Types
of
observation:
naturalistic;
covert;
structured
participant
Content
overt
method
steps
of
inductive
content
analysis
versus
Grounded
unstructured;
theory
observation
Case
study
Interview
Reasons
for
Interview
choosing
transcripts
Structured,
the
interview
and
interview
semi-structured
unstructured
notes
are
for
common
reasons
for
choosing
want
your
of
focus
of
the
research
interpret
each
is
on
other’s
how
people
behaviour
it
to
gain
will
these
interpretations
in
a
setting.
For
example,
if
you
an
interview
an
insight
during
probably
actual
and
school
children
in
observe
a
Observation
typical
study
method
a
into
re
the
drill
behaviour
at
be
more
your
meaningful
you
may
understand
a
group
methods
the
research
are
life.
a
Most
lot
about
articial
participant
in
in
other
the
a
sense
specially
it.
that
allows
immersed
almost
strongly
in
the
research
generated
without
because
cannot
it
to
an
responses.
researcher
into
to
the
studied
is
a
even
becoming
strength
because
part
you
experiences.
is
“experiential”
generated
in
data
attention
is
the
the
and
and
process
the
of
product
researcher
data
of
his
interpretations.
is
generation.
or
her
This
makes
meaningful
area
observation,
be
this
rst-hand
involved
reexivity
knowledge
the
deeply
sometimes
Arguably,
Observation
they
constructed
selective
that
conduct
their
All
believes
verbal
to
research
context.
researcher
than
of
gain
school
drill
enrichment
of
everyday
re
analyse
phenomenon,
primary
The
study
a
natural
become
place
case
case
as
and
●
upon
class
the
the
to
observation.
interact,
act
of
classmates
observe
The
choosing
referred
the
school,
method
studies
Reasons
you
several
case
method?
interviews
of
There
are
separate
Limitations
and
obr 
●
group
analysis
Why
●
focus
versus
●
●
the
laboratory
Five
versus
of
observation
cannot
for
articulated.
important.
be
So,
example,
For
especially
example,
if
to
the
main
generate
advantage
diverse
data
of
observation
about
the
is
the
behaviour
ability
of
31
1
RE SE AR CH
participants
major
in
M E T H O D O LO G Y
a
naturally
limitation
reexivity
and
would
other
occurring
be
setting.
susceptibility
methods
of
to
ensuring
ask
The
biases,
be
generalizability
used
of
qualitative
their
research
need
are
terms
and
Participant
observation .
the
becomes
observer
several
type
of
types
chosen
of
observation,
will
credibility,
have
broad
reexivity,
and
the
spend
implications
For
generalizability
culture
of
versus
naturalistic
living
indigenous
ethics.
Laboratory
example,
time
observation
naturally
this,
is
carried
that
purposes
occurring
has
of
not
the
observation
example,
settings,
been
study.
would
in
that
arranged
is,
for
interest
Sometimes
be
the
only
situations
settings
where
for
the
to
occur).
inter-group
the
BBC
with
If
you
is
discrimination
and
would
be
unethical
setting.
to
to
occurring
A
it
may
be
she
of
interest
only
may
of
overt
because
occurs
or
with
ethical
occurs
when
of
one
an
the
the
fact
that
strength
consent,
ethics
as
of
at
participants
but
there
are
of
the
the
be
observed,
their
unintentionally
In
contrast,
checklist
of
to
people
they
does
not
that
observer
is
these
An
is
access
their
the
reasons
advantage
to
agree
to
example,
of
groups
of
his
or
covert
that
do
ethics
not
is
bias—subjects
study.
here
give
One
are
their
so
way
a
In
is
they
avoid
32
the
their
group
is
in
this
especially
in
unstructured
structured
observation
systematically
way.
For
example,
and
in
structured
may
be
conducted
behaviours
of
with
interest
a
where
required
to
note
the
the
occurrence
behaviours
Rosen,
to
or
the
do
pre-dened
and
structured
Cheever
observations
technology
among
school
of
students.
were
equipped
related
to
the
with
use
a
of
checklist
of
technology
a
and
browser,
they
using
had
to
ll
a
telephone,
out
this
and
so
checklist
Unstructured
observations
not
not
have
a
pre-dened
structure
simply
register
and
whatever
violent
they
nd
noteworthy.
Note
avoidance
not
behave
take
this
in
Carrier
research
disadvantage.
consent
to
after
also
realize
topics.
recorded
know
structured
operates
rather
than
text,
which
with
may
be
naturally.
to
say
that
structured
observation
Participants
part
issue
observation
observation
they
is
in
to
is
a
it
is
quantitative
research
method.
However,
the
still
idiographic
debrief
(seeTable1.1).
participants
not
of
sufcient
The
do
observation
would
in
isolated
strength
observed,
or
is
her
numbers
being
there
information,
questionable,
conducted
use
that
are
of
collecting
specic
behaviours
participant
course,
the
members
for
participate
socially
Another
Of
members
versus
intervals.
observers
groups).
because
himself
behaviour.
do
normally
happen
participants
minute-by-minute.
gaining
may
identify
they
on)
presence.
to
intentionally
observation
inform
the
This
participant
know
can
change
covert
about
he
studied
informed
(using
group
the
a
behaviours
researcher
with
observed.
are
Observers
in
if
research
standardized
the
or
the
as
are
(2013)
being
objectivity
methodological
related
When
lose
involved
group.
ethically
Structured
time
expectations.
valuable
include
is
of
limitations—biases
gaining
Overt
being
approach
give
the
with
certain
covert.
are
allow
the
participants
they
this
they
experiences
drawbacks
will
begins
observer
observation
Clearly
that
in
a
aware
too
issue:
information
observation
is
interest,
the
individuals.
researcher
observation.
be
and
of
observe
●
may
Tribe
advantage
it
times.
Observation
of
observer
becomes
sensitive
behaviour
The
study
drawback
time-consuming
example
documentaries
rst-hand
the
that
may
that
great
of
violence
you
violence.
gain
risk
fact
naturally
a
an
their
(for
violence,
encourage
However,
of
study
For
Parry.
observations
to
phenomenon
that
research
to
unethical
behaviour
wanted
Bruce
anthropologists
order
watch
However,
the
of
method
observed
naturalistic
choice
it
in
inside”.
insights.
herself
(for
this
the
a
the
the
In
the
group
arrange
are
for
observation.
or
●
data
out
the
place
a
the
members
the
researcher
to
using
of
many
among
society
participant
Naturalistic
in
part
“from
Amazon
●
to
extensively.
particular
in
prior
to
group.
There
consent
purposes.
credibility
●
and
for
research
so
session
and
rather
than
nomothetic
Q u a l i t a t i v e
R e s e a R c h
m e t h o d s
Exercise
●
Suppose
your
observation
●
Describe
how
observation
aim
is
is
your
you
to
study
method.
would
set
ways
in
What
up
which
type
your
of
destructive
observation
research
procedure
cults
brainwash
would
both
you
in
use
terms
their
and
of
new
members,
and
why?
preparation
and
the
actual
process.
Interview
data
comes
in
the
form
of
an
audio
or
ir w
video
In-depth
interviews
are
one
of
the
most
research
methods
for
several
This
may
into
the
and
be
the
nature
only
of
interpretations.
patterns
of
way
to
subjective
Since
interpretation
get
an
an
and
other
interview
includes
interview
analysed
values,
are
unobservable,
the
way
to
study
participants’
verbal
them
is
to
rely
Interviews
meanings
may
be
are
how
their
of
three
to
understand
attach
view.
achievable
by
In-depth
individual
the
is
a
topic
group
Interviews
too
to
certain
Again,
this
is
are
a
interviewer
interviews
topics
most
other
interviews
sensitive
very
for
personal
can,
such
direct
and
as
experiencing
internet
is
the
and
coping
do,
with
a
daily
and
are
of
learning
interviewee’s
interviewer
as
form
of
At
to
tries
to
as
and
build
and
then
and
carefully
to
follow-up
research
touch
discuss
a
same
It
is
time,
●
rapport
the
instrument.
about
person
it
is
the
behaviour
common
leading
doing
in
training.
This
is
but
why
nuances
the
of
the
in
is
a
xed
asked
in
a
list
xed
when
multiple
the
research
interviewers
and
it
is
they
and
example,
female
all
conduct
allows
some
the
many
sessions
in
a
participants
to
be
comparisons
comparing
participants,
responses
across
age
to
be
from
made
male
groups,
cultures).
Semi-structured
or
a
interviews
particular
like
that
certain
that
he
or
a
set
checklist:
questions
she
of
can
clarications.
it
the
must
ask
If
do
not
questions.
be
an
are
researcher
knows
asked,
beyond
follow-up
better
specify
They
ts
but
questions
the
to
natural
the
conversation,
the
researcher
can
ow
change
the
by
the
question
are
better
order.
suited
Semi-structured
for
smaller
interviews
research
projects,
they
are
also
more
effective
in
studying
the
asking
experiences
of
each
participant.
listening
●
the
main
verbal
For
interviewers
to
useful
This
and
somewhat
to
asking
and
Unstructured
is
determined
may
the
still
to
must
receive
ask
avoid
intensive
interviews
participant-driven,
example,
conversations
interviewers
need
the
interviewer
responses.
everyday
questions,
it.
of
interviewee’s
depending
sequence
The
questions,
interviewer
Tiny
the
the
with
and
that
way.
(for
order
illness,
by
possible
most
involves
interviewed
in
sensitive
related
experiences.
responses
The
and
the
upon
driven
phrased
her
questions.
non-verbal
affect
or
interview,
be
similar
when
use.
engage
carefully
his
of
and
include
unique
neutral
list
interviews
questions
but
participant
coded
research.
research
the
terminal
are
much
opinions
types
the
that
of
goal
the
events
useful
between
routines
drug
techniques
of
of
get
Interviewing
aims
the
methods.
people
interviewee.
phobias,
addiction
contact
often
the
and
later
not
setting.
there
with
are
Structured
across
because
participant
the
essential
●
the
Transcripts
is.
project
directly
data
accompanying
reports.
used
participants
points
line
xed
order.
and
Sometimes
notes,
on
●
●
about
context.
in
questions
the
transcript.
most
on
straightforward
converted
subjective
There
phenomena
subsequently
interview
observations
insight
experiences
attitudes,
is
reasons.
also
●
which
popular
to
qualitative
recording
of
a
previous
has
the
to
by
research
particular
the
one.
keep
Of
in
may
are
every
mostly
next
interviewee’s
course,
mind
and
topic.
interviewees
and
stay
the
up
to
researcher
overall
focused
However,
end
the
question
answer
on
two
getting
purpose
exploring
different
very
different
questions.
33
1
RE SE AR CH
M E T H O D O LO G Y
●
It
Exercise
●
Suppose
is
you
are
interested
in
studying
used
why
teenagers
snowball
join
sampling
10participants.
Would
semi-structured
Focus
or
criminal
techniques
you
use
a
unstructured
groups.
to
groups
sampling
do
you
think
considered
anonymity
and
are
the
in
factors
conducting
gang
are
and
especially
creating
demanding
interview
in
terms
transcripts.
structured,
interview?
Why?
c 
that
need
an
interview
recordings
need
to
be
transcribed
and
to
analysed—but
how
do
you
analyse
a
text
in
with
a
teenage
preserve
You
then
be
to
recruit
Interview
What
difcult
the
of
reasons
more
condentiality.
systematic
and
rigorous
way
while
minimizing
members?
researcher
analysing
as
bias?
texts
inductive
The
widely
produced
content
used
by
approach
participants
analysis ,
or
is
to
known
thematic
F r
analysis.
The
focus
group
is
a
special
type
of
that
is
conducted
simultaneously
group
of
6–10
people.
The
key
factor
is
a
are
encouraged
to
interact
with
and
the
interviewer
serves
as
a
discuss
responses
to
set
themes
react
to
additional
language,
each
data
other’s
because
every
agree
and
statements.
they
use
disagree
themes.
analysis
When
is
to
extracting
the
researcher
has
description
to
maintain
and
a
interpretation
the
sense
these
that
the
text
interpretations
needs
must
to
be
be
interpreted,
backed
up
by
question
This
their
with
recurring
between
evidence
and
of
facilitator.
but
Participants
content
each
in
other
inductive
that
balance
participants
of
with
the
a
goal
semi-structured
derive
interview
The
the
text.
provides
own
each
from
TOK
other,
What is the dierence between induction and deduction?
enrich
each
other’s
perspectives
and
demonstrate
If you do not remember, look it up.
a
variety
can
of
observe
directing
stay
The
opinions.
group
group
focused
focus
dynamics
members’
on
advantages
The
the
of
a
and
facilitator
make
interaction
research
focus
group
use
so
of
that
it
by
they
group
Inductive
(Elo
topic.
include
the
following.
1.
and
content
Kungäs,
Writing
the
transcript:
●
It
is
a
quick
way
to
get
participants
at
information
the
same
It
creates
a
more
environment
ensuring
●
It
is
less
easier
when
than
a
and
respond
are
in
a
to
are
transcripts
Multiple
gestures
interview,
bias.
sensitive
2.
questions
are
the
discussed
so
holistic
understanding
of
the
participant
and
notes
other
are
of
two
steps
types
of
Verbatim
accounts
Reading
raw
the
identifying
said.
about
non-verbal
behaviour.
of
material
initial
start
intonation,
elements
several
themes.
Researchers
Post-modern
the
in
the
times
This
with
is
done
low-level
a
themes,
more
series
post-modern.
participant’s
and
group.
perspectives
There
or
word-for-word
include
iteratively.
●
a
from
comfortable
face-to-face
participant
to
you
natural
follows
time.
everything
●
transcript.
verbatim
transcripts
several
analysis
2008).
topic
trying
to
stay
as
close
to
the
text
as
is
possible.
When
the
rst
reading
is
done,
a
set
of
achieved.
initial
However,
come
the
as
a
there
cost
research
are
for
several
“new”
including
limitations
group
dynamics
that
on
into
the
the
process.
new
If
one
of
the
participants
is
especially
may
distort
themes
the
conform),
to
ensure
freely
34
to
(for
responses
and
that
the
it
example,
is
the
each
if
of
they
the
conversation.
may
be
and
second
may
reading
(and
added.
be
done
revised);
This
independent
is
written
is
done
coders
and
also
several
are
check
the
credibility
of
deriving
used
low-level
other
feel
facilitator’s
participant
The
conrmed
Sometimes
themes
participants
are
identied
dominant,
to
this
is
margins.
themes
times.
●
themes
a
need
responsibility
contributes
from
the
text.
to
3.
Low-level
number
involves
themes
of
are
high-level
an
element
grouped
themes.
of
into
This
a
smaller
grouping
interpretation
on
the
Q u a l i t a t i v e
part
Y
of
and
the
Z
researcher:
belong
to
they
category
need
A.
to
As
a
decide
if
X,
other
researchers
may
be
c 
involved
case
study
process
so
that
results
of
grouping
can
across
researchers.
The
result
of
a
of
analysis
is
a
manageable
set
of
meaningful
units
that
in-depth
group.
You
investigation
might
say
of
that
an
this
denition
because
other
is
research
this
can
also
be
dened
this
way,
and
you
highwould
level
an
a
proper
methods
stage
or
be
not
compared
is
in
individual
the
m e t h o d s
credibility
A
check,
R e s e a R c h
summarize
be
right.
In
fact,
case
studies
can
involve
the
a
variety
of
other
methods
(observations,
transcript.
interviews,
4.
A
summary
lists
all
the
quotations
themes
to
account
of
themes
high-level
lower-level
of
table
themes
from
can
for
also
raw
be
parts
prepared.
emergent
within
the
is
them,
and
transcript.
revised
of
themes,
the
all
slightly
table
the
at
structure
this
that
point
are
our
are
Data
saturation
is
reached
readings
identifying
any
of
the
new
transcript
Finally,
the
conclusions
summary
The
the
a
deepens
or
a
why
research
group
case
method,
combination
of
of
studies
even
other
do
not
study
is
or
group
unique
in
that
is
some
the
way.
object
As
a
of
a
result,
lead
purpose
is
to
gain
a
deep
understanding
of
themes.
are
table.
emergent
reasons
separate
actually
individual
formulated
These
particular
themes
to
individual
or
group.
based
Sampling
is
not
an
issue:
you
are
interested
in
conclusions
this
link
several
a
that
individual
when
●
on
as
are
an
methods.
this
5.
of
anything
still
the
to
on),
are
to
they
case
subsequent
There
referred
though
●
unexplained.
so
understanding
interest.
supporting
The
transcript
The
and
the
theory.
As
particular
case,
not
the
population
this
case
a
“represents”.
credibility
check,
the
results
the
emergent
of
participants
the
analysis
themes
as
may
and
well
be
asked
as
the
shown
to
conrm
●
There
derived
do
interpretations.
The
resulting
analysis
may
be
accompanied
is
get
less
focus
on
generalized,
of
the
in-depth
of
the
case
generalizability.
but
this
is
description
(case-to-case
a
and
and
Findings
by-product
explanation
theoretical
by
generalization).
“memos”
certain
the
that
“thickness”
know,
explain
analysis
to
decisions
of
increases
the
reader
were
how
made,
descriptions
and
why
increasing
(which,
as
●
The
you
case
credibility).
content
observational
analysis
a
comes
participant’s
analysis
data.
in
In
the
this
can
also
case
the
form
behaviour
studied
of
longitudinally.
study
Inductive
is
combination
of
eld
rather
be
applied
raw
than
an
This
is
why
“in-depth
using
methods,
we
a
and
dened
often
a
case
investigation”.
to
material
notes
as
thoroughly,
different
for
describing
What
the
are
the
reasons
preferred
for
choosing
a
case
study
as
method?
interview
First,
case
studies
are
useful
to
investigate
transcripts.
phenomena
If
as
a
a
theory
emerges
“grounded
grounded
opposed
theory
to
prior
from
the
theory”.
“grows
data,
The
out
it
is
name
of”
referred
suggests
empirical
to
that
data
as
beliefs.
For
to
Exercise
example,
and
serial
Find
that
an
example
used
the
as
the
of
interview
was
primary
content
in
this
interview
research
or
focus
analysis
book
or
of
the
a
method.
group
study
focus
was
group
and
What
it?
type
How
organized?
What
can
you
say
about
you
credibility
of
the
not
group
only
get
about
studies
help
in
a
be
studied
that
a
is
hard
chance
studying
it.
and
theory
can
to
the
that
is
you
the
this
new
According
science
If
contradict
develop
theory
succeed,
modied,
otherwise.
to
get
study
access
one
personality
of
(Karl
to
is
“all
to
cannot,
how
swans
the
one
the
needs
be
proper
stands,
rejected
develops.
white”
is
of
that
theory
science
are
the
case
to
Why
principle
Popper),
nd
theory
established
theories.
you
To
but
or
test
need
to
generalizability
try
and
test
contradicts
if
a
thing?
falsication
the
●
good
to
is
(think
case
way
could
killer).
theories
a
it
may
Second,
this
●
you
individual
a
that
and
nd
one
black
swan.
In
a
similar
fashion,
ndings?
universal
theories
of
memory
in
cognitive
35
1
RE SE AR CH
psychology
with
be
or
not
as
tested
unique
individuals
differently,
is
can
unusual
these
M E T H O D O LO G Y
then
by
memory
the
universal
studying
memory
proves
universal
as
we
individuals
abilities.
to
in
function
theory
thought.
If
So,
of
memory
settings
are
interesting,
and
since
they
studies,
we
want
to
study
them
bias
studies
can
nature
be
of
involved.
problem
interacts
and
it
is
so
several
problem
study,
the
with
easier
on.
to
bias
same
the
for
as,
limitations.
due
is
The
to
also
reason:
researcher
the
a
the
for
from
a
of
longitudinal
get
too
and
(other
so
from
the
qualitative
a
long
to
period
become
desirability,
ndings
single
case
especially
of
Generalization
descriptions
researchers,
and
other
case
on).
ethical
research
considerations
in
general,
anonymity
patients
involved
case
fully
other
difcult
cases.
In
of
to
studies
case
studies
informed
consent
because
how
In
terms
of
“informed”
cases
who
and
the
has
gives
like
this
overall
consent.
may
the
anonymity
preserve
it
realize
spouse
terms
damage
exactly.
or
unique
is
in
brain
debatable
is
of
with
obtain
not
demanding
condentiality—it
patient
is
to
and
to
potential
participant
social
generalization
problematic
the
Researcher
might
participant
acquiescence,
population.
thoroughly.
researchers
Participant
for
especially
36
a
the
susceptible
and
have
wider
quite
are
Case
a
thickness
“boundary”
are
in
rare,
to
on
triangulation
Apart
cases
or
depends
be
they
might
document.
this
informed
it
usually
is
of
difcult
a
responsibility
It
is
consent
parent
for
the
Ethics in psychological research
Inquiry questions
●
Since
what
psychology
ethical
is
issues
a
study
does
it
of
living
beings,
●
raise?
How
is
can
not
in
we
decide
what
is
ethical
and
what
psychology?
What you will learn in this section
●
Ethical
considerations
Informed
in
conducting
the
study
●
Ethical
consent
Protection
from
Anonymity
Data
Plagiarism
condentiality
Publication
from
participation
Sharing
Deception
in
reporting
the
results
fabrication
harm
and
Withdrawal
considerations
credit
research
Handling
of
data
sensitive
for
verication
personal
information
Debrieng
Social
Cost-benet
analysis
in
ambiguous
implications
of
reporting
scientic
cases
results
●
Ethics
●
The
committees
●
Ethics
is
because
and
Little
an
it
Albert
integral
is
part
research
animals).
This
of
with
is
The
controversy
one
psychological
living
of
the
beings
the
human
things
Exercise
sciences
from
the
the
the
same
as
the
the
study
study
of
of
human
material
Code
around
the
world
the
activities
of
beings
regulated
by
codes
of
ethics.
Code
Psychological
of
These
be
the
ethical
followed
professional
research.
or
her
Codes
If
principles
all
and
ethics
associations,
content
as
pretty
well
and
the
been
as
there
ethical
much
a
may
Human
is
testing
the
lot
of
(APA)
Ethics
by
and
British
Society
(BPS).
your
the
two
codes
classroom
and
make
highlighting
a
the
poster
main
and
differences:
and
code,
his
APA:
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/.
discontinued.
developed
a
Association
Research
procedures
be
national
of
psychologist’s
breaches
license
have
as
of
counselling,
psychologist
professional
of
aspects
activities:
a
international
are
in
website
codes
similarities
to
the
psychologists
for
outline
on
is
Compare
are
Ethics
objects.
Psychological
All
of
natural
the
not
Burt
that
American
sciences—ethically,
Cyril
research
(humans
Explore
distinguishes
around
experiment
by
psychological
overlap
considerations
in
in
their
psychology
universal.
37
1
RE SE AR CH
M E T H O D O LO G Y
data
Exercise (continued)
with
personal
under
anyone.
data,
the
So,
but
the
the
research
participant
data
stays
agreement.
provides
condential
Participation
in
BPS:
a
study
is
anonymous
if
no
one
can
trace
the
http://beta.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/bpsresults
back
to
a
participant’s
identity
because
code-human-research-ethics-2nd-edition-2014
no
personal
example
online
●
since
free
psychology
is
an
academic
no
counselling),
we
withdraw
want.
also
considerations
break
them
into
related
two
will
to
large
provided.
be
lling
providing
your
participation .
clear
from
to
is
voluntary,
study
must
at
not
an
name.
must
participants
the
Researchers
It
An
out
that,
they
any
are
time
prevent
subject
only
focus
research.
We
●
considerations
in
conducting
●
ethical
considerations
in
reporting
the
to
In
cannot
or
try
to
stay.
many
be
cases
revealed
the
to
true
the
aims
of
the
participants
study
because
the
them
Deception.
study
ethical
withdrawing
will
groups:
●
from
on
convince
ethical
from
been
would
participation
participants
(involving
without
explicitly
their
to
they
IB
survey
made
have
anonymity
Withdrawal
be
Since
of
details
it
would
change
their
behaviour
(for
results.
example,
of
due
deception
methods
to
social
needs
to
deception
is
desirability).
be
used.
part
of
In
the
So
some
a
degree
research
process
(for
e r  
example,
 
The
be
following
list
outlines
the
considerations
to
be
research
in
psychology.
main
addressed
when
conducting
Informed
must
be
consent.
voluntary,
understand
including
they
be
will
used.
the
the
be
should
of
exposed
as
way,
consent.
nature
aims
If
be
hence
the
of
their
and
the
obtained
from
the
in
is
a
study
fully
the
as
will
much
or
Care
any
be
from
harm .
At
all
consent
to
and
an
must
as
monitor
be
used,
be
study
its
it
must
must
used
taken
harm
the
used,
for
in
and
to
it
if
be
time
want
revealed.
state
the
be
of
from
effects
thoughts.
must
after
deprivation
their
participants
help
psychological
be
aims,
They
review
they
must
true
long-term
uncomfortable
some
sleep
to
must
protect
its
stored.
data
including
psychological
the
participants
nature,
opportunity
was
recurring
cases
the
withdraw
deception
participant
legal
times
is
Researchers
minimum.
about
will
given
example,
Protection
deception
After
data
possible
some
guardians.
●
If
such
“informed”
parents
must
to.
clearest
minor,
if
necessary
informed
the
results
tasks
data
provide
name
participant
what
how
and
a
must
fully
how
involvement,
study,
should
possible
in
participants
the
to
Researchers
information
possible
Participation
and
and
the
Debrieng.
be
●
to
observation).
a
●
study
careful
kept
ethical
covert
In
offered
the
study
(for
studies).
during
ATL skills: Self-management
the
study
physical
possible
participants
and
mental
negative
participating
in
a
must
harm.
be
This
long-term
research
protected
from
includes
To memorize shor t lists, it is useful to use acrostics—
consequences
of
phrases in which the rst letter of each word stands for
study.
one of the elements on the list. For example, the ethical
considerations in conducting a study may be combined
●
Anonymity
and
condentiality .
These
two
in the following acrostic:
terms
refer
in
a
are
to
often
slightly
research
used
interchangeably,
different
study
is
things.
but
they
Participation
condential
if
there
can (consent)
is
do (debrieng)
someone
(for
example,
the
researcher)
who
can
cannot (condentiality)
connect
of
a
the
particular
agreement
38
results
of
the
study
participant,
prevent
this
but
to
the
terms
person
from
identity
of
do (deception)
the
sharing
the
e t h i c s
i n
●
p s y c h o l o g i c a l
if
potentially
the
R e s e a R c h
study
can
reveal
scientic
ATL skills (continued)
information
that
will
benet
a
lot
of
people
With (withdrawal)
●
if
par ticipants (protection from harm)
there
can
be
is
no
way
the
conducted
study
without
of
a
phenomenon
relaxing
an
ethical
standard.
Try making such acrostics of your own with other lists
in this unit: threats to internal validity, types of bias in
In
qualitative research, and so on.
all
have
countries
ethics
issues
and
professional
committees
approve
bodies
that
research
of
psychologists
resolve
ambiguous
proposals.
Research
Display the results in your classroom to share with
proposals
with
a
full
description
of
the
aims,
others and gradually you will pick out the ones that are
procedures
and
anticipated
results
are
submitted
most easily memorized.
to
the
when
Very
often
ethical
decisions
prior
to
conducting
committee
research
are
not
easy,
and
a
cost-benet
to
be
conducted.
For
example,
should
not
know
the
for
their
behaviour
to
be
true
more
aim
of
it
in
example,
is
difcult
risk
that
in
to
unique
preserve
participants
harmed.
For
Experiment
participants
imprisoned
could
example,
(Haney,
were
and
to
were
(who
randomly
of
and
in
by
assigned
phenomena
be
compliance,
designed
so
So
can
we
they
make
they
of
the
ethical
Such
decisions
standards
get
the
need
“green
to
that
participant
be
extra
harm
long-term
follow-up
after
is
the
to
cooperate
with
an
study
ethics
itself
a
violation
of
ethics.
Psychology in real life
1973)
If
were
being
participants
of
is
a
Prison
conditions,
role
is
guards).
you
the
want
to
Stanford
explore
this
know
Prison
more
about
Experiment,
website:
http://www.prisonexp.org/.
and
are
prejudice
harmless
to
can
may
also
the
decision
to
for
a
particular
nd
Philip
the
TED
Talk
“The
relax
psychology
some
sure
Failure
Zimbardo’s
participants.
will
obedience,
violence
that
and
provided.
You
rarely
may
physically
Stanford
other
the
as
there
or
Zimbardo,
that
harsh
studies
researchers
condentiality
mentally
believe
cases,
ethically
natural.
Sometimes
famous
dehumanized
such
conformity,
the
kept
and
were
in
get
Banks
led
humiliated
Studies
cases).
the
making
committee
(for
some
the
is
Sometimes
In
useful,
sometimes
minimized
study
research
Then
careful
participants
reviewed.
analysis
light”.
needs
and
potentially
a
ambiguous
study
is
of
evil”
interesting:
study?
https://www.ted.com/talks/
can
be
made
in
some
circumstances,
philip_zimbardo_on_the_
psychology_of_evil.
including:
Research in focus: The Little Alber t experiment
The
Little
John
B
study
in
provided
humans.
with
his
Watson
in
Albert
Watson
dogs
was
to
response.
children
(tears,
reaction
using
to
a
loud
always
to
the
so
a
to
noises
they
So
neutral
classic
at
experiments
a
sound
certain
a
an
a
in
set
out
automatic
little
signs
form
furry
bell),
human
noise,
to
a
fearful
innate,
loud
stimulus,
Pavlovian
of
reaction
a
baby’s
behavioural
he
by
The
conditioning
the
was
out
1920).
classical
stimulus
hear
carried
Rayner,
Pavlov’s
that
display
on).
of
form
certain
was
and
Ivan
observed
When
and
to
(salivating
trying
Watson
reaction
evidence
Similar
response
baby.
experiment
(Watson
a
of
fear
fearful
objects,
▲
Figure 1.12
Little Alber t experiment
techniques.
39
1
RE SE AR CH
M E T H O D O LO G Y
Research in focus (continued)
Their
from
for
participant
a
hospital
the
purposes
baseline
rabbit,
test
was
who
of
with
nine-month-old
the
Albert
masks
a
was
referred
to
experiment.
was
exposed
hair,
cotton,
to
as
During
a
and
rat,
a
Albert
showed
no
fear
in
crawl
dog
and
objects.
During
the
experiment
a
away
even
rat
was
placed
in
front
of
you
can
severe
played
with
it.
Every
time
the
rat,
however,
researchers
hit
baby
a
see,
bar
behind
a
his
very
back
loud
with
a
sound.
and
showed
several
fear.
times,
After
the
the
and
Albert
was
only
his
left
mother
line
show
the
rat
with
signs
the
of
distress,
researcher
in
a
Pavlovian
baby.
cry
pairing
bar
these
was
presented
theory,
and
“succeeded”
In
further
in
trials
furry
a
beard.
the
infant
long-term
To
make
hospital
things
(taken
did
not
leave
away
any
after
the
contact
experiment,
and
Watson
with
planned
never
had
to
carry
the
out
opportunity.
two
the
Albert
newly
returned
a
formed
to
his
daily
phobias,
and
life
with
without
a
set
ever
rat.
why
he
had
them.
would
away.
forming
was
had
he
taken
Albert
crawl
it
a
with
exposed
potential
the
who
shortly
realizing
In
rabbit,
baby
of
away
a
mask
cry
hammer,
Naturally,
steel
of
to
distress,
suspended
So
stimuli
study
and
consequences.
de-sensitization,
cried
sight
Claus
generalized
show
touched
although
producing
the
distress
Albert
details)
steel
the
Santa
actually
would
and
by
the
at
a
He
white
Albert
worse,
he
was
to
detrimental
laboratory
Albert
objects.
other
response
to
these
Little
furry
and
As
objects.
in
other
the
white
wool
fear
infant
“Albert”
What
So,
fear
of
revealed
a
that
How
in
a
are
the
would
more
major
you
form
of
a
ethical
about
ethically
publication.
e r  rr 
go
issues
appropriate
The
journey
matrix
in
this
conducting
with
study?
the
study
way?
from
raw
numbers
for
data
(in
the
quantitative
 r
research
The
following
list
considerations
gives
to
be
the
main
addressed
ethical
when
reporting
of
results.
inevitable
Data
fabrication.
This
is
a
serious
ethical
standards
and
psychologists
may
license
if
they
fabricate
data.
in
already
published
If
results,
want
an
request
error
from
share
raw
should
be
taken
to
correct
it
of
●
an
retraction
of
an
article
Plagiarism.
or
It
is
work
Publication
publication
relative
parties
use
shared
data
names
or
unethical
or
data
credit.
should
as
to
present
one’s
specically
shared
data
parts
set
satised,
provided
ethically
for
and
example,
anonymous
making
(deleting
identiers)
and
only
the
using
accurately
of
all
on
a
reect
the
the
APA
Code
of
that
on
a
if
a
work,
Handling
of
of
the
the
study
as
the
the
rst
author,
co-authored
Ethics
is
research
Researchers
to
data
should
derive
not
for
to
conveyed
how
to
the
results
individual
of
information
research.
obtained
Research
into
in
genetic
student
though
on
human
behaviour,
such
as
his
verication .
the
presented
data
in
twin,
must
or
family
studies,
can
sometimes
or
to
revealing
private
information
to
publication.
withhold
conclusions
personal
refers
states
one
Sharing
This
based
the
even
the
purposes.
participants.
lead
professors
stated
sensitive
are
adoption
listed
the
authors.
publication
student’s
for
of
inuences
primarily
40
and
researcher
own.
Authorship
contributions
example,
used
be
data
entails,
set
other
genetic
●
scientic
analysis,
independent
should
the
This
Handling
her
an
data
information.
be
the
publication
●
For
healthy
replicate
full
and
erratum).
another’s
●
is
is
interpretations
(for
the
example,
It
qualitative
reasonable
responsibly.
measures
to
for
conclusions
is
both
found
decisions,
omissions.
to
and
lose
to
their
text/transcript
inferences
violation
any
of
a
to
intermediate
curiosity
●
or
research)
the
the
individual
person’s
family.
misattributed
In
twin
about
other
Examples
parentage
studies
one
members
may
or
of
include
health
discover
status.
that
he
e t h i c s
or
she
met.
has
a
twin
that
Information
disclosed
of
he
this
accidentally
or
she
sort
has
may
during
i n
developing
never
want
be
by
the
participants
to
in
the
or
in
the
report
of
Social
results.
All
imply
implications
certain
in
the
way
results
should
be
relayed
Such
with
information
care
and
must
sensitivity,
consequences
potential
should
be
the
end
of
are
study,
be
example,
for
some
to
of
mental
may
result
illness
that
example,
and
in
a
to
diagnosis
participants).
lot
of
in
imagine
study
that
the
that
stress
of
and
other
some
disease
the
you
in
the
general.
conducted
supported
Should
scientic
consequences
a
research
members
they
are
for
the
a
idea
Where
it
journal
as
have
risk
Science
report
be
a
that
should
you
narrowly
or
a
more
research
of
social
on
be
is
popular
study,
from
of
a
very
At
the
and
potential
care
and
if
same
of
have
have
been
out
to
(and
must
be
often
be
taken
accurately,
limitations
especially
the
results
turn
meticulous
precisely
this
scientists”)
might
might
later
in
the
society.
sure
may
including
homosexuality
study—there
process,
all
audience
believing
“came
effects
never
results
recognizing
the
it
ndings
inconclusive)
to
that
measurements
false.
family
wider
bluntly
research
a
child.
higher
deep
bias;
a
Stating
(and
can
inaccurate;
reveal
not
single
been
in
a
may
do
at
a
you
a
have
such
change
targets
because
have
time,
all
may
inherited
may
(for
carrying
for
knowledge
hand,
but
society
inherited.
results?
that
statement
of
symptoms
requires
or
is
unknown
expectations
family
now,
presence
depression
This
is
non-scientists?
studies
depressive
self-esteem
perceptions
On
of
unwelcome
change
the
previously
life
and
psychological
related
Some
revealing
study
response
out
information
was
a
way
on
offered.
disorders.
in
the
formulated
time
journal
Handling
must
of
suspected,
monitored
the
may
effects
if
specialized
counselling
not
be
and
publish
after
may
reporting
are
community
homosexuality
subjects
of
Researchers
conclusions
research
detrimental
People
to
For
handled
future.
requirements
scientic
participants.
results.
mind
research
in
the
that.
these
keep
considerations
in
know
debrieng
scientic
session
it
R e s e a R c h
interviews,
●
inferred
p s y c h o l o g i c a l
the
of
the
ndings
are
of
signicance.
Research in focus: The controversy around Cyril Bur t
There
Cyril
is
much
Burt,
a
famous
for
testing.
In
British
for
controversy
British
his
contributions
1942
he
tests
famous
in
the
twins
IQ
he
He
schools.
of
apart.
work
was
In
of
of
one
twins
his
with
results
most
42
showed
reared
place)
very
mental
of
exactly
with
the
responsible
research
His
identical
of
became
intelligence
interpretation
conducted
reared
scores
to
the
who
president
Society.
and
London
studies
identical
that
became
Psychological
administration
ability
about
psychologist
in
much
more
similar
than
that
of
a
the
practice
that
twins
genetic
much
reared
together.
inheritance
greater
role
than
in
He
to
schools
as
1956
Burt’s
the
school
on
belief
and
to
was
policies
that
led
tests
children
the
research
hereditary
standardized
decimal
study
to
the
measure
allocate
them
results.
his
death
found
in
1971
him
the
guilty
of
British
Psychological
publishing
a
series
of
concluded
intelligence
environmental
plays
fraudulent
articles
the
that
and
fabricating
data
to
support
a
theory
intelligence
is
inherited.
The
case
factors
built
on
several
details
that
were
considered
education).
Burt
with
53
reported
pairs
of
on
another
identical
study,
twins
be
highly
where
he
found
a
high
of
the
suspicious.
this
There
was
a
very
unlikely
coincidence
of
raised
the
apart,
in
third
earlier
educational
example,
and
the
an
apart
●
time
for
xed
based
size.
forming
(to
in
non-
to
In
in
using
intelligence
was
(such
of
is
reported
sample
country,
intelligence
correlation
had
smaller
Society
identical
same
he
inuential
After
were
the
that
correlation
same
correlation
coefcient
in
the
two
(0.771)
studies.
between
the
IQ
scores
twins.
This
was
41
1
RE SE AR CH
M E T H O D O LO G Y
Research in focus (continued)
●
Some
factors
inuence
or
that
should
intelligence
childhood
inuences)
unimportant
statistical
theoretically
(such
in
Burt’s
as
were
data
that
mental
illness
or
suspiciously
sets,
almost
Identical
rare
and
twins
at
as
reared
there
that
none
twins
is
not
least
of
time
them
apart
were
using
had
is
only
this
more
an
sets
extremely
three
kind
Burt’s
than
20
pairs
female
collecting
their
are
themselves
collaborators
and
who
processing
data
questions
credibility
of
participants.
two
him
not
be
found,
not
be
traced
their
even
contact
it
was
with
even
are
not
falsied
▲
could
Burt
never
some
re-examined
especially
true
for
where
research
ndings
are
used
to
existed!
scholars
the
Cyril Bur t
that
inform
However,
Figure 1.13
This
could
suspected
settings
people
ethical
if
worked
data
is
and
in
an
intentionally.
these
doubt.
publications
raise
regarding
sample
they
for
Burt’s
deserved
of
case,
and
that
other
of
any
concern,
●
he
benet
of
conclusive,
impossibility.
sample;
studies
at
the
a
In
●
evidence
fraud
claims
have
made
social
(for
example,
educational)
policies.
recently
earlier
and
found
Exercise
At
Go
the
beginning
back
and
methodology
42
of
review
in
this
unit
that
you
came
proposal.
psychology,
what
up
Now
with
that
would
a
you
you
research
are
change
proposal
equipped
in
your
with
related
more
original
to
a
research
knowledge
proposal
and
question.
about
why?
research
BIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO BEHAVIOUR
Topics
●
Introduction
●
The
brain
and
●
behaviour
Hormones
and
Hormones
Localization
behaviour
and
Pheromones
●
Neuroplasticity
Neurotransmitters
and
their
effect
on
Genetics
and
Genes
behaviour
and
behaviour
behaviour
and
behaviour,
genetic
similarities
behaviour
Evolutionary
Techniques
used
to
study
the
brain
●
relation
to
explanations
for
behaviour
in
The
role
of
animal
research
in
understanding
behaviour
human
behaviour
(HL
only)
Introduction
Psychology in real life
of your campaign was no less than “Make Humans
Better ”. The question is, how?
While you are contemplating the scope of the task , note
that elements of Humanborough can be seen in today’s
real-world popular culture. Here are some examples of
lms that were built around the idea of using scientic
knowledge to “make humans better ”.
1.
Limitless (2011) is a lm based on the novel The
Let ’s begin this journey with a thought experiment .
Dark Fields by Alan Glynn. The main character
Imagine you live in a society of knowledge, a city
discovers a pill that allows him to use 100% of
of dreams called Humanborough. It is a society of
his brain potential, becoming a meta-human with
rational people who live to maximize their well-being
superb cognitive abilities.
and happiness and who value knowledge over most
other things. The most prestigious career is that of
2.
a researcher. Crime is rare, and there are no wars.
Lucy (2014): after absorbing special drugs in her
bloodstream the main character gains psychokinetic
People are modest in their material needs. They
abilities and turns into an invincible warrior.
would not buy a new phone if the old one still worked.
3.
Avatar (2009): a special apparatus enables a physically
The most popular pastime is learning (taking online
disabled marine to control the body of his “avatar”—an
courses, attending weekend schools, reading, and
alien life form exploring the planet Pandora.
so on). Of course, this society faces all the regular
human problems: illness and death, disabilities,
4.
interpersonal conicts, jealousy, individuals’ inability
Robocop (1987 and 2014) features a cyborg that is
a blend of a human and a machine. A human brain
to always live up to their potential. Everything
controls the immense power of its mechanical body.
as usual, except people of Humanborough are ready
5.
The Island (2005): a powerful corporation is
to use knowledge as the basis to nd a solution.
growing clones of rich clients to be used for organ
These people have elected you as their leader. They
transplantation.
trust your judgment immensely. Your job is to manage
6.
Transcendence (2014): the main character ’s
research programmes and their applications to
consciousness is uploaded into a computer.
contribute to the well-being of this society. The slogan
43
Psychology in real life (continued)
Can you recall any other lms or ction stories based
If you were to decide on your rst big project as a leader
on similar ideas? Share what you have watched with
of Humanborough, what would it be? You may use the
your classmates.
lms to give you ideas, but you may also be creative. As
you read this unit, you will explore more possibilities.
To what extent do you think these ideas are real?
As
you
know
from
methodology,
of
behaviour
pursues
and
four
prediction
in
order
to
predict,
to
When
research
the
to
you
and
science
you
you
need
need
need
to
goal
to
to
explain
predict
to
be
control.
it
comes
to
explanation,
you
need
We know that behaviour
However, to study them
is influenced by
scientifically, we have to
multiple factors
isolate them one by one
to
▲
identify
a
cause
researchers
of
want
to
inferences
and
a
method.
research
you
to
predict
phenomenon
Identifying
some
behaviour
This
is
means
behaviour
Knowledge
and,
in
the
in
is
long
to
are
of
so
valued
causes
run,
as
allows
control
sciences
consider.
and
any
the
theory
attempt
its
factors.
Some
of
by
a
point
of
whole
system
all
these
factors
directly,
others
indirectly.
its
bigger
time
knowledge
a
a
parts.
whole
reductionism
complex
It
to
may
its
gain
than
the
be
understood
position
understanding
complexity.
sum
It
of
an
by
as
parts.
methodological
to
is
phenomenon
claims
its
of
that
that
the
whole
the
whole
is
parts.
of
can
probably
think
of
a
number
of
examples
inuence
of
behaviour
Holism versus reductionism
explain
the
is
attempts
in
of
to
constituent
Holism
has
Human
multi-determined.
given
inuenced
In
You
various
Figure 2.1
why
reducing
human
complex
at
is
study.
have
that
This
cause-and-effect
experiments
under
we
phenomenon.
make
why
causes
issues
a
Reductionism
study
explanation,
subsequent
one:
explain,
and
Holism
scientic
processes,
Each
previous
in
able
on
is
description,
control.
the
describe
order
1
mental
goals:
and
supersedes
Unit
psychology
holism
and
reductionism
from
various
areas
of
Some
knowledge.
have
immediate
some
So,
to
others
study
various
is
the
effect
that
you
one
kept
variable
are
that
factors
one.
44
taken
we
dilemma
is
to
and
requires
all
other
(eliminated
is:
we
but
to
by
study
factors
inevitably
IB
psychology
inuencing
biological,
example,
how
one
becomes
do
claim
brain.
social
are
human
love
love
the
and
is
a
is
a
and
it?
Clearly,
claims.
the
of
of
truth
lies
one
three
love
are
the
All
of
is
a
the
mental
processing.
these
reducing
its
simple
in
combining
to
would
of
inuence
to
needs
groups:
For
phenomenon—
scientists
information
norms.
love
However,
into
reaction
that
emphasize
reductionist—they
phenomenon
Some
say
factors
sociocultural.
chemical
product
cultural
all
behaviour
would
would
divides
psychological
explain
Others
others
broadly
cognitive
we
that
process,
Yet
inuenced
isolate
therefore
these
account.
experiment
controlled
have
all
experiment
behaviour
of
term.
cause-and-
manipulated
The
long
into
the
allows
simultaneously,
Research
reductionist
be
the
carefully
scientically
by
is
effects
the
holistically
that
and
constant).
multiple
to
the
in
remember,
method
understand
it
need
inferences,
variables
or
as
only
and
manifest
behaviour
factors
However,
effects,
only
of
claims
the
complex
constituents.
all
these
understand
the
parts
before
Experimental
necessity
of
one
The
one
understands
research
because
it
is
often
attempts
the
to
characteristics.
whole.
reductionist
isolate
the
principle
by
of
effect
biological
behaviour
as
approach
a
product
inheritance,
brain
processes
the
in
the
large
variable.
to
of
behaviour
evolution,
structure
body.
It
or
rests
looks
3
at
genetic
chemical
on
the
nervous
Animal
Behaviour
is
the
product
of
from
portion
structure
and
function
of
and
a
endocrine
system
damage
is
how
low
is
is
the
systems).
constructed;
a
structural
system
activity
in
The
for
the
certain
structure
problem.
parts
for
of
The
is
problem
of
the
Note
be
very
abnormal
levels
of
function
mental
example,
the
brain
nervous
that
problem
of
hormones
the
is
in
the
Behaviour
The
idea
colour
but
can
that
are
are
endocrine
genetically
characteristics
inherited
inheritance
perfectionism
is
be
of
or
raises
preference
not
so
obvious.
made
in
the
However,
biological
in
can
be
as
such
also
this
as
a
to
that
research
three
used
in
a
animal
determines
in
some
aspects
of
humans.
This
psychology.
principles
broadly
a
principle
research
principle
would
did
as
as
is
not
not
in
a
above
and
also
is
a
broad
certain
different
is
would
is
its
be
breadth
fundamental
was
make
assume
physiology,
genres
patterns
It
assumption
assumption
well
is
that
guides
nature.
eye
movie
approach:
inherited
genotype
our
the
term
includes
assumption
area.
from
all
What
other
system.
the
not
and
in
true,
any
fundamental
sense
research
sense.
behaviour
biological
its
the
For
to
be
in
that
the
example,
the
approach
if
if
product
to
this
area
we
of
behaviour
meaningless.
of
Can
behaviour
with
This
share
a
objection,
behaviours
we
a
inherited .
such
no
2:
processes.
assumptions
2
our
system,
makes
functional
principle
behaviour
similar
animal
“behaviour”
that
while
a
how
brain
Note
functional
to
nervous
example,
operates;
are
behaviour .
genotype
since
animal
systems
inform
human
the
function
physiology
justies
and
of
from
and
determined.
may
principle
follows
follows
structure
endocrine
of
may
(the
and
the
genetically
research
behaviour,
1
principle
understanding
ancestors,
principles
This
because
extent
large
following
1,
you
name
similar
principles
in
some
other
physical
areas
of
knowledge?
45
2
Localization
Inquiry questions
●
Is
every
brain
●
Is
behaviour
associated
with
a
specic
●
How
●
Are
can
these
brain
centres
be
discovered?
region?
there
a
specialized
psychological
centre
function
in
for
the
every
some
localized
psychological
than
functions
more
others?
brain?
What you will learn in this section
●
Localization
behaviour
of
is
function
associated
is
the
with
idea
a
that
specic
with
every
cortical
region
●
It
rests
on
approach
the
rst
principle
(behaviour
may
of
be
the
the
biological
product
●
Research
Brain
motor
created
cortex
a
map
known
of
as
the
homunculus
opposing
the
idea
of
strict
localization
Lashley:
the
method
of
induced
structure)
brain
●
epilepsy;
and
of
Karl
brain
severe
sensory
brain
structure
in
a
damage
maze;
(there
is
a
in
the
experiments
principle
correlation
of
with
mass
between
rats
action
learning
Cortex
abilities
and
the
percentage
of
cortex
Cerebellum
removed,
Limbic
cells),
system
cortex
Brain
can
of
these
structures
structures
is
functions,
but
associated
and
with
sub-
the
term
implies
mild
localization
part);
There
needs
supporting
studies
damage
to
a
strict
showed
very
demonstrate
removed
of
functions
the
of
a
localization
that
specic
very
conclusion—memory
rather
than
to
be
a
is
localized
converging
neuroscience
functions
a
person
brain
specic
it
admits
under
outlines
position;
supports
relative
localization
some
limits
for
conditions,
of
some
but
it
also
localization
with
area
may
malfunction
●
Relativity
of
localization:
the
split-brain
study
Gazzaniga
Broca
“Tan”;
the
(1861):
Broca’s
loss
of
area
the
and
articulated
case
study
Broca’s
of
research
aphasia—
speech
case
of
Carl
Wernicke
Wernicke’s
language
same
time
(1874):
aphasia—a
Wernicke’s
general
comprehension,
speech
is
localization;
are
at
the
intact
◆
The
Peneld
used
stimulation
in
the
method
treating
Sperry
(1968):
the
language
left
special
is
mostly
hemisphere,
but
exceptions
right
“pencil”:
hemisphere
the
from
patients
left
simple
patient
behind
of
the
neural
in
comprehend
pencil
Wilder
and
lateralization—a
area,
impairment
while
production
(1967)
into
lateralized
there
46
the
of
part
behaviour
Paul
of
over
(one
only
clearly
in
location
with”
localization:
Early
the
certain
“associated
currently,
Research
take
distributed
●
●
not
stem
another
Each
but
equipotentiality
hand
can
words
such
correctly
the
screen
as
picks
with
a
L o c a L i z a t i o n
◆
The
right
words
from
hemisphere
such
as
person
can
“love”,
to
spell
but
this
simple
◆
Some
functions
◆
Some
components
Visuospatial
◆
widely
distributed
of
a
function
may
person
be
◆
are
differs
abilities
controlled
by
the
Emotional
responses
are
right
better
of
hemisphere
are
not
localized
◆
lateralized
while
the
same
inthe
brain
other
components
functionare
Localization
is
not
distributed
static
(neuroplasticity)
●
Conclusions
Some
functions
damage
will
are
lead
to
localized,
a
loss
of
and
brain
This
●
Localization
is
limited
in
section
also
links
to:
function
the
following
Sharot
et
al
(cognitive
(2007)
ashbulb
approach
to
memory
behaviour)
ways
●
◆
Some
that
functions
is,
several
are
localized
brain
areas
weakly,
for
it
but
some
may
and
Kanwisher
(developmental
(2003)
theory
of
mind
psychology)
be
●
responsible
Saxe
areas
neuroplasticity,
Maguire
et
al
(2000).
are
dominant
The
rst
principle
behaviour
product
the
It
of
is
of
the
very
biological
behaviour
approach
may
structure —but
between
patterns
be
what
of
The
to
major
to
(speech,
assume
that
attention,
exactly
and
in
is
behaviour
●
cortex
●
cerebellum
●
limbic
●
brain
and
every
aggression,
so
on)
has
its
specic
brain
area.
and
This
cortex
associated
with
a
idea
Of
is
known
course,
brain
centre
it
as
is
centres
for
hope,
for
a
be
nearly
brain
enjoyment,
a
this
brain
has
Understanding
localization
We
will
that
and
with.
Then
is
briey
have
brain
some
theory
rst
you
centre
been
handy
the
an
for
if
consider
about
functions
but
will
they
look
at
with
a
folded
covering
part
of
the
the
brain
human
on
the
brain
outside.
It
associated
is
the
with
functions
action.
partially.
limitations
developed
four
the
brain
the
major
have
the
sections
●
of
The
frontal
planning,
latest.
called
structure
areas
been
of
so
●
The
action,
parietal
orientation,
the
lobes
thinking
voluntary
several
such
as
abstract
Evolutionarily,
this
thought
part
of
or
the
The
cortex
is
divided
“lobes”.
behaviour.
only
are
associated
and
complex
lobe
is
with
reasoning,
decision-making,
emotions,
associated
perception
and
with
and
so
on.
movement,
recognition.
associated
●
we
neurons
we
necessary.
idea
of
for
criminal
important
layer
everything—
centre
achieved,
the
localization
would
into
Partially
the:
certain
brain
brain
are
stem.
voluntary
a
brain
system
higher-order
function.
discovered
human
place
largest
of
the
hunger,
surface
brain
of
is
The
embarrassment,
the
parts
the
brain?
tempting
behaviour
the
that
brain
connection
parts
of
implies
studies
The
occipital
lobe
is
associated
with
visual
that
processing.
support
the
idea
of
localization,
but
also
show
its
●
limitations.
The
temporal
processing
lobes
auditory
are
associated
information,
with
memory
and
speech.
Br srre
Note
The
nervous
system
is
a
system
of
mild
cells
that
perform
the
function
of
that
we
say
form
of
localization;
the
body.
The
central
nervous
system
consists
spinal
cord
and
the
is,
this
the
implies
lobe
has
a
been
to
be
involved
in
a
certain
function,
of
but
the
with”:
that
communication
demonstrated
in
“associated
neurons—
it
is
not
necessarily
the
only
brain
structure
brain
that
inuences
the
function.
For
example,
47
2
BI O LO GI C A L
although
temporal
processes,
role
in
APPROACH
a
lot
of
memory
lobes
other
TO
are
BE H AV IO U R
involved
brain
regions
in
memory
play
their
too.
The
brain
and
its
vital
is
a
deep
furrow
along
the
cortex
it
into
structure
the
of
left
and
hemispheres
neurons
right
is
known
that
as
such
brain
is
as
to
to
the
breathing
the
limbic
regulate
spinal
the
or
system
basic
heartbeat.
cord.
This
It
part
brain
is
very
much
like
the
entire
of
brain
hemispheres .
connects
the
the
human
found
A
underneath
that
the
divides
is
function
processes
connects
There
stem
main
these
corpus
in
lower
animals
such
as
reptiles.
two
callosum
Exercise
Frontal lobe
Parietal lobe
There
Occipital lobe
take
for
are
you
“brain
provide
to
The
cerebellum
because
it
hemispheres
with
The
subcortical
to
as
the
The
of
system
of
thalamus
from
is
an
to
It
has
a
the
got
the
surface.
this
cortex:
It
is
The
and
is
brain
and
are
as
all
nal
has
app
called
the
3DBrain.
app
and
apps
An
You
may
explore.
Android:
https://tinyurl.com/llrd9
two
Apple:
older
it
thirst
https://tinyurl.com/ac5bwf6
several
follows.
sensory
sensory
“hub”
functions.
organs
before
reach
they
are
cortex.
is
“below”
the
thalamus
were
is
involved
and
in
such
functions
all
and
amygdala
and
fear.
is
connections
psychological
between
functions
brain
established?
as
a
certain
brain
area
directly
and
exclusively
hunger.
correspond
The
these
in
Does
●
the
Many
models.
referred
includes
mostly
hypothalamus
emotion,
is
that
balance.
sometimes
It
it
areas
the
map”.
apps
Search
name
How
●
“brain
even
tour.
associated
evolutionarily
which
as
like
brain”.
almost
thalamus
connected
brain”)
movement
structure.
some
Nerves
the
folded
“emotional
structures,
●
a
coordination
limbic
little
somewhat
and
or
and
brain
Sections of the cor tex
(“the
looks
atlas”
download
3DBrain
Figure 2.2
websites
human
Cerebellum
Temporal lobe
▲
a
three-dimensional
example
want
many
on
involved
in
memory,
emotion
all
of
the
to
hidden
function
a
certain
nuances
you
need
function?
of
to
the
look
To
understand
theory
at
of
how
localization
research
is
organized.
●
The
hippocampus
functions
as
short-term
is
learning,
memory
important
memory
to
a
more
for
and
such
transferring
permanent
store,
Reser sppr g sr ll
spatial
orientation.
The
rst
research
psychologists
to
studies
that
investigate
inspired
the
idea
of
strict
Limbic cor tex
localization
patients
of
with
showed
that
function
brain
a
were
damage.
person
with
performed
Some
of
damage
with
these
to
a
studies
very
Thalamus
Hypothalamus
specic
brain
area
may
demonstrate
a
very
specic
Hippocampus
malfunction
discoveries
in
in
behaviour.
this
sphere
One
was
of
the
the
earliest
discovery
of
a
Amygdala
speech
▲
48
Figure 2.3
The limbic system
study
centre
of
by
“Tan”.
Paul
Broca
(1861)
in
the
case
L o c a L i z a t i o n
Case study: Louis Leborgne (“T
an”)
Louis
Leborgne,
lost
the
ability
Tan
developed
surgery
Broca,
in
which
a
typically
his
the
he
to
His
death.
only
51,
and
the
it
an
Broca
autopsy
was
the
speech
of
He
same
his
he
in
about
described
problem
is
just
and
same
write)
until
was
was
asked
intact,
and
couldn’t
Tan
brain
died,
was
the
(the
Figure 2.4
Broca’s area
at
gyrus.
the
carried
frontal
a
▲
Figure 2.5
Tan’s brain
which
loss
of
age
out
area
of
region
in
This
region
the
is
area
rushing
25
to
publish
additional
before
nally
controlled
by
his
patients
asserting
the
left
that
frontal
lobe.
Tan’s
brain
Broca)
with
out
was
the
that
(which
because
the
area
responsible
for
articulate
use
the
more
complex
than
we
would
like
carefully
of
modern
lesion
by
had
Broca.
decided
to
more
preserved
by
than
100
years
technology,
and
it
actually
He
did
been
not
preserve
broader
notice
the
brain
later
turned
this
than
detail
intact
speech
rather
be
he
was
re-examined
documented
However,
may
▲
tried
utter
condition,
aphasia
particular
Broca’s
articulation
was
Tan’s
in
frontal
cautious
the
He
“tan”.
lesion
inferior
conclusions.
with
a
he
When
hemisphere,
as
…
only
hand
intelligence
Broca’s
speech).
known
his
described
as
revealed
posterior
now
back
than
the
expressive
(or
for
Paul
pronounce.
speak
Later,
specialized
was
remained
to
by
(“tan-tan”)
quite
everything
other
known
left
twice
“Tan”,
30.
admitted
also
“tan”
could
malfunction:
articulated
of
it
with
was
who
time
inability
carefully
now
be
physician
that
communicate
Broca
to
condition
understood
anything
is
it
His
as
was
performed
repeated
gestures.
he
was
Leborgne
accompanied
known
when
and
By
that
better
speak
gangrene
French
language.
syllable
now
to
to
than
dissecting
it.
think.
ATL skills: Thinking and research
There are some details about Broca’s research that may make you wonder about his methods.
●
With a discovery of such signicance for its time, why didn’t Broca rush to publish the ndings and asser t the
existence of a brain centre for speech ar ticulation? Why was one case not enough? What do you think is the
signicance of corroborating your ndings by additional research in human sciences, and how does that compare to
natural sciences?
●
Broca did not cut Tan’s brain open, so did not notice some lesions inside it. If you were Broca, would you make the
same decision and preserve the brain for later generations rather than dissecting it and studying it yourself ?
Broca’s
that
nding
other
specic
brain
discovered
was
functions
by
areas.
Carl
inspiring.
can
also
It
suggested
located
mapped
hemisphere
be
Wernicke’s
Wernicke
in
area
1874.
onto
was
It
is
in
the
individuals).
an
area
temporal
(which
is
lobe
the
Wernicke’s
comprehension
of
of
left
area
written
the
dominant
hemisphere
is
and
for
responsible
spoken
most
for
the
language.
49
2
BI O LO GI C A L
People
with
Wernicke’s
impairment
the
same
result,
and
APPROACH
of
time
when
natural,
language
speech
they
but
TO
BE H AV IO U R
aphasia
production
speak
what
have
a
general
comprehension,
they
they
is
intact.
sound
say
is
while
in
As
really
fact
at
a
uent
largely
meaningless.
One
patient
is
This
●
has
used:
occurring
autopsy
a
research
they
naturally
brain
method
naturally
or
●
a
between
method
after
number
of
of
Broca
studying
brain
the
and
a
lesion
patient’s
drawbacks,
and
death.
including
following.
A
area
the
with
conducting
the
Wernicke’s
commonality
Wernicke
As
conned
cynical
until
the
occurring
to
as
a
brain
specic
this
patient
lesion
is
rarely
neat
area.
sounds,
you
have
to
wait
dies.
ATL skills: Communication
Broca’s area
In small groups, discuss the following question: what
alternative methods can you suggest that would not
involve waiting for the patient to die to conduct an
autopsy?
Remember about ethics of research in psychology!
As a large group, discuss the relative pros and cons of
▲
Figure 2.6
Areas of the brain discovered by Broca
the alternative methods you suggested.
and Wernicke
See de
Patients
be
with
recorded.
aphasias
Videos
sometimes
of
interviews
agree
with
speech
to
therapy.
these
Wernicke’s
patients
can
befound
online,
and
these
survivor,
you
a
good
insight
into
the
nature
of
aphasia:
Byron
Peterson,
a
stroke
give
can
be
seen
at:
the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oef68YabD0
malfunction.
may
want
their
tosee.
two
Note
examples
that
aphasias
that
you
differ
in
severity.
Broca’s
aphasia:
developed
she
Hereare
Sarah
Broca’s
suffered
a
Scott
aphasia
stroke
at
after
age
18.
https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=1aplTvEQ6ew.
can
also
Mapping
scale
by
search
of
brain
Wilder
neurosurgeon.
stimulation.
patients
cells
the
with
that
parts
of
the
conscious,
50
functions
He
As
used
part
severe
and
was
while
observe
on
his
work
by
would
the
the
a
a
larger
Canadian
methodof neural
seizure.
he
done
(1891–1976),
the
of
that
epilepsy
the
though,
brain
You
videos
Peneld
initiated
surgery,
for
he
was
treating
destroying
Before
stimulate
patient
effects
nerve
conducting
was
this
various
still
stimulation
had
on
map
of
behaviour.
the
cortical
an
and
allowed
motor
homunculus.
original
shows
This
sensory
the
of
the
in
Figure
model
of
relative
body
in
2.7,
lips
are
very
the
human
the
cortical
body
body
widely
cortex.
parts
to
as
represented
of
create
known
the
brain:
various
As
you
hands,
in
a
as
the
homunculus
within
representation
sensory
such
brain.
the
The
him
cortex
the
is
it
parts
can
see
tongue
cortex
of
and
L o c a L i z a t i o n
an
area
rat
change
of
from
back
the
50%.
at
in
cortex.
start
in
idea
was
somewhere,
will
in
turned
own
was
initial
cortex
to
be
a
The
of
principle
cortex
less
learning.
The
deterioration
cortex
Figure 2.7
of
key
destroyed
idea
it.
This
that
here
not
is
the
on
search
observations.
on
a
percentage
The
inefcient
that
the
performance
percentage
the
his
a
abilities.
more
after
specic
memory
based
the
learning
and
on
area
the
to
is
abandoned
following
action
10%
maze
localized;
between
and
but
for
Lashley
concluded
the
depends
the
pinpoint
than
slower
of
the
the
portions
from
removing
to
mass
observed
the
by
so
He
by
varying
memory
able
place
register
ranging
responsible
removed
cortex,
rats,
if
rather
would
and
removed
failure,
supported
correlation
he
maze
then
be
hypothesis.
distributed
conclusion
●
nally
the
out
He
that
area
you
Then
the
different
localized
region
▲
of
behaviour.
cortex
The
the
the
location
of
of
the
2D representation of the cor tical homunculus
destroyed
●
cells.
Equipotentiality—this
refers
of
to
one
part
functions
These
of
of
the
another
observations
memory
is
widely
is
it
shown
has
been
led
mostly
uniformly)
part
that
the
to
ability
the
cortex.
the
today.
memory
in
the
over
conclude
across
supported
distributed
to
take
of
Lashley
distributed
conclusion
(and
cortex
is
the
not
that
cortex.
This
However,
as
cortex
evenly
as
Lashley
thought.
ATL skills: Thinking
To what extent would you say Lashley’s research was
ethically justied? Induced brain damage is a very
invasive technique and the research design required the
▲
Figure 2.8
3D representation of
use of many rats.
the cor tical homunculus
Conduct a cost-benet analysis: list the costs as well as
All
these
Peneld)
directly
might
are
discoveries
suggest
(by
that
strictly
to
Wernicke
psychological
corresponding
want
Broca,
regions
conclude
that
localized—but
it
in
functions
the
brain.
psychological
is
not
that
potential benets of this research study. If you were a
and
have
member of the ethics committee, would you approve it?
We
functions
simple.
Reser ppsg e de f sr
ll
Karl
Lashley
measuring
carefully
cortex
rat
of
to
of
controlled
rats.
run
food.
(1890–1958)
behaviour
In
a
through
After
before
used
and
induced
typical
a
maze
learning
the
brain
study
he
without
occurred,
technique
after
a
damage
would
errors
he
of
specic
in
train
in
would
the
a
search
remove
▲
Figure 2.9
Karl Lashley
51
2
BI O LO GI C A L
To
some
extent
APPROACH
the
TO
difference
BE H AV IO U R
in
the
two
extreme
ATL skills: Thinking and self-management
positions
and
be
(the
Peneld
versus
explained
studies.
from
localizationism
by
the
the
holism
methods
Localizationists
brain
damage.
running
behaviour.
through
a
maze
behaviour
that
functions,
so
it
is
of
itself
on
Lashley)
used
in
aphasia
a
learning
highly
involves
motor
may
be
not
Wernicke
investigated
However,
in
of
they
relied
Holists
Broca,
may
First, it recreates some of the thrill of scientic discovery
their
resulting
against what is expected based on common sense—but
run
this makes these ndings even more valuable because
complex
and
suitable
that the researchers experienced. Second, some of the
ndings in psychology are counter-intuitive, as they go
maze-
to
There is a lot of fun in trying to guess the results of a study.
they uncover our own biases and misconceptions.
sensory
enough
for
the
Try to guess what happens to a person’s behaviour and
study
of
localization.
mental processes when the link between hemispheres is
There
a
needs
more
brain.
to
be
accurate
functions
outlines
Before
it
we
of
some
of
position
that
localization
neuroscience
admits
under
limits
converging
reection
Currently,
localization:
a
supports
localization
conditions,
for
but
in
is
the
relative
some
it
also
these
Note that this is a useful exercise to be used throughout
the book . When you encounter an interesting study and
learn about its aims and procedure, close the book for a
clearly
localization.
formulate
severed.
second and try to predict the ndings. This will also help
you remember material better.
limits
let’s
look
Initial
at
another
research
study
that
to
relativity
of
localization
localization
split-brain
and
of
function
distribution
research
by
observations
at
the
Gazzaniga
(that
same
be
remarkably
that
unaffected
by
patients
the
seemed
surgery.
There
is,
was
no
change
and
one
in
their
personality
and
intelligence,
time):
(1967)
of
the
patients
on
awakening
from
the
and
surgery
Sperry
showed
demonstrates
joked
that
he
had
a
“splitting
headache”
(1968).
and
recited
a
The
authors
tongue-twister.
devised
a
technique
where
the
Rel f ll: e spl-br
participant
reser
It
has
to
be
research
noted
into
functions
the
at
that
studies
lateralization—the
between
cortex.
split-brain
the
two
Lateralization
division
hemispheres
is
a
represent
special
are
of
and
localization.
the
Research
in
this
area
was
pioneered
by
Initially,
for
the
studies
example,
were
opportunity
humans
that
emerged
surgically
effective
Michael
published
had
it
seizures.
of
patients.
undergone
this
the
was
corpus
against
conducted
the
and
rst
Four
studies
middle
the
the
for
in
versa.
visual
eld
it.
a
Visual
of
eld
to
a
second
far
from
right
the
researcher
and
stimuli
(the
the
presenting
the
board
nerves
brain
by
of
tenth
visual
Optic
our
So,
of
one
right
board).
front
the
to
of
callosum
thoroughly
over
a
1967
research
ten
The
“sends
it”
hemisphere,
and
stimuli
from
the
goes
objects
to
the
were
left
hemisphere.
participants
placed
could
feel
behind
them
was
Also,
the
a
with
screen
of
the
long
lateralization
have
52
study
and
uniquely
to
to
the
visual
variety
their
so
was
an
joined
with
by
RING
KEY
human
patients
time
were
who
that
period
time
examined
with
various
were
see
different
if
to
the
test
two
functions.
the
theory
L . hand
KEY
of
hemispheres
▲
Figure 2.10
The test used in Sperry and
Gazzaniga’s split-brain research
that
hands.
with
RING
aims
to
right
Gazzaniga
procedure
patients
far
eye
hemisphere,
stimulus
tests.
The
or
with
with
epilepsy
Sperry
in
the
surgical
participate.
either
left
Ring
agreed
look
would
left
discovered
severe
Roger
Gazzaniga,
results
split-brain
replicate
cutting
or
in
cats.
when
measure
uncontrollable
by
to
the
sit
Roger
of
An
on
left
to
presented
left
vice
eld
animals,
in
connected
right
Sperry.
dot
be
the
right
of
case
then
to
of
the
had
L o c a L i z a t i o n
Here
with
are
some
results
split-brain
obtained
in
a
typical
placed
test
his
●
When
shown
the
four
screen,
patients.
picture
of
a
spoon
left
left
visual
hand
eld
(connected
to
the
and
asked
to
name
or
Of
they
saw,
the
patients
said
when
asked
to
pick
a
from
screen,
(with
by
they
their
the
a
centre
the
of
patients
and
objects
around
hand,
they
and
saw
the
were
is
in
unable
they
did.
to
is
spoon
could
what
The
language
in
the
left
not
This
after
able
shows
capable
simplest
it
from
but
the
so
they
four
the
saw
left
person
this
of
was
the
“love”
simply
completing
to
say
that
what
the
language
form
ndings
the
and
listed
left
hemisphere
lateralization
the
word
right
with
“spell
task
a
the
he
had
hemisphere
production,
only
in
some
differs
by
the
above
just
is
but
only
in
patients.
is
produces
not
of
for
speech
some
and
person
to
makes
a
However,
forms
comprehension
hemisphere
from
the
language.
something.
strict:
and
right
somewhat
demonstrate
hemisphere
aware
production
performed
it
of
consciously
language
also.
of
can
be
Moreover,
person.
lateralization
●
of
course,
was
dominance
right
hemisphere
supports
The
not
The
hand,
explain
This
a
picked
left
left
instruction
behind
spell
the
controlled
spoon.
and
the
the
it
Patients
the
spoon
using
behind
picked
because
picked
screen
speech
what
of
hemisphere).
why
hemisphere
behind
felt
left
right
explain
group
pile
to
corresponding
the
object
a
nothing.
even
However,
in
able
describe
spelled!
what
(the
was
right
patient
hemisphere)
letters
patient
to
word”).
the
plastic
one
hemisphere.
The
that
right
hemisphere
involve
picture
was
visual
a
performs
better
construction.
much
closer
match
A
to
in
tasks
redrawn
the
original
P
E
when
done
by
the
left
hand
(controlled
by
the
N
C
right
hemisphere)
than
the
right
hand
(controlled
L
by
the
left
people.
think
hemisphere),
So,
if
you
switching
think
hands
EXAMPLE
▲
Figure 2.11
even
you
in
right-handed
cannot
might
draw,
do
you
help?
LEF T HAND
RIGHT HAND
Visual test for split-brain patients
Source: Gazzaniga (1967, p 27)
●
However,
when
a
simple
word,
such
as
1
“pencil”,
was
ashed
to
the
right
hemisphere,
With
the
patients
group
left
of
objects
hand.
does
were
This
have
some
the
left
however,
●
When
is
the
screen
left
visual
the
word
to
“he”
and
patients
with
right
is
left
was
was
in
that
from
(with
their
left
righ t
hand
their
hemisphere
not
hemisphere.
ashed
presented
the
2
exclusive
production,
right
they
saw
on
in
the
3
visual
“art”
but
▲
pointed
my
a
language
the
“art”
said
pencil
Language
“heart”
that
eld
of
a
screen
the
language
conned
so
the
amount
and
pick
that
hemisphere.
the
eld,
to
behind
shows
comprehension
to
able
hand)
to
the
card
Figure 2.12
Example drawings from the study
with
Source: Gazzaniga (1967, p 28)
the
word
previous
“he”
on
ndings,
it.
This
but
corroborates
also
shows
that
the
the
two
●
hemispheres
process
stimuli
Both
of
●
Some
with
patients
their
person
to
left
were
hand,
person.
able
to
spell
although
For
hemispheres
independently
are
capable
independently.
it
example,
simple
differed
when
words
from
researchers
forming
words,
series
on
emotional
emotions
of
the
an
tests,
screen
are
not
various
and
response.
lateralized.
objects
among
were
them
the
In
In
other
one
ashed
picture
of
53
2
BI O LO GI C A L
a
nude
woman.
emotional
the
to
laughed
the
the
and
researchers
was
she
nothing,
spread
Asked
don’t
in
of
presented
but
over
what
know
was
to
a
almost
her
she
…
face
was
it.
a
to
the
female
the
If
she
…
oh
–
was
To
of
“When
she
a
sly
to
she
that
strengthen
Sperry
game
smile
ofcial
chuckle.
Prize:
said:
‘I
(Gazzaniga,
1967,
p
interactive
online
Nobelprize.org,
website
for
the
the
Nobel
https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/
medicine/split-brain/
funny
See
machine’.”
ndings,
this
from
knowledge
Gazzaniga’s
and
investigate
saw
your
and
procedure
hemisphere,
that
at,
Exercise
the
began
laughing
it
an
on
patient
patient:
right
immediately
nothing
where
Whereas,
question
and
evoked
of
ashed.
hemisphere,
identied
reply
BE H AV IO U R
immediately
picture
left
TO
irrespective
reported
later
said
This
response
screen
ashed
it
APPROACH
if
you
can
predict
all
the
ndings
and
29).
explain
all
the
results.
ATL skills: Research and self-management
(a – M – P– R – c – E)
clss
To fully understand a research study, you need to
Summarizing
split-brain
studies
and
other
research
identify its key components: im, method, procedure,
accumulated
over
the
years,
does
all
this
mean
that
results and onclusions. You also need to be able
localization
of
function
is
relative?
to evaluate a study by identifying its strengths and
Some
functions
are
indeed
localized
in
very
specic
limitations.
parts
of
the
brain,
and
damage
this
part
will
Examples
to
that
have
Being able to identify and formulate these components
lead
to
loss
of
the
function.
is an impor tant skill. As research studies are described
been
discussed
here
include
Broca’s
area
for
the
throughout this book , these components will or will not
production
of
articulate
speech
and
Wernicke’s
be explicitly stated. When they are not, the expectation
area
for
language
comprehension.
As
you
read
is that you can ll in the gaps yourself, on the basis of
this
book
and
read
about
the
subject
of
psychology
context and your prior knowledge.
more
widely,
Review what you know about Sperry and Gazzaniga’s
and
research with split-brain patients and discuss the
some
following questions.
(2007)
left
1.
What research method (or methods) did they use?
2.
What are the main results and the main conclusions?
research
other
you
demonstrated
ashbulb
come
that
functions.
amygdala
when
will
studies
is
For
that
memories—a
that
selective
for
special
are
a
lot
of
examples
localization
example,
responsible
situations
across
support
the
Sharot
of
et
al
activation
of
formation
of
memory
unexpected
mechanism
and
emotionally
Note that it is essential to separate the two. Results
laden
get
“imprinted”
in
the
brain
with
perceptual
are the ndings obtained in the study; they are
clarity
(see
Unit
3
on
the
cognitive
approach
to
related to the measurement of the key variables.
behaviour).
Saxe
and
Kanwisher
(2003)
showed
Conclusions are based on how these ndings
that
understanding
when
another
person’s
belief
relate to the background theory or the aim of the
is
false
is
localized
in
the
tempo-parietal
junction
study.
(see
3.
“Theory
of
mind”
What are the main strengths and limitations?
psychology).
Review Unit 1 on research methodology if you nd
memory
answering this question dicult. For example,
hippocampus
(see
if you decided that the study is an experiment,
discoveries
this
what threats to internal validity could have caused
invasive
in
in
Maguire
London
in
etal
taxi
later
area
Unit
8
(2000)
drivers
in
are
methods—brain
on
this
is
developmental
found
unit).
made
that
localized
Most
with
imaging
the
in
spatial
the
modern
use
of
non-
technology.
problems? How can you characterize sampling,
However,
the
quest
for
a
complete
map
of
localized
credibility, generalizability and bias as applied to
functions
has
reached
its
limits.
Here
are
the
most
this research study?
prominent
points.
“Filling in the gaps” is a very useful exercise as you are
●
Some
functions
are
localized
weakly;
that
reading this book .
is,
54
several
brain
areas
may
be
responsible
for
a
L o c a L i z a t i o n
function
were
but
many
(lateralized)
research.
right
capable
areas
shown
are
to
Sperry
left
be
function
are
localized
example
involves
and
language
dominant.
weakly
in
the
hemisphere
of
of
functions
Although
consistently
the
some
examples
understanding
Gazzaniga’s
hemisphere
dominant
was
There
also
for
shown
some
simple
production
be
have
been
generally
more
establishing
strict
localization
for
Localization
sensory
For
functions
than
for
such
as
higher-order
memory,
thinking
Some
functions
example
would
from
be
to
form
of
each
the
an
are
widely
Sperry
ability
of
emotional
other.
Karl
maze-running
and
and
the
reaction
Lashley
the
cortex
memory
of
the
the
of
is
independently
widely
as
brain
damaged
hemispheres
demonstrated
was
brain
Some
components
localized
while
of
other
a
not
static.
(such
in
specic
as
the
Broca’s
Functional
people
area
areas
to
with
may
learn
perform
neuroplasticity:
perform
can
take
parts.
this
in
a
area).
areas
damage
to
this
move
to
a
“re-specialize”
function.
the
many
variety
over
Like
relative—there
about
that
This
the
of
functions,
functions
localization,
are
limits.
next
neurons
is
You
can
and
from
the
neuroplasticity
will
learn
more
section.
distributed
considerations
outline
the
modern
views
on
rats.
localization
●
is
brain
brain
potentially
An
research
These
in
localized
some
speech
that
learning.
distributed.
Gazzaniga’s
both
articulate
are
is
say
cognitive
known
●
language
but
One
cannot
and
other
functions
brain.
we
function)
brain,
example,
functional
motor
of
the
successful
about.
in
holistic
the
of
in
language:
language.
●
Scientists
a
in
components
language,
to
(as
somewhere
was
distributed
function
components
may
of
the
be
from
same
still
being
out
of
function.
over,
there
to
and
be
a
Function
lot
of
mapping
amazing
is
things
far
are
discovered.
TOK
Some of the concepts you have encountered in this unit are used in other areas of knowledge too. Discuss how these
concepts are used elsewhere and ask classmates whose subject choices are dierent from your own. Focus on the
concepts of:
●
function (for example, in mathematics, history, ar t)
●
structure (for example, in physics, chemistry, TOK)
●
localization (for example, in geography, astronomy)
●
system (for example, in natural sciences, mathematics)
●
the relative and absolute (for example, in physics)
●
the weak and strong (for example, in religious knowledge systems)
●
the static and dynamic (for example, in history, TOK).
Psychology in real life
Think about the potential practical applications of the idea of localization. How can it be used to improve the life of people
in Humanborough? Now that you know that localization is relative and some functions are more localized than others,
consider these questions.
●
Would you fund a scientic programme to search for all strictly localized functions?
●
Would you study the brains of children to determine their future abilities?
●
Would you research the possibility to relocalize psychological functions in the brain?
●
Localization of which psychological functions would you like to establish as a priority? Would it be aggression or
attraction, for example? Would it be something else?
●
Would you authorize animal research in this area?
●
Which methods of research would you most invest in?
Give your reasoned arguments and present your vision in class.
55
Neuroplasticity
Inquiry questions
●
If
to
behaviour
what
is
a
extent
product
can
the
of
brain
brain
structure,
itself
●
be
For
when
example,
damaged,
area
in
the
other
changed?
●
Does
if
a
would
another
patient’s
it
be
Broca’s
possible
region
of
the
to
area
●
is
re-grow
this
If
the
brain
we
learn
brain
potential
brain?
change
environmental
a
does
itself
new
response
for
to
example,
skill?
change
practical
in
inuences,
itself,
what
applications
of
are
using
the
this
process?
What you will learn in this section
●
hemispheres;
Denitions
area
Neuroplasticity
to
change
braking
of
neurons;
and
is
the
through
synaptic
causing
ability
the
of
the
making
factors
are
Example
between
both
genetic
environmental
Different
synaptic
scales
of
lack
but
large
amounts
material
leads
to
matter
in
the
to
cortical
remapping
plasticity
of
the
Merzenich
et
remapping
of
hand
depends
sensory
occurs
al
on
the
al
of
(2006):
abstract
3—Maguire
of
grey
and
the
is
et
al
(2000):
observed
in
natural
activity
cortex
(1984):
sensory
within
too;
London
taxi
drivers,
brain
to
matter
the
the
parts
of
amputated
the
in
days
from
in
as
as
the
●
Practical
areas
now
spread
unused
area
for
a
mechanism
occurs
lives;
of
on
a
regular
when
you
reshapes
1—Draganski
learn
section
et
al
a
the
simple
the
(1969):
sense
substitution
echolocation
also
et
mid-temporal
of
links
to:
localization
of
function,
brain
scanning
the
use
of
animal
research
itself
al
juggling
volume
interfaces
your
cognitive
processing
approach
to
the
digital
world
behaviour)
routine
grey
area
in
(2004):
(cognitive
increases
more
anterior
basis
●
learning
the
learning
technology,
gradually
Example
in
applications
Human
●
brain
hippocampus:
less
and
This
daily
redistributed
digit
Neuroplasticity
our
have
owl
Brain-machine
Neuroplasticity
the
posterior,
Bach-y-Rita
occupy
controls,
cortical
inputs
62
monkeys—adjacent
56
et
cortex
Example
in
in
this
size
neurons
Remapping
in
makes
original
increase
hippocampus
compared
●
an
parietal
posterior
settings
●
the
2—Draganski
learning
neuroplasticity
of
practice
to
neuroplasticity—from
plasticity
Synaptic
of
not
brain
and
connections
shrink,
in
matter
both
●
brain
development
psychology).
(developmental
n E u R o P L a S t i c i t y
Des
Neuroplasticity
change
occurs
through
connections
the
networks
shape.
The
genetic
and
damage
On
neuron,
the
it
ability
of
brain
for
X
and
neurons.
the
for
brain
such
can
be
the
changes
the
scale,
neuron
break
of
to
up
assumes
due
to
the
synaptic
change
are
their
both
example,
new
on
skills).
level
the
On
of
Results
were
were
of
plasticity
area
Y,
on
the
activity
third
If
two
nearby
neurons
are
that
sensitivity
at
the
them
same
may
time,
a
form.
are
connection
rarely
may
summarized
together”
and
is
out
of
gradually
like
this:
(which
quoted
sync,
in
fail
activated
was
apart.
“neurons
that
originally
Doidge,
to
together,
fall
link”
2007)
(Doidge,
the
This
re
said
and
this
area
is
areas
digits
adjacent
areas
2
there
each
in
ngers
the
responsible
nger
adjacent
from
and
adjacent
the
that
brain,
for
cortex.
the
amputated?
(those
and
4)
It
was
responsible
parts
of
the
now
unused
spread
area.
and
The
for
digits
2
and
4
became
larger
areas
while
connection
Similarly,
if
areas
by
for
digits
1
and
5
stayed
the
It
was
concluded
that
cortical
remapping
existing
has
together,
Carla
pp
ofsensory
inputs
62
owl
from
the
hand
occurs
within
been
days
in
monkeys.
wire
Shatz
“neurons
2007,
responsible
two
same.
neurons
nger,
in
showed
the
frequently
synaptic
gradually
to
in
of
the
between
mapping
areas
one
after
the
responsible
activated
rst
for
nger
occupied
neurons.
the
distinct
happens
found
injury.
depends
Owl monkey
represented
What
for
Synaptic
of
ve
responsible
when
brain
Figure 2.13
single
the
form
phenomenon
functions
▲
a
synaptic
ones.
takes
of
plasticity:
new
old
of
injury,
different
the
form
of
process
synaptic
neuroplasticity
example,
at
to
change
development
(for
the
the
The
this
literally
learning
form
brain
breaking
In
observed
smallest
remapping:
area
life.
simply
and
scale,
cortical
the
of
pre-programmed
takes
connections
largest
in
or
the
of
environmental
Neuroplasticity
scales.
ability
course
making
reasons
(normal
brain)
brain
the
the
between
neural
the
is
throughout
that
2
re
Receptive fields in
63–64).
original “D
3
territory”
Remppg f e sesr r e
One
the
of
the
level
early
of
Merzenich
cortical
owl
1.
studies
cortical
et
al
(1984).
representation
monkeys.
Sensory
of
The
inputs
neuroplasticity
remapping
done
Researchers
of
the
procedure
from
was
all
hand
the
hand
mapped
in
the
cortex.
were
inserted
in
the
cortical
responsible
for
sensation
researchers
stimulated
studied
in
eight
involved
were
To
this,
steps.
(ngers)
electrodes
known
the
the
adult
three
digits
do
area
from
on
by
hand,
to
be
then
Digit 2
various
areas
on
all
the
Original digit 3
ngers
was
one
by
one
responding
to
and
the
noted
which
stimulation.
electrode
represention
Monkeys
Digit 4
were
anesthetized
before
this
procedure.
Pad 2
Pad 3
2.
The
third
digit
(the
middle
nger)
on
the
1.0 mm
monkey’s
hand
was
amputated.
▲
3.
Sixty-two
days
later
a
remapping
was
done
to
Figure 2.14
Cor tical remapping following
see
digit amputation in adult owl monkeys
how
from
the
the
cortical
hand
area
responsible
changed
after
for
sensitivity
amputation.
Source: Merzenich et al (1984, p 595)
57
2
BI O LO GI C A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
ATL skills: Thinking and research
Recall the essential components of discussing a research study: “A – M – P – R – C – E”.
Practise writing the components down in a concise form. It’s an impor tant skill that will come in handy on the exam day.
Write down the aim of the study in one sentence (it is not stated explicitly in the text, but you can easily reconstruct it
from the context).
State the method used in the study. Was it an experiment? What was its design? Can cause–eect relationship be
inferred?
Briey describe the procedure. Focus on details that are relevant to the aim and conclusions. It doesn’t matter if you
forget some details, as long as that does not aect the conclusions.
State the results.
State the conclusions. Be careful to separate results and conclusions. Results are given in an empirical form
(measurements), whereas conclusions are given in theoretical terms and they link ndings to the aim of the study.
Evaluate the study. Look at its methodological quality (sampling, credibility, generalizability and bias) and the ethical
considerations involved in it.
two
nerpls s  mesm
groups:
made
sure
jugglers
that
and
both
non-jugglers.
groups
had
no
They
experience
f lerg
of
Neuroplasticity
fordamage.
our
is
daily
It
For
be
conned
on
a
brain
you
to
making
regular
example,
the
learning.When
reshapes
not
occurs
lives.
thoughtto
is
basis
brain
rst
before
brain
Participants
neuroplasticity
your
juggling
The
in
mechanism
learn,
up
spent
of
three
routine
gradually
scan
itself.
spent
in
three
another
et
al
(2004)
conducted
a
study
to
whether
the
human
brain
can
really
brain
in
response
to
environmental
researchers
used
a
random
sampling
a
self-selected
sample—they
a
sample
of
volunteers
into
where
juggling.
scan
was
performed
one
period.
just
The
lived
control
their
group
daily
the
scanned
three
times
were
this
(the
the
non-
non-
and
on
the
same
jugglers.
3 months
Practising
6 months
Not practising
Jugglers
Sample
Not practising
Not practising
Non-jugglers
58
they
lives
of
0 months
Figure 2.15
brain
Finally,
after
Brain scans
▲
juggling
participants
randomly
as
allocated
months
practise
classic
second
the
point.
had
their
design
brains
and
The
Then
this
demands.
jugglers)
The
balls.
a
at
subsequently
change
practice
structure
experiment.
nd
third
out
the
group
learning
three
to
of
performed
juggler
performed.
instructednot
Draganski
the
start
was
months
with
was
the
scan
The procedure followed in Draganski et al (2004)
schedule
n E u R o P L a S t i c i t y
Comparison
to
the
start
in
brain
juggler
some
brain
the
areas
of
known
movement.
differences
At
had
the
area
to
At
scans
in
the
experiment
structure.
group
temporal
were
of
of
the
second
signicantly
cortex,
in
be
the
both
groups
scan,
more
most
no
time
of
but
in
the
the
however,
notably
the
amount
these
the
amount
who
to
grey
better
the
as
initial
were
brain
back
greater
there
performance
more
a
still
Also,
changes
learn
your
was
scan.
juggling
shrink
state,
jugglers
rst
brain
you
of
they
in
the
between
areas
practise,
of
change:
words,
certain
of
of
areas
time
trained
other
areas
these
of
in
at
correlation
in
mid-
These
scan
than
the
matter
coordination
third
matter
prior
differences
grey
hemispheres.
implicated
decreased,
two
showed
in
and
grow.
a
the
participants
pronounced.
simple
was
juggling
When
signicantly
In
routine,
you
fail
(perhaps
to
not
though).
ATL skills: Research
The study of Draganski et al (2004) is an example of how dierent research methods can be combined in a single study.
Is this an experiment or a correlational study?
On the one hand, there is random allocation into groups (juggling versus non-juggling). On the other hand, the
researchers computed a correlation between amount of juggling and grey matter growth.
In
cases
like
research
this
environmental
causation.
they
was
you
method
is
to
one
demand
This
a
determine
used
to
(juggling)
hypothesis
additionally
therefore
need
the
looked
at
was
the
test
leads
tested
the
the
to
in
a
method
research
change
an
relationship
supplementary
main
hypothesis.
in
used
to
method
structure
When
amount
clarify
the
and
Draganski et
brain
experiment .
between
In
the
of
the
al
(grey
the
mat ter
researchers
learning
main
supplementary
(2004)
and
methods.
was
volume).
got
rate
aim
their
of
grey
to
see
This
The
main
whether
implies
answer
(which
mat ter
growth.
was
yes),
Correlation
finding.
Knowing what method was used, what can you say about the methodological quality of the study (sampling, credibility,
generalizability and bias)?
Do
you
are
want
growing
have
some
to
as
know
you
what
are
evidence
areas
reading
for
of
this
learning
a
your
large
juggling
brain
book?
even
We
amount
material
in
preparation
for
an
medicine
There
was
and
that
is
close
enough.
(2006)
looked
at
38
medical
students
control
subjects
matched
for
age
scan
was
obtained
three
and
months
sex.
day
after
the
the
second
scan
examination,
on
and
the
the
before
later
(after
the
rst
third
examination
a
break).
Results
showed
that,
the
or
no
differences
there
were
two
in
the
brains
of
the
medical
There
was
parietal
volume
of
decrease
for
an
lasting
an
increase
cortex
in
grey
by
the
both
matter
time
examination
impact
on
in
the
the
Grey
scan
matter
to
the
gradually
third;
that
increased
is,
the
hippocampus
grey
continued
to
the
grow
examination.
results
of
the
that
study
these
were
areas
in
line
were
with
prior
involved
grey
of
new
memories.
However,
in
the
the
changes
matterat
posterior
hippocampus
after
the
examination
changesoccurring
surprising.
They
contradicted
the
hypothesis
students.
of
grey
matter
hemispheres.
in
of
in
was
three
because
●
matter
pattern
students
were
in
grey
The
although
regional
major
of
second
scan
in
baseline,
rst
after
formation
therewere
increase
here.
in
knowledge
had
you
the
The
months
with
The
even
examination,
an
hippocampus.
the
matter
rst
stay
and
from
12
changes
break.
Draganski
different
etal
The
study
examination
posterior
in
a
of
●
abstract
routine!
after
this
the
region
third
medicine
brain
than
in
did
scan.
has
the
a
not
Studying
more
learning
a
increase
examination
Based
The
any
the
on
could
not
previously
hippocampus,
following
in
matter
may
have
volume
resulted
be
matter
induced
discovered
the
in
in
Stress
is
by
the
learning.
suggest
known
hippocampal
two
after
properties
researchers
explanation.
grey
grey
opposite
to
of
the
reduce
regions.
effects
on
This
the
59
2
BI O LO GI C A L
▲
APPROACH
Figure 2.16
TO
BE H AV IO U R
Increase in grey matter volume following extensive learning
Source: Draganski et al (2006, p 6315)
hippocampus
the
second
the
posterior
decreased
simultaneously
scan:
it.
learning
hippocampus
After
the
between
increased
but
the
grey
rst
examination
examination
this
and
matter
in
stress
negative
inuence
and
the
while
of
lost
the
learning
the
examination
hippocampal
grey
matter
stress
volume
that
was
was
was
corrected
restored,
formed
due
to
remained.
Exercise
A
very
useful
thinking
in
alternative
Draganski
grey
to
the
the
60
it
al
is
develop
coming
Review
(2006)—the
increase
increased
second
third
to
explanations.
et
matter
abrupt:
exercise
psychology
and
in
the
from
stayed
measurement;
critical
in
up
measurement
with
the
results
researchers
parietal
the
on
rst
the
grey
saw
cortex
of
that
was
measurement
same
matter
level
by
increase
the
Go
hippocampus
online
functions
start
with
and
of
are
was
of
gradual
more
about
hippocampus
What
Draganski
you
from
the
rst
third.
Wikipedia).
can
they?
the
read
the
explanations
ndings
to
think
of?
et
the
(for
known
example,
alternative
al’s
How
(2006)
plausible
n E u R o P L a S t i c i t y
Another
well-known
localization
spatial
The
of
memory
value
of
study
function
is
this
neuroplasticity
that
of
study
in
a
showing
and
is
obtained
both
neuroplasticity
London
that
natural
it
taxi
seems
drivers.
looks
at
et
al
(2000)
the
setting.
investigated
the
brains
taxi
extensive
drivers,
a
navigation
hypothesized
that
group
chosen
experience.
the
structure
for
The
be
different
because
of
prior
the
possible
shown
the
hippocampus
to
is
abilities.
Taxi
drivers
in
that
in
the
training
city,
and
the
examinations
study
were
drivers.
was
16
Their
2years
driver
to
was
42years
healthy
pass
licensed.
average
and
the
(with
undergo
to
in
licensed
range
scans
of
posterior
the
anterior)are
choose
taxi
as
from
drivers
time
a
taxi
1.5
to
et
professions
Inother
test
al
database
of
brain
scans
at
were
the
they
brain
as
scans
The
scans
this
a
taxi
were
taken
same
performed
were
obtained
imaging
(MRI).
It
make
the
a
comparison
groups
depend
special
the
on
lesser
navigational
become
brain,
taxi
not
explanation,
correlation
volume
Grey
and
drivers
the
=
0.6,
with
p
<
experience
and
with
(r
time
in
as
the
a
taxi
was
matter
=
spent
positively
there
grey
hippocampus
of
volume
correlated
0.05),
Maguire
between
amount
matter
hippocampus
anterior
−0.6,
a
volume
p
<
in
0.05).
from
that
with
the
a
effect
different
size
is
sign.
exactly
This
led
the
same
researchers
taxi
conclude
that,
since
grey
matter
volumes
magnetic
as
taxi
drivers’
experienceincreases,
important
these
to
(and
predisposed
unit
with
by
was
this
matter
naturally
people
alternative
andsignicantly
driver(r
had
change
resonance
have
driver.
posterior
to
drivers.
for
in
One
around.
hippocampal
but
where
grey
hippocampus
that
words,
examined
Note
the
larger
the
reverserelationship
subjects
certain.
explanations
with
in
To
proles.
control
people
in
the
Brain
in
an
this
training
experience
taxi
alternative
be
taxi
navigate
Participants
a
All
cannot
a
matter
in
stringent
pre-licensing
experience).
medical
of
grey
studies
involved
how
set
male
average
years
on
a
right-handed
14.3
of
be
to
driving
of
hippocampus
London
programme
have
we
volumes
otherway
intensive
but
volumes
because
spatial
that
redistribution
and
made.It
their
animal
be
suggest
be
researchers
skills.
had
to
to
correlational
cannot
of
to
would
leads
essentially
inferences
hippocampus,
nding
London
therefore
plausible
London
human
of
Maguire
are
cause-and-effect
for
as
differences
areindeed
the
result
of
equivalent
neuroplasticity.
as
possible
variables,
to
the
(brain
subjects
Results
in
the
scans
who
did
brains
in
of
the
control
50
not
an
taxi
healthy
drive
a
subjects
as
in
the
or
as
had
selection
matter
compared
hippocampus.
had
well
right-handed
brain
greater
to
At
male
volume
control
the
volumes
Time as taxi driver (months)
and
taxi.
increased
posterior
as
applied
32
left-handed
resulted
drivers
were
below
excluded,
female,
This
of)
Subjects
were
were
issues.
indicated
subjects
time,
old
confounding
criteria
of
0
in
the
anterior
hippocampus.
This
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
6
4
2
0
–2
–4
–6
VBM = voxel-based morphometry: a brain imaging analysis technique
same
grey
▲
matter
supmacoppih roiretsop
who
potential
subjects.
years
health
of
exclusion
sesnopser MBV detsujdA
62
subjects
of
terms
some
control
above
any
in
so
Figure 2.17
Correlation between hippocampal volume
meant
and amount of time spent as a taxi driver
there
was
no
difference
between
the
groups
in
Source: Maguire et al (2000, p 4401)
terms
but
of
the
there
general
was
volume
signicant
of
the
hippocampus,
redistribution
of
grey
Redistribution
matter
from
the
anterior
to
posterior
itself
in
the
brains
of
taxi
drivers.
Brain
matter
can
be
the
front
to
the
this
researchers
be
either
study
did
taxi
not
is
a
quasi-experiment.
randomly
drivers
matter
by
in
the
hippocampus
attributing
to
the
two
regions:
it
is
different
now
accepted
back.
that
However,
grey
explained
“shifted”
functions
from
of
hippocampus
or
assign
controls.
people
The
The
to
results
the
posterior
previously
whereas
for
hippocampus
learned
the
learning
spatial
anterior
new
is
involved
information
hippocampus
spatial
is
is
when
used,
responsible
information.
61
2
BI O LO GI C A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
ATL skills: Thinking and self-management
You might be wondering how many details of a study you need to remember for your examination. You should rely on
understanding rather than memorization. Range the study details according to their relevance to the argument you are making.
In the context of our discussion, the main argument that is suppor ted by Maguire et al (2000) is that neuroplasticity
occurs in spatial memory in real-life settings. This is suppor ted by the observation that experience driving a taxi in
London correlates with grey matter volume in the hippocampus.
In light of this main thesis statement, some of the more relevant details would include: this was a quasi-experiment;
however, the correlation between grey matter volume and experience makes cause–eect inferences more plausible;
there was redistribution of grey matter between posterior and anterior hippocampus; researchers used MRI scans and
the control group was carefully matched to the group of taxi drivers.
Some of the less relevant details would include: sample size, age and the exact value of the correlation.
If you understand the essential details of the study and how they are linked to the main argument or thesis statement, it
will be easy to remember them. If you also remember small details, it will be a bonus but is not usually necessary.
In any case, make it a rule to separate essential details of every study from the additional details. A good exercise is to
write down the key studies in the “A – M – P – R – C – E” form as concisely as you can.
The
idea
that
other
senses
may
be
used
to
ATL skills: Research
make
up
for
the
If you have diculty interpreting the expression (r = 0.6,
substitution .
p < 0.05), it is time to go back and review “Correlational
to
studies” in Unit 1 on research methodology.
(1934–2006).
introduce
substitution
that
Prl ppls
All
the
idea
evidence
that
the
brain
psychological
parts
brain
the
of
is
the
a
plastic
Can
we
that
they
person
the
can
a
to
are
least
the
and
that
some
that
can
cortex
some
mechanical
into
the
are
for
motor
itself
senses?
limb,
cortex
limb?
and
back
the
chair
This
so
For
can
to
the
way
a
we
train
to
As
of
and
400
the
objects,
visual
your
It
the
chair.
to
said:
a
to
an
blind
“You
and
requires
and
see
attached
visual
or
to
sat
in
stimuli
her
back.
recognize
The
brain
converted
it
neuroplasticity
other
with
a
the
electrical
his
faces.
chair
with
subject
learned
and
a
“see”
scanned
stimulators
against
cortex
of
to
chair
camera
information
which
sensory
people
recognize
gradually
visual
in
invention
was
The
signals
sense
Bach-y-Rita
work
image
vibrating
images,
Bach-y-Rita
Paul
The
shadows
tactile
the
it.
as
neuroscientists
blind
1969).
learned
subjects
change
not
al ,
vibrating
interpreted
into
to
known
rst
the
congenitally
converted
sent
was
with
et
images:
people
started
camera
and
the
is
pioneering
behind
from
practical
idea
His
large
signal
sense
of
(Bach-y-Rita
the
to
the
countless.
other
articial
the
One
this
allowed
area
certain
raises
blind
prosthetic
the
in
adapt
This
of
the
certain
extent,
plasticity
applications
using
control
challenges
hard-wired
to
brain
visual
“see”
far
environment.
use
Potential
so
“xed”
structure
electrodes
brain
At
the
we
rewire
with
implant
of
can
purposes?
is
functions
brain.
demands
question:
discussed
lost
brain
your
areas.
brain,
eyes”.
TOK
Paul Bach-y-Rita’s research was inspired by his personal family history. In 1959 his father had a stroke that yielded
massive damage to his brain leaving him mostly paralysed and resulting in loss of speech. At that time, psychological
functions were still believed to be strictly localized and hard-wired into specic areas of the brain, so the paralysis and
other impairments were believed to be permanent. However, Paul’s brother George did not give up and devised his own
rehabilitation programme for his father, turning daily routines into exercises. Over several years, his father restored most
of the motor functions and regained speech, a recovery that was named unprecedented.
From the TOK point of view, this is an example of how personal knowledge can aect shared knowledge within a
discipline.
62
n E u R o P L a S t i c i t y
Another
application
echolocation.
the
ability
produce
analyse
to
see
neuroplasticity
blind
around
clicking
echoes
of
Some
sounds
as
the
people
them
with
sounds
can
with
their
is
human
acquire
echoes:
mouth
bounce
off
they
and
the
in
front
that
of
this
processed
areas
them.
Studies
auditory
in
the
(Thaler,
have
information
visual
Arnot
rather
and
demonstrated
in
such
than
Goodale
people
auditory
is
cortex
2011).
objects
Sonar
Returning sound waves
▲
Yet
Figure 2.18
another
promising
interfaces.
These
Echolocation
area
include
is
brain-machine
articial
sensory
organs
and
bionic
limbs
that
can
be
controlled
by
thought.
See de
Here
are
some
TED
Talks
worth
watching.
world”
(2015):
https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_
kish_how_i_use_sonar_to_navigate_the_world
Michael
Merzenich
modern
evidence
neuroplasticity
a
range
of
evidence
(2004):
and
potential
applications
of
in
reviews
Tan
of
talks
about
practical
Le
demonstrates
allows
computer
thoughts
“Growing
brain
that
plasticity”
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_
merzenich_on_the_elastic_brain
reads
you
with
in
your
“A
to
a
brain-computer
control
your
interface
your
mere
headset
that
brainwaves”
(2010):
https://www.ted.com/talks/
tan_le_a_headset_that_reads_
your_brainwaves
Daniel
age
of
Kish
13
himself
instead
was
blind
months.
to
of
use
the
taught
echolocation
vision.
demonstrates
He
from
He
how
he
does
it.
Psychology in real life
Now that you know the research behind neuroplasticity, how could you use it to “make humans better ” in Humanborough?
Does it give you any more ideas?
Think about one concrete idea that uses the ideas of neuroplasticity to solve a practical problem. This could be
something similar to sense substitution, human echolocation or brain-machine interfaces, but you might also think of
something completely dierent. Do not worry about how realistic it is. Present your idea in class and discuss with your
classmates.
63
Neurotransmitters and behaviour
Inquiry questions
●
Some
aspects
explained
by
chemistry
to
of
human
behaviour
chemistry—but
control
can
people’s
can
we
●
be
use
behaviour
tell
we
the
invent
a
drug
For
example,
drug
that
each
other?
will
make
people
How
can
we
study
the
effects
of
ways?
neurotransmitters
●
that
truth?
in
●
constructive
Can
do
will
you
make
think
we
people
can
fall
in
invent
love
a
large
with
number
confounding
of
on
behaviour,
interacting
given
factors
the
and
variables?
What you will learn in this section
●
Nervous
system
processes
Crockett
moral
The
structure
The
nature
of
a
information
the
and
nervous
partly
system
is
partly
chemical
Effect
of
threshold
Aron
pictures
how
processes:
they
(an
SSRI)
romantic
Brown
loved
higher
solved
dose
or
placebo
love
(2005):
ones
activity
system
is
looking
associated
in
the
that
dopaminergic
generates
neurotransmitters
transmits
dopamine
and
increases
function
dopamine-related
Excitatory
a
potential
and
and
on
and
of
pathway—a
Chemical
receiving
of
with
action
citalopram
dopamine
Fisher,
processes:
excitation,
after
electrical
at
Electrical
(2010)—participants
transmission
●
in
al
neuron
ofeither
of
et
dilemmas
and
activity
in
the
brain
inhibitory
neurotransmitters
●
Agonists
and
The
role
of
Freed
●
Limitations
in
neurotransmitter
(increasing
levels
results
change
in
a
dopamine
of
research
neurotransmitter
in
behaviour
of
may
Parkinson’s
X
the
Z)
et
al
(2001):
disease
function
as
an
agonist
or
transplantation
dopamine-producing
putamen
Parkinson’s
of
patients
disease
clinicalbenet
X
in
antagonists
in
neurons
with
results
younger
in
in
severe
some
but
not
older
antagonist
patients
for
X
Y
,
which
may
affects
serve
process
of
as
a
Z
(indirect
trigger
change
for
a
effect)
long-lasting
(postponed
●
The
role
The
X
is
usually
not
the
only
of
serotonin
in
depression
effect)
factor
affecting
serotonin
hypothesis:
low
levels
of
Z
serotonin
in
the
brain
play
a
causal
role
(multi-determination)
in
X
is
never
the
only
factor
that
developing
Typical
(side
Effect
of
serotonin
on
prosocial
if
personal
prosocial
reduces
harm
acceptability
and
in
behaviour
this
serotonin
a
drug
(for
that
is
example,
known
an
to
SSRI)
behaviour
leads
Serotonin
64
study:
effects)
affect
●
depression
changes
way
of
promotes
to
a
reduction
experimental
the
level
of
depression
of
group,
it
serotonin
symptoms
is
is
in
concluded
the
cause
the
that
of
n E u R o t R a n S M i t t E R S
Caspi
(the
et
al
(2003):
serotonin
determines
developing
stressful
a
particular
transporter
one’s
vulnerability
depression
life
in
●
gene
gene
formation
5-HTT)
behaviour
to
●
section
also
etiology
of
links
rst
(abnormal
principle
the
of
(the
The
nature
the
biological
behaviour
is
approach
the
product
and
structure
endocrine
the
and
function
of
systems).
structure
of
the
So
far,
have
looked
at
if
does
it
the
localization
as
structural
function
work?
information
What
in
the
of
of
function
phenomena.
the
nervous
processes
nervous
are
system?
correlates
of
these
nervous
system
is
a
Now
nervous
cells.
A
the
body
and
(soma) ,
axon
are
the
always
(and
a
soma:
of
to
single
soma)
is
axon.
to
that
passing
the
action
not,
and
while
the
of
are
or
“ring
is
signals
a
of
of
from
the
Where
dendrite
a
synapse
is
formed.
all
boil
pulse
the
(or
a
synaptic
gap )
two
from
Greek
to
reaches
neurons:
the
synapsis
neuron
on
is
a
word
has
action
elaborate
with
other
is
along
the
axon
to
further.
all-or-none:
thing
might
in
as
it
Note
either
“ring
remind
computers:
is
res
weakly”
you
of
the
essentially,
of
0s
and
1s.
end
of
the
axon
mechanism
and
of
there,
transmission
This
happens
as
reaches
follows.
the
a
neurotransmitter
the
axon
terminal
is
end
released
of
from
into
axon
of
of
are
the
synaptic
chemical
gap.
messengers.
They
to
constantly
synthesized
in
the
neuron
and
one
to
the
axon
terminal
to
be
stored
there.
another
means
that
structure
“synapse”
released
neurotransmitter
is
available
in
the
a
gap
for
a
short
period
during
which
it
may
that
destroyed
(metabolized),
pulled
back
into
the
comes
axon
terminal
through
reuptake,
or
“conjunction”.
about
neurons,
sequence
potential
axon,
the
post-synaptic
membrane
and
bind
to
15,000
one
connections
called
dendrites
soma
This
meaning
average
pulse
excitation
such
the
the
reach
Each
brief
other
axon
the
or
a
the
gap,
chemical.
the
pre-synaptic
the
a
but
be
connects
the
This
used
down
synaptic
synaptic
synapse
neurons,
threshold,
axon.
A
neuron,
this
extrude
dendrites
function
signals
further.
approaches
no
strongly”.
languages
moved
neuron
exceeds
the
are
transmit
threshold
other
three
and
that
multiple
function
certain
the
travels
potential
there
Neurotransmitters
neurons,
a
neurons,
dendrites
The
receive
the
transfer
What
consists
laments
typically
has
from
“res”—generates
potential
or
When
from
neuron
excitation
neurons,
becomes
Dendrites
in
partly
let’s
at
parts:
and
processes?
system
neuron
transmission
electrical
how
The
the
partly
received
sum
neuron
they
The
is
and
system:
used
information
Every
the
coding
behavioural
brain.
have
that
consider
the
system—
other
neuroplasticity
study
the
we
nervous
of
system
excitation
action
we
to
to
the
considered
used
of
and
nervous
personal
psychology)
of
physiology
of
prosocial
serotonin
chemical.
stated:
(psychology
techniques
nervous
behaviour
relationships
love),
to:
ner s ssem presses
The
personal
romantic
events
depression,
hypothesis
B E h a v i o u R
relationships)
●
This
of
(attraction,
to
response
a n D
so
it
is
a
of
the
receptors
on
its
surface.
very
network.
Neurotransmitter
Axon terminal
Dendrite
Neurotransmitter
transpor ter
Node of
Soma
Synaptic
Ranvier
Axon
terminal
vesicle
Voltage-gated
Axon
2+
Ca
channel
Synaptic
Nucleus
Receptor
Schwann cell
Myelin sheath
cleft
Post-synaptic
Dendrite
density
▲
Figure 2.19
A neuron
▲
Figure 2.20
Neurotransmission
65
2
BI O LO GI C A L
If
the
neurotransmitter
post-synaptic
membrane
an
electric
the
APPROACH
potential
chemical
binds
membrane,
pulse
in
and
the
TO
to
this
so
BE H AV IO U R
a
receptor
process
contributes
post-synaptic
mechanism
becomes
in
the
changes
to
the
activating
neuron.
electrical
Here
that
enhance
the
Antagonists
action
are
neurotransmitter
passed
of
a
chemicals
and
so
neurotransmitter.
that
counteract
prevent
a
signal
a
from
being
further.
again.
Many
For
drugs
function
example,
a
class
as
of
agonists
drugs
or
antagonists.
known
as
SSRIs
ATL skills: Thinking and self-management
(selective
This par tially electrical and par tially chemical process
do
exactly
what
selectively
seems quite complicated. What do you think is the
evolutionary rationale behind it? Why did it evolve in this
their
inhibit
neurotransmitter
gap.
way?
serotonin
in
This
the
name
(block)
the
SSRIs
inhibitors )
suggests:
the
serotonin
increases
synapse.
reuptake
reuptake
from
the
concentration
have
been
of
the
synaptic
of
serotonin
shown
to
be
Try to visualize the whole process. If you cannot, view
effective
against
depression.
the example video given below or search for other
As
“neurotransmission” videos online.
you
A
video
showing
the
process
is
available
neurotransmission
determined
factors.
Imagine
the
See de
see,
process
level
of
we
have
this
resulted
(for
example,
a
complex
in
a
change
elevated
by
articially
neurotransmitter
and
is
simultaneously
X
in
of
mood).
multiple
increased
the
brain
behaviour
Can
we
Z
say
at:
that
neurotransmitter
X
inuences
elevated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
mood?
Yes,
to
a
certain
extent,
but
with
a
lot
of
p5zFgT4aofA
limitations
●
X
may
Y
,
to
“cause”
may
Their
100
are
and
are
many
exact
have
number
been
broadly
the
produce
is
into
All
two
Excitatory
impulse
to
stimulating
Inhibitory
unknown
cross
more
may
than
groups:
neurotransmitters
on
synapse.
the
neurotransmitters
preventing
it
from
produce
calming
dynamic
balance.
When
neurotransmitters
are
are
stop
on
of
●
X
is
never
articially
result
always
their
in
the
brain,
this
may
cause
such
as
agonists
66
and
with
many
links
In
other
may
be
between
the
“effect”.
a
trigger
in
other
a
for
a
long-lasting
system
words,
the
of
interconnected
effects
of
X
on
the
only
factor
affecting
the
only
increase
factor
the
side
that
level
changes.
of
X,
this
As
you
may
effects.
into
the
inuence
will
of
therefore
neurotransmission
always
or
a
state
the
sense
that
we
need
to
be
reductionist
manipulate
one
of
variable
(X)
and
variable
that
assume
that
it
is
the
only
inhibitory
optimal
changes.
Nevertheless,
with
all
the
ranges
in
mind,
research
into
the
inuence
behavioural
neurotransmission
on
behaviour
is
highly
mentaldisorders.
themselves
antagonists.
Z
Z.
brain.
in
various
not
various
behaviour
intriguing,
Neurotransmitters
Z.
neurotransmitters
synapse.
of
malfunctions
neurotransmitter
the
limitations
in
as
for
behaviour
postponed.
usually
They
the
the
excitatory
out
In
is
brain.
crossing
effects
neurotransmitters
the
change
X
in
These
of
●
on
They
of
agonist
affect
excitatory
Research
impulse,
effects
serve
be
an
may
mind.
neurotransmitters
the
effects
but
in
sometimes
variables.
neurotransmitters.
identied.
divided
inhibitory.
allow
different
as
turn
and
process
There
in
the
indirect,
X
kept
function
which
words,
●
be
are
affected
Agonists
are
by
chemicals
partly
inuencing
chemicals.
because
human
it
gives
behaviour
us
a
key
through
to
intake
of
n E u R o t R a n S M i t t E R S
a n D
B E h a v i o u R
ATL skills: Thinking
To be able to demonstrate experimentally that X inuences Z, we need to isolate the eects of X from all other potentially
confounding variables by controlling them or keeping them constant in all conditions. You can see the tremendous
diculty of this task , especially in such a complex system of interconnected variables as a human being.
Here is a Nobel Prize question: can you think of any other method that will allow us to make cause–eect inferences
and at the same time show a more complex picture of direct and indirect, immediate and postponed eects? Hint: think
about the eld of computer modelling.
Areas
that
have
been
neurotransmitters
sexual
others.
arousal
Let’s
and
look
shown
have
mental
at
to
be
included
some
illness,
of
the
affected
mood,
among
effects
by
an
memory,
many
of
specic
in
inhibitory
sustaining
cycles,
for
distant
mood
instance.
intentionally
attempt
neurotransmitters.
neurotransmitter
stable
to
to
This
establish
such
links
Effects
as
that
that
has
mood
involved
sleep
been
selected
researchers
between
of
is
regulating
example
demonstrate
variables.
something
and
seemingly
neurotransmission
or
fatigue
are
on
believable
Ee f ser  prsl
because
but
ber
choice
Crockett
et
al
(2010)
investigated
the
effect
or
on
prosocial
behaviour.
Serotonin
are
rooted
behaviour
free
will.
in
biological
seems
How
can
a
to
be
processes,
a
person’s
person’s
free
own
will
be
of
affected
serotonin
these
prosocial
by
a
biological
factor?
is
TOK
Deermsm erss free wll
Deermsm is the philosophical position that claims everything in the world has a preceding cause. It says that in
order to understand the world we need to identify the causes. Modern sciences—especially the natural sciences—are
largely deterministic.
An opposing position—known as elelg (from “teleo”, meaning “aim”)—asser ts that everything in the world has a
purpose. To understand the world we need to understand where it is going. Religion is usually teleological.
When it comes to human beings, some philosophers assume strong determinism, saying that every action is
determined by preceding potentially identiable causes. However, others believe that humans, unlike everything else in
the world, are able to choose their actions freely, often despite the factors that inuence them.
What do you think?
A
sample
It
included
of
volunteers
30
healthy
was
recruited
subjects
(mean
for
the
age
study.
After
taking
aseries
26).
of
the
drug,
moral
choosingbetween
The
experiment
followed
a
repeated
measures
two
conditions.
In
condition
1
lives)
given
a
dose
of
serotonin
citalopram.
reuptake
This
inhibitor
drug
is
a
(SSRI):
that
blocks
reuptake
of
in
serotonin
this
way
boosting
its
innocent
in
the
from
example,
its
effects.
In
concentration
condition
2
(the
were
given
a
placebo
with
no
counter-balanced,
active
and
effect).
this
was
(a
The
a
(saving
(such
person).
Aversive
as
harmful
scenarios
pushing
were
a
man
of
two
off
a
types:
bridge
personal
to
and
prevent
it
from
hitting
ve
stop
people)
a
and
and
train
off
(for
a
example,
track
where
pressing
it
will
hit
a
lever
ve
to
divert
people
to
a
harmless
track
substance
actions
control)
a
participants
outcome
harmful
the
impersonal
prolonging
aversive
highly
train
synapse,
given
a
(for
chemical
and
an
actions
selective
utilitarian
were
involved
participants
killing
were
a
that
design
ve
with
participants
dilemmas
design
where
it
will
hit
one).
was
double-blind
study.
67
2
BI O LO GI C A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
TOK
This kind of dilemma is known as “the trolley problem”, and it is a popular discussion in relation to ethics.
In the mpersl ers of the problem there is a runaway trolley moving along the tracks, and you see that there are
ve people on the tracks ahead and the trolley is about to hit them. You have a choice to press the lever and diver t the
trolley onto another track where it will hit and kill one person, or do nothing.
▲
Figure 2.21
“ The trolley problem”
In the persl ers there is only one track , but you are standing on a bridge above it and there is another man on the
bridge. You have a choice to push the man o the bridge so that his body will stop the trolley and prevent it from hitting
ve people ahead. Logically, the outcome is the same as in the impersonal version but it feels dierent, doesn’t it?
What do you think is the right thing to do in both the scenarios? What do you think most people choose to do?
Results
showed
version
were
that
responses
unaffected
by
in
the
impersonal
citalopram.
Ee f dpme  rm le
However,
Fisher,
after
receiving
a
dose
of
citalopram
study
were
less
likely
to
push
the
man
off
the
the
personal
scenario
than
participants
in
condition.
Would
you
push
a
man
bridge
to
ve
stop
other
the
train
people?
and
If
prevent
you
no,
but
would
in
after
be
this
study,
receiving
opposed
to
a
you
were
would
dose
the
of
idea
it
an
that
your
judgment
on
the
(pressing
a
lever)
would
our
probably
concluded
acceptability
promotes
reactions
as
personal
prosocial
of
situations
judged
of
the
so
more
A
limitation
is
that
harm
be
to
and
It
harm
of
the
study
desire
and
in
and
that
the
might
mean
condition
is
not
might
68
that
they
possible
have
participants
were
to
in
on
in
reduces
seven
estimate
inuenced
the
the
to
the
get
things
brain’s
of
dopamine
Dopamine
that
done
reward
emotional
women
(but
the
on
this
way
All
other
authors
not
extent
results.
by
who
with
is
is
involved
(motivation),
and
pleasure
responses.
were
each
word
people
is
in
centres
Ten
men
currently
other)
“intensely
were
of
mouth
as
well
recruited
as
looking
age
duration
of
at
a
21
being
were
resonance
in
was
in
placed
photographs
There
love
in
imaging
standardized
scanned.
years
a
and
through
was
their
four
mean
months.
scanner
procedure
were
7
functional
(fMRI)
while
the
and
involving
brains
were
stages.
recognized
out
For
30
seconds
each
participant
viewed
a
This
photograph
of
his
Participants
were
or
her
beloved
person.
what
However,
to
mean
participants
engaged
nausea.
work
The
magnetic
salient
slight
trial.
study
reported
modulates
could
that
neurotransmitter
regulating
love”
being
induced
role
ones.
strongly.
1.
intake
central
loved
say
acceptable.
citalopram
to
unaffected.
emotionally
inicting
a
love.
impersonal
serotonin
behaviour.
brain
that
less
that
romantic
you
yers.
Researchers
the
response
excitatory
for
version
conducted
of
from
in
Note
(2005)
mechanisms
average
citalopram
even
Brown
suggested
brain
controlling
participant
and
neural
off
in
hitting
study
the
an
the
the
the
in
placebo
of
bridge
This
in
Aron
participants
which
it
this
2.
activity
which
number.
given
was
to
a
40-second
count
back
ller
from
a
given
n E u R o t R a n S M i t t E R S
3.
For
a
30
more
seconds
photograph
of
an
participants
emotionally
viewed
These
neutral
the
acquaintance.
4.
The
nal
counting
four
total
a n D
steps
B E h a v i o u R
were
procedure
repeated
lasted
for
six
720
times,
so
seconds
(12minutes).
stage
back
was
another
from
a
20
seconds
of
number.
A : ventral tegmental area; B: caudate nucleus
▲
Figure 2.22
Pattern of activation in par ticipants’ brains in response to the photographs
of their beloved persons
Source: Fisher, Aron and Brown (2005, p 59)
Results
brains
of
showed
of
their
a
specic
participants
loved
ones:
in
pattern
of
activation
response
to
the
activation
was
in
the
photographs
observed
Exercise
in
If
dopamine-rich
neural
systems,
primarily
the
you
are
interested
themselves
tegmental
area
(VTA)
and
caudate
nucleus.
part
regions
of
system
the
are
rich
so-called
that
in
dopamine
and
dopaminergic
generates
and
transmits
form
the
dopamine-related
activity
dopamine
in
the
a
reward
system
In
this
role
in
with
because
way,
motivation
dopaminergic
dopamine
romantic
and
activity
feelings
brain.
in
the
brain
authors
review
the
article:
original
research
articles
from
time
to
It
activity
of
the
https://tinyurl.com/mk7hesj
is
useful
to
give
you
a
deeper
understanding
is
of
associated
how
conclusion,
and
time
is
see
their
key
pathway—a
Reading
increases
justied
Both
original
these
to
ventral
real-world
psychological
research.
pleasure.
plays
a
love.
ATL skills: Thinking
You will learn later in this unit that fMRI is based on the
principle of measuring blood ow in specic par ts of the
brain. The assumption is that the more blood ow there
Helen
Fisher’s
website
is
also
worth
exploring:
http://www.helensher.com/
is in a brain region, the more active the region is at this
It
has
a
number
of
Helen
Fisher’s
talks
relating
par ticular moment. So what was observed in Fisher, Aron
to
the
psychology
of
love.
and Brown’s (2005) study is that when you are looking at a
picture of a person you love, there is more blood ow in the
regions of your brain that are known to produce dopamine.
From this the researchers inferred the role of dopamine
in romantic love. To what extent do you think it is a
substantiated conclusion? Or is it far-fetched?
69
2
BI O LO GI C A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
The
te rle f dpme  Prks’s
protocol
of
form
describing
were
approved
the
study
the
risks
and
and
the
consent
potential
benets
dsese
Freed
in
et
al
(2001)
Parkinson’s
degenerative
motor
early
studied
disease.
disorder
functions
of
symptoms
of
the
Parkinson’s
that
the
the
role
nervous
dopamine
disease
mainly
disease
of
affects
system.
are
is
a
the
separate
used
for
by
written
the
the
ethics
informed
women
who
committee.
consent
donated
A
form
fetal
was
tissue
fromabortions.
The
shaking,
ATL skills: Thinking
rigidity,
and
difculty
walking.
Later
thinking
and
Currently
and
by
the
who
there
et
were
is
no
the
34–75
cure
are
years
of
problems
for
and
the
the
In
of
had
mean
We are dealing with an ethically sensitive study. It
disease,
involved abor ted embryos, nerve tissue transplants and
occur.
Parkinson’s
consisted
old
with
and
also
unknown.
sample
disease,
movement
development
causes
al,
Parkinson’s
14
the
behavioural
exact
Freed
in
with
the
40
a sham surgery. To what extent are these procedures
disease
ethically justied by the anticipated benets of the
study
study?
patients
severe
duration
of
years.
Discussion
The
the
of
sample
was
randomly
experimental
nerve
sham
taken
from
and
putamen—a
involved
were
in
forehead
the
a
with
of
the
holes
after
through
7–8
the
limbic
regulation.
the
patient
administered
four
into
to
were
which
long
weeks
group,
holes
were
drilled
surgeries
Local
of
the
through
In
in
was
the
A
the
dura
(a
thick
membrane
the
that
position
number
and
after
of
positron
brain)
patients
one
was
was
not
penetrated.
study
if
you
committee?
and
discuss
it
were
State
with
were
were
They
taken
included
interviews,
and
tomography
followed
up
both
before
clinical
brain
(PET).
scans—
All
longitudinally
for
year.
sham
of
the
study
indicated
the
following.
skull
Irrespective
of
the
age
group,
PET
scans
surrounds
Otherwise,
increased
growth
of
dopamine-
the
producing
procedure
class
surgery.
and
emission
revealed
the
in
this
ethics
measures
the
observations
●
but
the
others.
Results
surgery
approve
of
after
system
tissue
needles.
you
member
your
neurons
skin
drilled
a
patients’
All
the
Would
nerve
awake.
the
groups:
underwent
group,
aborted
two
transplant
group
transplant
embryos
bone,
transplanted
into
dopamine-producing
structure
was
received
control
movement
and
frontal
the
transplanted
performed
anesthesia
the
In
containing
conception
group
and
surgery.
tissue
was
cells
divided
cells
in
the
putamen.
identical.
●
A
reduction
of
symptoms
in
the
by
28%
was
found
in
Caudate nucleus
Putamen
the
patients
the
younger
ones
improvement
Globus pallidus
group
The
Subthalamic
nucleus
of
overall
(aged
was
patients
transplant
(aged
conclusion
was
dopamine-producing
of
patients
in
some
patients.
patients
clinical
Less
severe
benet
response
despite
or
registered
of
with
60
group,
over
that
younger).
in
in
younger
the
sub-
growth
putamen
disease
but
treatment
successful
No
older
transplantation
Parkinson’s
to
the
only
60).
neurons
in
but
in
of
not
the
results
older
older
dopamine
Substantia nigra
neurons
▲
70
Figure 2.23
The location of the putamen
of
the
may
brain.
be
attributed
to
lower
neuroplasticity
n E u R o t R a n S M i t t E R S
could
exist
serotonin
suggests
in
the
a
is
that
Second,
Whether
it
presence
of
to
not
a
is
people
patients
to
benet
between
it
or
not,
Recently,
stressful
of
theory
neurons
depression,
neurons
(Taupin,
from
drugs.
serotonin
is,
not
direct
depression
that
this
developing
life
or
serotonin
serotonin
shown
to
damage
to
(that
between
gene—the
was
levels
one
2006).
This
and
applicable
exception).
universal
vulnerability
can
lead
damaged
universal
link
changing
example,
symptoms
not
questioned.
response
the
the
link
particular
one’s
so
the
the
5-HTT—and
For
stress
and
without
is
where
stage.
restore
all
that
depression
is
path
one
alleviating
not
suggests
B E h a v i o u R
increased
SSRIs
gradually,
all
longer
just
hippocampus
whereas
to
a n D
events
indirect,
and
was
also
transporter
gene
linked
gene
determines
depression
(Caspi
the
depression
et al,
in
2003).
Exercise
Neurotransmission
can
Some
that
scientists
addiction
naturally
Figure 2.24
that
a
starts
to
explain
the
synthetic
produced
organism
▲
is
say
drug
drug
on
the
of
replaces
neurotransmitter
depend
addiction.
mechanism
and
intake
drug
the
the
of
the
PET scans from the study
drug
Source: Freed et al (2001, p 715)
to
keep
the
neurotransmitter
at
its
natural
levels.
Review
this
article
on
te rle f ser  depress
neurotransmission
Serotonin
has
been
shown
to
be
involved
in
then
symptoms
of
major
depressive
disorder.
If
you
create
psychology
(see
Unit
5)
as
an
option
learn
a
lot
more
about
this
topic.
The
owchart
cocaine,
the
to
development
of
you
drug
will
a
study
visualize
abnormal
and
the
addiction:
serotonin
https://tinyurl.com/l9jdghw
hypothesis
brain
play
Studies
two
states
a
have
groups
that
causal
mainly
of
low
role
in
levels
involved
patients.
of
serotonin
developing
The
clinical
in
the
depression.
trials
experimental
Psychology in real life
with
group
Imagine that Crockett, Fisher and Freed were leaders of
would
be
given
a
drug
that
affects
levels
of
three independent research teams that you previously
serotonin
in
the
brain
and
the
control
group
would
funded in Humanborough. They have repor ted their
be
given
a
placebo
(a
harmless
substance
that
the
ndings to you.
patient
believes
to
be
a
drug),
after
which
the
What do you make of these ndings as a policy-maker?
symptoms
of
depression
would
be
compared.
If
a
What practical applications can be developed based on
drug
that
is
known
to
affect
serotonin
(for
example,
this research?
an
SSRI)
leads
experimental
to
a
reduction
group,
serotonin
is
the
However,
this
it
cause
is
of
of
symptoms
concluded
that
in
the
the
level
of
Prioritize these three research programmes based on
their practical signicance and suggest one concrete
depression.
practical application for the one at the top of your list. For
logic
has
a
number
of
limitations.
example, if you chose Crockett et al how can serotonin
First,
drugs
affect
neurotransmitters
within
minutes,
be used (ethically) to increase rates of prosocial
but
the
behavioural
effects
do
not
manifest
behaviour in society?
immediately.
Sometimes
it
takes
weeks.
This
Would you continue funding all three of them?
suggests
that
the
inuence
may
be
indirect
or
there
71
Techniques used to study the brain in relation to behaviour
Inquiry questions
●
To
what
using
●
Is
extent
modern
there
a
can
we
see
inside
the
●
brain
Can
technology?
limit
to
what
we
brain
and
when
we
can
●
see?
What
observe
mental
processes
as
well
as
structure?
are
the
principles
of
brain
imaging?
What you will learn in this section
●
Neuroimaging
●
techniques
The
use
of
neuroimaging
in
research
studies
Computerized
axial
tomography
(CAT)
This
Magnetic
resonance
imaging
●
Functional
magnetic
section
also
links
to:
(MRI)
resonance
research
studies
using
brain
scanning
imaging
technology
(found
in
almost
every
unit)
(fRMI)
●
Positron
emission
tomography
studies
in
the
behaviour:
Electroencephalography
Draganski
Relative
strengths
and
limitations
of
Fisher,
each
etal
technique
For
a
long
studying
invasive
time
brain
victims
of
methods
research
stroke
such
as
or
brains.
Comparing
was
limited
accident
autopsy
to
and
Broca’s
to
in
these
behavioural
people
after
the
in
brain
structure
their
death
led
to
some
of
certain
brain
accident
et
al
(2005),
(2001),
Maguire
Wernicke’s
areas
were
discovered,
for
it
is
an
advantage
to
be
able
to
use
non-
methods,
allowing
us
to
study
the
brain
and
cutting
the
skull
open.
Such
methods
are
discovered
insights
areas.
Freed
Brown
deviations
about
This
was
used
today.
They
are
collectively
known
as
the
brain
functions
(2006),
and
study
widely
after
al
Aron
and
without
abnormalities
to
(2004),
example.
using
invasive
observed
al
(2000).
Obviously,
their
approach
et
(EEG)
Draganskiet
●
biological
(PET)
imaging
techniques ,
or
neuroimaging.
how
Exam tip
You
may
being
not
a
wonder
only
a
research
experiments,
Five
of
the
techniques
of
method
neuroimaging
measuring
in
itself.
correlational
most
are
whether
method
commonly
Depending
studies,
used
computerized
counts
length,
on
the
observations,
brain
axial
as
a
research
neuroimaging
imaging
is
context
case
a
of
method.
method
research,
studies,
and
so
positron
emission
tomography
to
a
variables;
neuroimaging
may
be
ruler
it
is
used
in
on.
magnetic
resonance
imaging
(MRI),
magnetic
resonance
imaging
(fMRI),
axial
tomography
(CAT)
works
on
(PET),
principle
of
differential
absorption
of
X-rays.
functional
The
subject
lies
on
a
table
that
slides
inside
a
and
cylindrical
apparatus,
where
a
moving
source
(EEG).
of
72
Similar
cmpered l mgrp
the
electroencephalography
doesn’t.
measuring
tomography
Computerized
(CAT),
It
of
X-rays
scans
the
subject’s
head.
After
passing
t E c h n i q u E S
through
the
detector
and
head
X-rays
better
beams
go
the
the
X-ray
analysed.
than
through
structural
soft
the
features
beam
Bone
and
tissue.
head
of
u S E D
As
it
the
is
is
t o
S t u D y
picked
hard
up
tissue
multiple
possible
t h E
by
a
absorb
X-ray
to
B R a i n
i n
differs
is
strength
of
non-invasive
It
has
CAT
an
this
eld
advantage
records
of
over
images
of
is
that
studying
standard
hard
and
it
is
brain
because
tissue
as
The
the
blood
vessels
simultaneously.
Unlike
CAT
scans
can
be
made
for
it
loud
is
of
tissue.
why
it
is
parameters
on
and
noise
off
that
This
information
necessary
of
the
magnetic
repeatedly.
is
to
The
characteristic
of
any
scanner.
advantages
of
MRI
as
compared
to
CAT
include
following.
some
It
allows
non-exposure
to
radiation
and,
as
other
a
techniques,
the
switch
the
types
This
well
●
as
is
B E h a v i o u R
quick
structure.
X-rays
soft
a
change
and
result
t o
different
analysed.
rapidly
reveal
brain.
technique
method
in
also
MRI
The
R E L a t i o n
people
consequence,
less
risk
of
radiation-induced
who
cancer.
have
implanted
medical
devices.
●
The
limitation
is
that
CAT
scans
involve
some
MRI
has
better
particularly
of
radiation
soft
However,
●
MRI
People
the
does
with
patients
eld
An
MRI
people
a
the
has
resonance
is
same
resolution
structure.
atomic
that
MRI
the
it
often
energy
not
(MRI)
MRI
is
based
emit
eld.
detected
by
CAT
image
the
a
of
those
When
of
scanner,
●
high-
of
mapped.
body,
of
but
tissue
hydrogen
Hydrogen
their
is
atoms
(H
O)
atoms
concentration
different.
concentration
water
be
it
metal
for
example,
cannot
will
only
undergo
attract
imagine
have
been
metallic
an
issue
requires
Also,
for
to
the
what
reported
implants
in
who
claustrophobic
being
longer
cases
in
the
of
and
For
in
some
this
an
of
placed
in
times
are
scan
people
atoms
Analysing
is
the
long
the
to
as
have
mirror
create
space
40
to
stay
glasses
the
inside
minutes.
are
illusion
the
of
scanner.
for
a
is
new
because
reason,
sedated.
scans
into
a
time
and
MRI
Some
fun
scanner
is
may
especially
may
be
having
clinics
pirate
problematic
the
frightening
are
MRI
try
adventure,
a
be
since
scanners
children
often
MRI
long
children,
to
noisy).
scans
turn
MRI
pretending
ship,
for
For
are
that
the
example.
An
MRI
in
●
Interestingly,
sensitivity
highest
to
in
pattern
is
more
However,
the
expensive
costs
are
than
a
CAT
falling.
the
types
found
scan
can
naturally
the
as
relative
brain
different
example,
hydrogen
fat.
exist
still
(partly
that
pulses
the
for
used
of
young
scan.
be
body,
shrapnel,
can
constructed
procedure
brain
in
Lying
for
hydrogen
placed
these
In
because
principle
when
the
to
●
distribution
their
or
different
X-rays.
produce
particular
energy
magnetic
are
on
is
involve
compared
purpose—to
nuclei—in
external
imaging
does
three-dimensional
atoms—can
brain.
procedure.
some
tube
sometimes
openness
it
it
abnormalities
disadvantages.
deaths
can
tube.
Specially
Mge rese mgg
general,
makes
Computerized axial tomography
inside
in
the
in
the
undisclosed
scan
required:
Figure 2.25
in
(one
because
narrow
as
because
Several
with
underwent
●
metal
procedure
happens).
CAT
This
detecting
have
pacemakers
magnetic
from
for
tissue—such
cardiac
Magnetic
useful
exposure.
in
▲
resolution.
level
incidental
will
of
of
pick
up
the
an
high
MRI
ndings.
slight
resolution
scan
is
a
and
risk
Sometimes
abnormalities
in
itself
the
in
due
scan
the
brain
2
emission
we
by
can
the
of
see
energy
inside
magnetic
equilibrium
in
the
eld
response
brain.
each
state—and
the
to
After
magnetic
elds,
tissue
returns
time
required
to
to
structure
that
symptoms
excitation
anxiety
its
do
so
are
being
and
not
actually
investigated.
cause
patients
to
related
This
seek
to
may
the
create
unnecessary
treatment.
73
2
BI O LO GI C A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
Discussion
How
into
do
a
you
play
make
small
experience!
children
Look
at
patiently
this
lie
article
on
a
to
in
the
how
MRI
the
scanner?
MRI
You
scanner
turn
was
the
diagnostic
redesigned
into
a
procedure
pirate
ship:
https://tinyurl.com/ofmoy4a
With
this
Come
Does
analogy,
up
it
with
can
ideas
you
and
discuss
investigate
structure
Spatial
or
of
in
way
perform
brain
scans
on
animals?
class.
CAT
MRI
fMRI
PET
EEG
Structure
Structure
Processes
Processes
Processes
4
Very
processes?
resolution
Temporal
think
Up
resolution
to
1–2
mm
Up
NA
to
1–2
mm
Up
NA
1
to
1–2
mm
second
mm
30–40
poor
Milliseconds
seconds
Major
challenges
Radiation
Up
exposure
spent
to
40
minutes
movement
narrow
▲
Table 2.1
Cancelling
without
in
random
a
a
noisytube
lot
of
out
noise,
Radiation
Cancelling
exposure
out
trials
random
noise
required
Comparison of neuroimaging methods
well,
but
BOLD
is
the
most
widely
used.
The
ow
of
ATL skills: Self-management
oxygenated
You can continue Table 2.1 by adding more rows to it. For
used
example, you might add “Strengths”. As you read this
the
level
An
fMRI
by
blood
brain
of
directly
cells,
activity
correlates
and
this
in
specic
a
directly
with
the
energy
corresponds
brain
to
region.
unit, expand the table and add new details to it.
scan,
technique,
and
is
just
like
any
characterized
temporal
resolution.
other
by
brain
spatial
Spatial
imaging
resolution
resolution
is
the
Fl mge rese mgg
Functional
called
the
scan
able
to
fMRI
typical
with
a
reveal
also
fMRI
task
a
region
in
of
analysed
activity
by
is
74
is
of
of
at
the
work
the
to
only
carry
is
out
that
to
that
signal
reconstruct
other
with
as
lower
the
less
your
them
A
of
a
that
brain
biomarkers
as
is
see
voxel
blood
as
This
with
is
can
an
from
ow,
so
scanning
million
marks
brain
relatively
in
the
“brain
the
5
signal
time
is
neurons
imaging
crude
of
is
what
of
able
A
several
can
brain
be
we
of
an
think
fMRI
of
neurons.
that
we
the
to
have
and
voxel
are
size
operate
voxels
weaker
longer.
and
of
is
Small
technology:
picture
cube
and
resolution
that
can
Typically,
scanner
mm.
You
screen,
picture
particle”
scanner.
to
computer
the
pixels,
pixels”—a
a
limit
in
locations:
Whereas
voxels.
fMRI
1
your
discern.
smallest
that
of
nearby
pixelated
measured
through
ranges
several
you
more
“volumetric
the
between
resolution
the
measured
is
required
is
is,
screen
voxel
to
the
it
detail
scanner
less
the
discriminate
the
with
rapidly
on
just
able
(blood-oxygen-level
are
a
performance
in
to
of
In
alternated
depending
The
in
brain,
to
are
blood
oxygenation.
There
are
processes.
blood
of
is
obtained
required
during
scanner
of
activity
differs
(fMRI)
CAT
brain
principle
BOLD
signal.
is
response
fMRI
as
features
active
elds
image
and
oxygenated
The
level
known
MRI
subject
The
of
imaging
the
ongoing
periods
region
ow
the
dependent)
the
the
magnetic
the
reason:
While
rest.
increases.
and
resonance
a
structural
show
which
the
changing
ow
the
study
brain
task,
for
dynamic.
periods
when
of
is
can
some
magnetic
functional
ability
the
contains
billion
synapses.
achieved
can
only
functioning.
see
a
t E c h n i q u E S
Temporal
in
which
resolution
changes
in
is
the
brain
u S E D
t o
smallest
activity
S t u D y
time
can
be
t h E
period
B R a i n
These
about
it
as
the
rate
at
which
R E L a t i o n
are
the
t o
B E h a v i o u R
advantages
of
fMRI.
registered.
●
Think
i n
snapshots
of
It
offers
excellent
spatial
resolution
(up
to
the
1–2mm).
brain
are
taken—“frames
per
second”.
Currently,
●
the
1
temporal
second.
well
resolution
This
suited
also
for
achieved
marks
studying
a
in
fMRI
limitation:
processes
is
about
fMRI
that
last
us
is
at
Unlike
several
seconds
(memory,
face
about
alternatives
of
a
brain
are
some
choice
reactions)
There
but
is
not
suited
for
processes
such
as
allows
processes.
disadvantages.
is
poor
temporal
resolution
(about
when
using
fMRI
as
compared
studying
to
instantaneous
it
and
1second)
emotional
techniques,
recognition,
●
thinking
see
imaging
least
There
for
to
structural
electromagnetic
techniques
such
as
EEG
information
(<1millisecond).
travelling
(which
from
takes
the
retina
to
the
visual
cortex
milliseconds).
●
All
the
MRI
With
the
ability
to
capture
brain
considerations
also
the
challenge
of
distinguishing
the
interest
activity
is
head
the
by
the
is
clear
noise
and
can
sufcient
used,
in
but
the
the
but
be
some
scanner
is
not
also
accounted
powerful
of
if
or
of
sorts
noise
(as
even
the
to
cost,
the
are
in
procedure
and
inability
to
use
it
with
implants.
of
are
from
required
simply
subject’s
realistic.
statistical
bias
relevant
subject
all
resulting
result
for
were
claustrophobia,
Brain
the
from
buttons
requires
this
sources
that
sources
procedure)
sensations
and
task
pressing
scan
noise.
separated
Potential
dgeting,
motionless,
thoughts
be
activity.
A
random
with
to
experimental
breathing.
of
has
movements
subject
be
from
associated
performing
background
to
you
that
fMRI:
ones
medical
that
to
processes
lengthy
comes
apply
head
Random
noise.
number
A
of
techniques
impossible
lot
trials
are
to
eliminate.
▲
Figure 2.26
Functional magnetic resonance imaging
ATL skills: Thinking
Every technology, even the most modern, is prone to errors. The more sensitive the technology, the higher the
probability of the so-called false positives—results that are not meaningful, but picked up due to the extreme sensitivity
of the device. A typical fMRI scans across 130,000 voxels, which inates the probability that one of them will be shown
as “active” accidentally due to random chance.
Review this one-page repor t of a study that was intentionally designed to demonstrate this problem: Bennett et al
(2009) https://tinyurl.com/yb27fq2
The sample of the study was one dead Atlantic salmon that was placed in an fMRI scanner and shown photographs of
humans in various social situations. The salmon was “asked” to determine the emotions experienced by people in the
photographs. The amazing thing is that comparison of the dead salmon’s brain responses to pictures showing dierent
social situations revealed some statistically signicant results.
This study won the Ig Nobel Prize in neuroscience.
75
2
BI O LO GI C A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
Psr emss mgrp
Positron
uses
A
emission
blood
ow
radioactive
molecules
glucose.
the
tracer.
more
in
This
radio
in
is
used
used
will
use
It
that
so
the
depend
at
the
is
time
has
a
more
short
The
by
what
the
into
then
decaying
require
of
the
regions
potentials
impulses
half-life
the
active
Electroencephalography
an
tiny.
re
by
tracer
are
has
a
decent
throughout
resolution
are
not
PET
are
of
the
is
used
brain.
only
easily
scans
is
less
However,
and
good
less
these
of
a
quick
given
(fMRI)
surface.
but
the
radioactive
used
of
they
existence
do
not
chemical.
of
as
it
is
useful
well
as
other
becomes
spreading
causes
of
Another
a
it
diffuse
clear
what
It
tumours
brain
areas
is
diseases,
are
often
and
so
affected
helpful
in
advantage
small
hat.
that
The
2011).
performs
can
rat
various
PET
a
is
is
small
be
device
The
measured.
potentially
that
PET
worn
is
called
by
that
by
resolution
used
to
signal.
As
the
of
diagnosing
scanners
while
can
scanner
has
a
its
rat
on
RatCAP
conscious
tasks
This
can
perfect
techniques
and
its
is
very
useful
for
lead
to
a
lot
of
In
is
a
pick
scalp
to
too
generated
at
the
areas.
is
neurons
the
up
in
device
the
head
scalp
in
changes
This
in
the
information
electroencephalogram.
as
is
in
sense
fMRI.
the
good
it
activity
in
It
its
practice
location
measuring
is
capable
within
outperforms
However,
origin
for
resolution.
brain
weakness:
other
spatial
EEG
of
is
the
brain
not
electrical
activity
“on
whole”.
it
makes
brain
be
These
visible
activity
EEG
are
as
the
changes
in
(sometimes
is
commonly
epilepsy
and
advantages
the
used
sleep
of
overall
referred
to
to
patterns
as
brain
diagnose
such
disorders.
EEG.
been
●
It
●
Unlike
is
a
low-cost
technique.
head
activity
PET
activity
mobile,
and
fMRI,
EEG
measures
neuronal
directly.
is
EEG
can
be
offered
as
a
mobile
service
because
research
insights
apparatus
can
be
manually
transported.
For
into
comparison,
brain
impulse
of
electrical
red
any
potentials
temporal
this
establish
waves),
(Schulz
fully
brain
and
an
to
detectable
attached
the
changes
such
EEG
the
and
a
milliseconds.
●
being
has
conditions
of
that
generate
sending
metastases,
dementias.
constructed
etal,
detecting
disease.
small—so
like
for
of
the
electric
Neurons
impulse
groups
electric
points
potential
to
large
are
by
An
“invisible”
become
Electrodes
detecting
the
PET
impulses
other
because
when
synchronously,
these
EEG
processes
which
skull
is
measures
circuits.
4mm
advantage
resolution
days
alternatives
about
the
(EEG)
neural
axons.
neuron
However,
electric
temporal
so
biggest
spatial
administration
its
seconds,
The
of
of
by
each
their
predetermined
scan.
resolution
30–40
detected.
their
non-invasive
require
spatial
with
along
individual
outside
is
PET
generated
communicate
as
scanner
distribution
of
to
such
administered
emitted
on
fMRI,
activity.
itself
brain,
quickly).
are
like
brain
binds
the
tracer
frequencies
areas
of
that
in
stream.
decays
supply,
brain
mostly
it
(PET),
indicator
radioactive
is,
Brain
blood
the
tracer
blood
(that
registers
the
naturally
subject’s
period
tomography
as
Elereeplgrp
the
weight
of
an
fMRI
scanner
is
functioning.
about
●
EEG
1
is
ton.
silent,
responses
This
●
EEG
to
Using
●
which
is
EEG
other
offers
only
with
completely
also
is
auditory
difcult
most
EEG
it
is
to
can
fMRI
non-invasive
neuroimaging
has
a
advantage
noisy
be
because
studied.
scanners.
in
comparison
techniques.
disadvantages.
extremely
gives
an
stimuli
very
low
crude
spatial
picture
resolution,
in
terms
so
of
localization.
●
EEG
the
in
▲
76
Figure 2.27
The RatCAP
is
good
cortex,
for
but
subcortical
surface
of
the
measuring
not
so
areas.
scalp,
good
The
the
electric
for
activity
detecting
farther
weaker
away
the
in
activity
from
signal.
the
t E c h n i q u E S
●
It
takes
an
of
considerable
encephalogram
artifacts
and
the
u S E D
experience
correctly
contribute
signal–noise
to
is
to
in
a
the
quite
S t u D y
t h E
B R a i n
●
interpret
because
noise
ratio
t o
study
data,
the
sources
of
noise
are:
movements,
eye
picture
imaging
and
poor
movements
grounding
Brown
processes
of
a
loved
in
(2005)
used
response
to
fMRI
to
looking
at
person.
technology
and
alternative
of
the
to
provided
invasive
a
useful
methods
and
such
as
eye
post-mortem
blinks,
and
B E h a v i o u R
heartbeat,
fruitful
muscle
Aron
brain
t o
Some
Brain
potential
R E L a t i o n
Fisher,
number
low.
i n
studies
or
neural
stimulation
by
apparatus
implanted
electrodes.
connection.
Knowing
specic
te se f ermgg  reser
relative
brain
considerations
will
strengths
scanning
involved
automatically
and
limitations
technologies,
in
enable
choosing
you
to
as
of
well
as
between
add
major
them,
evaluation
sdes
points
You
have
encountered
some
studies
techniques
already
and
there
will
more
throughout
this
scan
brain
are
the
examples
we
that
used
technology
structure
or
processes.
The
choice
is
on
a
variety
of
factors
including
available
book.
technology,
These
studies
be
based
many
research
using
to
neuroimaging
to
have
discussed
so
cost,
ethics
and
aims
of
the
study.
far.
ATL skills: Self-management
●
Draganski
changes
in
learning
a
et
al
(2004)
brain
used
structure
simple
juggling
MRI
in
to
determine
response
routine
for
to
As you continue reading this book , make a rule of noting
three
research studies that used brain imaging technology.
months.
Analyse how and why the decision was made to use a
par ticular scanning technique.
●
Draganski
structure
et
al
(2006)
changed
examination
in
as
used
a
MRI
result
of
to
see
if
revising
brain
for
an
medicine.
Psychology in real life
●
Maguire
et
al
(2000)
compared
MRI
scans
Look back at the research projects that you have proposed
between
London
taxi
drivers
and
controls
to
so far for the people of Humanborough and pick your top
see
if
hippocampus
played
a
role
in
spatial
three. What techniques, if any, would you use in these
memory.
projects? Would they be invasive or non-invasive? Would
●
Freed
et
al
(2001)
used
dopamine-producing
Parkinson’s
disease
PET
cells
scans
in
the
to
study
brains
of
they investigate structure or processes? What factors
would you need to consider to make the nal choice?
patients.
77
Hormones and behaviour
Inquiry questions
●
Do
hormones
inuence
●
behaviour?
Can
we
say
behaviours
●
How
far
does
example,
it
hormones
they
also
this
inuence
might
be
inuence
inuence
easy
spread?
to
admit
sleep-wake
things
such
hormones
and
inuence
some
some
positively?
For
●
that
cycles,
as
that
negatively
but
moral
do
What
is
the
role
relationships
choice?
of
(for
hormones
example,
in
interpersonal
friendship
or
conict)?
What you will learn in this section
●
The
function
of
◆
hormones
Oxytocin
general
Unlike
neurotransmitters,
with
blood,
regulate
ongoing
lesser
processes
voluntary
system
and
the
and
control;
aversion
because
in
results
not
allow
the
endocrine
replicated
with
computers
longinstead
term
risk
hormones
were
travel
reduces
(eliminated
human
partners)
for
◆
nervous
system
of
Oxytocin
are
other
specically
humans
increases
trust
in
(accepted)
interdependent
●
Hormones
do
notinuence
The
role
of
oxytocin
Scheele
directly;
instead,they
change
thata
certain
et
al
occur
in
response
to
a
distance
by
a
selectively
relationship
from
women
to
keep
strangers,
may
promote
delity
stimulus
Experimental
●
in
certain
oxytocin
environmental
(2012):
men
behaviour
greater
will
delity
the
inuencing
probability
in
behaviour
tasks:
stop-distance
Oxytocin
paradigm
It
is
produced
in
the
hypothalamus
and
Oxytocin
released
into
the
blood
by
the
approach/avoidance
task
and
selectively
inhibits
approach
to
pituitary
certain
stimuli—attractive
women—in
gland
men
It
plays
a
role
childbirth
in
and
sexual
social
not
reproduction,
social
et
al
(2014):
bonds
in
oxytocin
mammals
in
is
in
a
stable
play
of
a
role
even
The
role
of
oxytocin
also
linked
to
The
role
of
Dreu
as
interpersonal
intergroup
in
et
al
in
oxytocin
et
al
trust,
conict
in
oxytocin
promotes
non-cooperation
delity
interpersonal
groups
(2005):
oxytocin
task:
a
modied
version
of
trust
“Prisoner’s
dilemma”
increases
non-cooperation
humans
was
Experimental
task:
the
game
“Investor”
motivated
vulnerable
much
Alternative
78
inter-group
(2012):
Oxytocin-induced
trust
the
bonds
conict
the
Kosfeld
maintaining
such
Experimental
●
but
non-
between
or
in
monogamous
defence-motivated
behaviours
relationship,
men
contexts
De
Oxytocin
may
stability
promotes
●
reproductive
are
single
bonding
This
Romero
who
in
explanations
by
by
group
the
the
desire
members
desire
to
to
protect
(and
protect
not
so
oneself)
h o R M o n E S
●
The
role
of
oxytocin
in
This
human
section
a n D
also
B E h a v i o u R
links
to:
ethnocentrism
De
Dreu
human
et
al
(2011):
oxytocin
●
neurotransmitters
●
research
●
decision-making
promotes
methodology
ethnocentrism
Experimental
task:
utilitarian
(cognitive
approach
to
moral
behaviour)
dilemmas
●
Males
under
oxytocin
were
more
social
identity,
(sociocultural
to
sacrice
ingroup
This
an
outgroup
target
than
inter-group
increasing
outgroup
bias
is
created
●
stress
●
cooperation
ingroup
favouritism,
but
(health
and
Hormones
are
essentially
similar
both
(neurotransmission)
number
discrimination,
of
of
human
conict
relationships).
neural
and
of
released
by
endocrine
hypothalamus,
glands:
pineal
gland,
gland,
thyroid,
parathyroid,
thymus,
chemical
testes
and
ovaries.
Together,
these
form
communication
the
a
origins
to
are
pancreas,
However,
are
glands,
pituitary
in
competition,
behaviour,
derogation
hormones
neurotransmitters:
differ
psychology)
not
adrenal
messengers.
acculturation
behaviour)
by
te f f rmes
function
to
an
(psychology
their
approach
target
prosocial
In
enculturation,
likely
hormonal
endocrine
system.
communication
ways.
Hypothalamus
●
Hormones
and
are
travel
with
destination.
is
released
blood
to
of
is
bloodstream
Pituitary
their
Pineal
neurotransmission
along
this
the
reach
Conversely,
communication
implication
into
nervous
that
cells.
hormones
The
can
Thyroid
reach
Parathyroid
places
that
the
nervous
system
does
not
cover,
Thymus
because
the
network
of
blood
vessels
is
more
Adrenal
elaborate.
Kidney
●
The
nervous
system
regulates
relatively
rapid
Pancreas
processes
(movement,
emotion,
decisions,
Ovary
and
so
on),
whereas
hormones
can
regulate
Uterus
long-term
ongoing
processes
such
as
growth,
Teste
metabolism,
●
Generally
control
over
digestion
speaking,
over
neural
hormonal
or
the
reproduction.
degree
regulation
regulation.
For
of
is
voluntary
higher
▲
Figure 2.28
example,
it
is
Hormones
possible
for
you
to
control
your
a
certain
extent,
whereas
the
control
you
have
over
your
for
only
this
inuence
particular
cells
that
hormone.
have
Such
cells
degree
are
of
can
emotions
receptors
to
The endocrine system
than
growth
called
target
cells .
When
a
hormone
binds
is
to
a
receptor
it
launches
a
sequence
of
changes,
negligible.
●
However,
system
it
and
should
the
some
some
extent
noted
endocrine
interdependent.
to
be
These
can
chemicals
system
two
be
for
the
both
nervous
are
systems
inuence
may
neurotransmitters,
that
each
example,
of
gene
suppression .
is
interact
other.
hormones
some
and
Also,
and
adrenaline.
that
to
a
a
are
hormones
directly.
that
which
Instead,
certain
certain
buying
genomic:
Essentially,
do
not
they
will
environmental
on
a
hot
activation
what
inuence
change
behaviour
ice-cream
gene
the
means
behaviour
probability
occur
in
stimulus.
day:
this
or
hot
response
This
is
like
weather
79
2
BI O LO GI C A L
itself
does
certainly
There
is
not
APPROACH
cause
increases
a
variety
you
the
of
to
TO
BE H AV IO U R
buy
ice-cream,
probability
hormones
that
but
you
produced
in
and
it
will.
their
one
a
on
chair
and
most
well-known
they
all
have
different
functions.
include
testosterone
evidence
one
that
specic
cortisol,
and
oxytocin,
oestrogen.
links
We
hormones
dog
was
by
four
empty
owner
sat.
cameras
except
The
for
to
move
the
chair
in
owner
pre-designated
The
every
and
10
not
minutes,
actively
but
otherwise
interact
with
the
sit
dog.
insulin,
will
to
the
recorded
room
adrenaline,
quietly
noradrenaline,
was
The
which
instructed
positions
hormones
hour.
the
was
body
behaviour
during
look
Later
at
behaviour
the
recordings
checklist
using
that
example—oxytocin
of
dogs
dog
sprayed
afliation
were
analysed
behaviours.
with
towards
operationalized
as
oxytocin
their
owner.
snifng,
using
Results
a
showed
showed
higher
Afliation
licking,
gentle
was
touching
o  
with
Oxytocin
released
It
plays
and
a
the
role
in
from
“the
stimulation
this
helps
every
kiss
to
and
or
It
the
pituitary
been
bonding
establish
a
child.
is
also
were
observed
present
and
“the
behaviours
is
bond
found
to
showed
between
released
in
with
with
the
hug.
et
al
(2014)
demonstrated
that
social
bonds
in
contexts.
In
mammals
their
in
study
intra-nasally
either
with
of
(in
a
repeated
measures,
dogs
owner
and
design).
another
They
dog
oxytocin
more
and
partner
frequent
the
dog
endogenous
social
in
effect
the
the
of
dog
it
dog
oxytocin
oxytocin
blood
was
tests
interacted
partner,
oxytocin
other
approach
subsequent
often
the
(the
and
time
results
the
higher
had.
interaction,
So
and
affects
the
release
of
more
social
oxytocin.
or
researchers
concluded
that
oxytocin
performs
function
of
maintaining
close
social
bonds
in
a
In
the
“Acknowledgement”
section
of
double-blind
were
in
dog
Similar
were
placed
the
same
article
they
did
not
forget
to
thank
the
dogs
with
for
their
the
body
more
non-
16
their
counterbalanced
owner.
afliation
more
“triggers”
mammals.
placebo
the
the
and
oxytocin
the
sprayed
to
bouts
signicantly
bidirectional:
owner
levels
The
reproductive
for
play
spent
room):
were
that
the
interaction
promotes
paw,
Furthermore,
be
oxytocin
Romero
the
condition.
released
or
also
proximity
“the
breastfeeding
stronger
It
close
nose
They
as
to
oxytocin
during
in
childbirth
hormone”
the
contact.
and
gland.
referred
example,
nipples
the
hypothalamus
reproduction,
has
For
of
the
by
sexual
chemical”.
mother
in
blood
bonding.
hormone”,
cuddle
the
produced
into
social
love
and
is
participating.
room
OH
Tyr
O
H
O
N
2
N
H
H
Cys
HN
S
Cys
Pro
Ile
S
Leu
O
HN
O
H
N
N
N
O
Gln
H
H
O
N
H
N
N
2
O
O
O
O
Asn
H
Gly
O
NH
NH
2
▲
The
role
of
sequences,
response
and
80
has
oxytocin
such
to
as
nipple
been
in
Figure 2.29
instinctive
attachment
to
stimulation,
is
observed
in
baby
well
animals
Oxytocin
behavioural
a
as
2
in
there
understood
well
as
humans.
in
is
It
a
would
link
be
unrelated
behaviours
delity
even
or
more
between
interesting
the
such
hormone
as
inter-group
to
and
nd
interpersonal
conict.
out
if
seemingly
trust,
h o R M o n E S
4,
8,
the
12).
The
trustee:
a n D
B E h a v i o u R
experimenter
if
the
investor
triples
sends
whatever
4
units,
the
is
sent
to
trustee
See de
There’s
Paul
yet
Zak
another
used
in
name
his
TED
for
oxytocin
Talk—the
receives
12,
if
receives
36,
and
Watch
his
talk
“Trust,
oxytocin?”
their
(2011)
and
note
For
he
ascribes
to
the
hormone
empirical
research
he
his
own
endowment,
example,
uses
as
24
units
that
the
the
trustee
trustees
if
the
which
investor
is
added
sends
8,
to
the
their
trustee
and
so
has
24
+
12
=
36
monetary
units.
step
3,
the
trustee
decides
how
much
of
the
now
support
available
for
12
and
In
what
sends
Remember
what
receives
functions
on.
morality—
total.
and
investor
so
“moral
have
molecule”.
the
that
money
to
send
back
to
the
investor.
The
arguments.
https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_
morality_and_oxytocin
idea
is
(the
trustee),
it
will
me
that
turn
back
you,
if
whole
to
At
each
the
and
I
and
maybe
only
you
sum
end
monetary
of
units
a
you.
the
once
order
game
four
randomly
exchanged
of
times
a
total
for
I
send
trust
this
keeping
trust
this
with
the
will
Can
you
units,
during
to
towards
experiment
were
you
more.
temptation
In
trust
monetary
that
interact
aversion
paired
the
trust
have
with
played
time
completely
12
you
18
We
so
investor)
send
36,
overcome
Participants
role,
will
least
though?
need
(the
I
into
at
experiment,
the
I
you,
I
risk.
in
the
new
same
partner.
earned
real
money.
te rle f    erpersl rs
Kosfeld
et
al
(2005)
claimed
that
oxytocin
ATL skills: Social
increases
128
trust
healthy
Subjects
the
game
played
In
a
Each
role
of
theory
round
consists
of
of
of
the
either
the
three
age
an
game
game
“Investor ” game in class, to get a feel of the task that the
the
par ticipants were required to do. Do not use real money:
were
this activity is for the sake of science, not gambling!
the
stakes.
anonymously
or
as
with
a
Note your thoughts as you are playing. If you are the
researchers
monetary
known
(each
either
Substances
investor
is
Before you read the results of the experiment, play the
years).
spray.
real
paired
were
22
into
experiment
with
were
this
group.
intra-nasal
game
subjects
the
game
trust
(mean
allocated
placebo
an
purposes
designed
this
or
via
Participants
students
randomly
group
administered
For
humans.
male
were
oxytocin
in
a
investor, what factors do you consider when you are
In
choosing the amount for the investment? If you are a
and
trustee, what does the sum of your return depend on?
trustee.
“Investor”.
new
partner)
steps.
Results
of
trust
those
in
oxytocin
the
experiment
participants
was
higher
than
showed
who
in
that
the
received
the
a
control
level
dose
of
of
group.
The
Investor
median
group
transfer
and
8
in
of
investors
the
control
was
10
group.
in
the
oxytocin
Forty-ve
percent
of
Transfer
subjects
0
4
8
in
the
oxytocin
group
showed
the
maximum
12
(MU)
trust
the
The
Trustee
Trustee
Trustee
level
(12
placebo
monetary
group
authors
units),
showed
suggested
the
two
whereas
only
maximum
alternative
21%
trust
in
level.
explanations
Trustee
Back
for
this
nding.
transfer
●
Oxytocin
●
Oxytocin
(MU)
12
0
▲
Figure 2.30
0
24
0
36
0
step
and
In
the
step
that
1,
to
the
In
The “Investor ” game
experimenter
trustee
2,
the
send
an
endowment
investor
to
the
gives
needs
trustee
to
of
both
12
are
investor
monetary
decide
(there
the
how
four
risk
increases
aversion
people’s
trust
in
in
general.
other
humans.
48
order
study
As
reduces
units.
much
options:
of
0,
in
played
a
random
the
to
clarify,
which
similar
they
trust
was
(trustees)
designed
independent
mechanism
software
people
an
game,
follow-up
of
subjects
but
this
time
(software).
The
algorithm
modelled
in
a
group
the
after
previous
against
decisions
of
a
in
real
experiments,
so
81
2
BI O LO GI C A L
the
investors
“human”
APPROACH
faced
exactly
experiment,
TO
the
only
BE H AV IO U R
same
this
risks
time
as
they
in
the
te rle f    del
knew
Scheele
they
were
playing
against
machines.
No
et
modulates
was
observed
in
this
experiment
between
and
placebo
groups.
The
median
eight
monetary
units
in
both
researchers
affects
trust
in
concluded
that
interpersonal
that
oxytocin
social
The
distance
researchers
between
studied
men
86
and
heterosexual
Some
of
them
were
single
and
others
were
in
conditions.
a
The
showed
transfer
men.
was
(2012)
the
women.
oxytocin
al
difference
oxytocin
specically
interactions.
stable
blind
monogamous
independent
administered
relationship.
measures
either
Using
design,
oxytocin
or
a
a
a
double-
researcher
placebo
intra-
nasally.
ATL skills: Thinking and research
Subjects
the
participated
Write the study in the “A – M – P – R – C – E” format. Be
In
rst
concise. When you evaluate, consider methodological
subjects
aspects (sampling, generalizability, credibility, bias) and
with
ethical aspects.
an
attractive
female
on
the
side
were
their
in
two
independent
task—“ stop-distance
positioned
toes
other
on
the
of
at
one
mark
on
end
the
experimenter
the
room.
tasks.
paradigm ”—
of
the
oor,
was
The
room
while
positioned
subject
was
Note that the researchers suggested alternative
then
required
to
move
slowly
towards
the
female
explanations for their ndings and then conducted
experimenter
and
stop
at
a
distance
that
made
follow-up studies to eliminate one of the alternatives.
him
feel
slightly
uncomfortable
(too
close).
This shows how a whole research programme rather than
Care
was
taken
to
assure
that
the
experimenter
a separate study is normally needed to test a hypothesis
maintained
the
same
appearance
over
all
the
properly. Alternative explanations and their elimination is
trials.
also a great exercise in critical thinking.
O x ytocin
59 cm
57 cm
Single males
Single males
71 cm
57 cm
Pair-bonded males
Pair-bonded males
30 cm
▲
In
the
their
head
seconds
shown
50
each.
women),
negative
series
positioned
of
in
a
cm.
positive
social
of
on
pictures
a
chin
Pictures
There
random
were
order:
rest
were
four
non-social
at
a
types
the
of
social
(beautiful
and
task”—
screen
with
viewing
Results
that
of
All
participants
had
a
relationship,
picture
they
were
instructed
to
woman.
It
men
landscapes),
attractive
in
a
resulted
if
they
if
in
an
they
increase
did
not
in
like
the
the
they
of
the
that
the
joystick
and
this
reduced
the
82
This
way
approach
or
avoidance
who
a
ones,
that
“stay
was
to
and
task
keep
an
his
a
greater
attractive
oxytocin
away
not
showed
monogamous
caused
from”
an
partner.
only
in
group
the
of
second
pictures
task
affected
relationship
status
was
the
group
(pictures
of
attractive
women).
they
participants
who
received
oxytocin
picture’s
was
by
positive
size.
saw,
slower
size.
to
experiment
the
and
Specically,
pushed
concluded
rst
in
joystick,
picture’s
what
single
themselves
relationship
woman
the
liked
social
Conversely,
was
in
men
non-social
oxytocin
which
not
(attractive
and
pull
but
picture,
two
showed
the
experiment
stimulated
between
for
negative
joystick,
the
oxytocin
distance
ashed
positive
(mutilations)
on
Results
(dirt).
1.70 m
The stop-distance paradigm
task—“approach/avoidance
viewed
distance
30 cm
1.70 m
Figure 2.31
second
subjects
Placebo
simulated.
reaction
time
(that
is,
pulled
the
joystick
had
h o R M o n E S
more
only
that
reluctantly)
if
they
were
oxytocin
in
in
response
a
to
these
relationship.
selectively
inhibits
It
pictures,
was
but
concluded
approach
following
stimuli—attractive
women—in
men
in
a
stable
relationship,
but
not
in
studies
negative
Dreu
et
single
in
al
(2012)
the
results
of
these
trials
it
is
seen
inuencing
men
in
a
that
greater
distance
from
relationship
attractive
not
know,
oxytocin
may
promote
women
was
a
less
obvious
effects
of
example,
prejudice,
It
of
turns
do
you
think
discrimination
out
increased
it
can,
but
bonding
it
or
oxytocin,
these
with
can
play
maybe
come
your
a
own
role
of
specically,
non-cooperation
measures
experiment
design.
The
using
the
sample
of
102
males
either
a
dose
and
oxytocin
spray.
Participants
were
groups
or
they
self-administered
placebo
randomly
and
told
that
through
assigned
they
nasal
to
Following
member
effects
group.
compete
against
another
group
of
would
three
need
people.
in
conict?
side
of
too.
role
even
as
the
delity.
to
For
at
conict—more
double-blind
three-person
are
seemingly
they
te rle f    er-grp 
There
these
to
consisted
do
at
oxytocin.
by
independent
keep
of
men.
This
selectively
look
looked
inter-group
defence-motivated
From
will
effects
who
oxytocin
are
B E h a v i o u R
to
De
certain
two
surprising
a n D
a
The
this,
of
modied
each
another
version
participant
was
three-person
of
the
paired
group
“Prisoner’s
with
and
a
played
dilemma”.
TOK
“Prisoner ’s dilemma” is probably the most commonly mentioned problem of game theory. Game theory is an interesting
interdisciplinary eld that combines mathematics, decision theory, economics and other areas. It is a theory that
models the behaviour of two or more rational agents whose actions and outcomes depend on each other. Things get
even more interesting when you compare the rational predictions of the mathematical theory (game theory) to real-life
behaviour of par ticipants in these situations (behavioural game theory).
The standard “Prisoner ’s dilemma” is as follows. Two members of a criminal gang are arrested. Each prisoner is kept in an
isolated chamber and they have no means of communicating with each other. They are interrogated independently and
each of them has to choose one of two actions. They are also given the same deal, which is presented in the form of a
matrix of outcomes, as shown in Figure 2.32.
Prisoner A
Silent
Betray
–1
0
tneliS
B renosirP
–3
–2
yarteB
0
▲
Figure 2.32
–2
Options for players of the “Prisoner ’s dilemma”
If A and B each choose to betray the par tner and testify against that person, they are both given two years in prison. If A
and B both remain silent, they only get one year each. If A chooses to testify against B, but B keeps silent, A will be free
and B will get three years in prison (and vice versa).
83
2
BI O LO GI C A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
TOK (continued)
It looks as if the most rational choice in this situation is to remain silent—this minimizes the total time spent in prison.
However, the problem is that both A and B have a temptation to testify against the par tner and be free, so there’s a high
chance that the outcome will actually be two years in prison for each of them.
What would you do if you were in the situation that is the “Prisoner ’s dilemma”?
What applications of game theory in various areas of knowledge can you think of?
Figure
by
2.33
shows
participants
in
an
the
example
of
the
game
possible
played
and
study.
the
Gr: 8
Ind: 6
Ind: 5
Gr: 6
Gr: 1
Ind: 7
Gr: 1
Gr: 7
Ind: 8
Ind: 7
Gr: 8
Gr: 7
even
D
members
that
I
am
If
he
more
the
of
same
my
group
vulnerable
but
time,
my
I
only
to
my
group
only
win
win
1.
5,
This
opponent’s
members
are
vulnerable.
cooperates
but
I
compete,
outcome
C
is
reversed.
noitarepooC
Ind: 5
At
non-cooperation,
tnapicit raP
Ind: 8
Gr: 6
noitarepooc-noN
means
Ind: 6
pay-off.
What
this
decision
game?
seems
to
problem
switch
would
Outcome
be
is
the
that
from
you
A
most
rational
there
always
cooperating
will
increase
the
and
you
can
probably
as
and
choose
8
to
pay-off
to
make
if
you
were
playing
(cooperate-cooperate)
choice,
exists
a
but
temptation
competing
from
decide
7
to
that
cooperate.
8.
7
the
because
You
is
know
almost
However,
you
to
this
as
this,
good
also
Cooperation
Non-cooperation
know
Will
Outgroup member
for
that
he
the
be
your
opponent
reasonable
common
and
good?
has
the
same
sacrice
You
hope
1
temptation.
unit
of
so—but
prot
what
if
(Ind = individual; Gr = group)
he
▲
Figure 2.33
The modied version of the “Prisoner ’s
doesn’t,
you
dilemma” played in the study
will
suffera
main
Just
as
in
the
standard
“Prisoner’s
dilemma”,
participants
and
independently,
are
asked
to
choose,
they
question
compete.
Although
want
the
(not
too
pay-off
is:
outcome
much),
will
how
outcome
be
likely
7
is
C?
but
In
your
times
it
this
case
group
smaller.
that,
in
will
The
C
from
happening,
order
you
to
will
rst
andchoose
to
compete
rather
than
to
cooperate?
cooperateor
its
for
simultaneously
strike
whether
suffer
lot:
goes
the
prevent
two
and
decision
That’s
what
we
call
defence-motivated
is
non-cooperation.
made
independently,
matrix.
They
can
see
both
the
players
see
following
the
pay-off
possible
TOK
outcomes.
A
If
I
(the
participant)
outgroup
the
members
and
the
If
I
I
group
my
option:
compete
both
of
and
and
my
A
for
of
his
win
group
everyone
he
7,
wins
of
is
less
points,
This
quite
a
only
and
7
wins
7.
he
attractive
Sometimes a war begins when one country strikes
(the
win
he
we
members
he
I
win
competes,
This
all
and
cooperates,
group
group
members.
outcome
cooperate
also
members
attractive
B
player)
become the victim if it doesn’t strike rst. To what extent
7
is
an
lot.
win
and
than
us.
another country pre-emptively, because it is afraid to
do you nd this reasoning rational?
In general, can negative social events be the result of
6—
positive, rational reasoning?
his
Participants
times.
C
If
I
cooperate
but
he
competes,
he
and
84
of
his
group
win
asked
8—the
The
numeric
to
and
make
a
choice
non-cooperation
rewards
were
varied
ve
on
the
these
members
were
betweencooperation
largest
ve
trials.
The
pay-offs
from
the
game
h o R M o n E S
were
converted
to
real
money
and
given
to
the
participants.
Results
of
the
study
showed
that
a
hitting
is
more
likely
group
is
1
in
to
0
high
the
ve).
some
does
not
In
of
will
one
these
divert
the
individual
tasks
the
trolley
and
target
to
saving
person
player’s
one
who
had
to
be
killed)
was
a
member
non-cooperation:
if
vulnerability
(for
example,
pay-off
of
the
player’s
suppose
we
participants’
member
change
matrix)
by
depend
so
much
on
the
player’s
of
ingroup,
their
a
the
typically
example)
or
and
outgroup.
manipulating
either
for
●
that
track,killing
of
●
switch
B E h a v i o u R
another
(the
defence-motivated
the
a n D
name
Dutch
a
in
other
This
of
the
name
typically
was
target
(Dirk
Arab
tasks
a
achieved
or
name
person:
Peter,
(such
as
own
Ahmed
or
Youssef)
or
a
typically
German
name
vulnerability
(such
●
is
more
likely
in
the
oxytocin
as
Markus
individuals
The
researchers
concluded
non-cooperation
protect
so
vulnerable
much
by
reinforces
with
the
shows
is
the
the
that
motivated
group
desire
to
protect
of
oxytocin
members
of
your
oxytocin
the
members
role
how
oxytocin-induced
by
has
desire
(and
creating
reverse,
but
or
ethnic
question
to
person
not
oneself).
in
ingroup,
a
or
Helmut).
The
other
ve
condition.
how
This
were
unnamed
background
was,
prefer
does
this
in
to
a
was
task
like
sacrice
depend
and
not
a
on
so
their
identity
indicated.
this,
would
non-Dutch
The
a
Dutch
person,
and
oxytocin?
bonds
also
ATL skills: Self-management
negative
The studies that have been discussed in this section
side—defensiveness
and
non-cooperation
with
link to various other topics in this book . It might be
others.
a good idea to keep track of the links and connections
te rle f    m eersm
De
Dreu
promotes
et
inter-group
perceived
al
(2011)
human
bias
as
where
more
lead
xenophobia.
hormone”,
been
exaggerated,
used
“the
associated
conducted
a
with.)
series
of
either
Dutch
oxytocin
a
than
or
is
not
Dreu
Participants
a
group
superior
ethnocentrism
“the
et
al
They
placebo
in
is
For now, look at the four studies mentioned in this
to
section (Kosfeld et al 2005; Scheele et al 2012; De Dreu
may
something
experiments
males.
topic.
of
ethnic
et al 2011; De Dreu et al 2012) and think how they can
that
link to topics and concepts of:
bonding
●
prejudice and discrimination
●
interpersonal relationships (friendship, attraction)
●
prosocial behaviour
●
conict
●
acculturation.
usually
(2011)
all
placebo-control
or
type
chemical”—has
De
of a special sign that will show a link to another
oxytocin
own
hormone”,
cuddle
designs.
indigenous
(This
love
double-blind
measures
one’s
important
When
oxytocin—“the
that
ethnocentrism,
others.
to
found
as you are reading the book . In your notes, think
of
which
independent
the
studies
were
self-administered
intra-nasally.
Results
Experiments
involved
exposing
subjects
to
more
of
people
belonging
either
to
their
showed
ingroup
likely
or
outgroup
(immigrants
from
the
and
German
Experiments
such
as
already
the
used
discussed
“moral-choice
trolley
(see
dilemma”
problem
we
target,
signicant
to
were
dilemmas
whether
to
save
under
the
placebo
difference.
There
are
in
the
●
Oxytocin
promotes
ingroup
oxytocin
and
●
there
an
was
given
a
series
of
where
one
decision
person
should
had
be
ve
other
people
(for
this
two
alternative
nding.
Oxytocin
promotes
outgroup
favouritism.
derogation.
and
analysis
of
the
data
revealed
that,
moral-
to
be
killed
with
males
in
the
placebo
(control)
made
males
under
oxytocin
were
less
likely
in
to
order
were
than
tasks,
condition,
as
while
for
compared
choice
males
target
have
“Neurotransmitters
Participants
groups
oxytocin
outgroup
explanations
Further
placebo
an
citizens).
famous
behaviour”).
under
sacrice
Middle
no
East
to
(Dutch
ingroup
males)
that
images
sacrice
a
member
of
their
ingroup,
but
were
example,
85
2
BI O LO GI C A L
not
more
outgroup
the
rst
likely
(as
APPROACH
to
sacrice
shown
explanation
in
a
Table
has
to
TO
BE H AV IO U R
member
2.2).
be
the
of
the
Based
on
preferred
Oxytocin
creates
this,
ingroup
one.
derogation.
inter-group
favouritism.
This
is
It
does
good
Oxytocin
Frequency
of
sacricing
outgroup
Frequency
of
sacricing
ingroup
Are
outgroup
ingroup
▲
targets
sacriced
targets
Equal
targets
more
frequently
Yes
not
news
by
increasing
promote
…
or
is
outgroup
it?
Control
in
oxytocin
Less
than
bias
in
and
control
oxytocin
conditions
condition
No
targets?
Table 2.2
Findings of De Dreu et al (2011)
Psychology in real life
Now that you know about various eects that oxytocin has on human behaviour, how can you use this knowledge to
inform policy-making in Humanborough?
Think about one concrete project that you would like to implement. List its potential risks and benets.
86
Pheromones and behaviour
Inquiry questions
●
Do
human
pheromones
●
exist?
What
into
●
If
they
do,
human
what
effects
do
they
have
are
the
human
major
limitations
of
research
pheromones?
on
behaviour?
What you will learn in this section
●
Pheromones
do
not
signal
perception,
Chemical
communication
of
the
Although
the
same
of
or
affect
cannot
mate
classify
them
as
sex
pheromone
species
●
role
we
among
a
members
gender
so
pheromones
in
Search
for
a
human
sex
pheromone:
eld
animal
experiments
behaviour
is
pheromones
been
the
not
on
doubted,
human
subject
of
the
effects
behaviour
much
of
have
Attempt
debate
broader
to
articiality
●
Localization
of
processing
information
in
the
brain
vomeronasal
of
Cutler,
organ
olfactory
bulb,
fetuses
but
it
(VNO)
Friedmann
The
have
the
regresses
VNO
in
did
accessory
and
olfactory
disappears
increased
central
peopleappears
there
nervous
tasks
and
a
McCoy
synthetic
(1998):
human
not
just
increase
libido
to
is
no
the
attractiveness
of
men
to
after
and
Pitino
(2002):
(female
be
connection
a
synthesized
pheromone
to
increased
the
a
women
participants)
non-functional:
at
overcome
and
McCoy
birth.
experimental
look
and
bulb
but
Human
problems:
behaviours
participants)
pheromone
accessory
two
of
pheromonal
(male
The
solve
range
sexual
attraction
of
women
to
system.
men
●
Search
for
a
human
sex
pheromone:
●
laboratory
Criticism
of
research
Limitations
Lundstrom
and
Olsson
in
the
increases
presence
experimenter
and
experimenter
is
a
chemical
signalling
will
not
effects
has
of
a
no
◆
male
effect
when
the
of
does
produce
so
it
et
al
not
perform
the
any
is
(2017):
chances
other
not
a
gender-
sex
are
that
Participant
or
of
it
gender-related
may
lead
androstadienone
Enzlin,
2013)
validity—most
studies
samples
do
not
act
as
bias
(demand
true
aims
participants
of
the
are
to
hints
guess
that
the
study
Ecological
signals
validity—a
concentration
and
of
the
pheromone
much
of
than
that
found
in
natural
attractiveness
some
chemicals
mood,
but
these
is
used
inuence
◆
women’s
and
pheromone;
sweat
Conclusion:
experiment
characteristics)—there
higher
gender
Gheysen
self-selected
solution
astratetraenol
typical
female
function,
and
a
Population
used
◆
Hare
pheromones
women’s
◆
If
human
(2005):
(Verhaeghe,
androstadienone
mood
into
experiments
same
Internal
validity—other
smells
act
as
chemicals
confounding
variables
87
2
BI O LO GI C A L
◆
APPROACH
Experimenter
the
looks
and
experimenter
TO
BE H AV IO U R
bias—the
the
gender,
behaviour
might
be
of
the
Construct
validity—even
inuence
a
scent
of
on
a
chemical
the
if
◆
is
the
substance
behaviour
of
demonstrated,
not
mean
is
pheromone
a
that
the
◆
or
Publication
this
chemical
(I
section
hormones
●
localization
●
research
●
formation
pheromone
are
The
termites
is
and
derived
hormon
chemicals
term
and
released
of
umbrella
other
term
communication
For
been
an
issue
in
pheromones;
inconclusive
to:
of
behaviour
function
some
methodology
from
noticed
by
one
that
It
various
among
social
a
attraction
relationships).
of
been
shown
communication
communication.
is
the
Pheromones
main
have
also
the
to
play
a
role
in
the
behaviour
mainly
in
mating
behaviour.
of
For
affects
was
a
he
cannot
male
sense
rhesus
pheromones
monkey
will
signalling
ignore
the
members
of
attention
of
a
female
(Herz,
2009).
the
suggested
of
(for
if
scientists
chemical
forms
insects
relationships,
human
“carry
when
termite
termites.
for
personal
of
(stimulating),
that
appeared
of
chemical
form
romantic
species.
has
human
studies
fertility,
an
remains
links
and
(psychology
who
example,
behaviour
also
●
termites)
carry)
pheromones
stimulation”.
substance
with
does
substance
bias—researchers
human
pheromone
phero
observed
research
research
mammals,
so
in
human
Permes
Greek
interested
limitations
conduct
word
commercially
Ethics
Further
The
results
Replicability—this
the
This
subjects
often
the
signicant
◆
◆
are
as
chemical
the
same
example,
Such
the
ndings
question:
attraction?
behaviour
are
do
The
inspiring
effects
have
and
pheromones
been
of
of
play
course
a
role
pheromones
the
subject
of
they
in
on
much
raise
human
human
debate.
Psychology in real life
The Athena Institute, founded by Dr Winnifred Cutler, markets two brands of Athena pheromone: one for men and one
for women. The one for women is a fragrance additive. You are supposed to add it to your regular alcohol-based perfume
and “dab the mixture above upper lip, behind ears and elsewhere at least every other day”. It is claimed that the
product enhances your “sex appeal” and promotes your “sexual attractiveness”. This is one of the customers’ feedback
published on the website:
Suzie: “Men are absolutely freaking out. I work as a bar tender and men are ocking around me. I have told my girlfriends
it must be the LOVE POTION. My girlfriends in the bar say they can almost feel the energy of the men’s attraction to me”.
Source: https://www.athenainstitute.com/1013.html
How do you evaluate the credibility of such products?
What evidence should be used to back up the claims made about such products?
Would you buy the Athena pheromone? (Note: at the time of this book’s publication, the product costs around US$100
for a vial.)
Ll f pressg perml
ordinary
for
smells.
processing
The
smell
region
is
of
called
the
the
brain
main
responsible
olfactory
frm  e br
bulb.
Although
many
pheromones
have
a
However,
differently
pheromonal
information
in
the
brains
of
88
not
processed
in
the
same
brain
from
regular
are
smells.
processed
Mammals
have
a
animals
separate
is
pheromones
smell,
regions
as
structure
called
the
vomeronasal
organ
P h E R o M o n E S
(VNO)
which
Nerves
a
from
special
bulb.
is
region
This
located
the
VNO
called
region
is
in
in
the
anterior
animal
the
accessory
adjacent
nasal
brains
to,
but
cavity.
connect
to
conclude
intensies
has
olfactory
separate
to
main
olfactory
bulb
(Herz,
major
difculty
research
that
to
with
human
humans
do
not
have
The
is
animal
linked
either
the
to
olfactory
bulb.
On
VNO
or
fact
this
point,
was
need
to
be
accurate:
accessory
olfactory
after
birth.
human
bulb,
Some
It
is
fetuses
but
it
do
the
while
VNO,
it
some
don’t.
appears
to
Even
be
pheromone
but
the
study
androstadienone
do
in
those
higher
male
of
than
the
used
in
normal
sweat—which
pheromone
is
a
studies.
to
separate
have
who
non-functional:
from
the
the
effects
effects
of
of
the
the
experimenter.
have
regresses
people
in
feature
hard
example,
what
if
the
male
experimenter
and
simply
particularly
handsome?
Additional
the
research
VNO
a
though,
was
disappears
as
men,
the
For
the
of
much
found
common
pheromone
we
to
limitations.
concentration
study
amount
the
●
accessory
reactions
2009).
extrapolating
behaviour
androstadienone
women’s
important
the
A
that
B E h a v i o u R
from,
●
the
a n D
has
to
be
done
in
this
area.
have
there
ATL skills: Thinking and research
is
no
connection
pheromonal
human
to
the
central
information
brain,
it
must
be
is
nervous
indeed
processed
system.
processed
in
somewhere
If
the
else.
As a researcher, how would you overcome the two
problems listed above? Can you decrease the pheromone
concentration? Can you think of a way to quantify and
control attractiveness of the male experimenter?
It
is
widely
recognized
pheromone,
performs,
perform
that
it
prove
▲
Figure 2.34
it
signal
not
and
so
that
chemical
that
to
is
is
basic
not
If
sex
sex
signals
a
sex
the
does
it
not
chances
are
gender-related
pheromone.
pheromone
of
functions
chemical
other
androstadienone
a
a
function,
any
a
function
additional
gender.
produce
it
a
other
gender-signalling
will
effects
to
is
that
whatever
or
any
one
Therefore,
other
needs
to
show
gender.
The brain in relation to processing
Following
this
logic,
Hare
et
al
(2017)
pheromones
investigated
and
estratetraenol
candidates
Ser fr  m se perme:
whether
gender
for
and
androstadienone
(EST)—the
human
affect
sex
mate
(AND)
best-known
pheromones—signal
perception.
The
experiment
lbrr epermes
used
Evidence
for
the
inuence
of
pheromones
on
a
repeated
has
been
inconclusive.
There
are
ndings,
but
there
is
always
an
or
lack
of
clarity
that
prevents
us
pheromonal
effects
with
task,
the
example,
studied
the
derivative
chemical
involved
exposed
solution;
or
a
Lundstrom
effects
of
components
studying
to:
either
and
female
in
when
of
the
a
of
and
one
sweat.
woman’s
of
The
mood
androstadienone
the
presence
experimenter.
a
Olsson
of
experimenter
was
exposed
taped
one
after
the
being
computer-based
days.
of
the
days
pheromone
substance
rst
male
that
had
is
in
no
the
effect
tempting
a
or
on
control
were
While
they
tasks
completing
were
(AND
the
on
scent
nose
on
the
ve
participants
female).
other
or
exposed
EST)
In
days
(clove
administered
rst
second
day
day,
task
the
to
masked
and
only).
ball
task.
The
the
vice
facial
versa).
The
the
morphs”,
gender
participants
and
had
control
showing
the
photographs
were
participants
some
task
they
cotton
the
involved
indicate
second
opposite-sex
a
(some
“gender-neutral
had
oil
by
throughout
the
computer-based
shown
the
counterbalanced
participants
and
and
pheromone
a
mood
It
was
control
showed
and
to
oil,
under
design
or
female.
clove
study
women’s
experimenter
on
putative
Substances
the
either
Results
increased
male
(2005)
androstadienone—a
testosterone
androstadienone
presence
of
and
two
consecutive
certainty.
with
For
completed
two
from
to
claiming
on
alternative
the
explanation
Heterosexual
many
twice
intriguing
design.
human
participants
behaviour
measures
(male
were
asked
to
rate
89
2
BI O LO GI C A L
them
The
for
APPROACH
attractiveness
study
was
on
a
TO
scale
double-blinded.
▲
BE H AV IO U R
from
There
Figure 2.35
1
to
were
10.
two
experimenters—a
alternated
for
male
different
and
a
female—and
they
sessions.
Gender-neutral facial morphs
Source: Hare et al (2017)
Results
in
of
the
gender
pheromone
results
inthe
sex
rst
task
assigned
of
to
versus
the
task
The
difference
faces
condition.
revealed
attractiveness
photographs.
no
morphed
control
second
average
revealed
the
authors
the
Similarly,
no
ratings
in
difference
of
The
following
address
both
two
the
in
real-life
of
behaviours.
research
studies
problems—they
settings
and
attempted
were
accounted
for
to
conducted
a
wider
range
opposite-
concluded
that
ATL skills: Social
AND
and
or
attractiveness,
of
not
EST
qualify
gender
of
do
as
not
sex
the
act
as
which
signals
means
pheromones.
experimenter
of
gender
that
they
do
Incidentally,
had
no
effect
the
on
Before you go on, get into small groups and come up with
some ideas for eld experiments with putative human
pheromones. If you had a substance that you believed
theresults.
was a candidate for the human sex pheromone and you
had to conduct a eld experiment to test this substance,
So
far,
we
have
two
contradictory
studies—
what would you do?
but
If
of
they
we
are
not
assume
both
that
studies
accurately
contradictory
the
was
reect
chemicalssuch
women’s
as
mood.
it
seems.
methodological
high
and
the
we
may
reality,
as
as
admit
androstadienone
However,
these
quality
ndings
that
some
inuence
chemicals
Ser fr  m se perme:
eld epermes
do
Cutler,
not
signal
gender
and
they
do
not
affect
Friedmann
investigated
perception,
so
we
cannot
classify
them
as
whether
pheromone.
Of
course
there
is
always
explanation,
which
is
that
one
of
men.
was
biased
in
some
increase
Participants
sociosexual
(38
men)
behaviour
were
recruited
the
through
studies
(1998)
male
an
of
alternative
McCoy
synthesized
a
pheromones
sex
and
mate
local
press
releases
that
invited
way.
volunteersto
withthe
aim
participate
to
“test
in
an
whether
experiment
a
male
pheromone
ATL skills: Communication
added
If you were to assume that the contradictory ndings in
these two studies were in fact due to the bias present
in one of them, which one would you pick as the more
biased study? Write a shor t statement explaining your
romance
McCoy,
old,
in
aftershave
in
the
problem
concentrated
in
order
to
pheromone
of
we
behaviours.
articiality
90
on
a
clarify
of
is
very
the
need
Or
the
that
both
specic
functions
to
look
maybe
the
at
the
behaviour
of
a
a
and
putative
wider
problem
experimental
and
studies
tasks.
range
is
in
the
To
good
regular
ensure
too
There
male,
not
that
taking
social
a
number
any
anyone
medication,
the
regularly
women.
selection
with
personality
with
personality
from
years
unusually
with
tted
and
of
25–42
shaving
skills
deviating
the
Friedmann
(“neither
screened
and
strongly
increase
heterosexual,
participants
were
wasexcluded.
were
unattractive”),
adequate
they
would
(Cutler,
appearance
questionnaires
traits
4).
health,
nor
having
criteria
p
lotion
lives”
criteria:
handsome
Maybe
their
1998,
selection
with
point of view and giving reasons.
to
the
average
P h E R o M o n E S
Results
showed
men
the
in
placebo
the
baseline
sexual
reported
group)
in
group.
47%
an
as
The
sociosexual
of
a
Friedman
partner
and
behaviours
were
randomly
divided
into
like
(in
a
double-blind
manner).
brought
his
aftershave
lotion
examined
by
the
researchers)
pheromone
9.5%
and
concluded
“in
in
of
in
1998,
masturbation
the
last
applying
increase
the
In
not
the
of
willingness
role”
10).
did
placebo
for
that
major
p
condition
masturbation).
an
which
the
partner;
sexual
the
observed
dates
plays
a
For
(Cutler,
contrast,
took
it
as
evidence
that
increase.
the
The
synthetic
and
pheromone
did
not
just
increase
libido
(which
but
was
to
not
to
Each
human
participant
next
over
(petting,
dates).
frequency
resulted
McCoy,
increase
more
to
two
researchers
groups
(formal
behaviours
female
the
the
were
researchers
an
compared
behaviours
sleeping
in
in
pheromone
signicantly
(as
informal
compared
Differences
synthetic
and
men
had
four
kissing;
of
were
group
rst
increase
behaviours
Why?
there
who
the
and/or
intercourse,
two
that
intercourse;
example,
B E h a v i o u R
pheromone
the
affection
Participants
a n D
was
actually
increased
the
attractiveness
of
men
to
asked
women.
to
a
use
it
week
were
had
after
also
to
every
shave
throughout
given
ll
out
a
the
and
study
at
behavioural
daily
least
period.
three
calendar
indicating
the
times
Participants
which
incidence
they
of
ATL skills: Communication
six
Referring to this study, how do you think can we explain
behaviours
on
that
day.
The
behaviours
were:
the lack of increase in formal dates (that is, dates that
●
petting,
●
sleeping
●
sexual
●
informal
affection
and/or
are planned in advance)? Come up with a possible
kissing
explanation and discuss with a par tner.
next
to
a
romantic
partner
intercourse
McCoy
before
dates
that
(that
is,
dates
not
arranged
study
day)
36
formal
dates
(that
is,
dates
that
were
Pitino
female
regularly
28).
●
and
with
Either
(2002)
menstruating
the
conducted
subjects.
women
synthesized
a
Participants
similar
were
(mean
pheromone
age
or
a
pre-
placebo
was
added
to
their
perfume.
Seven
arranged)
sociosexual
●
masturbation.
across
three
Cutler,
After
a
baseline
period
of
two
weeks,
to
the
blinded
to
laboratory
the
and
conditions)
the
technician
added
either
pheromone
The
with
ethanol
pheromone
was
to
a
their
category
the
previous
baseline
a
pheromone
naturally
secreted
went
on
to
use
their
a
was
six-week
eight
trial
period
(so
by
six
used
as
plus
“male
approaches”.
an
Similar
a
found
signicant
in
the
increase
pheromone
over
group
as
to
the
control
sexual
group)
intercourse;
in
such
sleeping
next
men.
aftershave
the
of
study,
was
compared
a
partner;
total
formal
dates;
and
petting,
affection
lotion
and/or
for
(1998)
version
to
Participants
McCoy
weekly
same
aftershave
synthesized
behaviours
of
cycles—the
(who
(as
lotion.
recorded
ethanol
the
or
and
were
subjects
to
was
menstrual
Friedman
additional
returned
behaviours
study
kissing.
There
was
no
increase
in
the
other
time
three
behaviours
dates
and
(male
approaches,
informal
weeks).
that
the
masturbation).
synthesized
The
authors
pheromone
concluded
increased
sexual
ATL skills: Thinking
attraction
Why do you think the researchers used ethanol in both
the conditions? You will nd the answer later in this
section.
These
of
women
ndings
discovery
widely
of
seem
human
recognized
to
men.
promising.
However,
pheromones
by
the
has
scientic
not
the
been
community.
91
2
BI O LO GI C A L
The
reason
arguments
research
is
APPROACH
the
and
existence
important
studies
in
this
TO
of
BE H AV IO U R
multiple
limitations
of
counter-
in
all
demand
ecological
typical
characteristics,
but
not
that
of
validity.
area.
●
Internal
validity.
confounding
to
crsm f reser  m
control
Other
variables,
subjects’
smells
so
it
is
act
as
important
odourlessness,
which
is
difcult.
permes
●
A
typical
experiment
with
putative
Experimenter
pheromones
pheromones
suffers
methodological
and
Enzlin,
from
a
limitations
number
to
other
of
bias
validity.
The
fact
that
most
studies
used
volunteers
self-selected
who
respond
samples
to
advertisements).
people,
that
are
studies
This
means
that
the
are
Participant
performed
with
most
than
and
the
young,
bias
studies,
the
anywhere
else:
behaviour
of
research
is
difcult
assistant
to
(demand
researchers
nature
of
Construct
a
study
or
Even
substance
try
not
to
behaviour
the
study
to
the
keep
the
study.
constant
in
all
is
used
and
looks
at
effects
subjects
of
hints
that
may
if
true
aims
of
are
“odours”.
lead
the
told
the
inuence
of
participants
subjects
on
is
this
does
not
mean
that
the
substance
many
smells
is
and
a
pheromone.
substances
There
(such
resultingfrom
industrial
as
pollution
or
to
found
in
the
environment)
that
can
study.
participate
in
more
experiment
and
an
effect
on
pheromone,
human
the
behaviour.
substance
must
To
be
perform
than
the
psychological
human
However,
a
volunteers
scent
that
have
Many
a
disclose
naturally
the
or
participants.
those
one
gender,
experimenter
characteristics).
are
are
the
the
conducting
control
validity.
chemical
chemical
deception
guess
sources
pheromone
groups.
demonstrated,
true
there
in
relatively
the
the
important
participants.
of
Mild
are
crucial
majority
●
educated
the
there
more
or
the
In
of
responses
(that
posters
This
●
study
of
or
of
the
participants’
Gheysen
looks
is,
Since
on
2013).
Population
the
focuses
of
(Verhaeghe,
research
●
bias.
human
function
of
communication
between
two
they
individuals.
may
know
when
it
that
comes
researchers
to
revealing
use
the
deception
aims
of
the
●
Ethics.
There
may
be
some
ethical
issues
study.
involved.
were
Participants
are
aware
of
the
exclusion
example,
women
using
are
Study
not
included
surveys
or
in
the
to
wipe
in
one
pads
study
women
containing
armpit
criteria
obtained
from
donors
under
their
noses
contraceptive
each
pills
example,
required
sweat
(for
For
day
for
three
months.
sample).
interviews
include
ATL skills: Thinking and research
questions
about
participants’
sexual
orientation.
Review the studies discussed in this section and
apply the seven listed limitations to them. Is it likely
●
Ecological
validity.
Studies
typically
use
that these limitations were inherent in the studies?
a
concentration
solution
of
the
pheromone
Which of the studies were most vulnerable to which
much
higher
than
that
found
in
natural
sweat.
limitations?
As
a
the
result,
smell
smells
This
some
and
like
participants’
mask
both
high
the
to
smell
the
that
may
identify
applied
and
in
ways
Researchers
by
can
adding
a
and
partially
can
that
make
distort
do
not
efforts
masking
the
solution
“clothes”.
concentration
pheromone
This
the
“urine”
behaviour
naturally.
solution.
92
report
“sweat”,
articially
occur
participants
to
agent
control
solve
the
problem
Apart
study,
from
studies
the
will
the
methodological
researchers
are
results.
often
So
it
occur—with
supporting
who
commercially
is
likely
that
researchers
evidence
“unsuccessful”
quality
conduct
and
research.
of
human
interested
publication
publishing
failing
to
a
typical
pheromone
in
bias
only
publish
P h E R o M o n E S
a n D
B E h a v i o u R
TOK
Deelpme f kwledge
Science is a logical system, but it is also a social institution. So does science develop primarily according to the laws of
logic or the laws of society?
There have been dierent perspectives on this in the philosophy of science. For example, Karl Popper (who proposed
the principle of falsiability as a criterion to dierentiate between science and pseudo-science) asser ted that science
primarily is a logical system. If evidence that contradicts a theory is discovered, the theory needs to be refuted, and the
whole process of scientic development is driven by a search for truth. Thomas Kuhn (who proposed the concepts of
paradigm and paradigm shift) claimed that science is primarily a social institution, so the survival of theories will largely
depend on who suppor ts them.
Suppose a theory does not have rigorous scientic proof (yet), but it is commercially signicant. Would commercial
considerations interfere with establishing the truth, and in what ways?
Dr
Winnifred
earlier)
is
Cutler
the
and
sells
and
Pitino
a
(the
founder
synthesized
are
her
produced
this
does
itself
occurred,
any
to
more
not
human
by
the
imply
interest
in
of
a
company
study
that
their
same
the
company.
publication
ndings
of
used
been
an
studies
human
that
many
credibility.
to
in
to
So,
studies
in
establish
it.
an
the
(a
are
with
human
ndings,
countered
effect
effect
credibility
Replicability
promising
above
show
inconclusive
to
research
some
discussed
fail
way
replicate
the
Despite
behaviour.
research
needed
is
issue
experiments
has
without
are
straightforward
experiment
pheromones.
a
While
bias
most
an
has
McCoy
study
researchers
The
discussed
produces
pheromone.
and
that
independent
commercial
increase
author
a
colleagues,
pheromone
in
of
of
is
statement
by
other
pheromones
elusive
that
and
can
on
the
apply
to
psychology).
See de
In
his
TED
Talk
fundamental
Watch
the
“The
aws
talk
smelly
in
and
mystery
current
write
●
arguments
that
are
●
arguments
that
have
of
the
pheromone
human
pheromone”,
Tristram
Wyatt
explains
the
research.
down:
new
been
discussed
in
this
section.
https://www.ted.com/talks/tristram_wyatt_the_smelly_mystery_of_the_human_
pheromone
Discussion
Now
you
that
you
alternatives
You
are
reconsider
might
Here
is
a
familiar
your
that
want
exist
to
website
on
visit
of
with
opinions
the
the
more
about
Cutler’s
in
the
quest
commercial
for
human
products
sex
(and
pheromones,
hundreds
of
would
similar
market)?
website
another
arguments
Dr
again
company
and
look
marketing
at
it
through
pheromones,
the
for
lens
of
ideas
comparison:
discussed
in
this
section.
http://pheromones.com/
93
Genes and behaviour; genetic similarities
Inquiry questions
●
●
To
what
by
genetic
Is
extent
is
our
behaviour
●
determined
inheritance?
intelligence
In
what
ways
modulated
genetically
●
pre-determined?
How
can
can
by
we
genetic
inheritance
environmental
estimate
be
inuences?
heritability
of
a
trait
or
behaviour?
●
Can
genetic
and
environmental
inuence
interact?
What you will learn in this section
●
Genotype
and
phenotype
Genetic
by
DNA,
chromosomes,
genes,
base
heritability
directly
sentence,
lines,
words,
can
the
be
estimated
similarity
pairs,
(correlation)
alleles:
(A)
measuring
between
monozygotic
twins
letters,
(rMZ)
and
dizygotic
twins
(rDZ)
spelling
●
gene—a
unit
of
The
inuence
of
environment:
●
Nature-nurture
debate
needs
to
be
reformulated
select
turn,
◆
What
of
are
the
biological
factors
to
a
relative
How
do
and
environmental
specic
predisposition
certain
start
to
trait
This
or
may
and
coefcients
of
their
to
in
behaviour
environmental
●
Heritability
why
change
heritability
during
life,
typically
of
intelligence:
twin
studies
interact?
research
of
111
based
on
the
principle
of
and
studies
relatives;
Methods
affect
people
which,
larger
Bouchard
Methods
causes
environments
explain
becoming
biological
inuences
●
the
contributions
behaviour?
◆
on
niche-picking
debate
Genetic
The
genetics
heredity
McGue
on
results
IQ
(1981):
a
review
correlations
show
that
between
intelligence
is
genetic
to
a
large
extent
genetically
inherited
similarity
It
◆
twin
is
important
limitations
◆
family
◆
adoption
Molecular
genetics
heritability:
the
Many
twin
Falconer
model
Many
Falconer
model
assumes
comprises
three
types
the
twin
typical
study
genetics,
individual
shared
environment,
were
after
not
separated
birth
twins
environments
grew
in
up
terms
in
of
environment
1
=
and
socio-economic
status
of
◆
inuences:
94
mind
any
that
culture
phenotype
pairs
separated
similar
and
in
2015)
immediately
◆
The
in
studies
◆
Genetic
keep
inherent
studies
(Joseph,
●
to
studies
A
+
C
+
E
Twins
share
a
environment
common
prenatal
(SES)
G E n E S
◆
Findings
to
a
might
wider
not
be
a n D
B E h a v i o u R ;
G E n E t i c
generalizable
S i M i L a R i t i E S
higher
population
than
adopted
versus
◆
The
similar
elicit
physical
similar
features
responses
adoptive
child
parent–
correlations
(0.43
0.29)
might
from
◆
the
Contradictory
nding
environment
Young
◆
Tests
of
issues
intelligence
with
have
validity
and
certain
to
were
reliability
siblings
each
other,
genetically
(correlations
●
Heritability
of
intelligence:
adoption
of
the
idea
that
into
more
same
existing
IQ
is
studies
increased
prosperous
time
the
same
by
support
the
by
adoption
families;
studies
at
adopted
child–biological
are
always
the
(2015):
contradiction
which
reared
one
and
of
the
study
the
of
siblings
other
sibling
IQ
one
is
were
there
was
was
was
on
◆
On
the
was
average
other
there
hand,
heritability
was
cognitive
and
the
a
a
5-point
by
age
results
of
of
in
Scarr
study:
the
Study
of
adopted
children
together
for
18
niche-picking;
related
children
environments,
and
select
genetic
with
intelligence
becomes
age
18
The
inuence
of
environment
on
genetics:
also
between
adopted
educational
of
IQ
of
gene
expression
intelligence:
correlation
ability
second
zero
Explanation:
regulation
suggest
reconciled
environmentally
●
◆
of
the
home-
adopted
higher
increase
is
reared
heritability
malleable:
on
IQ
(1983)
correlation
similar
ability
of
Adoption
biologically
Cognitive
inuence
environment
pairs
away
◆
this
explained
parent
years
in
not
that
◆
al
0.44);
be
predominant
Weinberg’s
who
et
only
development
correlations
Kendler
or
parent
higher
child–adoptive
can
rearing
Adolescent
adopted
related
0.42–
similar
they
demonstrate
and
correlations
the
the
This
that
very
studies
nding
Most
were
whether
level
the
Gene
children
of
expression:
transcription
and
translation
biological
Regulation
of
gene
expression;
epigenetic
parents
changes
Explanation:
additive
inuence
of
Having
environment
and
mean
Scarr
and
Weinberg
Transracial
a
gene
(1983):
Adoption
the
the
that
this
Additive
and
automatically
(in
will
be
manifested
in
Study
inuence
genetics
not
gene
phenotype
Methylation:
◆
does
genetics
of
line
are
environment
with
previous
added
repress
to
gene
the
the
process
DNA
when
chemicals
molecule
and
transcription
studies)
●
Average
black
intelligence
children
increases:
placed
in
Behavioural
to
increased
their
IQ
as
compared
to
et
reared
in
their
al
(2004):
who
were
rats
less
raised
by
nurturing
were
black
more
children
response
scores
mothers
substantially
regulating
white
Weaver
families
epigenetics:
stress
sensitive
to
stress
when
they
own
became
adults;
this
was
linked
to
the
homes
suppression
Correlation
is
higher:
adopted
with
biological
biological
child
parents
parent–
correlations
were
gene,
of
the
meaning
glucocorticoid
increased
a
glucocorticoid
smaller
receptors
production
of
number
in
the
stress
receptor
of
brain
and
so
hormones
95
2
BI O LO GI C A L
APPROACH
Research
brain
with
tissue
is
BE H AV IO U R
humans
has
post-mortem
TO
to
be
is
limited
obtained
examination);
because
Kaminsky
(through
also,
a
research
ran
contradictory
◆
Miller
et
al
versus
the
in
wealthy
of
raised
gene
in
One
poverty
and
anxiety
the
nd
genes,
al
a
analysed
did
not;
et
blood
al
post-mortem
24
cells
a
and
had
brain
receptor
of
who
who
more
cells
expression
twins
problems
DLX1
gene
involved
Behavioural
had
had
of
chemicals
suppressing
the
This
section
also
with
risk-aversive
overreact
a
high
to
degree
of
of
this
more
twin
was
methylated;
in
the
production
this
of
gene
neurons
a
part
of
the
stress
centre
of
the
links
to:
●
research
●
biological
methodology
in
the
explanations
(abnormal
glucocorticoid
for
depression
psychology)
epigenetics:
personality
suggest
that
in
cannot
identical
phenotypes;
epigenetics
can
al
et
al
interaction
measurable
differences
discordance
et
(2006):
(1999):
(G
×
studies
gene–environment
E)
explain
et
al
(2003),
Chiao
and
Blizinsky
twins’
be
a
molecular
genetics
factor
gene–environment
explains
twin
traits
(2010):
that
more
to
abused
Caspi
the
was
gene
environmental
all
extracted
brains
committed
been
form
Silberg
Studies
DNA
brain
Kendler
●
of
not
conducted
examinations
people
child
their
(2009):
individuals
suicide;
as
study
researchers
cells
McGowan
of
of
case
however,
that
◆
tests
a
the
glucocorticoid
but
is
brain
in
twins
tendency
signicantly
they
(2008):
cells
the
expected
The
receptor
of
had
minor
to
et
identical
blood
environments,
researchers
suppression
studying
people
of
epigenetic
from
(2009):
expression
pair
correlation
(rGE).
this
Exam tip
This
section
embraces
is
longer
two
topics
than
the
from
others
the
because
it
it,
syllabus:
with
relates
●
genes
●
genetic
and
and
similarities.
behaviour
is
is
a
more
general
topic
cells
in
covered
the
set
in
human
of
the
this
section
is
body
chromosomes
have
(from
relevant
a
the
meaning
“body”,
certain
which
dyes).
“colour”
is
A
due
to
and
their
soma
is
that
a
is
a
contains
a
DNA
DNA
molecule
supporting
96
that
methods
is
tightly
proteins,
(and
debate.
topic
as
it
studies)
contains
In
other
family
words,
relatives
studies
in
the
rst
the
second
topic.
made
up
of
a
acid)
long
stores
sequence
information.
of
four
It
chemical
(A
=
adenine,
The
bases
G
=
are
guanine,
paired
C
up,
=
cytosine,
making
a
T
=
sequence
of
base
of
the
pairs.
The
DNA
has
a
characteristic
structure
by
double
helix
which
looks
a
bit
like
a
ladder
thread-like
coiled
a
studies.
between
studies,
Greek
staining
molecule.
so
similarity
twin
(deoxyribonucleic
base
many
are
the
ladder’s
rungs
(US
of
Medicine,
2017).
Information
is
National
coded
times
chromosome
foldedDNA.
pairs
The
is
this
sequence
of
bases
like
letters
in
a
sentence
a
(change
“package”
specic
nucleus
the
in
around
of
“embedded”
code
Library
long
more
to
where
structure
nature-nurture
a
meaning
strong
chromosome
idea
adoption
thymine).
chroma
is
research
and
DNA
that
on
bases
a
to
non-relatives:
is
contain
the
so
Gepe d pepe
All
on
and
topic
whatever
focus
similarities
behaviour
based
Genes
a
Genetic
the
order
of
letters
and
you
get
a
different
G E n E S
sentence).
This
is
an
incredibly
long
sentence,
a n D
B E h a v i o u R ;
though:
G E n E t i c
S i M i L a R i t i E S
Nucleus
Chromosome
human
DNA
consists
of
about
3
billion
bases.
Cell
Base pairs
Nucleotides
Adenine
Thymine
Guanine
Cytosine
Coiled DNA molecule
DNA backbone
DNA double helix
▲
If
Sugar phosphate
DNA
pairs
backbone
Figure 2.37
A
is
are
gene
and
is
so
Figure 2.36
DNA
a
a
long
sentence
of
will
chemical
break
into
lines,
this
gene
is
so
the
in
each
sequence.
bases
each
is
broken
chromosome
up
into
Each
(except
chromosome
for
sex
cells).
is
present
Humans
that
a
of
from
chromosomes.
pair
eye
pair
is
your
have
from
your
father.
a
colour,
themselves
code
One
of
and
so
might
mother
Both
for
the
the
estimated
gene
for
genes
to
be
that
in
height,
the
human
around
on),
but
be
and
the
other
in
characteristics
the
metaphor,
of
23
human
lines,
DNA
20,000
is
a
words
3
billion
by
the
letters.
father
Each
and
word
once
by
is
spelled
the
twice,
mother—and
may
be
spelled
a
little
differently
by
each.
The
of
these
two
spellings
determines
the
in
or
a
function.
one
the
(height,
chromosomes
identical.
our
consists
23
chromosomes
chromosomes
identical
not
a
of
DNA
example,
twice
have
trait
each
colour,
of
For
part
combination
pairs
region
base
words.
23
contains
it
cell
a
and
probably
function.
number
currently
summarize
once
of
eye
total
or
sentence,
are
heredity,
trait
for
The
long
genes
long
and
chromosomes,
of
specic
on.
sentence
sequence
unit
then
20,000.
To
As
a
a
organism
▲
extremely
letters,
is
encodes
there
one
A chromosome
What
we
have
referred
components
known
forms
gene.
of
the
recessive.
The
trait
as
to
as
“spelling”
alleles.
They
can
be
controlled
Alleles
are
are
dominant
by
the
different
or
recessive
Allele for phenotype A
Chromosomes
Alleles
Allele for phenotype B
▲
Figure 2.38
Gene alleles
97
2
BI O LO GI C A L
allele
both
only
develops
chromosomes
controlled
least
it.
one
For
the
allele
have
by
of
the
the
chromosome
the
allele
the
pair,
the
for
blue
eyes
if
in
dominant
in
allele
for
blue
TO
gene
brown
eyes
only
pair
if
are
is
BE H AV IO U R
is
present
whereas
allele
chromosomes
example,
colour
the
APPROACH
in
that
eyes
will
the
the
recessive.
So
alleles
for
In
the
at
twins
like
will
other
can
your
eyes
will
be
eggs
to
is
set
of
called
manifest
or
traits
as
coded
genotype.
in
an
behaviour
comprises
The
in
an
set
of
individual’s
is
called
individual’s
traits
body,
so
on)
that
DNA
Family
studies.
(eye
unobservable
type,
immune
system,
to
and
Genotype
is
the
uncles
its
50%
than
share
develop
of
identical
genetic
and
MZ
from
genotype,
twins
fraternal
are
just
more
twins,
we
inuences.
This
method
also
a
relatedness,
uses
broader
for
scale
example,
grandparents,
and
but
the
and
compares
across
comparing
siblings,
children
cousins,
and
aunts.
colour,
Adoption
on),
as
well
studies.
and
to
their
These
compare
adoptive
adopted
parents,
biological
as
adoptive
siblings
and
biological
siblings.
phenotype
We
is
If
egg
similarity
twins.
characteristics
so
“plan”
on
parents,
parents,
behaviour.
same
twins
share
genetic
generations,
children
(blood
of
relatives
actually
Phenotype
characteristics
and
the
DZ
other
to
the
three
appearance
phenotype.
observable
and
and
it
to
brown.
●
height,
from
each
it
(dizygotic—DZ)
siblings.
attribute
principle
The
comparing
genotype.
regular
similar
your
●
combinations
of
different
and
and
fraternal
develop
100%
eye
you
in
if
twins
between
contains
dominant
recessive.
both
MZ)
trait
develop
pair
codes
is
in
the
can
infer
genetic
inuences
if
adopted
implementation.
children
parents
are
more
than
to
similar
to
their
theiradoptive
biological
parents.
te re-r re debe
●
Nature-nurture
is
the
long-lasting
debate
Molecular
genetics
psychology
and
philosophy
that
attempts
to
human
behaviour
is
determined
biological
factors
such
as
genetics
and
genetic
(that
is,
nature)
or
as
education
and
friends
(that
is,
needs
it
is
to
human
widely
be
recognized
reformulated.
behaviour
is
that
There
inuenced
debate
little
by
doubt
both
What
is
more
interesting
is
to
to
specic
that
nature
“gene
●
What
genes
variants
in
are
behaviour.
answer
identify
a
identifying
particular
then
technology
the
alleles
individual.
correlated
These
specic
methods
genes
behaviour—the
of
with
are
usually
aggression”,
responsible
“gene
and
so
of
for
depression”,
on.
rst
three
methods
involve
the
use
of
genetic
the
similarity
following
and
and
The
nurture.
molecular
nurture).
the
is
of
modern
factors
used
Today
using
brain
environmental
observed
such
Studies
on
mapping
particular
Genetic
structure
based
primarily
of
by
are
establish
for
whether
genetics.
in
as
the
principle
of
research.
questions.
are
the
relative
contributions
of
biological
Gee erbl: e Fler mdel
and
or
environmental
behaviour?
importance
the
of
For
we
quantify
into
example,
biological
environment
Can
factors
in
a
what
factors
relative
is
as
developing
these
specic
the
trait
relative
compared
to
intelligence?
contributions?
Genetic
of
the
trait
is
heritability
relative
or
behaviour.
performed
so-called
●
How
do
biological
For
and
environmental
example,
can
biological
then
environmental
inuence
inuence
factors
behaviour?
biological
factors
Can
and
as
twin
studies
model,
genetic
of
genetic
and
which
is
measure
factors
into
based
on
assumes
the
that
is
comprised
of
three
types
of
inuence.
are:
only
●
genetics
●
shared
●
individual
genetics?
environment
environment.
Meds f reser
Shared
The
main
methods
used
to
study
the
inuence
environment
on
behaviour
are
as
Twin
the
98
studies.
similarity
The
main
between
that
is
the
common
part
to
of
the
environmental
two
twins
(such
follows.
as
●
is
of
inuences
genotype
principle
identical
is
a
heritability
inuences
environment
such
in
quantitative
of
factors
These
inuence
the
Estimation
Falconer
phenotype
interact?
is
contribution
estimating
(monozygotic—
similar
books
schooling,
and
comprises
and
technology).
the
same
Individual
environmental
exposure
to
environment
inuences
that
are
G E n E S
unique
to
school,
different
be
each
written
in
of
the
twins
hobbies,
the
following
1
=
A
(different
and
so
on).
friends
This
a n D
B E h a v i o u R ;
at
idea
In
can
form:
+
C
+
this
A
common
=
genetic
E
=
three
1
S i M i L a R i t i E S
means
that
inuences
explain100%
of
phenotype.In
other
the
combination
theoretically
observed
variation
words,
there
can
in
exist
no
other
E
inheritance,
environment,
formula,
ofthese
factors
(where
G E n E t i c
C
=
shared
individual
apart
or
environment).
that
from
equals
inuence
these
a
three.
certain
trait
Heritability
or
in
behaviour
this
model
A.
ATL skills: Reser
te Fler mdel
The challenge in the Falconer model is to estimate A—but how can we do that, given that we cannot directly observe any
of the terms in this formula?
That is where twin studies help. We know that MZ (identical) twins share 100% of their genotype. We also know that
DZ (fraternal) twins share on average 50% of their genotype, much like regular siblings. So, using the same logic, what
contributes to the similarity between MZ twins? The answer is two things, their common genotype and their shared
environment:
rMZ = A + C
(where rMZ is similarity between MZ twins).
What contributes to the similarity between DZ twins? The same two factors, but the contribution of genetics is twice
smaller:
rDZ =
A + C
(where rDZ is similarity between DZ twins).
Since we can directly observe rMZ and rDZ (by collecting a sample of twins and measuring the similarity between them),
we can estimate all other elements of the formula:
A = 2(rMZ – rDZ)
C = 2rDZ – rMZ
E = 1 – rMZ
You might want to try and derive these formulas yourself.
So to estimate heritability of a trait, for example, intelligence (A), using the Falconer model we take a representative
sample of twins, measure IQ correlation between MZ twins and IQ correlation between DZ twins, then put these values
into the formula above and arrive at an estimate.
their
te ee f gees  e
to
behaviour.
depression
For
may
example,
a
child
intentionally
seek
predisposed
out
high-
erme: e-pkg
demanding
Genes
and
environment
are
not
environments
in
many
environment
too.
instances
genes
we
need
to
look
at
how
between
heritability
these
two
factors
One
form
of
this
is
niche-picking:
the
genetic
predisposition
causes
individuals
environments
that,
in
explain
one
interesting
property
coefcients:
becoming
larger.
they
This
change
means
during
that
if
life,
you
a
sample
turn,
to
of
arrive
adolescent
at
an
twins
estimate
of
and
the
Falconer
heritability
start
to
estimate
will
typically
be
smaller
than
if
(A),
you
to
use
select
may
phenomenon
this
when
succeed.
dynamic
model
development
to
develops
use
dynamically.
hard
the
typically
interaction
is
inuence
of
So
it
completely
Niche-picking
independent:
where
a
sample
of
older
twins.
As
you
grow
up,
affect
99
2
BI O LO GI C A L
your
genetic
choose
APPROACH
programme
certain
“niches”
TO
BE H AV IO U R
“unfolds”
in
the
causing
you
environment.
In
to
herbl f ellgee:  w sdes
this
Bouchard
way,
in
terms
of
their
behaviour,
MZ
twins
analysis
more
and
more
similar
with
age.
This
and
McGue
(1981)
conducted
a
meta-
become
of
111
studies
on
IQ
correlations
between
phenomenon
relatives.
cannot
be
explained
by
the
Falconer
model.
The
in
Exercise
median
Table
MZ
twins
develop
What
are
the
relative
contributions
of
nurture
in
a
person’s
IQ?
Do
you
intellectual
abilities
are
mostly
due
to
you
inherited
from
your
parents,
your
around
you
or
your
Expected
just
like
obtained
look
their
egg.
siblings
own
biological
of
no
genes
DZ
are
the
shown
table.
because
twins
and
just
like
their
children;
genes
from
(children
each
of
share
they
50%
parents
take
the
genetic
similarity
between
of
with
roughly
parents).
adopting
There
parents
their
adopted
children.
reasons.
similarity
IQ
correlation
between
%
of
shared
genes
Median
1
MZ
twins
reared
together
100
0.85
2
MZ
twins
reared
apart
100
0.67
3
DZ
3
Siblings
3
Parent
twins
reared
reared
and
4
Siblings
4
Parent
5
Adopting
▲
at
efforts?
and
Give
of
same
they
close
the
is
environment
100%
the
a
the
half
genes
share
from
take
think
their
your
Let’s
nature
genes,
and
correlations
2.3.
together
together
offspring
reared
and
parent
and
0.58
0.45
0.39
reared
together
50
50
0.24
reared
apart
50
0.22
0
0.18
apart
offspring
50
50
offspring
correlation
Table 2.3
Source: based on Bouchard and McGue (1981, p 1056)
Imagine
genes
differences
observe
were
between
the
the
only
people.
following
thing
In
pattern:
causing
this
MZ
case
twins
probably
IQ
we
have
correlation
of
1
(irrespective
of
are
At
reared
together
or
apart),
DZ
and
parents
with
their
the
biological
the
second
largest
correlation,
and
and
offspring
a
correlation
same
is
environment
also
Unit
are
of
IQ,
expected
MZ
twins
to
so
MZ
have
reared
a
ofzero.
contributes
apart
twins
higher
due
to
reared
to
If
you
environment.
expected
degree
of
Taking
exposure
this
similarity
is
1
on
put
column
of
Table
2.3.
As
you
studies
obtained
follow
this
from
the
predicted
two
MZ
the
following
Even
a
100
MZ
perfect
twins
with
good
an
idea
methodology
correlation
of
the
twins
effect
to
go
size
back
and
review
coefcients.)
values—correlation
reared
between
DZ
together
twins
estimate
to
and
reared
into
formula
of
(see
heritability
above),
of
×
(0.85
−
0.58)
=
2
×
0.27
=
IQ:
54%
account,
given
see,
the
a
in
other
the
summary
words,
intelligence
(based
on
the
the
of
this
reviewand
the
Falconer
model)
median
of
54%
inherited.
111
All
pattern.
in
all,
results
is
to
of
a
the
study
large
demonstrate
extent
(54%)
that
genetically
points.
inherited.
●
a
of
Falconer’s
obtain
intelligence
Note
research
you
is
correlations
be
together—into
results
rst
correlation
than
In
the
a
would
the
2
common
IQ.
together
correlation
the
(It
boundaries
correlation
variability
time,
large.
between
However,
of
adopting
●
parents
individual
children
the
have
of
development
twins,
to
siblings
inuence
the
whether
0.85
they
the
on
a
●
perfect
shows
environments
should
reared
correlation
of
together
their
IQ
do
not
scores.
have
the
This
(Joseph,
However,
typical
one
limitations
2015).
needs
inherent
to
in
keep
any
in
mind
twin
study
G E n E S
●
The
assumption
twins
reared
limited,
for
that
apart
these
similarity
is
solely
between
due
to
a n D
B E h a v i o u R ;
MZ
genotype
between
is
and
twin
pairs
immediately
some
the
were
after
formative
cognitive
biological
not
comparing
separated
birth,
so
they
months
or
years
children
grew
twin
up
in
pairs,
even
similar
when
cultural
environments.
They
allocated”
different
Twins
into
share
a
were
common
environment.
experienced
adopted
not
existing
SES
“randomly
environments.
that
of
MZ
DZ
T
win
studies
rare
due
to
This
implies
are
the
increased
families.
by
IQ
families
and
Twins
might
is
more
small
of
in
sample
their
opportunities
size
target
for
and
group.
replication.
that
be,
be
population
so
twin
as
as
study
to
a
cognitive
representative
of
The
similar
we
would
ndings
like
might
wider
physical
similar
it
is
treated
better
of
the
twins
from
known
than
in
an
higher
the
that
average-looking
or
a
malleability
of
direct
of
test
cognitive
adoption
angles
the
one
was
abilities
parents
of
the
the
and
aspects
correlation
adopted
comparing
parent
higher
correlations,
Together
additive
in
in
these
on
inuence
the
of
development
into
IQ,
a
higher-SES
but
this
family
increase
will
the
it
to
on
the
genetic
is
that
demonstrated
Kendler
et
al
this
(2015).
The
complete
The
all
data
also
Swedish
was
pairs
and
sibling
from
included
the
and
child
the
in
the
which
other
where
Military
cognitive
in
than
of
IQ
Conscription
assessment
Available
attainment
of
parents.
in
the
one
parents.
Sweden).
educational
adoptive
of
initially
adoptive
men
adoption
larger
sets
by
includes
18-year-old
register
searched,
reared
taken
for
sibling
away.
was
biological
of
designed
home-reared
national
(which
for
rigorously
sample
was
436male
were
data
a
siblings
members
both
of
siblings
a
Sweden
number
was
of
for
adoption,
so
potential
children
adoptive
abilities.
that
were
carefully
screened.
The
mean
may
level
was
signicantly
higher
in
the
natureof
adoptive
parents
as
compared
to
biological
are:
between
child
depending
child.
study
adopted
parents.
computing
child–
always
of
studies
on
a
study
of
group
These
the
conducted
educational
different
the
of
one
parents
●
the
adopted
are
component
strong.
adopting
inuence
available
problem.
that
genetic
is
lower
of
example
Demand
provide
the
increase
considerably
nurture
biological
time
people).
sdes
slightly
their
same
people
herbl f ellgee: dp
provide
the
higher-SES
environment
attractive
Register
aspects
comparing
into
might
scores
two
the
is
prosperous
by
of
the
environment
intelligence:
the
are
IQ
At
correlations
suggest
identifying
There
of
IQ
be
male-male
environmental
that
more
child–adoptive
and
adoption
studies
yield
most
idea
adopted
demonstrate
that
researchers
Adoption
the
average
siblings.
abilities
effects
additive
are
not
population.
features
responses
example,
were
parents.
them
not
An
(for
general,
into
children
parent
inheritance
elicit
who
biological
the
be
●
their
demonstrated
the
adopted
results
generalizable
adopted
approaches
In
support
is
of
studies
suggesting
of
to
of
siblings
similar
genetics
general
child
twins.
uniqueness
not
two
adoption
This
average
two
●
adopted
prenatal
twins
usually
fewer
abilities
their
by
results.
studies
biological
●
the
prenatal
Moreover,
of
of
raised
these
contradictory
same
than
of
together.
separated,
and
those
but
home-reared
environment
abilities
parents
cognitive
to
Interestingly,
Many
S i M i L a R i t i E S
reasons.
●
Many
G E n E t i c
and
the
cognitive
the
adoptive
correlation
There
was
between
the
adoptive
parents,
of
selective
a
modest
educational
which
correlation
levels
may
of
(r
=
biological
suggest
some
0.18)
and
effects
placement
101
2
BI O LO GI C A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
ATL skills: Research
Selective placement is the main limitation of adoption studies. It occurs because adoption agencies
take special care to place children in environments that are similar to the biological parents’ environment.
Why do you think do they do that?
To what extent do you think selective placement might have compromised the results of this study?
Results
of
the
study
are
summarized
in
Table
2.4.
Correlation
Education
Mean
Adopted
siblings
Home-reared
▲
siblings
IQ
at
age
18
of
with
Education
of
biologicalparents
adoptiveparents
96.9
0.20
0.18
92.0
0.34
–
Table 2.4
Source: based on Kendler et al (2015, p 4613)
Interpretation
cognitive
was
fact
a
of
5-point
that
ability
a
is
cognitive
educational
suggest
level
an
suggests
supports
also
evident
ability
of
this
the
children
children
tests
well
years
and
genetics:
the
largest
IQ
scores
reared
of
the
seem
till
studies
adopted
children
adopted
from
into
and
were
results
1974,
of
two
both
of
(1983)
longitudinal
which
by
and
designed
white
school
adolescence.
known
as
Transracial
see
other
if
as
study —the
Study —looked
ability
at
accumulate
Collectively
the
black
performed
achievement
The
Adoption
cognitive
families
to
these
Minnesota
how
over
two
Adoption
Transracial
studies
families
who
had
Study
biological
sampled
101
children
biological
who
also
adopted
transracially.
Some
of
the
families.
reported
investigated
Adoption
observed
well-educated
well-educated
Weinberg
studies— the
Studies
adopted
Scarr
the
environment
but
families
of
adoptees.
in
are
adoptive
in
IQ
other
differences
of
The
and
as
One
Study —was
Adolescent
On
Results
Adoption
on
levels
correlation
parents.
of
The
cognitive
heritability
adopted
inuence
there
18.
conclusion.
suggest
biological
additive
age
educational
from
of
by
between
and
intelligence.
that
malleable:
average
correlation
results
this
on
children
parents
hand,
intelligence:
to
is
ndings
environmentally
increase
adopted
other
between
these
is
IQ
there
of
adoptive
the
of
ability
on
the
launched
children
in
malleability
of
some
children
were
after
assessed
12
on
were
adopted
months
IQ
and
black
in
of
and
the
age.
school
some
rst
All
year
white;
of
children
achievement
life
some
and
were
tests.
ATL skills: Thinking
Why would the authors of the study assume that adoption of black children into white families would result in cognitive benets?
To understand the rationale behind the study, note the following background details.
●
Back in 1974, random samples of black and white par ticipants did not perform equally well on tests of intelligence
and school achievement (the average IQ for white par ticipants was around 100 while the average IQ for black
par ticipants was around 85–90). This could mostly be attributed to a lower SES status of black families, as well as
stronger exposure of the white population to the culture of achievement, schools and tests.
●
The black population of Minnesota was small in 1974 (around 1% of the total population). There were many black
children available for adoption and few black families to adopt them.
●
Typically, adoption agencies place children in well-o families with higher-than-average SES and non-abusive environments.
All adoptive families that participated in the study could be classied as highly educated and above average in income.
●
So a black child adopted into a white family at that time would typically end up in a richer environment. If intelligence
is malleable, we can expect IQ scores of adopted children to be higher than the population baseline.
102
G E n E S
a n D
B E h a v i o u R ;
G E n E t i c
S i M i L a R i t i E S
Group
Average
White
100
Mean
population
IQ
Natural
Black
of
adoptive
children
children
of
parents
the
reared
120
adoptive
in
their
parents
own
119
homes
90
Adopted
children
(white)
111
Adopted
children
(black)
106
Black
▲
children
adopted
in
IQ
the
rst
12
months
of
life
110
Table 2.5
Source: based on Scarr and Weinberg (1976) and Scarr and Weinberg (1983)
Table
2.5
summarizes
the
main
results
of
the
study.
related
or
siblings
Overall,
results
of
the
study
support
the
idea
inuence
of
genetics
and
the
biological
the
development
of
IQ.
In
this
the
ndings
of
sense
Kendler
the
one
abilities
of
hand,
adoption
adopted
correlations
as
high
of
as
adopted
those
reared
together
of
(0.44
et
increased
there
is
the
same
and
amount
of
it
al
between
two
adopted
siblings
natural
siblings.
This
as
there
(2015).
is
On
siblings
respectively):
similarity
corroborated
IQ
nearly
environment
0.42
to
The
very
of
the
additive
not.
were
cognitive
between
only
children.
of
be
the
two
explained
rearing
by
the
nding
predominant
environment
on
the
can
inuence
development
ofIQ.
●
Black
children
increased
placed
their
IQ
in
white
scores
families
substantially
as
This
compared
to
black
children
reared
in
their
contradiction
study—the
homes
(an
increase
of
16
IQ
Early
than
early
as
adoption
late
adoption.
scored
high
resulted
as
110
the
in
Black
IQ
higher
average
IQ
children
points
on
score
adopted
average—almost
of
adopted
study
been
scores
white
participants
adopted
an
Their
adoptive
average
biological
the
other
hand,
just
as
in
Kendler
et
al’s
correlation
between
the
IQ
of
and
adopted
children
the
was
lower
biological
between
parents
adopted
(0.29
and
children
0.43
these
data
researchers
than
of
IQ
variance
differences
in
among
and
estimated
the
sample
the
IQ
1983,
pp
together
IQ
additive
occurs
suggests
would
on
the
that
be
to
how
suggests
responsive
genetics.
placed
in
in
their
their
study.
of
their
The
siblings
new
biological
adoptive
IQ
who
life
families.
parents
parents
similar
to
and
also
correlations
were
had
and
of
the
those
Adoption
Study:
0.35.
However,
of
for
adopted
18
years
children
was
who
were
zero.
concluded
that
observed
results
may
that
was
children
that
environmental
environmental
child’s
genetics
to
years
year
due
(Scarr
due
to
niche-picking.
Young
children
reared
to
the
same
family
are
similar
to
each
other,
no
and
whether
they
are
genetically
related
or
not,
262–63).
inuence
due
adolescents
rst
their
because
The
the
correlation
matter
Weinberg,
In
respectively).
in
genetic
second
Study .
the
be
40–70%
were
the
18
of
related
Researchers
From
of
Transracial
reared
correlation
the
adoptive
the
parents
in
Adoption
(2015)
in
the
in
in
parents,
children
biologically
study,
early
spent
participated
children.
On
reconciled
Adolescent
points).
this
●
is
own
a
increase
but
particular
inuences
Children
“good”
an
factors,
with
in
also
child
depends
“good”
environments
get
double
On
the
only
if
they
other
they
theyhave
andare
The
fact
similar
free
similar
older
genes.
escaped
that
a
hand,
share
now
the
to
may
their
0.35)
of
the
an
similar
that
family
environment.
children
may
is
are
mean
own
related
(which
of
environment.
adolescents
inuences
biologically
correlation
rearing
This
select
environments
observed
advantage.
share
select
explain
the
example
of
niche-picking.
A
contradictory
however,
to
each
is
that
other,
nding
young
whether
from
the
siblings
they
same
were
were
study,
very
similar
genetically
In
this
more
way,
and
genetically
more
similar
related
with
people
age
as
become
the
genetic
103
2
BI O LO GI C A L
programme
pick
his
process
of
the
or
“unfolds”
her
can
APPROACH
either
rearing
and
“niches”
in
TO
BE H AV IO U R
the
child
the
environment.
strengthen
or
begins
weaken
to
the
Biologically,
genotype
This
as
effects
expression.
environment.
phenotype
for
the
most
Each
synthesis
cases
inuence
a
becomes
through
a
gene
of
a
called
contains
chemical
gene
instructions
functional
protein—a
the
manifested
process
product—in
molecule
which
composition
of
will
the
then
cells
that
Exercise
determine
the
simplicity,
The
Minnesota
Research
different
Center
(MCTFR)
projects,
is
for
T
win
currently
including
and
Family
heading
two
that
ve
products
amino
technology
to
twin
research:
MRI
has
project
added
has
the
added
study
MRI
of
can
learn
more
about
the
we
will
Proteins
example).
call
all
usually
For
functional
are
a
chain
of
process
of
DNA
encoded
constructing
in
the
DNA
a
protein
involves
based
two
on
major
the
steps:
and
and
translation.
In
transcription,
parameters.
the
You
on
for
acids.
transcription
the
now
proteins.
colour,
the
plan
GEDIproject
from
(eye
added
The
modern
trait
sequence
of
the
gene
is
copied
to
make
an
projectshere:
RNA
(ribonucleic
acid)
molecule.
In
translation,
http://mctfr.psych.umn.edu/aboutus/index.html
the
of
RNA
molecule
amino
uses
the
acids
same
translation
in
a
a
decoded
protein.
“language”
uses
protein.
and
in
is
a
Transcription
translation
is
like
So
of
different
into
a
sequence
transcription
base
pairs
language
is
like
reading
while
of
amino
acids
photocopying
aloud
from
the
photocopy.
Write
can
a
short
DNA
potential
paragraph
mapping
and
to
answer
brain
breakthroughs
in
the
imaging
the
question:
lead
to
nature-nurture
transcription
translation
folding
debate?
protein
amino acid chain
RNA
DNA
ATL skills: Self-management
Write down a summary of the ndings of these three
▲
Figure 2.39
Gene expression
studies:
●
Bouchard and McGue (1981)
In
humans
of
●
Kendler et al (2015)
●
Scarr and Weinberg (1983).
a
cell,
known
RNA
For each study highlight the ndings that are most
by
essential in the context of the nature-nur ture debate.
the
a
transcription
and
as
translation
ribosomes.
molecule,
special
RNA,
building
nds
A
a
protein
starting
and
synthesizing
one
that
place
place
ribosome
its
chemical)
takes
takes
the
cell
latches
point
rapidly
amino
mirrors
in
in
nucleus
structures
onto
the
(indicated
moves
along
acid
a
the
at
RNA.
time,
Once
the
Compare the ndings.
protein
(either
te ee f erme 
A
is
within
wide
be
nished,
used
range
by
the
of
the
it
is
cell
transported
or
not)
and
sophisticated
body
to
to
its
destination
performs
mechanisms
increase
or
its
job.
can
decrease
the
gees: regl f gee epress
production
of
Collectively
proteins
these
based
on
mechanisms
the
are
genetic
known
code.
as
ATL skills: Thinking
regulation
We have seen how genetics can inuence a trait either
directly or indirectly through niche-picking.
implication
not
of
gene
here
is
automatically
manifested
in
the
expression .
that
having
mean
that
a
this
phenotype.
The
gene
gene
Any
important
does
will
step
of
be
gene
Do you think the environment can inuence genetics?
expression
can
be
modulated,
from
the
DNA–RNA
How?
transcription
104
to
modication
of
a
protein
after
G E n E S
translation.
Some
completely.
The
added
to
the
DNA
transcription,
your
is
these
indistinctly,
words.
be
as
as
if
and
to
to
gene
Imagine
print
refuse
methylation
to
certain
probably
the
of
by
to.
of
gene
expression
results
changes
(from
the
The
rats
“over”
or
“outside
sequence.
from
the
Greek
Epigenetic
code
changes
can
in
turn,
the
receptors
of
gene
inhibited
the
itself
receptors
in
smaller
the
for
number
brain
was
glucocorticoid
did
not
different
differ
in
nurturing,
mothers
had
transcription
of
of
linked
to
receptor
the
but
more
the
these
glucocorticoid
groups
rats
raised
chemicals
gene.
As
a
result,
fewer
glucocorticoid
receptors
were
epi
the
be
its
of
(specically
in
of”)—deviation
genetic
brain
less-nurturing
more
stress
hormones
were
released;
and
of
the
phenotypes
In
S i M i L a R i t i E S
number
the
receiving
produced;
meaning
fewer
in
suppression
receptor
epigenetic
a
glucocorticoid
that
Regulation
to
receptors).
gene.
print
can
G E n E t i c
hormones
are
repress
started
trying
what
so
B E h a v i o u R ;
linked
suppressed
chemicals
methylation.
machine
That’s
compared
can
when
molecule,
known
photocopying
words
be
genes
process
a n D
organism
suffered
more
consequences
ofstress.
DNA
attributed
to
Less-nur turing mother
environmental
study
of
how
inuences,
nurture
and
in
inuences
this
sense
it
is
a
nature.
Inhibits transcription
of the glucocor ticoid
More severe
recep tor gene
consequences of stress
Fewer glucocor ticoid
More stress hormones
recep tors in the brain
produced
▲
Figure 2.40
Relationship between reduced nur turing
when young and response to stress in rats
To
conrm
conducted
Epigenetic
neurons
inuence
result
in
changes
in
the
brain
a
can
inuence
developing
activity
change
of
in
brain
the
of
adults.
a
growth
child
Both
of
and
processes
that
their
reversed
suppression
treatment
the
for
Such
where
effects
that
rats
research
implications.
of
researchers
gave
substances
gene,
to
and
this
stress
even
in
2010).
have
similar
rats
transcription
responses
(Miller,
studies
If
the
they
particular
normalized
less-nurtured
behaviour.
ndings,
studies
far-reaching
mechanisms
are
Berl epgees: reglg
demonstrated
in
humans,
then
we
can
respse  sress
pinpointspecic
Behavioural
the
Theyfound
from
their
that
the
in
More
life.
that
were
their
their
stress
when
them
in
a
production
responds
rats
raised
less
they
often)
stress
licked
For
restricted
their
adrenal
This
hormones
changes
there
was
onthe
are
early
behavioural
Unit8
on
who
experience
changesin
is:
mechanism
the
behavioural
the
back
to
of
epigenetics?
effects
cognitive
areas.
specic
chemicals
early
abilities,
The
these
of
in
life
psychology).
in
life
social
question
changes
Imagine
ofextreme
development
on
later
poverty
cognitive
andother
example,
documented
patterns
developmental
behaviour
that
For
childhood
and
can
proteins.
behavioural
povertyin
of
Children
of
certain
and
health
(see
level
for
well-researched
effects
undergo
more
adults.
hormones.
stress
later
mothers
were
tube),
life
stress
were
became
receive
early
to
by
in
(2004).
rats
example,
narrow
of
al
ones’
movements
more
et
nurturing
young
(for
young
demonstrated
Weaver
of
the
brain
their
produced
increased
type
in
nurturing
when
placing
glands
the
of
specically,
less
to
example,
(by
way
groomed
sensitive
was
research
mothers
affects
and
epigenetics
pioneering
causes
early
we
be
found
poverty
children
can
suppressing
on
be
traced
the
105
2
BI O LO GI C A L
expression
a
drug
APPROACH
ofcertain
thatwould
chemicalsand
so
TO
BE H AV IO U R
genes—then
suppress
reverse
the
the
can
we
effects
of
inuence
invent
of
Participants
twins,
these
poverty?
an
ofce
were
While
this
area
of
research
is
intriguing,
there
major
issue
that
slows
down
the
our
knowledge
in
this
eld.
To
their
human
the
brain
only
tissue
way
study
needs
to
post-mortem
ensure
do
it
to
the
et
al
(2009)
raised
The
in
in
this
studied
poverty
researchers
concentrations
glucocorticoid
Weaver
et
al’s
However,
blood
and
et
of
area
blood
al
the
gene
wealthy
age
17
and
suppress
genes,
arguably
of
24
as
the
childhood.
these
be
the
post-mortem
people
who
had
by
in
out
didn’t.
white
changes
same.
drank
they
chemicals
epigenetic
not
but
forties
in
brain
McGowan
examinations
had
been
committed
had
but
to
in
Examination
brain
cells
people
who
be
a
chemicals
expression
The
work
of
is
in
the
still
two
any
wide
in
other,
revealed
similar
had
been
their
to
they
each
them
in
other
the
same
the
girls
the
(for
same).
twin”
left
home,
the
travelled
career
of
a
a
war
abused
brain
cells
ongoing,
and
is
generalizations
in
the
and
of
had
war,
excess.
law,
Her
the
She
drank
Despite
“war
twin”
in
She
life
settled
her
and
alcohol
living
early
soon
occasionally,
far
the
and
she
turned
down
young
was
killed
in
Occasionally
and
close
people
married
sister’s
married
She
excess.
saw
She
zones
Balkans.
children.
different.
in
war
the
from
“law
met
as
twin”
often
as
could.
that
questionnaires
whereas
as
a
children
war
showed
twin’s
a
difference
prole
appeared
the
law
twin
had
a
tendency
to
overreact
had
minor
problems
with
a
high
degree
of
anxiety
the
and
tension.
was
more
According
to
tests,
the
lawtwin
also
gene.
burning
at
the
rodent
suppressing
would
multiple
abused
receptor
it
in
epigenetic
those
glucocorticoid
(Miller,
to
other
undistinguishable
dressed
emotionally
risk-aversive
this
than
the
war
twin.
topic,
point
in
gene
expression
were
examined
by
be
comparing
premature
were
East
children.
remained
they
in
quite
Variations
so
When
close
raise
choosing
never
career
never
each
to
more
to
colleagues.
alcohol
normal,
study:
up
atrocities
close
and
to
with
in
changes
“war
Middle
Personality
in
they
working
the
andlost
the
predicted
rodents,
individuals
these
rm.
very
tried
parents
ended
exposed
environments.
that
with
Africa,
people
chemicals
measured
of
in
increased
conducted
Half
expression
nd
might
law
MZ
the
is
Miller
to
receptor
cells
brains
suicide.
inconclusive.
expected
and
(2009)
is
research
they
cells,
a
and
examination.
versus
of
in
were
female
journalist
be
(ethically)
journalist
Evidence
49-year-old
war
gene
lot
through
a
development
At
obtained—and
they
parents
example,
expression,
two
them
manager
young
wayand
of
were
of
is
and
a
one
methylation
pairwise
in
12,192
DNA
2010).
regions
gene
and
(genes).
was
in
Results
differentially
the
law
showed
that
methylated
twin.
This
was
to
involved
the
one
in
the
DLX1
particular
war
twin
gene.
This
Berl epgees: persl
gene
is
known
be
in
the
production
of
rs
neurons
MZ
of
(identical)
their
DNA
phenotypical
observed.
twins
are
sequence.
differences
Traditionally
attributed
to
100%
similar
However,
between
these
individual
in
terms
MZ
twins
differences
environments.
brain.
in
certain
are
have
been
recent
studies
suggest
that
reduced
differences
to
in
identical
explain
all
phenotypes.
exist
other
factors
over
that
factor
is
in
study
cognitive
and
et
of
al
a
and
on
(2008)
and
above
model.
One
pair
of
conducted
identical
personality
epigenetic
performed
106
Falconer
law
of
stress
that
can
this
centre
in
the
discordance
explain
anxiety
of
the
the
war
twin
as
twin.
a
cause–effect
what
such
be
relationship
inferred
with
in
caution
the
because
the
been
in
DLX1
caused
methylation
by
the
may
themselves
environment.
The
was
also
recognize
that
one
twin
pair
is
possible
not
enough
the
role
to
make
denitive
statements
about
epigenetics.
Kaminsky
case
the
level
the
should
researchers
suggested
suggest
the
There
have
may
of
measurable
cannot
twins’
part
methylation
overall
compared
a
authors
gene
differences
discordance
form
However,
study
environmental
The
DLX1
Note
some
that
tests.
DNA
tests
twins
as
Epigenetic
extracted
an
extensive
using
well
as
testing
from
genetic
was
blood
cells.
of
stress
of
important
was
DLX1
from
expression
different.
in
limitation
obtained
gene
methylation
responses
in
MZ
of
in
twins.
the
the
study
blood
cells
blood
and
development
Another
is
and,
brain
that
as
DNA
you
cells
know,
may
be
G E n E S
a n D
B E h a v i o u R ;
G E n E t i c
S i M i L a R i t i E S
ATL skills: Thinking and self-management
In this section we have looked at various aspects of genetic inuences on behaviour. These are the key points.
●
Dierent traits are inuenced by genetic inheritance to dierent degrees.
●
The traditional way to estimate this inuence is through studies based on genetic similarity (twin, family and
adoption studies).
●
Using the example of intelligence, we have seen that these studies demonstrate additive inuence of genetics
and environment. On the one hand, adoption into more enriched environments results in an increase in average IQ
scores. On the other hand, IQ of adopted children correlates more strongly with that of their biological parents. This
suggests that biological inuences add to environmental inuences.
●
Another nding is that genetic heritability increases with age. Similarity between related individuals increases as
they grow older. This suggests niche-picking: biological factors can inuence environmental factors.
●
Environmental factors can inuence biological factors through the process of regulation of gene expression. Genes
can be switched on and o in response to environmental inuences.
●
We have therefore seen that there is a complex dynamic interaction between genetic and environmental factors,
which makes the nature-nur ture debate in its original form outdated.
Review the section and nd the suppor ting arguments and evidence for each of these key points.
Psychology in real life
To what extent would it be possible—and acceptable—to use genetics in Humanborough in the following projects?
●
Using knowledge of heritability of cer tain traits and genetic mapping, you set out to establish a dating agency that
would match people based on the predicted qualities of their ospring.
●
Your aim is to invent a drug that would reverse the eects of methylation of the glucocor ticoid gene and market it as a
drug that “reverses the eects of bad parenting”.
●
You want to enhance requirements for selective placement in adoption agencies.
107
Evolutionary explanations for behaviour
Inquiry questions
●
Is
the
theory
human
of
evolution
useful
for
explaining
●
behaviour?
If
we
we
●
What
is
the
are
genetically
andgenes
explanatory
power
of
affect
similar
behaviour,
arebehaviourally
to
animals
does
similar
to
it
mean
animals
evolutionary
too?
explanations
for
all
for
possible
behaviour?
Can
they
be
used
behaviours?
What you will learn in this section
●
The
theory
of
●
evolution
Criticism
of
evolutionary
explanations
in
psychology
The
need
to
survive
and
reproduce
Massive
Differential
modularity
versus
tness
neuroplasticity
Survival
of
the
ttest
Speculations
Natural
about
the
environment
selection
Testability
●
A
range
of
evolutionary
explanations
in
Assumptions
about
linearity
of
psychology
development
Chiao
and
Blizinsky
(2010):
gene-culture
Cultural
co-evolution
variation
theory
Adaptation
Hamilton
(1964),
Madsen
et
al
versus
other
evolutionary
(2007):
mechanisms
kin
selection
theory
This
LeDoux
(1996):
processing
fear
brain
pathways
and
mind,
Tomasello
animal
(2008):
theory
theory
Shaver
of
and
to
emotional
human
attachment
biological
Evolutionary
Curtis,
explanation
Aunger
evolved
as
a
for
specic
the
and
for
Rabie
protection
backed
108
if
up
all
by
to
the
for
depression
psychology)
prosocial
behaviour,
altruism,
(2004):
risk
a
strong
explanation
ve
disgust
formation
(psychology
●
theory
●
genetics
of
mind
(developmental
of
support
is
hypotheses
evidence
relationships
of
of
human
relationships)
disgust
from
hypotheses;
evolutionary
expected
approach
(from
disease
Five
(cognitive
research)
personal
●
processing
explanations
(abnormal
Hazan
●
animal
to:
research
(1958),
(1988):
links
behaviour)
of
●
Harlow
also
stimuli
●
Call
section
of
only
are
and
animal
studies.
psychology)
E v o L u t i o n a R y
One
major
research
is
that
genes
physical
We
conclusion
into
genetic
can
know
well
be
code
for
drawn
of
behaviour
disappear
from
behaviour
adapted
as
their
well
as
as
physical
physical
is
seems
traits
pressures.
traits,
subject
to
be
If
a
to
are
genes
does
subject
code
it
mean
evolutionary
reasonable
idea.
As
to
for
behaviour
that
pressures
This
is
the
adapt
of
behaviours
(more
accurately,
these
behaviours)
this
and
mates)
have
been
explained
First
we
then
will
The
theory
some
It
on
in
review
major
the
ideas
examples
psychology,
across
one
of
of
This
is
organisms
organisms
resources
ght
for
need
(such
to
as
food
survival.
of
evolution
explains
the
has
a
great
variety
of
explanatory
species
that
we
observe
in
the
and
world
their
by
all
these
species
into
evolution,
ancestors
for
in
other
units,
and
typical
the
then
emotion
reasoning
of
ones
a
We
we
developmental
will
of
also
discuss
evolutionary
organisms,
traces
back
including
common
humans.
of
research
humans
has
are
shown
99.5%
that
similar
in
to
terms
each
of
their
other.
As
a
will
we
share
98%
of
genes
with
chimpanzees,
disgust—
with
cats,
69%
with
rats,
and
60%
with
evolutionary
major
and
fruit
ies.
This
hints
at
the
possibility
aws
of
limitations
also
you
chickens
psychologists.
all
It
evolutionary
including
example—the
demonstrate
and
Scarce
perspective.
90%
to
changes,
historical
species,
focus
stronger.
so
using
DNA
come
get
More
origin
Modern
explanations
will
pool
pool.
offspring,
selection”.
change.
make
gene
gene
more
reasoning.
briey
review
the
population
produce
a
placing
evolutionary
in
“natural
modications
of
the
too?
why
the
from
B E h a v i o u R
environment
to
power.
variety
F o R
organisms
genes
called
that
behaviour
This
can
traits.
evolutionary
as
that
foundations
E x P L a n a t i o n S
explanations
using
animals
to
get
an
insight
into
human
for
behaviour
and
links
to
the
principles
of
a
biological
behaviour.
approach
te er f el
Evolution
is
the
process
by
to
behaviour.
TOK
which
organisms
Can you name examples from various areas of knowledge
change
from
generation
to
generation
as
a
result
(history, natural and human sciences, mathematics, ar ts,
of
a
change
in
heritable
characteristics.
It
is
not
religious knowledge systems, indigenous knowledge
just
any
random
change;
as
suggested
by
Charles
systems, ethics) where evolutionary ideas have been
Darwin,
there
is
deep
logic
to
this
process.
inuential?
The
of
is
●
modern
Darwin’s
based
on
theory
theory
the
Biological
survive
of
evolution
with
the
following
organisms
and
(a
combination
discoveries
of
genetics)
ATL skills: Thinking
premises.
are
driven
by
the
need
to
Review the principles of the biological approach to
behaviour from the star t of this unit. How are they linked
reproduce
to the idea that behaviour can have an evolutionary
●
There
is
considerable
variation
in
the
traits
of
basis?
individual
organisms
Organisms
to
their
better,
having
the
different
environment
some
from
worse.
to
same
traits
varying
This
is
population.
are
adapted
degrees—some
called
“ differential
a rge f elr epls
tness”.
 pslg
●
Those
organisms
that
are
well
adapted
to
the
Evolutionary
environment
have
higher
chances
of
psychological
and
producing
offspring.
Organisms
that
adapted
offspring.
●
This
Gradually
adapted
die
as
do
out
is
called
those
not
or
are
unable
“survival
organisms
pass
on
their
to
of
that
to
explain
traits
or
behaviours
explanations
in
as
adaptations.
psychology
have
produce
the
are
genes,
attempts
are
Evolutionary
less
psychology
surviving
been
proposed
Here
is
for
a
wide
range
of
phenomena.
ttest”.
those
just
a
explanations,
less
genes
greater
detail
brief
overview
some
of
of
which
elsewhere
in
some
are
this
popular
discussed
in
book.
109
2
BI O LO GI C A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
Topic
Evolutionary
Mental
Chiao
disorders
evolution
and
Blizinsky
theory
susceptibility
prevalence
Short
There
●
a
In
collectivistic
Altruism
Kin
(prosocial
in
animals
behaviour)
of
natural
suggests
of
it
predicts
in
(1964)
of
inuence
emotion
cognition
on
and
behaviour
subjects
LeDoux
emotions;
through
produce
a
can
be
also
linked
to
than
extended
Attachment
Research
and
an
of
situations
to
of
animal
of
be
of
5-HTT
psychology
the
they
in
people
rarely.
have
increased
genetic
the
this
was
al,
The
behaviour.
its
close
staying
close
dangerous
●
venturing
life
the
fast
clinging
adult
110
outside
and
and
reason
to
in
but
this
This
limited
react
goes
pathway
and
studies
styles
and
grooming.
parallels
with
the
gures
the
monkeys
and
attachment
patterns
in
animal
survival
if
there
in
on
approach
to
behaviour
be
and
rather
be
studies
See
perspective,
is
a
balance
unfamiliar,
world
to
potentially
develop
demonstrate
of
such
Hazan’s
styles
humans.
3
biases.
importance
Shaver
between
relationship
with
the
Unit
cognitive
reaction
time
can
the
to
may
quickly
explanation
also
The
hard-wired
stimuli,
same
See
of
neocortex.
is
because
tness
exploring
human
with
pathway
slow
circumstances.
From
attachment
on
relatives
situations
(1958)
attachment
shows
the
7
relationships
necessary
skills.
Harlow’s
of
to
Unit
psychology
Hamilton
pathways
brain
linked
survival
the
increase
this
including
The
value
cognitive
closely
the
See
of
with
theory
For
by
both
concept
2007).
fear
selection
survival
is
in
proposed
our
to
another
frequent
stimuli.
that
the
selection
altruism
whereas
reaction
and
maximizes
more
et
observed
into
individual.
hippocampus
is
well
helps
physiological
situation.
is
t
Kin
of
an
exceptional
adds
behaviour
not
between:
●
5
make
more
values
against
experiments
fear
natural
stereotypes
organism
gene,
depression
itself.
theory
two
in
attachment
to
Madsen
of
it
does
than
amygdala,
of
the
models
of
collectivistic
buffer
meaning
will
The
automatic
assess
report
organism
cost
processing
“overriden”
deeply
Unit
abnormal
events.
alleles
altruistic
rather
acts
as
and
principles
a
one
number
meaning
quick
dangerous
a
structures
evolutionary
(where
conclusions
transporter
life
short
that
as
some
described
namely,
the
at
genes
in
thalamus
involves
because
(such
(1996)
their
on
genetic
values.
Altruism
relatives.
tested
of
explains
altruistic
distant
stressful
evolutionary
one’s
that
societies
See
co-
of
depression.
even
the
of
and
human
The
that
prevalence
In
serotonin
people
societies
humans.
and
survival
than
to
selection
reward
lower).
collectivistic
theory
and
is
to
suggested
these
selection
gene-culture
higher
collectivistic
the
societies
researchers
in
in
frequency
with
susceptibility
no
5-HTT,
higher
countries
evolved
proposed
the
itself
vulnerable
in
The
(2010)
ndings.
of
more
Notes
explain
depression
three
is
to
depression
alleles
people
●
to
of
synthesized
●
explanation
in
the
existence
behaviours
(1988)
as
research
childhood
and
later
Unit
8
on
developmental
psychology
E v o L u t i o n a R y
Topic
Evolutionary
Theory
of
Theory
mind
of
intentions
have
of
was
mind
the
exists
humans
2008).
The
complex
it
▲
in
of
in
from
of
and
becomes
ability
be
a
to
lot
of
animal
the
the
ability
same
social
survival
if
of
insight
of
world.
depends
important
to
forms,
tasks
As
on
of
the
it
( Call
mind
the
See
a
developmental
is
and
8
on
psychology
this
to
of
trace
animals
Tomasello,
be
becomes
to
Unit
theory
possible
may
beliefs
species
of
species,
performance
cooperation
understand
and
as
nature
some
and
society
beliefs
humans
into
In
compare
theory
the
that
studies.
we
types
value
recognize
something
a
of
linked
to
the
increasingly
larger
degree,
others.
Table 2.6
Elr epl fr dsgs
also
hardly
how
To
B E h a v i o u R
Notes
underdeveloped
this
survival
complexity
the
may
However,
derived
evolution
and
or
others,
uniquely.
ability
F o R
explanation
mind ,
of
E x P L a n a t i o n S
demonstrate
typical
reasoning
of
can
there
we
will
look
at
one
be
with
the
explanation:
cross-cultural
differences
in
evolutionary
something
psychologists,
compatible
that
is
the
product
of
evolution
of
specic
humans
as
a
species?
example.
So,
Curtis,
Aunger
and
Rabie
(2004)
a
strong
support
explanation
a
study
suggesting
that
disgust
evolved
as
from
risk
of
this
was
disease.
is
are
that
if
true,
then
the
have
to
be
Disgust
faced
to
a
should
with
a
similar
we
are
be
felt
more
strongly
disease-salient
stimulus
with
when
stimulus
less
as
opposed
salience.
ts
well,
Disgust
should
up
explanation
trying
(with
does
the
if
by
to
t
in
it
all
the
ve
evidence.
this
into
operate
in
a
similar
t
because
well,
observations
way
evolutionary
caution),
not
predictions
●
backed
case
is
a
model,
observational
data.
If
fullled.
it
●
evolutionary
following
and
conditions
the
expected
Researchers
Evolutionary
reasoned
only
a
hypotheses
protection
for
published
we
of
we
seems
change
have
the
it
that
model,
explanation
the
are
the
is
plausible.
model.
is
If
The
consistent
higher
accepted
it
more
with
our
the
trust
in
across
the
model
itself.
cultures.
●
Disgust
should
be
more
pronounced
in
females
ATL skills: Thinking
since
they
have
to
protect
their
babies
in
Can you name other examples where models are used in
addition
to
themselves.
psychological research?
●
Disgust
should
individual’s
become
weaker
reproductive
as
the
potential
declines
To
with
age
(there
is
less
responsibility
to
test
(2004)
about
their
used
Disgust
should
strangers
strangers
than
be
stronger
with
close
potentially
can
in
contact
relatives
carry
with
because
people
novel
than
had
that
if
any
of
these
conditions
from
this
would
present
a
were
challenge
the
ideathat
For
example,
then
the
to
if
fall
to
of
is
disgust
a
product
was
disease-salient
proposed
would
risk
disgust
apart:
and
would
of
Curtis ,
placed
on
Aunger
the
and
BBC
Rabie
Science
less
was
165
was
advertised
completed
countries.
nal
sample
For
example,
the
BBC
in
all
was
a
over
However,
size
40,000.
by
BBC
77,000
after
slightly
participants
documentary
were
data
less
who
excluded
not
they
could
have
been
exposed
to
the
for
in
salient
First,
stimuli,
explanation
not
Cross-cultural
It
of
the
study.
evolution.
equally
evolutionary
disgust
disease.
felt
survey
the
hypothesis
response
survey
watched
because
fullled,
The
documentary.
cleaning,
pathogens.
Note
a
offspring).
website.
●
hypotheses,
care
be
connected
differences
are
respondents
questions
Then
on
they
(appearing
disgust
on
were
one
a
were
their
age,
asked
by
scale
asked
sex,
to
one
from
rate
on
1
a
set
of
country,
20
so
on.
photographs
separate
(not
demographic
and
screens)
disgusting)
for
to
111
2
BI O LO GI C A L
5
(very
disgusting).
comprised
salient
the
towel
7pairs
stimuli.
depicted
and
APPROACH
a
For
white
paired
with
Of
of
these
photographs,
example,
towel
stain
BE H AV IO U R
disease-salient
with
photograph
the
TO
one
a
in
Therefore,
less
explanation
risk
photograph
blue
stain
showed
depicted
14
versus
the
on
of
blood
and
bodily
supported
as
a
the
response
evolutionary
that
reduces
same
TOK
reddish-yellow
that
many
humans
have
constructed
an
ar tificial
secretions.
sur vival
to
evolution
Many
dangers.
While
was
it
is
live
longer
selection
replaced
is
in
not
an
focus
world
than
working
physical
you
think
(in
of
business
physical
status
stake.
do
on
explanatory
the
rather
sur vival
at
to
before,
as
economic
physical
no
as
power
people
your
need
extent
its
competitors
offspring,
natural
longer
same
and
countries)
no
losing
par tners
your
Examples of photographs used in
and
the
is
principle?
Figure 2.41
tests
disgust
disease.
environment
▲
ve
of
it,
Now
resembling
all
does
the
Does
affect
developed
it
mean
anymore?
If
that
so,
what
by?
crsm f elr epls
the study
 pslg
Source: Cur tis, Aunger and Rabie (2004, p 131)
Evolutionary
power.
Results
showed
support
for
all
ve
In
psychology
many
First,
disease-salient
stimuli
were
rated
as
than
less
salient
ones.
For
plate
of
organic-looking
explanatory
uid
t
nicely
into
our
observations,
tying
all
together.
However,
some
of
the
limitations
example,
that
the
great
more
them
disgusting
a
evolutionary
hypotheses.
explanations
●
has
instances
was
are
commonly
mentioned
by
critics
are
as
rated
follows.
as
61%
more
disgusting
than
the
plate
of
●
blueuid
that
looked
chemical
(ratings
Massive
modularity
Researchers
1.6
versus
2.6).
For
the
towel
pictures,
substance
produced
ratings
of
disgust
than
the
and
blue
versus
Second,
propose
that
mind
expand
on
the
the
whole
is
product
of
evolutionary
that
mind
is
a
processes.
product
of
If
you
evolution,
3.9).
though,
●
neuroplasticity.
to
chemical
suggest
(1.6
attempted
much
a
higher
have
the
eld
organic-looking
versus
were
the
results
were
consistent
you
must
also
make
one
major
across
assumption—modularity
of
mind
(also
cultures.
known
●
Third,
as
females
more
all
the
rated
disgusting
the
than
disease-salient
disease-salient
pictures
men.
true
pictures
This
was
used
in
the
for
study.
that
Fourth,
as
predicted,
there
was
an
evolved
in
the
sensitivity
to
consists
to
functions
modularity”).
of
perform
certain
(Samuels,
have
a
modules
1998).
neurological
It
that
states
have
tness-related
These
basis.
modules
However,
what
age-based
we
decline
“massive
mind
must
●
as
know
about
neuroplasticity
contradicts
disease-salient
this
assumption.
If
the
brain
can
change
stimuli.
itself
●
Finally,
that
asked
they
The
there
would
boss,
the
is
be
felt
question
less
to
likely
responses
order:
more
with
or
to
postman
partner.
strongly
relatives.
a
the
survey
boundaries
with
whom
raises
share
a
toothbrush.
ranged
(least
a
shows
contact
in
the
likely),
sibling,
This
in
in
choose
were
weatherman,
spouse
than
112
the
one
participants
average
following
was
dramatically
best
that
with
the
friend,
disgust
strangers
this
would
be
rst
between
question:
enough
assumption
the
that
place?
demonstrated
example,
during
modules
how
for
the
specialized
a
snake-detection
group
are
much
to
have
certain
macaques
a
us
course
have
of
even
This
the
existed
advances
modules
been
life,
neuroplasticity
been
neurons
brain
of
erased.
challenge
“modules”
There
that
the
do
shown
that
module.
exist.
to
For
have
function
These
in
that
as
neurons
E v o L u t i o n a R y
respond
if
the
(Le
very
quickly
macaque
et
al,
has
2013).
to
images
never
So,
seen
highly
of
a
snakes
snake
specialized
E x P L a n a t i o n S
temperature
even
for
before
as
snake
detection
cause
little
doubt,
is
massive
modularity
on
the
regulation
but
later
re-specialized
ight.
Cultural
whole
variation.
Just
as
neuroplasticity
but
is
it
B E h a v i o u R
modules
●
such
F o R
that
not
entirely
compatible
with
the
idea
of
is
massive
modularity
of
mind,
existing
cultural
questionable.
variations
●
Speculations
Evolutionary
to
a
certain
have
in
which
homo
A
lot
trait
of
the
sapiens
of
is
always
So
explanation
this
of
about
to
a
suggest
reasoning
in
a
this
that
can
need
in
eld,
arguably,
is
Evolutionary
explanations
are
difcult—and
impossible—to
psychology
rest
ona
say
and
story”,
to
stories
for
Ad
“cooks”
came
that
logical
reasoning.
just-so
test.
be.
be
example,
survival
of
genes
survival
of
your
that.
For
Aunger
ve
if
Then
the
few
Rabie
like
for
genes.
that
you
(2004)
of
“cooking
as
it
“a
exists
how
it
is
that
that
by
formulated
a
logically,
arms
explanation
like
set
had
was
This
of
Assumptions
about
and
as
not
This
is
a
explanations
choice
assume
but
gradually
function.
to
evolving
However,
point
in
some
other
the
past
is
to
an
is
a
one
different
a
All
other
has
(2004)
disgust—one
across
be
of
experienced
cultures.
Examples
as
a
would
rest
of
other
to
a
animal
be
of
up
Instead
arms
the
words,
the
other,
these
of
the
(Gould
A
genotype
a
a
trait
and
is
the
that
short
these
sleep—but
dismiss
such
suggest
simply
getting
of
Lewontin,
purpose—such
after
they
A
common
assume
arms
in
more
include
evolution
spandrel
to
are
body
of
evolution,
rex.
serve
(1979)
distinguish
spandrels.
result
of
to
and
variations
and
characteristic
tiny
evolutionary
hard
adaptation
example
the
a
Gould
explanations
that
the
by-product
bigger
didnot
arms
as
and
of
bigger.
change,
the
did.
that
to
because
perform
one
example
when
Bird
brings
some
the
but
originally
at
limitations
psychology
been
certain
situation
function.
they
no
An
function
traits.
Rabie
argument.
from
now.
and
of
evolved
different
performing
exaptation:
trait
possible
actually
perform
performing
a
perform
exaptation—the
evolves
are
it
it
function,
(presumably)
this
to
that
have
environmental
emotions
by-product
ridiculous.
the
related
Evolutionary
a
Lewontin
body
development.
one
evolutionary
universal
of
other
may
tyrannosaurus
animal’s
story”.
linearity
basic
(random
developed
raising
be
true.
is
is
explanation
In
●
emotion
naturally)
An
of
were
to
drift
other
1979).
Curtis,
It
developed
some
exactly
seen,
study
Aunger
versus
genuine
occur
spandrel
by
egoism
not
course,
evolutionary
similarly
processes.
genetic
it
anything:
altruism
have
the
universal,
Adaptation
neutral
believable
predictions.
a
as
about
and
why
the
a
geographical
different
weakens
is
interpreted
between
Evolutionary
which,
these
●
hoc
about
such
just
relatives
as
all
tested
that
study
mechanisms.
known
story
explain
evolutionary
they
exactly
of
respond
predictions
true
may
example,
and
also
ad
phenomenon
up
own
as
faced
Of
as
challenges
cases
evolutionary
known
argue
made
many
to
universal
aspecies.
Curtis,
example,
the
compatible
developed
thatdifferent
butit
This
as
entirely
traits
for
explanations
unveriable
you
psychologists
a
in
of
fallacy,
takes
Critics
may
these
fallacy
hoc
an
Critics
people
to
For
and
behaviour
faced
claim
not
these
preferto
the
Testability.
of
are
that
psychologists
chose
speculative.
●
humans
argument.
scarce.
traits
adaptation
challenges,
our
which
is
in
idea
always
groups
environment
species
the
universal
an
you
However,
environments
as
adaptation
trait,
the
evolved.
evolved
with
environment .
environment.
knowledge
knowledge
the
adaptation
evolutionary
to
about
a
later
it
of
trait
starts
feathers
evolved
is
for
and
No
it
provides
together
pieces
other
of
psychology
research
a
a
has
areas,
lling
this
been
but
it
evolutionary
promising
theoretical
about
so
broken
lacks
psychology
with
far.
behaviour.
the
same
into
many
overarching
makes
a
that
Modern
down
an
mostly
observations
human
framework
exists
eld,
framework
different
knowledge
potential
Evolutionary
very
multiple
theoretical
integrating
for
notwithstanding,
remains
good
theory.
candidate
gap.
113
2
BI O LO GI C A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
See de
Robert
Wright
prosocial
in
his
TED
Talk
“The
evolution
of
compassion”
(2009)
looks
at
evolutionary
roots
of
behaviour:
https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_wright_the_evolution_of_compassion
Lisa
Nip
have
can
in
her
reached
modify
a
TED
Talk
stage
their
“How
when
own
humans
they
bodies
in
can
the
could
start
evolve
controlling
desirable
to
survive
how
in
space”
evolution
(2015)
further
claims
develops,
that
and
humans
so
they
direction:
https://www.ted.com/talks/lisa_nip_how_humans_could_evolve_to_survive_in_space
Psychology in real life
To what extent can evolutionary explanations of behaviour be used in applied projects in Humanborough? Do they have
any practical value at all?
For example, if you believe that disgust is an adaptation, you know what categories of people are more “resistant” to
disgust (according to Cur tis, Aunger and Rabie’s study, it was elderly males). Can this knowledge be used for practical
purposes?
Review evolutionary explanations briey discussed in this section other than those relating to disgust. Try to come up
with one concrete practical project that is based on ideas of evolutionary psychology.
114
The role of animal research in understanding human
behaviour (HL only)
Inquiry questions
●
Can
●
Is
animal
studies
psychological
provide
an
insight
experimentation
into
with
human
animals
behaviour?
ethical?
What you will learn in this section
●
The
value
of
animal
models
in
psychology
Premack
research
(2007):
confusing
we
Purposes
of
animal
need
to
animal
using
model
animal
to
is
a
concept
research
to
that
test
a
refers
hypothesis
about
a
in
the
prevent
equivalence,
areas
of
examples
are
teaching
and
memory
certain
of
animal
pros
and
cons
of
working
models
behaviour
●
Types
on
to
with
certain
with
human
focus
short-term
Summary
cause–effect
order
research
difference;
An
in
similarities
of
experimental
animal
manipulation
Examples
of
animal
research
used
Overview
models
of
the
animal
studies
in
this
chapter
Using
animal
research
to
inform
our
◆
understanding
relies
and
on
the
human
of
human
assumption
brains
MacLean(1990):
are
the
Lashley’s
behaviour
that
animal
et
al
with
(1984):
rats;
brain
and
behaviour
similar;
theory
experiments
Merzenich
of
triune
◆
Romero
et
al
(2014):
hormones
and
brain
behaviour
Comparative
microscopic
and
neurobiology
differences
humans
in
certain
has
discovered
between
brain
◆
might
have
simply
older
that
the
evolution
areas;
beenmore
buildingnewer
of
the
complex
in
addition
structure,
psychological
Throughout
this
foundations
of
the
Ethical
several
in
the
animal
principle
(see
unit
the
research
of
we
studies
of
and
human
introduction
the
Code
inform
elsewhere
to
theory
compare
of
and
in
animal
research
of
ethical
guidelines
from
APA
Ethics
We
discussed
behaviour.
this
our
unit)
biological
system
inheritance,
have
to
of
also
in
the
mind
developmental
discussed
genetic
section
comparing
nervous
approach
to
to
need
have
system,
biological
may
we
considerations.
context
considerations
Overview
upon
functions
behaviour:
endocrine
evolutionary
genetics
this
This
and
(2004):
structures
Therefore,
brain
al
brain
than
structures
et
behaviour
●
suggests
Weaver
animals
looked
the
The
at
understanding
is
the
be
product
genetic
naturally
of
extent
what
set-up
in
some
the
of
sense
rst
animal
for
and
is
this
two
physiology”
inherited”.
similar
suggests
this
any
(see,
humans
that
generalizable
is
to:
book
studies
example,
animals
in
psychology).
of
genetically
third
“Animal
In
consequence
ndings
behaviour
stated:
behaviour”.
links
extent
to
principle
principles:
and
Human
to
that
animal
of
a
“Behaviour
physiology
animals,
research
humans.
is
“Behaviour
The
is
can
and
which
to
some
question
is,
exactly?
human
115
2
BI O LO GI C A L
This
to
section
the
summarizes
value
psychology.
studies
APPROACH
of
animal
We
will
covered
in
TO
some
arguments
models
refer
this
in
once
unit,
BE H AV IO U R
again
as
related
research
these
to
●
invasive
in
(parts
animal
can
be
support
the
arguments.
Finally,
we
will
considerations
in
animal
with
stimulated
by
other
body
substances
parts
or
damaged)
behavioural
and
environmental
manipulations
discuss
(such
ethical
be
used
●
to
manipulations
may
as
electric
shocks
for
rats
depending
research.
ontheir
Using
performance
animal
research
to
in
a
maze-learning
inform
our
task).
understanding
te le f ml mdels 
of
pslg reser
The
number
research
of
in
be
The
cats,
in
USA
1.25–2.5
1998).
animal
used
the
alone
million,
rabbits,
a
been
species
rats,
dogs,
very
to
be
more
chimpanzees
a
by
new
so
differs
in
terms
of
purposes
for
into
are
used.
Researchers
in
the
eld
psychology
are
interested
neocortex.
research
on
a
as
an
particular
end
in
species
itself.
or
They
to
humans.
Another
group
of
human
ndings
third
the
study
beings
will
group
be
of
understand
and
of
animals
the
universal
and
researchers
particular
as
is
human
The
be
idea
found
is
that
in
the
deeper
animals
as
down
you
go
inside
the
brain,
an
to
specic
animal
is
a
research
about
animal
animals
a
model
animal
hypothesis
So
a
animal
down
reptilian
you
see
complex
in
evolution.
that
you
For
have
in
is
model.
For
to
test
a
just
human
example,
explain
that
resemble
the
full
brain
of
a
Neocor tex
to
as
to
cause–effect
Reptilian complex
behaviour.
broadly
“using
behaviour”.
there
are
depression:
It
is
several
stress
models
▲
to
the
onset
stressful
of
depression
situations),
by
Figure 2.42
explain
depression
by
separation
being
models
some
attachment
gures),
medical
models
depression
by
chemical
imbalances
in
and
are
four
manipulation
1998).
microscopic
These
genetic
in
●
a
major
used
four
in
types
of
animal
types
invasive
the
the
eld
of
discovery
differences
certain
brain
between
areas.
For
animals
and
example,
(when
the
lesioned
both
humans
and
primates
some
have
in
common
of
how
were
found
to
be
different
in
terms
(Shapiro,
neurons
animals
are
bred
been
that
more
structures
manipulations
of
that
experimental
models
way)
(parts
electrodes,
116
in
to
are
structured
within
them.
This
are:
manipulation
certain
system
in
areas
suggests
●
led
more.
brain
There
have
the
humans
brain),
developments
neurobiology
(which
of
explain
recent
separated
comparative
from
Triune brain
higher
However,
(which
brain
reptile.
A
such
refers
certain
human
not
understand
explain
exposure
example,
your
the
studies
conditions
concept
to
certain
model
models
(which
and
the
Limbic system
animal
using
brain
well;
diseases.
An
complex,
system),
of
that
generalizable.
use
limbic
the
researchers
models
expectation
the
There
this
should
advocates
older
proposed
divides
reptilian
(the
of
brain,
nd.
brain
parts:
complex
top
the
will
theory
conveys
species
on
into
we
triune
This
built
go
as
either
compare
the
species
can
further
further
focus
we
Comparison
in
the
animal
evolution:
that
of
structures
comparative
similar.
seemingly
were
three
assumption
which
and
animals
of
(1990).
the
are
structures
paleomammalian
Research
of
deeper
theory
brain
on
brains
structures
“primitive”
popular
brains
story
the
MacLean
relies
human
consistent
human
baboons.
human
and
structures;
is
mice,
behaviour
and
animal
evolved,
about
animal-based
are
hamsters,
has
and
is
popular
research
of
psychological
research
most
psychological
pigeons,
and
to
in
psychological
(Shapiro,
used
animals
annually
estimated
7.5%
of
human
with
brain
or
the
are
removed)
These
nervous
stimulated
with
the
evolution
complex
upon
older
discoveries
that
comparison
give
us
full
than
led
of
of
the
simply
brain
might
building
have
newer
structures.
some
brain
scientists
differences
understanding
of
how
to
argue
might
animals
not
are
t h E
R o L E
o F
psychologically
a n i M a L
similar
need
to
compare
(that
is,
we
also
R E S E a R c h
to
humans,
psychological
need
to
look
at
i n
u n D E R S t a n D i n G
and
that
we
functions
the
as
problem
h u M a n
Here
well
is
cognitive
and
the
social
(2007)
carried
summary
argued
that
in
of
o n Ly )
some
working
advantages
with
animal
and
models.
from
are
some
out
such
a
of
the
advantages.
Humans
order
to
and
animals
are
identical
in
many
comparison.
ways,
Premack
of
( h L
perspective).
●
Premack
a
disadvantages
These
the
B E h a v i o u R
prevent
both
in
terms
of
brain
structure
and
confusing
genetically.
similarities
with
equivalence,
we
need
to
focus
on
●
the
important
and
animals
areas
of
relevant
difference
to
between
psychological
Studies
with
results:
useful
research.
we
nd
a
similarity,
we
need
to
ask
life-saving
is
the
dissimilarity?
Let’s
look
at
two
example
is
teaching.
Some
For
example,
adult
cats
animals
injure
treatments
based
teach
produce
have
behaviour
been
on
animal
experimentation.
example,
mice
insulin
was
discovered
in
an
their
experiment
young.
do
human
examples.
For
One
of
ourselves:
developed
what
models
models
Every
and
time
animal
humans
where
dogs
had
their
pancreas
and
removed.
bring
them
to
their
kittens
so
that
the
kittens
can
●
practise
stalking
although
this
and
looks
killing
like
their
some
of
victims.
the
Animal
studies
the
lifespan.
basic
full
teaching
found
in
humans,
human
teaching
more
complex
than
that.
For
outlive
predominantly
teach
one
in
humans
the
(Premack,
targets
of
Another
example
has
teaching
are
units
it
can
their
lifespan
is
the
short-term
same
limit
memory.
for
the
research.
remember
being—about
sequence
of
seven
6,
without
seven
rehearsing
units.
numbers
numbers
8,
(without
rehearsing)
Animal
research
as
example,
to
do
so
(for
If
you
are
example,
keep
that
this
their
and
even
behaviour
across
especially
helpful
in
9,
1,
4,
2)
and
several
asked
seconds
because
your
much
to
A
be
highly
“knockout”
controlled.
technique
to
selectively
switch
has
off
one
told
repeat
later,
short-term
information.
may
the
genes
in
the
DNA
sequence.
All
other
the
you
being
equal,
this
technique
provides
them
insight
into
the
function
of
individual
will
The
ability
to
better
control
confounding
memory
variables
can
is
the
developed
genes.
able
and
see
a
great
be
years
to
A
things
3,
2–3
number
of
a
This
genetic
been
human
live
opportunity
very
For
of
themselves,
2007).
●
chimpanzee
researchers
mice
an
generations.
diverse
embrace
thing—eating,
across
while
to
subjects
example,
presents
animals
human
is
laboratory
certainly
researchers
While
forms
often
of
allow
However,
means
higher
internal
validity
of
chimpanzee
experiments.
would
to
see
terms
also
a
be
deep
of
their
examination
are
capable
able
to
do
similarity
this.
short-term
shows
of
There
between
that
the
memory,
humans,
chunking.
For
us
is
a
temptation
species
but
a
unlike
the
●
in
closer
Animal
and
primates,
12,
units,
for
47,
89,
71—is
a
10.
It
the
even
“chunks”
term
on
works
are
memory
some
level,
in
a
chimpanzee
better
words.
if
It
humans
but
not
the
is
units
can
and
it
be
a
of
easy
to
inexpensive
handle
and
are
said
letters
that
of
(Premack,
the
Animals
same,
and
disadvantages
and
and
if
similar
in
can
This
successful,
humans
2007).
humans
we
difference.
short-
is
of
are
as
follows.
5
sequence
chimpanzees
equivalent
relatively
following
sequence
●
whereas
are
accessible,
manage.
Some
sequence—54,
subjects
easily
are
never
means
still
that
needs
order
to
be
never
know
to
animal
be
sure
exactly
the
of
the
research,
replicated
that
the
extent
with
ndings
are
generalizable.
●
Even
if
some
humans
aspect
psychologically
●
When
usually
for
rst
However,
develop
mental
test
them
results
directly
mouse
animals
models
from
applied
yield
are
they
(Premack,
scientists
treatments
never
and
biologically,
still
in
differ
2007).
new
biomedical
disorders,
with
they
mouse
mouse
to
similar
can
models.
models
humans.
successful
are
Even
results,
if
the
117
2
BI O LO GI C A L
drug
It
is
needs
like
mice
the
a
are
APPROACH
to
be
tested
pyramid
at
the
of
TO
on
BE H AV IO U R
larger
animals
generalization
bottom
and
rst.
Discussion
where
humans
are
at
top.
Review
PETA
●
Animals
are
tested
in
strictly
the
environments,
so
arguably
be
under
stress.
As
a
result,
of
to
to
experimental
the
Ethical
Animals)
animals
website
used
for
their
experimentation:
reactions
of
the
they
devoted
may
for
controlled
Treatment
laboratory
section
(People
http://www.
manipulations
peta.org/issues/animals-used-
may
not
be
quite
the
same
as
in
their
natural
for-experimentation/
environments:
ecological
there
may
be
an
issue
with
validity.
You
are
against
●
Although
humans
and
animals
are
similar
going
using
ways,
they
are
still
essentially
example,
over
85
vaccines
for
HIV
group
in
primates
but
all
of
them
have
humans
(Bailey,
2008).
On
the
results
actually
turn
example,
that
out
aspirin
are
to
negative
be
in
positive
proved
Randomly
will
split
present
“against”.
for
and
into
two
in
groups.
Both
the
argument
groups
should
“for”,
rst
the
take
to
prepare
their
arguments
and
possible
contrary,
rebuttals
some
debate
experimentation
failed
time
in
class
worked
other
well
a
for
different.
One
For
have
in
psychology.
many
to
animals
animals
in
humans.
dangerous
for
for
the
opposing
group’s
claims.
can
For
animals
Emples f ml reser
but
for
it
is
now
one
of
the
most
widely
used
drugs
humans.
Table
have
Topic
Brain
Study
and
2.7
Lashley’s
experiments
removing
(localization)
cortex
to
varying
see
if
with
portions
memory
of
rats:
of
the
percentage
maze
the
et
al
behaviour
representations
(neuroplasticity)
owl
Hormones
Romero
and
(1984):
of
the
cortical
hand
in
adult
et
al
in
(2014):
the
promoting
mammals
in
role
social
of
(epigenetics)
rats
receive
life
To
you
from
to
type
their
the
stress
were
and
their
later
in
showed
other
life
of
on
the
not
on
This
of
dog
function
The
gene
their
sprayed
afliation
were
room:
were
matter
became
digits.
with
Dogs
results
the
it
with
towards
observed
afliation
more
and
frequent
in
condition.
nurturing
differ.
room
higher
in
brain
that
adjacent
a
Similar
of
so
dog.
behaviours
suppression
not
digit
in
another
oxytocin
gene.
brain
placed
owner.
the
Less
nurturing
mothers
way
in
of
cells.
localization
re-specialization
other,
oxytocin
epigenetic
the
of
but
of
in
genetic
This
early
the
life
was
linked
glucocorticoid
sequences
study
suppression
themselves
demonstrates
on
to
the
receptor
the
did
effects
behaviour.
Table 2.7
what
extent
examples
can
provide
behaviour?
118
(2004):
how
affects
responds
▲
al
on
idea
for
their
et
research
early
studies
ndings.
depends
destroyed
responsible
the
Weaver
the
one
approach
and
animal
major
destroyed
for
for
behaviour
of
the
was
owner
non-reproductive
cortex
responsible
Dogs
bonds
contexts
Genetics
the
the
memory.
There
monkeys
oxytocin
in
of
with
deterioration
of
location
challenges
for
Merzenich
behaviour
overview
together
Performance
the
disappears
and
an
at,
Findings
behaviour
Brain
gives
looked
animal
an
research
insight
into
in
these
human
Karl
be
Lashley’s
replicated
removal
of
experiments
with
parts
human
of
the
with
rats
subjects:
cortex
in
cannot
systematic
large
samples
of
t h E
R o L E
people
o F
sounds
insightful:
we
functions
ndings
controversial
regarding
different
not
horrifying!
localized,
other
in
animals
better
and
from
to
So
direct
humans,
theory
that
the
the
used
and
in
would
to
insight
terms
of
explain
of
is
from
developing
human
and
a
prior
a
behaviour.
et
al’s
representations
is
important
of
brain
subjects?
the
No,
study
scan.
that
the
structural
study
hand
it
brain
in
we
adult
a
owl
direct
support
can
damage,
repeat
not
be
for
modify
and
they
of
abuse
How
research?
(2004)
replicate
this
come
it
is
with
(with
who
up
a
had
with
informed
case,
human
it
al
post-mortem
childhood)
you
et
“Genetics
individuals
unless
In
into
new
in
do
this,
insight
to
from
24
al
McGowan
conducted
brains
of
et
as
possibilities
like
generate
such
animal
behaviour
by
research
because
hypotheses.
this
more
itself
cortical
monkeys
test
ATL skills: Self-management
of
damage—
with
ethical.
a
helps
Weaver
remember
suicide.
an
o n Ly )
cortical
scan—intentional
Can
brain
of
provides
would
provides
principle:
to
the
because
neuroplasticity:
another
(1984)
of
idea
animal
provides
from
for
you
history
research
it
Merzenich
look
As
committed
( h L
researchers
behaviour”,
different
here
results
results
examinations
for
provided
to
humans.
example,
lateralization
B E h a v i o u R
encouraged
(2009)
rather
explain
(for
h u M a n
Promising
was
complex
Gazzaniga
generalization
but
study
some
research
of
u n D E R S t a n D i n G
distributed
be
Sperry
degrees
functions).
of
of
that
be
may
human
ndings
i n
However,
now
may
this
different
terms
R E S E a R c h
understand
psychological
than
a n i M a L
There are also some useful examples that you will learn
human
in other par ts of the course. One of them is the extensive
However,
research of theory of mind in humans and animals
general
in
(see “ Theory of mind” in Unit 8 on developmental
response
areas
can
psychology).
re-
Every time you encounter an animal study you should
specialize.
This
general
principle
is
very
insightful
in
use the context to critically evaluate the value of animal
terms
of
research
with
human
subjects
and
practical
models in that par ticular study. Use the advantages and
applications:
sense
substitution,
articial
limbs
and
disadvantages listed earlier in this section. The value of
brain-machine
interfaces
(see
“Neuroplasticity”).
animal models links directly to whether or not animal
Again,
in
this
case
we
are
dealing
with
theoretical
research can provide insight into human behaviour.
generalization
of
animal
animal-to-human
research
rather
than
direct
generalization.
El sders  ml reser
Romero
in
et
al
(2014)
promoting
research
and
it
Such
way:
can
has
social
be
been
research
we
animal
can
is
comparison,
behaviour,
bonds
(see
like
are
to
animal
help
of
and
from
what
in
a
human
animals.
this
and
of
This
theories
example,
oxytocin
in
the
animal
world
of
research
most
straightforward
effects:
you
can
The
of
social
dose
the
is
of
behaviour
the
effects
also
of
hormone.
are
subtle
affected
by
a
a
dog
visibly
However,
because
number
in
changes
human
of
social
the
a
for
American
separate
must
them
research
be
outlines
(APA,
Here
most
Psychological
document
the
addressed
animals.
in
with
at
are
for
main
all
just
stages
the
2012).
Any
animal
study
should
be
justied
“with
a
has
observe
humans’
psychologists
document
that
scientic
purpose”.
One
of
the
following
how
justications
the
has
involving
crucial
clear
very
example,
(APA)
purpose.
of
guidelines
better.
●
For
For
considerations
why.
humans
associations
publish
Association
human
and
Professional
countries
different
evolutionary
understand
This
subjects—
behaviour”).
extent
behaviour
oxytocin
(dogs).
human
insightful
with
us
role
mammals
with
results
see
together
can
the
“Hormones
compare
and
at
in
replicated
studies
studies
behaviour
looked
after
may
be
used.
The
study
will:
a
subjects
increase
scientic
increase
our
knowledge
of
behaviour
behaviour
norms
understanding
of
a
particular
(which
species
in
this
context
function
as
confounding
variables).
give
Weaver
et
al
(2004)
looked
at
results
other
epigenetic
changes
in
the
brain
of
rats
the
type
mothers.
of
stress
nurturing
Potentially,
can
psychology:
bad
of
lead
if
we
parenting,
to
they
received
understanding
a
breakthrough
understand
maybe
we
can
will
benet
humans
or
the
of
in
from
their
epigenetics
health
“chemistry”
reverse
animals.
depending
●
on
that
stress-related
its
of
effects.
If
non-human
it
has
to
be
animals
ensured
the
best
choice
the
minimum
participants
is
to
are
that
address
required
used,
chosen
the
the
it
research,
species
research
number
and
for
chosen
of
should
is
question,
non-human
be
assumed
119
2
BI O LO GI C A L
that
APPROACH
whatever
TO
procedures
BE H AV IO U R
cause
pain
in
humans
TOK
would
cause
pain
in
animals
too.
Ethics as an area of knowledge involves the use of
●
All
animal
research
proposals
must
be
submitted
thought experiments. Here is one possible thought
to
the
Ethics
Committee
prior
to
conducting
the
experiment that has been used as an argument to say
study.
that animal experiments are ethically justied.
●
Psychologists
and
their
assistants
conducting
Imagine you see a small van with 500 mice in it rolling
the
study
must
be
familiar
with
the
species-
slowly towards the edge of a cli. There is no driver in the
specic
characteristics
of
normal
behaviour
so
van. In its way there’s a stroller with a human baby in it.
that
they
will
be
able
to
tell
when
the
animal
is
There are two possible outcomes.
stressed
or
unhealthy.
●
●
Laboratory
animals
must
be
given
You push the stroller away and let the van roll slowly
humane
o the cli, killing the mice.
care.
●
●
Whenever
possible,
procedures
should
the
be
experimental
designed
in
a
You do nothing and the stroller prevents the van from
going over the cli, but this kills the human baby.
way
that
Defenders of animal experimentation say that everyone
minimizes
discomfort
of
the
animal.
guidelines
also
researchers
APA
would choose the rst option because human life is
advise
to
rst
testthe
more valuable than animal life. They also say that
painful
stimuli
to
be
used
with
non-human
using animal studies to develop potentially life-saving
animals
on
themselves,
whenever
reasonable.
medicine is equivalent to this thought experiment.
●
If
a
research
animal
is
observed
to
be
in
What do you think about this argument?
distress
or
necessary
be
chronic
for
the
pain
aims
and
of
this
the
is
not
study,
it
should
euthanized.
Psychology in real life
●
Animals
reared
released
into
in
the
laboratory
must
not
be
Review all the projects you have proposed for the people
the
wild.
of Humanborough. What is the role of animal studies in
these projects?
Exercise
To
learn
more
guidelines
in
non-human
full
APA
about
ethical
research
animals
with
read
Exercise
the
Summarize
guidelines:
on
one
all
poster
the
and
Humanborough
have
a
“gallery
projects
walk”
with
https://tinyurl.com/jw3yca2
your
A
useful
exercise
guidelines
Society
120
would
published
(BPS)
and
by
also
be
British
compare
the
to
nd
Psychological
two
documents.
classmates
session
for
the
or
even
whole
present
school.
the
poster
in
a
COGNITIVE
APPROACH
TO
B E H AV I O U R
Topics:
●
Concepts
and
approach
to
principles
of
the
cognitive
●
Reliability
of
cognitive
Reconstructive
●
Cognitive
processes:
behaviour
memory
processing:
Biases
Models
of
memory
(multi-store,
working
●
Emotion
in
and
thinking
and
cognition:
decision-making
the
inuence
of
memory)
emotion
Schema
on
cognitive
processes
theory
●
Thinking
and
decision-making
Cognitive
(HL
processing
in
the
digital
world
only)
Introduction
Psychology in real life
Have you heard about subliminal tapes? These are
auditory messages that contain embedded signals
that are so weak that they do not reach conscious
awareness, but that go straight into your subconscious
mind. Calling them “tapes” is a tribute to history
because the industry star ted when tape recorders were
Do these claims have an empirical basis? A lot of
in use, but subliminal messages may be carried on
studies have been conducted in order to nd out. In one
digital media too.
of these studies Merikle and Skanes (1992) recruited
Subliminal messages work miracles. They can
a sample of females who were both overweight and
enhance your learning. For example, there are
believed in the eectiveness of subliminal messages.
recordings that help you learn languages or generally
Par ticipants were randomly allocated into three groups.
improve your memory. You can also use them for
One group listened to a weight-loss tape from an
self-help purposes: weight loss, increasing work
ocial manufacturer. The second group thought they
motivation, becoming more condent socially. The
listened to a weight-loss tape but actually they were
best thing about these recordings is that they do not
given a tape to reduce fear of dentists (from the same
require any conscious eor t on your par t, and you can
manufacturer). Finally, the third group was waitlisted:
even learn in your sleep.
they were told that the number of par ticipants had
Wouldn’t it be nice to learn while you sleep?
reached its maximum and that the experiment would
star t for them later. All par ticipants from all groups
Potentials
Unlimited,
one
of
the
numerous
were weighed on a weekly basis for ve weeks. The
companies
who
produce
recordings,
offer
and
market
such
subliminal
audible content in the auditory tapes used in the
recordings
with
a
wide
range
experiment was identical (classical music and sounds
of
effects.
Here
are
just
some
of
them:
memory
of nature). Results? Par ticipants from the rst group
improvement ,
faster
reading,
creative
writing,
bet ter
indeed lost some weight (although not much). However,
time
management ,
as
well
as
freedom
from
acne,
par ticipants from the second group lost exactly the
removal
of
war ts,
and
being
bet ter
at
table
tennis!
same amount of weight—and so did par ticipants
You
can
browse
through
their
catalogue
yourself:
from the third group who never even listened to the
www.potentialsunlimited.com
tapes. So weight reduction was equal in all three groups.
121
Psychology in real life (continued)
Researchers concluded that the eect may be
But have they become less popular? No. Subliminal
explained by increased concentration on the problem:
messaging companies continue to ourish and people
in this case, once they agree to par ticipate in a study,
continue to spend money on their products. This in
people are more likely to pay more attention to their
itself is interesting: it looks as if people are prone
weight, which in itself has benecial eects.
to take shor tcuts, save thinking energy, and make
irrational decisions even when faced with contrasting
So subliminal messages and the idea that you can
evidence—but why?
learn new skills while you sleep have been debunked.
The
cognitive
mental
what
happens
information.
at
the
the
approach
(cognitive)
brain
brain
is
In
We
and
mind
unit
of
and
we
looked
of
fact
be
of
and
concept
of
incorrect
testing
to
there
is
one
crucial
difference
is
gaining
brain
and
the
mind
in
terms
of
research.
is
mind
cannot
a
thing,
and
the
mind
is
a
construct.
the
observed
directly.
This
in
building
essential
examples
theory,
processes
cognitive
area
of
part
of
models
decision-making.
independent
increasing
development
It
can
is
be
processing
research
popularity.
poses
area
of
research
is
Another
cognitive
digital
world;
in
other
words,
processing
answering
The
the
be
an
schema
of
cognitive
biases
of
process
Specic
include
that
this
The
in
brain
In
between
pertinent
the
an
process
become
models
Studying
become
that
However,
and
understood
biased.
has
processes.
has
psychology.
models
memory
also
psychology.
models
cognitive
cognitive
that
controversial
cognitive
process
the
would
somewhat
we
the
physiological
on
words,
behaviour
discussed
it
focuses
other
when
human
how
to
in
recognized
for
also
mind
behaviour
previous
we
basis
reductionism
the
our
the
and
a
experiences.
reduce
in
to
processes,
question:
how
does
digital
technology
affect
a
cognition?
problem
because
of
speculations,
to
subliminal
can
we
improve
study
within
it
opens
like
the
auditory
your
limits
of
door
that
messages
table
something
the
the
claim
tennis
in
all
your
skills.
unobservable
rigorous,
to
sorts
listening
sleep
How
and
testable
do
yet
stay
science?
Note
and
that
the
behaviour”)
to
a
topic
guide.
this
question
requires
taking
a
the
history
of
research
in
this
area.
principles
of
the
cognitive
122
behaviour
were
shaped
in
directly
IB
this
will
long
be
to
correspond
sets
later
(“Concepts
approach
psychology
section
the
unit,
subject
a
conceptual
referred
so
it
is
to
important
for
your
Concepts
of
the
approach
the
follows
look
cognitive
to
that
cognitive
not
the
that
understanding
and
the
does
from
throughout
at
of
However,
background
Answering
section
principles
and
psychology.
essential
building
blocks
of
Concepts and principles of the cognitive approach
3
to behaviour
Inquiry questions
●
How
can
directly
●
Can
mental
processes,
observable,
the
human
be
mind
which
are
scientically
be
compared
not
●
How
studied?
to
information
●
a
reliable
Does
are
human
beings
as
processors?
cognition
guide
behaviour?
computer?
What you will learn in this section
●
Four
principles
approach
to
underlying
the
cognitive
Behaviourism
behaviour
Cognitive
Mental
processes
can
be
psychology
studied
Behavioural
economics
scientically
●
Mental
representations
guide
The
idea
of
the
computer
metaphor
and
its
behaviour
implications
Cognitive
processes
do
not
function
in
●
Models
as
a
research
tool
in
cognitive
isolation
psychology
Biases
in
cognitive
systematic
●
The
origin
with
and
and
reference
can
be
This
predictable
the
to
processes
essence
the
of
history
these
of
principles
section
also
●
schema
●
biases
●
reliability
●
emotion
links
to:
theory
cognitive
in
thinking
and
decision-making
psychology
of
memory
Introspectionism
and
cognition.
Psychoanalysis
It
can
feel
very
natural
for
us
to
talk
about
Hs  h c ch
“cognitive
denition
are:
processes”;
we
intuitively
thoughts,
the
mind.
not
always
been
once
In
dethroned
memories,
cognitive
accepted
fact,
“the
and
without
a
understand
emotions,
However,
psychology.
even
as
to
what
part
of
as
ght
a
its
they
generally,
processes
mind”
had
rigorous
have
S 1: scsm
As
scientic
needed
concept
a
way
was
back.
order
to
understand
the
key
assumptions
of
approach
better,
we
will
look
at
its
a
science,
parted
separately
method
you
as
of
can
from
The
philosophy
recognized
research.
claim
opposed
knowledge.
to
to
purely
rst
Why?
be
and
discipline,
an
If
it
you
have
empirical
metaphysical
method
that
areas
psychology
the
used
cognitive
a
method,
of
In
psychology
became
was
the
method
of
introspection.
Think
history.
about
the
parts
understand
of
what
this
it
word
means:
for
a
intro
second
=
and
within,
you’ll
inside;
TOK
spection
One of the ve elements of the knowledge framework
prospect,
=
looking
spectator,
(compare
to
inspection,
retrospect,
spectacles).
in TOK is the historical development of an area of
The
method
of
introspection
literally
involved
knowledge. Historical development helps understand
“looking
inside
of
oneself”,
that
is,
the
subjective
the current state better.
observation
typical
of
one’s
experiment
own
the
experiences.
psychologist
In
the
would
expose
123
3
C O GNI T I V E
you
to
a
stimulus
pendulum
describe
be
or
an
what
asked
to
colour?
(for
see
for
BE H AV IO U R
an
illusion)
or
feel.
small
example,
Motion?
TO
example,
optical
you
describe
experience,
of
APPROACH
and
You
ask
you
would
elements
what
being.
oscillating
was
of
sexual
to
then
your
your
experience
acting
need
to
However,
Wundt
started
the
rst
which
in
some
the
University
people
experimental
say
is
of
the
because,
intricate
Freud,
they
in
it,
some
the
might
experience
someone,
the
will
but
unlike
laws
of
of
nd
dreams,
a
strong
ourselves
animals,
human
unconscious
eventually
form
stop
drives
a
way
misplaced
we
society.
are
out,
so
for
affection
psychological
or
laboratory
upon
for
that
we
towards
obey
example,
Wilhelm
example,
drive
from
strong
Shape?
For
Leipzig
year
of
in
misplaced
aggression.
1876,
birth
The
of
point
here
essentially
psychology.
of
a
and
wider
this,
that
“psyche”
unconscious
attention
For
is
irrational,
to
Freud
and
that
components.
psychoanalysis
or
the
and
uses
analysis
of
that
“mind”
includes
irrationality
interpretation
claimed
that
both
This
people
is
are
only
part
conscious
claim
turned
our
unconsciousness.
such
methods
as
dream
associations.
ATL skills: Thinking
1.
Do you agree that people are essentially irrational?
Can you give examples of irrational behaviour that
Figure 3.1
▲
Wilhelm Wundt
you have come across at some point in your life?
So,
step
1
marked
the
transition
from
the
2.
metaphysical
with
to
the
introspection
conscious
empirical.
as
subjective
the
At
the
method,
same
the
What prevents people from making rational choices?
time,
focus
was
on
3.
Have you ever done something “unconsciously” (that
is, without realizing why you are doing it)?
experiences.
TOK
S 3: hsm
Give examples of metaphysical disciplines or areas of
As
knowledge. Is philosophy metaphysical? How about
the
usually
religion, ethics, geography, mathematics or the ar ts?
rejecting
next
happens
stage
one
suggesting
in
the
challenges
of
its
another
development
the
previous
underlying
principle
of
science,
stage
principles
by
and
instead.
Empirical means “based on experience”. Give examples
of empirical sciences. Is psychology an empirical
science? If so, does it mean that knowledge in
TOK
psychology solely relies on observational data and that
1.
Think of examples from other sciences when, in the
theories do not play an impor tant role? What exactly is
process of development, the new approach rejected
the role of theories in psychological research?
an underlying principle of the previous approach and
suggested something dierent instead.
S 2: schss
Sigmund
Freud
(1856–1939),
psychoanalysis,
the
revolutionized
father
2.
How does this relate to the idea of paradigm shift?
3.
What is usually the relationship between the new
of
psychology,
and
theory and the old theory in such cases? Do they
indeed
the
culture,
of
that
time
in
many
ways.
contradict each other? Or does the new theory
However,
the
cornerstone
of
his
work
is
the
subsume the old theory? Or do they just study
introduction
of
“the
unconscious”.
He
claimed
dierent, unrelated aspects of reality?
that
conscious
insignicant
main
one.
directing
is
given
that
we
to
124
of
the
human
psyche,
from
pose
is
a
the
experiences
unconscious
mind
they
experiences
psychoanalysis,
person’s
inherit
conscious
when
part
In
a
subjective
to
our
threat
these
one’s
just
not
leading
ancestors.
to
and
and
drives
control
are
one
the
role
in
behaviour
and
The
primitive
survival
or
of
Think about these examples:
●
Newtonian mechanics and Einstein’s general
theory of relativity, in par ticular the belief that
desires
role
4.
the
drives
well-
light travels in a straight line and the belief that
light can travel in a curved trajectory near large
bodies of mass
C o n C e p t S
a n d
p r i n C i p l e S
o f
t H e
C o g n i t i v e
a p p r o a C H
complex
history
t o
of
b e H a v i o u r
how
this
organism
previously
TOK (continued)
interacted
●
the theory of ether (in physics) and the duality
operant
of light
pigeon
with
a
●
the
walk
oor.
by
the
rise
of
behaviourism,
scientists
“psychology
of
the
mind”
is
not
because
the
mind
is
not
observable.
any
inferences
testable,
a
therefore,
“useless
about
“the
the
mind
mind”
the
instead?
is
mind,
word
of
what
is
should
This
its
place
a
wings,
sometimes
behaviours
are
peck
probably
are
should
not
be
the
those
tiny
but
it’s
practically
inuences
back.
happens
behaviour
if
you
and
want
start
to
shape
reinforcing
in
a
specic
desired
direction?
its
Suppose
directly
you
wanted
to
ap
its
wing.
the
study
its
and
by
observable,
name,
here—it
denied
entirely
inuences,
all
teach
the
pigeon
to
continuously
disposed
right
is
that
behaviourism.
often
existence
believed
of
mind.
right
accurate.
They
did
not
deny
to
You
occur
wing
could
wait
the
the
probability
in
the
to
ap
future
naturally
for
(the
“spontaneously”)
rewarding
this
pigeon
of
has
this
with
and
a
You
then
grain.
behaviour
increased.
pigeon
apping
reinforce
In
occurring
wait
for
it
theory,
again
the
pigeon
that
the
right
wing
again
and
reward
it
with
a
That
grain
not
prior
means
psychology
directly
hence
caution
behaviourists
is
cage,
you
construct”.
Whatever
behaviour,
A
these
trace
what
behaviour
not
to
pigeon’s
behaviour
If
the
if
ap
as
scientic,
the
as
example,
sometimes
known
claimed
However,
of
For
will
around
All
some
impossible
that
it
is
realism and impressionism in the ar ts.
caused
that
cage,
(this
utilitarian and deontological ethics
on
With
environment
behaviour ).
in
sometimes
●
the
again.
Every
time,
you
reinforce
the
desirable
its
behaviour.
existence.
They
observe
it,
science,
so
ignore
This
it
mind
led
see
what
the
inputs
a
that
useless
whether
Mind
is
happens
of
fact,
became
of
the
the
crux
20th
a
to
the
black
it,
we
cannot
purposes
science,
or
famous
but
objective
can
observe
observation
and
in
box”
cannot
(reactions).
the
and
reactions
behaviourism,
psychology
of
should
“black
We
we
outputs
stimuli
it
directly
not.
box.
systematic
with
dominated
the
is
exists
and
experimentation
that
it
inside
(stimuli)
matter
a
since
for
psychology
behaviourists
metaphor.
As
is
if
said
a
paradigm
rst
half
of
century.
Figure 3.3
▲
BF Skinner
Black box
Stimulus
Response
Reinforcement
the
Figure 3.2
▲
shock
get
a
better
sense
of
behaviourism,
we
will
seems
one
of
the
only
behaviour.
way
to
manipulate
There’s
also
its
central
concepts,
that
of
(in
to
most
be
the
research
favourite
studies,
of
electric
psychologists).
focus
Operant
on
not
of
Black box metaphor
punishment
To
is
consequences
conditioning
is
using
punishment
and
operant
reinforcement
to
shape
an
organism’s
behaviour
by
conditioning
manipulating
Operant
conditioning
theory
was
developed
In
BF
Skinner
in
1937.
Operant
conditioning
process
fact,
of
shaping
an
organism’s
it
that
of
an
animal
or
a
operant
efcient
human
being)
the
consequences.
The
that,
when
left
alone,
an
widely
organism
variety
of
behaviours
that
are
proved
shaping
to
be
behaviour
a
and
the
used
“laws
in
of
psychological
behaviour”.
experiments
If
you
have
to
laws
behaviour,
you
can
predict
behaviour.
If
you
can
displays
predict
a
of
assumption
of
is
conditioning
way
by
establish
manipulating
behaviour.
behaviour
was
(be
of
is
highly
a
consequences
by
result
of
it,
you
can
control
it.
This
whole
emerging
a
new
science
of
behaviour
looked
so
promising—and
125
3
C O GNI T I V E
so
objective,
Skinner
child
just
went
and
APPROACH
I’ll
so
like
far
shape
the
as
BE H AV IO U R
natural
to
him
TO
into
Two
sciences—that
announce:
“Give
me
the
a
a
smaller
scale,
this
was
empirically
with
developed
and
extended
anything”.
left
On
birds
head
forward
a
sharp
his
has
it
scientic
human
that
Skinner
opponents
behaviour
that
to
he
once
name
pigeons.
create
They
suggested
not
superstition
explain
in
superstition
“unobservable”
that
pigeons.
without
he
It
the
be
when
bring
up
taken
study
took
in
is
should
not
resorting
try
up
the
a
challenge
of
possible
to
into
an
experimental
and
in
hungry
cage
for
a
1948
day.
that
the
The
the
bird
cage
at
had
food
regular
a
mechanism
would
intervals.
come
to
a
The
body
a
few
generally
steps
extensive.
might
Another
to
make
incomplete
bird
pecking
movements
touching
the
directed
toward
but
or
not
oor.”
(Skinner,
1948,
p
168)
thing
is
to
that
note
before
learning,
we
proceed
according
to
to
the
next
behaviourists,
through
the
process
of
trial
and
error.
were
organism
tries
out
certain
behaviours,
on
the
consequences,
some
and,
behaviours
would
trick
the
was
minutes
that
The
through
and
to
get
feed
by
designed
pigeons
few
it
conditioned
depending
each
right
“mental”,
An
put
return.
movement
brushing
One
group
from
followed
of
was
and
factors.
which
swung
motion
head
in
occurs
a
the
genuinely
step
Skinner
and
movement
slower
followed
was
his
pendulum
which
challenged
one
could
a
in
tested.
somewhat
Rumour
body,
reinforced
and
some
get
inhibited.
was
mechanism
ATL skills: Communication
(for
bird
example,
was
every
doing
at
5
seconds)
that
no
moment.
matter
The
what
the
conditioning
Explain behaviourism to a friend who does not study
process
is
straightforward:
if
the
bird
happens
to
be
psychology. Use simple language to explain, but make
executing
some
behaviour
when
the
food
arrives,
sure you use all the following words:
there
will
be
a
tendency
to
repeat
that
behaviour
behaviour, useless construct, black box, operant
as
a
result.
As
Skinner
describes
it,
in
six
out
of
behaviour, operant conditioning, punishment,
eight
cases
the
resulting
behaviours
were
so
specic
reinforcement, trial-and-error learning
that
different
proper
word
observers
to
agreed
describe
“superstition”
them.
Skinner
was
described
a
it:
S 4: c sch
“One
bird
clockwise
three
was
about
turns
repeatedly
upper
an
the
cage,
between
thrust
corners
‘tossing’
conditioned
of
its
invisible
bar
as
and
turn
making
counter-
two
reinforcements.
head
the
response,
to
into
cage.
if
A
third
placing
lifting
it
one
its
This
or
Another
of
of
the
developed
head
a
beneath
repeatedly.
rst
notion
of
attacked
trial-and-error
by
EC
behaviourism
known
behaviourism”.
rats
a
and
study
men”
of
In
his
(1948)
spatial
learning
Tolman
as
in
was
version
“ teleological
article
he
a
“Cognitive
described,
orientation
in
maps
among
in
others,
rats.
Research in focus: Cognitive maps in rats and men
Rats
were
shown
in
rst
the
trained
gure
to
run
through
a
maze
below.
In
this
and
took
Finish
food reward
maze,
into
maze
it
at
the
The
that
the
rewarded
direction
126
Tolman’s angular maze
had
rat
has
in
maze
nding
was
and
series
food
punished
it
at
of
the
a
food
the
average).
through
goes
the
we
the
place
through
behaviourist
example
of
trial-and-error
right
and
by
on
run
an
to
table
that
through
trials,
From
looking
in
to
round
them
trials
of
a
corridor
way
12
learned
going
led
their
(in
number
a
across
curved
nally
errors.
are
where
by
a
the
without
we
and
run
a
learned
after
of
to
of
quickly
learning
attempts,
Figure 3.4
a
start
maze
operant
▲
rats
when,
perspective,
Star t
turns
relatively
say
maze
they
entrance
several
reward.
We
the
direction
going
hitting
a
in
the
was
wrong
dead-end.
C o n C e p t S
a n d
p r i n C i p l e S
o f
t H e
C o g n i t i v e
a p p r o a C H
t o
b e H a v i o u r
Research in focus (continued)
After
a
that,
the
“sunburst”
Figure
maze
was
pattern,
suddenly
like
the
one
changed
shown
goes
to
in
the
according
in
direction
to
their
of
the
internal
food
reward
representation.
3.5.
The
10
11
results
signicant
9
8
12
Location of
new
H
of
the
experiment
majority
of
rats
showed
chose
path
that
6
in
the
the
maze.
7
kcolB
previous finish
6
What
are
the
implications
of
this
study?
5
●
This
4
result
deny
will
the
not
contradicts
importance
be
able
to
behaviourism.
of
the
explain
black
the
If
box,
we
we
behaviour
of
3
the
rats
that
we
observe
in
this
study.
We
will
2
have
to
hidden
admit
in
that
the
some
black
box
“mental”
not
only
variables
exist,
but
1
are
important
for
scientic
inquiry.
Star t
●
Figure 3.5
▲
Learning
error
As
you
been
can
see,
the
conditioned
Instead,
they
had
pathway
to
choose
12
that
was
alternate
the
rats
now
were
two
competing
form.
latent
had
and
(mental
blocked.
Hypothesis
only
1—operant
least
relies
maps)
Mental
in
take
on
of
some
the
trial-and-
cases
mental
the
learning
is
representations
environment.
be
hypotheses:
representations,
observed,
through
●
not
At
paths.
●
There
does
Tolman’s radial maze
conditioning
and
can
be
patterns
of
although
inferred
they
cannot
indirectly
behaviour
executed
by
an
trialorganism.
and-error
of
reality,
closest
and
learning
and
to
the
rats
are
accurate
should
original
descriptions
choose
path,
that
the
is,
paths
paths
●
Rather
than
responses,
9
that
10.
is,
organisms
internal
●
Hypothesis
2—trial-and-error
learning
is
being
aim.
accurate
model
of
learning
as
it
reality,
and
rats
will
be
able
to
form
mental
representation
of
Classical
By
hence
behaviourism
introducing
empirical
a
cognitive
the
and
attention
processes.
method.
There
choose
very
the
in
the
did
had
among
path
it
and
and
others,
purposes.
to
nding
mental
started
the
black
they
popularity
do
be
box
of
and
an
in
the
recognized
They
adequate
driven
the
behaviourism”
(The
argument
directly
the
is
the
opposite
study
rigorous
of
by
an
name
comes
study
from.
of
In
aims
of
teleology
is
causes.)
cognitive
needed
response
a
and
while
processes
not
preserving
to
are
returning
the
values
maintain
a
to
of
high
standard.
solution
as
tool
of
came
with
the
the
form
inquiry.
of
in
so
one
using
models
Historically
appearance
theory,
popularity
computer
in
scientic
information
gained
cognitive
experimentation
The
a
that
observable,
introspectionism
coincided
turned
internal,
that?
the
not
scientic
Researchers
be
where
and
purposeful,
that
psychology.
study
to
to
learning
gained
the
the
stimuli
rst
deterministic.
aspect
latent
1970s.
of
to
How
was
Tolman,
psychology
1960s
importance
their
for
revolution
Cognitive
will
teleological
evidence
representations,
1950s,
they
is
teleology
determinism,
maze,
may
of
actually
some
or
internal
This
is
occurs
philosophy,
in
chain
not
“teleological
an
a
behaviour
of
overarching
cognitive
this
computers
and
model
psychology
was
that
the
metaphor.
127
3
C O GNI T I V E
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
S 5: h cmcs
TOK
The
1.
computer
metaphor
seems
to
t
so
well
with
To what extent are models useful as a tool of
our
understanding
of
how
mind
works.
What
acquiring knowledge?
could
2.
be
wrong
with
it?
Name examples of models that are used in other
One
thing
that
the
computer
metaphor
does
disciplines, for example, geography, natural
not
account
for
is
human
irrationality.
Think
sciences, mathematics.
back
3.
step
not
about the inevitable simplication.
computer
of
4.
to
What are the common limitations of models? Think
accept
2.
This
about
is
metaphor
rationality
in
exactly
psychology
what
of
operates
information
Freud
the
on
did
mind.
the
The
assumption
processing.
No
one
If models simplify reality, why use them in the
would
deny
that
people
have
biases
and
make
production of knowledge?
mistakes,
but
under
the
computer
metaphor
in
After you familiarize yourself with the computer
step
4
these
were
considered
to
be
“bugs
in
the
metaphor in psychology, answer this question: why
system”,
occasional
deviations
from
the
general
does the computer metaphor qualify as a model?
rule.
The
In
the
computer
metaphor,
the
brain
is
rst
from
hardware
and
the
mind
is
the
software.
consists
of
some
functional
the
blocks,
introduced
blocks
work
together
to
receive,
process
and
exchange
information.
to
computers
have
different
kinds
of
won
example,
is
human
memory
postulated
to
have
in
for
one
of
distinctly
sensory
store,
short-term
memory
store.
Models
memory
in
describe
how
one
store
fact
to
information
another
between
and
different
the
cognitive
nature
of
subsystems
architecture.
to
the
computer
(We
metaphor
in
at
more
specic
examples
of
sum
will
this
unit
to
(there’s
no
so
Nobel
so
they
were
cognitive
awarded
biases
for
are
their
from
rationality
discovery
in
judgment.
game-changing
that
they
are
systematic:
as
it
is
turns
in
judgments
are
not
out,
random,
predictable
and
very
common
they
for
decision-making.
occasional
So,
deviation
irrationality
from
the
is
norm;
not
it
models
in
is
the
itself.
area
of
research
is
rapidly
gaining
popularity.
in
lot
of
cognitive
biases
have
been
systematically
psychology.)
up
step
4,
the
black
introspection,
psychology
turned
box,
but
which
on
had
a
new
been
on
the
grounds
of
and
documented.
For
example,
people
attention
level.
a
tendency
to
overestimate
small
probabilities
Instead
underestimate
large
probabilities
(as
you
might
criticized
guess,
heavily
Prize
and
and
of
Nobel
come
have
back
and
psychologists
this
studied
To
only
the
of
A
cognitive
the
deviations
recurrent,
This
look
the
Essentially,
mistakes
norm
back
notion
Tversky
ows
some
complex
Amos
cognitive
human
interaction
by
store,
are
from
1972
psychology,
makes
many
psychology
was
This
the
the
long-term
biases.
different
What
“stores”:
assumption
Just
systematic
models
this
memory,
economics).
for
in
Kahneman,
have
Prize
as
on
cognitive
encode,
far
store,
of
and
Daniel
these
attack
notion
The
was
mind
major
the
subjectivity,
this
has
been
extensively
used
by
insurance
psychology
companies).
now
made
model
of
model,
a
use
t
t
It
to
well
is
cognitive
the
are
observed
to
particles
each
other;
particles
the
128
it
the
subatomic
unobservable:
the
a
scientist
process
and,
number
is
data.
process
build
of
accelerate
compare
predictions.
the
on
the
model
the
in
which
when
based
tested;
the
used
suggests
These
model
does
cycle
physics
are
also
a
this
predictions.
and
models
behave
we
If
revised
particles,
we
will
then
and
A
experimentally
enough,
similar
study
models.
formulates
predictions
is
of
not
repeats.
and
predict
how
collide
with
observed
collide
making
into
to
economics
biases
Behavioural
and
in
will
to
studies
to
the
decision-making
of
in
to
of
area.
decision-
better
from
a
explain
under
thoughtful
psychological
have
discussion
later
basis
variables
especially
gains
models
the
economic
irrational
choices,
application
on
knowledge
models
monetary
economic
return
new
include
people’s
The
emerged
whole
economic
evidence-based
in
a
economics
predict)
variables
as
tries
traditional
uncertainty.
We
the
behaviour
cognitive
(and
to
directly
they
and
Behavioural
this
of
been
attractive.
cognitive
unit.
biases
C o n C e p t S
a n d
p r i n C i p l e S
o f
t H e
C o g n i t i v e
a p p r o a C H
t o
b e H a v i o u r
o w
See video
If
you
look
back
development
Dan
Ariely
(from
Duke
University)
research
in
the
eld
of
and
behavioural
economics.
A
to
get
a
feel
for
this
area
of
you
with
his
insightful
TED
research
we
in
control
(2008).
of
our
the
see
that
approach
they
in
make
next
step
identifying
a
spiral
an
in
the
previous
Note
stage
that
and
the
suggesting
stages
do
not
an
replace
Talks:
other.
For
example,
behavioural
economics
own
has
decisions”
in
is
each
“Are
cognitive
will
each
improvement.
through
steps
good
issue
way
the
ve
cognitive
pattern
biases
the
extensively
psychology,
popularizes
of
at
not
“replaced”
cognitive
psychology
but
rather
www.ted.
formed
its
own
independent
areas
of
research.
com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_
In
this
unit,
we
will
look
more
closely
at
steps
are_we_in_control_of_our_
4
and
5.
The
cognitive
approach
in
psychology
own_decisions
deals
“Our
buggy
moral
code”
with
studying
mental
representations
(2009).
and
cognitive
processes.
Some
cognitive
www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_
processes
are:
perception,
memory,
thinking,
on_our_buggy_moral_code
problem-solving,
He
is
also
famous
Predictably
courses
for
Irrational,
have
been
website
Coursera.
glimpse
of
his
made
Check
behavioural
language.
book
and
mostly
his
available
these
out
Description
1.
Psychology
can
2.
Psychoanalysis
mostly
Behaviourism
Such
should
Cognitive
Doing
psychology
a
study
so,
can
of
▲
as
People
economics
are
not
the
biases
are
an
The
does
by
t
make
just
the
mistakes
random
are
models
and
of
is
it
unit,
and
we
will
decision-
rational
and
be
The
of
and
the
to
The
mind
box,
(inputs
us
and
and
Unconscious,
by
irrational,
black
should
be
studied
The
their
and
make
with
from
Observable,
and
black
objective,
error,
box
Latent,
mental
representation,
an
the
trial
realm
computer
conscious,
objectively.
model,
metaphor,
rational
predictions
data
model
and
for
metaphor.
the
and
these
norm.
predictable.
human
is
observed
judgments,
should
and
be
mistakes
Sometimes
Irrational
behaviour,
decision-making
to
overarching
computer
not
outputs).
box
returned
predictions
is
psychology
understand
be
We
rational,
introspection
mind
studied
words
Conscious,
psychoanalysis
black
models.
the
in
cognitive
life.
should
deviations
part
a
allow
model.
systematic
important
judgment
not
and
is
is
introspection.
human
behaviours.
best-tting
mind
therefore
behaviour
using
psychology
of
of
subjective
mind
However,
done
part
highly
complex
means
The
interpretation.
observable
models,
Behavioural
by
mind.
should
dream
are
the
small
and
component
the
cognitive
the
a
however,
be
on
choose
in
but
psychology.
based
studied
observable.
number
This
5.
is
be
such
important
of
this
Key
methods
directly
4.
of
thinking
a
study
irrational
methods
3.
get
purposes
memory,
making.
the
should
therefore
Rationality
is
to
the
on
imagination,
economics.
Step
Introspectionism
on
For
focus
decision-making,
irrationality
for
mental
representation,
decisions
accounted
Latent,
computer
model,
metaphor,
unconscious,
irrational
in
functioning.
Table 3.1
129
3
C O GNI T I V E
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
our
pcs  h c ch
discussion
important
on
the
moderator
black
box
between
being
an
stimuli
and
 h
reactions).
From
the
history
of
the
development
of
cognitive
●
psychology
we
can
formulate
the
basic
Principle
in
that
dene
the
cognitive
Principle
1—mental
processes
can
be
Principle
(remember
our
this
is
predictions
exactly
studying
based
what
on
modern
discussion
unobservable
models,
physics
Principle
2—mental
and
uses
the
function
These
particles).
(remember
Tolman’s
ideas
principles
approach,
representations
and
in
cognitive
predictable
processes
(remember
can
of
behavioural
step
5
economics).
how
when
in
and
mind
underlie
it
at
is
a
all
research
good
times
idea
for
when
in
the
you
to
cognitive
keep
considering
the
guide
cognitive
behaviour
not
about
them
●
4—biases
systematic
and
testing
do
studied
be
scientically
processes
isolation.
approach.
●
●
3—cognitive
principles
research
approach.
and
ATL skills: Self-management
The principles of the cognitive approach to behaviour are impor tant assumptions made by cognitive psychologists.
You need to clearly understand these principles and refer to them when relevant in answering examination questions.
Create a mind map or another visualization of the principles of the cognitive approach to behaviour. Include
references to suppor ting research studies. Use mind map-building software so that you can add suppor ting studies
to each principle later as you go through the material in this unit .
Exam tip
Please
in
mind
does
means
you
that
will
related
However,
it
models)
While
you
that
is
it
is
to
not
relevant
the
directly
not
the
be
to
these
directly
you
“Concepts
to
stay
use
to
any
assessed
or
the
understand
concepts
required
and
section
correspond
principles
important
because
are
that
not
questions
or
130
keep
behaviour”
will
this
focused
on
and
this
history
the
be
of
the
in
in
from
the
of
the
section
concepts
used
material
on
principles
topic
and
presented
topics
will
be
approach
subject
no
to
guide.
This
examination
approach.
here
(such
throughout
examination
question.
cognitive
psychology
there
cognitive
other
the
IB
answers,
as
mental
the
you
representations
unit.
can
use
it,
to
the
extent
Models of memory
Inquiry questions
●
Does
memory
consist
of
separate
●
stores?
Is
rehearsal
the
best
way
to
memorize
information?
●
How
●
What
many
separate
stores
are
there?
●
is
the
duration
and
capacity
of
How
can
we
test
hypotheses
about
the
human
existence
of
separate
stores
in
human
memory?
memory?
What you will learn in this section
●
Atkinson
memory
and
Shiffrin
(1968):
the
multi-store
●
model
Sensory
(STM),
memory
memory,
long-term
Duration,
Baddeley
short-term
memory
capacity
and
memory
and
Hitch
(1974):
the
working
model
The
dual
task
The
central
technique
(LTM)
transfer
sketchpad
executive,
and
the
the
visuospatial
phonological
loop
conditions
●
●
Support
for
the
Support
for
the
Memory
Support
report
for
sensory
technique
memory:
(Sperling,
partial
a
1960)
for
for
STM
and
LTM
being
phonological
(Glanzer
stores:
and
serial
Cunitz,
position
Criticism
of
the
Hull
1966)
Effects
of
structure
rehearsal
transfer;
over
articulatory
and
is
the
only
alternative
(Craik
explains
and
model:
levels
Lockhart,
the
but
ow
of
to
explain
the
ow
ndings
model
(1984);
for
visual
this
and
supports
auditory
for
the
central
executive:
of
(Craik
(1996)
in
Evaluation
of
the
model
is
explanatory
power
the
and
Hard
to
test
empirically
in
all
its
entirety
1975)
This
might
not
be
a
unitary
episodic
and
semantic
also
links
to:
principles
of
the
cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
memory
might
short-term
section
store:
●
procedural,
There
Vallar
of
information
bidirectional
levels-of-processing
LTM
on
Baddeley,
1972)
Good
Tulving,
effect:
information
mechanism
●
direction,
necessary
Conrad
suppression
similarity
stores
Baddeley
one
by
function
Support
Only
discovered
model
on
processing
(the
phonological
(1964)
of
separate
Rote
uses
system
effect
Lewis
Emphasis
loop):
effect
phonological
●
material
storage
separate
and
memory
speech
sound-based
similarity
Support
model
model
be
more
memory
components
(working
in
●
localization
to
memory
of
function
(biological
approach
behaviour)
model)
●
models
of
thinking
and
decision-making.
131
3
C O GNI T I V E
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
Psychology in real life
Anterograde amnesia is a type of memory loss that aects the ability to form new memories but does not aect memories
of the past. There are many well-documented cases of anterograde amnesia that can shed light on the nature of human
memory.
Michelle Philpots suered a head injury twice: once in a motorcycle accident in 1985 and again in a car accident ve
years later. These injuries triggered the development of epileptic seizures and loss of the ability to form new memories
completely by 1994. Since that time Michelle’s memory is wiped clean every time she goes to sleep. When she wakes
up she believes it is still 1994. Her husband has to show her their wedding pictures every morning to remind her that
they are married (they got married in 1997). She discovers every morning that she is much older than she thinks. Also
she has no idea that she is suering from memory loss—this is another discovery she makes on a daily basis. You
could say that her memory span is 24 hours, but forgetting can occur in shor ter time intervals, too.
At some point she got red from her oce job after she photocopied the same single document over
and over again multiple times. Her husband is grateful that she remembers him. He keeps a collection
of photos handy and tells his wife the history of their life together every single time she wakes up.
On the plus side, she never gets bored with good old jokes and TV programmes, and she gets to fall
in love with her husband over and over again. This story became the basis of a popular Hollywood
comedy, 50 First Dates. https://tinyurl.com/m7mbg98
Clive Wearing’s window of awareness is even shor ter than that, somewhere between 7 and 30 seconds. He can forget the
beginning of a sentence before you get to its end. In 1985 he was an acknowledged exper t in music, at the height of his
career. He suered from encephalitis which resulted in extensive damage to the hippocampus. He has both retrograde
amnesia (inability to recall the past) and anterograde amnesia. He remembers little of his life before 1985. Remarkably,
however, he recalls how to play the piano and conduct the choir. Every 20–30 seconds he keeps waking up from the
coma. He was encouraged to keep a journal of his thoughts, and he keeps writing, in sudden joyful insight, that he is
nally awake and fully conscious… only to notice a couple of seconds later that the whole journal
is lled with identical entries. He gets frustrated, he crosses out the previous entries and circles
the new one, and it star ts all over again. He is always glad to see his wife and he greets her every
time he sees her as if it’s the rst time after a really long break , even if she just went to the
bathroom for a couple of minutes. There is a documentary about Clive Wearing that is wor th
watching if you want to know more: https://tinyurl.com/kqxqdcu
Transfer
th m-s mm m
Attention
Sensory
Memory
is
a
cognitive
process
used
to
encode,
Shor t-term
memory
Long-term
memory
memory
Retrieval
store
and
memory
Shiffrin
said
to
retrieve
model
in
was
1968.
consist
information.
of
proposed
In
this
three
The
by
model,
separate
multi-store
Atkinson
human
and
memory
Rehearsal
is
▲
Figure 3.6
components:
The
1.
sensory
sensory
short-term
memory
is
store
to
does
detect
long-term
memory
or
several
of
these
components
is
characterized
by
duration
(for
how
long
the
store
is
hold
information)
of
information
and
it
capacity
can
hold).
(how
In
lost.
certain
132
to
move
conditions
into
to
the
have
to
next
be
sensory
the
hold
it
Its
function
untilit
short-term
is
either
memory
memory
one
actually
for
each
consists
of
modality:
the
auditory,
research,
olfactory,
however,
has
and
focused
so
on.
on
many
order
memory
met.
Sensory
information,
memory
(for
visual
inputs)
for
memory
information
further
and
sub-components,
of
iconic
units
the
able
Most
to
(or
information.
a
visual
specic
store
process
store.
store
Each
not
information
transferred
3.
memory
memory
register)
2.
Multi-store memory model
store,
(for
auditory
inputs).
and
echoic
M o d e l S
The
by
capacity
our
can
of
sensory
perception,
keep
for
everything
memory
example,
that
is
only
iconic
enters
our
than
limited
the
memory
visual
echoic
memory
can
hold
everything
seconds.
trace
fades
that
perceive
at
any
Traces
in
the
iconic
inattention,
decay
duration
after
of
memory
while
2–5
sensory
in
to
condition
transfer
memory
after
echoic
1
is
short.
second
memory
of
can
the
third
rehearsal.
repeat
back
seconds.
memory
is
attended
next
that
from
and
has
attention.
to,
it
memory
to
sensory
does
not
store.
be
met
for
memory
If
a
attention,
it
unit
decay,
to
of
if
moves
to
it
not
does
is
If
has
to
the
place
a
away.
unlimited
and
we
can
So
potentially
capacity,
only
information
stored
in
of
left
unattended,
time.
the
duration
transferring
of
information
but
attend
it
to
sensory
(long-term
and
enters
information
over
image),
the
trace
the
memory)
it
again
stays
gets
or
in
is
(for
keep
the
STM
consolidated
long-term
example,
coming
longer,
and
memory
the
store.
is
a
for
memory
storing
(LTM)
large
periods
of
is
amounts
time
described
of
as
a
information
(Galotti,
2008,
p
for
147).
catch
current
estimate
of
the
capacity
of
LTM
is
that
sensory
is
potentially
virtually
unlimited.
Psychologists
only
small
failed
to
quantify
the
capacity
of
LTM
or
subset
at
of
and
rehearse
over
mental
indenite
have
transient,
period
increasing
store
we
words
Long-term
it
memory
this
is
information
short-term
information
but
Conversely,
fades
for
eventually
The
our
in
memory
information
The
information
moment.
decay
traces
away
condition
into
However,
the
we
short-term
acoustically
If
M e M o r y
eld
The
and
30
o f
least
provide
an
approximate
estimate.
You
memory.
can
probably
heard
remember
something
and
times
never
when
you
thought
of
saw
it
or
again,
TOK
but
The fact that we can only attend to a limited amount of
information in our sensory memory at a given time links
to the TOK concept of “selectivity of perception”. Recall
examples from various areas of knowledge that show
how selectivity of perception aects our knowledge in a
discipline. How does it work in history, for example?
then
triggers
suddenly
those
remember
long
of
memory
digits
that
information
(STM)
store,
enters
it
can
transformations.
the
short-term
undergo
For
some
example,
if
memory
that
they
they
had
some
that
are
you
also
can
you
thought
In
recollect
had
rehearsed
some
long
many
the
cue
suddenly
well-known
memorized
never
contextual
and
champions”.
champions
although
As
There
“memory
day
memories,
something
forgotten.
studies
one
distant
been
case
cases
strings
years
digits
of
before,
since
time.
primitive
you
see
a
word
Exercise
(visually),
you
and
enter
it
will
acoustically.
in
can
So
short-term
subvocally
the
the
pronounce
short-term
differences
memory,
to
memory
between
some
extent,
it
store
modalities
are
erased.
Do
some
for
phenomenal
memory
possible?
The
capacity
extensively
to
be
was
studied,
chunks
Magical
that
can
short-term
empirically
“The
is
7±2
of
a
be
units.
a
and
of
justied
is
not
meaningful
For
example,
been
in
GA
only
an
number
article
The
individual
makes
of
of
15
outside
the
unit,
You
of
may
it
symbols
Rain
it
suggest
How
be
is
your
explanation
(extraordinary
phenomenal
memory
learned?
recall
the
exploring
Kim
Peek
became
He
memorized
mind
capacity
who
Man.
could
of
start
Laurence
savant
trick
individual
units
powers).
Can
and
memory
been
established
This
1956.
sequence
falls
has
Miller’s
in
combination
the
which
has
Seven”
PCBMXBMWXBOXPS4
information,
it
information.
Number
chunk
memory
research
read
them.
contents
also
carry
without
a
the
issue
the
inspiration
countless
books
Reportedly
of
out
at
least
complex
need
with
(1951–2009),
for
a
he
for
and
could
12,000
this
an
story
American
the
movie
instantly
accurately
books.
calculations
He
in
his
calculator.
of
https://tinyurl.com/kn3u27d
short-term
some
it
grouping:
now
The
memory.
becomes
duration
dependent
of
on
PC
If,
–
ve
however,
BMX
BMW
perform
–
XBOX
–
PS4,
is
somewhat
chunks!
short-term
the
–
you
memory
modality,
but
is
generally
no
longer
133
3
C O GNI T I V E
Although
the
unlimited,
LTM
is
capacity
not
easily
retrieving
APPROACH
all
of
TO
BE H AV IO U R
LTM
is
information
retrievable.
information
It
is
from
potentially
that
not
is
stored
storing
memory
Exercise
in
but
that
may
1.
Split
into
2.
Each
problematic.
group
listed
Similarly,
the
limit
for
the
duration
of
six
it
is
has
longer
not
than
been
a
established,
mentioned
and
the
3.
condition
answer
When
for
presenting
group,
enter
LTM
is
rehearsal.
According
memory
model,
the
six
questions
experiment
to
to
rehearsal
the
question.
your
experiment
how
to
the
exactly
your
information
the
procedure
will
support
(or
classical
refute)
multi-store
of
an
demonstrate
experimental
to
one
design
potentially
lifetime.
above,
take
and
long-term
larger
As
will
above
empirically
memory
groups.
be
the
hypothesis
that
is
relevant
to
the
gradually
question.
consolidates
probability
the
LTM
the
of
memory
trace
information
and
so
increases
permanently
the
entering
Think
store.
“out
of
suggestions
years
the
seem
carefully
purpose
of
the
box”.
Don’t
absurd.
designing
exercise
worry
if
the
Psychologists
studies
is
just
to
like
try,
spend
that.
The
(probably)
ATL skills: Thinking
fail
1.
and
then
laugh
about
it!
Why is Atkinson and Shirin’s multi-store memory
model a model?
All
2.
these
questions
and
predictions
require
a
series
List all the essential proper ties of models
of
carefully
controlled
experiments.
One
reason
for
(irrespective of the area of knowledge) and discuss
us
studying
this
model
in
IB
psychology
is
that
it
how these proper ties are manifested in the multi-
was
one
of
the
most
successful
and
popular
models
store memory model.
of
the
time,
empirical
Remember
memory
that
model
Atkinson
is
a
and
model.
It
Shiffrin’s
has
a
lot
in
the
sense
that
it
stood
up
to
trial
by
data.
multi-store
of
components
S   h m-s mm m
that
1.
require
Are
the
testing.
It
memory
separate?
For
raises
stores
these
really
example,
is
questions.
distinct
sensory
We
will
test
different
separate
from
Are
there
1960
really
three
memory
stores,
not
aspects
Sperling
(part
so-called
sensory
modalities
within
sensory
4.
Is
modalities?
there
stores
words,
in
5.
Is
the
form
of
Does
just
occur
to
basis
information
(from
brain
and
memory
the
in
from
the
really
sensory
exist
ow
inuence
of
tested
the
sensory
existence
memory).
“partial-report
model.
of
He
iconic
used
technique”.
STM
for
to
presence
ow
memory
backwards,
which
pieces
sensory
memory
and
image
of
were
a
grid
presented
In
the
of
with
a
alphanumeric
shown
in
Figure
3.7.
structures?
of
in
to
Can
for
Figure 3.7
▲
the
L
TM?
rehearsal?
only
as
of
rehearsal?
one
The
(ms:
image
1/20
There
LTM)?
example,
data
are
transferred
An example of a grid used in the study
Can
the
was
of
were
a
ashed
up
for
only
50
milliseconds
second).
two
conditions.
Can
In
the
whole-report
condition,
participants
were
can
an
empty
grid
and
required
to
ll
it
out
with
selected
the
alphanumeric
characters
in
the
appropriate
into
positions.
134
memory
other
all
STM?
multi-store
objectively
given
from
the
stores?
●
information
LTM
to
memory
In
sufcient
without
occur
for
stores
separate
necessary
separate
constructs?
information
fail
direction
not
separate
of
transfer
transfer
they
the
rehearsal
this
Why
physiological
are
do
transfer
6.
a
or
aimed
memory
characters,
just
of
participants
tachistoscopic
Are
that
less?
experiment
3.
studies
not
the
more,
research
STM?
memory
2.
two
memory
In
really
consider
and
They
were
asked
to
guess
when
they
M o d e l S
were
●
not
certain.
an
average
In
the
of
4
Participants
out
of
12
partial-report
were
able
characters
to
did
recall
condition,
not
each
(35%).
depend
word
presented
with
the
on
M e M o r y
the
number
Figure
of
repetitions
of
3.8).
participants
1.00
were
(see
o f
stimulus
as
Presentation
before,
Single
but
were
rows
only
from
required
the
grid.
to
The
recall
one
instruction
of
the
Double
Triple
indicating
.75
which
sound.
50
ms
to
The
after
tone
on
was
not
of
were
hearing
given
sounded
visual
did
which
Participants
row
tone
the
participants
the
recall
the
presentation,
know
the
until
rows
high
form
of
approximately
to
tone,
so
they
was
instructed
a
in
llacer fo ytilibaborP
a
row
heard
called
recall
the
for.
the
middle
top
.50
row
.25
on
hearing
row
on
a
middle
hearing
usually
able
to
a
tone,
low
recall
and
tone.
three
the
bottom
Participants
or
four
were
characters
.00
from
the
row.
As
the
row
was
selected
at
Position of the word on the list
random,
and
after
the
presentation
of
the
▲
stimulus,
of
the
we
entire
can
conclude
grid
was
that
Figure 3.8
75–100%
accessible
to
the
●
participant
for
a
brief
amount
of
time
after
In
The
the
of
interpretation
multi-store
have
been
stays
in
attended
attended
of
to,
some
to,
the
to
memory
consolidated
and
the
and
a
parts
ndings,
model,
visual
for
a
of
is
this
line
trace
its
of
can
the
with
after
period
into
information
in
that
stimulus,
short
transferred
serves
as
memory
list
were
on
we
trace
time.
be
recall.
in
a
was
If
stores.
to
better
than
by
a
STM
Serial
recall
required
followed
for
and
data
end
of
the
delay,
the
list
introduced
and
of
the
rst
in
and
the
memorize
free-recall
the
being
last
middle.
lists
task
(a
of
the
list
at
list
that
able
to
The
rehearsal.
participants
the
effect
recall
(recency
backwards
seconds.
recalling
(primacy
longer
the
30
prevent
indicated
successful
not
to
counting
for
participants
the
start
The
resulting
from
words
a
task
still
preserved),
the
effect
from
ller
were
words
engaged
the
but
from
start
were
the
end
disappeared).
for
effect ,
is
meant
If
no
effect
task:
number
further
STM.
famous
LTM
position
items
to
are
position
During
ller
given
decays.
(1966)
serial
support
tendency
a
Cunitz
research
researchers
the
which
llacer fo ytilibaborP
their
condition,
between
of
of
Glanzer
second
delay
stimulus.
memory
exposed
our
the
the
a
presentation
Serial position eect
separate
the
items
on
Participants
words
free-recall
Without
interference
task
With
interference
task
task
is
when
you
are
permitted
to
recall
the
words
in
Position of the word on the list
any
order).
Figure 3.9
▲
There
were
two
Disappearance of recency eect after a
conditions.
ller task
●
In
the
rst
enlisted
20-word
nouns.
they
two
condition,
men)
lists
consisting
required
minutes.
demonstrated
aspects:
and
at
Results
serial
the
the
start
end
of
of
of
after
to
participants
at
participants
presented
Immediately
were
words
were
do
of
hearing
these
the
the
list
the
trials
effect
better
list
at
that
the
for
both
does
primacy
words
clearly
in
Why
task
effect)
effect).
This
the
when
list
enter
by
the
get
the
the
last
the
recency
effect
stays?
people
intention
repeat
its
remembering
(primacy
(recency
of
one-syllable
free-recall
position
army-
recordings
common
a
were
(240
with
to
are
to
repeated
long-term
words
and
on
the
disappear
and
hearing
memorize
words
delay
effect
Glanzer
a
list
them,
themselves.
(rehearsed)
memory,
the
list
ller
are
not
of
The
tend
rst
more
on
and
unaffected
However,
rehearsed
with
to
words
often
is
the
explained
words
they
which
task.
while
Cunitz
the
enough.
135
3
C O GNI T I V E
Without
rehearsal,
memory
effect
of
it
APPROACH
decays
disappears
the
effects
supports
separate
their
in
just
after
the
idea
BE H AV IO U R
trace
30
ller
and
that
in
so
task.
the
STM
of
short-term
seconds,
the
disappears
memory
TO
the
Since
other
and
to
various
not,
To
have
behind
information
multi-store
seems
one
does
LTM
mechanisms
recency
be
an
STM
counter
this,
the
of
memory.
of
depth
of
to
model
LTM
is
in
rote
oversimplication
strategies
proposed
them.
from
memory
that
Craik
levels
In
may
this
recall
is
This
ignores
(1972)
(LOP)
a
According
original
memorization.
Lockhart
processing
model
processing.
that
enhance
and
of
the
rehearsal.
model
function
to
Craik
and
Ccsm  h m-s mm m
Lockhart,
There
are
some
criticisms
that
are
common
model
in
cognitive
psychology
(for
processing,
an
inability
to
observe
the
the
model,
absence
of
a
clear
but
the
for
a
multi-store
variety
of
memory
more
on
a
limitation
structure
denition
that
to
is
model
Second,
a
than
to
through.
structure
not
is
due
process,
this
model
specic
model
than
memory
understand
goes
this
rather
of
important
it
of
as
how
see
This
the
a
is
is
process.
has
many
to
important.
it
process
ows
separate
say,
the
of
implies
is
course,
However,
more
the
this
only
lack
as
the
physical
structure
the
stronger
levels
deeper
its
processing
attention
mechanism
that
features
properties
to
memory
enables
as
transfer
acoustic
either
we
(phonetic)
or
something
looks
the
into
in
the
rehearsal:
other
processing
that
or
This
the
One
was
of
of
the
trace
in
only
takes
stimulus,
( structural
hand,
exactly
repeat
the
what
something
of
by
the
it
studies
Craik
to
that
and
in
rote
ourselves
of
how
processing,
form
building
linking
to
image
Deep
meaningful
is,
research
in
( phonetic
happens
mental
occurs
involves
that
conducted
properties
(structural).
structure
the
is
recreate
and
associations,
of
the
Shallow
supercial
processing).
on
stores
emphasized.
to
and
been
focuses
Even
information
not
deep,
reasons.
that
cognitive
how
and
processed,
memory.
processing)
First,
shallow
is
account
such
criticized
of
physiological
into
basis),
series
components
long-term
of
a
example,
information
simplication,
undergoes
for
of
any
information
of
the
semantic
stimulus
connections
prior
and
knowledge.
tested
this
model
Tulving.
Research in focus: Craik and Tulving (1975)
This
experiment
design.
shown
each
Using
words
word,
yes-or-no
level
a
of
followed
a
repeated
tachistoscope,
for
they
200
were
questions,
processing.
milliseconds.
asked
each
These
one
three
to
a
whole
were
Before
of
relating
are
measures
participants
seeing
types
of
different
examples
of
task
list,
order”)
were
to
they
(“recall
or
a
given
pick
all
given
words
recognition
a
out
were
the
longer
the
list
ones
either
you
task
of
that
a
can
free-recall
in
(where
words
they
any
they
and
had
required
seen
earlier).
the
Both
for
recall
and
for
recognition,
memory
questions.
performance
●
Is
the
word
in
capital
letters?
(structural
words
For
processing)
that
example,
percentage
●
Does
the
word
(phonetic
●
Is
the
rhyme
with
a
type
of
sh?
of
signicantly
preceded
for
a
by
a
better
recognition
words
correctly
for
those
“semantic”
task,
the
question.
average
recognized
was:
“weight”?
processing)
word
was
were
(semantic
●
16%
for
structural
●
57%
for
phonetic
processing
●
83%
for
semantic
processing.
processing
processing)
●
Would
a
____
the
in
word
the
t
the
street”?
sentence
(semantic
“He
met
Tulving,
the
to
participants
word
press
indicate
136
was
one
revealed
of
their
were
the
asked
and
buttons
response.
the
they
(yes
After
question,
were
or
p
(Craik
and
273).
processing)
The
After
1975,
required
no)
the
study
supports
memory
rehearsal,
how
to
completing
of
the
traces
and
the
in
long-term
information
encoding.
idea
LTM
was
is
that
not
consolidation
only
memory
is
processed
due
a
at
to
rote
function
the
stage
of
of
M o d e l S
Third,
the
criticized
of
multi-store
for
the
information
memory
to
in
the
the
opposite
For
example,
fact
memory
that
one
LTM.
ow
of
it
model
only
direction,
However,
has
explains
from
it
with
ow
sensory
can
information
been
the
be
also
that
can
chunking
(Miller,
without
using
information
that
is
This
in
the
LTM?
We
perform
prior
access
knowledge,
to
the
processing
Tulving,
LTM.
at
the
1975)
and
On
stage
also
this
the
of
has
to
encoding
to
the
to
access
stored
cannot
question,
in
the
occur
“Is
LTM.
this
To
the
a
original
central
(Craik
●
without
access
word
a
type
the
of
The
model,
this
knowledge
inuences
demonstrated
the
in
of
early
the
different
stages
levels
of
of
the
we
have
of
to
admit
information
sh?”,
kinds
of
encoding
processing
that
there
between
is
it
has
and
been
there
argued
are
that
in
of
of
information
memory
(memory
might
of
be
events),
are
stored.
stored
is
phonological
is
I
example,
how
to
memory
ride
a
of
bike)
how
and
to
One
source
not
least
is
from
case
studies
tie
(“the
inner
were
lost
while
in
unitary
and
a
similar
view
there
of
are
fashion,
it
short-term
for
a
more
has
been
subcomponents
much
more
sophisticated
inner
holds
ear
it
The
by
Baddeley
and
in
inner
voice,
t
well
These
studies
In
with
the
view
this
that
utilized
technique,
perform
two
STM
the
speech
as
we
for
hear
that
the
it
turns
dual-task
the
visual
if
we
are
words,
changing
of
simplistic,
other
hand,
performs
functions.
stimuli
into
sounds.
For
may
shown
a
subvocally
list
of
written
pronounce
the
modality
from
these
visual
and
the
words
will
enter
our
to
STM
the
auditory
channel.
in
to
it
allows
the
inner
the
rehearsal
ear.
By
of
information
constantly
words,
we
are
increasing
the
repeating
duration
memory
transferring
long-term
and
the
increasing
information
memory
the
of
chances
further
into
storage.
STM.
STM
(see
that
The
central
from
executive
is
a
system
that
allocates
was
between
the
visuospatial
sketchpad
below).
did
unitary
came
on
intact.
the
1974
a
The
manner,
some
In
as
results
voice”).
passive
these
too
in
phenomena
of
“uncomfortable”
a
laces
W mm m
some
in
important
we
the
revealed
articulatory
inner
someone’s
words,
and
Research
the
memory,
argued
is
approach
Hitch
sound
holds
following
resources
proposed
and
(“the
types
●
A
information
phonological
unitary
where
stayed
memory
the
was
working
Fifth,
sound
into
(general
amnesia
others
holds
ear”)
component
the
memories
eye”)
episodic
your
evidence
of
loop
subdivided
rehearsal
held
claims
inner
different
three
(how-to
semantic
of
(“the
information.
If
Second,
knowledge).
the
need
sh.
(as
further
through
or
spatial
and
auditory,
for
and
stores.
way
differently:
procedural
two
bidirectional
the
At
consists
sketchpad
sketchpad
and
example,
types
memory
coordinates
model),
memory
LTM
differences
that
visuospatial
The
First,
store,
STM.
to
the
Fourth,
of
answer
it.
ow
memory
structure
loop.
visual
example,
then
working
executive
visuospatial
holds
and
store
my
the
some
semantic
know
on
Baddeley
working
based
●
categories
focuses
the
digits.
already
require
hand,
ndings,
of
1956)
chunking
other
sequence
developed
model
phonological
on
auditory
conicting
(1974)
subsystems:
stored
an
M e M o r y
place.
of
occur
these
Hitch
model.
In
how
explain
and
argued
takes
To
memorizing
o f
not
the
phonological
“manager”
2000
Baddeley
component,
system.
that
research
components
technique.
the
participant
is
memory
operations
simultaneously,
required
the
integrates
long-term
for
loop.
the
and
Hitch
episodic
also
memory
this
two
also
links
from
this
sense,
as
the
it
is
systems.
added
buffer,
information
and
In
other
a
the
fourth
component
other
information
to
structures.
to
Central
for
example,
listen
to
a
list
of
words
(auditory
executive
stimulus)
shapes
store,
each
of
and
(visual
the
two
other,
so
whatever
that
does
in
some
not
memorize
stimulus).
sets
modality.
cases
series
STM
will
of
geometrical
really
should
be
a
memory
something
it
is
a
unitary
interfere
limited
However,
performing
with
drawing
If
stimuli
memory
interfere
example,
of
a
by
was
with
7±2
simultaneous
performance.
does
not
units
discovered
Phonological
Visuospatial
Episodic
loop
sketchpad
buffer
task
For
▲
Figure 3.10
Working memory model
interfere
137
3
C O GNI T I V E
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
S   h w mm m
The phonological store
One
of
the
starting
principles
of
this
model
XX
(that
of
requires
the
empirical
unitary
STM
subcomponents:
visuospatial
testing)
into
the
three
central
sketchpad
and
is
the
division
independent
executive,
the
XX
the
phonological
XX
XX
loop.
This
studies
trials,
using
both
model
found
the
be
with
support
dual-task
tasks
predicts
interfere
will
has
used
that
each
hindered.
the
in
a
and
of
In
some
modality.
case
other
variety
technique.
same
this
other
In
in
the
the
trials,
two
The
tasks
will
performance
the
tasks
used
XX Ar ticulatory suppression
different
modalities.
performance
hindered
in
of
the
this
The
model
tasks
will
predicts
not
be
that
the
signicantly
Figure 3.11
▲
Baddeley,
Conrad
and
Hull
phonological
participants
Some
(for
lists
(1964)
similarity
were
of
B,
demonstrated
effect .
required
letters
example,
Eects of ar ticulatory suppression
case.
D,
were
C,
to
In
recall
their
lists
P)
while
R,
X).
and
study
of
phonologically
G,
Lewis
Vallar
used
four
conditions:
the
letters.
similar
others
Spoken
Written
mode
mode
of
presentation
of
presentation
were
Rhyming
not
(for
example,
F
,
H,
P
,
They
found
that
1
3
2
4
words
rhyming
lists
were
more
difcult
to
remember.
Non-rhyming
This
is
because
the
traces
of
similarly
sounding
words
letters
easier
the
(if
to
idea
they
confuse
that
sound-based
as
the
are
encoded
with
memory
storage
phonological
acoustically)
each
for
other.
speech
system,
This
are
supported
material
which
we
uses
now
know
The
effects
Lewis
of
and
Vallar
articulatory
(1984)
indicated
effect
rhyming
words
suppression
phonological
similarity
effect.
than
is
a
method
of
blocking
the
4
(for
(articulatory
experimental
is
simply
sequence
or
your
sounds
component).
articulatory
participants
(for
example,
one-two-three-one-two-three)
again
while
at
experimental
of
situation,
asking
of
rehearsal
the
“inner
in
this
of
the
the
the
task.
In
voice”
situation,
working
two
same
is
time
doing
according
memory
functions
of
up.
to
model?
the
repeat
“inner
over
and
the
over
the
inputs
cannot
be
similarity
back
to
discussed
into
and
words),
effect
material,
non-rhyming
articulatory
“inner
sound
can
get
predictions
recoded
written
can
2
harder
but
there
between
rate
of
words
similar
are
also
visuospatial
visually,
the
to
create
working
into
(that
to
was
no
conditions
recall
for
was
the
traces
phonological
are
inhibited,
rhyming
similar
so
traces,
we
but
Presumably
As
similarity
the
these
the
information
it
it
does
easy
effect
is
to
not
not
enters
information
that
store
words
observe
Written
memory,
not
spoken
is
the
coded
confuse,
and
observed.
sounds
ATL skills: Thinking
and
hence
cannot
enter
the
phonological
store.
1.
Second,
auditory
inputs
can
enter
the
Evaluate the extent to which this study suppor ts the
phonological
working memory model.
store,
but
their
rehearsal
will
be
impossible.
2.
Are there alternative explanations that would t
equally well into the observed data?
138
3
both
same).
phonological
Since
effect.
sounds.
sketchpad.
is
the
confuse
similarity
enter
recoded
enter
directly.
and
easier
rehearsal
still
ear”)
phonological
happens
(Think
(the
traces
capacity
voice”
When
the
visual
and
signicantly
non-rhyming
information
a
earlier.)
First,
phonological
an
the-the-the
What
the
In
suppression
to
performing
this,
lled
a
1
“inner
rhyming
voice”
there
Articulatory
and
suppression
were
was
conditions
on
phonological
the
that
between
explored
recall
the
Conditions in Baddeley, Lewis and Vallar (1984)
results
similarity
store.
is,
Baddeley,
Table 3.2
▲
a
M o d e l S
For
the
that
central
provided
conducted
starting
executive,
supporting
by
point
one
of
evidence
Alan
Baddeley
of
reasoning
his
the
digits
studies
the
was
(1996).
was
the
controlling
The
that
overall).
better
The
this
theoretical
function
of
the
central
to
distribute
and
switch
attention,
cognitive
inhibited
by
switches,
and
inhibited
by
tasks
at
the
tasks
that
require
same
that
time
do
not
the
sequence,
performed
at
task.
participants
were
required
to
executive
it
in
one
of
three
tasks,
at
the
same
rate
of
should
one
be
random
executive
since
engage
is
M e M o r y
more
central
Simultaneously,
the
o f
unit
per
second.
attentional
it
should
require
not
be
1.
Recite
the
2.
Count
(1,
3.
Alternate
alphabet
(A,
B,
C
and
so
on).
attentional
2,
3
and
so
on).
switches.
In
the
study,
participants
were
required
to
(A,
random
sequences
of
digits
by
pressing
at
the
rate
of
one
per
second,
a
metronome.
To
produce
a
random
digits,
you
have
to
use
your
results
because
you
need
previous
the
to
take
into
digits
that
variable
in
you
this
have
selected.
experiment
So
was
of
required
the
to
digit
sequence
produce
so
and
numbers
on).
that
“whereas
alphabet
had
a
neither
detectable
counting
effect
of
keypressing,
the
concurrent
task
markedly
1996,
p
18).
reduced
So
it
was
randomness”
concluded
the
this
constant
switching
of
retrieval
plans
is
the
by
a
separate
memory
system
(the
(participants
central
were
the
randomness
performed
randomness
letters
and
account
that
dependent
3
attentional
(Baddeley,
the
C,
showed
reciting
alternation
resources
2,
sequence
on
of
B,
determined
nor
by
1,
keyboard
The
keys
between
produce
sequences
of
executive).
100
ATL skills: Research
Do you remember research methodology? Experiments are characterized by validity, and there are three broad types of
validity: internal, external and construct.
Evaluate the construct validity of Baddeley’s (1996) study. To what extent is randomness of a string of digits a good
operationalization of the function of the central executive?
You
e  h w mm m
must
however
Overall,
the
strength
of
the
working
is
that
it
is
more
sophisticated
multi-store
memory
model
and
specic
allows
explain
central
a
wider
range
participants’
of
phenomena
performance
in
technique
or
observable
effects
number
of
memory.
that
of
brain
either
ndings
are
from
of
distinctly
work
images
Finally,
on
on
of
the
brain
when
loop
the
or
plus
model
does
not
the
executive).
studies
This
model
(for
to
test
example,
For
complex
difcult
to
models,
design
it
well-
that
means
would
that
the
test
the
model
model
is
in
difcult
its
to
articulatory
a
Maybe
as
a
consequence
of
this,
and
due
large
to
the
existence
also
of
the
same
of
some
of
multiple
potential
explanations
to
parts
the
the
result,
components
of
the
the
exact
model
role
(the
central
executive
buffer)
remains
unclear.
and
especially
argued
that
visuospatial
the
episodic
For
“light
task
of
some
model.
the
experimental
shown
Similarly,
it
has
been
up”
the
sketchpad
should
be
activates
further
divided
one
visual
into
two
separate
components,
visuospatial
side,
the
for
information
and
one
for
spatial
working
information.
memory
of
short-term
has
correlates
different
phonological
sketchpad.
integrate
research
components
scanning
the
can
physiological
separate
example,
in
model
Subsequent
there
the
The
experiments,
designed
dual-
falsify.
suppression).
the
(for
the
entirety.
task
aspect
increasingly
controlled
example,
all
only
us
becomes
to
that
are
than
the
the
noticed
memory
one
model
have
complicated,
overemphasize
the
role
Finally,
working
memory
only
of
involves
STM
and
does
not
take
into
account
rehearsal.
other
However,
it
should
be
noted
that
models
of
memory
sensory
degree
of
complexity
are
harder
to
test
structures,
such
as
LTM
and
this
memory.
empirically.
139
3
C O GNI T I V E
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
Psychology in real life
Do cases of amnesia suppor t the idea of separate
relies completely on his electronic journal that lists the
memory stores? Yes, they do. If brain injury destroys one
things he has done, has to remember, and has to do. WO is
memory process but does not destroy the others, it really
indeed caught in a 90-minute window of the present. Time
is suppor ting evidence. However, sometimes memory
goes past and takes all memories with it. The single new
impairment occurs without any visible brain injury.
episode his memory was able to retain was the knowledge
of the death of his father—not how it happened or when,
Patient WO, known as William, can remember everything
but the very fact. https://tinyurl.com/k7aeevv
in his life clearly until 1.40 p.m. on 14 March 2005. This
was the moment he was injected with a local anesthetic
before a routine procedure at the dentist. Since then he
can only store memories for 90 minutes. What baes
psychologists is that there was no brain injury involved
in this case of anterograde amnesia—so what is the
physiological basis? Since then, every day WO has woken
How can this case of amnesia be explained? Search online
up thinking it’s the date of his dentist appointment. Before
for some of the current hypotheses.
the appointment, his health was perfectly normal and
there seemed to be nothing wrong with his brain. Now he
140
Schema theory
Inquiry questions
●
How
does
prior
processing
of
knowledge
new
●
inuence
information?
What
is
the
through
utility
the
of
“lens”
perceiving
of
prior
things
knowledge
and
expectations?
●
How
does
context
inuence
●
comprehension?
How
do
around
we
make
sense
of
the
ocean
of
data
us?
What you will learn in this section
●
Concepts
of
schema
theory
Scripts
data:
Cognitive
us
make
Black
sense
and
of
sequential
Turner
(1979)
schemas—mental
representations
knowledge,
that
beliefs
organize
and
Self-schemas
our
Aaron
expectations
●
Schemas
help
Bower,
are
derived
from
prior
are
Beck’s
Top-down
and
an
integral
theory
of
bottom-up
part
of
depression
processing
experience
The
Schemas
effects
may
that
be
they
studied
have
through
on
more
the
Rat
Man
for
example,
inuence
memory
at
all
saves
storage
and
Alampay
processing
might
be
biased
but
energy
stages:
Pattern
encoding,
and
memory
it
Schemas
Bugelski
observable
Schematic
processes,
of
(1961)
recognition
and
effort
after
retrieval
meaning
●
Schemas
inuence
encoding
This
Bransford
and
Johnson
(1972):
●
effect
of
context
on
section
also
links
comprehension
principles
of
the
of
text
Schemas
inuence
retrieval
concepts
of
behaviour
Anderson
and
guide
approach—mental
behaviour
passages
●
●
cognitive
and
representations
memory
to:
the
Pichert
(1978):
a
the
cognitive
approach
(behaviourism
and
to
cognitive
change
psychology)
of
perspective
leads
of
to
recall
at
of
information
the
an
stage
of
retrieval
additional
relevant
to
the
●
models
●
reliability
7.1%
of
memory
(memory
processes)
new
of
memory
(see
further
in
this
perspective
chapter)
●
Types
of
schemas:
social
schemas,
self●
schemas,
stereotypes
(sociocultural
approach
to
scripts
behaviour)
Social
schemas
inuence
our
●
interpretation
of
others:
Darley
and
Aaron
Beck’s
depression
theory
(abnormal
Gross
psychology)
(1983)
●
biases
in
thinking
(conrmation
and
decision-making
bias).
141
3
C O GNI T I V E
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
have
Ccs  schm h
some
(what
Remember
those
rats
from
EC
Tolman’s
few
things
can
compare
to
the
excitement
but
scientist
feels
potentially
Imagine
observing
become
Tolman’s
by
behaviourism
he
was
have
by
of
in
the
the
sort
his
that
of
maze.
feelings
its
rats
direction
thought
some
it
an
Trial
interpretations,
something
as,
of
time
the
the
like
learning),
pathway
food
that
reward.
they
his
must
rats
have
Since
dominated
were
He
must
a
map
conrmed
had
was
guided
representation,
trial,
he
a
are
like,
what
cultural
schemas
most
likely
you
do
not
Colombians
have
a
are
schema
who
prefer
different
months
of
the
for
year.
might
discovery.
trial-and-error
looked
after
at
pick
internal
and
that
groundbreaking
(with
observing
leading
a
olds
and
that
people
a
year
age
study?
like),
Very
60
deeply-rooted
we
go
look
schemas
about
at
the
effects
observable
shown
all
cannot
studying
that
processes
that
schemas
two
studies
observed
One
schemas
such
as
of
on
memory.
storage
that
directly,
way
have
inuence
stages—encoding,
discuss
be
them?
more
and
do
is
to
directly
has
processes
retrieval.
this
so
Research
memory
support
how
doing
We
at
will
claim.
his
difculty
ATL skills: Thinking and research
falling
asleep
that
night,
thinking
about
all
the
Before you read about the studies, try to think of an
exciting
implications
of
this
discovery.
experiment that you might conduct to test the following
It
is
not
only
rats
who
create
internal
maps
of
their
theoretical hypotheses:
surroundings.
minute,
drivers
road
you
do
If
will
not
they
you
nd
nd
have
search
your
many
other
themselves
been
taking
memory
to
for
for
examples.
be
helpless
years
is
a
●
Schemas inuence encoding of material in memory.
●
Schemas inuence retrieval of material from memory.
Taxi
if
the
blocked.
What will be your independent variable (IV)?
They
quickly
recalculate
their
route
and
use
other
What will be the dependent variable (DV)?
roads,
taking
shortcuts
and
getting
successfully
to
How would you operationalize them? What will your
the
destination.
Basketball
players
always
know
experimental procedure be like?
where
force
the
they
target.
basket
should
Even
this
is
as
to
t
new
of
psychology,
and
apply
you
are
always
to
the
know
ball
reading
information
to
this,
into
exactly
send
you
your
it
are
what
to
the
trying
“internal
TOK
map”
What is the role of prior experience in gaining new
in
which
towns
are
the
concepts
and
knowledge? Is it a tool for acquiring new knowledge or
highways
are
the
connections
between
them.
rather an obstacle?
Cognitive
schemas
(or
schemata)
is
an
umbrella
One of the tests for truth in theory of knowledge, the
term
for
all
such
phenomena.
Cognitive
schemas
coherence test, claims that something is true if it ts
are
dened
as
mental
representations
that
organize
well into what you already know. What are the possible
our
knowledge,
beliefs
and
expectations.
Mental
criticisms of this test for truth?
representation
be
applied
Notice
to
how
is
a
pretty
practically
this
the
cognitive
the
second
links
to
approach
broad
concept.
anything
the
to
in
the
principles
behaviour,
It
can
black
box.
underlying
Schms c c
especially
Bransford
principle:
mental
representations
experiment
behaviour.
So
are
cognitive
schemas
all
or
just
a
subset
of
them?
In
fact
a
subset,
context
just
those
mental
representations
our
knowledge,
beliefs
and
on
It
do
so,
these
mental
representations
need
quite
stable,
Schemas
your
are
inuence
for
he
your
is
you.
142
derived
potential
favourite
a
deeply
your
is
is
and
prior
partner
August,
it
expectations
meeting.
60-year-old
This
from
business
month
rst
rooted
and
Colombian,
because,
tells
However,
due
to
you
comprehension
followed
and
used
of
following
you
if
tells
he
might
“If
If
that
probably
how
it
your
an
effect
an
and
memory
independent
of
text
measures
ve
groups
of
participants.
the
group,
all
tape-recorded
the
participants
heard
passage:
organized.
experience.
will
out
the
to
the
be
carried
investigated
expectations.
Irrespective
To
(1972)
they
that
design,
organize
Johnson
which
they
passages.
are
in
mental
of
representations
and
guide
his
prepare
that
inuence
experience,
able
to
away
not
you
the
you
the
of
carry
from
would
most
balloons
also
since
the
tend
a
oor.
the
to
operation
electricity,
the
sound
everything
correct
prevent
buildings
whole
popped,
break
the
be
closed
from
well
depends
in
would
A
sound
be
wouldn’t
too
on
a
far
window
carrying,
insulated.
middle
the
since
Since
steady
of
be
ow
wire
S C H e M a
would
could
also
enough
that
a
there
It
is
cause
shout,
to
carry
string
could
clear
but
problems.
the
that
could
be
that
no
the
Of
human
far.
break
An
on
course,
voice
situation
the
not
additional
the
fellow
to
passage,
problem
the
would
Participants
loud
instrument.
accompaniment
best
is
is
if
Then
they
write
message.
given
distance.
problems.
number
and
Then
With
of
face
things
Johnson,
there
to
face
could
1972,
p
would
go
be
fewer
contact,
wrong”.
were
recall
could
down
seven
not
as
instructed,
it
as
remember
many
minutes
after
accurately
ideas
to
it
as
do
hearing
as
they
word
for
possible.
the
could,
word,
They
and
to
were
that.
involve
The
less
to
t H e o r y
the
ve
conditions
were
as
follows.
potential
1.
least
No
context
(1):
participants
simply
(2):
participants
heard
heard
the
passage.
(Bransford
719)
2.
No
context
the
passage
twice.
ATL skills: Research
3.
Now that you have read the passage, try closing the book
and repeating its main ideas.
Context
before:
prior
participants
were
picture
Figure
to
(see
study
to
hearing
provided
3.12)
with
and
the
a
passage
context
given
30
seconds
it.
Overall, there are 14 idea units in this passage. How
4.
many can you remember? (It is not necessary to
(a)
▲
Full
context
Figure 3.12
Context
after
remember word for word.)
(b)
Partial
after:
the
participants
same
heard
picture
the
was
shown,
but
passage.
context
Stimulus material used in Bransford and Johnson (1972)
143
3
C O GNI T I V E
5.
APPROACH
Partial
context:
before
the
the
context
passage.
objects,
(see
a
Figure
but
TO
This
the
BE H AV IO U R
picture
picture
objects
was
provided
contained
were
all
rearranged
3.12).
Think
about
nding.
you
want
better,
of
the
14
idea
units
contained
in
the
is
how
many,
on
average,
to
to
sure
participants
you
No
context
(1):
3.6
idea
units
2.
No
context
(2):
3.8
idea
units
example,
remember
clearly
studying
of
be
if
things
know
the
this
that
the
new
studying
material.
schema
theory,
schema
theory
it
is
were
to
understand
consequence
of
the
approach
an
3.
Context
before:
4.
Context
after:
cognitive
8.0
idea
umbrella
one
3.6
idea
that
is
a
context:
4.0
are
units
idea
the
building
the
difference.
no
“context
Hearing
difference
memory;
in
condition
same
passage
terms
presenting
principles
that
behaviour
large
dene
(mental
that
number
schema
of
is
mental
and
that
blocks
mental
of
the
representations
black
studied
to
box
that
prove
wrong
the
units
before”
the
to
behaviour),
a
psychologists
trial-and-error
Clearly,
for
the
units
cognitive
Partial
of
guide
term
representations,
and
start
before
representations
almost
and
you
might
recall:
1.
5.
that
implications
message
understand
before
important
able
possible
passage,
For
this
the
takeaway
make
context
Out
all
The
the
of
made
twice
a
makes
If
you
more
know
approach
the
of
context,
classical
behaviourism.
everything
makes
much
sense.
comprehension
context
after
the
Schms c 
passage
shows
is
is
no
the
only
good;
objects
and
but
marginally
a
partial
not
better
context
relations
than
no
(which
between
context
at
them)
all.
Anderson
schemas
of
Using
the
schema
theory,
this
nding
encoding
interpreted
by
referring
to
a
also
prior
has
to
been
from
encoded
are
the
created
organization
units
that
hearing
of
the
(or
our
text
because,
linked
with
the
full
text
activated),
knowledge.
in
the
context
the
are
the
demonstrated
memory
information
to
that
process
an
inuence
at
the
stage
LTM),
of
retrieval
“mental
passage.
passage
(1978)
inuence
(transferring
have
(retrieving
representation”
Pichert
only
can
but
be
and
not
it
the
Arguably,
of
from
LTM).
creates
schema
inuences
more
process
picture
After
information
the
the
idea
effectively
encoding,
they
Imagine
You
are
student
to
for
a
a
are
is
people
a
participant
and
in
in
the
requirement.
told
think
that
about
psychology
their
educational
participating
course
brieng
Being
a
introductory
who
fulll
“how
schema.
you
an
the
and
student
study.
psychology
study
You
are
study
order
concerns
remember
and
in
invited
hearing
stories”.
such
a
Exercise
We
use
the
Johnson’s
of
this
example
(1972)
book
of
Bransford
study
(“Internal
vague
explanation
might
start
to
of
suspect
the
aim
that
of
the
the
study,
you
experimenters
and
extensively
in
assessment”).
Unit
It
are
using
mild
the
complete
deception
and
are
not
telling
you
9
truth
about
the
actual
aim
of
the
would
experiment.
be
useful
to
familiarize
published
know
details
yourself
in
the
with
Journal
about
the
of
the
study
original
Verbal
and
paper
Learning
and
ATL skills: Communication
Verbal
Behaviour
Is deception justied in this study? Why? Explain it in no
The
paper
can
be
accessed
here:
https://
more than two sentences.
tinyurl.com/kp479dh
out
what
Read
confounding
controlled
and
how.
the
paper
variables
the
and
nd
authors
After
this,
required
1.
You
are
orthe
you
there’s
to
a
burglar”).
144
series
assigned
burglar
are
a
of
tasks
that
you
are
perform.
either
the
perspective
homebuyer”,
homebuyer
(“Imagine
“Imagine
you
are
a
S C H e M a
2.
You
are
about
the
asked
what
boys
passage
a
to
two
when
read
boys
they
contains
burglar
or
a
real
a
text
did
were
the
of
agent,
(373
home
skipping
number
estate
passage
at
words)
one
school.
points
a
of
of
total
The
interest
of
73
Exercise
of
Evaluate
to
example,
the
story
includes
such
the
following
details
hedges
hid
the
house
from
the
of
the
study.
Internal
validity:
road”,
what
are
the
potential
as:
confounding
“Tall
aspects
ideas.
●
For
t H e o r y
variables?
How
well
were
they
“They
controlled?
went
in
the
side
door,
Mark
explaining
that
it
●
was
always
open
in
case
his
younger
sisters
External
with
home
earlier
than
his
mother”,
“The
validity:
are
there
any
issues
got
generalizing
the
ndings
to
a
wider
basement
population?
had
been
damp
plumbing
was
and
musty
ever
since
the
new
installed”.
●
Construct
variable
3.
You
are
given
two
minutes
to
read
the
There
is
a
ller
verbal
task
(for
12
minutes
they
solving
problems
on
a
vocabulary
Following
this,
and
to
asked
detail
as
There
is
you
are
given
reproduce
the
two
story
blank
in
as
Next,
Replicability
another
the
the
ve-minute
instructions
same
burglar)
You
are
●
Theoretical
ller
In
all
or
initial
to
require
you
perspective
change
required
(without
there
essence
of
the
and
practical
implications
not
forget
to
were
four
it
evaluation
either
approach,
implies
considering
both
a
strengths
to
limitations.
(homebuyer
you
identied
limitations,
how
could
you
it.
recall
reading
that
task.
the
text
for
a
the
study
to
overcome
them?
second
Imagine
time
the
possible.
modify
8.
capture
constructs?
●
If
or
how
the
pages
and
keep
and
Does
much
balanced
7.
independent
you
Do
6.
the
test).
theoretical
5.
are
variable
operationalized?
operationalization
are
what
dependent
passage.
were
4.
validity:
and
you
are
replicating
this
study
for
your
again).
groups
of
internal
assessment.
can
simplify
It
is
too
complex
but
how
participants:
you
the
procedure
to
t
the
IA
requirements?
Same
Change
perspective
perspective
in
Schemas
Homebuyer
1
organize
memory.
Burglar
2
Table 3.3
Conditions in Anderson and Picher t (1978)
not
revealed
the
following
just
perceived
They
Results
Any
For
the
burglar
rst
recall,
information
the
the
perspective
homebuyer
homebuyer
group
recalled
whereas
the
The
people
that
group
perspective
had
more
LTM,
the
study
burglar
that
recalled
the
had
start
changed
passively
acting
acting
and
of
the
at
idea
even
more
that
Although
perspective
as
is
that
stored
we
registered;
lens
the
as
we
we
Anderson
information
information.
who
get
through
of
stage
store
in
our
acquire
it
existing
of
is
actively
schemas.
encoding
effect
is
it
Pichert
not
to
as
and
in
they
as
The
supports
of
encoding.
(7.1%
new
our
there.
retrieval
well
large
the
from
(1978)
inuence
memory
relevant
information
retrieve
and
schemas
from
the
information
●
that
information
pattern.
continue
●
new
4
does
▲
knowledge
3
of
perspective),
it
is
recalled
signicant.
more
information
perspective
Subjects
and
4)
who
the
the
still
the
second
to
the
rst.
an
details
hand,
perspective
of
to
perspective
additional
information
these
other
important
unimportant
changed
recalled
important
recall
but
during
subjects
(groups
1
7.1%
(note
the
who
and
unimportant
that
2)
of
the
they
rst
did
We
(groups
recalled
now
did
recall).
not
3
not
On
change
2.9%
less
have
which
though?
it
can,
just
we
Can
and
memory
discussed
compared
perceive
it
it
distort
gives
schemas
reality.
rise
in
the
to
a
to
a
number
(these
section
lens
clean
information?
confabulation
later
How
is
through
this
lens,
Apparently,
of
will
biases
be
“Reliability
and
further
of
memory”).
information.
145
3
C O GNI T I V E
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
idea
Exercise
behind
underlying
sequence
What
practical
applications
of
these
you
think
of?
For
example,
of
of
the
effect
of
how
schemas
can
on
used
in
as
a,
b,
follows.
exists
c,
d,
Suppose
for
e,
f,
the
g.
an
following
is
a
text
that
Now
includes
sentences
our
to
events
a,
c,
e,
g.
If
you
present
memory
this
be
is
script
events:
there
corresponding
knowledge
study
ndings
suppose
can
the
abstract
text
to
a
group
of
participants
and
ask
them
education?
(after
will
a
series
probably
events
b,
d,
of
ller
“ll
f
in
even
tasks)
the
to
recall
gaps”,
though
that
they
the
is,
were
text,
they
remember
not
originally
ts  schms
in
There
are
schemas,
human
many
special
depending
experience
representations.
of
schemas
on
the
that
For
have
cases
is
and
particular
inuenced
example,
been
types
the
of
the
aspect
by
the
of
text
This
based
remember
mental
following
text.
than
the
Here
is
on
the
text
social
of
idea
that
underlying
generalized
idea
we
script,
behind
encode
that
a
is,
text
we
rather
types
an
representations
example
people,
for
example,
of
of
the
two
texts
same
that
served
underlying
as
script:
about
The
groups
the
the
proposed:
schemas—mental
various
on
itself.
manifestations
●
rests
doctor.
John
was
feeling
bad
today
so
he
a
decided
to
go
see
a
family
doctor.
He
checked
stereotype
in
●
scripts—schemas
example,
going
about
to
a
sequences
restaurant
or
of
events,
making
for
with
looked
coffee
that
the
●
self-schemas—mental
representations
the
doctor’s
through
were
on
nurse
receptionist,
several
the
came
table
and
medical
by
his
asked
and
chair.
him
then
magazines
to
Finally
take
off
about
his
clothes.
The
doctor
was
very
nice
to
ourselves.
him.
One
example
schemas
on
that
our
illustrates
perception
the
and
effect
of
social
He
John.
eventually
Then
John
prescribed
left
the
some
doctor’s
pills
ofce
for
and
interpretations
headedhome.
is
Darley
group
child
of
(a
and
Gross
participants
girl)
came
(1983) .
was
from
led
a
In
to
high
this
study,
believe
one
that
The
dentist.
like
forever
(SES)
background
and
the
other
told
that
the
child
came
from
a
Both
groups
then
watched
the
of
the
child
taking
an
academic
test.
required
the
girl.
In
to
judge
the
accordance
academic
with
the
that
schema
the
gave
child
theory,
came
considerably
participants
from
higher
a
of
the
girl
who
high-SES
ratings
in
the
pre-stored
schemas
for
wondered
said
rich
lens
and
what
was
through
it
means
which
perceived,
were
changed
and
the
to
This
what
be
it
poor)
ambiguous
participants’
study
by
Black
as
how
means
are
how
scripts
stored
in
were
used
interpretations
Turner
our
make
study
will
use
actions
146
sense
was
to
the
not
of
see
sequential
if
in
underlying
explicitly
data.
recalling
script
a
to
mentioned
The
text,
in
Finally
x-rayed
his
the
teeth.
what
the
Bill
dentist
had
a
lot
was
of
doing.
cavities.
The
As
he’d
made
another
appointment,
he
Turner,
p
left
ofce.
Black
and
1979,
190)
in
these
the
two
opening
stories
the
statement
only
and
similar
the
Technically,
the
stories
are
closing
completely
in
all
other
aspects.
As
predicted,
prone
aim
gaps
the
after
a
to
reading
20-minute
insert
gap
both
ller
the
task)
llers,
for
stories
(and
participants
“checking
in
with
the
example,
receptionist”
for
the
help
of
of
text.
story.
the
subjects
in
out
(1979)
memory
ll
wall.
as
dentist
us
the
and
information
recalling
showed
the
to
carrying
and
at
showed
accordingly.
Bower,
on
checked
(Bower,
were
A
around
academic
different
a
looked
posters
that
dentist’s
statement.
be
Bill
thought
the
video.
(about
dental
environment
ideas
that
seemed
the
of
Note
performance
It
at
performance
predictions
the
social
arrived
They
soon
of
ofce.
hygienist
dentist
were
toothache.
same
He
video
bad
nally
low-SES
dental
background.
a
he
group
various
was
had
before
socio-economic
dentist’s
status
Bill
a
The
The
in
concept
Aaron
The
of
self-schemas
B e c k ’s
negative
theory
self-schema
of
is
used
extensively
depression .
that
depressed
S C H e M a
people
develop
corresponding
in
this
Yo u
t h e o r y,
will
on
the
learn
cognitive
about
of
and
thinking
driving
more
theory
abnormal
themselves,
automatic
force
about
depression
the
patterns
of
Aaron
t H e o r y
are,
depression.
B e c k ’s
later
(see
Unit
5
psychology).
Exercise
To
what
by
cognitive
extent
abnormal
theory
of
can
depression
factors?
Look
psychology
depression
to
is
be
explained
through
see
how
supported
Unit
the
5
on
cognitive
by
empirical
research.
▲
Figure 3.13
One
might
processing
The Rat Man
think,
is
a
intuitively,
bad
thing,
that
top-down
because
it
can
potentially
bm-  -w css
lead
The
concept
that
goes
of
far
Generally
schemas
beyond
speaking,
information
top-down
raises
the
realm
there
processing:
an
are
important
of
issue
psychology.
two
broad
bottom-up
to
types
processing
to
theory.
and
and
processing.
Bottom-up
processing
the
cognitive
process
is
to
perception
is
not
or
by
information
It
is
a
case
as
it
processing
based
on
Top-down
processing
occurs
when
your
or
expectations
(schemas)
act
a
of
nd
it
it
extremely
and
classic
lter
for
the
information
that
and
example
Alampay
that
is
can
the
(1961).
ambiguous
exposed
to
a
animals
(condition
the
condition,
to
interpret
the
a
rst
second
man
help
Rat
to
Man
visualize
of
Participants
the
they
inuenced
picture
series
1)
or
(see
of
didn’t
too
not
the
have
world,
other
people,
we
to
make
day-to-day
might,
indeed,
and
it
can
lead
to
be
stereotypes,
processing,
we
see
stimuli
patterns
( pattern
after
and
nd
meaning
meaning).
“Why
people
ambiguous
they
in
glasses.
had
their
an
Figure
were
stimulus
After
this
perception
of
in
those
of
his
patterns
believe
weird
TED
Talks
things”,
Shermer,
and
the
editor
founding
as
more
a
publisher
ofreality.
Arguably,
In
likely
rat;
in
to
series
expectation
Sceptic.com,
calls
of
Sceptic
humans
animals”.
after
2).
likely
a
of
study
either
more
viewing
implicit
one
top-
3.13)
(condition
were
In
Bugelski
drawings
faces
participants
condition
wearing
drawings
and
difcult
unstructured
“pattern-seeking
being
we
is
does
process.
processing
an
data
data
you
magazine
saw
if
about
processing
biased,
schematic
Michael
and
this
a
for
energy.
otherwise
entitled
down
ourselves
Schematic
saves
(effort
A
fashion,
expectations
events,
recognition)
receive
similar
real-life
theory
of
look
as
in
or
Otherwise
to
prior
Using
lens
what
very
impossible
is.
knowledge
a
a
it.
actually
background
scientist
guiding
is
the
but
●
for
the
it
simply
of
simplied
reality
the
it’s
prior
decisions.
“pure”
without
the
In
However,
arguably,
data-
biased
expectations.
look
sense.
biases.
tells
(simplied)
would
knowledge
data”
Without
sequences
driven;
of
sciences,
occurs
some
when
In
Theory
how
fuzzy.
information
variety
“perceive
of
make
●
a
necessary.
see
of
which
patterns
vague,
evolution
even
because
important
the
buzz
to
Viking
was
there
us.
of
and
have
existence
the
the
the
been
of
stimulus
patterns
That
spacecraft
low
predisposed
the
these
around
photograph
has
when
might
“Face
Mars
in
then,
not
claims
that
this
on
see
by
the
picture
is
example,
famous
NASA
’s
resolution
particularly
Mars
certain
or
potentially
the
taken
was
to
clear
for
Mars”,
Back
objects
be
explain,
on
image
articial
us
not
might
surface
1971.
is
clear,
proves
and,
but
the
potentially,
147
3
C O GNI T I V E
an
APPROACH
extraterrestrial
civilization.
debunked
in
2001
was
of
the
it
taken
was
have
an
as
nothing
a
schema
important
a
part
schema
the
for
of
is
same
a
of
us
to
fuzzy.
“Charlie
a
object,
rock
this
are
driven
illusion”
meaning
that
faces
we
in
conspiracy
“Face
on
seem
these
to
have
patterns.
theories
that
a
drive
This
for
might
ourished
nding
explain
around
the
Mars”.
is
recognition
by
readily
this
even
convinced,
on
Similarly,
People
recognizing
faces
not
revealing
Pattern
processing
was
picture
formation.
because
you
Chaplin
However,
survival.
perceive
(If
BE H AV IO U R
high-resolution
surface
face
aspect
a
than
top-down
leads
data
when
more
of
TO
when
search
YouTube.)
See video
The
Charlie
Chaplin
illusion:
https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=QbKw0_v2clo
▲
Michael
things”:
Shermer,
“Why
people
believe
Figure 3.14
“Face on Mars” photograph
weird
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_
shermer_on_believing_strange_things
Psychology in real life
Gillian Gibbons, a UK national who worked as a teacher in
to 1 year in jail, a ne and 40 lashes with a whip. The case
a private school in Sudan, asked her 7-year-old students
gained wide coverage and there were demonstrations with
to decide on a name for a classroom teddy bear as par t
people demanding a more severe punishment. She was
of a larger project on studying animals. The children
nally found guilty and sentenced to 15 days in jail with
voted for “Muhammad”. As par t of their assignment later
subsequent depor tation from Sudan. She was pardoned
they needed to take pictures of the teddy bear and write
after nine days (which caused some protests in the public)
diary entries about it which the teacher collected in a
and returned to England immediately after release.
single workbook entitled “My name is Muhammad”. What
This shows how a cultural misunderstanding, a dierence
seemed like a harmless class assignment turned out to
in “cultural schemas”, can have severe consequences.
be a cultural shock for Ms Gibbons. When some parents
https://tinyurl.com/lnx6a3x
saw the workbook , they complained to the Ministry
of Education claiming that Ms Gibbons had oended
Islam by allowing an animal to be named after Prophet
Muhammad. Insulting the Prophet is a grave oence in
Sudan.
Ms Gibbons was arrested at her home on 25 November
2007. This 54-year-old teacher was facing a charge of up
148
Thinking and decision-making
Inquiry questions
●
Do
people
make
rational
●
decisions?
How
can
we
empirically
●
Are
human
making
errors
in
thinking
and
Do
●
predictable?
intentions
affect
a
in
model
a
of
thinking
quantiable
way?
decision-
How
can
rather
●
test
and
we
than
research
its
the
process
of
thinking
outcomes?
behaviour?
What you will learn in this section
●
Normative
models
Normative
that
models
thinking
unlimited
formal
and
describe
should
time
logic,
descriptive
and
be;
the
they
of
Alternative-based
additive
strategy
strategy
(SAT)
Attribute-based
examples:
probability,
strategy
utility
(LEX),
actually
models
occurs
in
describe
real
thinking
as
Strategy
it
decision-making
models:
reasoned
action
Fishbein,
theory
of
planned
by
four
decision
the
the
cognitive
experience
of
1967)
emotion,
maximizing
the
ease
of
behaviour
Supporting
and
Fishbein
(1973):
of
a
decision
shows
a
0.63
correlation
and
Albarracin
et
condom
al
use;
and
negative
(2001):
meta-analysis
correlation
behaviour
intention-behaviour
for
high,
but
inferred
Bettman
and
experience
emotionally
occurred
between
options
difcult
through
trade-offs
between
0.51;
More
research
methods
used
in
the
cognitive
Intentionto
behaviour:
relationship
behaviours
assessed
Self-report
measures
(behavioural
and
attitudinal)
prospectively
Predictive
emotions
avoiding
approach
weaker
Luce,
minimizing
behaviour
●
intention
(1997),
between
of
intention
study:
meta-analysis
Payne
is
aspects
1985)
Ajzen
of
guided
minimizing
justication
(Ajzen,
is
maximizing
minimizing
negative
the
by
the
effort,
and
lexicographic
elimination
selection
meta-goals:
life
accuracy,
Macro-level
of
strategies:
(EBA)
Descriptive
theory
weighted
satiscing
way
theory
●
strategies:
(WADD),
assume
resources,
theory
models
validity
of
direction
because
the
of
models
causality
research
is
◆
Data
◆
Predictive
is
matrix,
correlation
analysis
is
validity
of
a
model
essentially
Meta-analysis
correlational
Computer
●
Micro-level
adaptive
Bettman
decision-making
decision
and
maker
Johnson,
model:
framework
(Payne,
Verbal
protocols
1993)
Monitored
Multiattribute
simulation
the
choice
information
search
problems
Neuroimaging
techniques
149
3
C O GNI T I V E
This
●
section
APPROACH
also
concepts
of
behaviour
●
principles
processes
links
the
(the
of
BE H AV IO U R
to:
cognitive
role
the
can
TO
of
approach
research
methodology
●
biases
thinking
●
emotion
●
brain
in
studied
processes
decision-making
and
do
cognition
approach—mental
structure,
localization
of
function
scientically;
(biological
cognitive
and
models)
cognitive
be
to
●
not
function
approach
to
behaviour).
in
isolation
implicit
processes
that
cannot
be
directly
observed.
th  cs-m:
They
also
involve
interaction
between
a
large
m ms  sc
ms
number
of
study
thinking
of
possible
In
the
computer
metaphor
different
are
responsible
for
without
For
and
this
reason,
the
decision-making
models.
So
how
do
scientic
is
not
we
approach
cognitive
making
processes
factors.
processing
a
model
of
thinking?
It
seems
like
an
information
immensetask.
at
different
perception
stages.
(as
information,
to
encode,
thinking
down
a
while
store
is
For
to
example,
cognitive
the
and
function
retrieve
modify
information
the
process)
this
into
it.
function
is
of
to
memory
The
parts
we
As
is
function
information:
lesser
of
register
a
starting
between
of
point,
two
it
broad
is
necessary
groups
of
to
distinguish
models
(Baron,
2008).
break
(analysis),
bring
ATL skills: Communication
different
relate
pieces
certain
categories
and
of
information
pieces
of
information
(categorization),
inferences,
processes,
and
thinking
together
so
on.
make
certain
Imagine a 12-year-old asks you why it is impor tant to
conclusions
Unlike
produces
to
(synthesis),
other
new
make a “model of thinking”. Explain it to him or her.
cognitive
information.
nm ms
Using
thinking,
we
combine
and
restructure
existing
Normative
knowledge
to
generate
new
knowledge.
been
dened
in
many
ways,
including
the
information
given”
(Bruner,
1957)
through
a
problem-space”
(Newell
the
that
way
that
unlimited
thinking
time
resources
dene
are
what
available
is
right
to
make
and
a
wrong,
decision.
correct
effective
and
and
ineffective.
1972).
One
Decision-making
is
a
cognitive
process
selecting
one
of
the
possible
example
beliefs
that
is,
making
a
choice
between
It
is
closely
linked
to
formal
thinking
can
choose,
we
have
to
logic,
block
analyse.
is
an
integral
prerequisite
of
of
thinking
any
as
of
developed
the
system
by
of
Aristotle.
formal
The
logic
syllogism:
a
combination
of
two
is
a
premises
a
conclusion
(which
follows
from
these
So
premises).
thinking
model
because
and
we
normative
some
deductive
alternatives.
a
or
building
actions,
of
that
is
involves
before
describe
assume
and
incorrect,
Simon,
They
and
They
“searching
be.
“going
and
beyond
models
Thinking
should
has
act
There
is
a
set
of
rules
that
describes
of
when
syllogisms
are
valid
and
when
they
are
not.
decision-making.
For
Thinking
and
higher-order
be
the
decision-making
cognitive
reason
why
interdisciplinary.
this
are
processes,
eld
Thinking
of
and
example:
complex
which
research
(Premise
1)
All
men
(Premise
2)
All
Greeks
by
psychologists,
decision-making
neuroscientists,
(because
and
150
computer
abstract
thinking
anthropologists
memory,
philosophers,
thinking
scientists,
involves
among
and
others.
mortal.
so
are
men.
are
(Conclusion)
studied
are
may
is
Hence,
all
Greeks
are
mortal.
economists,
linguists
language)
Much
decision-making
like
are
This
example
fact,
there
Barbara.
is
“A”
statement
is
valid.
even
a
stands
(“All
Formal
name
for
men
a
are
for
logic
this
general
mortal”
explains
type
of
why.
afrmative
is
In
syllogism:
afrmative
t H i n k i n g
because
it
asserts
something,
and
general
because
a n d
d e C i S i o n - M a k i n g
it
ATL skills: Thinking
refers
to
all
syllogism
hence
men).
are
the
of
Since
the
name
all
same
three
type,
statements
it
gives
us
in
the
triple
You are about to discover some things about how people
A,
make decisions. Before you read on, can you make some
(bArbArA).
predictions on the basis of your common knowledge and
Another
example
of
a
normative
economic
model
interpersonal experience? Answer these questions and
is
the
theory
of
probability.
When
we
make
give your reasons.
investment
intuition,
analyse
for
but
the
similar
and
decisions,
then
might
“normative”
success
or
failure
enterprises
make
outcomes
Utility
the
we
under
decisions
projected
theory
is
the
with
thing
to
our
do
frequencies
similar
based
from
go
this
on
is
in
Are people mostly rational beings?
1.
to
the
past
2.
If there are errors in our judgments, are these errors
circumstances,
the
predictable?
likely
3.
Can people control the rationality of their decisions?
4.
What factors are most impor tant when making a
analysis.
normative
model
for
choice between several alternatives?
decisions
involving
uncertainty
and
trade-offs
5.
between
alternatives.
According
to
this
What are the goals that people generally pursue when
theory,
they make decisions?
the
rational
expected
achieve
the
decision-maker
utility
our
option
(the
goals)
that
should
degree
for
each
maximizes
to
calculate
which
option
this
it
and
the
helps
then
us
choose
utility.
Multiple
describe
and
The
important
thing
to
understand
is
descriptive
the
models
give
us
a
standard
decision-making.
against
thinking
and
decision-making
may
the
theory
Because
actually
nobody
data
Why
do
normative
thinks
has
for
in
even
need
are
syllogisms
access
every
we
models
to
a
large
possible
other
real
life.
amount
decision.
We
consider
to
thinking
of
of
reasoned
several
action,
the
of
planned
behaviour,
and
the
adaptive
framework.
models?
unrealistic.
in
will
proposed
human
be
decision-maker
compared.
We
been
of
which
theory
real-life
have
processes
that
examples:
normative
models
real-life
Nobody
th h  s c  h
And
statistical
need
to
h   h
take
The
theory
of
reasoned
action
(TRA)
aims
to
shortcuts.
explain
the
behaviours
proposed
TOK
idea
of
relationship
when
by
the
between
making
Martin
theory
is
choices.
Fishbein
that
attitudes
an
in
This
and
theory
1967.
The
individual’s
was
main
choice
of
In what areas of knowledge have people been more
a
particular
behaviour
is
based
on
the
expected
successful in using the “ideal” normative models of
outcomes
of
that
behaviour.
If
we
believe
that
thinking and decision-making? How did they manage?
a
particular
(desired)
dsc ms
known
Descriptive
models
show
what
people
actually
they
think
and
make
decisions.
They
focus
accurate
description
of
real-life
thinking
the
effort
the
models
main
is
measure
how
closely
of
the
effectiveness
model
ts
for
various
samples
of
will
be
the
main
focus
of
our
this
section,
because
However,
this
is
what
descriptive
interests
models
deeper
meaning
when
we
normative
are
models,
processes
as
we
deviate
compare
study
from
how
the
model
and
try
to
explain
will
implementing
the
actually
factors
attitudes
describes
behaviour
negative)
the
probability
be
that
and
your
plan
that
this
executed.
determine
behavioural
subjective
individual
(whether
while
perceived
norms.
perception
An
of
this
behaviour
is
positive
the
social
subjective
pressure
norm
regarding
describes
this
human
predictions
of
(and
(if
it
is
socially
acceptable
or
desirable
the
do
it).
Depending
on
the
situation,
attitudes
and
predict)
subjective
these
into
higher
them
to
normative
put
the
two
behaviour
thinking
The
stronger
a
the
to
the
acquire
or
much
intention,
discussion
the
psychologist.
predisposition
intention .
Descriptive
attitude
in
particular
data
intention:
models
a
a
such
observed
participants.
to
patterns
There
from
creates
behavioural
behavioural
we
hence
behaviour
and
this
lead
on
and
an
the
will
do
the
when
outcome,
as
stronger
behaviour
norms
might
have
varying
degrees
of
deviations.
importance
in
determining
the
intention.
151
3
C O GNI T I V E
In
is
1985
the
known
(TPB).
that
theory
as
the
This
in
subjective
performing
think
you
extended
of
the
do
the
was
not
third
added
is
prevent
out
the
what
to
account
positive,
you
and
of
theory
of
planned
of
specic
examples
research
reasoned
behaviour
in
an
that
and
action
have
attempt
behaviours.
appliedin
from
do
The
applications
factor
perceived
you
however,
carry
became
behaviour
intentions:
attitude
behaviour;
to
and
planned
This
which
able
BE H AV IO U R
introduced
norms
the
are
TO
behavioural
control.
situations
the
was
theory
theory
inuences
behavioural
for
APPROACH
to
We
methods
the
a
range
consider
the
that
theory
extensive
explain
will
demonstrate
the
and
seen
nature
are
several
of
this
usually
it.
not
action.
Research in focus: Methods of research for macro-level cognitive models
The
majority
self-report
The
items
framed
of
the
of
research
behavioural
on
studies
and
questionnaires
differently
model.
For
to
refer
in
this
area
attitudinal
and
to
surveys
different
use
measures.
are
Using
extent
components
example:
(that
to
Behaviour—“I
coupons
when
always
I
use
make
available
purchases
or
is,
which
conclude
that
the
the
following
●
intend
coupons
time
next
or
I
to
use
buy
plan
their
Perceived
would
available
something
not
There
should
discount
perceived
expensive”:
control
use
time
is…”:
to
collect
Good/bad;
coupons
●
There
pleasant/
save
approve
Agree
of
or
me
of
my
collecting
am
sure
discount
amount
coupons”:
is
matrix
in
which
of
money
Agree
collected,
each
row
these
the
participant
question
or
disagree
to
you
have
a
explain
corresponds
a
and
each
column
on
a
the
survey
particular
(or
a
attitude
group
or
an
You
also
have
a
theoretical
for
the
theory
of
planned
to
signicant
of
intention;
perceived
intention
and
future
large
is
as
correlation
behaviour;
behaviour,
it
linked
means
to
the
and
exists,
that
idea
of
on.
have
one
behaviour
very
so
you
of
these
directly,
the
theory
behaviour.
the
four
variables
portion
should
of
to
the
target
be
able
variance
variable
be
In
other
possible
to
words,
build
using
a
in
(future
the
that
other
predicts
four
future
variables
data
it
mathematical
behaviour
with
a
high
from
degree
of
for
This
measure
of
probability
is
also
behaviour:
Future
Perceived
control
The model for the theory
to
as
the
predictive
validity
If
to
of
model,
behaviour
of planned behaviour
a
future
questions
aspect
Norm
Figure 3.15
and
an
model
152
the
corresponds
referred
▲
future
signicant
responses
probability.
example,
to
large
the
behaviour).
and
correlations
contradicts
Collectively,
formula
related
t
observed.
by
should
a
be
intention;
be
and
model
planned
behaviour).
all
good
data
order
I
the
to
a
attitude
and
not
and
of
components
control—“I
considerable
information
individual
large
intention;
should
refute
discount
to
data
and
attitudes
one
friends
disagree
behavioural
a
collecting
this
a
between:
norms
norms
of
After
be
between
which
Perceived
can
is
in
behaviour.
norms—“Most
coupons”:
●
example,
should
the
observed
discount
unpleasant
●
model
trends
the
more
estimate
online”:
unlikely
Attitude—“Spending
and
ts
For
its
then
false
Intention—“I
Likely
(and
you
model
matrix).
correlation
●
this
data
●
True
to
analysis
extensions)
the
data,
●
correlation
sophisticated
of
the
t H i n k i n g
data
set
a n d
and
d e C i S i o n - M a k i n g
estimating
the
predictive
the
following
validity
of
the
ATL skills: Self-management
models,
they
arrived
at
conclusions.
Take a minute to recall what you know about correlation
●
Both
the
TRA
and
TPB
are
successful
predictors
(see “Research methodology”). To test your knowledge,
of
condom
use.
The
average
correlation
answer these questions.
between
●
What is the “third variable”?
●
models
0.51.
and
Notice
intention–behaviour
What does it mean when someone says that a
reported
correlation is “statistically signicant”?
possible
●
intention
is
by
Ajzen
behaviour
that
it
is
a
association
and
explanation
Fishbein
is
that
in
these
weaker
than
that
(1973).
people
One
generally
What is the range of values of the correlation
have
less
control
over
condom
use
than
other
coecient?
behaviours
●
What does a negative correlation mean?
●
What does a zero correlation mean?
●
It
makes
assessed
●
What is the dierence between eect size and
In
statistical signicance?
and
the
difference
former
In
other
domains.
whether
retrospectively
the
case,
are
latter
or
behaviour
assessments
carried
case,
is
prospectively .
out
of
at
intentions
the
intentions
same
and
What does this mean: r = 0.56, p < 0.05?
behaviour
periods.
Research
studies
have
shown
that
the
are
of
TPB
for
a
range
of
specic
impressive.
of
their
Ajzen
own
and
Fishbein
meta-analysis
of
report
a
0.63
correlation
(1973) ,
is
and
weaker
(0.45)
for
behaviours
than
for
assessed
behaviours
as
retrospectively
0.45
is
sufcient
(0.57).
enough
However,
to
say
that
the
between
predictive
intentions
time
published
even
research,
different
intention–behaviour
is
assessed
result
at
the
predictive
activities
prospectively
quite
assessed
Naturally,
relationship
validity
a
some
behaviour
time.
●
a
in
validity
of
the
model
is
high.
behaviour.
●
“Thus,
they
ATL skills: Self-management
people
have
intentions.
appear
to
are
more
previously
These
derive
likely
formed
intentions
from
to
use
the
to
use
attitudes,
condoms
if
corresponding
condoms
subjective
Is this correlation small or large? Review Unit 1 on
norms,
and
perceived
behavioural
control”
research methodology.
(Albarracin
Albarracin
of
TRA
and
practical
that
et
TPB
and
(2001)
as
can
STD
of
greatly
epidemics.
understand
of
why
of
the
in
of
study
the
the
This
people
is
a
meta-analysis
condom
important
predictors
help
conducted
models
signicance
identication
behavioural
use
al
lies
use.
in
frequency
prevention
why
choose
it
is
to
fact
or
condom
HIV
not
the
an
be
to
to
use
is
of
they
just
still
of
Is
inuences
other
around?
and
it
this
study
important
this
are
to
the
This
although
possible,
intentions
behaviours
are
observed
means
that
example,
rather
Longitudinal
on
estimate
plausible,
for
use
actual
limitation
based
quantitatively
model
relies
condom
participants’
correlational.
behaviour
intentions
the
like
causality,
inferred.
way
of
they
theoretical
are
direction
and
that
self-reported
Another
studies
the
still
ATL skills: Research
although
the
t
however,
that
behaviour.
models
data,
2001).
reection
complex
the
condoms.
noted,
accurate
that
al,
assumption
everyday
important
use
is
or
of
of
should
on
The
the
attitudinal
It
et
than
studies
assessed
in
at
is
that
the
which
different
Discuss the relative strengths and limitations of meta-
points
in
time
can
provide
valuable
insights
into
analysis as a research method. How does meta-analysis
the
direction
of
causality
in
decision-making
relate to the problem of replicability in science?
models.
The
meta-analysis
unpublished
(which
were
matrix).
comprised
articles
and
brought
Fitting
the
a
42
total
together
models
of
published
of
in
96
one
TRA
data
lot
sets
combined
and
Finally,
and
TPB
into
data
of
it
should
potential
be
noted
that
implications
for
the
study
HIV
had
a
prevention
efforts.
this
153
3
C O GNI T I V E
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
●
Exercise
Weighted
strategy
is
attribute
Can
you
think
of
a
way
to
test
the
the
theory
of
planned
behaviour
in
choice
rather
than
correlational,
some
be
problems
(WADD).
normative
(choice
This
for
multi-
multiple
alternatives
problems
compared
multiple
attributes).
This
is
a
maximizing
design?
strategy:
Suggest
to
an
against
experimental,
strategy
predictions
involving
of
additive
considered
for
every
alternative
every
attribute
you
multiply
ideas.
the
value
(weight)
of
of
the
attribute,
weighted
sum,
after
alternative
where
by
the
then
which
importance
calculate
you
the
choose
the
th  cs-m mw
There
that
is
an
increasing
emotions
may
decision-making.
result
in
inuence
The
of
of
may
them,
in
such
certain
emotions,
then
of
our
the
one
decision-making.
of
of
One
(that
and
includes
emotions
in
the
this
of
This
is
known
as
the
adaptive
Let’s
have
a
closer
model,
the
classical
which
was
dominated
rational,
with
by
by
look
at
capacity.
acknowledging
capacity
is
not
normative
assumed
complete
computational
rst
was
be
This
account
for
was
Lexicographic
therefore
that
approach
models,
and
later
human
“bounded
but
the
has
has
under
1955).
consider
all
We
do
aspects
not
have
and
doubted,
evaluate
and
the
nuances
compare
all
the
possible
options,
and
to
a
and
expected
outcomes,
mental
of
all
So
we
should
be
a
The
strategies
next
apart
step
from
actually
in
that
the
less
same
exhibiting
don’t
use
the
of
always
decisions
try
is
to
under
make
was
to
rational
only
human
choices.
One
this
is
minimizing
(people
the
are
cost
not
or
only
of
effort
say
they
sometimes
opt
for
the
adaptive
Bettman
decision-maker
and
be
so
possess
Johnson,
used
they
in
a
toolbox
an
for
thinking
may
use
and
strategies
the
point
rst
to
the
Some
strategies
(considering
a
set
for
of
use
that
picking
the
best
one)
are
as
is
lower
and
you
of
reasonable:
not
yet
lead
does
to
a
lead
effort.
Determine
For
the
attribute.
every
value
point.
If
than
the
consider
reach
the
cut-off
points
Elimination
a
Then
attribute
of
at
that
least
one
of
cut-off
the
point,
next
an
option
that
one.
exceeds
If
no
are
option
relaxed
passes
and
the
all
the
test,
process
is
by
aspects
important
(EBA).
attribute
and
Choose
eliminate
in
options
that
do
not
meet
your
all
requirements
the
this
attribute.
Then
select
the
second
best
attribute
and
eliminate
in
or
Continue
until
only
one
more
option
remains.
that
consider
a
hypothetical
example.
Imagine
you
may
are
planning
are
bringing
to
meet
some
friends
(some
of
whom
tasks,
children)
at
a
restaurant
and
you
are
different
making
from
ve
options
and
against
ve
a
(quality
of
food,
price,
and
so
on).
Each
alternatives
may
have
one
of
three
follows.
“bad”,
154
variety
does
every
option.
points.
attribute
and
in
(in
attributes),
repeated.
(Payne,
that
when
options
it
(SAT).
for
cut-off
option
when
attributes
choice
a
actually
accuracy,
compare
the
attributes
choosing
situations.
in
optimal
of
alternative
postulates
strategies
not
easiest).
decision-making
different
the
attribute.
force
the
framework
1993)
of
is
reduction
cut-off
Let’s
people
that
in
strategy
option,
options.
The
is
number
circumstances
mostimportant
decisions;
that
choices—
involved
looking
a
shown
the
for
decision
for
decision-
the
goal
then
time
people
driving
example
value
strategy
strategy
cut-off
themost
behind
Choose
and
resources.
rationality,
the
(LEX).
calculate
simpler
cognitive
direction
not
above)).
ofeffort.
capacity
●
accuracy
the
the
attributes
especially
bounded
best
reduction
Satiscing
Stop
making
(see
for
complex
accurately
using
this
signicant
reject
constraints.
name
theory
lot
rational
rationality”
the
risks
the
attribute
ignores
this
some
attribute
of
most
calculating
models
of
situation,
a
strategy
the
been
signicant
computational
human
it
simply
situations
unlimited
descriptive
it
consider
to
utility
important
that
specic
(Simon,
(hence
requires
the
as
models
it.
●
should
justify
the
decision-
completely
knowledge
that
unlimited,
to
is
decision-maker
information-processing
decision-maker
sum
decision-making
known
choice
Undoubtedly,
In
also
weighted
models
of
option
framework.
is
strategy
themost
making
a
normative
driving
the
process
normative
mathematically
“utility”
The
●
that
In
choices)
anticipation
the
of
largest.
fact
decisions
emotions.
and
become
the
thinking
consequences
experiencing
memory
factors
recognition
the
“average”
and
“good”.
possible
values:
t H i n k i n g
a n d
d e C i S i o n - M a k i n g
Attributes
Quality
of
Price
food
sevitanretlA
Sun”
“Northern
Wind”
“Western
“Eastern
“Global
Table 3.4
▲
If
“Southern
you
are
bad
the
=
1,
+
2
average
+
score
the
3
=
If
+
1
you
the
values
weighted
3
Junction”
3
=
of
home
Good
+
11).
of
variety
Playroom
for
children
Bad
Bad
Good
Average
Average
Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad
Good
Average
Good
Average
Good
Bad
Good
Average
Bad
Bad
Average
1
So
of
1
=
is
=
3)
you
10.
The
“Eastern
this
is
the
the
LEX
for
get
then
each
for
calculate
of
restaurant
you
strategy,
since
will
rst
that
(2
+
Sun”
the
attributes
is
most
playroom
for
children)
then
role
more
(for
great
of
emotion
emotionally
example,
food,
but
in
in
decision-making,
strategies
“Southern
there
isn’t
potentially
uncomfortable
a
Sun”
trade-
there’s
playroom
for
really
children).
will
3
+
2
+
Exercise
choose.
decide
important
and
the
“alternative-based”
involve
offs
the
“Southern
Delicacy”
one
consider
assign
example,
and
attributes
score
+
using
good
(for
to
pick
of
some
real-life
examples
in
which:
you
●
(say,
a
needs
Bad
Think
which
to
dietary
Average
strategy,
attributes
2,
sum
The
WADD
to
highest
are
Average
Catering
from
Hypothetical example for decision strategies
alternatives.
is
Traditional”
Delicacy”
using
numerical
Good
Distance
the
you
predominantly
use
each
of
the
four
best
strategies
alternative
for
that
attribute
(in
our
case,
“Western
Traditional”).
●
some
strategies
uncomfortable
In
SAT,
decide
be
at
decide
that
least
satises
(as
is
the
a
cut-off
attributes
average)
this
the
on
all
and
condition.
case
in
alternatives
the
in
score
the
look
If
no
current
scores
“bad”
(for
best
for
the
such
example,
choice
option
example,
for
at
is
●
strategies
found
each
one
of
relax
the
condition.
For
example,
decide
not
that
the
necessarily
attribute
have
to
playroom
be
good
or
for
now
“Eastern
Delicacy”
would
course,
and
be
the
restaurant
of
EBA,
your
thinking
might
be
fact,
satisfy
your
in
should
be
attribute
at
is
least
like
this.
“average”.
“quality
of
the
“Northern
we
attribute
Wind”.
is
The
“catering
The
food”.
second
have
So
not
So
you
“Eastern
eliminate
Delicacy”
three
is
to
a
if
you
like
and
is
WADD
attributes
compare
This
like
you
will
LEX
select
different
be
of
strategies
discussed
above.
that
might
What
is
decision-maker
important
framework
toolbox
of
strategies
that
is
they
that
may
use
depending
on
the
or
situation.
have
all
“toolbox”),
the
how
strategies
and
why
at
do
their
they
disposal
choose
them
in
emotions
a
particular
and
other
situation?
“irrational”
Here
is
factors
into
play.
According
to
the
adaptive
decision-
the
and
SAT
are
framework,
strategy
selection
is
guided
because
you
for
the
and
an
same
EBA
are
important
alternatives
important
later
in
are
There
are
four
meta-goals
proposed
in
framework.
considering
alternative.
attribute-based,
attribute
against
this
goals.
called
●
because
variety
restaurants.
this
the
Strategies
not
choose.
alternative-based,
different
do
of
by
Strategies
a
four
a
people
the
maker
restaurant
we
strategies.
most
variety
more
left,
clear-cut
most
come
Only
the
you
where
diets”.
use
the
adaptive
between
important
decision-making
of
Important
(in
eliminate
one
choice.
So
important
real-life
use
new
may
attributes
emotional
children
people
In
negative
average,
for
condition
a
alternative-based
you
combine
and
cause
by
of
In
does
created
the
consistently
might
emotionally
others
experience.
Of
attributes),
trade-offs
that
since
least
more
you
should
option
are
than
this
section
only
goal
Making
and
attribute.
when
Maximizing
we
a
outlined
decision
assumed
choice
above,
maximizing
the
in
accuracy.
normative
between
an
the
individual
accuracy
of
choice
four
who
the
This
is
the
models.
strategies
focuses
decision
on
would
155
3
C O GNI T I V E
prefer
to
the
APPROACH
WADD
quantify
possible
all
TO
BE H AV IO U R
strategy,
attributes
attributes
for
making
and
all
an
consider
possible
attempt
of
all
that
options.
of
the
effects
but
●
Minimizing
the
cognitive
effort.
Of
strategies,
LEX
is
most
energy-saving,
since
it
quick
be
been
explains
established
explained
decision-making
by
models.
only
asymmetric
in
a
argue
number
research
existing
One
thinking
example
dominance
effect
is
the
which
you
involves
learn
about
later
in
this
unit
(see
“Biases
in
steps.
thinking
●
had
not
framework
meta-goal
probably
will
two
this
the
so-called
the
decision-maker
of
that
could
and
above-mentioned
adaptive
inclusion
Minimizing
the
emotion.
real-life
In
experience
of
and
decision-making”).
negative
decision-making,
some
ATL skills: Thinking
attributes
For
or
example,
have
ruled
name
you
out
creates
language.
car
options
are
one
be
was
“Zhiguli”
emotion-laden.
choosing
of
the
unpleasant
(This
brand
can
the
a
car
brands
and
associations
case
which
with
had
you
because
to
in
the
be
How does this model link to the principles of cognitive
approach to behaviour? In par ticular, how does the
its
your
Russian
model relate to principle 3 (cognitive processes do not
function in isolation)?
renamed
There’s
because
to
the
European
ear
it
sounded
one
adaptive
“gigolo”,
dramatically
decreasing
sales.)
example
you
are
choosing
a
house
see
one
you
are
not
that
exceeds
your
of
expectations,
is
to
buy
it
because
a
happened
in
it
several
years
negative
emotions
impact
are
two
competing
ago.
A—the
interfere
with
both
speed
In
a
the
this
the
external
on
the
factor
model.
that
emotion
has
a
will
compromising
accuracy
emotion
decision-making
model.
example,
to
of
is
the
not
decision.
part
Rather
it
negative
making
negative
should
models
accounting
understand
will
B—decision-making
the
emotion
be
empirical
might
for
be
as
emotion.
included
an
and
predict
later,
support
in
in
integral
emotions
shown
Maximizing
decision
focuses
(such
predict
is
of
an
impact
theory
scale.
On
maker
deals
the
on
use)
as
the
and
of
reasoned
decision-
choice
outcomes
relatively
attitudes,
these
with
other
framework
model.
stable
perceived
outcomes.
It
focuses
results
hand,
is
an
on
the
available
information,
zoom
in
on
strategies
decision
of
In
norms)
other
the
decisions
adaptive
example
the
decision,
will
In
this
part,
since
help
us
better
outcomes.
hypothesis
research
case,
decision-
would
choice
directly
B
gained
studies.
describe
of
process
being
and
so
a
of
used
on.
processes
(to
the
ease
others
or
of
to
justication
oneself).
The
of
micro-level
processes
that
dependent,
uid
complex
transient
and
collecting
words,
a
making
a
processing
models
smaller
scale.
There
patterns
should
insight
into
making,
an
be
the
measures
is
no
nature
this
of
methods
of
into
a
such
analysing
valid
that
separate
the
With
research,
and
longer
to
situation-
complex .
objects
other
insight
of
more
attempt
acts
process
method.
allow
of
a
deeper
decision-
rather
than
process.
a
authors
Research in focus: Methods of research for micro-level cognitive models
These
methods
nature
insight
of
this
of
allow
separate
into
the
a
acts
deeper
of
process
insight
into
decision-making,
rather
than
the
the
an
outcomes
(which
a
various
simulations:
156
without
these
human
can
are
various
In
an
advantage
computer
and
simulations
decision-making
typically
decision
programmed
strategies
and
(for
be
example,
performed
simultaneously
hypothetical
scenarios
process.
Computer
is
disadvantage).
then
●
large
micro-level
when
a
on
decision-
Such
on
models
are
and
self-report
correlation
outcomes
●
It
condom
Undoubtedly,
As
theory
process.
Hypothesis
adapt
The
macro-level
hypotheses.
decision,
hypothesis
a
decision-making?
negative
and
of
How
the
Hypothesis
the
the
but
that
There
action.
example
characteristics
can
and
violent
(for
crime
reasoned
an
making
going
between
framework
and
action
you
difference
decision-maker
In
theory
another
important
like
subjects
WADD,
SAT,
EBA)
are
compared
the
t H i n k i n g
a n d
d e C i S i o n - M a k i n g
Research in focus (continued)
in
terms
the
a
of
decision
performance
normative
reference
the
model
(in
this
normative
the
the
need
change
(for
to
the
used
actually
the
and
to
of
it
a
point
can
human
of
of
as
most
For
This
is
sets
with
and
trade-off
as:
going
the
comparisons.
conclusions
little
aim
of
strategies
and
and
a
small
LEX
number
perform
can
also
of
these
more
complicated
variables
by
that
your
deriving
in
behaviour.
the
the
well”.
a
For
the
example,
or
participant
they
those
of
prior
information).
research.
Of
This
derived
from
more
than
hypothetical,
but
is
done
on
the
conclusions
such
they
for
subsequent
human
simulations
provide
a
experiments
behaviour
to
subjects
that
and
predicted
will
used
the
consider
one
prediction
example
of
information
that
emotions
lot
that
Bettman
task-related
decision-makers
extensively
to
the
and
to
by
the
a
study
search
B”
of
they
their
and
Child
Willingness
Sang
Poor
Rene
Very
Zivae
reect
you
will
look
that
are
most
at
this
moment
researchers
while
will
making
register
long
is
sought,
each
in
piece
what
of
order,
information
of
(reaction
software
that
time).
This
records
the
can
take
the
movements
clicks
of
a
mouse
such
as
cursor,
or
sophisticated
eye-movement
tracking.
Of
course,
also
neuroimaging
used
in
test
a
way
between
adapts
that
to
of
shed
light
techniques
on
the
neuronal
decision-making.
avoids
emotionally
difcult
trade-offs
options.
to
hypothesized
will
encourage
more
at
the
learn
more
provides
task
was
children
importance
same
imagine
undergraduate
table
they
were
students
children
to
members
with
choose
described
nancial
one
in
of
child
terms
were
charity
support.
from
of
a
ve
a
asked
that
Their
group
of
attributes
ve
(see
the
below):
time
Personality
Family
Prefer
Good
6
people
Bad
good
Prefer
Average
3
people
Adequate
Very
good
Prefer
Very
poor
6
people
Adequate
Kito
Very
poor
Indifferent
Very
good
4
people
Very
bad
Jaime
Very
poor
Don’t
Poor
7
people
Very
bad
Table 3.5
of
your
Age
▲
to
processes:
you
how
processed
are
that
to
information
decision)
will
may
computer
directly
(1997)
attach
recorded.
above).
emotion
process
(because
accuracy
Payne
negative
and
“trajectory”
are
to
Luce,
this
of
that
compare
decision-making
(“hypothesis
monitored
that
information
information
for
T
wenty-seven
negative
is
is
Typically
mechanisms
monitored
this
basis
model.
We
in
acquisition
and
●
involve
of
to
techniques
insights
search:
information
7±2
and
only
of
acquisition
bits
choice.
form
inferences
or
computational
no
course,
stages
process.
avoid
is
of
clear-cut
such
with
may
to
and
units
of
analysed
same
that
genuine
“tendency
decisions”
(for
the
Transcripts
information
process
assumption
what
constraints
at
adding
model
the
emotion-laden
but
decision-making
aloud.
mathematical
computer
example,
hypothetical
it,
a
reports
think
everything
then
some
to
given
solve
are
is,
The
important
introduce
be
mind.
sessions
Monitored
at
human
to
verbal
that
verbalizing
decision-making
hypothetical
may
asked
in
information
models
task,
this
Subjects
alternatives
equally
make
a
for
“In
The
researcher
continuous
you
stop
name
protocols”.
between
by
WADD
and
on
method
attributes
give
think-aloud
●
decision
to
never
another
“think-aloud
example,
time
situation
is
performing
problem
subjects)
the
protocols:
asked
while
without
attributes
multiple
such
the
alternatives).
parameters
number
are
taken
(and
Verbal
technique
of
be
provides
quickly
involve
●
compare
strategies,
as
since
run
possible
To
WADD
analysis
starting
example,
makes
is
case
researcher
alternatives)
It
different
model
comprehensive
allows
of
accuracy.
prefer
size
Living
conditions
Based on Luce, Bettman and Payne (1997, p 391)
157
3
C O GNI T I V E
The
the
APPROACH
importance
following
of
the
TO
BE H AV IO U R
attributes
was
explained
in
●
In
way.
the
higher-emotion
provided
with
background
●
Willingness
to
learn
and
personality
because
children
who
attributes
score
better
in
their
would
be
more
Age
is
have
important
to
be
participants
describing
and
the
were
extensive
likely
to
were
also
told
children’s
that
children
were
not
the
likely
to
four
receive
help
anywhere
else.
This
was
meant
to
community.
enhance
●
group
specic
on
support
others
text
They
eliminated
these
more
are
situation.
important
a
because
established
a
relationship
with
the
child
will
which
requires
a
perception
of
the
choice
as
high-stakes.
through
●
correspondence
the
In
the
lower-emotion
group
the
background
certain
texts
were
more
supercial
and
participants
maturity.
●
Family
size
is
important
family
benets
from
Living
conditions
because
the
the
entire
were
told
were
likely
the
charity
relatively
are
should
worse
important
target
because
children
living
was
in
will
each
that
all
see
that
is,
the
using
an
software
is
attribute
no
alternative
attributes.
the
dominant
would
task
was
The
choice
values
that
“Mouselab”
the
the
form
of
a
of
the
predicted
opened
be
best
to
the
were
by
program.
presented
more
across
In
matrix
(much
like
Table
a
information
in
by
that
software
opened,
choice.
the
The
subjects
be
recorded
the
observed
●
could
time
cells
was
order
used
after
the
in
hidden
by
order
in
a
in
time
probably
this
the
which
box,
boxes
the
3.5),
box
A,
click.
boxes
and
were
a
same
attribute
Attribute-based
and
so
A,
but
due
the
it
box
could
that
it
saying
be
Kito’s
creates
a
they
a
box
different
different
a
the
However,
offs
In
and
order
it
is
open
to
you
of
for
box
for
fewer
to
and
poses
emotionally
split
example,
learn
for
is
more
shows
more
importance
spent
that
a
to
boxes
two
if
is
attached
to
decisions).
in
the
higher-emotion
frequently
in
group
attribute-based
(which
shows
avoiding
emotionally
that
between
options).
difcult
they
were
trade-offs
nal
was
times
the
a
schematic
its
main
representation
elements
and
of
this
study
results.
not
forget
to
include:
the
●
aim
●
hypothesis
●
independent
you
dependent
operationalization
●
procedure
●
result
●
conclusion
of
IV
and
DV
back
to
out
since
dilemma.
such
other
emotion,
groups.
●
good”,
nd
poor”,
avoid
for
(IV),
(DV)
open
“very
to
variable
making
you
difcult
negative
into
they
extensively,
trade-offs
avoid
“very
easier
“personality”
were
(which
information
group
and
attribute
personality
difcult
to
manipulate
participants
158
For
emotionally
trade-off
boxes
were
alternative
involve
help
Kito’s
willingness
a
task
of
transitions).
choices.
that
to
of
higher-emotion
number
the
more
variable
emotion-laden
the
Exercise
opening
transitions
theoretically
decision-maker
transitions)
box
(attribute-based
on
Participants
Do
opening
that
The
opened
number
opening
but
(alternative-based
after
pattern
but
outlining
●
adaptive
the
subjects
patterns:
alternative
in
accuracy
Make
same
children
elsewhere.
behind
mouse
which
each
counting
two
opening
opened
spent
through
the
larger
transitions
boxes
supported
processing
engaged
all
study
Participants
with
alternative,
performed
computer
was
conict
●
in
remaining
support
conditions.
the
other—there
four
receive
framework.
●
You
the
to
charity.
Results
●
that
trade-
children.
(link
hypothesis).
results
the
t H i n k i n g
a n d
d e C i S i o n - M a k i n g
Psychology in real life
On 24 April 2013 an eight-storey commercial building
Thir ty-eight people were charged with murder, and the
named Rana Plaza collapsed in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It
building owner was caught trying to ee across the border
is now considered the deadliest accidental structural
to India.
failure in modern history. Approximately 2,500 people
Apar t from the decision to force workers to return to their
were rescued from the building alive, while the search
workplace, charges were led on the basis of numerous
for the dead lasted three weeks with a total death toll of
violations in the construction of the building itself: it was
1,129. The building housed multiple garment factories,
built on a lled-in pond, it was conver ted from commercial
several shops and a bank . On 23 April repor ters found
to industrial use, and three oors were added above the
cracks in the foundation of the building, the footage of
original permit.
which appeared in the news on a television channel.
Apar t from numerous legal and moral issues, all this
Immediately after that the building was evacuated, and
raises a lot of questions regarding how people make their
the shops and the bank on the lower oors were closed.
decisions and why these decisions can turn out to be so
However, later that day the owner of the building made
irrational.
an announcement to the media saying that the building
was safe and the workers should return to their workplace
https://tinyurl.com/hpg5l25
tomorrow. Workers were also threatened with loss of
monthly salary if they failed to return to the factories. On
the morning of the following day there was a power outage
in the buildings, and back-up generators were star ted
to keep the factories running. The building collapsed at
8.57am.
159
Reliability of cognitive processes: reconstructive memory
Inquiry questions
●
Is
memory
from
the
passive
long-term
reconstruction
●
Does
we
retrieval
external
remember
of
store,
of
or
information
rather
information
information
●
active
from
the
inuence
Can
memory
course
of
of
an
event
change
with
the
time?
past?
the
●
How
●
Meta-analysis
are
false
memories
created?
way
things?
What you will learn in this section
●
Unreliability
of
memory
contradictory
Schema
what
is
inuences
what
is
encoded
Payne,
Toglia
showed
can
be
The
theory
of
that
reconstructive
memory:
information
and
resolve
Anastasi
genuine
occurs
may
alter
the
memory
(1994):
memory
even
is
not
when
an
misleading
option
on
the
test;
of
however,
an
to
postinformation
event
way
distorted
change
●
a
and
retrieved
Memories
as
research
the
effect
is
small
event
●
Loftus
and
Palmer
(1974)
experiment
Research
the
eyewitness
testimony,
two
theory
response
naturalistic
of
bias
and
be
explained
and
support
but
by
another
ashbulb
memory
memory
change
Yuille
Loftus
contradicts
memory,
genuine
mechanism:
memory
settings
reconstructive
competing
may
explanations:
in
1:
Palmer
for
the
(1974)
genuine
experiment
memory
and
Cutshall
(1986)
2:
change
This
section
also
links
to:
explanation.
●
●
Verbal
with
this
post-event
visual
alters
information
information
not
only
can
obtained
recall
but
also
interfere
schema
during
theory
(memory
storage,
Miller
and
●
ashbulb
●
principles
Burns
memory
of
the
cognitive
However,
when
misleading
not
an
option
disappears;
alternative
this
on
the
takes
test,
us
explanation:
Support:
McCloskey
approach
cognitive
to
processes
systematic
and
can
predictable
information
●
is
in
(1978)
be
●
changed
retrieval)
visual
behaviour—biases
Loftus,
be
and
originally;
recognition
Support:
may
processing
the
back
to
methodology.
the
response
and
research
effect
bias
Zaragoza
(1985)
show
that
schemas
can
determine
what
you
do
and
u  mm
do
We
have
already
considered
the
way
that
not
inuence
memory
processes
at
all
stages
processing,
including
encoding
160
Studies
like
Anderson
and
the
information
has
coded
Pichert
and
stored
in
the
long-term
memory.
on
the
schema
you
are
using,
you
will
and
nd
retrieval.
after
of
Depending
information
even
schemas
been
may
remember
(1978)
it
easier
to
recall
some
details.
This
shows
one
r e l i a b i l i t y
of
the
of
information
or
limitations
not
why
but
you
we
are
to
then
they
and
LTM
using
sometimes
changes
reliability
from
a
of
may
it
memory:
in
to
us
the
on
schema.
difcult
back”
something
C o g n i t i v e
depend
particular
nd
“jump
o f
to
retrieval
whether
This
recall
when
new
p r o C e S S e S :
the
is
things,
context
context
famous
is
consisted
competing
the
fact
information
is
distorted.
it
quite
never
the
of
the
Is
that
it
on
tendency
possible
we
(or
that
the
testimony .
study
parts—experiment
2—because
there
It
actually
were
1
and
two
hypotheses.
triggers
non-retrieval)
schemas
unreliability
actually
way
retrieval
depends
dimension
dimension
but
eyewitness
note
two
M e M o r y
experiment
1,
45
students
were
split
into
5
memories.
However,
one
on
to
of
experiment
groups
of
study
important
In
those
r e C o n S t r u C t i v e
of
that
of
in
memory
we
recall
happened?
use
memory.
Or
it
to
is
only
Another
be
in
but
not
remember?
a
the
given
of
lms
the
but
about
were
7
was
each
speed
This
of
one
the
question
trafc
The
order
them
were
to
answer
Most
just
critical
for
participants
accident.
of
meant
question
vehicles
varied
accidents
different
lm,
asking
the
questionnaire
was
of
lms).
shown
about
there
the
collision.
shown
questionnaire
on
distracters,
recordings
Following
questions
questions
asked
a
lm
was
participant.
series
the
shown
participant
which
each
were
something,
did,
(each
and
the
as
that
involved
among
the
in
ve
th h  csc mm
groups
how
 wss sm
of
fast
other?”,
There’s
a
theory
that
proposes
that
memory,
being
the
passive
retrieval
of
the
long-term
storage,
is
an
changed
active
the
involves
theory
the
of
Reconstruction
the
memory
reconstruction
reconstructive
literally
the
group
going
other
was
when
groups
asked
they
the
hit
word
“About
each
for
“smashed”,
“collided”,
“hit”
“bumped”
“contacted”.
of
Results
showed
that
the
mean
speed
process
estimates
that
for
one
cars
information
or
from
and
the
rather
was
than
participants:
were
varied
signicantly
for
the
ve
groups:
information,
memory .
means
that
you
construct
Verb
Mean
speed
estimate
(mph)
again.
Smashed
40.5
Collided
39.3
Bumped
38.1
Hit
34.0
Contacted
31.8
ATL skills: Self-management
Think about one of your early childhood memories,
something that happened to you when you were very
young. How clearly do you remember this episode?
▲
Table 3.6
Findings from Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Some details are probably more accessible to you than
others, and you remember those clearly. Some details
The
accuracy
of
estimates
here
does
not
really
are a bit vague. Some details or contextual information
matter:
numerous
studies
had
previously
shown
is not available, there are gaps.
that
people
in
general
are
not
very
good
at
judging
Now imagine you were to tell this childhood memory
how
fast
a
vehicle
is
travelling.
The
crucial
point,
to someone else. To make the story more coherent,
however,
is
that
all
participants
watched
the
same
you might want to ll in some gaps with details that
lms,
and
yet
mean
speed
they
gave
signicantly
different
seem logical to you, for example, if this happened in
estimates.
the morning and you were on your way somewhere,
Loftus
and
Palmer
suggested
that
this
nding
could
you were probably on your way to school. The next time
be
interpreted
in
two
possible
ways.
you retell this story, you will be more likely to mention
that you were on your way to school, and what’s more,
●
you will think you are mm it. Interestingly, the
Response
be
more often you recollect (reconstruct) your childhood
and
memories, the less accurate they can become!
a
verb
not
order
can
be
to
see
altered
Loftus
and
the
by
extent
to
irrelevant
Palmer
(1974)
which
for
example,
whether
of
“smashed”)
estimate.
In
bias:
uncertain
a
to
higher
biases
the
Memory
of
say
a
subject
30
mph
intensity
(such
response
the
event
or
to
in
a
might
40
mph,
as
higher
this
case
does
change.
memories
external
inuences,
conducted
their
●
Memory
change
in
change:
the
the
question
causes
subject’s
memory
representation
a
161
3
C O GNI T I V E
of
the
accident.
“smashed”
the
For
TO
alters
remembers
more
severe
BE H AV IO U R
example,
actually
subject
been
APPROACH
the
than
the
the
it
some
verb
memory
accident
actually
so
as
that
having
perception
choose
between
the
two
sources
Loftus
and
Palmer
2.
The
rationale
behind
the
was
that
if
memory
to
change,
the
actually
subject
other
should
details
that
the
but
t
well
into
be
more
(that
the
is
and
time,
two
in
external
such
a
kinds
during
information
integrated
them
apart.
did
newly
subjects
verb
likely
not
of
the
post-event
from
way
these
that
Applied
we
are
to
the
study,
this
who
“smashed
were
into”
given
the
question
used
this
verb
information
suggesting
that
the
as
accident
to
been
severe.
This
post-event
information
was
actually
integrated
occur,
event
on
obtained
undergoes
had
“remember”
the
Over
tell
post-event
a
based
second
with
study
is
conducted
means
experiment
event
information
competing
unable
explanations,
of
information.
was.
two
To
complex
information:
into
their
memory
of
the
original
event,
constructed
and
since
broken
glass
is
commensurate
with
a
memory).
severe
think
Discussion
These
accident,
that
they
ndings
perspective
Before
you
read
about
experiment
2,
can
of
your
own
experiments?
How
would
an
experiment
to
choose
between
schema
competing
Split
into
also
schema
used
for
in
broken
be
more
glass
interpreted
theory:
the
severe
the
in
likely
the
from
to
lm.
the
high-intensity
verb
leading
car
question
accidents.
activates
Memory
is
then
the
reconstructed
two
can
seen
were
you
a
design
had
subjects
you
“smashed”
devise
these
through
the
lens
of
this
schema.
hypotheses?
groups
and
then
discuss
each
other’s
ATL skills: Communication
ideas.
The theory of reconstructive memory and research into
the reliability of eyewitness testimony has triggered
many social and even political campaigns related to
In
experiment
2,
150
students
participated.
They
legal practices. These revolved around cases where
were
shown
a
lm
depicting
a
multiple-car
accident.
accusations were made based on eyewitness testimony
Following
the
lm,
they
were
given
a
questionnaire
alone, as well as the phenomenon of false memories.
that
one
included
critical
only
split
other”,
was
number
question.
into
“hit
not
a
three
each
asked
of
This
time
groups:
other”
the
distracter
participants
“smashed
and
critical
questions
a
control
question).
into
Go online and nd out more about the scope of this
were
problem and changes that have been implemented in
each
group
One
and
(that
some countries.
week
Prepare a shor t presentation based on the results of your
later
the
subjects
were
given
a
questionnaire
again
search.
(without
watching
consisted
of
10
the
lm).
questions,
The
and
questionnaire
the
critical
yes/no
Ms m, c 
question
had
not
was
“Did
been
showed
that
any
the
you
see
broken
any
glass
probability
of
broken
in
the
saying
glass?”
video.
“yes”
There
Results
to
s mm
the
In
question
about
broken
glass
was
32%
when
the
Loftus
was
“smashed”
was
used,
and
only
14%
when
the
and
verbal
and
was
12%
in
used
(which
was
almost
the
same
as
control
group).
So,
a
led
both
probability
actually
of
to
a
higher
speed
recollecting
an
estimate
event
that
and
had
a
the
the
be
on
this
second
result,
the
explanation
preferred:
Loftus
162
a
Some
study,
question
about
broken
glass)
was
task
also
critics
pointed
because
visual
to
this
and
as
a
verbal
limitation
information
higher
might
be
might
have
an
actual
authors
for
concluded
experiment
change
in
1
that
should
memory,
not
just
not
stored
the
whether
be
separately,
interfered
or
visual
not
integrated
originally
and
with
the
the
leading
verbal
question
storage
at
one.
verbal
with
the
So,
visual
time
it
remained
post-event
of
information
the
to
be
seen
information
could
obtained
event.
bias!
Another
line
information
experimental
occurred.
response
In
the
never
but
Based
post-event
to
higher-intensity
of
verb
(1974)
response
the
verbal.
the
the
word
(answering
“hit”
Palmer
verb
with
and
the
theory
Palmer
of
reconstructive
suggest
that
memory
memory,
for
results
argument
to
natural
eyewitness
against
applicability
conditions
testimony
often
is
that
of
these
real-life
involves
recognition
r e l i a b i l i t y
(recognizing
already
a
stimulus).
in
a
a
seen)
stimulus
rather
Eyewitness
recognizing
crime.
leading
Also
in
the
may
contributes
to
(with
however,
take
aggressive
a
more
person
might
with
happen
in
verbs
of
forms,
had
In
we
varying
required
saw
that
emotional
information
In
that
real-life
example,
might
r e C o n S t r u C t i v e
the
remaining
knocked
the
crosswalk.
answered
list
was
while
sign”
of
other
conicting
a
it
was
or
in
slides,
20
at
same
by
who
the
car
sign”
the
the
sign?”
the
the
experimental
red
for
17
on
the
Datsun
half
words
other
and
at
subjects
Question
with
for
right
crossing
slides,
pass
stop
question
“yield
2-by-2
the
turned
was
questions.
another
stopped
a
Datsun
viewing
of
“Did
the
the
pedestrian
After
replaced
resulted
a
series
either
subjects
or
This
in
the
“stop
half.
This
design:
Sign
in
the
question
the
Sign
presence
down
M e M o r y
providing
information .
interrogations
of
committing
information
for
p r o C e S S e S :
absence
often
of
memory.
post-event
police
is
example
post-event
misleading
you
the
suspected
reconstructive
situations,
(in
testimony
previous
provide
C o g n i t i v e
something
recall
individuals
questions
intensity)
as
than
o f
in
the
Stop
Yield
testimonies.
slides:
How
of
reliable
is
recognition
information?
interfere
Loftus,
an
with
verbal
event.
from
In
the
series
of
the
can
visual
Miller
inuences
in
Also,
experiment
how
(reconstructive)
and
and
with
verbal
Burns
the
witness’s
the
30
colour
of
of
event
Stop
Group
information
originally?
carried
after
memory
procedure,
Washington
slides
the
Yield
1
Group
2
(consistent
(inconsistent
information)
information)
Group
Group
3
4
(inconsistent
(consistent
information)
information)
out
investigating
supplied
visual
in
misleading
obtained
(1978)
aim
recognition
University
of
post-event
information
information
a
memory
presence
depicting
an
for
195
were
event
▲
Table 3.7
Groups in Loftus, Miller and Burns (1978)
that
students
shown
successive
a
ATL skills: Research
stages
What is a 2-by-2 experimental design? If you cannot
in
a
car–pedestrian
accident.
The
slides
featured
a
recall, review Unit 1 on research methodology.
red
Datsun
travelling
along
a
side
street
toward
an
Note that in order to test the hypothesis in this
intersection
with
either
a
stop
sign
(for
half
the
experiment groups 1 and 4 (combined) were compared
subjects)
or
a
yield
sign
(for
the
other
half).
These
to groups 2 and 3 (combined).
two
critical
slides
are
shown
below.
As
you
can
post-event
this
which
actually
the
consistent
choice
In
a
in
variation
administered
of
other
Figure 3.16
Critical slides from the
from
this
and
not
before,
a
pair
half
their
a
pick
the
in
slide
they
slides.
who
slide
actual
forced-
received
were
actually
subjects
information
able
seen
who
made
in
received
a
correct
cases.
experiment,
the
of
in
both
recognition
the
this
case
in
a
the
was
with
in
were
week
later.
inconsistent-
even
post-event
resulted
the
task
but
slide
integrated
which
with
information
misleading
was
of
subjects
the
consistent
other
administered
to
immediately
group
words,
information
▲
the
recognition
information
In
of
the
activity,
was
whereas
post-event
questionnaire
Correct
from
recognize
75%
received
for
ller
test
that
cases,
a
required
post-event
correctly
of
seen
indicated
misleading
41%
were
subjects
while
inconsistent
After
recognition
subjects
Results
the
was
memories.
choice
to
half
information
visual
had
see,
information
less
likely.
verbal
visual
information
reconstructive
recognition task
163
3
C O GNI T I V E
memory.
of
the
The
nding
from
can
more
original
information
APPROACH
has
on
answered
before:
time
event,
our
verbal
integrate
with
BE H AV IO U R
passes
the
the
TO
from
stronger
visual
memory.
visual–verbal
post-event
visual
the
effect
moment
misleading
information
and
man
and
This
actually
alter
it.
of
of
colour
stealing
an
slides
example,
picked
up
by
hammer,
and
a
there
in
depicting
repairing
four
were
one
of
or
a
and
nding
leaving.
slides.
different
critical
maintenance
wrench
maintenance
chair,
critical
three
the
a
a
calculator,
included
the
a
slides
ofce,
$20
sequence
these
For
a
79
entering
slide
controversy
information
series
the
was
screwdriver.
The
each
versions.
slides
man
For
tool
different:
After
this,
Exercise
the
subjects
giving
Compare
the
two
studies
(Loftus
and
a
were
detailed
of
Loftus,
Miller
and
Burns,
independent
●
dependent
1978)
in
in
half
the
received
variable
the
narrative
narrative
was
incident.
Some
misleading.
For
variable
slides
of
the
subjects
●
operationalization
a
tool
(control
received
(DV)
●
conclusions.
of
IV
and
who
a
table
and
formulate
these
elements
to
a
studies
with
terminology.
using
full
saw
a
hammer
sentences.
Be
of
point,
For
ss s
of
this
doubted.
McCloskey
study
an
and
alternative
Zaragoza
explanation
can
test
the
results
given
with
the
example,
a
might
not
an
have
been
actual
the
conicting
hypothesis
same
McCloskey
in
slide-recognition
crucial
change.
(undergraduate
In
in
one
students)
Saw
1
Hammer
in
of
Loftus
the
but
their
were
other
half
wrench
in
the
narrative
be
and
due
and
is
essentially
Burns.
similar
However,
the
way
the
the
forced-choice
were
original
this
and
read
(misleading
some
a
third
saw
about
a
others
option.
a
hammer
wrench
some
of
information).
these
In
the
participants
and
to
choose
others
between
would
be
a
hammer
asked
to
and
choose
to
a
hammer
and
a
screwdriver.
Note
that
(back
these
participants
the
screwdriver
appeared
To
introduced
studies,
in
the
slides
nor
in
the
narrative.
the
subjects
with
the
the
study,
key
let’s
comparison
look
at
the
that
was
example
in
the
the
focus
table
below:
a
Narrative
of
outline
referred
to:
Forced
Tool
choice
Hammer
and
between
either
screwdriver
%
correct
wrench
69
(randomly)
Hammer
Wrench
Hammer
and
wrench
40
3
Hammer
Wrench
Hammer
and
screwdriver
66
the
Findings from McCloskey and Zaragoza (1985)
control
group,
correctly
recognized
is
than
higher
assume
that
guessing
In
of
the
the
you
the
by
do
object
69%
would
subjects
of
from
expect
not
the
slides
participants.
by
chance
remember,
so
second
by
if
you
they
(which
studies)
of
are
you
would
classical
this
the
followed
correct
participants,
the
object
lower
logic
was
would
integrated
than
In
the
mean
with
it
(at
third
correct
from
expect
by
chance.
interpretation
distorted
group
40%
was
This
(50%).
previous
chosen
of
misleading
whereas
participants
later
test,
the
one,
option
of
then
In
given
2
In
a
Palmer’s
used
presented
slides:
the
test,
asked
wrench
or
Table 3.8
or
claimed
memory
Zaragoza
procedure
Group
(control)
and
a
be
neither
1).
in
original
slides
for
experiment
the
either
(1985)
and
obtained
change
and
designed.
group
the
between
bias,
was
in
a
response
was
participants
along
would
suggested
whereas
procedure
Miller
difference
forced-choice
▲
in
simply
condition).
the
Loftus,
misled
were
bc   xs:
results
it
careful
option
the
to
for
the
even
referring
mentioning
(misled
recognition
However,
condition),
narrative
this
that
crucial
both
narrative
DV
to
Make
a
(IV)
Up
164
the
example,
screwdriver
one
of
a
terms
as
to
description
read
their:
●
that
to
Palmer,
information
1974;
required
that
the
group,
responses
the
control
in
visual
some
66,
the
Burns),
information
information
the
percentage
practically
condition.
to
and
and
participants).
however,
was
Miller
misleading
prior
least
According
(Loftus,
no
of
different
r e l i a b i l i t y
On
the
basis
Zaragoza
information
original
of
fact
the
slides,
the
that
test
that
is,
as
They
the
distorted
in
might
that
2
the
the
any
might
forgot
simply
have
control
and
on
lower
details
lled
in
that
When
having
which
was
just
gap
is
that
was
when
option
on
not
as
the
to
modied
way.
this
level
was
in
that
the
from
the
is
is
not
all
robust
whether
the
misinformation
there
is
across
the
retention
a
The
all
interval.
and
the
Results
(71.7%
but
effect
the
were
the
authors
test”,
exists
although
studies.
also
relationship
effect
in
average
condition
recognition
an
were
level
misinformation
(1985),
not
difference,
signicant .
meta-analysis
see
was
the
a
the
procedure
studies
than
small
used
Zaragoza
the
control
conducted
that
same
and
recognition
a
“modied
the
the
lower
the
This
(1994)
studies
information
When
statistically
in
test”,
average
75.8%).
effect
data
test.
the
concluded
even
Anastasi
McCloskey
condition
versus
was
in
M e M o r y
research
misleading
combined,
it
44
recognition
recognition
a
and
of
used
the
misled
bias,
seems
not
from
seeing
information
group,
by
seen
Toglia
meta-analysis
“modied
given
response
perform
memory
the
explained
the
r e C o n S t r u C t i v e
Payne,
number
remember
misleading
participants
p r o C e S S e S :
misleading
effect
report
not
of
be
shown
to
did
original
an
the
memory).
likely
they
test,
their
in
their
more
when
that
group
narrative
though
the
have
argued
participants
they
on
in
change
were
those
indicate
or
not
even
option
well
did
not
However,
an
(wrench)
later,
wrench
it.
presentation
some
they
McCloskey
the
and
did
ndings
C o g n i t i v e
that
responses
the
it
these
memory.
correct
(but
of
claimed
o f
used
The
to
between
length
showed
of
that
the
Discussion
longer
the
Memory
a
change
or
response
bias?
the
retention
misinformation
interval,
the
more
likely
effect.
Organize
debate.
ATL skills: Research
Split
of
into
the
the
two
two
positions.
empirical
arguments
well
as
in
not
Take
support
your
and
of
group
time
come
your
adopts
up
to
study
as
for
to
back
“ This is a small dierence, but it was statistically
signicant”.
with
position,
counter-arguments
one
What does this mean exactly? Can you name other
the
standpoint.
forget
empirical
Each
evidence
potential
opponents’
Do
groups.
examples from psychology where results were “weak”
but “signicant”?
up
your
arguments
with
evidence.
Refer back to Unit 1 on research methodology and make
sure that you remember the meaning of the concepts
“eect size” and “statistical signicance”.
M-ss
rsch  sc ss
We
have
studies
looked
and
represent
This
is
with
not
we
crucial
three
have
history
topics
seem
to
occurrence.
like
at
not
this,
contradictions
common
is
to
these
all.
is
a
In
fact,
driving
only
in
studies
each
way
conduct
a
nding
force
research
other
to
research.
aws
is
a
resolve
Another
area
lack
of
of
psychology.
multiple
contradict
A
how
testimony
contradictory
research
discovery,
eyewitness
seen
of
surprising
previous
scientic
that
a
at
In
studies
common
such
meta-analysis.
of
of
common
research
ecological
research
testimony
advantage
studies
is
observe
that
higher
to
your
inevitably
of
There
looked
ecological
in
control
a
are
at
this
the
a
whole
resulting
number
eyewitness
Having
validity,
validity:
real-life
of
of
and
settings.
internal
subjects
lose
confounding
lack
criticism
articiality
naturalistic
of
tend
its
validity.
studies
in
point
these
when
settings,
number
of
the
you
you
potentially
variables.
TOK
ATL skills: Research
1.
How is contradictory research resolved in other areas
“ There’s a trade-o between internal and external validity
of knowledge?
of an experiment”.
2.
How does this relate to the concept of paradigm shifts?
3.
Are
Explain why. Refer back to Unit 1 on research
meta-analyses
possible
in
other
areas
of
methodology.
knowledge? What are the limitations of meta-analyses?
165
3
C O GNI T I V E
One
example
Cutshall
APPROACH
of
such
(1986).
eyewitnesses
to
thief
a
entered
TO
BE H AV IO U R
research
Participants
a
real
gun,
crime
shop,
is
in
in
tied
Yuille
this
and
study
Vancouver.
up
the
were
the
part
the
focus
and
guns,
and
left.
The
owner
free
himself,
get
a
followed,
revolver
resulting
and
in
go
the
lot
and
the
store
owner
injured.
witnessed
of
by
21
They
people
were
all
from
The
Thirteen
of
them
by
eyewitness
in
the
research
to
approximately
incident.
Interviews
be
(half
but
the
whereas
study
very
experimental
participants
participate
four
were
the
little
correctly
details.
ofcial
half
that
effect
the
on
recalled
The
carefully
a
large
accuracy
police
to
memory.
authors
have
independent
has
sparked
eyewitness
has
been
attacked
who
claimed
by
psychologists
that
and
manipulated.
This
memories
has
many
of
comparing
legal
systems
around
and
the
juridical
world.
practices
Research
into
in
reliability
of
eyewitness
testimony
sheds
light
on
a
number
of
of
memory
aws
as
a
in
court
cognitive
practices
and
on
process.
used
questions
Results
Generally,
the
countries
collect
of
questions
eyewitness
occurs
by
a
admit
tapped
memory
This
accompanied
of
by
also
leading
not).
number
research
using
the
had
participants
accurate
accounts
them
to
was
the
records.
the
might
were
of
months
used
were
asked
misleading
recall.
established
However,
study
other
showed
elements
were
testimony
practice
specialists
unreliable
reliability
data,
The
courts
forensic
both
after
be
(see
the
the
scientic
will
unit
various
interviewed
agreed
this
shooting
in
police.
memory
in
memory”).
debate.
inuenced
viewpoints.
on
being
can
was
later
outside.
thief
and
killed
Flashbulb
managed
evidence
Gunshots
viewer.
discussion
stole
a
to
the
of
“Flashbulb
A
owner,
Overall,
money
of
that
into
a
this
mechanism:
when
strong
an
eld
separate
and
ashbulb
incident
emotional
is
reaction
on
Psychology in real life
Paul Ingram was an active Christian, well-known and respected in his community in Washington State. He was a deputy
sheri and Chairman of the local Republican par ty. It all changed in 1988 when his two daughters accused him of
sexual abuse. After months of interrogation Paul confessed and pleaded guilty without trial. He provided many vivid
descriptions of his crimes.
When Paul was interrogated by the police, he said at rst that he had no memories of the abuse. At the same time, he
said that he didn’t raise his daughters to lie. Investigators and cour t-appointed exper ts told him that it was common for
child abusers to be in a state of denial and suppress memories of their crimes. Paul’s pastor conducted an exorcism
ritual and conrmed that Paul had an evil side. He advised Paul to pray to the Lord for his memories to return. As Paul
prayed, he began to see images of him abusing Ericka and Julie when they
were little. The police asked for details, and details followed, very vivid, including the set-up of the room and the time on
the clock .
Then the girls’ claims grew stronger. They said they had been victims of more than 800 satanic rituals that involved more
than 30 members of the sheri’s depar tment, and that they were impregnated several times and given abor tions by their
father. They claimed they had many scars from the violent rituals. They also drew maps to show where on Ingram proper ty
the satanic rituals had been taking place. They said they had witnessed more than 30 murders and burial of the bodies.
Despite a very extensive search, none of these claims could be suppor ted by evidence, such as medical examination
and even excavation of Ingram proper ties.
166
r e l i a b i l i t y
o f
C o g n i t i v e
p r o C e S S e S :
r e C o n S t r u C t i v e
M e M o r y
Psychology in real life (continued)
Finally, Dr Richard Ofshe, an exper t in “cult behaviour ”, was hired to investigate the case. He conducted extensive
interviews with both Paul and his daughters and became convinced that the daughters were not telling the truth and Paul
had been manipulated into developing false memories. To test this, he met with Paul and told him that Ericka and Julie
described an episode when Paul forced incest between one of them and one of their brothers while he was watching. In
fact, Ofshe had made this episode up. Paul told Ofshe he could not remember the incident. Ofshe asked Paul to return
to his cell and pray about it in the same way that he used to recover his other memories. What followed several months
later was a detailed written confession to an incident that only existed in Paul’s mind. However, this “experiment” was
not taken by the cour t seriously. Paul was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He remained in jail until 2003.
https://tinyurl.com/kamdcjv
167
Biases in thinking and decision-making
Inquiry questions
●
Do
people
thinking
●
What
do
tend
and
kind
they
to
take
making
of
shortcuts
●
when
decisions?
simplied
Do
these
strategies
lead
to
biased
or
irrational
decisions?
decisions
●
strategies
Are
these
biases
predictable?
use?
What you will learn in this section
●
System
1
and
system
2
thinking
Conrmation
problem
Heuristics
are
simplied
strategies;
cognitive
by
cognitive
biases
comparing
which
the
shortcuts
heuristics
may
decision
be
to
Wason’s
four-card
1968)
or
lead
Congruence
to
identied
a
bias.
(Wason,
normative
bias
1960):
people
results
rather
(Tschirgi,
are
trying
than
1980;
to
useful
Wason,
obtain
positive
information
model
Illusory
System
1:
immediate
responses;
thinking
system
(Daniel
2:
automatic
rational
correlation
personality
Chapman,
deliberate
based
Kahneman)
on
resistant
●
Common
●
The
causes
of
intuitive
to
focus
on
a
limited
available
The
tendency
tendency
is
the
result
of
attention
and
change
to
avoid
inconsistent
and
theory
of
the
mental
stress
of
cognitions
cognitive
Asymmetric
dominance
(Huber,
Belief
disconrmation
1982)
Induced-compliance
(Freedman
Explanations
dominance:
of
to
selective
justify
one’s
attention
effect
paradigm
Fraser,
1966)
and
a
(Tversky
section
also
links
to:
choice
●
Framing
and
asymmetric
This
desire
paradigm
1956)
Payne
◆
Puto,
dissonance
schemas
(Festinger,
◆
correlations
stable
selective
◆
and
are
information
The
This
illusory
beliefs
and
amount
holding
of
implicit
(Chapman
thinking
●
tendency
1969):
prior
to
and
theories
and
principles
of
the
cognitive
approach
to
Kahneman,
behaviour—cognitive
processes
do
not
1981)
function
◆
Prospect
about
theory:
utilities
as
individuals
changes
think
from
processes
Violation
utility
can
be
biases
systematic
in
cognitive
and
predictable
thinking
and
decision-making
(normative
point
and
◆
isolation;
a
●
reference
in
of
the
normative
expected-
descriptive
computational
theory
emotion
on
models;
capacity,
thinking,
limited
the
inuence
meta-goals
of
making)
◆
“Avoid
risks,
but
take
risks
to
avoid
losses”
●
stereotypes
behaviour).
●
The
tendency
conrms
168
to
seek
pre-existing
out
information
beliefs
that
(sociocultural
approach
of
decision-
to
b i a S e S
i n
t H i n k i n g
a n d
d e C i S i o n - M a k i n g
Psychology in real life
An interesting case of friendly competition between
of the case or whether or not the petitioner argued that a
humans and machines is the Supreme Cour t Forecasting
law or practice is unconstitutional.
Project 2002: http://wusct.wustl.edu/
Both predictions were posted publicly on a website prior to
the announcement of each of the Cour t’s decisions. There
was a lot of suspense.
The exper ts lost the game: the computer correctly
predicted 75% of the Supreme Cour t decisions, while
the exper ts collectively made only 59.1% of correct
It compared the accuracy of two dierent ways to predict
outcomes of the Supreme Cour t cases in the USA: informed
opinions of 83 legal exper ts versus a computer algorithm.
They were predicting in advance the votes of each of the
nine individual justices for every case in the Supreme Cour t
in 2002. The same algorithm was used to predict outcomes
of all cases, but legal exper ts were only predicting the
cases that were within their area of exper tise.
predictions. Note that all the decisions were binary (arm/
reverse), so the exper ts did only 9.1% better than what
could be achieved by a toss of a coin.
Why can human exper ts who have access to detailed
information about a case turn out to be such bad
predictors? What is it about human decision-making
that allows a simple computer algorithm to outperform
collective wisdom of people with years of education and
The computer algorithm seemed very reductionist. It only
took into account six simple factors such as the issue area
experience behind them? If human decisions are biased,
can these biases be xed?
Ssm 1  ssm 2 h
TOK
We
have
already
discussed
the
important
1.
distinction
between
normative
models
According to some philosophers, science has four
(for
functions: to describe, to explain, to predict and to
example,
logic,
theory
of
probability,
utility
theory)
control.
and
descriptive
making.
most
are
in
Attractive
rational
life.
account
as
choice,
unrealistic
real
models
As
when
of
they
thinking
are
in
normative
it
already
comes
and
leading
us
decision
to
making
discussed,
they
decision-
to
To what extent can we describe, explain, predict and
the
control human decisions?
theories
decisions
do
2.
Do you believe that ar ticial intelligence can be
not
developed to the level where it can mimic human
for:
decisions, that is, predict what decisions humans will
make in a par ticular situation?
●
limited
●
the
●
other
computational
inuence
of
capacity
emotion
on
thinking
Using
for
goals
that
example,
conrming
the
decision-maker
justifying
one’s
own
the
choice
belief
or
might
to
have,
others,
supporting
self-
esteem.
can
heuristics
be
heuristics
save
analyse
So,
naturally,
people
use
shortcuts
and
strategies
which
are
known
are
Heuristics
may
also
be
rules,
which
makes
them
an
exciting
research.
If
we
identify
and
heuristics
and
prove
describe
that
faced
based
them
a
set
course
people
work
we
to
them
will
be
think
might
or
be
mimics
in
real-life
able
do
able
to
in
to
human
decision-making
predict
certain
design
what
computer
intelligence.
don’t
aspects
of
have
the
for
are
a
particular
useful.
to
First,
meticulously
situation
every
time
with
on
a
choice.
experience,
Second,
which
heuristics
means
that
are
you
before
the
and
rule
it
worked
saying
“if
it
reasonably
worked
well.
before,
now”
is
not
perfect,
but
it
is
it
reasonable
for
a
variety
of
everyday
situations.
scenarios,
people
situations.
we
(which
actually
enough
use
model
heuristics
biases
compare
of
will
common
the
you
area
Of
of
energy;
if
expressed
used
as
normative
However,
all
cognitive
as
often
heuristics.
the
to
effectively
incomplete,
we
simplied
to
situation).
they
leads
described
are
likely
Moreover,
intelligence
we
that
Daniel
Kahneman
extension
approach
to
by
the
in
2003
differentiating
independent
proposed
an
information-processing
systems ,
between
system
1
two
and
system2.
169
3
C O GNI T I V E
This
APPROACH
differentiation
has
TO
BE H AV IO U R
become
the
core
of
his
Cmm css   h
bestselling
book
Thinking,
Fast
and
Slow
(2011),
There
which
is
a
must-read
if
you
have
an
interest
have
common
cognitive
biases
and
behavioural
to
the
theory,
system
1
thinking
is
emotional,
the
automatic
and
whereas
system
2
1970s
and,
popularity,
thinking
followed.
more
analytical,
logical,
rule-based
System
1
is
commonly
referred
to
There
Exercise
search
for
is
no
or
However,
we
the
the
to
What
of
is
it?
research
What
in
this
your
ndings
tendency
are
the
been
argued
that
briey
in
the
system
1
an
adaptive
based
goals)
on
reasoning
and
mechanism
be
experience
enables
reasonably
to
prior
us
accurate
sufciently
to
in
given
the
rise
three
to
decades
attempts
search
for
common
at
causes
of
thinking.
accepted
common
focus
a
to
causes
on
peek
underlying
several
into
focus
classication
on
the
a
major
sheer
limited
of
them.
factors
as
variety:
(and
make
decisions
successful
amount
(asymmetric
of
dominance,
effect)
tendency
to
seek
out
pre-existing
information
congruence
beliefs
that
bias,
(conrmation
the
the
tendency
inconsistent
and
that
personality
illusory
correlations
and
theories)
which
survival
fast
in
information
developed
●
is
and
class.
implicit
as
more
main
bias,
has
a
will
take
conrms
It
gained
area?
●
Present
area
“behavioural
framing
landmarks
has
universally
available
economics”.
the
continuing
This
and
heuristics
●
and
as
(automatic)
examples
online
the
starting
as
“intuition”.
Go
identify
and
intuitive
conscious.
to
biases,
is
classication
slower,
attempts
cognitive
relatively
that
unconscious,
and
fast,
more
instinctive,
numerous
heuristics
economics.
in
According
been
in
have
past.
to
avoid
the
cognitions
mental
stress
(cognitive
of
holding
dissonance).
proved
System
2
th c  cs   m
evolved
and
later
abstract
overcome
responses
with
the
development
reasoning,
some
and
of
our
analyse
and
this
language
enables
immediate
the
of
us
m   m
to
automatic
situation
in
greater
system
in
the
ATL skills: Self-management
depth.
Before you read on, remember four meta-goals in the
Due
of
to
this
legacy,
common
when
the
when
we
we
situations,
situation
is
encounter
use
but
we
1
switch
unusual
and
difculties
to
majority
system
complex
with
our
adaptive decision-maker framework discussed earlier in
2
this chapter. If you nd it dicult, go back and review the
or
section “ Thinking and decision-making”.
intuitive
As you continue reading, think about which of the four
response.
By
this
reasoning,
our
thinking
works
meta-goals can explain the tendency to focus on a
sequentially:
rst,
there
is
a
fast
and
automatic
limited amount of available information. You will nd an
system
1
response,
and
then
this
response
is
(or
answer later in the text.
is
not)
efforts
corrected
by
of
2.
system
the
more
conscious
cognitive
Remember
System
1
works
better
in
environments.
Arguably,
its
of
of
high
the
degree
production
changing
much
cognitive
seem
to
well
as
of
exible
demands
be
heuristics
new
the
and
biases
way
today’s
in
adapt
This
more
system
makes
associated
which
with
tremendous
individuals
on
and
world
knowledge
placed
increasing.
and
in
complexity,
circumstances,
more
“predictable”
and
need
the
with
descriptive
a
rapidly
be
quickly.
2
(STM).
rates
to
So
study
the
models
of
1,
very
reach
to.
processing
system
how
Sensory
STM,
of
of
is
that
as
deviate
from
normative
models,
170
pertinent.
has
In
a
cannot
around
we
us
focus
selective
pay
at
we
has
for
to
same
have
and
memory
but
information
be
to
many
From
single
process
to
attended
time.
to
memory
capacity,
attention
the
on
high
order
information
we
sensory
short-term
out
further.
the
one
This
attention.
what
you
know
about
schemas
(top-
even
down
more
memory
about
into
of
Remember
thinking
know
information
stimuli
known
you
transferred
duration.
this
However,
stimulus
as
what
gets
limited
chunks
sea
it
processing),
and
you
will
realize
that
selective
b i a S e S
attention
and
is
mediated
memory
to
“lens”
schemas.
at
by
our
expectations—while
the
of
very
however
STM,
least,
existing
travelling
information
This
lter
important
may
out
they
passes
certain
may
be
preconceptions
from
distort
i n
sensory
through
a
information
aspects
from
or
the
or,
details,
point
t H i n k i n g
who
a n d
are
given
likely
to
given
only
chooses
set
of
a
normative
that
on
look
are
a
at
rooted
asymmetric
in
but
B,
A,
options,
the
the
B
and
compared
A
mere
C
and
B.
of
be
people
Note
presence
probability
would
with
of
the
C
that
in
more
who
nobody
the
choice
are
of
choice
B.
of
if
we
wanted
more
people
to
choose
the
model.
several
limited
two
C,
increases
Swiss
Let’s
options
choose
Similarly,
view
d e C i S i o n - M a k i n g
examples
this
amount
of
inherent
of
cognitive
tendency
available
dominance
and
set
biases
to
focus
framing
D
is
Central
say
effect.
we
differently.
below)
in
information:
Alps,
this
might
In
the
the
For
destination
the
plenty
of
manipulated
choice
northern
Russia.
(given
have
is
part
the
as
remoteness
set
A,
of
sake
B,
the
of
the
(see
Ural
this
expensive
of
D
the
as
place),
choice
Graph
Mountains
example,
the
and
C
Swiss
there
let’s
Alps
are
asmmc mc
Huber,
Payne
involving
An
an
and
Puto
(1982)
asymmetrically
example
will
make
it
clear
studied
decisions
dominated
what
this
decoy .
is.
are
set,
not
D
Swiss
Suppose
you
are
choosing
between
two
is
people
skiing
as
the
will
Alps
and
not
B,
and
you
dimensions.
are
For
basing
your
example,
decision
you
are
are
B
=
two
holiday
Goa),
important
destinations
than
to
the
other,
the
You
would
is
time
there
is
two
(A
=
Swiss
the
nor
sea).
the
one
Goa
you
a
parameters
affordability
is
better
prefer
same
because
in
target
other
are
opportunities
because
and
the
you,
ski
swimming
neither
the
and
there
(better
In
Graph
better
the
because
would
on
it
is
prefer
A
skiing
on
more
the
right,
dimension
dimension.
cheaper,
the
opportunity.
same
choice
decoy
dominated
the
facilities
new
in
by
(which
the
but
it
is
not
dominated
by
terms
Goa
of
(better
but
predicts
less
that
skiing
in
this
opportunities).
choice
set
So,
people
the
would
Alps
dominate
one
other
dominated
is
facilities,
skiing
this
more
likely
to
prefer
the
Alps.
prefer
like
competitor
on
skiing
(you
(you
It
the
In
that
A. Swiss Alps
B. Goa
but
Swiss
Now
ytinut roppo gniikS
cheaper)
at
and
choose).
but
Alps.
on
be
and
the
choosing
theory
between
in
alternatives,
affordability,
two
as
asymmetrically
affordability)
A
opportunities,
modern
Alps
what
Affordability
if
Graph A
we
introduce
For
third
the
holiday
than
not
in
a
(the
choice
sake
in
of
the
the
is
this
C
option,
=
Swiss
Seychelles)
Alps,
just
is
decoy,
said
is
at
as
a
decoy?
Seychelles
example,
Seychelles
possibility,
dominated
third
same
Goa.
be
because
(see
say
slightly
the
in
to
let’s
it
is
Graph
that
more
time
This
an
Imagine
B).
having
a
affordable
skiing
is
alternative
asymmetrically
dominated
by
ytinut roppo gniikS
your
the
A. Swiss Alps
C. Seychelles
B. Goa
Goa
Affordability
(the
same
skiing
opportunities,
however
more
Graph B
affordable),
skiing
the
you
three
the
more
would
why
decoy
options,
is
is
the
less
not
a
to
by
desirable
you
skiing
Alps,
affordability,
Swiss
Alps
(better
affordable).
would
importance
to
it
but
why
choose
importance
So
dominated
opportunities,
how
attach
not
if
choose
it?
Of
If
you
opportunities,
you
you
choice.
attach
would
more
go
for
Goa.
ytinut roppo gniikS
Note
but
A. Swiss Alps
D. Nor thern Urals
B. Goa
important?
Affordability
It
turns
out
that
adding
an
asymmetrically
Graph C
dominated
decoy
probability
of
in
the
choice
set
increases
the
▲
the
decoy.
In
choosing
our
the
example,
option
it
that
means
Figure 3.17
Asymmetrically dominated decoys
dominates
that
people
171
3
C O GNI T I V E
Huber,
in
a
Payne
sample
APPROACH
and
of
Puto
153
TO
BE H AV IO U R
conrmed
students
who
this
prediction
were
required
fm c
to
The
make
choices
in
six
categories:
cars,
most
under
beers,
lotteries,
lms
and
television
sets.
Just
as
in
the
decision
environments
included
two
alternatives,
with
each
alternative
dened
attributes.
Overall,
the
predicted
choice
theory
the
not
large
in
the
(3–9%
of
predicted
participants
direction
switched
when
the
to
the
choice
set),
but
that
asymmetric
normative
no
logical
model
reason
preferences.
●
First,
statistically
there’s
one
can
an
of
the
incapable
simplify
the
Second,
one
the
desire
her
choice.
more
At
this
and
the
adaptive
might
the
you
in
the
look
probability
terms
explain
“I
might
the
an
the
remember
decision-maker
to
the
ease
of
data
justify
gives
X,
our
of
a
you
in
of
the
four
meta-goals
of
difference
important
of
in
3–9%
large
may
edge.
example
of
a
the
become
in
some
in
others,
In
Tversky
…”.
camel
hair
jackets
option
option
expected
=
to
option
choose
For
between
A,
you
get
$10
B,
A
to
you
take
is
utility
10
of
the
get
$200
a
normative
risk:
*
1
=
the
$10,
option
B
is
$12.
studies
real-life
to
seem
have
choices
the
be
and
depending
too
too
on
demonstrated
people
predictions
to
situations
1979
Daniel
of
eager
do
not
the
to
avoidant
seemingly
Kahneman
proposed
prospect
normative
take
of
risk
risks
irrelevant
a
under
theory .
was
to
take
and
to
modify
the
and
descriptive
The
risk
idea
normative
Amos
theory
that
is
of
known
behind
the
expected
as
theory
utility
model
of
it
as
little
as
possible
to
explain
which
decision
observed
deviations
from
the
normative
is
of
for
They
were
gained
successful,
Payne
and
Puto
effect.
give
application
A
store
priced
at
$100
as
and
a
prospect
descriptive
theory
model
choice.
theory
claims
that
individuals
the
about
utilities
as
changes
from
a
of
owner
and
popularity
a
point
(and
the
reference
point
may
has
be
two
In
outcome
number.
choosing
According
rational
of
decision-making
hugely
looking
practical
dominance
an
and
highest
were
choose
numerous
reference
asymmetric
outcome,
the
choose
more
They
think
following
of
decision-making.
corporations
Huber,
is
model.
Prospect
competitive
you
adhere
quickly
A
if
their
model.
one
you
you
utility
0.06
or
one
because
in
it
by
his
discussion
framework
justication
if
always
the
maximizing
utility
factors.
one.
observed
to
to
attributes
only
*
that
seem
“excuse”
chosen
the
that
probability.
However,
of
We
6%
whereas
200
attend
the
decoy
have
your
example,
decision-maker
say,
change
process
of
yields
suppose
certain;
expected
is
explained?
both
that
gambles:
theory,
the
there
other.
for
and
Arguably,
to
can
be
(for
processing
and
as
selectively
ignore
problem
reason
point
We
attributes
of
of
decoy
result
multiply
signicant.
violates
choice,
explanation
simultaneously
●
the
this
attention.
affordability)
be
dominance
rational
why
How
selective
to
of
choice
theory .
was
with
Note
of
utility
their
decoy
for
added
model
reversals
two
choice
you
outcome
example,
were
expected
on
the
two
normative
is
or
by
three
uncertainty
our
this
examples,
inuential
restaurants,
$150
easily
changed
by
the
way
the
problem
is
and
formulated).
nds
A
that
new
$250;
$150
the
camel
the
more
hair
new
jacket
expensive
jacket
jacket
increase.
implications,
for
is
does
not
Think
example,
jacket
added
sell,
about
the
is
and
not
but
sales
more
choice
selling.
displayed
of
of
for
the
practical
In
one
and
of
their
following
your
local
McDonalds.
Potentially
dominance
effect
in
millions
in
prot,
and
it
their
Tversky
subjects
that
marketing
of
the
an
USA
is
unusual
preparing
Asian
for
disease,
an
which
can
expected
to
kill
600
people.
Two
alternative
does.
programs
proposed.
ATL skills: Social
estimate
are
as
to
combat
Assume
of
the
the
that
disease
the
have
exact
consequences
of
been
scientic
the
program
follows:
Get into small groups and think of other practical
applications of this cognitive bias. Use your knowledge
from other subjects, such as history or business
management.
172
the
the
is
bring
gave
burgers
using
outbreak
asymmetric
experiments,
(1981)
problem.
Imagine
at
famous
Kahneman
(and
the
options
independent
were
groups
of
different
for
subjects)
two
b i a S e S
i n
t H i n k i n g
a n d
associated
Group
1
Group
A:
Program
200
A:
take
will
be
people
saved.
will
B:
Program
there
B:
there
1/3
1/3
probability
is
600people
probability
nobody
will
prospect
will
saved,
and
2/3
2/3
that
probability
people
no
will
be
will
Table 3.9
that
Response options for the two groups in
both
difference
is
choice
in
270).
the
framing
effect.
theory
such
proposes
deviations
a
mathematical
from
the
way
normative
the
it
normative
is
shown
model,
it
in
Figure
does
not
3.18.
In
matter
the
reference
point
is:
the
value
function
be
a
straight
line.
However,
people
assign
saved.
how
sets
the
(positive)
value
to
are
identical.
situation
is
The
value
losses.
attention
the
that
risks,
p
600
Tversky and Kahneman (1981)
Note
“Avoid
2008,
die.
less
▲
as
Schematically
of
should
people
words,
(Baron,
and
where
probability
other
losses”
that
die,
terms
be
known
describe
model.
that
In
avoid
is
to
is
gains.
to
die.
The
Program
risks
400
This
people
with
2:
but
Program
d e C i S i o n - M a k i n g
to
problem
We
the
is
to
gains
and
selectively
potential
more
(negative)
redistribute
outcomes
based
our
on
how
framed.
only
described,
either
Value
in
terms
of
potential
gains
in
terms
of
potential
losses
said
in
that,
these
it
is
two
percentage
programs
interesting
groups
of
in
were
two
be
(“will
that
individuals
the
(“will
saved”)
die”).
Having
participants’
reversed.
who
Here
chose
or
choices
is
each
the
of
the
two
groups:
Losses
Group
1
Group
2
Program
A
72%
22%
Program
B
28%
78%
▲
Table 3.10
Since
be
Findings from Tversky and Kahneman (1981)
nothing
rational
changed
point
explained
of
by
model.
The
are
same.
the
Gains
view,
the
the
problem
reversal
normative
expected
So
in
this
utilities
how
can
from
the
the
choices
(expected
of
we
of
two
explain
▲
Figure 3.18
Value function in prospect theory
cannot
utility)
programs
the
ATL skills: Communication
deviation
How can using the framing eect be translated into
from
the
normative
model?
monetary gains?
Presumably
program
of
not
in
group
to
take
A
most
saving
2
individuals
because
they
anyone
at
individuals
are
all
in
group
trying
(2/3
seemed
to
1
choose
avoid
the
probability).
to
be
more
Think about how insurance agents frame their oers
risk
Whereas
(“If you buy this insurance package you may avoid
losing …”).
willing
Can you identify other examples (commercials, business
the
risk:
400
deaths
seems
almost
as
bad
as
oers, job vacancies)? Think of some and share with the
600deaths,
so
why
not
take
a
chance?
group.
Tversky
of
a
the
and
shift
Kahneman
in
the
reference
dead),
so
the
explain
reference
point
is
options
the
are
this
point.
future
nding
In
state
the
rst
(600
perceived
as
save?).
the
in
terms
version
people
potential
th c  s  m
gains
h cms -xs s
(how
many
people
the
reference
has
died
losses
So,
yet),
(how
is
avoid
losses
the
many
as
judgments:
shifted
so
depending
(“framed”)
can
on
and
to
the
options
people
or
are
have
a
second
state
perceived
we
(no
as
version
one
subjects
willing
tendency
to
to
are
TOK
described
give
take
Cm s
potential
lose?).
outcomes
losses,
more
In
present
are
can
whether
gains
they
I
different
risks
avoid
to
What do you know about conrmation bias from
TOK classes? How does it create an obstacle in the
production of knowledge?
risk
173
3
C O GNI T I V E
Another
common
tendency
to
seek
pre-existing
the
role
of
research
good
the
classes.
(that
heuristics
might
bias
have
in
look
the
the
However,
conrms
discussed
your
at
is
that
theory
of
psychological
conrmation
heuristic
model)
is
that
you
know
and
a
number
following
then
it
side”.
Your
those
cards,
determine
the
each
on
bias
as
violates
Wason’s
task
is
that
a
a
logical
●
not
say
whether
to
the
four
You
has
a
that
is
the
cards,
turned
rule
are
also
over
true
or
on
So
potentially
given
one
in
of
not
on
two
only
to
false”.
that
A
are
do
pattern
much
can
we
case
rule
must
it
will
(the
be
over
your
about
the
would
goes
not
rule
coupled
the
rule,
does
with
third
but
card
cannot
potentially
as
for
it
to
to
this
line
a
with
give
the
in
the
vowel,
refute
a
logic
different
people
are
that
can
and
at
information
their
of
science.
expectations
ignore
If
tells
(“falsifying”)
information
contradict
conrmation
is
it
combination
accepted
potentially
card.
rule.
Presumably
their
tend
If
the
testing
in
fourth
consonant,
potentially
in
normally
attentive
they
preference
can
widely
support
a
rule.
Only
actually
It
the
is
refute
that
7.
responses?
time
with
side
individuals
of
more
known
the
turning
other
testing
potentially
same
consonant,
support
and
hypothesis.
Why
So,
options
are
hypothesis
order
the
the
nothing
trials
a
it.
is
rule
the
other
and
the
the
is
about
consonants
can
you
side
there
numbers).
letter
and
one
vowel
on
those
be
cards
on
if
anything
odd
This
logic
four-card
letter
number
“name
need
a
side.
card
even
to
has
other
“If
an
following
card
the
rule:
has
you
though,
have
that
tell
refute
phenomenon.
of
a
of
BE H AV IO U R
(1968).
you
side,
is,
normative
Suppose
You
this
TO
information
Let’s
illustration
problem
the
beliefs.
behind
heuristic
as
source
out
conrmation
knowledge
A
APPROACH
expectations.
supporting
the
that
This
evidence
is
bias.
TOK
What do you know about the falsication principle
(Popper, 1959)? What does it mean for a theory to be
“falsiable”? What is the role of falsication in sciences
compared to other areas of knowledge?
▲
Figure 3.19
Cc s
Wason’s four-card problem
Some
Which
cards
will
you
turn
over?
And
bias”
The
most
either
“A
correct
popular
only”
answer
answers
or
is,
“A
and
follow
in
4”.
this
Wason’s
To
see
study
what
were
If
you
turn
over
the
rst
the
cause
and
there
is
of
come
number
on
the
other
side,
it
will
rule.
If
there’s
an
odd
number
on
the
it
will
refute
the
If
you
an
turn
even
nothing
number.
over
number
about
Since
the
on
the
the
the
up
will
neither
you
are
congruence
If
you
vowel
174
turn
on
“conrmation
is
these
offer
the
stressing
the
subject’s
alternative
term
that
the
failure
hypotheses.
essential
thinking
In
behind
heuristic
think
of
a
is
as
result
follows:
that
“To
would
test
be
rule.
second
the
rule.
card
other
side,
Neither
letter
is
a
and
it
does
there
tells
is
you
an
odd
consonant,
any
for
if
that
the
hypotheses
(Baron,
hypothesis
result
support
nor
refute
the
(and
that
2008,
p
do
might
were
not
true
worry
yield
the
and
then
about
same
look
other
result”
173).
bias
makes
subjects
act
as
if
they
rule
trying
to
obtain
positive
results
(supporting
testing.
evidence)
●
the
hypothesis,
were
that
and
instead,
heuristic
with
Congruence
result
patterns
bias”
words,
found
●
term
describe
other
a
side,
the
support
the
the
that
accurately
an
other
even
argue
not
“congruence
logic.
card
does
decision-making
to
●
authors
why?
over
the
the
other
third
side,
card
it
will
and
there
support
is
the
a
is
seen
in
rule.
problems
rather
than
Tschirgi
like
the
useful
(1980)
information.
who
following.
gave
This
subjects
b i a S e S
John
of
decided
some
to
make
ingredients,
a
cake.
this
is
When
what
he
he
ran
i n
out
t H i n k i n g
There
test
did.
He
used
margarine
instead
of
butter
for
seems
a
time.
●
a n d
d e C i S i o n - M a k i n g
to
be
hypothesis
We
will
nothing
and
wrong
cook
compare
a
this
with
great
to
cake
another
trying
to
at
same
the
study
done
the
by
Wason
(1960)
but
rst
do
the
exercise
to
try
shortening.
the
●
He
used
honey
instead
of
sugar
for
study
for
yourself.
the
sweetening.
Exercise
●
He
used
regular
brown
white
wholewheat
our
instead
of
our.
Ask
The
cake
thought
honey.
turned
the
He
(butter
or
out
reason
thought
great;
the
cake
that
margarine)
it
the
or
was
was
type
the
so
moist.
so
of
type
great
John
was
your
the
her
own
Let
your
his
matter.
point
Subjects
What
when
were
following
he
should
makes
required
he
the
to
do
our
to
next
choose
Use
of
from
Keep
the
C.
Change
honey,
this
but
chose
change
everything
keep
else
response?
the
is
true,
the
(option
honey,
B).
Is
the
Let’s
think
option
hypothesis
the
Option
cake,
but
A
logically.
will
(that
B
will
ruin
If
the
Option
is,
in
this
provide
case
provide
C
both
option
A
is
and
terms
of
will
52,
equally
a
distractor.
B
potentially
hypothesis-testing.
In
demonstrated
another
and
the
told
that:
condition
options
were
a
in
given
2,
4,
a
6)
sequence
and
the
a
rule.
The
told
task
that
was
to
To
do
that,
participants
three-number
told
them
could
sequences,
whether
these
and
new
the
assume
rule
that
or
not.
the
Usually
rule
was
the
“numbers
by
2”,
that
which
they
was
reected
produced:
1,
3,
in
5;
the
8,
testing
10,
and
so
on.
Every
time
they
got
12;
positive
not
from
the
researcher
(“yes,
this
sequence
valuable
So
it
are
the
same
rule”).
The
crucial
observation
seems
was
that
subjects
rarely
questioned
their
valuable
hypothesis
and
after
several
trials
they
Interestingly,
preference
the
rule.
followed
54,
usually
subjects
rule?
valuable
favoured
in
correct
but
here
like
the
John’s
cake,
follows
information.
were
example,
followed
would
feedback
ruin
will
the
50,
information).
It
but
this
sequences
support
participation.
identify
additional
ascending
hypothesis
to
experimenter
subjects
“correct”
your
else
generate
to
lead
subjects
(for
sequence
sequences
everything
or
honey
everythin.
subjects
his
analogy.
minutes.
able
study
numbers
the
change
ve
you
discover
Most
by
Wason’s
construct
the
the
B.
friend
take
Were
cake?
In
instead
experiment
about
then
prove
options.
sugar
read
and
really
of
A.
to
below
shortening
of
only
didn’t
friend
experiment
study,
same,
for
the
but
option
to
have
discovered
the
rule.
B.
description
subjects
claimed
ATL skills: Thinking
were
In what ways does Wason’s (1960) rule discovery task
“The
cake
turned
out
just
terrible.
It
was
resemble Tschirgi’s (1980) cake task? Is this essentially
so
runny”.
Again,
John
thought
that
the
reason
the
the same task?
cake
In
was
this
so
terrible
condition
preference
for
was
the
subjects
option
A,
honey.
demonstrated
use
sugar
However,
a
instead
2,
of
4,
study
honey.
nd
Again,
6
both
options
A
and
B
are
in
time
option
B
does
not.
terms
of
“any
out,
a
hypotheses
well.
In
fact,
ascending
typical
can
the
t
the
numbers”.
participant
sequence
correct
of
rule
In
this
in
order
study,
this
to
just
potentially
like
informative
was
it
other
equally
hypothesis-testing,
but
a
typical
real-world
scientist,
had
to
generate
this
alternative hypotheses (for example, 1, 2, 3 or 6, 4, 2),
ruins
the
cake,
whereas
option
A
which
rarely
Subjects
Researchers
experiment
a
result
that
concluded
were
pursuing
would
“informative”.
that
be
subjects
the
goal
“positive”
in
of
the
obtaining
rather
than
their
are
initial
results.
comes
requires
positive
looking
for
expectation
This
to
happened,
may
real
you
be
seek
to
congruence
positive
rather
really
science!
to
due
that
favour
informative
detrimental
Unlike
out
results
than
bias.
making
informative
when
a
cake,
results,
it
science
not
ones.
175
3
C O GNI T I V E
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
been
shown
to
be
cl i ni ca ll y
va li d
si g ns
of
m a le
TOK
homosexualityar e :
Think about other examples (both from sciences and
●
response
on
Card
IV
of
“human
or
animal
–
other areas of knowledge) where congruence bias is a
contorted,
monstrous,
or
threatening”;
common occurrence.
examples
with
would
shrunken
be
“a
horrid
beast”
or
“a
giant
arms”
is cs  mc
●
s hs
The
tendency
conrms
to
seek
correlations
and
or
out
pre-existing
response
information
beliefs
implicit
is
also
seen
personality
“pigeon
that
in
as
illusory
theories.
a
correlation
is
a
belief
that
two
connected
when
in
fact
they
are
come
across
not.
illusory
approach
correlations
to
behaviour
stereotypes,
in
believed
to
because
be
the
illusory
mittens”
or
of
and
asked
name
to
the
recollect
to
be
most
diagnostic
failed
other
to
signs
mention
instead,
others;
basis
personality
you
of
predict
believe
dangerous
interactions
number
so
you
of
of
implicit
a bo ut
the ir
(ba s e d
with
a ll
avo i d
the
d ue
pa s t
ha ve
on
(“a
woman’s
confused
or
bra”
in
uncertain
y our
out
more
Rorschach
may
ba l d
of
or
of
me n
yo ur
m a ybe
wat c he d) ,
ma l es
a
a nd
in
a
( s t e r eo t yp ed )
the or y.
in
about
ink-blot
the
test.
history
of
Present
using
your
the
ndings
▲
Figure 3.20
Rorschach Card IV
▲
Figure 3.21
Rorschach Card V
class.
What
do
you
think
about
projective
tests
in
general?
What
is
beliefs
and
=
their
32)
of
had
and
176
use d
p re - ex is t i ng
il luso ry
theo ri e s?
Ro rs cha ch
ho mo s ex ua li ty.
som e
are
c or re la t i on s
Chapman
demonstrated
co nce ntra ted
R o r s chach
associa te d
that
of
thi s
in
p s ychodi a gn o st i c ia n s
the
The y
male
revealed
some
(19 6 9 )
practi s i ng
who
statistically
co nrmi ng
perso na l i ty
practice.
diagnosing
of
forma ti o n
Chapman
sample
(N
role
the
implicit
and
a
the
in
w ith
no t.
Two
i nk -bl ot
si g ns
si gns
t es t
s pe c i c al ly
Pri or
mal e
that
they
homosexuality,
two
Card
Discussion
Find
clinical
signs
signs
example,
sex,
the
yo u
we ll - bui lt
to
be
dressed
and
feminine
are
of
hi stor y
the
you
b a l d,
situatio ns
personali ty
e xa mpl e,
in
tha t
s et s
be ha vio u r
muscul a r,
on
the m
are
the
b ehav io ur
Fo r
tha t
movie s
would
variety
the or ie s
ha v e
thosebeli e fs .
implicitly
are
you
of
these
for
genitalia.
that
their
Rorschach
formation.
beliefs
woman,
III),
humans
stereotype
with
Implicit
“a
human
would
you
correlations
mechanism
“animalized
examples
the
when
clothing
often
wearing
when
found
named
study
an
You
clinicians
sociocultural
of
An
had
will
V
animal”;
phenomena
experience
are
Card
bat”.
However,
illusory
on
humanized
in
on
r e se a rch
th at
a re
hom o se x ua l it y
tha t
ha d
male
or
female
b i a S e S
i n
t H i n k i n g
a n d
considered
paranoia,
to
responses
to
be
and
asked
to
30
of
the
woman’s
arrived
invalid
the
neither
of
Participants
Figure 3.22
these
signs
had
a
strong
verbal
the
to
homosexuality.
associative
homosexuality,
high
for
for
the
the
seeing
to
“a
(and
homosexuality,
to
recognize
as
one.
of
and
at
in
the
“a
horrid
Chapman
III
same
Even
low
a
that
sign
they
in
as
example,
said
time
also
and
For
was
beast”
(1969)
with
signs
not
of
failed
Card
V
the
as
naive
observers
would
the
in
clinicians
an
did.
exposed
responses
example,
So,
naive
and
used
the
a
set
seeing
the
“a
same
and
results
of
most
readily
participants
clinicians,
were
have
are
participants
fabricated
clinical
make
the
psychology
materials
common
interpreting
more
sense)
available
those
strikingly,
yet
valid!
prior
and
beliefs
data
they
to
were
support,
beliefs.
signs
to
on
valid
Card
sign
IV),
subjects’
such
this
most
the
as
had
in
between
valid
and
manipulated
correlate
of
the
cases
was
a
They
no
still
mentioning
to
effect
failed
see
a
with
beast”
homosexuality
continued
with
coupled
“horrid
practically
conclusions.
follow-up
Chapman
card
seeing
connection
signs,
and
actually
(in
a
when
Chapman
homosexuality
the
in
on
to
and
the
see
the
the
invalid
ones
(such
as
connection
seeing
a
“woman’s
same
in
Card
III).
Illusory
correlations
based
were
prior
beliefs
turn
out
to
be
quite
stable
and
course.
resistant
The
to
being
the
when
studied
Participants
introductory
on
homosexuality
on
students
groups
contradict,
valid
bra”
errors
(for
III).
results,
seemed
experiments
with
whether
ones
However,
to
similarity
they
Card
asked
sign
ones.
evidence,
bra”
a
the
invalid)
unpopular)
seeing
and
When
rated
(and
statistical
woman’s
Chapman
similarity
clinicians
popular
valid
contrary
of
no
and
associative
but
rate
after
kind
was
homosexuality
experienced
the
manipulated
there
responses.
rule
Card
same
as
based
selectively
connection
in
is,
depression,
combinations
Rorschach Card III
(probably
All
a
(what
bra”
at
the
were
homosexuals?)
justications,
▲
of
The
that
between
formulate
for
disorder),
complex.
statements
any
cards
common
named
mental
random,
relation
frequency
in
a
completely
statistical
all
be
inferiority
of
to
d e C i S i o n - M a k i n g
consisted
of
to
change
even
in
the
presence
of
30
counterevidence.
Rorschach
response
about
cards,
about
the
response.
on
the
patient
For
each
ink
who
of
blot
which
and
two
(allegedly)
example,
the
there
one
statements
gave
typical
was
this
card
ATL skills: Communication
would
Do you think illusory correlations and implicit
show
an
ink
blot
and
three
statements:
personality theories can aect psychological and
●
Response:
“A
pigeon
wearing
mittens”
medical practices on a wider scale? Would you go as far
as saying that they are inevitable?
●
Statement:
feelings
●
A
man
towards
Statement:
depressed
A
other
man
much
who
of
said
he
has
sexual
he
feels
men
who
the
said
sad
and
th c   h m sss 
time.
h css cs
The
response
diagnostic
shrunken
was
taken
category
arms”
(for
example,
“a
two
statements
for
(for
either
from
example,
Card
IV)
woman’s
or
bra”
“A
an
for
a
valid
giant
invalid
Card
with
one
III).
Another
source
thinking
is
of
holding
taken
from
a
pool
of
(in
1969
when
was
conducted
homosexuality
was
inconsistent
to
biases
avoid
and
the
system
mental
I
stress
cognitions.
was
extensively
in
his
demonstrated
theory
of
by
cognitive
Leon
dissonance
the
as
study
cognitive
four
Festinger
symptoms—homosexuality
of
tendency
The
This
were
the
well
as
in
supporting
research.
Cognitive
still
177
3
C O GNI T I V E
dissonance
is
APPROACH
the
inconsistency
mental
TO
BE H AV IO U R
stress
caused
by
“message”
the
been
between:
religious
●
two
(or
more)
contradictory
beliefs
or
one’s
action
and
one’s
belief
all
night
God
●
new
information
and
existing
to
the
theory,
an
had
such
individual
inconsistency
stressed
and
a
desire
uncomfortable,
and
is
a
and
to
reduce
versus
belief
dissonance .
example,
logical
ways
to
reduce
In
there
behaviour
or
change
logical
to
assume,
that
the
many
research
that
“behaviour
belief.
had
never
It
the
way
to
empirically
of
observation
have
believe
in
cognitive
of
groups
something
to
beliefs”
to
a
test
the
predictions
dissonance
is
their
as
the
paradigm”.
and
of
the
Leon
of
people
but
beliefs.
“ belief
A
new
This
In
Chicago
this
he
called
who
sharing
to
the
world
began
far
as
up
of
group
had
outside
on
a
the
morning
campaign
possible,
to
calling
interviews.
new
information
beliefs,
social
of
evidence
research
example,
cognitive
book
When
describes
the
Seekers,
apocalypse
support
their
belief.
the
support
belief
may
itself
be
may
sought
and
The
prophet,
would
They
end
the
for
also
at
a
small
who
took
and
to
this,
a
test
it
they
the
cult
believed
of
had
to
spouses
committed
inltrated
the
observations
what
and
they
the
21
they
a
was
prepare
in
cult,
group
new
for
and
happens
disconrmed
by
they
to
to
the
a
did
not
such
as
the
which
spent
is
detailed
to
several
very
well
them
which
a
separate
(take
their
back)
that
the
issue
is
often
up
hours
in
report.
room
at
a
to
pick
up
used
is
study
of
paradigm .
Freedman
in
which
participants
and
from
were
asked
to
sign
a
the
petition
of
safe
driving
were
not
(participants
asked
to
do
from
the
anything).
weeks
a
later,
large
sign
all
on
participants
their
front
were
lawn
asked
saying
to
“Drive
(a
larger,
Results
showed
more
control
group
that
substantial
fewer
than
request).
20%
lawn,
how
This
(“I
while
shows
signed
belief
over
group
put
how
a
the
55%
agreed
once
petition
discrepancy
this
petition
(the
midnight)
of
large
the
sign
of
subjects
in
on
the
to
this
larger
request.
large
two
try
sign
may
on
weeks
caused
to
a
for
safe
my
(“If
lawn,
this
their
is
demonstrated
driving”),
occur
ago?”).
by
adjust
behaviour
To
I
why
avoid
did
behaviour–
want
I
sign
to
the
psychological
dissonance,
initial
a
don’t
subjects
beliefs
(“Maybe
space
feel
strongly
about
safe
driving,
after
all,
and
I
the
their
cause”).
tension
Festinger’s
4.45am
received
put
As
are
of
to
them
information
false
agreed
their
shows
beliefs
state
in
At
and
dissonance
selected
participant
be
the
group
group
discomfort
to
cognitive
the
Festinger
valuable
conveyed
observation
framework
of
induced-compliance
is
(1966)
support
group
change
civilization,
given
belief.
strong
proved
pick
to
self-
I
shuttle
impossible
to
evidence.
prophecy
is
theory
example
would
the
more
change
an
that
departure.
had
conduct
collected
if
becomes
people
December
were
coming
possessions,
were
it
how
in
actions
messages”
on
that
start
spacecraft
preparation
then
shows
research
the
experimental
of
belief,
also
the
their
and
people
Fails
UFO
strong
leader
midnight
and
many
dissonance,
Prophecy
“received
believed
survivors
if
behaviour.
Carefully”
1954.
belief;
framework
put
world
new
runs
Two
proclaimed
this
the
This
when
control
178
the
strongly
on
imminent
went
when
and
experimental
After
Study
Destruction
disconrmation
well-known
theory
Festinger’s
(1956).
on
the
although
they
as
existing
support
Fraser
jobs,
169,
of
An
part
Predicted
setting
how,
twisted,
known
up
p
through
to
and
1956,
Psychological
much
Another
known
be
and
interviews,
day
message
shows
their
contrary
to
Schachter,
actually
beliefs
is
that
extent.
theory
birth
light
destruction”
sense
justied.
is
much
would
start
the
so
from
Social
closed
given
following
further
One
that
notoriously
the
be
larger
pure
sitting
behaviour”.
studies
drives
A
Interestingly,
disconrms
shown
and
Fails:
Group
World ).
This
However,
their
group,
change
common
drive
world
little
only
dissonance:
your
from
“beliefs
“The
spread
the
Riecken
newspapers
perspective,
had
saved
Prophecy
spread
be
by
had
the
the
are
of
your
Earth
of
driven
and
two
efforts:
long,
Modern
been
action
the
apocalypse
members
(“dissonance”)
the
by
saved
the
the
who
of
feels
that
beliefs.
When
experiences
said
because
group
(Festinger,
According
off
ideas
thoughts
●
which
called
the
Many
leader
another
the
effective
principles
persuasion
of
cognitive
techniques
dissonance.
are
based
on
b i a S e S
i n
t H i n k i n g
a n d
d e C i S i o n - M a k i n g
Exercise
Explore
some
other
well-known
heuristics
and
biases,
as
well
as
a
range
of
their
potential
practical
applications:
Dan
Ariely’s
Daniel
Laurie
book
Predictably
Kahneman’s
Santos’s
decisions
in
TED
humans
book
Talk
Thinking,
“A
and
Irrational:
Fast
monkey
monkeys
https://tinyurl.com/k683ou4
and
Slow:
economy
and
nds
as
https://tinyurl.com/hx6w569
irrational
some
striking
as
ours”
(in
similarities):
which
she
compares
economic
https://www.ted.com/talks/
laurie_santos
Make
a
observe
list
of
and
the
take
most
a
commonly
note
of
real-life
mentioned
examples
cognitive
of
biases
heuristics
and
and
make
cognitive
it
a
rule
biases
in
for
the
next
people’s
week
to
decisions.
179
Emotion and cognition
Inquiry questions
●
Do
emotions
depend
physiological
●
Does
of
or
ashbulb
primarily
cognitive
memory
●
on
factors?
exist
as
a
Are
ashbulb
memories
both
vivid
and
accurate?
special
type
●
memory?
Can
retelling
change
the
the
event
original
to
other
memory
of
people
the
event?
What you will learn in this section
●
Theories
of
emphasis
emotion:
from
a
bodily
gradual
shift
responses
to
of
●
cognitive
What
is
the
neural
basis
of
ashbulb
memory?
factors
Sharot
Darwin
(1872):
patterns
of
Emotions
are
vestigial
action
James–Lange
(1884):
theory
of
emotion
et
al
(2007):
recollections
of
in
City
New
Sharot
York
et
al
(1927):
theory
of
and
Singer
(1962):
of
Lazarus
personal
study
emotional
attacks
of
stimuli
memory
(selective
does
have
activation
of
a
neural
the
emotion
(1982):
LeDoux
a
of
terrorist
two-factor
basis
theory
study
emotion
Flashbulb
Schachter
a
9/11
(2004):
remembering
Cannon–Bard
the
(1996):
initial
two
cognitive
amygdala),
but
could
be
a
special
case
of
mechanism—processing
appraisal
physiological
a
deeper
emotionally
laden
stimuli
pathways
●
●
The
inuence
linking
(biases
back
in
of
to
emotion
what
thinking
you
and
on
cognition:
already
Is
of
know
vividness
testimony)
●
The
of
●
Brown
leading
and
to
mechanism
of
ashbulb
Kulik
of
memory
(1977):
ashbulb
or
the
result
subsequent
et
al
study
memories,
formation
and
of
of
Bohannon
factors
memories
the
the
(1996):
the
a
1989
study
on
Loma
ashbulb
Prieta
earthquake
Shuttle
mechanism
(1988):
for
the
a
study
of
Challenger
ashbulb
Space
disaster
rehearsal
●
●
memories
encoding
rehearsal?
memories
theory
ashbulb
decision-making,
Neisser
eyewitness
of
photographic
Three
contradictory
How
accurate
is
the
ashbulb
memories?
questions:
Neisser
What
are
neural
basis
of
ashbulb
Space
are
memory?
and
Harsch
Shuttle
only
(1992):
study,
special
in
Challenger
ashbulb
their
memories
perceived
accuracy
Is
vividness
determined
subsequent
How
180
of
ashbulb
by
the
memories
event
itself
or
by
study
rehearsal?
accurate
are
ashbulb
Talarico
memories?
and
Rubin
(2003):
9/11
attack
e M o t i o n
This
●
section
also
eyewitness
an
What
of
cognition?
or
answer
of
fact,
the
of
emotion?
mental
semantic
areas,
the
memory
discrepancy
function
and
eld
as
●
schema
●
principles
between
(biological
Is
it
is
to
Are
there
these
there
cognitive
emotional
●
research
mutual
several
is
information
in
not
or
should
a
As
a
The
matter
perspectives
on
emotion.
Etymologically
from
“ex”
the
the
prex
the
the
word
Latin
“e”
in
movere
“out”.
moves
something
word
that
“emotion”
“motivation”.
a
is
an
“to
person”
a
the
both
idea
is
in
stimulus”.
This
has
two
expressed
found
which
the
of
example
people
blushing
of
For
of
all
cultures
a
as
tribes)
neck
in
were
reected
in
later
Emotional
response
is
emotion
response
1.
that
What
by
a
Emotional
Apparently
response
the
results
stimulus
has
in
so
the
brain
are
What
of
with
a
special
the
other
to
1872
Charles
of
claimed
meaning
of
that
be
its
that
current
goes
(from
we
fear
is
that
sweat
and
therefore
to
up
from
trees
and
Arguably,
and
if
a
get
well
on
and
an
We
mainly
in
more
skin
conned
to
(such
the
face
societies.
common
limitations
of
of
behaviour?
evolutionary
have
you
explanations
studied
so
far?
of
Do
apply
to
the
them?
an
“ad
in
hoc
explanation”
various
areas
of
and
what
knowledge?
surprisingly,
mainly
theories
concerned
of
emotion
with
bodily
that
followed
responses
to
encourages
palms
the
emotions
as
or
in
a
have
certain
of
makes
on
a
the
moment
of
bark
sweaty
when
sweaty
rushed
danger.
evolutionary
adaptive
of
softer
inherited
who
the
one
sudden
them
the
of
actions,
The
stimuli.
focus
to
Step
basis
emotions
the
James–Lange
1884)
change
snake,
rate
is
by
step,
later
theories
shifted
and
heart
is
smile;
seems
but
so
as
on)
you
and
feel
sad
somewhat
modern
feedback
the
other
from
modication
of
then
stimuli
your
because
claims,
a
of
you
you
cry.
heart
This
if
these
because
because
a
changes
interprets
evidence
your
you
theory
not
primitive,
actually
especially
may
this
see
increased
afraid
happy
changes
emotional
Lange
cause
rst
mind
are
feel
(proposed
Carl
physiological
counter-intuitive,
its
in
interpretation
words,
You
you
bodily
of
and
adrenaline,
neuroscientic
some
factors
emotion
certain
of
emotion.
fast;
of
James
external
and
In
(release
beating
supports
that
produces
an
cognitive
information.
theory
change
it
body
changes
of
William
emotion.
then
your
by
claimed
physiological
in
role
emotional
simultaneously
in
patterns
example,
have
an
which
and
etymology
For
ancestors
The
in
survival)
vestigial
the
grip
book
evolutionary
experience
might
up
the
Animals
explanations
monkey
climbed
but
with
we
the
enhances
developed
have
“move”).
when
tree.
our
Man
else
evolutionary
that
climbing
published
communication
palms
palms
is
role
processing
in
emotions
nothing
This
emotion
Darwin
Emotions
(either
action.
the
the
actually
word
expose
action.
Expression
can
body
the
ths  m
he
Interestingly,
the
explanations
limitations
What
is
the
In
ages.
of
stimulus.
external
certain
characteristic
signicance
reacts
mechanism
gives
is
emotion.
were
stimulus
is
himself
This
and
an
Not
well-being,
but
studies
both
behaviour.
personal
habitually
evolutionary
is
to
implications,
caused
all
cultures.
of
of
3.
our
in
Discussion
The
form
theories
Darwin
blushing
area
modern
across
number
and
larger
who
the
a
example,
populations
primitive
in
blushing:
covers
same
on
function
similarly
support
behaviour
●
approach—
not
same
something
whereas
person
be
has
2.
external
●
do
come
move”.
assimilated
Motivation
“moves
has
They
meaning
“emotion”
meaning
“inwardly
of
cognitive
methodology.
observations.
brain
overlap?
easy.
theoretical
it
and
different
inuence
is
Is
independent
and
as
of
processes
isolation
approach
process?
that
processed
questions
are
of
a
representation
information
nature
root
theory
cognitive
studies
C o g n i t i o n
behaviour)
is
special
of
ashbulb
experiments
localization
to
to:
testimony:
explanation
laboratory
●
links
a n d
the
play
fact
its
that
role
in
responses.
181
3
C O GNI T I V E
APPROACH
The
Cannon–Bard
was
based
showed
a
on
that
a
triggering
same
stimuli
time:
experience
conscious
a
of
could
processing.
cause
emotion.
experience
emotion
without
two
physiological
of
of
BE H AV IO U R
animal
events
change
cognitive
emotional
theory
number
sensory
physiological
TO
In
of
(1927)
studies
not
Much
that
by
directly
cause
simultaneously
It
was
parallel
response
other
processes
and
words,
emotion
is
a
that
at
the
conscious
your
not
a
Joseph
in
proposed
change—it
is
a
process
that
brain
The
goes
result
of
and
emotions
and
were
Singer
a
result
(1962)
of
claimed
two-stage
physiological
response,
then
For
example,
you
performs
roads,
to
The
fast
stimulus
(a
snake)
response
that
brain
quickly
the
pathway
the
possible
Noticing
the
the
heart
this
the
same
as
theory
fact
that
a
is
and
as
see
and
a
it
we
fear
it
may
tears
of
heart).
this
that
an
The
pathway
slow
thalamus,
After
the
of
role
of
in
emotion
Richard
was
Lazarus
interprets
when
An
fear
advantage
emotions
such
is
as
in
for
the
tears
of
The
of
appraisal ,
interpretation
processing,
to
the
of
done
in
In
claiming
that
shifted
stage
of
initial
idea
of
reaction
this
and
of
cognitive
to
be
the
quick
the
physiological
that
the
changes.
quality
and
controlled
cognitive
though
this
the
then
response.
from
the
sensory
stimulus
cortex,
hippocampus,
In
other
amygdala,
words,
travels
in
the
slow
additionally
and
via
hippocampus.
theory
is
that
produces
triggers
a
a
in
our
pathway
other
more
more
deeply
On
us
long
emotional
sophisticated
reactions.
the
brain
direct
Arguably,
prepares
hand,
our
quick,
this
the
for
one
modify
may
the
us
hand,
possible
pathway
and
process
allows
danger.
process
response.
For
example,
if
you
initial
walk
the
the
street
at
you,
and
suddenly
your
heart
see
rate
an
will
aggressive
increase,
dog
your
cognitive
adrenal
glands
stream,
and
will
release
adrenaline
into
the
blood
emotional
cognitive
The
intensity
process
of
your
body
will
quickly
enter
a
state
of
appraisal
However,
when
you
notice
a
second
later
theory
of
the
dog
is
behind
a
tall
fence,
you
will
relax
and
emotions
the
are
and
his
that
asserts
emotional
leads
interpretation.
exible
alertness.
precedes
perceiving
thalamus
cognitive
(1982) .
Lazarus
rst
an
information
simultaneously
barking
theory
or
pounding.
along
work
from
to
primary
cortex,
neocortex
emotional
interpretation
fear
looking
On
the
in
pathways,
this
joy.
elaboration
then
response.
information
Further
the
stimuli.
a
explanation
different
circumstances,
of
is
emotion.
provides
feel
heart
cognitively
and
stages
potentially
produces
environment
brain
conscious
that
physiological
sadness
the
pounding
experienced
of
explanation
snake,
of
fear
function
two
leads
input)
producing
the
for
conditioning
cognitive
(pounding
scans
key
shed
amygdala.
amygdala,
pathway
your
the
fear
sequence
processing
a
was
underpinnings .
processing:
and
physiological
studied
the
describes
(sensory
association
threatening
at
when
LeDoux
emotions
the
to
interpretation.
(1996)
looked
amygdala
of
biological
it.
●
rst
nature
their
through
stimulus
Schachter
the
into
processing.
sensory
accompanies
on
LeDoux
rodents
●
bodily
light
research
the
initial
bodily
changes
will
gradually
fade
away.
initial
appraisal.
Stimulus
ATL skills: Thinking
Based on your everyday experience, which seems more
Thalamus
plausible to you?
●
First your body reacts, then your mind experiences
Neocor tex
this reaction as an emotion (James–Lange).
●
Your body and your mind react at the same time, so
Hippocampus
emotion is caused directly by the stimulus (Cannon–
Bard).
●
Amygdala
First your body reacts, then your mind interprets this
reaction based on environmental clues, then you feel
Long pathway
an emotion (Schachter and Singer).
●
Emotion
First your mind assesses the situation, then your body
Shor t pathway
reacts, then your mind interferes again (Lazarus).
▲
182
Figure 3.23
Pathways of emotion (LeDoux, 1996)
e M o t i o n
However,
in
a n d
this
C o g n i t i o n
section
we
will
look
at
a
more
ATL skills: Communication
basic
cognitive
Make a owchar t or a mind map demonstrating the
emotions
succession of ideas in the following theories of emotion:
what
Darwin, James–Lange, Cannon–Bard, Schachter and
such
Singer, Lazarus, LeDoux.
example
exactly
of
ashbulb
We
have
seen
cognition
are.
mediator
can
(Lazarus,
1982).
pathways
have
and
Some
precede
of
between
appraisal
Even
cognitive
biologically
response
intersections;
Apparently,
cognition
and
be
they
emotion
in
and
and
1996)
converge
an
can
that
in
and
of
between
eld
watch
emotional
(for
car
Loftus
example,
these
two
the
emotions
accidents
are
and
Yuille
testimony.
experiments
reactions
as
mentioned
explanation
explain
studies
the
known
between
example,
studies
do,
of
through
already
eyewitness
laboratory
they
mechanism
alternative
(for
Do
If
mechanism
discussed
have
potentially
in
the
discrepancy
eld
1986)
memory.
processes?
be
We
as
difference
that
is
will
the
and
of
memory
experiments
participants
videos
This
memory
1974)
whereas
extent
special
explain
important
results
two
a
Cutshall,
studies
appraisal
the
the
the
response
(LeDoux,
can
Palmer,
a
and
the
that
memory
memory.
laboratory
and
(Schachter
physiological
emotional
again.
can
arousal
response
initial
the
considerable
diverge
emotion
physiological
emotional
1962).
even
interrelated
Cognitive
between
subsequent
Singer,
how
that
is
inuence?
ashbulb
th c  m  c
process,
inuence
in
on
not
One
types
of
different
are
“real”
which
pre-recorded
triggered.
interaction
behaviour
is
th h  sh mm
bidirectional.
The
by
theory
Roger
of
ashbulb
Brown
and
memory
James
was
proposed
Kulik
in
1977.
ATL skills: Thinking
According
How does this link to the third principle of the cognitive
approach to behaviour (“Cognitive processes do not
function in isolation”)?
memories
learned
the
examples
above
we
have
seen
them,
of
of
a
event.
They
event.
An
a
In
to
the
are
inuences
(mediates)
point
now
focus
on
how
emotion
in
a
and
in
their
which
emotionally
“snapshot”
that
are
these
of
a
rst
arousing
signicant
authors
investigation
vivid
one
used
was
as
the
how
emotion.
of
John
F
Kennedy
in
1963.
They
Let
observed
us
like
example
starting
memories
circumstances
surprising
assassination
cognition
ashbulb
that
people
generally
had
very
vivid
inuences
memories
about
the
circumstances
of
rst
receiving
cognition.
the
Think
and
back
to
our
discussion
decision-making.
caused
by
emotional
Many
of
of
variables.
biases
these
For
in
thinking
biases
are
example:
to
news
clearly
the
of
meta-goal
negative
maker
of
minimizing
emotion
in
the
the
the
them,
what
the
decision-
tendency
to
news,
was
the
avoid
potential
To
further
losses
in
immediate
in
research
they
the
the
were
when
doing,
they
who
aftermath,
told
the
air.
de te rmi na nts
gave
Americans
a
40
of
C auca s ian
r a ng i ng
questionnai r e
assassinations
one’s
they
were
seemed
fr om
20
this
and
to
60
40
ye ar s
a s k ing
them
a bo u t
ot h e r
effect
cognitive
feeling
the
they
they
the
old
●
where
what
smells
phenomenon
framework
framing
assassination;
experience
adaptive
African
●
the
remember
heard
weather,
●
about
of
dissonance—avoiding
dissonance
by
an
unpleasant
introducing
bias
beliefs.
in
personally
submitted
length.
also
It
in
the
was
created
there
as
well
signica nt
were
fo r m
fou nd
vivid
two
as
othe r
e v ents .
of
tha t
fre e
a
va r i a b l e s
r e ca ll
l ot
a s hbul b
s ocia ll y
and
Answe r s
of
of
we r e
u n li m i t e d
ot h e r
memo rie s .
that
ha d
to
e v en t s
H oweve r,
a t t ai n
ATL skills: Self-management
sufciently
high
If you don’t remember these, review the previous
memory
occur:
section.
of
to
personal
emotional
le v e l s
in
o rd er
surprise
and
consequ e n ti ali ty
arousal ) .
If
thes e
for
a
a s h bu l b
high
(which
v ar i ab le s
level
causes
r ea c h
183
3
C O GNI T I V E
a
sufcient
level,
mechanism:
reinforces
in
APPROACH
thi s
overt
the
TO
BE H AV IO U R
tr ig g er s
and
degr e e
a
covert
of
ma i nt e n a n c e
subsequent
re h earsal
which
itself?
e v en t
emotional
e l ab or atio n
of
the
their
memory.
In
the
theory
posits
two
separate,
but
the
of
ashbulb
memories:
formation
●
mechanism
representation
of
of
formation
events
that
is
are
a
personally
consequential
necessity
memories
How
accurate
arousing.
from
research
arguments
to
such
a
mechanism:
have
high
and
Kulik
explain
personally
survival
value
developed
a
special
the
other
and
though?
detailed.
We
know
reconstructive
information
memory
can
alter
Discussing
an
the
people
(overt
rehearsal),
event
we
exposed
to
leading
questions
or
may
misleading
consequential
so
humans
memory
process
Does
it
affect
ashbulb
memory?
could
to
and
Kulik
focused
their
research
on
deal
but
they
never
assessed
the
accuracy
them.
of
The
vivid
existence
vividness,
with
“separate
used
Brown
have
are
they,
memories.
information.
events
a
therefore
be
of
are
on
post-event
with
evolutionary
postulate
in
vividness
surprising
and
Brown
to
events
explain
photographic
individual’s
emotionally
signicant
might
event
recreating
mechanism”.
Flashbulb
that
and
this
the
keep
and
maintenance.
The
personally
and
than
people
related
memory
mechanisms
rather
words,
and
memory,
without
So
rehearsal
other
mechanism
overt
rehearsal
of
maintenance
(conversations
with
ashbulb
memories.
includes
other
people
ATL skills: Research
in
which
the
rehearsal
the
years
is
(replaying
Naturally,
and
event
rehearsal
memory
after
the
is
reconstructed)
the
event
in
consolidates
experienced
and
one’s
covert
memory).
memory
as
very
1.
traces
vivid
For each of the three questions that follow formulate
a hypothesis and design an experimental procedure
even
that would allow you to test it. If you cannot think
event.
of an appropriate experiment, consider using other
research methods.
Model of formation
Model of maintenance
2.
What are the ethical considerations involved in the
study of ashbulb memories? Par ticipants are asked
Event is surprising
Over t rehearsal
Cover t rehearsal
to reconstruct emotionally intensive events. Does
that have any implications in terms of protecting
Event is personally
par ticipants from harm?
consequential
Consolidation of
memory traces
Wh s h  ss  sh
Event is
mm?
emotionally
arousing
Sharot
et
al
(2007)
recollections
▲
Figure 3.24
that
theory
raised
sparked
a
lot
several
of
contradictory
additional
questions
research
in
this
in
Three
were
as
area.
If
ashbulb
memory
is
a
special
type
2001,
years
asked
2001.
to
there
has
to
exist
a
unique
mechanism.
ashbulb
So
what
is
the
physiological
the
characteristic
attack:
that
distinguishes
had
from
other
memories
is
vividness.
the
According
memories
event
(the
is
to
the
theory,
determined
level
as
24
of
selected
took
9/11
York
attacks.
participants
memories
personally
the
into
that
day
control
account
as
by
But
of
surprise
could
it
be
well
events
position
of
the
participant
at
the
the
some
had
been
in
time
Downtown
close
been
to
in
the
World
Midtown,
a
Trade
few
Center,
miles
and
away.
were
scanner
placed
and
in
asked
a
to
functional
retrieve
MRI
60
vividness
memories
related
to
a
word
properties
and
personal
due
to
or
consequentiality).
184
personal
ashbulb
cue
the
to
attacks
retrieve
of
autobiographical
of
of
New
their
(fMRI)
such
in
basis
Participants
memories
of
study
memory?
some
The
referred
Researchers
Manhattan,
●
a
attacks
neural
of
of
conducted
terrorist
of
geographical
memory,
often
after
memories
from
●
the
Flashbulb memory model
City
The
of
presented
on
“September”.
a
screen,
These
either
indicated
“summer”
whether
the
e M o t i o n
autobiographical
memory
that
9/11
occurred
summer
on
or
(June–August
should
during
be
the
of
an
event
Furthermore,
(2004)
preceding
the
2001).
in
results
of
the
study
showed
the
The
Downtown
exhibited
selective
amygdala
but
of
not
participants
activation
of
amygdala
they
recalled
events
while
they
recalled
control
participants
in
than
in
the
this
left
summer
group
9/11,
events:
83%
higher
during
9/11
trials.
(that
the
is
This
was
not
the
same
only
of
the
but
not
activation
During
the
9/11
of
the
left
trials
the
Downtown
group
showed
at
than
the
There
was
summer
●
no
difference
was
in
placed
and
some
an
are
photographs.
in
this
study
and
when
fMRI
some
subjects
of
were
photographs
amygdala
emotional
were
old
Activation
arousing
Hence
remembering
an
before).
emotionally
ones.
in
negatively
new
hour
observed
“new”
“personally
neither
consequential”,
mechanism
ashbulb
memories
was
and
observed.
memories
as
is
stimuli .
“surprising”
yet
This
the
same
suggests
vivid
(subjective
and
detailed)
experiences
may
be
a
amygdala
case
of
a
more
basic
underlying
neural
group.
mechanism
●
subjects
of
amygdala.
higher
Midtown
were
neutral
seen
“old”
the
special
activation
al
exhibited
of
Manhattan
while
arousing
et
activation
Midtown
subjects
that
●
had
pictures
neural
selective
shown
photographs,
they
involved
for
40%
Sharot
selective
observed
subjects
and
looking
nor
participants:
also
study
that
negatively
amygdala
The
●
study
arousing
from
showed
amygdala
this
scanner
the
as
activation
trials
Manhattan
another
following.
In
●
C o g n i t i o n
demonstrated
remembering
The
a n d
across
groups
for
laden
linked
to
processing
emotionally
experiences.
trials.
Selective
activation
correlated
with
of
the
the
left
proximity
amygdala
of
ATL skills: Communication
the
Formulate in one sentence the conclusion that can be
participants
to
the
World
Trade
Center
during
drawn from the two studies by Sharot and her colleagues.
the
attacks
(r
=
0.45,
p
<
0.05).
is ss  sh mms h s
 hhc c  ssq
hs?
Neisser
et
memories
al
of
(1996)
the
conducted
1989
Loma
a
study
Prieta
on
ashbulb
earthquake
in
Amygdala
northern
again
18
California
months
California
Atlanta,
coast
▲
Figure 3.25
Location of the amygdala in
of
(close
in
the
the
reported
earthquake
the human brain
Atlantans
together,
these
results
suggest
for
the
idea
that
ashbulb
were
not.
a
only
unique
true
for
neural
basis .
individuals
However,
who
the
event.
Just
event
does
not
seem
to
Sharot
et
al
having
heard
experience
trigger
conclude
that
is
this
neural
mechanism
In
a
sense,
that
this
that
it
is
of
ashbulb
was
of
the
At
the
more
the
same
affected
than
those
time,
area
ratings
who
were
with
recall.
In
fact,
not
many
from
California
critical
underlies
narrows
during
reported
the
event.
low
On
levels
the
of
other
suggested
that
repeated
narrative
in
the
fact
that
some
participants
discussed
close
event
more
often
with
other
people,
may
have
engaging
an
important
role.
ashbulb
down
Bohannon
(1988)
examined
recollection
the
of
denition
It
recollections
stress/arousal
correlated
evidence
Similarly
memories.
signicantly
in
from
opposite
earthquake).
perfect.
relatives
the
from
neural
played
the
nearly
had
on
were
some
about
the
personal
the
Californians’
arousal
rehearsals,
mechanism.
Georgia
and
and
this
hand,
an
informants
earthquake)
from
event
personally
emotional
experienced
Some
the
memories
participants
is
(far
However,
signicantly
have
the
of
after
supporting
did
evidence
the
state
who
remembered
Taken
later.
to
USA
that
shortly
ashbulb
memories
for
the
Challenger
Space
memories.
185
3
C O GNI T I V E
Shuttle
space
APPROACH
disaster
shuttle
resulting
in
on
the
The
accident
and
17%
of
28
broke
TO
BE H AV IO U R
January
apart
deaths
received
73
of
1986
the
seven
extensive
Americans
in
seconds
which
after
crew
media
witnessed
the
the
take-off,
members.
coverage
correctly
their
asked
and
both
original
to
explain
second
One
group
of
participants
was
weeks
after
the
explosion
and
another
day
months
after
the
incident.
In
a
number
measures
participants
estimate
both
their
were
emotional
also
of
times
they
discussed
rst
people
(overt
rehearsal).
arousal
and
reactions
the
incident
Higher
with
to
the
greater
incident
vividness
months,
but
so
did
studies
seem
to
the
the
event
makes
vividness
of
to
tell
demonstrate
an
experienced
main
factor
at
the
it
is
time
important
recall
that
studies
it
two
variables.
emotional
the
of
is
the
to
or
and
or
the
their
of
32
record
their
terrorist
The
same
weeks
everyday
emotional
memory
Accuracy
It
2001).
memory
attack
and
of
a
students
later.
For
were
both
memory
the
students
response
to
the
also
news,
the
and
belief
in
its
accuracy.
The
following.
for
incident
impossible
we
is
outstanding
that
is
because
to
can
not
the
ashbulb
not
differ;
and
both
everyday
declined
time.
Ratings
of
the
of
of
vividness
memory
and
declined
belief
only
for
in
the
accuracy
everyday
memories.
in
separate
at
only
vividness
the
did
is
emotion
memory,
However,
arousal
study
rehearsal
least
Emotional
factor
response
to
the
news
correlated
with
say
belief
in
the
accuracy
of
memory.
that
●
explains
to
the
event.
6
showed
later
that
their
September
after
●
these
(12
contribution
memories.
rehearsal
contributing
correlational
started
attack
rehearsal.
ashbulb
whether
rst
correlated
of
●
hard
the
it.
self-reported
over
to
about
1,
memories
after
do
with
●
Overall,
(2003)
9/11
students
everyday
results
eight
54
again
vividness
signicantly
between
couldn’t
see
When
the
self-rated
emotional
Rubin
the
hearing
ashbulb
other
they
to
asked
tested
number
and
after
asked
recent
to
discrepancies
accounts,
surprised
questionnaire.
of
of
self-report
very
the
group
They
eight
the
were
to
interviewed
the
two
and
launch
Talarico
live.
times
responses
Emotional
response
to
the
news
did
not
ashbulb
correlate
with
accuracy
of
memory.
memories.
The
Hw cc  sh mms?
As
mentioned
with
other
questions
or
so
time
far
while
we
may
misleading
theoretically
same
earlier,
people
may
many
focused
affect
of
on
the
discussing
be
exposed
information,
ashbulb
research
vividness,
but
an
to
event
leading
studies
they
At
the
discussed
never
that
are
so
the
so
true
of
ashbulb
long
in
(Talarico
and
participants’
Shuttle
to
106
asking
and
on).
the
day
the
news
news,
same
same
what
participants
that
was
On
low.
only
the
same
the
correctness
reported
(where
they
they
time,
rating
condent
three
2.95
they
questions
were
then
later.
of
the
out
very
their
long,
why
as
their
2003,
p
ashbulb
Brown
people
of
memory
of
condence
of
the
was
so
Findings
correctly
(42%).
83%.
remembered
At
about
mean
self-
Participants
the
has
been
The
are
and
so
are
They
say
memories
Kulik
condent
ashbulb
for
memories”
460).
is
an
interesting
One
also
of
research:
to
focus
event
an
hard
would
mean
conditions.
as
to
lack
denition
be
the
of
to
be
in
be
to
claried.
such
explains
focus
on
but
standardization
ashbulb
of
in
in
An
personal
this
research
mind,
memory
tend
negative
studies.
accidents,
limitations
area
by
experience
which
The
about
limitations
this
accompanied
would
being
explained.
inherent
studies
The
or
still
accuracy.
correlational
these
of
as
is
hypothesis
experiences
manipulate,
of
trauma
With
to
status
remains
events
approach
such
needs
still
research
public
events
exact
well
recognize
predominance
alternative
still
to
as
experiences.
is
its
subjective
most
on
event
the
of
memories
has
but
special-mechanism
challenged
emotional
to
responses
7
phenomenon,
ashbulb
they
and
sent
condent
memory:
they
when
participants
of
that
Rubin,
distinctiveness
surrounding
doing,
years
Space
given
incident
were
was
consistency
average,
the
were
questionnaire
demonstrated
very
after
was
circumstances
the
not
why
accuracy
ashbulb
claried.
Challenger
the
answered
186
the
the
The
were
of
questionnaire
participants
about
so
but
“is
memories
accuracy.
assessed
examined
them
receiving
heard
(1992)
memories
A
for
ashbulb
perceived
memories.
Harsch
explosion.
the
that
their
mystery
thought,
memory
Neisser
in
accurate
Overall,
accuracy
conclude
special
(1977)
which
memory.
authors
only
(as
a
the
concept)
e M o t i o n
a n d
C o g n i t i o n
Psychology in real life
Brian Williams, the well-known Nightly News anchor at
Williams publicly apologized, admitting that his story of
NBC, was aboard a military helicopter in Iraq in 2003
coming under re in Iraq was false. He said: “I made a
when it was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) and
mistake in recalling the events of 12 years ago ... I don’t
forced to come down. This incident, covered in the news
know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to
later, contributed to his image as a fearless war repor ter
conate one aircraft with another ”.
who faced the dangers of the war to bring the news to
Could it be true? Could his memory of this highly traumatic
the world.
event genuinely be distor ted to this extent? Was he trying
However, it turned out years later that there is a problem
to fake a story to boost his reputation, or was he a victim of
with this incident: the helicopter with Brian Williams on
regular biases in human memory?
board was never hit by an RPG. It was another helicopter
You can read (and watch) the full story in this Washington
that took the hit, and Williams’s helicopter just ended
Post ar ticle: https://tinyurl.com/n4dlfe5
up landing near it an hour after. It was uncovered later in
interviews with the helicopter pilot and other witnesses.
Williams was accused of misrepresenting the Iraq
incident, and lost credibility as a repor ter. This led to a
scandal, and in 2015 he was suspended from Nightly
News
187
Cognitive processing in the digital world (HL only)
Inquiry questions
●
Should
we
students
limit
spend
the
on
amount
the
of
internet
time
or
that
●
Is
●
How
digital
technology
making
us
less
empathetic?
using
can
technology
be
used
to
produce
technology?
positive
●
●
Is
the
internet
Background:
with
digital
changing
how
we
neuroplasticity,
technology,
and
think?
human
interaction
Digital
can
these
and
cognitive
Loh
skills
be
and
done
with
digital
technology
to
improve
cognitive
skills
and
of
to
compensate
Rosen
strategies
(2014):
media
as
a
et
for
al
(2011),
solution
neurological
multi-tasking
has
●
potential
cognitive
effects?
Kanai
correlates
Interaction
both
negative
metacognitive
technology
the
on
emotion?
What
cognitive
processes
●
effects
Digital
technology
and
empathy
in
human
skills;
interaction
Rosser
et
al
surgeons
(2007),
who
study
played
of
video
laparoscopic
games
Decline
However,
excessive
technology
results
exposure
in
to
negative
Small
and
Vorgan
effects
seem
to
be
of
scores
for
the
latest
people
et
al
(2015):
investigation
of
the
(2008)
different
Some
empathy
long-term
Carrier
effects,
in
generations
digital
harmful,
support
some
uses
of
existing
social
networks
relationships
or
(to
not)
benecial
Howard-Jones
To
some
extent
technology
to
other
can
skills;
the
benets
carry
of
further
Sanchez
conicting
digital
and
(2012),
transfer
effects
●
Digital
technology
games
on
science
interaction
with
some
types
technology
is
research
of
the
studies
ADHD
et
al
(2010)
Methods
used
benecial,
to
study
the
interaction
of
between
digital
explanation
learning
●
Maybe
and
in
of
Swing
video
(2011):
evidence
digital
technology
and
cognitive
whereas
processes
interaction
Fery
and
with
other
Ponserre
types
(2001),
is
the
not;
effects
of
This
training
playing
●
Induced
on
a
computer
simulator
on
skills
media
section
multi-tasking
●
research
●
localization
to
Moreno
et
al
(2012):
experience
also
links
to:
golf-
methodology
of
function
(biological
approach
behaviour)
sampling
method
●
empathy,
altruism
(psychology
of
human
relationships)
Rosen,
young
Carrier
people
constantly
constant
check
Cheever
a
on
strong
their
task-switching
attention
188
and
have
and
focus
is
(2013):
need
to
●
updates;
detrimental
cognitive
of
to
mind
development
of
(developmental
adolescents,
psychology).
theory
C o g n i t i v e
p r o C e S S i n g
i n
t H e
d i g i t a l
W o r l d
( H l
o n ly )
Psychology in real life
●
In 2015 Kaspersky Lab, a provider of digital security
software, commissioned researchers to conduct an
One quar ter of par ticipants would forget an online fact
shor tly after using it.
international survey to better understand how the use of
●
Digital Amnesia was equally present in all age groups.
digital technology aects the way people recall and use
Digital technologies, the researchers conclude, change the
information. The researchers discovered a phenomenon
way we think , learn, behave and remember.
that they called Digital Amnesia: forgetting information
Here is the full text of the repor t: https://tinyurl.com/o5vlnr6
that you trust a digital device to remember for you.
Here are some of the more specic ndings.
●
More than half of adult par ticipants could remember
the telephone number of the house they lived in at age
10, but could not remember their children’s numbers
without looking them up.
●
When asked a question, a third of par ticipants would
What questions do you have after reading this repor t?
conduct an internet search before trying to remember.
With
the
discovery
understanding
connections
the
brain.
of
that
and
neuroplasticity
experience
inuences
Interaction
with
the
a
it
shapes
is
common
neuronal
physiology
certain
Wikipedia
to
situations
other
conventional
of
stimulus
through
over
functions
that
ones
are
that
are
time
can
utilized
rarely
used:
strengthen
more
“the
often
wire
together”
and
neurons
(Groff,
2010,
are
you
neuronal
interact
with
connections
a
in
stimulus,
your
relevant
the
277).
the
stimuli
with
to
more
adapt
to
and
obvious
at
an
incredible
rate.
We
which
are
research
This
and
is
have
particularly
understanding
we
adolescents),
of
developing
because
minds
neuroplasticity
at
a
is
youngage.
the
these
Research
studies
probably
to
date
means
processing
are
that
and
somewhat
interaction
digital
contradictory,
between
technology
is
interact
complex
change
require
implications.
The
which
world,
that
important
cognitive
today’s
with
books)?
re
interactions.
In
transferred
working
weaken
that
p
the
brain
questions
potentially
most
more
easily
cognitive
(children
together,
“paper”
be
example,
or
These
environment
pages)
(for
surrounded
and
multiple
factors
must
be
taken
into
by
consideration.
digital
learn
technology,
how
speak.
to
One
messages
use
third
before
and
children
tablets
of
even
smartphone
getting
out
in
some
before
of
owners
bed
societies
they
in
learn
check
the
to
their
Discussion
morning
Read
(Dokoupil,
this
Guardian:
So
how
digital
does
interaction
technologies
●
cognitive
Is
our
every
Is
it
on
piece
ability
of
hyperlinks
of
semantic
gadgets)
with
from
The
affect
improving
and
so
(because
we
include
it
can
in
connections,
a
for
now
larger
enhancing
(because
and
What
the
strategies
likelihood
can
of
a
we
put
child
in
place
developing
to
an
reduce
internet
addiction?
processing)?
deteriorating
Can
addiction
internet,
and
hence
we
rely
too
underuse
much
our
own
d ch  c ss
capacities)?
Some
●
internet
new
information
meaningful
technology
mental
the
games,
computers
mnemonic
number
●
on
https://tinyurl.com/jzr4q8h
processes?
new
follow
with
(video
telecommunication,
our
article
2012).
the
skills
digital
that
we
acquire
technology
(for
in
interaction
example,
browsing
digital
research
studies
technology
cognitive
has
processing
show
the
skills.
that
interaction
potential
For
to
with
improve
example,
Rosser
189
3
C O GNI T I V E
et
al
(2007)
who
a
showed
played
week
video
made
performed
playing
APPROACH
that
37%
for
fewer
27%
BE H AV IO U R
laparoscopic
games
surgery
TO
more
errors
faster
surgeons
than
in
three
surgery,
than
their
Exercise
hours
and
This
non-
colleagues.
Surgery
performance
(errors
and
time)
measured
it
using
in
real
used
a
surgery
highly
situations.
standardized
condensed
study,
but
your
you
description
need
to
knowledge
be
of
the
able
from
Rosser
to
other
“unpack”
areas
of
was
psychology
course.
Test
your
understanding
The
by
researchers
a
al
the
not
is
et
set
answering
and
discussing
the
following
of
questions.
simulations
training
during
to
lift
and
that
one
and
drills
the
of
the
move
that
were
surgeons
drills
ve
part
received.
subjects
triangular
of
the
For
were
1.
example,
What
required
objects
from
point
to
another
by
placing
a
of
study
is
this
(for
example,
correlational)?
one
2.
designated
kind
experimental,
What
were
the
variables
in
this
study?
How
needle
many?
through
a
loop
non-dominant
Playing
video
on
top
of
each
triangle,
using
the
3.
How
were
4.
What
games
was
assessed
in
two
the
researchers
experience
(length
on).
of
with
time
Second,
a
measured
self-report
playing,
they
types
measured
video
asking
of
games,
video
game
5.
and
Does
so
does
participants
to
play
three
for
in
25
the
the
2,
Star
minutes
games
overall
with
Ball
video
less
and
as
an
the
indicator
and
drills
Racer
using
game
time
surgery
Wars
skill
was
fewer
(r
=
total
of
errors
0.63,
mastery.
p
<
in
the
Are
ne
a
motor
game)
different
of
this
skills,
and
nding
reaction
further
situation
is
transfer
of
there
Is
0.001
it
a
tangible
mean?
a
cause–effect
variables?
any
alternative
is
it
explanations?
possible
game
that
surgery
other
around?
mastery
and
skill
not
the
obtained
way
The
7.
To
what
8.
Are
extent
are
the
results
generalizable?
performing
there
improvement
and
attention
these
any
ethical
considerations
An
skills
to
in
the
study?
of
If
(in
you
need
to,
refer
back
to
Unit
1
on
research
methodology.
a
(surgery).
to
digital
(for
Small
research
effects,
including
example,
play
et
have
and
A
possible
is
that
some
for
been
have
lower
●
hand–eye
●
reaction
to
the
and
delay
grades
exposure
long-term
technology
reduced
abilities,
of
and
gratication.
between
at
decreased
summarize
negative
addiction),
school,
prosocial
video
as
well
as
behaviour
2004).
for
positive,
this
has
some
demonstrated
on
in
found
technology
them
play
game
explanation
digital
of
studies
game
al,
results
(2008)
excessive
decision-making
aggressiveness
(Gentile
that
addiction
capacity
Correlations
Vorgan
show
video
and
diminished
game
and
and
technology
judgment
190
show
video
other
Figure 3.26
<
between
inuences
However,
▲
mean?
p
Scope)
correlated
0.001).
the
time
study
example,
involved
explanation
0.63
does
( Super
Silent
score
highly
=
mastery
games
Revenge ,
r
What
relationship
For
Monkey
operationalized?
game
questionnaire
6.
by
variables
ways.
result?
First,
these
hand.
coordination
time
number
negative.
positive
experimental
Video games in Rosser et al’s (2007) study
a
contrasting
tasks
of
evidence
effects,
For
effects
example,
of
involving:
video
C o g n i t i v e
●
spatial
●
mental
p r o C e S S i n g
i n
t H e
d i g i t a l
W o r l d
( H l
o n ly )
visualization
TOK
rotation.
Cognitive processes are increasingly inuenced by
However,
such
as
skills
can
the
video
that
benets
games
people
of
carry
require
digital
further
for
technology
and
transfer
everyday
digital technology. But does this change the denition of
to
knowledge?
situations?
Eli Pariser in his 2011 TED Talk “Beware online ‘lter
It
seems
they
can,
at
least
to
some
extent.
bubbles’” describes how we get trapped in a bubble of
Sanchez
were
(2012)
positive
learning.
some
It
aimed
effects
had
been
visuospatial
shooters)
of
to
video
whether
games
established
games
improve
study
(like
on
or
information pre-ltered to better t our personal tastes.
Today’s search engines analyse our behaviour on the
science
already
Tetris
performance
on
there
web and lter search information, pushing forward the
that
rst-person
results we would probably prefer.
visuospatial
In a group, use your personal laptops to search
ability
tests.
However,
these
tests
are
not
that
much
individually for an identical query (for example, “great
different
from
the
video
games
themselves,
for
music for a car ride”) in a search engine and compare the
example,
a
typical
item
on
a
visuospatial
test
would
outputs. To what extent are they similar?
ask
you
to
mentally
rotate
or
fold
a
gure.
Sanchez
Since we rely on search engines to make sense of the
wanted
to
see
if
this
skill
is
transferable
to
a
wider
ocean of information, do we need to include information
domain
of
science
learning.
It
seems
reasonable
to
search algorithms in the denition of knowledge?
assume
skills
that
(among
enhanced
Sixty
two
a
by
game
of
six
the
that
writing
an
erupt?”
to
which
the
The
After
the
to
read
text
described
learned
entitled
the
essay
important
played
concluded
the
Halo)
that
“What
scorers
a
of
scored
spatial
better
training
volcanic
required
Mt
St
the
tectonics.
extent
on
the
with
As
group
use
a
It
of
of
result,
(the
essay.
the
by
Helens
understanding
training
Another
no
situation
assessed
plate
spatial
group
about
of
novel
the
Whomp,
with
were
caused
demonstrated
concepts
from
in
and
a
text
model
into
played
playing
words
participants
concepts
Independent
a
of
After
Eli Pariser ’s talk is available at https://www.ted.com/
talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_lter_bubbles.
Word
out
complex
3,500
be
divided
who
Evolved,
words
contained
skills
games?
played
points.
a
very
group
Combat
earn
visuospatial
randomly
who
making
reading,
essay
participants
that
that
video
were
Halo:
to
participants
eruptions.
apply
letters
these
training
group
involves
illustrations.
to
students
requires
can
certain
shooter,
tectonics
but
spatial
training
random
game,
plate
playing
the
rst-person
learning
others),
university
groups:
non-spatial
a
science
ones
was
is
technology
can
cognitive
example
digital
The
the
potentially
can
improve
understanding
relations.
However,
it
should
be
noted
study
was
only
demonstrated
written
almost
a
short-term
immediately
played),
long
and
it
is
unclear
if
this
effect
benecial
than
others.
“intentionally
is
using
training
virtual
for
to
An
of
human
use
tasks
as
skills
with
have
driving,
and
of
simulation .
simulators
surgery
digital
digital
interesting
reality
cognitive
such
performing
that
benecial”
computer
new
is
types
ying
military
unusual
a
study
computer
looked
at
simulator
the
on
effects
of
training
golf-playing
skills.
that
the
and
Ponserre
(2001)
studied
62
right-
(the
men
with
no
prior
golf
experience.
One
game
endures
of
participants
engaged
with
the
simulation
in
with
the
more
mind
Some
operations.
group
was
of
in
of
effect
after
be
researched
handed
essay
an
bear
video
Fery
the
of
airplanes,
with
spatial
to
diverse.
processes
of
effects
been
very
technology
aim
One
games
argument
technology
the
intent
to
improve
golf
putting
(the
term.
learning
to
group),
simply
group),
enjoy
and
one
the
one
group
game
was
a
played
(the
control
the
simulation
entertainment
group.
Results
Exercise
showed
What
other
study
can
limitations
you
and
identify?
strengths
of
this
that
golf
entertainment
improvement
signicant.
It
putting
and
in
the
the
was
improved
learning
learning
concluded
in
both
group;
group
that
was
the
the
however,
most
usefulness
of
191
3
C O GNI T I V E
video
game
APPROACH
simulations
TO
on
BE H AV IO U R
actual
golf-putting
skills
ATL skills: Research
depended
on
two
conditions.
This book has more examples of studies using the
●
The
video
game
simulation
must
provide
reliable
experience sampling method. If you are interested,
demonstrations
of
actual
putts
(credibility).
read more about the method in Unit 8 on developmental
●
The
user
progress
must
in
want
actual
to
use
putting
the
game
to
make
psychology.
(motivation).
How
our
does
Cheever
for
this
cognitive
15
increased
(2013)
minutes
computer
environment
a
their
They
prior
study
(N
=
that
and
made
128)
who
consisted
observation
house,
homes
to
of
in
the
and
an
parts.
and
studying
learning
on-task
use.
The
observers
observation
Part
1
in
form
included
location
present
present
learning
conducted
of
student
(studying
technologies
(natural
technology
given
two
data
students
assessment
were
of
open
trained
affect
Carrier
technologies
studying
off-task
use
263
noted
windows
minute-by-minute
behaviour
Rosen,
observed
in
environments).
and
multi-tasking
processes?
the
pre-
within
the
learning
ATL skills: Communication
environment,
windows
open
on
a
computer).
Using the research studies discussed so far, summarize
After
the
relevant
elements
of
the
pre-observation
the positive eects of digital technology on cognitive
sections
were
“ticked”,
observers
used
a
minute-
skills in 3–5 sentences. Avoid sweeping generalizations,
by-minute
checklist
(part
2)
that
included
the
recognize limitations.
following:
texting,
music
ic m m-s
An
important
dimension
of
digital
talking
on,
reading
the
a
induced
multi-tasking.
digital
environment,
we
website,
with
tasks
simultaneously
than
carry
out
always
an
(and
urge
a
to
check
wealth
of
new
social
we
used
to.
messages
on
a
media
There
personal
are
multiple
computers
tabs
have
on
television
reading
paper,
drinking,
a
on,
book,
writing
on
stretching/
open
Also
number
of
at
each
minute
windows
open
observers
on
the
After
number
the
of
observation
participants
questionnaires
assessing
were
their
social
to
technology.
They
were
also
required
platforms,
on
our
indicate
become
their
current
grade
point
average
laptops
(GPA),
as
or
ear,
There
to
too).
writing
eating
around.
the
attitude
media
in
many
given
is
telephone,
buds
messaging,
the
computer.
more
the
ear
instant
technology
Interacting
noted
modern
Facebook,
on
music
computer,
walking
is
email,
a
US
scoring
system
that
measures
student
increasingly
performance.
multifunctional.
variety
the
use
of
There
functions
of
is
and
easier
online
accessibility
platforms
to
a
through
smartphones.
Each
who
Using
the
Moreno
at
“experience
et
random
al
(2012)
times
sampling
sent
every
trained
participants
six
day
with
the
aim
of
would
that
of
their
more
everyday
than
half
a
the
observation
period.
time
were
using
social
and
the
networking.
tasking
in
the
internet,
most
This
they
naturalistic
popular
shows
the
academic
192
digital
world.
consent
in
18.
be
ensured
comfortable
that
during
from
Researchers
all
obtained
participants
cases
where
participants
and
were
their
younger
Approval
for
the
study
was
also
obtained
the
ethics
committee.
The
observer
sat
in
were
off-task
scale
settings
of
in
background
in
a
position
that
was
mutually
was
determined
to
participant.
Participants
be
the
most
unobtrusive
to
the
multi-
were
told
to
select
a
the
study
modern
three
the
the
multi-tasking,
which
to
participants
They
when
from
students
one
statistical
activities.
the
chose
selected
university
than
found
personally
participants
parents
“snapshot”
They
messages
189
getting
knew
the
informed
students
observer
observe.
method”,
text
to
they
student
to
environment
where
they
typically
study.
C o g n i t i v e
There
were
in
context
the
interesting
numerous
to
of
our
results
current
pinpoint
in
the
p r o C e S S i n g
study,
discussion
several
of
it
but
i n
t H e
that
is
them.
On
average
participants
were
only
on-task
behaviour
for
a
short
reason
to
off-task
around
6
minutes)
behaviour.
10
minutes
They
on-task
before
also
in
These
Four
variables
behaviour:
of
predicted
technology
studying,
only
total.
available
stretching/walking,
●
Those
once
This
not
being
a
students
and
who
the
accessed
15-minute
at
the
to
create
that
to
for
be
on.
between
from
may
drive
additional
our
multi-
say
study,
conclusively
multi-tasking
however,
whether
that
it
it
caused
is
was
or
vice
abundant
students
environments
start
texting
versa,
the
technological
environment
and
this
preference
Facebook
study
at
period
least
had
bit
of
an
interesting
that
a
for
use
negatively
the
chicken-and-egg
students
multi-tasking.
switch
hinder
with
from
on-task
GPA?
It
is
a
they
the
caused
by
the
emotional
not
the
study
demonstrate
amount
were
in
Regardless,
of
preparing
a
revealed
signicant
task-switching,
for
an
even
examination.
behaviour
The
studying
in
problem.
observation
did
This
suggests
task
switch,
that
they
had
an
intention
to
authors
to
which
is
why
they
saturated
their
Facebook
environments
may
reasons
technologically
reduction
Facebook
correlate
suggest
similarity
so
on-task
GPAs.
does
two
correlational
possible
when
Why
the
distractions
from
and
use.
during
lower
posts
behaviour.
created
Facebook
be
and
reading
photographs,
switching
averaged
reduced
from
on
time
preference
●
may
task
o n ly )
of
tasking
(approximately
receive
academic
websites.
maintaining
( H l
commenting
Another
capable
W o r l d
students
friends,
the
●
d i g i t a l
with
easily
distracting
technologies.
gratication
ATL skills: Research
This study combines quantitative and qualitative elements. Recall what you know about interviews and observations
as qualitative research methods (if necessary, refer to Unit 1 on research methodology) and answer the following
questions.
1.
What are the impor tant considerations that need to be addressed before, during and after an interview? Were they
addressed in this study?
2.
What are the potential methodological limitations of observation? What are the types of observation? To what extent
does this study control for potential methodological limitations?
3.
To what extent can qualitative and quantitative data be combined in a single study? Was it done eectively in this case?
4.
Discuss ethical considerations involved in this study.
Given
these
people
their
have
while
et
as
a
or
monitor
a
to
a
to
can
that
to
of
done
is
the
your
supports
ability
to
view,
on
environment.
consciously
processes.
Rosen
the
this
Rosen
meaning
et
small,
in
were
viewing
a
videotaped
the
of
recall
during
a
the
predictable
the
this
worse
was
students
(no
(up
to
was
pattern:
the
who
test
5
received,
depending
on
the
The
The
the
All
by
more
the
were
worse
respond
text
these
on
ndings
messages
variable
the
test
after
showed
text
response
to
of
dependent
performance.
they
and
a
messages,
However,
delay :
texts
immediately
received)
than
those
some
time
who
later
minutes).
experiment
other
words,
you
can
consciously
lecture
counterbalance
and
lecture.
replied
when
read
number
performance
lecture.
signicantly
to
large
the
mediated
matter
chose
or
response.
study
viewing
In
students
medium
messages
scored
al
impact
memory
In
focus
strategies
cognitive
a
required
compensate
(“meta”
examine
interruptions
classroom
and
to
technology?
this
experimentally
check
task-
attention
be
young
constantly
metacognitive
regulate
that
modern
constant
Metacognition
“beyond”)
text-message
in
this
effects
suggest
and
study
need
that
what
negative
(2011)
aimed
strong
detrimental
solution.
“after”
In
is
premises,
and
studying,
these
al
a
updates
switching
for
two
this
automatic
tendency
to
condition,
193
3
C O GNI T I V E
get
distracted
response.
lecture
by
You
and
APPROACH
TO
regulating
can
only
choose
read
the
BE H AV IO U R
the
to
time
stay
text
of
The
the
focused
message
on
the
lecture
gets
more
relaxed
or
when
there
break.
This
Since
a
metacognitive
lot
of
conscious
strategy,
effort.
this
a
mature
learner
like
to
regulate
is
two
correlational,
cannot
need
important
be
the
determined.
direction
Individuals
smaller
your
ACC
may
be
more
susceptible
to
to
multi-tasking,
or
engagement
in
media
of
ACC
automatic
multi-tasking
responses
recognize
however,
You
media
be
study
study
causality
with
requires
the
is
of
a
of
when
●
the
authors
limitations.
may
affect
the
volume
that.
through
equally
one
neuroplasticity.
plausible,
probably
and
needs
Both
to
to
explanations
choose
conduct
between
a
are
them
longitudinal
ATL skills: Self-management
study.
To what extent are you capable of regulating these
●
Generalizability
of
ndings
may
be
an
issue
since
automatic responses in yourself? Before you answer,
the
sample
consisted
of
educated
individuals
consider the evidence! Remember that people are
who
were
well
exposed
to
technology.
It
is
naturally susceptible to quick automatic reactions, such
theoretically
possible,
however,
that
media
as system I thinking in Kahneman’s theory (see “Biases
consumption
and
multi-tasking
patterns
are
in thinking and decision-making”) or instant checking of
different
in
different
subpopulations.
messages. Do you usually read messages immediately
after receiving them? How hard would it be for you to
delay this reaction?
Loh
and
Kanai
correlates
scores
a
on
of
the
self-report
healthy
were
media
adults.
in
the
investigated
multi-tasking.
multi-tasking
measure,
with
Results
negatively
density
(2014)
media
fMRI
showed
correlated
anterior
index
data
that
with
neurological
They
grey
cor tex
75
scores
matter
cortex
(ACC) ,
Figure 3.27
▲
that
is,
individuals
who
reported
cingulated
(MMI),
from
MMI
cingulated
Anterior
correlated
higher
Location of the anterior
amounts
cingulated cor tex (ACC) in the human brain
of
media
density
multi-tasking
in
the
had
smaller
grey
matter
ACC.
d ch  mh 
ATL skills: Thinking
hm c
How does this study link to the idea of “relative
Yet
another
dimension
of
cognitive
functioning
localization” of function in the human brain?
in
the
digital
technology
world
affects
information.
The
ACC
is
known
to
be
involved
in
For
example,
ACC
activations
have
tasks.
in
This
heavy
the
Stroop
suggests
media
task
that
and
people
multi-tasking
selective
who
control
The
region
have
the
people
feel
source
of
is
also
linked
and
volumes
suffering
with
emotion
have
from
of
194
in
that
emotionally
internet?
understand
we
rely
on
what
emojis
information?
empathy:
been
Do
we
other
as
a
Processing
is
closely
linked
to
of
the
addictions.
emotional
empathy
components.
has
The
both
cognitive
cognitive
processing.
reported
of
empathy
is
our
ability
to
take
in
and
stress
disorder,
emotional
This
suggests
a
understand
and
motivational
component
is
what
others
“feeling
feel,
along”
and
with
depression
Naturally,
reduced
interactions.
ability
less
the
obsessive-compulsive
post-traumatic
various
to
information
emotional
them.
and
have
another
the
disorder,
ability
now
perspectives
people
we
abilities.
motivation
ACC
that
emotional
component
Reduced
becoming
digital
emotional
poorer
and
function:
we
of
which
in
concept
ACC
processing
in
attention
engage
demonstrate
now
emotional
cognitive
way
been
still
observed
the
cognitive
sensitive
control.
Are
is
regulation.
empathic
abilities
affect
human
C o g n i t i v e
Intuitively
displace
it
seems
empathic
abilities
our
is
brain
change
other
plausible
face-to-face
in
time
by
should
shaped
that
since
online
decrease.
After
our
experience,
experiences
has
to
what
if
online
individuals
leave
i n
t H e
●
a
trace.
interaction
is
of
all,
and
from
face-to-face
interaction,
On
not
at
W o r l d
that
email,
the
than
of
developing
empathy?
We
can
information
Video
if
this
feed,
can’t
“person”
about
is
a
a
story
person’s
on
our
gaming
Virtual
media
scores
For
for
shown
the
example,
latest
a
decline
in
generations
contemporary
However,
empathy
of
than
people.
college
shown
to
score
signicantly
lower
empathy
to
college
questionnaires
students
30
are
people
seem
to
be
becoming
and
it
coincides
years
the
era—but
is
this
reason
digital
technology
the
onset
enough
inuences
in
positively
correlated
with
virtual
empathy
empathy
scores
were
lower
scores.
scores
for
for
virtual
real-life
empathy
empathy?
lower
One
to
are
is
lack
of
communicating
non-verbal
online.
Texts
clues
lack
less
of
emotional
information—gestures,
the
facial
expressions.
However,
according
conclude
to
that
was
explanation
you
touch,
digital
spent
before.
generally
with
empathy,
was
empathy.
scores
additional
empathetic,
time
in
when
So
real-world
much
communication.
real-world
the
possible
comparison
how
on
than
standardized
other
students
Why
were
reduced
of
empathy
real-world
we?
has
using
purposes
tragedy,
social
●
Research
websites,
for
process
●
even
browsing
computer
social
in
face-to-face
emotional
a
amounts
were:
that
least
still
increased
online.
irrespective
terms
o n ly )
communication
sites,
using
being
( H l
predicted
face-to-face
networking
this
●
different
d i g i t a l
Activities
interactions,
by
hand,
p r o C e S S i n g
the
results
of
the
study,
we
cannot
say
that
cognitive
spending
time
online
actually
“displaces”
face-
abilities?
to-face
that
communication.
the
negative
empathy
TOK
should
effects
(observed
be
Carrier
in
attributed
of
digital
many
to
et
al
conclude
technology
previous
specic
on
studies)
activities
that
Does online interaction really displace face-to-face
are
not
associated
with
increased
face-to-face
communication? How can we tell?
communication
If two events coincide in history, can we conclude that
engaging
with
(such
digital
as
video
games)
technology
in
rather
than
general.
they are connected, that is, that one event is the cause
The
authors
recognize
three
inherent
limitations
of
of the other? How does history as an area of knowledge
the
study:
convenience
sampling
(which
does
not
establish causation in historical events?
guarantee
measures
Carrier
et
al
(2015)
set
up
an
anonymous
and
collected
information
a
media
usage,
1,726
and
real-world
social
participants,
(after
support.
empathy,
all
born
The
in
study,
of
causality,
and
digital
a
“third
variable”
it
does
it
is
existed
extraversion)
which
of
not
the
study.
establish
possible,
the
theoretically,
(for
explained
example,
the
face-to-face
both
going
online
and
era
increased
communication.
1980).
analysing
the
correlation
patterns
is
responses
to
individual
questions,
generally
believed,
has
been
conducted
the
following
the
appeared
connection
and
cognitive
to
be
two
between
real-life
mechanisms
online
of
activity
empathy.
In
arise
when
activity
that
leads
to
communication
the
increased
other,
to
online
face-to-face
for
supporting
online
existing
activity
produces
the
use
of
positive
the
effects.
internet
is
Issues
excessive
or
the
digital
world
position
in
was
the
establishing
rst
half
of
the
its
1990s,
empathy.
that
does
communication
inuential
research
studies
demonstrated
not
that
lead
research
one,
several
In
of
that
face-todominant
face
area,
inappropriate.
When
online
summary
this
results.
friendships
There
a
in
researchers
communication
obtained
as
between
that
●
nature
self-report
included
It
After
correlational
using
virtual
sample
the
results),
on
that
empathy
the
correlational
direction
daily
and
of
online
Being
questionnaire
generalizability
teenagers
who
used
the
internet
more
reduced
often
experienced
more
problems
with
social
empathy.
connectedness
and
well-being
(Nie,
2001).
195
3
C O GNI T I V E
However,
an
APPROACH
important
Howard-Jones
was
to
not
yet
So
communication
probably
used
at
popular,
existing
to
BE H AV IO U R
point
(2011) :
very
maintain
TO
so
social
made
it
time
was
the
new
attention
by
the
internet
rather
than
supporting
Now,
been
with
everyone
reversed.
This
online,
might
the
explain
from
research
studies
have
However,
even
these
become
communication
only
results
has
most
it
is
whereas
used
using
to
maintain
the
internet
show
positive
existing
to
and
study.
screen
computer
likely
to
have
later.
research
and
in
this
therefore
The
enough.
It
area
much
direction
could
experience
is
not
more
of
causality
is
still
not
be
the
problems
in
case
that
people
attention
develop
that
and
watching
habits
involving
longer
effects
screen
when
the
more
gaming
online
more
of
daily
why
who
positive.
(television
were
of
situation
clear
reports
course
hours
and
inconclusive.
has
the
two
existing
longitudinal
ones.
time
problems
However,
relationships
over
exceeded
combined)
attention
was
friendships
problems
who
games
online.
internet
Those
entertainment
difcult
networks
through
establish
is
that
time.
relationships,
make
new
friends
is
Mhs s  s h
associated
with
lower
empathy.
c  w 
ch  c
Discussion
csss
How
do
you
use
social
networks?
Give
As
examples
of
instances
when
you
you
know,
procedural:
online
platforms
to
support
your
activity
with
that
on
Give
social
networks
face-to-face
these
effects
on
types
how
examples
when
was
activities
you
feel
have
about
associated
Do
you
feel
different
As
of
the
outlined
“Cognitive
three
others?
be
hc s
You
are
in
the
work
of
the
rise
of
digital
technology
responsible
for
increased
rates
of
may
to
on
a
the
hyperactivity
last
several
disorder
decades.
attention?
games
It
seems
involve
plausible:
rapid
seem
that
television
to
changes
in
not
to
exciting”
prepare
materials
children
such
as
them
in
the
focuses
this
area
contrast
inuence
of
or
of
includes
on
research.
evaluate
digital
processes.
already
Unit
topic
world”
1
for
on
answering
research
these
methodology
of
of
essential
particular
advantages
research
methods
to
work
long
in
correlational
this
section
we
and
qualitative).
have
and
demonstrate
a
variety
selected
of
research
methods
the
studies).
ATL
skills
Look
box
once
that
again
at
gives
the
an
overview
arguments
with
positive
and
negative
inuences
of
boring
in
cognition.
You
will
realize
there
are
texts.
et
al
(2010)
showed
a
relationship
and
reduced
classroom
attention
of
aspects
you
could
talk
about,
depending
between
on
gaming
it.
and
plenty
Swing
used
the
digital
of
understanding
technology
academic
obtain
stimuli
regarding
“less
to
technology
of
and
be
witnessed
digital
(review
computer
used
guide,
the
discuss,
study
Review
broad
studies
affect
is
to
attention
(ADHD)
Does
was
one
be
to
disadvantages
Note
in
in
cognitive
(experimental,
decit
need
might
and
be
sciences
you
some
for
that
empirical
Psychology
and
equipped
questions.
suggested
the
asked
used
technology
been
in
that
may
methods
has
in
knowledge
that
processing
d ch   c
researchers
method
sub-topics,
methods
You
It
evaluate
your
not
communication.
of
to
existing
aware
relationships.
knowledge
used
in
the
exact
wording
of
the
actual
examination
a
question.
sample
of
students
of
6–12
years
old.
It
was
a
Nonetheless,
longitudinal
study
involving
4
measurements
might
a
13-month
from
the
incidences
not
paying
showed
this
196
period.
Attention
observations
of
staying
period)
playing
was
problem
teachers
off-task,
attention,
that
of
and
so
games
associated
who
data
on.
(at
The
the
with
an
others,
study
●
We
to
are
some
of
the
points
that
you
consider.
of
in
are
surrounded
technology
our
beginning
increase
want
came
reported
interrupting
here
over
everyday
conducted
by
so,
using
in
to
life,
by
research
real-life
such
various
approximate
as
the
studies
settings.
methods
forms
digital
should
This
surveys,
of
reality
is
of
be
achieved
structured
C o g n i t i v e
naturalistic
sampling
observations
or
the
p r o C e S S i n g
i n
t H e
d i g i t a l
as
experience
W o r l d
golf-putting
technology
method.
( H l
skills)
(such
as
o n ly )
or
concrete
rst-person
forms
of
shooter
video
games).
●
However,
these
limitations:
inferences,
hard
to
it
methods
is
impossible
they
isolate
have
rely
on
effects
of
to
inherent
make
cause-effect
self-report,
specic
and
it
●
is
To
bring
variables.
For
this
reason,
such
research
supplemented
by
and
the
experiments.
researcher
In
on
the
controlling
variables.
all
al’s
or
playing
and
other
allows
manipulates
observes
study
of
while
An
its
to
example
(2001)
A
●
subset
Rosser
surgeons
study
confounding
of
effects
patterns
golf-
makes
research
more
reductionist.
As
a
result,
variables
specic
to
narrow
articial
we
laparoscopic
surgeons),
more
be
the
investigation
of
with
the
help
of
brain
we
can
digital
we
only
combine
surveys,
data
and
from
to
be
of
experiments,
multiple
descriptive
interviews,
needs
cognitive
sources
between
rich
understand
on
diverse
data
correlations
in
fully
technology
brain
data
from
imaging.
have
such
studies
populations
concrete
seen
in
the
longitudinal
studies
of
because,
social
and
and
empathy,
the
way
technology
are
our
cognitive
processes
may
change
with
(such
the
as
may
variables
affects
usually
is
cause-effect
of
networks
more
of
if
evidence:
as
inevitably
this
correlates
observations
controlling
processes
research
our
between
methods.
processes
skills.
However,
cognitive
of
summarize,
the
make
is
To
Ideally,
●
make
effect
carefully
laparoscopic
Ponserre’s
so
the
(confounding)
researchers
inferences.
(2007)
Fery
and
variable
the
This
cause-effect
et
variable
dependent
and
relationship
an
imaging
independent
the
correlational
neurological
experiment,
variables
of
should
used.
be
more
technology
holistic,
●
in
understanding
skills
course
of
time.
(such
ATL skills: Thinking and research
The research studies discussed in this section utilized a variety of research methods to study the interaction between
digital technology and cognitive processes.
Link the studies to the methods. Remember that one study could have used a combination of dierent methods.
Also note that the research methods listed below are not mutually exclusive: some methods can be special cases
of others.
Rosser et al (2007)
1
a
Observation
Sanchez (2012)
2
b
Interview
Fery and Ponserre (2001)
3
c
Survey/questionnaire
Moreno et al (2012)
4
d
Correlational study
Rosen, Carrier and Cheever (2013)
5
e
Experiment
Rosen et al (2011)
6
f
Neuroimaging technology
Loh and Kanai (2014)
7
g
Experience sampling method
Carrier et al (2015)
8
h
Longitudinal study
Swing et al (2010)
9
i
Minute-by-minute assessment of behaviour
Discuss the relative strengths and limitations of each method for studying the interaction between digital technology
and cognitive processes.
What are the ethical considerations, if any, associated with the use of each of these methods?
197
3
C O GNI T I V E
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
Exam tip
“Cognitive
Psychology
material
processing
guide
in
this
in
species
section
the
digital
three
can
world”
aspects
be
used
Cognitive
to
of
is
this
an
extension
topic
explicitly
processing
that
for
may
address
HL
be
the
students.
applied
in
combination
Reliability
of
The
three
of
cognitive
Diploma
areas.
these
Programme
Here
aspects
Emotion
is
how
and
and
areas.
cognition
processes
The
positive
Positive
and
negative
Visuospatial
skills:
et
transfer
effects
of
modern
al
(2007);
technology
to
on
Sanchez
cognitive
Induced
inuence
science
Rosser
and
specic
media
and
professional
skills:
Fery
information
Ponserre
Induced
tasking:
media
can
counterbalanced
inuence
Rosen,
this
metacognitive
multi-
Carrier
Rosen
et
al
onset
be
Cheever
and
with
Hsing,
strategies:
digital
the
O’Brien
year
and
2010)
this
is
only
true
for
(2013),
Kanai
Swing
online
excessive
activities
that
do
(2014).
use
ADHD:
the
(2011)
Hypothetically
Loh
of
(Konrath,
by
But
and
cognitive
coincides
(2001)
However,
Negative
in
(2014)
scores
and
emotional
Kanai
Decline
processes
of
interpersonal
Cheever
Loh
and
processing
attention
Rosen,
and
(2013),
Empathy
multi-
reduces
focus:
Carrier
learning:
(2012);
tasking
et
of
digital
not
technology
enhance
face-to-face
al
is
linked
et
al
to
ADHD:
Swing
communication
(Carrier
(2010)
et
(2010)
al,
With
the
2015)
the
course
number
of
activities
that
empathy
is
larger
of
time
online
enhance
becoming
(Howard-Jones,
2011)
Methods
to
study
used
Observation
Observation
Survey/questionnaire
Survey/questionnaire
Interview
Correlational
Correlational
Correlational
the
study
interaction
between
digital
study
study
technology
and
Experiment
Experiment
Neuroimaging
Neuroimaging
Minute-by-minute
Experience
assessment
method
cognitive
processes
of
behaviour
sampling
Longitudinal
study
Minute-by-minute
assessment
Review
this
proposed
invited
198
to
table
in
conjunction
distribution
change
in
some
with
material.
You
arguments
the
supporting
can
and/or
and
behaviour
evidence
should
supporting
of
be
and
exible
studies.
see
in
if
your
you
agree
approach,
with
and
the
you
are
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
T O
A P P R O A C H
B E H AV I O U R
Topics
●
Introduction
●
Cultural
Socialization
inuences
identities
and
on
individual
attitudes,
behaviour—culture
Social
●
cultural
cognitive
theory
and
Us
and
them—how
we
understand
norms
others
Origins
and
denitions
of
culture
Social
Cultural
cognition
norms
Attribution
Enculturation
and
cultural
Errors
Culture
of
Cultural
cultural
origins
of
Individualism
Becoming
attribution
and
development
stereotypes
cognition—
reference
versus
distance
Personality
●
behaviour
dimensions
Power
in
honour
The
●
theories
transmission
collectivism
index
traits
and
Effects
(PDI)
Social
cultural
oneself—socialization
dimensions
one
be
or
effect
of
addressed
more
with
examples
stereotypes
identity
theory
Acculturation
●
and
to
of
and
should
HL
socialcognition
only:
The
individual
As
people
inuence
of
globalization
on
behaviour
come
into
contact
with
greater
Introduction
numbers
Social pscolo in a loal contex t
important
why
The
world
is
becoming
of
linguistically—in
fact
way.
through
over
the
process
past
100
diverse
we
may
gain
hold
individuals,
an
it
is
understanding
different,
and
of
sometimes
increasingly
Electronically,
in
years
almost
or
every
which
so
views
to
our
own.
This
exploration
culturally,
should
The
that
others
opposing,
interconnected.
more
is
this
begin
with
trying
to
understand
others
imaginable
through
the
through
which
established
norms
under
and
happened
they
choose
to
live—in
short,
called
their
socialization.
globalization.
Globalization
force
of
to
life.
the
The
one
groups
against
their
way
to
against
of
in
of
the
what
they
and
the
as
are
world
of
and
ways
that
actions
only
as
identity.
are
an
seemingly
to
is
on
of
willing
guard
dichotomy
versus
as
they
attack
Groups
often
globalism.
social
social
and
is
called
by
inuence
well
that
hold
as
a
the
are
a
have
a
social
social
A
For
perspectives
to
and
third
and
social
the
are
it
people
need
with
to
is
identities)
it
is
worldviews
It
groups
assumption
Finally,
is
are
foster
others.
cultural
(or
eld
example,
that
deep
identity
identity.
by
of
assumptions
connections
that
personal
made
heart
psychologists
who
resistant
the
These
behaviour.
have
at
principles.
social
assumed
people
rest
social
animals
nurture
also
assumptions
that
psychology.
assumed
such
defence
several
sometimes
to
westernization.
the
are
psychologists
of
around
reactions
violence
This
nationalism
There
threatening
groups
perceive
their
extremes
a
religions
believe
attacks
globalization.
described
of
as
potential
perceived
often
life
around
engage
some
languages,
and
terrorist
have
people
by
radicalization
is
globalization
violent
seen
cultures,
world
Radical
is
that
as
assumed
that
people
change.
199
People
they
are
then
shaped
in
turn
environment.
examination
reciprocal
the
study
beliefs,
groups
members.
this
social
shape
the
psychology
inuence
of
the
and
vary
to
inuence
is
the
of
the
but,
we
on
scientic
at
words,
(or
it
is
behaviours,
social
group
its
how
think
Of
course,
nothing
relationship
human
explain
how
social
other
attitudes
inuence
attempts
In
of
environment;
that
bidirectional
Denitions
others
their
determinism).
of
psychology
with
Social
of
cognitions
and
by
help
the
long
history.
to
an
on
core,
its
social
past
The
era
western
history
thinking
new.
of
when
it
It
to
was
has
is
the
as
an
and
foundation
upon
inuence
distinguishes
a
social
point
since
treated
the
while
as
an
short
social
its
interest
1935
experimental
which
and
is
between
short
psychology
of
tradition,
primarily
psychology
social
psychology
of
era
been
relationships
behave.
past
intellectual
psychology
about
(1991)
social
long
refers
science.
Farr
the
refers
for
the
short
when
social
experimental
history
science
of
social
that
psychology
is
is
the
built.
Psychology in real life
ragged, dir ty and desperate individuals. This faceless
representation of an outgroup does not encourage
feelings of empathy or compassion. Sometimes it
takes an emotionally potent image or story to gain
compassion for members of an outgroup. This was
the case when the dead body of 3-year-old refugee
Alan Kurdi was found on a beach in Turkey. This
event immediately changed perceptions of millions
of parents around the world from viewing refugees
as faceless others to viewing them as parents
and families. The tragedy of a single boy from one
family was more moving than the cold reality of the
One current challenge of peaceful democracies is to
thousands of deaths repor ted in the news media. We
nd ways to absorb an increasing stream of ethnic,
understand the numbers of lives lost but we feel the
religious and cultural diversity. The most successful
loss of a single life.
societies have shown openness and exibility. If diering
Adapted from: https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/
social groups see each other as positive, contributing
migration-crisis-psychological-perspectives
members to a communal whole, there is less likelihood
of conict. Governments must nd a way to bring in
large numbers of migrants and refugees in a way that is
supportive and understanding of the concerns and needs
of both newcomers and citizens of the host country.
Psychologists can help with this. Social psychologists
are particularly well-suited to handle this very dicult
and pressing problem. Psychology is not only about
understanding how biology and cognition interrelate,
it is just as much about examining issues that go beyond
the individual. Social psychologists specialize in how
people relate to one another, and particularly how social
groups of people interact with other social groups; that is,
inter-group interactions. This is the very concept that is at
the heart of today’s refugee and migration crisis.
Recent trends in the national politics of many western
nations is a reaction to the current refugee and migrant
Of course, every refugee is a feeling, thinking person
crisis. President Trump was elected on a policy of “America
who deserves respect and humanity. Too often, the
First”; Geert Wilders in Holland, Marine Le Pen in
media speaks of refugees as a faceless horde of
200
Psychology in real life (continued)
France and Nigel Farage, one of the leaders of the Brexit
The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, described
movement that sought to withdraw the UK from the
what he calls Canada’s strength as follows in 2016:
European Union (EU),
“Canadians understand that diversity is our strength.
have to varying extents been
involved in politics based on close control of immigration.
We know that Canada has succeeded—culturally,
Some people in many western nations are interpreting
politically, economically—because of our diversity, not
the current refugee and migrant crisis as a threat to their
in spite of it” (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/11/26/
way of life. However, examples of welcoming policies can
diversity-canadas-strength).
be seen in Germany and Canada, where many thousands
In the following pages, you will learn how social
of immigrants have been received with open arms and
psychology can help us navigate our complicated,
oers of help. Why is there this dierence?
evermore integrated and globalizing world.
▲
Figure 4.1
Donald Trump
▲
Figure 4.2
Geer t Wilders
▲
Figure 4.3
Nigel Farage
Psychological theories such as realistic conict teor
can help explain why so many are against welcoming
migrants and refugees. Realistic conict theory explains
inter-group conict (prejudice and discrimination)
as arising from a competition for limited resources.
Arguments often include comments like “Refugees will
take our jobs”, or “Why should we help them when we
have our own homeless who need our help?” These are
examples of perceived conict over jobs or national
social services. It would appear, according to realistic
conict theory, that the citizens of Canada and Germany
do not feel that they are in conict with incoming
migrants. The challenge to wester n democracies, as
well as to the hopeful migrants and refugees, is to
develop a belief in all members of both groups that
change and acceptance will benet all involved.
Perhaps the beginning of understanding and
acceptance comes from a social identity. If exclusion
and walls are seen as solutions to challenges faced by
globalization then it seems inevitable that we will see
more conict, war and suering.
201
Cultural inuences on individual attitudes, identities
4
and behaviour—culture and cultural norms
Inquiry questions
●
What
and
determines
your
beliefs,
●
behaviours
Who
determines
cultural
and
social
norms?
attitudes?
What you will learn in this section
●
Culture
Acculturation:
and
Origins
of
culture:
we
form
social
cultural
protect
ourselves
to
survive
in
a
and
given
better
enable
of
as
of
a
psychological
result
interaction
of
between
cultures
us
environment
This
Denitions
process
groups
contactand
to
a
change
culture:
Hofstede
section
also
links
to:
and
●
stereotype
●
evolutionary
formation
Matsumoto
●
Cultural
norms:
the
unique
set
of
(biological
beliefs
and
behaviours
that
are
specic
to
approach
for
behaviour
behaviour)
origin
of
conict;
culture
of
honour
culture
(psychology
●
to
a
●
particular
explanations
attitudes,
Enculturation
and
cultural
gatekeeper
human
theory:
gender
identity
and
and
communication
to
who
controls
roles
access
psychology)
theory
●
related
social
a
(developmental
psychology
relationships)
transmission
●
Lewin’s
of
the
inuence
of
globalization
on
individual
to
behaviour.
information
●
Culture
of
Cohen
of
and
ideas
in
a
social
group
honour
et
al
(1996):
US
southern
culture
honour
According
Oriins and denitions of culture
solution
Culture
is
complex
and
difcult
to
culture
talk
the
is
what
we
refer
to
when
behaviours,
problems
attitudes
and
are
common
among
a
group
of
people
some
needs
form
of
unity
with
each
other.
It
great
universally
recognized,
it
affects
each
personally,
and
yet
when
pressed
for
a
seem
unable
to
achieve
to
origins
begin
of
culture
looking
origins,
for
perhaps
a
seem
an
appropriate
denition.
we
can
If
we
can
place
place.
to
as
hold
social
the
dene
common
animals,
culture.
belong.
We
form
social
so
and
better
202
must
Culture
many
have
assumption
a
basic
groups
to
enable
us
to
and
are
be
not
of
addressed,
really
why
a
physical
and
the
denition,
culture
is
the
response
environment
different
why
and
cultures
will
those
have
different
differences
and
tools
this
is
around
in
is
the
of
a
this
group
should
of
explain
in
the
exist
around
more
more
distinct
distinct
cultures.
in
from
where
the
one
another
culture
because
evolved.
that
groups
of
people
were
responding
need
different
environments,
resources
and
protect
survive
in
a
makeups
such
as
sizes
of
families
and
given
communities.
environment.
the
explain
social
ourselves
environment,
Social
to
to
that
their
world
Different
humans,
the
Although
environments
of
psychologists
in
description
Cultures
its
a
given
consensus.
the
The
is
denition
why
we
survive,
of
people
us
“Culture
to
is
rst
something
how
who
a
claim
(2007),
of
identities
available”.
that
problem
we
social
about
Matsumoto
the
dene.
the
Generally,
to
to
Differences
in
cultures
can
usually
C U LT U R A L
be
split
deep
into
two
culture ,
I N F L U E N C E S
categories:
as
shown
in
O N
surface
Figure
I N D I V I D U A L S — C U LT U R E
culture
and
both
within
wave
4.4.
of
become
Visible
C U LT U R A L
and
cultural
more
areas
for
groups.
in
groups
the
around
other
and
are
the
century,
the
and
cultures
misunderstanding
With
past
interconnected
Understanding
Behaviour
N O R M S
between
globalization
different
In awareness
A N D
world
have
interrelated.
the
key
potential
focuses
of
Artifacts
cross-cultural
Matsumoto,
psychologists
Geert
Hofstede
such
and
as
David
Shalom
Schwartz,
Norms
among
many
others.
Assumptions
Here
are
two
denitions
of
culture.
Beliefs
●
Hofstede
denes
programming
Values
members
of
of
one
culture
the
as
mind
group
or
“the
collective
distinguishing
category
of
the
people
Out of
from
another”
(Geert
Hofstede,
n.d.).
It
guides
conscious
awareness
Invisible
a
group
and
▲
Figure 4.4
The iceberg model: surface and deep culture
culture
behaviours,
of
a
culture
customs,
that
culture
refers
culture
such
and
rules
refers
to
as
and
can
the
to
aspects
traditions
be
easily
more
gender
concepts
and
as
for
identity
Matsumoto
group
of
a
authority
and
distinguishes
meaning
Deep
elements
respect
social
the
architecture
observed.
cognitive
roles,
of
such
people
allows
and
In
short,
deep
culture
is
easily
accessible
their
them
and
daily
from
culture
information
transmitted
the
meet
(2007):
group
interactions
other
groups
of
basic
is
a
unique
system,
across
shared
by
generations,
a
that
to:
needs
of
survival
the
coordinate
self.
in
people.
●
Surface
of
socially
to
achieve
a
viable
to
existence
members
of
that
culture
but
may
be
inaccessible
transmit
or
more
Social
in
difcult
and
deep
to
cultural
culture
understand
by
psychologists
and
how
it
social
behaviour
non-members.
are
interested
inuences
behaviour
pursue
derive
happiness
meaning
and
from
well-being
life.
ATL skills: Thinking
Environmental context can inuence culture. Cross-cultural research seems to show that factors such as a group’s
wealth, population density and the climate all shape culture. Using the two imaginary but realistic contexts below, create
a prole (shor t description) of the deep cultures of the societies that evolved in each of these contexts.
Contex t 1: this culture evolved in an environmental context with high population density, harsh climate, few resources and
isolation from outside inuence because the area is surrounded by near impassable mountain ranges.
Contex t 2: this culture evolved in an environmental context with low population density, mild climate, many resources and
constant contact with other cultures due to the area’s central position on steppe land covering thousands of square kilometres.
What characteristics of each of these two cultures would enable
people to meet basic needs of survival, coordinate socially to
achieve a viable existence, transmit social behaviour, pursue
happiness and well-being and derive meaning from life?
The dierent solutions to these challenges should be a
prole of two distinct cultures.
To add to your ideas on environmental context and challenges
in dierent cultures, investigate this further reading:
●
Cultural DNA : The Psychology of Globalization by Gurnek
Bains, published by Wiley, New Jersey, USA
●
The Culture Map: Decoding How People Think, Lead, and
Get Things Done Across Cultures by Erin Meyer, published
by Public Aairs, New York , USA .
203
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
Cultural
Cultural norms
the
Cultural
norms
and
culture
are
similar
transmission
process
of
is
accomplished
enculturation
and
through
social
concepts
cognition.
but
they
generic
are
not
term
given
practices
and
thrive
their
in
above).
the
context,
use
of
Culture
certain
groups
norms
and
culture.
certain
inappropriate
the
that
thing.
environment
beliefs
particular
to
beliefs
Cultural
attitudes,
same
use
(see
are
the
the
behaviours
Given
a
attitudes,
of
beliefs
a
Cultural
tools,
survive
and
unique
set
to
environmental
and
behaviours
cultural
sides
and
of
These
constitute
cultural
this
groups
purpose
refers
to
to
how
groups
have
but
the
to
culture
different
purpose
achieve
have
and
in
the
different
they
are
The
purpose.
all
the
term
“cultural
cultural
same
norm”
Different
in
“culture”
refers
cultural
and
particular
norms
but
Who
response
by
a
group
people
to
decides
who
will
marry
(see
an
refers
to
the
and
amount
within
process
In
other
enculturation
norms
the
are
in
out
individuals
a
their
of
words,
are
two
bidirectional
groups.
of
the
who
Cultures
behaviour
behaviour
is
make
and
of
by
theory”),
important
question:
who
be
established
and
up
their
individuals
shaped
cognitive
Lewin
theory—a
and
How
interacting
“Social
will
related
the
challenges
learning
culture
This
decides
passed
and
should
what
on?
norms
whom?
of
of
signicant
coin.
cultural
grow
norms
Kurt
A
by
a
information.
cultural
with
individuals’
raise
norms.
Cultural
theory
will
norms
Culture
a
norms.
means.
while
same
same
relationship
All
simply
transmission
the
Culture
arise.
is
acquire
Enculturation
receiving
a
appropriate
individuals
information
culture.
of
transmission
whereby
of
denitions
specic
specic
expectations
to
is
much
personal
space
to
(1890–1947)
psychology
who
ideas
in
a
and
controls
social
developed
gatekeeper
communication
access
group.
to
theory
information
Gatekeeper
theory
is
is
of
simple
but
important.
Gatekeepers
are
those
normal?
environmental
What
context
for
is
of
important,
of
the
individual
in
society
who
shared
to
groups
and
decide
what
information
is
the
the
needs
survival
more
people
or
other
individuals.
Examples
the
of
a
gatekeepers
are
politicians,
religious
or
spiritual
group?
group
of
leaders,
people
How
and
important
is
hierarchy
news
professors.
Through
individuals
authority?
decide
controversial,
Are
there
specic
What
are
they?
society
and
Enculturation and cultural transmission
are
dynamic
in
that
they
change
to
adjust
to
the
changing
contexts,
but
stable
as
generations
is
important
for
demands
they
do
come
the
of
survival
relies
on
culture
being
passed
and
go.
survival
attitudes,
from
one
of
This
process
is
often
that
information
gatekeeper
role
from
normally
need
controlling
and
which
which
starts
in
should
be
messages
avoided.
honour
exists
in
men)
societies
place
a
where
high
of
generation
to
as
and
social
reputation
and
value
where
any
This
to
someone’s
reputation,
family
or
property
cultures.
behaviours
referred
parents
(normally
strength
met
to
with
a
violent
response
(Brown,
Osterman
and
Barnes,
2009).
Some
examples
of
cultures
of
the
honour
next.
unwanted,
harmful
remain
and
beliefs
is
otherwise
their
is
Their
remove
The
children
insult
continuity
or
these
An example: te culture of onour
on
largely
information
corrupting
with
individuals
environmental
what
process,
over
A
time
home
their
Table 4.1
Cultures
ltering
university
them?
the
▲
a
and
Who
circulation.
determines
teachers
gender
to
roles?
editors,
include
the
southern
USA,
some
inner-
cultural
city
neighbourhoods
in
major
US
cities,
and
parts
transmission
Enculturation
is
the
process
by
which
of
the
Middle
of
these
their
culture.
This
could
be
via
instruction
or
direct
personal
chastity
learn
a
204
function
culture’s
rituals
successfully
and
within
traditions
it.
and
outsiders
in
all
share
most
varies;
What
some
devotion,
or
personal
others
each
value
aggression
reputation.
is
a
violent
(or
threat
of
a
What
violent)
order
response
to
honours
Pakistan.
experience.
they
We
and
observation,
towards
formal
cultures
India
individuals
female
learn
East,
to
perceived
insults
or
challenges.
C U LT U R A L
I N F L U E N C E S
O N
I N D I V I D U A L S — C U LT U R E
A N D
C U LT U R A L
N O R M S
TOK
Are “alternative facts” reall facts or are te lies?
When societies need to make decisions about impor tant
things such as climate change, going to war or national
Traditionally, the news media played an impor tant role
budgets they need actual facts. These facts must be “real”:
in social groups by deciding what events were impor tant
they must accurately represent the world around us. What
enough to be shared with their readers or viewers. Not
does it mean for gatekeepers and citizens if we accept the
only did the news media decide what information was
idea that there is such a thing as “alternative facts”?
impor tant but they decided how that information should
be delivered. In the past, there was an attempt to remain
To what extent has the internet and social media changed
impar tial when repor ting on current events. It feels
the relationship between society and gatekeepers?
sometimes as if this attempt has been abandoned for oneTo what extent do you agree with the statement: “alternative
sided and often heavily biased news repor ting.
facts are not facts, they are falsehoods” (CNN, 2017)?
Recently, there has been an increase in what is called
“fake news” and public gures stating what are falsiable
statements. Kellyanne Conway, a spokeswoman for
President Trump, has defended untrue statements made by
the Trump administration by calling them “alternative facts”.
For more information, read the following ar ticle.
CNN “‘Alternative facts’: Why the Trump team is planting a
ag in war on media”: http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/22/
media/alternative-facts-donald-trump/index.html
TOK
Natural and uman sciences
God meme or religious practices. It does not matter
whether God is real or whether any single religion has
“Memetics” and cultural transmission
monopoly on the truth because the idea of God and
In
1976,
Richard
Dawkins
coined
the
term
“meme”
in
religion have great psychological advantages to the
his
book The
Selfish
Gene.
A
meme
is
a
“unit
of
culture”
members of a group whether or not it is true. In this way,
(an
idea,
belief
or
behaviour).
In
his
book ,
Dawkins
the God meme has survived
likens
the
cultural
transmission
of
ideas
to
the
biological
for millennia. Memetics is
transmission
of
genes—so
equivalent
genetics
memetics
is
the
cultural
very controversial and is
of
in
biology.
In
Dawkins’
words,
considered a pseudoscience
“Just
as
genes
propagate
themselves
in
the
gene
pool
by its detractors
by
leaping
from
body
to
body
via
sperms
or
eggs,
so
(Kantorovich, 2014).
memes
propagate
themselves
leaping
from
to
in
the
meme
pool
by
Do you accept this analogy
brain
brain
via
a
process
which,
in
the
between genetics and
broad
sense,
can
be
called
imitation”
[or
learning]
memetics? What makes you
(Dawkins,
2006,
p
192).
say that?
The interesting par t about memes is that it does not matter
whether the ideas or beliefs are true, a meme simply has
to be benecial to its host culture. According to Dawkins,
one of the most successful memes is what he calls the
205
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
In
terms
of
origin,
APPROACH
cultures
of
TO
BE H AV IO U R
honour
may
have
ATL skills: Thinking
formed
of
law.
in
In
yourself,
have
this
could
defend
against
without
type
your
required
which
to
areas
of
clear
an
or
and
aggressive
served
yourself.
authority
environment,
possessions
have
insult
a
as
Social
test
challenge
Think about social science as an area of knowledge.
family
Do you think the experimental method can be used to
to
inuence
can
be
rule
protecting
your
defence
a
or
against
your
to
as
may
insult
take
action
simple
gain knowledge in the social sciences? Can we trust the
validity and reliability of the ndings? To add to your
ability
ideas, read:
as
“Science’s reproducibility problem:
verbal
encouragement
to
respond
(for
example,
100 psych studies were tested and
“Are
you
going
“Are
you
just
to
let
him
talk
to
you
that
way?”
or
only half held up”, an ar ticle by
going
to
sit
there
and
let
him
insult
Jessica Firger:
you?
Be
adults
along
man!”)
responding
with
become
as
a
well.
simply
Children
to
by
threats
accompanying
socialized
In
short,
being
to
part
or
of
are
in
learn
the
exposed
insults
positive
engage
children
a
who
with
to
violence
reinforcements
that
http://www.newsweek .com/
reproducibility-science-psychology-studies-366744
behaviour
these
behaviours
culture.
Research in focus: Cultural origin and transmission
Dov
Cohen,
researchers
test
his
at
in
theory
the
a
University
of
Illinois,
quasi-experimental
that
southern
white
led
study
males
three
to
in
responded
differently
to
threats
and
northern
white
males.
Researchers
to
test
for
difference
between
southerners.
US
term
“honor
states”
typically
refers
to
the
insults
states
than
and
the
The
USA
conditions
northerners
set
in
the
southern
USA.
up
Approximate extent of the US southern culture of honour states
Participants
students
north
a
206
of
were
who
the
male
either
USA.
confederate
In
University
grew
up
three
bumped
in
of
the
different
into
the
Michigan
south
or
the
conditions,
participant
and
then
insulted
name.
The
unaffected
him
by
calling
northerners
by
(comparative
the
to
insult
him
were
but
by
a
derogatory
relatively
southerners
northerners)
were
found
to:
C U LT U R A L
I N F L U E N C E S
O N
I N D I V I D U A L S — C U LT U R E
A N D
C U LT U R A L
N O R M S
Research in focus (continued)
●
think
their
masculine
reputation
found
was
had
threatened
that
Students
●
be
more
upset
(showing
elevated
levels
hormone
associated
with
to
be
more
physically
primed
(showing
elevated
hormone
associated
levels
for
of
with
aggression
testosterone—a
aggression
and
found
more
honour
of
primed
for
(completing
articial
scenarios
with
than
more
over
likely
Northerners
In
had
by
to
engage
in
aggressive
of
were
more
school
states
were
to
an
team
only
half
become
insult
say
as
more
(35%
this
honour
insults
research
likely
angry
in
with
the
no
double
(Brown,
research
than
the
states
Osterman
it
has
of
number
with
and
also
no
Barnes,
honour
states
have
a
been
higher
shown
level
and
both
reputation
versus
highlights
in
the
diminish
in
an
a
85%).
male
and
Brown,
female
2011).
by
Cohen
issue
the
man’s
to
et
al
(1996)
to
illustrates
cross-cultural
Although
not
(see
explicitly
denition
about
below),
raises
the
question:
what
this
happens
of
the
a
culture
of
honour
are
asked
when
to
cycle
reputation.
and
relation
southern
restore
aggression
in
Cohen
insult-aggression
attempt
through
al,
and
than
in
a
culture
that
does
not
include
an
insult-
This
cycle?
Anticipated
behaviours
within
lost
a
Additional
than
researchers
culture
as
about
aggression
results
et
the
period
capita
(Osterman
important
live
and
to
and
members
(Cohen
from
addition,
per
depression
research
of
In
more
separate
acculturation
then
weapon
20-year
honour
rates
research.
southerners
where
a
behaviour.
an
amused
a
shootings
of
major
The
culture
states
honour
violence.
endings)
dominant
his
of
school
honour
students
honour.
culture
suicide
and
culture
more
of
violent
be
a
high
aggression
that
●
of
brought
states
school
culture
cognitively
of
that
2009).
be
culture
of
arousal)
dominance)
●
in
have
month
culture
●
with
stress
past
and
states
incidences
of
likely
cortisol—a
US
higher
culture
are
part
of
the
social
fabric
that
hold
violence
groups
together.
cannot
anticipate
When
members
of
a
group
1996).
research
colleagues
Acculturation
at
is
undertaken
the
a
by
University
process
of
of
Ryan
Brown
Oklahoma
and
the
apprehension
seed
actions
can
seep
of
into
others,
mistrust
relationships
and
conict.
psychological
ATL skills: Thinking
and
cultural
interaction
changes
to
dominant
change
between
all
(or
culture
as
a
result
cultures.
both)
of
This
cultures,
(Berry,
contact
can
not
and
result
only
in
the
non-
Why do you think some people are reluctant to accept
immigrants or refugees from other cultures?
2005).
What challenges do you think would be faced by an
In
the
distant
concern
cultural
other
merited
groups
did
signicantly.
concern
are
or
past,
in
our
would
discussion
not
meet
Cultural
world
increasingly
incompatible
this
as
living
have
because
or
by
beliefs
caused
diverse
inuence
conict
diverse
side
attitudes,
not
is
a
growing
cultural
side
and
with
each
incoming immigrant or refugee?
How do you think social psychologists could help to
ease the challenges presented by the movement of
people between cultures?
groups
potentially
behaviours.
207
Cultural origins of behaviour and cognition—cultural
dimensions
Inquiry questions
●
How
does
culture
inuence
●
behaviour?
Are
cultures
comparable?
What you will learn in this section
●
Hofstede’s
dimensions
Individualism
of
versus
This
culture
●
collectivism
section
culture
also
distance
index
cockpit
(abnormal
culture
and
van
Hofstede
the
role
of
culture
in
psychology)
social
responsibility—cooperation
theory
(psychology
Meeuwesen,
and
(PDI)
●
Gladwell:
to:
syndromes
treatment
Power
links
den
(2009):
of
human
relationships)
Brink-Muinen
●
doctor–patient
●
developing
relations
(health
psychology)
patient–doctor
communication
identity
(developmental
psychology)
●
Schwartz:
●
Individual
theory
of
basic
values
●
personality
traits
and
HL
only:
The
inuence
of
globalization
on
cultural
individual
behaviour
dimensions
Studying
looking
That
cultures
in
examined
This
and
is
means
taking
that
as
if
approach
analysis
Hofstede
from
from
is
for
the
are
to
and
outside
of
among
interested
the
the
emic
are
culture.
to
analysis,
Geert
covering
more
40
largest
of
of
prioritize
trying
to
of
human
scores
Typically,
culture
from
understand
as
cultural
within.
only
Emic
syndromes.
An
is
that
of
Margaret
seeks
example
in
founded
of
for
was
his
interested
dened
in
their
how
three
gender
employees
across
in
comparing
them
the
in
understanding
the
one.
Modern
She
against
particular
cross-cultural
etic
approach.
(See
was
each
Unit
8
on
developmental
complicated
unique
208
and
analysis
by
the
of
fact
inherently
research
1965.
study
of
the
He
soon
values
40
countries
in
which
of
IBM
IBM
distributed
had
questionnaires
employees,
asking
about
their
to
values
and
of
uniqueness
Mead’s
the
In
1973,
ndings
of
he
completed
his
research
his
initial
suggested
that
trends
emerged
in
the
analysis
of
his
data.
of
called
these
trends
dimensions
and
originally
use
four:
individualism
versus
collectivism;
study
power
distance
index
(PDI);
masculinity
psychology.)
cultures
that
massive
behaviours.
versus
Cross-cultural
in
other,
the
in
included.
not
psychologists
discussion
personnel
Europe
Hofstede
117,000
identied
an
2010,
were
different
roles.
He
each
By
regions
5
patterns
1930s.
certain
only
explain
cultures.
and
the
with
emic
study
interested
help
up
such
and
cultures
come
can
across
the
IBM
undertook
over
Mead
that
to
research
used
to
behaviour
Mead
countries
He
research
subsidiaries.
research
undertook
countries.
countries
cross-cultural
understand
research
culture-specic
70
culture
76
standardize
Hofstede
behaviour
department
a
and
than
these
of
from
Hofstede
approaches—they
simplify
dimensions
study
research
others.
in
research.
beliefs
cross-cultural
basis
Schwartz,
anthropologists
approach
or
attempt
perspective
practices
above
allows
outside
etic
cultural
and
and
an
an
can
cultures
difcult
to
are
another
each
compare.
femininity;
(Hofstede,
be
In
an
term
1980).
two
and
In
uncertainty
further
dimensions:
orientation
and
avoidance
research,
long-term
indulgence
he
added
versus
versus
short-
restraint
C U LT U R A L
(Hofstede
1991,
identied
are
O R I g I N S
2011).
The
summarized
O F
b E h A V I O U R
dimensions
A N D
C O g N I T I O N — C U LT U R A L
Hofstede
and
below.
Individualism
versus
collectivism
looks
individualistic
cultures,
members
to
dene
a
according
to
personal
people
identity
are
autonomy,
are
highly
identity
group,
valued.
is
more
as
unique;
with
In
the
and
personal
important
relationship
as
to
identity.
a
choice
with
guidance.
A
in
nature
that
is
pragmatic
high
and
score
favours
●
of
future
cultures,
culture
to
a
social
the
and
Indulgence
dimension
of
needs
as
a
driving
force
innovation.
reects
while
are
a
allows
a
of
restraint
low
the
relatively
natural
culture
open
open
reects
culture
in
(2010).
extent
human
with
score
conservative
responsibilities
versus
measures
enjoyment
group
achievements
someone’s
change
while
personal
Self-sufciency,
personal
the
for
change
conservative
their
self-sufciency
connected
characteristics
and
as
and
collectivist
often
competitiveness
and
understood
as
competitiveness
inuencing
not
is
viewed
past
social
is
characteristics.
for
Personal
the
culture
anticipation
identity
eyeing
culture
(1980).
shows
In
while
suspicion—this
and
●
norms
D I M E N S I O N S
a
to
access
to
drives.
A
access
more
terms
of
This
which
to
a
the
high
score
indulgence
restrained,
personal
gratication.
group.
ATL skills: Research
●
Power
distance
dimension
the
is
a
index
measure
less-powerful
and
expect
unevenly.
societies
that
This
very
understand
between
of
the
members
power
is
(PDI)
members.
will
and
extent
of
a
be
tightly
(1980).
to
group
which
accept
distributed
related
tolerate
Cultures
This
to
how
inequality
with
high
PDI
Go
scores
are
tolerant
of
inequalities
and
tend
to:
to
ht tps://www.geer t-hofstede.com/national-culture.html
be
hierarchical
PDI
scores
do
justication
equal
by
not
and
nature.
Cultures
tolerate
members
distribution
of
with
inequalities
normally
power
and
low
Pick one national culture and examine its scores for each
without
prefer
of the cultural dimensions.
an
inuence.
Can you see any correlations between any of the
dimensions (for example, does high Individualism
●
Masculinity
versus
femininity
(1980).
In
correlate with masculinity)?
this
dimension,
achievement,
while
cultures
values
on
of
a
and
the
culture
is
ratings
and
and
they
rating
are
this
index
behaviour
avoid
more
for
with
scores on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.
rated
Don’t forget to read the “ What About” sections for each
dominant
national culture. These can be found beneath the char ts
or
for each national culture’s dimensions.
that
(1980).
to
are
strong
a
and
intolerance
for
unconventional
show
outside
Weak-
norm
of
the
dimensions
cultures
are
complex.
differently
and
the
Long-term
versus
short-term
For
same
as
there
each
are
Kenyan
to
that
This
cultures
same
way.
shows
that
A
a
dimension
do
not
low
based
experience
score
culture
is
on
this
honours
to
many
isolation
Triandis
(2001)
(2001)
tolerate
than
points
culture
is
collectivism.
between
cultures
one
identied
them
inequality,
ways—and
more
national
expressed
collectivism
Chinese
they
and
is
individualist
Korean
or
other
along
Triandis
or
in
dimension
distinguish
which
One
is
but
need
dimension
four
is
not
to
at
categories
a
of
orientation
individualism
(1991).
culture.
example,
measured
act
Each
collectivist
way
degree
time.
●
in
each
important
be
risks.
that
unique.
the
more
the
None
out
(high)
behaviour.
cultures
This
which
ambiguity
a
exhibit
take
the
index
extent
risk-taking
to
Hofstede
them.
with
behaviour
likely
Choose another country and contrast the two countries’
caring,
masculine
the
Cultures
include
competitiveness
which
avoidance
(low-scoring)
tolerance
to
dened
comfortable
on
and
include
were
measures
uncertainty.
values
compassion.
extent
he
Uncertainty
dimension
values
culture
feminine—as
ideas
autonomy
“feminine”
cooperation
●
“masculine”
on
the
time
versus
collectivism.
idea
in
the
dimension
●
Horizontal
unique
and
individualism :
mostly
of
the
members
same
are
status.
traditions
209
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
●
Vertical
but
it
is
enjoy
●
a
APPROACH
individualism :
possible
higher
Horizontal
to
TO
members
distinguish
status
in
a
BE H AV IO U R
social
collectivism :
are
yourself
Meeuwesen,
unique
Hofstede
and
hierarchy.
members
was
related
and
uncertainty
with
the
ingroup
and
enjoy
same
collectivism:
themselves
with
themselves
to
the
an
members
ingroup
authority
merge
and
in
this
submit
wealth
that
is
dimensions.
there
In
a
are
correlations
ingroup.
sample
of
10
between
European
a
scores
avoidance,
a
strong
on
and
PDI
collectivism
and
individualism
and
to
weaker
avoidance.
small
cultures;
national
other
addition,
that
less
was
wealth
related
scores
on
to
PDI
and
status.
Vertical
In
strong
likewise,
uncertainty
●
Brink-Muinen
largely
higher
the
to
den
found
merge
(GDP);
themselves
van
(2009)
sample
however,
culture
and
that
do
it
It
of
is
relatively
does
not
worth
show
exist
correlations
in
are
noting
that
similar
that
national
dimensions
isolation
from
of
each
commonplace.
the
cultures,
Individualism versus collectivism
Individualism
(high
score)
All
a
Cultures
characterized
cultures
spectrum
loose
ties
on
Collectivism
Cultures
by:
either
●
exist
between
individuals;
of
(low
score)
between
these
characterized
by:
two
●
all
tight
ties
between
members
of
extremes
individuals
after
the
●
are
expected
themselves,
self
is
“others”
very
being
individuals,
outgroup
a
sense
to
look
of
“I”
strong
or
of
is
strong
Nations/cultures
●
as
necessarily
members
than
the
the
“others”
as
(universalism).
(score
out
of
being
outgroups,
inherently
100)
so
of
of
members
“we”
“I”
of
collectivists
are
exclusive.
Nations/cultures
(score
USA
91
Russia
39
Australia
90
Kenya
25
UK
89
China
20
Germany
67
Ecuador
8
▲
sense
sense
orself
classied
not
ingroups;
stronger
out
of
100)
Table 4.2
Source: https://www.geer t-hofstede.com/national-culture.html
See video
10
minutes
with
Geert
Hofstede
on
individualism
versus
collectivism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQj1VPNPHlI
Research in focus: Berry and Katz (1967)
John
Berry
cultural
conducted
cultural
across
210
is
one
of
researchers
an
study
early
on
cultures
the
in
most
the
and
important
past
very
and
Scottish
cross-
years.
important
individualism
including
50
He
cross-
collectivism
people,
the
Tenme
(he
people
called
Island
in
Eskimo
Berry
of
them
Sierra
Northern
people
noted
Leone
Eskimo)
are
that
Canada.
both
these
and
people
The
the
from
Inuit
Bafn
Tenme
subsistence
subsistence
and
cultures.
cultures
C U LT U R A L
O R I g I N S
O F
b E h A V I O U R
A N D
C O g N I T I O N — C U LT U R A L
D I M E N S I O N S
Research in focus (continued)
are
is
a
different
hunting
from
and
individualism
children,
low
are
to
each
other.
shing
develop
resulting
in
a
and
farmers
must
group
who
share
until
collectivist
out
the
high
that
among
The
one
harvest
harvest,
culture
among
year
a
“hint”
line
and
see
if
Katz
the
were
interested
difference
of
these
in
scores
would
Berry
conform
correlate
hypothesized
less
often
than
with
because
the
that
the
socialization
entirely.
on
tight
social
group
to
social
As
the
researchers
measure
varying
target
length
is
used
are
given
the
and
unity
research
to
the
Asch
where
a
presented
on
of
a
impact
behaviours.
the
Tenme
and
top
of
paradigm
series
to
a
of
to
lines
of
of
participants.
page
and
One
eight
their
Lim
21
culture
beliefs,
Researchers
collected
countries.
of
a
(in
with
The
has
been
data
They
on
attitudes,
cultural
disregarded
a
stated,
thing,
is
we
what
must
we
Katz
the
1967,
different
p
417).
results
for
people
conformity
are
due
to
required
the
by
belief
38,000
that
national
and
environmental
These
that
will
case,
and
the
ndings
the
affect
seem
degree
group
conditions
of
to
support
individualism
member
behaviour
conformity).
researchers
differentiate
Cullen
and
their
Lim’s
study
because
from
they
claim
that
religiosity
is
a
basis
for
reject
prosocial
identities
Parboteeah,
over
found
religiosity,
values
the
shown
They
argue
that
the
dimension
of
Cullen
versus
collectivism
is
unrelated
individuals
religious
giving
because
giving
in
religious
collectivism
wealth,
education)
has
is
often
not
a
matter
of
personal
choice
liberal
but
democratic
of
social
culture
this
situations
(along
that
cultures.
Hofstede’s
to
in
of
almost
decision–this
Eskimo
degree
individualism
and
Findings
signicant
participant
choose
(Berry,
concluded
behaviour.
and
the
of
the
in
group
Tenme
people
cooperation”
was
Parboteeah,
individualism
one.
highly
suggestion
Eskimo
as
Eskimo)
Tenme
Individualism and volunteerin
The
a
to
given
norms.
conformity,
line
the
or
correct
had
then
(incorrectly)
Tenme
the
length
are
Eskimo
contrasting
The
being
one
with
different
the
line
the
identify
collectivist
of
relations
one
Tenme
accept
Tenme
agree
the
depended
equal
to
their
It
Tenme
of
below
asked
cultures’
call
would
as
the
is
are
participants
(Scottish,
the
to
while
printed
research
two
all
conformity.
lines
The
“most”
that
are
participants
other
line.
choose
“When
individualism
the
tendency
society.
lengths
The
identifying
that
showed
it
to
of
target
norm
Berry
varying
line.
people
the
representing
food-accumulating
the
a
Tenme
a
of
which
the
crop
lines
target
allows
individualistic
society.
harvest
the
next
fully
highly
food-accumulating
rice
Eskimo
society
of
social
obligation
(that
is,
having
to
pay
a
a
tithe).
positive
relationship
(Parboteeah,
Cullen,
characteristics
strong
group
Hofstede’s
of
with
Lim
tight
2004).
social
identities,
conception
formal
this
of
volunteering
Given
collectivist
connections
seems
to
and
align
with
collectivism.
Data
was
2,553
found
in
that
such
as
to
via
telephone
from
40
individualistic
voluntary
deemed
ATL skills: Thinking
collected
participants
prosocial
be
in
line
US
cultures
behaviour
with
were
for
active
causes
Jambo,
they
values
self-promotion
(Kemmelmeier,
from
Researchers
individualistic
self-determination,
actualization
interviews
states.
or
Letner
self-
2006).
Think about your knowledge of social norms and role
Researchers
found
individualism
was
positively
identity.
related
to
charitable
giving
and
volunteerism
Why do you think religiosity and liberal democratic
and
that
both
were
more
likely
to
occur
in
more
values positively correlate with formal volunteering?
individualist
Kemmelmeier,
sought
to
individualism
the
Jambor
examine
reasons
and
for
the
and
Letner
relationship
voluntary,
(2006)
between
prosocial
stranger-on-stranger
behaviour—
giving.
An
states.
important
research
is
point
that
it
to
volunteering
among
(1999)
the
make
consider
focused
on
strangers.
point
that
about
levels
of
this
giving
Lyengar
collectivist
et
and
al
cultures
211
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
tend
As
a
to
discriminate
result,
APPROACH
in
favour
TO
of
BE H AV IO U R
their
stranger-on-stranger
ingroup.
helping
may
Cultural dimensions and acculturation
be
If
less
common
among
collectivist
cultures
you
of
individualist
ones.
(see
discussion
of
are
studying
the
role
globalization
as
a
trigger
for
ingroup
favouritism
on
HL
extension,
individual
“The
behaviour”,
inuence
see
“How
of
globalization
oxytocin
the
than
inuences
behaviour”
for
more
on
this
in
topic.
Unit
2
on
the
biological
approach
to
behaviour).
A
Additional
research
(Finkelstein
recent
study
promoted
examined
the
inuence
of
culture
on
in
Specically,
Finkelstein
was
to
identifying
if
there
were
different
individualists
and
collectivists
engaged
prosocial
two
continue
image).
to
A
volunteer
study
a
touch
for
of
was
at
a
extra
irony
Participants
people
(to
in
were
to
asked
a
and
out
his
in
credit
they
to
or
which
China
culture
Interestingly,
individualist
opened
self-
and
its
expect
194
in
there
is
volunteer).
and
to
volunteer
within
for
showed
cultures
career-related
individualist
reasons
were
Collectivism
the
was
cultures
strongest
more
a
other-oriented
volunteer
role
motives
identity
the
research
the
in
be
although
voluntary,
and
566
traditional
on
they
the
and
the
give
to
do
so
ingroup
volunteerism
culture
behaviour,
may
may
differ.
make
more
in
line
likely
with
members
to
give
their
that
while
to
the
more
social
This
study
spread
television
you
would
an
process
of
collectivism
Since
values,
gives
and
would
promote
interesting
fuelled
consumer
by
culture.
(2013)
conducted
a
content
advertisements,
collectivism
and
the
rating
for
prominence
and
modern
themes.
aimed
The
at
researchers
younger
viewers
scored
higher
on
individualism
at
advertisements
because
as
a
reection
marketing
theory
of
tells
culture
us
must
reect
the
values
of
their
that
clients
it
they
wish
to
create
a
market
for
their
products.
engage
in
turn,
suggests
that
as
China
opened
its
reasons
to
trade
it
also
opened
its
doors
to
cultural
emphasis
likely
inuence
from
by
studies
outside.
This
research
is
supported
to
earlier
(Lin,
2001;
Tsai
and
Lee,
2006)
individualists
strangers
individualistic
self-determination,
reect
US
if
the
suggest
the
or
in
what
Lin
calls
the
giving
values
self-promotion
trend
of
Chinese
advertisements
began
such
a
decade
before
Hsu
and
Barker’s
study.
self-
actualization.
Audience
group
American
younger
American
older
Individualism
Collectivisim
Modernity
Tradition
182
0.85
0.26
0.83
0.07
134
0.82
0.34
0.8
0.09
younger
136
0.51
0.43
0.37
0.21
Chinese
older
114
0.20
0.36
0.30
0.30
Table 4.3
Means for individualism, collectivism, modernity and tradition in the television adver tisements
Source: Hsu and Barker (2013)
212
N
Chinese
▲
is
of
consumer
versus
respectively).
advertisements
the
and
between
individualism
20
advertisements
important
over
as
This
and
cultures,
types
Collectivist
them
advertising
variation
television
or
westernization
is
1979.
2010).
that
are
in
acculturation
development
collectivist
both
prosocial
ingroup
the
collectivism.
doors
why
trade
reasons.
This,
in
from
evident
associated
(Finkelstein,
surrounding
individualist
that
shift
be
career-
if
may
to
into
acculturation
Barker
of
advertisers
giving
would
were
is
Given
was
value
motivating
closely
and
the
and
values.
of
and
Looking
of
a
that
than
with
values
doors
to
the
Chinese
globalization
Chinese
factor.
on
(91
that
example
found
related
that
online
ndings
collectivist
of
advertisements
collectivist
of
However,
its
related
scores
individualism
motivated
hypothesis
investigation
values
analysis
both
the
individualist
because
Chinese
Hsu
questionnaires.
to
dimension
will
participated
not
out
for
identity
her
(perhaps
did
ll
role
volunteer
university
course
that
as
maintain
carried
US
volunteered
help)
self-identies
undergraduates
exchange
that
motivation
who
values
behaviour.
theorized
reasons;
(someone
test
interesting
societal
Finkelstein
cultural
advertising
in
an
voluntary,
the
US
reasons
since
why
and
interested
collectivist
in
Chinese
volunteer
conducted
behaviour.
examining
2010)
C U LT U R A L
O R I g I N S
O F
b E h A V I O U R
A N D
C O g N I T I O N — C U LT U R A L
D I M E N S I O N S
ATL skills: Thinking
This fur ther reading, on the spread of US culture, gives a
view of how globalization impacts on societal values and
mental health:
Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche by
Ethan Watters, published by Free Press, New York , USA .
If you have chosen Unit 5 on abnormal psychology as
an option, you may also wish to review that unit for the
cultural dimensions of disorder prevalence and treatment.
Te PDI
High
PDI
(high
score)
All
a
Cultures
characterized
cultures
spectrum
strict
social
on
Low
by:
PDI
Cultures
either
●
exist
of
(low
score)
between
these
characterized
by:
two
hierarchy
●
a
●
low
relatively
at
social
structure
extremes
●
acceptance
members
●
of
of
deference
to
inequality
an
ingroup
elders
Nations/cultures
among
and
(score
tolerance
among
●
superiors
out
of
100)
for
members
willingness
to
inequality
of
an
question
Nations/cultures
(score
Russia
93
USA
40
China
80
Australia
36
Ecuador
78
UK
35
Kenya
70
Germany
35
▲
ingroup
authority
out
of
100)
Table 4.4
Source: https://www.geer t-hofstede.com/national-culture.html
relationship
is
an
between
example
of
how
children
culture
and
is
parents.
passed
This
from
one
See video
generation
sense
on
power
of
to
the
power
next.
Children
relationships
rst
develop
in
the
a
clear
home,
distance
then
towards
nally
https://www.youtube.com/
A
watch?v=DqAJclwfyCw
society
this
in
to
low
the
a
broader
power
with
low
power
workplaces
group
structures
power
distance
and
up
of
older
the
the
people
society
distance
in
to
of
will
home,
broadest
and
itself.
exhibit
in
schools,
aspects
of
society.
Meeuwesen,
van
den
Brink-Muinen
and
how does position on te PDI inuence
eaviour?
Obedience
learned
and
early
authority
in
the
are
family
social
and
are
(2009)
Hofstede’s
dimensions
differences
elements
inherent
Hofstede
in
the
The
in
were
interested
could
patient–doctor
researchers
collected
in
predict
whether
cross-national
communication.
data
from
10
diverse
213
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
European
countries
here
their
with
(65),
Sweden
Great
Britain
the
study.
had
their
nation’s
was
the
The
PDI
a
doctor
more
lasted
The
low
is
also
handles
topics
leadership.
manager
is
cultures.
well
as
by
that
the
the
the
This
with
In
conveyed
through
and
and
higher
patient.
doctors
and
information
consultation.
more
consultations
van
to
den
dynamics
strategies
when
teams
in
business
reading
multinational
Business
the
psychology
use
as
managing
different
a
national
managers
literature
more
not
showed
satised
would
on
power
that
However,
performance
distance
(1999)
power
for
groups
more
the
limited
and
Similar
research
been
they
are
this
is
not
for
team
a
of
are
voice
in
follow
to
in
by
is
and
more
few.
examine
decision-making
the
USA,
react
it
poorly
cultures,
teams
in
it
If
would
how
decision-making
has
when
decision-making.
multinational
in
to
being
disempowered.
In
national
members
low
to
distance
explicit
people
voice
other
and
information
cultures.
that
the
study
characterized
undertaken
a
in
seems
while
are
where
have
across
given
leaders
involve
to
established
untrue
inform
was
It
power
distance
differently
power
work
low
Au’s
high
work
in
the
well
and
high
responsibilities
varied
long
tasks,
desire
less
the
in
power
that
react
better
on
seen
from
high
situations
when
difference
Eylon
that
were
than
score
workplace.
perform
structured
a
the
suggests
ndings
may
whether
but
groups
Disempowered
no
participants
therefore
in
of
were
signicantly
distance
these
was
condition.
empowered
from
regardless
There
did
empowered
participants
empowered
differences
cultures
participants
all
when
empowered,
PDI.
processes
and
to
Results
performance.
2009).
team
International
and
in
videotaped
(Meeuwesen,
what
or
(90)
(general
participated
patients
styles
important
team,
served
doctors
(shown
Belgium
questionnaires
to
important
such
very
the
businesses.
Knowing
multinational
be
their
longer
very
(40),
communication
scores,
Hofstede
and
out
speaking
PDI
to
signicantly
PDI
following
unexpected
shorter
communication
organizations
a
the
BE H AV IO U R
Romania
307
found
less
one-sided
Brink-Muinen,
(68),
of
lled
the
primarily
with
the
Estonia
patients
researchers
and
TO
communications
information
exible
total
5,807
score,
more
countries
Poland
A
Participants
shared
implies
and
medical
analysed.
scores):
(31),
practitioners)
including
PDI
(35).
APPROACH
best
to
processes.
distance.
Three
Eylon
and
and
(1999)
empowerment
that
the
amount
required
to
culturally
who
were
of
MBA
the
performance.
based
the
and
two
on
and
language
groups
then
each
empowered,
low
and
were
put
135
from
work
and
and
a
similar
in
Members
through
disempowered
of
the
three
a
effects
(specically,
into
high
groups
Overall,
experience
two
groups
conditions;
control.
studies
All
the
USA
low
and
found
cultures
Kong).
that
it
is
the
lack
people
for
of
are
levels
unhappy.
to
teams
maximize
in
to
a
the
power
Mexico
et
al
again
the
cultural
points
to
cultural
members
and
object.
in
and
(2001)
participation
people
satisfaction
is
cultures
respond
high
China,
violates
This
team
of
Brockner
there
voice—participation
Brockner
understand
and
work
of
people
lack
which
participation
managers
their
the
to
to
commitment
(specically,
not
by
that
distance
Germany)
Importantly,
decision-making
found
power
lower
lower
conducted
studies
decision-making—than
distance
in
in
(with
to
were
three
people
favourably
Hong
and
origin.
work
and
for
in
the
divided
of
2001.
tendency
less
is
separate
in
Canadian
distance
country
al
organization)
satisfaction
were
found
et
participants
examined
power
distance
management
performance
Using
Participants
power
workplace
work
students
demographics.
were
the
researchers
distance
on
researched
supervision
maximize
empowerment
power
in
dependent.
university,
of
Au
It
in
is
when
norms
the
that
need
differences
order
to
performance.
Psychology in real life
Malcolm gladwell—a cockpit culture teor
(NTSB) began its Aircraft Accident Repor t. The crew was
of plane crases
well trained, very experienced and professional, yet poor
communication between the ight crew in the cockpit was
Early in the morning on 6 August 1997, a Korean Air 747
identied as a contributing factor in the tragedy. How could
with 254 people on board slammed into a mountainside
a very experienced captain and ight crew get things so
on the island of Guam, killing 228 people. Almost
wrong?
immediately, the National Transpor tation Safety Board
214
C U LT U R A L
O R I g I N S
O F
b E h A V I O U R
A N D
C O g N I T I O N — C U LT U R A L
D I M E N S I O N S
Psychology in real life (continued)
It turns out that this was not an isolated incident .
in roles dictated by the heavy weight of their country’s
Between 1970 and 1999, Korean Airlines experienced
cultural legacy. They needed an oppor tunity to step
an unusually high crash rate, losing 16 aircraft in a string
outside those roleswhen they sat in the cockpit”
of unfor tunate disasters and giving the company one of
(Gladwell, 2008, p 246).
the worst ight safety records of any major airline at the
Once
the
connection
between
power
distance
and
time. In fact , the loss rate for Korean Air was 17 times
cockpit
culture
was
identied,
Greenberg
and
Korean
Air
higher than for similar airlines, such as United Airlines in
removed
Korean
Air
cockpits
from
Korean
culture
and
the USA , between 1988 and 1998. What was going on in
re-normed
the
culture
of
the
distance.
In
this
cockpit
to
reect
a
much
Korean Air to cause these kinds of systematic failures?
lower
power
way,
they
eliminated
the
Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Outliers, points to an
hierarchy
that
prevented
ight
crews
from
cooperating
unlikely and often invisible culprit—elements of Korean
eectively.
culture itself.
Since 1999, Korean Air has improved its safety record to
Gladwell focuses on Korea’s relatively high PDI score (60)
be in line with other major carriers. This is a remarkable
and the resultant communication problems between ight
turnaround that can at least par tially be attributed to the
crew. Subsequent research into the culture of the cockpit
re-norming of Korean Air cockpit culture.
found that in 17 out of 19 par ticipating cultures, ight
crews had a signicantly higher PDI score than Hofstede’s
original research showed for their respective cultures
(Merritt, 2000). In other words, the culture of ight crew
seemed to exaggerate the original scores found on
Hofstede’s original PDI. This may be due to the fact that
many airlines hire ex-military ight crews. The military, by
its very nature, is strictly hierarchical with extreme power
distance scores.
Earl Weener, former chief safety engineer for Boeing,
makes the point that the cockpit of the 747 is designed
for two equals working in close cooperation—there should
be no hierarchy in the culture of the cockpit (Gladwell,
2008). A former Delta Airlines employee, David Greenberg,
was brought in to improve Korean Air ’s safety record. He
▲
quickly surmised that Korean Air ight crew were, “trapped
Korean Air ight 801
Figure 4.5
View of the wreckage from
ATL skills: Thinking
Is it is ever acceptable to obey without question? As we have seen, the extent to which someone will do this may be
culturally dependent.
One subculture within all cultures that shows extremely high PDI scores is in military organizations (and to a lesser
extent police forces). These subgroups are normally made up of willing young men and women who have volunteered to
be a par t of a rigid and hierarchical culture.
Alfred Tennyson’s 1889 poem The Charge of the Light Brigade, declared that “ Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to
reason why, Theirs but to do and die”. Tennyson was writing about the common soldier who was to obey orders no matter
what the consequences. Even in western nations, now exhibiting a low PDI score, it was once considered noble and
215
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
ATL skills (continued)
courageous to go blindly to your death if ordered to do so by a superior. This drastically dierent subculture is why the
military and police communities are very interesting to social psychologists.
What personality traits do you consider ideal for military service? Do you believe soldiers are born or made?
How are new recruits socialized into the military culture?
7.
Alternative or ex tended models of
Conformity—restraint
and
impulses
and
violate
likely
to
of
actions,
upset
or
inclinations
harm
others
cross-cultural studies
social
expectations
or
norms
Scwar tz’s teor of asic values
8.
There
is
more
than
one
model
in
Tradition—respect,
acceptance
psychology
and
it
is
always
worth
of
than
one
way
of
the
customs
and
and
ideas
that
examining
traditional
more
commitment
cross-cultural
explaining
culture
or
religion
provide
the
self
behaviour.
Self-transcendence
Schwartz
an
has
extension
offered
of
a
theory
Hofstede’s
that
he
considers
dimensions.
This
is
theory
9.
features
10
basic
values
and
their
Benevolence—preserving
welfare
higher-order
of
to
Self-direction—independent
action;
2.
with
whom
enhancing
one
is
in
the
frequent
choosing,
creating,
in
thought
(the
ingroup)
Universalism—understanding,
tolerance
and
people
exploring
Stimulation—excitement,
challenge
contact
change
10.
1.
those
groups.
personal
Openness
and
overarching
novelty
and
Schwartz’s
life
to
and
protection
for
theory
describe
explains
and
the
how
nature
of
basic
they
basic
for
the
appreciation,
welfare
(Schwartz,
values
values
of
inuence
not
all
only
cultures
and
of
all
2006).
interact
claims
but
with
Self-enhancement
each
3.
Hedonism—pleasure
and
sensuous
In
gratication
for
an
Achievement—personal
success
circular
to
show
competence
chart
that
this
visually,
shows
the
Schwartz
relationship
created
of
through
the
demonstrating
effort
oneself
a
4.
other.
according
to
basic
values
(see
Figure
4.6).
For
example:
social
security,
conformity
and
tradition
have
similar
standards
motivations
5.
Power—social
dominance
status
over
and
people
prestige,
and
control
or
and
self-direction
universalism
resources
and
are
and
and
fundamentally
stimulation;
benevolence
achievement.
Values
such
opposed
similarly,
are
as
offset
to
values
to
of
power
hedonism
and
Conservation
stimulation
6.
Security—safety,
society,
216
of
harmony
relationships
and
and
of
stability
self
of
and
are
therefore
chart.
quite
appear
closely
next
to
related
each
to
each
other
on
other
the
C U LT U R A L
O R I g I N S
O F
b E h A V I O U R
A N D
C O g N I T I O N — C U LT U R A L
Self-
D I M E N S I O N S
Personalit traits and cultural
Openness to
transcendence
Self-
change
dimensions
direction
Universalism
Creativity,
Social justice,
equality
freedom
Stimulation
Benevolence
Exciting life
Helpfulness
Hedonism
Pleasure
Conformity
Tradition
Obedience
Humility
Devoutness
Achievement
Success,
Security
ambition
Social order
Power
Authority,
Self-
wealth
Conser vation
enhancement
Organized by motivational
similarities and dissimilarities
▲
Figure 4.6
Relationship of the 10 basic values in
▲
Figure 4.7
Völker tafel—17th-century stereotypes
Schwar tz’s theory (Schwar tz, 2006)
Placement
on
questionnaire
this
matrix
called
the
is
determined
Schwartz
by
Value
The
birth
and
18th
The
SVS
has
been
taken
by
over
in
over
60
nations.
modern
led
and
cultural
(Fischer
of
2011).
The
questionnaire
10
basic
principles
on
a
scale
of
the
–1
to
7.
The
higher
the
number,
the
that
value
is
to
the
the
17th
develop
“we”
that
was
different
a
from
“others”
that
existed
in
other
states.
and
effort
philosophers
distinguishing
spent
between
a
lot
of
what
participant.
the
various
“national
characters”
of
they
Europe.
more
One
important
in
to
importance
called
from
state
need
measures
time
the
the
and
Eighteenth-century
Schwartz,
nation
to
60,000
all
respondents
the
centuries
Survey
national
(SVS).
of
a
of
the
earliest
attempts
to
collate
these
can
The
be
seen
in
the
Völkertafel
stereotypes
(shown
in
scaleis:
Figure
●
7
(supreme
4.7
6
(very
would
important)
an
●
5,
●
3
●
2,
4
and
(unlabelled)
(not
−1
This
is
an
obvious
early
call
that
racism.
document
This
as
it
resembles
list
of
what
we
stereotypes
represents
an
is
early
to
dene
the
relationship
between
cultures
personalities.
This
dichotomy
Schwartz
remains
do
not
today.
claim
to
Hofstede
be
describing
important)
the
●
stereotyping
important
and
0
of
today
attempt
●
4.5).
(unlabelled)
(important)
1
Table
importance)
example
●
and
(opposed
to
my
values).
personalities
characteristics
personality
ATL skills: Thinking and self-management
while
of
As
cultures
cultures
requires
studying
societies.
within
the
cultures
Hofstede
but
overall.
comparison
requires
and
the
Studying
of
individuals
comparing
McCrae
state,
There are many websites online where you can take the
“individuals
are
to
societies
as
trees
are
to
forests”
SVS. Take the survey and see if you can identify what
Hofstede
and
forests
not
Macrae,
2004,
p
65).
Studying
your dominant values are.
is
like
studying
trees.
Forests
are
far
Contrast Schwar tz’s model with Hofstede’s dimensions
more
complex
and
require
an
analysis
of
an
entire
of culture.
ecosystem,
Is one model better than the other? What makes you say
be
that?
(inferring
guilty
of
not
you
single
committing
information
information
if
a
used
from
a
organism.
an
ecological
about
group
dimensions
You
to
would
fallacy
individuals
which
(designed
they
for
using
belong)
cultures)
to
217
layarteb
yB
taC
eB
tfoS
gnilia
sgniht
tnaryT
oot
etatsopA
ykaenS
ylevoL
ecnetopmI
sevlesmehT
erom
nevE
suorehcaert
lacitilop
eninimeF
)?(
gnorW
redneT
gnuoY
egnartS
lived
tnetsisnocnI
kruT
wons
eht
nI
yB
drows
eht
retaw
nI
eniw
nI
nI
raw
taob
a
nI
▲
htaeD
5.4 elbaT
DLbKg/yrellag/moc.rugmi//:pt th :ecruoS
nI
yb
ytnelP
dengieR
fo
tnemesumA
laminA
nosirapmoc
)yrutnec ht71( sepytoerets s’lefat reklöV
a
yretsanom
tnahpelE
nO
xoF
eht
xnyL
htrae
noiL
nI
esroH
a
xO
stiurF
gnilbmaG
elbats
raeB
seraW
gnitaehC
floW
eniW
gnilbbaB
yeknoD
niarG
gniknirD
gnihton
elttaC
hcranoM
gnikroW
gniK
raW
eniviD
ecivres
seutriv
ehT
dooG
ylboN
tseb
retteB
ylsuoicilaM
tnereveR
luferaC
elbicnivnI
hcrairtaP
erO
oreH
aes
elbairaV
no
rorepmE
gnitaE
yreve
ruF
eht
gnignahC
yad
gniugrA
nA
eerF
gnioD
detcele
suolaeZ
detnuadnU
noitapitsnoC
suoutepmI
silihpyS
ronoH
daB
yehT
stibah
evol
lacipyT
sesaesid
riehT
dnal
raW
tnagorrA
edam
elitreF
ytterP
lleW
dooG
tuoG
dloG
ykaenS
elitreF
sisolucrebuT
gniknirD
ygnitS
sniatnuoM
acrasanA
tsuL
tnagavartxE
stseroF
ylenoL
sreveileb
pihsdrol
gnihtyrevE
rettam
t'nseoD
tnereffidnI
suoillebeR
elitreF
hcir-dlog
dna
serutcarF
gniniD
suoixnA
daB
oiloP
ytiliboN
suoititsrepuS
seugalp
stoiR
luftsaoB
)?(
nosrep
seeB
A
gnipeelS
reetnulov
etatsopA
gnitaeB
gnipoohW
ycI
emosnedruB
hguoc
elpoep
rotiarT
suoicipsuS
noihsaF
elbaronoH
stiarT
ecneicS
elbaegnahC
ylnaM
etaretiL
)ecneics
erafraW
dniM
wal
hsidlihC
esiW
smotsuC
retcarahC
lacilbib(
elbatpadA
lufpihsroW
larutan(
raluceS
rewolloF
wal
yldroL
suolocariM
prahS
nepO
,dednim
evitaklat
sseleraC
dednim
lacitsaiselccE
)ecneics
eninimeF
yhposolihP
gnitpadA
aeS
lufecarG
derennam
ykaenS
ylsuolaeJ
dooG
dniK
ylepahS
semaN
didnaC
gnortS
dna
emoseurG
tnetsisreP
elbazingocernU
detaler
hcnerF
ngieroF
llat
luferaC
rehtaeL
ercoideM
dliW
drainapS
namhcnerF
namreG
nailatI
namhsilgnE
edewS
luferaC
gnoL
striks
nitaL
lufruoloC
yraniugnaS
yrruF
keerG
segaugnal
yletinnI
citsuR
toN
tsoM
gniyap
noitnetta
nevE
naht
a
ssel
eloP
layolsiD
eloP
emoseurg
dekciW
”hcsiragnutug“
nairagnuH
tnetsixe-noN
hguor
)?(
naissuR
218
BE H AV IO U R
TO
APPROACH
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
4
C U LT U R A L
compare
would
to
individuals
be
equally
compare
O R I g I N S
within
guilty
cultures.
for
So
O F
b E h A V I O U R
those
cultures.
using
how
can
A N D
get
5.
You
personality
we
C O g N I T I O N — C U LT U R A L
Conscientiousness —tendency
punctual,
traits
ecological
Hofstede’s
to
the
for
and
1992).
dimensions
compare
measuring
ve-factor
model
Hofstede
cultures.
and
of
and
are
a
common
personality
and
McCrae
A
widely
comparing
personality
McCrae
individualism
●
uncertainty
used
personality
(Macrae,
(2004)
●
(2004)
scores
from
33
is
John
found
different
correlated
avoidance
to
be
cautious,
rule-follower.
found
that:
correlated
with
cultural
with
extraversion
correlated
neuroticism
and
openness
experience
to
tended
to
score
with
higher
on
that
high
power
distance
correlated
with
countries
conscientiousness
signicantly
a
way
●
mean
and
fallacy?
cultural
measure
model
hardworking
around
Hofstede
this
D I M E N S I O N S
and
extraversion
dimension
●
masculinity
correlated
with
neuroticism
and
scores.
cultures
Macrae
and
John’s
(1992)
model
consists
of
factors.
(This
is
sometimes
referred
to
themselves
1.
O–C–E–A–N
in
masculinity
tended
more
open
to
experience
to
than
as
feminine
the
high
the
rate
following
rating
cultures.
model).
Neuroticism—tendency
toward
unstable
ATL skills: Thinking and research
emotions;
negative
worry
to
2.
tendency
emotions
and
sadness
to
frequently
such
as
while
anger,
experience
frustration,
appearing
insensitive
others
accurate, data-based generalizations about individual
personality traits within cultures?
Extraversion —tendency
talkativeness,
others;
Can science and psychological research give us
sociability
tendency
to
toward
and
have
a
Find out Hofstede’s dimension scores for your country.
enjoyment
dominant
of
style
Align those dimensions with the personality traits from
of
the ve-factor model.
behaviour
Do you see any relationship between what the data tells
3.
Openness
new
4.
ideas,
to
experience—tendency
values,
ideas
and
Agreeableness—tendency
with
others;
tendency
own
values,
opinions
to
or
to
appreciate
you and who you think you are?
behaviours
to
avoid
agree
to
go
asserting
along
your
choices
219
The individual and the group—social cognitive theory
Inquiry questions
●
What
●
Is
determines
your
●
identity?
How
does
culture
inuence
health
behaviour?
violence
a
learned
behaviour?
What you will learn in this section
●
This
Socialization
Primary
process
and
of
secondary
becoming
a
socialization:
member
of
a
the
section
also
links
●
doctor–patient
●
Bandura—origins
to:
relations
(health
psychology)
social
of
conict
(psychology
of
group
human
●
Social
cognitive
theory
●
Bandura’s
1963,
relationships)
bobo
1965)
doll
experiments
learning
aggression
developing
identity
(developmental
psychology)
(1961,
through
●
the
inuence
of
globalization
on
individual
models
behaviour
Social
cognitive
theory
and
prosocial
●
cognitive
processing
in
the
digital
world
behaviour
(cognitive
Socialization—ow do we ecome wo
socialization
and
later
approach
forces
peer
to
are
groups.
learning).
the
family,
Families
school
are
the
peers
rst
point
we are?
of
No
child
is
born
a
nationalist,
chauvinist—people
process
is
of
called
basic
stage
in
the
or
her
group
In
short,
basic
is
children
learn
considered
cultural
about
rules
and
are
the
attitudes
appropriate
for
socialization,
their
racial,
is
the
and
The
group
most
a
child
living
in
his
the
initial
between
of
stage
group
socialization.
where
behaviours
their
or
a
important
socialization,
where
cultural
of
theories
gender
at
or
socialization .
passed
are
things.
social
where
norms
many
sexist
incredibly
primary
are
a
begins
This
socialization
norms
examples
This
a
these
of
development
called
There
racist,
become
member
family.
primary
social
members.
Two
the
childhood
learns
where
a
socialization.
level
in
must
becoming
a
gender;
children
ethnic
are
create
and
from
heritage.
order
forces
socialization
forces
partially
correct
Some
a
prosocial
or
antisocial
220
child.
The
is
a
child
to
that
think
both
the
a
disputes
social
distance
not
of
transmit
monitor
and
norms.
coaxing
children
and
treat
if
a
child
expressing
minority
behaviour
continue
important
to
hold
that
a
primary
the
minority
group.
the
(Oetting,
their
model
a
socialization
Conversely,
about
that
of
parents
share
social
bond,
forces,
with
from
to
role
opinions
to
and
norms
include
you”
or
to
Primary
youths
respect.
parent
these
mediate
refers
conform
children
with
may
with
this
“thank
derogatory
occur.
forces
of
in
learn
socialization
attitudinal
these
people
witnesses
the
they
behaviour
is
conventions
“primary”
and
or
It
rst
relationships,
ethical
of
examples
babies
is
racist
group,
acceptable
determine
behaviours
most
It
babies.
directly
encouraging
about
developing
term
which
“please”
or
the
target
bond
1999).
and
the
The
in
for
where
nurture
behavioural
the
Primary
and
the
other
taught
contact
navigate
group.
or
and
social
relationships
derogatory
opinion
T h E
Secondary
socialization
I N D I V I D U A L
includes
A N D
T h E
g R O U P — S O C I A L
C O g N I T I V E
T h E O R y
elements
ATL skills: Thinking
such
and
as
the
larger
(perhaps
community,
most
notoriously)
Secondary
socialization
adherence
to
That
is,
they
affecting
the
interfere
primary
model
primary
the
forces.
or
serve
to
transmissions
norms
and
They
as
Media censorship is a hotly debated topic. The most
inuence
common forms of media censorship are related to
indirectly.
violence, hate speech and pornography but also often
attitude
extend to political ideology and criticisms. Create a table
can
of
norms
good
by
of the pros and cons of media censorship, then answer
inuence
reinforce
television
such
family
media.
to
norms
behaviour
Children’s
positive
the
tend
from
forces.
themselves
with
forces
deviance
inuence
the
forces
or
extended
the following questions.
or
from
shows
●
Who determines the norms of society?
●
Who should be more responsible for the socialization
that
manners
of youths, parents and guardians or governments?
and
sharing
secondary
antisocial
of
others
are
examples
socialization”,
violent
would
of
while
behaviour
be
“reinforcing
media
or
the
“detracting
modelling
●
Why do societies punish deviation from group norms?
●
Do some societies punish deviance more severely?
mistreatment
secondary
Which ones, and why?
socialization”.
Secondary
socialization
forces
are
important
Social conitive teor
because
they
play
an
important
role
in
forming
The
individual
beliefs,
behaviours,
identities
fact
that
secondary
attitudes
beyond
the
family
and
close
culture
questions
do
not
arise,
receive
and
beg
input
study,
from
socialization
abuse
(both
forces.
Youths
physical
and
changed.
subjected
mental),
dangerous
schools,
secondary
media
forms
of
or
abandonment
sources
(Garcia,
socialization
such
as
peer
and
must
can
a
groups
form
of
The
and
the
the
where
person’s
it
is
an
parental
other
can
be
words,
action
or
that
and
peer
often
cultural
the
and
attempt
norms
topics
media
to
by
manage
of
to
the
is
world.
press
(a
key
the
years.
that
more
social
in
this
threats
is
to
media
House’s
that
members.
social
To
this
end,
cognitive
learning
theory).
directly
learn
and
by
and
indirectly.
performing
experiencing
( direct)
or
by
the
observing
another
person’s
Social
actions
cognitive
or
theory
based
upon
a
levels
of
is
mainly
to
and
theory
theory.
we
learn
began
in
Social
behaviourist
from
is
an
the
others.
1960s
learning
approach
to
as
theory
is
learning
uses
describe
classical
how
and
social
operant
learning
conditioning
occurs.
The
passed
believed
that
learning
was
simply
a
and
of
the
force)
the
is
of
world’s
the
fact
media
not
that
freedom
report
around
report
where
media
House
how
or
countries
2017
45%
socializing
journalists
democracies”.
these
are
of
conditioning
a
response
from
a
stimulus.
government
most
countries
Freedom
due
of
in
interesting
lowest
The
form
claims
live
secondary
Perhaps
saw
Some
practised
freedom
how
identities
controlling
information
(both
Freedom
population
can
of
explain
cognitive
matter
media).
we
(indirect).
behaviourists
censorship
examine
and
his
both
ourselves
learning
to
mass
social
behaviour
social
which
manipulate
the
group
done
consequences
Social
through
to
behaviour.
Censorsip
sources
is
group,
attempt
Governments
of
maintained
inuences
behaviour
personality
are
secondary
individual’s
gures,
step
attitudes
developed
(originally
Learning
the
not
next
between
Bandura
consequences
socialization
norms
to
In
is
cultural
seek
turn
1999).
socialization
and
aspect
to
an
Group
how
behaviours,
theory
alternative
primary
poor
Albert
or
from
important
when
transmitted
racism,
an
their
norms,
primary
is
friends.
or
individuals
learned
socialization
understanding
Important
is
and
free.
2016
in
(2017)
13
states
“unprecedented
media
outlets
in
Classical
Ivan
an
a
and
his
the
stimulus
response
stimulus
which
bell.
this
in
in
dogs
bell
will
brings
pairing
his
Pavlov
area
(a
(salivating
consistently
famously
In
a
about
ringing
a
the
In
Nobel
the
at
by
conditioning,
is
paired
Over
with
time,
conditioned
conditioned
Pavlov’s
bell
salivating
received
(food)
ringing).
become
dogs).
studied
classical
stimulus
stimulus
neutral
was
dogs.
unconditioned
neutral
resulted
major
conditioning
Pavlov
with
the
Prize
case,
food
sound
for
his
of
the
work
in
1904.
221
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
Operant
studied
conditioning
by
important
century.
is
APPROACH
BF
behavioural
In
followed
strengthen
observers
is
Skinner,
operant
by
are
more
a
punishment
likely
or
to
of
one
psychologists
behaviour
BE H AV IO U R
form
considered
conditioning,
either
the
another
TO
learning
of
of
the
the
weaken
engage
behaviour
reward
it.
in
to
either
Learners
the
This
of
20th
desired
or
determinism
most
or
which
they
are
It
works
things
an
to
on
cognition)
learned
from
a
stimulus
a
response
is
approach
observable
and
the
assumes
from
measured
behaviour,
everything
observable
events
more
The
on
the
that
in
that
is
the
in
in
this
observe
not
to
most
on
and
the
reciprocal
mutual
(cognition,
assumption
for
determinism).
inuence
biology
environmental
responsible
example,
In
and
opposed
avoid
behaviour
this
of
a
considered.
is
approach,
and
given
those
if
Unit
3
for
to
learn
in
you
are
learning
seems
something,
then
trial-and-error
try
it.
type
of
Bandura
learning
way
they
contact
turn,
affect
(see
that
the
in
all
way
a
bad
reinforce
with
people
in
your
a
of
three
and
three
we
sets
mood),
Figure
4.8).
of
these
behave.
mood
mood
environment
people
bad
you.
and
by
around.
and
stimulating
unhappy
that
then
with
you.
are
able
this
way
the
you
and
may,
inuence
dealing
imagine
to
you
change
moods
can
supportive
to
mood
This
when
Conversely,
you
choose
bad
and
ways
around
may
your
mood
you
and
those
Others
improving
In
friendly,
of
adopt
unhelpful
around
great
or
interacting
your
in
mood
you.
you
while
behaviour
the
treat
with
your
the
approach.
the
may
unhappiness
are
two
See
you
places
(as
environment
terms
approach
order
it
personal
are
of
create
a
environment
to
will
inuence
how
you
interact
with
or
individuals
behave
must
the
behaviour
learning
between
behaviourist
behaviourist
suggest
to
behaviour
environment.
given
is
triadic
of
rewarded.
behaviourist
emphasis
(or
model
factors;
then
The
a
behavioural
For
for
is
(2005)
could
with
people
in
that
environment.
felt
not
Behaviour
explain
how
people
learned
language,
customs
Actions and decisions
or
educational,
short,
Bandura
socialization
religious
felt
did
that
not
and
the
occur
political
complex
through
practices.
process
trial
and
In
of
error.
TOK
Aristotle argued that people are born as a blank slate
(tabula rasa) and begin to ll their mind as they grow
older and acquire their behaviours and attitudes from
their life experiences. Modern psychology has used
Internal abilities (cognitive,
External spaces,
emotional, physical)
laws, objects
adoption studies and twin studies to explore this claim.
Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate makes the claim that
▲
Figure 4.8
Triadic reciprocal determinism
humans are pre-programmed to develop cer tain traits (IQ,
gender identity and alcoholism). Pinker is specically
In
relation
to
the
topics
discussed
in
this
section,
interested in language and argues that people are born
you
may
also
wish
to
look
at
health
belief
models
with innate dispositions toward spoken language (2016).
(see
Unit
6
on
health
psychology)
and
thinking
Pinker is not referring to any specic language but simply
and
decision-making
(see
Unit
3
on
the
cognitive
language as the more general ability to understand and
approach
apply grammar and vocabulary to explain our
to
behaviour).
world. This
characterizes the classic debate between innatism (or
Exercise
nativism) and the concept of tabula rasa
Where does language come from? Is it innate or learned?
Create
your
showing
Bandura
cognition
understood
as
all
behaviourists
behaviour,
mutually
were
too
society
interrelated.
simplistic
in
He
as
being
a
one-way
believed
explaining
of
a
cartoon
environment
222
model
of
and
behaviour
relationship
behaviour.
based
Bandura
upon
a
situation
of
a
timeline
strip.
Make
each
in
the
image
form
part
of
an
event
where
behaviour,
human
characteristics
and
environment
are
between
with,
and
inuencing,
proposed
Try
a
of
determinism
the
interacting
the
example
and
personal
behaviour
own
reciprocal
reciprocal
to
be
original
but
realistic.
each
other.
T h E
In
response
to
a
behaviourists’
cognitive
book
Social
his
as
opposed
could
theory
a
the
to
simple
more
learning
of
published
as
social
learning
shed
the
when
human
complex
into
the
surface
he
and
that
In
us
he
refers
theory
the
his
the
box”
may
theory
theory
to
of
design
the
a
the
able
into
by
this
as
learn
broke
bring
way
and
to
and
their
goals,
about
that
success
as
around
punishments),
abilities
we
of
the
a
can
others
reinforcements
reinforcement).
consequences
other
without
the
people,
need
to
of
individuals
perform
an
themselves.
down
his
components;
and
and
well
own
world
interpret
(vicarious
by
their
attention
us,
will
and
actions
behaviour
four
in
others
the
reproduction
Stimulus
is
mistakes
in
the
pay
our
that
performed
to
We
rewards
way
It
to
around
learning)
evaluating
behaviour
Bandura
Behaviourist model
a
outcome.
from
observed
processes.
model).
events
agents
react
considering
in
experienced
are
explain
plan
T h E O R y
are
simply
(including
(vicarious
In
of
became
beings
not
and
behave
desired
like
do
behaviour
learn
seem
human
we
people
and
mind
C O g N I T I V E
(behaviourist
the
A
Bandura
“black
this
able
lives;
his
Action:
g R O U P — S O C I A L
words,
a
therefore
focused
better
T h E
the
cognitive
and
cognition,
of
1986,
theory.
assumption
light
on
and
in
A N D
adopted
learning.
Thought
scientically
change,
on
Bandura
studying
learning
social
Although
learning
far
of
to
studied
attempted
mind.
Theory,
adopted
be
to
Foundations
Cognitive
to
shortcoming
explanation,
approach
Social
(1986)
perceived
I N D I V I D U A L
social
cognitive
attention,
motivation.
theory
retention,
Each
one
of
these
Black box
can
Response
in the
cannot be
environment
studied
be
seen
as
a
cognitive
process.
behaviour
Attention (oser vation)
In
Social
Learning
The or y
(1977),
Bandura
a r g ue s
Cognitive model
that
instead
learn
Input
Mediational
in the
process
Output
by
their
paying
of
lea r ni ng
ways
of
by
tri a l
thi nki ng
attentio n
to
how
and
a nd
e rr or,
pe opl e
be h avi ng
othe rs
thi n k
an d
behaviour
behave.
environment
He
learning
▲
called
thi s
observational
le a rn i ng :
mental event
Figure 4.9
The
Bandura’s social cognitive theory
that
stimuli
observers)
take s
that
to
p l a ce
se r v e
to
part i cul a r
by
o bs er vin g
e xp os e
o t h er s .
le a r ne r s
b ehav iours
ar e
( or
th e
Source: https://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html
models
with
Instead
of
simply
s ti mulus– be ha vi o ur,
encourages
r e s e a rche r s
to
the
exa m i ne
thought
determine,
p r o ce s se s
tha t
occu r
and
b e ha v io ur :
the
to
Bandur a
ca l ls
to
studying
into
an
thi s
an
abus i v e
learn i ng .
To
be
an
aggressive
have
control
over
who
violent
behaviour
is
develop
intentions
future
and
forethought—be
able
t ype s
t o.
A
of
c h il d
in
l ik el y
a
da ng er ou s
to
v i o l e nt
be
mo de ls
ex pos e d
and
be ha vi our s .
so
to
C on ve rs e ly,
regulate
behaviour—do
Bandura
things
that
satisfaction
result
and
in
reward
negative
while
aware
on
capabilities
and
soundness
Together,
think
of
these
Bandura’s
and
about
avoiding
factors
goals—be
self-efcacy
behaviour
cognitive
likely
to
pa ci s t
e ng a g e
in
a nd
a
no n -
p aci  st
a nd
behav i o ur.
is
most
well
carried
known
out
in
for
the
a
series
1960s,
of
starting
key
study
Bandura,
Ross
and
Ross
with
(1961) .
things
experiments
used
a
large
inatable
doll
as
outcomes
the
reect
wi l l
o nl y
give
These
that
expo s e d
to
behaviours
the
of
fa mi l y
mo r e
viol e nt
models
experiments
●
th e
e xp os ed
to:
visualize
●
is
and
and
non-violent
●
ex te nt,
is
a ge nt
child
●
l a r ge
agentic
aggressive
means
pe op le
a ss oc i a t es
stimulu s – cognition –
to
approach
a
ind i v i d ual
neighbourhood
behaviour.
Th e
no rma l ly
b e t we e n
born
observation
e nv ir onme nt.
ind i v i d ua l
the
modelling
complex
soci a l
an
Ba ndu ra ’s
will
theory
in
whom
(Bandura,
describe
theory
the
of
self-
and
the
2001).
cognitive
learning.
In
part
other
object
observed
of
aggression
model
acting
doll.
Collectively,
doll
experiments.
Aggression
cognitive
has
these
long
theory.
In
for
a
model
aggressively
are
been
1961,
known
the
whilechildren
towards
as
focus
Bandura
the
of
the
bobo
social
and
colleagues
223
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
tested
(36
his
girls
and
6
social
and
were
4.10).
aggressively
group
was
model
on
One
split
playing
and
a
an
prior
to
the
of
into
72
children
ages
a
bobo
Nursery
their
doll,
a
was
to
in
not
were
experiment
an
(see
adult
second
non-
given
rated
nursery
pre-exposure
The
to
engaged
group
3
groups
exposed
children
by
of
1961).
three
adult
third
The
on
the
Ross,
was
with
to
observe.
amounts
up
group
BE H AV IO U R
University’s
and
aggressiveness
teachers
each
Ross
TO
theory
between
Stanford
rst
play
to
their
equal
at
exposed
aggressive
a
boys)
(Bandura,
children
Figure
cognitive
36
enrolled
School
APPROACH
school
control
for
aggressiveness
in
group.
72 children
24 Aggressive
24 Non-aggressive
24 Control group
role model
role model
no model
Female model
6 boys
▲
Male model
6 girls
6 boys
Figure 4.10
Female model
6 girls
6 boys
Male model
6 girls
6 boys
6 girls
Method for Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) bobo doll experiment
Source: https://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-doll.html
In
both
the
aggressive
conditions,
of
a
room
a
child
while
experimenter
given
prints
to
and
a
and
was
the
seated
model
was
another
stickers
one
play
The
by
taken
corner
contained
a
Tinkertoy
by
play.
the
set,
a
a
1.5-metre
this
tall
bobo
doll.
(A
bobo
doll
is
doll
with
a
weight
in
the
point
bottom
so
doll
given
will
and
right
the
itself
child
after
were
being
seated
hit.)
and
Once
left
the
the
the
non-aggressive
doll
and
aggressive
with
the
toys
224
the
rest
before
toward
of
the
condition,
the
with
model
turning
it”
minutes,
to
“imitation”
the
but
child
another
also
was
room.
each
to
of
the
children
aggression”
stage
underwent
where
the
an
child
time
to
engage
these
with
toys
attractive
once
he
or
toys
she
but
became
and
began
playing
with
them.
At
this
the
child
was
told
that
he
or
she
could
play
room.
quietly
condition,
“aggressing
for
played
that
unrelated
the
with
In
so
to
the
playing,
point
experimenter
10
experimenter
from
interested
model
After
ways
opposed
that
separated
the
as
an
was
inatable
novel
mallet
“instigation
and
and
identied
The
At
model’s
unique
be
aggressive
the
childwas
with.
in
could
corner
escorted
corner.
to
doll
non-aggressive
in
both
time.
The
to
the
the
model
toys.
played
the
model
and
hit
the
briey
bobo
verbally
ignored
In
doll
and
physically
the
bobo
toys
in
the
experimental
to
the
The
room
room,
but
worked
20-minute
room.
containing
including
experimenter
room
the
rst
adjoining
at
this
quietly
session.
a
a
was
several
1-metre
point
at
This
toys
tall
remained
desk
in
the
the
similar
bobo
in
doll.
the
corner
for
T h E
I N D I V I D U A L
A N D
T h E
g R O U P — S O C I A L
C O g N I T I V E
Experimental
groups
Aggressive
Response
T h E O R y
Control
Non-aggressive
category
groups
Imitative
physical
Female
Male
verbal
M
Model
Model
Model
Model
aggression
5.5
7.2
2.5
0.0
1.2
12.4
25.8
0.2
1.5
2.0
13.7
2.0
0.3
0.0
0.7
4.3
12.7
1.1
0.0
1.7
17.2
18.7
0.5
0.5
13.1
15.5
28.8
18.7
6.7
13.5
6.3
16.5
5.8
4.3
11.7
18.9
11.9
15.6
14.8
15.7
aggression
subjects
subjects
aggression
Female
Male
subjects
subjects
Punches
bobo
Female
Male
subjects
Female
Male
aggression
subjects
subjects
Aggressive
Female
Male
doll
subjects
Non-imitative
▲
F
subjects
Female
Mallet
M
subjects
Imitative
Male
F
gun
21.3
8.4
7.2
1.4
6.1
16.2
36.7
26.1
22.3
24.6
1.8
4.5
2.6
2.5
3.7
7.3
15.9
8.9
16.7
14.3
play
subjects
subjects
Table 4.6
Mean aggression scores for experimental and control subjects
Source: Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961)
Results
that
for
this
exposure
increase
Table
clear
experiment
of
children
aggressiveness
4.6).
According
conrmation
the
the
aggressive
among
to
of
supported
to
the
children
researchers,
observational
hypothesis
models
would
was
exposing
enough
to
(see
this
Simply
pay
for
attention
specic
due
behaviour.
In
addition,
the
researchers
discovered
that
boys
likely
to
imitate
physical
aggression
while
more
were
also
likely
more
to
imitate
aggressive
verbal
than
aggression.
girls
in
all
command
modelling.
to
model
or
of
a
social
by
to
is
the
not
observer
recognize
focus
will
idea
attention
attraction
For
example,
behaviour
or
an
Bandura
attention
Bandura
doll
the
close
is
a
and
has
a
attention.
not
that
than
is
child
of
close
peer
a
learn
some
others
and
component
is
more
the
partially
He
aggressive
family
over
peer.
more
One
likely
of
replicated
adult
distant
who
social
(Bandura,
used
member
exception
models,
lack
observer
experiment.
form
a
televised
despite
In
1963,
of
unfriendly
model
2005).
the
mediated
models
seem
cohesion
1961
violence
on
lm,
cognitive
rather
learning:
the
between
(in
on
this
more
particularly
hold
bobo
video
which
and
observers
interpersonal
of
to
this
model
is
The
Boys
noted
Watch
to
model
groups.
relatives
See video
upon
a
place.
girls
therefore
were
the
attention,
Related
to
take
were
models
more
to
to
behaviour
Without
learning.
someone
learning
than
live)
and
found
that
observing
https://www.youtube.com/
children
exhibited
the
same
learned
aggression
watch?v=128Ts5r9NRE
toward
for
the
the
doll.
effect
of
This
has
mediated
important
violence
ramications
on
children.
225
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
For
more
on
this
APPROACH
see
Unit
3
on
TO
the
BE H AV IO U R
cognitive
TOK
approach
to
processing
behaviour,
in
the
HL
digital
extension
“Cognitive
Research on the impact of visualization and imagery
world”.
training (using your imagination to picture yourself
performing a task) has shown that imagination can be
Retention, reproduction, motivation
as eective as practising a skill physically (Jones
et al, 2002). Researchers examined the eect of imagery
(conitions)
script on a group of novice rock climbers.
Related
to
Bandura
have
in
to
concept
stated,
to
of
perhaps
remember
order
when
the
repeat
imitation
what
it.
of
is
retention—
obviously,
that
behaviour
was
This
the
attention
is
important
learned
observers
observed
in
instances
behaviour
Novice climbers were randomly assigned to either
a control group who took par t in a light exercise
programme, or an experimental group who were
exposed to a scripted imagery training programme.
is
After the par ticipants went through their respective
delayed.
training, they climbed a 5.1-metre high wall following a
Reproduction
of
a
task
is
affected
by
self-efcacy.
designated route. Levels of self-ecacy and stress were
Self-efcacy
is
the
belief
that
you
are
able
to
measured before and during the climb. There was no
accomplish
a
task.
High
self-efcacy
means
you
signicant dierence in climbing performance, but the
are
optimistic
and
condent
that
you
will
be
able
experimental group repor ted lower levels of perceived
to
accomplish
or
low
a
task
successfully;
low
self-efcacy
the
(see
stress and higher levels of self-ecacy as compared to
condence
is
opposite
Unit
6
the control group.
on
health
tend
so
a
not
psychology
to
belief
try
component
you
an
of
more
something
that
reproducing
for
are
they
capable
observed
social
if
on
this).
People
expect
of
failure,
successfully
behaviour
is
an
cognitive/learning
important
theory.
This study shows that imagining practising a task can
reduce stress and improve self-ecacy, adding another
source of self-ecacy to the list generated by Bandura
in 1994. Do you think this research suppor ts the concept
of imagination as a way of knowing?
Bandura
(2012)
identied
four
sources
of
What makes you
self-
say that?
efcacy.
●
Mastery
experiences—past
success
reinforces
Motivation
the
belief
that
further
success
is
possible
behaviour
failure
(especially
if
it
occurs
before
achieved)
reduces
belief
in
a
perform
an
action
or
demonstrate
has
a
lot
to
do
with
reinforcement.
If
efcacy
people
is
to
but
perform
an
action
and
are
rewarded
for
it,
successful
they
are
likely
to
be
motivated
to
repeat
the
action.
outcome.
Similarly,
●
Vicarious
models
experiences —this
are
others,
so
important
similar
sustained
to
effort
raise
to
where
because
themselves,
will
is
seeing
succeed
observers’
by
repeat
person’s
their
ability
to
carry
out
an
or
action.
Social
persuasion —people
by
the
to
action
motivation
to
learning,
directly
othe r s
tha t
who
the y
observing
are
and
succe e d
at
a
the
behaviour
a ct ion
are
sustain
a
like l y
it
to
l o ng e r
ma ke
tha n
a
gr e a t e r
tho se
1965
either
nega ti v e
s ocia l
to
social
at
Emotional
and
improves
hopeless
226
of
our
own
can
can
actions
reinforcement
partial
1961
replication
and
examine
learning
watched
physical
perceived
states—positive
or
sad
acting
1963
the
of
of
be
learn
effective
or
through
through
others.
of
Bandura
studies,
role
of
and
his
researchers
reinforcement
aggression.
a
lm
children
aggressively
were
In
this
in
version,
where
1994).
toward
an
separated
into
a
adult
bobo
model
three
doll.
The
conditions.
self-efcacy
moods
can
diminish
Control:
the
children
witnessed
it
without
(Bandura,
We
r ei nfo r c e m e n t
1.
and
reinforcement
indirectly.
all.
was
mood
a
act.
e f for t
children
●
(through
inuence
who
the
none
can
likely
or
sought
or
reinforcement
not
po sse s s
g iv en
colleagues’
receive
to
are
or
In
ability
to
So
they
successfully.
convinced
and
punished,
punishments )
reinforcement
●
are
beliefs
both
behaviour
they
the
rewards
Similar
in
if
reward
or
punishment.
the
aggression
T h E
2.
Reward:
followed
the
by
aggressive
children
the
acts
witnessed
model
with
I N D I V I D U A L
being
candies
the
A N D
aggression
rewarded
and
a
T h E
soft
for
the
drink.
g R O U P — S O C I A L
to
engage
difcult
in
to
children”
Punishment:
the
children
witnessed
aggressive
inhibit
were
behaviour
3.
C O g N I T I V E
behaviour
aggressive
also
would
T h E O R y
more
and
condent
produce
more
impulses.
rewards
“Aggressive
that
aggressive
rather
than
the
punishments.
aggression
punished
and
followed
for
the
by
the
model
aggressive
acts
being
with
a
scolding
Interestingly,
were
spanking.
on
After
viewing
the
lm,
the
children
were
the
a
playroom
with
toys
similar
to
the
the
few
perceived
ones
the
adult
model
in
the
lm.
It
was
found
children
in
condition
3
performed
differences
aggressive
1
2
acts
(Bandura,
than
children
there
sexes
questionnaire
but
the
outcome
were
more
expectations
likely
would
cause
to
suffering
expect
in
the
signicantly
in
and
that
the
aggression
would
be
punished
conditions
more
and
on
Girls
aggression
victim
fewer
self-efcacy
that
the
that
that
the
found
between
used
questionnaire.
by
researchers
differences
observed
large
in
very
severely
by
peers.
Conclusions
from
this
1965).
study
point
efcacy
toward
and
the
perceived
punishments)
as
importance
of
reinforcement
cognitive
self-
(rewards
determinants
of
or
social
Fur ter suppor t for bandura’s teor
learning
Bandura’s
theory
has
been
tested
beyond
the
in
relation
to
the
antisocial
behaviour
of
strict
aggression.
conditions
to
explain
cognitive
marital
and
is
it
an
as
has
been
and
children
this
is.
and
provides
an
the
act
of
behaviour
of
accepted
other
a
for
in
of
these
is
an
of
that
violence
violence
to
how
relationships
relationships.
that
Implicit
understanding
acceptable,
rewarded
with
of
especially
the
as
explain
behaviours
cognitive
explain
the
Using
sample
boys,
the
a
322
that
when
achievement
encourage
in
all
as
well
research,
examining
the
of
aggressive
behaviour
in
found
reinforcement
both
by
key
in
Perry,
that
perceived
(punishment
determining
Perry
and
or
and
sociability
was
developed
used.
This
role-playing,
generalization
In
staff
study
et
al
improvements
teachers
reported
the
to
Sheridan
classroom
among
this
listening,
and
recognized
signicant
health
examined
cognitive
skills:
widely
behaviour.
showed
from
social
four
modelling,
(325
(2011)
overall
students.
self-efcacy
reward)
behaviour.
Rasmussen
In
skills
can
be
suggest
explained
that
through
learning
social
school
cognitive
children,
A
to
cognitive
prosocial
determinants
of
al
“Skillstream”,
Additionally,
Conclusions
Other
et
Goldstein,
mental
used
behaviours.
problem-solving
feedback
results
improved
goal.
and
be
kindergarteners
tell.
prosocial
skills.
as
to
uses
performance
also
children
called
programme
can
prosocial
effectiveness
when
McGinnis
(2011)
647
directions,
programme
of
Sheridan
teaching
following
by
of
girls),
in
knowing
theory
learning
perceived
theory
males
observing
in
there
violence.
that
able
behave
of
behaviour
physical
is
Social
explaining
marital
theory
used
Social
years
found
more
learning
socially
is
many
rates
been
learned
childhood,
violence
behaviour
a
for
models
initial
has
world.
transmission
cognitive
During
as
is
(1997) .
higher
it
real
effective
endured
“appropriate”
the
been
Elliott
had
the
Violence
who
Social
parents
are
has
in
intergenerational
adults.
in
theory
females
why
experimentation:
violence.
Mihalic
and
of
behaviour
theory.
and
were
one
(1986) ,
study
ATL skills: Thinking
160
Bandura’s bobo doll studies were experiments
children
were
sampled
and
categorized
as
either
under taken in a laboratory with strictly controlled
aggressive
or
not
aggressive.
Children
were
given
variables—arguably a very unnatural environment.
two
of
questionnaires,
self-efcacy
the
other
(that
or
is,
whether
that
measuring
avoiding
measuring
punishment
found
in
one
the
aggressive
outcome
children
following
“aggressive
perceptions
the
actions
and
expectations
expected
action).
children”
It
found
reward
was
it
easier
Can a social phenomenon that normally takes place
within a complex set of social relationships ever be
studied in such a contrived and controlled situation?
In other words, do experiments on social learning lack
ecological validity?
227
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
insidious
Diital tecnolo and social learnin
the
McLuhan
believed
that
to
humanities
electronic
media
senses;
for
example,
our
ears
and
television
our
eyes.
argued
that
it
is
not
the
content
of
a
toward
affects
human
medium
summed
“the
In
up
behaviour
form
change
the
or
it
the
and
is
burglar
(McLuhan,
in
not
but
the
form
to
that
the
distract
in
quip
on
is
of
the
The
of
watchdog
Carr,
that
idea.
cultural
we
examine
international
a
228
receiver’s
this
effect
cultural
of
perspective
this
the
values,
values
but
also
the
actual
represents
components
of
those
consumerism,
and
all
of
the
myriad
mass
gatekeepers
with
it.
but
of
carried
the
of
a
by
mind”
some
with
encourages
will
content
Using
Carr
of
Plato,
he
reshaping
wrote
greatest
argues
and
and
our
about
minds
that
skimming
contemplation
argues
neuroplasticity
are
the
Carr
scanning
concentration,
Essentially,
(2011)
that
the
repetitive
in
the
at
and
this
history,
internet
the
cost
reection.
combination
interactions
of
online
brains.
2011).
through
products,
along
recently,
starting
For
If
go
More
1964).
that
of
is
of
radio,
meat
only
culturally
is
interest,
medium
piece
the
cited
is
societies.
juicy
idea
(McLuhan,
what
of
and
“the
1964,
famous,
McLuhan’s
internet
function
just
now
message”
is
individuals
medium
the
is
words,
television
This,
perfectly
medium
other
the
itself.
Not
television
medium
who
the
culture.
western
western
system
communications
that
national
He
foreign
also
to
most
radio
delivery
extended
of
serve
skewed
extend
threat
content
the
we
could
lens
see
be
of
that
seen
from
as
more
approach
an
on
to
processing
this
see
Unit
behaviour,
in
the
digital
3
HL
on
the
cognitive
extension
world”.
“Cognitive
The individual and the group—social identity theory and
stereotyping
Inquiry questions
●
What
●
Why
happens
when
cultures
●
collide?
What
kinds
refugees
do
some
people
nd
it
welcome
those
eeing
challenges
migrants
are
once
faced
they
by
arrive
in
their
difcult
new
to
or
of
war
culture?
or
●
persecution?
How
do
we
come
to
understand
others?
What you will learn in this section
●
Social
cognition
Sherif
(1954):
realistic
conict
theory
Principles
of
social
cognition
●
●
Attribution
Acculturation:
cultural
Correspondent
inference
change
process
as
between
schemata
in
psychological
contact
and
and
cultures
do
cultures
Fundamental
change?
integration,
separation
and
marginalization
attribution
attribution
●
error
Acculturative
difculties
Ultimate
of
model
Assimilation,
Errors
of
result
model
Why
●
a
theory
interaction
Covariation
Causal
a
theories
attribution
stress:
when
biopsychosocial
adapting
to
a
new
cultural
error
context
Taylor
and
●
The
and
causal
Jaggi
(1974):
ethnocentrism
attribution
development
and
This
effect
of
stereotypes
●
section
schema
biases
Social
also
links
theory,
in
to:
thinking
thinking
and
and
decision-making,
decision-making
schemas
(cognitive
Theories
of
stereotype
●
Self-fullling
approach
to
behaviour)
formation
acculturative
stress,
obesity
(health
prophecy
psychology)
Stereotype
●
Social
identity
Tajfel
and
threat
●
developmental
●
the
psychology
theory
Turner
inter-group
(1979):
theory
of
inuence
of
globalization
on
individual
behaviour.
conict
receive
Social conition
its
about
social
other
context
people
and
by
giving
it
examining
meaning
it
within
alongside
Wat is social conition?
our
Social
cognition
understand
their
world
we
processes.
we
their
actions
behaviour
must
is
and
the
In
of
world:
how
their
environment
order
required
According
rst
study
social
occurs.
are
the
to
to
interpret
to
Baron
the
in
and
We
thinking,
in
make
engage
people
which
sense
three
of
information
that
modify
it
impression
but
(1997)
we
you
you
may
maybe
recall
of
analyse
accordingly.
the
as
knowledge
then
their
cognitive
Byrne
previous
must
of
a
new
become
adjust
yourself.
previous
For
the
person
initial
may
familiar
perception
Finally,
knowledge
you
and
or
appraisal
example,
teacher
more
your
of
the
your
not
be
with
of
and
rst
favourable
the
that
must
situation.
be
teacher
person
able
experiences
and
to
at
the
229
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
appropriate
in
helping
time.
APPROACH
Our
us
make
to
some
memory
sense
of
TO
BE H AV IO U R
plays
our
a
crucial
role
improve
world.
in
can
We
can
all
extent
be
considered
attempting
to
understand
often
as
others
(Nisbett
and
Ross,
1980).
have
a
result,
We
create
and
lack
theories
those
we
of
human
meet.
We
behaviour
are
what
and
“naive
observable
scientists”,
apply
Heider
behaviours
individuals
to
cognitive
view
low
of
tasks
or
self-esteem
themselves
underperform
to
on
cognitive
engage
explore
this
further
in
social
when
them
the
formation
of
stereotypes
and
(1958)
who
unobservable
motivation
will
discrimination
terms
they
the
We
discussing
to
negative
on
with
our
situations.
own
a
People
ourselves
tasks
and
performance
situations.
social
and,
psychologists
their
social
try
to
between
ingroups
and
outgroups.
link
causes.
We
Attriution teories
interpret
these
the
causes
formally,
rather
areas
impression
the
than
such
the
bias,
as
naturalistic
social
More
that
(2001)
when
and
laboratory
and
in
have
made
thinking
●
and
a
People
are
to
sacriced
are
in
(1991)
a
the
in
(Fiske
their
information.
favour
of
making
a
ability
Accuracy
quick
Taylor,
may
be
decision.
of
Humans
engage
controlled
familiar
a
or
and
can
thinking:
effort;
Tversky
people
processes
often
both
repetitive
restaurant,
thinking
in
often
as
and
in
when
faced
situation,
however,
result
automatic
context
it
this
rely
on
spontaneous
Kahneman,
less
been
the
in
time
(links
is
seek
best
in
consistency
by
in
theory.
more
conicting
thoughts
structured
how
a
level
of
attribution
theories.
and
example,
the
eating
cake”
and
thoughts
“Cake
reduce
or
eliminate
need
to
the
make
or
a
with
their
is
an
or
be:
me
discomfort
Understanding
understanding
later
in
this
of
section.
inspired
develop
that
their
aimed
world.
to
These
a
own
make
are
sense
known
as
up
late
one
has
morning
already
and
started.
is
discussing
who
has
killed
an
attack
himself
involving
and
30
a
others
If
your
initial
thought
is
that
the
murderer
Davis
then
(1965)
you
called
a
have
made
what
correspondent
“I
The
personality
characteristic
that
you
fat”.
given
this
man
corresponds
to
the
behaviour
the
(murder
is
evil).
Should
you
have
been
so
behaviour
cognition
modifying
the
wake
mall.
evil
and
by
to
judge,
the
though?
After
all,
you
missed
the
discarding,
beginning
self-justifying
to
programme
report
bomber
shopping
quick
consistent
and
dissonance.
might
makes
their
attribution
they
itself
individuals
you
news
current
have
To
that
hold
cognitions
discomfort
two
that
usual
inference.
like
provide
theories.
Correspondent inference teor
Jones
For
formation
rst
understanding
psychology
theories
interpret
man
experience
the
cognitive
individuals
or
based
discussing
examination
extend
discussed
psychologists
we
in
two
to
will
in
generalize
behaviour:
Festinger’s
When
attribution
we
mind
facilitate
commonsense
suicide
dissonance
to
in
the
cognition.
will
of
Imagine
illustrated
social
theory
number
The
this
of
only
in
we
or
way
population
attribution
bear
Heider’s
your
Humans
included
area
to
tested
the
Before
contribute
exploring
be
whole
attribution.
can
as
for
to
thinking
decision-making.)
●
not
formed
a
look
simple
explain
stereotypes,
important
will
attribution
of
thinking
mistakes.
biases
a
entering
automatic
requires
making
as
is
by
of
We
most
and
with
such
errors
to
the
the
(dispositional)
the
can
are
behaviour
attribution
attribute
factors.
and
This
erroneous
maintenance
errors
●
or
interpreting
to
personal
stereotypes
a
has
and
many
theory
to
tend
(external)
explanation.
false
when
we
intentionality
individual’s
Note:
and
action
on
some
the
level,
others
an
and
following.
misers
limited
about
the
accessible
how
claim
researchers
assumptions
cognitive
process
Taylor
cognition
including
humans
capacity
and
of
of
basic
of
situational
which
social
number
person,
1991):
Fiske
most
consistency,
prejudice
setting.
studying
the
cause
and
Te principles of social conition
Gross
At
behaviour
cognition
formation,
the
itself.
upon
formation,
attribution
within
based
behaviour
impression
stereotype
discrimination
behaviour
studying
management,
attribution
more
of
psychologists
investigate
and
meaning
of
the
news
report.
What
if
the
bomber
inconsistent
was
forced
to
wear
a
suicide
vest
against
his
will?
cognition.
Would
●
Self-esteem
guides
human
behaviour:
that
attributed
with
a
high
themselves
230
level
in
a
of
self-esteem
more
positive
will
light
often
and
have
changed
the
disposition
that
you
people
to
him?
Jones
and
Davis
(1965)
claim
that
view
this
we
will
we
are
only
make
a
dispositional
attribution
when
may
100%
certain
that
an
action
was
intentional.
T h E
I N D I V I D U A L
A N D
T h E
g R O U P — S O C I A L
I D E N T I T y
T h E O R y
A N D
S T E R E O T y P I N g
Te covariation model
ATL skills: Thinking
A
more
widely
app l i ca b l e
mod el
is
t he
Identify two criteria that would be necessary for
covariation
mode l
as
it
ta ke s
both
d is pos i tion a l
categorizing a behaviour as intentional.
(internal)
account.
Jones
and
Davis
(1965)
argue
that
the
will
affect
the
likelihood
of
prior
mo de l
f a c t or s
mak es
us e
in t o
of
has
acte d
of
an
in
s i mil ar
indi vid ua l
a nd
si tuati on s
h ow
( se e
attributions.
Hedonic
relevance—the
behaviour
4.11).
positively
Kelley
or
knowled g e
person
Figure
●
cova r i a ti on
( e xter na l)
making
the
dispositional
The
situa ti o nal
following
our
factors
and
negatively
affects
the
person
making
(1967)
claims
that
we
utilize
three
types
of
the
information
when
making
attributions.
attribution.
●
●
Free
choice—if
the
person
chose
to
act
Consensus—the
respond
of
his
or
her
likely
to
make
own
free
will
then
we
are
extent
to
which
other
people
out
in
the
same
way
to
a
stimulus
or
more
situation.
a
dispositional
attribution.
●
●
Social
desirability—most
of
us
aim
to
Consistency—the
respond
in
ways
that
are
considered
socially
desirable
behaviour
can
be
considered
it
doesn’t
tell
us
very
much
Undesirable
behaviour,
same
or
to
which
similar
people
manner
to
a
about
situation.
Distinctiveness—the
extent
to
which
the
a
behaviour
person.
the
the
●
norm,
in
desirable.
given
As
extent
act
however,
varies
in
typical
responses
to
similar
can
stimuli.
give
us
a
lot
unexpected
more
and
information
it
may
shock
as
it
may
be
us.
COVARIATION
Is this person’s behaviour in this
Does this person usually
How do other people behave?
situation different from this person’s
behave like this?
(CONSENSUS)
behaviour in other situations?
(CONSISTENCY)
(DISTINCTIVENESS)
High: this person
Low: not many
High: this person
Low: this person
does not behave
does behave like
like this in most
this in most other
other situations
situations
Low: this person
High: most people
people behave
nearly always
seldom behaves
like this
behaves like this
like this
behave like this
▲
We
Figure 4.11
attribute
information
by
to
a
high
and
examining
Kelley
The covariation model
a
combination
low
value
the
behaviour
(1967),
distinctiveness
or
consider
of
we
to
over
make
each
causal
type
time.
According
attributions
consensus,
of
relationship
is
best
illustrated
with
example,
if
they
do
to
about
which
behaviour
they
covary
depend
with
on
each
of
information
outlined
above.
also
Anders
IB
psychology
student
seeking
help
with
in
his
essays.
He
approaches
his
teacher
or
all
before
time
assessed
also
seek
by
help
consensus
is
his
has
then
then
consistency
consistency
looking
from
high.
concerns
sought
at
the
is
whether
teacher.
seek
help
in
Finally,
mathematics
does
and
is
it
just
subjects
in
psychology?
then
If
he
distinctiveness
seeks
is
low
is
there
is
nothing
out
of
the
ordinary
about
one
Anders’
of
is
rst
discuss
Anders
the
and
an
breaks
the
and
the
of
help
types
then
If
as
science,
extent
advice
his
is
students
Anders
attributions
this
Consensus
other
an
seek
assignment.
during
high,
low.
and
information.
to
the
advice
If
This
break
about
is
with
consistency
his
behaviour.
during
231
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
Errors in attriution
ATL skills: Thinking
Te fundamental attriution error (FAE)
Consider other combinations of information in this
scenario. What would a combination of low consistency,
Think
back
high consensus and high distinctiveness reveal about
introduced
Anders’ behaviour?
we
all
Anders’
the
behaviour
conscious
causal
may
above
thought
available
claimed
that
we
all
three
an
unexpected
Byrne,
types
1997).
comparing
required
process
attribution.
be
example.
Not
in
of
most
order
the
The
Anders’
to
be
when
event
example
a
make
to
It
have
led
been
exposed
we
also
to
experience
and
or
required
and
to
that
of
other
up
mall
therefore
less
useful
when
novel
is
an
any
and/or
stereotype
an
can,
of
act,
evil
we
man
this
may
may
or
group
a
quick
that
may
We
have
This
judgment
generalized
people.
be
to
many
event.
false
and
of
therefore,
As
a
attributions.
terrible
to
be
in
allocate
factors
lead
stereotype
bomber.
civilians
and
developed
or
report
suicide
qualities
caused
individual
explanation
the
situational
being
attribution
news
innocent
evil
an
attribution
Errors
considered
one
formation.
previous
students.
The
focusing
solely
considering
a
on
the
dispositional
model
of
this
person
and
ignoring
or
single
excluding
or
about
killing
attacker
characteristics
is
imaginary
dispositional
to
in
about
in
that
ignored
error
By
situations
this
negative
a
has
(Baron
above
behaviour
in
label
information
likely
negative
to
situations.
information
or
about
engagement
in
certain
are
of
all
Thinking
the
earlier
agree
shopping
Consider
to
possible
situational
(external)
factors,
we
event.
have
committed
error
(FAE).
the
The
fundamental
FAE
attribution
refers
to
the
tendency
importance
of
dispositional
to
Causal scemata model
overestimate
When
we
people
are
that
to
utilize
in
the
making
we
the
do
not
three
covariation
claimed
“causal
Causal
that
in
of
model
schemata”
attributions
know,
types
these
schemata
causal
we
(see
when
Figure
we
making
our
not
information
situations
are
will
about
be
outlined
4.11).
rely
able
Kelley
upon
our
attributions.
preconceived
and
situational
behaviour
error
has
theories
about
behaviour,
As
the
based
cognitive
on
misers,
causes
past
we
or
of
an
event
similar
which
from
one
tend
to
situation
order
of
to
save
time
and
effort
to
be
causal
schemata
when
information.
at
a
own
group
are
the
given
our
Causal
views
point
people
many
in
the
is
by
time.
and
about
in
“true
a
an
to
cut
our
quick
attributions
relevant
can,
may
of
an
be
inuence
of
of
to
Fidel
a
Castro.
and
often
individual
incorrect.
information
as
our
or
There
attribution
that
culture
cognitive
therefore,
biased
or
psychologists
to
accuracy
and
between
the
anti-Castro
showed
of
a
laboratory
situations
three
had
to
person
Participants
authors
that
try
in
to
relation
the
either
rule
of
read
or
Cuba
erroneous,
have
and
attempted
of
attribution
models
is
extent
to
dispositional
of
the
speeches
which
individuals
or
pro-Castro
had
“free
aware
private
expressed
they
condition.
authors
by
inferred
author’s
choice”
that
condition
readers
condition,
the
a
been
researchers,
correspondence
views
in
had
the
overestimated
and
the
speech.
the
This
importance
of
factors.
example
of
the
FAE
can
be
seen
in
an
our
It
study
conducted
by
Ross,
Amabile
is
Steinmetz
(1977).
Participants
played
a
quiz
attributions
one
to
to
and
were
assigned
roles
of
“questioner”
way
study
“contestant”.
Questioners
were
allowed
to
the
their
own
questions,
drawing
on
their
own
investigate
conform
to
knowledge.
When
asked
to
rate
levels
any
of
model.
well
a
we
and
misers.
our
either
views
how
personal
232
conducted
concerning
The
to
each
listeners
create
given
of
error.
participants
topic.
condition
being
allocated
culture
inuence
the
anti-Castro
and
the
this
attitude”
speech
allocated
Despite
however,
society
This
views
individual,
corners
surprising,
that
(1967)
which
controversial
game
are
multiple
range
the
This
making
and
not
in
or
a
often-cited
desire
Harris
the
Another
have
explain
Nisbett,1991).
the
make
to
another
in
lack
therefore
that
amount
a
schemata
held
factors
allows
there
stereotypical
of
process:
and
factors
external
it.
made
reect
may
estimate
been
Using
(Ross
highlight
experiments
by
sense
people
and
listened
in
attempting
demonstrated
that
of
experience.
generalize
into
when
others
been
importance
or
to
behaviour
of
the
ideas
Jones
or
factors
experiments
in
the
underestimate
general
knowledge
at
the
end
of
the
study,
T h E
I N D I V I D U A L
participants
levels
Both
of
rated
general
the
A N D
T h E
questioners
knowledge
uninvolved
observers
themselves
made
Pettigrew
(1979)
g R O U P — S O C I A L
this
than
and
as
the
dispositional
highlights
having
the
I D E N T I T y
T h E O R y
of
higher
what
the
contestants
in
these
Powerful
(with
quiz
●
situational
the
forces
experimenters’
game
of
were
minimized
instructions
and
is
level.
characteristics
plethora
(the
communicator
of
and
are
Role
a
quiz
(being
an
contestant)
for
in
(UAE)
(Heider,
and
the
Nisbett
highlighting
available
to
that
us
nal
behaviour
may
not
orthe
know
scenarios,
person’s
own
we
have
we
not
and
different
of
UAE
a
on
It
what
is
our
else
we
clear
is
in
by
our
else.
we
As
thinking,
to
research
discovery
such
as
and
in
has,
that
Ward,
India,
individuals’
view
our
from
reect
however,
the
1988)
where
social
at
FAE
and
family
position
may
situational
in
fact
be
is
that
of
this.
made
not
that
ties
may
more
attributions
less
for
be
in
are
likely
(Miller,
at
a
an
social
ux.
related
we
do
or
to
the
do
theory
the
limited
intergroup
attribution
extension
of
involving
the
the
situational
factors
as
factors
causes
of
activities
not
belong;
between
these
constant
readjustments
Pettigrew
of
claimed
a
that
to
defend
by
a
negative
attributing
stereotype
negative
of
to
attribute
internal
problem
in
that
arises
a
the
our
is
is
is
an
are
seen
with
dispositional
when
outgroup
manner
to
is
negative.
perform
a
observers’
tendency
negative
that
contact
to
attributions—and
the
positive
and
often
the
increased
members.
appropriate
where
reinforce
an
more
formed
stereotypes
member
or
a
level
consistent
there
or
existing
negative
claimed
strong
acts
are
stereotype
that
considered
stereotype.
member
doesn’t
is
A
seen
conform
(Hewstone,
to
1990).
or
product
to
in
be
these
cases
exceptions
the
to
positive
the
norm
and
a
of
luck
stereotype
Pettigrew
so
claimed
likely
when
which
is
or
chance.
Subsequently,
is
the
maintained.
to
they
to
to
that
make
are
prejudiced
this
aware
Groups
error,
of
that
their
have
individuals
and
are
increasingly
own
group’s
negative
histories
or
in
with
each
other
are
more
likely
to
display
us
UAE.
This
seems
observable
in
the
daily
news
which
when
we
observe
Arabs
and
intergroup
conicts
between
changing
Israelis,
Indians
and
Pakistanis
in
require
Kashmir
of
the
outgroup
make
groups
and
and
of
as
are
intergroup
outgroup
maintain
serve
stereotypes
an
view,
so
behaviour
universal
happens
groups
the
therefore
cultures
1984).
what
relations
level.
controlled,
environment
Much
as
negative
the
is
an
1977)
personal
outgroup
act
conict
constant
Ross,
group
negative
behaviours.
in
on
a
the
Te ultimate attriution error (UAE)
live
considered
how
frequent
most
“We
a
for
maintained
negative
people
attribution
but
ultimate
underestimate
may
Pettigrew
(Fletcher
is
served
UAE
When
see—the
we
The
account
explain
differently
attributions
FAE
similar
can
that
the
the
important
on
level,
attribution
(1979)
1958;
perceived
acting
Cross-cultural
research
fully
information
to
someone
actions
behaviour
therefore,
trying
someone
previous
focus
explained
are
that
what
behaviour.
worlds
others;
we
over
person’s
1969)
attribution.
(1971)
when
own
of
individual
overestimate
attributions
Jones
life.”
experimental
are
of
adjusted
of
the
the
or
our
how
magnied.
requirements
subject
an
concerning
behaviour
●
of
the
the
and
questioner)
on
Pettigrew’s
error
dispositional
a
errors
amount
the
format).
person
conditions
causal
and
FAE.
tendency
salient
why
common
displays
FAE
Internal,
changing
constant
the
(Tajfel,
and
●
and
about
attribution.
three
experimental
S T E R E O T y P I N g
happens
attributions
contestants.
There
elements
A N D
or
race
relations
in
the
USA.
understanding
Research in focus: (T
aylor and Jaggi, 1974)
Taylor
study
and
on
Jaggi
(1974)
inter-group
conducted
casual
the
attribution,
rst
The
●
Hindu
people
in
southern
India.
There
researchers
is
of
conict
between
the
Hindu
Hindu
participants
population
inter-group
in
the
context
area,
for
the
which
of
attribute
the
would
ingroup
attribute
to
positive
internal
positive
behaviours
of
factors
the
provided
outgroups
the
hypotheses.
and
and
Muslim
these
a
behaviours
history
formed
using
to
external
factors.
research.
233
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
Research in focus (continued)
●
Hindu
participants
behaviours
and
of
attribute
outgroup
to
the
would
attribute
ingroup
negative
internal
to
positive
external
behaviours
of
factors
In
to
the
stage
1
of
the
study,
participants
were
give
an
initial
rating
and
for
the
concept
“Muslim”
on
12
to
ingroup
They
then
read
16
factors.
rating
2,
imagined
were
in
factors
researchers
a
story
in
either
socially
situations
desirable
with
either
or
or
Muslim
(outgroup).
then
explain
the
behaviour
of
Participants
a
choice
external
of
an
internal
(situational)
the
the
(dispositional)
closely
and
the
Taylor
related
to
maintaining
and
Tajfel’s
self-serving
you
bias
Jaggi
social
(1974)
is
very
seem
identity
whereby
self-esteem
think
UAE
to
theory
achieving
and
important.
fact
the
The
you
think
desirable
of
the
concluded
how
causal
Internal
behaviours
stories.
For
was
behaviour
to
time.
that
there
were
attributions
attribution
higher
socially
attribution
for
outgroup
can
be
understood
as
self-serving
bias?
What
(1990)
claims
that,
was
great
were
for
for
made
socially
ingroup
undesirable
lower
actors
in
UAE
as
work
by
for
the
an
on
19
there
actors
behaviour,
ingroup
actors
stories.
ultimate
inuenced
Tajfel.
Later
some
the
therefore
“inter-group
the
articles
is
Pettigrew,
Hewstone
heavily
and
reviews
while
made
limited.
been
in
on
evidence
prefers
to
attributional
attribution
by
the
the
this
Tajfel’s
for
is
in
label
bias”.
error
research
unit
UAE
support
of
has
Heider,
research
a
will
group-based
in
claims
Ross
Do
50%
or
the
be
participants
outgroup
attribution.
and
from
socially
groups.
Hewstone
results
the
individual
Discussion
The
of
had
than
from
behaviour
Hindu
internal
to
when
they
behaviour
socially
another
in
(ingroup)
undesirable
However,
associated
than
which
desirable
undesirable
the
attributed
between
they
factors
one-paragraph
The
participants
increasingly
“Hindu”
differences
stage
internal
socially
were
behaviours
evaluative
descriptions.
In
participants
positive
to
attribute
internal
characteristics.
Hindu
attribute
internal
they
(self-judgment)
to
asked
were
to
cases,
their
were
factors.
to
In
all
likely
be
discussed
in
more
depth.
makes
that?
ATL skills: Research
Duncan
(1976)
conducted
what
is
considered
a
Locate the following ar ticles. These are often cited and
more
ecologically
valid
study.
White
American
given details of what is considered classic research in
college
students
viewed
violent
interaction
a
video
recording
of
a
the eld of impression formation and implicit personality
where
one
participant
pushed
theory.
the
other.
The
researchers
manipulated
the
race
●
of
the
“protagonist”
and
the
“victim”.
Asch. SE. 1946. “Forming impressions of personality”.
Participants
Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology. Vol 41.
were
required
to
attribute
the
violent
behaviour
Pp 258–290.
to
either:
factors,
(1)
(3)
discussion
Results
When
was
the
case
that
more
were
or
(4)
a
a
strong
more
in
a
to
dispositional
made.
The
of
black
reverse
all
his
these
true
than
Vol 18. Pp 431–439.
was
was
conclusion
the
Kelley, HH. 1950. “ The warm-cold variable in rst
impressions of people”. Journal of Personality.
effect.
●
Luchin, AS. 1957. “Primacy-recency in impression
formation” in C Hovland (ed.) The Order of
Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven, Connecticut,
USA. Yale University Press.
attributions
in
●
factors.
condition
situational
was
under
behaviour
The
protagonist
than
topic
factors
protagonist.
black
dispositional
the
inter-group
dispositional
white
the
was
(2)
to
combination
protagonist
for
factors,
specically
highlighted
attributed
the
situational
related
What are the main conclusions of this research?
white
How does this research develop our understanding of the
protagonist
condition.
The
results
therefore
provide
individual and the group?
limited
234
support
for
the
UEA.
T h E
I N D I V I D U A L
A N D
T h E
g R O U P — S O C I A L
I D E N T I T y
T h E O R y
A N D
S T E R E O T y P I N g
Stereotpes
ATL skills: Thinking
Look at the following infographics created by the Chinese
designer Yang Liu. She is attempting to convey the
dierences between eastern (Chinese) and western
(German) culture using simple images.
How do you think the ar tist developed the views of eastern
and western cultures that inspired these images?
Some people nd these images oensive or upsetting.
Why do you think this is?
So,
where
do
these
stereotypes
come
from
and
Discussion
why
do
social
Do
you
agree
with
Yang
Liu’s
we
these
eastern
and
western
cultures?
stereotypes
you
say
that?
Discuss
your
views
The
term
“stereotype”
stereotypes
when
dominate
sense
as
interpret
that
what
we
our
We
variation
all
have
stereotypes
their
imagine
having
we
any
among
images
of
a
we
the
our
allow
in
our
that
us
a
of
is
clear
that
abstractions
that
over-simplied
people
share
and
about
own
group
Turner
and
1994;
another
Hogg
and
group
(Oakes,
Vaughan,
Haslam
1995).
and
I
image
Frenchman
these
to
or
pictures
to
identical
regardless
of
cultural
encapsulates
individual
you
wearing
help
group.
you
opposite,
dened
claims
assign
think
asked
that
(2008)
that
Frenchman,
who
heads
therefore
if
a
group,
heads
we
in
(1922)
Aronson
person
in
a
used
causing
example,
draw
in
members
identity
like
seen
see”.
people
For
and
something
pictures
stereotype
to
rst
Lippmann
thinking,
cultural
behaviour.
was
by
“little
characteristics
the
grossly
it
partner.
psychological
us
all,
with
and
a
are
After
What
their
makes
them?
interpretation
generalized
of
use
to
may
despite
this
picture
never
outt.
▲
Figure 4.12
A common stereotype
of a Frenchman
235
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
The
fact
should
We
is
learn
from
and
a
that
not
stereotyping
necessarily
to
assign
very
make
APPROACH
is
age
of
as
the
BE H AV IO U R
inevitable
considered
characteristics
young
sense
be
TO
it
helps
world
to
a
other
us
to
around
jobs
and
bad
thing.
groups
specic
theory
in
Unit
3
on
the
cognitive
behaviour
for
more
on
stereoty p e s
unconsciously
people
into
experiences
existing
and
with
in
tak e s
in
b as e d
s i mi l a r
Jean
childho o d
highlights
We
upo n
novel
our
or
schemas
pe opl e
Piaget
usi n g
p re v io us
of
shows
us
o ur
to
type
pion e e r e d
d e ve lo pme nt
can
unexpected
commonly
sc h e m a s .
of
a
however,
negative
allow
us
situations
we
process
as
to
respond
between
more
consider
it
can
quickly.
the
and
can
form
of
individual
lead
to
biased
prejudice
a
of
us
to
members
and
or
unfair
2016,
Donald
negative
political
Trump
stereotype
campaign.
of
famously
Trump’s
campaign
comments.
portrayed
immigrants
and
a
resulted
overt
in
an
prejudice.
our
schemas
by
can
be
exposure
affected
to
experiences
For
the
and
stereotypical
inuence
new
been
schema
exposed
to
a
information
movies
popular
House
view
highlights
in
news,
example,
Homeland
and
of
the
of
television
Cards
Islam.
or
expose
This
important
formation.
new
and
role
Having
your
newly
more
accessible
updated
alternative
schema
easily
than
those
that
will
have
be
not
accessed
the
ease
for
with
a
while.
which
Accessibility
you
can
use
refers
your
schema
a
to
the
fact
that
the
memories
have
been
treatment
recently.
Schemas
people
as
to
a
part
goal
of
his
Similarly,
negative
the
for
UK’s
some
Brexit
impression
linking
them
to
of
many
loss
of
all
to
or
those
likely
the
experience,
to
be
process
experience
For
own
have
easily
by
that
is
accessible.
schema
to
your
the
watching
likely
that
relate
relate
recently
which
increases
example,
Mexicans
your
that
those
to
repeated
recent
Donald
a
Mexican
are
refers
personal
of
Trump
your
current
primed
Priming
accessibility
increase
about
been
to
a
schema.
talk
about
accessibility
to
people.
ATL skills: Research
Joel Parés, a former US Marine who became a photographer, created a series of photographs to present us with
characters symbolic of the prejudices suered by various groups based on their ethnicity, socio-economic status or
sexual preference.
Do these images challenge your existing stereotypes? What makes you say that?
Parés told PetaPixel:
Many of us judge incorrectly by someone’s ethnicity, by their profession, and by their sexual interest. The
purpose of this series is to open our eyes and make us think twice before judging someone, because we all judge
even if we try not to.
236
the
these
to
http://time.com/4473972/
refugees,
of
ignore
of
referred
donald-trump-mexico-meeting-insult/
of
and
result,
discrimination.
Mexican
See
as
very
personal
In
turn
a
view
More
stereotyping
cause
shows.
such
retrieved
in
in
crimes
updated
experience,
due
group,
which
hate
As
negative
to
to
differences
identity.
very
watching
gatekeepers
been
be
that
personal
from
television
pla ce
our
recently
Using
reported
subsequently
gathered
pl ace
a uto ma ti ca ll y.
schemas .
research
a
this.)
o ften
catego r i e s
national
to
demographics,
rst-hand
Assigning
to
exposed
approach
and
to
threat
(See
This
schema
a
was
increase
organize
us.
and
world
T h E
I N D I V I D U A L
A N D
T h E
g R O U P — S O C I A L
I D E N T I T y
T h E O R y
and
Were do stereotpes come from?
therefore
between
One
idea
about
where
stereotypes
originate
grain
of
truth
hypothesis.
Think
infographics
back
you
by
Yang
agreed
Liu
with
that
them
you
or
saw
not
is
have
been
affected
For
by
your
example,
you
memory
of
a
holiday
when
own
personal
may
have
you
saw
a
the
most
to
taking
lots
of
pictures,
or
a
your
beer,
and
viewpoint.
these
images
If
with
this
will
you
one
have
shared
of
shaped
their
view
of
a
your
personal
and
with
a
small
friends,
group
of
likely
you
By
may
spread
a
communicating
of
have
new
in
essence
The
to
a
single
experience
of
sweeping
still
we
do
Mexican
but
he
demographic
is
generalization
it,
though.
drug
dealer
cannot
and
not
to
people
Trump
to
is,
entire
may
not
factor
is
It
the
is
surprising
variables
as
related
when
known
as
examples
●
a
an
of
illusory
illusory
student
they
all
group.
because
he
to
is
make
mathematics
boy
a
woman
believing
dangerous
an
because
aggressive
pit
boy’s
a
footballer
met
one
to
a
large
to
time
Illusory
match
he
did
A
classic
Gifford
of
not.
group
study
events
can
various
perceived
A
larger
than
a
trait
and
that
she
his
because
all
has
left
he
are
pit
are
to
bull
read
boot
scored
can
good
a
very
dogs
one
on
a
a
it
a
with
in
an
a
unfairly
minority
group
boy
may
being
see
shouting
in
a
public
verbal
behaviour
to
and
the
The
white
boy
may
then
to
the
black
group
people
and
are
create
violent.
by
how
from
B.
Hamilton
how
we
to
the
read
descriptions
imaginary
Group
A
was
and
expectations
process
had
two
our
groups:
considerably
group
of
B.
the
The
readings
individual’s
contained
group
behaviour.
The
membership
behaviours
called
John,
or
harmful.
For
example,
were
a
a
member
of
group
B,
teacher
screams
Nick,
a
member
of
group
A,
at
helps
at
his
his
able
church.
When
asked
to
give
their
impressions
a
the
on
typical
rst
group
behaviour
to
be
of
group
to
are
member,
group
considerably
A.
There
group
less
was
B
participants
members
desirable
no
than
actual
membership
considered
(the
minority)
members
correlation
and
desirability
and
so
before
the
were
making
an
illusory
correlation.
rst
Schaller
(1991)
with
US
141
conducted
university
a
similar
students.
experiment
Participants
stereotyping
the
group
being
told
that
the
experiment
was
investigating
viewed
correlations
falsely
of
people
perceive
information
about
others.
and
again
read
sentences
about
members
of
are
distinct
groups,
groups
A
and
B.
They
were
understood
that
there
were
fewer
members
of
correlations.
example,
minority
result
researched
group
helpful
group
For
experience
at
are
article
goal
become
between
behaviour—the
they
is
include:
next
relevant
stereotypes
because
actual
do
associate
white
and
all
distort
specic
informed
as
a
a
Participants
either
two
illusory
to
it
student
correlations
and/or
so
Common
They
a
of
conducted
people
group
how
as
and
This
this.
correlations
may
behaviour
that
(1976)
information.
were
because
we
may
ethnicity.
this
participants
every
rarely
conform
see
bull
putting
This
violent
stereotype
between
●
we
screaming
shouting
of
●
not
expectations
when
example,
this
local
Asian
do
a
We
unlikely),
are
Asians
sits
or
stereotype
For
students.
mathematics
that
illusory
correlation.
that
to
are
a
group.
people
correlations
believing
that
correlate
and
is
norms
behaviour,
descriptions
two
We
and
from
have
that
of
for
therefore
however,
generalize
formation
common
correlation.
behaviours
not
of
correlations.
will
The
population.
Another
and
information
by
them.
create
enough
(although
should
us
of
therefore
person
the
This
information
will
the
particular
information.
the
(Allport,
reality
one
to
form
illusory
society’s
generalize
that
of
is
experiences,
helped
stereotype.
we
attention
of
you
with
truth”
your
the
our
black
1954).
when
pay
Chinese
view
stereotype
“grain
form
this
accessible
formed.
started
that
we
inuenced
experiences
subsequent
because
most
negative
discussion
distinctive
be
most
minority
sharing
discovered
behaviour
is
negative
have
been
group’s
German
your
your
has
the
exposed
drinking
and
accessed
inuence
tourist
It
another
likely
be
a
correlation
earlier.
that
experience.
a
membership
likely
is
to
group
to
to
Whether
perceive
individual’s
is
view
the
S T E R E O T y P I N g
implicitly
that
behaviour.
the
A N D
an
group
negative
individual
as
more
behaviour
may
likely
than
a
to
perceive
engage
majority
a
in
group,
B
and
descriptions
were
then
group
A
so
of
they
group
assigned
or
would
group
B
reading
members.
group
B.
be
Participants
membership
There
was
a
fewer
to
control
either
condition
237
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
where
no
group
Participants
statements
group
membership
were
that
asked
or
to
contained
membership
desirable
APPROACH
of
an
undesirable
TO
was
read
BE H AV IO U R
behaviour.
assigned.
theory
individual
information
individual
about
and
behaviour.
a
After
the
to
This
theory
explain
formation
is
also
from
relies
whom
upon
the
gatekeeper
stereotype
learned.
specic
reading
Eects of stereotpes
all
to
the
statements,
answer
they
that
they
would
perceived
a
were
assess
given
the
relationship
questionnaires
extent
between
to
which
Self-fulllin propec
group
Schemas
membership
and
behaviour.
The
ndings
change
supported
the
hypothesis
that
being
a
group
would
inuence
the
processing
inuence
and
that
participants
would
can
discrimination
in
favour
of
their
This
social
categorization
the
can
understanding
help
explain
discriminate
Social
for
against
cognitive
the
of
how
effect
of
identity
form
people
about
to
themselves
their
behaviour.
In
some
change
instances
their
behaviour,
the
is
the
schema
to
become
self-fullling
true.
prophecy.
This
is
People
have
a
central
theory
stereotypes
about
how
others
will
behave
and
as
and
such
treat
them
differently.
treat
individuals
their
behaviour
The
way
in
which
they
and
causes
those
individuals
to
change
others.
theory
formation
social
we
cause
think
unconsciously
perception
to
can
they
own
called
ingroup.
that
display
causing
positive
stereotypes
way
of
people
information
the
placed
and
into
and
clearly
provides
an
stereotypes
as
explanation
a
expectation
in
such
becomes
a
way
that
the
original
true.
learned
Exercise
We
all
topics
be
hold
and
positive
Test
(IAT)
implicit
social
or
is
associations
groups.
negative.
now
a
These
The
about
Implicit
common
different
associations
may
Association
measure
If
you
an
individual’s
implicit
curious
this
link
about
and
your
take
a
own
test:
implicit
biases,
https://implicit.
harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
for
Be
assessing
are
follow
associations.
aware
that
you
may
not
agree
with
the
It
ndings.
includes
weight
tests
and
Rosenthal
classic
told
by
to
be
in
the
an
that
“growth
the
were
was
perceived
observed
by
the
an
that
spurters”
test.
students
students
in
academic
chosen
race,
gender,
at
(1968)
demonstrated
researchers
academic
and
Jacobson
Teachers
next
on
sexuality,
more.
and
study
prophecy.
focusing
certain
or
test
did
therefore
their
to
Any
in
classroom
were
results
likely
actually
of
exist
“bloomers”
difference
they
The
were
“bloomers”
upon
not
be
how
teachers.
school
students
based
a
self-fullling
academic
predicted
random.
the
elementary
year
The
conducted
between
were
now
researchers
dynamics
gaining
that
the
ability
with
year
and
at
the
end
of
the
given
an
IQ
test.
discovered
“bloomers”
demonstrated
an
become
teachers
for
answer
time
to
“bloomers”
completed
that
making
more
more
of
the
the
true.
better
assignments
appears
students’
teachers
Later
a
interacted
warmer
They
feedback
(Brophy,
of
studies
allowing
questions.
and
the
It
predictions
create
“bloomers”,
peers.
have
learning
them
also
on
1983;
give
their
Snyder,
1984).
the
that
looking
at
this
research
we
must
consider
students
were
happens
increase
if
we
apply
a
label
to
a
group
of
labelled
in
on
the
societal
level.
If
we
consider
women
IQ,
less
238
way
environment
people
as
that
their
throughout
year
Students
ability
than
perceptions
the
students,
students’
what
were
scores
teachers’
affected
the
When
the
higher
able
at
mathematics
or
African
Americans
T h E
less
able
at
chances.
be
I N D I V I D U A L
offered
job
science
Few
to
the
and
areas
seen
them
to
and
and
African
carry
some
the
in
this
may
of
and
future
areas
affect
potential.
skills,
level
label
their
these
Americans
these
g R O U P — S O C I A L
affect
earning
utilizing
reinforcing
may
T h E
opportunities
prospects
women
it
A N D
label
credibility,
creating
a
In
life
in
jobs
we
our
A N D
and
are
in
the
order
S T E R E O T y P I N g
social
have
to
his
identity
deal
with
colleagues
contingencies.
be
this
turn,
Steele
fewer
may
T h E O R y
that
may
future
With
pursuing
the
I D E N T I T y
They
get
the
these
that
that
desired
affect
specic
call
claim
circumstances
to
may
in
we
the
factors
identity
must
outcomes
factors
situations.
identity
contingencies
deal
from
with
a
in
situation.
way
For
example,
test
may
a
woman
about
to
sit
a
mathematics
self-fullling
be
aware
of
the
commonly
held
negative
prophecy.
stereotype
See video
this
TED
Talk
the
Newton:
feels
result
her
subsequent
as
a
itself
of
this
In
a
variety
on
of
and
the
stereotype
performance
in
women
turn,
the
ways,
poor
anxiety
may
test.
that
affect
This
including
may
poor
by
and
increased
heart
rate,
which
will
“Embracing
result
otherness,
between
she
concentration
Thandie
link
performance.
manifest
Watch
of
mathematics
embracing
in
inferior
performance.
myself”:
Steele
and
Aronson
(1995)
studied
the
effect
of
https://www.ted.com/talks/
stereotype
threat
on
the
intellectual
test
performance
thandie_newton_embracing_
of
African-American
students.
The
researchers
otherness_embracing_myself
hypothesized
students
Stereotpe treat
Statistics
the
have
academic
groups
of
test
Two
the
subject
of
the
stereotypes
outperform
and
are
the
less
This
that
African
able
Spencer
than
were
and
has
led
common
much
commonly
stereotypes
there
performance
people.
stereotypes.
that
is
a
difference
between
to
some
stereotypes
research
and
Americans
men
Aronson
on
at
stereotype.
This
tend
that
relation
(2002)
stereotype,
and
test
judged
suspicion
with
the
they
by
a
causes
result
underperform
face
a
fear
that
in
the
negative
threat
of
conrming
students
academic
of
societal
self-
situations.
different
have
mathematics.
in
being
African-American
common
been
call
to
academic
stereotype
studied
academic
or
evaluate
when
discussion—
Anglo-Americans
held
in
an
conrming
the
shown
sit
that
to
testing;
women
These
what
Steele,
stereotype
threat
Stereotype
threat
apprehension
or
members
believe
may
of
to
why
the
and
or
There
Steele
in
an
are
may
anxiety
an
a
and
individual
group
reinforce
science
but
by
behaviour
someone
resources,
to
particular
stereotype.
mathematics
of
a
their
conrm
group
as
that
refers
experienced
when
existing
many
and
such
his
situation
negative
as
on
colleagues
procedure
with
difculty
or
lack
group
stereotypes
cause
an
his
stereotype,
researchers
young,
and
in
so
or
her
often
leading
argue
male,
behaviour
that
female,
on—become
specic
to
our
to
situations.
relation
to
the
The
identities—old,
man,
female
signicant
stretch
The
the
test
a
30-minute
Graduate
was
participants
of
and
Record
sufcient
cause
teacher,
when
were
three
experimental
conditions.
re-
underperformance.
social
white
more
in
(GRE).
administering
from
claim
individual
●
evaluate
to
taken
frustration.
There
that
involved
items
Examination
a
fatigue
The
test
explanations
underperform
test,
they
specic
we
are
Condition
1—the
condition:
described
ability.
as
This
stereotype
in
this
being
would
to
participants
stereotype
condition
a
measure
cause
become
and
the
the
of
test
was
intellectual
negative
relevant
establish
threat
to
the
stereotype
racial
black
threat.
239
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
●
Condition
2—the
condition:
a
the
APPROACH
intellectual
established
was
task
ability.
any
BE H AV IO U R
non-stereotype
test
problem-solving
to
TO
merely
that
This
was
the
as
have
Results
diagnostic
worse
unrelated
should
stereotype
conditions.
threat
described
than
black
non-diagnostic
not
worse
threat.
than
showed
condition
participants
conditions,
white
that
black
performed
as
in
either
well
participants
students
in
in
signicantly
as
the
of
the
two
signicantly
diagnostic
condition.
●
Condition
was
a
described
in
3—the
second
the
the
hope
challenge
condition:
non-diagnostic
difcult
of
raising
test
as
condition.
posing
motivation
a
for
this
This
It
as
challenge
the
experiment
evidence
alongside
task.
effect
It
was
predicted
that
white
students
of
black
students
on
the
but
not
on
the
two
seen
over
300
by
studies
threat
the
threat
that
on
researchers
and
sits
demonstrate
test
would
al,
2010;
Steele,
2010;
cited
in
Aronson
2014).
non-diagnostic
ATL skills: Research and thinking
As we have seen, Steele and Aronson (1995) investigated the eect of stereotype
threat on academic performance when it links to negative racial stereotypes. To
add to your learning, read this ar ticle by Claude Steele on stereotype threat and
academic performance:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/08/thin-ice-stereotype-
threat-and-black-college-students/304663/
For fur ther reading, turn to Claude Steele’s book: Whistling Vivaldi (2010) published
by W W Nor ton & Company, New York .
Another key area of focus has been the investigation of stereotype threat on
female performance in mathematic tests. Find the following study on this topic:
Spencer, SJ, Steele, CM and Quinn, D. 1999. “Stereotype threat and women’s math
performance”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol 35. Pp 4–28.
Summarize this study.
How does this study contribute to our understanding of stereotype threat on
academic performance?
Discussion
Discuss
with
stereotypes
a
partner
and
the
use
stereotype
of
the
experimental
method
in
developing
our
understanding
threat.
See video
As
related
good
viewing,
watch
Paul
Bloom’s
TED
Talk
”Can
prejudice
ever
be
a
thing?”
https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_can_prejudice_ever_be_a_good_thing
240
the
performance
diagnostic
et
condition
was
stereotype
stereotype
(Aronson,
outperform
of
of
T h E
I N D I V I D U A L
A N D
T h E
g R O U P — S O C I A L
I D E N T I T y
T h E O R y
A N D
S T E R E O T y P I N g
Case study: Jane Elliott—“A class divided”
After
the
Junior
called
teach
assassination
in
1968,
Jane
her
Elliott
and
she
divided
eye
colour.
their
decided
some
class
into
labelled
On
the
students
by
Luther
teacher
that
she
In
or
rst
day,
that
do
this
students
told
were
to
on
upon
collars
she
they
to
based
blue-eyed
wearing
Iowa
lessons
order
groups
King
in
wanted
important
Brown-eyed
necks.
Martin
discrimination.
her
clearly
blue-eyed
of
third-grade
students
prejudice
were
a
around
the
more
well
On
behaved
and
more
intelligent
than
the
the
labels
eyed
students
(and
so
gave
them
a
She
offered
them
and
by
allowing
them
the
to
sit
at
the
the
class
and
to
have
rst
brown-eyed
choice
of
now
resources
in
lessons.
The
suffered
They
a
great
became
This
blow
to
their
withdrawn
and
the
other
for
more
The
brown-eyed
engaged
their
performance
in
on
class
and
classroom
simple
experiment
importance
of
seems
children’s
to
social
self-
turned
and
social
contingencies
within
the
to
classroom
each
assigned
treatment
brown-eyed
identity
esteem.
the
materials
highlight
students
students.
became
improved
activities.
and
reversed
preferential
front
even
of
she
the
preferential
students
treatment
day,
offered
positive
to
stereotype).
second
brown-
upon
their
academic
ability.
support.
See video
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/lm/class-divided/
social
groups),
self-categorization
theory
was
later
Social identit teor
developed
In
1979,
Tajfel
and
Turner
proposed
a
theory
identity
theory
As
of
inter-group
conict.
Social
social
as
since
become
a
prominent
theory
in
and
increased
our
understanding
self.
Our
phenomena
such
as
social
identity,
and
stereotyping.
It
is
note
that
although
a
key
part
of
the
on
social
categorization
of
and
two
Turner
different
social
identity,
which
is
of
types
most
here,
refers
membership
to
such
the
as
self
our
in
terms
gender
or
of
our
ethnicity.
personal
identity
refers
to
our
self
on
a
theory
more
focuses
Tajfel
work.
important
Our
to
theorists,
existence
earlier
prejudice,
group
discrimination
this
of
relevance
social
the
of
social
of
psychology
extension
identity
acknowledge
has
an
(membership
individual,
private
and
interpersonal
level.
to
241
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
Elements
known
It
is
of
by
your
a
groups
as
and
to
one,
have
we
are
relationships
Social
personal
loved
possible
identities
are
or
and
theory
in
may
social
of
many
based
to
only
Tajfel
be
when
yourself.
and
upon
personal
multiple
an
social
interpersonal
Vaughan,
is
BE H AV IO U R
only
members
involved
TO
identity
even
multiple
all
(Hogg
identity
APPROACH
2014).
upon
the
al
(1971)
minimal
ingroup
an
despite
The
study
14
years
15
their
strive
to
self-esteem.
positive
were
maintain
or
This
will
support
having
In
the
to
social
groups
can
both
positive
and
negative
associations.
a
allocated
identity
will
therefore
be
of
groups
the
collective
value
or
to
which
the
person
rst
An
individual
own
will
ingroup
assess
(us)
the
salience
membership
social
comparison
with
When
an
perceives
more
in
individual
favourably
more
the
of
When
value
ingroup
than
being
and
individuals
group
a
the
of
via
his
a
or
are
his
or
upon
positive
unhappy
membership
they
group
and
positive
group
identity.
permeability,
to
the
exibility
of
individuals
group
their
serve
in
to
to
This
ability
group
must
her
this
social
based
upon
are
favouritism
increase
factor
with
will
the
self-esteem
the
boys
were
estimates
visual
were
assigned
and
to
minimal
placed
of
the
judgment
groups
labelled
based
allocation
was
were
in
result
to
to
a
into
criteria.
groups
number
task.
of
They
to
the
their
groups
estimates
was
in
to
categorize
the
others
would
they
allocated
their
not
end
of
in
the
they
form
the
were
giving
of
real
identities
rewards
would
the
that
involved
know
these
decisions
the
told
that
or
benet
money.
of
those
penalties
or
experiment
going
punish
each
boy
and
numbers
for
from
Klee
242
of
themselves.
amount
a
was
an
he
insignicant
had
been
awarded,
receive
although
as
The
boys
groups
given
amount
(around
this
50p).
more
were
specially
matrices
their
Participants
group
they
more
as
may
and
positive
ingroup.
and
that
or
This
told
like
that
may
outgroup
into
designed
the
one
were
this
penalizing
contained
placed
shown
required
would
another
matrices
choices
at
to
and
that
the
equate
to
enabled
intergroup
were
contained
top
circle
participant.
that
or
cubicles
booklets
of
one
Table
4.7.
column
rewarding
The
booklet
ingroup
choices,
choices.
outgroup.
–17
–14
–11
–8
–5
–2
1
2
3
4
5
7
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
–2
–5
–8
–11
–14
–17
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
group
for
Klee
are
boy
no.
70
group
numbers
are
boy
Kandinsky
Table 4.7
whom
none
would
2
rewards
▲
be
and
The
–20
artist
rewards
to
to
preferring
These
boys.
1
for
the
in
fact
rewards
Booklet
These
dots
were
“overestimator”
upon
designed
then
task
boys
Alternatively,
appear
towards
against
they
the
between
impermeable,
their
a
into
and
penalties
ingroup
known
within
group
in
The
involved
identity.
leave
boundaries.
Overestimator
study
is
move
Underestimator
the
UK.
minimal
their
to
another
to
is,
boys
their
placed
task.
The
of
(them).
membership
with
seek
remain
existing
discrimination
study
may
move
boundaries
make
displaying
For
groups
her
process
out-group
outgroup
placed
more
existing
For
to
arbitrary
“underestimator”
the
result
between
Bristol,
the
At
will
in
belongs.
value
an
that
upon
study,
upon
arbitrary
by
school
in
the
to
existing
boys,
An
viewed
or
light
based
screen
then
individual’s
try
a
no
to
create
have
on
the
from
64
to
a
self-concept
Membership
when
old,
belonging
possible
being
involved
based
enhance
based
due
there
is
that
groups
following
groups
●
to
assumptions.
Individuals
●
demonstrate
outgroup—it
prejudice.
and
to
allocated
characteristics—merely
or
characteristics;
●
aimed
are
discrimination
They
three
et
individuals
no.
20
of
group
Example matrices
–20
T h E
The
ndings
that
an
I N D I V I D U A L
when
from
the
intergroup
rewards
or
the
boys
A N D
rst
were
choice
penalties
g R O U P — S O C I A L
study
is,
one
to
either
of
I D E N T I T y
their
In
make
a
member
of
the
outgroup)
they
one
favouritism
and
allocated
members
allocating
of
the
of
their
rewards
same
own
or
group,
group.
penalties
more
ingroup
or
When
to
for
a
decision
that
two
faced
These
results
support
the
the
the
largest
that
discrimination
can
be
allocated
to
a
group.
In
claims
created
short,
made
that
an
outgroup
exists
we
favour
In
the
of
the
by
when
we
will
study,
a
categorized
the
second
would
the
to
to
prot:
in
boys
members
difference:
the
amount
and
of
this
allocate
the
matrix.
of
could
their
allocate
ingroup.
decision
given
minimized
the
study
rather
different
group
of
boys
to
the
the
boys
in
amount
given
outgroup.
the
ndings
maximize
showed
that
the
difference
the
the
ingroup
in
scores
into
These
groups
based
participants
paintings
by
the
artists
even
at
between
the
expense
of
gaining
and
a
the
higher
upon
were
Paul
allocated
were
and
obtaining
more
money.
When
making
a
shown
Klee
concerning
two
members
of
the
ingroup,
and
would
opt
for
a
choice
of
maximum
fairness,
Kandinsky.
demonstrating
The
could
boys
discriminate
boys
Wassily
ingroup
members
decision
of
boys
both
ingroup.
preference.
pictures
to
are
score
artistic
prot:
amount
ingroup
outgroup,
arbitrarily
to
merely
the
second
joint
Maximum
boys
in
4.7).
by
In
aware
boys
boys
to
being
Table
the
maximum
their
Tajfel
(see
decisions.
amount
Maximum
with
members
ensure
largest
maximized
fairness.
though
encouraged
rewards
outgroup,
would
different,
matrices
three
Maximum
●
opted
of
the
displayed
●
to
S T E R E O T y P I N g
slightly
study
the
ingroup
A N D
group
●
or
were
this
make
allocate
own
T h E O R y
study
highlighted
required
(that
to
T h E
second
boys
other
study
would
was
similar
allocate
participants.
to
the
rewards
The
rst,
and
matrices
in
in
study
that
even
penalties
the
clear
highlights
when
no
ingroup
that
favouritism.
discrimination
previous
prejudice
can
or
This
take
place
competition
exists.
second
ATL skills: Research and thinking
Social identity theory provides one explanation of intergroup behaviour and discrimination. Musafer Sherif (1954)
provided an alternative explanation in the form of realistic conict teor
Using your research skills, locate ar ticles that summarize the main assumptions of realistic conict theory.
Contrast realistic conict theory with social identity theory.
For a detailed summary of both theories you may want to consult the original publication by Tajfel and Turner. You can
nd it here:
https://tinyurl.com/ya7ssaws
In 2001, researchers Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher conducted the BBC Prison Study which
examined how people respond to being placed into groups of unequal power, either prison
guards or prisoners.
Explore the study website: http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/index.php
To what extent can the research ndings be explained by:
●
social identity theory
●
realistic conict theory?
Discussion
Take
the
Discuss
points
your
you
identied
ndings
with
a
when
contrasting
realistic
conict
theory
with
social
identity
theory.
partner.
243
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
examples
Acculturation
in
the
of
face
cultural
of
resistance
cultural
and
revitalization
domination.
W do cultures cane?
Cultures
just
as
are
not
people
static.
change.
They
They
change
can
over
change
time,
as
a
result
See video
of
modernization,
and
a
one
type
myriad
of
afuence,
other
migration,
reasons.
education
Acculturation
is
Watch
of
cultural
change.
Acculturation
pop
a
process
of
psychological
and
cultural
this
related
TED
Talk
on
is
culture
in
the
Arab
world:
change
https://www.ted.com/talks/
as
a
result
of
contact
and
interaction
between
shereen_el_feki_pop_culture_
cultures.
This
can
result
in
change
to
all
(or
both)
in_the_arab_world
cultures
2008).
is
not
It
both
is
only
also
non-dominant
psychological
(social);
it
affects
Acculturation
takes
the
important
place
is
to
note
(individual)
individuals
often
between
and
discussed
dominant
culture
that
and
cultural
society
as
a
and
(Berry,
change
at
large.
process
Acculturation studies
that
non-dominant
cultures.
Studies
in
and
It
should
not
be
surprising,
therefore,
globalization
is
driving
the
a
total
number
living
in
of
a
international
different
which
they
were
born)
2015.
from
the
That
and
represents
includes
20
reached
a
40%
million
244
we
2016).
are
increase
refugees
Interestingly,
headed
toward
a
this
does
single
is
no
culture.
Contact
with
with
migration
other
closing
members
other
longer
a
to
viable
study
acculturation
cultures.
yourself
outside
your
off
cultural
option.
the
It
has
strategies
of
become
rather
than
the
dealing
willingness
from
not)
to
accept
change
within
your
culture.
In
(United
not
the
world
has
become
far
too
interrelated
mean
cultural
isolation.
Berry
(2008)
argues
that
homogenized
individuals
global
interested
of
million
for
that
with
globalization,
important
short,
Nations,
most
result
one
(or
2000
contact
a
migrants
country
with
in
of
contact
more
in
are
as
acculturation.
group
(people
change
resulting
result
from
The
acculturation
cultures
that
As
accelerating
into
how
cultures
may
can
adopt
four
strategies
for
cultural
be
change.
inevitable
total
but
the
acceptance
responses
to
total
to
contact
range
from
rejection.
●
Assimilation:
to
Examples
of
resistance
cultures
that
change
and
maintained
their
cultural
of
their
everywhere.
First
Nations
(or
in
Canada,
the
USA,
Australia
with
peaceful.
survived
cultures.
Many
subjected
the
have
other
to
First
forced
introduction
were
designed
man”.
At
schools,
from
to
these
First
their
This
centuries
contact
Nations
of
residential
“kill
the
families,
punished
and
or
●
been
such
as
same
which
save
languages
and
forced
to
removed
speaking
adopt
of
life.
Despite
this,
and
contact
with
more
over
dominant
time
a
and
vibrant
First
are
the
working
more
to,
244
world.
currently
in
and
and
Indeed,
experiencing
the
opposite
more
proud
First
of,
many
a
their
with
of
these
of
past.
own
and
attitudes
are
and
willing
to
beliefs.
when
desire
This
individuals
values
daily
option
open
want
beliefs
only
when
be
the
to
but
interactions
can
and
is
cultural
and
hold
at
with
the
other
pursued
by
dominant
accommodating
toward
change.
their
Separation:
when
culture
individuals
and
are
averse
value
and
traditions
to
their
losing
touch
the
individuals
actively
of
seek
their
to
past.
avoid
contact
exist
other
cultures.
cultures
●
perhaps
assimilation
are
values
many
cultures
youths
cultural
any
strategy,
century
resurgence,
direction
Nations
this
interaction
their
society
with
around
In
European
cultures,
Nations
than
groups
These
distinct
seek
non-dominant
with
of
culture.
behaviour,
traditional
original
ways
other
their
cultures.
the
●
native
openly
Integration:
onto
church-run
were
for
always
have
schools
Indian
children
original
contact
not
policies
government-run
Nations
of
was
cultures
assimilation
open
and
adjust
elsewhere
are
about
Aboriginal)
cultures
cultures
individuals
unconcerned
identity
individuals
are
when
are
have
loss
survived
and
exposed
These
are
as
Marginalization:
interest
but
at
in
the
relations
when
maintaining
same
with
time
other
individuals
their
little
original
interest
cultures.
in
have
little
culture
opening
T h E
The
not
preferred
you
culture
are
it
is
the
groups
of
the
(for
segregation
g R O U P — S O C I A L
upon
values
to
(for
the
or
are
is
will
by
result
attitude
separation
example,
both
sought
is
T h E O R y
South
or
among
and
US
I D E N T I T y
minority
often
change
example,
when
whether
dominant
assimilation
reluctant
pot”
T h E
cultural
immigration);
called
A N D
depends
example,
“melting
towards
strategy
member
what
For
dominant
a
a
and
cultures.
in
I N D I V I D U A L
forced,
Africa).
openness
of
on
diversity
policy
in
individual
policies
S T E R E O T y P I N g
Multiculturalism
the
(for
part
that
all
limit
to
or
from
Berry’s
is
the
cultures
the
remain
at
least
the
isolated
groups.
of
an
accepting
immigration
is
result
and
discourage
minority
(2008)
result
widely
ofcial
Marginalization
decisions
contributions
of
example,
Canada).
illustrates
apartheid
A N D
of
of
social
cultural
Figure
4.13
research.
Issue 1:
Maintenance of heritage culture and identity
Issue 2:
+
−
+
−
Relationships
+
sought
among
groups
INTEGRATION
ASSIMIL ATION
SEPARATION
MULTICULTURALISM
MARGINALIZATION
SEGREGATION
Strategies of ethnocultural groups
▲
Figure 4.13
MELTING POT
EXCLUSION
Strategies of larger society
Values of intercultural studies in ethnocultural groups and in the larger society
Source: Berry (2008)
how are acculturation studies desined?
how does acculturation impact eaviour?
Acculturation
Acculturation
at
both
level.
It
studies
In
a
is
all)
Studies
take
(culture).
as
so
data.
only
look
as
are
as
is
at
that
at
over
longitudinal
over
time.
changes
changes
in
often
from
in
in
reliant
society
on
self-
psychological
multiple
is
one.
questionnaires
important.
cultures
both
individual
greater
any
time
individual
non-dominant
with
very
an
change
employs
results
two
at
changes
ndings
or
at
happens
and
look
the
often
societies
one
just
Finally,
attaining
multiple
from
also
look
should
not
well
that
level
important
that
Research
surveys
research,
in
place
should
reported
process
studies
cultures,
psychology
and
a
cultural
therefore
addition,
(or
is
group
samples
Findings
exchange
a
very
important
explaining
acculturation
and
communication
immigrants
of
help
the
(social
acculturation
support
available
here).
from
Over
attitudes
and
from
the
the
cultural
groups
and
may
prevents
effective
with
new,
the
of
the
in
original
the
involvement
can
beginning
be
before
it
is
important
with
original
acculturation
culture
the
strong
communication
adopted
on
culture
culture
may
though,
retard
is
acculturation.
original
culture
term
and
involvement
their
process
new
long
communication
and
with
contact
Communication
determinant
part
and
(Lakey,
as
this
involvement
2003).
insufcient
its
impact
examining
the
impact
of
acculturation
on
on
behaviour,
identities,
through
cultures.
Strong
When
in
happens
between
a
signicant
limitation
appears.
First,
beliefs.
most
migration
countries
to
occurs
richer,
from
poorer,
less-developed
more-developed
countries.
ATL skills: Thinking and research
As
Do you think the ndings of acculturation studies
are valid, considering they are the product of self-
assessment? What makes you say that?
a
result,
research
acculturation
opportunity
the
other
poorer
in
to
one
study
direction;
ones.
is
biased
toward
direction.
the
that
There
effects
is,
Acculturation
of
from
a
study
is
very
of
little
acculturation
rich
studies
countries
look
mostly
in
to
at
What changes would you propose to the research
the
movement
of
peoples
from
more
traditionalist,
methodology of acculturation studies to make them
poorer
cultures
to
more
liberal
and
richer
cultures.
less reliant on self-repor ting?
This
makes
generalization
problematic.
245
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
APPROACH
TO
BE H AV IO U R
Cultural/group level
Psychological/individual level
Psychological
Adaptation
Culture
acculturation
A
Cultural
Individuals
Individuals
in cultures
in cultures
changes
A and B:
A and B:
Culture
Contact
A
Behavioural
Psychological
Culture
shifts
B
Culture
Acculturative
B
Socio cultural
stress
▲
Figure 4.14
A general framework for understanding acculturation
Source: Berry (2005)
The
health
behaviour
extensively
studied.
noticed.
The
concept
that
of
migrants
Two
healthy
main
has
effects
migrant
been
have
effect
mainly
been
refers
to
South
Bangladeshi)
migrants
tend
to
be
their
native
born
counterparts.
The
the
negative
acculturation
effect ,
the
apparent
diminishing
difference
completed
half
of
and
their
native
born
more
counterparts
That
great
is,
the
healthy
acculturation
migrant
into
effect
unhealthy
habits.
been
The
healthy
theoretically
migrant
founded
and
effect
seems
counter
to
low
the
well-established
socio-economic
It
has
most
been
host
largely
countries
and
explained
select
for
that
the
food
environments
June
lived
in
2012.
the
UAE
and
drivers
the
most
(23%),
common
labourers
(17%
each)
and
and
construction
(12.5%).
Findings
in
the
showed
UAE
had
that
these
signicantly
body
age
in
mass
their
index
(BMI)
cultures
of
than
origin.
men
The
of
the
longer
migrants
by
stay
in
the
UAE,
the
greater
the
poor
the
healthy
of
years
workers
between
their
BMI
and
that
of
men
fact
their
culture
of
origin.
The
mean
BMI
among
migrants
participants
and
had
connection
status
in
that
six
were
workers
difference
health.
surveyed
has
the
between
those
to
same
run
lifestyle
and
host
higher
not
and
diminishes
migrant
country
health
January
over
workers
with
a
between
than
agricultural
time.
UAE.
between
occupations
migrants
the
refers
for
to
and
in
second
Over
effect,
Pakistani
workers
healthier
questionnaire
than
(Indian,
migrant
the
Participants
recent
Asian
male
migrant
was
higher
than
for
working
men
aged
origin
2
20–59
cultures
are
often
healthier
than
those
of
years
in
India
(31.5
2
kg/m
versus
23.1
kg/m
2
and
world
receiving
cultures.
(see
“Clinical
bias
Bangladesh
and
the
role
of
culture
in
treatment”
5
on
abnormal
kg/m
versus
19.7
kg/m
).
of
being
overweight
and
of
obesity
in
in
male
Unit
(26.2
2
in
Prevalence
diagnosis
)
rst-
Pakistani
migrants
was
more
than
double
psychology)
than
In
ATL skills: Thinking and research
for
Pakistani
addition,
the
overweight
also
higher
in
men
in
their
prevalence
the
than
study
in
of
origin
obesity
sample
Emirati
culture.
and
(63.4%)
men
being
was
(58.6%).
These
A lot of research in psychology is accused of being W-E-
ndings
seems
to
show
that
acculturation
may
I-R-D (Western, Educated, from Industrialized, Rich, and
contribute
to
obesity
and
being
overweight.
Democratic countries). As a result, much psychological
research is done in a very par ticular context that may
bias ndings. Acculturation studies are no exception.
Do you think the healthy immigrant eect and the
negative acculturation eect may be two examples of
Delavario
Hispanic
review
of
USA
have
Shah
et
between
246
al
(2015)
obesity
found
and
a
positive
acculturation
nine
from
found
association
women.
among
between
1,375
al
Six
(2013)
between
among
the
this type of bias? What makes you say that?
et
relationship
migrants
studies
eight
mixed
that
in
the
there
different
on
a
and
of
men
positive
acculturation
A
was
a
obesity
literature
migrants
cultures
between
found
and
USA.
conducted
results
studies
higher
found
acculturation
to
origin
and
association
BMI,
while
three
T h E
found
with
I N D I V I D U A L
that
higher
lower
increase
in
migrants
weight
explained
by
among
among
moving
Contrary
men
into
gain
a
g R O U P — S O C I A L
may
for
western
was
be
than
of
The
their
a
promotes
culture
have
slim
T h E O R y
of
A N D
S T E R E O T y P I N g
immigrant
adolescents.
short-term
immigrants
residence)
because
that
women
ideal
I D E N T I T y
associated
women.
culture
more
ndings
the
T h E
acculturation
mainly
BMI
are
unhealthy
origin.
BMI
A N D
had
a
Findings
(with
higher
immigrants
but
difference
the
and
show
than
overweight
longer-term
that
did
less
six
risk
native
that
years’
than
Spanish
disappeared
within
people,
six
years.
been
female
Acculturative stress
body
and
a
resultant
higher
emphasis
placed
on
Acculturation
physical
activity
and
tness,
which
would
abuse
the
positive
association
between
can
be
stressful.
Obesity,
substance
counter
acculturation
and
cardiovascular
disease
are
correlated
and
with
heightened
levels
of
chronic
stress
(see
Unit6
obesity.
on
Another
study,
supports
the
and
obesity.
researchers
Asian
also
This
call
convergence
of
research
looked
health
new-culture
the
USA,
at
what
migrants
standard.
refers
to
Ishizawa
a
less
and
stress
did
nd
that
second-
and
had
a
higher
new
a
likelihood
their
origin
identify
migrants
culture,
but
moderating
or
of
obesity
individuals
the
a
They
high
those
households
that
for
culture
way
to
people
norms
The
shock
think
who
when
term
of
are
(Sullivan,
it
has
and
is
as
coping
the
with
2009).
Jones
people
experience
associated
acculturation
retained
Protective
without
factors
and
of
acculturative
stress
include
(but
are
not
the
degree
limited
to)
afuence,
social
support
and
did
found
migrant
stress.
than
of
similarity
or
difference
in
cultural
that
These
mirror
the
protective
factors
and
density
risk
and
by
cultural
difculties
context.
can
from
researchers
factors.
with
Another
experienced
contexts.
neighbourhoods
synonym
shock.
determinants
rst-generation
cultural
stress
third-generation
the
migrants
Acculturative
biopsychosocial
a
as
conicting
Many
(2016)
as
to
used
psychic
to
psychology).
dened
adapting
been
among
assimilation
of
be
acculturation
assimilation
Unhealthy
the
in
between
unhealthy
migrants.
healthy
undertaken
relationship
health
their
factors
of
stress
discussed
stress
can
in
Unit
6
on
health
original
psychology.
language
and
acted
Jones,
as
buffers
against
obesity
(Ishizawa
Acculturative
2016)
between
Length
of
stay
has
been
found
to
be
a
to
obesity
in
a
study
of
migrants
in
it
can
be
by
Da
Costa,
Dias
and
A
study
of
over
31,000
people
(of
were
2008.
migrants)
Findings
was
conducted
showed
that
between
same
the
overweight
new
was
higher
migrants
but
for
that
native
length
can
migrants
associated
Costa,
Dias
seems
that
change
to
in
mirror
rates
of
(more
with
and
the
diet
the
than
Martins,
years)
of
or
lifestyle
and
was
In
are
on
be
caused
the
result
it
included
overweight
a
migrants
prevalence
in
because
social
who
that
acculturation
challenge
and
correlated.
These
in
it
is
not
the
obesity
researchers
acculturative
to
in
obesity
but
that
the
process
culture
matters.
A
to
study
adolescents
et
al
conducted
(2015)
found
no
by
adopt
new
in
overweight
risk
levels
are
in
An
so
example
called
of
“honour
“Psychology
in
integration
of
not
with
and
stress.
in
real
their
strategies
This
required
adapt
culture.
result
itself
to
original
some
be
up
culture
identication
Assimilation
intermediate
may
give
and
levels
results
in
the
of
stress
highest
stress.
If
we
examine
these
levels
results
social
one
over
identity
theory,
it
seems
that
the
more
that
an
individual
feels
to
a
group
(whether
is
is
the
new
culture,
the
old
one
or
both),
the
3,100
stress
is
experienced.
This
may
be
due
to
the
Estebanfactor
of
social
support—those
with
signicant
connections
difference
(2005),
marginalization
protective
Gonzalo
Shaa
imply
which
of
Berry
lowest
acculturative
less
Spanish
of
conicting
are
that
acculturating
have
strategies.
the
outlined
individuals
connected
results
with
Canada
the
their
using
that
issue
members
the
of
necessarily
when
group
acculturative
found
they
while
assumption
problematic
identication
when
with
researchers
individuals
This
below.
According
(Da
case,
Portuguese.
other
very
non-dominant
separation
There
cultures.
positively
this
process
that
multiple
residence
overweight
2017).
acculturative
obesity
native
15
prevalence
strategies
to
Portuguese
of
life”
of
challenge
2007
killings”
than
difcult
prevalence
this
of
a
with
become
opinions
and
conict
whom
the
4.6%
is
Martins
can
(2017).
acculturation
there
Portugal
interacting
conducted
various
when
contributing
and
factor
the
arise
between
Spanish
to
both
cultures
will
have
access
to
and
more
social
support
than
others.
247
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
Migration
to
have
and
and
an
acculturation
impact
adolescents.
argues
have
that
on
implications
because
BE H AV IO U R
also
health
Batista-Pinto
and
TO
have
mental
migration
severe
adolescents
APPROACH
been
in
Wiese
young
migration
can
as
be
life
trauma.
can
can
show
and
understood
and
points
out
insecure,
attachment
increased
anxiety
She
develop
disorganized
stress
children
a
children
(2010)
acculturative
for
found
children
while
aggressive
depressive
that
younger
ambivalent
or
adolescents
behaviour
behaviour
may
along
related
with
to
acculturation.
Discussion
Read
“Psychology
●
Do
●
Why
you
think
do
you
in
real
life”
acculturative
think
it
was
below,
stress
difcult
then
answer
played
for
a
role
these
these
in
girls’
questions.
the
deaths
parents
to
of
the
adapt
Shaa
to
the
girls?
cultural
norms
of
life
in
Canada?
●
To
what
extent
should
cultures
be
accepting
and
understanding
of
the
norms
and
values
of
immigrants?
●
Do
you
believe
that
immigrants
and
refugees
should
assimilate
to
the
culture
of
their
new
homes?
Psychology in real life
Globalization has resulted in the mixing of cultures around
Ontario Superior Cour t Justice Rober t Maranger presided
the world. These cultures often hold conicting values
over this case, which shocked the nation. Four family
and in some cases these conicts can have serious
members were dead with three family members guilty of
consequences. Take, for instance, the example of honour
their murder. Michael Friscolanti tells the whole story of
killing. Honour killing is not condoned by any major
what happened.
religion nor any nation state but some subcultures of
“ The evidence, utterly hear tbreaking, left no real
conservative, traditional people believe honour killing is
doubt about the truth. Before they died, the Shaa
an acceptable, often necessary social practice.
sisters were caught in the ultimate culture clash,
An honour (or shame) killing is the murder of a family
living in Canada but not allowed to be Canadian.
member due to the perpetrators’ belief that the victim brought
They were expected to behave like good Muslim
shame on the family or community and that the only way to
daughters, to wear the hijab and marry a fellow
erase the shame is to kill the victim. Honour killing is dierent
Afghan. And when they rebelled against their
from other forms of domestic violence for three reasons:
father ’s “traditions” and “customs”—cover tly at
honour killings are planned in advance, they can include
rst, then for all the community to see—the shame
multiple family members planning and committing the
became too much to bear. Only a mass execution
murder, and perpetrators often do not face negative stigma in
(staged to look like a foolish wrong turn) could
their families or communities (Government of Canada, 2016).
wash away the stain of their secret boyfriends and
revealing clothes.”
In January 2012, three daughters and a rst wife of
Mohammed Shaa were found dead at the bottom of
(Friscolanti, 2017): http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/
a canal in Kingston, Canada. In the coming months,
inside-the-shaa-killings-that-shocked-a-nation/
it became clear that the Shaa family had killed the
If you are studying the HL extension, “ The inuence
three girls, and the woman the girls knew as their aunt,
of globalization on individual behaviour ”, see “How
for shaming the family. It would seem that the Shaa
globalization inuences individual behaviour ” for more
daughters’ desired acculturative strategy was at odds with
information. You may wish to review the section “Origins
their parents’ strategy.
of violence” in Unit 6 on human relationships if you are
The girls were caught between a conservative, traditional
culture and a liberal, modern one. Their punishment for
choosing the latter was death.
248
studying that option.
T h E
I N D I V I D U A L
A N D
T h E
g R O U P — S O C I A L
I D E N T I T y
T h E O R y
A N D
S T E R E O T y P I N g
Exercise
Take
the
parents
for
perspective
explaining
acting
Now
take
daughters
reasons
Studies
the
perspective
(or
the
is
not
itself
interplay
of
the
of
your
themselves
the
of
the
cultures
this
of
sense,
acculturation.
acculturation
industrialized
of
cultures.
Shaa
being
one
of
Shaa
(or
of
split
obesity
girls
before
between
latter
the
for
that
may
this
two
tragedy.
cultures.
the
you
brother.
do
about
Write
What
a
are
letter
your
to
your
motivations
but
the
determine
not
be
be
the
a
result
western,
often
Write
how
a
letter
the
to
person
one
is
of
your
acting.
What
emotions?
characterized
dependent.
and
are
or
way
her
acculturation
non-western
The
parents
of
may
it
feel
give
behaviour
contact
Instead
you
sister)
effects
certain
in
the
why
culturally
process
cause
In
of
daughter
the
murdered
about
do?
psychological
are
the
feel
explaining
is
behaviour.
result
sisters)
necessarily
that
you
of
you
way
acculturation
It
one
the
might
into
of
how
cheap
foods
sugars
(as
and
fats,
described
order
to
then
elements
their
poor
in
in
Unit
of
own
the
will
food
with
6
those
unique
on
and
be
of
the
able
cultures
high
sedentary
health
to
must
in
In
rst
play.
understand
acculturative
added
lifestyles
you
cultures
have
with
in
psychology).
acculturation,
nature
you
environments
nutrients
along
understand
understand
Only
by
weak
how
intermingled
the
in
process.
249
The inuence of globalization on individual behaviour:
HL only
Inquiry questions
●
Does
globalization
global
social
mean
identity
there
will
be
a
new
●
To
(GSI)?
what
successfully
and
●
Will
globalization
unite
or
extent
divide
can
social
address
prevent
the
psychology
issue
of
globalization
conict?
us?
What you will learn in this section
●
Globalization’s
inuence
on
●
behaviour
Methods
used
globalization
Acculturation
and
social
Effect
of
the
interaction
of
study
local
and
on
this
that
unit
social
behaviour.
in
this
have
legally,
As
“people
other
become
in
interdependence
the
question
global
social
referred
to
of
and
socialize
humankind
no
“others”.
possible
for
an
and
more
and
Schwartz:
a
we
(GSI).
are
becomes
it
all-inclusive
important
explains
has
can
a
ingroup
Court
between
and
engage
for
as
a
and
that
global
a
by
3,
with
in
a
the
from
et
al
global
culture
USA,
the
they
paid
for
there
are
the
and
1,122
by
and
could
the
global
the
and
the
world
be
This
partners
gap
the
In
account
well
a
as
if
and
but
participants
then
in
payout
accounts
all
shared
trust
paid
words,
small
personal
occur
Global
contribution
other
a
either
multiplied
investments
guaranteed
requires
as
paid
their
to
investment.
amount.
would
global
funds
contribution
personal
into
benet
return.
global
or
allocated
investments
2
deposited
into
shared
identity
those
out
with
partners.
is
Correlational
results
showed
identication
with
global
that
social
cooperation
a
community
can
affect
encompassing
of
a
wanted
could
global
Italy,
to
see
if
motivate
collective.
Russia,
identication
behaviour
cooperation
Using
Argentina,
samples
Iran,
the
researchers
and
regarding
participants.
Two
items
with
regard
to
global
public
Kolleg
occurred
how
much
Findings
(2015)
claim
without
other
an
published
three
expectation
participants
by
related
were
Hamburger
ndings.
South
sampled
were
this
contributing.
a
Participation
in
global
networks
will
contribute
total
to
of
back
contribution
maximum
that
GSI
if
●
Africa
Justice;
whole.
(2011)
context
the
of
poor).
national
national
multiplied
good
Buchan
studies
participants
paid
participants
one
individual
“we”
personal,
back
(1991)
identity
a
addition,
sharing
humanity
rich
accounts
raises
headed
shown
foster
role
the
Increasing
Giddens
global
International
In
on
able—physically,
“cosmopolitan”
Research
that
cross-cultural
inuence
communication
potential
whom
an
(2005)
world’”.
whether
would
the
have
psychologically—to
‘one
identity
this
plays
Scholte
and
on
groups
Globalization
culturally
each
focused
cultural
respect.
process,
with
we
and
of
behaviour
how loalization inuences eaviour
In
inuence
global
studies—values
inuences
the
behaviour
identity
Hofstede
●
to
on
increased
identication
with
a
global
measured,
community.
social
identity
(either
local,
national
or
worldwide)
●
and
the
250
concern
spread
of
for
global
affairs
pandemics;
(on
global
empowering
warming;
the
GSI
is
a
useful
Generally,
psychological
individuals
with
a
construct.
high
GSI
tend
to
T h E
look
favourably
people
than
and
those
elderly
higher
GSI
at
is
the
global
GSI
while
realistic
with
of
score
Perhaps
O F
goods
g L O b A L I Z AT I O N
and
issues
Women,
people
conict
a
of
global
scores.
GSI
income.
correlated
ows
aware
educated
scores
with
by
global
lower
more
GSI
explained
on
more
with
and
correlated
●
are
I N F L U E N C E
tend
is
to
can
the
have
be
theory
willingness
to
Perhaps
ndings
were
in
supported
Norway
in
(Türken
later
and
do
contrast
humanity
Reese
this
a
single
is
pleased
cultural
world
point
out
view
social
with
call
the
“globalized
this
a
global
is
western
is
is
a
in
cultural
that
western
culture”.
odds
of
cultural
very
not
ingroup.
values
through
They
also
(although
and
with
a
diversity
Yi
in
Wang
China
unique
interactions
homogenize
bucket.
As
and
the
argues
(Yi,
as
Minister
(quoted
of
cultural
in
the
Harbin
that
identities
2007).
if
Berry
may
what
they
points
prove
were
out,
paint
they
remarkably
the
face
of
dominant
cultures.
Active
2013).
Rosenmann,
out
spreading
speaking
at
future
point
typically
culture
that
the
about
In
Prime
research
Rudmin,
ingroup,
that
US-English
culture
of
(2015)
content
that
exclusively)
speaking
rosy
Cameron
researchers
and
the
as
and
everyone
The
to
not
diversity.
Canadian
unit),
alongside
inuence
strategies
In
this
in
of
University
into
to
lies
echo
fruitful
Cultures
resilient
undertaken
to
globalization
form
an
b E h A V I O U R
statement
Engineering
react
These
answer
be
introduction
poured
level.
to
Trudeau’s
can
cooperate
I N D I V I D U A L
the
appears
negatively
this
O N
not
be
does
the
centrally
have
This
to
lie
goal
in
of
be
certain
separation
without
diversity,
cultural
like
of
a
At
norm
diversity
culture
common
can
limit.
assimilation
globalization.
acceptance
look
and
seemingly
important
would
shares
integration
identities
strength
not
of
of
values
as
some
of
a
should
level,
GSI
under
defend
If
one
cultures
a
will
ag.
that
universal
human
values.
English
the
values,
Te eect of te interaction of local and
traditions
and
beliefs
world.
Globalized
still
considered
be
of
many
western
as
cultures
cultures
exclusive
of
around
must
the
therefore
millions
loal inuences on eaviour
of
This
individuals
in
scores
or
hundreds
of
social
unit
global
around
the
nothing
always
been
conicting
new.
members
social
However,
the
of
groups,
overlapping,
so
challenges
this
this
is
discussed
interaction.
unit
identities
present
to
the
The
can
of
individuals
attitudes,
cannot
be
values
will
ignored.
be
pressured
to
acculturate
to
a
the
more
than
others.
At
the
the
question:
does
a
globalized
heart
of
a
and
single
groups
culture
under
a
or
can
larger
social
it
applied
refer
and
to
to
this
studies
this
discussed
in
extension.
applicable
stress.
is
the
concept
Acculturative
of
stress
difculties
refers
associated
adapting
to
a
become
new
cultural
increasingly
context.
As
interconnected
and
ingroup
survive
umbrella
unit
issue
the
of
aware,
acculturative
stress
is
likely
to
multiple
increase
social
local
acculturation
global
this
mutually
require
this
biopsychosocial
cultures
is
of
The
Some
with
ingroup
effect
and
to
people
in
theories
be
acculturative
identities
the
behaviour.
overlapping
Particularly
social
with
on
world.
have
sometimes
dealt
inuences
studies
People
has
groups
simply
because
the
number
of
individuals
social
experiencing
the
is
As
pull
of
competing
cultural
norms
cohesion?
increasing.
strategy
chosen
separation
or
Berry
suggests,
(integration,
the
acculturative
assimilation,
marginalization)
can
impact
the
level
Discussion
of
If
a
GSI
own
set
Create
all
is
to
of
a
be
established,
social
list
members
of
of
norms
cultural
the
for
it
require
ingroup
norms
human
will
that
race
members.
you
can
its
believe
agree
upon.
stress
Young
problems
come
to
mind
when
you
identity
do
living
and
are
with
traditionalist
progressive,
belonging
in
of
liberal
related
their
to
social
multiple
society
social
networks.
social
any
given
time
but
when
those
groups
groups
hold
this?
you
social
a
up
challenges
members
fundamentally
Can
in
individuals.
try
at
to
but
by
growing
experience
People
What
people
parents
often
experienced
create
norms?
a
GSI
without
a
set
of
global
can
cause
these
individual
conicts
identities
conicting
that
and
involves
can
fuel
a
values
social
and
stressors.
resetting
conict
beliefs,
of
this
Resolving
social
within
families.
251
4
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
At
the
heart
theories
of
of
the
social
socialization
APPROACH
issue
lie
some
psychology:
and
TO
of
the
social
enculturation,
BE H AV IO U R
they
central
identity
theory,
stereotyping
acculturate
theories.
Human
behaviour
is
to
our
social
groups
so
when
our
weakness
based
are
in
conict,
so
are
our
in
a
globalizing
of
upon
these
data
studies
collected
is
that
from
cultural
scores
individuals,
social
often
groups
interaction
tied
are
tightly
to
and
One
attribution
due
world.
in
the
form
of
self-reported
questionnaires
behaviours.
and
surveys.
As
we
have
problem
because
accurate
assessment
seen,
this
self-reporting
of
is
can
not
real-world
be
a
always
an
behaviours
and
See video
beliefs.
In
this
issues
the
to
TED
EU:
do
Talk
related
to
“Why
Alexander
the
UK’s
Brexit
Betts
2016
examines
vote
to
happened—and
Additionally,
correlations
leave
cultural
what
exist
is
a
tricky
pools
that
have
between
dimensions,
Extrapolating
next”
we
can
and
never
that
personality
these
individual
business
learned
are
data
reach
scores
different
to
requires
anything
and
things.
cultural
very
although
dimensions
large
more
data
than
an
https://www.ted.com/talks/alexander_betts_
approximation
of
group
values.
why_brexit_happened_and_what_to_do_
next
Another
challenge
globalization’s
that
of
Metods used to stud te inuence of
cultures
identify
natural
loalization on eaviour
result
Cross-cultural
studies
(and
therefore
inuences
on
behaviour)
are
dependent
extent
to
which
we
use
constructs
that
and
change.
changes
within
globalization?
can
is
a
the
in
fact
a
state
researchers
behaviour
culture
It
and
is
constantly
How
in
a
cultures
behaviour
and
are
due
which
complicated
to
are
the
business
requires
a
deep
and
nuanced
understanding
upon
(and
the
which
on
dynamic
and
change
of
studying
of
that
globalization
are
adaptation
to
inuence
measurement)
of
all
the
cultures
in
identify
interaction.
common
we
have
cultural
basic
to
all
metric
values.
252
These
cultures
to
in
dimensions
differences
used
across
examined
and
and
unit
Two
are
are
used
to
cultures.
changes
to
constructs
Hofstede’s
Schwartz’s
measurements
between
measure
cultures.
this
theory
can
measure
They
are
cultures
be
However,
of
does
applied
relative
in
over
just
because
mean
Schwartz
relative
as
been
that
have
measurements
turn
time
and
not
that
differences
the
basis
for
it
something
cannot
both
can
be
is
developed
be
among
studies
used
to
Hofstede
meaningful
approximate
cultures
on
difcult
done.
and
these
globalization.
the
have
T h E
I N F L U E N C E
O F
g L O b A L I Z AT I O N
O N
I N D I V I D U A L
b E h A V I O U R
ATL skills: Thinking
In his 1964 book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Canadian researcher Marshall McLuhan described the
emergence of a “global village”. He did not claim that this village would be a peaceful utopia. In fact, he understood the
village to be an inherently tribal, mistrustful, vicious and violent place (Carr, 2017). Internet use has increased sevenfold
in the 15 years between 2000 and 2015 and continued growth seems beyond doubt (Davidson, 2016). From a social
psychological perspective it seems very impor tant for us to understand how our increasingly interconnected world will
impact the behaviours, attitudes and identities of its global citizens.
EAST EUROPE
WEST EUROPE
NORTH AMERICA
CENTRAL ASIA
EAST ASIA
MIDDLE EAST
SOUTH ASIA
CENTRAL AMERICA
SOUTHEAST ASIA
AFRICA
SOUTH AMERICA
GLOBAL AVERAGE
OCEANIA
SOURCES:
INTERNETWORLDSTATS;
INTERNETLIVESTATS;
INTERNATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
UNION
(ITU);
CIA
WORLD
FACTBOOK;
NATIONAL
REGULATORY
AUTHORITIES.
In addition to this growing online interconnectedness, the migration of people around the world has also increased a lot
in recent years.
Do you think the growing interconnectedness made possible by the internet will result in greater understanding and
improved conict resolution—or do you think we will see increasing conict and violence as we are drawn closer
together in McLuhan’s global village?
253
A B N O R M A L
P S Y C H O L O G Y
Topics
●
Factors
inuencing
Normality
diagnosis
versus
Biological
abnormality
Cognitive
for
Classication
and
and
role
of
reliability
of
Etiology
of
clinical
abnormal
Treatment
of
explanations
disorders
biases
in
the
effectiveness
rates
and
for
treatment
treatment
of
depression
psychology
treatment
of
depression
disorders
The
Explanations
of
diagnosis
Psychological
Prevalence
sociocultural
diagnosis
Biological
●
depression
depression
Assessing
The
for
systems
●
Validity
explanations
role
of
culture
in
treatment
disorders
Introduction
Abnormal
psychology
behaviour
that
Although
such,
a
is
deviate
lot
of
abnormal
a
study
from
behaviours
psychology
of
the
patterns
accepted
may
be
usually
example,
of
norm.
classied
as
may
be
from
in
a
clinical
context
and
mainly
with
diagnosis
and
fundamental
and
a
starting
establish
experience.
task
point
of
for
criteria
abnormality
treatment
in
of
human
What
is
abnormal
all
further
psychology
These
normality
behaviour
that
normal?
needs
to
be
is
disorders.
our
and
and
and
Where
crossed
in
the
behaviour
major
its
to
become
criterion
criteria?
abnormal?
of
abnormality
or
Is
abnormality
does
it
make
a
“degrees
of
Suppose
we
Is
or
a
Classication
have
is
to
speak
A
established
further
that
of
mental
the
suppose
a
issue
criteria
that
diagnosis.
disorder?
diagnosis
To
what
we
rst
clinicians
observing
the
chances
concept
to
of
do
How
can
health,
its
in
criteria
factors.
for
a
second
reliable
that
method
of
we
have
diagnosis.
disorder
when
we
see
We
one,
of
different
clinicians
converge.
and
We
to
learn
need
to
how
to
treat
understand
the
what
disorder.
caused
it
For
in
place.
set
as
factors
causing
a
“etiology”.
of
Usually
etiology
the
is
it
may
potential
affect
same
These
the
diagnosis
sources
patient
questions
bias
of
of
in
to
referred
a
disorder
multiple
factors—biological,
cognitive
be
sociocultural.
It
is
reasonable
to
aim
view
of
etiology
that
takes
into
at
a
account
to
Will
arrive
are
biases.
Knowledge
at
It
is
clinical
as
well
For
multiple
factors.
two
related
diagnosis.
which
disorders,
these
is
of
disorder
possible
extent
disorder
we
we
misdiagnosis?
clinical
know
as
of
the
diagnosis?
biases
the
mental
revised
changes
to
these
the
important
are
ongoing
of
needs
How
matches
extent
eliminate
same
a
mental
need
holistic
correctly?
systems
the
of
and
that
of
determining
comprises
a
reecting
black-and-white
sense
to
to
have
mental
set
The
the
systems
diagnosing
abnormality”?
abnormality.
diagnose
of
there
the
tackled
tool
the
that,
sure
diagnostic
order
now
be
systems
standardize
classication
understanding
opinions
concept
to
major
periodically,
research
know
of
classication
created
established
one
behaviour.
of
Again,
threshold
for
differences
abnormality
disorders
The
to
specic
diagnostic
been
become
is
cultural
concerns
practices.
mental
of
differentiating
investigates
thus
have
itself
in
culturally
Several
behaviour
understanding
crucial
is
of
paramount
treatment.
of
a
disorder
treatments
obvious
the
for
If
predominant
the
one
is
selection
believes
mainly
(for
choice.
etiology
of
that
the
biological,
example,
drugs)
Conversely,
if
it
effective
etiology
biological
are
is
the
believed
255
that
a
social
the
can
disorder
factors,
preferred
target
example,
support
a
is
mainly
caused
psychological
option.
person’s
beliefs
and
network.
In
by
Psychological
cognitive
case,
may
it
is
or
be
treatment
processes
expectations)
any
cognitive
treatment
or
social
important
used
good
visual
the
effectiveness
of
treatment ,
and
a
task
in
key
have
256
introduced
as:
abnormality,
etiology
as
unit.
draw
the
can
a
might
relationship
then
you
It
are
be
owchart
refer
to
studying
or
a
other
between
this
the
visual
unit.
is
a
great
variety
of
recognized
mental
that
included
in
the
classication
systems.
itself.
just
terms
You
the
to
to
To
We
you
representing
terms.
disorders
is
for
representation
There
assess
throughout
idea
these
(for
the
be
and
mental
such
disorder,
diagnosis,
treatment.
important
criteria
classication
These
of
system,
concepts
will
make
our
concentrate
disorder
affective
represent
discussion
on
one
(MDD).
It
disorders
changes
more
example:
in
belongs
because
a
focused,
major
to
the
its
patient’s
we
will
depressive
group
main
mood.
of
symptoms
5
Normality versus abnormality
Inquiry questions
●
What
are
labeling
the
a
ethical
person
as
considerations
related
to
●
How
“abnormal”?
can
abnormality
normal
●
Given
lives,
that
such
what
labels
are
can
used
labels
we
do
with
inuence
to
ensure
we
design
that
a
denition
would
behaviour
from
clearly
of
distinguish
abnormal
behaviour?
people's
that
the
caution?
What you will learn in this section
●
Approaches
to
dening
Abnormality
abnormality
as
a
deviation
as
inadequate
Abnormality
from
social
The
medical
as
statistical
model
of
infrequency
abnormality
norms
●
Abnormality
Rosenhan
and
Abnormality
mental
In
the
have
history
been
dening
have
The
abnormality
and
during
broad
have
on
same
most
time
to
First,
nature
a
of
abnormality
as
a
●
abnormality
as
inadequate
deviation
social
abnormality
society,
Norms
could
period.
dening
from
if
societies
approaches
inuential:
●
how
and
rules
different
the
same
as
a
deviation
100
years
and
vice
statistical
from
ideal
mental
using
the
medical
model
of
account
are
culture
what
may
be
in
relation
for
the
different
regulating
from
ago
dened
people’s
to
was
fact
and
that
changeable?
behaviour
culture.
Even
considered
considered
to
within
normal
abnormal
now,
the
fact
are
that
society
acceptable
gets
abnormality
do
not
interests,
as
a
opens
to
decide
means
behave
the
in
group
the
of
a
social
way
can
door
what
control.
that
label
to
serves
those
If
a
people
infrequency
as
●
the
functioning
group’s
as
of
versa.
individuals
abnormality
each
norms
health
●
we
culture,
behaviours
abnormality
do
is
themselves
are
Second,
●
of
ideal
there
the
multiple
approaches
been
from
abnormality
the
limitations
(1958)
psychology,
that
and
approaches
(1989)
deviation
perspectives
means
normality
following
a
Jahoda
abnormal
This
co-existed
as
health:
multiple
abnormality.
to
of
Seligman
Strengths
functioning:
abnormal
and
lock
them
out.
This
extreme
abnormality.
position
Ana a a dan 
has
given
rise
to
a
“anti-psychiatry”.
Thomas
anti-psychiatrists,
believed
are
than
nothing
more
whole
Szasz,
that
movement
one
of
“mental
“problems
in
the
of
famous
disorders”
living”,
a
ca n
temporary
In
a
very
general
and
intuitive
way
we
abnormality
as
something
that
falls
society.
boundaries
of
what
is
accepted
in
society.
words,
abnormality
is
a
deviation
from
However,
even
this
initial
denition
with
the
raises
of
within
He
believed
that
there
is
a
nothing
individuals
label
labeled
“mentally
ill”
apart
itself.
some
patterns
of
behaviour
may
be
a
socially
number
place
social
Third,
norms.
one’s
In
from
other
nd
outside
wrong
the
to
usually
given
dene
inability
acceptable,
but
potentially
harmful
to
the
problems.
257
5
ABNORMAL
individual.
there
is
is
example,
nothing
afraid
to
inability
may
For
PS Y C H O LO G Y
walk
to
out
leave
interfere
one
could
unacceptable
of
the
his
house.
house
greatly
with
claim
about
due
that
a
that
person
However,
to
the
irrational
person’s
Finally,
who
school
fears
life.
abnormality
context.
be
For
and
must
example,
the
completely
way
be
the
you
different,
evaluated
way
you
behave
but
at
in
a
behave
a
party
acceptable
in
in
would
the
given
context.
Case study: Anoushka
Anoushka
female.
and
job
is
She
works
is
to
for
at
the
a
goes
from
she
a
team
in
software.
It
to
time
is
a
of
the
wrong
eld
to
make
of
the
logistics.
software
and
sure
emergencies
continuing
well-paid,
developers
improve
time
is
When
Although
to
team
of
with
stressful,
She
has
tries
her
after
in
best
the
school
parents
Her
good
standards
Her
a
Hindu
for
arranged,
their
So
was
out
time
at
combine
give
her
that
them
with
work,
his
a
job
good
his
and
career
her
more
family
Anoushka
with
looking
kids.
while
Lately
she
as
used
college
expensive,
to
has
topped
her
that
just
to
learned
with
and
they
give
to
her
she
has
not
to.
for
her
were
her
have
a
high
is
still
religion).
but
the
by
been
For
the
able
past
to
perform
several
as
weeks
well
it
her
to
concentrate
at
work,
was
which
colleagues
than
although
westernized
traditionally
Her
Indian
marriage
opinion
of
both
and
herself
their
how
everything
She
says
series
it
mistakes
of
noticed
She
she
is
of
feelings
also
usual.
asked
was
the
was
to
1.
and
Is
has
ne
will
that
she
however,
and
pass
and
“being
developed
feels,
decision
that
once
she
she
a
further
failure”.
is
more
insomnia.
she
is
says
just
has
a
a
Her
fatigued
When
that
bit
couple
tired.
of
days
any
not
that
families
the
depressed?
word
intense
she
is
We
“depressed”
sadness;
can
however,
depressed
sometimes
loosely
to
can
refer
we
to
say
clinically?
carefully
her
to
Anoushka
use
and
What
other
information
do
we
need
in
order
future
to
before
a
her
off.
important
both
in
deepened
2.
husband
to
believes
to
little
spend
demanding
She
from
savings
she
family,
extremely
considered
spends
constantly
babysitter,
the
herself.
extent,
(by
of
achiever.
graduated
pointed
life.
extended
large
was
in
an
education
most
start
been
and
always
spending
He
money
a
to
job.
always
honours.
is
have
children.
He
he
resulted
class
the
they
Anoushka
enough
education.
difcult
and
expects
earn
because
nancial
the
highly
Her
for
it
effectively
to
but
large
that
5.
husband
family
corporation.
web
with
aged
married
upper-class
confusion
has
respond
same
Indian
an
multinational
large-scale
and
coders
year-old
solutions
something
losses,
27
manage
software
creates
a
comes
marry
establish
if
Anoushka
has
a
mental
health
was
issue?
announced.
They
without
blessing
the
would
not
from
have
both
gone
forward
3.
sides.
If
you
you
Her
husband
values
traditional
Indian
were
advise
Anoushka’s
her
to
see
a
relative,
mental
would
health
culture,
professional?
but
he
her
career.
They
allows
have
He
her
has
two
to
a
be
independent
small
children,
business
one
aged
and
in
7
pursue
hospitality.
and
one
4.
Does
to
do
her
cultural
with
her
background
mental
have
anything
health?
ATL skills: Thinking
1.
We have identied four major limitations in the denition of abnormality as deviation from social norms. Can you
suggest any other approaches that would overcome these limitations?
2.
258
In Anoushka’s case described above, is there a deviation from social norms?
N o r m A l i t y
They
also
v e r s u s
argued
A b N o r m A l i t y
that
each
individual
criterion
might
TOK
not
Who establishes social norms? Is the creation of
be
signicant
criteria
are
on
present
its
own,
but
abnormality
when
may
several
be
inferred.
social norms a rational and purposeful process or is it
TOK
spontaneous?
To what extent are social norms a reliable source of
Think about the idea of using degrees of abnormality
knowledge about acceptable behaviour?
rather than a rigid distinction between normality and
abnormality. The idea seems attractive, but does it
If social norms are a form of shared knowledge, to
always work?
what extent should they be enforced upon personal
knowledge? Is that the same as imposing social norms
Look up the terms “dichotomous” and “continuous”.
on the behaviour of a par ticular individual?
For example, there are dichotomous and continuous
variables in empirical human sciences. What is the
dierence between the two?
Ana a nadqa ncnn
What is the value of using dichotomous thresholds
The
denition
functioning
and
of
is
abnormality
based
Seligman
on
(1989)
the
as
inadequate
ideas
who
of
instead of continuous variables?
Rosenhan
proposed
seven
criteria
ATL skills: Research
that
can
be
used
to
establish
abnormality:
In Unit 1 on research methodology we discussed the
●
suffering—subjective
experience
of
one’s
state
concept of statistical signicance of a correlation.
as
wrong
You know that statistical signicance is a continuous
●
maladaptiveness—inability
goals,
for
example,
interpersonal
●
out
inability
achieve
to
major
establish
life
parameter, but after a cer tain threshold (p < 0.05) we
positive
say that the result becomes “statistically signicant”.
relationships
unconventional
stands
to
and
Should we use a similar logic with abnormal behaviour?
behaviour—behaviour
differs
substantially
that
from
that
of
Ana a a dan  da
most
people
na hah
●
unpredictability/loss
of
control—lack
of
Ideal
consistency
in
mental
proposed
●
irrationality—others
cannot
understand
by
person
behaves
in
this
observer
discomfort—it
uncomfortable
to
makes
witness
this
other
people
that
aspects
violation
of
moral
standards—behaviour
the
common
moral
norms
of
the
limitation
account
for
actually
be
of
this
cases
approach
when
adaptive.
prevents
a
is
that
abnormal
For
woman
serve
the
some
behaviours
sports.
purpose
them
Some
observers,
for
to
example,
how
there
as
it
does
not
behaviour
example,
from
failure
be
irrational
leaving
her
cause
public
for
this,
for
may
any
displays
of
of
but
the
was
1950s.
were
known
for
their
should
focus
experiences
and
so
mental
on)
rather
illness.
on
(health,
than
They
positive
happiness,
negative
claimed
focus
on
the
negative
that
side
of
human
may
not
predominant
at
of
that
time
behind
problems,
hence
mental
health
opposed
(as
see
was
limited
their
to
bigger
interest
mental
issues
and
in
the
lying
idea
of
disorders).
Jahoda
ideal
mental
(1958)
identied
six
characteristics
health:
do
●
efcient
●
realistic
●
voluntary
●
accurate
●
positive
●
self-direction
not
self-perception
extreme
self-esteem
to
control
of
behaviour
suffering,
affection.
Probably
Seligman
abnormality
abnormal
to
may
uncomfortable
and
researchers
Moreover,
example,
be
allow
fear
house
we
subjective
Rosenhan
degrees
criteria
avoidance.
harmful
abnormal,
not
exist
many
of
may
behaviours
but
account
that
in
established
of
classify
as
excessive
Marie
that
normality
society.
did
A
psychology
human
such
existence
in
of
psychologists
goes
the
against
criterion
psychologists
self-realization,
behaviour
things
●
a
way
belief
●
as
humanistic
why
Humanistic
the
health
actions
behaviour
perception
of
the
world
claimed
based
are
relationships
on
met.
and
productivity.
259
5
ABNORMAL
A
strength
is
dened
of
PS Y C H O LO G Y
this
approach
positively,
to
achieve.
of
mental
It
also
health
outlines
in
is
that
through
a
mental
what
the
a
main
balanced
health
person
needs
outside
of
“severely
the
99.9%
range
could
be
considered
as
abnormal”.
dimensions
way:
it
embraces
ATL skills: Research
interpersonal
relationships,
perception
the
self-perception,
From your studies in the eld of mathematics you
of
world,
and
so
on.
A
weakness
of
will see links with what you already know about the
the
approach
is
feasibility
of
mental
health:
it
may
proper ties of the normal distribution. What do you know
be
impossible
to
fully
achieve
all
six
parameters
of
about the proper ties of these ranges?
mental
health,
classied
Another
are
as
as
further
most
abnormal
weakness
difcult
such
so
to
is
people
according
the
measure
“efcient”,
would
fact
or
to
that
this
the
quantify.
“realistic”
and
probably
be
framework.
-
Mean ± σ
-
Mean ± 2σ
-
Mean ± 3σ
parameters
Finally,
terms
“accurate”
require
operationalization.
If you think back to Unit 1 on research methodology and
the concept of levels of statistical signicance, you will
also nd links with the following:
Ana a aca nqnc
Statistical
a
infrequency
criterion
of
classied
For
also
abnormality.
characteristic
is
has
as
example,
of
In
behaviour
abnormal
if
intelligence
this
or
it
been
a
used
approach
trait
of
often
used
the
mean
15.
Statistically
68%
of
score
to
quotient
measure
100
this
individuals
and
a
(IQ),
the
lie
in
intelligence,
standard
means
that
the
range,
individuals
in
the
70–130
range,
and
of
individuals
in
the
55–145
range.
So
“statistically
-
p < 0.001
scale
deviation
of
p < 0.01
approach
has
limitations
as
well.
has
of
approximately
85–115
-
unusual.
This
most
p < 0.05
a
personality
statistically
-
as
95%
99%
what
First,
the
of
statistical
average
rare”?
norms
in
the
approximately
so-called
is
IQ
tests
are
scores
Flynn
earlier
IQ
on
than
a
a
version
person
of
The
the
IQ
and
is
of
a
the
rate
years
(the
intelligence
person
actually
scored
test
at
10
norms
test
who
same
example,
every
renewed,
modern
For
increases
points
effect).
periodically
100
smarter
3
change.
world
100
several
a
on
who
bit
an
decades
ago.
noitalupop
fo egatnecreP
Second,
68%
statistically
sometimes
high
IQ
be
are
desirable.
valued
discriminated
infrequent
in
against
behaviour
People
society;
with
they
because
of
an
are
can
extremely
not
it.
95%
At
55
70
85
100
115
130
145
Figure 5.1
same
suggests
IQ Score
▲
the
approach
is
a
time,
that,
way
an
obvious
unlike
to
all
quantify
strength
the
other
of
this
approaches,
it
abnormality.
Distribution of IQ scores
t  p h appach
There
are
research
he
of
is
the
scored
falls
the
of
260
95%.
rest
less
outside
threshold,
and
the
established
traditionally
threshold
95%
thresholds
a
to
an
the
the
more
of
gauge
70
or
more
statistical
stringent
infrequency,
is
than
one,
is
is
rst
from
example,
130),
The
he
The
99.9%.
individual
in
As
third
In
terms
falling
you
see,
none
abnormality
do
of
second
99%.
abnormality
an
The
different
(for
norm.
threshold
dening
statistical
“norms”.
individual
population
stringent
framework
statistical
of
than
of
most
If
in
though?
is
Some
behaviour
they
live
or
individuals
of
free
that
cause
for
problem.
Without
determine
a
approaches
controversy.
people
clearly
threaten
distress
require
language
the
of
help,
establishing
it
we
treatment
the
to
dening
exhibit
society
we
need
exact
would
not
in
strategy.
a
type
be
should
we
patterns
themselves.
and
the
to
What
which
These
common
of
able
the
to
N o r m A l i t y
presence
Discussion
v e r s u s
of
depression,
theoretically
makes
independent
Suggest
possible
solutions
to
with
dening
abnormality.
and
major
seem
the
disadvantages
most
clinician’s
of
limitation
more
is,
the
for
medical
model
diagnosis
theoretical
to
be
orientations.
of
difcult
the
to
medical
apply
to
model
mental
is
that
illness
it
is
than
to
solutions
physical
that
a
that
possible
Discuss
much
advantages
of
it
problems
A
associated
A b N o r m A l i t y
disease.
Symptoms
of
mental
illness
are
not
promising.
as
obvious
example,
in
mood
or
observable
how
do
without
we
as
physical
establish
relying
on
a
symptoms,
signicant
self-reports?
for
change
Another
th dca d  ana
difculty
An
alternative
formulate
types
of
a
book
It
it.
as
and
In
a
becomes
Dening
a
a
way,
this
as
a
to
set
effort
than
to
the
of
of
of
the
trying
all
at
the
each
calls
for
a
of
a
basis
of
behaviour
possible
disorder
that
whole
sentence.
generations
model
to
symptoms
one
work
on
medical
t
look
approach
disorder
the
is
instead
dynamic
each
than
denition
establish
rather
known
rather
disorders,
denition,
clinicians
is
common
mental
separately
dene
approach,
single
of
its
in
are
be
symptoms
to
disorders.
to
be
are
model
assumes
that
since
the
cause
is
disorders
not
directly
have
a
present
be
inferred
symptoms.
of
For
abnormal
on
this
the
basis
reason,
behaviour
a
of
observable,
more
that
can
of
Which
particular
and
for
How
what
abnormal
symptoms
symptom
and
it
delineate
symptoms,
symptoms
disorder
many
may
is
only
a
between
however,
must
and
be
which
symptoms
period
of
time?
it
of
systems ,
abnormality
is
on
which
based,
are
the
medical
designed
to
can
all
these
issues.
observable
medical
implies
One
to
cause,
tackle
only
a
which
disorders,
combinations
secondary?
model
abnormality.
model
but
decide
disorders.
questions.
Classication
This
to
multiple
establish
symptoms
medical
symptoms
Using
further
should
of
of
the
need
which
indicator
present
scientist.
the
combination
raises
of
is
related
an
applying
classication
recognizable
See video
patterns
of
behaviour
in
every
disorder.
Watch
this
Ronson
TED
Talk
“Strange
by
Jon
answers
to
ATL skills: Thinking
the
We have already come across the idea that something
psychopath
test”:
https://tinyurl.com/o4t9bdb
can be directly unobservable but never theless can be
inferred on the basis of more observable manifestations.
If you nd it dicult to remember, go back to the section
“Concepts and principles of the cognitive approach to
behaviour ” in Unit 3 and review the debate between
Discussion
behaviourists with their concept of “black box” and
cognitive psychologists. In that unit we concluded
The
driving
question
behind
this
talk
is:
is
that models can be used to scientically study mental
there
a
denitive
line
that
divides
the
crazy
phenomena in psychology. Interestingly, this last
from
the
sane?
How
would
you
answer
this
approach to dening abnormality is also a “model”.
question
you
What makes the medical model a “model”?
after
characterize
normality
A
strength
allows
for
illness,
of
the
because
regardless
medical
various
of
it
model
perspectives
allows
your
views
illness
about
is
its
exibility.
concerning
to
its
be
and
the
the
“grey
video?
area”
How
can
between
abnormality?
It
mental
diagnosed
causes.
watching
Psychology in real life
For
Think back to Anoushka's case. Apply the several
example,
one
clinician
might
believe
that
depression
approaches to dening abnormality discussed in this
is
caused
by
a
chemical
imbalance
in
the
brain,
and
unit to her case. Does her behaviour fall under the
another
might
believe
that
depression
is
caused
by
category of abnormality? In what approaches?
environmental
stress.
allows
In
any
them
factors
case,
to
an
reach
creating
excessive
identiable
a
consensus
set
of
levels
of
symptoms
regarding
the
What additional information could be helpful to delineate
between normality and abnormality in Anoushka’s case?
261
Classication systems
Inquiry questions
●
How
in
●
a
do
we
decide
what
symptoms
to
include
●
diagnosis?
How
do
we
presence
should
diagnosis
dene
and
What
the
the
threshold
absence
of
a
between
the
●
disorder?
Would
be
and
you
done
to
enable
prevention
prefer
to
of
early
mental
overdiagnose
disorders?
or
underdiagnose?
What you will learn in this section
●
The
●
Other
●
Major
history
of
DSM:
classication
from
DSM-I
systems:
to
DSM-5
ICD-10,
CCMD-3
challenges
Explanation
Cross-cultural
Medicalization
This
versus
●
description
section
of
diagnosis
Delineation
Changing
and
between
social
its
also
links
behaviourism,
black
Validity
applicability
box
to:
introspection,
(cognitive
the
approach
concept
to
of
behaviour)
reliability
●
research
●
social
methodology
categories
norms
(sociocultural
approach
to
norms
behaviour).
Degrees
As
noted
basis
of
above,
the
of
abnormality
classication
medical
model
of
systems
provide
the
heavily
caused
abnormality.
grounded
clinicians
behaviour
Several
classication
systems
are
widely
In
the
western
world
the
most
American
as
the
Using
by
system
Psychiatric
Diagnostic
the
DSM,
matching
symptoms
2013).
is
the
a
arrive
at
is
a
is
in
origins
traumas.
traditions.
of
This
abnormal
was
explained
by
a
Homosexuality,
fear
of
the
opposite
by
traumatic
relationships
with
the
to
(DSM).
Exercise
with
fth
Psychoanalytic
the
(Ramsden,
clinician’s
behaviour
edition.
know
start
and
more
by
traditions
are
interpretation
experiences.
about
exploring
based
of
the
If
you
psychoanalysis
this
website:
on
a
patient’s
want
you
to
can
https://tinyurl.
H  h Dsm
com/8a59dnq
Looking
the
on
at
DSM
will
mental
world
the
the
was
Association
of
help
illness
over
DSM-I
brief
262
last
1952
“personality
remained
you
have
65
published
in
in
to
of
was
the
the
development
understand
changed
in
how
the
of
views
western
years.
by
and
the
listed
DSM
American
included
disturbance”.
homosexuality
It
history
as
For
a
until
Psychiatric
several
categories
Make
example,
mental
1974.
for
sex
parents.
the
diagnosis
disorders
its
by
referred
Manual
behaviour
particular
DSM
manual
and
Statistical
individual’s
dene
Currently
as
Association
and
clinicians
the
that
published
childhood
for
well-known
caused
classication
psychoanalytic
look
used
example,
today.
in
in
to
disorder.
DSM-I
was
to
an
A4
poster
explaining
non-psychologists.
psychoanalysis
C l A s s i f i C A t i o N
s y s t e m s
ATL skills: Thinking
Discussion
Recall behaviourism and the concept of the black box
Think
about
the
interpretation
what
it
extent
open
the
as
is
it
door
pros
and
the
main
useful?
to
cons
of
tool
To
of
what
potential
(Unit 3). We discussed how behaviourism was a reaction
using
analysis.
extent
to the method of introspectionism. Based on this parallel,
To
can you predict what changes would be implemented in
does
the DSM from the second edition to the fth?
biases?
As you read on, you can check whether your predictions
were correct.
Psychology in real life
ATL skills: Communication
Earlier you made some preliminary conclusions about
Thomas Szasz viewed psychiatry as a way to label nonthe nature of Anoushka’s behaviour. Decide which of
conformists and establish social control. To what extent
them are grounded in observation (factual information
do you agree? Formulate your position and discuss.
given in the text) and which of them are a product of your
interpretation of the information provided.
DSM-III
was
diagnostic
(axes)—the
DSM-II
was
published
in
1968.
It
was
of
a
strong
attack
on
both
the
and
the
concept
of
mental
some
First,
behaviourists
or
unobservable
criticized
constructs
“motivation”.
movement
Second,
emerged,
such
the
with
as
the
pointing
another
out
way
that
to
was
social
control.
Doubts
of
happen
cases
It
rapidly.
largely
gures
such
as
However,
DSM-II
was
its
to
discriminate
may
well
some
It
was
diagnosis;
change
a
disorder,
activists
it
rst
to
but
quite
rather
possible
similar
was
the
removed
criticism
Rosenhan
been
raised
about
(see
various
mental
had
illness.
been
In
shown
a
number
to
be
unable
between
studies
mental
had
health
attacked
and
mental
consistency
and
some
studies
applicability
of
had
the
questioned
DSM.
was
the
abandonment
of
The
main
psychoanalytic
to
to
and
a
general
was
pressure
from
of
shift
them.
The
from
idea
explaining
was
focus
on
description
gay
in
and
a
set
of
that
observable
of
retained
DSM-II
describing
than
origins
homosexuality
under
David
psychoanalytical
explanatory
referring
At
as
does
symptoms
disorders.
This
be
a
descriptive,
system.
increasing
and
disorders
orientation.
to
Thomas
non-conformists
retained
had
psychiatrists
interpretations
DSM-I.
such
diagnosing
of
change
not
response
scholars
cross-cultural
establish
a
anti-psychiatry
psychiatry
label
265
groups
use
of
just
multi-axial
listed
ve
“trauma”
illness;
Szasz
It
in
illness
aspects
of
1980.
psychiatric
below).
itself.
so-called
edition
from
practices
in
organized
the
new
result
published
categories
would
increase
agreement
between
as
psychiatrists—less
interpretation
so
less
would
be
involved,
rights
one
of
there
would
be
subjectivity.
One
criticism
its
that
followed
was
overmedicalization
of
population:
reprints.
too
many
people
met
the
criteria
of
mental
illness.
Discussion
Imagine
it’s
that
not!).
school
who
Imagine
system
How
that
Do
to
you
person
▲
Figure 5.2
and
is
a
diagnosis
probably
more
to
would
you
shy
than
create
allow
the
a
will
in
your
others.
classication
people
symptoms
dene
(although
students
to
you
diagnose
include?
threshold
between
non-shyness?
think
diagnose
are
need
What
will
shyness
are
you
shyness.
“shyness”
There
two
observers
shyness
would
arrive
using
your
independently
at
the
same
in
criteria
the
same
conclusion?
Thomas Szasz
263
5
ABNORMAL
DSM-IV
was
PS Y C H O LO G Y
published
in
1994.
It
was
the
ATL skills: Social
result
of
of
a
very
experts
each
were
group
review,
the
now
invited,
conducted
requested
consulted
was
substantial
clinical
on
to
be
individual
split
an
data
clinical
into
from
with
exhibit
groups,
The
lot
At
and
disorder
symptoms
first
be
a
sight
good
approach
and
major
criterion :
a
a
literature
researchers
signicance
to
process;
extensive
practitioners.
diagnosed
had
revision
change
from
signicant
distress
or
functioning.
This
was
to
diagnosis.
with
it
system
suppor ts
However,
applying
might
this
be
in
a
there
system.
a
small
seems
more
are
to
holistic
potential
Suggest
what
group.
created
impairment
meant
multi-axial
an
that
was
published
in
2013.
The
Roman
of
numeral
daily
a
because
difficulties
DSM-5
clinically
to
difficulties
these
using
idea
in
the
title
was
changed
to
Arabic
as
the
reduce
plan
was
to
update
the
DSM
more
frequently
in
overmedicalization.
future,
The
of
DSM-IV
ve
described
dimensions
aspects
of
the
each
(axes)
diagnosis
in
highlighting
terms
different
(using
changes
(6,
that
This
1.
Clinical
disorders.
This
axis
included
patterns
that
impair
functioning.
schizophrenia
or
Personality
patterns
have
of
disorders.
Examples
part
include
narcissistic
of
a
General
medical
4.
Psychosocial
and
contributing
to
5.3
major
multi-axial
response
to
and
so
change
system
critics
on)
in
was
who
both
minor
and
the
major
DSM-5
eliminated.
said
were
articial
and
that
that
in
the
many
Examples
involve
behaviour
person’s
antisocial,
rigid
in
(that
similar
paranoid
or
We
this
for
personality).
disorders
will
unit
major
of
return
when
we
depressive
articiality
more
disorders.
3.
5.2,
A
reecting
were
articially
brought
depression.
These
maladaptive
become
5.1,
8).
distinctions
apart.
2.
a
editions
of
cases
include
7,
the
was
axial
behaviour
future
changes
was
disorder.
with
of
detail
axial
in
the
to
DSM-5
consider
disorder.
diagnostic
Problems
distinctions
context
of
diagnoses
will
be
validity
later
criteria
with
discussed
and
in
reliability
diagnosis.
conditions.
ATL skills: Thinking and self-management
divorce,
death
environmental
the
of
a
disorder,
close
problems
such
as
job
loss,
Draw a timeline of the DSM. Reect the main landmarks
in its development and the main changes that were
relative.
made in the process.
5.
Global
scale
this
assessment
from
scale
1
to
to
of
100.
functioning
The
evaluate
(GAF)
clinician
was
current
need
the
to
on
a
use
for
oh cacan 
treatment.
The
Together
these
ve
axes
were
meant
to
that
a
broad
range
of
information
about
the
DSM
is
not
has
been
state,
not
just
a
diagnosis
Greene,
2014).
An
example
(Nevid,
of
a
multiaxial
system
is
given
diagnosis
the
World
a
diagnosis
DSM
Axis
I
Major
in
the
multi-axial
disorder,
is
in
Diseases
(ICD)
Organization
system
is
in
behavioural
its
widely
is
system
depressive
of
Health
is
maintained
(WHO).
This
for
all
diseases
including
below.
It
of
system
International
in
medical;
Example
The
Rathus
classication
the
classication
used.
patient’s
by
and
only
widely
Classication
mental
the
provide
tenth
used
wider
in
use
abnormality
edition—ICD-10.
European
in
the
is
only
ICD-10
countries,
part
is
while
of
it.
more
the
DSM
USA.
recurrent,
China
uses
a
system
called
the
Chinese
moderate
Classication
Axis
II
Dependent
Axis
III
Diabetes
personality
disorder
in
IV
Unemployment
Axis
V
GAF
to
264
Table 5.1
Mental
the
DSM
and
diagnoses
Disorders ,
(CCMD-3).
its
are
and
the
It
ICD,
diagnostic
modied
is
currently
intentionally
both
in
terms
categories.
to
better
of
However,
reect
the
59
cultural
▲
of
edition
structure
some
=
third
similar
its
Axis
its
realities.
culturally
related
Also
it
includes
diagnoses.
around
40
unique
▲
C l A s s i f i C A t i o N
Figure 5.3
establishing
difcult
maj chan
●
severity
simply
Cross-cultural
diagnostic
n dnn a
the
than
to
people
of
a
symptom
establishing
applicability .
system
of
s y s t e m s
needs
different
to
be
cultural
its
A
is
more
presence.
good
equally
applicable
backgrounds.
cacan
Is

this
more
in
even
possible?
detail
later
diagnosis
and
We
when
will
we
discuss
look
culture-bound
at
this
in
clinical
biases
syndromes.
 na
●
Medicalization
of
population.
The
way
dd
we
Now
that
categories
looked
direct
inuence
main
illness
on
the
percentage
has
of
that
can
be
categorized
as
the
mentally
stages
ill.
in
the
development
of
the
DSM,
The
situation
potentially
you
can
main
challenges
someone
designing
be
where
too
diagnosed
many
with
a
people
mental
can
disorder
see
is
the
mental
at
population
the
of
we
a
have
dene
that
a
have
been
classication
faced
not
desirable.
by
system
for
ATL skills: Thinking and self-management
mental
disorders.
Let’s
summarize
them
again.
Go back to your timeline of the development of the DSM.
●
Explanation
versus
description.
The
DSM
How are the seven challenges reected in the history of
has
been
moving
progressively
towards
less
the DSM?
explanation
attempt
to
between
and
more
make
description
diagnosis
clinicians
using
more
the
in
an
If you think that you don’t have enough information to
consistent
answer these questions, formulate exactly what extra
manual.
knowledge you need. After you have done that, continue
●
A
related
controversy
is
that
between
validity
to look for answers as you read the rest of this unit.
of
diagnosis
nutshell,
to
be
a
shift
more
(higher
and
its
to
reliability
description
consistent
reliability).
in
(see
below).
allows
their
In
a
clinicians
diagnosis
However,
at
the
same
time
See video
a
descriptive
approach
interpretation
diagnosis
less
of
may
leaves
individual
become
less
less
room
for
circumstances,
accurate
(that
so
Watch
Elyn
is,
the
illness–
valid).
(2012).
●
Delineation
between
categories.
Disorders
on
These
overlap.
the
basis
of
a
set
of
“A
from
She
Talk
tale
the
tells
by
of
mental
inside”
the
story
of
are
her
diagnosed
TED
Saks
schizophrenia:
https://
symptoms.
tinyurl.com/n8pynzq
sets
pattern
or
of
behaviour
another
would
be
it
is
not
that
behaviour
to
is
useful
categories
but
Deciding
an
to
within
the
easy
to
task
a
a
clear
and
only
impossible
complexities
of
particular
one
category
sometimes.
set
observable
one
practically
capture
belongs
have
place
if
of
diagnostic
patterns
one
for
It
What
is
think
of
ideas
in
it
like
any
this
to
be
artistic
mentally
ways
to
ill?
Can
express
you
the
main
talk?
of
category,
such
real-life
a
system
human
behaviour.
●
Changing
social
norms .
Think
back
to
the
Discussion
case
●
of
homosexuality
The
idea
was
not
of
Disorders
present
“degrees
widely
were
or
in
of
accepted
viewed
absent.
It
is
the
DSM.
abnormality ”
at
as
the
beginning.
something
not
either
surprising,
Suggest
to
some
raising
possible
awareness
individuals
and
their
CAS
about
projects
related
mentally
ill
experiences.
because
265
Prevalence rates and disorders
Inquiry questions
●
What
●
How
many
●
How
can
are
the
symptoms
people
this
be
in
of
the
clinical
depression?
population
are
clinically
depressed?
estimated?
What you will learn in this section
●
Diagnosis
of
depression:
Symptoms
depressive
and
criteria
disorder
●
DSM-5
of
Factors
major
inuencing
Classication
bereavement
Prevalence
Point
rates
of
estimates
systems
biases
in
diagnosis
exclusion
This
●
rate
(MDD)
Clinical
The
prevalence
major
depressive
section
also
links
to:
disorder
●
clinical
●
explanations
biases
in
diagnosis
prevalence
Period
Onset
prevalence
(12-month,
lifetime)
coevolution
●
age
treatment
for
disorders—gene-culture
theory
of
disorders—culturally
sensitive
treatment
Prevalence
major
rates
and
depressive
gender
age
of
disorder:
onset
of
cultural
and
●
cultural
Apart
from
diagnosis
major
formulates
depressive
nine
groups
disorder
of
symptoms
that,
of
depressed
●
diminished
the
DSM.
there
are
several
criteria
for
the
MDD.
of
●
(MDD):
Five
or
more
present
●
in
differences
Dan  dpn
DSM-5
factors
for
of
two
the
listed
symptoms
have
been
weeks.
mood
●
interest
or
pleasure
in
These
symptoms
represent
a
change
from
daily
previous
functioning.
activities
●
●
signicant
weight
change,
either
loss
or
At
least
one
depressed
(more
that
5%
of
body
mass
in
a
insomnia
or
the
mood
symptoms
or
loss
of
is
either
interest
or
pleasure.
month)
●
●
of
gain
The
symptoms
cause
signicant
distress
or
hypersomnia
malfunctioning.
●
psychomotor
agitation
or
retardation
●
(movement
activity
too
fast
or
too
The
symptoms
explained
●
fatigue
●
feelings
●
diminished
A
of
worthlessness
or
guilt
grey
area
to
think
or
266
recurrent
suicidal
thoughts.
by)
not
other
attributable
diagnosis
conditions
to
is
the
and
(or
better
disorders.
so-called
exclusion”—depression-like
that
may
accompany
a
signicant
loss,
concentrate
such
●
in
“bereavement
symptoms
ability
are
slow)
as
the
depression
death
could
of
a
not
close
be
person.
diagnosed
In
if
DSM-IV
symptoms
P r e v A l e N C e
occurred
loss,
be
less
such
appropriate
however,
that
the
normal
based
the
the
weeks
of
diagnosis
a
to
depression
should
be
the
in
to
the
signicant
signicant
considered
period.
be
to
DSM-5,
made.
addition
carefully
individual
related
of
after
were
bereavement
patient’s
norms
event
two
symptoms
such
presence
on
the
to
allows
response
cultural
in
than
because
It
to
states
the
considered,
history
expression
comparison
MDD
that
16.9%
possible
of
for
distress
makes
diagnosis
of
depression
in
DSM-5
(Kessler
of
MDD
factors,
reporting
found
from
countries
symptoms
D i s o r D e r s
2003
is
and
in
may
for
culture
a
decides
the
2013).
higher
result
how
severe
in
Lifetime
high-
several
threshold
should
the
representative
report
a
of
to
countries.
of
severity
typical
to
Republic)
Bromet,
example,
before
prevalence
(Czech
low-income
be
depression:
be
lifetime
1%
generally
than
differences
given
This
(USA)
income
These
in
A N D
ranged
prevalence
and
loss.
r A t e s
mental
of
a
health
more
issue?
inclusive
number
than
of
it
used
people
depression
in
the
to
can
be
in
now
DSM-IV:
be
a
diagnosed
bereavement
larger
with
period.
In
2015
in
the
MDD
ATL skills: Thinking and communication
the
USA
National
among
12-month
women
Survey
estimated
adults
(aged
prevalence
at
8.5%
and
on
Drug
12-month
18
was
men
or
older).
found
at
Use
and
prevalence
to
4.7%
be
The
average
6.7%,
(NIMH,
Health
of
with
2015).
The
To what extent is this a positive (or a negative) trend?
risk
of
MDD
for
women
has
been
consistently
found
Discuss methodological and ethical implications of this
to
be
roughly
twice
as
much
as
for
men.
This
has
been
change in the diagnostic criteria.
explained
by
a
work-related
Panc a  aj dp
for
children,
variety
of
stressors,
abuse
factors
home
and
including
hormones,
responsibilities,
relationship
caring
strains.
dd
14
The
main
parameters
used
in
epidemiology
to
12.2
12
characterize
the
spread
of
a
disorder
are
prevalence
10.3
rate
(point
prevalence
and
period
prevalence)
10
and
8.9
8.5
●
tnecreP
onset
age.
Point
prevalence
rate
is
the
proportion
of
7.5
8
6.7
6
5.2
4.8
4.7
people
in
the
population
currently
7.5
4.8
4.9
4.1
diagnosed
4
with
the
disorder.
2
●
Period
prevalence
is
the
proportion
of
a
0
M
/
2
N
r
o
H
i
H
A
/
I
A
O
r
o
e
I
P
A
i
s
a
*
*
N
*
n
l
B
c
a
k
s
W
p
a
5
t
i
h
i
n
e
c
0
count
+
and
2
people
6
of
–
sample
4
a
Sex
representative
9
1
to
take
8
you
–
example,
2
For
prevalence
M
period.
period
O
given
e
F
v
a
12-month
a
e
during
study
m
r
time
5
some
l
at
e
disorder
l
a
the
a
has
l
that
e
l
population
Age Group
Race
the
*NH/OPI = Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
**AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native
number
or
of
people
develop
12-month
it
had
Thus,
●
is
the
lifetime
always
Onset
Likewise,
at
is
least
prevalence
greater
than
the
depression
during
is
and
of
a
currently
subsequent
once
Figure 5.4
their
Cross-cultural
life.
greater
than
prevalence
prevalence.
when
have
also
many
to
age
is
onset
a
given
According
the
to
second
population
the
WHO
leading
rst
develop
forecast,
cause
of
in
2020
(currently
ranked
the
the
will
rates
considerably
of
across
MDD
have
cultures.
A
greater
disorders.
early
the
age
It
forties,
mid-20s
of
onset
than
ranges
but
the
(Kessler
for
from
median
and
2013).
Depression
has
disorder.
depressive
a
tendency
to
be
a
recurrent
be
A
episode
typically
lasts
for
world
months
and
80%
of
people
experience
at
fourth).
least
Prevalence
be
the
disorder.
3–4
by
the
in
to
in
individuals
the
depression
disability
found
mental
adolescence
of
differences
been
other
Bromet,
in
12-month prevalence of MDD among US
adults (NIMH, 2015)
period
in
always
age
▲
population
12-month
point
average
the
lifetime
proportion
prevalence,
age
have
time
depression
12-month
is
any
period.
prevalence
who
at
who
been
found
to
cross-national
vary
one
cases,
subsequent
depression
symptoms
lasting
episode.
becomes
for
two
a
In
about
chronic
years
or
12%
of
disorder
with
more.
267
5
ABNORMAL
PS Y C H O LO G Y
as
fac nncn panc
China
or
India)
depression,
it
may
especially
be
“shameful”
among
to
traditional
have
groups
a a
and
Determining
task.
Here
taken
prevalence
are
into
some
account
of
of
the
when
disorders
factors
is
that
discussing
not
an
need
this
easy
to
be
topic.
older
people.
prevalence
of
people
were
rate
who
who
Exam tip
The
is
topic
closely
rst
“Prevalence
linked
“Classication
clinical
biases
material
to
two
and
other
systems”
in
from
rates
and
diagnosis”.
all
three
Malik
disorders”
in
sections:
“The
You
sections
role
can
in
why
of
the
examination
questions,
stay
focused
on
the
and
the
British
now,
of
is
basis
on
the
of
a
you
list
criteria.
These
of
may
the
every
know,
of
subsequent
(for
example,
MDD
was
removed
subject
of
the
rarely
the
Even
to
such
It
in
higher
needs
thing
as
classication
to
DSM-5,
estimates
be
of
understood
prevalence
in
in
clients
differently,
to
these
bias
thus
biases
rates
diagnosis.
experiment
system
and
is
there
is
independent
Let’s
imagine
used
in
this
scenario,
the
form
of
below
for
Given
all
conduct
may
on
still
how
all
that
a
around
estimating
be
subject
consistently
would
be
applied
populations.
What
prevalence
populations
symptoms,
known
268
as
but
be
may
to
bias.
this
across
could
bias.
In
to
and
age
symptoms .
that
variations
For
example,
African-American
would
but
often
express
clinicians
tend
their
to
cultural
differences,
be
which
and
in
misdiagnosis
diagnosis”).
A
(see
“The
related
role
of
problem
psychological
is
disturbance
a
A
of
physical
more
symptoms
detailed
(see
discussion
the
of
section
this).
the
difculties
true
that
mentioned
prevalence
rate
above,
it
estimates
is
on
level
are
more
accurate
than
a
cross-cultural
lot
of
prevalence
rates.
At
the
same
time,
differences
4.7%
in
prevalence
prevalence
of
rates
(such
depression
in
as
8.5%
women
would
men,
respectively)
may
probably
be
attributed
classication
psychiatrists
go
experience
reluctant
reporting
the
of
one
two
factors:
either
genuine
differences
prevalence
of
a
disorder,
or
differences
in
in
the
wrong?
depressive
report
some
of
and
way
Some
willing
face
globe.
the
across
still
single
the
to
system
equally
can
a
and
depend
we
a
versus
disorders
experiment
no
group
Even
are
prevalence
that
comparison
classication
with
resulting
national
thought
biases
explain
exclusion
system.
biases
so,
demonstrated
Caucasian
probably
Clinical
to
change
in
rates).
clinical
diagnosed
thought
gender
of
somatization—expressing
potentially
of
diagnostic
bereavement
from
role
the
and
and
clinical
for
in
diagnosis
symptoms
be
edition
the
help
attempted
differ
people
Furnham
populations
cultural,
(2012)
results
manual
all
expression
insensitive
with
continue
that
depression.
symptoms
diagnostic
were
of
verb.
and
made
let’s
report
Payne
As
“The
that
and
the
in
system.
(in
that
number
societies
amount
see
the
help
but
psychological
study
Asians
assume
problem
Classication
the
example,
below
on
remember
requirements
command
(1994)
disorder,
of
seek
an
understood
based
psychological
a
terms
to
For
be
response
but
to
question
likely
to
are
depression.
use
and
to
in
with
diagnosis”)—a
For
to
are
place.
needs
sought
diagnosed
considerably
It
estimates
them.
societies
This
(such
the
always
is
more,
disorder
easy
so
to
is
say
estimates
that—estimates.
presented
which
of
of
or
the
reported.
factors
prevalence
rates
It
is
not
contributes
remain
just
Validity and reliability of diagnosis
Inquiry questions
●
How
that
can
is,
we
the
ensure
that
diagnosis
diagnosis
corresponds
is
to
accurate,
the
●
real
Is
it
important
that
independently
other
arrive
at
clinicians
the
same
diagnosis?
problem?
●
●
How
can
accurate
we
or
assess
if
diagnosis
has
been
After
you
you
do
across
to
increase
consistency
in
clinicians?
not?
have
information
diagnosis
can
diagnosis
●
●
What
is
given
will
you
your
use
diagnosis,
to
see
if
what
Can
we
quantify
validity
and
reliability
of
diagnosis?
this
accurate?
DSM-IV
and
DSM-5:
average
reliability
What you will learn in this section
estimates
●
Reliability
and
validity
of
establish
reliability
it:
test-retest
and
two
ways
be
trials
and
for
retest
method
coefcient
of
attributed
application
to
audio-/video-recordings
can
of
the
DSM-5
method;
DSM-IV
,
Kappa
lower
than
before,
but
diagnosis
this
Inter-rater
even
to
a
more
scientic
used
method;
exclusively
Chmielewski
mean
kappa
rigorous
for
et
the
al
eld
the
test-
(2015),
recording
inter-rater
method
0.80,
mean
kappa
for
the
test-
reliability
retest
Validity:
the
concept;
predictive
method
validity
Reliability
●
Relationship
of
between
validity
and
reliability
Regier
diagnosis
the
Reliability
of
the
et
task
varies
●
the
low
DSM:
agreement
only
54%;
in
the
Beck
et
between
Kendall
had
the
increasing
considerably
earlier
mixed
DSM
reliability
from
results:
has
one
achieved
but
it
still
diagnostic
al
to
another
editions
Validity
of
diagnosis:
of
key
problems
(1962),
two
psychiatrists
(1974),
Heterogeneity
of
clinical
presentation
unreliable
Classication
re-diagnosis
DSM-5
(2013),
DSM
●
of
of
al
of
category
Alarmingly
0.47
schizophrenia
is
based
on
symptomology
and
rather
than
etiology
depression
Where
Between
DSM-II
and
DSM-III
to
draw
disorders?
initiative
to
observable
make
and
The
increase
was
not
Carl
reliability
in
Di
reliability
reliability
for
for
some
others;
Hempel
DSM-III
Nardo
the
et
al
(1993),
disorders,
Stability
Cut-off
Interview
further
of
the
DSM;
DSM-III
from
and
point
between
and
to
“clinically
“clinically
insignicant”
Structured
Williams
SCID,
0.47
between
comorbidity
symptoms
treatment
et
is
to
effective
choose?:
for
lithium
depression
but
al
schizophrenia;
Cooper
(1972),
kappa
schizophrenia
coefcients
of
improved
not
(1992),
issue
symptoms
therapy
reliability
of
signicant”
What
Clinical
The
categories
scientic:
universal:
excellent
low
in
diagnostic
boundaries
an
and
depression
in
the
USA
0.84
and
Great
Britain
269
5
ABNORMAL
●
PS Y C H O LO G Y
Research
of
validity
of
diagnosis:
two
This
section
also
links
to:
approaches
prevalence
Establishing
systematic
biases
in
of
disorders
clinical
the
role
of
clinical
biases
in
diagnosis
judgment
schema
Assessing
the
ability
of
psychiatrists
theory
(cognitive
approach
to
to
behaviour)
detect
the
disorder
objectively
being
when
known:
sane
in
the
disorder
Rosenhan
insane
is
research
(1973),
methods
(experiments,
validity).
places
inconsistency
ra and ad  dan:
impossible
between
to
separate
the
two
these
clinicians,
two
sources
and
of
it
is
error.
h cncp
Note
Diagnosis
literally
knowledge
from
(“gnosis”),
everything
behaviour
a
certain
of
symptoms.
the
else.
refers
to
dene
means
to
quality
telling
Diagnosis
relating
category.
Two
or
differentiating
a
essential
of
something
in
is
of
on
are
its
also
the
basis
that
validity
and
the
inconsistencies
changes
to
establishing
as
“test-retest
opposite
rater
a
across
same
same
considered
reliable
clinicians—different
classication
system
diagnosis
the
to
as
to
establish
for
inter-rater
it
is
clinicians
should
same
There
reliability
of
using
at
This
are
the
Note
the
the
rst,
interview
recorded
This
one
with
is
referred
two
ways
diagnosis.
arrive
of
this
patient
at
a
is
then
the
is
same
reactions
the
same
time
clinician
interview
slightly
and
is
had
(which
diagnostic
from
this
is
a
the
different
as
So
the
limitation
to
conduct
exactly
well
the
patient.
the
as
an
A
patient
brings
inter-rater
In
the
This
way,
with
overcomes
above,
the
reliability
second
interviews
some
but
course
change
the
raises
of
a
time
naturally,
rare
of
a
270
either
if
at
the
in
for
this
from
and
real-
would
of
the
the
is
a
special
reect
referred
to
reliability
type
different
recording
that
approach
Test-retest
cases
the
of
in
patient
clinicians
of
a
clinical
same
with
of
a
test-retest
structured
clinician
the
they
same
are
diagnoses
interview.
open
remember
reliability
clinical
the
to
bias:
initial
the
same
Such
the
designs
clinician
diagnosis.
0
be
is
diagnosis
The
the
to
chance.
kappa
of
of
1.
kappa
no
this
be
across
most
scale
perfect
more
the
can
due
way
intuitive
to
like
but
used
as
used
range
the
to
amount
random
agreement
clinicians”,
commonly
commonly
represents
expected
can
clinicians
Kappa
straightforward
between
presents
is
coefcient.
can
something
agreement
below
that
represents
There’s
to
on
that
quantiable—we
diagnosis
statistic
Zero
One
is
of
between
translate
“percentage
the
table
boundaries.
behaviour
of
kappa
Level
of
agreement
establishing
0–0.2
Minimal
0.21–0.39
Weak
0.40–0.59
Moderate
0.60–0.79
Strong
0.80–0.90
Almost
issue:
patient’s
the
Above
Perfect
conduct
independently.
issue
outlined
time.
With
symptoms
difference
in
changes
in
the
is
inter-
difference.
studies
consistency
agreement
raters.
independent
happens
clinicians
different
genuine
is
will
This
diagnosis
rather
involving
likely
number.
may
diagnosis
disorder
0.90
can
▲
reect
clinicians
diagnosis.
articiality
the
of
between
chance
symptoms.
both
It
some
because
most
express
use
However,
patient’s
articiality
same
so
In
is
span
the
audio-/video-recording
two
the
in
twice
Value
method
the
makes
those
Reliability
strength
questions
questions
the
gets
clinician
because
what
that
interview)
are
method ).
clinicians
same
but
time
clinical
interview
another
two
the
scenarios),
responses.
by
the
stimulus:
same
life
this
independently.
that
the
second
used
diagnosis
approach
exactly
conducts
and
(audio-/video-recording
recording
to
clinician
a
in
diagnosis.
(usually
will
In
between
reliability”.
to
that
the
higher
consistent
arrive
patient.
reliability.
inter-rater
if
the
reliability
reliability.
make
is
longer
interviews,
interview
Diagnosis
the
two
not
reliability.
that
the
genuine
behaviour
made
characteristics
diagnosis
apart
abnormal
pattern
Diagnosis
(“dia”)
or
Table 5.2
Based on Cohen (1960)
perfect
v A l i D i t y
Validity
degree
the
words,
the
is
diagnosis
which
behaviours
other
to
of
to
a
relates
that
it
actual
disorder.
its
is
A
valid
to
if
special
validity—the
accuracy—the
system
purports
diagnosis
predictive
to
diagnostic
For
In
form
of
to
the
disorder
example,
if
the
validity
of
predict
drugs
o f
symptoms,
respond
have
based
actually
predictive
D i A g N o s i s
will
you
antidepressants
corresponds
ability
r e l i A b i l i t y
how
measures
measure.
it
A N D
on
help
your
to
been
your
and
diagnosis,
lead
diagnosis
treatment.
prescribed
is
to
a
said
and
reduction
to
have
high
validity.
ATL skills: Thinking and research
Do not confuse validity of an experiment (as a research method) and validity of diagnosis. The idea is similar:
experiments are said to be valid if they study what they are supposed to study; diagnosis is said to be valid if it taps into
the real problem. However, all the other aspects are dierent. For example, the terms “external validity”, “internal validity”
and “construct validity” can be applied to experiments, but not to diagnosis. Also discuss these dierences.
●
How do we ensure sucient validity in experiments? And in diagnosis?
●
What are the consequences of low validity in experiments? And in diagnosis?
ranhp  wn ad and
ATL skills: Thinking and self-management
a  dan
Review Figure 5.5 and discuss the following.
The
metaphor
of
shooting
at
a
target
is
often
used
1.
to
illustrate
the
ideas
of
validity
and
reliability.
Can you think of an example for each of the four
In
possibilities?
this
metaphor,
accuracy
is
determined
by
whether
2.
or
not
you
hit
the
centre
of
the
target.
Are all four possibilities conceivable? If we told you
Consistency
that one of them is a logical paradox, which one
is
determined
by
the
spread—how
likely
you
are
to
would you pick?
hit
the
trials.
gure
same
place
Consider
on
the
the
four
target
on
possible
the
subsequent
scenarios
in
the
3.
How can we avoid reliable but invalid diagnoses?
below.
4.
Do you think there’s a relationship (correlation)
between validity and reliability of diagnosis? Fill in the
blank: the more valid the diagnosis, the ____ reliable it is.
As you continue reading, check whether your answers
were correct.
In
diagnosis
eye,
clinician
Unreliable and invalid
Unreliable, but valid
same
A
or
trust
in
both
and
across
Note
Reliable, not valid
▲
Figure 5.5
Both reliable and valid
The target metaphor for validity and
reliability of diagnosis
but
issues
issues
valid
is
that
a
valid
but
Interestingly,
(trade-off)
is
but
(such
is
as
is
consistent
be
opposite
there
is
between
an
the
at
ever
inspires
will
treatment).
a
logical
(over
by
is
not
inverse
validity
possible.
dangerous
clinicians
valid
is
same
the
result
stigmatization)
measurement
the
bull’s
of
misdiagnosis
(ineffective
cannot
the
hardly
between
diagnosis
not
clinicians)
this
hit
trials
“shooting
diagnosis
judgment,
what
always
different
clinicians
invalid
ethical
denition,
to
However,
treatment
because
in
consensus
their
unreliable
is
different
but
the
want
that
target”.
reliable
because
in
you
whether
and
An
paradox,
time
and
denition.
reliable
by
necessarily
true.
relationship
reliability
of
271
5
ABNORMAL
diagnosis.
PS Y C H O LO G Y
Think
accurately
you
about
need
it.
to
To
diagnose
take
into
a
disorder
ra  h Dsm
account
So
multiple
factors
such
as
a
person’s
to
interpretations
of
the
events.
For
how
reliable
this
you
diagnose
take
one
step
beyond
just
registering
this
patient’s
the
observable
behaviour,
subjective
patient’s
understand
(increasing
the
you
as
other
other
behaviour
the
hand,
will
if
want
standardized
and
of
but
this
and
make
want
make
opens
to
observable
the
its
the
criteria,
but
more
the
door
to
On
reliability,
Let’s
systems
consider
used
the
and
link
this
question
to
the
development.
al
half
the
be
was
for
editions
found
for
only
conducted
when
towards
psychoanalytic
This
patient.
means
at
Note
was
explanation
showed
example,
on
between
arrived
DSM-I
DSM
For
agreement
patients
54%.
same
the
low.
that
153
psychiatrists
the
of
alarmingly
(1962)
cases
diagnoses
was
earlier
diagnosis
in
two
that
in
different
that
use,
and
its
this
with
study
its
reliance
on
traditions.
in
itself
Kendall
(1974)
studied
almost
2,000
more
patients
supercial
DSM
its
to
psychiatrists
the
possible,
consistent
et
specic
orientation
criteria
diagnosis
in
into
Similarly,
applying
the
reliability
Beck
fully
yourself
increase
of
stages
Research
you
reliability).
as
classication
interpret
the
more
between
diagnostic
clinicians
to
Interpreting
disorder
(decreasing
you
to
try
about
experience,
the
disagreement
clinicians
might
which
nature
and
and
inferences
experiences.
validity),
subjectivity
and
behaviour
making
the
disorders?
the
main
patient’s
mental
need
example
to
are
subjective
who
were
admitted
to
hospital
from
1964
found
that
(invalid).
and
then
readmitted
schizophrenia
ATL skills: Thinking and communication
of
depression
shows
that
was
after
more
than
the
diagnosis
1969.
often
other
was
It
way
not
was
re-diagnosed
around.
very
as
The
consistent
a
form
study
over
Think back to the history of the DSM, especially
time.
Of
course,
two
interpretations
are
possible.
the switch of the philosophy from interpretation to
description that occurred at some point. Now that you
●
The
understand the inverse relationship between validity
patients
abnormal
changed
the
pattern
of
their
behaviour.
and reliability of diagnosis, discuss the following.
●
1.
2.
Psychiatrists
Why did this switch occur?
criteria
in
a
were
not
applying
standardized
and
diagnostic
consistent
way.
Does a focus on description (as opposed to
The
rst
explanation
is
far
less
plausible
because
interpretation) increase validity of diagnosis?
depression
Here’s a highly debatable question: Given the trade-o
very
and
different
schizophrenia
disorders
are
caused
two
by
separate
different
and
factors.
between reliability and validity of diagnosis, is it better
After
the
criticism
that
ensued,
the
American
to increase validity or reliability? Discuss this dilemma
Psychiatric
Association
started
an
initiative
from the ethical point of view.
to
make
Carl
DSM
categories
Hempel ,
especially
a
more
philosopher
influential
in
“scientific”.
of
science,
suggesting
that
was
the
TOK
criteria
should
Reliability of diagnosis links to the concept of replication.
provided
If research ndings fail to be replicated in independent
of
DSM
the
from
be
made
impulse
observational.
to
start
explanation
to
shifting
Hempel
the
focus
observation.
research, does it always means that the ndings were
not true?
Before you discuss this, review major results of Brian
Nosek’s “Reproducibility Project”:
https://tinyurl.com/jedsaxh and https://tinyurl.com/
hyyhzg9
ATL skills: Thinking
Would
you
in
Hempel’s
Carl
about
what
the
have
made
relation
effects
do
a
similar
position?
between
you
think
decision
Given
it
what
validity
would
if
you
and
have
you
were
know
reliability,
on
validity
of
diagnosis?
This
effort
DSM-III
reliable.
Also
reliability
272
was
fruitful,
categories
of
was
many
and
more
psychiatric
diagnosis
generally
research
diagnosis
using
shown
to
studies
were
the
be
into
more
the
conducted.
v A l i D i t y
However,
an
increase
in
reliability
in
DSM-III
A N D
r e l i A b i l i t y
o f
D i A g N o s i s
was
ATL skills: Research and communication
not
universal:
sense
to
be
Di
that
for
more
Nardo
simple
some
et
al
inter-rater
(OCD)
generalized
are
and
but
anxiety
all
on
disorders
than
(1993)
phobia
disorders
these
depended
reliable
“excellent”
as
it
for
disorder
diagnosis
others.
using
For
DSM-III
reliability
for
in
was
the
shown
example,
such
low
disorder
reliability
(GAD).
disorders
disorders,
so
these
(Table 5.2) and discuss why the value of kappa in the
reliability coecients like this we can expect diagnosis
of 1–3 patients out of every 10 to be unreliable
(inconsistent). Is this acceptable social practice?
for
Note
Review the table of the values of kappa coecient
range 0.8–0.9 is considered to be “almost perfect”. With
found
obsessive-compulsive
quite
anxiety
the
that
differences
Of
exist
even
within
one
broad
category
of
course,
“average”
Reliability
when
the
of
DSM-III
was
Structured
further
Clinical
DSM
(SCID)
was
practical
improved
published.
This
was
interview
that
included
a
of
questions
that
clinicians
value
DSM-III
ask,
restricting
were
improvisation.
This
in
the
application
clinicians—but
the
SCID
of
disorders
to
estimates
DSM-5
and
is
diagnostic
new,
developed,
in
further.
diagnostic
discrepancy
shown
estimate
DSM,
the
but
the
questionable.
more
categories
standardized
were
versions
an
attempt
Surprisingly,
to
increase
some
lower
reliability
for
recent
DSM-5
studies
compared
criteria
DSM-IV
,
even
for
the
diagnostic
categories
that
between
stayed
different
to
the
facilitated
to
across
such
of
supposed
have
consistency
of
rened
consistency
to
attempts
standardized
of
set
also
coefcient
a
further
diagnostic
were
reliability
Interview
From
for
there
disorders.
unchanged
(such
as
MDD).
Chmielewski
remained.
et
al
(2015)
claim
that
method
suggest
an
reliability
with
which
explanation
to
it
a
large
was
for
extent
this:
they
depends
established
(their
on
the
article
is
Exercise
entitled
to
Review
this
website
that
DSM-5
information
the
matters”).
They
overwhelming
point
majority
out
of
that
prior
research
provides
studies
additional
“Method
about
the
that
investigated
inter-rater
reliability
used
SCID:
the
audio-/video-recording
method.
In
this
method
http://www.scid4.org/
one
clinician
diagnosis,
to)
the
her
this
a
dialogue
between
a
patient
and
using
the
clinician
the
method
fact
is
and
high.
that
the
identical.
If
arrives
(or
gives
Reliability
typically
the
clinicians
watches
interview
were
given
and
at
a
listens
his
or
estimates
This
is
information
these
interviews
a
were
clinician
of
interview
independently.
surprising
by
the
another
recording
obtained
Role-play
and
diagnosis
using
not
conducts
conducted
by
the
clinicians
independently,
SCID.
both
Psychology in real life
the
questions
that
the
The
test-retest
seems
patient
more
clinicians
that
gives
they
method
natural.
conduct
ask
would
of
In
be
and
the
establishing
this
method
interviews
responses
somewhat
with
different.
reliability
two
the
different
patients
Go back to Anoushka’s case and draft a clinical interview
independently.
It
is
important
to
keep
the
test-
you might use with her.
retest
true
For
example,
Williams
etal
(1992)
using
SCID
conducted
a
large
test-retest
of
interval)
for
592
and
bipolar
MDD
and
patients
disorder
only
how
reliability
vary
even
with
(with
obtained
manifestations
and
0.47
for
the
that
1–3
week
substance
more
easier
abuse,
to
0.84
0.64
This
different
diagnostic
do
so
not
that
the
contaminate
results
of
for
shows
disorders
manual,
obvious
diagnose
is
the
study.
expected
Short-term
in
most
stability
mental
of
disorders.
test-retest
results:
phobia.
for
same
have
being
a
following
social
coefcients
within
disorders
the
short
symptoms
reliability
symptoms
study
sufciently
in
DSM-III
the
and
interval
changes
behavioural
consistently.
Chmielewski
concluded
reliability
that
of
combination
retest
used
et
al
most
DSM-III
of
methods,
the
of
the
were
past
eld
studies
trials
conducted
most
of
while
the
eld
test-retest
eld
trials
trials
for
method.
and
to
establish
using
audio-/video-recording
recordings,
exclusively
reviewed
and
for
a
test-
DSM-IV
DSM-5
They
used
claim
that
273
5
ABNORMAL
the
differences
reection
of
PS Y C H O LO G Y
in
reliability
these
different
estimates
might
be
a
results
trials
In
their
own
study
they
recruited
of
Canada
methods.
339
eld
for
used
23
the
compared
reliability
estimates
for
using
both
methods.
First,
test-retest
interviewed
recorded.
using
assessed
One
These
the
audio
SCID.
independently
week
later,
the
by
tapes
a
The
were
second
interviewed
by
participants
a
different
the
initial
coefcient
all
the
were
9
in
“almost
the
method
perfect”.
test-retest
“moderate”.
The
method
To
was
mean
were
invited
The
ensure
was
0.80,
0.47,
that
the
the
same
clinicians
patient
in
a
clinical
setting.
Of
on
the
in
the
strong
range
(kappa
23
=
range
moderate
(0.2–0.4)
range
the
unacceptable
and
3
(0.4–0.6),
diagnoses
6
in
were
range
(<0.2).
MDD
yielded
in
the
back
estimate
of
0.28
(weak),
while
reliability
Results
PTSD
was
classied
as
very
strong
(0.67).
mean
disorders
kappa
the
weak
for
anxiety-depressive
disorder”
showed
an
the
unacceptable
audio-recording
and
eld
interviewer.
clinician.
expectations.
across
5
the
“Mixed
kappa
Two
USA
the
interview
of
conrmed
method.
the
All
later
reliability
and
in
participants
0.6–0.8),
was
DSM-5
categories.
interviewed
occasions
diagnoses,
were
the
DSM-IV
different
categories
of
diagnostic
patients
independently
and
trials
reliability
of
0.05.
considered
coefcient
considered
for
only
ATL skills: Thinking
disagreement
What reasons can you suggest for this discrepancy in
between
clinicians
over
the
one-week
interval
the estimates?
was
not
due
symptoms,
to
the
true
researchers
changes
in
compared
the
patients’
these
results
to
Researchers
self-reports.
Patients’
self-reports
of
their
studies
indicated
very
little
change
over
this
short
So
it
was
concluded
that
lower
of
diagnosis
in
the
test-retest
condition
is
of
the
method
used,
not
actual
changes
underwent
between
the
two
the
of
where
does
reliability?
DSM-5
Regier
et
stand
al
now
(2013)
in
diagnostic
“strong”
hand,
widely
or
some
of
one
DSM-5
hand,
categories
eld
more
ranked
“moderate”
results
diagnosed
in
than
the
reliability.
top
On
the
such
category)
as
those
were
for
MDD
alarming.
interviews.
However,
So
results
the
that
(a
patients
the
On
the
other
result
to
“mixed”.
consistency
bands
of
as
time
half
period.
refer
symptoms
terms
of
summarized
its
the
disorders
eld
to
say
that
decreased
trials
for
reliability
would
DSM-5
used
be
of
diagnosis
incorrect,
more
for
these
because
realistic
estimates—
ATL skills: Research
The section above about reliability of the DSM was rather complex, especially since it was presented from a historical
perspective. However, it reects real-life scientic processes. Researchers struggle to get “pure” estimates of reliability,
but it is not easy at all, with all the changes in the manual and the overall approach to diagnosis.
To make sense of all these studies, try a couple of exercises that will help you structure information better.
1.
Without mentioning any names or research studies summarize the main ideas of this section, star ting as follows.
Reliability of the DSM initially was low, but then …
2.
Draw a owchar t of the main landmarks in the attempt to increase reliability of diagnosis in the DSM.
3.
Complete the table (if you don’t have enough information, you might want to do some research online).
Researcher
DSM edition
Method of establishing inter-
One major nding (state in one
rater reliability, audio-/video-
sentence)
recording or test-retest
Beck et al (1962)
Kendall (1974)
Di Nardo et al (1993)
Williams et al (1992)
Chmielewski et al (2015)
Regier et al (2013)
274
v A l i D i t y
test-retest
designs
Arguably,
DSM-III
the
use
could
of
carefully
and
previous
the
have
did
samples
studies
yielded
for
biased
results
clinicians—samples
not
reect
real-life
of
due
and
patient
to
of
and
that
the
would
settings.
such
The
general
consensus,
however,
is
that
the
achieved
the
task
of
increasing
nine.
in
one
the
DSM-IV
symptoms
this
in
means
two
symptom
same
clinical
on
ve
Essentially,
receive
different
based
exhibit
presentation
overlap
still
MDD
to
patients
and
they
diagnosis.
presentations,
Given
how
DSM
do
has
with
clinical
only
D i A g N o s i s
needs
listed
the
may
interview
o f
diagnosed
the
and
method
r e l i A b i l i t y
be
patients.
DSM-IV
audio-/video-recording
trained
situations
random
eld
A N D
reliability
we
know
that
both
are
suffering
from
of
depression?
diagnosis,
one
although
diagnostic
it
still
category
varies
to
considerably
from
2.
another.
Classication
rather
than
physical
Exam tip
Remember
that
research
you
studies
do
in
not
your
have
to
while
is
more
is
on
of
the
symptomology
When
rely
on
problem,
or
a
for
genetic
familiar
and
knowledge
A
currently
to
ensure
comfortable
argumentation
details
later
when
rst;
you
example,
the
mutation.
Since
of
very
what
causes
ambiguous
mental
with
you
can
the
add
and
disorders
inconclusive,
good
that
have
to
rely
on
more
supercial
you
This
will
inevitably
ow
lead
of
classify
causes
use
characteristics—symptoms.
are
we
the
responses.
important.
studying
we
agent
we
strategy
disease
infectious
is
Understanding
based
(etiology)
our
all
is
etiology.
to
overlap
in
diagnoses,
because
two
factual
disorders
with
separate
the
symptoms,
causes
might
have
revise.
same
which
there
themselves
are
a
with
similar
lot
of
to
medicine
diseases
u-like
that
symptoms
in
manifest
(for
vad  dan: k p
example,
Reliability
sets
the
stage
for
validity
in
the
sense
3.
that
valid
diagnosis
is
a
logical
malaria).
impossibility
Where
do
we
disorders?
reliability
is
low.
We
know
that
reliability
draw
boundaries
This
relates
to
the
issue
by
quantifying
the
consistency
between
two
(or
more)
is
validity
of
diagnosis
diagnoses.
example,
generalized
anxiety
disorder
psychiatrists.
frequently
How
of
of
For
diagnosis
of
is
comorbidity —co-occurrence
established
between
if
co-occurs
with
depression.
established?
Comorbidity
diagnoses,
TOK
the
validity
disorders
is
quite
and
of
it
extensive
raises
the
among
questions
classication.
frequently
co-occur,
DSM
about
If
two
could
they
be
How do you know if your diagnosis “corresponds to
manifestations
of
the
same
underlying
cause?
reality”, given that the only way to “see” the reality
Should
they
be
combined
in
one
category?
is through diagnosis itself ? There’s a similar circle in
Do
we
observe
different
disorders
or
just
one of the denitions of knowledge in TOK . Knowledge
different
symptoms?
Comorbidity,
if
present,
is sometimes dened as a justied true belief, but
poses
a
threat
to
validity
of
psychiatric
the truth can only be established “to the best of our
diagnosis.
knowledge”. How do you think this issue should be
solved in TOK?
4.
Stability
valid,
it
disorder
There
are
several
key
problems
related
to
of
is
stable
be
For
proven
over
diagnosis
that
time,
to
the
to
be
inferred
that
the
observed
exclude
the
symptoms
were
diagnosis.
a
1.
to
validity
possibility
of
symptoms.
needs
Heterogeneity
of
clinical
one-time
occurrence
due
to
chance
or
other
presentation .
factors.
This
means
that
one
and
the
same
disorder
5.
can
presumably
manifest
itself
differently
Cut-off
and
different
patients.
To
account
for
this,
point
while
“clinically
same
time
diagnostic
criteria
preserving
manuals
somewhat
made
sufcient
the
exible.
signicant”
symptoms
2010).
reliability,
diagnostic
For
“clinically
insignicant”
at
(Hyman,
the
between
in
example,
6.
to
Finally,
selecting
treatment
treatment.
depends
on
the
type
The
of
type
of
disorder,
275
5
ABNORMAL
so
it
is
important
correctly.
shown
but
For
to
not
asked
PS Y C H O LO G Y
be
for
effective
was
USA
true
for
diagnostic
behaviour.
depression.
about
later
This
manifestations
this
was
They
the
They
twice
as
the
used
the
to
relabelled,
We
want
a
criteria
certain
it
affects
diagnosis
treatment
to
target
British
only,
approach
narrowed
to
do
the
with
is
valid
real
a
cross-
study
changeable
symptoms
prescribed
be
the
how
of
It
is
they
being
treatment.
because
we
want
cause.
DSM-II
a
lot
in
of
human
was
Healthy
Disease
differences
schizophrenia
acute
and
disorder,
which
and
set
to
to
behaviour.
often
chronic
whereas
down
to
in
chronic
a
symptoms
nothing
in
reverse
study
the
When
of
that
have
differences
diagnostic
are.
found
caused
DSM-III,
for
number
differences
when
DSM-II
both
of
a
and
study
cultural
using
In
diagnosed
DSM-III
diagnosed
of
(1972)
psychiatrists
therefore
cultural
was
depression
Cooper
Britain,
study
problem
therapy
severe
watching
However,
disappeared.
was
for
interviews.
in
criteria.
speculation
replicated
was
than
the
lithium
British
by
clinical
schizophrenia
the
and
patients
videotaped
in
identify
schizophrenia.
American
diagnose
to
example,
was
more
diagnosis.
like
The
b
c
d
e
the
results
of
the
▲
Figure 5.6
Cut-o points
ATL skills: Social and communication
For the rst three problems related to validity of diagnosis, split into two groups and have a debate, with each group
taking one of the opposing perspectives. The idea is to come up with relevant arguments in favour of each extreme:
Clinical presentation of disorders is
versus
Despite heterogeneous presentation of disorders we
heterogeneous. At the same time we rely on
can still infer the correct cause if we take into account
a description of observed behaviour when we
the context. In chemistry, for example, chemical
make a diagnosis. For this reason, diagnosis
reactions will manifest themselves dierently in
cannot be valid.
dierent conditions (for example, temperature), but we
can still correctly recognize the chemical reaction.
Classication is based on symptomology rather
versus
Diagnosis based on symptomology may not be as
than etiology. Dierent disorders may have the
straightforward, but it can still be valid. Even in medical
same symptoms. Therefore we will not be able to
diseases symptoms are often enough to arrive at a
make a valid diagnosis of mental illnesses until
diagnosis and knowledge of etiology (blood tests
we discover a way to diagnose their etiology
and so on) is often used only to suppor t the initial
directly, for example, until we nd measurable
diagnosis.
biological markers of mental disorders.
Comorbidity makes diagnosis impossible.
versus
Comorbidity is a common occurrence; it makes
diagnosis more dicult but cer tainly not impossible.
of
potential
biases
that
compromise
diagnosis.
rach  ad  dan:
If
we
show
that
a
systematic
bias
exists,
that
is,
related
to
 w appach
diagnosis
Validity
of
diagnosis,
unlike
reliability,
cannot
be
quantied.
However,
we
intentionally
lacks
can
assess
validity
attempting
validity—targeting
276
patient’s
our
to
indirectly
discover
research
at
lack
the
by
of
identication
inuenced
actual
by
disorder,
factors
we
can
not
infer
that
the
diagnosis
validity.
There
this
is
are
area
two
may
broad
be
approaches
organized.
to
how
research
in
v A l i D i t y
The
rst
biases
we
approach
in
clinical
compare
differ
if
is
same
of
with
example,
psychoanalysts
orientation
If
it
does
different
system
should
affect
systematic
is
to
not
to
the
versus
valid,
the
affect
that
same
validity.
should
of
we
not
can
groups
orientations
behaviourists).
have
(for
If
a
diagnosis.
established
Another
of
theoretical
resulting
a
example
r e l i A b i l i t y
“hollow”
and
that
made
they
say
as
themselves
to
told
that
means,
diagnoses
of
clinicians
who
belong
will
be
cultural
discussed
clinical
biases
in
backgrounds.
in
detail
later
Such
(see
clinical
“The
second
disorder
to
the
is
to
entitled
is
detect
assessing
the
objectively
psychiatrist).
approach
is
the
“Being
ceased
does
note
rst,
mainly
sane
of
in
disorder
known
The
study
the
famous
David
insane
ability
when
(but
not
example
Rosenhan
of
the
this
(1973)
places”.
the
that
fear
staff
the
due
of
themselves
and
have
the
the
to
instructed
get
staff
They
out
of
with
(however,
occupation
by
their
psychiatric
any
to
protect
were
their
also
own
sanity.
ward,
the
symptoms.
pseudo-patients
to
the
being
the
as
how
and
no
novelty
friendly
of
were
the
pseudo-
Rosenhan
nervous
situation
was
in
of
at
and
a
hospital.
detected
an
The
and
by
of
length
Not
and
on
accompanying
was
and
In
described
were
down
the
they
At
the
their
staff.
sought
admitted
to
of
of
of
an
stay
average
varied
of
19
days
pseudo-patients
hospital
many
Each
“schizophrenia
hospital
the
the
to
schizophrenia.
with
one
in
wrote
diagnosis
days
anyone
unexpected
Some
52
a
was
by
were
hospital.
diagnosis
with
asked
they
symptoms.
admission
pseudo-patient
with
7
the
but
this,
swallowed.
patients
after
said
instructions
not
discreetly
ward,
from
remission”.
the
the
any
All
was
from
When
they
behaviour
cooperative.
discharged
between
at
their
immediately
one
normally.
experienced
participants
embarrassed,
Apart
feeling,
medication
discharged
but
were
records
and
and
rapidly.
behaved
they
but
time
exposed
abated
longer
hospital
hospital
ways
observations
staff.
This
stunning
render
was
was
result.
the
result
David Rosenhan
even
more
First,
the
rnhan (1973)
this
eld
study
was
to
investigate
although
could
tell
the
difference
In
this
study
between
eight
Many
comments
of
the
of
the
other
them
staff
failed
patients
voiced
to
were
suspicions
detect
more
like,
“You’re
not
crazy.
and
You’re
a
sane
journalist
people.
members
if
made
psychiatrists
surprising.
pseudo-patients,
observant.
insane
to
nervousness
ne
All
and
were
sex
the
interviewer
records).
simulating
pseudo-patients
disclosed
of
the
this
be
of
they
same
for
of
Almost
aim
names
convincing
observations
The
about
the
except
the
symptom
instructed
biases
role
same
Figure 5.7
this
employment
admission
followed,
▲
unfamiliar,
unclear
provide
would
only
were
diagnosis”).
approach
psychiatrists
their
the
they
is
to
The
was
than
and
was
to
patients
different
Other
they
by
This
asked,
often
information
future
D i A g N o s i s
If
voice
and
changed
their
up.
normally
truthful
they
the
words.
act
Upon
comparing
that
o f
“thud”.
to
three
patients
two
clinician’s
the
we
approach
example,
theoretical
diagnosis,
threat
this
interview)
clinicians
diagnostic
For
(given
clinical
systematic
In
diagnoses
valid.
diagnoses
the
establishing
sets
diagnosis
compare
using
two
is
judgment.
A N D
or
a
professor.
You’re
checking
up
on
the
mentally
hospital!”
healthy
subjects
volunteered
admission
present
in
5
to
to
different
hospital,
complained
as
US
for
hospitals.
admission
states.
of
an
the
voices
12
the
and
seek
were
to
hospitals
same
pseudo-patients
appointment
hearing
himself)
They
to
Following
instructions,
made
Rosenhan
pseudo-patients
psychiatric
themselves
standardized
the
(including
serve
that
and
said
on
Second,
the
patients
was
symptoms
records
called
arrival
“empty”,
of
often
their
revealed
“engaging
the
normal
in
cafeteria
behaviour
illness.
that
writing
before
“oral-acquisitive
of
the
misinterpreted
by
pseudo-
the
Examination
taking
notes
behaviour”,
lunchtime
was
as
nursing
called
waiting
was
staff
of
outside
interpreted
as
syndrome”.
277
5
ABNORMAL
Third,
were
the
pseudo-patients
largely
performed
members
with
ignored
by
of
the
the
innocent
likely
most
to
of
PS Y C H O LO G Y
be
by
(nurses
questions
responses
and
such
One
as,
of
was
the
to
193
patients
condently
tests
one
approach
staff
psychiatrists)
by
“When
member.
Somewhat
were
of
admission
staff.
pseudo-patients
staff
discharged?”
the
after
the
am
I
any
shockingly,
minimal.
For
both
moved
on
and
ignored
the
71%
of
the
cases,
and
stopped
and
of
the
time.
The
nurses
stayed
in
In
of
the
t