Unit 1: The Exam! 25/05/2011• The exam is 1 hour 20 minutes long and

you will have to answer three types of

question.

• This unit is 40% of your total AS psychology

and the paper is marked out of 60.

• There are three compulsory sections.

Cognitive

Experiments

Social

SurveysThere are three parts to the Unit 1 exam:

1.Multiple choice questions – read them carefully and make sure you read how many responses you have to give.

[15 minutes] 2.Short answer / stimulus response. Answer fully. [40 minutes] 3.Extended writing question. [25 minutes]

Study or Theory?STUDY (APRC / GRAVE)

A study is any exercise where data

is collected and analysed.

This involves a researcher

conducting an experiment of

any type. It will have an aim,

procedure, results and conclusion.

Studies

Craik and Tulvin, Godden &

Baddely, Milgram, Hofling, Meeus,

Reicher & Haslam.

THEORY

A theory is an explanation for a

psychological phenomenon.

Following a theory researchers will

conduct studies in an attempt to

support the theory and provide

evidence for it.

Theories

MSM, LoP, Trace Decay, Cue-

Dependency, Reconstructive

Hypothesis, Agency Theory, Social

Identity Theory.

APRC: Describing a STUDY

Aim – what did the psychologist want to do?

Procedure – what did they do? Who did

they do it to? Experimental design?

Sampling method? Apparatus?

Results – what did they find (raw data)?

Conclusions – so what? What does it mean?

GRAVE: Evaluating a STUDY• Generalisability - can the findings be applied to the general

population? Think about the sample, methods used & confounding

variables.

• Reliability - can the procedure be replicated and are the findings

consistent?

• Applications - do the findings have practical value? Think: So

what?

• Validity - did the study test what it set out to? Can the findings

be applied to everyday life (ecological validity)? Population

validity (sampling).

• Ethics - with reference to the BPS ethical guidelines, how ethical

was the study?

Cognitive PsychologyEdexcel Psychology: Unit 1

ASSUMPTION1: Information Processing

• Definition: The processing by which information is received by the senses, analysed and responded to. This flow of information is described using the terms input, process and output.

• Example:

Information Processing

Decision making

Memory

ASSUMPTION 2: Computer Analogy

The human mind works in a similar

way to a computer in terms of

information processing.

– INPUTS information from the senses;

– PROCESSES information in the form

of thinking, memory and language;

– OUTPUTS information in the form of

decision making, speech and action.

ASSUMPTON 3: Active

Humans actively organise and

manipulate information from the

environment. Cognitive or mental

processes mediate between stimulus

and response.

Active processing refers to sets of

procedures in which a learner acts on

instructional inputs to generate, re-

organise, self-explain, or otherwise go

beyond the encoding of material.

Evaluation of Cognitive Approach

Strengths• Adopts scientific

procedures to develop and test theories.

• Uses experimental techniques.

• Models simplify cognitive processes.

• Allows us to understand mental process that are not directly observable.

Weaknesses• Tends to ignore biology

and genetic influence also ignores individual differences.

• Provides a mechanistic view of human behaviour.

• Can such a scientific approach really tell us about how we think, feel and behave? (Humanistic psychology).

Cognitive Psychology• Define memory,

forgetting, storage & retrieval.

• Describe & Evaluate MSM Theory

• Describe & Evaluate LoP theory

• Describe & Evaluate Cue Dependent Theory

• Describe & Evaluate Trace Decay Theory

Studies in Detail • Godden & Baddeley

(1975)• Craik & Tulvin (1975)

Key Issue• Eye witness testimony• Cognitive Interview

Memory & Forgetting… The same thing?

Memory:

•The retention and

recall of previous

experience.

•Encoding -> Storage

-> Retrieval

Forgetting:

•Not been able to

remember a fact or

event because the

memory trace is

unavailable or

inaccessible.

Failure at any of these 3 stages

can lead to forgetting.

 

Memory involves three main Processes:

ENCODINGSTORAGE RETRIEVAL

The process of changing sensory

input into a memory trace so

that it can be stored.

The process of maintaining

a record of the memory trace so that it can be retrieved in

the future.

The process of accessing and

recovering stored information so that it can be recalled.

All 3 processes depend upon one another;

they are interdepende

nt.

Multi-Store Model [Theory]

AO2 Evaluation of Atkinson & Shiffrin’s Multi-store Model of Memory

Lot’s of evidence supporting STM and LTM being separate stores.

Problems with concept of STM:- FK shows that semantic as well as accoustic encoding

is used.- First-in-first out displacement loss disproved. - Not a single system- working memory with separate

subsystems for visual & spatial and verbal information.X HM learning new skills shows LTM not a single system- separate

episodic, semantic and procedural stores. X Rehearsal does not completely explain transfer to LTM.X Primacy-recency effect equally well explained by LOP

framework.X Supporting studies use artificial tasks therefore evidence low in

ecological validity.X ‘Capacity’ not well defined; not clear whether it refers to storage

or processing. X An additional criticism of the MSM is that it does not take into

account the strategies (other than maintenance rehearsal) used to remember information.

Craik and Lockhart’s Levels of Processing (1972)

[Theory]• Proposed as an alternative to the PROCESSES

involved in storing a memory suggested by the MSM.

• They suggested that the likelihood of remembering a

piece of information depends on how we process it.

• In this way, memory is a by-product of the

information processing that occurs when attending to

information.

Levels of Processing1. Structural

Shallow What does the word look like?Is the word in capital letters?

2. Phonetic What does the word sound like?Does the word rhyme with …?

3. Semantic Deep

What does the word mean?Does the word fit in this sentence?

Evaluation of LoP (AO2) Evidence to support- Craik & Tulving (65% sem, 37% p, 17% st). This

is incidental rather than intentional learning so ecologically valid.

Brain scanning studies show more activity when semantic processing

occurring.

Improvement on MSM

- Elaborative rather than maintenance rehearsal;

- Shows complexity of encoding process.

Useful everyday applications- education.

X Confounding variables to depth; time, effort, distinctiveness.

X Semantic does not always = better

X Circular argument

X Focuses on processes not stores

Craik and Tulvin (1975) [Study]Aim

The aim was to test whether words that were processed for their

meaning would be better remembered than words that were

processed for information about their appearance or sound.

Procedure

Laboratory experiment- the IV (depth of processing) was manipulated

and there was a high level or experimental control in an artificial

situation.

Repeated Measures- all participants participated in all three

conditions: Structural processing, phonetic processing & semantic

processing.

Craik and Tulvin (1975) [Study]Participants did not initially know that it was a memory test and

thought they just had to answer questions on a list of words. In

reality, different types of questions were making participants use

different levels of processing structural, phonetic and semantic.

Words were presented to participants; each word was followed

by a question which required a yes or no answer. Finally,

participants were presented with the incidental memory test-

incidental as they didn’t originally know they were going to do it.

Recall was measured through a recognition task where

participants had to choose as many of the original words as they

could amongst several others.

Is the word in capital letters? Chair

Does this word rhyme with GREEN? BEAN

Does the word fit this sentence? ‘The soldier picked up his _____.’ rifle

Is this word in lower-case letters? FLOWER

Does the word fit this sentence? ‘The woman _________ on the train.’ slept

Does the word rhyme with MEND? pool

Is the word in capital letters? MEANING

Does the word fit this sentence? ‘Yesterday we saw a _______.’ fence

Does the word rhyme with HOUSE? MOUSE

Does the word fit into this sentence? ‘There are _______ growing in my garden.’ DOORS

Is the word in lower-case letters? spend

Does the word rhyme with TABLE? GENERAL

Is this word in capital letters? article

Does this word fit this sentence? ‘The _____ should not be more than 1000 words.’ castle

Does this word rhyme with STOOL? POND

Craik and Tulvin (1975) [Study]Results

65% semantic 36% phonetic and 17% of structurally

processed words were recalled.

Conclusion

This study shows that depth of processing affects how

well words are remembered. Semantic processing, that

is thinking about the meaning of the words, leads to

their being remembered best.

Craik and Tulvin (1975) A02G: Problems as participants were all students (good memories?) and

the task was artificial and not representative of things we remember.

R: As it is a lab experiment we can replicate the experiment easily to

check the reliability of the study.

A: Shows that students (or anyone wanting to remember something)

must attach meaning to it. When things are processed semantically

we remember them better. Could develop revision techniques.

V: Artificial task so might not be measuring how we actually

remember words. However, Pps. didn’t know it was a test of memory

that removes some confounding variables. Poor population validity –

all students.

E: Participants could have been embarrassed if they didn’t do well.

Trace Decay TheoryTrace-decay theory can be used to explain forgetting from either STM or LTM. It proposes that forgetting occurs due to information not being available so there is nothing to retrieve thus recall cannot occur.

This theory is based on the idea that information creates a neurological (physical) trace in the brain when it is encoded which disappears over time. Without the rehearsal of information, engrams decay over time thus the memory disappears and forgetting occurs.

Forgetting therefore occurs from STM due to the stores limited duration if maintenance rehearsal does not take place. Equally, despite having a potential life-time duration, it has been suggested that if knowledge and skills in LTM are not practiced, then the engram will decay causing a structural change in LTM thus forgetting.

AO2 STRENGHTS Trace Decay Theory A study conducted by Peterson and Peterson (1959)

supports the idea of trace decay in STM. They found that the number of trigrams recalled by participants decreased as the length of distraction task increased. This finding suggests that forgetting in STM is due to trace decay since the distraction task prevented rehearsal- the function of which is to replenish the trace before it decays completely.

This theory is also supported by physiological evidence showing that memories do create a physical trace in the brain.

The theory also has mundane realism as it is consistent with the forgetting demonstrated by people with Alzheimer’s disease who seem to lose memories (a physical process) rather than be unable to retrieve them. This suggests that trace decay may be a valid theory of forgetting.

AO2 LIMITATIONS Trace Decay Theory

X Furthermore, Jenkins & Dallenbach (1924) tested whether time between encoding and recall led to forgetting. They found that participants who remained awake between learning and recall forgot more than those who slept. This suggests that interference rather than trace-decay causes forgetting as the lower recall in the awake group must have resulted from events between learning and recall interfering with the engram.

X Another limitation of trace-decay theory is that it cannot explain why some long-term memory engram’s, such as flashbulb memories, seem to be resistant to decay.

X Trace decay also has difficulty explaining why material which cannot be remembered at one time can be remembered at a future time, even though no additional presentations have been made. If the trace has decayed it should never be available.

Cue Dependent Theory

Tulvin (1975)Tulvin claims two events are necessary for recall:

a) A memory trace

b) Retrieval cue

Context (environmental) Cues

These are cues in the environment which aid our ability to retrieve a

memory at a later date. Forgetting occurs as the situation or context

is different from that at encoding.

State Cues

This is the emotional state you are in at time of encoding. Forgetting

occurs as the person’s state or mood is different from that at

encoding.

Cue Dependent Theory (AO2)

Tulvin (1975) Strengths

•The theory accounts for forgetting in different tasks. There are many

supporting studies.

•The idea is testable because the retrieval environment can be

replicated.

•The Cognitive Interview is based on the theory that by providing cues

to a person it will aid their ability to recall information.

 

Weaknesses

•The tasks used in the supporting studies are artificial so the results

may lack ecological validity and validity.

•It may only account for some forms of forgetting.

•Only applies to forgetting from the LTM.

Godden & Baddley (1975) [Study]

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of environmental

encoding cues on the ability to recall. 

Procedure: The 18 participants were randomly divided into four groups and

all participants took part in all 4 conditions (repeated measured design).

Participants were to learn list comprised of 36 unrelated words, 2-3 syllables

long then recall in either the same or different context. During the experiment

each participant undertook one condition per day: dry-dry; dry-wet; wet-wet;

wet-dry.

 

 

Conclusion: Godden and Baddeley concluded that their results do support

the claims of cue-dependency theory.

Godden & Baddley (1975) AO2

G: Only trained SCUBA divers were used therefore it may not apply

to all people. The environment and the tasks were artificial –

learning does not usually take place like that.

R: The experiment can be replicated to test the reliability of the

results. We could replicate in more ecologically valid situations

(classroom vs. exam hall).

A: We can apply the findings to students learning in one

environment and recalling in another. Better to sit exams in a

classroom not hall.

V: Word list was artificial – not real learning. Poor population validity.

E: No ethical issues were broken. Not an issue.

Key Issue: EWT & MemoryReconstructive Hypothesis Loftus & Palmer

Our perception of the event.

How does it help us explain the issues with eyewitness testimony?

Multi-Store ModelAtkinson & Shiffrin

Information is only passed into the STM from the SM is we attend to it. If we are not attending to an event in the environment information about it will decay from the SM and will not be processed further (encoded) – no memory.

Levels of ProcessingCraik and Lockheart

We remember things well when they have been deeply processed, that is anaylsyed for meaning rather than for structural or phonetic information. Most questions following an event usually refer to apperance (structural processing).

Cue-dependency Tulvin

Research has shown that both our internal state and our surroundings when we store a new memory serve as memory cues. If these cues are not present at recall we will be unable to recall the event accurately.

Reconstructive MemoryLoftus & Palmer

The active process of reconstruction takes place as we retrieve memories. We tend to include post-event information when reconstruct memories. Therefore, memories can be easily distorted by using leading questions.

The Cognitive InterviewFisher & Geiselman (1992)

The four main techniques that the CIT uses to aid retrieval are:

•Recreating the context: It is well established that memory is context

dependent and so asking a witness to think about how they were

feeling just before and during the event to be recalled, perhaps

evoking the sounds and smells relating to the event, should facilitate

retrieval.

•Focused concentration: Persuading the witness to concentrate very

hard on the task.

•Multiple retrieval attempts: Encouraging a witness who feels they

have recalled everything about an event to have another attempt

can unlock previously un-recovered detail.

•Varied retrieval: Witnesses will often recall events in chronological

order but if they are asked to recall details in a different order, or

from a different perspective, this may trigger additional information.

46% Increase !

How Science Works: EXPERIMENTS

Edexcel Psychology: Unit 1

Experiments

Three types of experiments:

• Laboratory experiments

– Highly controlled / artificial

• Field experiments

– Controlled variables in a natural environment

• Quasi (natural) experiments

– We have no control over the independent variable –

it’s ‘naturally’ occurring (eg Gender)

Experiments

Independent Variable

(IV)

Dependent Variable

(DV)

Confounding Variable: a variable that effects the DV

Extraneous Variable: a variable that could affect the DV but has been controlled for so it doesn’t.

Experiments

Extraneous Variables

Participant Variables

• Independent Measures = Individual Differences

Situational Variables

• Any feature of the experiment that could

influence a participants behaviour

Single Blind – Double Blind – Control Groups

Experiments

• Independent Measures

• Participants are only in

one condition.

Repeated Measures• The same

participants repeat the two conditions

Condition 1 Condition 2Condition 1 Condition 2

Counter balancing – alter order of Pp’s

ExperimentsMatched Pairs – make two groups of

participants as similar as possible.

Condition 1 Condition 2

Male21IQ = 105

Male21IQ = 105

Female25IQ = 115

Female25IQ = 115

Strength Weakness

Independent Measures

No Order Effects Fewer Demand Characteristics

Individual Differences

Repeated Measures

No Individual Differences

Order Effects(counter balancing)

Matched Pairs

Controls for Individual

Differences

Can be difficult and costly.

Evaluation of Experimental Designs.

Experiments – Hypotheses

Participants memory will be much worse when there is a distraction in the room than when there is no distraction.

Participants memory will be much worse when there is a distraction in the room than when there is no distraction.

How are we measuring memory?

What’s better or worse? Higher / Lower? More /

Less?

What is the distraction? How

are we manipulating it?

Operationalising your hypothesis

How have you manipulated your IV?How have you measured your DV?

Experiments – Hypotheses

Participants memory will be much worse when there is a distraction in the room than when there is no distraction.

Participants will remember significantly more words from a list of 20 presented for 60 seconds when they are in a room with no distractions than participants who are in a room where rock music is playing in the background.

Experiments – Hypotheses

Participants who [do something] will be significantly [faster/better/quicker etc] at [something] than participants who [do something else].

There will be no significant difference between participants who [do something] and those who [do something else]. Any difference will be down to chance.

Alt

ern

at

eN

ull

Experiments – Hypotheses

Participants who [do something] will be significantly [faster/better/quicker etc] at [something] than participants who [do something else].

There will be a significant difference between participants who [do something] and those who [do something else].

1Tailed

2Tailed

Key Terms - Experiments• Laboratory Experiment

• Field Experiment• Quasi Experiment• Independent Variable• Dependent Variable• Confounding Variable• Extraneous Variable• Replication• Cause and Effect• Ecological Validity• Alternate Hypothesis

• Demand Characteristics• Ethics• Independent Measures• Repeated Measures• Matched-Pairs• Individual Differences• Order Effects• Counter Balancing• Operationalising

Hypothesis• Null Hypothesis

Data Analysis

Descriptive Statistics

• Summary of data to illustrate patterns and

relationships – BUT can’t infer conclusions

Inferential Statistics

• Statistical tests that allow us to make

conclusions in relation to our hypothesis.

eg. Mann-Whitney or Spearman’s Rho.

Data AnalysisNominal - measure of central tendency: modeData in categories (finished, fell, started)

Ordinal - measure of central tendency: median Data which are ranked or in order (1st 2nd 3rd)

Interval - measure of central tendency: meanPrecise and measured using units of equal

intervals (1m54s, 1m59s, 2m03s)

Measure of dispersion = range (Highest – Lowest)

Measure of central tendency = average

Strength Weakness

Mean Makes use of all the values in a

data set.

Not good for ordinal or nominal

data. Can be distorted

by extreme values.

Median

Unaffected by extreme values.

Not good for nominal data.

Ignores extreme outliers.

Mode Can be used with any data type.

Isn’t useful for small data sets.

Ethics

• Consent

• Withdrawal

• Debriefing

• Deception

• Confidentiality

• Observation

• Protection

• Advice

• Colleagues

• Competency

Social PsychologyEdexcel Psychology: Unit 1

Social Psychology• Define obedience,

prejudice & discrimination

• Describe & Evaluate Agency Theory

• Describe & Evaluate Milgram (1963)

• Describe & Evaluate a variation of Milgram’s (Bridgeport)

• Describe & Evaluate a study of obedience from another country (Meeus)

• Describe & Evaluate Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory.

Studies in Detail• Hofling (1966) • Reicher & Haslam

(2006)

Terms You Need• Destructive obedience:

Following orders that lead

to the harming of another

person or people.

• Compliance occurs when

an individual goes along

with what someone tells

them to do whilst not

necessarily agreeing with

it.

• Internalising is obeying

with agreement.

• Conformity: doing what

everyone else is doing.

• Obedience: doing

something because you’re

told to.

• Moral Strain: when you

have a conflict with an

authority figures instructions

and your morals.

Agency Theory (1974)

Agentic State

This may involve an element

of moral strain as the

participants own moral code

conflicts with the behaviour

that they find themselves

enacting.

Autonomous State

The individual feels

responsible for the

consequences of his or her

behaviour and that his

behaviour is under his or her

own free will.

Milgram coined the term ‘agentic state’ to explain the obedience seen in his famous experiments; the individual acted purely as agent, or on behalf of the authority figure, ‘the experimenter’, and absolved himself of his moral responsibility to protect the learner.

Agency Theory AO2Strengths

One strength of this theory is that

is supported by a fairly reliable

raft of research evidence

including the findings of Milgram’s

own obedience studies.

A further strength of this theory is

that it has been applied in the

real world and used to help

people to resist destructive

obedience in the face of

potentially malevolent authority

figures.

Weaknesses

The theory could be said to be

unfalsifiable meaning that it is

difficult for the findings of cross

cultural research to prove the theory

wrong.

The theory does not effectively

explain why some people find it

easier to resist obedience than

others. For example 35% of the

original sample of 40 men refused to

continue at 300 volts and agency

theory has little to say about the

shift back to the autonomous state.

Milgram (1963)

Aim: to test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis

towards obedience.

Procedure: controlled observation. 40 male

participants. Self-selected. Confederate – learner.

Prods to continue.

Conclusion: participants will be obedient when a

perceived authority figure instructs you to – even if

you don’t agree with it (moral strain).

Results: 65% of the participants continued to 450

volts. All participants continued to 300 volts.

Milgram: Why so obedient?• Yale University (prestigious)

• Experiment had a worthy purpose

• Obliged because of volunteering

• Being paid increased obligation

• Novel situation, no norms were operating

• ‘painful but not dangerous’

• Learner responded up to 300v

To see which of these may be a predicting variable Milgram

conducted many different variations (replications) of his

study. The one we will look at is regarding the location.

Change of venue: run down office building

Obedient Participants: 47.5%

Bri

dg

ep

ort

Stu

dy

• Aim: Milgram conducted a variation on his baseline study

to see if obedience had been affected by the location the

study had been conducted in (Yale University).

• Procedure: Milgram manipulated the environmental

setting in which the experiment took place, moving the

experiment from Yale University to an inner city run down

office block. Milgram kept all other aspects of the procedure

constant with the baseline study so that he could make

comparisons.

• Results: 47.5% of participants delivered the full 450 volt

shock when the study was conducted in a run down office

block.

• Conclusion: Being in less prestigious location decreases

obedience in relation to the original study although the

setting seems to have the least effect out of all variables on

the level of obedience.

Milgram AO2 G: The findings are difficult to generalise to the general population

because Milgram used a fairly small and unrepresentative sample of 40

white American males aged 20-50

R: Milgram’s carefully controlled procedure was easy to replicate and

by and large replications have produced consistent results.

A: Milgram’s findings were of great value in understanding obedience.

V: Milgram’s study may lack validity: He may not have actually

measured obedience to authority if the participants were not convinced

by the research set-up and demand characteristics occurred.

E: The study broke many ethical guidelines, however, he did debrief the

participants after the experiment and the study was before the

guidelines were in place.

Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986)A: To test the reliability & validity of

Milgram’s research .

P: A laboratory experiment with

independent measures was used to test

39 Dutch male and female Pps aged 18-

55 to see how obedient they were when

asked to administer psychological harm

in the form of 15 increasingly insulting

remarks to a confederate/stranger who

is applying for a job at a university.

R: 22/24 Pps were fully obedient and

delivered all 15 insults (92%).

C: high levels of obedience are to be

expected even 20 years after the

original Milgram’s original study and that

obedience in Holland is in fact higher

than it was in the US in the 60s.

Evaluation (Ao2)

G: questionable as they used a self selected

sample.

R: supports other studies and has support

itself.

A: particularly useful as they demonstrate

that Milgram’s findings are not culture or

era bound

V: high since the majority of participants

said in follow up questionnaires that they

did believe they were causing psychological

distress.

E: highly questionable since the majority of

participants said they did not enjoy

delivering the insults and would have

preferred not to have done so

Hofling (1966)Aim: This study on obedience examined how nurses

complied with orders of medical doctors, even if they broke

rules of the hospital.

Procedure: In this study, a medical doctor who was on the staff

list, but not known personally to a nurse, called a nurse when she

was alone in her ward in the evening telling her to administer

‘Astroten‘ to a patient. The max dose should be 10mg but the Dr.

instructed her to adminiser 20mg. By giving the Astroten, a nurse

would violate several rules of the hospital.

Results: Twenty-one of 22 nurses – or 95% – complied with the

order of Doctor Smith and began with the administration of the

medication, until the observing doctor interrupted them.

Other nurses were given a detailed description of

the experimental situation and asekd whether they

would have given the medication.

•Ten of 12 respondents – or 95% – said that they they would not have given the medication, and seven said that they believed a majority would reject to give medication.

•Of 21 student nurses, all said that they would not have given the medication.

Conclusion: This suggests that in a real world situation people will be obedient even if this creates a moral strain. It also suggests that participant self-reports about their behaviour is not a valid measure.

Hofling Evaluation AO2G: As only a small number of participants were used we could

have problems. However, it was far less artificial than previous

obedience experiment (high EV) increasing our ability to

generalise.

R: Controlled method so could replicate to test reliability.

A: Useful as we need to be aware of this – policy guidelines.

V: High validity and EV as it was in a real situation and nurses

didn’t know they were part of an experiment.

E: Nurses didn’t consent, weren’t aware of RtW and may have

been upset after the experiment. All were fully debriefed

following.

A prejudice is a prejudgment (an attitude): i.e. an assumption made about someone or something before having adequate knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy.

The word prejudice is most commonly used to refer to a preconceived judgment toward a people or a person because of a group which they belong to. They have three componentys.

•Affective - our feelings towards a group

•Behavioural - our actions for or against a group

•Cognitive - our beliefs and stereotypes about a group

A discrimination is an action (behaviour) which occurs as a result of a prejudice.

AL2: Activate

Social Identity TheoryTajfel & Turner (1979)

•The mere existence of difference groups causes

conflict and prejudice.

•People only act in terms of group membership if they

identify with the group.

•Individuals who belong to a group behave in relation to

the norms and values of the group.

•People see themselves as belonging to some groups

(their in-groups) and not belonging to others (their out-

groups).

AL2: Activate

The three processes involved in SIT are:

Categorisation – seeing oneself as part of a group (your in-group)

• Exaggeration of similarities and differences between the in-group

and out-group

Social Comparison – people start to see their in-group as superior

• Following social categorisation, social comparison occurs.

• Relative status is determined.

Membership / Identification - you take on the norms of the group

• Social group membership effects our self-concept and self-esteem.

Social Identity TheoryTajfel & Turner (1979)

AL2: Activate

Social Identity Theory AO2

Tajfel & Turner (1979) There are many other studies which support Tajfel & Turner’s SIT

and suggest that in-group favouritism is a cause of prejudice and

discrimination.

The theory has lots of practical applications. There are many

examples of in-group / out-group conflicts in society which can be

understood using SIT.

× There are other theories which suggest SIT is overly simplistic.

Realistic Conflict Theory states rather than just the formation of

groups leading to conflict, it is the competition towards a shared goal

that causes prejudice. Only when there is a shared goal will we see

prejudice.

× There are many other factors that could lead to prejudice and SIT

ignores these.

AL2: Activate

Zimbardo - SPE• Deterministic (we have no

control / choice over our

behaviour)

• Situational explanation – the

social roles in the prison caused

the behaviour changes.

Reicher &

Haslam• Group membership

• Identifying with group

• Social Identity Explaination – if

we identify as a group we will

internalise the norms and be

strong.

Reicher & Haslam (2006) The Aims• To provide data on the unfolding

interactions between groups of unequal power and privilege.

• To analyse the conditions that lead individuals to: – Identify with their group; – Accept or challenge intergroup inequalities.

• The examine the role of social, organisational and clinical (mood) factors in group behaviour.

• To develop practical and ethical guidelines for examining social psychological issues in large-scale studies.

For ethical reasons only people who were well-adjusted and pro-social, scoring at low levels on all social and clinical measures were included in the study.

From an initial pool of 332 applicants the researchers reduced the sample to 27 men.

Men were chosen so that the results could be compared with the SPE and because it was thought by the researchers to cause less ethical problems than using women.

The final sample of 15 was chosen to ensure diversity of age, social class, and ethnic background.

15 Males

3 m

atch

ed

particip

ants

2 p

rison

ers

1 G

uard

3 m

atch

ed

particip

ants

2 p

rison

ers

1 G

uard

3 m

atch

ed

particip

ants

2 p

rison

ers

1 G

uard

3 m

atch

ed

particip

ants

2 p

rison

ers

1 G

uard

3 m

atch

ed

particip

ants

2 p

rison

ers

1 G

uard

One prisoner was not involved at the beginning of filming and was introduced

later on in the experiment.

15 males, first divided into five matched groups of three on traits such as racism, authoritarianism and social dominance.

The InterventionsReicher and Haslam had three interventions (IVs) that they manipulated

throughout the experiment to investigate the effects of the group dynamics.

1.Legitimacy - refers to the extent to which relations and status differences

between groups are perceived to be justified or not.

This was going to be operationalised by telling the participants that they were

all equal after they initially thought that the guards were superior on tests prior

to the experiment. This wasn’t required.

2.Permeability - refers to the degree to which it is perceived to be possible to

move from one particular group into another.

This was operationalised by allowing one of the prisoners to be ‘promoted’ to

guard after day 3.

3.Cognitive alternatives - refers to group members' awareness of ways in

which social relations could be restructured in order to bring about social

change.

This was operationalised by introducing the ‘Union Representative’ as the 11th

prisoner following the promotion.

AL2: Activate

The Conclusions • Reicher and Haslam argue that unlike the prisoners,

the guards failed to identify with their role. This made

the guards reluctant to impose their authority and they

were eventually overcome by the prisoners.

• Participants then established an egalitarian social

system. When this proved unsustainable, moves to

impose a tyrannical regime met with weakening

resistance.

• They suggest that it is powerlessness and the failure of

groups that makes tyranny psychologically acceptable.

Reicher & Haslam AO2G: Only males who had never experienced prison. Self-selected

sample.

R: Supported SIT to an extent. Not a full replication of Zimbardo

so can not make direct comparisons.

A: Allows us to understand the power of groups and identification

with those groups.

V: All participants ‘internalised’ the prison. Only some of them

however actually took on the roles and believed they belonged to

those groups.

E: Some distress did come to the participants although there was

an ethics board on-site at all times throughout the experiment.

How Science Works: SURVEYS & SELF-REPORTS

Edexcel Psychology: Unit 1

Types of DataQuantitative DataNumber data, likert-type scales, scores and tallies. Easy to analyse – no meaningLess valid – individual interpretation needed

Qualitative DataThoughts and feelings, written word, elaborated

opinions. Describing meaning: difficult to analyse (content

analysis)More valid – no interpretation needed

Surveys

Questionnaires (written)• Open Questions = Qualitative Data

• Closed Questions = Quantitative Data

– Fixed Choice (yes / no)

– Rating Scales (Likert-type Scales)

Interviews (spoken)• Structured – a spoken questionnaire.

• Unstructured Interviews – scaffolding but freedom to

diverge.

Survey TypesHand Out (Q)

Face-to-face (I)Phone (I)

Email / Internet (Q)Postal (Q)

Issues to Consider (AO2)• Social Desirability: answering in a way you think

you should do as a result of people or assumptions

about those around you.

• Response Rates: who will respond? Why?

• Poor Questions: leading questions / ambiguous

questions.

• Reliability – how consistent are the findings?

• Validity – does the question measure what is claims to measure?

Split-Half Method

Improve Check

ReliabilityClosed

Questions(less ambiguous)

Split-Half Method or Replicate

ValidityOpen

Questions(no interpretation

needed)

Conduct an Observation

Reliability and Validity in Self-Reports / Survey Method