As Psychology Notes - Caienotesofficial.pdf informative notes for AS students

Very informative notes on AS psychology

1. RESEARCH METHODS
EXPERIMENTS
Is an objective, scientific procedure used to makea discovery, run and test a hypothesis and to
present a known fact - to check validity.
An investigation that is conducted to establish aprimary cause and effect relationship is called
an experiment.
By finding out the cause and effect relationship,the experiment may be designed to manipulate,
isolate and maneuver certain variables to achievea desired aim of the study. These variables
are known as the IV and DV.
IV -Has a causal effect on the DV - meaning the IVis the variable that researchers
systematically use, manipulate and control and theDV is the variable which bears the effect and
thus is measured by the experimenter.
Confounding Variable- Has an unintentional and undeterminedeffect on the DV (talent /
interest / ability / personality of participant).
Extraneous Variable- Could affect the DV but is ita variable that can be controlled by the
experimenter (diet / sleep routine).
Demand characteristics- features of the experimentalsituation which give away the aims
causing participants to change their behaviour. Reducesvalidity.
Random Allocation- A way to reduce the effect ofconfounding variables by such as individual
differences. Participants are put in each level ofthe IV such that each person has an equal
chance of being in any condition.
Participant Variables- Individual differences betweenparticipants that could affect their
behaviour in a study. They could hide or exaggeratedifferences.
Order Effects:Practice and Fatigue effects are theconsequences of participating in a study
more than once. They cause changes in performancebetween conditions that are not due to
the IV.
Practice Effect -A situation where participants’performance improves because they
experience the experimental task more than once andgain familiarity.
Fatigue Effect- A situation where participants’ performancedeclines because they have
experienced an experimental task more than once. Ex;due to boredom or tiredness.
counterbalancing- used to overcome order effectsin a repeated measures design. ABBA
design.
Standardization- keeping the procedure for everyparticipant exactly the same to ensure that
any differences between participants or conditionsare due to the variables under the
investigation.
Reliability- extent to which a procedure would producethe same results with the same people
on each occasion. The consistency of a research.

2. Validity -the extent to which the researcher is testing what they claim to be testing.
Generalise- apply the findings of a study to a widersetting / population.
Ecological validity- extent to which the findingsof research in one situation would generalize
to other situations. Influenced by whether the situationrepresents the real world effectively and
has mundane realism.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
How participants in the study are assigned to differentsettings, environments and scenarios in
an experiment.
Repeated Measures Design:
Uses the same group of participants in different conditionsand scenarios repeatedly.
Strengths:
Less chances of participant variables, as each participantexperiences all levels of the IV.
Therefore, it is less likely to misinterpret the effectsof the IV on the DV.
Fewer people needed to conduct the experiment, henceit is quicker and may warrant faster
results in a study with less logistical issues.
Weaknesses:
Order effects are likely to follow (the effects ofan experimental order design which may distort
results and reduce validity)
Participants may exhibit demand characteristics asthey are familiarized with the objective of the
study.
Independent Groups Design:
Taking the group of participants, randomly dividingthem into different factions and then making
them go through conditions so that each participantmay only be in one condition and thus have
limited exposure to the aim of the study.
Involves using 2 separate groups of participants;one in each condition.
Strengths:
Different participants are used in each level of theexperiment (IV) so less order effects are to be
expected.
Less demand characteristics as they do not experienceor witness all levels of the IV
Difference in results will be detected quickly.
Weaknesses:
The results may be altered based upon the factor ofparticipant variable, given that there may
be significant individual differences on each respectivelevel of the IV.
More participants are needed to use this experimentaldesign and thus may be more expensive
and time-consuming.
Matched Pair Design:
Categorizes participants based on similar characteristicssuch as age, gender, ethnicity, IQ, etc.
into pairs and then randomly assigning them to thedifferent conditions. One member of each
pair must be randomly assigned to the experimentalgroup and the other to the control group.
Each condition uses different participants but theyare matched in terms of similar variables.

3. Strengths:
Participants are exposed to only 1 level of the IV,hence there are reduced demand
characteristics.
Less participant variables because experimenter hasattempted to pair up the participants so
that each condition has people with similar abilitiesand characteristics.
Reduced order effects.
Weaknesses:
It is extremely risky in the sense that the loss of1 participant will warrant the loss of 2
participant’s data.
Very time consuming
Has the chance to distort results unless a reliableand validated matching criteria is established
as having the same similarities is very difficultand rare.
Small sample size and thus not generalizable for thelarger context.
TYPES OF EXPERIMENTS
Laboratory
Experimental procedures are mainly conducted in artificialcontrolled settings. Controls are
applied to administer and operationalize effectivemeasurements and variables. Participants are
tested under strict conditions, set up by the examiner.
Strengths:
High controls - More controls on extraneous variablesfrom affecting the DV. Standardized
procedures - more reliable.
When variables are controlled and monitored, we canfind out the cause and effect relationship
faster and easier.
This improves validity (accuracy and authenticityof research)
Weaknesses:
High controls means low ecological validity.
Participants might get an idea of the aim and thesetting might make the results prone to
demand characteristics.
Low ecological validity also limits generalizabilityof the outcomes to a real-life context.
This makes the findings prone to researcher bias (aconfounding variable).
Poor external validity
Field Experiments
Take place in a natural environment (real-life setting)for the behaviour being studied. Influence
of extraneous variables cannot be as strictly controlled.But the researcher manipulates
something (IV) to see the effect of this on the DV.
Strengths:
High ecological validity as it is more reflectiveof the participant’s behaviour in real life situations.
Participants may be unaware of the aim or the objectiveof the study - having less exposure to
the IV there is an immunity to demand characteristics.
High in generalizability and representativeness.
Weaknesses:
Harder to control variables in the study, difficultto standardize and thus replicate.

4. This may threaten credibility
If certain controls are not established, vital informationmay be missed out depending on the
scope of the experiments.
Human errors in researching are highly probably -difficult to account for.
May raise ethical issues of consent as participantsare unaware of them being studied.
Natural Experiments
Is conducted in the participant’s natural everydaylife setting where they are unaware that they
are being researched making it a covert observation.
Experiments have no control over the moniropring ormanipulation of variables or the levels of
the IV. They happen, change and occur by themselvesand so do the differences and variations
in the experiment. IV is naturally occurring and researcherscannot assess, operationalise or
control the variables.
Strengths:
Extremely high ecological validity and representativenessas participants are exhibiting the most
natural of their behaviour patterns.
Less prone to demand characteristics as it is a covertobservation.
Can be used to investigate variables that are notpractical or ethical to manipulate.
Can be used to study real life world issues.
Weaknesses:
Being unable to randomly allocate participants toconditions means that sample bias may be an
issue. A casual IV-DV effect is unlikely.
Ethical issues (lack of informed consent and deceptionis often required)
Less prospects of standardizing or controlling procedureswhich may add confounding
variables, which may add confounding variables, alteringthe results of the experiment.
Low validity as it is not replicable due to researcher’slack of control, procedure cannot be
repeated so reliability of results cannot be checked.
Possible more time consuming than labs or fields
There is no control over the variables.
OVERT OBSERVATION
Participants can be promptly asked for their informedconsent. However, to lessen the
probability of demand characteristics / hide aim ofresearch, the participants may possibly be
deceived. It is important that after the experimenthas concluded, they must be debriefed.
In natural / field experiments, because the observationis covert, it is highly unlikely that the
participants are aware of the situation taking place.The ethical issue arises when considering
the withdrawal rights in a covert scenario.
Because they don't know the implications of the effectsof the procedure in the experiment they
will also not know when to withdraw and backout inorder to protect themselves from plausible
physiological and psychological harm.
To maintain objective integrity of the experiment,privacy and confidentiality is a necessity in the
cases. In lab experiments, confidentiality can berespected as if there are interviews and
questionnaires they are most probably pre-plannedand set carefully with the prospect in mind.

5. However, the invasion of privacy is a risk when consideringfield or natural experiments, as they
are usually covert but are in the daily, personalspaces of the participants’ lives.
Confidentiality however, can be respected in all theexperiments by keeping their participation
(via names and other identity details) anonymous.The prospect of them having any trace or link
to the study in the future, which might reveal sensitiveinformation such as their workplace,
home or name - risking compromising classified participation(confidentiality) must also be taken
care of when designing a study.
Informed Consent
Deception and Debriefing
Withdrawal rights
Protection from harm (physical and psychological)
Confidentiality
Privacy
SELF REPORTS
How the participants dispense information about themselvesto the researcher directly. Involves
informed consent as the participant knows he's ina study.
QUESTIONNAIRES
Questions are presented to the participant in a writtenformat either online or on paper.
Closed ended - Have a fixed and predetermined responseset such as ‘Yes/No’. Take the form
of simple choices or ones that are specific to sectorinformation.
Open ended - ask for descriptive qualitative responsesthat are individual to the participants
themselves. Naturally contain more in depth qualitywhich aid in exploring reasons behind a
particular action or response. Keyword; ‘Why…’ ‘Describe…’
If more than 1 researcher is involved, there may bedifferences between them. - Inter-rater
reliability.
Rating scales -psychometric measurement tool to assessand quantify variables. Easier to
assess statistically and improves chances of organizing.
Advantages:
Quick / easy
Provides quantitative data - easier to analyse / organizedata
Easier to summarize / distribute data
Privacy is respected as it's anonymous. Reduces socialdesirability bias - increases validity
It is replicable
Disadvantages:
Participants may respond to demand characteristicsthreatening validity.
Data provided is not qualitative and not in depth- vague
Gives a limited perspective of research
No guarantee they're not lying - social desirabilitybias

6. Interrater reliability -The extent to which the waythe 2 researchers interpreting the qualitative
responses will produce the same records from the sameraw data.
Filler Questions - items put into a questionnaireor test to disguise the aim of the study by hiding
important questions among them.
INTERVIEWS
Face to face research method using verbal questions.
Question and answer sessions are followed and responsesare noted. Allow a far more
collection of qualitative data.
Structured Interview- Questions asked are commonandsame among all participants with the
order of them being fixed. There may even be specificinstructions for the researcher i.e body
language (relaxed or strict) / dress code and overalldemeanour - depending on the kinds of
responses they might want to prompt.
Questions are all standardized.
Unstructured interview- Has no limitations, no standardisation.Questions are not in a
predetermined format. They are flexible accordingto what the participant says and thus
questions may be different for each participant. Ithowever, may be hard to collect and
categorize and harder to compare.
Semi-structured Interview- Contains a mix of fixedquestions and improvisational ones.
Comparisons can be made and average can be calculated.Also allows researchers to develop
ideas and explore issues. Can gather more clarityabout a certain topic. Edits are thus possible
and allow researchers to explore underlying issuesto make correlations / causal relations.
Advantages of self reports:
Participants are given the chance to express a widerange of feelings, thoughts and then explain
them. Data is rich - detailed (qualitative)
Data is numeric (quantitative) - easier to analyseand statistically relevant.
A large sample can be dealt with quickly and efficientlyas a large audience can be reached.
Increasing representativeness and generalisability.
Easy to replicate - reliable. They are likely to beadministered in a consistent way.
Disadvantages:
Closed questions often limit the range of expressionof a participant which may miss out vital
information.
Participants may provide socially desirable responses(demand characteristics may surface) if
they are aware of the objectives of the research.
There are high chances of validity being low as alimited range of response sets might not
reflect a participant’s actual viewpoint and theymay be compelled to answer differently.
Open ended can be time consuming to analyse.
Withdrawal is common

7. Researchers must be careful not to be subjective. They should aim for objectivity. Responses to
open questions may be interpreted differently by theresearchers - may differ in opinion.
Subjectivity- personal viewpoint which may be biasedby one's feelings, beliefs and
experiences. So may differ between individuals.
Objectivity - An unbiased external viewpoint thatis not affected by an individual’s feelings.
CASE STUDIES
A detailed investigation which goes on for a certainextended period of time which focuses on
one subject. It is however not exclusive to one person– it may be an organization, a family, etc.
They involve a ‘longitudinal research’ which oftenused in therapies, includes a non-constricted
time-limit meaning it can go on for months and insome cases even years, which then develops
the study based on that particular subject which isbeing used to study a particular behaviour. It
is however not solely used for therapeutic purposes.
Detailed and in depth data gathered via differenttechniques. Useful for following developmental
changes.
Advantages:
Situations where it is logistically difficult or impossibleto have a large participant sample – case
studies are ideal In those situations that allow behavioursto be studied in great detail.
Longitudinal study results in the collection of bothquantitative data and qualitative data (rich and
detailed), which may measure and quantify developingbehaviours. Should all lead to similar
conclusions.
Sample may be self-selecting so this frees the researcherup from ethical considerations such
as informed consent, privacy and confidentiality.
Ecological validity is usually quite high, as thebehaviour that is being studied is a part of
everyday life.
Disadvantages:
Case studies very rarely produce quantitative datasufficient enough for statistical analysis –
which brings in the argument of this being a merecollection of anecdotal evidence (evidence
that is collected without strict controls or support,in a casual manner which is reliant heavily on
personal testimony.)
Level of detail may be invading a person’s privatelife. Hard to disguise their identity risk bearing
the guideline of confidentiality.
These often require a quite intense and intimate relationshipbetween the participant and the
researcher and thus the problem of objectivity arises.They may develop opinions that directly
influence results gathered as they might be emotionallyinvolved.
Conclusive decisions cannot be made as it only includesvery few or one participant.
Non-generalizable.
Because the participant is unique, this might makeresearchers proceed with invalid procedures
and may draw false conclusions, making assumptionson lackluster grounds of evidence. Hard

8. to draw valid assumptions and unbiased findings as the study is only valid for the researcher.
Cannot be replicated. Findings may be limited to onlythis one case.
OBSERVATIONS
Observations are the procedure of watching and thenconsequently recording and documenting
the behaviour of the human or animal participants.
Can be done in 2 standard ways;
1.Naturalistic observation - conducted in the participants’normal atmosphere without any
interference from the researcher (who are observing)them in their usual physical and
natural environment.
2.Controlled observation - conducted in an environmentthat has been manipulated by the
researcher. (lab or field)
If one considers the whole spectrum of possible behavioursit is a possibility that observations
may be non-focused – if this lack of strict controlscontinues then it is deemed an unstructured
observation.
Unstructured - observer records the whole range ofpossible behaviors, which is usually
confined to an pilot study stage at the beginningof a study to refine the behavioural categories
to be observed.
Advantage:
Ensures that any important information or behaviouris recognised but it may be very difficult to
record all the activities accurately and many maybe irrelevant.
Likely that a structured will produce more reliabledata.
A structured observation however is designed to concentrateon a specific set and range of
behaviours, record them and then proceed to categorizethem. This also helps for the testing
and verification of the study’s reliability via atechnique called inter-rater reliability (the
consensus of 2 or more experimenters to verify thevalidity of the study by judging on the
degree of agreement in their respective research resultsvia the same, common methods.)
Behavioural categories must be observable actionsand operationalised. This helps the
observers to be consistent i.e improves inter-observerreliability.
Inter-observer reliability- the consistency between2 researchers watching the same event
and whether they will produce the same records.
Observations are often also conducted in social settings,either participant or non participant.
A participant observation- A researcher who watchesfrom the perspective of being part of
the social setting. They are part of the situation/ setting.
Non participant observation - A researcher who doesnot become involved in the situation being
studied. Ex; by watching through 1 way glass or bykeeping apart from the social group of the
participants.
Observers often variate their stance as:
Overt observers- role of the observer is obviousto the participants. Observers are openly
watching and documenting the participant behaviourwith the participant knowing they are being
studied.
Strengths:

9. Does not raise ethical issues
Is practical and thus can be conducted over an extendedperiod of time.
The researcher can make notes and record details openlywithout having to rely on memory as
they don't have to worry about blowing their cover.
Researchers can ask a number of questions using differentmethods.
Weaknesses:
A very high risk of demand characteristics which lowersvalidity as activity recorded is less likely
to reflect real-world behaviour.
High risk of incurring socially desirable responsesfrom the participants.
Results may not always be representative - questioningthe credibility of research
Covert observers- role of the observer is not obviousas it is ‘undercover’ / hidden or
disguised.
Strengths:
Increases validity - less or no exposure to the aimso no demand characteristics
Reduced effects of social desirability
Data can be better controlled as researchers can digdeeper and assess more in their natural
state of behaviour.
High rate of inter-rater reliability as 2 observersmay be simultaneously observing.
Weaknesses:
Raises ethical issues such as informed consent / deception/ privacy
Patients may feel distressed at the violation of theirprivacy
The legality of this is often questioned
There is risk of identity being revealed which woulddiscredit the whole operation and leaves the
researcher in constant stress. Data recorded may lackvalidity as it is based off of memory
Hard to sustain or conduct over time. Participantsmay interact with researchers in ways they
wouldn't want to if they knew what the real purposewas.
Advantages of observations:
The observed behavior is natural, authentic as theyare unaware – this increases ecological
validity.
The data collected is often quantitative though structuredcontrols which have clearly defined
categories is on terms with being objective and statisticallycomprehendible via analysis.
Chances gathering extremely rich data is very highif the observation is unstructured.
If participants are unaware, risk of inducing demandcharacteristics is improbable which
increases validity.
Disadvantages of observations:
The participant cannot explain or elaborate for thecause of them behaving a certain way as it is
a subjective approach (which when asked might exposethe aim of the research).
Observations may not be reliable due to natural andlogistical issues such as view obstruction,
missing out on details, relying on memory etc.
Naturalistic observations make it hard for controlsto be established and this in turn, makes it
harder to control confounding variables – making itdifficult to formulate a cause-and-effect
relationship.
Difficulty in replication.

10. Various ethical issues arise – deception, lack of informed consent as people are being observed
without their permission.
CORRELATIONS
Technique used to investigate a link between 2 measuredvariables.
Useful when it is possible only to measure variablesrather than manipulate them.
If and any link is found between two variables ina correlation cannot be assumed to be a causal
relationship. We cannot assume that one variable isthe reason that there is change in another
variable.
In order to look for or establish a correlation betweentwo variables, each variable must exist
over a range/spectrum and it must be possible to measurethem numerically. To collect data and
information for correlations all of the above mentionedresearch methods are used (self-reports,
observations, etc.)
It is important to note that before assuming thatone correlation is the cause of increase in a
variable which in turn has caused an increase in theother variable – there are other factor
factors that might respectively cause changes in bothvariables.
All that is possible to be established is that thetwo variables that exist in a relationship vary
together, not that there exists a causal relationshipbetween them, as it even may coincidental.
As a result, in a correlation there are ‘measuredvariables’ or ‘co-variables’ rather than
dependent and independent variables.
The relationship’s nature between the two variablesin a correlation can be described in terms of
its directions – positive or negative.
In apositive correlation, the two variables presentincrease together, in the same direction, so
higher values on one variable consequently correspondwith higher values on the other (directly
proportional). For example, a positive correlationwould be between exposure to aggressive
models and violent behavior – greater exposure toaggressive models would result in increased
violent behavior (as witnessed in Bandura et al.’sstudy).
In anegative correlation, the two variables presentincrease and decrease together
consequently (inversely proportional). Higher valueson one variable consequently correspond
with lower values on the other. For example, a negativecorrelation might exist between
‘Obesity’ and ‘Low income’ – with higher levels ofobesity being observed with lower levels of
income, given low-quality food with next to zero nutritionalvalue is often cheap such as fast
food, candy, etc.
Correlation Coefficient
Is a number between -1 and +1 that states how stronga correlation is. If it is close to 0 then
there is very little connection between the 2 variablesat all.
If it is approaching +1 there is a positive correlationaka the variables are directly proportional,
with the both of them increasing as a consequenceof one’s increment. (or decrement).
If it is approaching -1 then there is a negative correlationaka the variables are inversely
proportional, with the both of increasing/decreasingas a consequence of the other
decreasing/increasing.
Evaluation:

11. A correlational study can only be effective/valid if the measures of both variables test real
occurrences. For this, the variables must be clearlywell-defined and relate directly to the
relationship that is being investigated.
The reliability of the correlation is dependent onthe consistency of the variables. For some
correlations, such as those which utilize scientificscales – the measures will be high in reliability
(as they can be tested again and results will be objective).
For other cases, in which variables were measuredusing techniques such as self-reports or
observations, there is the plausible risk that reliabilitywill be lower (as it will be difficult to
replicate and results will be subjective).
They are useful because they facilitate researchersto explore and then navigate problems
(hypothetically) when it is not practically or ethicallypossible to conduct experiments.
Advantages:
The main strength of a correlation is that it canprovide precise information about the degree of
a relationship’s variables.
• Study behavior that is otherwise difficult/impossibleto study.
• Collect quantitative data for statistical analysiswhich will help in determining whether the data
supports the study or not.
Disadvantage:
The main weakness of a correlation is that it is inconclusivei.e. it cannot show cause-and-effect
(which variables control which).
• No control over other influencing factors and variables.
Correlation does not mean Causation
RESEARCH PROCESSES
AIMS:
Tells us the purpose of the investigation. Help explainthe reasons why a particular hypothesis is
being investigated. Expresses what the study intendsto show.
In a correlation, the aim is to investigate the linkbetween 2 measured variables.
HYPOTHESIS:
Is a ‘testable’ statement that is used to make theresearch more precise / exact. Predicts a
difference between levels of the IV or a correlation.
Ideally provides more detail about the variables beinginvestigated and should be ‘falsifiable’ as
it is ‘tested’.
Alternative Hypothesis is the main hypothesis whichcan be written in many different ways. They
differ in the nature of prediction.
Types of Hypothesis:
Non-Directional Hypothesis (2 tailed hypothesis):
Used to determine the change in the IV and DV - itdoes however not indicate the direction
change i.e whether or not the effect results in anincrease or decrease.
Predicts that there will be a change but not the directionof that effect.
IV will change the DV but not whether the effect willbe an increase or decrease. Predicts that
there will be a relationship between the 2 measuredvariables.
This type of hypothesis is usually chosen if the effectof a certain variable is being used for the
first time, there is therefore no previous evidenceto suggest what the results might be.

12. Directional Hypothesis (one tailed hypothesis):
When ‘previous evidence’ or ‘previous research’ suggeststhe direction of an effect (of the IV’s
on the DV), it is then when a Directional hypothesisis used. This is also known as the
‘one-tailed’ hypothesis.
In an experiment it means saying which condition willbe best (produces the highest score).
In a correlational study whether there will be a negativeor positive effect.
It is important to remember that your hypothesis shouldnot say that one factor instigates a
change in the other.
Null Hypothesis:
In an experiment, this states that any differencein the DV between the levels of the IV is so
small that it is likely to have arisen by chance.The difference between the DV and IV is so
insignificant it is probably a coincidence. Predictscenarios of pure chance.
You always have to state both of the levels of theIV and DV. Correlational study predicts no
relationship.
DEFINING, MANIPULATING AND CONTROLLING VARIABLES
Variables are factors that change or can be changed.In experiments these are the IV and DV as
well as any extraneous variables that are or are notcontrolled.
Experiments look for changes and variations in theDV between two or more than two, levels of
the IV which are put down by the experimenter/researcher.
The essential aspect is for the IV to be concretelydefined or better, operationalized so that the
manipulation of the conditions, project the intendedeffects.
To make it clear:
Variables are factors that are prone to change orcan be changed and moulded.
Operationalizing: Involves defining each variableof interest in terms of the operationalization in
terms of the operations taken to ‘measure’ it. Thisallows vague components to be empirically
measured and observed.
DV must also be operationalised so we can measureit effectively.
In order to be sure about their research’s findings,variables need to be controlled. Specifically,
in experiments whereextraneous variablesare likelyto disrupt and complicate the results and
distort them for interpretation.
Confounding Variables, can either work against thereaction of the IV or in favour by
increasing the intended/expected outcome of the IVbecause they selectively act on DVs. Thus,
they serve as a “consequential effect” of the IV andyou are left with no chance of knowing what
caused the change. They confuse the results.

13. Extraneous Variables which randomly affect all levels of the IV aren’t so problematic. The
difficult part is to identify and select which variablesto manage before the experiment launches.
It is however. Also, important to note how if extraneousvariables are not recognized and
acknowledged beforehand, they become uncontrollablevariables, which would make the results
difficult to be construed as it would be difficultto distinguish the reactions/effects of the IV from
those of other variables that affect the DV.
Standardisation:
There are controls present that ensure that IVs representwhat they are designed to I.e the
differences between them will produce the intendedscenarios to examine the hypothesis –
ensuring validity and reliability. This enables everyparticipant in the study to be treated equally
so that no participant variable arises. This is calledstandardization.
This is achieved by having a unified, standardizedset of instructions, that provide the same
instructions to every participant involved in thestudy. For instance, a 10-question questionnaire
which asks about people’s dietary habits – all theparticipants should be told how to answer it
only strictly regarding their food patterns, so ifany social desirability is there, it should be equal.
Procedures also need to be strictly standardized -this involves having equipment, tests and
designs that are consistent, measuring the same variableevery time and always do so in the
exact, identical way. Assess the questionnaire aboutpeople’s dietary habits again. They should
again focus on strictly people’s food consumptionpatterns rather than why food patterns are like
that. It is related but not necessary to the context.
In laboratory experiments, standardization is easierbecause variables such as equipment are
better and more easily controlled. An example ofthis would be the stopwatch which is used to
regulate time intervals in the experiment or FMRIBrain scans which is an objective measure.
They do however also have to be performed in a standardizedmanner for them to be
interpreted. The controls used should be appropriatedand be taught how to implement.
Situational Variable- A confounding variable causedby an aspect of the environment
Control - A way to keep a potential extraneous variableconstant

14. SAMPLING OF PARTICIPANTS
A population is a group of people (or animals) withone or more characteristics in common. A
population of people can also be defined as peoplewho share certain interests or have a
common feature. The sample of that population is whatis recruited in a research.
Sample- is a group of people who participate in astudy.
They are taken from the population and should be ideallyrepresentative of that group so that
findings are generalisable.
Target population of the study should also be recognizedearly on so that the sample the
researcher chooses should be relevant and representative.
Important things to consider when sampling:
• Sample details such as age, ethnicity, gender.They are basic essentials that should always
be considered.
• Sample details such as socio-economic standing,employment, education, occupation,
geographical location.
• Sample size. (Should be balanced in terms of beingrepresentative)
• Small samples usually are less reliable and lessrepresentative and thus generally less valid
to the clause of research.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUES:
Opportunity Sample- involves the researcher approachingpeople who are easy to find and
easily available, such as students who are studyingmathematics in the same university
department. They are chosen because they are available.
Advantages:
It is relatively quick and easy to recruit participants.A large, It is convenient for the researcher
and the participant as in some cases – there are alsoincentives.
Representative samples can be obtained without a lotof effort.
Disadvantages:
Participants in the study are unlikely to be actuallyrepresentative of the target population in the
sense that it could be biased (if they’re paid orgiven credits to), when the researcher chooses
the sample.
Volunteer Sampling (Self Selecting) -This usuallyrevolves around researcher and
experimenters advertising for participants. An advertcould usually appear in a newspaper or on
notice boards, online too. The people who reply are‘self-selecting’ - that is they willingly
volunteer themselves for the research. Sometimes volunteersare not given incentives at all,
neither credentialled nor paid, often they are givena small amount of both or one of the other
Those who reply to the notices become the sample.
Advantages:
They are useful when the research requires participantsthat are specific to the needs of the
experiment. They are likely to be committed.
Recruiting participants is easier because the advertcan easily be placed in print media, social
media and digital media which has a large enough reach.
It is less time-consuming.
Disadvantages:

15. This is expensive (adverts in the media would cost a lot of capital investment) and in some
cases it would take even more effort to convince theparticipant to be in the study.
People may not see the advert, they might ignore it,they might not reply even after seeing it.
Extraneous variables such as the actual eligibilitycriteria of the participants being different from
what’s actually required.
No way to assure the representativeness of the targetpopulation. People who respond may be
similar (have free time).
Plausible demand characteristics and social desirabilityis risked to effect as the findings in the
case where an incentive is involved when they volunteer.

16. Random Sampling:
Each participant is given the equal chance of beingselected from the target population. If the
target population is ‘factory workers’ and there are800 of them – the only way to actually
randomly select the sample is to put all 800 namestogether and pick out the first 20, 30 names
(depending on the required sample size of the study).May be allocated numbers and selected
in an unbiased way.
Advantages:
They are more likely to be representative than opportunityor self-selecting samples as the
clause for bias does not exist as the selection isup to chance, random.
It is efficient if a certain demographic is to bestudied and out of that lot the participants are
selected at random.
Disadvantages:
It is however often time-consuming when a large targetpopulation is considered. If for example
not all names of the potential participant pool, itwould be difficult to conduct a random sample.
The chance of equal opportunity in the random selectionprocess is often too idealistic in the
sense that not everybody might be inclined to fullyparticipate. It is possible for them to leave
and then for the researcher to recruit and replacea new participant.
This might bias the sample.
DATA AND ANALYSIS
Psychological research often requires a numericaland quantitative organization of results that
they get from their findings – the results in questionare called ‘raw data’. To categorize large
findings in these scenarios, it is often mathematicallysimplified and visually represented via
graphs.
The numerical results collected by psychologists isknown as‘quantitative data’,the data
which is detailed and descriptive is called‘qualitativedata’. Quantitative data indicates the
quantity of the psychological measure I.e. the strengthor amount of a response and tends to be
measured on scales, such as time, or as numeric scoreon tests such as Personality, IQ and
T-maze tests.
Quantitative data is associated with experiments andcorrelations which use numeric scales but
it is also possible to collect quantitative data fromobservations and interviews.
Advantages:
It usually uses objective measures and scales.
They are reliable (can be tested repeatedly) aka replicated.
Quicker to analyse statistically when there are largevolumes of data involved – in terms of
statistical comparison.
Disadvantages:
This method of data collection often limits responsesso there is an aspect of the findings being
less valid and less representative. No explanationof ‘why’.
Large samples are needed for the findings to be generalizable.
Qualitative is a descriptive in depth result indicatingthe quality of the psychological
characteristic.
Advantages:
Data is often valid because it is descriptive anddetailed, not limited by fixed choices.
Can often help researchers control certain variablesby making them aware of it (eg. Childhood,
family) allowing them to estimate cause and effects.
Data is more in-depth which inhibits a deeper understandingof the study.
Important responses are less likely to be ignoredbecause of averaging.

17. Disadvantages:
It is subjective to the studies/experiments, and cannotbe usually generalized for the larger
context.
Data may have bias – of both the participant and researcher.This may render data invalid.
Difficult to statistically analyse and comprehend.
Difficult to replicate without strict standardizationand thus low reliability.
DATA ANALYSIS
Measures of Central Tendency:
A set of quantitative results can be summarised downto one number that represents the middle
score and an aggregate – this is known as measuresof central tendency or average.
3 different measures:
Mode- frequently repeated score, number in a dataset. There can be more than 2 modes. It is
unaffected by extreme scores and it is useful to observerepetitive behavioural patterns.
Limitations of using this measure is that it offersno insight about the other scores, it isn’t very
‘central’, it is also very fluctuating from one sampleto another.
Median- is only used with numerical data on a linearscale. To find the median, all the scores in
the data set are put in a list from smallest to thelargest. The middle one in the list is called the
‘median’. To configure this, all scores are arrangedfrom ascending order – the middle number in
this is the median value. If there are an even numberof participants, in which case there are two
numbers in the middle, these are added together andthen divide by 2.
In essence, the median value is the halfway pointthat separates the lower quartile from the
upper quartile. It is unaffected by extremes, in thesense that there is no distortion of results. It
however can be misleading when there are only a fewscores and doesn’t take into account
most of them.
Mean- The mean is the measure of central tendencythat we usually call the ‘average’. It can
only be used with numerical data from linear scales.The mean is worked out by adding up all
the scores in the data set and dividing them by thetotal number of scores. It is the most
thorough and informative measure of central tendencyas it takes into account all scores. There
is however the probability of it giving a distortedresult if there are any anomalous scores.
It is done by adding up all the values to find a total,dividing the value by the number of values
added together that were present.
MEASURES OF SPREAD
This indicates how far spread, dispersed and varieddata is within a set. If two data sets are the
same size, with the same mean, they could still varyin terms of how close the majority of data
points were to that average. Differences such as thisare described by measures of spread: the
range and the standard deviation.
Range - To calculate:
1. Find the largest and smallest value in the setof data.
2. Subtract the smallest value from the largest valueand add 1.
Conventionally, the addition of 1 is not done. Inpsychological research this is done so that we
measure the gaps between points, not the points themselves.

18. Standard Deviation - takes into account the difference between each data point and the mean –
this is known as deviation from the standard.
As the standard deviation tells us the spread of agroup, groups with scores that are more
widely dispersed have a larger standard deviation.When the standard deviations of two groups
are similar, this indicates they have a similar variationaround the mean/average.
Graphs - This is used to visually illustrate data,with a variety of them for different purposes. The
ones being included in our syllabus being Bar charts,Histograms and scatter graphs.
Bar Charts -used when data is in separate categoriesrather than a continuous scale. Bar charts
are therefore used for the totals of data collectedin named categories and for all measures of
central tendency.
Histograms - useful to show the pattern in the wholedata set, where the data is continuous in
which case the data is being measured on a scale ratherthan distinct categories. A histogram
may be used to illustrate the distribution of a setof scores.
Scatter Graphs - The results which are collected froma correlational study are presented on a
scatter graph. To construct a scatter graph, a dotis marked at a point where the participant’s
score on each variable cross, there is also the ‘lineof best fit’ reoccurring on a scatter graph.
The position of this line is calculated and its lineis drawn so that it comes close to as many
‘points’ as possible. In the case of a strong correlation,all the data points lie near/close to the
line whereas in a weak correlation’ its vice versa– they are more spread out. When there is no
correlation, a concrete line is not formed.
Normal Distribution Curve - bell shaped is symmetricaland is even spread.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Experiments and studies conducted using humans oranimals have the potential to cause
concerns about the welfare of the participants – theseare called ethical issues. There are
certain problems that may arise when the nature ofthe study is put into context – such as
psychological discomfort, harm, stress, the procedure’snature, the need to lie to hide the aim of
the study. Ethical issues may also arise from theimplications of their research, for example the
possibility of results having a negative impact onthe society.
To regulate these concerns, organizations and councilbodies exist which produce a code of
conduct, with rules such as approval charters fromthe governing bodies (such as universities)
and guidelines that help experimenters work in waythat do not violate the ethics code as it
instructs limitations and concerns of the welfareof the individuals involved in the study.
This is important because if participants take awaya negative perception and experience from
their participation it will negatively impact thewhole psychological community which in turn will
lose credibility.
ETHICAL GUIDELINES RELATED TO HUMAN PARTICIPANTS:
Informed Consent -
In order to reduce or negate the variable of demandcharacteristics, social desirability and
validity of the study it is important to hide theaim of the study. It is however important for them
to know what is in the study so they can provide theirinformed consent.

19. Ideally, informed consent should be obtained from participants before the study commences, not
by revealing the aim of the study but by providingthem with enough sufficient information so
that they may decide whether or not to participatein the study. However, in the cases of
naturalistic observations and field experiments itis not possible for informed consent to be
taken. This is where ‘presumptive consent’ comes in.This means the researchers might ask a
group similar to the target population (sharing similartraits) whether they would find the study
acceptable or not so a relevant result is acquired,thinking that the target population may also
would have agreed.
Protection
A study may have the potential to cause psychologicaldiscomfort, stress and harm to the
participants involved (for eg. Milgram et al.). Insituations like those it is imperative that
participants should be protected, should not be putat higher risks and steps should thus be
taken to eliminate the risk altogether. It is alsoa preventive measure that the study being
conducted should be stopped if unexpected risks arise.
Right to Withdraw
Participants are also given the right to withdrawand it must be made clear to participants at the
start of the study. Although participants can be offeredincentives to join a research, these
cannot be retracted away if they wish to leave forvalid reasons. Researchers cannot abuse
their position of authority, forcing a participantto stay if they don’t want to. Participants and
Researchers should both be aware of this.
Deception
If possible, they (participants) should not be deliberatelymisinformed. When it is absolutely
essential to do so – they should be apologized anddebriefed instantly. They should also be
allowed to remove their results if they wish to.
Confidentiality
All the data that is collected and stored should compriseseparately from the participants’
personal information – age, name, gender, ethnicity,occupation. This information must not be
shared with any other 3rd party – this would be abreach of confidentiality. Ideally, to ensure
confidentiality the personal details of the participantshould be destroyed so that any breach is
impossible. If by any chance, there is a need to initiatecontact with the participant again or to
pair up an individual’s score in each condition insay, a repeated measures design – a serial
number can be allotted to the participant(s) to identifythem.
Privacy
Research methods such as self-reports and observationswhich ask personal questions in a
study risks invading privacy. This means invadingpersonal space or an emotional territory that
the individuals do not want to share. They can makethis clear, setting boundaries with the
researcher. In the case of a questionnaire, participantsshould be allotted personal space. In
observations, people should only be observed/watchedwhere the participants would usually
expect to be observed. Their information can be publishedonly when the participant themselves
grants them permission via informed consent or hyper-exceptionalcircumstances where the
safety and lives of the participant or others areat stake.
Debriefing
It is done by thanking participants who have beenin a study, apologized to when deceived and
they are provided the chance to ask questions. Theyare also informed of the full aim of the

20. study and ensure that they do not want to withdraw their data. It is however, important to
understand how debriefing does not serve as a clauseto designing an unethical procedure or
experiment, thus it is important for the researchersto consider minimizing ‘collateral damage’
and distress to the participants, in any case.
ETHICAL GUIDELINES RELATED TO USE OF ANIMALS
Animals are frequently used in psychological researchfor a number of different reasons as
suggested by psychologists – they are convenient models,a way to execute procedures that
could not be possible (because of ethical considerations)and because of redundancy. This is
why research is conducted on animals but their welfareneeds safeguarding.
Animals are also often protected by law but theseguidelines specifically consider the effects of
research in which animals may be caged/confined, harmed,in pain or stressed – this suffering
should be minimized. Veterinary help/advice shouldbe sought in case where needed.
REPLACEMENT
Researchers should consider replacing actual animalexperiments with alternatives such as
videos from previously conducted studies or computersimulations.
SPECIES AND STRAIN
The chosen species and strain should be the one thatis least likely to go through distress or
pain. Other relevant and important factors such asif the animals were bred in captivity, if the
animals were participants in a study prior to thecurrent one and the sentence period of the
studies.
NUMBER OF ANIMALS
Only the minimum number of animals needed to producereliable and valid findings should be
utilized. To minimize the number, pilot studies, reliablemeasures of the DV, good experimental
design and research method along with solid data analysis.
PROCEDURES: PAIN AND DISTRESS
Research that may potentially cause disease, injury,physiological and psychological distress,
discomfort and death should be avoided at all costs.The experimental design should work on
reducing any possible pain of the animals, ratherthan worsen the situation.
Alternatively, naturally occurring instances may beused – such as during research, attention
has to be paid to the animals’ daily care and veterinaryneeds and any costs inflicted upon the
animals should be justified by an objective, scientificexplanation that benefits the work.
HOUSING
Isolation and overcrowding can cause animals to becomedistressed as some of them have
solitary, territorial tendencies and habits. The cagingcondition should be considered according
to the social behaviour patterns of the animals. Overcrowdingcan cause aggression and
consequently, distress. Their food and water shouldbe sufficient regarding their dietary habits.
However, the artificial environment only needs torecreate the aspects of the natural
environment that are important to welfare and survival.Eg. Warmth, space for exercise or
somewhere to hide. Cage cleaning should top priority.
REWARD AND DEPRIVATION AND AVERSIVE STIMULI
When initiating studies that concern the dietary habitsof animals, it should be designed to
satisfy the needs. The usage of preferred food shouldbe considered as an alternative to

21. deprivation and alternatives to aversive stimuli (Aversive stimuli by definition is an intentionally
simulated unpleasant event/occurrence that intendsto decrease the plausible probability of a
behaviour, when it is presented as a consequence forexample – a punishment.) Deprivation
should be used where possible.
ANAESTHESIA, ANALGESIA AND EUTHANASIA
Animals should be protected from pain.
Anaesthesia: It is a process of temporary loss ofsensation, awareness and consciousness that
is induced through IV (Intravenous circulation).This is usually to induce a paralysis (for muscle
relaxation).
Analgesia: Medication used to relieve pain, inflammationand etc.
Euthanasia: It is also known as mercy killing. Itis the process of intentionally killing, relievingthe
subject from the pain and suffering, withholding artificial-lifesupport and treatments.
EVALUATING RESEARCH METHODS
Reliability
Whenever research is conducted data is inherentlyobtained. Researchers must attempt to
make sure that the way in which these results arecollected is the same every time. When
differences in findings occur upon times of repeatingthe research, such inconsistencies are
deemed problems in reliability.
The reliability of the measures used to collect datadepends on the ‘tool’ used. A researcher
collecting reaction times or pulse rates as data willprobably have reliability as the machines
used are likely to produce very consistent measuresof time or rates.
The way to check reliability is to use the test-retestprocedure. This involves using a measure
once, and then using it again in the same situation.If the reliability is high, the same results will
be witnessed and collected on both occasions meaningthere will be a high correlation between
the two score sets.
There is also the problem in reliability that thereare subjective interpretations of data. For
instance, a researcher who is using a questionnaireor interview with open questions may come
to find that the same answers could be interpretedin different ways, producing low reliability. If
these differences arose between different researchers,this would come to be called an
inter-rater reliability problem. This however, canbe solved by operationalizing.
Similarly, in an observation researcher gave differentinterpretations of the same actions, this
would be low inter-observer reliability. If the reliabilitywas low, the researchers in either case
would need to discuss why the differences arose andfind ways to make their interpretations or
observations more alike. This can be done by agreeingon operational definitions of the
variables being measured and by looking at examplestogether. These steps would help to
make the research indefinitely more objective.
To minimize differences, in the way research is conductedthat could effectively reduce
reliability, standardization can be used, that isif the procedure is kept the same. This could be
done by including instructions, materials and apparatus,although it is important to note that
there would be no reason to change many of these.The important aspects of standardization
are those factors which might differ, such as experimenter’smanner towards participants in
different levels of the IV, an interviewer’s bodylanguage, verbal mannerisms or an observer’s
success at covering their presence.

22. Validity
Many factors affect validity (and this includes reliabilitytoo because a test or task cannot
measure what it actually intends to unless the methodsare consistent. Objectivity also affects
validity in the sense that if a researcher is subjectivein their handling and specifically
interpretation of data, their findings will not properlyreflect the intended measure.
There are different types of validity that are important– this includes face validity (which is
essentially the measure of the procedure and how itappears) A test or task must seem to test
what it is actually supposed to. Consider a test ofhelping behaviour that involved offering to
assist people who were stuck in a bathtub full ofspiders or lizards.
It might not be a valid test of helping because peoplewho were frightened of spiders or lizards
would not help, even though they might otherwise beof altruistic nature (selflessly helping). This
would be deemed a lack of face validity.
If participants start to think that they understandthe aim of the study, their behaviour patterns
and characteristics are very likely to be affectedby what we call social desirability and demand
characteristics – this obviously lowers validity.When designing a study, the researcher should
aim to minimize demand characteristics that do notmake apparent or indicative to the
participants how they are expected to behave.
Another problem of validity is whether the research’sfindings are too specific to that own study,
not being able to apply it to other situations. Thislacks the general reach it was supposed to
have – this means there is a lack of ecological validity.This type of validity explores if findings
from the laboratory have a real-life application intothe ‘real world’.
The task itself matters too. If in a task, participantsare asked to do tasks that are similar to the
ones in real-life contexts then it has mundane realism(the degree of it being similar to events in
real-life contexts). This is significant for a studyto have as it would naturally have higher
ecological validity if the tasks are realistic. Forinstance, in an experiment on emotions
responses to dangerous animals such as Bears, Insects,Bats or Tigers can be used.
As it is highly likely that a small number of peoplewould have seen bears, tigers, a few more
would have seen a bat but insects are more likelyto have been seen by everybody in the
participant sample – having higher mundane realismand thus higher ecological validity. This is
a variant of; external validity. External Validityis basically referring to whether or not the findings
of the study can be generalized beyond the presentstudy.
Generalisability
As it is apparent, Ecological Validity contributesto the generalisability of the results. Another
factor which affects the ability to generalize isthe participants of the sample.
If the sample is very small, or does not contain awide range of the different kinds of people in
the population (such as gender, age, ethnicity, etc)it is actually unlikely to be representative.
Restricted samples like the one mentioned are morelikely to occur when the sampling methods
of either opportunity or volunteer sampling is used,rather than if random sampling is used.
Important Things To Remember About Research MethodologyAnd Processes:
• Are measures reliable?
• Are the tools and equipment being used collectingconsistent results?

23. • Are the researchers using those in ways that areconsistent?
• Is the interpretation of data objective?
• Is the study valid? Does it represent what theaim intends to find out?
• Take into account the position of reliability andgeneralizability when it comes to validity.
• Are there any variables that may affect results?Such as Social Desirability, Demand
Characteristics, Familiarity Bias, Researcher Bias,etc?
• To improve the study, light focus needs to be on:Method, Design, Procedure and Sampling
Tool.
COGNITIVE APPROACH
Main assumptions:
Behaviour and emotions can be explained in terms ofthe role of cognitive processes such as
attention, language, thinking and memory. Our complexmental processes can be studied
scientifically.
Humans can be seen as data processing systems. Theworkings of a computer and the human
mind are alike. They encode information - store information- provide an output.
ASSUMPTIONS OF THE COGNITIVE APPROACH
- behaviour and emotions can be explained in termsof cognitive processes such as attention,
language, thinking and memory
​ - similarities and differences between people canbe understood in terms of individual patterns
of cognition

24. STRENGTHS
- it is possible to infer cause and
effect as the approach typically
uses the experimental method
- many psychologists would say
that the mind is central to
understanding human psychology,
so cognitions are of high
importance
WEAKNESSES
- it is more subjective as we can only infer how
people think or process information
- assumes that people's cognitive processes
are the same, and therefore does not account for
individual differences
- the analogy that the human mind is like a
computer may be too reductionist
ANDRADE DOODLING 2010
People have known to daydream frequently when presentedwith something boring.
Background:Prior to this study, it was not knownwhether the act of doodling does impair
attention processes by taking away resources fromthe primary attention tasks or whether it
actually aids concentration towards the primary task,additionally maintaining arousal.
It is common in research on attention to pose theparticipants with dual tasks to monitor
performance and see which cognitive processes areneeded to complete these tasks.
Aim:
To test whether doodling aided concentration in aboring task.
Find out whether doodling aided in concentration (informationprocessing) by enhancing
memory or increasing the efficacy of listening.
Procedure:
Research method- Laboratory Experiment
Experimental design- Independent groups design forparticipants were distributed in either of
the 2 conditions.
IV-Doodling and Control group
DV- number of correctly recalled names (mean correctrecall / false alarms / memory scores)
Sample- 40 members of the Medical Research Council(MRC) Applied Psychology Unit
participant panel at the University of Plymouth (UK)from the general population with ages

25. ranging from 18-55. They were paid for participating and were randomly assigned to the control
(20 - 18 females and 2 males) or doodling group (20- 17 females and 3 males)
Sampling Technique- Recruited using opportunity sample(participants were on their way
home from another study)
The researcher recorded a mock telephone message abouta boring birthday party using a
cassette recorder.
A fairly monotonous voice was used and was playedat a comfortable volume for all listeners.
Average speaking rate was 227 words per minute.
Script included names of;
8 people who would be attending a party
3 people and 1 cat who would not attend
8 places (mentioned)
Participants were recruited just after finishing anunrelated experiment for another researcher
and were asked if they would mind spending another5 minutes helping with this research.
The intention was to enhance the boredom of the taskby testing people who were already
thinking about going home.
Participants were randomly assigned to the 2 conditionsand were tested individually in a quiet
and visually dull room.
They were asked to note down the names of all thepeople attending the party and nothing else.
They were also told that they do not need to rememberany of it.
Standardized Instructions-Ignore names of peoplenot attending the party and remember
(write down) the names of those attending.
Participants in the control condition were given apiece of lined paper and a pencil.
Participants in the doodling group were given an A4sized paper with alternating rows of 10
squares and circles (1 cm in diameter with a 4.5 cmmargin on the left hand side where they
could write any target information.)
Doodling group was asked to shade in shapes. Theywere told that it “does not matterhorn
neatly or quickly you do this - it is just somethingto help relieve the boredom”.
Participants listened to the tape for 2.5 minutesand wrote down the information as directed.
As soon as the recording finished, the researchercame in and collected the sheets and talked
to the participant for a minute.
Conversation included a debriefing and an apologyfor misleading them about the memory test.
Participants were asked if they suspected a memorytest.
Monitoring Task-Recalling names of the individualswho will go to the party
Recall Task-Recalling the names of places mentioned.(surprise test)
Counterbalancing was used to reduce order effectsby switching the order of the recall and
monitor task.
DV -operationalized by accepting names misspelleddue to the participants hearing it wrong
and considering the names of the individuals who weren'tgoing to the party as false alarms.

26. Final Score- calculated by subtracting false alarms from the number of correct names
provided.
Results:
Participants in the doodling group shaded a mean of36.3 shapes (range 3-110). One participant
did not doodle and was replaced.
None of the participants in the control group doodled.
3 participants in the doodling group and 4 in thecontrol group suspected a memory test. None
of them claimed that they actively tried to rememberthe information for the test. They were
excluded to eliminate effects due to demand characteristics.
If a response indicated a plausible mishearing, itwas scored as correct.
Names not similar to the ones given, names of peoplewho didn't attend or responses such as
‘sister’ were scored as false alarms.
MONITORING PERFORMANCE SCORE = Number of correct names- false alarms
15 participants in doodling and 9 in the control groupscored the maximum score.
Monitoring performance score was significantly higherin the doodling condition (mean 7.7 and
SD 0.6) compared with the control condition (mean6.9 amd SD 1.3).
Those in the doodling group recalled a mean of 7.5pieces of correct information compared to
the control group (5.8).
Monitored names were recalled more than places.
Recall for monitored and incidental information wassignificantly better for those in the doodling
group.
The Doodling group provided 29% more correct informationabout the names of individuals and
places than the control group.
Conclusions:
Participants who performed shape-shading tasks concentratedbetter on a mock telephone
message than those who listened with no concurrenttask.
Doodling aided concentration on primary tasks sincethey recalled more information. They either
noticed more of the target words because their attentionwas enhanced or their memory was
improved due to doodling supporting a deeper informationprocessing.
However, it is difficult to assess which of thesesuggestions is more realistic due to there not
being information collected about daydreaming. A selfreport or brain scan could have been
effective in checking if doodling reduced the activationof the cortex which is associated with
daydreaming. Additionally, shading in shapes is notequivalent to spontaneous real doodling.
Ethical Issues:
Deception about memory test - The participants wereunable to give fully informed consent as
they were given an unexpected test. This could alsocause them distress exposing them to
psychological harm.
Debriefing

27. Strengths:
Standard Procedure- easy to replicate for reliability.
Lab Experiment / Controls -The study was a laboratoryexperiment. It gave a high degree of
control to the researchers. All participants werelistening at a volume comfortable for them and
using a recorded telephone message so there was nodifference in the stress of words.
Using an independent measures design, it was possibleto control extraneous variables,
ensuring participants were listening at a comfortablevolume. It was also standardized so that
participants were all equally likely to be bored andtherefore to daydream. This was achieved by
the monotony of the recording, using a dull and quietroom and asking them to do the
experiment when they were expecting to go home. Thismeant the research was valid. Could be
sure that the differences in results between the 2conditions were due to doodling or not - more
reliable as all participants were equally bored. Theoperationalization of doodling was also
standardized, using the doodling sheets, otherwisethere may have been individual differences
in participants and some may have not doodled at all.This increased validity. Participants were
discouraged from doodling in the control group bybeing given a lined sheet. (Control). Replaced
the non-doodler in the experimental group.
Weaknesses:
Low generalisability -sample was from a volunteerparticipant panel, therefore they may be
qualitatively different and results may not reflectthe whole population. The participants were all
members of a recruitment panel and the kinds of peoplewho volunteer may be all similar. Such
as having time to spare or interest in psychology.
Could be a bias sample -lowering validity. Sampleconsisted of more females than males in
both conditions. This reduced the representativenessof the sample, as an inclusion of an equal
number of both participants would be much more desirable.It was based on convenience and a
more representative sample in terms of diversity wouldbe more desirable for increased
generalizability.
Participant variables might have affected the findings- Risk of participant variables
confounding the results, as the amount of shapes shadeddiffered. Risk of demand
characteristics - some suspected a memory test - butwere roughly equal in each condition.
Low mundane realism and ecological validity- Highdegree of control means that the
relevance and applicability of the study to real lifesituations is questionable. There is low
ecological validity. Few boring tasks in the realworld are usually a combination of visual and
auditory nature. Doodling is not shading shapes itmay be drawing shapes and figures.
Issues and Debates:
Application - useful for students while they are revisingor studying / learning in class.
Individual Explanation- Participants may have useda similar strategy before or have a
personality trait that requires stimulation when processinginformation.
Situational Explanation- The process of doodlingcould have caused the improvement in
recall.

28. BARON COHEN ET AL.
“Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test Revised Version2001.
The main idea of the eyes test was to investigatethe theory of mind. This is the ability to
attribute mental states to oneself or another personand this ability is the main way in which we
make sense of or predict another person’s behaviour.
The notion is that many autistic individuals do notunderstand that other people have their own
plans, thoughts and points of view.
It appears they have difficulty understanding otherpeople’s beliefs, attitudes and emotions.
Background:
In 1997, the “Reading the Mind in the eyes” test wasdeveloped to assess the Theory of Mind.
This appeared to discriminate between adults withthe Asperger Syndrome (AS) or
high-functioning autistic (HFA) adults from controladults.
The 2 former groups scored significantly worse. However,the researchers were not satisfied
with the elements of the original study and wantedto ‘update’ their measures to make it better.
Individuals who are diagnosed with autism need tomeet 2 criteria;
●Impairment of social communication and social interactionskills and
●Evidence of restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior,interests and activities.
A ‘Theory of Mind’ is a cognitive ability enablingus to realize that others have different feelings,
beliefs, knowledge and desires from our own. ‘Theoryof Mind’ is often linked to empathy.
Empathy is the ability to understand the world asanother person does to appreciate their
feelings or emotional state separate from our own.
Autism is a condition characterized by challengesin social skills, impaired verbal and non-verbal
communication and lack of imaginative abilities.
Individuals with autism, therefore, struggle withunderstanding the intentions of others, coping
with change, realizing what they experience and lackempathy. Baron-Cohen named this
decreased cognitive process a lack of ‘theory of mind’– they cannot impersonate others.
Autism is a failure to develop particular cognitiveprocesses linked to social interaction that
occurs in approximately 1% of the population. Individualswith autism often unusually have
narrow interests.
Aims:
To test a group of adults with AS and HFA on the revisedversion of the eyes test. This was in
order to check if the deficits in this group thathad been found in the original study could be
replicated. Test if the revised version of the “Readingthe Mind in the Eyes’ test would be
successful at differentiating participants with ASor HFA from the general population.
To test if in a sample of normal adults, an inverse(negative) correlation would be found between
performance on the revised eyes test and the autismspectrum quotient (AQ).

29. To test whether females scored better on the eyes test than males.
Hypotheses:
1.Participants with AS or HFA will have a significantlylower score on the revised task than
the control group, showing a lack of theory of mindin these participants.
2.Participants with AS or HFA will have significantlyhigher scores on the Autism Spectrum
Quotient test (AQ) measure.
3.Females in the ‘normal’ groups (2 and 3) will scorehigher on the ‘Reading the Mind in
the Eyes’ task than males in the same group. (Femaleshave a greater theory of mind)
4.Males in the student comparison group (3) will scorehigher on the AQ than females.
(Mild autistic traits generally in males)
5.The scores on the AQ and ‘Reading the Mind in theEyes’ task will be negatively
correlated.
Procedure:
Research method -Quasi experiment - natural experimentas the IV is naturally occurring but
taken in a lab and a questionnaire.
Experimental Design- Independent groups
IV -4 groups of participants (type of participantin each condition) IQ / social background / HFA
or AS or normal.
DV- scores on the AQ test and the Eyes task
Sample:
Group 1 AS/HFA participants- 15 male adults withAS or HFA. Recruited via volunteer
sampling through adverts in the UK National AutisticSociety Magazine. They were diagnosed
by the DSM or ICD criteria, with a mean IQ of 115and mean age 30. They spanned an
equivalent range of socioeconomic classes and educationlevels.
Group 2 Adult comparison group- 122 normal adultsdrawn by an opportunity sample from the
adult community and educational classes in Exeteror from public library users in Cambridge.
They had a broad range of occupations and educationallevels. Mean age 46.5 years.
Group 3 Student Comparison Group- 103 normal adultstudents (53 male and 50 female)
studying for undergraduate degrees in Cambridge University.Opportunity Sample. This group is
not representative of the general population and canbe considered to have a high IQ. mean
age 20.8
Group 4 IQ matched Group- Randomly selected 14 adultsfrom the general population who
were matched for their IQ with group 1. Mean IQ 116and mean age 28.
The revised eyes task consisted of 36 sets of eyes,(18female and 18 males), each with 4
choices of emotion on the face of the target. Example;Aghast / Irritated / Reflective / Impatient.
A pilot was conducted prior to the study.

30. For each of the 36 sets of eyes, the target and foil words were developed using groups of 8
judges (4 male and 4 female). At least 5 of the judgeshad to agree on which target word was
the most appropriate for the eyes and no more than2 judges could select any of the foil words.
Participants were tested individually in a quiet roomin Cambridge or Exeter.
Participants in the AS/HFA group were asked to judgethe gender of each eye pair additionally.
Groups 1, 3 and 4 completed a questionnaire to measuretheir AQ.
Participants were asked to read through the glossaryand ask if they were unsure of any word.
They were also reassured that they could refer tothe glossary at any time.
PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS
Original Problems - Forced choice between 2 responses(that were always opposites) meant
that there was a 50/50 chance of guessing somethingright. Narrow range of scores.
New Design Elements - Forced choice but with 4 responseoptions. There were 36 sets of eyes
as opposed to the prior 25. This meant that individualdifferences could be examined better in
terms of statistics.
Original Problems - Ceiling effect was created asthe test was too easy (with basic and complex
mental states being included) and individuals withautism would score similarly to those without.
New Design Elements - Only complex mental states wereused so as to make the tests much
more challenging increasing the likelihood of obtaininga greater range of performance in a
random sample of adults.
Some emotions could be easily labelled by checkingthe direction of the gaze. These were
excluded from the revised test.
The old test had more female eye pairs than males.The ratio between the number of male and
female eyes was imbalanced. The revised test includedan equal number allowing a control
condition.
There may have been comprehension problems with theold test that might have contributed to
an individual’s score. In the revised version, a glossarywith all terms was available for the
participants to use at all times.
AQ test - This is a self-report questionnaire thatmeasures the degree to which a normal adult of
normal IQ possesses traits that are linked to autism.It is scored from 0 to 50.
Results:
Participants in the 4 groups did not differ in thenumber of words in the glossary that they were
unsure of. No one checked more than 2 words.
The AS/HFA group performed significantly worse thanthe other groups in the eyes test.
In general, females scored better than males.
The AS/HFA group scored higher on the AQ than othergroups.
34.4 - AQ test for HFA/AS
18.3 - AQ test for Student Comparison Group

31. 21.9 - Eyes Test for AS/HFA
26.2 - Eyes Test adult comparison group
30.9 - Eyes test IQ Matched group
28 - Eyes Test for SCG
Conclusions:
The revised version of the eyes test could still discriminatebetween AS/HFA adults and controls
from different sections of society as it replicatedprevious findings. The new test appeared to
have overcome the initial problems.
Individuals with AS/HFA have an impaired cognitionat identifying emotions and thus lack a
theory of mind.
The revised version of the Reading of the Mind inthe Eyes test is more efficient at measuring
social intelligence than the original version andthus allows a more accurate method of
deciphering individual differences when assessingautistic traits.
Ethical Issues:
Protection - Tests may have caused stress in the patientsespecially those with AS/HFA, this
could have altered results.
Informed consent - This was obtained from all participants.
Confidentiality - Confidentiality was respected.
Strengths:
High validity - All patients were tested on the samescale. Experiment was standardised in a
way that every participant was tested in the sameway. The use of standardised procedures in
the way that the photographs were presented ensuredthat the researchers could claim with
some certainty that the independent variable whichis the characteristics of Autism was causing
the Dependent Variable which was the eyes task.
High reliability - Because the psychometric testsall have a fixed format with close-ended
questions, they can be taken again and again. Thismakes the study replicable, so other
researchers can confirm the consistency of the findings.As the study’s procedure and tasks are
replicable, the results are more likely to be reliable.
Controls - The researchers controlled variables likeage, sex and IQ. This means that they could
be more sure that it was only the factor of Autismthat was affecting the scores, as opposed to a
factor like age confounding the results.
Lab - All participants completed the task in a standardizedway in an artificial setting. This
allowed many confounding variables to be controlledfor as all participants saw the same set of
eyes for exactly the same amount of time. This improvesinternal validity and allows research to
be repeated to check the reliability of the results.
Quantitative Data - Quantitative data (i.e. scoreson tests) was collected in this study. This data
is all numerical, which means it can be analysed easilywhile comparisons can also be made
(such as the comparison of group scores). It alsomeans that the study’s results are objective,
which makes them free from personal bias.
Weaknesses:

32. Validity - Psychometric tests do not always test what they claim to test. For example, was the
Eyes test measuring theory of mind or was it justmeasuring the participants’ capability of
completing an Eyes test? How do we know for sure thattheory of mind was tested alone?
However, in the original paper, the researchers doattempt to justify the validity of the test.
Ecological validity - Some of the Participants weretested at a lab at a university and this
strange situation may have had an affect on performance.The eye task can be questioned as it
is an unusual task which is much simpler than thedemands of real life situations where stimuli
are not static.
Quantitative - The reasons for particular behaviorwere not explored.
Ecological validity and mundane realism -The stimuliwere just static images of eyes. In real-life
social situations, we interpret emotions of real peoplewho are not stuck in one expression; the
situation is much more different. This lowers theecological validity of the study and creates an
issue of mundane realism with regards to the task.Also, the lab setting for some participants
also lacks ecological validity.
Experimental sample of this research (AS/HFA participants)is small, therefore when
generalizing the results from the research we mustbe aware that the group may not be
representative of all individuals who have been diagnosedwith AS/HFA.
Issues and Debates:
Application - Plan support lessons or therapy sessionsfor students or people with AS/HFA
Reductionist - does not take into account the fullpicture of understanding emotions.
Improve:
Might choose to use videos of eyes rather than imagesto improve the validity of conclusions.
LANEY ET AL. (FALSE MEMORY)

33. People’s memories of events of their own lives can be incorrect. Researchers have been able to
implant false details
Research method:Laboratory Experiment
Experimental design:Independent Measures Design -participants were randomly allocated to
either the ‘love’ of control condition.
Human memory is subject to many types of distortion- even people’s memory of the events of
their own lives can be incorrect. Researchers havebeen able to implant false details for actual
events and even entirely new events. These false eventshave even included impossible events
like meeting Bugs Bunny at Disneyland (Braun, Ellisand Loftus, 2002) or undergoing a specific
medical procedure (Mazzoni and Memon, 2003).
In a study by Bernstein, Laney, Morris and Loftus(2005) subjects were given false feedback that
suggested that they had gotten sick as a child aftereating either dill pickles or hard-boiled eggs.
A substantial minority of subjects believed this,but those that did have a false memory
implanted into them later experienced a self-reportedunwillingness to eat pickles or eggs, and
their likings of these foods decreased. In addition,false memories had also been shown to deter
people from fattening foods by implanting false memoriesabout being sick after eating such
foods.
All of these previous studies, however, implantednegative false memories (and saw negative
consequences as a result) or neutral false memories,but there had been no research into
whether positive false memories could be implantedinto people and the repercussions of this.
EXPERIMENT 1
AIMS
●To investigate if giving false feedback would generatea false belief that a person likes
eating asparagus
SAMPLE
The subjects were 128 undergraduates at the Universityof California who received course
credit for their participation. 99 of the participantswere female (77%) and 29 were male (23%).
Participants had a mean age of 20.8. They were randomlyassigned to the ‘love’ group (n=63)
and the control group (n=65). The experiments wererun in groups of up to 8.
Independent variable:
●Whether or not participants were in the love group
- Dependent variable:
●The scores on the questionnaires - did they changefrom Week 1 to Week 2?​
SESSION 1
​Subjects were told that they would be completinga series of questionnaires for a study
investigating the relationship between ‘food preferencesand personality’ - subjects were not told

34. about false memories to limit demand characteristics. Subjects completed the following
questionnaires
●Food History Inventory (FHI)
●Restaurant Questionnaire (RQ)
●3 filler questionnaires (personality measure, socialdesirability scale and eating habits)
The filler questionnaires were interspersed with the2 critical questionnaires and were designed
to distract away from the true aims of the study.
SESSION 2
Approximately one week later, subjects were givenfalse feedback about their responses from
Session 1. They were told that a computer had generateda profile of their early childhood
experiences with certain foods. A portion of the profilewas identical for all subjects: as a young
child, ‘you disliked spinach’, ‘you enjoyed friedfoods’ and ‘you felt happy when a classmate
brought sweets to school’. The critical item - ‘youloved to eat cooked asparagus’ - was
embedded in the third position of the profile forsubjects in the Love group only.
To ensure that participants processed the feedback,they all responded to brief questions
about the sweets at school, and the Love Group alsoresponded to these questions about the
critical asparagus item. Subjects were asked:
●‘Imagine the setting in which this experience mighthave happened. Where were you?
Who was with you?’
●‘To was extent did this experience affect you adultpersonality?’ on a scale of 1 to 9, 1 =
not at all and 9 = very much.
Subjects then completed the following questionnaires:
●Food History Inventory (FHI)
●Restaurant Questionnaire (RQ)
●Food Preferences Questionnaire (FPQ)
●Food Costs Questionnaire (FCQ)
●Memory or Belief Questionnaire (MBQ)
When all questionnaires were completed, subjects werefully debriefed.
What determined whether participants were in the ‘love’group or the control group?
Whether or not participants had the sentence ‘youlove to eat cooked asparagus’ on their food
personality profile in the third position.
​
How was ‘memory’ and ‘belief’ operationalised?
Memoryneeded to have a specific time/place at whichthe event took place
Beliefmeant that the participant knew that the eventhappened, but could not recall any
specifics about it
The three criteria that needed to be met to be labelleda ‘believer’:
1. Gave a low rating on the FHI in Week 1 for asparagus- i.e. did not like asparagus prior
2. FHI score showed an increase in Week 2

35. 3. Gave a positive ‘memory’ or ‘belief’ score on the MBQ
FEATURES OF THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONNAIRES
Memory or Belief Questionnaire
Subjects were asked to respond to three items fromthe FHI, including the critical item, by
indicating whether they had a specific memory of theevent, had a belief that the event occurred
(but lacked specific memory) or were positive thatthe event had not occurred.
​Food Preferences Questionnaire
Subjects rated 62 separate food items (including thecritical ‘asparagus’ item on a 1 to 8 scale,
​1 = definitely don’t like to eat and 8 = definitelylike to eat.
Restaurant Questionnaire (RQ)
This addressed the subject's desire to eat a selectionof 32 separate dishes, including the
critical item ‘sautéed asparagus spears’, in a restaurantsetting. This questionnaire was
formatted to resemble a menu with 5 categories (appetisers,soups and salads, entrées, sides
and desserts). Subjects were asked to imagine thatthey were out for a special dinner, and then
decide how likely they were to order each item onthe menu, regardless of price. Subjects
circles their ratings on a scale of 1 to 8, 1 = definitelyno and 8 = definitely yes for each item.
​Food History Inventory Questionnaire (FHI)
The FHI was a questionnaire in which participantswere given statements of events to do with
food (e.g. ‘you loved cooked asparagus’). Participantswere asked to rate each statement on a
scale of 1 to 8, 1 = definitely did not happen and8 = definitely did happen, both before the age
of 10. It contained 24 items including the criticalitem ‘loved asparagus the first time you tried it’
in the 16th position.

36. Food Costs Questionnaire (FCQ)
On this questionnaire, subjects indicated the mostthat they would be willing to pay for each of
21 different food items at a grocery store (includingthe critical item ‘one pound of asparagus’)
by circling a price option. Several items that hadalso appeared on previous questionnaires (e.g.
tortilla chips, zucchini and rice), were included.For each item, subjects were given 8 different
choices (‘would never buy it’ and 7 price options).The price options were $1.90, $2.50, $3.20,
$3.80, $4.40, $5.00 and $5.70.
RESULTS/FINDINGS FOR EXPERIMENT 1:
Results/Findings (Functional number of participantswas 97 because 31 were excluded due to
them scoring 5 or greater on the FHI for asparagus(i.e. already liked asparagus).
Believers vs. Non Believers:48% of participants inthe Love group met the criteria to be
labelled believers, 52% did not and were labellednonbelievers.
FHI- mean ratings of participants in the Love Group(n=46) increased 2.6 points after
manipulation, compared with only an 0.2 increase forthe control group (n=51). The ratings of
believers increased an average of 4.5, nonbelieversincreased an average of just 0.9 points
RQ:there was only a slight (around 0.1 point) increase in willingness to order asparagus in the
Love group. This is because nonbelievers rating actuallydecreased from 5.2 to 5.0, while
believers ratings increased from 5.3 to 6.0. The control’sratings decreased from 4.3 to 4.1.
FPQ:the love group (6.14) reported liking asparagussignificantly more than the control (3.84).
FCQ:Believers were willing to pay significantly morefor asparagus than controls. Also, over a
quarter (n=14) of controls said they would never buyasparagus, while no believers chose that.
EXPERIMENT 2
AIMS
●To examine the underlying mechanisms of the falsememory effect by seeing if once the
false memory was implanted, participants would findthe sight of asparagus more
appealing
●To check the reliability of the first results
SAMPLE
Consisted of 103 participants who were Undergraduatesfrom the University of Washington, all
recruited via opportunity sampling. 62% of the participantswere female (39 male, 64 female)
and their mean age was 19.9. They received coursecredit for their participation. The subjects
were randomly assigned to the two conditions: Love(n=58) and control (n=45)
PROCEDURE
Session 1
Participants were told that their data would be enteredinto a computer to generate a profile
based on their answers - no false aim was given. Subjectscompleted the following
questionnaires:
●Food History Inventory (FHI)
●Restaurant Questionnaire (RQ)

37. ●Food Preferences Questionnaire (FPQ)
●2 filler questionnaires (personality measure and socialdesirability)​
Session 2
Subjects were given the food personality profile inthe same way as experiment 1. The critical
item was slightly different to before, now it read‘you loved asparagus the first time you ate it’.
Only subjects in the Love Group completed the elaborationexercise:
They answered questions about their memory of theevent, and if they did not have a memory,
to imagine what might have happened. Specifically,they were asked for their age at the time of
the event, the location, what they were doing, whowas with them and how it made them feel.
All subjects were then asked ‘What is the most importantchildhood, food-related event in your
life that your food profile did not report?’
Subjects then viewed a slideshow of 20 slides, eachphoto displayed for 30 seconds at a time,
and were asked to complete 4 ratings of the photos.Subjects then completed the following
questionnaires:
●Food History Inventory (FHI)
●Restaurant Questionnaire (RQ)
●Food Preferences Questionnaire (FPQ)
Features of the slideshow
Subjects viewed a series of 20 slides and completed4 ratings on each slide. Each slide was
displayed for 30 seconds each and they were photographsof common foods (e.g. pizza,
spinach, and the critical item asparagus). Participantsrated each photograph according to how
appetising they found the food, how disgusting theyfound the food, whether they thought the
photo was taken by a novice, amateur or expert photographerand the artistic quality of the
image. The first, second and fourth questions wererated on a scale of 1 to 8, 1 = not at all and 8
= very much.
RESULTS/FINDINGS FOR EXPERIMENT 2:
Results:(functional number was 73 - 30 excluded -for the same reason as Exp. 1)
Believers vs. Non Believers:53% of love groups werebelievers, 47% nonbelievers.
FHI:Love group ratings increased from 1.70 to 4.20while control increased from 1.45 to 2.52.
Believers increased from 1.95 to 6.48, nonbelieversfrom 1.42 to 1.68.
FPQ:believers reported more desire to eat asparagusthan the controls.
RQ:neither group’s ratings changed significantly
Photograph ratings:believers rated asparagus moreappetising and less disgusting.
COMPARISONS OF EXPERIMENT 1 AND EXPERIMENT 2
Similarities
- both used undergraduates (opportunity sample)
- both used FHI, RQ, FCQ, FPQ and MBQ.

38. - both lab experiments and used independent measures design
Differences
- number of questionnaires used
- Ex. 2 did not use the eating habits filler questionnaire
- location (Ex. 1 at Uni. of California, Ex. 2 atUni. of Washington)
- Slideshow added in Ex. 2
- False aim was used in Ex. 1, whereas no aim wasused in Ex. 2
- Different aims
- Different ratio of genders (Ex.1 - 77% were female,Ex.2 - 62% were female)
CONCLUSIONS
- It’s possible to implant false beliefs and memoriesfor a positive childhood experience, such as
liking or loving asparagus the first time one triedit
- False beliefs and memories are associated with positiveattitudinal and behavioural
consequences, such as increased self-reported preferenceto asparagus, willingness to spend
more on it and increased willingness to eat asparagusin a restaurant
LIMITATIONS
You cannot assess how long the apparent consequencesof false beliefs will last - especially
since subjects were debriefed after the study. Youdo not know for certain whether these effects
will translate to genuine eating behaviours as completingpaper-and-pencil tasks may not
involve the same process as choosing what to eat.
EXAMPLE 10-MARK EVALUATION
One strength of the study by Laney et al. is the experimentaldesign used. Laney et al. used a
repeated measures design which increases the internalvalidity as order effects are reduced.
Laney et al. also randomly allocated participantsto each group, increasing internal validity
because the individual differences between participantsare likely to balance out between the
two groups, and also the groups are not affected byresearcher bias. If a repeated measures
design was used, order effects such as practice effectsmay have affected the results, and it
would not have worked because the participants wouldhave figured out the aim of the study,
then leaving the results open to demand characteristics.Therefore, the independent measures
design was a strength because it eliminated ordereffects and any bias that could have been
caused by participants figuring out the real aim ofthe study.
On the other hand, one weakness of this study is thatit used self-reports. Self-reports are often
subjective and open to bias which decreases the internalvalidity of the study. For example,
participants may have been aware of the aims of theexperiment, and therefore their responses
would be biased by demand characteristics - they mayalter their answers to fit what the
researchers are looking for. In addition, participantsmay be embarrassed of their usual eating
habits, and therefore may change their answers toappear more healthy. This means that social
desirability could affect the results, and thereforethe implantation of the positive false memory
of liking asparagus is not the only variable thatwill affect the responses. Therefore, self-reports
lower internal validity because they are open to bias.

39. Another strength of the Laney et al. study however,is that it is high in reliability because of the
standardised measures used. One standardised measureused was that all of the
questionnaires were standardised as they used thesame questions in the same order. For
example, in the Food History Inventory, the participantswere asked to rate each statement on a
scale of 1 to 8, 1 = definitely did not happen and8 = definitely did happen, both before the age
of 10. The scale used was kept the same for each ofthe 24 food items, and the critical item
(asparagus) was always kept in the 16th position.These standardised procedures increase the
reliability of Laney et al.’s study as the procedurewas kept the same for all of the participants.
Laney et al. even tested the reliability of the studyby replicating the study at a different
university, yielding similar results, and thereforeshowing that this study is highly reliable
However, another weakness of this study is that itlacked ecological validity and mundane
realism due to it being performed in a lab and thatthe participants did not eat anything
throughout the experiment - they only recorded theirfeelings towards asparagus via
questionnaires. Laney et al. did attempt to combatthis through the use of the Restaurant
Questionnaire made to look like a menu, however, evenwith this questionnaire, mundane
realism and ecological validity is very low becausethe situation did not represent what
participants would normally experience (for example,going out and physically buying groceries).
This means that the findings may not generalise toreal-life eating behaviours, as pen-and-paper
tasks do not accurately represent real life.
BIOLOGICAL APPROACH
The biological approach attempts to explain behaviouras the direct product of interactions
within the body.
Main assumptions:
1.Behaviour, cognition and emotions can be explainedin terms of the working of the brain
and the effect of hormones. They are controlled bybiological systems and processes
such as evolution, genes and hormones.
2.It examines thoughts, feelings and behaviours througha biological point of view.
3.Can be investigated by manipulating and measuringbiological responses such as eye
movements, brain activity and pulse rate.
4.Similarities and differences between people can beexplained and understood in terms of
biological factors and their interaction with otherfactors.
5.There is a direct correlation between brain activityand cognition
6.Behaviour can be inherited as it is determined bygenetic information.
ASSUMPTIONS OF THE BIOLOGICAL APPROACH
- emotions, behaviour and cognition are controlledby biological systems and processes, such
as evolution, genes, the nervous system, hormonesand brain structure

40. - emotions, behaviours and cognition can be investigated by manipulating and measuring
biological responses, such as eye movements, brainactivity and pulse rate.
​
STRENGTHS
- method is less subjective and open to bias
than self-reports
- able to determine cause and effect
​ - physiological functioning is the same in all
cultures, meaning it is generalisable
WEAKNESSES
- can often be reductionist (see notes on
debates)
- findings often show a correlation, but we
cannot always infer cause and effect
(see notes on types of data)
- qualitative data tends not to be used
All things are ultimately controlled by our biologicalaspects. Even if we were physically doing
nothing, our brain was active, and the biologicalprocess of chemical and electric signalling was
active between the nerve cells.
Various parts of our brain are designated to performdifferent functions and actions. Ex; a
hormone called ‘adrenalin’ would be released duringan excitement of a race and would help
you run faster.
CANLI ET AL. (2000)
Event Related activation in the human amygdala associateswith later memory for individual
emotional experiences.
Psychologists now employ brain study and researchof people through brain scans and thus can
now draw objective conclusions about the relationshipbetween behaviour and brain structure.
There are 2 types of basic medical scans - structuraland functional scans.
●Structural scans - Take detailed pictures of the structureof the brain, the nervous system
and help in diagnosing physical injuries such as concussionsand large scale intracranial
disease such as tumors.
●Functional scans - These are able to show differentactivity levels in different parts of the
brain. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)is a neuroimaging procedure
using MRI technology that measures brain activityand blood flow by detecting changes
that are associated with it.

41. fMRI is a non-invasive brain scanning technique. It uses radio waves coupled with a strong
magnetic field to create a very detailed image ofthe brain. The scanner traces the journey of
strong oxygenated blood around the brain. Areas ofhigh activity receive more oxygenated
blood. This is called blood-oxygen-level-dependent(BOLD) signal.
The scanner maps all of the activity and producesa map of squares called voxels which
represent thousands of neurons. The pictures are colourcoded to represent this intense activity.
The amygdala is an almond shaped set of neurons locateddeep in the brain’s medial temporal
lobe and has been shown to play a key role in theprocessing of emotions such as pleasure,
fear and anger. The amygdala is also responsible fordetermining where memories are stored in
the brain and which ones are kept.
Background:
Imaging studies have shown that amygdala activationcorrelates with emotional memory in the
intact brain.
In 1998, LaBar and Phelps suggested that emotionalexperiences are often better recalled than
non-emotional ones and emotional arousal appears toincrease the likelihood of memory
consolidation during the storage stage of memory.
These first imaging studies have identified a correlationbetween amygdala activation and
declarative memory for emotional stimuli across differentindividuals.
This could be for 3 reasons:
1.Some individuals are more responsive to emotionalexperiences than others.
2.Some individuals, during a particular scanning session,may have been in some sort of
state that enhanced responsiveness to emotional experience.
3.The amygdala is responsive in a dynamic or phasicway to moment-to-moment individual
emotional experience, so that amygdala activationwould reflect a flexible, rapidly
changing emotional response that ought to be observablewithin an individual.
Aim:
Canli wanted to show that emotive images will be rememberedbetter than those that have little
emotional valence for an individual.
To investigate whether an area of the brain calledthe amygdala is sensitive to different levels of
emotions based on subjective emotional experiences.(Testing if the amygdala is sensitive to
varying degrees of emotional intensity)
To investigate whether the degree of emotional intensityaffects the role of the amygdala in
aiding memory recall of stimuli classes as being ‘emotional’.(If the varying degrees of emotional
intensity affects the role in memory enhancement,if an emotional stimulus is involved.)
Procedure:

42. Research Method - Laboratory Experiment
Experimental Design - Repeated Measures Design (participantscontributed to each condition)
IV - Intensity of emotional arousal to each of the96 scenes.
DV - Level of activation of the amygdala measuredby the fMRI, during the 1st stages of the
experiment when the participants were exposed to 96scenes and the measure of memory of
the scenes, 3 weeks later during the recognition ofthe images.
Measurement of Data was via a 4 point likert scalethat ranged from 0 - 3, 0 being not
emotionally intense at all and 3 being extremely emotionallyintense.
Sample - 10 right handed healthy female volunteers.They were all females as they were more
likely to report intense emotional experiences andshow more physiological reactivity in
concordance with valence judgments than men. All participantshad given informed consent and
were aware of the nature of the experiment.
The procedure was divided into 2;
Behavioural Procedure and fMRI
Behavioural procedure:
During scanning, participants were shown 96 scenesthrough a mirror directed at the back of the
projection screen.
Each of these scenes had a normative rating for arousaland valance from the International
Affective Picture System stimuli set.
The scenes ranged from a rating:
1.17 (highly negative) to 5.44 (neutral) for valence
1.97 (tranquil) to 7.63 (highly arousing) for arousal.
The order of the scenes was randomised across participantsand each scene was shown for a
period of 2.88 seconds. There was an interstimulusinterval of 12.96 seconds during which the
participants viewed a fixation cross.
Participants were instructed to view the entire picturefor the time it was shown and as soon as
the cross appeared, they were to rate the scene bypressing the relevant button with their right
hand. The rating scale for emotional arousal rangedfrom 0 = not emotionally intense at all, to 3
= extremely emotionally intense.
3 weeks after the scan, participants were tested inan unexpected recognition test, during which
they viewed all the previously seen scenes and 48new ones (foils).
The foils matched the valence and arousal ratingsof the original scenes.
The normative rating for valance ranged from:
1.31 (highly negative) to 5.78 (neutral)
The normative rating for arousal ranged from:
2.74 (tranquil) to 7.22 (highly arousing)

43. During the recognition test, participants were asked if they remembered the scene (seen it
before or not). If they did, they were asked whether they remembered it with certainty, coded as
‘remembered’ or with a less certain feeling of familiaritycoded as ‘familiar’. If the answer was
no, it was deemed as ‘forgotten’.
fMRI:
Data was acquired in a 1.5 Tesla General ElectricSigna MR imager, which was used to
measure BOLD contrast.
During the scanning, individuals operating the scannerwere fully trained and competent staff,
following safety protocol as should be in a medicalscan.
For structural images, 8 slices perpendicular to theaxial plane of the hippocampus were
obtained.
The anterior slice was positioned 7 mm anterior tothe amygdala.
Functional images were obtained using a 2 dimensionalspin echo sequence with 2 interleaves.
A whole-head coil was used for all participants.
Head movement was minimized by a bite bar using whichwas formed with each participant’s
dental imprints.
During functional scanning, 11 frames were capturedper trial. Each frame assigned was either
an activation image or baseline image.
Results:
Individual's experience of emotional intensity inthe present study correlated well with normative
rating on emotional valence and arousal.
The average correlations coefficients between participants’intensity ratings and normative
ratings were -0.66 and 0.68.
Participants’ ratings of emotional intensity reflectedthe valence and arousal ratings of the
scenes.
There was found to be an appropriate and significantcorrelation with higher ratings of
‘experienced’ emotional intensity. This provides evidencethat amygdala activation is related to
the subjective sense of emotional intensity and theparticipants’ perceived arousal is associated
with the activation of the brain’s amygdala.
Participants’ ratings of emotional intensity weresimilarly distributed across the 4 categories with
0 being 29%, 1 being 22%, 2 being 24% and being 25%.
Memory recall was significantly better for those scansrated as emotionally intense. Scenes
rated 0-2 had similar distributions of % forgotten,familiar or remembered. However, those rated
3 were rated familiar or remembered with a higherfrequency.
For scenes rated highly emotional, the degree of theleft amygdala activation predicted whether
an individual stimulus would be forgotten, familiaror remembered in a later memory test. Little
activation to a scene that was rated as highly emotionalwas associated with being forgotten,
intermediate activation indicated that the scene wasfamiliar and high activation was associated
with the scene being remembered.
When the left amygdala was analysed further, therewas a significant correlation between
emotional intensity and the amygdala’s activation.

44. Conclusions:
This study found that amygdala activation is sensitiveto individually experienced emotional
intensity of discrete visual stimuli. -suggests thatthe more emotionally intense an image would
be, it is naturally more likely to be remembered –this might help to explain why people tend to
remember emotionally intense experiences well enough.
Activity in the left amygdala during encoding is predictiveof subsequent memory.
The degree to which the amygdala activation at encodingcan predict subsequent memory is a
function of emotional intensity. - It was also observedand analysed that, when participants were
granted exposure to an event like this (causing thearousal), such as witnessing a crime, the
trace of memory would be more powerful. - It was alsofound that the amygdala is sensitive to
individuals who witnessed and experienced emotionalintensity of visual stimuli with activity in
the left amygdala during encoding being predictiveof subsequent memory.
Ethical Issues:
Participants were exposed to emotionally charged imageswhich may have stressed them.
There is no record of participants being exposed to‘happier’ imagery in order to alleviate any
negative mental state they were found in.
Potential harm from strong magnetic fields.
Strengths:
Lab Experiment - Lab Experiment - Participants weretested in a standardized environment and
were given the same items to rate in each condition.There was high control over extraneous /
external variables, improving validity. Can be testedfor reliability.
Internal validity is high - as all variables suchas time intervals for example, were
operationalized. This controls the influence to confoundingvariables that may distort results.
Because of these controls, researchers can be moreconfident that there are fewer confounding
variables affecting the DV. Researchers can be confidentin establishing a casual relationship.
As all the participants were tested via fMRI machinesand thus it was highly standardized.
The use of a scientific apparatus such as an fMRImachine produced highly objective,
quantitative data which is high in validity.
Collection of quantitative data - fMRI scan readingsthat measured DV. Related to the activation
of amygdala, enabled them to carry statistical analysisabout level of activation and subsequent
memory.
Lack of bias - low demand characteristics. Increasingvalidity of the data collected -
sophisticated analysis.
Objective findings - fMRI scanners measure biologicalresponse in the brain - no need for
researchers to interpret any results.
Repeated Measures Design - reduced questioning.
Use of randomization - reduced order effects.
Weaknesses:
Insufficient knowledge of the physiological basisof the fMRI signal to interpret data confidently,
with respect to neutral activity and how this tracesto specific behaviors.

45. Small sample size - All right handed females made this gynocentric - low generalizability
because not representative.
Introduced participant variables - distort outcomesof the research decreasing the validity.
Lab Experiment - Unnatural environment and stimuli- low ecological validity. Low mundane
realism.
We also need to take into account the difference inlevels of emotional intensity experienced in a
lab setting and that in the real world. Some participantsmay already be emotionally aroused.
And thus, the baseline itself may be flawed.
The researchers also need to be considering the factthat there are certain biological, cerebral
anomalies that a mere fMRI scanner can never fullyrepresent all behaviours exhibited by
different and specific parts of the brain.
Only quantitative data collected - did not explorethe participants’ reason for choosing a
particular rating.
Issues and Debates:
Application - The findings may be useful for advertisingagencies.
Emotional memory of negative experiences - usefulin therapy that attempts to help people with
trauma or amygdala damage.
Nature VS Nurture:
Findings of this study support the nature side ofthis debate, however, as experiences are not
taken into account, nurture could have caused theresults.
Study provides a nature-based explanation as it correlatesthe person’s own amygdala
functioning to his or her experience of emotions andsubsequent memory. The amygdala
functions similarly for all humans, and has developedout of evolution.
Strengths - Explains the impact of natural human inheritanceon human emotions.
Weaknesses - Fails to account for the differencespeople might show in their emotional
experiences as a result of the different environmentsin which they were brought up.
This study explains why different memories in a person’slifetime may be remembered with
different intensity. However, it fails to accountfor the fact that some memories may be
remembered as strongly as others even if lesser inemotional impact.
DEMENT AND KLEITMAN (1957)
Our body follows 2 types of sleep; REM and nREM.
In REM sleep, our eyes move rapidly under the lids.
Aserinsky and Kleitman’s 1995 study; they observedperiods of rapid, conjugate eye movements
during sleep and found a high incidence of dream recallin awakening participants during these
periods and a low incidence when awakened at othertimes.
REM sleep is known as paradoxical sleep. It resembleswakefulness as our eyes move, we
often experience vivid thoughts in the form of dreamsand our brains are active.
Background:

46. Sleep and dreaming are clearly hard to investigate because the participant is necessarily asleep
and so cannot communicate with the researcher. Even when awake, only self-report data can
be obtained about dream content, which alone may beinvalid as it is subjective.
The electro-encephalograph (EEG) monitors the electricalactivity of the brain.
The electrooculogram (EOG) allowed the electricalrecording of eye-movement patterns, their
presence or absence, their size and direction (horizontalor vertical).
The EEG recorded brain activity and eye movementsthat showed we have several stages
during the night where we alternate between REM andnREM.
The EEG detects and records tiny electrical chargesassociated with nerve and muscle activity.
In REM sleep, EEG is relatively low voltage / amplitudeand high frequency.
In nREM sleep, EEG has either high voltage / amplitudeand slow (low) waves or frequent ‘sleep
spindles’ which are short lived high voltage, highfrequency waves.
Aim:
To investigate dreaming in an objective way by lookingfor the relationship between eye
movements in sleep and the dreamer’s recall.
Specific aims:
1.To test whether dream recall differs between nREMand REM sleep
2.To investigate whether there is a positive correlationbetween subjective estimates of
dream duration and the length of REM periods
3.To test whether eye-movement patterns are relatedto dream content.
Procedure:
Research Method - Lab experiment / observations /interviews
Experimental Design - Repeated Measures Design
3 approaches were used to test 3 specific aims.
Sample - 7 adult males and 2 adult females. 5 of themwere studied intensively while the data
gathered from the other 4 was minimal with the intentof confirming results. It was all opportunity
sampling.
Participants studied in detail (5) spent between 6-17nights with 50-77 awakenings.
The other 4 spent only 1 or 2 nights with a totalof 4-10 awakenings.
Participants were identified by their initials tomaintain confidentiality.
Participants reported to the lab a little before theirusual bedtime.
They were instructed to eat normally but to abstainfrom alcoholic or caffeine-containing
beverages on the day of the experiment.
Participants were fitted with electrodes on theirscalp and around their eyes.
Once they were in bed, in a quiet and dark room, thewires were gathered into a ‘ponytail’ to
allow freedom of movement.
The EEG ran continuously to monitor the participantssleep stages and to inform the
researchers when they should be woken up.

47. Participants were woken up by a doorbell that was loud enough to rouse them from any sleep
stage.
The doorbell rang at various times during the nightand the participants indicated whether they
had been dreaming and described their dream into avoice recorder.
Analysis of the dream narrative - It was only considereda dream if there was a coherent, fairly
detailed description of the content. If it was vague,fragmentary impressions were not scored as
dreams.
AIM 1:
Natural Experiment in a laboratory setting
IV - REM and nREM stages
DV - Whether the participants reported a dream andif so, the details (descriptive account) had
to be reported.
Method - Participants were woken either from REM ornREM sleep, but were not told which
stage they were in. They confirmed whether they werehaving a dream, and if so, reported the
content into a recorder.
Aim 2:
Experimental Analysis
IV - 5 or 15 minutes
DV - Participant’s choice
Participants were woken up following 5 or 15 minutesof REM sleep.
They were asked if they thought they had been dreamingfor 5 or 15 minutes.
Their dream narrative was recorded too, and the numberof words were counted.
Correlational analysis - 2 variables were the participant’stime estimation and the number of
words in their dream narrative.
Aim 3:
Participants were woken up after exhibiting a singleeye-movement pattern for longer than 1
minute.
This was measured using the electrodes and the EOG
IV - Eye-movement pattern type (mainly horizontal,mainly vertical, vertical and horizontal, very
little or no movement). This could not be manipulated.
They were then asked to report their dream.
DV - Report of dream content.
In this, participants were investigated upon the basisif the patterns in dreams, directions
(vertical or horizontal) represented visual experienceof the content of the dream or if they were
just randomized, investigating the activation of CNS(Central Nervous System) during sleep.
Results:
Study 1
Participants described dreams often when woken inREM but rarely from nREM sleep. When
awakened in nREM, they tended to describe feelingsbut these did not relate to specific dream
content.

48. The waking pattern did not affect dream recall.
Specifically, participant WD was no less accuratedespite being misled and DN was no more
accurate even though he might have guessed the patternof awakenings. This showed that
practice effect was not a factor affecting the resultsof the experiment.
When woken from nREM sleep, participants returnedto nREM sleep and the next REM stage
was not delayed.
When woken from REM sleep, participants generallydid not dream until the next REM phase.
Recall of dreams during nREM sleep was much more vaguethan when waking up from an REM
stage as in REM visual, vivid and clear dream contentwas reported.
79.6% (152/191) of awakenings produced dream recallin REM, and 93% (149/160) of
awakenings from nREM did not produce dream recall.
End of nREM period - 17 nREM awakenings soon afterthe end of a REM stage (within 8
minutes), 5 dreams were recalled (29% of occasions).However, from 132 awakenings following
periods longer than 8 minutes after a REM stage, only6 dreams were recalled.
Of 39 REM awakenings, when dreams were not reported,19 occurred in the first 2 hours of
sleep, 11 from the second 2 hours and 5from the third2 hours and 4 from the last 2 hours.
Study 2
Participants’ responses were 88% accurate for 5 minuteREM duration and 78% accurate for 15
minute REM duration.
Although most participants were highly accurate (with0-3 incorrect responses), DN was not. He
often found that he could only remember the end ofhis dream, so it seemed shorter than it
actually was. Hence, DN chose 5 minutes more frequentlyand consistently (raising questions to
the validity). But this did prove that DN was accurateon estimates of 5 minutes instead of 15.
There was a significant positive correlation betweenREM duration and the number of words in
dream narrative. The r values varied between 0.40and 0.71 for different participants.
Dream narratives for very long durations were notmuch longer than those for 15 minutes. The
participants did report that they felt as though theyhad been dreaming for a long time,
suggesting that they couldn't recall the early partof the dream.
Study 3
Participants couldn’t recall the dream with such highprecision.
3 of the 9 participants showed periods of verticalmovements, and each was allied to a narrative
about vertical movement.
One of them dreamed of standing at the bottom of atall cliff operating a hoist. The participant
reported looking up at the climbers at various levelsand down at the hoist machinery.
Another dreamed of climbing up a series of laddersand looking up and down as he climbed.
In the third one, the dreamer was throwing basketballsin a net, first shooting them and looking
up at the net, then looking down to pick another balloff the floor.
Only one instance of pure horizontal movements wasseen. In this the participant was watching
people throwing tomatoes at each other.
On 10 occasions, participants were awakened afterlittle or no eye movement. Here, they
reported watching something in the distance or juststaring fixedly at some object.

49. In 2 of these awakenings, participants’ pattern was just a minute of inactivity followed by a large
eye movement to the left just a second or two beforeawakening.
In one, the participant was driving a car and staringat the road ahead. He approached an
intersection and was startled by the sudden appearanceof a car speeding at him from the left
as the bell rang.
The other participant was also driving a car and staringat the road ahead. Just before
awakening he saw a man on the left side of the roadand hailed him as he drove past.
21 awakenings followed mixed eye movements. Theseinvolved the participants looking at
things close to them, objects or people. There wasno recall of distant or vertical activity.
Conclusions:
Study 1 - Dreams probably occur only during REM sleep,which occurs regularly throughout the
night. Dreams reported when woken up from nREM sleepare usually from previous REM
episodes.
Study 2 - The finding that the length of a REM periodand its estimation by the participants are
very similar shows that dreams are not instantaneousevents but rather are experienced in ‘real
time’.
Study 3 - Eye movements during REM sleep correspondto where and at what the dreamer is
looking in the dream. This suggests that eye movementsaren't random events caused by the
activation of the CNS but are directly related todream imagery.
Further Improvement:
If previous recordings were not continuous/consistent,they may have failed to catch instances
of dream sleep in exclusively every participant.
The equipment might have missed out/neglected smallmovements that might be pivotal to the
conclusivity of the results.
Greater sample size for generalization of results.Present study investigated the sleep and
dreams of only 5 adults. Sample was very restrictedin terms of gender and age.
Study required participants to verbally narrate theirdreams. Such a task may be challenging for
participants who are hesitant in speaking or are notvery fluent. A task less reliant on verbal
ability of the participants is more desirable. Fragmenteddream reports were discarded from
consideration - which may have been stemmed from theparticipants’ inability to narrate a
comprehensive account of their dreams.
Further research could look into the impact of morenatural influences on sleep and dreams
such as caffeine, drugs, noisy environment, etc. whichgive a more realistic approach and
understanding.
Ethical Issues:
Confidentiality - Was maintained as they were identifiedusing their initials so that dream content
cannot be related to any of them.
Protection may not have been fully provided as participantswere sleeping in unnatural
situations so it may have affected their sleep orability to concentrate the next day.

50. Strengths:
Lab Experiment - It was possible to control extraneousvariables. If some participants had
woken more slowly they would have forgotten more oftheir dream. This was avoided by using a
loud doorbell that woke them immediately.
-Participants came to the lab a little before regularbedtime.
-Could not have caffeine or alcohol on days of experiment.
Dement and Kleitman conducted the additional experimentcomparing 5 and 15 minute REM
sleep periods.
Control of Demand Characteristics - Participants werenot told about their EEG patterns (or
whether they were in REM or nREM) or whether theireyes were moving.If they thought they
were supposed to remember more detailed dreams inREM sleep, they might have tried harder
to do so. Raised Validity.
Operationalisation - Dream clearly defined as recollectionthat included content, not just
remembering dreaming in general. Raises Validity asD&K could be sure they were recording
actual dreams. Question 2 task was limited to 5-15minutes. This helped raise validity as it
reduced participant variables such as differencesin ability to recall dreams.
EEG - Objective way to measure sleep and dreamingas it is a biological measure.
Reliable as it is unaffected by experimenter's personalviews.
The consistent placing of the electrodes ensured recordingstaken from each participant would
provide the same information.
Reliability of the findings is supported by the similarityof the results to those of the previous
studies.
Produced quantitative data (brain waves, eye movementpatterns, length of REM sleep).
Easy to compare and analyze.
Able to measure REM sleep duration accurately, ensuringthat comparisons to dream duration
estimates were valid.
Self Reports - Description of dreams provided richqualitative data, which lacked from EEG.
Helped provide insights into the reasons for the eyemovement detected.
Could help raise validity. Helps better understandparticipants.
Confidentiality - Researchers only use participant'sinitials when they published the data.This
way, results could not be linked to participants.
Weaknesses:
Generalizability - 7 men and 2 women with only 5 studiedin depth.Very small sample size.
More men than women. Also no info about participants.Ethnocentrism. Different cultural ideas
of sleep.Not generalizable because study was doneover a short period of time.
-Ps stressed/overworked/jet-lagged, results wouldnot be generalizable.
Lowers external validity and reliability.
Low Ecological Validity - Environment of experimentnot like real life and could have affected
sleeping behavior. Sleeping with wires on. Sleepingbeing watched. Sleeping in a strange room.

51. If Participants normally drank alcohol or had caffeine, they could have slept or dreamt differently
than usual. Method of waking up Ps (using a doorbell) could have influenced P's ability to recall
dreams.
No mention of informed consent or right to withdraw.
Self Reports - Researchers are unsure if dream contentreported was accurate.
Some participants may have "filled the gaps" to makedreams seem coherent, rather than
reporting exactly what they remembered. Could reducevalidity.
EEG - Gives basic readings of brain activity.No detail,only general brain activity. Don't know Ps
thoughts or feelings, only brain activity. No insight.Reductionist. Based only on biological
mechanisms.
Differences in narrative length, based on how expressivethe participants were, making these
reports more subjective.
Issues and Debates:
Application - The findings of this study could beused for treating or checking for sleep
disorders. Sparked new waves into sleep research.
Nature VS Nurture:
REM and nREM sleep are universal and hence, due tonature. However, the individual
differences could have been due to environmental factorssuggesting that they can affect
sleeping patterns too.
SCHACHTER AND SINGER
Research Method:laboratory experiment
Experimental Design:Independent groups design aseach participant took part in only one of
the seven experimental groups

52. Different theories exist regarding how and why people experience emotion. These include
evolutionary theories, the James-Lange theory, theCannon-Bard theory and Schachter and
Singer’s Two-Factor Theory. The James-Lange theoryis that people experience emotion
because they perceive their body's physiological responsesto external events. According to this
theory, people don’t cry because they feel sad, ratherpeople feel sad because they are crying.
The Cannon-Bard Theory states that the experienceof emotion happens at the same time that
the physiological arousal happens. Neither one causesthe other. Therefore, the brain gets a
signal that causes the experience of the emotion atthe same time that the autonomic nervous
system gets a signal that causes physiological arousal.
Schachter and Singer then introduced the Two-FactorTheory of emotion, which combined
the two elements of physiological arousal and cognition.This experiment aimed to test the
Two-Factor theory.
AIM
To test the Two-Factor Theory of Emotion - that emotionalexperience is the result of both the
physiological arousal of a person and the cognitiveinterpretation of a situation. ​
HYPOTHESES
1. If a person does not have an explanation to theirstate of arousal (are ignorant) then they will
label their feelings based on the cognitions availableto them.
2. If a person has an explanation for their stateof arousal, they won’t take into account the
cognitions available to them to label their emotions.
3. If a person experiences a previously encounteredemotional situation, they will only react
or feel emotional if they are physiologically aroused.
WHAT IS THE TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF EMOTIONS?
The Two-Factor Theory of Emotions states that foran emotion to be experienced, a
physiological state of arousal is necessary AND situationalfactors will then determine how we
interpret this arousal. In other words, an event causesphysiological arousal first, and then we
must identify a reason for this by using the cognitionsavailable to us through our surroundings.
The strength of the physiological arousal will determinethe strength of emotion experiences, but
our surroundings determine the type of emotion experienced.Previous theories of emotion did
not include cognitive labelling.
SAMPLE
The study consisted of 185 male college students whowere taking a course of introductory
psychology at the University of Minnesota. 1 of thesubjects refused the injection and withdrew,
leaving the effective sample size to be 184. 90% ofthe participants were part of a voluntary pool
in which they receive 2 extra points on their finalexam for every hour that they serve as
experimental subjects.Therefore, they received coursecredit for their participation. Health
records of the participants were looked at to ensurethat the Epinephrine injection would not
cause any harmful effects.

53. VARIABLES
Independent variables:
- The emotional condition (anger or euphoria)
- The information given to participants about theinjection (informed, misinformed, ignorant)
Dependent variable:
- The reaction that participants gave to the actionsof the stooge
-This was recorded via observation througha one-way mirror and via the results of the
self-report
WHAT WERE THE GROUPS?
Euphoria:
-EpiInf (Epinephrine Informed)
- EpiMis (Epinephrine Misinformed)
- EpiIgn (Epinephrine Ignorant)
- Placebo
Anger:
-EpiInf (Epinephrine Informed)
- EpiIgn (Epinephrine Ignorant)
​ - Placebo
WHY WAS EPIMIS (EPINEPHRINE MISINFORMED) A CONTROLGROUP?
EpiMis was a control group because it was believedthat telling a participant of possible
symptoms could make them more introspective in theEpiInf group and make them slightly
troubled by their physical state, which may have affectedtheir indicated emotion. Since EpiMis
would also cause participants to become more introspective,the researchers could then check
whether there is a difference between EpiMis and EpiInf,and if so, could conclude that the
change in the dependent variable was not caused byintrospectiveness etc.
EpiMis was only a condition in the Euphoria condition,it was not used in the Anger condition.
PROCEDURE:
Instructions given to participants about the injections:
“In this experiment we would like to make varioustests of your vision. We are particularly
interested in how certain vitamin compounds and vitaminsupplements affect
the visual skills. In particular, we want to findout how the vitamin compound called
'Suproxin' affects your vision. What we would liketo do, then, if we can get your permission, is
to give you a small injection of Suproxin. The injectionitself is mild and harmless; however,
since some people do object to being injected we don'twant to talk you into anything. Would
you mind receiving a Suproxin injection?”
Depending on the condition, participants werethen injected with either Epinephrine or a
placebo. What they were told by the experimenter alsodepended on which condition
participants were in.
●Epinephrine informedwere told:
“I should also tell you that some of our subjectshave experienced side effects from the
Suproxin. These side effects are transitory, thatis, they will only last for about 15 or 20 minutes.

54. What will probably happen is that your hand will start to shake, your heart will start to pound,
and your face may get warm and flushed. Again theseare side effects lasting about I5 or 20
minutes.”
●Epinephrine misinformedwere told:
“I should also tell you that some of our subjectshave experienced side effects from the
Suproxin. These side effects are transitory, thatis, they will only last for about 15 or 20 minutes.
What will probably happen is that your feet will feelnumb, you will have an itching sensation
over parts of your body, and you may get a slightheadache.”
●Epinephrine ignorant:
In this condition, when the subject agreed to theinjection, the experimenter said nothing more
relevant to side effects and simply left the room.While the physician was giving the injection told
the subject that the injection was “mild and harmlessand would have no side effects”.
●Placebo:
Participants receiving the placebo were given thesame treatment as those in the EpiIgn
condition.
Emotional conditions
(The full procedure for the emotional conditions isgiven in the original study, below is a
condensed version of the key points that you shouldknow). Participants were told by the
experimenter that they had to wait for around 20 minutesfor the ‘Suproxin’ to take effect. In both
conditions, the subject is then left in a room alonewith a stooge, trained to act either
euphorically or angrily, where the participants canbe observed through a one-way mirror without
their knowledge.
●Euphoria
In the Euphoria condition, before leaving the stoogeand the participant alone in the room, the
experimenter also apologised for ‘the condition ofthe room’ as it was made to be messy. As
soon as the experimenter left, the stooge introducedhimself and made some icebreaker
comments. He then started his euphoric routine:
1.He doodles a fish for 30 seconds
2.He crumples up the paper and tries to throw it intothe wastebasket. He purposely
misses the first time and turns it into a game of‘basketball’. If the participant does not
join in, the stooge will encourage them by saying‘Here, you try it.’
3.The stooge then starts to make paper aeroplanes, flyingthem around the room and
eventually throwing the plane at the participant.
4.The stooge then takes paper from the paper aeroplaneand shoots it using a slingshot
made from a rubber band.
5.He then builds a tower of folders and begins to shootat the tower and cheers when the
tower falls.
6.He then goes to pick the folders up, and notices ahula hoop behind a blackboard and
starts to play with it.

55. 7.Finally, he sits down with his feet on the table and the experimenter comes back in the
room.
All of the injection conditions were run for Euphoriaand the stooge was unaware of which
condition the participant was in.
●Anger
In the Anger condition, the experimenter asked thestooge and the participant to fill out a
questionnaire while the ‘Suproxin’ was taking effect.The questionnaire is 5 pages long, contains
36 questions, and starts off neutral, but the laterquestions become more and more insulting,
ending in "With how many men (other than your father)has your mother had extramarital
relationships?". The stooge is trained to completethe questionnaire at the same speed as the
participant, and his routine is as follows:
1.Before looking at the questionnaire, the stooge says‘I think it's unfair for them to give
you shots’.
2.The stooge then flicks through the questionnaire,saying “Boy, this is a long one."
3.He then makes several angry remarks at some of thequestions. At number 25 which
asks whether they ‘bathe or wash regularly’ the stoogerefuses to fill it in and angrily
crosses it out.
4.At question number 28 ("How many times each week doyou have sexual intercourse?")
the stooge yells “To hell with it! I don’t have totell them all this!” He then sits sullenly for
a few moments, rips up the questionnaire into piecesand storms out of the room.
EpiMis did not take part in this condition as it wasa control.
Data collection - How emotional state was measured:
Observation
A controlled observation through a one-way mirrorwas used to assess the subject’s behaviour.
This is considered ‘semi-private’ behaviour becauseparticipants were in a room with someone,
but did not know they were being observed by the researchers.For both conditions, 2 observers
were used to test for inter-rater reliability
For theEuphoria condition, the activities were scoredas follows:
●5 - hula hooping
●4 - shooting with slingshot
●3 - paper airplanes
●2 - paper basketballs
●1 - doodling
●0 - does nothing
The observers agreed 88% of the time.
​*These scores were multiplied by
the time spent doing the activity
For theAnger condition, the behaviour categorieswere as follows:
Category 1- Agrees with comments made by the stooge(scored +2)

56. ●Category 2- Disagrees with comments made by the stooge (scored -2)
●Category 3- Neutral response to the stooge’s comments(scored 0)
●Category 4- Initiates agreement or disagreement (scores+2 or -2)
●Category 5- Makes no response (scores 0)
●Category 6- Ignores the stooge (scores -1)
The two observers agreed completely 71% of the time.

57. Questionnaire
The second type of measurement was the questionnairetaken after participants had been with
the stooge which was a self-report measure. This isconsidered ‘public’ indications of mood
because the experimenter would be able to read theirresponses. They are told that they need
to report what mood they are in as this supposedlyaffects their vision as well as the Suproxin,
and are given a questionnaire to fill out. Some questionswere as follows:
●Critical Questions:
“How irritated, angry or annoyed would you sayyou feel at present?”
Responses were given on a 5-point scale from 0-4,0 = I don’t feel at all irritated or angry to 4 =I
feel extremely irritated and angry. (higher scoresmeant more angry)
“How good or happy would you say you feel at present?
Responses were given on a 5-point scale from 0-4,0 = I don’t feel at all happy or good to 4 = I
feel extremely happy and good. (higher scores meantmore happy)
●Other questions were also put in to measure the physiologicaleffect of the Epinephrine
on the participant:
e.g. “Did you feel any tremor (involuntary shakingof the hands, arms or legs)?”
Responses were on a 4-point scale from 0-3, 0 = notat all to 3 = an intense amount
After the questionnaire was completed, the participant’spulses were taken and participants
were debriefed about the true aims of the experiment.
FEATURES OF THE INJECTIONS GIVEN
Depending on the condition, participants were eithergiven an injection of Epinephrine or a
placebo:
●Epinephrine
Received ½ cm³ of of 1:1000 of a saline solution ofepinephrine bitartrate. Some of the effects of
the epinephrine injection were increased heart rate,slightly accelerated breathing and increased
blood sugar levels. These effects would occur within3-5 minutes of the injection, and would
normally subside after 15-20 minutes.
*Epinephrine is adrenaline
●Placebo
Participants in the placebo condition received salinesolution which has no physiological side
effects
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Before we get into the results, it is important tonote that 16 participant's data was disregarded.
5 participants experienced no physiological effectsas a result of the injection. In addition, 11
participants were very suspicious about a part ofthe experiment which may have led them to
act in a different way or perceive their emotionsdifferently, so their results were also
disregarded. The results are as follows:

58. Those who received the Epinephrine injections showedmore sympathetic arousal and had
higher scores on the questions in the questionnaireabout tremors and palpitations. Pulse rate in
the epinephrine condition also increased, while theheart rate of those receiving the placebo
decreased.
Euphoria
EpiMis was the most happy with their self-report happinessscore being 1.90, whereas EpiInf
was the least happy with their self-report score being0.98. EpiMis were also the most active
and engaged with the stooge with an activity indexscore of 22.56, compared to EpiInf which
was the least active group with an activity indexscore of 12.72.
Anger
EpiIgn were the least happy with a self-report scoreof 1.39 (most angry) and EpiInf were the
most happy (least angry) with a score of 1.91. Itcan also be seen that EpiIgn were the most
angry as they had an anger score of +2.28, whereasEpiInf were the least angry with an anger
score of -0.18.
Problem with self-report data from the angry condition-The participants were students who
would gain course credit for their participation,so they were less willing to record feeling angry
towards the experiment as they knew the researcherswould read their responses and they
would risk losing their points.

59. So to summarise, the emotional state of the stooge had little effect on EpiInf, but transferred the
most to EpiIgn (or EpiMis in the Euphoria condition)
In the Anger condition, the scale does not change,and so is the same used for the Euphoria
condition. This means that a higher score in the Angerconditions means that the participants
are MORE HAPPY, but LESS ANGRY
CONCLUSIONS
They found that the results supported the Two-FactorTheory of Emotions - that situational
factors will then determine how we interpret physiologicalarousal. All of the 3 original
hypotheses were also arguably supported by the findings.
EXAMPLE 10 MARK EVALUATION
One strength of the study by Schachter and Singeris that it used standardised procedures
which increases the internal validity of the study.One standardised procedure used was that the
stooge in both conditions had to follow a script inorder for the interactions to be the same for all
participants. For example, in the angry condition,the stooge would flick through the
questionnaire and exclaim ‘Boy, this is a long one’before even filling it out. The stooge would
also have to complete the questionnaire at the samepace of the participant so that the
participant could relate with his remarks. The questionson the questionnaire were also
standardised, and in the anger condition, they increasedin insultingness as the questionnaire
went on. For example, the final question was ‘howmany men (other than your father) has your
mother had extramarital relationships?’ with the optionsbeing 4 and under, 5-9, 10 and over.
These standardised procedures increased internal validityas the content of the questions and
the way that the stooge acted was the same for allparticipants in that condition.
On the other hand, one weakness of this study is the use of a self-report. Participants knew
that their answers would be seen by the researcher,and therefore it was reported that some
were reluctant to record the true extent of theiremotions, especially in the anger condition,
because they did not want to lose their course credit.This is an example of demand
characteristics because participants wanted to pleasethe researchers with the answers that
they thought the aim of the experiment was in orderto gain their course credit and not offend
them by reporting that they were angry or frustrated.This lowers the internal validity of the study
because the results may not be a true representationof the emotional arousal of the
participants.
However, another strength of this study is thatit used an independent measures design,
meaning that order effects would not affect the participant’sbehaviour. Schachter and Singer
used an independent groups design, as it would havebeen impossible for participants to
complete all conditions. Participants were randomlyassigned to one of 7 conditions (for
example, EpiInf in the Euphoric condition), and didnot perform in any other condition. This is a
strength because participants would not have becomebored of the experimental task, meaning
that they may not experience such intense emotionsas they would have if they were
experiencing the condition for the first time. Therefore,internal validity is increased because
participants all have a baseline of emotions becausenone of them had experienced any of the
conditions beforehand.
On the other hand, another weakness of this studyis that it is low in ethics. Participants were
deceived as they were told that the aim of the experimentwas to investigate the effects of a
vitamin compound of Suproxin on vision, and participantswere told that they were being
injected with Suproxin. In fact they were actuallybeing injected with Epinephrine (which they
had not consented to), and the real aim was to testthe two-factor theory of emotion (how they
will label the reason behind their state of physiologicalarousal). In addition to this deception,
participants in the EpiMis conditions were also deceivedabout the effects of the drug that they

60. were being injected with. These deceptions are highly unethical and since participants were
deceived, they could not give informed consent. Therefore,this study has very low ethics.
LEARNING APPROACH
The learning approach focuses on observable behavioursrather than mental concepts, and
explains behaviour in terms of learning, for example,through social learning theory and
classical/ operant conditioning.
ASSUMPTIONS OF THE LEARNING APPROACH
- all behaviour is learned (nurture) and nothingis inherited (nature)
- the subject matter of psychology should havestandardised procedures, with an emphasis on
the study of observable behaviours that can be measuredobjectively, rather than a focus on the
mind or consciousness.
​
STRENGTHS
- originally focused on observable data,
so it is less subjective as it is not as open
to interpretation
- can explain how many mental illnesses
(such as phobias) can be acquired and
treated
WEAKNESSES
- the learning approach now considers
cognitive factors, which may be more
inference-based
- the idea that behaviour is just based on
learning is reductionist, as behaviours are
influenced by many other factors
BANDURA ET AL.
AIM:
Investigate whether children would learn aggressivebehavior by observing a model and would
reproduce this behavior in the absence of the modeland whether the sex of the model was
important.
4 hypotheses:
1.Observed aggressive behavior will be imitated sochildren seeing aggressive models will be
more aggressive than those seeing a non-aggressivemodel.
2. Observed non-aggressive behavior will be imitatedso children seeing non-aggressive models
will be less aggressive than those seeing no model.

61. 3.Children are more likely to copy a same-sex model.
4.Boys will be more likely to copy aggression thangirls.
BACKGROUND:
Children copy adults. The immediate social settingmakes the child imitate what he or she is
watching. This is 'facilitation of behavior’. Observationof a behavior could lead the child to
acquire a new response that he or she could reproduceindependently. The new behavior
should generalize to new settings and so would beproduced in the absence of an adult model.
If this imitative learning occurred, it would arisein response to observing either aggressive or
non aggressive behavior.
Imitative social learning: The learning of a new behaviorwhich is observed in a role model and
imitated later by the absence of the model.
Children are also differentially rewarded for theircopying.
Boys - rewarded for their copying of sex-appropriatebehavior. Girls discouraged from
sex-inappropriate behavior.
Bandura suggested this would lead to 2 kinds of differences.
1.Boys and girls would be more likely to imiotate samesex models
2.They should differ in the readiness with which theyimitate aggression - with boys doing
so more readily as this is seen as a more masculinetype of behaviour.
Social Learning Theory:Social behaviour is learnedprimarily by observing and imitating
others. It is “learning by proxy”.
The four components to it are:
Attention:Observers must pay attention to behaviourof the model. The model must have some
feature that attracts the observer.
Retention:Observers must store the behaviour in theirlong-term memory so that the information
can be used again (when the observer wants to imitatethe behaviour).
Reproduction:Observers must feel capable of imitatingthe retained, observed behaviour.
Motivation:If observers experience vicarious reinforcement,they are more likely to imitate the
behaviour. This is when the model has been rewardedfor performing the observed behaviour.
Vicarious punishment can also happen: the role modelis punished for the observed behaviour,
so is less likely to imitate it.
METHOD:
Research Method and Design - Laboratory experiment;environment was not the normal
condition of that where the children played and thesituation was controlled.
It was an independent measures design as differentchildren were used in each of the levels of
the IV’s, although the children were matched for aggressionin threes as there were 3 IV’s.
The IV’s were:
Model Type- whether the child saw an aggressive model,non-aggressive model or no model

62. Model Gender- same gender as child (boys watching a male model and girls watching a
female model) or different gender (boys watching afemale model and girls watching a male
model).
Learner Gender- whether the child was a boy or girl.
The participants were divided into threes - all withvery similar initial aggression levels. One of
each of these individuals was placed into each ofthe 3 different conditions of model type.
The DV was the learning the child displayed. Thiswas measured through a controlled
observation of the children and measures of aggressivebehaviour were recorded.
There were a total of eightexperimental groups. Outof these participants, 24 were
assigned to acontrol groupthat would not be exposedto adult models. The rest of the
children were then divided into two groups of 24 participantseach. One of the
experimental groups would be exposed to aggressivemodels, while the other 24
children would be exposed to non-aggressive models.
These groups were divided again into groups of boysand girls. Each of these
subgroups was then divided so that half of the participantswould be exposed to a
same-sex adult model and the other half would be exposedto an opposite-sex adult
model.
Beforeconducting the experiment, Bandura also assessedthe children's existing levels
of aggression. Groups were then matched equally sothat they had average levels of
aggression.
SAMPLE:
72 children aged 3-6 years
36 boys and 36 girls obtained from Stanford UniversityNursery School.
2 adults served as role models, 1 male and 1 female.
1 female experimenter conducted the study for all72 participants.
Technique - opportunity sampling

63. Materials
Aggressive toys:
■5ft high Bobo doll
■a mallet
■dart guns
Non-aggressive toys:
■a tea set
■toy cars
■dolls.
PROCEDURE:
Prior to the experimental part of the study, childrenwere observed in their nursery school by the
experimenter and a teacher who knew them well. Theywere rated on four five point-scales
measuring physical aggression, verbal aggression,aggression to inanimate objects and
aggression to inhibition (anxiety). They were thenassigned to 3 groups, ensuring that the
aggression levels of the children in each group werematched. Of the 51 children rated by both
observers (the rest were rated by only one observer),similar ratings were generally produced.
Their ratings were compared as a measure of ‘inter-raterreliability’, which showed a high
correlation between the observers of r=0.89.
Inter-rater reliability - the extent to which 2 researchersrate the same activity that they have
observed in the same way. This is judged using a correlation(an r value) between the 2 ratings,
which will be high (close to 1) if they are reliable.
12 boys and 12 girls were allocated to control groupswho saw no model. The remaining
children were divided equally by sex between aggresiveand non-aggresive model groups, and
within those between the same and opposite sex models.
The experimental procedure started with all participantsbeing deliberately mildly annoyed. This
was done for 2 reasons:
1.Because watching aggression may reduce the productionof aggression by the observer
(even if it has been learned) and it was necessaryto see evidence of learning.
2.To ensure that even the non-aggressive condition andcontrol participants would be likely
to express aggression, so that any reduction in thattendency could be measured.
Each individual child was shown to a room with attractivetoys such as a fire engine and a baby
crib but after about 2 minutes of play, they weretold that these were the best toys and were to
be kept for other children. The experimenter and childthen moved to the observation room,

64. where the experimenter showed the child to a table and chair in their ‘play area’ - shown how to
make potato prints and sticker pictures; activitiesthat were previously identified as interesting
for children. The opposite corner of the room containeda table and chair, a Tinkertoy set, a
mallet and a 5 foot Bobo doll. Bobo doll - inflatableclown like doll which bounced back when hit.
The experimenter remained in the room so that thechild would not refuse to be alone or try to
leave early but they appeared to be working quietlyat their desk.
The 3 groups were then treated differently.
Non-aggressive condition - model assembled the Tinkertoys(wooden building kit) for 10
minutes.
Aggressive condition - lasted only 1 minute afterwhich the model attached the bobo doll. The
doll was laid on its side, sat on and punched in thenose, picked up and hit on the head with the
mallet, tossed up in the air and kicked. This sequencewas performed 3 times over 9 minutes
accompanied by aggressive comments such as ‘Kick him’and 2 non-aggressive comments
such as ‘he sure is a tough fella’.
Of children in the 2 model groups - half saw a same-sexmodel and the others saw a model of
the opposite sex.
A control group did not see any model - saw no aggression.
A test of the child’s aggression then followed inwhich the child observed for 20 minutes using a
one-way mirror.
For the aggressive model group - test of delayed imitation.This experimental room contained a
3 foot bobo doll, a mallet and peg board, 2 dart gunsand a tether ball with a face painted on it
which hung from the ceiling. It also contained somenon-aggressive toys like a tea set, crayons
and colouring paper, a ball, 2 dolls, 3 bears, carsand trucks and plastic farm animals. These
toys were always presented in the same order.
The children’s behaviour was observed in 5 secondintervals (240 response units per child),
there were 3 ‘response measures’ of the children’simitation.
Imitation of physical aggression - striking the bobodoll with the mallet, sitting on the doll and
punching it in the nose, kicking the doll and tossingit in the air.
Imitation of verbal aggression - repetition of phrases‘sock him’, ‘hit him down’, ‘kick him’, ‘throw
him in the air’ or ‘pow’.
Imitative non-aggressive verbal responses - repetitionof ‘he keeps coming back for more’ or ‘he
sure is a tough fella’.
Partially imitative aggression was scored if the childimitated these behaviours incompletely. The
2 behaviours here were:
Mallet aggression - striking objects other than thebobo doll aggressively with mallet.
Sits on bobo doll - laying the bobo doll on its sideand sitting on it, without attacking it.
2 further categories were:

65. Aggressive gunplay - shooting darts or aiming a gun and firing imaginary shots at objects in the
room.
Non-imitative physical and verbal aggression - physicallyaggressive acts directed toward
objects other than the bobo doll and any hostile remarksexcept for those in the verbal imitation
category (‘stupid ball’ ‘cut him’ ‘shoot the bobo’‘knock over poeple’ ‘horses fighting, biting’).
Finally, behaviour units were also counted for non-aggressiveplay and sitting quietly not playing
at all and records were kept of the children’s remarksabout the situation.
One male scored all the children’s behaviours and,except for those conditions in which he was
the model, he was unaware of which condition the childhad been in. To test his reliability, a
second scorer independently rated the behaviour ofhalf of the children and the reliability was
high, around r=0.9 for different categories of behaviour.
Each child was tested individually to ensure thatbehavior would not be influenced by other
children. The child was first brought into a playroomwhere there were a number of different
activities to explore.The experimenter then invitedan adult model into the playroom and
encouraged the model to sit at a table across theroom from the child that had similar activities.
Over a ten minute period, the adult models began toplay with sets of tinker toys. In the
non-aggressive condition, the adult model simply playedwith the toys and ignored the Bobo doll
for the entire period. In the aggressive model condition,however, the adult models would
violently attack the Bobo doll.
"The model laid the Bobo on its side, sat on it, andpunched it repeatedly in the nose. The model
then raised the Bobo doll, picked up the mallet, andstruck the doll in the head. Following the
mallet aggression, the model tossed the doll up inthe air aggressively and kicked it about the
room. This sequence of physically aggressive actswas repeated three times, interspersed with
verbally aggressive responses."
In addition to physical aggression, the adult modelsalso used verbally aggressive phrases such
as "Kick him" and "Pow." The models also added twonon-aggressive phrases: "He sure is a
tough fella" and "He keeps coming back for more."
After the ten-minute exposure to the adult model,each child was then taken to another room
that contained a number of appealing toys includinga doll set, fire engine, and toy airplane. The
children were permitted to play for a brief two minutes,then told they were no longer allowed to
play with any of these tempting toys. The purposeof this was to build up frustration levels
among the young participants.
Finally, each child was taken to the last experimentalroom. This room contained a number of
"aggressive" toys including a mallet, a tether ballwith a face painted on it, dart guns, and, of
course, a Bobo doll. The room also included several"non-aggressive" toys including crayons,
paper, dolls, plastic animals, and trucks.

66. Each child was then allowed to play in this room for a period of 20 minutes. During this time
raters observed the child's behavior from behind aone-way mirror and judged each child's
levels of aggression.
RESULTS:
Children exposed to aggressive models imitated theirexact behaviours and were significantly
more aggressive, both physically and verbally, thanthose children in the non-aggression model
or control groups. These children also imitated themodel’s non-aggressive verbal responses.
This effect was greater for boys than girls althoughboys were more likely to imitate physical
aggression and girls more likely to imitate verbalaggression. Boys were also more likely to
imitate a same sex model as, to a lesser extent, weregirls.
The results of the experiment supported three of thefour original predictions.
Bandura and his colleagues had predicted that childrenin the non-aggressive group would
behave less aggressively than those in the controlgroup. The results indicated that while
children of both genders in the non-aggressive groupdid tend to exhibit less aggression than
the control group, boys who had observed an opposite-sexmodel behave non-aggressively
were more likely than those in the control group toengage in violence.
Children exposed to the violent model tended to imitatethe exact behavior they had observed
when the adult was no longer present.
Researchers were correct in their prediction thatboys would behave more aggressively than
girls. Boys engaged in more than twice as many actsof physical aggression than the girls.
There were important gender differences when it cameto whether a same-sex or opposite-sex
model was observed. Boys who observed adult malesbehaving violently were more influenced
than those who had observed female models behavingaggressively. Interestingly, the
experimenters found in same-sex aggressive groups,boys were more likely to imitate physical
acts of violence while girls were more likely to imitateverbal aggression.

67. Children in the aggressive condition showed significantly more imitation of physical and
verbal aggressive behaviour and non-aggressive verbalresponses than children in the
non-aggressive or control conditions.
Children in the aggressive condition showed more partialimitation and non-imitative
physical and verbal aggression than those in the nonaggressiveor control conditions.
Results here were however not always significant.
Children in the non-aggressive condition showed verylittle aggression, although results
were not always significantly less than the controlgroup.
Children who saw the same sex model imitated the model’sbehaviour significantly more
in the following categories:
1.Boys imitated male models more than girls for physical and verbal aggression,
non-imitative aggression and gun play.
2.Girls imitated female models more than boys for verbalimitative aggression and
non-imitative aggression. However, the results werenot significant.
The behaviour of the male model exerted greater influencethan the female model.
Overall, the boys in Banduraet al.(1961) producedmore imitative physical aggression
than girls.
Mean for imitative physical aggression for male subjects:25.8 (much higher than that
for female subjects which was 7.2). Boys imitatedthe physical aggression of a male
model more than the girls.
However, with a female model, girls imitated less(5.5) than with the male model. Girls
imitated the male models more than female models.
Children seeing a non-aggressive model were much lesslikely than either the
aggressive model group or controls to exhibit malletaggression - particularly apparent
for girls.
Non-aggressive play - girls played more with dolls,tea sets and colouring papers. Boys
engaged more in exploratory play and gun play. Nogender differences in play with farm
animals, cars or the tether ball.
According to Bandura, the violent behavior of theadult models toward the dolls led children to
believe that such actions were acceptable. He alsosuggested that as a result, children may be
more inclined to respond to frustration with aggressionin the future.
In a follow-up study conducted in 1965, Bandura foundthat while children were more likely to
imitate aggressive behavior if the adult model wasrewarded for his or her actions, they were far

68. less likely to imitate if they saw the adult model being punished or reprimanded for their hostile
behavior.
CONCLUSION:
Children will imitate aggressive/non-aggressive behavioursdisplayed by adult models,
even if the model is not present.
Children can learn behaviour through observation andimitation.
Behaviour modelled by male adults has a greater influenceon children’s behaviour than
behaviour modelled by a female adult.
Both boys and girls are more likely to learn highlymasculine-typed behaviour such as
physical aggression from a male adult rather thana female.
Boys and girls are likely to learn verbal aggressionfrom a same-sex adult.
EVALUATION:
As with any experiment, the Bobo doll study is notwithout criticisms:
Acting violently toward a doll is a lot differentthan displaying aggression or violence against
another human being in a real world setting.
Because the experiment took place in a lab setting,some critics suggest that results observed
in this type of location may not be indicative ofwhat takes place in the real world.
It has also been suggested that children were notactually motivated to display aggression when
they hit the Bobo doll; instead, they may have simplybeen trying to please the adults.
Since data was collected immediately, it is also difficultto know what the long-term impact might
have been.
Some critics argue that the study itself was unethical.By manipulating the children into
behaving aggressively, they argue, the experimenterswere essentially teaching the children to
be aggressive.
The study might suffer from selection bias. All participantswere drawn from a narrow pool of
students who share the same racial and socioeconomicbackground. This makes it difficult to
generalize the results to a larger, more diverse population.
– Ethics – the children were placed in a situationwherein they had witnessed
aggressive behaviour. This manipulation led some ofthe children to become
aggressive, which could have led the children to havemore aggressive dispositions
across their lives, thus the children had not beenadequately protected from harm.
The study has high levels of standardization and hencea higher reliability.
The study has many controls and this increases itsvalidity.
There was a high interobserver/ inter-rater reliability.
Low risk of demand characteristics.
Using a matched pairs design reduced the effects ofparticipant variables.

69. Use of quantitative data allows for easier statistical analyses.
Weaknesses
The study lacks ecological validity and mundane realism.
Issues and Debates
Application to everyday life: can be useful to advertisingagencies.
Individual and Situational explanation: this studysupports the situational side of the debate as
the situation that the children found themselves incaused the imitated aggressive behaviour.
Nature versus Nurture: this supports the nurture sideof the debate as the environment they
found themselves in caused the imitated aggressivebehaviour.
The use of children: less susceptible to demand characteristicshowever could become more
aggressive after this study.
Generalisability
A sample in all three studies was large: 72, 96 and66, large enough that anomalies (eg
disturbed children) might be cancelled out (e.g. byparticularly mild mannered ones). The
samples were all taken from the same nursery, whichwas for the students and staff at one of
the world’s top universities. These children mighthave unusual home lives and particularly
educated parents, making them unrepresentative ofnormal children.
Another problem is generalising from children to adults.This might not matter ifallof our
important behaviour is learned in childhood (evenif we don’t act it out until adulthood – the 1965
study shows children can learn behaviours but notact them out until later). However, the studies
may not tell us much about how adults learn new behaviourbecause adults might be less
influenced by role models.
Reliability
Bandura’s procedure is very reliable because it canbe replicated – as Bandura did, replicating
the study in ’63 and ‘65. This was easy to do becauseof the standardised procedure (same
script, same checklist categories, etc).
Bandura also used two observers behind the one-waymirror. This creates inter-rater reliability
because a behaviour had to be noted bybothobserversotherwise it didn’t count.
Finally, Bandura filmed the 1963 study and the filmscan be watched by anyone, which adds to
the inter-rater reliability.
Application
Bandura, Ross & Ross (1961)can be applied to parentingand teaching styles. It suggests
children observe and imitate adults, so if you wantyour children to grow up calm and
well-behaved, you need to keep your temper and keepthem away from aggressive role models.
Calm role models seem to have a big effect, whichmight apply to “buddy” systems used in
schools or prisons to help troubled students or prisonerslearn from a role model.
Bandura, Ross & Ross (1963a)has much more applicationto TV censorship. Bandura claims
the study was inspired by a news story about a boyin San Francisco who was seriously hurt
when his friends re-enacted a TV fight scene. Thestudy suggests even cartoon violence (like

70. Tom & Jerry) might be causing children to learn aggressive behaviour. This study is used to
support censoring TV, films and video games aimedat children.
The1963 studyalso counts against the “catharsis”argument which is often used to defend
violent sports like boxing or WWE (which is very popularwith young boys). Defenders often say
watching wrestling helps audiences “vent” their aggressionharmlessly, but Bandura suggests
the opposite is true. If Bandura is right, these sportsshould not be shown to children.
Bandura (1965)also applies to media censorship. Heroesin TV shows, films and video games
are often rewarded for using violence: James Bond,Spider-Man, Lara Croft and every Arnold
Schwarzenegger movie. In video games, violence isexplicitly rewarded by “levelling up”; in films
the violent hero saves the day or gets the girl. Moremedia censorship might reduce violence in
society. Alternatively, films and games should bemade to show the real consequences of
violence rather than the rewards.
Validity
The main criticism of all Bandura’s studies is thatthey lack validity. The children were put in a
strange situation, exposed to some unusual adult behaviourand given toys to play with which
encouraged them to act unnaturally. For example, aBobo Doll isdesignedto be hit and knocked
over (it bounces back upright); children would supposethe experimenterswantedthem to play
with the Bobo Doll in this way. This sort of behaviouris calleddemand characteristics,
because the participants do the stuff they think theresearchers demand of them.
Bandura did address this by creating a film in whichan adult woman attacked another adult
dressed as a clown; when an actor in a clown costumeentered the observation room, the
children used plastic mallets to aggress against him.
(NB. Although this "real life clown" variation ismentioned in many textbooks and websites, I
can't find a citation for it. I wonder if it's oneof those Psychology 'urban myths'. Nevertheless,
it's so well-attested in textbooks it is surely appropriatefor students to use in the Exam)
The other criticism of Bandura's conclusions is thatthere are other explanations for aggression -
biological ones. The study byRaine et al. (1997)shows that aggression is linked to certain brain
deficits, like a weak prefrontal cortex; people withthese deficits might need no excuse to start
behaving aggressively and misinterpret the role model'sbehaviour as an invitation to do so.
Ethics
There are many ethical issues with Bandura’s studies.The major issue is harm and the
wellbeing of participants. The children may have beendistressed by the aggressive behaviour
they witnessed and the aggressive behaviour they learnedfrom the study may have stayed with
them, going on to become a behavioural problem. Participantsare supposed to leave a study in
the same state they entered it, which may not havehappened here. This is an example of what
the BPS Code of Ethics calls "normalising unhelpfulbehaviours".
Although the children could not give valid consentto take part, their nursery teachers agreed
and it is assumed the children’s parents agreed to;this is presumptive consent. Nonetheless,
the children could not withdraw from the study andno effort seems to have been made to
debrief them afterwards (by explaining that the aggressiveadults were only pretending).

71. Bandura would argue that the benefits to society outweighed the risks to any of the children that
took part. His research has shown us the influence that role models have on aggressive
behaviour, especially role models on TV and film.This has been an important contribution to the
debate over censorship in TV, films, videos and games.
SAAVEDRA AND SILVERMAN (BUTTON PHOBIA)
Evaluative learning is a form of classical conditioningin which a person comes to perceive or
“evaluate” a previously neutral object negatively.
It does not depend on the individual expecting orbeing aware of the association between the
neutral object and the negative outcome.
An individual may negatively evaluate a specific objector event without anticipating the threat of
an objective contaminant.
This elicits a feeling of disgust rather than fear.
AIM:
To examine classical conditioning in regards to fearand stimulus avoidance.
To find weather exposure therapy would reduce disgustand avoidance towards buttons in the
case of a boy with button phobia.
BACKGROUND:
Evaluative learning is a form of classical conditioningwhere a neutral stimulus becomes
negative as the product of complex thought processesand emotions associated with it.
Pavlov observed classical conditioning in dogs. Thedog’s salivation was an unconditioned
response to food (an unconditioned stimulus). Whendogs learned that the ringing of the bell (a
neutral stimulus) meant they would be fed, the dogs,therefore, started associating the food with
the bell ring. Now, when the dogs heard the bell (conditionedstimulus) they would start
salivating even in the absence of food, thereforesalivation would become a conditioned
response.
Psychologists proposed the idea of phobias being learnedlike other behaviors by evaluative
learning meaning that the removal of the fear anddisgust feelings towards a stimulus would
help the individuals unlearn the phobia and wouldact as a treatment.
RESEARCH METHOD:
The experiment was a case study where data were collectedby self-report. The boy and his
mom were interviewed beforehand about the originsof the phobia. Results from treatment were
measured using the ‘Feelings Thermometer’ – a 9-pointscale for disgust.
Research Method: Case Study, Observations and Questionnaires
Quantitative data: Distress ratings and Severity ratings
Qualitative data: Questions about why the boy foundbuttons disgusting
SAMPLE:
The participant was a 9-year-old Hispanic Americanboy recruited from the Child Anxiety and
Phobia program at the Florida International University.He has been experiencing button phobia
symptoms for four years beforehand.
PROCEDURE:
Both the boy and his mother gave consent for participationin the study and publishing of the
results. They had to give an interview with whichthe experimenters could determine where the
phobia originated. It is believed his phobia startedafter an unpleasant experience with buttons
at the age of 5 when he dropped a bowl of buttonsduring a crafts lesson in front of his teacher

72. and classmates. The persistent avoidance of buttons worsened his quality of life and interfered
with his daily normal functioning.
Prior to the treatments, a hierarchy of the boy’sfeared stimuli was constructed, consisting of 11
items in increasing severity. This Feelings Thermometermeasure was an 8 point scale and the
boy rated clear, small, plastic buttons an 8.
The treatment involved contingency management andimagery exposure interventions.
→ The contingency management was an in vivo technique(physically happening) involving
positive reinforcement, in which the boy was graduallyexposed to the 11 stimuli on the
hierarchy and was rewarded with his mother’s affectionfor completing each hierarchy level. The
sessions ranged between 20 and 30 minutes.
→ The imagery exposure was an in vivo technique (usingimagination) involving visualization
techniques in which the boy was asked to imagine thebuttons falling on him, and considering
how they looked, smelled and felt. The imagery buttonexposures were also done according to
the Feelings Thermometer hierarchy. Throughout thesessions, the boy had to perform cognitive
self-control strategies – self-talk in which the individualconsiders positive thoughts when
troubling ones occur.
Features of the Disgust/Fear Hierarchy (“FeelingsThermometer”):
A Fear/Disgust Hierarchy was devised in the sessionsin order to track the boy’s progress as he
underwent treatment. This was described to the boyas being a “Feelings Thermometer”, and it
was a 9-point scale ranging from 0-8 ( 0 = not disgusting/scary at all, 8 = extremely
disgusting/scary). The boy had to rate different stimulion this Hierarchy.
The boy’s ratings are shown in the table to the rightbefore he underwent any treatment. He
found the large denim jean buttons the least distressing,rating them a 2, and the small plastic
buttons (both clear and coloured) the most distressing(rating them the maximum score of 8).
RESULTS:
→ Exposure therapy: All items on the hierarchy weresuccessfully completed. The boy could
handle larger button numbers in later sessions. Distressincreased significantly between session
2 and 3. At session 4, some items have increasedin the distress score, such as hugging mom
when she wears buttons. Although the boy could handlethe items, his fear and anxiety
increased. Despite the behavioral changes, evaluativereactions do not improve as a
consequence of positive reinforcement, supportingevaluative learning.
→ Imagery therapy: Successful in minimizing the ratingsof distress. Before therapy, the most
fearful experience rated with 8 was ‘hundreds of buttonsfalling over the body’. Mid therapy
reduced this to 5 and by the end of it was limitedto 3.
→ After a 6 and 12 months follow-up, the boy reportedminimal distress towards buttons. He no
longer met the criteria for button phobia. He wasable to wear small clear buttons on his school
uniform, buttons no longer affected his daily life.

73. Behavioural Exposures
The child was treated with an exposure-based treatmentprogramme that tackled cognitions and
behaviour.
The treatment involved the use of contingency management.The mother provided positive
reinforcement if the boy successfully completed thegradual exposure to buttons.
Treatment sessions lasted about 30 minutes with theboy alone and 20 minutes with the boy
and his mother.
Before the first session, the boy devised a disgustand fear hierarchy using distress ratings on a
9-point scale (from 0-8) via a feelings thermometeras shown in Table 1.
The most difficult were small, clear, plastic buttons.
He had 4 sessions of behavioural exposure to buttonsusing this hierarchy.
Disgust Imagery and Cognitions
After the behavioural exposure, it was planned tohave 7 sessions looking into the boy’s
disgust imagery and cognitions with a view of helpinghim to change these over time.
Further probing revealed that the boy found buttonsdisgusting upon contact with his
body.
He also expressed that buttons emitted unpleasantodours.
These seven sessions involved exploring with the boythe vicarious things about buttons
that he found disgusting and using specific cognitivestrategies.
He was prompted to imagine buttons falling on himand to express how they looked, felt,
smelled and to elaborate on how these imagery exposuresmade him feel.
Although the boy indicated that buttons were “disgustingand gross”, even with intense
probing it was difficult for him to describe exactlywhat about buttons rendered them
disgusting and gross.
Treatment 1: in vivo exposure
The boy was gradually able to handle more buttons,so in that way, he seemed to be improving.
However, in session 4, his subjective ratings on theDisgust/Fear Hierarchy (for example, his
rating of medium, coloured buttons and hugging hismum while wearing large plastic buttons)
were higher than the original ratings. Because hisratings on the Disgust/Fear Hierarchy had
increased, they started the second treatment whichaimed to lower these ratings.
Treatment 2: Disgust-related imagery exposures
Disgust-related imagery exposures and cognitions appearedto be successful in reducing the
boy’s subjective ratings of distress. For example,the boy’s rating for the imagery of hundreds of
buttons falling on him fell from 8 at the beginningof the session (before imagery exposure) to 5
(midway through the exposure) to 3 (after the exposure).His ratings also decreased
dramatically about the imagery of him hugging hismum while she was wearing buttons from 7
(before imagery exposure) to 4 (midway through therapy)to 3 (after imagery exposure).
​Long-term effects of the treatments
At the posttreatment (after 6 months), the boy reportedminimal distress about buttons, and he
no longer met the DSM-IV criteria for a specific phobiaof buttons. He was also able to wear
buttons on his school uniform. At the follow-up assessment(after 12 months), he was in
remission for the phobia diagnosis and continued towear plastic buttons on his school uniform.
CONCLUSION:

74. The treatment was successful. Particularly imagery exposure can give long-term results for the
reduction of fear, disgust and distress that come with specific phobias by altering negative
evaluations. It may be argued that emotions and cognitionsare the crucial items in a person’s
learning of phobic stimuli response.

75. By session 4, the boy had successfully completed allin vivo exposure tasks up to those with the
highest distress ratings.
Even though he could handle more and more buttons,his distress rating increased dramatically
from session 2 to 3 and 3 to 4.
In session 4, the boy’s subjective ratings that hadbeen 6 or 7 prior to the treatment were now
higher.
This phenomenon was consistent with evaluative learning.
Disgust-related imagery exposures and cognitions appearedto be successful in reducing the
boy’s subjective ratings of distress.
In the imagery sessions, he had to imagine hundredsof buttons falling on him, before the
cognitive restructuring, he rated the experience as8. This decreased to 5 midway through the
session and ended up as 3.
In a session where he has to imagine hugging his motherwhile she was wearing a shirt with
many buttons, the distress ratings went from 7 to4 to 3.
He was followed up 6 and 12 months after treatmentand he no longer met the specific phobia
of buttons
Disgust plays a key role in the development and maintenanceof a phobia but a mixture of
behavioural exposure and cognitive restructuring helpedto eliminate the feelings of disgust.
Imagery exposure therapies can provide long-term resultsfor the reduct of disgust that comes
with evaluative learning of an object - resultingin a phobia. This is because the imagery
exposure therapies alter the negative evaluationsassociated with the object.
Cognitions and emotions are crucial items in a person’slearning of a phobic stimuli response,
and clinicians should focus on addressing associatedemotions as well as presenting the child
with the stimulus. ​
Ethical Issues
The participant was severely distressed and protectionprovided.
Informed consent was taken from the mother and theboy.
Strengths
Qualitative and quantitative data were both acquiredin this study.
This is a case study and is focused on one persononly hence detailed data was
collected.
The study was conducted in a therapeutic setting hencehad ecological validity.
Weaknesses
The study lacks mundane realism.
This was a case study and used only one participant,hence has a low generalizability.
The ratings are subjective and this lowers reliability.
Issues and Debates
Application to everyday life: For treating other phobias
Nature versus Nurture: The process by which the phobiawas acquired relates to nurture.
One weakness of Saavedra and Silverman is that itwas a case study, meaning that
generalisability is very low. The only participant in this study was a 9-year-old Hispanic who had
an unusual phobia of buttons. This means that thestudy is low in generalisability because the
sample is not representative of the target population(anyone with a phobia). This means that

76. the findings may not be generalizable to people with more extreme phobias, people who have
had their phobias for a longer period of time than5 years, and adults.
Another weakness of this study is that the data wasmainly based on self-reports. Despite
having one quantitative measure of progress otherthan self-reports (number of buttons
manipulated in the exposure therapy), most of thedata gathered was the ratings of fear and
disgust given by the boy on the ‘Feelings Thermometer’.This decreases the validity of the study
because the boy may have displayed demand characteristicsas he understood what the
researchers would have been investigating. This iseven more problematic because the boy
may have developed a relationship with the researchersover the course of his treatment, and
he may have therefore rated his fear/disgust on the‘Feelings Thermometer’ as the researcher
wanted. Therefore, the study lacks validity as theresults may have been manufactured by the
boy in order to support what the researchers werelooking for.
On the other hand, one strength of the Saavedra andSilverman study is that it was high in
ecological validity. The 9-year-old boy in this studyhad to hug his mum whilst she was wearing
buttons as part of the in vivo exposure therapy. Thismeans that the study has high ecological
validity as the boy performed tasks that were familiarto him, and that he would have completed
outside of the Psychiatrist’s office.
Another strength of this study is that ethics werevery high. Both the mother and the boy
provided informed consent to participate in the assessmentand intervention procedures. This is
highly ethical as both the mother and the boy weremade fully aware of the procedures that the
boy would need to undergo, which is especially importantas the therapies would have been
very distressing for the boy. Despite the distressthat the therapies caused, this study is still
highly ethical as it aimed to decrease the boy’s phobiaof buttons in the long term, so even
though the boy was exposed to distressing stimuliin the short term, the therapies allow him to
overcome his fear and help him to return to schoolin the long term, giving him a better quality of
life overall. In addition, the boy's identity wasnever revealed, and therefore confidentiality is
preserved in this study. Therefore, this study ishighly ethical as informed consent was given by
both the boy and the mother, the study benefited theboy long term (despite causing him some
distress) and the confidentiality of the boy and hismother were maintained.
Classical Conditioning
●First described by Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist
●Focuses on involuntary, automatic behaviors
●Involves placing a neutral signal before a reflex
Operant Conditioning
●First described by B. F. Skinner, an American psychologist
●Involves applying reinforcement or punishment aftera behavior
●Focuses on strengthening or weakening voluntary behaviors
One of the simplest ways to remember the differencesbetween classical and operant
conditioning is to focus on whether the behavior isinvoluntary or voluntary.
Classical conditioning involves associating an involuntaryresponse and a stimulus, while
operant conditioning is about associating a voluntarybehavior and a consequence.

77. In operant conditioning, the learner is also rewarded with incentives,
5
 while classical
conditioning involves no such enticements. Also, rememberthat classical conditioning is
passive on the part of the learner, while operantconditioning requires the learner to actively
participate and perform some type of action in orderto be rewarded or punished.
For operant conditioning to work, the subject mustfirst display a behavior that can then be
either rewarded or punished. Classical conditioning,on the other hand, involves forming an
association with some sort of already naturally occurringevent.
PEPPERBERG

78. Background
To see if humans can use abstract symbolic relationshipswhen communicating
Many psychologists believe that only humans possess“true language skills” alongside the
ability to show a range of cognitive skills.
Prior to this study, Pepperberg had reported on anAfrican Grey parrot, Alex.
He could categorize subjects, count up to six anduse functional phrases “Come here” “I want X”
“Wanna go Y” and “no”. However, Pepperberg statedthat these do not show whether a
non-human can comprehend and use abstract symbolicrelationships when communicating.
One cognitive skill that has been reported as beinga concept not seen in non-humans is the
comprehension of “same” or “different”.
Premack noted that for a non-human to demonstratecomprehension of “same” two aspects
must apply
They must recognize that two independent objects calledA1 & A2 are both blue and this single
attribute makes them “same”
They must also recognize that this “sameness” canbe immediately extrapolated and
symbolically represented not only for two other blueitems, but for two novel independent items
that have nothing in common with the original setof A’s
This study was designed to test these two ways ofassessing the cognitive skill of “same” or
“different”.
Previous studies completed by Pepperberg have shownthat Alex is able to use English
vocalisations to identify, request or refuse morethan 80 different objects of various colours,
shapes and materials.
The ability to put things into groups of the sameor different may be present in some animals. To
do this, the animal must first recognise the categorybeing shared (e.g. colour) and they must
also understand what is meant by ‘same’ or ‘different'.They must also realise that this can be
applied to new situations and objects.
Most animal studies on language have focused on non-humanprimates (e.g. chimpanzees) as
they have high levels of cognition. Evidence has beenfound that many bird species have the
ability to recognise the same/different items, whichis an advantageous benefit for the survival of
birds. This is what Pepperberg was aiming to investigate.
Operant conditioning is a method of learning thatoccurs through rewards and punishments for
behavior. Through operant conditioning, an individualmakes an association between a
particular behavior and a consequence.
B.F. Skinner proposed his theory on operant conditioningby conducting various experiments on
animals. He used a “Skinner Box” for his experimenton rats.
As the first step to his experiment, he placed a hungry rat inside the Skinner box. The rat
discovered a lever, upon pressing which; food wasreleased inside the box. The conditioning
was deemed to be complete when the hungry rat immediatelypressed the lever once it was
placed in the box. The act of pressing the lever forfood is positive reinforcement.
B.F. Skinner also conducted an experiment that explainednegative reinforcement. Skinner
subjecte Pressing of the lever immediately seizedthe flow of unpleasant current. After a few
times, the rat had been conditioned to go directlyto the lever in order to prevent itself from the
discomfort.

79. Aims
To see if an avian subject could use vocal labelsto demonstrate symbolic comprehension of the
concepts of same and different.
To investigate whether a parrot is able to use vocallabels to demonstrate the symbolic
understanding of the concepts ‘same’ and ‘different’​
Sample:
The participant was an African Grey parrot calledAlex and he had been the subject of
interspecies communication and cognitive ability testingfor 10 years. This was an opportunity
sample as the parrot was owned by Pepperberg.
Prior to training, Alex had an extensive vocabulary.He could name and identify colours such as
Rose, Yellow, Green, Blue, Grey, Orange and Purple.
He could also name several shapes (2-,3-,4-, and 5-comerfor, respectively, football-shaped,
triangular, square, and pentagonal forms). Duringthe course of the experiment, he was also
able to identify 6-cornered shapes.
He could name four materials (paper, wood, hide [rawhide],and cork) and various metallic items
(such as key, chain, or grate).
He had also shown a limited comprehension of abstractcategories, in that he could respond to
vocal questions of "What color?" or "What shape?"for example by saying “green” or “5-comer”.
His extensive vocabulary meant that in the testingconditions the researcher could put together
a number of possible scenarios.
CONDITIONS THAT ALEX WAS KEPT IN
Housing:Alex was allowed free access (based on hisvocal requests) to all parts of the
laboratory for 8 hours of the day (time that the trainerswere present). During sleeping hours,
Alex was confined to a wire cage (~62X62X73 cm).
Food:water and a standard seed mix (sunflower seeds,oats etc.) were available continuously,
and fresh fruits, vegetables and toys were availableupon request (e.g. “I want cork”).​
ETHICS OF USING ANIMALS IN RESEARCH
Although the conditions were fairly good, parrotsare intelligent animals and so there are issues
of keeping him in captivity.
Alex was known to get bored, and he often picked hisfeathers out of boredom. Alex died at age
31, which came as a surprise as the average lifespanfor a grey parrot in captivity is 45 years.
Though this may have been for other reasons, Alexmay have been better off in the wild where
he would be more intellectually challenged and wouldnot get as bored.
In addition, though he was allowed free-roaming ofthe laboratory, Alex was confined to a cage
at night, and was only allowed free-roaming at certaintimes of the day.
Procedure
Research Method: Laboratory Experiment, Case Study
Experimental Design: N/A
IV: Whether the object is familiar or novel
DV: Whether the parrot responds correctly to the questions
Sample: African Grey parrot named Alex who was thefocus of Pepperberg’s work since June
1977. He had free access to all parts of the lab for8 hours/day when the trainers were present.
During his “sleeping hours” he was placed in a cagewith fresh water and a standard seed mix

80. for parrots was available at all times. The trials occurred at various locations around the
laboratory depending on where Alex was at that time.Other food such as fresh fruits,
vegetables, nuts and toys were provided when Alexasked for them.
Sampling Technique: Opportunity
Quantitative data: % Success rate on trials was measuredfor familiar and novel objects
Alex was presented with two objects which could bedifferentiated based on three categories:
colour, shape and material. He would then be askedeither “What’s same?” or “What’s
different?”
A correct response would be only recorded if Alexvocalised the appropriate category.
Four processes Alex had to go through to get a correctresponse
Attend to multiple features of two different objects
From the vocal question, determine whether the responseis based on sameness or difference
Work out what is same or different
Vocally produce a category response
To complete these, Alex had to perform the cognitiveskill of feature analysis on the objects
He had already been learning “language” and conceptsfor around 9 years prior to this study
hence he could already produce vocal labels in English.
During the course of the study Alex acquired labelsfor orange, purple and six-cornered objects.
Training sessions occurred 2-4 times per week andlasted between 5 minutes to 1 hours.
Training (general):
MODEL/RIVAL technique - primary technique used byPepperberg; it is based on the principles
of social learning theory
This demonstrates the parrot types of interactiveresponses in the study.
One person acts as a trainer to the second human.The trainer asks questions about the object
and gives praise and rewards for the correct answerbut shows disapproval for the incorrect
answer.
The second human acts as a model for Alex but alsoas a rival for the trainer’s attention.
The roles of model/rival (M/R) and trainer were frequentlyreversed and Alex was often given the
opportunity to participate in these sessions.
During any training where the purpose was to acquirea correct label, each correct response
was rewarded with the object itself.
To keep Alex’s motivation high, he could ask for anyreward if he answered correctly.
Training (same/different):
A trainer would hold up two objects in front of themodel/rival and ask “What's the same?” or
“What’s different?”
Both types of questions and training objects weremixed within each session.
Objects were always red, green or blue; triangularor square; rawhide or wood.
M/R would respond with the correct category labeland was given a reward.
If the M/R gave an incorrect response, the trainerscolded the person.
When an error was presented, the objects were removedfrom sight, and then presented again
with the same question asked.
The role of M/R was then reversed.
Initial training contrasted just the categories ofcolour and shape Alex had already learnt. He
was then trained in a third category “mah-mah” (matter).
To prevent boredom of repetitive tasks he was alsobeing trained on number concepts, new
labels for other objects, recognition of photographsand object permanence.
Formal testing was only started after he acquiredthe label “mah-mah”.
General Training:

81. A secondary trainer who had never trained him earlier carried out trials. This was done to
reduce any effect of curing from the original trainers.
The questioning was incorporated into other test sessionsthat were being conducted on
Alex.
On a previous day, the principal trainer would listall possible objects that could be used
for testing. A student who was not involved in anytraining would then choose the
question and randomly order them.
In a week, “same” or “different” questions were asked1-4 times.
Testing took place over 26 months (2 years 2 months)
Principal trainer was present wherever the trail tookplace but she sat with her
back-facing Alex and did not look at him during thepresentation of the objects.
She never knew what was being presented and wouldrepeat what she thought Alex had
said.
If it was correct Alex was given that object as areward and praised.
If not, the examiner removed the object and emphaticallysaid, “NO!” When this
happened, a correction procedure was used in whichthe object was presented until the
correct response was given.
The same materials were never presented again so therewas a single first-trial
response.
An overall test score was produced. First-trial resultswere also calculated.
Tests on objects who are familiar:
Object pairs were presented to Alex.
They were similar pairings to the ones used in thetraining phase but never the same.
Individual objects were obviously used in more thanone trial but the pairing were always
novel and a specific pair would only ever be presentedagain if Alex gave an incorrect
label (or erred).
Transfer tests using novel objects:
Alex was presented with pairs of objects that combinedseveral attributes that had never
been used in the training phase or in previous questioning.
Alex was presented with totally novel objects thatmight not have even had a label.
He was exposed to objects that did not have a labelfor and objects that he has no
experience of.
Any completely new object was within the environmentof Alex for several days prior to
being used so that Alex got used to seeing it andto reduce fear responses.
The use of probes:
One concern was that in formulating his answers, Alexmight not be attending to the
questions, but merely responding to the physical characteristicsof the objects.
Thus, at random intervals probes were administeredin which he was asked questions
for which two category labels could be the correctresponse.
If he were ignoring the content of the question andanswering on the basis of attributes,
he would have responded with an incorrect answer.
Training for label acquisition:
At the start of training, continuous reinforcementwas used to get a close association between
the object and category or label to be learned.
If Alex got the right answer, he was awarded bothobjects. To motivate him to work with objects
in which he had little interest, the researcher alsomodified the procedure to allow him to request
alternative objects as his reward.
The training method then used was the‘model/rival(M/R) approachwhich uses the principles
of ‘modelling’ (Bandura). One human is the ‘trainer’.They present objects and ask questions
about the objects to another person (the ‘rival’).Rewards are given when the ‘rival’ gives a

82. correct response. So the second human ‘models’ the behaviour for the parrot, and the parrot
then becomes a ‘rival’ for the trainer’s attentionand rewards.The roles of trainer/model are then
reversed. Alex is given the opportunity to participatein the vocal exchanges.
Training on same/different:
The training aimed to teach Alex to respond to questionswith a categorical label (“What’s
same/different?”), rather than just describing theobject. Answers were ’colour’, ‘shape’ or
‘matter’. For example:
“What’s same?”
Correct answer is SHAPE/MATTER
“What’s different?"
Correct answer is COLOUR
However, they would only have one similarity/ differenceso that Alex could only give one correct
answer. The model/rival technique was also used inthis stage of training.
Training sessions occurred 2- 4 times/week and lasted5 min - 1hr. He took 4 months to learn
color and shape. For matter however, Alex had to insteadsay ‘mah-mah’ because he could not
vocalise ‘matter’. This meant that matter (or ‘mah-mah’)took longer to learn than the others - it
took 9 months.
Before testing, all of the possible objects were listedby the principal trainer. A student not
involved in testing would then choose the question,from the pairs for same/different, and
randomly order all the questions. Questions on same/differentwere asked on average one to
four times per week, and neither Alex nor the principaltrainer could predict which questions on
which topic would appear on a given day. Testing onsame/different occurred between February
1984 and April 1986.
A secondary trainer would present the objects ina variable but previously determined order.
Alex was shown an exemplar or number of exemplars,asked "What's this?" "What color?"
"What shape?" "How many?" "What's same?" or "What'sdifferent?" and was required to
formulate a vocal English response. The additionalquestions (not ‘same/different’) were asked
to prevent Alex from getting bored. The principaltrainer repeated out loud what she heard Alex
say without looking at the objects presented so therewas no bias. If that was the correct
response (e.g.,the appropriate category label), theparrot was rewarded by praise and the
object(s).
The operational definition of correct was the firstvocalisation that Alex gave. If the identification
was incorrect or indistinct, the examiner removedthe object(s), turned his/her head (a time-out),
and emphatically said "No!" The examiner then implementeda correction procedure in that the
misnamed object was then immediately and repeatedlypresented until a correct identification
was made.
Tests on familiar objects
These trials involved object pairs that were similarto, but never the same as, those used in
training. These items combined one additional colour,shape, or material available in the
laboratory-that is, variously colored and shaped objectsof wood and rawhide (e.g., 5-corner
blue wood) and, later, variously shaped keys.
Tests on novel/unfamiliar objects

83. Object pairs for the second set of transfer tests were interspersed randomly within the first set.
In these tests, Alex was presented with pairs of objects that combined several attributes never
used in training or previous tests on same/different(e.g., 5-Corner white paper) or totally novel
objects incorporating colours, shapes, or materialsfor which he might not even have labels
(e.g., pink woolen pompom).
In these pairs, at least one and often both objectswere items that were thus totally unfamiliar to
Alex. They could be made of colours or shapes thathe had probably seen, such as white or
round (e.g., on clothing or foods), but could notlabel; they could be objects, such as toy cars,
with which he at the time had had no experience.
Probe testing
There was concern that Alex may not be attending thequestions. At random intervals Alex was
presented with probes. Alex was asked questions forwhich either of two (of the three) category
labels could be the correct response; that is, hewould be shown a yellow and a blue wooden
triangle and asked "What's same?" If he were ignoringthe content of the question and
answering on the basis of the attributes and his priortraining, he would have responded with the
one wrong answer; if he were answering the questionposed, he would have two possible
correct responses - wood/ triangle.
Results
The training for Alex to acquire “colour” and “shape”as labels took 4 months and for
“mah-mah” it took 9 months.
The length of each session was dictated by Alex’swillingness to attend.
Familiar objects:
99 out 129 (76.7%) correct responses overall
69 out of 99 (69.7%) on first-trail only performance
Based on chance, he should have scored 33.3%
His performance on pairs made of objects that wereno longer novel but contained a
colour, shape or material he could not yet label was13 out of 17 and 10 out of 13 for
first-trials.
Transfer tests with novel objects:
96 out of 113 (85%) correct overall
79 out of 96 (82.3%) on first trials
When there was a novel object in a pair his scorewas 86% and when both objects were
novel it was 83%
Probes:
55 out of 91 (90.2%) correct overall
49 out of 55 (89.1%) on fist trails
This demonstrates he was processing the questionsrather than simply the attributes of
the objects

84. Using novel objects tested whether Alex could generalisehis understanding of ‘same’ and
‘different’ to new situations. He was actually betterat this.
This may have been because Alex was said to have builta collection of objects, so perhaps
when novel objects were presented, he wanted themmore. This meant that he was more
motivated to get the correct answer to have the newobject for his collection.
Conclusions
The data indicates that at least one avian subjectshows symbolic comprehension of the
concept same/different.
Alex’s scores on all tests were significantly abovechance, suggesting that he
understood what the questions were asking.
It would therefore appear that symbolic representationof same/different is not exclusive
to primates.
●Parrots have the potential to demonstrate understandingof ‘same’ and ‘different’.
●Parrots may learn to respond to verbal questions tovocalise categorical labels.
Ethical Issues
Strong animal ethics - Number (only one), rewardsgiven, no deprivation and appropriate
caging.
Strengths
Case study – focused on one subject
High standardisation – higher reliability
High validity
Weaknesses
Lacks mundane realism
Low generalizability – due to case study
Issues and Debates
Application: for training animals
Nature versus nurture: supports nurture. He was learningthrough both operant
conditioning and social learning.
One strength of Pepperberg’s research is that it hashigh validity. For example, the trainer who
tested Alex had not been working with him during training.Instead, the researcher who trained
Alex stood in the corner of the room with her backturned to the objects being tested and
interpreted what Alex’s response was as the personwho tested Alex may not have understood
some of his responses. As a result, researcher biaswas limited as the tester could not be

85. criticised for ‘cueing’ Alex to respond in a particular way. In addition, a student was asked to
choose the question order and materials used in thestudy which again removes any researcher
bias.
However, one weakness of Pepperberg’ study isthat it lacks generalisability. For example,
the study was a case study of one African grey parrotcalled Alex who had undergone previous
cognitive testing and had been kept in captivity forat least 10 years before the study. Therefore,
it is difficult to generalise his behaviour to otherparrots that are wild as they may display
different behaviours.
Another weakness of Pepperberg’s study is thatit is low in ethics. To some extent,
psychologists argue that Alex suffered with boredomas a result of repetitive testing over a 2
year period. Furthermore, Alex was confined to a wirecage during the night (~62X62X73cm)
and was observed to be plucking his own feathers whenhe was bored. Because of this, and the
fact that he is in a situation that is foreign tohis natural environment, makes ethics in this study
low.
In contrast, one strength of this study is thatpepperberg used quantitative data when
collecting the ‘same/different’ question responses.This is a strength as it allows Pepperberg to
make an objective analysis of whether Alex could comprehendabstract concepts. Furthermore,
the use of objective data allowed the researchersto make comparisons between novel and
familiar objects. Therefore allowing the researchersto establish whether Alex could use the
rules of same/different beyond the training materials.
Finally, this study has a lot of real-life applicationsbeyond this study. Despite not necessarily
being generalisable to other parrots, we can use thetraining methods of operant conditioning,
continuous reinforcement and social learning to tryand shape the behaviours of other animals,
in zoos for example. Zoo keepers can use observationsand imitations to introduce new animals
to groups more easily by encouraging role models toshow the new member what behaviour is
appropriate.
SOCIAL APPROACH
The social approach focuses on how individuals' behavioursare influenced by the social
situation that they are in and how they want to beperceived by others.
ASSUMPTIONS OF THE SOCIAL APPROACH
- individual behaviour can only be understood inrelation to other people
- behaviour, cognitions and emotions can be influencesby groups or social contexts that can
frame and direct and individual's actions
​

86. STRENGTHS
- we can understand what
processes influence our
behaviour within society and
around different people
- it tends to be a holistic (i.e.
not reductionist) approach
WEAKNESSES
- Findings from some studies may not apply to
other societies/ modern societies
- Social behaviours are very complex and
difficult to study in terms of controlling variables
- some problems include distinguishing
individual from situational and ensuring
ecological validity

87. MILGRAM:
Research Method:controlled observation (there wasno manipulation of an independent
variable)
* this was actually a pilot study, but the resultswere so shocking that the research was
published
Experimental Design:Repeated measures design (allparticipants underwent the same
procedure)
Background:
During World War 2 Holocaust, approximately 11 millionpeople (6 million Jews) were killed
under the authority of Adolf Hitler. After the War,the German Officers and Guards tried for war
crimes claimed that they were ‘just following instructions’.Due to the large scale of the
genocide, it was believed at the time that the Germanswere uniquely flawed in their high levels
of destructive obedience. Stanley Milgram, himselffrom a Jewish family, sought to investigate
whether these claims held any truth, and so set upa procedure to test whether similar levels of
obedience could be observed among Americans, whenplaced in the right situation.
Interestingly, when Milgram asked fellow psychologiststo predict the outcome of his
experiment, very few said that any would go all theway to 450V. In fact, the largest estimate of
the proportion of people who would go to 450V was1-3% of the participants - very different to
the actual findings.
AIM
To investigate whether or not ordinary people wouldbe obedient to an authoritative figure, even
if the action physically harmed another person
SAMPLE
The sample was 40 males, ranging in ages from 20-50.Their professions ranged from unskilled
to white-collar workers. All of the participants camefrom the New Haven area, and were
recruited by means of volunteer sampling from a newspaperadvert. They were paid $4.50 for
showing up, regardless of whether they completed theprocedure or not.
The original advertisement used to recruit participantsis shown on the left.
​
Why were a variety of professions included?
The main reason for this is generalisability. Someoccupations may have a greater tendency to
be more obedient than others. A higher level of educationmay cause people to be more likely to
question the study. If a wide range of professionsare included, the results should be
generalizable to most people, regardless of what theydo for work.
This particular experiment was actually a pilot study.Milgram completed this smaller study in
preparation for a larger experiment, but the pilotstudy was published because of the shocking
(excuse the pun) findings.
A pilot study is a smaller, trial version of a largerstudy that is carried out to ensure that there are
no flaws in the procedure and to test the equipment.It saves time and money if the procedure is
found to have a flaw, as the flaw can be rectifiedbefore the full-scale version is carried out.
PROCEDURE;

88. The study took place in the interaction laboratory at Yale University. The role of the
experimenter was played by a 31-year-old high school biology teacher. His manner was
impassive, and he was trained to be quite stern duringthe experiment. He always wore a grey
lab coat. The victim was played by a 47-year-old accountantwho was trained for the role. Most
people found him to be mild-mannered and likeable.
When the participant was brought into the lab,they sat down with the victim (stooge) and
both were told a cover story. The participants weretold that the experiment’s aim was to
investigate ‘the effect of punishment on learning’.They were then told that either the naive
participant or the victim (stooge) would be the leaner,and they were asked if ‘either of them had
a preference’. The participants then drew slips ofpaper from a hand to decide who would be the
teacher or leaner in the experiment. This was alwaysrigged so that the stooge would always be
the leaner and the participant would be the teacher.
After drawing the slips of paper, the learner andthe participant were taken to a room and the
learner was shown being strapped into the electricchair. The experimenter explained that the
straps were to ‘prevent excessive movement’. An electrodewas then attached to the learners
wrist along with an electrode paste in order to ‘avoidblisters and burns’. The experimenter then
told participants that ‘although the shocks can beextremely painful, they cause no permanent
tissue damage’.
​Sample shock
Each participant was then given a sample electricshock of 45V. They had an electrode and
electrode paste applied to their wrist, and then theshock was administered by pressing the third
lever on the generator.
Learning task
The participants then started the paired-associatelearning task. The participant would read a
series ofword pairsto the leaner, and the learnerhad to indicate which of the four words had
been originally paired with the first word by pressingone of four switches. If the learner got the
answer wrong (or gave no answer at all) the participant(teacher) would shock the leaner,
moving one level higher for every wrong answer. Theparticipant is also told to read out the
voltage level to the learner before administeringa shock, in order to remind them of the
increasing intensity.

89. Learner responses
The learner gives a predetermined set of responsesto the word pair test, based on a schedule
of approximately 3 wrong answers to 1 correct answer.No vocal response was heard from the
victim until 300V was reached. At this point, thelearner pounds on the wall. After 300V, the
learner does not answer any more questions - the participantis told no answer is a wrong
answer. The learners pounding on the wall is heardagain at 315V, but afterwards, he is not
heard from.
Prods
If the participant shows an unwillingness to go on,the experimenter would respond with a series
of “prods”.
Prod 1:“Please continue” or “Please go on”
Prod 2:“The experiment requires that you continue”
Prod 3:“It is absolutely essential that you continue”
Prod 4:“You have no other choice, you must go on”
The prods were given in the order above, and if theparticipant refused to participate after prod 4
was given, the experiment was terminated.

90. Why were the participants told that the money was not dependent on their completion of
the procedure?
So that the participants had the right to withdraw(though even then this was made difficult).
Also, so that their obedience was not for any financialgain. However, the money may have still
caused a feeling of obligation to complete the experimentand please the researcher.
Why were the participants given a sample shock of45V?
To convince them of the authenticity of the shockthat they were giving the ‘learner’. They also
put anti-blister and burn cream on the participantbefore applying the shock to show them the
harmful side effects of even a small shock.
Standardised Procedures:
●Predetermined victim responses
●Predetermined wording of prods
●Predetermined order of prods
●45V sample shock
Controls:
●Incremental increase in voltage was controlled (going
●up in 15V increments, always starting at 15V up to450V)
●The experimenter always wore a grey lab coat
●The ‘learner’ was always the same person:
○A ‘mild-mannered and likable’ 47-year-old accountant(stooge)

91. Features of the electric shock generator
There were 30 clearly marked voltage levels rangingfrom 15V to 450V and increased in 15V
increments (i.e. 15V, 30V, 45V…). Descriptions ofthe shock level were placed under the voltage
levels, ranging from Slight Shock to Danger: severeShock and finally, the last two switches
were labelled XXX. After pressing a switch, it remaineddown to show how much shock the
participant had administered.
RESULTS:
Most participants were convinced of the reality ofthe experimental situation that they were
administering shocks to another person. They alsobelieved that the highest shocks were
extremely painful. When participants were asked ina post-experimental interview “How painful
to the learner were the last few shocks that you administeredto him?” on a 14-point scale
ranging from “Not at all painful” to “Extremely painful”,the modal (most common) response was
14 (Extremely painful), and the mean was 13.42.
The predictions that people would not, in general,administer shocks beyond those labelled
“Very Strong Shock” varies dramatically from the distributionof the scores shown on the right.
Each of the 40 participants went beyond the expectedbreak-off point, no participant stopped
prior to administering 300V.
Out of the 40 participants, 5 refused to obeythe commands of the experimenter beyond the
300V level. 4 more participants administered one further shock at 315V and then refused to go
on. Two broke off at the 330V level and one each at345, 360 and 375 volts. Therefore, a total of
14 participants defied the experimenter out of the40 that participated.
This therefore means that 26 of the 40 (or 65% ofparticipants) obeyed the orders of the
experimenter until the very end by administering the450V shock. At this point, the
experimenter ended the session. Although obedientparticipants continued to administer shocks,
they did so under extreme stress. Some even displayedthe same reluctance to administer
shocks beyond the 300V level, similar to those whodefied the experimenter, yet they gave up in
their attempts to defy and eventually obeyed whenprods were given.
What were some of the participants’ behaviours observed?
Many participants showed signs of nervousness, especiallywhen administering the more
powerful shocks. Participants were observed to sweat,tremble, stutter, bite their lips and dig
their fingernails into their skin. Another commonbehaviour of the participants was nervous
laughing fits - 14 participants displayed this behaviour.In post-experimental interviews, the
participants told the experimenter that the laughterdid not mean that they were enjoying
shocking the victim, but instead they were distressedabout the situation. In 3 cases, full-blown
seizures were observed, and for 1 participant (a 46-year-oldencyclopedia salesman) his seizure
was so violent that the experiment had to be stopped.
When the experiment ended and participants hadgiven the maximum shock available, many
signed in relief, or shook their heads in apparentregret.

92. What were some of the things that participants said when they defied the experimenter?
“I think he’s trying to communicate, he’s knocking…Well it’s not fair to shock the guy… these
are terrific volts. I don’t think this is very humane… Oh, I can’t go on with this; no, this isn’t right.
It’s a hell of an experiment. The guy is sufferingthere. No, I don’t want to go on. This is crazy”
“He’s banging in there. I’m gonna chicken out.I’d like to continue, but I can’t do that to a
man… I’m sorry I can’t do that to a man. I’ll hurthis heart. You take your check… No really, I
couldn’t do it”
WHY DID SO MANY PARTICIPANTS OBEY?
●They were in an agentic state (they were doing asthey were told) as opposed to an
autonomous state (where they take responsibility fortheir actions)
●They were in a prestigious location at Yale University
●The authoritative figure was closeby and could seewhether the participant was obeying
what they were told to do
●They could not see the consequences of their actionsas the victim was in another room-
they could only hear occasional cries from the learner
●The experimenter would give the participant ‘prods’which made it seem like the
participant had no choice but to continue
●The participant was told that the shocks would notharm the leaner (despite the screams
heard)
CONCLUSIONS
The results support the theory that it is the situationthat causes obedience, not predisposition to
obedience.
●Most individuals are much more obedient than originallyhypothesised
●Even if people are highly obedient, they still displayhigh signs of tension, and they often
find it very stressful to carry out destructive actsbecause they are conflicted with two
social phenomena: not to cause harm to others or toobey authority
Therefore, we could conclude that the defense thatwar criminals were only acting under the
orders of a superior officer to be valid in some instances,as the situation that they were put
under could have been one in which most people wouldhave been likely to obey.
EXAMPLE 10-MARKER FOR MILGRAM
One strength of Milgram is that there is highinternal validity due to high levels of controls
that were put in place. For example, Milgram predeterminedthe responses of the learner (e.g.
pounding on the wall and then no response after 315V).This ensured that the dependent
variable (the response of the participants) was notaffected as there were fewer extraneous
variables.
On the other hand, Milgram’s study has low ecologicalvalidity as the participants were not in
a natural setting due to the method of a lab experiment.Most people would not normally go to
Yale University and be required to shock someone byan experimenter, and therefore the results
may not be applicable to real life situations.
In addition, Milgram’s experiment had low generalisabilitybecause the sample used was 40
males who lived in the New Haven area. Since theywere all males, generalisability would be
low because you cannot generalise the findings tofemales. In addition, since all the participants
lived in the New Haven area, they may have had similarexperiences as they would have had

93. similar experiences. This means that the results cannot be generalised to other populations as
they may have different behaviours.
On the other hand, it can also be argued thatgeneralisability is higher because Milgram did
further studies to investigate how females behavein this situation and how other populations
globally behave too. He found that they behave insimilar ways to the participants in the pilot
study and therefore, it could be argued that generalizabilityis higher because of that fact.. In
addition, Milgram used participants from differentprofessions which increases generalisability
because the data will not be distorted by one professionthat is perhaps more submissive than
another.

94. PILIAVIN
Method:Field experiment that took place on the NewYork Subway
Experimental Design:Independent Measures Design
Background:
Kitty Genovese
Catherine ‘Kitty’ Genovese was a 28-year-old womanwho was murdered outside of her
Queen’s apartment in NYC on 13th March 1964. The attacklasted for around 30 minutes and
she was stabbed 14 times by her attacker Winston Moseley.It was widely reported that despite
Genovese’s screams for help, none of her reported38 neighbours came to her aid that night.
The Kitty Genovese murder led to the discovery ofthe socio-psychological phenomenon
dubbed ‘the Bystander Effect’. It was reported bythe The New York Times newspaper due to a
reported 38 bystanders who witnessed the murder anddidn’t call the police, however, that claim
is now known to be false.
Darley and Latané
Darley and Latané recruited university students totake part in a personal discussion of their
college lives which would be done over a microphoneand headset so they could not see who
they were talking to. The participants would eitherbe in a group chat of 6 people, or in a
one-on-one chat with the victim. The pre-recordedvictim would then have a seizure during the
discussion, after already having talked about theirepileptic condition. The experimenters were
measuring
WHAT IS THE 'BYSTANDER EFFECT?'
The bystander effect is when an individual is lesslikely to help a person in need if others are
around them. This diffusion of responsibility meansthat an individual may see themselves as
less qualified to help than, for example, a doctor,or that the responsibility of aiding that person
should not fall on them due to the amount of otherpeople who could also help. This was drawn
from the research done by Darley and Latané.
AIM
To investigate bystander behaviour in a natural settingand to investigate the effect of the 4
following variables - the type of victim, the raceof victim, the condition of the model and the size
of the group of bystanders - on the helping behaviour.
HYPOTHESES
Helping behaviour is affected by:
1.the victim’s responsibility for being in a situationin which they need help
2.the race of the victim
3.the effect of modelling helping behaviour
4.the size of the group of bystanders

95. SAMPLE
Around 4,450 men and women who travelled the 8th avenueIND in NYC between the hours of
11am-3pm on weekdays. They were unsolicited and theywere an opportunity sample. The
racial mix was 45% black and 55% white at the timeof the study. Mean number of people was
43 per car and 8.5 in the critical area.
FEATURES OF THE TRAINS
The A and D trains of the 8th avenue IND were usedbecause they make no stops between 59th
street and 125th street. Therefore, the journey was7.5 minutes, completely uninterrupted. The
trials were only run in the old subway cars as theyhas two-person seats in a group arrangement
rather than extended seats In the critical area, thereare 13 seats and some standing room.
To the left is a layout of the train carriages takenfrom the study.
PROCEDURE - CONFEDERATES
For each trial, a team of 4 Columbia General Studiesstudents entered the train car through
different doors. 4 different teams were used to collectthe data for the 103 trials. There were 4
types of confederates:
●The 4 victims were all males between the ages of 26and 35, but only 1 out of the 4 of
them were black (3 were white, 1 was black). All wereidentically dressed in an
Eisenhower jacket, slacks and no tie. Other than race,there were two conditions of the
victim: -Drunk:In 38 of the trials, the
victims smelled of liquor ​and carried a liquor bottlein a brown paper bag
-Cane:In 65 of the trials, the victims carrieda black cane
Model: 4 white males between the ages
of 24 and 29 assumed the role of the model. All modelswore informal clothes, however, they
were not identically attired. There were 4 differentmodel conditions as well as the no model
condition:
○Critical area - early:model stood in critical areaand waited until passing the 4th
station (~70 seconds) to help victim
○Critical area - late:model stood in critical areaand helped after passing 6th
station (~150 seconds) to help victim
○Adjacent area - early:adjacent after 4th station
○Adjacent area - late:adjacent after 6th station

96. When the model provided assistance, he raised the victim into a seated position and stayed with
the victim until the train arrived. An equal numberof trials in the no model condition and in each
of the 4 model conditions were assigned to each team by a random number table.
●Observers:Were always female and had differing roles:
○Observer 1:noted the race, sex, and location of everyperson in the critical area
and that of the every helper that came to the victim’sassistance. She also
recorded the total number of individuals in the carand the number of who came
to the victim’s assistance.
○Observer 2:noted the race, sex and location of individualsin the adjacent area.
She also recorded the latency of the first helper’sarrival.
Both observers recorded comments made by nearbypassengers and attempted to elicit
comments from riders seated next to them.

97. PROCEDURE
The four confederates would enter the train car usingdifferent doors and they varied the car that
they used for each trial. The female confederatestook seats outside of the critical area, while
the male model and victim always remained standing.The victim always stood next to the pole
in the centre of the critical area. As the train passedthe first station (~70 seconds after
departing) the victim staggered forward and collapsed.Until receiving help, the victim remained
supine on the floor facing the ceiling. If the victimreceived no help by the time the train came to
a stop, the model helped him to his feet. At the stop,the team proceeded to another platform to
board a train going in the opposite direction forthe next trial, 6-8 trials were run in a day. All
trials on a given day were in the same ‘victim condition’.
STANDARDISED PROCEDURES + VARIABLES
Standardised procedures:
1.The model would always help the victim by helpingthe victim into a seated position and
then staying with him until the train arrived at thestation.
2.The victim would always lie supine until receivinghelp
3.The victim would always fall after passing the secondstation (~70 seconds into the
journey)
- Independent variables:
1.Type of victim (cane or drunk)
2.Race of victim (black or white)
3.Type of model (e.g. critical area - late)
4.Size of bystander group (naturally occuring)
- Dependent variables:
1.Time taken for help to be offered
2.Race of the helper
3.Gender of helper
4.Frequency of helping
- Controls:
1.Clothes that the victim and model were wearing
2.Gender of the model and the victim
3.Where the victim fell

98. RESULTS
Table 1:The cane victim received spontaneous helpon 62 of the 65 trials (95%) and the drunk
received help on 19 of the 38 trials (50%). This differenceis not due to the number of people in
the car (mean number of passengers in the car on canetrials was 45; on drunk trials was 40.
Total range was 15-120).
​Table 2:On 60% of the 81 trials in which the victimreceived help, they received it from more
than one person. No one left the car itself in any of the trials, however, on 21 of the 103 trials, a
total of 34 people left the critical area. Peopleleft the critical area on a higher proportion of trials
with the drunk than the cane condition. They werealso far more likely to leave on trials in which
help was not given before 70 seconds, and more likelyto comment. Far more comments were
obtained on drunk trials than cane trials.
Table 3:With both black and white cane victims, theproportion of helpers for each race was in
accordant with expected (45%-55%). However, for dunkvictims, mainly members of his own
race came to his aid.
Table 4:The area variable has no significant effect,however, the early model elicited help
significantly more than the late model did.
​Table 5:Here, it is shown that there is no evidencefor diffusion of responsibility, in fact,
response times for the 7 or more groups are consistentlyfaster than the 1-3 groups. However,
Darley and Latane pointed out that different-sizedreal groups cannot be compared to one
another since an increased group size would increasethe likelihood of helping.
​Testing diffusion of responsibility:In the Darleyand Latane experiment, it was found that as
the number of bystanders increased, the less likelyan individual was to help and the latency of
response would increase. However, in Piliavin, itwas found that members of real groups
responded faster than expected.
More information:
Example comments that women made to the situations:
●‘It’s for men to help him’ or ‘I wish I could helphim - I’m not strong enough’
●‘You feel so bad that you don’t know what to do’​
Why there were uneven numbers of trials:On theirfourth day, Team 2 violated the instruction
and ran cane trials when they should have run drunktrials; the victim "didn't like" playing the
drunk! Then the Columbia student strike occurred,the teams disbanded, and the study was
over. Teams 1 and 3 had run on only3 days each, while2 and 4 had run on 4 days.
Characteristics of first helpers:On average, 60%of people in the critical area were males,
yet 90% of the 81 first helpers were male. Also, ofthe 65 trials in which spontaneous help was
offered to the white victim, 68% of the helpers werewhite. On the 16 trials in which spontaneous

99. help was offered to the black victim, half of the first helpers were white. With drunk, it was
mainly members of his own race that helped.
Observing an emergency situation creates emotionalarousal which can be interpreted in
different ways in different situations. Arousal increases:
1.The more we empathise with the victim
2.The closer we are to the emergency situation
3.The longer the situation goes on for
However, arousal can be reduced by:
1.Helping directly
2.Getting others to help
3.Leaving the scene
4.Rejecting the victim as undeserving of help
Whether or not we help is based on a cost reward analysisthat we all do before making a
decision. The table above shows this for a woman.(Please note that these thoughts/ views may
have been more common in the 1960s, and may not necessarilyrepresent females in
modern-day)
Reasons why findings do not follow the patterns obtainedby Darley and Latane:The
observers could see the victim and they could notnecessarily leave the train in order to get
away from the situation, therefore, to reduce thearousal, the participants could either help the
victim or move to another part of the carriage. Also,as group size increases, the more likely
there will be one person who will help in a giventime frame. This study is also a field experiment
and not a lab.
CONCLUSIONS
1.Someone who is ill is more likely to receive helpthan someone who is drunk - even if the
help is of the same kind.
2.Given mixed groups of men and women with a male victim,men are more likely to help
than women
3.Given mixed racial groups, there is some tendencyfor same-race helping, which is
increased when the victim is drunk compared to ill.
4.There is no strong relationship between the numberof bystanders and speed of helping.
5.The longer the incident continues without help beingoffered:
1.The less impact the model has
2.The more likely it is that individuals will leave
3.The more likely observers will discuss
EXAMPLE 10-MARKER EVALUATION FOR PILIAVIN
One strength of the Piliavin study is that itwas high in internal validity as the participants
were unaware that they were a part of a field experiment.The experiment took place on the A
and D trains of the 8th avenue IND and the stoogeswere covert, so the participants did not
know their behaviours were being observed. This meansthat their behaviour would be more
natural and free of demand characteristics. This improvesthe internal validity as the researchers
were measuring actual responses, rather than simplyacting due to social desirability bias or
acting in a way that the researchers were lookingfor - demand characteristics.

100. On the other hand, it could be argued that generalisabilityis low, despite the large sample
size of around 4,450 participants, because the participantswere only from one specific area of
New York near Harlem, and travelled on the subwayat the same time of day (11am-3pm) on
weekdays. This might mean that the participants hadsimilar occupations or routines because
they travelled at that time of day, and they may havehad similar experiences living in New York,
meaning that their altruism towards each other maydiffer from those living in other areas.
Therefore the findings may not be able to be generalisedto other populations in the world as
their behaviours and upbringings may be differentto those in the study.
However, another strength of the Piliavin etal. study is the use of both qualitative and
quantitative data. The 2 observers collected quantitativedata (for example, the total number of
people in the critical area or the race and genderof the first helper) which allowed numerical
comparisons to be made between the conditions andis more objective and less open to bias.
However, a strength of this study is that the observersalso noted down any remarks made by
nearby passengers, for example, women were recordedsaying ‘‘It’s for men to help him’ or ‘I
wish I could help him - I’m not strong enough’. Thisis a strength because it allows conclusions
to be made as to why women were less likely to helpthan men were, and it may have helped in
the theory behind the cost-reward matrix that wasused to explain whether or not a person
would help, depending on whether the rewards outweighthe risks (cost). Therefore, the use of
both qualitative and quantitative data in this studyis a strength because it allows for
comparisons to be made between groups, and gives reasonbehind those differences in results.
​
On the other hand, another weakness of the Piliavinet al. study is that it is low in ethics.
Participants never gave informed consent to participatein the study and neither were they
debriefed after the study was completed. This is highlyunethical, especially since the procedure
may have been distressing for some people as participantsare not told that the victim is a
stooge, and they may therefore end up leaving thestudy wondering if the victim was okay,
especially if they received no help. Without debriefing,participants may have not only been left
to be psychologically harmed, but they were not toldthat their data would be used in the study
or had the right to withdraw from the experiment.The train journey was 7.5 minutes long,
meaning that the victim could have been collapsedfor at least 6 minutes if he did not receive
help, which may have caused many people to be distressed,as perhaps noted in the comments
noted by the observers (‘You feel so bad that youdon’t know what to do’). Therefore, this study
was highly unethical because participants did notgive informed consent, nor were they given
the right to withdraw or were debriefed after thestudy.
YAMAMOTO ET. AL
Research Method:Laboratory experiment
Experimental Design:repeated measures design whichused ABA counterbalancing. Also
used structured, controlled observations
Unlike humans, animals help more often as a directrequest of their conspecific rather than
voluntarily. Targeted helping is based on a cognitiveunderstanding of the need or situation of
others, and therefore to display targeted helping,the helper must display a ‘theory of mind’.
Some people believed that ‘theory of mind’ and thereforealtruistic helping is only attributed to
humans, however, previous studies had shown that somenonhuman primates can help or share

101. food with their conspecifics without any direct benefit to themselves (e.g. cotton-top tamarin,
capuchin, marmoset, bonobo and chimpanzees). Chimpanzeeshave been shown to offer
targeted help at direct request, but it is not yetknown whether they can actually interpret the
needs of their conspecifics.
TheSavage-Rumbaugh studiestrained chimpanzeesto give tools based on request using
symbols using a lexigram board. One symbol would representa tool that their conspecific
needed, and the chimpanzee would be conditioned togive that tool. Though this study improved
the knowledge of symbolic communication in primates,it provided limited insight into helping
behaviour and its mechanisms. This is because thechimpanzees were trained to give the tools,
which may bias the results of this study because thechimpanzees may not be displaying true
altruistic behaviour as it is unclear whether or notthe understood their conspecific’s needs, or if
they just attributed the symbol to the tool.
Why did previous studies fail to examine whether chimpanzeesactually understood what
others needed?
The potential helper was never confronted with a behaviouralchoice when given the opportunity
to help in previous studies. In this study, they achievedthis by allowing the conspecific to
‘request’ an item by poking their arm through thehole in the panel.
AIMS
To learn more about altruistic behaviour in chimpanzeesby investigating whether:
●chimpanzees can understand the needs of conspecifics
●chimpanzees can respond to those needs with targetedhelping
SAMPLE
The participants were 5 chimpanzees (Ai, Ayumu, Pan,Pal and Cleo) taken from 3 mother-child
pairs. Chloe did not take part in the study, she wasonly ever receiving the help, because she
was not cooperating with the researchers.
They were recruited from the Primate ResearchInstitute at Kyoto University - it was an
opportunity sample. The participants had participatedin studies on helping behaviour
beforehand.
PROCEDURE (APPARATUS USED)
Features of the tray:
The tray consisted of seven objects (a stick, a straw,a hose, a chain, a rope, a brush and a
belt). Only one of the seven objects (the stick orthe straw) could serve as an effective tool for
the conspecific to successfully obtain their juicereward. The items were randomly presented on
a tray (26cmX36cm)

102. Features of the experimental booth:
Participants were tested in two adjacent experimentalbooths (136X142cm and 155X142cm,
both 200cm high). A hole (12.5X35cm) in the panel-walldivider separating the two participants
was located ~1m above the floor.
The juice container was located behind a wall andwas either out of reach (stick condition) or did
not have a straw (straw condition) so the conspecificcould not drink the juice (reward) unless
the participant gave them the correct tool throughthe slot.
​Type of cameras used:
Participant’s behaviour was recorded with three videocameras that were Panasonic NV-GS150
models.
The chimpanzees each had 8 5-minute sessions wherethey could freely manipulate the seven
objects without any tool-use situation before testing.Participants would complete one
familiarisation session a day. The chimpanzees onlygave a tool to their conspecific 5% of the
time in this trial phase, suggesting that they werenot motivated to give their conspecifics a tool
because no tool task was available.

103. PROCEDURE
The task consisted of one chimpanzee being in thebooth with the tray of 7 tools, and their
conspecific being in the adjacent booth with one oftwo problems: needing a stick to reach the
juice, or needing a straw to drink the juice. Thechimpanzee who was being observed then had
to provide the correct tool for their conspecific’ssituation.
There were 3 conditions in this study. The firstwas the ‘can see’ condition, then ‘cannot see’,
and then a second ‘can see’ condition to check fororder effects. Each condition had 48 trials,
half of which had the correct tool as the stick andthe other half as the straw. The stick or straw
order was randomised, again to control for order effects.There were around 2-4 trials conducted
per day.
All 5 participants (Ai, Ayumu, Chleo, Pan andPal) completed the first ‘can see’ and ‘cannot
see’ conditions, but only Ai, Cleo and Pal were selectedto complete the second ‘can see’
condition.
The trial finished when the recipient obtainedan offered tool, or after 5 minutes of no tool
being offered. Only the first offer was counted. Qualitativeand quantitative data were gathered
from the film of the chimpanzees behaviour, takenwith video cameras. Qualitative data included
chimpanzee’s gestures or movements, and quantitativedata was the number of correct offers
given/ what tool was offered first.
How was an ‘offer’ operationalised?
An ‘offer’ was operationalised as a chimpanzee holdinga tool for the other, even if they did not
take it.
How was an ‘upon request offer’ operationalised?
The conspecific of the chimpanzee would stick theirhands through the slot in the panel to
request an item and the chimpanzee would offer anitem as a result of the request.
Features of the conditions:
‘Can see’
●Panel that divides the booths was
transparent
●Helper chimpanzee was able to see
what their conspecific needed
●This condition was completed twice
‘Cannot see’
●Panel that divided the booths was
opaque
●There was still the hole in the panel
●Helper chimpanzee could not assess the
needs of their conspecific
●Completed once

104. VARIABLES AND STANDARDISED PROCEDURES
Variables:
- Independent variable:
●Whether the chimpanzee could see their conspecific’ssituation (if the panel between the
adjacent rooms was transparent or opaque)
- Dependent variable:
●The targeted helping behaviour.
This was operationalised as the items offered by thechimpanzees to their conspecifics. This
was either the correct tool (stick or straw) or anon-correct tool (e.g. a piece of string)
- Controls:
1.The stick condition vs. the straw condition beingused were randomised to ensure that
there were limited order effects which could affectthe chimpanzees behaviour and
therefore the results.
2.As a further control for order effects, ABA counterbalancing(can see, cannot see, can
see) was used to ensure practice effects were reduced
Examples of standardised procedures:
1.They used the exact same tool options available tothe chimpanzees in the tray (a stick,
a straw, a hose, a chain, a rope, a brush and a belt)
2.Same reward was used (grape-flavoured juice)
3.The same predicaments of the conspecific were used(i.e. stick needed because juice is
out of reach and straw needed because juice box hasno straw and the juice is therefore
undrinkable)
RESULTS
Trial stages:The chimpanzees only gave a tool totheir conspecific 5% of the time in this trial
phase, suggesting that they were not motivated togive their conspecifics a tool because no tool
task was available.
First ‘can see’ condition:Object offer occurred mainlyupon the recipient’s request. An ‘upon
request offer’ accounted for 90% of all offers. Thisresult shows that direct request is important
for the onset of targeted helping in chimpanzees.All the chimpanzees, except form Pan, first
offered potential tools significantly more frequentlythan non-tool objects. Pan most frequently
offered the brush (79.5% of her first offers), butwhen eliminating her brush offers, her results
were similar to the other chimpanzees. Also, helpersselected to offer more frequently a stick (or
straw) when their partner was faced with the stick-use(or straw-use) situation. Therefore,
chimpanzees demonstrated flexible targeted helpingbased on their partner’s predicaments.
‘Cannot see’ condition:The chimpanzees continuedto help in this condition, offering an object
in 95.8% of trials. Pan still showed a preferencefor offering the brush, however, all other
chimpanzees gave tool objects much more frequentlythan non-tool objects. Unlike the ‘can see’
condition however, the correct tool was offered aroundhalf of the time, suggesting that the
chimpanzees could not properly assess their partner’ssituation and therefore could not give the
right tool. Ayumu is the exception to this rule however,because he looked through the slot, and
therefore, he performed the same as he did in the‘can see’ condition.

105. Second ‘can see’ condition:there was an offer 97.9% Of the time (upon request accounted for
79.4%) . The 3 participants offered the correct tool more frequently. The results were very
similar to that of the first ‘can see’ condition,showing results were not down to order.
Pan’sresults differ from the other chimpanzees becauseshe tended to favour thebrush.
However, her second offering was often the correcttool and corresponded with other’s.
Why was Ayumu looking through the slot significantin terms of targeted helping?
Ayumu’s behaviour (i.e. selecting the appropriatetool after assessing his partner’s situation by
peeking through the hole) further demonstrates thatthe chimpanzees depended on visual
assessment of their partner’s situation to acquirethe necessary information to appropriately
help their partner by providing the correct tool.
CONCLUSIONS
1.Chimpanzees are able to understand the needs of conspecificsand help them to solve
tasks at no benefit to themselves
2.Chimpanzees will offer help in most cases, but morelikely at the direct request of
another chimpanzee than spontaneously. Even if theycan visually assess their partner;s
situation, they seldom help others unless directlyrequested.
3.Chimpanzees require visual confirmation to understanda conspecific’s goal and to offer
targeted help - they are unlikely to be able to offerflexible targeted helping when they
are unable to see their conspecific’s predicament.
EXAMPLE 10-MARKER EVALUATION FOR YAMAMOTO
One strength of the study by Yamamoto et al. is thatreliability was high because procedures
were standardised. For example, they used the exactsame 7 tools for each experiment which
were the straw, stick, chain. belt, rope, hose andbrush. This ensures that the experiment can be
easily replicated by other psychologists who shouldfind the same results when following the
highly detailed procedure. It can be seen that theprocedure is highly detailed as precise
measurements were given, for example, the exact dimensionsof the experimental booths
including the fact that the slot between the two boothswas approximately 1m off the ground.
​
On the other hand, one weakness of this studyis that generalisability was quite low because
five chimpanzees were used from the same institute.This is not a lot and since only one type of
primate was used means that the results may not begeneralisable to other primates. In
addition, since they all came from the same instituteand were often used for these types of
behavioural testing, they are not wild chimpanzeesand may be conditioned to performing
altruistically through other behavioural experiments.Another reason why generalisability is quite
low is that they used mother-child pairs, thereforethe altruistic behaviour may be
maternal/family instinct involved in helping the otherchimpanzee, and therefore you may not be
testing pure altruism. However, we can presume thatwe can generalise to the whole population

106. as the theory of mind is seen as a biological or evolutionary factor, and therefore, the small
sample size is not that much of a problem.
Another weakness of the study by Yamamoto et al.is that the validity is quite low as a
repeated measures design was used which could leadto order effects affecting the results,
despite the use of counterbalancing. In addition,since it was a repeated measures design,
individual differences may have played a key rolein determining the results which may not have
been the case with an independent groups design witha larger sample size. For example, Pal
gave the right tool 100% of the time in the secondcondition which may not be the case for most
chimpanzees. Ecological validity is also low becauseit was conducted in an artificial setting
which would not be the chimpanzee’s normal environment.
On the other hand, another strength of this studyis that it is high in ethics because low
numbers of the chimpanzees were used. Only 6 chimpanzeesparticipated in the study,
therefore it did not cause unnecessary stress to toomany animals. Also, they were housed in
the institute that they were being tested in and thehandlers were very professional which
minimised the amount of stress that the chimpanzeeswere under. In addition, since the
chimpanzees were used to participating in other studies,their stress levels would not be as high
as, for example, a chimpanzee from the wild as theenvironment would be very unfamiliar to
them. Also, there was no aversive stimuli used andtherefore, ethics is higher.