AQA A level Psychology - Paper 3 topics

AQA A level Psychology - Paper 3 topics Gender bias Psychologists seek universality but bias may be inevitable (social historical contexts) Gender bias: psychological theory/research not accurately represent experience/behaviour of men + women Alpha bias: differences exaggerated, devalue women E.g. Freud = genuine psychological differences due to physiological differences Girls suffer from 'penis envy', femininity is failed masculinity Beta bias: differences minimised, needs of women ignored E.g. fight or flight research = male only sample, assumed would be applicable, Taylor et al: tend and befriend (governed by oxytocin) Androcentrism: male behaviour seen as normal, deviations seen as abnormal/inferior Female behaviour misunderstood/pathologised E.g. feminists object to PMS, medicalises female emotions by explaining in hormonal terms (Male anger often seen as rational response to external pressures) Gender bias (- in psych research) May create misleading assumptions about female behaviour/validate discriminatory practices Scientific justification to deny opportunities (e.g. due to PMS) Damaging consequences on lives/prospects Gender bias (- promotes sexism in research process) Lack of women at senior research level = female concerns not reflected in research questions asked Men more likely to be published Female ppts in inequitable relationship with researcher (power to label irrational/unable to complete tasks) Constitutional sexism - creates bias in theory/research Gender bias (+ feminist psychologists suggest how to avoid) Worrell & Remer: Studied within meaningful real life contexts Participate instead of objects of study Study diversity within groups of women rather than comparisons to men Collaborative research methods (qualitative data) Preferable/less biased Cultural bias Psych claims to unearth universal truths but may only apply to particular groups studied Wrongly assumed western findings would apply all over the world E.g. conformity (Asch) and obedience (Milgram) produced different results outside of US Standard/norm for behaviour judged from one culture = cultural differences seen as abnormal Ethnocentrism: belief in superiority of own culture Behaviour that doesn't conform to Western model = deficient E.g. Ainsworth's strange situation (American norms/values, separation anxiety defining, secure = ideal, German mothers labelled cold/rejecting, inappropriate measure for non-US children) Cultural relativism may help reduce bias Facts/things only make sense from perspective of culture within which discovered Berry: Etic approach: looking at behaviours outside of culture and identifying universal Emic approach: looking at behaviour within culture and identifying culturally specific Imposed etic: e.g. Ainsworth studies within single culture and assumed could be applied universally Cultural bias (- distinction between individuaism/collectivism) Value of individual/independence vs value ofgroup/interdependence Lazy/simplistic distinction, no longer applies Takano & Osaka: 14/15 studies comparing US and Japan found no evidence of distinction between culture types Form of cultural bias less of issue than once was Cultural bias (recognition of both relativism/universals) Imposed etic shows culturally specific nature of psychology Should not assume all psychology is culturally relative/no such thing as universal behaviour Ekman: basic facial expressions for emotions same all over human/animal world Attachment behaviours universal (imitation/interactional synchrony) Full understanding requires study of both universals/variations among individuals/groups Cultural bias (cross-cultural research prone to demand characteristics) Western cultures: familiarity with aims/objectives of scientific enquiry assumed Cultures without historical experience of research, local populations more affected by demand characteristics Unfamiliarity with research tradition threatens validity of outcomes Free will/determinism Free will: we are self-determining Free to choose thoughts/actions Biological/environmental influences on behaviour but can reject No cause/unpredictable Humanistic approach Determinism: behaviour shaped/controlled by internal/external forces Hard = completely out of control, all has cause possible to identify, predictable, compatible with aims of science Soft = all has cause, conscious mental control over behaviour, behaviour predictable to extent, some free will to make choices Biological determinism Biological approach, control from internal biological factors (physiological/genetic/hormonal) Physiological processes not under conscious control (e.g. influence of ANS on stress/anxiety) Genetic factors may determine behaviours/characteristics (e.g. mental disorders) Hormones may determine behaviour (e.g. testosterone linked to aggression) Environmental determinism Popularised by behaviourist approach Skinner: all result of conditioning Choice = total sum of reinforcement contingencies acted upon during lives Illusion of free will, shaped by environmental events/agents of socialisation (e.g. parents, teachers, institutions) Psychic determinism Flreud: free will = illusion, emphasis on biological drives/instincts underpinning responses Determined/directed by unconscious conflicts repressed in childhood E.g. 'slip of the tongue' determined by unconscious Science seeks causal explanations Basic principle: every event has cause, can be explained with general laws Allows predict/control One thing determined by another Lab experiment: remove extraneous variables to demonstrate causal effect Free will/determinism (+ determinism consistent with aims of science) Human behaviour = orderly/obeys laws Greater scientific credibility Predict/control behaviour led to development of treatments/therapies (e.g. psychoactive drugs for schizophrenia) Schizophrenia = some behaviour determined (loss of control over thoughts/behaviour, no one chooses) Free will/determinism (- hard determinism not consistent with legal system) Offenders held morally accountable Act with leniency only in extreme circumstances (e.g. mental illnesses) Determinism not falsifiable (causes will always exist even if not yet found, impossible to disprove, not as scientific as it appears) Free will/determinism (+ free will - choices in everyday life) Face validity: everyday experience gives impression that we constantly make choices Makes logical sense Even if do not, thinking we do may have positive impact on mind/behaviour E.g. Roberts et al: adolescents with strong beliefs in fatalism more at risk from depression Free will/determinism (- free will - not supported by neurological evidence) Decision making brain studies: evidence against free will Libet/Soon: brain activity relating to decision to press button with left/right hand occurs up to 10s before being consciously aware of making decision Even most basic experiences of free will are determined Nature/nurture debate Nature: behaviour is product of innate biological/genetic factors Result of heredity (transmission of mental/physical characteristics from one generation to another) Heritability coefficient (0-1) shows to what extent has genetic basis E.g. Plomin: IQ around 0.5 Genetic explanations: family/twin/adoption studies show link between genetic similarity and shared characteristics Evolutionary explanations: aid survival = naturally selected, passed on Nurture: behaviour product of environmental forces Behaviourism: mind = blank slate at birth on which experience writes Lerner: different levels of environment Prenatal: mother's physical/physiological state during pregnancy Postnatal: social conditions grown up in Exapmles: Behaviourism: attachment explained in terms of classical/operant conditioning Relative importance of nature & nurture Impossible to answer - environmental influences begin at conception Little sense to separate two (eg. concordance rates: result of shared genetics or shared upbringing? Interactionist approach How interact/influence each other E.g. attachment = 'two way street' Childs innate temperament influences how parents behave towards them, parent's responses affect child's behaviour Nature creates nurture Interactionism: diathesis-stress model Biological vulnerability only expressed when coupled with environmental trigger Tienari et al: orphan study, high risk of schizophrenia = biological relatives with history + dysfunctional adoptive family Interactionism: epigenetics Change in genetic activity withought change in genetic code Lifestyle/events leave 'marks' on DNA: tell bodies which to ignore/use, influence genetic code of offspring E.g. Dias + Ressler: mice given electric shock when smelt chemical, fear response, also present in children/grandchildren who never experienced shocks Introduced 3rd element: life experiences of previous generations Nature/nurture debate (- confounding factor of shared environments) Research trying to 'tease out' environmental influences complicated by fact that even identical twins will not have identical upbringings Shared/unshared environments Dunn & Plomin: individual difference, siblings experience life events differently (e.g. age/temperament) Explains why MZ twins reared together don't show perfect concordance rates Nature/nurture debate (+ gene-environment interactions explained by constructivism) Create own nurture by actively seeking environments appropriate for their nature (constructivism) E.g. naturally aggressive child feel more comfortable around similar children and choose environment accordingly, effects development Plomin: niche picking & niche building Shows impossible/illogical to separate nature/nurture influences on child's behaviour Nature/nurture debate (+ understanding interactions may have real world implications) Extreme beliefs in influence of either nature/nurture may have negative implications for how we view human behaviour Nativists: genes determine behaviour/characteristics Controversy e.g. linking race to eugenics policies Both nature and nurture more reasonable way to approach study of human behaviour Holism and reductionism Holism People/behaviour studied as whole system Gestalt psychologists: whole is greater than sum of parts, breaking up behaviour/experience inappropriate, can only be understood by analysing whole View shared by humanistic psychology (effective therapy bringing together all aspects of whole person) Reductionism:breaking down behaviour into constituent parts (smaller units) Baed on scientific principle of parsimony - all phenomena should be explained using most basic principles (e.g. individual cells) E.g. OCD explained on different levels Socio-cultural: odd behaviour (excessive hand washing) Psychological: obsessive thoughts Physical: movement of washing hands Physiological: hypersensitivity of basal ganglia Neurochemical: underproduction of serotonin Best = debatable Each more reductionist than one before Psychology placed on hierarchy of reductionism/science More precise at bottom (physics) more general at top (sociology) Researchers who favour reductionism see psychology being replaced by explanations derived from sciences lower down Biological reductionism: Physiological/neurochemical level All behaviour is at some level biological Can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary, genetic, influences Successfully applied to explanation/treatment of mental illnesses (e.g. effects of psychoactive drugs on brain contributed to understanding of neural processes