A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

A

Piliavin et al. developed this model to explain why people do and do not help in emergency situations.

They argue that the observation of an emergency situation creates an emotional arousal in bystanders.  This arousal may be perceived as fear, disgust or sympathy, depending on aspects of the situation. 

Piliavin et al. go on to argue that the chosen response depends on a cost-reward analysis by the individual.  These include:

Costs of helping, such as effort, embarrassment and possible physical harm.
Cost of not helping, such as self-blame and perceived censure from others;
Rewards of helping, such as praise from self, onlookers and the victim;
Rewards of not helping, such as getting on with one’s own business and not incurring the possible costs of helping. 

Therefore according to this model we are motivated to help people not by altruism (acting in the interest of others) but as a way of reducing unpleasant feelings of arousal.

B

The aim of Baron-Cohen's experiment was to demonstrate that the central deficit underlying autism is the autistic child's inability to employ a theory of mind.

C

A form of learning through association.  Ivan Pavlov, whilst experimenting on dogs noticed that if a bell was rung at the same time as the dogs were fed, they would salivate merely at the sound of a bell.   This idea has been applied to humans to explain how certain behaviours are learned.  For example, it is argued that phobias can be explained using classical conditioning.  A person may have a phobia of horses because they once had a frightening experience with a horse and now they associate horses with this frightening experience.  Therefore another explanation for Hans' phobia of horses is that he was classically conditioned to fear horses.  Or in other words, Hans witnessed a horse fall and collapse in the street.  Hans then generalised this fear to all horses.

See also behaviourism

A positive correlation means that high values of one variable are associated with high values of the other. Or if you like, the variables increase together.

A negative correlation means that high values of one variable are associated with low values of the other. Or if you like, as one variable increases the other decreases. Note that like a positive correlation, a negative correlation still indicates that some kind of relationship exists.
If there is no correlation between two variables they are said to be uncorrelated.

Don't let yourself fall into the trap of believing that when there is a strong correlation between two variables that one of the variables causes the other. Association does not mean causation. For example, there is almost certainly a very high positive correlation between the length of people’s right arm and the length of their left arm. But the length of a persons left arm did not determine the length of their right arm. They are both determined by other factors i.e. genetics, diet etc.

A correlation coefficient refers to a number between -1 and +1 and states how strong a correlation is. If the number is close to +1 then there is a positive correlation. If the number is close to -1 then there is a negative correlation. If the number is close to 0 then the variables are uncorrelated.
Correlation coefficient can be calculated in a number of ways such as with a Spearman Rho.

Correlations are very good for showing possible relationships between variables and some times are the only practical or ethical way of carrying out an investigation. However, they cannot demonstrate a cause and effect.

Try this

D

Statistics are a method of summarising and analysing data for the purpose of drawing conclusions about the data.  

Carrying out psychological research often involves collecting a lot of data.   As psychologists therefore we need to have knowledge of statistics so that we can make conclusions about our data.

We can make a distinction between descriptive and inferential statistics.   Descriptive statistics simply offer us a way to describe a summary of our data. 

Inferential statistics go a step further and allow us to make a conclusion related to our hypothesis.
 

Descriptive statistics give us a way to summarise and describe our data but do not allow us to make a conclusion related to our hypothesis.

When carrying out a test of difference (activity C) there are two main ways of summarising the data using descriptive statistics.   The first way is to carry out of measure of central tendency (mean, median or mode) for each of the two conditions. 

The mean is calculated by adding all the scores together in each condition and then dividing by the number of scores.  This is a useful statistic as it takes all of the scores into account but can be misleading if there are extreme values.  For example if the scores on a memory test were 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 42, the mean would be 10 which is not typical or representative of the data.

The median is calculated by finding the mid point in on ordered list.   The median is calculated by placing all the values of one condition in order and finding the mid- point.  This is a more useful measure than the mean when there are extreme values. 

The mode is the most common value in a set of values. 

When carrying out correlational analysis the data is summarised by presenting the data in a scattergram.   It is important that the scattergram has a title and both axes are labelled.   From the scattergram we may be able to say whether there is a strong positive correlation, a weak positive correlation, no correlation, a weak negative correlation or a strong negative correlation but we can not make a conclusion about the hypothesis.

The aim of Deregowski's study was to discover whether people in all cultures perceive pictures in the same way.  Or in Deregowski’s words do pictures offer a lingua franca for inter-cultural communication?

Deregowski conducted a review article which involved bringing together research by other psychologists and him-self.

Deregowski started his study by reviewing a number of reports of how people in different cultures often have difficulties with the perception of pictures (pictorial perception). For example, he recalled a story told by Mrs Donald Fraser, who taught health care to Africans in the 1920s. This is her description of an African woman slowly discovering that a picture she was looking at portrayed a human head in profile: 'She discovered in turn the nose, the mouth, the eye, but where was the other eye? I tried by turning my profile to explain why she could only see one eye but she hopped round to my other side to point out that I possessed a second eye which the other lacked'. Deregowski presented other anecdotal evidence to point out that some non-Western cultures find it difficult to perceive depth in pictures.

Deregowski then went on to describe experimental evidence which demonstrated the differences between cultural perception of pictures.

Non-Western participants were shown Hudson's test pictures which consisted of a series of pictures in which there were various combinations of three pictorial depth cues; relative size, superimposition and linear perspective.

Both children and adults from African tribes found it difficult to perceive depth in the pictorial material.

Research participants were shown a drawing of two squares, one behind the other and connected with a single rod. They were also given sticks and modelling clay and asked to build a model of what they saw.

Almost all the 3-D perceivers built a 3-D object. Participants who did not readily perceive depth in pictures tended to build a flat model.

Participants were asked to copy a 'two pronged trident’; a tantalising drawing that confuses many people. The confusion is apparently a direct result of attempting to interpret the drawing as a 3-D object. When asked to copy the ambiguous trident participants who were classified as 3-D perceivers spent more time looking at the ambiguous trident than at the control trident, whereas 2-D perceivers did not differ significantly in the time spent viewing each of the two tridents.

Or in other words the 2D perceivers could copy the trident quicker than the 3D perceivers.

Deregowski found that the 2-D perceivers prefer split type drawings to the perspective type. Split drawings are drawings that depict the essential characteristics of an object even if all those characteristics cannot be seen from a single view point - if you like, unfolded

Deregowski's major findings were that many non-Western tribal lack pictorial depth perception and that many non-Western tribal people prefer split drawings to perspective drawings.

Deregowski believes that non-Western people lack the ability to perceive and integrate depth cues in pictures. Deregowski believes this inability is due to some form of learning or lack of learning.

In accounting for the findings that some non-Western tribal people prefer split type drawings Deregowski believes that in all societies children have an aesthetic preference for drawings of the split type. In Western societies this preference is suppressed because the drawings do not convey information about the depicted objects as accurately as perspective drawings do. Therefore, according to Deregowski, we learn perspective drawings.

Determinists therefore believe that is possible to predict behaviour by identifying the cause of behaviour.

Although most psychologists believe in some form of determinism, many argue that hard determinism is too extreme.  They argue that humans do not always act involuntary and have some control over their behaviour.  This argument is known as soft determinism.

A further argument is that humans have free will.  The argument is that we have the freedom to act as we want at all times.  Psychologists who support the idea of free will, believe that the determinist argument is de-humanising as it treats people as if they were machines.

However, much of the research you will come across whilst studying psychology does not support the view that behaviour is unpredictable.  It is possible to identify behaviour patterns which, to some extent, do seem predictable. 

E

There are three main types of experiment - laboratory experiments, field experiments and quasi (natural) experiments.

Try these

An experimental design is a set of procedures used to control the influence of participant variables so that we can investigate the possible effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable.

F

G

The aim of the study was to demonstrate that a chimpanzee does has the capability to use human language.

The Gardners decided they wanted as young a chimp as was possible in case there was a critical early stage at which such behaviour had to be acquired.  Because newborn laboratory chimps are very scarce it was decided to obtain a wild caught infant.

When Washoe arrived at the laboratory in June 1966 she was estimated to be between 8 and 14 months. 

The Gardners ensured that Washoe had lots of human companions who all had to master American Sign Language (ASL).  The environment was designed to provide maximum stimulation with as few restrictions as possible.

The Gardners decided to use ASL because chimpanzees could not all the correct sounds necessary for spoken language and because chimpanzees make use of gestures naturally. 

Washoe was taught mainly using imitation and operant conditioning.  Operant conditioning is simply reinforcing behaviour which is desired.  The Gardners found that Washoe would learn some signs by observing and imitating, but often had to "mould" her hands into the right shapes when they were teaching her new signs.  Behaviour was rewarded by praising her and tickling.

Records were kept about the amount of signing behaviour and number of signs used.

A sign was recorded if it was reported by three different observers, as having occurred in an appropriate context and spontaneously (i.e. with no prompting other than a question such as "what is it?" or "what do you want?").  A reported frequency of at least one appropriate and spontaneous occurrence each day over a period of 15 consecutive days was taken as the criterion of acquisition.  

By the end of 22 months of the programme at least 30 signs met this strict criterion.  Washoe was also demonstrating displacement - that is referring to things that were not present.  She could also spontaneously combine two signs e.g. "gimme tickle".

The Gardners believed that they were able to verify their hypothesis that sign language is an appropriate medium of two-way communication for the chimp.  The Gardners at this point of the study (32 months of the programme) believed that Washoe would develop even further in her attempts at sign language and that her achievements would probably be exceeded by another chimp.

H

Hull City supporters would argue that the same trance like affect can be gained by visiting the KC stadium.

I

An experimental design is a set of procedures used to control the influence of participant variables so that we can investigate the possible effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable.

An independent measures design consists of using different participants for each condition of the experiment.  If two groups in an experiment consist of different individuals then this is an independent measures design. 

This type of design has an advantage resulting from the different participants used in each condition - there is no problem with order effects

The most serious disadvantage of independent measures designs is the potential for error resulting from individual differences between the groups of participants taking part in the different conditions.  Also an independent groups design may represent an uneconomic use of those participants, since twice as many participants are needed to obtain the same amount of data as would be required in a two-condition repeated measures design.

Other core studies look for the explanation of behaviour as a result of the situation a person is in.  For example, behaviour could be described as resulting from group pressure, the environment and so on.

Statistics are a method of summarising and analysing data for the purpose of drawing conclusions about the data.  

Carrying out psychological research often involves collecting a lot of data.   As psychologists therefore we need to have knowledge of statistics so that we can make conclusions about our data.

We can make a distinction between descriptive and inferential statistics.   Descriptive statistics simply offer us a way to describe a summary of our data. 

Inferential statistics go a step further and allow us to make a conclusion related to our hypothesis.

As the name suggests inferential statistics attempt to make an inference about our data.  That is, which hypothesis offers the best explanation for our results?

When we carry out a test of difference (activity C) we have two hypotheses.  A null hypothesis which states that the results will be due to chance, and the experimental (alternate) hypothesis, which predicts that the results are due to the manipulation of the independent variable. 

To assess the probability that the results are due to chance an inferential statistical test is used.   Inferential statistics tell us whether the difference between two sets of scores is significant or due to chance.  It is an academic convention that in psychology we accept the null hypothesis as the best explanation for out results unless there is a 5% probability (or less) of the results being due to chance.

5% probability is expressed as p<0.05 and if we find that the null hypothesis can be rejected we can be 95% confident of the conclusions.

When carrying out a test of difference (activity C) if the design is an independent measures design the appropriate inferential statistical test to use is the Mann Whitney U test.  

 When carrying out a test of difference (activity C) if the design is a repeated measures design the appropriate inferential statistical test to use is the Wilcoxon signed ranks test.  

To use this as a spread sheet go to www.holah.karoo.net/stats.htm

Whichever test is used a value is calculated which is called the observed value.  The value then has to be compared with the critical value to determine whether the null hypothesis can be rejected and at what value

When we carry out a test of correlation we have two hypotheses.  A null hypothesis which states that the results will be due to chance, and the correlational hypothesis, which predicts that there is a correlation or relationship between the two variables 

To assess the probability that the results are due to chance an inferential statistical test is used.   Inferential statistics tell us whether the relationship between two sets of scores is significant or due to chance.  It is an academic convention that in psychology we accept the null hypothesis as the best explanation for out results unless there is a 5% probability (or less) of the results being due to chance.

5% probability is expressed as p<0.05 and if we find that the null hypothesis can be rejected it we can be 95% confident of the conclusions.

When carrying out a test of correlation a Spearman Rho is used.  

Using a Spearman’s Rho a value is calculated which is called the observed value.  The value then has to be compared with the critical value to determine whether the null hypothesis can be rejected and at what value.

A group to which a person belongs, or thinks he or she belongs.

The average IQ is 100 and the scores are standardised so that about 64% of the population have a score between 85 and 115. 

J

K

L

The variable which is being manipulated by the researcher is called the independent variable and the dependent variable is the change in behaviour measured by the researcher.

All other variables which might affect the results and therefore give us a false set of results are called confounding variables (also referred to as random variables).

By changing one variable (the IV) while measuring another (the DV) while we control all others, as far as possible, then the experimental method allows us to draw conclusions with far more certainty than any non-experimental method. If the IV is the only thing that is changed then it must be responsible for any change in the dependent variable.

Laboratory experiments allow for precise control of variables. The purpose of control is to enable the experimenter to isolate the one key variable which has been selected (the IV), in order to observe its effect on some other variable (the DV); control is intended to allow us to conclude that it is the IV, and nothing else, which is influencing the DV.

However it must also be noted that it is not possible to completely control all variables. There may be other variables at work which the experimenter is unaware of.

It is argued that laboratory experiments allow us to make statements about cause and effect, because unlike non-experimental methods they involve the deliberate manipulation of one variable, while trying to keep all other variables constant. Sometimes the independent variable (IV) is thought of as the cause and the dependent variable (DV) as the effect.

Furthermore experiments can be replicated. The experimental method consists of standardised procedures and measures which allow it to be easily repeated.

However such experiments are not typical of real life situations. These types of experiments are conducted in laboratories - strange and contrived environments in which people are asked to perform unusual or even bizarre tasks. The artificiality of the lab, together with the 'unnatural' things that the subjects may be asked to do, jointly produces a distortion of behaviour. Therefore it should be difficult to generalise findings from experiments because they are not ecologically valid (true to real life).

A further difficulty with the experimental method is demand characteristics. Demand characteristics are all the cues which convey to the participant the purpose of the experiment. A psychology experiment is a social situation in which neither the participants or the experimenters are passive, inanimate objects but are active, thinking human beings.

Another major problem with the experimental method concerns ethics. For example, experiments nearly always involve deceiving participants to some extent and it is important to recognise that there are very many areas of human life which cannot be studied using the experimental method because it would be simply too unethical to do so.

The aim of Loftus and Palmer’s experiments was to investigate how information supplied after an event, influences a witness's memory for that event.

First Experiment

The participants in the first experiment were 45 students of the University of Washington. 

They were each shown seven film-clips of traffic accidents.  Following each clip, the students were asked to write an account of the accident they had just seen.  They were also asked to answer some specific questions but the critical question was to do with the speed of the vehicles involved in the collision.

There were five conditions in the experiment (each with nine participants) and the independent variable was manipulated by means of the wording of the questions.

The critical question was ‘About how fast were the cars going when they ***** each other?'.  In each condition, a different word or phrase was used to fill in the blank.  These words were; smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted.

The dependent variable was the speed estimates given by the participants.

Speed estimates for the verbs used in the estimation of speed question

The results demonstrated that the phrasing of the question brought about a change in speed estimate.  With smashed eliciting a higher speed estimate than contacted.

Second Experiment

A similar procedure was used whereby 150 student participants viewed a short (one minute) film which contained a 4 second scene of a multiple car accident, and were then questioned about it.

There were three conditions and the independent variable was manipulated by the wording of the question.

50 of the participants were asked 'How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’

50 of the participants were asked 'How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?'

50 of the participants were not interrogated about the speed of the vehicles.

One week later, the participants returned and, without viewing the film again, they answered a series of questions about the accident.  The critical question was 'Did you see any broken glass?'  The critical question was part of a longer series of questions and was placed in a random position on each participants question paper.  There was in fact no broken glass in the film.

Response to the question 'Did you see any broken glass?'

These results show a significant effect of the verb in the question on the mis-perception of glass in the film.  Those participants that heard the word smashed were more than twice as likely to recall seeing broken glass.

Loftus and Palmer gave two interpretations/explanations for the findings of their 1st experiment.

1.   Firstly, they argued that the results could be due to a distortion in the memory of the participant.  The memory of how fast the cars were travelling could have been distorted by the verbal label which had been used to characterise the intensity of the crash. 

2.   Secondly, they argue that the results could be due to response-bias factors, in which case the participant is not sure of the exact speed and therefore adjusts his or her estimate to fit in with the expectations of the questioner.  (This is also an example of a demand characteristic)

The second experiment though offers more support for the second explanation.

To account for the results of the second experiment, Loftus and Palmer developed the following explanation called the reconstructive hypothesis:

They argue that two kinds of information go into a person's memory of an event.  The first is the information obtained from perceiving an event (e.g. witnessing a video of a car accident), and the second is the other information supplied to us after the event (e.g. the question containing hit or smashed).  Over time, the information from these two sources may be integrated in such a way that we are unable to tell from which source some specific detail is recalled.  All we have is one 'memory'. 

For example in Loftus and Palmer's 2nd experiment, the participants first form some memory of the video they have witnessed.  The experimenter then, while asking, "About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?" supplies a piece of external information, namely, that the cars did indeed smash into each other.  When these two pieces of information are integrated, the participant has a memory of an accident that was more severe than in fact it was.   Since broken glass corresponds to a severe accident, the participant is more likely to think that broken glass was present.

M

A matched pairs design is a type of experimental design.

An experimental design is a set of procedures used to control the influence of participant variables so that we can investigate the possible effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable.

A matched pairs design consists of using different participants for each condition of the experiment but participant variables are controlled by matching pairs of variables on a key variable. 

In order to get the pairing precise enough, it is common to get one group of participants together and then look round for partners for everyone.  Participants can be matched on variables which are considered to be relevant to the experiment in question.  For example, pairs of participants might be matched for their scores from intelligence or personality tests.

Although this design combines the key benefits of both an independent and repeated measures design, achieving matched pairs of participants is a difficult and time consuming task which may be too costly to undertake.  Successful use of a matched pairs design is heavily dependent on the use of reliable and valid procedures for pre-testing participants to obtain matched the pairs.

The aim of Milgram’s (1963) experiment was to investigate what level of obedience would be shown when participants were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person.

The participants consisted of 40 males aged between 20 and 50 years of age who were recruited by a newspaper and direct mail advertisement which asked for volunteers to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University. 

Each participant turned up to the laboratory alone and was asked to draw a slip of paper from a hat to determine which role he would play.  The draw was rigged so the participant was always the teacher and Mr. Wallace (the confederate) was always the learner.

The teacher (participant) and learner were taken to a room and in full view of the teacher (participant) the learner was strapped into the ‘electric chair’.  The experimenter explained to the teacher (participant) that the straps were to prevent excessive movement while the learner was being shocked; the effect was to make it impossible for him to escape the situation.  An electrode was attached to the learner’s wrist and electrode paste (cream) was applied ‘to avoid blisters and burns’.  The participant (teacher) was told that the electrode was attached to the shock generator in the adjoining room.  The participant (teacher) then heard the experimenter tell the learner ‘although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage’.  

Milgram created a phoney ‘shock generator’ which in the 1960s looked very impressive and realistic.  The phoney shock generator had 30 switches marked clearly in 15 volt increments from 15 to 450 volts.  

The participant (teacher) was then seated in an adjacent room in front of the shock generator and asked to read a series of word pairs to the learner.  The learner was asked to learn (memorise) these pairs.  The participant (teacher) then tested the learner by giving him one of the words in a pair along with four other words.  The learner had to indicate which of the four words had originally been paired with the first word.  The learner’s answer was communicated by pressing one of four switches which illuminated a light on top of the shock generator.  If the answer was correct the participant (teacher) had to move onto the next word on the list, if the answer was wrong the participant had to tell the learner the correct answer and then the level of punishment that they were going to give them.  They would then press the first switch on the shock generator (15 volts).  For every subsequent incorrect answer the participant was required to move one switch up the scale of shocks (15 volts higher than the voltage of the last shock delivered).

If the participant asked advice from the experimenter, whether it be; ‘should I continue administering shocks’, or some other indication that he did not wish to go on, he would be given encouragement to continue with a sequence of standardised ‘prods’ such as “Please continue” or “The experiment requires that you continue”

All 40 of the participants obeyed the experimenter and delivered shocks up to 300 volts.  26 of the 40 participants delivered shocks up to the maximum 450 volts. 

After the maximum shock had been administered, the participant was asked to continue at this level until the experimenter eventually called a halt to the proceedings, at which point many of the obedient participants heaved sighs of relief or shook their heads in apparent regret.

During the study many participants showed signs of nervousness and tension. Participants sweated, trembled, stuttered, bit their lips, groaned, dug fingernails into their flesh, and these were typical not exceptional responses.  Quite a common sign of tension was nervous laughing fits (14 out of 40 participants), which seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre.  Full-blown uncontrollable seizures were observed for three participants

Milgram put forward a number of possible explanations for this high level of obedience.  Including the fact that the experiment took place at the prestigious Yale University, that the participant believed that the experiment was for a worthy purpose and that the participant believed the victim had volunteered to be in the study and therefore has an obligation to take part even if the procedures become unpleasant.

N