Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Psychology A Unit 3 AQA - 17th June 2011

Scroll to see replies

Reply 900

charllescott

Has anyone got some notes of what to include in the group display?

Reply 901

liamcol123

Original post by dr.phalange

Don't know if I've attached my essay plans right.. hmm oh well if this works then feel free to use these, but please try keep your criticism to yourself, I'm stressed as it is! :smile:

Does anyone have any other topics from Aggression, Bio Rhythms or Eating Behaviour that they think is vital to revise that you can't already see from my attachments? Please let me know because i'm stressing out about missing key things from my revision!
Let me know if you find my essay plans useful :smile:

You hero! Thanks for these :smile:

Reply 902

dr.phalange

Original post by liamcol123

You hero! Thanks for these :smile:

No problem! Hope they are useful :smile:

Reply 903

worthyg

Do you talk about nature vs nurture and all these issues in cross-cultural studies of gender roles?

Reply 904

sillysal

Original post by LTaylor93

Thanks for the essay you wrote on childhood/adolescent experiences.

This is the essay I did on group display earlier in the year and my teacher gave it 21/25. She said it lacked IDA. There may be a few spelling mistakes/grammar errors so I'm sorry about that.

Hope it helps :smile:

I really need help with group displays, any possibility you could copy and paste your essay onto the thread please?

Reply 905

Crazydavy

What are the predictions for Relationships, Eating Behaviour and Aggression?

Reply 906

ResultsDday

I've done a essay plan for the question: Discuss and evaluate explanations of group displays? Would some one please let me know if I'm on the right lines. thanks

group displays.doc28.7KB

Reply 907

ResultsDday

Original post by worthyg

Do you talk about nature vs nurture and all these issues in cross-cultural studies of gender roles?

nature/nurture should form a part of your alternative approaches paragraphs.

and yes for cross cultural studies the role of nature/nurture needs to be discussed to gain AO2 points for research studies.

Reply 908

StudentFDot

A random post with my answer to relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour.

Outline and evaluate the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour.docx13.9KB

Reply 909

adam_zed

going to flop this exam

Reply 910

katielk

Original post by monkajanik

Here's a list of all the past questions for my topics (in case anyone wants to know)
BIO RHYTHMS & SLEEP
Jan 11 role of endogenous pacemakers
Jun 10 lifespan changes in sleep and explanations for functions of sleep
Jan 10 circadian rhythms and explanations for sleep disorders
(this year I'm thinking disrupting rhythms/factors influencing insomnia/nature of sleep)

RELATIONSHIPS
Jan 11 formation of relationships
Jun 10 relationships in different cultures
Jan 10 evolutionary approach to parental investment
(maybe sexual selection/influence of early and/or adolescent exp. on adult relationships)

AGGRESSION
Jan 11 evolutionary explanations of human aggression
Jun 10 genetic factors and social explanations of aggression
Jan 10 explanations of institutional aggression
(group display/neural & hormonal mechanisms?)

Hope it helps :smile:

If we get what you've predicted, i would be so happy! I did the exam in January getting a miserable D (probably due to the lack of revision). At the moment i'm making the same mistake but as from tomorrow i am cramming! xxx

Reply 911

adam_zed

does anyone have any notes on attitudes on eating behaviours?

Reply 912

jbo123

Original post by Crazydavy

What are the predictions for Relationships, Eating Behaviour and Aggression?

For relationships, I think that either maintenance, breakdown, sexual selection or influence of childhood etc. could come up as they haven't before (have a feeling it is sexual selection though - don't know why...)

For eating behaviours, I think everyone is expection evolutionary to come up as it is the only one that hasn't thus far

And for Agression, it could be neural and hormonal explanations or explanantions of group display in humans.

It is so tempting to only learn these areas... I really shouldn't though as it would be just my luck for something else to come up!

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 913

mkl

oh hai guys, i'm just starting revision now.

dead.

Reply 914

ResultsDday

Original post by Paparazzi

It is so tempting to only learn these areas... I really shouldn't though as it would be just my luck for something else to come up!

i'm starting to think they'll ask something thats come up in the past simply because everyone seems so sure about whats coming up.

Reply 915

Colour Me Pretty

I always feel optimistic about this exam.

Then I remember we have paper 4. :cry:

Reply 916

jbo123

What do you guys think the liklihood is that past questions will be repeated? Stressed!

Reply 917

LTaylor93

Original post by sillysal

I really need help with group displays, any possibility you could copy and paste your essay onto the thread please?

Discuss explanations of group displays in humans, for example sports events and lynch mobs.
The first explanation for group display of aggression is based on social processes. Freud argued that the mindset of an individual in a crowd different to what it is when they are on their own. He said that there would be a merging of minds within the group based on sharing the same opinion and the enthusiasm of being in that group would mean that normal inhibitions surrounding behaviours would be reduced. Freud did provide a basis for others to research but his own work was unfalsifiable making it less valid. He did maintain that the group mind set would be the result of identification with a leader which means a leader’s opinion will always dominate.
Le Bon (1896) argued that the atmosphere of the group causes contagion and group members fall under the influence of a collective mind. Group members will take on the views of others in group and imitate their actions. This effect combined with the anonymity aspect of groups result in irrational, emotional or mob behaviour. The group provides a situation in which contagion can occur – group behaviour is taken up quickly because of the atmosphere surrounding the group which is evident sports events such as football matches. If someone within the group begins to get angry and violent towards the oppositions fans then it is likely that the rest of the group will imitate this behaviour and do the same thing. The anonymity aspect also makes an individual feel less responsible if something bad were to happen as it was the group’s fault and not their own fault. The main problem with this theory is that most group behaviour is not seen as irrational or mob like. Le Bon did put forward another interest idea in the late 19th century when there weren’t many explanations for this sort of behaviour. Freud question his idea of the crowd having a soul of its own and Le Bon’s theory does give a dismissive view of the individual and sees most of us as passive followers with no free will; this theory is very deterministic.
The deindividuation theory says that we sometimes lose our sense of identity when we are in a large group or crowd. Deindividuation also results in gaining the social identity of the group. There are three important factors for deindividuation in a group. The first is anonymity which is where you know you won’t be accountable for your actions. This is clearly shown within the Ku Klux Klan as everyone wears a white hood so you can’t identify who is who and therefore everyone is anonymous. The second factor is diffusion of responsibility which is where you feel less responsible as the responsibility of the actions you take are shared out amongst the group. When the Ku Klux Klan lynched someone, people would accuse the whole group rather than pick out the individuals involved in the lynching of a particular person. The third factor is group size which says that if you group size increase, then diffusion of responsibility and the feeling of anonymity are increased which can lead to larger amounts of aggression. The Ku Klux Klan were a huge organisation of people which may be why the majority of their actions were extremely aggressive.
The convergence theory suggests that the behaviour of the group is a result of like minded individuals coming together. If a group becomes violent, this theory would argue that it is not because the crowd encouraged violence but rather that the people who wanted to become violent came together in a crowd. The Ku Klux Klan is made up of individuals who all have the same belief of white supremacy and a hatred of black people which supports the idea of the convergence theory. The idea of football violence can also be applied to this theory as each side is full of members that have the same idea of their side winning. The problem with this theory is that crowds spur individuals into displaying behaviour that they would not normally display.
The Emergent-Norm theory was developed by Turner and Killan (1958). They argued that crows behaviour is "normless" which means that individuals have no norms to follow and makes the situation unique. If one person displays distinctive behaviour that stands out within the group or normless people, this person gets the attention of the rest of crowd and this distinctive behaviour will eventually become the norm behaviour for the group and everyone will display it over time. Essentially, this theory says that crowds are not a passive group of people of people but in fact are a logically thinking mass of individuals. They argue that crowd behaviour is neither irrational not entirely predictable. Groups of similar people gather together for a similar purpose such as cheering on a football team but their behaviour may change throughout the course of the match and specific decisions such as a refereeing decision may alter the norms of the crowd and will eventually lead the entire crowd to display a more aggressive behaviour. Most of these behaviours are because of normative social influence. People act in a compliant way because they are seeking the approval of the group and avoiding being punished by the group.
This theory is useful in that it appears to combine both the convergence and contagion theory into one. It suggests that group behaviour is a combination of like minded individuals, anonymity and shared emotions that lead to group behaviour such as lynch mobs. This helps to explain how people may come together with expectations and norms emerge allowing for behaviour that would not normally be expected. However this theory has been criticised for the idea that certain distinctive individuals shape the groups' norms and instead of crowd behaviour being explained in terms of the personalities of all the participants it is tied to the personality of a dominant few. Furthermore, although some people's behaviour in a group may be due to compliance and it fails to explain why others resist and do not follow the emergent norms of the group. Finally, the theory has been criticised for the idea that groups form together in a normless environment, Surely very few groups gather in a social vacuum and many norms of behaviour are present before the groups collects rather than emerging after the group has already gathered.
The Social Identity Theory argues that group behaviour involves inter-group behaviour, such as opposing sports fans. Reicher believed that even of the absence of direct confrontation, there is often a symbolic confrontation between the group and a rival group. People do not lose their identity in a group but they assume the shared identity of the group. People change their personal identity to fit in with the shared social identity of the group. Individuals become members of specific groups for a specific purpose, such as supporting a football team, because of shared interests. Prior to joining the group, individuals already shared a sense of social identity that promotes belonging to the group. Therefore groups have shared norms that they bring to the group, but they also develop context specific norms for conduct. Social Identity Theory proposes that norms form within groups due to the relationship that have an outgroup. Groups have existing norms for outgroup members and inductive inferences from the behaviour of other ingroup members. Key members of the group may start throwing bottles which may be perceived as normative behaviour.
This theory can explain how people change their behaviour according to group membership and the situation they find themselves in and confronted with. It can also explain how the same groups can behave differently in different situations. For example how one person can be a peaceful rugby fan one week but a football hooligan the next. Reicher examined the riots in Bristol 1980. He found that rioting was not uncontrolled and the aggression was primarily directed at symbols of government and private property was mainly undamaged. During and after the riot, people from the St Pauls district in Bristol felt a strong sense of shared social identity. Social Identity theory can explain football hooliganism. Football fans have a shared identity which involves loyalty to a particular team, their feelings for their opposition and any other factors they feel they believe they share such as history. In addition to this shared identity, the behaviour of the crowd will also depend on how the two sets of fans interact during the match and how each group believes it has been treated during the event. Light levels of good-humoured policing can often ease the "us vs. them" norm and prevent it emerging and provoking aggression.

Reply 918

LTaylor93

Original post by Paparazzi

That's all I'm learning :wink:

There's so much information and you can't expect to learn every single topic in the same level of depth as all the others. I'm making serious revision notes and everything on the topics you have mentioned and literally just reading the text book/any other notes i may have for the other topics.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 919

sweet&petitee

Original post by safwaansh

I've done a essay plan for the question: Discuss and evaluate explanations of group displays? Would some one please let me know if I'm on the right lines. thanks

Yeah this deinately looks on the right lines! :smile:

It's good cause you seem to actually relate it to evolutionary explanations. My teacher was saying that he thinks that will be a lot of people's downfall, explaning it with other approaches (excluding alternative for IDA). Even he said he doesn't want this to come up!