Psychology A Unit 3 AQA - 17th June 2011

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

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

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










dead.

Tbh, I'm not too sure. Yeah I'm having the same problem as you...Maybe, it may come us a 16 mark question or 9 mark question. I think that'd be more manageable.
For sleep disorders, we don't need to include any treatments do we?
sorry for the late reply by the way.

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

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.

I am stuggling on planning a question if they ask:
Outline the research......
or
Evaluate the research on........

Was a decent essay! Just a handful of additional comments on it though.

You mention Buss(1989) conducting his cross-cultural studies on mate choice, but I would recommend you back his research up with supporting evidence from Waynforth and Dunbar (interesting and quite easy research to remember) as you are mostly critical of his research. So for example they carried out research into analyzing the content of lonely hearts columns (Some lonely heart adverts are hilarious!). The research found 43% of males sought a youthful mate compared to 25% of females, further backing up Buss's findings. You could also mention this research was good because there were no investigator effects on the participants, although the adverts are likely to be biased as only a certain type of people use lonely adverts in order to find a partner.

My second point is that I thought you could possibly add something on how sexual selection may also lead to differences in mating systems (I thought you went into a little too much detail on mating strategies, if you have been taught the differences in mating systems I would recommend you squeeze that in as well if you can!) So you would explain that sexual selection may also lead to differences in mating systems. A female may be best in a monogamous relationship ensuring the male stays and provides for the family (male housewife). However for a male polygamy may be better where the male mates with as many females as possibly thus ensuring a high quantity of offspring and increased chances of survival for that offspring.

For Ao2 on differences in mating systems you could say there is significant evidence to suggest that males are more likely to engage in casual sex. Clark and Hatfield found that when propositioned by a total stranger 50% of both male and female agreed to go out on a date, however none of the females agreed to have sex whereas 75% of males agreed. Additional evaluation points on this research are both ethical procedures - not really ethical to go round to strangers asking for sex as well as gender bias and because of genes males are more inclined to be promiscuous.

Overall good essay and if the above isn't useful apologies in advance

that's alright
not that i know of! in my textbook it says nothing about treatment so i dont think they can ask that, but im gonna check in the specification just in caseeeee but we should be fine!

For these questions you would simply flip your essay plan around. So your research which is usually Ao2 points, now becomes your Ao1 points and then your normal explanations would now become your Ao2 points.

(This is a quick example of the breakdown of relationships) For breakdown your main Ao1 point would be Le and Agnew huge metal analysis into the breakdown of relationships. Mention what their findings were - satisfaction and comparison level of alternatives relevant to breakdown. Backs up the theory of the comparison of profits and loss.

Then Ao2 you would include an explanation so for breakdown it could be Thibaut and Kelley social exchange theory. So go into detail that all social behaviour is a series of social exchanges and that individuals attempt to maximise profits as well as minimise losses. Mention what costs and rewards include then say how Thibaut and Kelley describe the concept on a comparison level - the comparing of our relationship with our previous ones as well as our expectation of that relationship.

You could also add Duck's model of breakdown - intrapsychic, dyadic, social and gravedressing.

thankyou! do you use the dog book?