OCR A2 Psychology: G544: Approaches and Research Methods - Monday 17th June 2013

Scroll to see replies

Guys, does Brunner qualify as individual differences?

I really don't understand the Determinism/FreeWill, could someone explain strengths and weaknesses with example studies please. I would really appreciate it. Thank.

Reply 222

daydreamer.15

Original post by aisha302

Can someone quickly explain how to talk about nature vs nurture in relation to developmental approach?

Thanks :smile:

The developmental approach focuses mainly on the nurture side of the argument since it states that our behaviour is shaped by the events and experiences that have occurred in our childhood and how they impact our later life. But it can also linked to the nature side too since it also states that the changes in our behaviour over time can be brought about by environmental (nurture) or biological (nature) factors or a combination between the two (interactionism).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 223

mkhan9035

Original post by smallfish008

Topics that haven't come up in section B from jan 2010 to Jan 2013. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Nature and nurture
Psychodynamic perspectives
Behaviorist perspectives
Individual differences
Self report
Ethics
Case study
Reductionism

Posted from TSR Mobile

Determinism
Psychology as a Science
Usefulness of Psychological Research
Observations
Correlations

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 224

mkhan9035

Original post by Cryl

Guys, does Brunner qualify as individual differences?

Brunner is Physiological approach

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 225

mkhan9035

Does anyone know how the Individual Differences can be linked to the nature/nurture debate?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 226

daydreamer.15

Original post by nasheboy

I really don't understand the Determinism/FreeWill, could someone explain strengths and weaknesses with example studies please. I would really appreciate it. Thank.

Determinism: behaviour is a shaped by internal or external factors rather than an individual's will or choice to act in a certain way. This means that behaviour can be predicted.
Strength: it is scientific in that it attempts to establish cause and effect and general laws for behaviour. This enables the development of practical applications.
Eg milgram's study was deterministic as it states that the participants negative behaviour (giving electric shocks) was caused by the presence of the authority figure and the situation that the ps found themselves in (eg in a lab at the prestigious yale university), therefore suggesting that obedience behaviour is not down to personal choice.

Weakness: explanations are too simplistic and therefore become reductionist. They also remove an individuals responsibility for their actions, raising problems as to whether people can be blamed and punished for behaviours that are out of their control.
Eg in milgram's explanation for high levels of obedience are too simplistic as there may have been other factors such as personality differences affecting their behaviour, esp since not all ps kept giving shocks of 450v (35% broke off before then).
Other deterministic studies you can use are Raine and Watson and Raynor.

Free will: individuals do have active roles on controlling their own behaviour, ie they are free to choose and our not acting in response to internal or external factors.
I think you'd be less likely to have to talk about free will since there aren't many studies that actually use this as an explanation for behaviour, except maybe for Pilliavin whereby people did choose whether or not to help, but whether or not they did help was influenced by the IVs, so there were some external factors in place too.
Strength: individuals can be punished for their actions, creating a fairer society
Weakness: behaviour is harder to predict and explanations are less scientific as there is no clear cause and effect society.

Obviously you'd have to expand on those points to get good marks but I hope you understand it better. Let me know if you don't, I'm happy to help. :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 227

GabrielleDsouza

Original post by mkhan9035

Does anyone know how the Individual Differences can be linked to the nature/nurture debate?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Thigpen and cleckley, eve white etc. as its methods were by using psychometric tests and case studies. Supports nurture I think as it was caused by childhood experiences from repressed memories. But some would argue that biologically already had traits of MPD but envoi net triggered it.

Reply 228

Cryl

Original post by mkhan9035

Brunner is Physiological approach

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, but surely it could also be individual differences? Because it's the participants' own individual feature (MAOA gene) which differentiates them from non-criminals?

Reply 229

lankan-gurl

any predictions as to what may come up section A and B?

Reply 230

lankan-gurl

Original post by Cryl

Yes, but surely it could also be individual differences? Because it's the participants' own individual feature (MAOA gene) which differentiates them from non-criminals?

Yep

your right Brunner can be used as an individual differences study because of the MAOA gene.

Reply 231

sumsay

Hey everyone, I was hoping if I could get some help elaborating on some points I've made for a few strengths and weaknesses of some approaches?

Individual Differences
Weakness- I've said how it ignores situational explanations and focuses on dispositional ones, going on to say how the normal behaviour (writing in their dairy) of the pseudopatients in Piliavin was misinterpreted as being due to their illness simply because of the environment (the hospital) they were in. I don't know how to explain how exactly this is a weakness though.

Physiological approach
--I've said, as a strength that because it's scientific, we can easily check for consistency using the same physiological measures, making the result reliable (Dabbs used saliva samples from 700 prisoners to come to the conclusion that high testosterone levels lead to violent, criminal behaviour) but I don't know how to elaborate from here and why this is exactly a strength
--Because it's scientific, it helps favour the "Psychology as a science" debate, stating that all that is psychological is first physiological, so biology acts as a basis for our behaviour. I then used Maguire as evidence, explaining the MRI scan results but I don't know how to elaborate on my point and whether the evidence is actually suited for the point tin the first place or not
--As a weakness, I've said it's reductionist, ignores interaction with the environment, going on to talk about the other factors Raine identified as well as brain development for antisocial behaviour in children (such as poor parenting), meaning we don't have a full explanation for specific behaviours. Again, I don't know how to elaborate on this or whether that will be enough.
--Another weakness: I've said how research can be low in EV due to high control, going on to use Sperry as evidence and how he had participants look at objects with one eye covered when they'd be using both eyes in real life <-- how can I elaborate on that?

Psychodynamic Perspective (one of my favourites :s-smilie:

)Strength- I've said how using longitudinal case studies allow us to gain lots of rich qualitative data for a specific behaviour, going on to say how Freud explained Little Hans' overcame his phobia which was a result of unconscious conflicts experienced during the Oedipus complex but I don't know how to elaborate on this

Social Approach
Weakness - research can be outdated and therefore not generalisable to behaviour in the present day. E.g., Sutherland's theory in 1939 said that the media doesn't play a role in criminal behaviour when in fact, we know that it does today. By not being up-to-date, we can't provide a full explanation for society influencing our behaviour. How can I elaborate on this point?

Reply 232

Cryl

Original post by lankan-gurl

Yep

your right Brunner can be used as an individual differences study because of the MAOA gene.

Great! Thanks. Just needed to confirm it.

So, Brunner & Gudjohnsson correct for indiv. differences; and would you also say Brunner is ethical, since they simply investigated their gene and no harm was caused? Or would you say that by it taking the deterministic approach, it's causing harm to the participants by stating they are determined to engage in criminal activity?

Reply 233

nasheboy

Strengths and weaknesses for High and Low Ethnocentrism?

Reply 234

sumsay

Original post by mkhan9035

Does anyone know how the Individual Differences can be linked to the nature/nurture debate?

Posted from TSR Mobile

That's a tough one. Bruner and Gottesman & Shields may support the nature side from the Individual Difference approach, looking at physiological differences affecting behaviour but Thigpen & Cleckley may support the nurture side due to developing MPD as a mechanism from growing up and experiencing childhood traumas. You could explain how abnormal behaviour from the approach can be down to both nature and nurture.

I think a better debate that would link to I.Differences would be the "individual/situational" debate.

Reply 235

Cryl

Here's what I have for developmental approach:

:smile:

- useful - look at the development of behaviour and cure it - Kohlberg - identify immoral individuals at an early age - Farrington - role models cause criminal behaviour - rehabilitate role models

:smile:

- Often uses longitudinal data - indepth, qualitative, precise data - increases usefulness - Farrington - Watson & Raynar

:frown:

- Due to the use longitudinal data, many studies have limited generalisability as many participants drop out - Farrington

one more weakness please and/or correct any of my evaluation points!

Reply 236

em6789

can someone please explain to me what the level of significance means and what its used for?

Reply 237

venny24

Original post by Cryl

Ooh. Thanks. Do you know the strengths and weaknesses?

Yes but they aren't very good, here you go...

One strength is that it can explain a range of psychological disorders through the defence mechanisms. This is strength because it proposes ways of treatment. For example multiple personality disorder is explained through repression and Little Han’s phobias through displacement.
A main weakness is that it is highly subjective and the ideas cannot be tested scientifically. This is a weakness because the research may be biased and currently psychology strives to be scientific. For example in Freud’s case study we don’t know how Han’s phobias were cured by just talking about his fantasies and dreams. This cannot be scientifically tested. This is the main criticism of the psychodynamic perspective as it lacks validity. A more popular way of explaining and treating phobias is now through behavioural methods.

Emphasises the role of unconscious mind, the structure of personality and early childhood experiences which are responsible for forming ‘models of the mind’.

Another strength is that it has useful applications as number of therapeutic tools and programmes have been developed, based on its assumptions. For example hypnosis, uncovering unconscious through ink blot, and TAT tests which are still popular today. However, these have been developed through new psychologists to fit in with current society pressure.
Another weakness is that often sample size is small for studies examining the psychodynamic perspective. Case studies are limited in generalisability and highly specific. For example Thigpen and Cleckley only examined the case of multiple personality disorder using some psychodynamic techniques and interviews. This also impacts on reliability of the data, as different cases may have very different outcomes.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 238

lankan-gurl

Original post by Cryl

No problem :smile:

Yep Brunner & Gudjonsson as the A2 studies for ind differences and you know the AS studies; griffiths, T & C and Rosenhan.

I think that Brunner's study is fairly ethical because like you said they simply investigated the gene. I can't really see any reason as to why it was unethical..

Reply 239

Cryl

Original post by venny24

Emphasises the role of unconscious mind, the structure of personality and early childhood experiences which are responsible for forming ‘models of the mind’.