5037183
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von kit-kat-98, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von kit-kat-98
vor mehr als 8 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| Psychology Unit 1 | Development: |
| The Learning Theory | Dollard and Miller (1950) Every behaviour is learnt CLASSICAL CONDITIONING: The infant learns the association between the food equalling to pleasure Hunger = drive state to reduce the discomfort, Fed = drive reduction (Food = unconditioned condition PCG = neutral Pleasure = unconditioned response) After, PCG = conditioned stimuli, Pleasure = conditioned response PAVLOV: First noticed that dogs produced saliva when feed and bowl were present Pavlov rang a bell before they were about to be fed, which they eventually salivated just when the bell was rang (learnt the bell = food = pleasure) OPERANT: Learning through positive and negative reinforcements E.g. crying = food + PCG = comfort hunger = discomfort Food = primary reinforcer PCG = secondary reinforcer Skinner Rats: Press lever = fed = repeated (pos) Press lever = electric = not repeated (neg) |
| A02 | :) Supporting Research . Pavlov and Skinner = ^ external reliability :( Contradictory Research & Theory . Harlow's monkeys, comfort > food & Bowlby's evolutionary theory = ↓ internal validity & ^ research |
| BOWLBY / EVOLUTIONARY THEORY | Bowlby All behaviours are innate and the attachment itself is the primary drive . Attachment for long term benefits . Attachment = adaptive and needed for survival . Proximity is key . Attachment forms because social releasers e.g. crying = cute . Critical period - all attachments within 2 and 1/2 years otherwise ↓ development . Working memory model for future LORENZ, 1935 . 2 sets of geese, 1 stayed with mother and the other followed Lorenz . Theory of imprinting, follow someone they feel with power to let them survive |
| AO2 | :) Practical Application . Separation in hospital is avoided due to importance of the critical period expressed :( Unfalsifiable that attachments are adaptive Although plausible, it cannot be measured due to ethical issues :( Critical period = too strong However, privation research supports the notion that attachments are essential for healthy development |
| TYPES OF ATTACHMENTS | (AINSWORTH, 1970) Aim : To find individual differences within attachments Procedure: 8 episodes, 3 mins - left, reunited, stranger and alone To measure: . Willingness to explore . Separation protest . Stranger anxiety . Reunited behaviour Findings: Secure: 71% Resistant: 17% Avoidant: 12% |
| AO2 | :) Practical Application . Identified the importance of early attachments on later development & paternity leave = ^ external validity :( Lab Setting . Lacks ecological validity because the children aren't in their natural environment = ↓ external validity :( Ethical Issues The children may have been put into stress, breaking protection from harm guidelines - However, the episodes were cut short if distress was shown |
| CULTURAL VARIATIONS | Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Aim: Compare strange situation results of different cultures into a meta-analysis Findings: All over 50% for secure Secure: England = 70%, China = 50% Avoidant: Germany = 35%, Japan = 5% Resistant: Japan = 27%, Germany = 8% Conclusion = Parental Differences Germany = ^ independence Japan= close proximity & ↓ stangers -> Suggests the SS is not appropriate, as it would be wrong to suggest some attachments are wrong in some cultures |
| AO2 | :( Generalisation No account of sub-cultures/groups, e.g. religious practices that may influence upbringing styles = ↓ internal validity :( Sample Bias The sample sizes were too small to use to generalise a whole culture e.g. china = 35 children = ↓ external validity :( Ethnocentric The American interpretation suggests other attachments are bad, yet other cultures value them |
| DEPRIVATION | Losing an attachment BOWLBY - maternal deprivation hypothesis Aim: the effect of not having an internal working model on later attachments Three important implications: 1. Discontinuous relationship 2. Critical Period 3. Monotrophy BOWLBY - 44 THIEVES Aim: Test the MDH Procedure: Interviewed and observed 44 thieves and 44 emotionally unstable from a clinic Findings: Thieves = 17/44 = separated before age 5 more than 6 months 14//17 = emotionless psychopaths Emotional = 2/44 = separation = emotionless psychopaths Conclusion: Consequence of maternal deprivation = affection-less psychopathy, learning difficulties and depression |
| A02 | :) Support Research Harlow's monkeys - comfort > food = ^ external reliability :( Retrospective Data Relied on recall information from past events, which may be inaccurate = ↓ internal validity :( Bias Bowlby chose the sample himself and diagnosed the affection-less psychopathy = ↓ reliability |
| SEPARATION | Temporary Privation, e.g. day care ROBERTSON AND ROBERTSON Aims: To see if brief separation had effect on emotion development & the positives of substitute care Procedure: Data collected in regular intervals (films), collect a range of behaviours Included: Laura (hospital, 8 days) John (residential nursery, 9 days) 4 others, in foster care Findings: Laura & John became distress and distanced, resistant when parents were reunited Others appeared content & welcomed their parents when reunited Conclusion: Substitute care can prevent emotional deprivation |
| A02 | :) Practical Application . Hospital visiting times changed to reduce disruption = ^ external validity :) Naturalistic observation . No variables were manipulated = ^ ecological validity :( Contradictory Research Barrett - there are individual differences, secure children cope better = ↓ external reliability |
| PRIVATION | Failure to form an attachment HODGES AND TIZARD (1989) Aim: To investigate the effects of early privation and test the MDH Procedure: Longitudinal and natural) 65 children, separated by 4 .24 adopted . 15 restored . rest = institutional . interviews with children, parents and teachers (Aged 8 and 16) Findings: Adopted = best . Better family relationship . Yet overall, adopted and restored = ↓ friends, ↓ interactions and seek attention Conclusion: Can make future is privation, however depended on adults and nurture of attachment |
| DAY CARE ( Positives ) | Temporary separation - care for by professional VANDELL: Longitudinal, 20 children - split gender, ages 4-8 Aged 4: Observed every 16 mins for 20 seconds - looking for pos/neg play or solitary play Aged 8: Video taped for 45 mins during triplay that encouraged interaction and PCG questionnaire Findings: Compared to control group in poor quality = ^ interaction and friendlier |
| DAY CARE ( Negative ) | NICHD Examined 100 children at 6 months then 15 in a natural setting + PCG interviews = ^ quantity = ^ aggression Tizard: The PCG offers more complex conversations than other children or the nursery nurses |
| AO2 | :) Practical Application . Factors changed to influence better quality of day care (e.g. low staff turnover) = ^ external validity :) Sylva = more independence :( Sample bias . Small sample sizes = ↓ conclusions = ↓ internal validity Gregg - meta-analysis . no change |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.